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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Over the past centuries, the remains of more than 500 men, women, and children have been unearthed during peat cutting activities in northwestern Europe, especially in Ireland, Great Britain, the Netherlands, northern Germany, and Denmark. Known as “bog bodies,” most date to the Iron Age, between 800 BC and 200 AD, and show a remarkable degree of preservation thanks to the acidic, oxygen-poor conditions of peat bogs, which are made up of accumulated layers of dead moss.
No one knows for sure who these people were and how they ended up in the bogs, but it seems that most bodies are not just the remains of unlucky people who fell in after losing their way as many of them display signs of violent deaths. Now, thanks to new research reported in the National Geographic, new clues are coming to light regarding the centuries-old mystery of their origins.
Around 30 bog bodies are housed in museums in Denmark, where scientists have worked for decades trying to unravel the mystery of who these people were, how they died, and why. Funerary customs of the time and region involved cremation of the bodies, so the fact that some were found intentionally placed in the peat bog, suggest that these were not normal burials and may even indicate sacrifice. For instance, Tollund Man, the name given to a 4th century BC bog body found in Denmark, was found with a noose still around his neck but with no other injuries and it appears he had been carefully placed in the bog – his eyes and mouth had been closed and his body placed in a sleeping position – something that wouldn’t have happened if he were a common criminal.
However, new research conducted by a team of scientists in Denmark has added a few more pieces to the puzzle. Chemical analyses conducted on two Danish bog bodies – Huldremose Woman and Haraldskær Woman – show that they had both lived in far-away lands before their deaths, and both appear to have been high-status members of their society.
Karin Margarita Frei, a research scientist at the National Museum of Denmark, and her team, conducted strontium isotope analysis of the leather cape, woollen scarf and skirt of Huldremose Woman and found that the plant fibres taken from the threads grew on terrains typical of northern Scandinavia, such as Norway or Sweden. Frei also did an analysis of strontium isotopes in Huldremose Woman’s skin, which revealed that her body contained strontium atoms from locales outside Denmark—showing she had travelled abroad before she ended up in the bog, or may have originally come from that location.
The clothing worn by Huldremose Woman was originally dyed blue and red, a sign of wealth, and a ridge in one of her fingers indicated it once bore a gold ring. “We think she’s a very fine lady with expensive jewellery and expensive clothes and underwear,” said Frei.
The research team followed up this research by carrying out the same tests on Haraldskær Woman, a bog body found in Denmark in 1835. Preliminary results of the strontium analysis mirror the findings for Huldremose Woman—Haraldskær Woman had lived elsewhere before her death. Frei and colleagues are now running analyses on the skin of Tollund Man to see where he had been before his death.
Heather Gill-Frerking, a mummy researcher for the museum-exhibit company American Exhibitions, told National Geographic that the new findings support her theory that bog bodies belonged to geographic outsiders, who may have married into Danish communities. She further suggests that these individuals were found buried in the bog, not as a result of sacrifice or as part of a religious rite, but because they came from communities that may have had different funerary customs.
However, other researchers have said the findings do not conflict with the view that the individuals had been sacrificed. Niels Lynnerup, a forensic anthropologist at the University of Copenhagen believes that they may have been sacrificed because they came from abroad and therefore had a special status.
“You sacrifice something that is meaningful and has a lot of value,” said Frei. “So maybe people who [had] travelled had a lot of value.”
The archaeologists acknowledged that, while the new research provides new insights into the bog bodies, there are still many more questions than answers. As Lotte Hedeager, an expert in Iron Age archaeology at the University of Oslo in Norway, said: “We will never be able to uncover the perception of life and death of those individuals 2,000 years ago. That remains a true secret of the bogs.”
Republished with permission from Ancient-Origins.net. Read the original. | <urn:uuid:662b91ce-f005-40aa-b27d-0d4582da7686> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.theepochtimes.com/ancient-bog-mummies-reveal-secrets-of-their-identities_837097.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594391.21/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119093733-20200119121733-00526.warc.gz | en | 0.981263 | 998 | 3.640625 | 4 | [
0.01248981337994337,
0.4523709714412689,
0.1827256977558136,
0.21638847887516022,
0.5511881113052368,
0.11764958500862122,
0.168147474527359,
-0.12924529612064362,
-0.2878292500972748,
-0.05797816067934036,
0.30689167976379395,
-0.3887428641319275,
0.152031809091568,
0.2433604896068573,
... | 3 | Over the past centuries, the remains of more than 500 men, women, and children have been unearthed during peat cutting activities in northwestern Europe, especially in Ireland, Great Britain, the Netherlands, northern Germany, and Denmark. Known as “bog bodies,” most date to the Iron Age, between 800 BC and 200 AD, and show a remarkable degree of preservation thanks to the acidic, oxygen-poor conditions of peat bogs, which are made up of accumulated layers of dead moss.
No one knows for sure who these people were and how they ended up in the bogs, but it seems that most bodies are not just the remains of unlucky people who fell in after losing their way as many of them display signs of violent deaths. Now, thanks to new research reported in the National Geographic, new clues are coming to light regarding the centuries-old mystery of their origins.
Around 30 bog bodies are housed in museums in Denmark, where scientists have worked for decades trying to unravel the mystery of who these people were, how they died, and why. Funerary customs of the time and region involved cremation of the bodies, so the fact that some were found intentionally placed in the peat bog, suggest that these were not normal burials and may even indicate sacrifice. For instance, Tollund Man, the name given to a 4th century BC bog body found in Denmark, was found with a noose still around his neck but with no other injuries and it appears he had been carefully placed in the bog – his eyes and mouth had been closed and his body placed in a sleeping position – something that wouldn’t have happened if he were a common criminal.
However, new research conducted by a team of scientists in Denmark has added a few more pieces to the puzzle. Chemical analyses conducted on two Danish bog bodies – Huldremose Woman and Haraldskær Woman – show that they had both lived in far-away lands before their deaths, and both appear to have been high-status members of their society.
Karin Margarita Frei, a research scientist at the National Museum of Denmark, and her team, conducted strontium isotope analysis of the leather cape, woollen scarf and skirt of Huldremose Woman and found that the plant fibres taken from the threads grew on terrains typical of northern Scandinavia, such as Norway or Sweden. Frei also did an analysis of strontium isotopes in Huldremose Woman’s skin, which revealed that her body contained strontium atoms from locales outside Denmark—showing she had travelled abroad before she ended up in the bog, or may have originally come from that location.
The clothing worn by Huldremose Woman was originally dyed blue and red, a sign of wealth, and a ridge in one of her fingers indicated it once bore a gold ring. “We think she’s a very fine lady with expensive jewellery and expensive clothes and underwear,” said Frei.
The research team followed up this research by carrying out the same tests on Haraldskær Woman, a bog body found in Denmark in 1835. Preliminary results of the strontium analysis mirror the findings for Huldremose Woman—Haraldskær Woman had lived elsewhere before her death. Frei and colleagues are now running analyses on the skin of Tollund Man to see where he had been before his death.
Heather Gill-Frerking, a mummy researcher for the museum-exhibit company American Exhibitions, told National Geographic that the new findings support her theory that bog bodies belonged to geographic outsiders, who may have married into Danish communities. She further suggests that these individuals were found buried in the bog, not as a result of sacrifice or as part of a religious rite, but because they came from communities that may have had different funerary customs.
However, other researchers have said the findings do not conflict with the view that the individuals had been sacrificed. Niels Lynnerup, a forensic anthropologist at the University of Copenhagen believes that they may have been sacrificed because they came from abroad and therefore had a special status.
“You sacrifice something that is meaningful and has a lot of value,” said Frei. “So maybe people who [had] travelled had a lot of value.”
The archaeologists acknowledged that, while the new research provides new insights into the bog bodies, there are still many more questions than answers. As Lotte Hedeager, an expert in Iron Age archaeology at the University of Oslo in Norway, said: “We will never be able to uncover the perception of life and death of those individuals 2,000 years ago. That remains a true secret of the bogs.”
Republished with permission from Ancient-Origins.net. Read the original. | 978 | ENGLISH | 1 |
How a Civil War general from Illinois established Memorial Day
Moved by his wife's description of decorations on Confederate soldiers' graves, a Union general from Illinois is credited with establishing Memorial Day as a national holiday.
Gen. John A. Logan was born Feb. 9, 1826, in downstate Jackson County, on family property that later became a part of the city of Murphysboro.
Decades later, after fighting in several wars, "General Logan founded Memorial Day as a national holiday," said P. Michael Jones, executive director of the General John A. Logan Museum in Murphysboro.
An anti-abolitionist and a backer of fugitive slave laws, in line with common sentiments in southern Illinois, Logan was elected to the U.S. House in 1858, according to his biography by the American Battlefield Trust.
But he sought to preserve the Union and resigned from the House to join the Army during the Civil War. He became a major general who served in the battles of Vicksburg and Atlanta, and he eventually was given command of the Army of the Tennessee.
After the war, as commander in chief of the Grand Army of the Republic, a Union veterans organization, Logan "issued General Order Number 11 on May 5, 1868," setting May 30 as a day to decorate veterans' graves, Jones said. Several cities have claimed to be the first to observe Memorial Day -- or Decoration Day, as it originally was called -- Jones said.
"The question is not who started the Memorial Day we have today -- it was John A. Logan," Jones said. "The question is, Where did Logan get his idea?"
Jones said historians have several theories about where it started. However, newspapers printed in the 1930s and 1940s stated Memorial Day started in the South. Jones said some Southern states still observe Confederate Memorial Day.
In her book "Reminiscences of a Soldier's Wife: An Autobiography," Logan's wife, Mary Logan, wrote about her March 1868 visit to Virginia:
"In the churchyard near Petersburg we saw hundreds of the graves of Confederate soldiers. These graves had upon them small bleached Confederate flags and faded flowers."
She said her husband was interested in hearing about her trip after she returned. Two months later, he issued his order.
However, Jones said historians believe John A. Logan should have been aware of the memorial observations being made in the South because of newspaper coverage at the time.
The Memorial Day General Order states:
"The 30th of May, 1868 is designated for the purpose of strewing with flowers or otherwise decorating the graves of comrades who died in defense of their country during the late rebellion, and whose bodies now lie in almost every city, village and hamlet churchyard in the land.
"Let us, then, at the time appointed, gather around their sacred remains and garland the passionless mounds about them with the choicest flowers of springtime.
"It is the purpose of the commander in chief to inaugurate this observance with the hope that it will be kept up from year to year, while a survivor of the war remains to honor the memory of his departed comrades."
According to Jones, Logan's order is still read during Memorial Day ceremonies around the United States.
• This story was produced as a project of the Illinois Press Association and the Illinois Associated Press Media Editors. Charles Mills can be reached at email@example.com. | <urn:uuid:c85e648d-ccd9-40b6-942c-abc1a4d173d5> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.dailyherald.com/news/20190526/how-a-civil-war-general-from-illinois-established-memorial-day-- | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251737572.61/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127235617-20200128025617-00422.warc.gz | en | 0.980812 | 721 | 3.453125 | 3 | [
-0.2298642098903656,
0.4341786503791809,
0.5486880540847778,
-0.04385251924395561,
-0.573219895362854,
-0.017904656007885933,
0.0929609015583992,
-0.034556712955236435,
-0.4392589032649994,
0.008426195941865444,
0.08743701875209808,
0.22658732533454895,
-0.2634935975074768,
0.6441662907600... | 2 | How a Civil War general from Illinois established Memorial Day
Moved by his wife's description of decorations on Confederate soldiers' graves, a Union general from Illinois is credited with establishing Memorial Day as a national holiday.
Gen. John A. Logan was born Feb. 9, 1826, in downstate Jackson County, on family property that later became a part of the city of Murphysboro.
Decades later, after fighting in several wars, "General Logan founded Memorial Day as a national holiday," said P. Michael Jones, executive director of the General John A. Logan Museum in Murphysboro.
An anti-abolitionist and a backer of fugitive slave laws, in line with common sentiments in southern Illinois, Logan was elected to the U.S. House in 1858, according to his biography by the American Battlefield Trust.
But he sought to preserve the Union and resigned from the House to join the Army during the Civil War. He became a major general who served in the battles of Vicksburg and Atlanta, and he eventually was given command of the Army of the Tennessee.
After the war, as commander in chief of the Grand Army of the Republic, a Union veterans organization, Logan "issued General Order Number 11 on May 5, 1868," setting May 30 as a day to decorate veterans' graves, Jones said. Several cities have claimed to be the first to observe Memorial Day -- or Decoration Day, as it originally was called -- Jones said.
"The question is not who started the Memorial Day we have today -- it was John A. Logan," Jones said. "The question is, Where did Logan get his idea?"
Jones said historians have several theories about where it started. However, newspapers printed in the 1930s and 1940s stated Memorial Day started in the South. Jones said some Southern states still observe Confederate Memorial Day.
In her book "Reminiscences of a Soldier's Wife: An Autobiography," Logan's wife, Mary Logan, wrote about her March 1868 visit to Virginia:
"In the churchyard near Petersburg we saw hundreds of the graves of Confederate soldiers. These graves had upon them small bleached Confederate flags and faded flowers."
She said her husband was interested in hearing about her trip after she returned. Two months later, he issued his order.
However, Jones said historians believe John A. Logan should have been aware of the memorial observations being made in the South because of newspaper coverage at the time.
The Memorial Day General Order states:
"The 30th of May, 1868 is designated for the purpose of strewing with flowers or otherwise decorating the graves of comrades who died in defense of their country during the late rebellion, and whose bodies now lie in almost every city, village and hamlet churchyard in the land.
"Let us, then, at the time appointed, gather around their sacred remains and garland the passionless mounds about them with the choicest flowers of springtime.
"It is the purpose of the commander in chief to inaugurate this observance with the hope that it will be kept up from year to year, while a survivor of the war remains to honor the memory of his departed comrades."
According to Jones, Logan's order is still read during Memorial Day ceremonies around the United States.
• This story was produced as a project of the Illinois Press Association and the Illinois Associated Press Media Editors. Charles Mills can be reached at email@example.com. | 719 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Looking back version 2
Post on 02-Jul-2015
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTIONESL writing activity that focuses on the past
- 1. Looking Back
- In teams of 2, look at the picture(s) selected by your teacher.
- The picture evokes something from the past.
- Write a short paragraph (about 100 to 150 words) explaining how you imagine life was back then. (related to your picture)
- Observe the little details in the pictures and include them in your text if needed.
- Remember to write your text using the past tenses. Use your grammar book and irregular verb list if needed.
2. 3. Slow Driving
- In the 1900s carswereprobably very rare and Im sure that most peopledidnt own one . Imagine how expensive carswere ! Only the rich owned cars because it was such a new thing. On the picture, there are old glass bottles. Its probably because theydidnt haveany plastic bottles back then.
- Cars were revolutionary and extremely modern for that time. Peoplewentfrom horses to cars, itwasa big change.
4. Housewives:In the past, women didnt work. They stayed at home and took care of the house, the children, cleaning, cooking and much more.What do you think they did in a day? 5. Log drivers:This was a very dangerous job! After cutting the trees men had to drive logs to the sawmills.Imagine a typical workday. 6. You all have computers at home now. Beforecomputerswere very bigthe first one was about as big as this classroom.Who and how do you think computers were used back then? 7. Fashion in the past.Can you imagine wearing this? Hundreds of years ago, this is how some people dressed.How do you think it was to dress like this? 8. Farming:farming is very different today. Machines took over during industrialization.How different was it? How do you think food was different? 9. Old televisions and radios.You have your mp3 players and flat screens. This is what they had in the past. How did they live with this?What did they listen to and watch? 10. Phone operators:almost everyone owns a cell phone now. Before, you had to call an operator by dialing 0 and she would connect you to the person you wanted to reach. In some places, there were more than one house for one phone number!How different was it? | <urn:uuid:4eca1632-b13b-4b31-b6e7-c978e9c9272c> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://vdocuments.mx/looking-back-version-2.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250592394.9/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118081234-20200118105234-00336.warc.gz | en | 0.982145 | 520 | 3.984375 | 4 | [
-0.23310701549053192,
0.23721863329410553,
0.1410386562347412,
-0.10161557793617249,
-0.024290384724736214,
0.19046838581562042,
-0.08145105838775635,
-0.03754277899861336,
-0.029161062091588974,
-0.2650572657585144,
0.2177903652191162,
0.2107929289340973,
0.012743379920721054,
-0.06812547... | 1 | Looking back version 2
Post on 02-Jul-2015
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTIONESL writing activity that focuses on the past
- 1. Looking Back
- In teams of 2, look at the picture(s) selected by your teacher.
- The picture evokes something from the past.
- Write a short paragraph (about 100 to 150 words) explaining how you imagine life was back then. (related to your picture)
- Observe the little details in the pictures and include them in your text if needed.
- Remember to write your text using the past tenses. Use your grammar book and irregular verb list if needed.
2. 3. Slow Driving
- In the 1900s carswereprobably very rare and Im sure that most peopledidnt own one . Imagine how expensive carswere ! Only the rich owned cars because it was such a new thing. On the picture, there are old glass bottles. Its probably because theydidnt haveany plastic bottles back then.
- Cars were revolutionary and extremely modern for that time. Peoplewentfrom horses to cars, itwasa big change.
4. Housewives:In the past, women didnt work. They stayed at home and took care of the house, the children, cleaning, cooking and much more.What do you think they did in a day? 5. Log drivers:This was a very dangerous job! After cutting the trees men had to drive logs to the sawmills.Imagine a typical workday. 6. You all have computers at home now. Beforecomputerswere very bigthe first one was about as big as this classroom.Who and how do you think computers were used back then? 7. Fashion in the past.Can you imagine wearing this? Hundreds of years ago, this is how some people dressed.How do you think it was to dress like this? 8. Farming:farming is very different today. Machines took over during industrialization.How different was it? How do you think food was different? 9. Old televisions and radios.You have your mp3 players and flat screens. This is what they had in the past. How did they live with this?What did they listen to and watch? 10. Phone operators:almost everyone owns a cell phone now. Before, you had to call an operator by dialing 0 and she would connect you to the person you wanted to reach. In some places, there were more than one house for one phone number!How different was it? | 530 | ENGLISH | 1 |
"Ebru has perpetually changing harmony,and requires great dedication and patience."
Ebru Master - Mustafa Duzgunman
HISTORY OF EBRU ART
The art of marbling is the art of obtaining the paper dyed in a myriad of colors which was used for decoration in the art known as calligraphy.
Coming over the Silk Road to Anatolia from the Turks ancient homeland, the art set out from Bukhara in Turkestan, picked up its name (ebru) in Iran, and settled in Anatolia.
Was the name it acquired from Farsi ebri on account of its cloud-like appearance? Or was it ab-ru because it was created on water in a vessel? This is not very clear. In our museums and in private collections one finds examples of paper marbling which go back as far as 450 years from the present day. A determination of date is possible in the case of marbled paper on which something has been written, and for this reason one perhaps may be able to determine the name of the calligrapher. The name of the artist doing the marbling however remains unknown.
The reason that there is no definite evidence about the history and original place of marbling art is that we have few inscribed sources related to this art but the researchers’s general opinion is that marbling art has been existing since the latest 15th century. Even some researchers assume that it has roots till 6th century. The quotation of Mevlana, the world-wide well-known philosopher, poet and “Sufi” in Turkish history, “Come then who says water isn’t embroidery” is thought to sign this art was known in 12th. century. According to certain records, this known art developed as soon as paper took place in history scene. Some water works’ existence made on average such as called “liu-fla-cien” in China, “suminagashi” and “beninagashi”in Japan since 12th century gives clue even doubtfully about improvement of this art which occured in Turkmenistan named “ebre” in Jagatai Turkish later. As this art, named ebri while was being transferred from Turkestan to Iran following Silk Road latest at the beginning of 16th century looks like wisps of clouds, it really verifies this Persian name indicating “cloud”. This name which was favorite in Ottoman country turned into “ebru”.
At the end of the same century, marbling papers took their way from Istanbul to their hometowns by European travellers, who approved these with the name “Turkish marbled paper” firstly in Germany, then France and Italy. Marbled paper which was improved in England and America shows difference as to each country’s art conception. There should be the role of the materials used as well. Oldest “Ebru” sample which was recorded dates back to 16th century. It was used as side paper for paper ornament, inner and outer of tablets and as manuscript binder. The old classical work written in Turkish about marbling is the pamphlet called ’Tertib-i Risale-i Ebr-i’ which was written after 1615. Today, classic works like marbling appeared in Central Asia and Ottoman geography. Besides the oldest ebru papers dated in this manner are the papers used in Arifi's "Guy-i Cevgan" in the Museum of Topkapi Palace collection which is dated to 1539 (Figure.1), two papers in the Library of Istanbul University which were used for two calligraphies of Mir Ali of Herat which are dated to 1539, a paper used for Maliki Deylemi's calligraphies from Ugur Derman's Collection which is dated to 1554 (Figure.2) and three papers used in one of the copies of Fuzuli's book, "Hadikat-us sueda" (Garden of Happiness) which are dated to 1595 (Figure.3) can be used as evidence for the history of Turkish ebru. They were used for decorative purposes, and also as a background for official documents and signatures, to prevent erasure and forgery.
(Figure.1) Arifi's "Guy-i Cevgan" in the Museum of Topkapi Palace collection, 1539
(Figure.2) Ta’lik (calligraphy) on marbled paper, by Malik-i Deylemi, 1554, Georgia.
The Chain of Tradition
Like all the classical Ottoman arts, the art of marbling was one which was not taught by writing or explanation, but rather was a branch of art in which students were trained by means of the "master/apprentice" system. The ability to turn out marbling which was truly beautiful was something of which only artists who had devoted years -and even their lives- to this art could be worthy.
Nevertheless, for one reason or another, this deep-rooted Turkish art has lost its historical prevalence, and has only managed to survive down to the present day thanks to the last four links in the master/apprentice chain of which we shall now make mention.
SEBEK MEHMET EFENDI
The earliest marbling artist whose name has been determined to date is that of one with the by-name "Sebek", mention of which is made in the Tertib-I Risale-i Ebri ("Organised Treatise on Marbling"), which is the oldest document relating the methods and constituents of marbling, as published by Mr. Ugur Derman in his book on the art of marbling. Sadık Efendi, an important figure in the history of ebru, received his training in Bukhara and later on joined Özbekler Tekkesi, a dervish lodge founded in Istanbul in 17th century, passing down his knowledge to the next generation.
(Figure.3) Marbled Fuzuli's poems book "Hadikat-us sueda" (Garden of Happiness) papers, by Sebek Mehmet Efendi, 1595, Suleymaniye Library
Tertib-i Risale-i Ebri. The oldest written booklet about "History and technique of Ebru", 1608
His death must be before the publication of "Tertib-i Risale-i Ebri", 1608 since it is said "rahimehullah" (May God bless his soul) for him in this booklet. It is understood from the words "Nusha-i Sebek" (booklet of Sebek) in the "Tertib-i Risale-i Ebri" that he has an unknown booklet.
HATIP MEHMET EFENDI (?-1773)
Considered one of the greatest ebru (marbled paper) artists, Hatip Mehmed Efendi is from Istanbul. He is known as "hatip" (preacher) because he was the preacher of Ayasofya Mosque. The date of his birth is unknown. Because he is mentioned as "pir-i mubarek" (holly old master) in the "Tuhfe-i Hattatin", he was probably quite old when he died in April 1773. He has learnt "tuluth-nesh" calligraphy from Zuhdi Ismail Aga. He is credited as the inventor of ebru figures created by dropping concentric dyes and reshaping them with a needle, ebru papers containing such figures are called "hatip-ebrūsu". (Some recent historians have argued though that the origin of these figures may be different.) His ebru papers which were identified by their distinctive colours and hatip patterns have been extremely popular and avidly collected during his lifetime. He died in the fire which destroyed his home in Hocapasa district of Istanbul, April 1773.
SHEIKH SADIK EFENDI (?-1846)
Sheikh Sadik Efendi who was born in the city of Vabakne in Bukhara. He was the sheikh of the Ozbekler Tekkesi (Uzbekh Dervish Convent) in Sultantepesi, Uskudar. We know that he learnt the art of ebru when he was in Bukhara and he taught it to his two sons Edhem and Salih. It is read from his tombstone in the Dergah that he died on the 11th of July 1846
HEZARFEN EDHEM EFENDI (?-1904)
Ibrahim Edhem Efendi who was the Sheikh of Uskudar Ozbekler Tekkesi is considered as the most distinguished marbler of the last century. He was the grandfather of Turkey's ex-ambassador to Washington, Munir Ertegun (1882-1944). He was born in the Ozbekler Tekkesi in 1829. He has been educated by his father Sadik Efendi, his uncle and the scholars from Bukhara visiting the Tekke. He was proficient in Turkish, Arabic, Persian and Cagatai. He learnt ta'lik script from Carsambalı Arif Bey at a quite an old age. He was a carpenter, metal caster, weaver, printer, architect, scientist and a mathematician. He was appointed as the first principal to Sultanahmet School of Crafts in 1869 and it was here that the first lead pipes were cast in Turkey. Producing ebru papers was one of his many talents which made him famous as Hezarfen (owner of a thousand crafts). Besides Aziz Efendi and Sami Efendi, the most distinguished of his students is Necmeddin Okyay.He died on the 8th of January 1904 and buried in the cemetery of the Tekke.
He was born on the 29th of January 1885 in Uskudar. He was the master marbler of the twentieth century. Necmeddin Okyay was educated in theology but he is best known as a calligrapher and marbler. Besides calligraphy and marbling, he was a master of ink-making, traditional bookbinding, rose-growing, archery etc. He learnt ebru from Hezarfen Edhem Efendi. He taught calligraphy at Medresetu'l Hattatin (School of Calligraphy) and traditional bookbinding and ebru at the Academy of Fine Arts. He taught ebru to his sons Sami (1910-12 June 1933) and Sacid (1915-19 April 1999) Okyay and to his nephew Mustafa Duzgunman (1920-12 September 1990) .Before Necmeddin Okyay, we had very primitive flower ebrus. He started a new style in our ebru history by creating flower designs which are admired by the marblers of the world. He is also the inventor of calligraphy with marbling. At the beginning he used to prepare stencils of calligraphies, glue them on the paper to be marbled using gum Arabic which is a very weak adeshive and remove the stencil after the paper has been marbled. Later he noticed that the parts of the paper which has gum Arabic resist the dyes and he started to write with gum Arabic instead of ink. The most famous of calligraphies produced by Necmeddin Okyay as described is the "Lafza-i Celal" ( name of God ).
Necmettin Okyay turned out a considerable number of exquisite marblings in addition to which he opened a new age in the style of "Floral Marbling" which until then had undergone much primitive experimentation yet had failed to achieve anything specific in form. It was he who produced marblings which resulted in near-depictions of tulips, daisies, hyacinths, poppies, carnations, pansies, and rosebuds. The Floral Marblings of this style began to be referred to a "Necmettin Marbling". At last, marbling was no longer a colored piece or paper adorning a piece of writing: it had now been raised to the level of a work of art in and of itself and worthy of its own study.
If we consider that this “Ebru” should have been performed is made as only after the artist becomes skilled, it may be thought that marbling has old origin. Marbling which was a branch of business and art in itself in Ottoman period started to be forgotten at the beginning of 20th.century A recent interest towards this art arose thanks to big artist Necmeddin Okyay.
MUSTAFA DUZGUNMAN (1920-1990)
Mustafa Esat Düzgünman was Necmeddin Okyay's premier student and the teacher of many contemporary marblers in Turkey today. He is known for codifying the traditional repertoire of ebru patterns, to which he only added a floral daisy design, in the manner of his teacher.
Notwithstanding the large number of students which he trained, Mustafa Düzgünman, is the sole name in the art of marbling today. He has produced exquisite works both in the floral marbling instituted by his teacher (master) Necmettin Efendi, and at the same time in all the other types of marbling as well. | <urn:uuid:c1a95fb9-0d31-4744-962d-12bfe932e76a> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.sevimsurucu.com/ebru | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250624328.55/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124161014-20200124190014-00100.warc.gz | en | 0.982343 | 2,843 | 3.453125 | 3 | [
-0.4149050712585449,
0.24976271390914917,
0.3313882350921631,
-0.008443517610430717,
-0.26201528310775757,
-0.21631675958633423,
-0.10523232817649841,
0.04208576679229736,
-0.17351967096328735,
0.5141195058822632,
-0.5306377410888672,
-0.38788938522338867,
-0.18228179216384888,
0.121613353... | 3 | "Ebru has perpetually changing harmony,and requires great dedication and patience."
Ebru Master - Mustafa Duzgunman
HISTORY OF EBRU ART
The art of marbling is the art of obtaining the paper dyed in a myriad of colors which was used for decoration in the art known as calligraphy.
Coming over the Silk Road to Anatolia from the Turks ancient homeland, the art set out from Bukhara in Turkestan, picked up its name (ebru) in Iran, and settled in Anatolia.
Was the name it acquired from Farsi ebri on account of its cloud-like appearance? Or was it ab-ru because it was created on water in a vessel? This is not very clear. In our museums and in private collections one finds examples of paper marbling which go back as far as 450 years from the present day. A determination of date is possible in the case of marbled paper on which something has been written, and for this reason one perhaps may be able to determine the name of the calligrapher. The name of the artist doing the marbling however remains unknown.
The reason that there is no definite evidence about the history and original place of marbling art is that we have few inscribed sources related to this art but the researchers’s general opinion is that marbling art has been existing since the latest 15th century. Even some researchers assume that it has roots till 6th century. The quotation of Mevlana, the world-wide well-known philosopher, poet and “Sufi” in Turkish history, “Come then who says water isn’t embroidery” is thought to sign this art was known in 12th. century. According to certain records, this known art developed as soon as paper took place in history scene. Some water works’ existence made on average such as called “liu-fla-cien” in China, “suminagashi” and “beninagashi”in Japan since 12th century gives clue even doubtfully about improvement of this art which occured in Turkmenistan named “ebre” in Jagatai Turkish later. As this art, named ebri while was being transferred from Turkestan to Iran following Silk Road latest at the beginning of 16th century looks like wisps of clouds, it really verifies this Persian name indicating “cloud”. This name which was favorite in Ottoman country turned into “ebru”.
At the end of the same century, marbling papers took their way from Istanbul to their hometowns by European travellers, who approved these with the name “Turkish marbled paper” firstly in Germany, then France and Italy. Marbled paper which was improved in England and America shows difference as to each country’s art conception. There should be the role of the materials used as well. Oldest “Ebru” sample which was recorded dates back to 16th century. It was used as side paper for paper ornament, inner and outer of tablets and as manuscript binder. The old classical work written in Turkish about marbling is the pamphlet called ’Tertib-i Risale-i Ebr-i’ which was written after 1615. Today, classic works like marbling appeared in Central Asia and Ottoman geography. Besides the oldest ebru papers dated in this manner are the papers used in Arifi's "Guy-i Cevgan" in the Museum of Topkapi Palace collection which is dated to 1539 (Figure.1), two papers in the Library of Istanbul University which were used for two calligraphies of Mir Ali of Herat which are dated to 1539, a paper used for Maliki Deylemi's calligraphies from Ugur Derman's Collection which is dated to 1554 (Figure.2) and three papers used in one of the copies of Fuzuli's book, "Hadikat-us sueda" (Garden of Happiness) which are dated to 1595 (Figure.3) can be used as evidence for the history of Turkish ebru. They were used for decorative purposes, and also as a background for official documents and signatures, to prevent erasure and forgery.
(Figure.1) Arifi's "Guy-i Cevgan" in the Museum of Topkapi Palace collection, 1539
(Figure.2) Ta’lik (calligraphy) on marbled paper, by Malik-i Deylemi, 1554, Georgia.
The Chain of Tradition
Like all the classical Ottoman arts, the art of marbling was one which was not taught by writing or explanation, but rather was a branch of art in which students were trained by means of the "master/apprentice" system. The ability to turn out marbling which was truly beautiful was something of which only artists who had devoted years -and even their lives- to this art could be worthy.
Nevertheless, for one reason or another, this deep-rooted Turkish art has lost its historical prevalence, and has only managed to survive down to the present day thanks to the last four links in the master/apprentice chain of which we shall now make mention.
SEBEK MEHMET EFENDI
The earliest marbling artist whose name has been determined to date is that of one with the by-name "Sebek", mention of which is made in the Tertib-I Risale-i Ebri ("Organised Treatise on Marbling"), which is the oldest document relating the methods and constituents of marbling, as published by Mr. Ugur Derman in his book on the art of marbling. Sadık Efendi, an important figure in the history of ebru, received his training in Bukhara and later on joined Özbekler Tekkesi, a dervish lodge founded in Istanbul in 17th century, passing down his knowledge to the next generation.
(Figure.3) Marbled Fuzuli's poems book "Hadikat-us sueda" (Garden of Happiness) papers, by Sebek Mehmet Efendi, 1595, Suleymaniye Library
Tertib-i Risale-i Ebri. The oldest written booklet about "History and technique of Ebru", 1608
His death must be before the publication of "Tertib-i Risale-i Ebri", 1608 since it is said "rahimehullah" (May God bless his soul) for him in this booklet. It is understood from the words "Nusha-i Sebek" (booklet of Sebek) in the "Tertib-i Risale-i Ebri" that he has an unknown booklet.
HATIP MEHMET EFENDI (?-1773)
Considered one of the greatest ebru (marbled paper) artists, Hatip Mehmed Efendi is from Istanbul. He is known as "hatip" (preacher) because he was the preacher of Ayasofya Mosque. The date of his birth is unknown. Because he is mentioned as "pir-i mubarek" (holly old master) in the "Tuhfe-i Hattatin", he was probably quite old when he died in April 1773. He has learnt "tuluth-nesh" calligraphy from Zuhdi Ismail Aga. He is credited as the inventor of ebru figures created by dropping concentric dyes and reshaping them with a needle, ebru papers containing such figures are called "hatip-ebrūsu". (Some recent historians have argued though that the origin of these figures may be different.) His ebru papers which were identified by their distinctive colours and hatip patterns have been extremely popular and avidly collected during his lifetime. He died in the fire which destroyed his home in Hocapasa district of Istanbul, April 1773.
SHEIKH SADIK EFENDI (?-1846)
Sheikh Sadik Efendi who was born in the city of Vabakne in Bukhara. He was the sheikh of the Ozbekler Tekkesi (Uzbekh Dervish Convent) in Sultantepesi, Uskudar. We know that he learnt the art of ebru when he was in Bukhara and he taught it to his two sons Edhem and Salih. It is read from his tombstone in the Dergah that he died on the 11th of July 1846
HEZARFEN EDHEM EFENDI (?-1904)
Ibrahim Edhem Efendi who was the Sheikh of Uskudar Ozbekler Tekkesi is considered as the most distinguished marbler of the last century. He was the grandfather of Turkey's ex-ambassador to Washington, Munir Ertegun (1882-1944). He was born in the Ozbekler Tekkesi in 1829. He has been educated by his father Sadik Efendi, his uncle and the scholars from Bukhara visiting the Tekke. He was proficient in Turkish, Arabic, Persian and Cagatai. He learnt ta'lik script from Carsambalı Arif Bey at a quite an old age. He was a carpenter, metal caster, weaver, printer, architect, scientist and a mathematician. He was appointed as the first principal to Sultanahmet School of Crafts in 1869 and it was here that the first lead pipes were cast in Turkey. Producing ebru papers was one of his many talents which made him famous as Hezarfen (owner of a thousand crafts). Besides Aziz Efendi and Sami Efendi, the most distinguished of his students is Necmeddin Okyay.He died on the 8th of January 1904 and buried in the cemetery of the Tekke.
He was born on the 29th of January 1885 in Uskudar. He was the master marbler of the twentieth century. Necmeddin Okyay was educated in theology but he is best known as a calligrapher and marbler. Besides calligraphy and marbling, he was a master of ink-making, traditional bookbinding, rose-growing, archery etc. He learnt ebru from Hezarfen Edhem Efendi. He taught calligraphy at Medresetu'l Hattatin (School of Calligraphy) and traditional bookbinding and ebru at the Academy of Fine Arts. He taught ebru to his sons Sami (1910-12 June 1933) and Sacid (1915-19 April 1999) Okyay and to his nephew Mustafa Duzgunman (1920-12 September 1990) .Before Necmeddin Okyay, we had very primitive flower ebrus. He started a new style in our ebru history by creating flower designs which are admired by the marblers of the world. He is also the inventor of calligraphy with marbling. At the beginning he used to prepare stencils of calligraphies, glue them on the paper to be marbled using gum Arabic which is a very weak adeshive and remove the stencil after the paper has been marbled. Later he noticed that the parts of the paper which has gum Arabic resist the dyes and he started to write with gum Arabic instead of ink. The most famous of calligraphies produced by Necmeddin Okyay as described is the "Lafza-i Celal" ( name of God ).
Necmettin Okyay turned out a considerable number of exquisite marblings in addition to which he opened a new age in the style of "Floral Marbling" which until then had undergone much primitive experimentation yet had failed to achieve anything specific in form. It was he who produced marblings which resulted in near-depictions of tulips, daisies, hyacinths, poppies, carnations, pansies, and rosebuds. The Floral Marblings of this style began to be referred to a "Necmettin Marbling". At last, marbling was no longer a colored piece or paper adorning a piece of writing: it had now been raised to the level of a work of art in and of itself and worthy of its own study.
If we consider that this “Ebru” should have been performed is made as only after the artist becomes skilled, it may be thought that marbling has old origin. Marbling which was a branch of business and art in itself in Ottoman period started to be forgotten at the beginning of 20th.century A recent interest towards this art arose thanks to big artist Necmeddin Okyay.
MUSTAFA DUZGUNMAN (1920-1990)
Mustafa Esat Düzgünman was Necmeddin Okyay's premier student and the teacher of many contemporary marblers in Turkey today. He is known for codifying the traditional repertoire of ebru patterns, to which he only added a floral daisy design, in the manner of his teacher.
Notwithstanding the large number of students which he trained, Mustafa Düzgünman, is the sole name in the art of marbling today. He has produced exquisite works both in the floral marbling instituted by his teacher (master) Necmettin Efendi, and at the same time in all the other types of marbling as well. | 2,812 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The Sint-Jacobsplein in Leuven dates from the 13th century and was only modernised as recently as the 19th century. The two skeletons were buried outside the churchyard. This only happened in special circumstances: to unbelievers, to people condemned to death or people who died of plague, for instance. There were many other reasons too. So it’s difficult to find out why specifically these two people, who were probably buried at the same time, were buried outside the churchyard.
One of the skeletons was buried with a Jew’s harp: a small metal instrument consisting of a small lyre-shaped metal frame held between the teeth with a steel tongue plucked with the finger. Changes in pitch are produced by varying the size of the mouth cavities. Leuven city archaeologist Lisa Van Ransbeeck believes this individual was buried together with the instrument as it was often worn as a trinket around the neck. Further research on the two skeletons is planned. | <urn:uuid:ddc1b583-03f7-4739-98f2-64b0ff15946f> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/en/2019/12/18/jew_s-harp-found-with-skeletons-in-leuven/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594333.5/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119064802-20200119092802-00393.warc.gz | en | 0.98953 | 208 | 3.6875 | 4 | [
0.1368182748556137,
0.48642149567604065,
0.4381302297115326,
-0.3591865599155426,
0.15092143416404724,
-0.14433996379375458,
0.243727907538414,
0.33562928438186646,
-0.17512346804141998,
-0.3743050694465637,
0.2574685215950012,
-0.3234387934207916,
0.015771962702274323,
0.5629940032958984,... | 2 | The Sint-Jacobsplein in Leuven dates from the 13th century and was only modernised as recently as the 19th century. The two skeletons were buried outside the churchyard. This only happened in special circumstances: to unbelievers, to people condemned to death or people who died of plague, for instance. There were many other reasons too. So it’s difficult to find out why specifically these two people, who were probably buried at the same time, were buried outside the churchyard.
One of the skeletons was buried with a Jew’s harp: a small metal instrument consisting of a small lyre-shaped metal frame held between the teeth with a steel tongue plucked with the finger. Changes in pitch are produced by varying the size of the mouth cavities. Leuven city archaeologist Lisa Van Ransbeeck believes this individual was buried together with the instrument as it was often worn as a trinket around the neck. Further research on the two skeletons is planned. | 206 | ENGLISH | 1 |
One of the features of the Anglo-
The ceorls were the most numerous and, therefore, the lowest class. They lived and
worked almost exclusively on the land although some also lived in cities like York
and London. The ceorls were divided into smaller sub-
A peasant house. © BBC History
The geneatas paid a rent to their lord for the land that they occupied but they could also receive land as a gift if they gave good service. Lords might also demand other services from their geneatas, such as maintenance work, carrying messages, supply carts for general usage and even entertain their lord. The geneatas were also expected to pay church tithes. They may also have been required to give their theign a percentage of any crops that they farmed or even one of their animals such as a pig. However, any profit that they did make they could keep.
Kotsetlas formed the second subgroup. They paid for their land through supplying their lord with labour whenever it was needed so avoided any levy of rent. Like the geneatas they could profit from their own hard work but how often they got to spend any time on their own land depended on how frequently they were called to work their lord’s land instead, this seems to have varied from one to three days a week and would probably have been more during harvest. They also paid dues to the church although it was acceptable to pay in produce rather than coin.
Finally came the gebur. Of all the classes of free folk they clearly had the hardest bargain as they were entirely dependent upon their lord for food and protection. They paid for everything with their labour and would not have had much free time with which to improve their lot.
The relationship between lord and coerl worked both ways, however. There was a prescribed duty on the part of the lord to ensure that each of his ceorls had enough land to work according to their class and they were even to supply the peasants with animals such as oxen and sheep.
The line of distinction between the three classes seems somewhat blurred to us now.
Social progression was a fact of life for the Saxons and ability, as well as other
such qualities as bravery and loyalty, were often rewarded; sometimes handsomely.
It was a tradition in the shared culture of the various peoples that made up the
different strands of the Anglo-
There was one class below the gebur but it was not strictly speaking a sub-
Life must have been hard for the peasant classes of the Anglo-
As the Saxon world progressed many ceorls took up trades rather than the usual working of the land and became successful traders or craftsmen. Indeed, the Saxons appear to have been wonderful workers of precious metals and produced some items of genuine beauty as seen in the recently discovered Staffordshire Horde. Their social world must have been vibrant and robust as people of ability worked their way up to the next class, sadly it was all to come to an end in October 1066 when the Normans effectively robbed the Saxons of their inherent freedom and reduced the peasants to little more than slaves through the imposition of serfdom.
The Sorrow Song Trilogy © 2013 Peter C. Whitaker. All Rights Reserved. | <urn:uuid:4c28272a-afb4-416e-8fc9-a572929d566b> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://www.petewhitaker.karoo.net/page7.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250606269.37/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122012204-20200122041204-00418.warc.gz | en | 0.992066 | 668 | 3.734375 | 4 | [
0.07630269974470139,
0.31051862239837646,
0.06199915334582329,
-0.06629176437854767,
0.17992858588695526,
-0.2798439860343933,
-0.01223862823098898,
-0.22553905844688416,
0.06730730831623077,
-0.004245565738528967,
-0.1449553668498993,
-0.26240092515945435,
0.38991791009902954,
0.009282342... | 2 | One of the features of the Anglo-
The ceorls were the most numerous and, therefore, the lowest class. They lived and
worked almost exclusively on the land although some also lived in cities like York
and London. The ceorls were divided into smaller sub-
A peasant house. © BBC History
The geneatas paid a rent to their lord for the land that they occupied but they could also receive land as a gift if they gave good service. Lords might also demand other services from their geneatas, such as maintenance work, carrying messages, supply carts for general usage and even entertain their lord. The geneatas were also expected to pay church tithes. They may also have been required to give their theign a percentage of any crops that they farmed or even one of their animals such as a pig. However, any profit that they did make they could keep.
Kotsetlas formed the second subgroup. They paid for their land through supplying their lord with labour whenever it was needed so avoided any levy of rent. Like the geneatas they could profit from their own hard work but how often they got to spend any time on their own land depended on how frequently they were called to work their lord’s land instead, this seems to have varied from one to three days a week and would probably have been more during harvest. They also paid dues to the church although it was acceptable to pay in produce rather than coin.
Finally came the gebur. Of all the classes of free folk they clearly had the hardest bargain as they were entirely dependent upon their lord for food and protection. They paid for everything with their labour and would not have had much free time with which to improve their lot.
The relationship between lord and coerl worked both ways, however. There was a prescribed duty on the part of the lord to ensure that each of his ceorls had enough land to work according to their class and they were even to supply the peasants with animals such as oxen and sheep.
The line of distinction between the three classes seems somewhat blurred to us now.
Social progression was a fact of life for the Saxons and ability, as well as other
such qualities as bravery and loyalty, were often rewarded; sometimes handsomely.
It was a tradition in the shared culture of the various peoples that made up the
different strands of the Anglo-
There was one class below the gebur but it was not strictly speaking a sub-
Life must have been hard for the peasant classes of the Anglo-
As the Saxon world progressed many ceorls took up trades rather than the usual working of the land and became successful traders or craftsmen. Indeed, the Saxons appear to have been wonderful workers of precious metals and produced some items of genuine beauty as seen in the recently discovered Staffordshire Horde. Their social world must have been vibrant and robust as people of ability worked their way up to the next class, sadly it was all to come to an end in October 1066 when the Normans effectively robbed the Saxons of their inherent freedom and reduced the peasants to little more than slaves through the imposition of serfdom.
The Sorrow Song Trilogy © 2013 Peter C. Whitaker. All Rights Reserved. | 656 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Paper type: Essay Pages: 5 (1127 words)
Napoleon and Snowball, from the book Animal Farm by George Orwell, share many similar and different character traits when compared together. While Napoleon maybe cheating at cards, Snowball is hard at work developing a plan for a windmill to minimize animal work. Snowball could be talking away with his many speeches while Napoleon is trying his very best at training the puppy dogs to the rank of guard dog. Snowball and Napoleon, having their own similarities and differences, both seem to fight an endless war of being the best.
Napoleon and Snowball share their characteristics in many ways including intelligence, how convincing both pigs are, and leadership traits. First, Napoleon and Snowball both have similar intelligence traits. For example, both Napoleon and Snowball could read and write perfectly. Snowball had written all the windmill plans with careful thinking and use of time. Napoleon, however, had used his knowledge to write a fake letter said to be written by Snowball to have agreed to be a secret agent to the Foxwood Farm.
Napoleon knew that the other animals could not read very well and so by making his letter, no one could prove the letter was false except for the pigs that knew very well what Napoleon did. In addition, both Napoleon and Snowball were the most active in the speeches and the planning. Both pigs wanted to establish a social and economic system and be the leader of the farm. Furthermore, both pigs were smart to confuse the animals the animals in order to get their way. They used the same excuse of ” Do you want Jones and his men to come back?!?” The animals, however, were too stupid to think for themselves, thus letting the two pigs get what they wanted.
Second, the two animals were very convincing to the other animals. To illustrate, Snowball said that if a windmill was built, electricity could be used. There would be heat and hot and cold water. Work would also be cut down to three days per week. This, obviously a great deal, convinced the animals very easily that they wanted a windmill. Also, Napoleon convinced the animals very easily when he blamed all the farms troubles on Snowball. Napoleon said Snowball was a traitor and was working for Foxwood farms. Napoleon said he even had “proof” of secret documentations that Snowball was working for Foxwood. Moreover, both animals knew that convincing the animals would easy. The animals usually found themselves agreeing with the animal currently talking.
Third, both Napoleon and Snowball had matching leadership traits. For instance, Snowball was in charge of educating the animals. All the animals got some kind of a degree although the hens and sheep only got to the letter A. ” The reading and writing classes, however, were a great success. By autumn almost every animal on the farm was literate in some degree” pg. 49. Additionally, the two pigs fought for the leadership place. Snowball believed in animalism and tried to make all animals equal. Napoleon, however, didn’t want animalism. He wanted a dictatorship. Finally, both of the pigs were greedy in a way. It was Snowball who declared that all apples and milk was to be in with the mash of the pigs. Napoleon also ordered that the barley field for beer be reserved to the pigs only.
On the other hand, Napoleon and Snowball both had differences too. The two characters from Animal Farm had differences in the way both characters wanted to rule, how Napoleon and Snowball worked, and how both characters enforced the “law”. First, the way Napoleon and Snowball wanted to rule was very different. For example, Napoleon wanted a dictatorship government where he could rule the entire farm for his own greedy self. Napoleon wanted to control the farm so that his needs were met but as for the other animals, Napoleon didn’t care for them. Napoleon had also abolished the song Beasts of England because it symbolized freedom and democracy (in this case animalism) and was the exact opposite of what Napoleon wanted. The song that replaced it, however, was a new song called Comrade Napoleon.
In addition, Snowball was for Animalism, which was freedom and equally treated animals. Snowball was more into Old Major’s dream. Old Major was an old boar who had dreamed of a time where all animals would be free and treated equally. Snowball wished to achieve Old Major’s dream. Furthermore, Snowball ruled the farm by inspiring the other animals to do work. He made speeches convincing animals to do the work on the farm. Napoleon, however, did not make speeches or try to convince the animals a lot. Napoleon had a secret “police” force consisting of seven fierce dogs. Napoleon had used these dogs to chase away Snowball from the farm and kill any animal that opposed his rule.
Second, Napoleon and Snowball worked differently too. To illustrate, Napoleon was a rather lazy person. Napoleon had Squealer, another pig, to do all his speeches for him. Squealer worked to spread propaganda around the farm (pigeons were used to spread propaganda and news outside of farm territory) about deaths and how Snowball terrorized the farm. “Bravery is not enough'” said Squealer. “loyalty and obedience are more important. And as to the Battle of the Cowshed, I believe the time will come when we shall find that Snowball’s part in it was much exaggerated…” pg. 70.
Napoleon took credit for every good idea and claims he thought of it first. Whenever something unfortunate happens, Napoleon always blamed Snowball. Also, Snowball planned much more than Napoleon. Snowball originally designed the windmill plans and made convincing speeches. Snowball never did blame anything that went wrong on some other animal unlike Napoleon. Moreover, both Napoleon and Snowball tried to disagree on each other’s ideas. Both of them wanted to be the top but only in a different way.
Third, Both Napoleon and Snowball have differences on how they enforced the “law”. For instance, Snowball convinced animals to do work while Napoleon stopped all rations to any of the animals that opposed any order. Additionally, Napoleon had a secret “police” or dog force. All traitors got their necks ripped off by the dogs. Finally, Napoleon wanted to rule all but with Snowball, Napoleon could not achieve full power. So Napoleon chased Snowball away used the seven dogs and then went on to become leader.
In conclusion, whether Snowball is working away on the windmill or Napoleon is killing animals that opposed him, the two characters compare and contrast very well. Both characters work very hard… in different ways that is. And finally soon and late the day is coming, tyrant man shall be o’erthrown, and the fruitful fields of England shall be trod by beasts alone…
Cite this page
“Animal Farm”: Compare and Contrast. (2016, Jun 17). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/animal-farm-compare-and-contrast-essay | <urn:uuid:a48cabeb-ac9f-4b0d-b0e4-c1669c8de172> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://studymoose.com/animal-farm-compare-and-contrast-essay | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594333.5/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119064802-20200119092802-00460.warc.gz | en | 0.980835 | 1,485 | 3.46875 | 3 | [
-0.3170015811920166,
-0.13712893426418304,
-0.0962502732872963,
0.16872607171535492,
-0.16422003507614136,
-0.036755647510290146,
0.0015248015988618135,
0.27400732040405273,
-0.10985428839921951,
0.14783166348934174,
0.03510531783103943,
-0.07490156590938568,
0.3287612795829773,
0.03963856... | 1 | Paper type: Essay Pages: 5 (1127 words)
Napoleon and Snowball, from the book Animal Farm by George Orwell, share many similar and different character traits when compared together. While Napoleon maybe cheating at cards, Snowball is hard at work developing a plan for a windmill to minimize animal work. Snowball could be talking away with his many speeches while Napoleon is trying his very best at training the puppy dogs to the rank of guard dog. Snowball and Napoleon, having their own similarities and differences, both seem to fight an endless war of being the best.
Napoleon and Snowball share their characteristics in many ways including intelligence, how convincing both pigs are, and leadership traits. First, Napoleon and Snowball both have similar intelligence traits. For example, both Napoleon and Snowball could read and write perfectly. Snowball had written all the windmill plans with careful thinking and use of time. Napoleon, however, had used his knowledge to write a fake letter said to be written by Snowball to have agreed to be a secret agent to the Foxwood Farm.
Napoleon knew that the other animals could not read very well and so by making his letter, no one could prove the letter was false except for the pigs that knew very well what Napoleon did. In addition, both Napoleon and Snowball were the most active in the speeches and the planning. Both pigs wanted to establish a social and economic system and be the leader of the farm. Furthermore, both pigs were smart to confuse the animals the animals in order to get their way. They used the same excuse of ” Do you want Jones and his men to come back?!?” The animals, however, were too stupid to think for themselves, thus letting the two pigs get what they wanted.
Second, the two animals were very convincing to the other animals. To illustrate, Snowball said that if a windmill was built, electricity could be used. There would be heat and hot and cold water. Work would also be cut down to three days per week. This, obviously a great deal, convinced the animals very easily that they wanted a windmill. Also, Napoleon convinced the animals very easily when he blamed all the farms troubles on Snowball. Napoleon said Snowball was a traitor and was working for Foxwood farms. Napoleon said he even had “proof” of secret documentations that Snowball was working for Foxwood. Moreover, both animals knew that convincing the animals would easy. The animals usually found themselves agreeing with the animal currently talking.
Third, both Napoleon and Snowball had matching leadership traits. For instance, Snowball was in charge of educating the animals. All the animals got some kind of a degree although the hens and sheep only got to the letter A. ” The reading and writing classes, however, were a great success. By autumn almost every animal on the farm was literate in some degree” pg. 49. Additionally, the two pigs fought for the leadership place. Snowball believed in animalism and tried to make all animals equal. Napoleon, however, didn’t want animalism. He wanted a dictatorship. Finally, both of the pigs were greedy in a way. It was Snowball who declared that all apples and milk was to be in with the mash of the pigs. Napoleon also ordered that the barley field for beer be reserved to the pigs only.
On the other hand, Napoleon and Snowball both had differences too. The two characters from Animal Farm had differences in the way both characters wanted to rule, how Napoleon and Snowball worked, and how both characters enforced the “law”. First, the way Napoleon and Snowball wanted to rule was very different. For example, Napoleon wanted a dictatorship government where he could rule the entire farm for his own greedy self. Napoleon wanted to control the farm so that his needs were met but as for the other animals, Napoleon didn’t care for them. Napoleon had also abolished the song Beasts of England because it symbolized freedom and democracy (in this case animalism) and was the exact opposite of what Napoleon wanted. The song that replaced it, however, was a new song called Comrade Napoleon.
In addition, Snowball was for Animalism, which was freedom and equally treated animals. Snowball was more into Old Major’s dream. Old Major was an old boar who had dreamed of a time where all animals would be free and treated equally. Snowball wished to achieve Old Major’s dream. Furthermore, Snowball ruled the farm by inspiring the other animals to do work. He made speeches convincing animals to do the work on the farm. Napoleon, however, did not make speeches or try to convince the animals a lot. Napoleon had a secret “police” force consisting of seven fierce dogs. Napoleon had used these dogs to chase away Snowball from the farm and kill any animal that opposed his rule.
Second, Napoleon and Snowball worked differently too. To illustrate, Napoleon was a rather lazy person. Napoleon had Squealer, another pig, to do all his speeches for him. Squealer worked to spread propaganda around the farm (pigeons were used to spread propaganda and news outside of farm territory) about deaths and how Snowball terrorized the farm. “Bravery is not enough'” said Squealer. “loyalty and obedience are more important. And as to the Battle of the Cowshed, I believe the time will come when we shall find that Snowball’s part in it was much exaggerated…” pg. 70.
Napoleon took credit for every good idea and claims he thought of it first. Whenever something unfortunate happens, Napoleon always blamed Snowball. Also, Snowball planned much more than Napoleon. Snowball originally designed the windmill plans and made convincing speeches. Snowball never did blame anything that went wrong on some other animal unlike Napoleon. Moreover, both Napoleon and Snowball tried to disagree on each other’s ideas. Both of them wanted to be the top but only in a different way.
Third, Both Napoleon and Snowball have differences on how they enforced the “law”. For instance, Snowball convinced animals to do work while Napoleon stopped all rations to any of the animals that opposed any order. Additionally, Napoleon had a secret “police” or dog force. All traitors got their necks ripped off by the dogs. Finally, Napoleon wanted to rule all but with Snowball, Napoleon could not achieve full power. So Napoleon chased Snowball away used the seven dogs and then went on to become leader.
In conclusion, whether Snowball is working away on the windmill or Napoleon is killing animals that opposed him, the two characters compare and contrast very well. Both characters work very hard… in different ways that is. And finally soon and late the day is coming, tyrant man shall be o’erthrown, and the fruitful fields of England shall be trod by beasts alone…
Cite this page
“Animal Farm”: Compare and Contrast. (2016, Jun 17). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/animal-farm-compare-and-contrast-essay | 1,447 | ENGLISH | 1 |
1. Joint-stock companies: Merchants from England pooled resources to create a joint company. Many joint stock companies of the seventeenth century were created to last only a few years and then be sold quickly for a large profit; no one was thinking of a long-term investment of America. However, this out much pressure on American colonists because if they did not get riches to the company, they were abandoned. The companies were perfected in the 1600s, which allowed investors to pool together their money. An example of such a joint stock company was the Virginia Company of London that received a charter to settle America in the name of King James I.
2. Indentured servant: A person with little or no money who, in exchange for passage to America, was required to work for a certain number of years for the person who had paid for their voyage. A number of white indentured servants provided much of the labor on America’s tobacco crops in earlier settlement times. During the later part of the seventeenth century, these indentured servants began to be replaced by black slaves.
3. Melting pot: The term used to explain the blending of the many different cultures of the immigrants to America into one unifying culture. Although many of the settlers were English, there was always a mixing of many different cultures. Germans made up about six percent of the population, Scots-Irish about seven percent, Dutch about three percent, and finally about forty-nine percent English. Many of the original thirteen colonies were melting pots of people from many different cultures.
4. House of Burgesses: An assembly formed in 1619 authorized by The London Company that eventually allowed for the creation of many miniature parliaments to form in America. This was the first representative government of America that began in Virginia. However, James I was greatly opposed to this assembly and called it a “seminary of sedition.” In 1624, James revoked the charter of the Virginia Company and made Virginia a colony under his direct control partly because of their democratic views of government.
5. Primogeniture: A law that stated that only a man’s eldest son could inherit landed property. Because of this, younger sons who wanted to make a fortune were forced to think of other ways to do so. Although many were ineffective initially, the birth of the joint stock company allowed younger sons to break the bonds of primogeniture and allowed for the effort of English colonization of North America.
6. “Starving time”: The winter of 1609 to 1610 in Jamestown, Virginia where only sixty people survived the horrible living conditions. Many people were forces to eat “starving time foods” which included pets and even dead bodies. Although after this horrible time the remaining few tried to return to England, they were met by Lord De La Warr who imposed a harsh control and ordered the settlers to remain.
7. Maryland “Act of Toleration” (1649): Passed by the local representative assemble in 1649, the religious proclamation guaranteed religious toleration of all Christians. Because local Catholics were scared of the growing Protestant population, they greatly supported this movement. However, the document also stated death to all those who did not believe in the divinity of Christ including atheists and Jews. Although this meant less toleration than before, the Christian minority felt more at ease, allowing more Catholics to move to Maryland.
8. Barbados Slave Code: The Code of Slavery that was brought back with a group of English settlers from Barbados to America in 1670. This code denied many rights to slaves, while giving their masters almost complete control of their servants. The code eventually governed slavery throughout Britain’s mainland colonies, and a version was officially adopted by Carolina in 1696. This example shows the influence of the Caribbean islands on the slave system throughout America.
9. Iroquois Confederacy: A military alliance among Indians in current New York State that was called the “League of the Iroquois.” Made of five Indian groups, the Mohawks, the Oneidas, the Onondagas, the Cayugas, and the Senecas, the alliance was formed in the 1500s by the leaders Deganawidah and Hiawatha according to Indian legend. Although the Iroquois originally fought other Indians and other invaders, they were almost wiped out by new English settlers due to disease, alcohol, and guns. Although the five nations interacted and celebrated together, they were also quite independent. The alliance tried to take advantage of European rivals, but eventually was greatly destroyed by siding with the defeated British in the American Revolution. Many were relocated to reservations, where they suffered even more.
1. “visible saints”: The saved people according to Calvinism who led holy lives once they knew they had been chosen to go to heaven by God. These people underwent “conversion” where they had a personal experience with God where their destiny was revealed. These people felt grace within in, and were able to show other Puritans the grace. These “saints” became part of the church membership and were at first the only ones who were able to vote as they were the only ones considered “freemen.”
2. Anne Hutchinson: An intelligent woman who presented a challenge to Puritan orthodoxy. She believed in a challenging heresy called antinomianism that went to the extreme in terms of the Puritan belief of predestination. Antinomianism believed that the saved do not need to follow the rules of God or man. When she was arrested and brought to trial in 1638, she claimed to have a direct revelation from God, another heresy. She was then banished, and her family moved to first Rhode Island, then to New York. She and her family were eventually killed by Indians.
3. John Winthrop: A wealthy gentleman who became the first governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. He believed he was called by God to head the new religious experiment, and served for nineteen years. In part because of his leadership, Massachusetts was able to prosper. However, he objected to democracy, and did not have faith in the common people.
4. William Bradford: A prominent leader of the Puritans who was well renowned, especially in the languages. He was very popular, and was reelected thirty times to be governor for the Plymouth Colony. However, one of his greatest fears was that other settlers would come and “ruin” his religious experiment in America.
5. Plymouth Colony: The colony founded by the pilgrims who came on the Mayflower in 1620. The settlers were squatters because they were outside the region of the Virginia Company and had no legal right to own the land. However, this allowed the people to form a self-representative government by signing the Mayflower Compact. Although the first winter was hard, the following fall had a great harvest and the First Thanksgiving. Although the colony was always small and not a great area of trade, it had prominent leaders and was a center of religion.
6. Navigation Laws: The laws intended to make America more tied to England by preventing American trade with countries other than those owned by the English crown. The Dominion of New England helped improve efficiency of the laws in the colonies, and showed the rivalries among the colonies in the seventeenth century. The colonists rejected these laws, and commonly resorted to smuggling. Sir Edmund Andros headed the dominion of New England, who was considered immoral by the colonists and used violence as a preferred means of advance; he also enforced the Navigation Laws as much as possible. After the Glorious Revolution in England, the colonists revolted against the close hand of the British and sent Andros back to England. This led to the Navigation Laws only being weakly enforced.
7. “Great Migration” (1630s): A time when about seventy thousand people left England in part because of unrest in England. However, not all of these people were Puritans fleeing to Massachusetts. Many went to the West Indies where the main crop was sugar. Many educated gentlemen went to the Massachusetts Bay Colony to become part of a successful colony.
8. Massachusetts Bay Colony (1629): A colony established by a group of Puritans in 1629. The Puritans claimed to not want to break with the Church of England, but only wanted to escape the impurities, which was looked down upon from those in the Church in England. The colony had a great boost of people to start with, and many more came in the Great Migration of the 1630s. The colony became quite successful and had many educated leaders such as John Winthrop. Although there was a provincial government, it was not a democracy; commoners were generally not allowed in politics. Although religious leaders were powerful, there was the start of separation of church and state. The colony was also part of the first step towards unity within the colonies, the New England Confederation, and resisted the oppressive rule of England.
9. Mayflower Compact: A short document signed by the Pilgrim leaders in the Plymouth Colony that later became the precedent for later constitutions. Although not a constitution but an agreement to form a simple government enforcing the will of the majority of the people, this agreement was the first step towards self-government. It was signed by forty-one adult males, no females, and the male settlers soon made laws from open discussions.
10. New England Confederation (1643): When four colonies, all Puritan, joined together in 1643 in union. Because England was full of unrest, the colonies only could depend upon each other, and made the Confederation mainly as protection against the Indians, French, and Dutch. Each colony had two votes and the Confederation also dealt with colonial issues such as runaway slaves. This was the first step towards unity between the colonies, which is why Charles II tried to regain control of the colonies and the colonies, especially Massachusetts, resisted.
11. King Philip’s War (1675–1676): A war which was started when an Indian named Metacom, called King Philip by the English, made an alliance between different Indian tribes and attacked the English in a number of battles. Many people fled to Boston, and by the end of the war, fifty-two Puritan towns had been attacked and many had died. Metacom’s family was sold into slavery, and Metacom himself was killed and put on display. Because of this war, many settlers stopped penetrating western New England. However, the Indians were destroyed and could no longer truly resist colonists’ attempts to settle.
12. Society of Friends/“Quakers”: A religious group of dissenters who came about in England in the 1600s, and who were exiled and dismissed by the orthodox Puritans. The Quakers believed in peaceful resistance, and separation of church and state, which, among other beliefs, made them unpopular. Although exiled and outlawed in many places because of their beliefs, the Quakers were offered refuge in Rhode Island, established by Roger Williams, who allowed complete religious toleration even when he disagreed with the beliefs. Additionally, William Penn, a Quaker, established Pennsylvania as a place where Quakers could worship freely, and where they were able to rule democratically.
1. head right system: This system encouraged the immigration of servant workers from England to fill the labor shortage growing tobacco. The system allowed the person who paid for the voyage of the worker to have fifty acres of land, which meant only masters received benefits and not the workers. This system also allowed the masters to amass great amounts of land, and make much money growing tobacco. This in turn ate up available land for the servants, and while the masters gained a work force, the laborers were trapped working for low wages.
2. middle passage: The passage was the sea voyage that brought slaves to America. The journey began with a march to the African coast, and ended with a hike through America’s interior. The middle part of the journey was hard and treacherous, which is where the passage got its name. This passage was also usually the leg of the triangular trade that brought people from Africa to be slaves in America.
3. Bacon’s Rebellion: A rebellion against Virginia’s Governor William Berkeley led by Nathanial Bacon. Many single, poor men lived in the governor’s region who were upset with the Governor’s inaction towards the Indians. Bacon led an upheaval that resulted in the killing of many Indians, chasing Berkeley out of town, and burning the town. A wild uproar ensued, but when Bacon suddenly died, the governor fiercely executed many rebels. Partly because of this rebellion, landowners grew wary of the laborers and looked to African slaves as their new labor source.
4. Half-Way Covenant: A new way for Puritan church membership in 1662 because of a decreasing number of the elect and conversions. This covenant allowed the unconverted children of members to receive baptism, but not full communion. This also weakened the spilt between the people and the elect and made the elect seem less pure than before. Eventually, everyone was welcome was welcome into church whether a member or not, and there was no longer a distinction between regular people and the elect. The Puritans therefore sacrificed purity to gain more participants.
5. Congregational Church: The group of Puritan adult males who belonged to different Puritan congregations, which eventually became one church. The Church that grew out of Puritanism became quite influential and became established in all of the New England colonies except Rhode Island. The Congregationalists had the highest percentage of people in a single religion, with about seventy thousand more than Anglicans. They were tax supported by England, and usually controlled education in New England. Eventually, however, they were highly involved in the Revolution, and the ministers frequently preached about politics.
6. Salem witch trials (1692): A witch-hunt that resulted from a group of girls in Salem, Massachusetts claiming some older women had bewitched them. Twenty people were hanged in 1692 who were accused of witchcraft. There was already a witch-hunt in Europe, which had also spread to the colonies. The event came from superstition, age prejudice, and from social and religious unrest in Salem. The hunt ended in 1693 when the governor stopped the persecution, and twenty years later made retribution for their deeds.
7. Anne Hutchinson: An intelligent woman who presented a challenge to Puritan orthodoxy. She believed in a challenging heresy called antinomianism that went to the extreme in terms of the Puritan belief of predestination. Antinomianism believed that the saved do not need to follow the rules of God or man. When she was arrested and brought to trial in 1638, she claimed to have a direct revelation from God, another heresy. She was then banished, and her family moved to first Rhode Island, then to New York. She and most of her family were eventually killed by Indians.
8. Roger Williams: A popular Puritan minister who posed a threat to Puritan leaders. Because he was a separatist, he wanted to make a complete break with the Church of England and questioned the Bay Colony as being unfair to the Indians. He was also against the government regulating religious behavior, and because of his ideas, was banished in 1635. Williams fled to Rhode Island in 1636 to build the first Baptist Church where there was complete religious toleration. Williams created a safe place for the outcasts of society where they enjoyed many freedoms and rights, and became individualistic and independent.
1. melting pot: The term used to explain the blending of the many different cultures of the immigrants to America into one unifying culture. Although many of the settlers were English, there was always a mixing of many different cultures. Germans made up about six percent of the population, Scots-Irish about seven percent, Dutch about three percent, and finally about forty-nine percent English.
2. tenant farmer: A person who farmed the landowner’s land and paid rent with cash or by a portion of the crops produced. Tenant farming was important in America from the 1870s to today, and the tenants usually used their own tools and animals. A tenant farmer was different than a hired hand and a sharecropper and was an in between stage between being hired as additional labor as a younger person while gaining knowledge through experience. The tenant farmer was motivated while gaining experience and possessed an incentive to purchase their own land to become interdependent in the farming community.
3. triangular trade: A trade route in the shape of a triangle that was quite profitable for those who controlled it. Usually a sailor might go to Africa with rum to trade for slaves, and then transport the slaves to the West Indies to trade for molasses, which he would bring to New England to be made into rum, then he would repeat the cycle; the sailor would be able to make a profit at each stop.
4. George Whitefield: A parson that began a different type of evangelical preaching in America, which affected the spiritual life in the colonies because of his great oration. His belief was of human helplessness and of divine power, and people became entranced with his message. People soon copied his style of preaching, abusing sinners and exciting the attendees. He was able to become inspired by Jonathon Edwards, and began preaching in 1738.
5. John Pete Zenger: A newspaper printer who was part of a popular legal case in 1734 to 1735. Based in New York, Zenger’s newspaper criticized the corrupt governor and was arrested. Zenger was defended by a former indentured servant and Philadelphian lawyer, Andrew Hamilton. Zenger claimed he only printed the truth, and eventually the jury declared him not guilty. Zenger’s case helped further the cause of freedom of the press and democracy, even if what was printed was about public officials.
6. Great Awakening (1730s—1740s): A religious revival in the colonies in the 1700s that quickly spread throughout America. Beginning in Northampton, Massachusetts by a pastor named Jonathan Edwards, people responded favorably to his preaching in 1734. Later, parson George Whitefield also revolutionized preaching with fiery passion, which also was later imitated. Although orthodox, “old lights” where against the new emotional preaching, “New light” ministers embraced the ideas. Many Congregationalists and Presbyterians split over the new preaching style, and the Awakening had a lasting impact on America that included undermining the old authority, beginning the competition of American churches, and encouraging missionaries. Lastly, the Great Awakening was the first mass movement that united the American people across divisions.
7. Old and New Lights: The Old Lights were the orthodox clergy who were against the Great Awakening because of its emotion and theatrics. However, the New Light ministers defended the Great Awakening because they believed its revitalized religion in America. While this issue sometimes split religions such as Congregationalists and Presbyterians, the Great Awakening overall allowed the American people to unite across geographical and denominational lines.
8. Jonathan Edwards: The pastor that began the Great Awakening in Northampton, Massachusetts. Edwards was against the idea of salvation through good works and believed completely in the need for dependence on God’s grace. He completely abused sinners and pained a horrible picture of hell through his words. However, people became mesmerized by his words, and Edwards soon had people following his style of preaching. He had a warm reception in his parish in 1734, and four years later George Whitefield became inspired by his preaching skills.
9. Pennsylvania “Dutch”: A primarily Lutheran sect of German immigrants who were about one third of America’s population. They were numerous enough that in Philadelphia, the street signs were in both English and German. The Dutch, because they had no loyalty to the British crown as they were never English, stuck primarily to their own German language and customs. The Dutch moved into the backcountry of Philadelphia and are known for their industry and prosperity through their impressive stone barns.
10. Poor Richard’s Almanack: The paper written by Benjamin Franklin edited from 1732 to 1758, which he was best known for by his contemporaries. The Almanack contained sayings from thinkers of the time as well as emphasizing thrift, industry, morality, and common sense. Franklin was able to shape the expectations of an American, and his paper was well known in both Europe and America.
Question: How does this material fit with the idea of America as a “new world” different from England? Was there a fundamental difference between those Englishmen who essentially tried to re-create their world way of life and those who saw life in America as a radical departure? What tensions might have resulted between these two groups?
Q: Compare and contrast the New England and Southern colonies. Consider the motives for founding, religious and social composition, and/or political development. Note specifically differences between Southern and New England Society. (Consider that many of these distinctions constituted the seeds of future discord and many of them persist to this day.) | <urn:uuid:12ce8b71-4783-48ec-9219-cc07f5bf14f7> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://gmicksmithsocialstudies.blogspot.com/2009_10_10_archive.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250590107.3/warc/CC-MAIN-20200117180950-20200117204950-00100.warc.gz | en | 0.984495 | 4,354 | 4 | 4 | [
-0.11136195063591003,
-0.30726125836372375,
0.4180287718772888,
-0.16730672121047974,
-0.027121875435113907,
0.030347760766744614,
-0.11512582004070282,
-0.06704328954219818,
0.027233891189098358,
-0.11056722700595856,
0.019396256655454636,
0.0317138209939003,
0.10501641035079956,
0.005485... | 2 | 1. Joint-stock companies: Merchants from England pooled resources to create a joint company. Many joint stock companies of the seventeenth century were created to last only a few years and then be sold quickly for a large profit; no one was thinking of a long-term investment of America. However, this out much pressure on American colonists because if they did not get riches to the company, they were abandoned. The companies were perfected in the 1600s, which allowed investors to pool together their money. An example of such a joint stock company was the Virginia Company of London that received a charter to settle America in the name of King James I.
2. Indentured servant: A person with little or no money who, in exchange for passage to America, was required to work for a certain number of years for the person who had paid for their voyage. A number of white indentured servants provided much of the labor on America’s tobacco crops in earlier settlement times. During the later part of the seventeenth century, these indentured servants began to be replaced by black slaves.
3. Melting pot: The term used to explain the blending of the many different cultures of the immigrants to America into one unifying culture. Although many of the settlers were English, there was always a mixing of many different cultures. Germans made up about six percent of the population, Scots-Irish about seven percent, Dutch about three percent, and finally about forty-nine percent English. Many of the original thirteen colonies were melting pots of people from many different cultures.
4. House of Burgesses: An assembly formed in 1619 authorized by The London Company that eventually allowed for the creation of many miniature parliaments to form in America. This was the first representative government of America that began in Virginia. However, James I was greatly opposed to this assembly and called it a “seminary of sedition.” In 1624, James revoked the charter of the Virginia Company and made Virginia a colony under his direct control partly because of their democratic views of government.
5. Primogeniture: A law that stated that only a man’s eldest son could inherit landed property. Because of this, younger sons who wanted to make a fortune were forced to think of other ways to do so. Although many were ineffective initially, the birth of the joint stock company allowed younger sons to break the bonds of primogeniture and allowed for the effort of English colonization of North America.
6. “Starving time”: The winter of 1609 to 1610 in Jamestown, Virginia where only sixty people survived the horrible living conditions. Many people were forces to eat “starving time foods” which included pets and even dead bodies. Although after this horrible time the remaining few tried to return to England, they were met by Lord De La Warr who imposed a harsh control and ordered the settlers to remain.
7. Maryland “Act of Toleration” (1649): Passed by the local representative assemble in 1649, the religious proclamation guaranteed religious toleration of all Christians. Because local Catholics were scared of the growing Protestant population, they greatly supported this movement. However, the document also stated death to all those who did not believe in the divinity of Christ including atheists and Jews. Although this meant less toleration than before, the Christian minority felt more at ease, allowing more Catholics to move to Maryland.
8. Barbados Slave Code: The Code of Slavery that was brought back with a group of English settlers from Barbados to America in 1670. This code denied many rights to slaves, while giving their masters almost complete control of their servants. The code eventually governed slavery throughout Britain’s mainland colonies, and a version was officially adopted by Carolina in 1696. This example shows the influence of the Caribbean islands on the slave system throughout America.
9. Iroquois Confederacy: A military alliance among Indians in current New York State that was called the “League of the Iroquois.” Made of five Indian groups, the Mohawks, the Oneidas, the Onondagas, the Cayugas, and the Senecas, the alliance was formed in the 1500s by the leaders Deganawidah and Hiawatha according to Indian legend. Although the Iroquois originally fought other Indians and other invaders, they were almost wiped out by new English settlers due to disease, alcohol, and guns. Although the five nations interacted and celebrated together, they were also quite independent. The alliance tried to take advantage of European rivals, but eventually was greatly destroyed by siding with the defeated British in the American Revolution. Many were relocated to reservations, where they suffered even more.
1. “visible saints”: The saved people according to Calvinism who led holy lives once they knew they had been chosen to go to heaven by God. These people underwent “conversion” where they had a personal experience with God where their destiny was revealed. These people felt grace within in, and were able to show other Puritans the grace. These “saints” became part of the church membership and were at first the only ones who were able to vote as they were the only ones considered “freemen.”
2. Anne Hutchinson: An intelligent woman who presented a challenge to Puritan orthodoxy. She believed in a challenging heresy called antinomianism that went to the extreme in terms of the Puritan belief of predestination. Antinomianism believed that the saved do not need to follow the rules of God or man. When she was arrested and brought to trial in 1638, she claimed to have a direct revelation from God, another heresy. She was then banished, and her family moved to first Rhode Island, then to New York. She and her family were eventually killed by Indians.
3. John Winthrop: A wealthy gentleman who became the first governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. He believed he was called by God to head the new religious experiment, and served for nineteen years. In part because of his leadership, Massachusetts was able to prosper. However, he objected to democracy, and did not have faith in the common people.
4. William Bradford: A prominent leader of the Puritans who was well renowned, especially in the languages. He was very popular, and was reelected thirty times to be governor for the Plymouth Colony. However, one of his greatest fears was that other settlers would come and “ruin” his religious experiment in America.
5. Plymouth Colony: The colony founded by the pilgrims who came on the Mayflower in 1620. The settlers were squatters because they were outside the region of the Virginia Company and had no legal right to own the land. However, this allowed the people to form a self-representative government by signing the Mayflower Compact. Although the first winter was hard, the following fall had a great harvest and the First Thanksgiving. Although the colony was always small and not a great area of trade, it had prominent leaders and was a center of religion.
6. Navigation Laws: The laws intended to make America more tied to England by preventing American trade with countries other than those owned by the English crown. The Dominion of New England helped improve efficiency of the laws in the colonies, and showed the rivalries among the colonies in the seventeenth century. The colonists rejected these laws, and commonly resorted to smuggling. Sir Edmund Andros headed the dominion of New England, who was considered immoral by the colonists and used violence as a preferred means of advance; he also enforced the Navigation Laws as much as possible. After the Glorious Revolution in England, the colonists revolted against the close hand of the British and sent Andros back to England. This led to the Navigation Laws only being weakly enforced.
7. “Great Migration” (1630s): A time when about seventy thousand people left England in part because of unrest in England. However, not all of these people were Puritans fleeing to Massachusetts. Many went to the West Indies where the main crop was sugar. Many educated gentlemen went to the Massachusetts Bay Colony to become part of a successful colony.
8. Massachusetts Bay Colony (1629): A colony established by a group of Puritans in 1629. The Puritans claimed to not want to break with the Church of England, but only wanted to escape the impurities, which was looked down upon from those in the Church in England. The colony had a great boost of people to start with, and many more came in the Great Migration of the 1630s. The colony became quite successful and had many educated leaders such as John Winthrop. Although there was a provincial government, it was not a democracy; commoners were generally not allowed in politics. Although religious leaders were powerful, there was the start of separation of church and state. The colony was also part of the first step towards unity within the colonies, the New England Confederation, and resisted the oppressive rule of England.
9. Mayflower Compact: A short document signed by the Pilgrim leaders in the Plymouth Colony that later became the precedent for later constitutions. Although not a constitution but an agreement to form a simple government enforcing the will of the majority of the people, this agreement was the first step towards self-government. It was signed by forty-one adult males, no females, and the male settlers soon made laws from open discussions.
10. New England Confederation (1643): When four colonies, all Puritan, joined together in 1643 in union. Because England was full of unrest, the colonies only could depend upon each other, and made the Confederation mainly as protection against the Indians, French, and Dutch. Each colony had two votes and the Confederation also dealt with colonial issues such as runaway slaves. This was the first step towards unity between the colonies, which is why Charles II tried to regain control of the colonies and the colonies, especially Massachusetts, resisted.
11. King Philip’s War (1675–1676): A war which was started when an Indian named Metacom, called King Philip by the English, made an alliance between different Indian tribes and attacked the English in a number of battles. Many people fled to Boston, and by the end of the war, fifty-two Puritan towns had been attacked and many had died. Metacom’s family was sold into slavery, and Metacom himself was killed and put on display. Because of this war, many settlers stopped penetrating western New England. However, the Indians were destroyed and could no longer truly resist colonists’ attempts to settle.
12. Society of Friends/“Quakers”: A religious group of dissenters who came about in England in the 1600s, and who were exiled and dismissed by the orthodox Puritans. The Quakers believed in peaceful resistance, and separation of church and state, which, among other beliefs, made them unpopular. Although exiled and outlawed in many places because of their beliefs, the Quakers were offered refuge in Rhode Island, established by Roger Williams, who allowed complete religious toleration even when he disagreed with the beliefs. Additionally, William Penn, a Quaker, established Pennsylvania as a place where Quakers could worship freely, and where they were able to rule democratically.
1. head right system: This system encouraged the immigration of servant workers from England to fill the labor shortage growing tobacco. The system allowed the person who paid for the voyage of the worker to have fifty acres of land, which meant only masters received benefits and not the workers. This system also allowed the masters to amass great amounts of land, and make much money growing tobacco. This in turn ate up available land for the servants, and while the masters gained a work force, the laborers were trapped working for low wages.
2. middle passage: The passage was the sea voyage that brought slaves to America. The journey began with a march to the African coast, and ended with a hike through America’s interior. The middle part of the journey was hard and treacherous, which is where the passage got its name. This passage was also usually the leg of the triangular trade that brought people from Africa to be slaves in America.
3. Bacon’s Rebellion: A rebellion against Virginia’s Governor William Berkeley led by Nathanial Bacon. Many single, poor men lived in the governor’s region who were upset with the Governor’s inaction towards the Indians. Bacon led an upheaval that resulted in the killing of many Indians, chasing Berkeley out of town, and burning the town. A wild uproar ensued, but when Bacon suddenly died, the governor fiercely executed many rebels. Partly because of this rebellion, landowners grew wary of the laborers and looked to African slaves as their new labor source.
4. Half-Way Covenant: A new way for Puritan church membership in 1662 because of a decreasing number of the elect and conversions. This covenant allowed the unconverted children of members to receive baptism, but not full communion. This also weakened the spilt between the people and the elect and made the elect seem less pure than before. Eventually, everyone was welcome was welcome into church whether a member or not, and there was no longer a distinction between regular people and the elect. The Puritans therefore sacrificed purity to gain more participants.
5. Congregational Church: The group of Puritan adult males who belonged to different Puritan congregations, which eventually became one church. The Church that grew out of Puritanism became quite influential and became established in all of the New England colonies except Rhode Island. The Congregationalists had the highest percentage of people in a single religion, with about seventy thousand more than Anglicans. They were tax supported by England, and usually controlled education in New England. Eventually, however, they were highly involved in the Revolution, and the ministers frequently preached about politics.
6. Salem witch trials (1692): A witch-hunt that resulted from a group of girls in Salem, Massachusetts claiming some older women had bewitched them. Twenty people were hanged in 1692 who were accused of witchcraft. There was already a witch-hunt in Europe, which had also spread to the colonies. The event came from superstition, age prejudice, and from social and religious unrest in Salem. The hunt ended in 1693 when the governor stopped the persecution, and twenty years later made retribution for their deeds.
7. Anne Hutchinson: An intelligent woman who presented a challenge to Puritan orthodoxy. She believed in a challenging heresy called antinomianism that went to the extreme in terms of the Puritan belief of predestination. Antinomianism believed that the saved do not need to follow the rules of God or man. When she was arrested and brought to trial in 1638, she claimed to have a direct revelation from God, another heresy. She was then banished, and her family moved to first Rhode Island, then to New York. She and most of her family were eventually killed by Indians.
8. Roger Williams: A popular Puritan minister who posed a threat to Puritan leaders. Because he was a separatist, he wanted to make a complete break with the Church of England and questioned the Bay Colony as being unfair to the Indians. He was also against the government regulating religious behavior, and because of his ideas, was banished in 1635. Williams fled to Rhode Island in 1636 to build the first Baptist Church where there was complete religious toleration. Williams created a safe place for the outcasts of society where they enjoyed many freedoms and rights, and became individualistic and independent.
1. melting pot: The term used to explain the blending of the many different cultures of the immigrants to America into one unifying culture. Although many of the settlers were English, there was always a mixing of many different cultures. Germans made up about six percent of the population, Scots-Irish about seven percent, Dutch about three percent, and finally about forty-nine percent English.
2. tenant farmer: A person who farmed the landowner’s land and paid rent with cash or by a portion of the crops produced. Tenant farming was important in America from the 1870s to today, and the tenants usually used their own tools and animals. A tenant farmer was different than a hired hand and a sharecropper and was an in between stage between being hired as additional labor as a younger person while gaining knowledge through experience. The tenant farmer was motivated while gaining experience and possessed an incentive to purchase their own land to become interdependent in the farming community.
3. triangular trade: A trade route in the shape of a triangle that was quite profitable for those who controlled it. Usually a sailor might go to Africa with rum to trade for slaves, and then transport the slaves to the West Indies to trade for molasses, which he would bring to New England to be made into rum, then he would repeat the cycle; the sailor would be able to make a profit at each stop.
4. George Whitefield: A parson that began a different type of evangelical preaching in America, which affected the spiritual life in the colonies because of his great oration. His belief was of human helplessness and of divine power, and people became entranced with his message. People soon copied his style of preaching, abusing sinners and exciting the attendees. He was able to become inspired by Jonathon Edwards, and began preaching in 1738.
5. John Pete Zenger: A newspaper printer who was part of a popular legal case in 1734 to 1735. Based in New York, Zenger’s newspaper criticized the corrupt governor and was arrested. Zenger was defended by a former indentured servant and Philadelphian lawyer, Andrew Hamilton. Zenger claimed he only printed the truth, and eventually the jury declared him not guilty. Zenger’s case helped further the cause of freedom of the press and democracy, even if what was printed was about public officials.
6. Great Awakening (1730s—1740s): A religious revival in the colonies in the 1700s that quickly spread throughout America. Beginning in Northampton, Massachusetts by a pastor named Jonathan Edwards, people responded favorably to his preaching in 1734. Later, parson George Whitefield also revolutionized preaching with fiery passion, which also was later imitated. Although orthodox, “old lights” where against the new emotional preaching, “New light” ministers embraced the ideas. Many Congregationalists and Presbyterians split over the new preaching style, and the Awakening had a lasting impact on America that included undermining the old authority, beginning the competition of American churches, and encouraging missionaries. Lastly, the Great Awakening was the first mass movement that united the American people across divisions.
7. Old and New Lights: The Old Lights were the orthodox clergy who were against the Great Awakening because of its emotion and theatrics. However, the New Light ministers defended the Great Awakening because they believed its revitalized religion in America. While this issue sometimes split religions such as Congregationalists and Presbyterians, the Great Awakening overall allowed the American people to unite across geographical and denominational lines.
8. Jonathan Edwards: The pastor that began the Great Awakening in Northampton, Massachusetts. Edwards was against the idea of salvation through good works and believed completely in the need for dependence on God’s grace. He completely abused sinners and pained a horrible picture of hell through his words. However, people became mesmerized by his words, and Edwards soon had people following his style of preaching. He had a warm reception in his parish in 1734, and four years later George Whitefield became inspired by his preaching skills.
9. Pennsylvania “Dutch”: A primarily Lutheran sect of German immigrants who were about one third of America’s population. They were numerous enough that in Philadelphia, the street signs were in both English and German. The Dutch, because they had no loyalty to the British crown as they were never English, stuck primarily to their own German language and customs. The Dutch moved into the backcountry of Philadelphia and are known for their industry and prosperity through their impressive stone barns.
10. Poor Richard’s Almanack: The paper written by Benjamin Franklin edited from 1732 to 1758, which he was best known for by his contemporaries. The Almanack contained sayings from thinkers of the time as well as emphasizing thrift, industry, morality, and common sense. Franklin was able to shape the expectations of an American, and his paper was well known in both Europe and America.
Question: How does this material fit with the idea of America as a “new world” different from England? Was there a fundamental difference between those Englishmen who essentially tried to re-create their world way of life and those who saw life in America as a radical departure? What tensions might have resulted between these two groups?
Q: Compare and contrast the New England and Southern colonies. Consider the motives for founding, religious and social composition, and/or political development. Note specifically differences between Southern and New England Society. (Consider that many of these distinctions constituted the seeds of future discord and many of them persist to this day.) | 4,394 | ENGLISH | 1 |
A tax is money that is paid to the government and will be added when buying or owning something valuable. The 16th amendment is an important amendment that allows the federal (United States) government to levy (collect) an income tax from all Americans. Income tax allows for the federal government to keep an army, build roads and bridges, enforce laws and carry out other important duties. The federal government realized in 1913 that in order for it to collect taxes effectively, and not have to share that tax money with the states, federal income tax was necessary. Other taxes, such as taxes on houses or other property are considered “direct” taxes by the Constitution and would have to be divided back among the states.
Let us look at the 16th amendment
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes…
(Congress is allowed to collect some of the money earned by people working in the United States)
from whatever source derived…
(it doesn’t matter where the money is earned, as long as it is “income”)
without apportionment among the several States…
(there is no need to share the revenue with the states)
and without regard to any census or enumeration.
(the census, a count of all the people that live in the United States that happens every ten years, can’t be used as a basis for distributing taxes on people)
How did income tax start?
There was an income tax before the 16th amendment, and it was in effect during the Civil War. Anyone making more than $800 would be charged a tax of 3% and then eventually 3-5% on income over $600. This was actually a lot of money during the Civil War. This income tax ended in 1866.
The desire of Americans to pass an income tax on the rich was strong in 1909, when President William Taft proposed a 2% of big businesses know as corporations. Following this lead, Congress wrote the 16th amendment and after agreeing on the rules of the amendment about income tax, sent to the states to be voted on. Although many northern states did not like the idea of an income tax in the 16th amendment, western states strongly supported it.
For the amendment to become part of the constitution, 36 states needed to ratify (approve) it. The 36th state to approve the 16th amendment was Delaware in 1931, almost four years after the first state, Alabama, ratified the 16th amendment in 1909.
The 16th amendment became part of the constitution after it was ratified and since then the federal government has collected taxes from Americans every year on their income (money earned). Income tax is charged on wages (money) earned from working a job, earnings from a business, dividends (money from stocks and investing) and rental property (charging someone to live in a building you own). The 16th amendment is effective here in that it specifically allows all income to be taxed. | <urn:uuid:c2b4df3b-2406-4749-a400-4795b28e4dbc> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://kids.laws.com/16th-amendment | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250593937.27/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118193018-20200118221018-00099.warc.gz | en | 0.982731 | 607 | 4.15625 | 4 | [
-0.4413321614265442,
0.0196162611246109,
-0.07595625519752502,
-0.19025848805904388,
-0.12890589237213135,
0.2925950884819031,
0.15293118357658386,
0.12898194789886475,
0.10725786536931992,
0.35264304280281067,
0.328565776348114,
0.41882750391960144,
-0.2572988271713257,
-0.011462718248367... | 4 | A tax is money that is paid to the government and will be added when buying or owning something valuable. The 16th amendment is an important amendment that allows the federal (United States) government to levy (collect) an income tax from all Americans. Income tax allows for the federal government to keep an army, build roads and bridges, enforce laws and carry out other important duties. The federal government realized in 1913 that in order for it to collect taxes effectively, and not have to share that tax money with the states, federal income tax was necessary. Other taxes, such as taxes on houses or other property are considered “direct” taxes by the Constitution and would have to be divided back among the states.
Let us look at the 16th amendment
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes…
(Congress is allowed to collect some of the money earned by people working in the United States)
from whatever source derived…
(it doesn’t matter where the money is earned, as long as it is “income”)
without apportionment among the several States…
(there is no need to share the revenue with the states)
and without regard to any census or enumeration.
(the census, a count of all the people that live in the United States that happens every ten years, can’t be used as a basis for distributing taxes on people)
How did income tax start?
There was an income tax before the 16th amendment, and it was in effect during the Civil War. Anyone making more than $800 would be charged a tax of 3% and then eventually 3-5% on income over $600. This was actually a lot of money during the Civil War. This income tax ended in 1866.
The desire of Americans to pass an income tax on the rich was strong in 1909, when President William Taft proposed a 2% of big businesses know as corporations. Following this lead, Congress wrote the 16th amendment and after agreeing on the rules of the amendment about income tax, sent to the states to be voted on. Although many northern states did not like the idea of an income tax in the 16th amendment, western states strongly supported it.
For the amendment to become part of the constitution, 36 states needed to ratify (approve) it. The 36th state to approve the 16th amendment was Delaware in 1931, almost four years after the first state, Alabama, ratified the 16th amendment in 1909.
The 16th amendment became part of the constitution after it was ratified and since then the federal government has collected taxes from Americans every year on their income (money earned). Income tax is charged on wages (money) earned from working a job, earnings from a business, dividends (money from stocks and investing) and rental property (charging someone to live in a building you own). The 16th amendment is effective here in that it specifically allows all income to be taxed. | 631 | ENGLISH | 1 |
George II.—The Story of the Black Hole of Calcutta
ESIDES the civil war, Britain had other wars to fight.
France, England's old enemy was still the enemy of Britain.
Once again there was war between them, and this time the
fighting was not in France, nor in England, nor on the seas,
Long ago in the days of Elizabeth, you remember that Englishmen sailed over the seas to the newly-discovered country of America, and made their home there. You remember how Raleigh claimed Virginia for England, and how later the stern Puritans sailed away in the Mayflower, and founded a new Plymouth and a New England over the sea. Little by little these colonies (as such new countries which are peopled by an old country are called) grew. Towns sprang up, harbours were built, and the colonies became a rich and powerful part of Great Britain.
In another country, called India, Britain had also possessions, and trade with India had become of great importance, and was carried on chiefly by a company called the East India Company.
But France, too had colonies in India and in America, and the French and the British became so jealous of each other that war broke out in both countries. The French were much stronger in India at this time than the British, and they made up their minds to drive the British away altogether. They might have succeeded too, but for the cleverness of a young man called Robert Clive. He was a clerk in the East India Company's office, and not a particularly good clerk either, because the work he had to do was not at all the kind of work for which he was fitted.
When war broke out Robert Clive gave up being a clerk and became a soldier, and he soon showed that he was a clever one. Some of the native Indians fought for the French and some for the British. But Clive and his sepoys, as the native soldiers were called, won, and the French governor was obliged to leave the country.
A few years later, one of the native princes who had fought for the French, attacked the British who were living in Calcutta. He killed many of them, destroyed their houses and factories, and those who were left alive he shut up in a horrible prison called the Black Hole.
There were one hundred and
It was a hot summer night. What little air came through the tiny windows was soon poisoned by being breathed over and over again. People fainted, went mad, died. The cruel Indians held torches to the windows and, looking in, laughed at the terrible sufferings of the poor prisoners, who cried for mercy as they beat upon the door trying vainly in their agony to break it down. In the morning only twenty-three came out from the dreadful Hole alive.
When Clive heard of this horrible deed, he marched against
the native Prince, and utterly defeated him in a battle
called Plassey. He drove him from his throne, and placed
another Prince, who was friendly to the British, upon it; he
drove the French from their fortress there, and ever since
then the power of Britain has grown and grown in India, | <urn:uuid:b757e42b-bde3-4f33-9f25-6638aacf781e> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://www.gatewaytotheclassics.com/browse/display.php?author=marshall&book=island&story=calcutta | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251779833.86/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128153713-20200128183713-00435.warc.gz | en | 0.990114 | 655 | 3.5625 | 4 | [
0.10093672573566437,
0.28614431619644165,
0.2487288862466812,
-0.2680242657661438,
-0.2799517810344696,
-0.33845824003219604,
0.3108140826225281,
-0.0787912905216217,
-0.14937788248062134,
0.05704466998577118,
-0.13126781582832336,
-0.22394105792045593,
0.02836274728178978,
0.7373083829879... | 6 | George II.—The Story of the Black Hole of Calcutta
ESIDES the civil war, Britain had other wars to fight.
France, England's old enemy was still the enemy of Britain.
Once again there was war between them, and this time the
fighting was not in France, nor in England, nor on the seas,
Long ago in the days of Elizabeth, you remember that Englishmen sailed over the seas to the newly-discovered country of America, and made their home there. You remember how Raleigh claimed Virginia for England, and how later the stern Puritans sailed away in the Mayflower, and founded a new Plymouth and a New England over the sea. Little by little these colonies (as such new countries which are peopled by an old country are called) grew. Towns sprang up, harbours were built, and the colonies became a rich and powerful part of Great Britain.
In another country, called India, Britain had also possessions, and trade with India had become of great importance, and was carried on chiefly by a company called the East India Company.
But France, too had colonies in India and in America, and the French and the British became so jealous of each other that war broke out in both countries. The French were much stronger in India at this time than the British, and they made up their minds to drive the British away altogether. They might have succeeded too, but for the cleverness of a young man called Robert Clive. He was a clerk in the East India Company's office, and not a particularly good clerk either, because the work he had to do was not at all the kind of work for which he was fitted.
When war broke out Robert Clive gave up being a clerk and became a soldier, and he soon showed that he was a clever one. Some of the native Indians fought for the French and some for the British. But Clive and his sepoys, as the native soldiers were called, won, and the French governor was obliged to leave the country.
A few years later, one of the native princes who had fought for the French, attacked the British who were living in Calcutta. He killed many of them, destroyed their houses and factories, and those who were left alive he shut up in a horrible prison called the Black Hole.
There were one hundred and
It was a hot summer night. What little air came through the tiny windows was soon poisoned by being breathed over and over again. People fainted, went mad, died. The cruel Indians held torches to the windows and, looking in, laughed at the terrible sufferings of the poor prisoners, who cried for mercy as they beat upon the door trying vainly in their agony to break it down. In the morning only twenty-three came out from the dreadful Hole alive.
When Clive heard of this horrible deed, he marched against
the native Prince, and utterly defeated him in a battle
called Plassey. He drove him from his throne, and placed
another Prince, who was friendly to the British, upon it; he
drove the French from their fortress there, and ever since
then the power of Britain has grown and grown in India, | 653 | ENGLISH | 1 |
CNN report on their Twitter feed that a Bengal tiger travelled 1,300 km (800 miles) in search of a mate. They say that it is the longest such distance travelled by a big cat in search of a mate.
This got me searching for something else: information about how far tigers move away from their natal home range. When tigers become independent of their mothers at 17 to 24 months of age they continue to hunt in the range that is their mother’s. This is their chance to hone their hunting skills in an area they know well.
After a few months these young tigers disperse – leave their mother’s home range. This occurs usually when they are 18 to 28 months of age. A scientist, David Smith, carried out an excellent study on how far tigers disperse when independent of their mother. It was carried out in 1993 and reported in his paper, The role of dispersal in structuring the Chitwan tiger population.
It's the longest such walk ever recorded by a big cat in India, according to researchers https://t.co/EGyn4WDtoa
— CNN (@CNN) December 7, 2019
Smith reported that young males dispersed further than females and that the average dispersal distance for 10 male tigers was 33 km. The four females that he studied travelled an average of 9.7 km. These average distances are, as CNN remark, in stark contrast to the 1,300 km travelled by this extraordinary tiger.
Males are also likely to get into serious fights and possibly killed during this phase of their lives. It is not always certain that a male tiger can establish a breeding territory. Only 4/10 males managed to succeed in Smith’s study. Of the six males that did not breed, two died from injuries sustained in fights with other tigers. Two were poisoned and another tiger disappeared from an area near a village after a man was killed.
The remaining tiger was injured in a fight with another male tiger and would have died from his wounds. He was treated and returned to the wild. He was then removed from the wild following a fatal attack on a village.
These reports highlight the extreme danger to tigers when they disperse from their mother’s natal range and look for a mate in a place that they can call home and where they can reproduce to create their own family. It must have been hazardous too in terms of encountering people. These tiger-human enconters lead to deaths of people and tigers. The former first and the latter in retaliation.
SOME MORE TIGER STUFF…. | <urn:uuid:e88d5b07-be77-4a71-a41d-6983e657a5e9> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://pictures-of-cats.org/bengal-tiger-travels-1300-km-to-find-his-home-range-and-a-mate.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251783621.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129010251-20200129040251-00427.warc.gz | en | 0.98296 | 525 | 3.5 | 4 | [
-0.060519009828567505,
0.12054681777954102,
0.07576011121273041,
0.3161952495574951,
-0.050883542746305466,
0.0059104072861373425,
0.1619265377521515,
0.061174456030130386,
0.18478389084339142,
0.02602200210094452,
0.4264918565750122,
-0.6584714651107788,
-0.07714542746543884,
0.1949638277... | 7 | CNN report on their Twitter feed that a Bengal tiger travelled 1,300 km (800 miles) in search of a mate. They say that it is the longest such distance travelled by a big cat in search of a mate.
This got me searching for something else: information about how far tigers move away from their natal home range. When tigers become independent of their mothers at 17 to 24 months of age they continue to hunt in the range that is their mother’s. This is their chance to hone their hunting skills in an area they know well.
After a few months these young tigers disperse – leave their mother’s home range. This occurs usually when they are 18 to 28 months of age. A scientist, David Smith, carried out an excellent study on how far tigers disperse when independent of their mother. It was carried out in 1993 and reported in his paper, The role of dispersal in structuring the Chitwan tiger population.
It's the longest such walk ever recorded by a big cat in India, according to researchers https://t.co/EGyn4WDtoa
— CNN (@CNN) December 7, 2019
Smith reported that young males dispersed further than females and that the average dispersal distance for 10 male tigers was 33 km. The four females that he studied travelled an average of 9.7 km. These average distances are, as CNN remark, in stark contrast to the 1,300 km travelled by this extraordinary tiger.
Males are also likely to get into serious fights and possibly killed during this phase of their lives. It is not always certain that a male tiger can establish a breeding territory. Only 4/10 males managed to succeed in Smith’s study. Of the six males that did not breed, two died from injuries sustained in fights with other tigers. Two were poisoned and another tiger disappeared from an area near a village after a man was killed.
The remaining tiger was injured in a fight with another male tiger and would have died from his wounds. He was treated and returned to the wild. He was then removed from the wild following a fatal attack on a village.
These reports highlight the extreme danger to tigers when they disperse from their mother’s natal range and look for a mate in a place that they can call home and where they can reproduce to create their own family. It must have been hazardous too in terms of encountering people. These tiger-human enconters lead to deaths of people and tigers. The former first and the latter in retaliation.
SOME MORE TIGER STUFF…. | 551 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Who do you think was considered the best president in American history? A team of experts was recently commissioned by C-SPAN to answer that question definitively and the results are fascinating. They ranked each president according to a number of different factors such as public persuasion, crisis leadership, international relations, and vision while in office. So which of the presidents since 1774 were the cream of the crop, the best of the best? We’ve compiled those presidents who made it into the top 40 right here. Whether you agree or disagree, read on to find out who made the cut!
40. Warren G. Harding
The election of 29th president Warren G. Harding was a landmark one because it was the first one in which women could vote. A rural Ohio man through and through, Warren Harding started out his career in the newspaper industry, owning newspaper Marion Star. After he entered politics, he only left his rural Ohio hometown when it was absolutely required for the role.
During his tenure form 1921 to 1923, Harding championed a “return to normalcy” and formally ended World War I in 1921 when he declared the US officially at peace with Germany, Hungary, and Austria. He attempted to stimulate the economy through a number of measures. His cabinet suffered many scandals and he sadly died of a heart attack while in office as they were first becoming public.
39. John Tyler
John Tyler became the 10th president following the death of President William Henry Harrison and served in office from 1841 until 1845. He was the first president to take over from a president who died while in office and thus was the first president to not be elected. As the debate over slavery was heating up, he supported the right of states to make their own decisions on this and other matters.
He refused to be a “passive” replacement president and actually made a few enemies in Congress, thus earning him the snide nickname of “His Accidency”. They tried to impeach him (the first attempt in American history) but the attempt fell through. On the foreign front, he brokered treaties with both China and Britain. Tyler was also the president with the most amount of children: 15.
38. William Henry Harrison
The tenure of 9th president William Henry Harrison was remembered mainly for tragedy. That’s because Harrrison was the first president to die in office and retains the record of holding the shortest term in office: only 31 days, from March 4, 1841 until April 4, 1841. He died from pneumonia following his rainy-day inauguration, with some saying it was because he refused to wear a warm jacket, rode on horseback, and then gave a two-hour speech.
Harrison was the last president that was alive before the American Revolution and garnered fame for leading the US military to victory in the 1811 Battle of Tippecanoe and was known by the nickname “Old Tippecanoe”. He was the first sitting president to be photographed, but the picture has unfortunately been lost to history. Harrison’s father was Benjamin Harrison, a founding father and his grandson, also named Benjamin Harrison, would go on to become the 23rd president, from 1889 to 1893.
37. Millard Fillmore
Remember the Whig Party? Of course not, because Millard Fillmore was the last Whig Party president before the party crumbled. He was born into poverty but educated himself enough that he eventually rose to the rank of vice president under President Zachary Taylor. He became the 13th president when President Taylor passed away from cholera while in office in 1850.
Immediately after Taylor’s death, the entire White House cabinet resigned and Fillmore was faced with building a new one from scratch. During his presidency from 1850 to 1853, he signed the Compromise of 1850 which attempted (and failed) to prevent a rift between the North and South. Regarding foreign affairs, he helped develop a relationship with Japan, which banned all foreign relations, including foreign trade, at the time. Under his leadership, they began to allow American ships to stop in Japan for emergencies or to get food or water.
36. Herbert Hoover
The 31st US President Herbert Hoover was president during one of the most difficult times in American History. Originally from Iowa and then Oregon, he attended Stanford University the first year it opened in 1891 and married his college sweetheart, Lou Henry. Before entering politics, much of his time was spent working abroad in China. He was in Europe when World War I broke out and gained recognition for helping evacuate about 120,000 American tourists who were in France and Germany at the time.
During his term from 1929 until 1933, the stock market crashed and the Great Depression began. Despite the trying circumstances, he tried several tactics to help the country. Hoover attempted to lower taxes and tried to convince businesses to retain their employees during the downturn. However, change comes slowly and he was forced to hold strong amid the worst economy the country has ever experienced.
35. Chester Arthur
Chester Arthur, the 21st president, was the son of Irish immigrants who moved to Vermont, where he was born. People said that he “looked like a president”, although he didn’t become president in until after the assassination of President James Garfield in 1881, under whom he was the vice president. One of the major accomplishments during his presidency from 1881 until 1885 was making the Pendleton Act a law.
The Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act changed the face of government jobs by making sure that people earn federal government jobs through a merit-based system, separate form political affiliation. The act started the use of exams for government jobs. During his presidency, he also enacted the country’s first immigration law at the federal level, which aimed to stop “paupers, criminals, and lunatics” from immigrating.
34. Martin Van Buren
In office from 1837 until 1841, Martin Van Buren was president during a huge economic crisis known as the Panic of 1837 that started just a three months after he took office. This was the United States’ first great depression. Nicknamed “the Little Magician,” Van Buren advocated for the US Treasury to be independent of the government and to hold all its funds separately, in order to separate it from changes in political opinions.
Before becoming president, he was secretary of state under President Andrew Jackson and later “minister to Great Britain”. He only served one term and was under much scrutiny because of the great depression that he inherited, in which huge amounts of businesses and banks closed down. However, the policies he set forth eventually revitalized the economy. By that time the effects were being felt, however, he was no longer president and he therefore didn’t get much credit for the work.
33. George W. Bush
George W. Bush was the 43rd US President and was commander in chief during one of its most devastating moments, the September 11 attacks in 2001. During his two-term presidency from 2001 to 2008, he ordered the invasion of Afghanistan as well as a second Gulf War in Iraq, which overthrew its leader Saddam Hussein. He also established the Department of Homeland Security in response to the 9/11 terror attacks.
Prior to becoming president, he spent five years as the governor of Texas. He won the 2000 presidential election following a lengthy recount of the votes in Florida due to winning the popular vote by only 0.5 percent in that state. He became president after winning the electoral vote, even though he lost the popular vote. He was also the second president in history to be the son of a former president, since his father George H.W. Bush had been president about a decade prior.
32. Rutherford B. Hayes
Republican Rutherford B. Hayes was the 19th president of the United States from 1877 until 1881. Similar to in the 2000 elections, he lost the popular vote but eventually won the electoral vote after months of dispute. Even legendary author Mark Twain promoted Hayes for president! Before that, he had also been the governor of Ohio for three terms and started out his political career in the now-defunct Whig party.
He was a proponent of expanding civil rights for the Black community, but his efforts were blocked by a Democrat-majority Congress. He advocated for civil service exams to ensure that those in the government earned jobs based on merit rather than political ties, which later became the Pendleton Act. His wife was the first college-educated First Lady and encouraged the first alcohol-free White House.
31. Zachary Taylor
The 12th US President, Zachary Taylor, is known mostly for the fact that his time in office was so short. He was a war hero before entering politics and was nicknamed “Old Rough and Ready” for his on-the-field leadership skills during his military days. He was renowned for being a war hero in the Mexican-American War. Zachary Taylor was also the last Whig Party leader to be elected president.
His time in office, which began in March 1849, focused heavily on the debate around slavery. Taylor leaned toward an anti-slavery position, even though he himself owned slaves at the time. He encouraged New Mexico and California to become states during his time in office. Sadly, he passed away in office on July 9, 1850 due to cholera. He had only become sick a few days before, with some saying that he had gotten sick from bacteria in the milk an ice water he had consumed on July 4th, in addition to a large amount of cherries.
30. Benjamin Harrison
Benjamin Harrison was the 23rd president of the United States and served in the Union Army during the American Civil War. He ranks at number 30 on the list of greatest US presidents, primarily for excelling at international relations and for his good working relationship with Congress while in office from 1889 to 1893. His nickname while in office was “Little Ben”.
Harrison is well remembered for advocating and enforcing voting rights for African Americans. He was also responsible for admitting the following western states into the Union: North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Washington, and Wyoming. Harrison was the great grandson and namesake of founding father Benjamin Harrison and remains the only president to also have a grandfather serve as president of the United States, William Henry Harrison or “Old Tippecanoe”.
29. James A. Garfield
James A. Garfield was the 20th US president and holds the title of being the only sitting member of the House of Representatives to be elected president of the United States. Before his political career, Garfield served as a major general on the Union side of the American Civil War and fought in a number of important Civil War battles such as Middle Creek, Shiloh and Chickamauga.
He managed to accomplish a long list of achievements while in office from March 4, 1881 to September 19, 1881. Among many other things, he managed to build up the navy and purge corruption in the postal service. He was concerned with civil rights and advocated for a universal education system for all. He also appointed a number of African Americans, such as Frederick Douglass, to prominent government positions. Sadly his presidency was cut very short following an assassination attempt in July 1881 that lead to a number of infections.
28. Richard M. Nixon
Richard M. Nixon was the 37th president of the United States and had a huge talent for negotiating foreign affairs. While in office from 1969 to 1974, he successfully ended American involvement in Vietnam, brought POWs home, opened diplomatic relations with China, and signed the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with the USSR. Before becoming president, he had served as vice president to President Dwight D. Eisenhower from 1953 until 1961.
Nixon was also responsible for enforcing desegregation in the South, founding the Environmental Protection Agency, signed the anti-crime bill into law, and started the “War on Cancer”. Nixon would have ranked much higher on the list had it not been for the Watergate scandal. He had previously run for president in the 1960 elections but lost to Democrat John F. Kennedy.
27. Calvin Coolidge
Calvin Coolidge was first vice president, then took over after President Warren Harding’s death in 1923. He won the 1924 presidential election and served until 1929. Coolidge was a big advocate of small government and laissez-faire foreign policy. When he left office, he was quite popular. Many viewed his presidency as a time when dignity was restored to the position, since the White House had been marred by several years of scandals.
Calving Coolidge had a soft-spoken demeanor, but fought for what he believed was right. He was a firm supporter of racial equality and civil rights, though his efforts did not always get approval from the rest of the government. Such was the case when he advocated to make lynching a federal crime. He did, however, pass the Indian Citizenship Act, which gave citizenship to all Native Americans on reservations. “He embodied the spirit and hopes of the middle class, could interpret their longings and express their opinions. That he did represent the genius of the average is the most convincing proof of his strength,” his biographer wrote.
26. Jimmy Carter
Jimmy Carter served at the 39th President of the United States from 1977 until 1981. He grew up in a family of successful peanut farmers and while building up the business, he became passionate about the civil rights movement and that led to his entrance into politics. While president, he established the Department of Energy and the Department of Education. He was also behind the Camp David Accords, which led to the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty in 1979.
According to C-SPAN’s rankings, Carter scored highly for moral authority and for pursuing equal justice for all. He was faced with several international crises during his presidency, including the 1979 Energy Crisis and the Iran Hostage Crisis. Dealing with all these impacted the general attitude in the nation and in turn, his popularity rating, causing him to lose the 1980 elections to Republican Ronald Reagan. In 2002, he won a Nobel Peace Prize for the work of his NGO, the Carter Center.
25. Gerald R. Ford Jr.
Gerald Ford became the 38th president of the United States after Richard Nixon resigned from office. His presidential tenure lasted from 1974 until 1977. He is remembered for taking part in the Helsinki Accords, which attempted to thaw relations with the Soviet Union during the Cold War and also notably pardoned former president Richard Nixon.
A native of Grand Rapids, Michigan, his law career propelled him into political life. Overall, he ranks high for his moral authority as he led the country through a serious economic depression. Gerald Ford holds the title of being the only man to serve as both president and vice president without being elected.
24. William H. Taft
President William H. Taft, the 27th president of the United States was the only man to serve as president and then chief justice of the United States. Yes, after serving as president, he became chief justice eight years later! Taft was from Ohio and went on to attend Yale to study law, where it is said he was a member of the Skull and Bones secret society there. He was a talented lawyer and was appointed a judge while still in his 20s.
During his term as president from 1909 to 1913, he focused his efforts on east Asia more so than European affairs. Taft also intervened in Latin American affairs to either set up or topple governments. Read on to find out which US president comes next on the list of greatest US presidents.
23. Grover Cleveland
Grover Cleveland served two terms as president, the first from 1885 to 1889. He lost re-elction the first time, but ended up winning again in 1893 and serving until 1897. He is championed by conservatives for his fiscal policy and because he advocated for political reform. During his second term, he was faced with handling the Panic of 1893, a terrible economic downturn, as well as a huge nationwide railroad strike known as the Pullman Strike of 1894.
He descended from one of the first families to move to the new world, going from Cleveland, England to Massachusetts in 1635. Cleveland excelled at public speaking and persuasion. “He possessed honesty, courage, firmness, independence, and common sense. But he possessed them to a degree other men do not,” his biographer later wrote. Despite a lackluster second term, Cleveland is considered one of the better US presidents.
22. Ulysses S. Grant
War hero Ulysses S. Grant was the 18th US president and was well liked by the public during his time in office from 1869 until 1877. Before this, he had served as the commanding general of the Union Army during the Civil War. A graduate of West Point, he rose to prominence when he fought in the Mexican-American War only a few years after graduation.
When he was sworn in as president at the age of 47, he was the youngest president at the time. Grant received high scores for having high public persuasion, moral authority, excelling at international relations and for pursuing justice for Americans, equally. He is remembered for being an honest person who took a strong stand against the KKK in the former Confederacy. Grant also appointed African Americans and Jewish Americans to office for the first time.
21. John Quincy Adams
John Quincy Adams was the sixth president of the United States, serving from 1825 until 1829 and was the son of president and Founding Father, John Adams. He ranks high for having a strong vision for the country and for his devotion to ensuring that all Americans were treated equally.
Adams was vehemently anti-slavery. According to him, he was “the acutest, the astutest, the archest enemy of southern slavery that ever existed.” President Adams was also a big advocate of nonintervention policies, staying out of European politics. He was also against the annexation of Texas. Fun Fact: The oldest surviving photo of a president is of John Quincy Adams in 1843, when he was 76 years old.
20. George H. W. Bush
George H. W. Bush ranks high on the list of top presidents due to his excellence in crisis leadership, being highly skilled in international relations and for his high moral authority. He served from 1989 until 1993, following eight years as vice president under Ronald Reagan. During his presidency, he oversaw the fall of the Berlin Wall, the end of the Cold War, and the first Gulf War.
Regarding domestic affairs, he established the Americans With Disablities Act and the Clean Air Act. He was also one of the signatories of the landmark North American Free Trade Agreement between the US, Canada, and Mexico. He and his wife Barbara hold the record for longest presidential marriage. When Barbara Bush passed away in April 2018, they had been married for 73 years.
19. John Adams
John Adams, one of the founding fathers of America, was the second president of the United States. He is best remembered for his resolution of the conflict with France and building up of the army and navy during his term from 1797 until 1801.
John Adams is commonly known as “the father of the American Navy.” He scored highest on international relations, moral authority and crisis leadership. Adams only served one term as president and was succeeded by Thomas Jefferson.
18. Andrew Jackson
Andrew Jackson ranks high on the list of US presidents mainly due to his abilities in public persuasion and his skill in crisis leadership while in office from 1829 until 1837. He holds the title of being the only US president who was a prisoner of war because he was taken captive by the British during the Revolutionary War when he was 13.
He remains the only president to manage to pay off the national debt and successfully prevented South Carolina from seceding from the Union. Although Andrew Jackson appears on the 20 dollar bill, he was against the use of paper money, preferring the use of gold and silver instead.
17. James Madison
James Madison, also known as the father of the constitution, was the fourth president of the United States and a Founding Father. Madison comes in at number 17 for his high moral authority and his superb performance during his two terms from 1809 until 1817. He led the country through the War of 1812 and called for beefing up the military, government powers, and establishing a national bank.
Madison was highly intelligent, completing college in just two years. He was also the first graduate student at Princeton University. His wife Dolley was instrumental in defining the role of first lady. She was the first to take an active role in the White House by redecorating and leading a public outreach program for orphans.
16. William McKinley Jr.
William McKinley was the 25th President of the United States and the very last president who served in the Civil War. He served as commander in chief from 1897 until 1901. The 25th president is remembered for leading the US to victory in the Spanish-American War.
He is also known for advancing the US economy and maintaining the gold standard. He was also president when Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines became US territories. McKinley ranks high on C-SPAN’s presidential survey in almost every criteria apart from pursuing equal justice for all.
15. Bill Clinton
Bill Clinton served as the 42nd President of the United States and is well remembered for his public persuasion and exemplary economic management during his term from 1993 until 2001. Clinton holds the title as having the longest period of economic expansion during peacetime of any president.
He accomplished a number of reforms regarding welfare and health insurance for children and was active in promoting peace efforts around the world. “He has brought on the greatest prosperity we have ever known and he doesn’t get the credit for it and that’s too bad,” said White House reporter Helen Thomas. His approval rating when he left office was 60%, the highest since World War II.
14. James K. Polk
James K. Polk served as the 11th President of the United States and scored highest for his crisis leadership and clear vision for the country during his tenure in office from 1845 until 1849. Polk was the first person whose inauguration was covered in the news by telegraph.
Under the leadership of President Polk, the United States reigned victorious in the Mexican-American War and greatly expanded US territory. With the Mexican Cession of 1848, the US expanded its territory to the Pacific Ocean. He also annexed the Republic of Texas during his tenure.
13. James Monroe
Founding Father James Monroe served as the fifth President of the United States from 1817 until 1825. He fought in the American Revolutionary War and his first term heralded in what was known as the Era of Good Feelings. President Monroe is well remembered today for his foreign policy, known as “The Monroe Doctrine.”
Monroe scored very high in international relations and performance but falls short in the pursuance of equal justice for all. He won both of his elections in a landslide. Keep reading, you’ll never believe which president comes in 12th place!
12. Barack Obama
Barack Obama served as the 44th President of the United States and was the very first African-American to serve as president. Obama scores very high for his moral authority, pursuing justice for all and was highly skilled at public persuasion while in office from 2009 until 2017.
Obama is remembered for reforming healthcare with the Affordable Care Act, repealing the military’s “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy, helping broker a nuclear agreement with Iran, normalizing relations with Cuba, and initiating sanctions against Russia for invading Ukraine.
11. Woodrow Wilson
Woodrow Wilson served as the 28th president of the United States for two terms, from 1913 to 1921. He scores highest for his clear agenda and skills at public persuasion. Wilson led the United States through World War I and assisted with the Treaty of Versailles that significantly helped end the war.
At the conclusion of the conference, Wilson is famous for saying that “at last the world knows America as the savior of the world!” Wilson. He strongly pushed for the US to join the League of Nations, which eventually became the United Nations, but congress did not approve.
10. Lyndon Baines Johnson
Lyndon Baines Johnson, or LBJ for short, was the 36th President of the United States and scored high on C-SPAN’s survey for pursuing equal justice for all and keeping good relations with Congress during his time in office from 1963 until 1969.
LBJ scored low for international relations, but what he lacked internationally, he made up for domestically. Johnson passed many domestic laws affecting civil rights, gun laws, and welfare. He passed Social Security into law and expanded Medicare and Medicaid.
9. Ronald Reagan
The ninth best president in history is none other than Ronald Reagan, who served as the 40th President of the United States from 1981 until 1989. Reagan scores among the highest of all the presidents for his skills at public persuasion and having a clear vision for the country.
President Reagan is well known for his policy of Reaganomics, as well as for ending the Cold War with the Soviet Union, and the Iran-Contra affair. He is also well remembered for his iconic speech in West Germany, standing in front of the Berlin Wall, in which he told Soviet General Secretary Gorbachev to “tear down this wall!”.
8. John F. Kennedy
John F. Kennedy comes in at number eight on the list. He served as the 35th President of the United States from 1961 until his assassination in 1963. He holds the title of being the first and only Roman Catholic to hold the position of president.
Kennedy scores highest for his abilities in public persuasion and holding a clear vision and agenda for the country. He established the Peace Corps and was leader during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Read on to find out who came in at number seven!
7. Thomas Jefferson
Founding Father Thomas Jefferson comes in at number seven on the list of best presidents. He served as the nation’s third president from 1801 until 1809 and was the primary author of the Declaration of Independence.
Jefferson orchestrated the Louisiana Purchase with France, doubling the territory of the United States. He was also an advocate of religious freedom and tolerance. Jefferson only falls short in one category of the survey, and that’s pursuing equal justice for all.
6. Harry S. Truman
Harry S. Truman served as the 33rd President of the United States and comes in as the sixth best president. He served in the US Army during World War I and took office just after the completion of World War II. He held office from 1945 until 1953.
During his time as president, he used his veto power an astounding 180 times. He also holds the title of being the only president to have used nuclear weapons. He ranks high in the categories of crisis leadership, pursuing justice for all and for performance.
5. Dwight D. Eisenhower
Army-General-turned-politician Dwight D. Eisenhower is the fifth highest ranking president on this list. He served as the 34th President of the United States from 1953 until 1961. He scored high for his moral authority, as well as crisis leadership and international relations.
Eisenhower was responsible for implementing the desegregation of the armed forces, a policy set by President Truman. Eisenhower has consistently topped surveys of the most admired men ever. Hey, it looks like everyone did like Ike after all.
4. Theodore Roosevelt
Coming in at no. 4 is Theodore Roosevelt, the 26th President of the United States. He ranks second best for his skills at public persuasion and fourth in the areas of economic management, international relations, administrative skills and vision.
During his time in office from 1901 to 1909, Theodore Roosevelt was responsible for creating many national parks and forests, as well as monuments. He began the construction of the Panama Canal, expanded the Navy and won a Nobel Peace Prize for negotiating an end to the Russo-Japanese War. Read on to find out who came in third place.
3. Franklin D. Roosevelt
The third highest ranking president of all time is Franklin D. Roosevelt or FDR for short. He was the 32nd President of the United States and holds the title of being the only president to be elected four times, holding office from 1933 until 1945.
FDR was a master at public persuasion and crisis leadership. He led the nation through the Great Depression and all the way to victory in World War II. He established many social and economic reforms as part of the New Deal in an attempt to pull the US out of the grips of the Great Depression. Read on to find out who came in second place.
2. George Washington
The second highest-ranking president of all time is George Washington, the very first President of the United States. As a Founding Father, Washington defined the nation, as well as the duties of a president while in office from 1789 to 1797.
George Washington helped establish many of the most elemental parts of the US government, such as as the seat of government and the tax system. He was leader of the Continental Army during the American Revolutionary War. Washington scores high in almost every single category except pursuing equal justice for all.
1. Abraham Lincoln
Abraham Lincoln is the highest ranking US president of all time. He served as the 16th president from 1861 until 1865. He led the Union through the Civil War and most importantly, started the process of abolishing slavery.
He set the grounds for ending slavery with his groundbreaking the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, which changed the status of slaves in the South to free people. It was his mission to add the 13th amendment to the constitution, which would officially outlaw slavery in the United States. Sadly, it was only passed after Lincoln’s assassination in 1865. A number of different polls show that Lincoln is the most admired US President of all time.
[Novelty Magazines Ltd] | <urn:uuid:6e150d56-561b-4da7-b1ce-eb8d333c0af2> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.thebreakingtimes.com/top-40-us-presidents-ranked-from-lowest-to-highest/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250611127.53/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123160903-20200123185903-00164.warc.gz | en | 0.985652 | 6,244 | 3.3125 | 3 | [
-0.07347480207681656,
0.43439438939094543,
0.2976490259170532,
-0.051823414862155914,
-0.277493417263031,
0.2843879759311676,
0.3867151141166687,
0.1441117227077484,
0.15308427810668945,
0.2929559350013733,
0.3340757489204407,
0.24162070453166962,
0.14389252662658691,
0.7524644136428833,
... | 1 | Who do you think was considered the best president in American history? A team of experts was recently commissioned by C-SPAN to answer that question definitively and the results are fascinating. They ranked each president according to a number of different factors such as public persuasion, crisis leadership, international relations, and vision while in office. So which of the presidents since 1774 were the cream of the crop, the best of the best? We’ve compiled those presidents who made it into the top 40 right here. Whether you agree or disagree, read on to find out who made the cut!
40. Warren G. Harding
The election of 29th president Warren G. Harding was a landmark one because it was the first one in which women could vote. A rural Ohio man through and through, Warren Harding started out his career in the newspaper industry, owning newspaper Marion Star. After he entered politics, he only left his rural Ohio hometown when it was absolutely required for the role.
During his tenure form 1921 to 1923, Harding championed a “return to normalcy” and formally ended World War I in 1921 when he declared the US officially at peace with Germany, Hungary, and Austria. He attempted to stimulate the economy through a number of measures. His cabinet suffered many scandals and he sadly died of a heart attack while in office as they were first becoming public.
39. John Tyler
John Tyler became the 10th president following the death of President William Henry Harrison and served in office from 1841 until 1845. He was the first president to take over from a president who died while in office and thus was the first president to not be elected. As the debate over slavery was heating up, he supported the right of states to make their own decisions on this and other matters.
He refused to be a “passive” replacement president and actually made a few enemies in Congress, thus earning him the snide nickname of “His Accidency”. They tried to impeach him (the first attempt in American history) but the attempt fell through. On the foreign front, he brokered treaties with both China and Britain. Tyler was also the president with the most amount of children: 15.
38. William Henry Harrison
The tenure of 9th president William Henry Harrison was remembered mainly for tragedy. That’s because Harrrison was the first president to die in office and retains the record of holding the shortest term in office: only 31 days, from March 4, 1841 until April 4, 1841. He died from pneumonia following his rainy-day inauguration, with some saying it was because he refused to wear a warm jacket, rode on horseback, and then gave a two-hour speech.
Harrison was the last president that was alive before the American Revolution and garnered fame for leading the US military to victory in the 1811 Battle of Tippecanoe and was known by the nickname “Old Tippecanoe”. He was the first sitting president to be photographed, but the picture has unfortunately been lost to history. Harrison’s father was Benjamin Harrison, a founding father and his grandson, also named Benjamin Harrison, would go on to become the 23rd president, from 1889 to 1893.
37. Millard Fillmore
Remember the Whig Party? Of course not, because Millard Fillmore was the last Whig Party president before the party crumbled. He was born into poverty but educated himself enough that he eventually rose to the rank of vice president under President Zachary Taylor. He became the 13th president when President Taylor passed away from cholera while in office in 1850.
Immediately after Taylor’s death, the entire White House cabinet resigned and Fillmore was faced with building a new one from scratch. During his presidency from 1850 to 1853, he signed the Compromise of 1850 which attempted (and failed) to prevent a rift between the North and South. Regarding foreign affairs, he helped develop a relationship with Japan, which banned all foreign relations, including foreign trade, at the time. Under his leadership, they began to allow American ships to stop in Japan for emergencies or to get food or water.
36. Herbert Hoover
The 31st US President Herbert Hoover was president during one of the most difficult times in American History. Originally from Iowa and then Oregon, he attended Stanford University the first year it opened in 1891 and married his college sweetheart, Lou Henry. Before entering politics, much of his time was spent working abroad in China. He was in Europe when World War I broke out and gained recognition for helping evacuate about 120,000 American tourists who were in France and Germany at the time.
During his term from 1929 until 1933, the stock market crashed and the Great Depression began. Despite the trying circumstances, he tried several tactics to help the country. Hoover attempted to lower taxes and tried to convince businesses to retain their employees during the downturn. However, change comes slowly and he was forced to hold strong amid the worst economy the country has ever experienced.
35. Chester Arthur
Chester Arthur, the 21st president, was the son of Irish immigrants who moved to Vermont, where he was born. People said that he “looked like a president”, although he didn’t become president in until after the assassination of President James Garfield in 1881, under whom he was the vice president. One of the major accomplishments during his presidency from 1881 until 1885 was making the Pendleton Act a law.
The Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act changed the face of government jobs by making sure that people earn federal government jobs through a merit-based system, separate form political affiliation. The act started the use of exams for government jobs. During his presidency, he also enacted the country’s first immigration law at the federal level, which aimed to stop “paupers, criminals, and lunatics” from immigrating.
34. Martin Van Buren
In office from 1837 until 1841, Martin Van Buren was president during a huge economic crisis known as the Panic of 1837 that started just a three months after he took office. This was the United States’ first great depression. Nicknamed “the Little Magician,” Van Buren advocated for the US Treasury to be independent of the government and to hold all its funds separately, in order to separate it from changes in political opinions.
Before becoming president, he was secretary of state under President Andrew Jackson and later “minister to Great Britain”. He only served one term and was under much scrutiny because of the great depression that he inherited, in which huge amounts of businesses and banks closed down. However, the policies he set forth eventually revitalized the economy. By that time the effects were being felt, however, he was no longer president and he therefore didn’t get much credit for the work.
33. George W. Bush
George W. Bush was the 43rd US President and was commander in chief during one of its most devastating moments, the September 11 attacks in 2001. During his two-term presidency from 2001 to 2008, he ordered the invasion of Afghanistan as well as a second Gulf War in Iraq, which overthrew its leader Saddam Hussein. He also established the Department of Homeland Security in response to the 9/11 terror attacks.
Prior to becoming president, he spent five years as the governor of Texas. He won the 2000 presidential election following a lengthy recount of the votes in Florida due to winning the popular vote by only 0.5 percent in that state. He became president after winning the electoral vote, even though he lost the popular vote. He was also the second president in history to be the son of a former president, since his father George H.W. Bush had been president about a decade prior.
32. Rutherford B. Hayes
Republican Rutherford B. Hayes was the 19th president of the United States from 1877 until 1881. Similar to in the 2000 elections, he lost the popular vote but eventually won the electoral vote after months of dispute. Even legendary author Mark Twain promoted Hayes for president! Before that, he had also been the governor of Ohio for three terms and started out his political career in the now-defunct Whig party.
He was a proponent of expanding civil rights for the Black community, but his efforts were blocked by a Democrat-majority Congress. He advocated for civil service exams to ensure that those in the government earned jobs based on merit rather than political ties, which later became the Pendleton Act. His wife was the first college-educated First Lady and encouraged the first alcohol-free White House.
31. Zachary Taylor
The 12th US President, Zachary Taylor, is known mostly for the fact that his time in office was so short. He was a war hero before entering politics and was nicknamed “Old Rough and Ready” for his on-the-field leadership skills during his military days. He was renowned for being a war hero in the Mexican-American War. Zachary Taylor was also the last Whig Party leader to be elected president.
His time in office, which began in March 1849, focused heavily on the debate around slavery. Taylor leaned toward an anti-slavery position, even though he himself owned slaves at the time. He encouraged New Mexico and California to become states during his time in office. Sadly, he passed away in office on July 9, 1850 due to cholera. He had only become sick a few days before, with some saying that he had gotten sick from bacteria in the milk an ice water he had consumed on July 4th, in addition to a large amount of cherries.
30. Benjamin Harrison
Benjamin Harrison was the 23rd president of the United States and served in the Union Army during the American Civil War. He ranks at number 30 on the list of greatest US presidents, primarily for excelling at international relations and for his good working relationship with Congress while in office from 1889 to 1893. His nickname while in office was “Little Ben”.
Harrison is well remembered for advocating and enforcing voting rights for African Americans. He was also responsible for admitting the following western states into the Union: North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Washington, and Wyoming. Harrison was the great grandson and namesake of founding father Benjamin Harrison and remains the only president to also have a grandfather serve as president of the United States, William Henry Harrison or “Old Tippecanoe”.
29. James A. Garfield
James A. Garfield was the 20th US president and holds the title of being the only sitting member of the House of Representatives to be elected president of the United States. Before his political career, Garfield served as a major general on the Union side of the American Civil War and fought in a number of important Civil War battles such as Middle Creek, Shiloh and Chickamauga.
He managed to accomplish a long list of achievements while in office from March 4, 1881 to September 19, 1881. Among many other things, he managed to build up the navy and purge corruption in the postal service. He was concerned with civil rights and advocated for a universal education system for all. He also appointed a number of African Americans, such as Frederick Douglass, to prominent government positions. Sadly his presidency was cut very short following an assassination attempt in July 1881 that lead to a number of infections.
28. Richard M. Nixon
Richard M. Nixon was the 37th president of the United States and had a huge talent for negotiating foreign affairs. While in office from 1969 to 1974, he successfully ended American involvement in Vietnam, brought POWs home, opened diplomatic relations with China, and signed the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with the USSR. Before becoming president, he had served as vice president to President Dwight D. Eisenhower from 1953 until 1961.
Nixon was also responsible for enforcing desegregation in the South, founding the Environmental Protection Agency, signed the anti-crime bill into law, and started the “War on Cancer”. Nixon would have ranked much higher on the list had it not been for the Watergate scandal. He had previously run for president in the 1960 elections but lost to Democrat John F. Kennedy.
27. Calvin Coolidge
Calvin Coolidge was first vice president, then took over after President Warren Harding’s death in 1923. He won the 1924 presidential election and served until 1929. Coolidge was a big advocate of small government and laissez-faire foreign policy. When he left office, he was quite popular. Many viewed his presidency as a time when dignity was restored to the position, since the White House had been marred by several years of scandals.
Calving Coolidge had a soft-spoken demeanor, but fought for what he believed was right. He was a firm supporter of racial equality and civil rights, though his efforts did not always get approval from the rest of the government. Such was the case when he advocated to make lynching a federal crime. He did, however, pass the Indian Citizenship Act, which gave citizenship to all Native Americans on reservations. “He embodied the spirit and hopes of the middle class, could interpret their longings and express their opinions. That he did represent the genius of the average is the most convincing proof of his strength,” his biographer wrote.
26. Jimmy Carter
Jimmy Carter served at the 39th President of the United States from 1977 until 1981. He grew up in a family of successful peanut farmers and while building up the business, he became passionate about the civil rights movement and that led to his entrance into politics. While president, he established the Department of Energy and the Department of Education. He was also behind the Camp David Accords, which led to the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty in 1979.
According to C-SPAN’s rankings, Carter scored highly for moral authority and for pursuing equal justice for all. He was faced with several international crises during his presidency, including the 1979 Energy Crisis and the Iran Hostage Crisis. Dealing with all these impacted the general attitude in the nation and in turn, his popularity rating, causing him to lose the 1980 elections to Republican Ronald Reagan. In 2002, he won a Nobel Peace Prize for the work of his NGO, the Carter Center.
25. Gerald R. Ford Jr.
Gerald Ford became the 38th president of the United States after Richard Nixon resigned from office. His presidential tenure lasted from 1974 until 1977. He is remembered for taking part in the Helsinki Accords, which attempted to thaw relations with the Soviet Union during the Cold War and also notably pardoned former president Richard Nixon.
A native of Grand Rapids, Michigan, his law career propelled him into political life. Overall, he ranks high for his moral authority as he led the country through a serious economic depression. Gerald Ford holds the title of being the only man to serve as both president and vice president without being elected.
24. William H. Taft
President William H. Taft, the 27th president of the United States was the only man to serve as president and then chief justice of the United States. Yes, after serving as president, he became chief justice eight years later! Taft was from Ohio and went on to attend Yale to study law, where it is said he was a member of the Skull and Bones secret society there. He was a talented lawyer and was appointed a judge while still in his 20s.
During his term as president from 1909 to 1913, he focused his efforts on east Asia more so than European affairs. Taft also intervened in Latin American affairs to either set up or topple governments. Read on to find out which US president comes next on the list of greatest US presidents.
23. Grover Cleveland
Grover Cleveland served two terms as president, the first from 1885 to 1889. He lost re-elction the first time, but ended up winning again in 1893 and serving until 1897. He is championed by conservatives for his fiscal policy and because he advocated for political reform. During his second term, he was faced with handling the Panic of 1893, a terrible economic downturn, as well as a huge nationwide railroad strike known as the Pullman Strike of 1894.
He descended from one of the first families to move to the new world, going from Cleveland, England to Massachusetts in 1635. Cleveland excelled at public speaking and persuasion. “He possessed honesty, courage, firmness, independence, and common sense. But he possessed them to a degree other men do not,” his biographer later wrote. Despite a lackluster second term, Cleveland is considered one of the better US presidents.
22. Ulysses S. Grant
War hero Ulysses S. Grant was the 18th US president and was well liked by the public during his time in office from 1869 until 1877. Before this, he had served as the commanding general of the Union Army during the Civil War. A graduate of West Point, he rose to prominence when he fought in the Mexican-American War only a few years after graduation.
When he was sworn in as president at the age of 47, he was the youngest president at the time. Grant received high scores for having high public persuasion, moral authority, excelling at international relations and for pursuing justice for Americans, equally. He is remembered for being an honest person who took a strong stand against the KKK in the former Confederacy. Grant also appointed African Americans and Jewish Americans to office for the first time.
21. John Quincy Adams
John Quincy Adams was the sixth president of the United States, serving from 1825 until 1829 and was the son of president and Founding Father, John Adams. He ranks high for having a strong vision for the country and for his devotion to ensuring that all Americans were treated equally.
Adams was vehemently anti-slavery. According to him, he was “the acutest, the astutest, the archest enemy of southern slavery that ever existed.” President Adams was also a big advocate of nonintervention policies, staying out of European politics. He was also against the annexation of Texas. Fun Fact: The oldest surviving photo of a president is of John Quincy Adams in 1843, when he was 76 years old.
20. George H. W. Bush
George H. W. Bush ranks high on the list of top presidents due to his excellence in crisis leadership, being highly skilled in international relations and for his high moral authority. He served from 1989 until 1993, following eight years as vice president under Ronald Reagan. During his presidency, he oversaw the fall of the Berlin Wall, the end of the Cold War, and the first Gulf War.
Regarding domestic affairs, he established the Americans With Disablities Act and the Clean Air Act. He was also one of the signatories of the landmark North American Free Trade Agreement between the US, Canada, and Mexico. He and his wife Barbara hold the record for longest presidential marriage. When Barbara Bush passed away in April 2018, they had been married for 73 years.
19. John Adams
John Adams, one of the founding fathers of America, was the second president of the United States. He is best remembered for his resolution of the conflict with France and building up of the army and navy during his term from 1797 until 1801.
John Adams is commonly known as “the father of the American Navy.” He scored highest on international relations, moral authority and crisis leadership. Adams only served one term as president and was succeeded by Thomas Jefferson.
18. Andrew Jackson
Andrew Jackson ranks high on the list of US presidents mainly due to his abilities in public persuasion and his skill in crisis leadership while in office from 1829 until 1837. He holds the title of being the only US president who was a prisoner of war because he was taken captive by the British during the Revolutionary War when he was 13.
He remains the only president to manage to pay off the national debt and successfully prevented South Carolina from seceding from the Union. Although Andrew Jackson appears on the 20 dollar bill, he was against the use of paper money, preferring the use of gold and silver instead.
17. James Madison
James Madison, also known as the father of the constitution, was the fourth president of the United States and a Founding Father. Madison comes in at number 17 for his high moral authority and his superb performance during his two terms from 1809 until 1817. He led the country through the War of 1812 and called for beefing up the military, government powers, and establishing a national bank.
Madison was highly intelligent, completing college in just two years. He was also the first graduate student at Princeton University. His wife Dolley was instrumental in defining the role of first lady. She was the first to take an active role in the White House by redecorating and leading a public outreach program for orphans.
16. William McKinley Jr.
William McKinley was the 25th President of the United States and the very last president who served in the Civil War. He served as commander in chief from 1897 until 1901. The 25th president is remembered for leading the US to victory in the Spanish-American War.
He is also known for advancing the US economy and maintaining the gold standard. He was also president when Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines became US territories. McKinley ranks high on C-SPAN’s presidential survey in almost every criteria apart from pursuing equal justice for all.
15. Bill Clinton
Bill Clinton served as the 42nd President of the United States and is well remembered for his public persuasion and exemplary economic management during his term from 1993 until 2001. Clinton holds the title as having the longest period of economic expansion during peacetime of any president.
He accomplished a number of reforms regarding welfare and health insurance for children and was active in promoting peace efforts around the world. “He has brought on the greatest prosperity we have ever known and he doesn’t get the credit for it and that’s too bad,” said White House reporter Helen Thomas. His approval rating when he left office was 60%, the highest since World War II.
14. James K. Polk
James K. Polk served as the 11th President of the United States and scored highest for his crisis leadership and clear vision for the country during his tenure in office from 1845 until 1849. Polk was the first person whose inauguration was covered in the news by telegraph.
Under the leadership of President Polk, the United States reigned victorious in the Mexican-American War and greatly expanded US territory. With the Mexican Cession of 1848, the US expanded its territory to the Pacific Ocean. He also annexed the Republic of Texas during his tenure.
13. James Monroe
Founding Father James Monroe served as the fifth President of the United States from 1817 until 1825. He fought in the American Revolutionary War and his first term heralded in what was known as the Era of Good Feelings. President Monroe is well remembered today for his foreign policy, known as “The Monroe Doctrine.”
Monroe scored very high in international relations and performance but falls short in the pursuance of equal justice for all. He won both of his elections in a landslide. Keep reading, you’ll never believe which president comes in 12th place!
12. Barack Obama
Barack Obama served as the 44th President of the United States and was the very first African-American to serve as president. Obama scores very high for his moral authority, pursuing justice for all and was highly skilled at public persuasion while in office from 2009 until 2017.
Obama is remembered for reforming healthcare with the Affordable Care Act, repealing the military’s “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” policy, helping broker a nuclear agreement with Iran, normalizing relations with Cuba, and initiating sanctions against Russia for invading Ukraine.
11. Woodrow Wilson
Woodrow Wilson served as the 28th president of the United States for two terms, from 1913 to 1921. He scores highest for his clear agenda and skills at public persuasion. Wilson led the United States through World War I and assisted with the Treaty of Versailles that significantly helped end the war.
At the conclusion of the conference, Wilson is famous for saying that “at last the world knows America as the savior of the world!” Wilson. He strongly pushed for the US to join the League of Nations, which eventually became the United Nations, but congress did not approve.
10. Lyndon Baines Johnson
Lyndon Baines Johnson, or LBJ for short, was the 36th President of the United States and scored high on C-SPAN’s survey for pursuing equal justice for all and keeping good relations with Congress during his time in office from 1963 until 1969.
LBJ scored low for international relations, but what he lacked internationally, he made up for domestically. Johnson passed many domestic laws affecting civil rights, gun laws, and welfare. He passed Social Security into law and expanded Medicare and Medicaid.
9. Ronald Reagan
The ninth best president in history is none other than Ronald Reagan, who served as the 40th President of the United States from 1981 until 1989. Reagan scores among the highest of all the presidents for his skills at public persuasion and having a clear vision for the country.
President Reagan is well known for his policy of Reaganomics, as well as for ending the Cold War with the Soviet Union, and the Iran-Contra affair. He is also well remembered for his iconic speech in West Germany, standing in front of the Berlin Wall, in which he told Soviet General Secretary Gorbachev to “tear down this wall!”.
8. John F. Kennedy
John F. Kennedy comes in at number eight on the list. He served as the 35th President of the United States from 1961 until his assassination in 1963. He holds the title of being the first and only Roman Catholic to hold the position of president.
Kennedy scores highest for his abilities in public persuasion and holding a clear vision and agenda for the country. He established the Peace Corps and was leader during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Read on to find out who came in at number seven!
7. Thomas Jefferson
Founding Father Thomas Jefferson comes in at number seven on the list of best presidents. He served as the nation’s third president from 1801 until 1809 and was the primary author of the Declaration of Independence.
Jefferson orchestrated the Louisiana Purchase with France, doubling the territory of the United States. He was also an advocate of religious freedom and tolerance. Jefferson only falls short in one category of the survey, and that’s pursuing equal justice for all.
6. Harry S. Truman
Harry S. Truman served as the 33rd President of the United States and comes in as the sixth best president. He served in the US Army during World War I and took office just after the completion of World War II. He held office from 1945 until 1953.
During his time as president, he used his veto power an astounding 180 times. He also holds the title of being the only president to have used nuclear weapons. He ranks high in the categories of crisis leadership, pursuing justice for all and for performance.
5. Dwight D. Eisenhower
Army-General-turned-politician Dwight D. Eisenhower is the fifth highest ranking president on this list. He served as the 34th President of the United States from 1953 until 1961. He scored high for his moral authority, as well as crisis leadership and international relations.
Eisenhower was responsible for implementing the desegregation of the armed forces, a policy set by President Truman. Eisenhower has consistently topped surveys of the most admired men ever. Hey, it looks like everyone did like Ike after all.
4. Theodore Roosevelt
Coming in at no. 4 is Theodore Roosevelt, the 26th President of the United States. He ranks second best for his skills at public persuasion and fourth in the areas of economic management, international relations, administrative skills and vision.
During his time in office from 1901 to 1909, Theodore Roosevelt was responsible for creating many national parks and forests, as well as monuments. He began the construction of the Panama Canal, expanded the Navy and won a Nobel Peace Prize for negotiating an end to the Russo-Japanese War. Read on to find out who came in third place.
3. Franklin D. Roosevelt
The third highest ranking president of all time is Franklin D. Roosevelt or FDR for short. He was the 32nd President of the United States and holds the title of being the only president to be elected four times, holding office from 1933 until 1945.
FDR was a master at public persuasion and crisis leadership. He led the nation through the Great Depression and all the way to victory in World War II. He established many social and economic reforms as part of the New Deal in an attempt to pull the US out of the grips of the Great Depression. Read on to find out who came in second place.
2. George Washington
The second highest-ranking president of all time is George Washington, the very first President of the United States. As a Founding Father, Washington defined the nation, as well as the duties of a president while in office from 1789 to 1797.
George Washington helped establish many of the most elemental parts of the US government, such as as the seat of government and the tax system. He was leader of the Continental Army during the American Revolutionary War. Washington scores high in almost every single category except pursuing equal justice for all.
1. Abraham Lincoln
Abraham Lincoln is the highest ranking US president of all time. He served as the 16th president from 1861 until 1865. He led the Union through the Civil War and most importantly, started the process of abolishing slavery.
He set the grounds for ending slavery with his groundbreaking the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, which changed the status of slaves in the South to free people. It was his mission to add the 13th amendment to the constitution, which would officially outlaw slavery in the United States. Sadly, it was only passed after Lincoln’s assassination in 1865. A number of different polls show that Lincoln is the most admired US President of all time.
[Novelty Magazines Ltd] | 6,611 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The story of a French-Canadian textile worker named Phillippe Lemay is the story of thousands of Quebecois farmers who came to New England to work in the mills.
They had no money, large families, little education, a strong work ethic and a deep attachment to the Roman Catholic Church. As soon as they stepped off the train in their homespun clothes, they were identified as ‘frogs,’ ‘Canucks’ and ‘pea soup eaters.’ The Irish especially disliked them – and that dislike turned into murder at least once.
“The picture of one French Canadian textile worker and the picture of another are just as much alike as deux gouttes d’eau, or, as we have learned to say in English, like two peas in a pod,” Lemay said.
The Quebec Diaspora
Phillipe Lemay was born June 29, 1856, the fourth child in a family of 14 children, on a small farm in St. Ephrem d’Upton near Montreal. The farm couldn’t support the growing Lemay family, so when Phillippe was eight years old his father decided to take the family to Lowell, Mass., and look for work.
The trip alone cost them nearly everything they had. The Lemays had to faire encan – auction off all their household goods — to pay for railroad tickets, food and lodging.
The wood-burning trains of the era moved slowly during the day, not at all at night. And so Phillippe Lemay’s family took four days to go from St. Ephrem d’Upton to Lowell. Today the trip takes about 4-1/2 hours by car.
The Lemays arrived in Lowell with little more than the clothes on their backs and a new baby born during the journey. They joined 20 or so French-Canadian families in the city.
But after the Civil War ended, many more French-Canadians moved to Lowell in a great wave of migration. Between 1840 and 1930, about 900,000 residents of Quebec moved to the United States. One-third of Quebec moved to New England to neighborhoods called Little Canadas.
They were attracted to New England’s textile factories, which paid a living wage, albeit barely. But at least they earned enough to survive, which they couldn’t do back home.
In the early years, French-Canadian textile workers earned 50 cents a day. Their board cost $2 a week, and they worked from 5 am to 8 pm with a half hour each for breakfast, lunch and dinner. Later, the mills shortened the workday from 6 am to 6 pm.
Most French-Canadian textile workers didn’t come to stay. They wanted to go back to their Canadian farms with the money earned in the mills.
Some took leaves of absence from their jobs, perhaps a month in the spring to plow and plant their farm, another month in the fall to harvest. A friend or neighbor would tend the farm during the summer.
Many feared becoming citizens. They couldn’t speak English, a big handicap. They still paid taxes in Quebec and felt they couldn’t pay taxes in the United States.
In the end, about half the Quebecois – including Phllippe Lemay’s parents — returned to Canada.
French-Canadian Textile Workers
As soon as he arrived in Lowell, eight-year-old Phillippe Lemay joined the ranks of French-Canadian textile workers. He went to work in Lawrence Mill No. 5 as a bagboy and doffer, replacing full bobbins with empty ones. His father, who worked in a saw mill, wanted him to go to school. But Phillippe saw that his parents needed every penny he could earn. His disobedience earned him frequent spankings.
“The only ones who had a chance to get an education were the youngest of the children, because older brothers and sisters worked in the mills, helping their parents,” Lemay explained.
At first the newcomers from Quebec boarded with relatives. Then, when they could afford it, they rented tenements, usually owned by the company. The windows had no curtains, just paper shades that had to be rolled by hand. A braided rag rug covered the floor, scrubbed with lye once a week.
Life revolved around the mill and the church. Priests commanded enormous respect. In French-Canadian Old Town, Maine, for example, a popular superstition claimed a priest could cure any disease if he wished to.
Every night after dinner, but before the dishes were washed, the Lemay family prayed together and recited the rosary beads. Saturday nights they had fun during old-fashioned social gatherings in their homes, singing and square dancing. Phillippe Lemay remembered a fiddler who knew one tune and an accordionist who knew another, so they didn’t play together.
French vs. Irish
Lowell’s large Irish community feared the French had come to take their jobs. The Irish began a campaign of petty persecution. Irish boys put dirt in French children’s pails when they tried to get water from the public pumps. They stuck French worshippers with needles and pins during Mass, so much so that the French began to stay home. Phillippe Lemay’s father worked outside at night, when Irish boys threw rocks at him.
In 1872, when Phillippe was 16, the Lemays moved to Manchester, where the giant Amoskeag mills offered plenty of employment to French-Canadian textile workers. But they fared no better with the Irish. Before the first French church was built in 1873, the French had to walk through the Irish neighborhood to attend Mass. Irish boys threw swill at them, beat them with sticks and threw rocks.
The completion of that first French church, St. Augustine, caused an immediate increase in French immigration from Quebec. Five or six families arrived every day on the train from Canada. The French Canadians began to open businesses — bakeries, beer parlors and grocery stores. They built a rectory for their pastor, then a school for French children, then a cemetery. They started to form fraternal organizations like the St. Jean Baptiste Society and to publish their own French-language newspapers.
A marching band called the Fanfare Canadienne started at St. Augustine Church. Made up of French-Canadian textile workers, it played popular tunes for fraternal organizations.
One night in 1880, a 23-year-old band member named Jean Blanchette was talking in French with several bandmates near Victory Park in downtown Manchester. Three intoxicated Irishmen came out of a beer parlor and heard the French spoken. They attacked the French-Canadian textile workers, who fought back.
One of the Irishmen fell on a bottle of hard liquor in his pocket, and it broke. He threw the broken bottle at Jean Blanchette, severing his jugular vein. Blanchette died 20 minutes later. A thousand people marched in his funeral procession through the streets of Manchester, which were lined with French onlookers.
Sixty years later, Phillippe Lemay said the French-Canadian textile workers didn’t exact revenge from the Irish who killed their friend. Blanchette’s assailant went to prison for five years and died shortly after his release.
Lemay worked hard at his trade and rose through the mill’s ranks. In 1901, he asked for a promotion as an overseer of a spinning mill. His request shocked his superintendent. “What! A Frenchman had the crust to think he could be an overseer!” recalled Lemay.
He got the promotion to the dismay of the American and Irish workers, who stopped talking to him. Eventually more French-Canadian textile workers got promotions to management positions.
By 1906, Manchester had a French-Canadian bishop and in 1918, the first of many French-Canadian mayors. French-Canadians became distinguished doctors, lawyers, teachers, artists, architects and bankers.
“To what do we owe our success?” said Phillippe Lemay.
I believe we owe it to the self-sacrificing French Canadian immigrants from old Quebec, to the courage that made them refuse to accept defeat and quit when that would have seemed the natural thing to do; to the cheerfulness that carried us through our trials and tribulation and helps us old-timers to wait happily for the final bell calling us home to rest after our long, hard life in the textile mills. And perhaps the bloody death of Jean-Baptiste Blanchette, a martyr in the true sense of the word, had its share in bringing about the conditions we are enjoying today.
If you enjoyed this story, you may also like to read about Lewis Hine, the photographer who exposed child labor, here. | <urn:uuid:4539f62d-12aa-4dc9-abb0-2fb61c417e03> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.newenglandhistoricalsociety.com/how-french-canadian-textile-workers-came-to-new-england/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250626449.79/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124221147-20200125010147-00304.warc.gz | en | 0.980805 | 1,861 | 3.3125 | 3 | [
0.10591351985931396,
0.16771329939365387,
0.1118248701095581,
-0.18867447972297668,
0.028264839202165604,
-0.2065509408712387,
0.06113564223051071,
0.16367150843143463,
0.05630159005522728,
0.2526165843009949,
0.5640262365341187,
0.07322175055742264,
-0.11136916279792786,
0.407718449831008... | 4 | The story of a French-Canadian textile worker named Phillippe Lemay is the story of thousands of Quebecois farmers who came to New England to work in the mills.
They had no money, large families, little education, a strong work ethic and a deep attachment to the Roman Catholic Church. As soon as they stepped off the train in their homespun clothes, they were identified as ‘frogs,’ ‘Canucks’ and ‘pea soup eaters.’ The Irish especially disliked them – and that dislike turned into murder at least once.
“The picture of one French Canadian textile worker and the picture of another are just as much alike as deux gouttes d’eau, or, as we have learned to say in English, like two peas in a pod,” Lemay said.
The Quebec Diaspora
Phillipe Lemay was born June 29, 1856, the fourth child in a family of 14 children, on a small farm in St. Ephrem d’Upton near Montreal. The farm couldn’t support the growing Lemay family, so when Phillippe was eight years old his father decided to take the family to Lowell, Mass., and look for work.
The trip alone cost them nearly everything they had. The Lemays had to faire encan – auction off all their household goods — to pay for railroad tickets, food and lodging.
The wood-burning trains of the era moved slowly during the day, not at all at night. And so Phillippe Lemay’s family took four days to go from St. Ephrem d’Upton to Lowell. Today the trip takes about 4-1/2 hours by car.
The Lemays arrived in Lowell with little more than the clothes on their backs and a new baby born during the journey. They joined 20 or so French-Canadian families in the city.
But after the Civil War ended, many more French-Canadians moved to Lowell in a great wave of migration. Between 1840 and 1930, about 900,000 residents of Quebec moved to the United States. One-third of Quebec moved to New England to neighborhoods called Little Canadas.
They were attracted to New England’s textile factories, which paid a living wage, albeit barely. But at least they earned enough to survive, which they couldn’t do back home.
In the early years, French-Canadian textile workers earned 50 cents a day. Their board cost $2 a week, and they worked from 5 am to 8 pm with a half hour each for breakfast, lunch and dinner. Later, the mills shortened the workday from 6 am to 6 pm.
Most French-Canadian textile workers didn’t come to stay. They wanted to go back to their Canadian farms with the money earned in the mills.
Some took leaves of absence from their jobs, perhaps a month in the spring to plow and plant their farm, another month in the fall to harvest. A friend or neighbor would tend the farm during the summer.
Many feared becoming citizens. They couldn’t speak English, a big handicap. They still paid taxes in Quebec and felt they couldn’t pay taxes in the United States.
In the end, about half the Quebecois – including Phllippe Lemay’s parents — returned to Canada.
French-Canadian Textile Workers
As soon as he arrived in Lowell, eight-year-old Phillippe Lemay joined the ranks of French-Canadian textile workers. He went to work in Lawrence Mill No. 5 as a bagboy and doffer, replacing full bobbins with empty ones. His father, who worked in a saw mill, wanted him to go to school. But Phillippe saw that his parents needed every penny he could earn. His disobedience earned him frequent spankings.
“The only ones who had a chance to get an education were the youngest of the children, because older brothers and sisters worked in the mills, helping their parents,” Lemay explained.
At first the newcomers from Quebec boarded with relatives. Then, when they could afford it, they rented tenements, usually owned by the company. The windows had no curtains, just paper shades that had to be rolled by hand. A braided rag rug covered the floor, scrubbed with lye once a week.
Life revolved around the mill and the church. Priests commanded enormous respect. In French-Canadian Old Town, Maine, for example, a popular superstition claimed a priest could cure any disease if he wished to.
Every night after dinner, but before the dishes were washed, the Lemay family prayed together and recited the rosary beads. Saturday nights they had fun during old-fashioned social gatherings in their homes, singing and square dancing. Phillippe Lemay remembered a fiddler who knew one tune and an accordionist who knew another, so they didn’t play together.
French vs. Irish
Lowell’s large Irish community feared the French had come to take their jobs. The Irish began a campaign of petty persecution. Irish boys put dirt in French children’s pails when they tried to get water from the public pumps. They stuck French worshippers with needles and pins during Mass, so much so that the French began to stay home. Phillippe Lemay’s father worked outside at night, when Irish boys threw rocks at him.
In 1872, when Phillippe was 16, the Lemays moved to Manchester, where the giant Amoskeag mills offered plenty of employment to French-Canadian textile workers. But they fared no better with the Irish. Before the first French church was built in 1873, the French had to walk through the Irish neighborhood to attend Mass. Irish boys threw swill at them, beat them with sticks and threw rocks.
The completion of that first French church, St. Augustine, caused an immediate increase in French immigration from Quebec. Five or six families arrived every day on the train from Canada. The French Canadians began to open businesses — bakeries, beer parlors and grocery stores. They built a rectory for their pastor, then a school for French children, then a cemetery. They started to form fraternal organizations like the St. Jean Baptiste Society and to publish their own French-language newspapers.
A marching band called the Fanfare Canadienne started at St. Augustine Church. Made up of French-Canadian textile workers, it played popular tunes for fraternal organizations.
One night in 1880, a 23-year-old band member named Jean Blanchette was talking in French with several bandmates near Victory Park in downtown Manchester. Three intoxicated Irishmen came out of a beer parlor and heard the French spoken. They attacked the French-Canadian textile workers, who fought back.
One of the Irishmen fell on a bottle of hard liquor in his pocket, and it broke. He threw the broken bottle at Jean Blanchette, severing his jugular vein. Blanchette died 20 minutes later. A thousand people marched in his funeral procession through the streets of Manchester, which were lined with French onlookers.
Sixty years later, Phillippe Lemay said the French-Canadian textile workers didn’t exact revenge from the Irish who killed their friend. Blanchette’s assailant went to prison for five years and died shortly after his release.
Lemay worked hard at his trade and rose through the mill’s ranks. In 1901, he asked for a promotion as an overseer of a spinning mill. His request shocked his superintendent. “What! A Frenchman had the crust to think he could be an overseer!” recalled Lemay.
He got the promotion to the dismay of the American and Irish workers, who stopped talking to him. Eventually more French-Canadian textile workers got promotions to management positions.
By 1906, Manchester had a French-Canadian bishop and in 1918, the first of many French-Canadian mayors. French-Canadians became distinguished doctors, lawyers, teachers, artists, architects and bankers.
“To what do we owe our success?” said Phillippe Lemay.
I believe we owe it to the self-sacrificing French Canadian immigrants from old Quebec, to the courage that made them refuse to accept defeat and quit when that would have seemed the natural thing to do; to the cheerfulness that carried us through our trials and tribulation and helps us old-timers to wait happily for the final bell calling us home to rest after our long, hard life in the textile mills. And perhaps the bloody death of Jean-Baptiste Blanchette, a martyr in the true sense of the word, had its share in bringing about the conditions we are enjoying today.
If you enjoyed this story, you may also like to read about Lewis Hine, the photographer who exposed child labor, here. | 1,806 | ENGLISH | 1 |
As a mum or dad, you’ve obviously seen your child have the odd tantrum. We expect them in two to three-year-olds don’t we! However, if your child has got to five or six years old and is still having regular meltdowns and outbursts of anger, it could be that he or she is struggling with self – regulation.
So, what exactly does self – regulation mean?
Self – regulation is the ability to manage your emotions and behaviour in any situation. Teaching your child how to self- regulate is one of the most important skills they will ever learn. Some children have an instant reaction to a situation – for example, little Johnny takes the car from Dillon and Dillon reacts by grabbing Johnny, pulling him by the hair and hitting him whilst screaming at him.
Perhaps Amelia has asked her mummy if she will buy her a new toy, but mummy has explained that she can’t afford it at the moment, but if she behaves well, she may get it for her birthday or Christmas. Amelia immediately has a meltdown – screams hatred at her mum and hits and lashes out!
But why CAN’T some kids self – regulate?
Some children, as babies, cannot self soothe. They need picking up out of the cot every five minutes for cuddles. They need a dummy – they need a bottle before they can sleep -these are the types of children that may not be able to self – regulate as they get older.
When a child has a tantrum, because he can’t have his own way, and the parent gives in, the child will continue to have tantrums every time he hears the word “ NO” because he knows that a tantrum will get him what he wants. The same as when a child won’t go to sleep on his own – he wants mummy or daddy to lay with him until he goes to sleep and has a complete meltdown if mum should leave the room. If mum keeps giving in – he will keep being unable to self- regulate.
How can we teach self – regulation skills?
The key to teaching these skills is to make sure that you or the child do not avoid situations which he may find uncomfortable or difficult to deal with. Teach these skills in exactly the same way you would teach a child ANY new skill. Explain what the child needs to learn, lead by example as well, and let the child practice. The use of glove puppets in role-playing is a brilliant way to help a child learn self – regulation skills. The word “discipline” doesn’t mean punishment – it means to teach. A lot of parents do think that discipline means to punish, and it doesn’t – we don’t need to punish our child for having a meltdown – we need to teach him how he can prevent it himself. In psychology, we call this
“scaffolding”– because what we are doing is building a sort of a framework to help the child until he has mastered how to self – regulate.
Imagine a situation which might produce a strong negative emotion from a child. A frustrating homework project perhaps. If the mum hovers over the child too much – the risk is that she will take over the regulation role. Scaffolding will mean that mum might help the child with the first task and show his how to work it out and then make him do the next one himself. She could teach him that if he starts to feel frustrated or cross because he thinks he can’t do it, he can get up and get a drink – walk around a bit and then get back to it after a short break. Mum can check in on him every so often and offer praise for his efforts.
“But mornings are so BAD,” say the mums
Many mums say to me “But the mornings are SO bad, we don’t have TIME for me to stop and teach him these skills – we have to be out of the house by 8 am to get them to school!”
I understand this and there IS a way to solve this! Break down the different things that you have trouble with, in the mornings, they could be:
- Getting him out of bed
- Brushing his teeth or washing
- Getting dressed
- Eating breakfast
Target one step at a time. First, say, getting up by 7 am. Once he’s mastered that, set a target time for washing and brushing teeth, and add that. Chunking these tasks into small steps allows him or her to build self-regulation skills in manageable steps.
One of the mum’s who brought her little girl to me for therapy for emotional self – regulation said:
“The reason I took Chloe (7) to see Elaine was because she seemed incapable of regulating her emotions. The mornings were particularly bad because we had to get to school and I had to get to work so I was becoming more and more frustrated and then Chloe would have a huge meltdown and I would hate leaving her at school so upset – it would upset me for the whole morning. However, within just two or three sessions, Elaine had taught Chloe these little techniques whereby she could regulate her own emotions and now our mornings are so much easier – we even sat and had breakfast together this morning which was lovely! “
So, the mornings and bedtimes CAN be easier if you teach your child to self – regulate. If you need advice do contact me through my website: www.focus-hypnotherapy.co.uk | <urn:uuid:14006f90-bbf3-4954-bb94-5df866a0979e> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.focus-hypnotherapy.co.uk/blog/how-you-can-help-your-child-with-emotional-self-regulation | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250601628.36/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121074002-20200121103002-00065.warc.gz | en | 0.980398 | 1,152 | 3.625 | 4 | [
0.11643736064434052,
-0.16037768125534058,
0.3862488865852356,
-0.27035778760910034,
-0.35333961248397827,
0.22816258668899536,
0.7143293619155884,
-0.14674746990203857,
-0.11334529519081116,
-0.18522803485393524,
-0.00007567275315523148,
-0.2535836398601532,
0.04043545946478844,
0.5463327... | 3 | As a mum or dad, you’ve obviously seen your child have the odd tantrum. We expect them in two to three-year-olds don’t we! However, if your child has got to five or six years old and is still having regular meltdowns and outbursts of anger, it could be that he or she is struggling with self – regulation.
So, what exactly does self – regulation mean?
Self – regulation is the ability to manage your emotions and behaviour in any situation. Teaching your child how to self- regulate is one of the most important skills they will ever learn. Some children have an instant reaction to a situation – for example, little Johnny takes the car from Dillon and Dillon reacts by grabbing Johnny, pulling him by the hair and hitting him whilst screaming at him.
Perhaps Amelia has asked her mummy if she will buy her a new toy, but mummy has explained that she can’t afford it at the moment, but if she behaves well, she may get it for her birthday or Christmas. Amelia immediately has a meltdown – screams hatred at her mum and hits and lashes out!
But why CAN’T some kids self – regulate?
Some children, as babies, cannot self soothe. They need picking up out of the cot every five minutes for cuddles. They need a dummy – they need a bottle before they can sleep -these are the types of children that may not be able to self – regulate as they get older.
When a child has a tantrum, because he can’t have his own way, and the parent gives in, the child will continue to have tantrums every time he hears the word “ NO” because he knows that a tantrum will get him what he wants. The same as when a child won’t go to sleep on his own – he wants mummy or daddy to lay with him until he goes to sleep and has a complete meltdown if mum should leave the room. If mum keeps giving in – he will keep being unable to self- regulate.
How can we teach self – regulation skills?
The key to teaching these skills is to make sure that you or the child do not avoid situations which he may find uncomfortable or difficult to deal with. Teach these skills in exactly the same way you would teach a child ANY new skill. Explain what the child needs to learn, lead by example as well, and let the child practice. The use of glove puppets in role-playing is a brilliant way to help a child learn self – regulation skills. The word “discipline” doesn’t mean punishment – it means to teach. A lot of parents do think that discipline means to punish, and it doesn’t – we don’t need to punish our child for having a meltdown – we need to teach him how he can prevent it himself. In psychology, we call this
“scaffolding”– because what we are doing is building a sort of a framework to help the child until he has mastered how to self – regulate.
Imagine a situation which might produce a strong negative emotion from a child. A frustrating homework project perhaps. If the mum hovers over the child too much – the risk is that she will take over the regulation role. Scaffolding will mean that mum might help the child with the first task and show his how to work it out and then make him do the next one himself. She could teach him that if he starts to feel frustrated or cross because he thinks he can’t do it, he can get up and get a drink – walk around a bit and then get back to it after a short break. Mum can check in on him every so often and offer praise for his efforts.
“But mornings are so BAD,” say the mums
Many mums say to me “But the mornings are SO bad, we don’t have TIME for me to stop and teach him these skills – we have to be out of the house by 8 am to get them to school!”
I understand this and there IS a way to solve this! Break down the different things that you have trouble with, in the mornings, they could be:
- Getting him out of bed
- Brushing his teeth or washing
- Getting dressed
- Eating breakfast
Target one step at a time. First, say, getting up by 7 am. Once he’s mastered that, set a target time for washing and brushing teeth, and add that. Chunking these tasks into small steps allows him or her to build self-regulation skills in manageable steps.
One of the mum’s who brought her little girl to me for therapy for emotional self – regulation said:
“The reason I took Chloe (7) to see Elaine was because she seemed incapable of regulating her emotions. The mornings were particularly bad because we had to get to school and I had to get to work so I was becoming more and more frustrated and then Chloe would have a huge meltdown and I would hate leaving her at school so upset – it would upset me for the whole morning. However, within just two or three sessions, Elaine had taught Chloe these little techniques whereby she could regulate her own emotions and now our mornings are so much easier – we even sat and had breakfast together this morning which was lovely! “
So, the mornings and bedtimes CAN be easier if you teach your child to self – regulate. If you need advice do contact me through my website: www.focus-hypnotherapy.co.uk | 1,094 | ENGLISH | 1 |
A major obstacle to studying the lives of women in Ancient Rome is the problem of surviving sources—the sources available to us were all authored by men. As a result, nearly everything we know about Roman women is filtered through the lens of how Roman men viewed them. Even though, historians have still been able to piece together a picture of what life may have looked like for Women in Ancient Rome. Here’s what they have learned.
Women’s Legal Status in Ancient Rome
Women in Ancient Rome did not have equal legal status with men. By law, Roman girls and women were almost always under the jurisdiction of a male, whether a paterfamilias, a husband, or a legally appointed guardian. Over the course of her life, a woman might pass from the control of one male to another—most typically, from father to husband.
Despite their inferior legal status, Roman mothers were expected to be strong figures within the household, to play an important role in supervising the upbringing and education of children, and to maintain the smooth day-to-day running of the household.
Above all, the Roman wife was expected to be self-effacing and to provide strong support for, but not any challenge to, the paterfamilias.
Learn more about how Rome became so powerful
Rich and Poor Women in Rome
Roman women in poor families often had to work hard, just like the men in the family. Most women’s day-to-day lives were thus not significantly different from men’s, although legally, they were accorded inferior status. Upper-class girls were raised almost entirely within the household, rarely venturing outside the house itself.
This is a transcript from the video series The Rise of Rome. Watch it now, on The Great Courses Plus.
There are a few famous examples of highly educated women, but on the whole—and especially during the early and middle Republic—excessive knowledge or intellectual ability in women was regarded with suspicion and disfavor. The main focus of a girl’s education was to learn how to spin thread and weave clothing.
Most aristocratic women were probably married off in their mid-teens, and a woman who was not wed by 20 was considered a deviant. Later, the emperor Augustus would formalize this judgment by passing a law that heavily penalized any woman over the age of 20 who was unmarried. The man that a girl wed was selected by her father, usually for economic or political reasons. The Romans allowed marriages between closer family members than we would. It was permissible for first cousins to marry, and from the early empire on, uncles could even marry their nieces.
Ancient Roman Marriage
Fragment from the front of a sarcophagus, showing a Roman marriage ceremony.
Marriage was a political tool and used to cement an alliance between two families or political factions. It was extremely common for politicians to marry, divorce, and remarry as their political allegiances shifted, or to contract marriages among their children.
The desire to use children as political pawns led to children being engaged at very young ages, sometimes even as babies. To curb this, a law was passed stating that to be engaged, the two-people had to be at least seven years old.
To symbolize the engagement, the man (or boy) placed an iron ring on the middle finger of the left hand of his fiancée. The reason for this was that, while conducting dissections of human bodies, Roman doctors believed that they had discovered a nerve which ran directly from this finger to the heart. To make a marriage legally binding was very simple.
The only requirement was a public statement of intent. Marriage was viewed as a religious duty whose goal was to produce children to ensure that the family gods would continue to be worshipped.
During most of the Republic, the most common form of marriage known as a manus marriage. Manus means “hand” in Latin, and this marriage received its name from the fact that the woman was regarded as a piece of property that passed from the hand of her father to that of her husband.
In this type of marriage, the woman had no rights, and any property she had was under the control of her husband. She herself was considered the legal equivalent of a daughter to her husband, and he had all the powers of life and death which a father held over a daughter.
The Marriage Ceremony – Types of Marriage in Ancient Rome
There were three ways in which a manus marriage could be legally contracted.
The most archaic, called a confarreatio marriage, required engaging in a series of complicated religious rituals.
The second, and more common, was the coemptio marriage. In this form of marriage, the groom symbolically gave money to the bride’s father and thus was viewed as having bought her like a piece of property.
A final sort was the usus marriage, or the marriage accomplished by use. In a usus marriage, the man and woman simply began to live together, and on the day after they had lived together continuously for one year, the woman passed under the control of her husband in a manus marriage. This was probably the kind of marriage most typical among ordinary or poorer Romans.
While a legally binding marriage could consist of merely a statement of intent, just as today, there were many rituals that people commonly performed to mark the occasion symbolically. As I describe these, note how several them are like modern wedding rituals, and may, in fact, have been the inspiration for some of these. Typically, the bride-to-be would dedicate her childhood toys to the household gods, signifying that she was making the transition from child to woman.
While she had been a child, she would usually have worn her hair in a pony-tail, but on her wedding day, her hair was parted into six strands which were then tied together on top of her head in a complex fashion, forming a cone shape. It was traditional that her hair be parted using a bent iron spear-head, and the best spear-head of all was one which had been used to kill a gladiator. Gladiators were sometimes seen as symbols of virility, so perhaps this custom was viewed as a way to ensure a fertile union. The bride then donned a veil of transparent fabric that was bright orange or red in color, which her shoes matched. Her tunic was white, and she placed a wreath of marjoram on her head.
Learn more about what daily life was like for slaves in the slave state Rome
In front of a gathering of friends and relatives, various sacrifices were performed and the woman declared to her husband, “I am now of your family,” at which point their hands were joined. This was followed by a feast at which the new bride and groom sat side by side in two chairs over which was stretched a single sheep-skin. At the feast, it was customary for the guests to shout “Feliciter!” which means “happiness” or “good luck.” Towards the end of the evening, the bride was placed in the arms of her mother, and then the groom came and tore her out of her mother’s grasp.
Sarcophagus of the Dioscures, detail depicting a marriage Roman couple joining hands; the bride’s belt may show the knot symbolizing that the husband was “belted and bound” to her, which he was to untie in their bed.
Women in the Roman Family
The main duty of the wife was to produce children, but because some were married before they were physically mature, not surprisingly, many young wives died of complications during childbirth. One of the main sources of information on Roman women is their tombstones.
Many of these record the sad stories of girls who were married at 12 or 13, gave birth 5 or 6 times, and died in childbirth before they reached the age of 20. These tombstones are also the best guide to what Roman men considered the ideal qualities of a wife. Some of the most common positive attributes used by husbands to describe their deceased wives include: chaste, obedient, friendly, old-fashioned, frugal, content to stay at home, pious, dressed simply, good at spinning thread, and good at weaving cloth.
One way that Roman men were praised on their tombstones was to say that they treated their wives kindly, with the implication that such kindness was unnecessary and perhaps even unusual. In a manus marriage, for example, a husband could beat his wife with impunity, and was expected to do so if she “misbehaved.”
Husbands and wives were obligated to produce children, but there often seems not to have been a lot of affection between them. Marriage was seen as a social and political relationship, not a romantic one. Some of this lack of warmth was no doubt due to the fact that many Roman men and women did not themselves choose their spouses, and frequently there was a vast age difference between them.
A woman was supposed to spend most of her time within the confines of the household. When upper-class women did venture out of the house—to visit the marketplace, the baths, temples, or female friends—they were often transported in curtained litters carried by slaves, both to avoid the filth in the streets and to stay concealed and unseen in public.
Women were supposed to be modest and chaste. A Roman matron’s clothing was intended to cover her completely, and statues frequently depict women making a specific gesture meant to communicate their pudicitia or modesty. Fidelity to one’s husband was crucial. It was considered wrong for a woman to be avaricious, ambitious, ostentatious, or self-promoting.
Common Questions About the Life of Women in Ancient Rome
The social life of women in ancient Rome was limited as they could not vote or hold office and were expected to spend most of their time in the house tending to the needs of the husband and children. However, while at the market they were very social. | <urn:uuid:55e44c6c-8e3d-43dc-af3f-c5c72e41e2c8> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.thegreatcoursesdaily.com/role-of-women-in-ancient-rome/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250591234.15/warc/CC-MAIN-20200117205732-20200117233732-00355.warc.gz | en | 0.989981 | 2,094 | 3.546875 | 4 | [
-0.3651287853717804,
0.548493504524231,
0.26335063576698303,
0.1855609118938446,
-0.25684797763824463,
0.1985418200492859,
-0.19261525571346283,
0.12098371982574463,
-0.0038651111535727978,
-0.3803490698337555,
-0.1235586479306221,
-0.18742680549621582,
0.07280945777893066,
0.1606208086013... | 4 | A major obstacle to studying the lives of women in Ancient Rome is the problem of surviving sources—the sources available to us were all authored by men. As a result, nearly everything we know about Roman women is filtered through the lens of how Roman men viewed them. Even though, historians have still been able to piece together a picture of what life may have looked like for Women in Ancient Rome. Here’s what they have learned.
Women’s Legal Status in Ancient Rome
Women in Ancient Rome did not have equal legal status with men. By law, Roman girls and women were almost always under the jurisdiction of a male, whether a paterfamilias, a husband, or a legally appointed guardian. Over the course of her life, a woman might pass from the control of one male to another—most typically, from father to husband.
Despite their inferior legal status, Roman mothers were expected to be strong figures within the household, to play an important role in supervising the upbringing and education of children, and to maintain the smooth day-to-day running of the household.
Above all, the Roman wife was expected to be self-effacing and to provide strong support for, but not any challenge to, the paterfamilias.
Learn more about how Rome became so powerful
Rich and Poor Women in Rome
Roman women in poor families often had to work hard, just like the men in the family. Most women’s day-to-day lives were thus not significantly different from men’s, although legally, they were accorded inferior status. Upper-class girls were raised almost entirely within the household, rarely venturing outside the house itself.
This is a transcript from the video series The Rise of Rome. Watch it now, on The Great Courses Plus.
There are a few famous examples of highly educated women, but on the whole—and especially during the early and middle Republic—excessive knowledge or intellectual ability in women was regarded with suspicion and disfavor. The main focus of a girl’s education was to learn how to spin thread and weave clothing.
Most aristocratic women were probably married off in their mid-teens, and a woman who was not wed by 20 was considered a deviant. Later, the emperor Augustus would formalize this judgment by passing a law that heavily penalized any woman over the age of 20 who was unmarried. The man that a girl wed was selected by her father, usually for economic or political reasons. The Romans allowed marriages between closer family members than we would. It was permissible for first cousins to marry, and from the early empire on, uncles could even marry their nieces.
Ancient Roman Marriage
Fragment from the front of a sarcophagus, showing a Roman marriage ceremony.
Marriage was a political tool and used to cement an alliance between two families or political factions. It was extremely common for politicians to marry, divorce, and remarry as their political allegiances shifted, or to contract marriages among their children.
The desire to use children as political pawns led to children being engaged at very young ages, sometimes even as babies. To curb this, a law was passed stating that to be engaged, the two-people had to be at least seven years old.
To symbolize the engagement, the man (or boy) placed an iron ring on the middle finger of the left hand of his fiancée. The reason for this was that, while conducting dissections of human bodies, Roman doctors believed that they had discovered a nerve which ran directly from this finger to the heart. To make a marriage legally binding was very simple.
The only requirement was a public statement of intent. Marriage was viewed as a religious duty whose goal was to produce children to ensure that the family gods would continue to be worshipped.
During most of the Republic, the most common form of marriage known as a manus marriage. Manus means “hand” in Latin, and this marriage received its name from the fact that the woman was regarded as a piece of property that passed from the hand of her father to that of her husband.
In this type of marriage, the woman had no rights, and any property she had was under the control of her husband. She herself was considered the legal equivalent of a daughter to her husband, and he had all the powers of life and death which a father held over a daughter.
The Marriage Ceremony – Types of Marriage in Ancient Rome
There were three ways in which a manus marriage could be legally contracted.
The most archaic, called a confarreatio marriage, required engaging in a series of complicated religious rituals.
The second, and more common, was the coemptio marriage. In this form of marriage, the groom symbolically gave money to the bride’s father and thus was viewed as having bought her like a piece of property.
A final sort was the usus marriage, or the marriage accomplished by use. In a usus marriage, the man and woman simply began to live together, and on the day after they had lived together continuously for one year, the woman passed under the control of her husband in a manus marriage. This was probably the kind of marriage most typical among ordinary or poorer Romans.
While a legally binding marriage could consist of merely a statement of intent, just as today, there were many rituals that people commonly performed to mark the occasion symbolically. As I describe these, note how several them are like modern wedding rituals, and may, in fact, have been the inspiration for some of these. Typically, the bride-to-be would dedicate her childhood toys to the household gods, signifying that she was making the transition from child to woman.
While she had been a child, she would usually have worn her hair in a pony-tail, but on her wedding day, her hair was parted into six strands which were then tied together on top of her head in a complex fashion, forming a cone shape. It was traditional that her hair be parted using a bent iron spear-head, and the best spear-head of all was one which had been used to kill a gladiator. Gladiators were sometimes seen as symbols of virility, so perhaps this custom was viewed as a way to ensure a fertile union. The bride then donned a veil of transparent fabric that was bright orange or red in color, which her shoes matched. Her tunic was white, and she placed a wreath of marjoram on her head.
Learn more about what daily life was like for slaves in the slave state Rome
In front of a gathering of friends and relatives, various sacrifices were performed and the woman declared to her husband, “I am now of your family,” at which point their hands were joined. This was followed by a feast at which the new bride and groom sat side by side in two chairs over which was stretched a single sheep-skin. At the feast, it was customary for the guests to shout “Feliciter!” which means “happiness” or “good luck.” Towards the end of the evening, the bride was placed in the arms of her mother, and then the groom came and tore her out of her mother’s grasp.
Sarcophagus of the Dioscures, detail depicting a marriage Roman couple joining hands; the bride’s belt may show the knot symbolizing that the husband was “belted and bound” to her, which he was to untie in their bed.
Women in the Roman Family
The main duty of the wife was to produce children, but because some were married before they were physically mature, not surprisingly, many young wives died of complications during childbirth. One of the main sources of information on Roman women is their tombstones.
Many of these record the sad stories of girls who were married at 12 or 13, gave birth 5 or 6 times, and died in childbirth before they reached the age of 20. These tombstones are also the best guide to what Roman men considered the ideal qualities of a wife. Some of the most common positive attributes used by husbands to describe their deceased wives include: chaste, obedient, friendly, old-fashioned, frugal, content to stay at home, pious, dressed simply, good at spinning thread, and good at weaving cloth.
One way that Roman men were praised on their tombstones was to say that they treated their wives kindly, with the implication that such kindness was unnecessary and perhaps even unusual. In a manus marriage, for example, a husband could beat his wife with impunity, and was expected to do so if she “misbehaved.”
Husbands and wives were obligated to produce children, but there often seems not to have been a lot of affection between them. Marriage was seen as a social and political relationship, not a romantic one. Some of this lack of warmth was no doubt due to the fact that many Roman men and women did not themselves choose their spouses, and frequently there was a vast age difference between them.
A woman was supposed to spend most of her time within the confines of the household. When upper-class women did venture out of the house—to visit the marketplace, the baths, temples, or female friends—they were often transported in curtained litters carried by slaves, both to avoid the filth in the streets and to stay concealed and unseen in public.
Women were supposed to be modest and chaste. A Roman matron’s clothing was intended to cover her completely, and statues frequently depict women making a specific gesture meant to communicate their pudicitia or modesty. Fidelity to one’s husband was crucial. It was considered wrong for a woman to be avaricious, ambitious, ostentatious, or self-promoting.
Common Questions About the Life of Women in Ancient Rome
The social life of women in ancient Rome was limited as they could not vote or hold office and were expected to spend most of their time in the house tending to the needs of the husband and children. However, while at the market they were very social. | 2,014 | ENGLISH | 1 |
GEORGE Bennie was a Scottish inventor, born in 1892, with a passion for trains. He created the ‘George Bennie Railplane System of Transport,’ comprising an elevated track and a propeller-driven carriage suspended from a monorail.
The engine was powered by electricity, and construction was predicted to be cheaper than conventional railways. In July 1930, he invited a number of guests to try out the test track and carriage that he had built over a stretch of railway on the outskirts of Glasgow. Although speeds of 120mph were possible (only 6mph slower than the record-breaking, steam-powered Mallard), the limited length of track only allowed speeds of 50mph. Bennie bankrupted himself by travelling the world to try and gain backing for his invention, but it was deemed too revolutionary by the existing train companies, although his prototype structure and carriage remained in place until 1956, when it was scrapped. | <urn:uuid:e90a91f1-a94f-47d2-9b67-092fbb88f00b> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle-2-15039/scottish-fact-of-the-day-george-bennie-railplane-1-2389706 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250598726.39/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120110422-20200120134422-00005.warc.gz | en | 0.985218 | 189 | 3.515625 | 4 | [
-0.13401475548744202,
0.23942691087722778,
0.44136032462120056,
0.06343846768140793,
-0.42568710446357727,
0.0853312686085701,
0.03617631271481514,
0.2669922411441803,
-0.16568653285503387,
0.05852517858147621,
0.1316680759191513,
-0.2800145745277405,
0.10181941092014313,
0.424272745847702... | 1 | GEORGE Bennie was a Scottish inventor, born in 1892, with a passion for trains. He created the ‘George Bennie Railplane System of Transport,’ comprising an elevated track and a propeller-driven carriage suspended from a monorail.
The engine was powered by electricity, and construction was predicted to be cheaper than conventional railways. In July 1930, he invited a number of guests to try out the test track and carriage that he had built over a stretch of railway on the outskirts of Glasgow. Although speeds of 120mph were possible (only 6mph slower than the record-breaking, steam-powered Mallard), the limited length of track only allowed speeds of 50mph. Bennie bankrupted himself by travelling the world to try and gain backing for his invention, but it was deemed too revolutionary by the existing train companies, although his prototype structure and carriage remained in place until 1956, when it was scrapped. | 200 | ENGLISH | 1 |
John Rankin Rogers moved west as a young man, eventually settling in Kansas in 1876. A farmer of great ambition, he became an early organizer of the Farmers' Alliance, an organization that sought to help farmers work together both economically and politically to improve their condition. Rogers would rise to moderate fame within his circle of like-minded farmers when he became the editor of Wichita's Kansas Commoner. Rogers became a leading voice in the People's Party-a coalition of farmers and others who sought to use the power of the government to assist the productive farmers and workers.
Rogers had previously worked in drug stores and in 1890, he moved to Puyallup Washington and started a drug store. He also became an early leader of Washington's Populist Party. He was elected to the state legislature in 1895 and became famous within the state after proposing and securing the passage of the Barefoot Schoolboy Bill. The new law created a fund that transferred funds from relatively well-off urban school districts to isolated rural schools with a smaller tax basis.
The following year, Rogers won election to the office of governor-the only Populist governor in the state's history. The populists generated support for many of their policies within the Democratic Party. Recognizing that they needed to merge with the Democrats rather than compete with them in elections, Rogers and others merged with the Democrats and won re-election in 1900. He died shortly after his re-election, leading many in the state to support a movement to create this monument in his honor. | <urn:uuid:91f570a9-08b7-4be9-9138-9c0db1b13b1c> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.theclio.com/entry/21788 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251801423.98/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129164403-20200129193403-00088.warc.gz | en | 0.987726 | 311 | 3.28125 | 3 | [
-0.42633429169654846,
0.2333146333694458,
0.3703230917453766,
-0.04373911768198013,
-0.12672142684459686,
-0.009574685245752335,
-0.2130376249551773,
0.04233059287071228,
-0.3891145884990692,
0.08848962932825089,
0.1965973824262619,
0.09940982609987259,
0.45457184314727783,
-0.023844804614... | 2 | John Rankin Rogers moved west as a young man, eventually settling in Kansas in 1876. A farmer of great ambition, he became an early organizer of the Farmers' Alliance, an organization that sought to help farmers work together both economically and politically to improve their condition. Rogers would rise to moderate fame within his circle of like-minded farmers when he became the editor of Wichita's Kansas Commoner. Rogers became a leading voice in the People's Party-a coalition of farmers and others who sought to use the power of the government to assist the productive farmers and workers.
Rogers had previously worked in drug stores and in 1890, he moved to Puyallup Washington and started a drug store. He also became an early leader of Washington's Populist Party. He was elected to the state legislature in 1895 and became famous within the state after proposing and securing the passage of the Barefoot Schoolboy Bill. The new law created a fund that transferred funds from relatively well-off urban school districts to isolated rural schools with a smaller tax basis.
The following year, Rogers won election to the office of governor-the only Populist governor in the state's history. The populists generated support for many of their policies within the Democratic Party. Recognizing that they needed to merge with the Democrats rather than compete with them in elections, Rogers and others merged with the Democrats and won re-election in 1900. He died shortly after his re-election, leading many in the state to support a movement to create this monument in his honor. | 317 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Who was Joseph Smith?
Joseph Smith was the founder of the Mormon religion and served as first president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
When did Joseph Smith live?
Joseph Smith, Jr. was born December 23, 1805 in Sharon, Vermont. On June 27, 1844 at age 38 he was shot to death in his jail cell in Carthage, Illinois by an angry mob.
Why is Joseph Smith famous?
Joseph Smith was raised by poor farmers in rural New York, and as a young man was spiritually open-minded, dabbling in different denominations of Christianity and magic-based treasure hunting. He claimed to begin receiving messages from God as a teenager, and at age 16 was said to be visited by an angel who directed him to buried golden plates containing a third book of the Bible. With more divine help, Joseph translated the plates into English, publishing their contents as The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ in 1830. Later that year, he founded the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints with himself as president.
The Book of Mormon holds that ancient Israelites sailed to America in the 4th century where they were visited by the resurrected Christ. Through the accounts of Christ’s American witnesses, Mormon and Moroni, the book reaffirms basic Christian theology of salvation with greater clarity. As the years progressed, however, Joseph continued to have divine revelations (today archived in the collections Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price) promoting theology that significantly deviated from mainstream Christianity, including the practice of sealing families so they could remain together in heaven, posthumous baptisms to save the souls of those who had died ignorant of the Church, the concept of exaltation, which holds that devout humans can become gods in the afterlife, and the organization of a elaborately hierarchical church headed by a single prophet capable of speaking directly with God.
Seeking to build a “New Jerusalem” in America, Joseph and his followers (known as Mormons, or Saints) unsuccessfully attempted to found a Mormon colony in Ohio and Missouri before establishing a thriving religious community in the city of Nauvoo, Illinois, which Joseph ruled as a virtual dictator. Increasingly unpopular with non-Mormons who considered his teachings blasphemous, politicians who resented Nauvoo’s growing voting power, and a breakaway faction within the Mormon Church, Joseph was arrested in 1844 for ordering the destruction of a dissident Mormon newspaper and was murdered in his jail cell by a mob of anti-Mormons a few days later. His church survived, however, and for revealing the core doctrines of their faith, today Joseph remains venerated as a sacred figure by more than 15 million Mormons worldwide.
What was Joseph Smith like?
Joseph Smith is one of the most controversial figures in American history, and how his life is viewed depends on how seriously one takes the Mormon religion. To followers of his church, Smith is presented as a supremely virtuous, kind, and largely flawless man, who humbly followed God’s instructions and presented others with the path to salvation. On the opposite extreme, critics of Mormonism believe Smith was a megalomaniacal fraud who simply invented a religion to satisfy a personal lust for power. In either case, it is undeniable that Smith took his church very seriously, and was a man charismatic, friendly, and persuasive enough to convince thousands that he was a legitimate prophet of God.
Smith was a polygamist who married dozens of women, often by seducing the wives of other men, and this remains perhaps the most infamous aspect of his entire biography. While he said the practice had been authorized by divine revelation, he nevertheless kept God’s doctrine of “plural marriages” secret to all but his closest followers while simultaneously denouncing the idea in public. Predictably, all this caused tension with his first wife, Emma Hale (1804-1879), who went through phases of denial and acceptance.
In his later years as ruler of Nauvoo, Joseph grew increasingly vain and authoritarian, granting himself many lavish titles and claiming increasingly grand ambitions, including a planned candidacy in the presidential election of 1844. Quick to anger, he had limited tolerance for critics, and growing distaste for his leadership style and personal conduct played a significant role in the events leading to his death. He was fond of wrestling and was a practicing Freemason, though much of the Masonic establishment of Illinois accused him of trying to co-opt their movement. | <urn:uuid:2fc5a50a-b94a-46a8-b470-3b6cfa410e05> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://americansthatmatter.com/joseph-smith/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251779833.86/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128153713-20200128183713-00281.warc.gz | en | 0.98412 | 921 | 3.296875 | 3 | [
-0.03488023206591606,
0.4496096074581146,
0.08347414433956146,
0.11092941462993622,
-0.426950067281723,
0.1852729618549347,
0.5225803256034851,
0.25009334087371826,
-0.08808037638664246,
0.065285325050354,
0.30665090680122375,
0.36042147874832153,
0.5835085511207581,
-0.02323538437485695,
... | 7 | Who was Joseph Smith?
Joseph Smith was the founder of the Mormon religion and served as first president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
When did Joseph Smith live?
Joseph Smith, Jr. was born December 23, 1805 in Sharon, Vermont. On June 27, 1844 at age 38 he was shot to death in his jail cell in Carthage, Illinois by an angry mob.
Why is Joseph Smith famous?
Joseph Smith was raised by poor farmers in rural New York, and as a young man was spiritually open-minded, dabbling in different denominations of Christianity and magic-based treasure hunting. He claimed to begin receiving messages from God as a teenager, and at age 16 was said to be visited by an angel who directed him to buried golden plates containing a third book of the Bible. With more divine help, Joseph translated the plates into English, publishing their contents as The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ in 1830. Later that year, he founded the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints with himself as president.
The Book of Mormon holds that ancient Israelites sailed to America in the 4th century where they were visited by the resurrected Christ. Through the accounts of Christ’s American witnesses, Mormon and Moroni, the book reaffirms basic Christian theology of salvation with greater clarity. As the years progressed, however, Joseph continued to have divine revelations (today archived in the collections Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price) promoting theology that significantly deviated from mainstream Christianity, including the practice of sealing families so they could remain together in heaven, posthumous baptisms to save the souls of those who had died ignorant of the Church, the concept of exaltation, which holds that devout humans can become gods in the afterlife, and the organization of a elaborately hierarchical church headed by a single prophet capable of speaking directly with God.
Seeking to build a “New Jerusalem” in America, Joseph and his followers (known as Mormons, or Saints) unsuccessfully attempted to found a Mormon colony in Ohio and Missouri before establishing a thriving religious community in the city of Nauvoo, Illinois, which Joseph ruled as a virtual dictator. Increasingly unpopular with non-Mormons who considered his teachings blasphemous, politicians who resented Nauvoo’s growing voting power, and a breakaway faction within the Mormon Church, Joseph was arrested in 1844 for ordering the destruction of a dissident Mormon newspaper and was murdered in his jail cell by a mob of anti-Mormons a few days later. His church survived, however, and for revealing the core doctrines of their faith, today Joseph remains venerated as a sacred figure by more than 15 million Mormons worldwide.
What was Joseph Smith like?
Joseph Smith is one of the most controversial figures in American history, and how his life is viewed depends on how seriously one takes the Mormon religion. To followers of his church, Smith is presented as a supremely virtuous, kind, and largely flawless man, who humbly followed God’s instructions and presented others with the path to salvation. On the opposite extreme, critics of Mormonism believe Smith was a megalomaniacal fraud who simply invented a religion to satisfy a personal lust for power. In either case, it is undeniable that Smith took his church very seriously, and was a man charismatic, friendly, and persuasive enough to convince thousands that he was a legitimate prophet of God.
Smith was a polygamist who married dozens of women, often by seducing the wives of other men, and this remains perhaps the most infamous aspect of his entire biography. While he said the practice had been authorized by divine revelation, he nevertheless kept God’s doctrine of “plural marriages” secret to all but his closest followers while simultaneously denouncing the idea in public. Predictably, all this caused tension with his first wife, Emma Hale (1804-1879), who went through phases of denial and acceptance.
In his later years as ruler of Nauvoo, Joseph grew increasingly vain and authoritarian, granting himself many lavish titles and claiming increasingly grand ambitions, including a planned candidacy in the presidential election of 1844. Quick to anger, he had limited tolerance for critics, and growing distaste for his leadership style and personal conduct played a significant role in the events leading to his death. He was fond of wrestling and was a practicing Freemason, though much of the Masonic establishment of Illinois accused him of trying to co-opt their movement. | 936 | ENGLISH | 1 |
College aged civil rights activists across the nation came together during 1964 for what was described as the Freedom Summer. The Mississippi Summer Project aimed to register black voters in the south in hopes for change. Three men, Michael Schwerner, Andrew Goodman, and James Chaney, were targeted by the local KKK for their participation in the program. During this targeting, the burning of the Mount Zion Church and beating of its congregation occurred. The church was rumored to become one of the freedom schools throughout Mississippi, as well as a meeting place for the three men targeted. When Michael, Andrew, and James were informed of the devastation of the church attack, they traveled back to Mississippi, were they met their death.
During the summer of 1964, civil rights workers came together with a project known as Freedom Summer. This national movement was targeted towards Mississippi in hopes to register black voters and create what they called freedom schools. Among these young volunteers were Michael Schwerner, Andrew Goodman, and James Chaney.
These young men worked closely with the Mount Zion Church and fought for civil freedoms. The Ku Klux Klan targeted the three young volunteers, causing them to invade the church, looking for the men. Not knowing the trio had left town for a conference, the Klansmen became angry, assaulted the congregation and then burned the church to the ground.
Learning of this incident, the trio decided to return to Mississippi to investigate. During their return, Klansmen abducted the men and shot them to death. The news of their disappearance caused an uproar across the nation. Four days later, their bodies were found.
Despite the horror of this murder, Freedom Summer workers continued their mission and successfully impacted the south, voters, and schooling. | <urn:uuid:5cc9bff3-1d23-40ff-9e8e-892837827364> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.theclio.com/entry/7309 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251802249.87/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129194333-20200129223333-00005.warc.gz | en | 0.980792 | 346 | 3.859375 | 4 | [
-0.5205608010292053,
0.20902256667613983,
-0.20542752742767334,
0.10948466509580612,
0.3006417751312256,
0.3330554962158203,
-0.24602381885051727,
-0.041004884988069534,
-0.22955812513828278,
0.0770334005355835,
0.1690078228712082,
0.5399502515792847,
-0.06277863681316376,
-0.1394895315170... | 2 | College aged civil rights activists across the nation came together during 1964 for what was described as the Freedom Summer. The Mississippi Summer Project aimed to register black voters in the south in hopes for change. Three men, Michael Schwerner, Andrew Goodman, and James Chaney, were targeted by the local KKK for their participation in the program. During this targeting, the burning of the Mount Zion Church and beating of its congregation occurred. The church was rumored to become one of the freedom schools throughout Mississippi, as well as a meeting place for the three men targeted. When Michael, Andrew, and James were informed of the devastation of the church attack, they traveled back to Mississippi, were they met their death.
During the summer of 1964, civil rights workers came together with a project known as Freedom Summer. This national movement was targeted towards Mississippi in hopes to register black voters and create what they called freedom schools. Among these young volunteers were Michael Schwerner, Andrew Goodman, and James Chaney.
These young men worked closely with the Mount Zion Church and fought for civil freedoms. The Ku Klux Klan targeted the three young volunteers, causing them to invade the church, looking for the men. Not knowing the trio had left town for a conference, the Klansmen became angry, assaulted the congregation and then burned the church to the ground.
Learning of this incident, the trio decided to return to Mississippi to investigate. During their return, Klansmen abducted the men and shot them to death. The news of their disappearance caused an uproar across the nation. Four days later, their bodies were found.
Despite the horror of this murder, Freedom Summer workers continued their mission and successfully impacted the south, voters, and schooling. | 351 | ENGLISH | 1 |
During the First World War the British India Government had enacted a Defence of India Act, 1915 in order to suppress any nationalist activity in India. It invested extrajudicial powers in the police and army to crush any dissent. As the act was expiring with the culmination of the First World War, the government instituted a committee under Justice S.A.T Rowlatt to suggest measures which can check nationalist sentiments among Indians. The committee suggested a number of legislations to replace Defence of India Act, 1915. Rowlatt himself called these measures ‘extrajudicial’ and justified their use to maintain ‘peace’.
In February, 1919 these bills, known as Rowlatt Bills, were tabled in the Imperial Legislative Council. These bills were passed and made into ‘Acts’ on 18 March, 1919. These repressive acts which provided police with extrajudicial powers to crush any dissent from Indians were opposed by the Indians unitedly. In the council all 22 Indians, who were free to vote, voted against the bills while 34 Europeans and one Indian, who couldn’t vote with free will, voted in favour of the bills. The passage of these acts led to the resignation of Pt. M.M Malviya, Mazharul Haque and M.A Jinnah.
Mahatma Gandhi termed it as a Black Act and gave a call for a nationwide satyagraha. 30th March was decided as the day when all the shops would be closed observing Hartal against the Act. Though the date was later shifted to 6th April but people in Delhi observed Hartal on 30th March. It was a great success as Hindus and Muslims came together and kept their shops closed.
Protestors gathered at Railway Station in Delhi and asked people to join the movement. Everything was peaceful by then. British police themselves reported that whatever damage to railway property happened, it was unintentional on the part of protestors.
At around 1 pm, armed police under Jeffreys and troops under General Drake Brockman reached the station. Hundreds of soldiers, many of those were returning from Mesopotamia after the war, armed with rifles took positions against the protestors. They forced the crowd towards Queen’s road. At 2 pm a few bricks were thrown at the police, as claimed by the police, and hit the hand of General. Troops and police were ordered to fire and kill the Indians. Dozens were martyred on the spot for protesting against the Black Law.
The crowd ran towards the Town Hall, Chandni Chowk but little did they know that Jeffreys and his police were waiting for them. They fired indiscriminately upon the protestors. Police claimed that the protestors were violent. But, Indians knew the brutality of police. Nationalist leaders pointed out that how on earth any force faced alleged stone pelting with bullets.
Nonetheless, it resulted in a total of sixty deaths near Chandni Chowk. These were the first of thousands who later laid their lives while protesting against the Black Law. The protests ensured that the Rowlatt Acts were never actually implemented.
(Author is a well known historian) | <urn:uuid:ff77ac67-d2b8-40d6-85a8-cf51fb3b37fc> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://heritagetimes.in/rowlatt-act-1919-when-police-killed-60-protestors-but-couldnt-stop-the-protest/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251705142.94/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127174507-20200127204507-00442.warc.gz | en | 0.985763 | 637 | 3.6875 | 4 | [
-0.2913672924041748,
0.14429137110710144,
0.32101061940193176,
-0.35717400908470154,
-0.29348060488700867,
-0.17227692902088165,
0.2495371401309967,
-0.03404407948255539,
0.0608297660946846,
-0.07780347764492035,
0.07826107740402222,
-0.13408291339874268,
-0.16043508052825928,
0.6117092370... | 9 | During the First World War the British India Government had enacted a Defence of India Act, 1915 in order to suppress any nationalist activity in India. It invested extrajudicial powers in the police and army to crush any dissent. As the act was expiring with the culmination of the First World War, the government instituted a committee under Justice S.A.T Rowlatt to suggest measures which can check nationalist sentiments among Indians. The committee suggested a number of legislations to replace Defence of India Act, 1915. Rowlatt himself called these measures ‘extrajudicial’ and justified their use to maintain ‘peace’.
In February, 1919 these bills, known as Rowlatt Bills, were tabled in the Imperial Legislative Council. These bills were passed and made into ‘Acts’ on 18 March, 1919. These repressive acts which provided police with extrajudicial powers to crush any dissent from Indians were opposed by the Indians unitedly. In the council all 22 Indians, who were free to vote, voted against the bills while 34 Europeans and one Indian, who couldn’t vote with free will, voted in favour of the bills. The passage of these acts led to the resignation of Pt. M.M Malviya, Mazharul Haque and M.A Jinnah.
Mahatma Gandhi termed it as a Black Act and gave a call for a nationwide satyagraha. 30th March was decided as the day when all the shops would be closed observing Hartal against the Act. Though the date was later shifted to 6th April but people in Delhi observed Hartal on 30th March. It was a great success as Hindus and Muslims came together and kept their shops closed.
Protestors gathered at Railway Station in Delhi and asked people to join the movement. Everything was peaceful by then. British police themselves reported that whatever damage to railway property happened, it was unintentional on the part of protestors.
At around 1 pm, armed police under Jeffreys and troops under General Drake Brockman reached the station. Hundreds of soldiers, many of those were returning from Mesopotamia after the war, armed with rifles took positions against the protestors. They forced the crowd towards Queen’s road. At 2 pm a few bricks were thrown at the police, as claimed by the police, and hit the hand of General. Troops and police were ordered to fire and kill the Indians. Dozens were martyred on the spot for protesting against the Black Law.
The crowd ran towards the Town Hall, Chandni Chowk but little did they know that Jeffreys and his police were waiting for them. They fired indiscriminately upon the protestors. Police claimed that the protestors were violent. But, Indians knew the brutality of police. Nationalist leaders pointed out that how on earth any force faced alleged stone pelting with bullets.
Nonetheless, it resulted in a total of sixty deaths near Chandni Chowk. These were the first of thousands who later laid their lives while protesting against the Black Law. The protests ensured that the Rowlatt Acts were never actually implemented.
(Author is a well known historian) | 658 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Koppen har blank inn- og utside.
1. Justice or Rectitude (義 gi)This is all about making sure that we have the right way when we make a decision. That we have the power to make a decision quickly. It is about making sure that we do not become indecisive and that our decisions are made and based on the right reasons.
2. Courage (勇 yū)
This is about making sure that what we do is right and that we have the courage to do the right thing and not just what people think we should do. If we are raised in a particular way, we think in a way that we belief in. this is about making sure we do what we believe in and have the courage to do so.
3. Benevolence or Mercy (仁 jin)
As a warrior, the Samurai have the power to kill. However, benevolence is about making sure that you are balanced in how you think. It is about making sure that you also have sympathy and mercy at the right time. For the Samurai it was about making sure you fought for the right reason and that if you had to kill someone, you did it for the right reason and your belief but that you also make sure that if there was no need to kill you would have mercy and be sympathetic.
4. Respect (禮 rei)
It is important that in everything they believe, they must have respect and be polite in everything. The way they live their life meant they must be respectful of their elders, they must respect life, respect others beliefs.
5. Honesty (誠 makoto)
Honesty was very important, as they believe that being honest in everything you do gives you respect and means you can be trusted.
6. Honour (名誉 meiyo)
To live and die with honor was very important to the Samurai. Everything they did was honorable which meant they did everything in what they believed with honor.
7. Loyalty (忠義 chūgi)
Loyalty was probably one of the very important parts of what they did. They treated each other like family and would do everything within their power to protect and help their samurai warriors. Loyalty was important because this means they can trust their warriors and know they would be loyal to whatever they needed to do and not worry about loosing their respect. | <urn:uuid:d3ed0cfd-20b3-4b7b-8ef0-243368fe8ff4> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://telemarkkarateshop.no/produkt/seven-virtues-krus/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250589560.16/warc/CC-MAIN-20200117123339-20200117151339-00224.warc.gz | en | 0.982828 | 502 | 3.75 | 4 | [
-0.6776864528656006,
0.38856828212738037,
-0.0776241347193718,
-0.21998320519924164,
0.04932963475584984,
0.29819899797439575,
0.8025828003883362,
0.3818078339099884,
0.39513543248176575,
-0.14018221199512482,
-0.05689376965165138,
-0.4243244528770447,
0.2923245131969452,
0.209673047065734... | 2 | Koppen har blank inn- og utside.
1. Justice or Rectitude (義 gi)This is all about making sure that we have the right way when we make a decision. That we have the power to make a decision quickly. It is about making sure that we do not become indecisive and that our decisions are made and based on the right reasons.
2. Courage (勇 yū)
This is about making sure that what we do is right and that we have the courage to do the right thing and not just what people think we should do. If we are raised in a particular way, we think in a way that we belief in. this is about making sure we do what we believe in and have the courage to do so.
3. Benevolence or Mercy (仁 jin)
As a warrior, the Samurai have the power to kill. However, benevolence is about making sure that you are balanced in how you think. It is about making sure that you also have sympathy and mercy at the right time. For the Samurai it was about making sure you fought for the right reason and that if you had to kill someone, you did it for the right reason and your belief but that you also make sure that if there was no need to kill you would have mercy and be sympathetic.
4. Respect (禮 rei)
It is important that in everything they believe, they must have respect and be polite in everything. The way they live their life meant they must be respectful of their elders, they must respect life, respect others beliefs.
5. Honesty (誠 makoto)
Honesty was very important, as they believe that being honest in everything you do gives you respect and means you can be trusted.
6. Honour (名誉 meiyo)
To live and die with honor was very important to the Samurai. Everything they did was honorable which meant they did everything in what they believed with honor.
7. Loyalty (忠義 chūgi)
Loyalty was probably one of the very important parts of what they did. They treated each other like family and would do everything within their power to protect and help their samurai warriors. Loyalty was important because this means they can trust their warriors and know they would be loyal to whatever they needed to do and not worry about loosing their respect. | 476 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Titus Kaphar, an American painter whose work is featured at NYC's well-renowned Museum of Modern Art, introduces his talk on art by expressing his love for museums, and how he makes sure to show his children what they have to offer.
He continues his talk by telling them about a time when he was looking at a statue of Theodore Roosevelt with his children at the Natural History Museum, who is shown with a Native American man on his left, and an African American man on his right. When his son saw this, he asked Kaphar why Roosevelt was shown on a horse, while the other men were shown walking beside him.
With this example, Kaphar shows the need for these representations to be evolved in today's art. He continues his talk on art by showing how problematic the representation of minorities has been throughout history, and how his reinterpretations of them have helped to change the narratives that they tell.
In highlighting the erasure of African American figures in art, Kaphar speaks to the need to create art that honors today's diversity, and to acknowledge how much of the art in the past failed to do so. | <urn:uuid:f3c35d34-6485-4d9a-8afd-963ed7952d70> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.trendhunter.com/keynote/talk-on-art | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250598800.30/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120135447-20200120164447-00242.warc.gz | en | 0.991001 | 236 | 3.34375 | 3 | [
0.03296701982617378,
0.3216151297092438,
0.5993503332138062,
0.2310488373041153,
-0.25438377261161804,
0.06189573556184769,
0.08558682352304459,
-0.09154617041349411,
-0.6302010416984558,
-0.18300655484199524,
0.07345645129680634,
0.04313120245933533,
-0.014610504731535912,
0.6593194603919... | 3 | Titus Kaphar, an American painter whose work is featured at NYC's well-renowned Museum of Modern Art, introduces his talk on art by expressing his love for museums, and how he makes sure to show his children what they have to offer.
He continues his talk by telling them about a time when he was looking at a statue of Theodore Roosevelt with his children at the Natural History Museum, who is shown with a Native American man on his left, and an African American man on his right. When his son saw this, he asked Kaphar why Roosevelt was shown on a horse, while the other men were shown walking beside him.
With this example, Kaphar shows the need for these representations to be evolved in today's art. He continues his talk on art by showing how problematic the representation of minorities has been throughout history, and how his reinterpretations of them have helped to change the narratives that they tell.
In highlighting the erasure of African American figures in art, Kaphar speaks to the need to create art that honors today's diversity, and to acknowledge how much of the art in the past failed to do so. | 231 | ENGLISH | 1 |
In July of 1805, Lewis, Clark and the Corps of Discovery sailed west toward the mountains until they came to the three forks of the Missouri River. Lewis and Clark named them the Gallatin, the Madison, and the Jefferson. The Corps decided that taking the Jefferson fork was the best course of action, although it was shallow and proved difficult to navigate. Before long, Sacagawea began to recognize landmarks that she associated with her old village before she was sold to Charbonneau as a prisoner of war. On August 8, 1805, Sacagawea spotted Beaverhead Rock and informed Lewis and Clark that they were near the headwaters of the Missouri River and the location of Shoshone tribe. Lewis wrote in this journal:
The Indian woman recognized the point of a high plain to our right which she informed us was not very distant from the summer retreat of her nation on a river beyond the mountains which runs to the west. this hill she says her nation calls the beaver's head from a conceived re[se]mblance of it's figure to the head of that animal. she assures us that we shall either find her people on this river or on the river immediately west of it's source; which from it's present size cannot be distant. as it is now all important with us to meet with those people as soon as possible I determined to proceed tomorrow with a small party to the source of the principal stream of this river and pass the mountains to the Columbia;
Negotiations for Horses
Lewis decided to scout ahead on land with three men in the hopes of finding the tribe and their horses. Upon crossing Lemhi Pass (on the present-day border between Montana and Idaho), Lewis expected to see the passage that had tantalized explorers since the 1500's -the Northwest Passage. Instead, all he saw were more mountains. Nevertheless, the Corps discovered the Shoshone village. Lewis and Clark were hopeful they could negotiate the acquisition of horses so the quest through the mountains could continue. When negotiations began, the Shoshone chief, Cameahwait recognized Sacagawea as his sister! The negotiations turned out to be successful.
Did You Know?
Did you know that famous explorers such as Jacques Cartier, Robert Sieur de la Salle, John Cabot and others had tried in vain to discover the "Northwest Passage," a mythical shortcut from the Atlantic to Pacific Ocean, so that their sponsoring nation could control access to the silk and spice markets of Asia? | <urn:uuid:316cb627-6a1c-42a0-a240-6176f11f75ca> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://mrnussbaum.com/part-7-lewis-and-clark-in-depth-tour-shoshone-country | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251778168.77/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128091916-20200128121916-00033.warc.gz | en | 0.981653 | 507 | 3.671875 | 4 | [
-0.34768256545066833,
0.027127301320433617,
0.23448415100574493,
0.051995668560266495,
-0.5825177431106567,
-0.36679309606552124,
0.13045059144496918,
0.3209369480609894,
-0.470215767621994,
0.22454647719860077,
0.515344500541687,
-0.5160368084907532,
0.0279796551913023,
-0.302922219038009... | 1 | In July of 1805, Lewis, Clark and the Corps of Discovery sailed west toward the mountains until they came to the three forks of the Missouri River. Lewis and Clark named them the Gallatin, the Madison, and the Jefferson. The Corps decided that taking the Jefferson fork was the best course of action, although it was shallow and proved difficult to navigate. Before long, Sacagawea began to recognize landmarks that she associated with her old village before she was sold to Charbonneau as a prisoner of war. On August 8, 1805, Sacagawea spotted Beaverhead Rock and informed Lewis and Clark that they were near the headwaters of the Missouri River and the location of Shoshone tribe. Lewis wrote in this journal:
The Indian woman recognized the point of a high plain to our right which she informed us was not very distant from the summer retreat of her nation on a river beyond the mountains which runs to the west. this hill she says her nation calls the beaver's head from a conceived re[se]mblance of it's figure to the head of that animal. she assures us that we shall either find her people on this river or on the river immediately west of it's source; which from it's present size cannot be distant. as it is now all important with us to meet with those people as soon as possible I determined to proceed tomorrow with a small party to the source of the principal stream of this river and pass the mountains to the Columbia;
Negotiations for Horses
Lewis decided to scout ahead on land with three men in the hopes of finding the tribe and their horses. Upon crossing Lemhi Pass (on the present-day border between Montana and Idaho), Lewis expected to see the passage that had tantalized explorers since the 1500's -the Northwest Passage. Instead, all he saw were more mountains. Nevertheless, the Corps discovered the Shoshone village. Lewis and Clark were hopeful they could negotiate the acquisition of horses so the quest through the mountains could continue. When negotiations began, the Shoshone chief, Cameahwait recognized Sacagawea as his sister! The negotiations turned out to be successful.
Did You Know?
Did you know that famous explorers such as Jacques Cartier, Robert Sieur de la Salle, John Cabot and others had tried in vain to discover the "Northwest Passage," a mythical shortcut from the Atlantic to Pacific Ocean, so that their sponsoring nation could control access to the silk and spice markets of Asia? | 517 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Along the banks of Stones River, just outside Murfreesboro, Tennessee occurred an often-overlooked battle during the New Year’s holiday of 1862-1863. Fought during miserable weather that saw bitterly cold rain and sleet, the three-day engagement would involve more than 80,000 soldiers and inflict staggering casualties, with over 23,500 men killed, wounded, or missing. The fighting was some of the most brutal and desperate of the war. Those who fought and died there witnessed incredible bravery alongside great cruelty, while great leadership mingled with the criminally inept.
Stones River National Battlefield, Murfreesboro, Tenn.
As 1862 approached its conclusion, the respective war efforts were in a state of flux. Confederate forces remained largely on the defensive. While Federals forces were ordered into the field by President Abraham Lincoln in a late year offensive. In hopes of bolstering the impact of Emancipation Proclamation, which was announced on September 22nd and was set to officially take effect on January 1, 1863, Lincoln ordered three of his principal commanders into action. In the Eastern Theater, General Ambrose Burnside was tasked with gaining a victory over the principal Confederate army in that theater. By mid-December, Burnside had been defeated at Fredericksburg and his subordinates were borderline mutinous.
The last hope for Lincoln to gain a Federal victory before he signed the Emancipation Proclamation lay in the hands of another of his western armies, the newly christened Army of the Cumberland. Fresh off of its victory at Perryville, Kentucky, where it was known as the Army of the Ohio, the Army of the Cumberland was an army that had done a great deal of marching, but not a great deal of fighting in 1862. After pursuing the Confederate Army of the Mississippi (now dubbed the Army of Tennessee), across the Deep South, and defeating the Confederates at Perryville, the Army of the Cumberland stood poised to secure all of Kentucky and most of western Tennessee for the Union. While most of central and eastern Tennessee remained solidly in Confederate control—and ripe for the taking.
The principal Federal commander, General Don Carlos Buell, had drawn the ire of President Lincoln and his General-in Chief Henry W. Halleck for what the perceived as foot dragging and due to unflattering reports submitted by Buell’s subordinates.
On October 24, Halleck ordered General William Rosecrans to take command of Buell’s army and force Bragg out of Kentucky and Tennessee as soon as possible and to occupy the rail hub at Chattanooga linking Virginia with the Deep South. Halleck stressed the urgency of the situation as he wrote to Rosecrans: “You will fully appreciate the importance of moving light and rapidly… I need not urge upon you the necessity of giving active employment to your forces. Neither the country nor the Government will much longer put up with the inactivity of some of our armies and generals."
“Old Rosy,” as he was known to his men, was 43 years old, and an imposing figure at six-feet tall, but at this point in the war, Rosecrans was something of an unknown. He commanded the troops that captured Corinth earlier in the year, but his lack of aggression did not produce much confidence in his abilities. Rosecrans he also saw no action during the Mexican War and his conversion to Roman Catholicism at West Point placed him outside the norms of most military circles. His style of leadership could also be a bit confused. He was a hard drinker and was as quick to anger as he was to forgive. In his tent, he was a careful planner and strategist who favored maneuver over confrontation designed to destroy the opposing army, but in battle, when his blood was aroused, he became excited and emotional, preferring a direct, on-the-scene leadership style.
In this scenario, caution won out. Despite Halleck’s clear desire to see Rosecrans move against Bragg, the new commander of the Army of the Cumberland remained at headquarters in Nashville. In his mind, the army needed to reorganize and resupply before moving forward. The resulting lethargy lasted from late October into early December, which incensed Halleck. He sent Rosecrans a tersely worded dispatch warning, “As I wrote to you when you took the command, the Government demands action, and if you cannot respond to that demand, some one (sic) else will be tried.”
Rosecrans responded just as emphatically, “Everything I have done was necessary, absolutely so…If the Government which ordered me here confides in my judgment, it may rely on my continuing to do what I have been trying to do…To threats of removal and the like, I must be permitted to say that I am insensible.” Few in Washington could fathom the condition that the Army of the Cumberland was in after the extended line of march into Kentucky, the summer drought of 1862, and the desperate engagement that was Perryville.
Gen. Braxton Bragg
Library of Congress
On the Confederate side, General Braxton Bragg faced a different and, in many ways, far worse command situation. Rosecrans, despite the pressures from Washington, had managed to keep a cohesive command organization. Bragg and his subordinate commanders, on the other hand, had managed to create a command atmosphere that can best be described as a “snake pit.” First of all, Bragg was not a likable man. The famous Southern diarist, Mary Chesnut, recorded that Bragg possessed a unique “winning way of earning everyone’s detestation.” He was ill-tempered, stubborn, intractable, overly sensitive to criticism, and more than a little paranoid. However, in Bragg’s case, the paranoia was legitimate as he was roundly despised by all his army’s commanders. The only man who seemed to like him and see any military abilities in him was President Jefferson Davis. Davis had known Bragg since the war in Mexico and the two men shared a mutual trust and admiration. Unfortunately, that is probably because they shared such similar personalities.
Davis viewed the public outcry over Bragg’s withdrawal from Perryville as a personal attack. He believed that the only reason Bragg was being so harshly criticized in the Southern press and Confederate Congress was because of his association with Davis. Therefore, as he often tended to do, the Confederate president saw this as yet another example of his numerous enemies, both real and perceived, trying to gain political leverage. As a result, he defended Bragg vigorously in public. However, privately, Davis had deep concerns about Bragg.
Those concerns were not the product of what the press and his political opponents said, but, rather, were derived from the complaints of Bragg’s own subordinate commanders, and that is a mild description for what Bragg’s generals thought of him. Generals Leonidas Polk, a former Episcopal bishop from Louisiana, and also a close Davis associate, led the charge against Bragg, supported by his fellow commanders, Generals William Hardee and Kirby Smith. General Henry Heth wrote that he and Kirby Smith believed “General Bragg had lost his mind.” Another officer wrote that while Bragg was of sound mind, he was instead “utterly incompetent.”
In late October, as Bragg’s subordinates plotted a coup against their commander, Davis called Bragg to Richmond. While Bragg was aware of the complaints against him and deeply angered by his commanders’ apparent acts of insubordination, he approached Davis contritely and modestly in their meeting. Bragg argued that, while he indeed retreated before Buell’s army at Perryville and lost Kentucky in the process, he had inflicted 25,000 casualties on the enemy and, most importantly, kept his army intact. Further, Bragg went on to say, with the Confederate defeats in Mississippi, his army was now the only one in the West still capable of resisting Union advances.
Then, Bragg offered Davis a new plan and one designed not just to resist a Federal attack, but to take the offensive against Rosecrans. He proposed to move his army forward up the line of the Nashville & Chattanooga Railroad to establish a new base at Murfreesboro, some 30 miles southeast of Nashville. From there, he would attack Rosecrans, drive his army from Nashville, recapture the state capital, and move to threaten Grant’s rear in western Tennessee.
This kind of offensive mindset was exactly the sort Davis appreciated and Bragg knew it. The president heartily approved of Bragg’s plan and sent him back to his army carrying Davis’ unqualified support. Davis then called Generals Polk and Hardee to Richmond and elevated them both to the rank of lieutenant general. Duly bribed by promotion, the pair returned to Bragg’s army to carry out the new offensive against Rosecrans.
Meanwhile, Bragg was back in Tennessee to implement the first stage of his plan by ordering his other key commander, General John Breckinridge, to move his 6,000 man force to Murfreesboro and establish command there. This Breckinridge accomplished on October 28, but he worried that, once Rosecrans figured out how small his force was, the Union general would move to crush him. Luckily for Breckinridge, Rosecrans was too busy reorganizing and resupplying his army. While he noted Breckinridge’s move to Murfreesboro, he did nothing to counter it.
However, as the weeks passed, Bragg still faced numerous challenges in executing his planned offensive. First, his supplies were short and foraging in late fall proved difficult. His men needed both food and good clothing if they were to campaign during the coming winter. Then, in early December, his ally, President Davis, complicated matters further by insisting General Joseph Johnston transfer 9,000 men from Bragg’s army to that of General John Pemberton at Vicksburg. Johnston, who commanded the entire Western Theater, had never gotten along with Davis and he bitterly opposed the transfer of troops from Bragg’s army, which was now all encamped at Murfreesboro, but Davis dismissed his concerns. As a result, Brag was left with only 40,000 men to undertake a winter offensive against Rosecrans’ 80,000 in and around Nashville.
As Bragg struggled to manage his army at Murfreesboro, Rosecrans prepared a plan of his own. Despite his sincere and bombastic opposition to Halleck’s orders to move against Bragg, Rosecrans got the message. As soon as he received more supplies, he fully intended to move against Bragg, and as Christmas arrived, Rosecrans felt the moment had come. Not only was his army well supplied, intelligence told him that Bragg was forced to send troops to Vicksburg. In addition, he learned that John Hunt Morgan and Nathan Bedford Forrest’s cavalry had also detached from Bragg's army. Finally, all indications pointed to Bragg simply settling down for the winter at Murfreesboro.
On Christmas Day, Rosecrans called a staff conference to present the plan he and General George Thomas had developed. The Army of the Cumberland would advance toward Murfreesboro in three parallel columns, with General Thomas Crittenden going straight down the Nashville Turnpike to Murfreesboro, while Generals Alexander McCook and George Thomas advanced on his right. They would engage Bragg’s army, which Rosecrans mistakenly believed to be scattered around Murfreesboro, and do so with only 44,000 men. Rosecrans had elected to leave the remainder of the army behind, garrisoning Nashville and guarding the railroad. As a result, he had unintentionally evened the odds more in Bragg’s favor. As the meeting concluded, a little Christmas cheer was passed around the room in the form of brandy toddies. The mood became lighter, but soon, Rosecrans pounded his fist on the table in an emotional outburst and told his commanders, “We move tomorrow, gentlemen! We shall skirmish, probably as soon as we pass the outposts. Press them hard! Drive them out of their nests! Make them fight or run! Fight them! Fight them! Fight I say!”
As Rosecrans announced his advance, Bragg’s camp was enjoying the holidays in high style. Oblivious to any possible threat, the officers attended Christmas balls and parties. The liquor flowed and the officers danced the nights away, while their men huddled for warmth in camp, lonely and far from home. The officers’ merriment did not go unnoticed. The Confederate memoirist, Sam Watkins, a private in Bragg’s army, later wrote that, during the Christmas holidays of 1862, “John Barleycorn was our general-in-chief…our generals, and colonels, and captains had kissed John a little too often.” However, on the morning of December 26, as the Army of the Cumberland moved south, an incident occurred which added to the continuing discord among Bragg’s commanders and the men of his army as well.
Library of Congress
Without a doubt, the ablest of Bragg’s commanders was John Breckinridge. Breckinridge, who had been President James Buchanan’s vice president, was a popular and gifted commander, in spite of his limited military experience. As a native Kentuckian, he and his men formed an essential part of Bragg’s fall campaign into Kentucky, and Bragg hoped that thousands of fellow Kentuckians would flock to their banner, but their failure to appear greatly embittered Bragg towards his subordinate. As a result, he had no use for Breckinridge or anyone from Kentucky, as he wrote to his wife, “Why should I stay with my handful of brave Southern men to fight for cowards who skulked about in the dark to say to us, ‘we are with you. Only whip these fellows out of our country and let us see you can protect us, and we will join you.’”
Bragg made no secret of his contempt for Breckinridge and his Kentucky brigade, who, because their state was in Union hands, had come to be called the “Orphan Brigade,” And often demonstrated it in a cruel and vindictive manner. On December 20, Bragg convened a court-martial to hear the case regarding charges of desertion leveled against Private Asa Lewis of the 6th Kentucky Infantry Regiment (CSA), who accidentally deserted from the army to care for his family after some confusion about his terms of service. Breckinridge and his officers pleaded with Bragg to show the boy mercy, given that his father and died and Lewis was now the family’s only means of support. But Bragg was implacable and determined to make an example of the young private, and so had him executed the day after Christmas.
Luckily for Bragg, General Joseph Wheeler and his cavalry remained with the army, and soon brought news of Rosecrans’ advance. Bragg moved to prepare to meet the Union threat, but the three-columns Rosecrans employed confused him, and he was uncertain where the main Federal attack would fall. Therefore, he dispersed his army across all the approaches to Murfreesboro from Nashville. The resulting Confederate positions were not particularly advantageous and the terrain itself made it a difficult field for either side to fight on. The land was marked by limestone outcroppings, with deep crevices and large boulders, and these were surrounded by dense, thick stands of red cedar. This made unit cohesion difficult and the dense cedar severely limited visibility in places. In addition, the weather was simply awful. It was cold and windy, with a steady rain that gave way occasionally to freezing drizzle and sleet.
The two armies sparred as Rosecrans approached, with Wheeler’s cavalry slashing the Union columns at every opportunity. Finally, the Union army took up positions opposite Bragg on December 29. Rosecrans deployed Crittenden’s men on the left, anchored on the river and extending across the Nashville Turnpike. George Thomas moved in on Crittenden’s right, extending the Union line to the south, while McCook took the far right, with his line arcing to the southwest. For his part, Bragg placed Hardee opposite McCook, with Polk in the center facing Thomas. However, the Confederate right was another matter. Here, Bragg chose to place Breckinridge across the river, which now separated his right-wing from the rest of the army. It was not a sound placement by any means, and, while his commanders urged a change, Bragg stubbornly refused to hear their arguments. This meant that, ironically, both Rosecrans and Bragg envisioned their offensive plans as attacks on the other’s right flank. And both planned to attack on New Year’s Eve morning, December 31.
The night of December 30 was cold, wet, and miserable for the soldiers in the line on both sides. Sometime before the evening tattoo, one of the Union’s regimental bands struck up “Yankee Doodle” and then “Hail Columbia.” As the music drifted across the field, the Confederate soldiers listened quietly. Then, one of their bands answered, playing “Dixie.” This friendly exchange of music continued for a time until a Federal band started to play the bittersweet sounds of “Home, Sweet Home.” Within minutes, a Southern band joined in, and the bands played together in what was a unique expression of mutual longing for home and family. Finally, more and more bands joined in and the collective musical forces of both armies played the tune together. One soldier from Tennessee remembered that “after our bands had ceased playing, we could hear the sweet refrain as it died away on the cool frosty air.”
New Year’s Eve dawned cold and gray, with fog and drizzle obscuring the field of battle. On the Union left, Crittenden’s men prepared to move across Stone’s River and begin the assault on Bragg’s right. As a result, Rosecrans was nearby and focused on Crittenden’s preparations. To the south along Thomas’ line, it was quiet for the most part and men prepared their breakfasts. However, on the far right near his juncture with McCook’s troops, one of McCook’s divisions was preparing to fight. That division was led by General Philip Sheridan. During the night, one of Sheridan’s brigade commanders, General Joshua Sill, brought him word that his pickets had spotted a considerable amount of Confederate activity to his front, and it appeared they were moving toward the far right of the Union line. The two men rode to wake General McCook and tell him what had been observed. McCook quickly dismissed them and the possible threat and went back to sleep.
Sheridan remained disturbed and, upon his return to his division’s lines, ordered his staff to quietly rouse the men, give them a quick breakfast, and then get them into line of battle. Sheridan next walked the line personally to ensure every regiment was in-place and ready for what he suspected might be a Confederate attack. As the deep black of night steadily turned to a gloomy, opaque, misty gray, McCook received additional reports of movement along his line. Finally, he issued orders to his other divisions to make preparations for an attack, but it was too little and too late.
Minutes later, the soldiers on McCook’s far-right saw dark, shadowy figures quietly approaching through the dense mist. Suddenly, the figures merged into a long, seemingly unending line, and the morning calm was suddenly broken by the shrill cry of the Rebel yell. That yell came from 11,000 Confederates under William J. Hardee. They smashed into the Federal right flank, shooting men down as they ate their breakfast with their rifles out of reach. There was a brief flurry of hand-to-hand fighting, but McCook’s men began to flee in panic towards the rear and the Nashville Turnpike, three miles away. Some Federal regiments tried to make a stand but, unsupported and isolated, they also soon broke for the rear. Within 30 minutes, two of McCook’s brigades ceased to exist.
Nearby, Sheridan’s division along with Sill’s fought back and, with the loss of those two brigades, the Union right had bent back inward. Four Confederate brigades attacked the new flank but they stubbornly held. Eventually, they too gave ground, but Bragg’s attack was starting to lose momentum. Then, Polk began his attack on the Union center, in an attempt to prevent any support from going to McCook, but this assault was conducted in a piecemeal fashion and George Thomas’ men turned them back, inflicting a great number of casualties.
Meanwhile, Rosecrans could hear the steady thumping of artillery to his right along with a steady cascade of rifle fire. However, despite the bad reports coming in, he did not seem concerned. Finally, when McCook sent a message pleading for reinforcements, Rosecrans realized the magnitude of the disaster on the Union right. He ordered Crittenden to cease his advance and sent troops to bolster Sheridan and Sill.
The fighting on the Union right continued unabated as Hardee pressed both Sheridan and Sill back. Soon, dead horses and soldiers, smashed artillery, and burning wagon littered the fields northwest of Murfreesboro. Because the ground contained so much limestone, blood did not soak into the soil. Rather, it gathered on the ground in pools, both large and small, dotting the landscape and adding a ghoulish quality to an already nightmarish scene.
Sheridan’s division fought especially hard as the former went everywhere to personally direct his men. This soon became a necessity, as he lost all three of his brigade commanders before noon. By 10:00 a.m., the Federal line had been pushed back into a V-shape, with the left side facing east and the right facing west. Sheridan’s division manned the apex of this reformed line and, given that they formed a salient, the Confederate attacks now came from both sides. He organized a skillful withdrawal, all the while maintaining a tight hold on the Union units on either side. And, while this V-shaped line was vulnerable, it also allowed Rosecrans to quickly shift his forces wherever they were needed, which he did with great energy and skill.
A romantic image of William Rosecrans at the Battle of Murfreesboro, January 2, 1863
Library of Congress
That morning, Rosecrans exercised a brand of personal courage and leadership typically reserved for corps and division commanders. He rode all about the battlefield, asking for reports, giving succinct orders, and providing encouragement where needed, and it was much need on that cold, bloody morning. On the left, he rode up to Colonel William Price, whose brigade was positioned along the river to prevent any Confederate crossing attempts. Rosecrans shouted at Price, “Will you hold this ford?” Price replied, honestly, “I will try, sir!” Rosecrans shouted even louder, “Will you hold this ford?” Price replied, “I will die right here, sir!” Still not satisfied, Rosecrans shouted once more, his voice filled with emotion, “Will you hold this ford?” The young colonel responded, “Yes, sir!”
By midday, the Union apex had shifted to an area known as the Round Forest, a small hill of limestone punctuated by dense cedar groves, and the right was aligning along the Nashville Turnpike. But Rosecrans continued to strengthen his line, sending units wherever they were needed most, no matter what brigade or division they belonged to. As Hardee’s assault lost all its energy due to a steadily mounting casualty toll, Bragg ordered Polk to renew his attacks, focusing on the Round Forest. There, his men were met by a staggering punch issued by Colonel William Hazen’s brigade. Polk continued to hammer away at Hazen and Rosecrans poured reinforcements into what became known as Hell’s Half-Acre. By 1:00 p.m., Polk’s men were spent and Bragg called for Breckinridge to send him four fresh brigades from across the river.
As Bragg waited on Breckinridge’s men, Rosecrans and Thomas further reinforced the Round Forest, bringing in every available piece of artillery. At 4:00 p.m., the first two of Breckinridge’s brigades moved into the line opposite the Round Forest and awaited Polk’s orders, as well as the arrival of the remaining two brigades. However, under pressure from Bragg, Polk elected not to wait and launched the assault with two instead of four brigades. The men marched smartly across the field, now littered with hundreds of bodies from the previous attacks. The newly arrived Union artillery quickly opened fire, blasting huge gaps in the advancing lines, but they kept coming forward. When the Confederate line reached a range of only 50 yards, Hazen ordered his infantry to open fire. The results were devastating. Breckinridge’s men fell by the dozens and the entire attacking line staggered to a halt, then broke to the rear amid a hail of rifle and artillery fire. One regiment lost 47 percent of its men and many others suffered more than 30 percent casualties.
One would think this could have convinced Bragg of the futility of another attack, but he refused to change his mind. When Breckinridge’s other two brigades arrived, he ordered Polk to sacrifice them as well. It is little wonder that some officers questioned Bragg’s sanity at this point. By now, the Federal artillery in the Round Forest numbered more than 50 guns and, as the assault was renewed, their crews fired as fast as they could reload. The second Confederate attack got no farther than its predecessor and the results were nearly identical. Nothing was gained and nothing was proven except for the bravery of Breckinridge’s men.
At one point, Rosecrans and his staff were close to the action, observing the defense of the Round Forest. With him was Colonel Julius Garesché, his aide and his closest friend from his cadet days at West Point. In fact, it was Garesché who convinced him to convert to Catholicism. As the fighting raged in front of them, a round of solid shot from a Confederate cannon roared past within inches of the commanding general’s head. As it flew by him, it hit Garesché in the face. He was immediately decapitated, and his headless body stayed in the saddle for 20 paces before pitching off the horse to the ground. Rosecrans rode on, his uniform covered with Garesché’s blood, unaware of what happened behind him. Later, when he was told about his friend’s death, he quietly said, “Brave men die in battle. Let us push on.” However, no matter his words, Rosecrans was deeply affected by his comrade’s death. After the battle, he carefully cut the buttons from his uniform and placed them in an envelope marked, “Buttons I wore the day Garesché was killed.” He would carry that envelope with him for the rest of his life.
With sunset, the sounds of battle quickly faded and gave way to the moaning of the wounded. The cold, dark, blustery night was filled with the sight of lanterns floating between the two lines, as men from both sides attended to the wounded and dying.
Rosecrans held a meeting of his commanders to discuss the next day’s action. Old Rosy asked them if they should retreat, but at that moment, George Thomas, who had been napping, suddenly awoke, looked around him with a fierce gaze and said, “This army does not retreat.” With that, the issue was settled and the Army of the Cumberland would stay and fight.
Bragg, however, was flush with victory. He was certain Rosecrans would limp back to Nashville during the night, and he sent an urgent telegram to Jefferson Davis trumpeting his success: “The enemy has yielded his strong position and is falling back. God has granted us a happy New Year.” So convinced was Bragg of his victory, he went to bed that night without making a single adjustment to his line of battle. As far as he was concerned, the Battle of Stone’s River was over.
When the dawn of the new year of 1863 arrived, Bragg was greeted not by the sight of an empty field before him, but, rather, by the same blue lines of infantry that had been there the night before. Bragg stood paralyzed with shock and when his generals came to him seeking orders, he had none to give. Instead, he sunk into a sort of mental lethargy, issuing orders for menial tasks as opposed to crafting a new strategy. Later in the day, he ordered Breckinridge to resume his original position across the river, but that was the extent of his leadership for the day. That night, he continued to seek signs that Rosecrans was finally withdrawing, but they did not come—the Union army was not simply going to go away as he hoped.
The next morning, Bragg, upon finding the enemy still in his front, ordered an artillery bombardment to see if it might provoke a response. He wanted to see just how committed Rosecrans was to holding his position. When the Federal artillery answered in kind and more so, he had his answer. After fretting about a course of action, he decided to try to place his own artillery on high ground east of the river in front of Breckinridge. This would allow him to pour a potentially devastating fire into the Union left flank, which might drive Rosecrans out of his positions. Bragg ordered a reconnaissance of the area and, when the scouts returned, they told him that the high ground he wanted for his artillery was already in possession of a Union division. Bragg decided to order Breckinridge to take the ridge and called the Kentuckian to his headquarters. When he was told of his assignment, the former vice president protested in anger, telling Bragg that his men could not possibly take such a strong position. Exhibiting both his intransigence and his dislike for Breckinridge, Bragg told him that his Kentucky soldiers had suffered the least thus far and now it was their turn to prove their worthiness.
Breckinridge again protested the order, telling Bragg that he had personally seen the Federal emplacements and they could not be taken by direct assault. Bragg angrily told him, “Sir, my information is different. I have given an order to attack the enemy and expect it to be obeyed!” With that, the discussion was over.
When Breckinridge returned to his men and told them what had been ordered, General Roger Hanson, commander of the Orphan Brigade, exploded in anger and proposed that he go to the headquarters and shoot General Bragg. Breckinridge prevailed upon him not to do so, and, instead, to go prepare his command for the attack.
At 3:00 p.m., as Breckinridge massed his men for the assault, Rosecrans observed the activity and sent reinforcements across the river. More importantly, he also moved additional artillery onto the west bank of the river, where they could cover the Union defenders. By the time Breckinridge began to move forward, Rosecrans had assembled 58 guns on the high ground facing east.
Breckinridge's charge was raked by musketry and artillery from the front and flank.
Library of Congress
An hour later, Breckinridge’s men started to advance across nearly 600 yards of open ground into the teeth of a Federal division and a mass of supporting artillery. Despite the heavy defensive fire, the Kentuckians never faltered, moving ever closer, and finally pouring over the Union lines. The blue-clad defenders fell back in disorder and, after 30 minutes of fierce fighting, Breckinridge’s men had accomplished an objective they believed was impossible, but rather than stopping to dig in and hold, they foolishly pressed forward in pursuit of the fleeing Yankees. It proved to be a fatal error.
As soon as the retreating Union troops were out of the way, the 58 Federal guns west of the river opened fire on Breckinridge’s still advancing line. Blasting away at better than 100 rounds per minute all together, they simply slaughtered the Kentuckians. Within minutes, the entire flow of the battle had changed. As the Southerners turned to retreat back up the slope of the hill, Crittenden ordered infantry reserves forward, driving the Orphan Brigade back across the hill they had just taken and into the fields they had just crossed so bravely. Seeing the sad remnant of the Orphan Brigade returning, Breckinridge broke down, sobbing, “My poor Orphans! My poor Orphans! My poor Orphan Brigade! They have cut it to pieces.”
That night, amid another cold, driving rain, Bragg called a meeting of his key commanders. After some spirited discussion, they could not reach a decision on how to proceed. However, on the morning of January 3, Bragg became convinced that his army was beyond its limits, and at 10:00 a.m., he ordered a withdrawal and the Battle of Stone’s River was over, at last.
The battle was hailed as a major victory in Washington, while President Davis and General Bragg suffered not only a defeat, but one made an embarrassment by Bragg’s premature announcement of victory on New Year’s Eve. Middle Tennessee was now lost to the Confederacy, and Lincoln had a victory to counterbalance the recent defeat at Fredericksburg. Bragg remained in command of the Army of Tennessee both because Davis could not stand the loss of face he would suffer if forced to dismiss Bragg, and also because there simply was no one else for the job. Bragg and his commanders continued to fight harder against one another than they ever did against the enemy until he was finally relieved of command following the Union breakout at Chattanooga in November 1863.
For William Rosecrans, Stones River was the high point of his entire career. Even when he later had to relieve Rosecrans of command after Chickamauga, Lincoln remembered the timely victory at Stones River. Writing to Rosecrans after his dismissal from command of the Army of the Cumberland, the president said, “whilst I remember anything, that about the end of last year and the beginning of this, you gave us a hard-earned victory, which, had there been a defeat instead, the nation could scarcely have lived over.” | <urn:uuid:07602b63-a428-42f5-aea4-ce5a49d38adf> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/new-years-hell | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250614086.44/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123221108-20200124010108-00199.warc.gz | en | 0.984137 | 7,408 | 3.484375 | 3 | [
-0.3670765161514282,
0.3688243329524994,
0.5972400903701782,
0.24582625925540924,
-0.294622540473938,
-0.15779121220111847,
-0.07678969949483871,
0.09150104969739914,
-0.471244752407074,
0.30490416288375854,
0.6238452196121216,
-0.04525376111268997,
0.1995830535888672,
0.32047346234321594,... | 5 | Along the banks of Stones River, just outside Murfreesboro, Tennessee occurred an often-overlooked battle during the New Year’s holiday of 1862-1863. Fought during miserable weather that saw bitterly cold rain and sleet, the three-day engagement would involve more than 80,000 soldiers and inflict staggering casualties, with over 23,500 men killed, wounded, or missing. The fighting was some of the most brutal and desperate of the war. Those who fought and died there witnessed incredible bravery alongside great cruelty, while great leadership mingled with the criminally inept.
Stones River National Battlefield, Murfreesboro, Tenn.
As 1862 approached its conclusion, the respective war efforts were in a state of flux. Confederate forces remained largely on the defensive. While Federals forces were ordered into the field by President Abraham Lincoln in a late year offensive. In hopes of bolstering the impact of Emancipation Proclamation, which was announced on September 22nd and was set to officially take effect on January 1, 1863, Lincoln ordered three of his principal commanders into action. In the Eastern Theater, General Ambrose Burnside was tasked with gaining a victory over the principal Confederate army in that theater. By mid-December, Burnside had been defeated at Fredericksburg and his subordinates were borderline mutinous.
The last hope for Lincoln to gain a Federal victory before he signed the Emancipation Proclamation lay in the hands of another of his western armies, the newly christened Army of the Cumberland. Fresh off of its victory at Perryville, Kentucky, where it was known as the Army of the Ohio, the Army of the Cumberland was an army that had done a great deal of marching, but not a great deal of fighting in 1862. After pursuing the Confederate Army of the Mississippi (now dubbed the Army of Tennessee), across the Deep South, and defeating the Confederates at Perryville, the Army of the Cumberland stood poised to secure all of Kentucky and most of western Tennessee for the Union. While most of central and eastern Tennessee remained solidly in Confederate control—and ripe for the taking.
The principal Federal commander, General Don Carlos Buell, had drawn the ire of President Lincoln and his General-in Chief Henry W. Halleck for what the perceived as foot dragging and due to unflattering reports submitted by Buell’s subordinates.
On October 24, Halleck ordered General William Rosecrans to take command of Buell’s army and force Bragg out of Kentucky and Tennessee as soon as possible and to occupy the rail hub at Chattanooga linking Virginia with the Deep South. Halleck stressed the urgency of the situation as he wrote to Rosecrans: “You will fully appreciate the importance of moving light and rapidly… I need not urge upon you the necessity of giving active employment to your forces. Neither the country nor the Government will much longer put up with the inactivity of some of our armies and generals."
“Old Rosy,” as he was known to his men, was 43 years old, and an imposing figure at six-feet tall, but at this point in the war, Rosecrans was something of an unknown. He commanded the troops that captured Corinth earlier in the year, but his lack of aggression did not produce much confidence in his abilities. Rosecrans he also saw no action during the Mexican War and his conversion to Roman Catholicism at West Point placed him outside the norms of most military circles. His style of leadership could also be a bit confused. He was a hard drinker and was as quick to anger as he was to forgive. In his tent, he was a careful planner and strategist who favored maneuver over confrontation designed to destroy the opposing army, but in battle, when his blood was aroused, he became excited and emotional, preferring a direct, on-the-scene leadership style.
In this scenario, caution won out. Despite Halleck’s clear desire to see Rosecrans move against Bragg, the new commander of the Army of the Cumberland remained at headquarters in Nashville. In his mind, the army needed to reorganize and resupply before moving forward. The resulting lethargy lasted from late October into early December, which incensed Halleck. He sent Rosecrans a tersely worded dispatch warning, “As I wrote to you when you took the command, the Government demands action, and if you cannot respond to that demand, some one (sic) else will be tried.”
Rosecrans responded just as emphatically, “Everything I have done was necessary, absolutely so…If the Government which ordered me here confides in my judgment, it may rely on my continuing to do what I have been trying to do…To threats of removal and the like, I must be permitted to say that I am insensible.” Few in Washington could fathom the condition that the Army of the Cumberland was in after the extended line of march into Kentucky, the summer drought of 1862, and the desperate engagement that was Perryville.
Gen. Braxton Bragg
Library of Congress
On the Confederate side, General Braxton Bragg faced a different and, in many ways, far worse command situation. Rosecrans, despite the pressures from Washington, had managed to keep a cohesive command organization. Bragg and his subordinate commanders, on the other hand, had managed to create a command atmosphere that can best be described as a “snake pit.” First of all, Bragg was not a likable man. The famous Southern diarist, Mary Chesnut, recorded that Bragg possessed a unique “winning way of earning everyone’s detestation.” He was ill-tempered, stubborn, intractable, overly sensitive to criticism, and more than a little paranoid. However, in Bragg’s case, the paranoia was legitimate as he was roundly despised by all his army’s commanders. The only man who seemed to like him and see any military abilities in him was President Jefferson Davis. Davis had known Bragg since the war in Mexico and the two men shared a mutual trust and admiration. Unfortunately, that is probably because they shared such similar personalities.
Davis viewed the public outcry over Bragg’s withdrawal from Perryville as a personal attack. He believed that the only reason Bragg was being so harshly criticized in the Southern press and Confederate Congress was because of his association with Davis. Therefore, as he often tended to do, the Confederate president saw this as yet another example of his numerous enemies, both real and perceived, trying to gain political leverage. As a result, he defended Bragg vigorously in public. However, privately, Davis had deep concerns about Bragg.
Those concerns were not the product of what the press and his political opponents said, but, rather, were derived from the complaints of Bragg’s own subordinate commanders, and that is a mild description for what Bragg’s generals thought of him. Generals Leonidas Polk, a former Episcopal bishop from Louisiana, and also a close Davis associate, led the charge against Bragg, supported by his fellow commanders, Generals William Hardee and Kirby Smith. General Henry Heth wrote that he and Kirby Smith believed “General Bragg had lost his mind.” Another officer wrote that while Bragg was of sound mind, he was instead “utterly incompetent.”
In late October, as Bragg’s subordinates plotted a coup against their commander, Davis called Bragg to Richmond. While Bragg was aware of the complaints against him and deeply angered by his commanders’ apparent acts of insubordination, he approached Davis contritely and modestly in their meeting. Bragg argued that, while he indeed retreated before Buell’s army at Perryville and lost Kentucky in the process, he had inflicted 25,000 casualties on the enemy and, most importantly, kept his army intact. Further, Bragg went on to say, with the Confederate defeats in Mississippi, his army was now the only one in the West still capable of resisting Union advances.
Then, Bragg offered Davis a new plan and one designed not just to resist a Federal attack, but to take the offensive against Rosecrans. He proposed to move his army forward up the line of the Nashville & Chattanooga Railroad to establish a new base at Murfreesboro, some 30 miles southeast of Nashville. From there, he would attack Rosecrans, drive his army from Nashville, recapture the state capital, and move to threaten Grant’s rear in western Tennessee.
This kind of offensive mindset was exactly the sort Davis appreciated and Bragg knew it. The president heartily approved of Bragg’s plan and sent him back to his army carrying Davis’ unqualified support. Davis then called Generals Polk and Hardee to Richmond and elevated them both to the rank of lieutenant general. Duly bribed by promotion, the pair returned to Bragg’s army to carry out the new offensive against Rosecrans.
Meanwhile, Bragg was back in Tennessee to implement the first stage of his plan by ordering his other key commander, General John Breckinridge, to move his 6,000 man force to Murfreesboro and establish command there. This Breckinridge accomplished on October 28, but he worried that, once Rosecrans figured out how small his force was, the Union general would move to crush him. Luckily for Breckinridge, Rosecrans was too busy reorganizing and resupplying his army. While he noted Breckinridge’s move to Murfreesboro, he did nothing to counter it.
However, as the weeks passed, Bragg still faced numerous challenges in executing his planned offensive. First, his supplies were short and foraging in late fall proved difficult. His men needed both food and good clothing if they were to campaign during the coming winter. Then, in early December, his ally, President Davis, complicated matters further by insisting General Joseph Johnston transfer 9,000 men from Bragg’s army to that of General John Pemberton at Vicksburg. Johnston, who commanded the entire Western Theater, had never gotten along with Davis and he bitterly opposed the transfer of troops from Bragg’s army, which was now all encamped at Murfreesboro, but Davis dismissed his concerns. As a result, Brag was left with only 40,000 men to undertake a winter offensive against Rosecrans’ 80,000 in and around Nashville.
As Bragg struggled to manage his army at Murfreesboro, Rosecrans prepared a plan of his own. Despite his sincere and bombastic opposition to Halleck’s orders to move against Bragg, Rosecrans got the message. As soon as he received more supplies, he fully intended to move against Bragg, and as Christmas arrived, Rosecrans felt the moment had come. Not only was his army well supplied, intelligence told him that Bragg was forced to send troops to Vicksburg. In addition, he learned that John Hunt Morgan and Nathan Bedford Forrest’s cavalry had also detached from Bragg's army. Finally, all indications pointed to Bragg simply settling down for the winter at Murfreesboro.
On Christmas Day, Rosecrans called a staff conference to present the plan he and General George Thomas had developed. The Army of the Cumberland would advance toward Murfreesboro in three parallel columns, with General Thomas Crittenden going straight down the Nashville Turnpike to Murfreesboro, while Generals Alexander McCook and George Thomas advanced on his right. They would engage Bragg’s army, which Rosecrans mistakenly believed to be scattered around Murfreesboro, and do so with only 44,000 men. Rosecrans had elected to leave the remainder of the army behind, garrisoning Nashville and guarding the railroad. As a result, he had unintentionally evened the odds more in Bragg’s favor. As the meeting concluded, a little Christmas cheer was passed around the room in the form of brandy toddies. The mood became lighter, but soon, Rosecrans pounded his fist on the table in an emotional outburst and told his commanders, “We move tomorrow, gentlemen! We shall skirmish, probably as soon as we pass the outposts. Press them hard! Drive them out of their nests! Make them fight or run! Fight them! Fight them! Fight I say!”
As Rosecrans announced his advance, Bragg’s camp was enjoying the holidays in high style. Oblivious to any possible threat, the officers attended Christmas balls and parties. The liquor flowed and the officers danced the nights away, while their men huddled for warmth in camp, lonely and far from home. The officers’ merriment did not go unnoticed. The Confederate memoirist, Sam Watkins, a private in Bragg’s army, later wrote that, during the Christmas holidays of 1862, “John Barleycorn was our general-in-chief…our generals, and colonels, and captains had kissed John a little too often.” However, on the morning of December 26, as the Army of the Cumberland moved south, an incident occurred which added to the continuing discord among Bragg’s commanders and the men of his army as well.
Library of Congress
Without a doubt, the ablest of Bragg’s commanders was John Breckinridge. Breckinridge, who had been President James Buchanan’s vice president, was a popular and gifted commander, in spite of his limited military experience. As a native Kentuckian, he and his men formed an essential part of Bragg’s fall campaign into Kentucky, and Bragg hoped that thousands of fellow Kentuckians would flock to their banner, but their failure to appear greatly embittered Bragg towards his subordinate. As a result, he had no use for Breckinridge or anyone from Kentucky, as he wrote to his wife, “Why should I stay with my handful of brave Southern men to fight for cowards who skulked about in the dark to say to us, ‘we are with you. Only whip these fellows out of our country and let us see you can protect us, and we will join you.’”
Bragg made no secret of his contempt for Breckinridge and his Kentucky brigade, who, because their state was in Union hands, had come to be called the “Orphan Brigade,” And often demonstrated it in a cruel and vindictive manner. On December 20, Bragg convened a court-martial to hear the case regarding charges of desertion leveled against Private Asa Lewis of the 6th Kentucky Infantry Regiment (CSA), who accidentally deserted from the army to care for his family after some confusion about his terms of service. Breckinridge and his officers pleaded with Bragg to show the boy mercy, given that his father and died and Lewis was now the family’s only means of support. But Bragg was implacable and determined to make an example of the young private, and so had him executed the day after Christmas.
Luckily for Bragg, General Joseph Wheeler and his cavalry remained with the army, and soon brought news of Rosecrans’ advance. Bragg moved to prepare to meet the Union threat, but the three-columns Rosecrans employed confused him, and he was uncertain where the main Federal attack would fall. Therefore, he dispersed his army across all the approaches to Murfreesboro from Nashville. The resulting Confederate positions were not particularly advantageous and the terrain itself made it a difficult field for either side to fight on. The land was marked by limestone outcroppings, with deep crevices and large boulders, and these were surrounded by dense, thick stands of red cedar. This made unit cohesion difficult and the dense cedar severely limited visibility in places. In addition, the weather was simply awful. It was cold and windy, with a steady rain that gave way occasionally to freezing drizzle and sleet.
The two armies sparred as Rosecrans approached, with Wheeler’s cavalry slashing the Union columns at every opportunity. Finally, the Union army took up positions opposite Bragg on December 29. Rosecrans deployed Crittenden’s men on the left, anchored on the river and extending across the Nashville Turnpike. George Thomas moved in on Crittenden’s right, extending the Union line to the south, while McCook took the far right, with his line arcing to the southwest. For his part, Bragg placed Hardee opposite McCook, with Polk in the center facing Thomas. However, the Confederate right was another matter. Here, Bragg chose to place Breckinridge across the river, which now separated his right-wing from the rest of the army. It was not a sound placement by any means, and, while his commanders urged a change, Bragg stubbornly refused to hear their arguments. This meant that, ironically, both Rosecrans and Bragg envisioned their offensive plans as attacks on the other’s right flank. And both planned to attack on New Year’s Eve morning, December 31.
The night of December 30 was cold, wet, and miserable for the soldiers in the line on both sides. Sometime before the evening tattoo, one of the Union’s regimental bands struck up “Yankee Doodle” and then “Hail Columbia.” As the music drifted across the field, the Confederate soldiers listened quietly. Then, one of their bands answered, playing “Dixie.” This friendly exchange of music continued for a time until a Federal band started to play the bittersweet sounds of “Home, Sweet Home.” Within minutes, a Southern band joined in, and the bands played together in what was a unique expression of mutual longing for home and family. Finally, more and more bands joined in and the collective musical forces of both armies played the tune together. One soldier from Tennessee remembered that “after our bands had ceased playing, we could hear the sweet refrain as it died away on the cool frosty air.”
New Year’s Eve dawned cold and gray, with fog and drizzle obscuring the field of battle. On the Union left, Crittenden’s men prepared to move across Stone’s River and begin the assault on Bragg’s right. As a result, Rosecrans was nearby and focused on Crittenden’s preparations. To the south along Thomas’ line, it was quiet for the most part and men prepared their breakfasts. However, on the far right near his juncture with McCook’s troops, one of McCook’s divisions was preparing to fight. That division was led by General Philip Sheridan. During the night, one of Sheridan’s brigade commanders, General Joshua Sill, brought him word that his pickets had spotted a considerable amount of Confederate activity to his front, and it appeared they were moving toward the far right of the Union line. The two men rode to wake General McCook and tell him what had been observed. McCook quickly dismissed them and the possible threat and went back to sleep.
Sheridan remained disturbed and, upon his return to his division’s lines, ordered his staff to quietly rouse the men, give them a quick breakfast, and then get them into line of battle. Sheridan next walked the line personally to ensure every regiment was in-place and ready for what he suspected might be a Confederate attack. As the deep black of night steadily turned to a gloomy, opaque, misty gray, McCook received additional reports of movement along his line. Finally, he issued orders to his other divisions to make preparations for an attack, but it was too little and too late.
Minutes later, the soldiers on McCook’s far-right saw dark, shadowy figures quietly approaching through the dense mist. Suddenly, the figures merged into a long, seemingly unending line, and the morning calm was suddenly broken by the shrill cry of the Rebel yell. That yell came from 11,000 Confederates under William J. Hardee. They smashed into the Federal right flank, shooting men down as they ate their breakfast with their rifles out of reach. There was a brief flurry of hand-to-hand fighting, but McCook’s men began to flee in panic towards the rear and the Nashville Turnpike, three miles away. Some Federal regiments tried to make a stand but, unsupported and isolated, they also soon broke for the rear. Within 30 minutes, two of McCook’s brigades ceased to exist.
Nearby, Sheridan’s division along with Sill’s fought back and, with the loss of those two brigades, the Union right had bent back inward. Four Confederate brigades attacked the new flank but they stubbornly held. Eventually, they too gave ground, but Bragg’s attack was starting to lose momentum. Then, Polk began his attack on the Union center, in an attempt to prevent any support from going to McCook, but this assault was conducted in a piecemeal fashion and George Thomas’ men turned them back, inflicting a great number of casualties.
Meanwhile, Rosecrans could hear the steady thumping of artillery to his right along with a steady cascade of rifle fire. However, despite the bad reports coming in, he did not seem concerned. Finally, when McCook sent a message pleading for reinforcements, Rosecrans realized the magnitude of the disaster on the Union right. He ordered Crittenden to cease his advance and sent troops to bolster Sheridan and Sill.
The fighting on the Union right continued unabated as Hardee pressed both Sheridan and Sill back. Soon, dead horses and soldiers, smashed artillery, and burning wagon littered the fields northwest of Murfreesboro. Because the ground contained so much limestone, blood did not soak into the soil. Rather, it gathered on the ground in pools, both large and small, dotting the landscape and adding a ghoulish quality to an already nightmarish scene.
Sheridan’s division fought especially hard as the former went everywhere to personally direct his men. This soon became a necessity, as he lost all three of his brigade commanders before noon. By 10:00 a.m., the Federal line had been pushed back into a V-shape, with the left side facing east and the right facing west. Sheridan’s division manned the apex of this reformed line and, given that they formed a salient, the Confederate attacks now came from both sides. He organized a skillful withdrawal, all the while maintaining a tight hold on the Union units on either side. And, while this V-shaped line was vulnerable, it also allowed Rosecrans to quickly shift his forces wherever they were needed, which he did with great energy and skill.
A romantic image of William Rosecrans at the Battle of Murfreesboro, January 2, 1863
Library of Congress
That morning, Rosecrans exercised a brand of personal courage and leadership typically reserved for corps and division commanders. He rode all about the battlefield, asking for reports, giving succinct orders, and providing encouragement where needed, and it was much need on that cold, bloody morning. On the left, he rode up to Colonel William Price, whose brigade was positioned along the river to prevent any Confederate crossing attempts. Rosecrans shouted at Price, “Will you hold this ford?” Price replied, honestly, “I will try, sir!” Rosecrans shouted even louder, “Will you hold this ford?” Price replied, “I will die right here, sir!” Still not satisfied, Rosecrans shouted once more, his voice filled with emotion, “Will you hold this ford?” The young colonel responded, “Yes, sir!”
By midday, the Union apex had shifted to an area known as the Round Forest, a small hill of limestone punctuated by dense cedar groves, and the right was aligning along the Nashville Turnpike. But Rosecrans continued to strengthen his line, sending units wherever they were needed most, no matter what brigade or division they belonged to. As Hardee’s assault lost all its energy due to a steadily mounting casualty toll, Bragg ordered Polk to renew his attacks, focusing on the Round Forest. There, his men were met by a staggering punch issued by Colonel William Hazen’s brigade. Polk continued to hammer away at Hazen and Rosecrans poured reinforcements into what became known as Hell’s Half-Acre. By 1:00 p.m., Polk’s men were spent and Bragg called for Breckinridge to send him four fresh brigades from across the river.
As Bragg waited on Breckinridge’s men, Rosecrans and Thomas further reinforced the Round Forest, bringing in every available piece of artillery. At 4:00 p.m., the first two of Breckinridge’s brigades moved into the line opposite the Round Forest and awaited Polk’s orders, as well as the arrival of the remaining two brigades. However, under pressure from Bragg, Polk elected not to wait and launched the assault with two instead of four brigades. The men marched smartly across the field, now littered with hundreds of bodies from the previous attacks. The newly arrived Union artillery quickly opened fire, blasting huge gaps in the advancing lines, but they kept coming forward. When the Confederate line reached a range of only 50 yards, Hazen ordered his infantry to open fire. The results were devastating. Breckinridge’s men fell by the dozens and the entire attacking line staggered to a halt, then broke to the rear amid a hail of rifle and artillery fire. One regiment lost 47 percent of its men and many others suffered more than 30 percent casualties.
One would think this could have convinced Bragg of the futility of another attack, but he refused to change his mind. When Breckinridge’s other two brigades arrived, he ordered Polk to sacrifice them as well. It is little wonder that some officers questioned Bragg’s sanity at this point. By now, the Federal artillery in the Round Forest numbered more than 50 guns and, as the assault was renewed, their crews fired as fast as they could reload. The second Confederate attack got no farther than its predecessor and the results were nearly identical. Nothing was gained and nothing was proven except for the bravery of Breckinridge’s men.
At one point, Rosecrans and his staff were close to the action, observing the defense of the Round Forest. With him was Colonel Julius Garesché, his aide and his closest friend from his cadet days at West Point. In fact, it was Garesché who convinced him to convert to Catholicism. As the fighting raged in front of them, a round of solid shot from a Confederate cannon roared past within inches of the commanding general’s head. As it flew by him, it hit Garesché in the face. He was immediately decapitated, and his headless body stayed in the saddle for 20 paces before pitching off the horse to the ground. Rosecrans rode on, his uniform covered with Garesché’s blood, unaware of what happened behind him. Later, when he was told about his friend’s death, he quietly said, “Brave men die in battle. Let us push on.” However, no matter his words, Rosecrans was deeply affected by his comrade’s death. After the battle, he carefully cut the buttons from his uniform and placed them in an envelope marked, “Buttons I wore the day Garesché was killed.” He would carry that envelope with him for the rest of his life.
With sunset, the sounds of battle quickly faded and gave way to the moaning of the wounded. The cold, dark, blustery night was filled with the sight of lanterns floating between the two lines, as men from both sides attended to the wounded and dying.
Rosecrans held a meeting of his commanders to discuss the next day’s action. Old Rosy asked them if they should retreat, but at that moment, George Thomas, who had been napping, suddenly awoke, looked around him with a fierce gaze and said, “This army does not retreat.” With that, the issue was settled and the Army of the Cumberland would stay and fight.
Bragg, however, was flush with victory. He was certain Rosecrans would limp back to Nashville during the night, and he sent an urgent telegram to Jefferson Davis trumpeting his success: “The enemy has yielded his strong position and is falling back. God has granted us a happy New Year.” So convinced was Bragg of his victory, he went to bed that night without making a single adjustment to his line of battle. As far as he was concerned, the Battle of Stone’s River was over.
When the dawn of the new year of 1863 arrived, Bragg was greeted not by the sight of an empty field before him, but, rather, by the same blue lines of infantry that had been there the night before. Bragg stood paralyzed with shock and when his generals came to him seeking orders, he had none to give. Instead, he sunk into a sort of mental lethargy, issuing orders for menial tasks as opposed to crafting a new strategy. Later in the day, he ordered Breckinridge to resume his original position across the river, but that was the extent of his leadership for the day. That night, he continued to seek signs that Rosecrans was finally withdrawing, but they did not come—the Union army was not simply going to go away as he hoped.
The next morning, Bragg, upon finding the enemy still in his front, ordered an artillery bombardment to see if it might provoke a response. He wanted to see just how committed Rosecrans was to holding his position. When the Federal artillery answered in kind and more so, he had his answer. After fretting about a course of action, he decided to try to place his own artillery on high ground east of the river in front of Breckinridge. This would allow him to pour a potentially devastating fire into the Union left flank, which might drive Rosecrans out of his positions. Bragg ordered a reconnaissance of the area and, when the scouts returned, they told him that the high ground he wanted for his artillery was already in possession of a Union division. Bragg decided to order Breckinridge to take the ridge and called the Kentuckian to his headquarters. When he was told of his assignment, the former vice president protested in anger, telling Bragg that his men could not possibly take such a strong position. Exhibiting both his intransigence and his dislike for Breckinridge, Bragg told him that his Kentucky soldiers had suffered the least thus far and now it was their turn to prove their worthiness.
Breckinridge again protested the order, telling Bragg that he had personally seen the Federal emplacements and they could not be taken by direct assault. Bragg angrily told him, “Sir, my information is different. I have given an order to attack the enemy and expect it to be obeyed!” With that, the discussion was over.
When Breckinridge returned to his men and told them what had been ordered, General Roger Hanson, commander of the Orphan Brigade, exploded in anger and proposed that he go to the headquarters and shoot General Bragg. Breckinridge prevailed upon him not to do so, and, instead, to go prepare his command for the attack.
At 3:00 p.m., as Breckinridge massed his men for the assault, Rosecrans observed the activity and sent reinforcements across the river. More importantly, he also moved additional artillery onto the west bank of the river, where they could cover the Union defenders. By the time Breckinridge began to move forward, Rosecrans had assembled 58 guns on the high ground facing east.
Breckinridge's charge was raked by musketry and artillery from the front and flank.
Library of Congress
An hour later, Breckinridge’s men started to advance across nearly 600 yards of open ground into the teeth of a Federal division and a mass of supporting artillery. Despite the heavy defensive fire, the Kentuckians never faltered, moving ever closer, and finally pouring over the Union lines. The blue-clad defenders fell back in disorder and, after 30 minutes of fierce fighting, Breckinridge’s men had accomplished an objective they believed was impossible, but rather than stopping to dig in and hold, they foolishly pressed forward in pursuit of the fleeing Yankees. It proved to be a fatal error.
As soon as the retreating Union troops were out of the way, the 58 Federal guns west of the river opened fire on Breckinridge’s still advancing line. Blasting away at better than 100 rounds per minute all together, they simply slaughtered the Kentuckians. Within minutes, the entire flow of the battle had changed. As the Southerners turned to retreat back up the slope of the hill, Crittenden ordered infantry reserves forward, driving the Orphan Brigade back across the hill they had just taken and into the fields they had just crossed so bravely. Seeing the sad remnant of the Orphan Brigade returning, Breckinridge broke down, sobbing, “My poor Orphans! My poor Orphans! My poor Orphan Brigade! They have cut it to pieces.”
That night, amid another cold, driving rain, Bragg called a meeting of his key commanders. After some spirited discussion, they could not reach a decision on how to proceed. However, on the morning of January 3, Bragg became convinced that his army was beyond its limits, and at 10:00 a.m., he ordered a withdrawal and the Battle of Stone’s River was over, at last.
The battle was hailed as a major victory in Washington, while President Davis and General Bragg suffered not only a defeat, but one made an embarrassment by Bragg’s premature announcement of victory on New Year’s Eve. Middle Tennessee was now lost to the Confederacy, and Lincoln had a victory to counterbalance the recent defeat at Fredericksburg. Bragg remained in command of the Army of Tennessee both because Davis could not stand the loss of face he would suffer if forced to dismiss Bragg, and also because there simply was no one else for the job. Bragg and his commanders continued to fight harder against one another than they ever did against the enemy until he was finally relieved of command following the Union breakout at Chattanooga in November 1863.
For William Rosecrans, Stones River was the high point of his entire career. Even when he later had to relieve Rosecrans of command after Chickamauga, Lincoln remembered the timely victory at Stones River. Writing to Rosecrans after his dismissal from command of the Army of the Cumberland, the president said, “whilst I remember anything, that about the end of last year and the beginning of this, you gave us a hard-earned victory, which, had there been a defeat instead, the nation could scarcely have lived over.” | 7,241 | ENGLISH | 1 |
A RISTIDES was the rival of Themistocles. Themistocles was wise and brave, but selfish and fond of money. Aristides, too, was wise and brave, but he was also so honorable that the Athenians called him "the Just."
On one occasion he was acting as judge between two men. One of them had spoken unfairly of Aristides and the other came secretly to Aristides to tell him of it. "My friend," said Aristides, "tell me the wrong the man has done to you, not what he has done to me. It is not my cause that I am to decide, but yours."
Aristides opposed many plans that Themistocles wished to carry out, and so at length Themistocles determined to have him banished.
There was at Athens a curious way of getting rid of a
citizen. Every year this question was put before the people:
"Does the safety of the State require that any citizen shall
be banished?" If it was decided that this was necessary the
people were called upon to vote. No person's name was
mentioned, but every citizen wrote on a small earthenware
tablet the name of any man whom he thought dangerous to the
state. The tablets were collected and counted, and if the
name of any one man was written on as many as 6,000 tablets
he had to leave the city for ten years. Banishing people in
this way was called "ostracism." We often use the word
Themistocles and his friends persuaded many of the Athenians that Aristides was a dangerous citizen. So when a public meeting was being held the people were asked if they thought any citizen ought to be banished. No one mentioned Aristides' name, but Themistocles' friends said, "Let a vote be taken." While the vote was being cast a countryman who could not write his own name came up to Aristides and said:
"Friend, will you write the name of Aristides for me on this tablet?"
"Has Aristides ever wronged you?" asked Aristides gently.
"No," said the other, "I have never even seen him, but I am tired of hearing him called 'the Just.' "
Aristides said no more, but wrote his own name on the tablet.
ARISTIDES AND THE COUNTRYMAN
There were enough votes against Aristides to banish him. As he was leaving Athens he prayed the gods that the time might never come when his fellow-citizens should have cause to be sorry for what they had done.
That time came, however. Three years later when Athens was threatened by the Persians the citizens, at the request of Themistocles himself, recalled Aristides. He sailed from his place of exile to the bay of Salamis and went on board the ship of Themistocles only a few hours before the famous battle. Themistocles at once gave him command of one of the Athenian ships, and he did good service in the battle.
I N the spring following the battle of Salamis Mardonius, the Persian commander who was in Thessaly, tried to bribe the Athenians to become allies of the great king but they refused his offers with scorn. He then marched to Athens and the people abandoned the city, so that it fell into his hands.
The Greeks, however collected an army of one hundred and ten thousand men. Pausanias, a nephew of Leonidas, the hero of Thermopylae, was made commander-in-chief; but Aristides commanded the Athenian troops. Mardonius now retreated from Athens, destroying and burning as he went. The Greeks followed and overtook him near the city of Platæa, and there they defeated him in one of the "decisive battles of the world." Mardonius himself was killed.
It took ten days to divide the spoil and bury the dead. A tenth of the spoil was sent to Delphi and dedicated to Apollo, because the promise of his oracle that "the wooden wall would save the city" had led to the great victory of Salamis. A temple was erected to Minerva, and thank-offerings were made to other gods. "Liberty games" were established, to be held on the battlefield once in four years, and every year the tombs of those who had fallen in battle were to be decorated with flowers. The land upon which Platæa stood was declared to be sacred and the inhabitants of the city were to be always free from attack by other Greeks.
On the afternoon of the very day on which the battle of Platæa was won the Greek fleet gained a great victory over the Persians at Mycale, on the coast of Asia Minor. After their defeats at Marathon, at Platæa, and at Mycale, the Persians never again attempted to conquer Greece.
A S soon as the victory at Platæa had freed Greece from the ravaging Persian army, the Athenians flocked back to their ruined city and began to rebuild it. Aristides and Themistocles carried on this work hand-in-hand.
RUINS OF PLATÆA
It was found that the sacred olive tree on the Acropolis, though burned to the ground, was not killed. From its root had sprung a stout young shoot. This was taken by the citizens as a good omen and rebuilding of the city went on rapidly. The great sea-port called the Piræus was fortified, and a wall was built round the city.
These and other public works required a great outlay of money, and it was needful to put some one whom all the citizens trusted in charge of the fund raised. Aristides was chosen and enormous sums of money were placed in his hands. He used his office solely for the good of the people and never became rich.
When he died, about 468 B.C. the whole nation mourned and he was buried at public expense. | <urn:uuid:e249e16a-9b2d-49dc-8e28-a75da23ac0e4> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://www.gatewaytotheclassics.com/browse/displayitem.php?item=books/haaren/greece/aristides | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251778272.69/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128122813-20200128152813-00209.warc.gz | en | 0.992054 | 1,248 | 3.546875 | 4 | [
-0.019484080374240875,
0.13597965240478516,
-0.08777643740177155,
-0.5024877786636353,
-0.36383306980133057,
-0.4845660924911499,
0.6601462364196777,
0.3600117564201355,
-0.13594083487987518,
0.12328818440437317,
-0.25367534160614014,
0.09762290120124817,
0.23695972561836243,
0.13786855340... | 1 | A RISTIDES was the rival of Themistocles. Themistocles was wise and brave, but selfish and fond of money. Aristides, too, was wise and brave, but he was also so honorable that the Athenians called him "the Just."
On one occasion he was acting as judge between two men. One of them had spoken unfairly of Aristides and the other came secretly to Aristides to tell him of it. "My friend," said Aristides, "tell me the wrong the man has done to you, not what he has done to me. It is not my cause that I am to decide, but yours."
Aristides opposed many plans that Themistocles wished to carry out, and so at length Themistocles determined to have him banished.
There was at Athens a curious way of getting rid of a
citizen. Every year this question was put before the people:
"Does the safety of the State require that any citizen shall
be banished?" If it was decided that this was necessary the
people were called upon to vote. No person's name was
mentioned, but every citizen wrote on a small earthenware
tablet the name of any man whom he thought dangerous to the
state. The tablets were collected and counted, and if the
name of any one man was written on as many as 6,000 tablets
he had to leave the city for ten years. Banishing people in
this way was called "ostracism." We often use the word
Themistocles and his friends persuaded many of the Athenians that Aristides was a dangerous citizen. So when a public meeting was being held the people were asked if they thought any citizen ought to be banished. No one mentioned Aristides' name, but Themistocles' friends said, "Let a vote be taken." While the vote was being cast a countryman who could not write his own name came up to Aristides and said:
"Friend, will you write the name of Aristides for me on this tablet?"
"Has Aristides ever wronged you?" asked Aristides gently.
"No," said the other, "I have never even seen him, but I am tired of hearing him called 'the Just.' "
Aristides said no more, but wrote his own name on the tablet.
ARISTIDES AND THE COUNTRYMAN
There were enough votes against Aristides to banish him. As he was leaving Athens he prayed the gods that the time might never come when his fellow-citizens should have cause to be sorry for what they had done.
That time came, however. Three years later when Athens was threatened by the Persians the citizens, at the request of Themistocles himself, recalled Aristides. He sailed from his place of exile to the bay of Salamis and went on board the ship of Themistocles only a few hours before the famous battle. Themistocles at once gave him command of one of the Athenian ships, and he did good service in the battle.
I N the spring following the battle of Salamis Mardonius, the Persian commander who was in Thessaly, tried to bribe the Athenians to become allies of the great king but they refused his offers with scorn. He then marched to Athens and the people abandoned the city, so that it fell into his hands.
The Greeks, however collected an army of one hundred and ten thousand men. Pausanias, a nephew of Leonidas, the hero of Thermopylae, was made commander-in-chief; but Aristides commanded the Athenian troops. Mardonius now retreated from Athens, destroying and burning as he went. The Greeks followed and overtook him near the city of Platæa, and there they defeated him in one of the "decisive battles of the world." Mardonius himself was killed.
It took ten days to divide the spoil and bury the dead. A tenth of the spoil was sent to Delphi and dedicated to Apollo, because the promise of his oracle that "the wooden wall would save the city" had led to the great victory of Salamis. A temple was erected to Minerva, and thank-offerings were made to other gods. "Liberty games" were established, to be held on the battlefield once in four years, and every year the tombs of those who had fallen in battle were to be decorated with flowers. The land upon which Platæa stood was declared to be sacred and the inhabitants of the city were to be always free from attack by other Greeks.
On the afternoon of the very day on which the battle of Platæa was won the Greek fleet gained a great victory over the Persians at Mycale, on the coast of Asia Minor. After their defeats at Marathon, at Platæa, and at Mycale, the Persians never again attempted to conquer Greece.
A S soon as the victory at Platæa had freed Greece from the ravaging Persian army, the Athenians flocked back to their ruined city and began to rebuild it. Aristides and Themistocles carried on this work hand-in-hand.
RUINS OF PLATÆA
It was found that the sacred olive tree on the Acropolis, though burned to the ground, was not killed. From its root had sprung a stout young shoot. This was taken by the citizens as a good omen and rebuilding of the city went on rapidly. The great sea-port called the Piræus was fortified, and a wall was built round the city.
These and other public works required a great outlay of money, and it was needful to put some one whom all the citizens trusted in charge of the fund raised. Aristides was chosen and enormous sums of money were placed in his hands. He used his office solely for the good of the people and never became rich.
When he died, about 468 B.C. the whole nation mourned and he was buried at public expense. | 1,234 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech concentrates on the value of flexibility as well as league in a nation and is intended to rally Americans to demonstrate their rage at the injustices of segregation and bigotry with “innovative objection.” While King’s passion as well as anger at the status quo is evident in the text, he especially specifies that they “should not allow [their] [protest] to degenerate into physical violence.” He is promoting defiance versus the government. Antigone exhibits the same sort of defiance when she goes against Creon’s regulation as well as completes her sibling’s funeral ceremonies.
Antigone, like Martin Luther King Jr., was faced with contrasting commitments; the obligation of a person to adhere to the legislation, and also personal commitment to combat what one really feels is incorrect.
A motif shows up in both texts that a person’s precepts are more vital than the unwritten law. Antigone sacrificed her life to finish what she really felt required to be completed based upon her religions. King devoted his life to obtaining flexibility for black individuals in America and was ultimately eliminated wherefore he counted on, connecting both. If Sophocles as well as Martin Luther King Jr. were to have a discussion, the two would most definitely settle on some points. Both would certainly agree that a person need to follow their heart and deal with things they feel need to be altered. They would certainly agree that one must not stand idly by as injustice occurs, such as segregation or the body of one’s bro entrusted to rot in the air. While Antigone is not a central figure in a civil liberties movement, she does exhibit civil disobedience, connecting the “I Have a Desire” speech as well as Antigone. | <urn:uuid:a357dbbf-a2b0-428d-b318-7d6c75ca1594> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://whisperseer.com/civil-disobedience-and-antigone-essay | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250606226.29/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121222429-20200122011429-00507.warc.gz | en | 0.981062 | 381 | 3.453125 | 3 | [
-0.45171111822128296,
0.5206298828125,
0.33280470967292786,
-0.03629746288061142,
-0.12244337052106857,
0.47351425886154175,
0.3317871391773224,
0.23827634751796722,
-0.28861817717552185,
0.05179482698440552,
-0.20365683734416962,
0.29559844732284546,
0.11077076196670532,
-0.08178906142711... | 2 | Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech concentrates on the value of flexibility as well as league in a nation and is intended to rally Americans to demonstrate their rage at the injustices of segregation and bigotry with “innovative objection.” While King’s passion as well as anger at the status quo is evident in the text, he especially specifies that they “should not allow [their] [protest] to degenerate into physical violence.” He is promoting defiance versus the government. Antigone exhibits the same sort of defiance when she goes against Creon’s regulation as well as completes her sibling’s funeral ceremonies.
Antigone, like Martin Luther King Jr., was faced with contrasting commitments; the obligation of a person to adhere to the legislation, and also personal commitment to combat what one really feels is incorrect.
A motif shows up in both texts that a person’s precepts are more vital than the unwritten law. Antigone sacrificed her life to finish what she really felt required to be completed based upon her religions. King devoted his life to obtaining flexibility for black individuals in America and was ultimately eliminated wherefore he counted on, connecting both. If Sophocles as well as Martin Luther King Jr. were to have a discussion, the two would most definitely settle on some points. Both would certainly agree that a person need to follow their heart and deal with things they feel need to be altered. They would certainly agree that one must not stand idly by as injustice occurs, such as segregation or the body of one’s bro entrusted to rot in the air. While Antigone is not a central figure in a civil liberties movement, she does exhibit civil disobedience, connecting the “I Have a Desire” speech as well as Antigone. | 357 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Burma under the Burma Rule:
Burma began to take a new shape under British rule. Basically she remained a colony to be exploited by the mother country. But at the same time there was modernization of country both in the economic and political life.
In words of Clyde:
“By the beginning of the 20th century however, this agriculture society had been invaded by the aggressive laissez faire commercialism of British Indian , and Chinese traders and businessmen. The development of teak industry and transformation of the Irrawady Delta jungles into rice fields created a new economy picture involving Burmese and Indian labours, Indian merchants and moneylenders , British capital and a British Burmese civil service.”
Public health services and roads were improved representative district councils were set up leading to a measure of self government. British rule also bought peace and stability which replaced factional strifes and was a welcome.
In the words of Latourette.
“ under the British rule, Burma prospered and for several decades was only slightly troubled by either internal disturbances or external politics.”
Hundreds of miles of railways were constructed and water ways were provided with steam boasts manufactured in Scotland. Schools on Western modal were encouraged. Canals were dug and hundred of miles of telegraph wires were strung. Electrical appliances were bought in and a western form of postal service was introduced. Rice cultivation increased and the country became a major rice producing area. Timber export was encouraged and petroleum was discovered.
To quote Latourette:
“western civilization was making its way also through Christian missions. Superficially westernization was proceeding apace.”
In bringing modernization in the economic field non-Burmese channels also played their part. Economic prosperity came with the investment of Indian, Chinese, Burmese capital. Similarly non skilled manpower was made available by India. Chinese also began to participate in the economic development and most of them were merchants and artisans. But they always spoke their own language and continued to wear their own dress and follow their own customs. They also did not leave their hereditary manners . Spiritually they wanted their lives aloof. Industries received boost. Christianity could be spread primarily among the non-Burmese , who were settled in Burma for long.
British advancement into Burmese territory was primarily a tactical response to Burmese affronts against British citizens and employees of the East India Company. British annexation of Burmese territory was both a strategic and tactical attempt to place the Burmese at a military disadvantage in the region, thus forestalling the need for future tactical response.
British education policies, in terms of their stated goals, were successful. The first aim which they sought was mass primary education. This was accomplished through the network of lay schools the British established and furthered by the growth of kyagng. The British were also successful in reaching their second goal of providing opportunities for advanced education.
They established a system of government high schools and technical schools which led to the development of Rangoon University in 1920. This represented the first organized school system ever established in Burma. A by-product of British education was Burma’s National Education Movement.
The composition of the movement reveals the strong influence of British schools; most adherents were students or recent graduates. More importantly, the entire movement was conducted via peaceful means. Thus, as opposed to rebellions, there were boycotts and strikes, not the usual means of protest in pre-annexed Burma. To achieve their goals, the British had no need to rob the Burmese of their distinctiveness.
Thus the English ruled over Burma as a part of India, till the former was formally separated under the Government of India act 1935. Even after separation it continues to maintain close relations with India and is one of the most important importer of Burmese rice and India continued to provide man power to Burmese for their economic development. | <urn:uuid:30d7d523-a3b8-4272-b5c8-56ff9862b4d6> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://www.indiancommunities.org/2018/08/07/early-history-of-burma-5/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250593937.27/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118193018-20200118221018-00029.warc.gz | en | 0.984233 | 811 | 4.03125 | 4 | [
-0.30414822697639465,
0.07621487975120544,
0.3569900393486023,
-0.19769209623336792,
0.050902433693408966,
0.1968289613723755,
0.19715964794158936,
-0.34587419033050537,
-0.4438454210758209,
0.12774738669395447,
0.15461820363998413,
-0.5141372084617615,
0.19247496128082275,
0.3361520767211... | 9 | Burma under the Burma Rule:
Burma began to take a new shape under British rule. Basically she remained a colony to be exploited by the mother country. But at the same time there was modernization of country both in the economic and political life.
In words of Clyde:
“By the beginning of the 20th century however, this agriculture society had been invaded by the aggressive laissez faire commercialism of British Indian , and Chinese traders and businessmen. The development of teak industry and transformation of the Irrawady Delta jungles into rice fields created a new economy picture involving Burmese and Indian labours, Indian merchants and moneylenders , British capital and a British Burmese civil service.”
Public health services and roads were improved representative district councils were set up leading to a measure of self government. British rule also bought peace and stability which replaced factional strifes and was a welcome.
In the words of Latourette.
“ under the British rule, Burma prospered and for several decades was only slightly troubled by either internal disturbances or external politics.”
Hundreds of miles of railways were constructed and water ways were provided with steam boasts manufactured in Scotland. Schools on Western modal were encouraged. Canals were dug and hundred of miles of telegraph wires were strung. Electrical appliances were bought in and a western form of postal service was introduced. Rice cultivation increased and the country became a major rice producing area. Timber export was encouraged and petroleum was discovered.
To quote Latourette:
“western civilization was making its way also through Christian missions. Superficially westernization was proceeding apace.”
In bringing modernization in the economic field non-Burmese channels also played their part. Economic prosperity came with the investment of Indian, Chinese, Burmese capital. Similarly non skilled manpower was made available by India. Chinese also began to participate in the economic development and most of them were merchants and artisans. But they always spoke their own language and continued to wear their own dress and follow their own customs. They also did not leave their hereditary manners . Spiritually they wanted their lives aloof. Industries received boost. Christianity could be spread primarily among the non-Burmese , who were settled in Burma for long.
British advancement into Burmese territory was primarily a tactical response to Burmese affronts against British citizens and employees of the East India Company. British annexation of Burmese territory was both a strategic and tactical attempt to place the Burmese at a military disadvantage in the region, thus forestalling the need for future tactical response.
British education policies, in terms of their stated goals, were successful. The first aim which they sought was mass primary education. This was accomplished through the network of lay schools the British established and furthered by the growth of kyagng. The British were also successful in reaching their second goal of providing opportunities for advanced education.
They established a system of government high schools and technical schools which led to the development of Rangoon University in 1920. This represented the first organized school system ever established in Burma. A by-product of British education was Burma’s National Education Movement.
The composition of the movement reveals the strong influence of British schools; most adherents were students or recent graduates. More importantly, the entire movement was conducted via peaceful means. Thus, as opposed to rebellions, there were boycotts and strikes, not the usual means of protest in pre-annexed Burma. To achieve their goals, the British had no need to rob the Burmese of their distinctiveness.
Thus the English ruled over Burma as a part of India, till the former was formally separated under the Government of India act 1935. Even after separation it continues to maintain close relations with India and is one of the most important importer of Burmese rice and India continued to provide man power to Burmese for their economic development. | 790 | ENGLISH | 1 |
This sonnet is by far the most interesting poems I have read by Shakespeare. This is also one of the most lyrically moving poems that I have ever read. There is great use of imagery within the sonnet, it is also one if his beautiful pieces of work. It is mainly due to the simplicity and loveliness of the poem's praise of the beloved woman that has guaranteed its place in the readers mind and heart. .
The speaker of the poem opens with a question that is addressed to the beloved, "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?" This question is comparing her to the summer season. During this season is when the flowers are blooming, trees are full of leaves, the weather is warm, and generally it is known as an enjoyable season. The following eleven lines in the poem are also dedicated to similar comparisons between the beloved and summer days. In line 2 and 3, the speaker explains what mainly separates the young woman from the summer's day: she is "more lovely and more temperate." (Line 2) Summer's days tend towards extremes: they are sometimes shaken by "rough winds" (Line 3) which happens. However in line 4, the speaker gives the feeling again that the summer months are often to short by saying, "And summer's lease hath too short a date." In the summer days, the sun, "the eye of heaven" (Line 5), often shines "too hot," or too dim, "his gold complexion dimmed" (Line 6), that is there are many hot days during the summer but soon the sun begins to set earlier at night because autumn is approaching. Summer is moving along to quickly for the speaker, it's time here needs to be longer, and it also means that the chilling of autumn is coming upon us because the flowers will soon be withering, as "every fair from fair sometime declines." (Line 7) The final portion of the sonnet tells how the beloved differs from the various perspectives. Her beauty will be one that lasts forever, "Thy eternal summer shall not fade. | <urn:uuid:1bd1f1d8-aa9a-49de-ac1f-0c3caae64d62> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.exampleessays.com/viewpaper/64179.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250616186.38/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124070934-20200124095934-00447.warc.gz | en | 0.980662 | 423 | 3.296875 | 3 | [
-0.44779133796691895,
-0.26399198174476624,
0.3314591944217682,
0.39627665281295776,
0.14980174601078033,
-0.01657085493206978,
0.2596193552017212,
-0.06752870231866837,
-0.09935364127159119,
-0.11394213140010834,
-0.08804656565189362,
0.15554708242416382,
0.004859780892729759,
0.404619663... | 7 | This sonnet is by far the most interesting poems I have read by Shakespeare. This is also one of the most lyrically moving poems that I have ever read. There is great use of imagery within the sonnet, it is also one if his beautiful pieces of work. It is mainly due to the simplicity and loveliness of the poem's praise of the beloved woman that has guaranteed its place in the readers mind and heart. .
The speaker of the poem opens with a question that is addressed to the beloved, "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?" This question is comparing her to the summer season. During this season is when the flowers are blooming, trees are full of leaves, the weather is warm, and generally it is known as an enjoyable season. The following eleven lines in the poem are also dedicated to similar comparisons between the beloved and summer days. In line 2 and 3, the speaker explains what mainly separates the young woman from the summer's day: she is "more lovely and more temperate." (Line 2) Summer's days tend towards extremes: they are sometimes shaken by "rough winds" (Line 3) which happens. However in line 4, the speaker gives the feeling again that the summer months are often to short by saying, "And summer's lease hath too short a date." In the summer days, the sun, "the eye of heaven" (Line 5), often shines "too hot," or too dim, "his gold complexion dimmed" (Line 6), that is there are many hot days during the summer but soon the sun begins to set earlier at night because autumn is approaching. Summer is moving along to quickly for the speaker, it's time here needs to be longer, and it also means that the chilling of autumn is coming upon us because the flowers will soon be withering, as "every fair from fair sometime declines." (Line 7) The final portion of the sonnet tells how the beloved differs from the various perspectives. Her beauty will be one that lasts forever, "Thy eternal summer shall not fade. | 430 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The 1830s was a momentous decade in British politics, when years of struggle started to pay dividends in terms of reform. Most significantly of course 1832 saw the Great Reform Act ; in 1834 slavery was finally abolished; and sandwiched between those two events came the 1833 Factory Act. (The burning of Parliament in 1834 seems a mere bonus).
Other Factory Acts had been steered through Parliament previously – including those of 1802, 1809, 1823, and 1831. But unlike their 1833 successor they failed to include any means of enforcing the legislation. Though only four factory inspectors were appointed after the 1833 act came into force, with more than 1000 textile mills (the act related only to textiles not to wider industry) per man to cover, it was a start. And they had the power to fine offending mill-owners for infringements of the new regulations.
To modern eyes what was still permissible under the act is barely credible: children between nine and 13 were ‘limited’ to an 8-hour day and 48-hour week, and supposed to be given two hours of education a day; those between 14 and 18 were limited to a 12-hour day. Most laudably of all children under the age of 9 were no longer allowed to work in mills at all and children younger than 18 were no longer allowed to work nights.
Tory MP Anthony Ashley-Cooper , the future Earl of Shaftesbury , was the driving force behind the reform in Parliament, backed by men like Richard Oastler outside.
Naturally the four-man inspectorate was not adequate to the task; but the precedent had been set and the system would soon be improved upon.
More famous dates here
8501 views since 7th March 2011 | <urn:uuid:a6e8d9a9-12fe-49e8-8773-c70bf71014f1> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://www.information-britain.co.uk/famdates.php?id=1353 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250601241.42/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121014531-20200121043531-00531.warc.gz | en | 0.98627 | 361 | 3.34375 | 3 | [
-0.42698585987091064,
-0.09070412814617157,
0.23209618031978607,
0.06204270198941231,
-0.0003324123390484601,
-0.16751253604888916,
-0.29091933369636536,
-0.2574768364429474,
-0.5474902391433716,
-0.055419255048036575,
0.37064895033836365,
-0.3368350565433502,
-0.06658618152141571,
0.05813... | 1 | The 1830s was a momentous decade in British politics, when years of struggle started to pay dividends in terms of reform. Most significantly of course 1832 saw the Great Reform Act ; in 1834 slavery was finally abolished; and sandwiched between those two events came the 1833 Factory Act. (The burning of Parliament in 1834 seems a mere bonus).
Other Factory Acts had been steered through Parliament previously – including those of 1802, 1809, 1823, and 1831. But unlike their 1833 successor they failed to include any means of enforcing the legislation. Though only four factory inspectors were appointed after the 1833 act came into force, with more than 1000 textile mills (the act related only to textiles not to wider industry) per man to cover, it was a start. And they had the power to fine offending mill-owners for infringements of the new regulations.
To modern eyes what was still permissible under the act is barely credible: children between nine and 13 were ‘limited’ to an 8-hour day and 48-hour week, and supposed to be given two hours of education a day; those between 14 and 18 were limited to a 12-hour day. Most laudably of all children under the age of 9 were no longer allowed to work in mills at all and children younger than 18 were no longer allowed to work nights.
Tory MP Anthony Ashley-Cooper , the future Earl of Shaftesbury , was the driving force behind the reform in Parliament, backed by men like Richard Oastler outside.
Naturally the four-man inspectorate was not adequate to the task; but the precedent had been set and the system would soon be improved upon.
More famous dates here
8501 views since 7th March 2011 | 409 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Lithograph by John Nixon, 1799.
In the 18th century it was decided further improvements were required as it was such a success it had outgrown the market house! Traders fought for room on pitches and stalls swamped the surrounding streets, which soon developed nicknames such as Butter Street, where the dairy vendors would trade and Potato Street where vegetables were sold.
This lively market became a health hazard, particularly the butcher stalls, so a new market place was put together specifically for the sale of meat. It was subsequently boycotted by the butchers it was built for, who resented the loss of their old pitches and returned to flog on the streets neighbouring the original market house.
The 19th century saw a dramatic population growth within Swansea and the city began to sprawl west, away from its medieval bearings. A new market was to be constructed to reflect this new boom in the city; it was to be to for butchers, fishmongers, fresh fruit and veg, stalls selling crafts and wares just like today’s market, but with the addition of trading cattle, sheep and horses.
There may have been a Butter St and Potato St but it’s an urban myth that Wind Street originated as ‘Wine Street’.
This new marketplace opened its doors on Oxford Street in 1830, where today’s market still stands. It mixed indoor and outdoor elements, a roof lined with chimneys billowing smoke, 89 stalls contained within a walled enclosure. Its middle contained a weighing room, a committee room and built from the stone of the previous market a grand clock tower, soaring above the skyline.
Swansea and the Market used to hold 5 annual fairs from the Medieval to Victorian era, however they were banned in 1863 for unruly behaviour! | <urn:uuid:d34e0990-f9c4-488f-8b23-4d5d33d61da3> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://www.swanseaindoormarket.co.uk/history/building-a-legacy-1700-1890/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251799918.97/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129133601-20200129163601-00324.warc.gz | en | 0.982054 | 372 | 3.359375 | 3 | [
-0.06388439238071442,
-0.11481373757123947,
0.2640719711780548,
0.45801928639411926,
0.1913701742887497,
-0.08011108636856079,
-0.13492462038993835,
0.3575379252433777,
0.03025694005191326,
-0.07336081564426422,
0.05511752516031265,
-0.26231110095977783,
-0.15784946084022522,
0.25445717573... | 14 | Lithograph by John Nixon, 1799.
In the 18th century it was decided further improvements were required as it was such a success it had outgrown the market house! Traders fought for room on pitches and stalls swamped the surrounding streets, which soon developed nicknames such as Butter Street, where the dairy vendors would trade and Potato Street where vegetables were sold.
This lively market became a health hazard, particularly the butcher stalls, so a new market place was put together specifically for the sale of meat. It was subsequently boycotted by the butchers it was built for, who resented the loss of their old pitches and returned to flog on the streets neighbouring the original market house.
The 19th century saw a dramatic population growth within Swansea and the city began to sprawl west, away from its medieval bearings. A new market was to be constructed to reflect this new boom in the city; it was to be to for butchers, fishmongers, fresh fruit and veg, stalls selling crafts and wares just like today’s market, but with the addition of trading cattle, sheep and horses.
There may have been a Butter St and Potato St but it’s an urban myth that Wind Street originated as ‘Wine Street’.
This new marketplace opened its doors on Oxford Street in 1830, where today’s market still stands. It mixed indoor and outdoor elements, a roof lined with chimneys billowing smoke, 89 stalls contained within a walled enclosure. Its middle contained a weighing room, a committee room and built from the stone of the previous market a grand clock tower, soaring above the skyline.
Swansea and the Market used to hold 5 annual fairs from the Medieval to Victorian era, however they were banned in 1863 for unruly behaviour! | 374 | ENGLISH | 1 |
1759 – 1817
Cuffe was a Black philanthropist, merchant, sea captain and abolitionist. The son of a former African slave father and American Indian mother, Cuffe was born on the island of Cuttyhunk, Massachusetts, near the commercial port of New Bedford. Later persuaded “that commerce furnished to industry more ample rewards than agriculture,” he prepared himself for that field by becoming proficient in mathematics and navigation. Keenly opposed to discrimination against his people, Cuffe championed their cause with an intensity that might be expected of a less successful man. But his wealth was no shield against racism, and his problems reveal as much about its long arm as about the difficulties encountered by a black person in America.
A nationalist and Quaker, he was shaped by the major currents of his era. The concerns of his people did not alone define his interest, but they were at the center of his life and accounted for much of his influence. It was through his efforts that Blacks were granted the right to vote in Massachusetts in 1783. Most of Cuffe’s life was spent in Westport, a Quaker enclave in southwestern Massachusetts where in 1797 he bought a farm for $3500. He had earned his fortune from whaling and trade in the Americas and Europe. He owned shares, over a period of time, in up to ten ships, and the financial support of the Friends and their doctrine figured in his success as a businessman. They captained some of his ships and like him, believed that the virtues of the counting house, such as industry and frugality, were pleasing in the sight of God.
Cuffe’s faith was a factor in his using a substantial portion of his wealth to help others, building an integrated school when the community failed to do so and contributing to the raising of a new Friends meetinghouse in Westport. Cuffe’s interest in Africa stemmed in part, from his father having been born there. Cuffe promoted colonization in Sierra Leone, and took a group of thirty-eight black settlers there in 1811. The success he achieved, as a Black captain with Black crews was evidence of the black expertise thought essential to the redemption of Africa. His voyage there in his own ship in 1815 with emigrants from America and his financial success anticipated ideals later associated with black nationalists from Henry Highland Garnet to Marcus Garvey. This complex man, like Bishop Henry M. Turner later in the century, was certain enough of his own vision to risk association with the American Colonization Society, whose motives regarding the return of blacks to Africa were highly suspect in black leadership circles.
Cuffe, though working to uplift of his people, accepted support from white allies, and though struggling for Black rights in America assisted in the regeneration of Africa. He made an impact on his time sufficient to begin a tradition, and that, perhaps, is his greatest legacy.
In September 1818 large numbers of people were present at his funeral in Westport. Paul Cuffe was buried in the Friends cemetery there.
Reference: The African American Atlas Black History & Culture an Illustrated Reference
by Molefi K. Asanta and Mark T. Mattson
Here is an updated resource of Paul Cuffe as of 2019: http://paulcuffe.org/ | <urn:uuid:166bdcdd-00b8-4f64-b773-9e498cf1b4f1> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://nbhistoricalsociety.org/Important-Figures/paul-cuffe/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250609478.50/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123071220-20200123100220-00422.warc.gz | en | 0.989897 | 685 | 3.640625 | 4 | [
0.367397278547287,
0.3877583146095276,
0.16698122024536133,
-0.5215563774108887,
-0.08600997924804688,
-0.5840166807174683,
0.6183565855026245,
-0.056417450308799744,
-0.523985743522644,
-0.08830581605434418,
0.2863767147064209,
-0.38767391443252563,
-0.4666692614555359,
0.294696182012558,... | 9 | 1759 – 1817
Cuffe was a Black philanthropist, merchant, sea captain and abolitionist. The son of a former African slave father and American Indian mother, Cuffe was born on the island of Cuttyhunk, Massachusetts, near the commercial port of New Bedford. Later persuaded “that commerce furnished to industry more ample rewards than agriculture,” he prepared himself for that field by becoming proficient in mathematics and navigation. Keenly opposed to discrimination against his people, Cuffe championed their cause with an intensity that might be expected of a less successful man. But his wealth was no shield against racism, and his problems reveal as much about its long arm as about the difficulties encountered by a black person in America.
A nationalist and Quaker, he was shaped by the major currents of his era. The concerns of his people did not alone define his interest, but they were at the center of his life and accounted for much of his influence. It was through his efforts that Blacks were granted the right to vote in Massachusetts in 1783. Most of Cuffe’s life was spent in Westport, a Quaker enclave in southwestern Massachusetts where in 1797 he bought a farm for $3500. He had earned his fortune from whaling and trade in the Americas and Europe. He owned shares, over a period of time, in up to ten ships, and the financial support of the Friends and their doctrine figured in his success as a businessman. They captained some of his ships and like him, believed that the virtues of the counting house, such as industry and frugality, were pleasing in the sight of God.
Cuffe’s faith was a factor in his using a substantial portion of his wealth to help others, building an integrated school when the community failed to do so and contributing to the raising of a new Friends meetinghouse in Westport. Cuffe’s interest in Africa stemmed in part, from his father having been born there. Cuffe promoted colonization in Sierra Leone, and took a group of thirty-eight black settlers there in 1811. The success he achieved, as a Black captain with Black crews was evidence of the black expertise thought essential to the redemption of Africa. His voyage there in his own ship in 1815 with emigrants from America and his financial success anticipated ideals later associated with black nationalists from Henry Highland Garnet to Marcus Garvey. This complex man, like Bishop Henry M. Turner later in the century, was certain enough of his own vision to risk association with the American Colonization Society, whose motives regarding the return of blacks to Africa were highly suspect in black leadership circles.
Cuffe, though working to uplift of his people, accepted support from white allies, and though struggling for Black rights in America assisted in the regeneration of Africa. He made an impact on his time sufficient to begin a tradition, and that, perhaps, is his greatest legacy.
In September 1818 large numbers of people were present at his funeral in Westport. Paul Cuffe was buried in the Friends cemetery there.
Reference: The African American Atlas Black History & Culture an Illustrated Reference
by Molefi K. Asanta and Mark T. Mattson
Here is an updated resource of Paul Cuffe as of 2019: http://paulcuffe.org/ | 697 | ENGLISH | 1 |
George Bernard Shaw wrote his play Man and Superman in response to calls for him to write a play based off the Don Juan theme. Don Juan is a fictional character, said to be a womanizer, whose story has been told many times by various authors. George Bernard Shaw wrote for the Realism time period of theater, where the actions and speech of the characters were similar to that of everyday life. The plays and the actors themselves aimed to use the stage as an environment, rather than an acting platform. Social and political themes were popular and lower and middle class were often viewed as heroes. Plots and secrets known the audience, but not to certain characters, added to the suspense.
Realism began in the mid to late 19th century and continued into the 1900s. There was the growing belief that science could solve human problems. August Comte and Charles Darwin’s scientific findings helped lead to the emergence of Realism Theater. The movement began in France with three new social and artistic beliefs. The first was that truth resides in what we can perceive through our five senses. Second, the scientific method or observation can solve everything and anything. And third, human problems were the greatest manifestation of science. Drama dealt with human behavior and delved into the minds of humans, both males and females alike.
The Realism era belief that science could solve human problems was somewhat apparent in Shaw’s play Man and Superman. Ann Whitefield, who loved Jack Tanner and wanted him as a husband, was determined to get her way. She employs less obvious aspects of science, such as persistence and clever flirting, to help Jack realize his love for her. She uses her womanly wiles, a unique take on using science to solve problems, while alone with Jack. She gently taps him on the face while playfully arguing with him, and she wraps her boa around his neck in a lighthearted, but seductive way. Jack, though he tries to ignore these sneaky attempts at flirting, cannot help but find himself wrapped around her finger. In the end, Ann’s use of flirting and perseverance end up giving her what she ultimately wanted: Jack’s hand in marriage. Shaw shows us in the most simple, everyday way that science can truly be used to solve human problems.
The speech of the characters in Man and Superman is quite similar to what would have normally been used in everyday conversations. In the early 1900’s, cusswords and slang were not comfortably thrown about and this is obviously not used. However, the characters’ dialogue has a free-flowing, comfortable feel to it, as if they were truly having a conversation. Performing it felt natural and innate. I believe Shaw, who was greatly influenced by the Realism movement, wrote his characters’ dialogue this way on purpose. He stays true to Realism’s realistic approach. The characters of Man and Superman are not of upper class or important organizations, and they do not speak as if they are. There conversations are... | <urn:uuid:feb42991-3899-4b7e-8dbd-771d94e1a870> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://brightkite.com/essay-on/man-and-superman-3 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251728207.68/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127205148-20200127235148-00107.warc.gz | en | 0.984871 | 619 | 3.421875 | 3 | [
-0.4125758409500122,
0.39116284251213074,
0.25505274534225464,
-0.17931561172008514,
-0.2393193244934082,
0.1251372992992401,
0.35125941038131714,
0.4735862612724304,
0.03781289607286453,
-0.10511567443609238,
0.49532750248908997,
0.45098602771759033,
0.6658623218536377,
0.4086019396781921... | 1 | George Bernard Shaw wrote his play Man and Superman in response to calls for him to write a play based off the Don Juan theme. Don Juan is a fictional character, said to be a womanizer, whose story has been told many times by various authors. George Bernard Shaw wrote for the Realism time period of theater, where the actions and speech of the characters were similar to that of everyday life. The plays and the actors themselves aimed to use the stage as an environment, rather than an acting platform. Social and political themes were popular and lower and middle class were often viewed as heroes. Plots and secrets known the audience, but not to certain characters, added to the suspense.
Realism began in the mid to late 19th century and continued into the 1900s. There was the growing belief that science could solve human problems. August Comte and Charles Darwin’s scientific findings helped lead to the emergence of Realism Theater. The movement began in France with three new social and artistic beliefs. The first was that truth resides in what we can perceive through our five senses. Second, the scientific method or observation can solve everything and anything. And third, human problems were the greatest manifestation of science. Drama dealt with human behavior and delved into the minds of humans, both males and females alike.
The Realism era belief that science could solve human problems was somewhat apparent in Shaw’s play Man and Superman. Ann Whitefield, who loved Jack Tanner and wanted him as a husband, was determined to get her way. She employs less obvious aspects of science, such as persistence and clever flirting, to help Jack realize his love for her. She uses her womanly wiles, a unique take on using science to solve problems, while alone with Jack. She gently taps him on the face while playfully arguing with him, and she wraps her boa around his neck in a lighthearted, but seductive way. Jack, though he tries to ignore these sneaky attempts at flirting, cannot help but find himself wrapped around her finger. In the end, Ann’s use of flirting and perseverance end up giving her what she ultimately wanted: Jack’s hand in marriage. Shaw shows us in the most simple, everyday way that science can truly be used to solve human problems.
The speech of the characters in Man and Superman is quite similar to what would have normally been used in everyday conversations. In the early 1900’s, cusswords and slang were not comfortably thrown about and this is obviously not used. However, the characters’ dialogue has a free-flowing, comfortable feel to it, as if they were truly having a conversation. Performing it felt natural and innate. I believe Shaw, who was greatly influenced by the Realism movement, wrote his characters’ dialogue this way on purpose. He stays true to Realism’s realistic approach. The characters of Man and Superman are not of upper class or important organizations, and they do not speak as if they are. There conversations are... | 609 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Overview[ edit ] The priesthoods of public religion were held by members of the elite classes. There was no principle analogous to separation of church and state in ancient Rome. During the Roman Republic —27 BCthe same men who were elected public officials might also serve as augurs and pontiffs.
Each god had a special festival day which was usually a public holiday. This holiday gave people the opportunity to visit the temple for whichever god was being celebrated. At this temple, priests would sacrifice animals and offer them to the god. Animals being led to slaughter at a temple sacrifice Temples to worship the gods were built throughout the Roman Empire.
Temples usually always followed the same Roman religion pattern.
The Romans worshipped their gods in a temple. They made sacrifices of animals and precious items to their gods. They believed that when an Emperor died he became a god and so a . Greek And Roman Religion – The Worship Of The Dead. When we think of Greek and Roman religion or the classical world generally, we usually have in mind the kingdoms and empires that grew out of the city-states of ancient Greece and Italy. The sanctuary dedicated to Diana at Aricia flourished from the Bronze age to the second century CE. From its archaic beginnings in the wooded crater beside the lake known as the 'mirror of Dianea' it grew into a grand Hellenistic-style complex that attracted crowds of pilgrims and the benjaminpohle.coms: 2.
The roof was triangular shaped and supported by great pillars. Steps led up to the main doorway that was usually built behind the pillars. The inside of the temple would have been very well decorated and there would have been a statue of the god in it. There would also have been an altar where a priest would have served the god and made sacrifices.
People called augurs could also be found in the temples. These people used the entrails of the dead animals to predict the future.
The Romans took these predictions very seriously and few ignored the advice of an augur. Each family home would also have a small altar and shrine.
The service was considered so important that family slaves were also invited. Inside the shrine were the silver statuettes of the household gods, a Venus in marble and a golden casket.Greek And Roman Religion – The Worship Of The Dead.
When we think of Greek and Roman religion or the classical world generally, we usually have in mind the kingdoms and empires that grew out of the city-states of ancient Greece and Italy. Roman religion was divided into two. Spirits watched over people, families and households, and the paterfamilias was in charge of the household worship that honored them.
Romans also had a set of. Roman religion, the religious beliefs and practices of the people of ancient Rome. The spirits were held in awe and were placated with . Roman Gods: For many hundreds of years, the Romans worshipped thousands of gods.
Trees, rocks, streams, bridges, everything in ancient Rome had a guardian spirit or god watching over it. Each god had at least one job to do. The Romans worshipped their gods in a temple.
They made sacrifices of animals and precious items to their gods. They believed that when an Emperor died he became a god and so a .
Religion in Ancient Rome includes the ancestral ethnic religion of the city of Rome that the Romans used to define themselves as a people, as well as the religious practices of peoples brought under Roman rule, in so far as they became widely followed in Rome and Italy.
The Romans thought of themselves as highly religious, and attributed their . | <urn:uuid:a900e247-3163-410e-9513-92daf4c55764> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://qifopuviru.benjaminpohle.com/roman-religion-4159dj.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250628549.43/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125011232-20200125040232-00162.warc.gz | en | 0.986867 | 737 | 3.875 | 4 | [
0.11694534122943878,
0.5695104598999023,
0.28575050830841064,
-0.05572459101676941,
-0.3720978796482086,
-0.184739887714386,
0.05283869802951813,
0.21895112097263336,
0.35301855206489563,
-0.03570207208395004,
-0.16823722422122955,
-0.08346682786941528,
0.14840176701545715,
0.2536685466766... | 2 | Overview[ edit ] The priesthoods of public religion were held by members of the elite classes. There was no principle analogous to separation of church and state in ancient Rome. During the Roman Republic —27 BCthe same men who were elected public officials might also serve as augurs and pontiffs.
Each god had a special festival day which was usually a public holiday. This holiday gave people the opportunity to visit the temple for whichever god was being celebrated. At this temple, priests would sacrifice animals and offer them to the god. Animals being led to slaughter at a temple sacrifice Temples to worship the gods were built throughout the Roman Empire.
Temples usually always followed the same Roman religion pattern.
The Romans worshipped their gods in a temple. They made sacrifices of animals and precious items to their gods. They believed that when an Emperor died he became a god and so a . Greek And Roman Religion – The Worship Of The Dead. When we think of Greek and Roman religion or the classical world generally, we usually have in mind the kingdoms and empires that grew out of the city-states of ancient Greece and Italy. The sanctuary dedicated to Diana at Aricia flourished from the Bronze age to the second century CE. From its archaic beginnings in the wooded crater beside the lake known as the 'mirror of Dianea' it grew into a grand Hellenistic-style complex that attracted crowds of pilgrims and the benjaminpohle.coms: 2.
The roof was triangular shaped and supported by great pillars. Steps led up to the main doorway that was usually built behind the pillars. The inside of the temple would have been very well decorated and there would have been a statue of the god in it. There would also have been an altar where a priest would have served the god and made sacrifices.
People called augurs could also be found in the temples. These people used the entrails of the dead animals to predict the future.
The Romans took these predictions very seriously and few ignored the advice of an augur. Each family home would also have a small altar and shrine.
The service was considered so important that family slaves were also invited. Inside the shrine were the silver statuettes of the household gods, a Venus in marble and a golden casket.Greek And Roman Religion – The Worship Of The Dead.
When we think of Greek and Roman religion or the classical world generally, we usually have in mind the kingdoms and empires that grew out of the city-states of ancient Greece and Italy. Roman religion was divided into two. Spirits watched over people, families and households, and the paterfamilias was in charge of the household worship that honored them.
Romans also had a set of. Roman religion, the religious beliefs and practices of the people of ancient Rome. The spirits were held in awe and were placated with . Roman Gods: For many hundreds of years, the Romans worshipped thousands of gods.
Trees, rocks, streams, bridges, everything in ancient Rome had a guardian spirit or god watching over it. Each god had at least one job to do. The Romans worshipped their gods in a temple.
They made sacrifices of animals and precious items to their gods. They believed that when an Emperor died he became a god and so a .
Religion in Ancient Rome includes the ancestral ethnic religion of the city of Rome that the Romans used to define themselves as a people, as well as the religious practices of peoples brought under Roman rule, in so far as they became widely followed in Rome and Italy.
The Romans thought of themselves as highly religious, and attributed their . | 725 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Early life and family
Galileo was born in Pisa (then part of the Duchy of Florence), Italy, on 15 February 1564, the first of six children of Vincenzo Galilei, a lutenist, composer, and music theorist, and Giulia (née Ammannati), who had married in 1562. Galileo became an accomplished lutenist himself and would have learned early from his father a scepticism for established authority, the value of well-measured or quantified experimentation, an appreciation for a periodic or musical measure of time or rhythm, as well as the results expected from a combination of mathematics and experiment.
Three of Galileo's five siblings survived infancy. The youngest, Michelangelo (or Michelagnolo), also became a lutenist and composer although he contributed to financial burdens during Galileo's young adulthood. Michelangelo was unable to contribute his fair share of their father's promised dowries to their brothers-in-law, who would later attempt to seek legal remedies for payments due. Michelangelo would also occasionally have to borrow funds from Galileo to support his musical endeavours and excursions. These financial burdens may have contributed to Galileo's early desire to develop inventions that would bring him additional income.
When Galileo Galilei was eight, his family moved to Florence, but he was left with Jacopo Borghini for two years. He was educated from 1575 to 1578 in the Vallombrosa Abbey, about 30 km southeast of Florence.
Galileo tended to refer to himself only by his given name. At the time, surnames were optional in Italy, and his given name had the same origin as his sometimes-family name, Galilei. Both his given and family name ultimately derive from an ancestor, Galileo Bonaiuti, an important physician, professor, and politician in Florence in the 15th century; his descendants had come to refer to themselves as Galilei in his honor in the late 14th century. Galileo Bonaiuti was buried in the same church, the Basilica of Santa Croce in Florence, where about 200 years later his more famous descendant Galileo Galilei was also buried.
When he did refer to himself with more than one name, it was sometimes as Galileo Galilei Linceo, a reference to his being a member of the Academy of Lincei, an elite pro-science organization in Italy. It was common for mid-sixteenth-century Tuscan families to name the eldest son after the parents' surname. Hence, Galileo Galilei was not necessarily named after his ancestor Galileo Bonaiuti. The Italian male given name "Galileo" (and thence the surname "Galilei") derives from the Latin "Galilæus", meaning "of Galilee", a biblically significant region in Northern Israel. Because of that region, the adjective galilaios (Greek γαλιλαίος, Latin Galilæus, Italian galileo), which means "Galilean", has been used in antiquity (particularly by emperor Julian) to refer to Christ and his followers; after this, the adjective has been adopted as a name with a meaning similar to Jesus or Christian.
The biblical roots of Galileo's name and surname were to become the subject of a famous pun. In 1614, during the Galileo affair, one of Galileo's opponents, the Dominican priest Tommaso Caccini, delivered against Galileo a controversial and influential sermon. In it he made a point of quoting 1:11, "Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven?".
Galileo's elder daughter Virginia
was particularly devoted to her father
Despite being a genuinely pious Roman Catholic, Galileo fathered three children out of wedlock with Marina Gamba. They had two daughters, Virginia (born 1600) and Livia (born 1601), and a son, Vincenzo (born 1606).
Because of their illegitimate birth, their father considered the girls unmarriageable, if not posing problems of prohibitively expensive support or dowries, which would have been similar to Galileo's previous extensive financial problems with two of his sisters. Their only worthy alternative was the religious life. Both girls were accepted by the convent of San Matteo in Arcetri and remained there for the rest of their lives.
Virginia took the name Maria Celeste upon entering the convent. She died on 2 April 1634, and is buried with Galileo at the Basilica of Santa Croce, Florence. Livia took the name Sister Arcangela and was ill for most of her life. Vincenzo was later legitimised as the legal heir of Galileo and married Sestilia Bocchineri. | <urn:uuid:1e49e512-f533-4715-8cbb-1c1c06980974> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.wikiplanet.click/enciclopedia/en/Galileo_Galilei | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250616186.38/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124070934-20200124095934-00044.warc.gz | en | 0.986711 | 973 | 3.484375 | 3 | [
0.15170294046401978,
0.3234623670578003,
0.05855259299278259,
-0.30907687544822693,
-0.9469269514083862,
-0.15749286115169525,
0.23286394774913788,
0.14449553191661835,
0.301027774810791,
-0.43236514925956726,
0.05543307960033417,
-0.19175055623054504,
0.41344285011291504,
0.37522137165069... | 1 | Early life and family
Galileo was born in Pisa (then part of the Duchy of Florence), Italy, on 15 February 1564, the first of six children of Vincenzo Galilei, a lutenist, composer, and music theorist, and Giulia (née Ammannati), who had married in 1562. Galileo became an accomplished lutenist himself and would have learned early from his father a scepticism for established authority, the value of well-measured or quantified experimentation, an appreciation for a periodic or musical measure of time or rhythm, as well as the results expected from a combination of mathematics and experiment.
Three of Galileo's five siblings survived infancy. The youngest, Michelangelo (or Michelagnolo), also became a lutenist and composer although he contributed to financial burdens during Galileo's young adulthood. Michelangelo was unable to contribute his fair share of their father's promised dowries to their brothers-in-law, who would later attempt to seek legal remedies for payments due. Michelangelo would also occasionally have to borrow funds from Galileo to support his musical endeavours and excursions. These financial burdens may have contributed to Galileo's early desire to develop inventions that would bring him additional income.
When Galileo Galilei was eight, his family moved to Florence, but he was left with Jacopo Borghini for two years. He was educated from 1575 to 1578 in the Vallombrosa Abbey, about 30 km southeast of Florence.
Galileo tended to refer to himself only by his given name. At the time, surnames were optional in Italy, and his given name had the same origin as his sometimes-family name, Galilei. Both his given and family name ultimately derive from an ancestor, Galileo Bonaiuti, an important physician, professor, and politician in Florence in the 15th century; his descendants had come to refer to themselves as Galilei in his honor in the late 14th century. Galileo Bonaiuti was buried in the same church, the Basilica of Santa Croce in Florence, where about 200 years later his more famous descendant Galileo Galilei was also buried.
When he did refer to himself with more than one name, it was sometimes as Galileo Galilei Linceo, a reference to his being a member of the Academy of Lincei, an elite pro-science organization in Italy. It was common for mid-sixteenth-century Tuscan families to name the eldest son after the parents' surname. Hence, Galileo Galilei was not necessarily named after his ancestor Galileo Bonaiuti. The Italian male given name "Galileo" (and thence the surname "Galilei") derives from the Latin "Galilæus", meaning "of Galilee", a biblically significant region in Northern Israel. Because of that region, the adjective galilaios (Greek γαλιλαίος, Latin Galilæus, Italian galileo), which means "Galilean", has been used in antiquity (particularly by emperor Julian) to refer to Christ and his followers; after this, the adjective has been adopted as a name with a meaning similar to Jesus or Christian.
The biblical roots of Galileo's name and surname were to become the subject of a famous pun. In 1614, during the Galileo affair, one of Galileo's opponents, the Dominican priest Tommaso Caccini, delivered against Galileo a controversial and influential sermon. In it he made a point of quoting 1:11, "Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven?".
Galileo's elder daughter Virginia
was particularly devoted to her father
Despite being a genuinely pious Roman Catholic, Galileo fathered three children out of wedlock with Marina Gamba. They had two daughters, Virginia (born 1600) and Livia (born 1601), and a son, Vincenzo (born 1606).
Because of their illegitimate birth, their father considered the girls unmarriageable, if not posing problems of prohibitively expensive support or dowries, which would have been similar to Galileo's previous extensive financial problems with two of his sisters. Their only worthy alternative was the religious life. Both girls were accepted by the convent of San Matteo in Arcetri and remained there for the rest of their lives.
Virginia took the name Maria Celeste upon entering the convent. She died on 2 April 1634, and is buried with Galileo at the Basilica of Santa Croce, Florence. Livia took the name Sister Arcangela and was ill for most of her life. Vincenzo was later legitimised as the legal heir of Galileo and married Sestilia Bocchineri. | 1,024 | ENGLISH | 1 |
In William Golding’s novel Lord of the Flies, a group of school boys find themselves stranded on a tropical island. The connections of Simon and Jesus start with his name. Simon is a reference from the Bible, who was one of the disciples. Simon also had a conversation with the pig’s head, the lord of the flies, which is another name for Beelzebub, which is another name for Satan. Through many occasions, Simon resembles Christ.Simon, like Christ, is portrayed as kind, compassionate, and peaceful. Early in the story he is shown as a provider of food for the littluns. Christ provided bread for his people, in the same what that Simon provided the fruit. “Then, amid the roar of bees in the afternoon sunlight, Simon found the fruit they could not reach…passed them back down to the endless outstretched hands (78). All of the littluns are grateful for Simon’s discovery, like how God’s people were thankful when he provided bread and fish for them. Simon seemed to be godly throughout the whole mishap. Nobody would have found those fruit without Simon, just like how God’s people would have starved if Jesus was not there to save them.In the same what Christ was, Simon is a prophet to the people, who gains an insight as to what the truth about the beast is. When he attempts to tell the rest of the boys that the beast doesn’t seem to be what they think it is, they decide to kill Simon because he claimed to be the beast. Without a second thought, the boys jump him and tear him apart with their bare hands and teeth. This also represents Christ by the way that he was crucified on the cross by his own people. Simon seems to have a special sense that seems almost prophetic in nature. At one point in the book, he says, “What I mean is…maybe its only us” (126). This comment makes one seem to think that he’s the only one to understand that the uncivilized and uncontrollable behavior of the boys will be what destroys them.When the boys search for the beast that Samneric report having seen, Simon is the one who doubts its existence as a creature. It is the inward sight that leads him into the covert where he often meditates. Simon, just like Christ, because in the Bible after Jesus was baptized, the spirit immediately led him into the wilderness. While Simon is meditating in the covert, the hunters do not see him as they leave the beast, “a gift”. As the hunters leave, Simon regards the head. “The half shut eyes were dim with the infinite cynicism of adult life. They assured Simon that everything was a bad business. ‘I know that.” (197). Just like Christ, Simon easily recognizes evil and Satan.As one can see, it seems to be obvious that Simon has been created to be the Christ-like figure of the story. He helped them all get off the island and survive, but gave his life doing it. They would not have even made it a couple of days, because Simon was the one who found all the fruit and food. Simon was a great addition to the story, especially when he counteracted with the Satan-like character that William Golding added to the novel. | <urn:uuid:64236288-9874-474f-aca7-8734f3f3b4da> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://fossilfinders.org/in-there-to-save-them-in-the-same-what-christ/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250606226.29/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121222429-20200122011429-00454.warc.gz | en | 0.985267 | 695 | 3.703125 | 4 | [
0.38873815536499023,
0.04931405931711197,
-0.11304011940956116,
0.008853882551193237,
0.005684862844645977,
-0.41570141911506653,
0.5271991491317749,
0.0032531374599784613,
-0.0032294299453496933,
0.31636667251586914,
0.16764487326145172,
-0.17835688591003418,
0.3370360732078552,
0.2327173... | 3 | In William Golding’s novel Lord of the Flies, a group of school boys find themselves stranded on a tropical island. The connections of Simon and Jesus start with his name. Simon is a reference from the Bible, who was one of the disciples. Simon also had a conversation with the pig’s head, the lord of the flies, which is another name for Beelzebub, which is another name for Satan. Through many occasions, Simon resembles Christ.Simon, like Christ, is portrayed as kind, compassionate, and peaceful. Early in the story he is shown as a provider of food for the littluns. Christ provided bread for his people, in the same what that Simon provided the fruit. “Then, amid the roar of bees in the afternoon sunlight, Simon found the fruit they could not reach…passed them back down to the endless outstretched hands (78). All of the littluns are grateful for Simon’s discovery, like how God’s people were thankful when he provided bread and fish for them. Simon seemed to be godly throughout the whole mishap. Nobody would have found those fruit without Simon, just like how God’s people would have starved if Jesus was not there to save them.In the same what Christ was, Simon is a prophet to the people, who gains an insight as to what the truth about the beast is. When he attempts to tell the rest of the boys that the beast doesn’t seem to be what they think it is, they decide to kill Simon because he claimed to be the beast. Without a second thought, the boys jump him and tear him apart with their bare hands and teeth. This also represents Christ by the way that he was crucified on the cross by his own people. Simon seems to have a special sense that seems almost prophetic in nature. At one point in the book, he says, “What I mean is…maybe its only us” (126). This comment makes one seem to think that he’s the only one to understand that the uncivilized and uncontrollable behavior of the boys will be what destroys them.When the boys search for the beast that Samneric report having seen, Simon is the one who doubts its existence as a creature. It is the inward sight that leads him into the covert where he often meditates. Simon, just like Christ, because in the Bible after Jesus was baptized, the spirit immediately led him into the wilderness. While Simon is meditating in the covert, the hunters do not see him as they leave the beast, “a gift”. As the hunters leave, Simon regards the head. “The half shut eyes were dim with the infinite cynicism of adult life. They assured Simon that everything was a bad business. ‘I know that.” (197). Just like Christ, Simon easily recognizes evil and Satan.As one can see, it seems to be obvious that Simon has been created to be the Christ-like figure of the story. He helped them all get off the island and survive, but gave his life doing it. They would not have even made it a couple of days, because Simon was the one who found all the fruit and food. Simon was a great addition to the story, especially when he counteracted with the Satan-like character that William Golding added to the novel. | 673 | ENGLISH | 1 |
We may have heard the Rosetta stone before but never understand what it means and what is its significance to our history. This article explains the importance of the discovery of this piece of black slab in understanding the ancient civilizations of man.
The Ancient Egypt was considered as one of the greatest civilization of the ancient times. Man had begun to unearth many monuments, buildings, artifacts and treasures that link back to this ancient civilization. And many of these artifacts comes the strange type of writings but no one had been able to read or understand them. And despite the man’s evolution in terms of technologies and modernization, no one seems to figure out how to read or understand them.
The early Greeks believed that the ancient Egyptian priests made these writings specifically to be use in sacred ceremonies. They call these writings as “hieroglyphs” which literary means “sacred carvings”. Today, these types of writings and carvings came to be known as “hieroglyphics”.
After the times of the ancient Greeks civilization, there were no other big efforts made to understand these writings until the 17th century.
During this time, many scholars gather and worked together to better understand these writings. But the result was of no success.
And in 1799, a great discovery was made that changes history. A black slab of stone was found near one of the mouths of the Nile River. The slab of stone had lain on that spot for many centuries until man discovered it. The stone was named the “Rosetta Stone” after the town where it was found.
But what in the Rosetta Stone that make it so valuable to mankind? This is because the stone contains written messages that were written in three different languages. The first one was on Greek, the second was in hieroglyphics and the third one was written in a form of Egyptian writing called demotic. The demotic is an abbreviated form of hieroglyphic.
From that point onwards, there was an intensive studies conducted in the attempt to understand the writings. From that point, the Greek texts can now be read and understood. By comparison, the long lost secret of the hieroglyphic writings was finally revealed and understand. And the man who was given the credit for doing this was a brilliant young Frenchman named Jean Francios Champollion in 1822.
As a result of this breakthrough, historians today was now able to trace life, customs, cultures and religions of the ancient Egyptians civilization as far as 3500 BC. This is because the hieroglyphics writings were one of the earliest forms of Egyptian writings and one of the world’s oldest known system of writing.
In its basic form, the hieroglyphics writings are in a form of picture writings where each picture represents an object. And as time goes by, this form of writing had evolved to which the Egyptians later wrote down words, ideas, and sounds.
India's culture and economy became popular in other countries through the travellers who visited here. Read about the important foreign travellers to here..
The ancient Indian societies developed strong and efficient norms of social conduct, which were called 'dharma', literally meaning 'duties. Ancient Indian scriptures often referred to them as 'Sanatan Dharma' or eternal duties that governed an individual’s interaction with both humans and nature.
In every society, at any given point of time, there is a tendency for people to form groups and develop their group identities. Ancient India was no different. | <urn:uuid:97c5e858-4d97-420b-83d7-74a29710cc95> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://travelandculture.expertscolumn.com/rosetta-stone-hieroglyphics-writings-and-ancient-civilizations | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251700988.64/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127143516-20200127173516-00461.warc.gz | en | 0.981535 | 725 | 3.328125 | 3 | [
-0.37630099058151245,
0.6786253452301025,
0.28292617201805115,
0.2873518764972687,
-0.9520809650421143,
-0.31723353266716003,
0.4582034647464752,
0.1381152719259262,
-0.13657964766025543,
-0.024800196290016174,
-0.42654234170913696,
-0.5077660083770752,
-0.05731453001499176,
0.231798559427... | 1 | We may have heard the Rosetta stone before but never understand what it means and what is its significance to our history. This article explains the importance of the discovery of this piece of black slab in understanding the ancient civilizations of man.
The Ancient Egypt was considered as one of the greatest civilization of the ancient times. Man had begun to unearth many monuments, buildings, artifacts and treasures that link back to this ancient civilization. And many of these artifacts comes the strange type of writings but no one had been able to read or understand them. And despite the man’s evolution in terms of technologies and modernization, no one seems to figure out how to read or understand them.
The early Greeks believed that the ancient Egyptian priests made these writings specifically to be use in sacred ceremonies. They call these writings as “hieroglyphs” which literary means “sacred carvings”. Today, these types of writings and carvings came to be known as “hieroglyphics”.
After the times of the ancient Greeks civilization, there were no other big efforts made to understand these writings until the 17th century.
During this time, many scholars gather and worked together to better understand these writings. But the result was of no success.
And in 1799, a great discovery was made that changes history. A black slab of stone was found near one of the mouths of the Nile River. The slab of stone had lain on that spot for many centuries until man discovered it. The stone was named the “Rosetta Stone” after the town where it was found.
But what in the Rosetta Stone that make it so valuable to mankind? This is because the stone contains written messages that were written in three different languages. The first one was on Greek, the second was in hieroglyphics and the third one was written in a form of Egyptian writing called demotic. The demotic is an abbreviated form of hieroglyphic.
From that point onwards, there was an intensive studies conducted in the attempt to understand the writings. From that point, the Greek texts can now be read and understood. By comparison, the long lost secret of the hieroglyphic writings was finally revealed and understand. And the man who was given the credit for doing this was a brilliant young Frenchman named Jean Francios Champollion in 1822.
As a result of this breakthrough, historians today was now able to trace life, customs, cultures and religions of the ancient Egyptians civilization as far as 3500 BC. This is because the hieroglyphics writings were one of the earliest forms of Egyptian writings and one of the world’s oldest known system of writing.
In its basic form, the hieroglyphics writings are in a form of picture writings where each picture represents an object. And as time goes by, this form of writing had evolved to which the Egyptians later wrote down words, ideas, and sounds.
India's culture and economy became popular in other countries through the travellers who visited here. Read about the important foreign travellers to here..
The ancient Indian societies developed strong and efficient norms of social conduct, which were called 'dharma', literally meaning 'duties. Ancient Indian scriptures often referred to them as 'Sanatan Dharma' or eternal duties that governed an individual’s interaction with both humans and nature.
In every society, at any given point of time, there is a tendency for people to form groups and develop their group identities. Ancient India was no different. | 710 | ENGLISH | 1 |
- Created by: chunks-42
- Created on: 06-05-15 15:39
Marriage in Roman times began as a sacred institution with divorce being unknown. However by the time of the late republic and early empire, divorce was common and often used as a tool for disposing of a less "fortunate" political or economic bond in favour of a better one.
Manus- who controlled the wife?
In a cum manu union the wife legally and ritually became a member of her husband's family. She stood under the control of the husband's potestas or that of his father, and was thus no longer under the control of her father. This change of status was referred to as capitis demunutio minima, and the wife received the title of materfamilias, meaning "mother of the household"- a title only reserved in a cum manu union. Legally, the wife was "adopted" by her husband and assumed the status of a daughter in the family. This granted her the same entitlements as the other children family-over-matters of intestate succession. Therefore, the wife no longer inherited from her father but from her husband. However, the husband held a limited power over her in comparison to his children. For example, the husband did not have the legal right of life and death the way he would his daughter, or that of noxal surrender and sale. The wife in a cum manu marriage held no proprietary capacity meaning she could not own any property. Everything acquired prior to cum manu was thus transferred into the husband's property or his paterfamilias. During Cicero's time property such as dowry was recognised as distinguishable and therefore recoverable. Liabilities the wife may have acquired before marriage was erased. A widowed or divorced woman would become sui iuris. For a widowed wife two significant benefits came from cum manu marriage: the husband could grant the wife the ability to select her tutor and she was able to create a will. Cum manu (i.e. the woman enters into manus) was procured by one of three ways: Confarreatio, Coemptio and Usus.
In a sine manu union the wife legally and ritually remained a member of her father's family, standing under the control of her father's potestas. A sine manu marriage did not change the legal status of the bride after the marriage, in regards to property rights. In other words, the bride is not under control of the husband. This form of marriage held no ceremonial formalities led by a public official. Ultimately it involved a husband and wife living together under the intention of a marriage, in conjunction wth the legal capacity of marriage under Roman law. Although no official ceremony was held, it was customary for the bride to be escorted to her bridegroom's house. The children of this union were legally members of the husband's agnatic kin. They held no legal connection with the mother's paterfamilias, and could not make claims on her intestate. It was only when the woman's father died that she became sui iuris. This union allowed… | <urn:uuid:6966d0f8-cdbb-42ed-947f-0c324902cfe1> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://getrevising.co.uk/revision-notes/roman_weddings | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250607118.51/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122131612-20200122160612-00407.warc.gz | en | 0.98705 | 664 | 3.859375 | 4 | [
-0.30626070499420166,
0.4168378710746765,
0.09273873269557953,
-0.36998361349105835,
-0.21221327781677246,
0.2544793486595154,
0.2723081707954407,
-0.13437628746032715,
0.12195168435573578,
-0.14293459057807922,
0.09466218203306198,
-0.3160226345062256,
0.17821434140205383,
0.0374335236847... | 1 | - Created by: chunks-42
- Created on: 06-05-15 15:39
Marriage in Roman times began as a sacred institution with divorce being unknown. However by the time of the late republic and early empire, divorce was common and often used as a tool for disposing of a less "fortunate" political or economic bond in favour of a better one.
Manus- who controlled the wife?
In a cum manu union the wife legally and ritually became a member of her husband's family. She stood under the control of the husband's potestas or that of his father, and was thus no longer under the control of her father. This change of status was referred to as capitis demunutio minima, and the wife received the title of materfamilias, meaning "mother of the household"- a title only reserved in a cum manu union. Legally, the wife was "adopted" by her husband and assumed the status of a daughter in the family. This granted her the same entitlements as the other children family-over-matters of intestate succession. Therefore, the wife no longer inherited from her father but from her husband. However, the husband held a limited power over her in comparison to his children. For example, the husband did not have the legal right of life and death the way he would his daughter, or that of noxal surrender and sale. The wife in a cum manu marriage held no proprietary capacity meaning she could not own any property. Everything acquired prior to cum manu was thus transferred into the husband's property or his paterfamilias. During Cicero's time property such as dowry was recognised as distinguishable and therefore recoverable. Liabilities the wife may have acquired before marriage was erased. A widowed or divorced woman would become sui iuris. For a widowed wife two significant benefits came from cum manu marriage: the husband could grant the wife the ability to select her tutor and she was able to create a will. Cum manu (i.e. the woman enters into manus) was procured by one of three ways: Confarreatio, Coemptio and Usus.
In a sine manu union the wife legally and ritually remained a member of her father's family, standing under the control of her father's potestas. A sine manu marriage did not change the legal status of the bride after the marriage, in regards to property rights. In other words, the bride is not under control of the husband. This form of marriage held no ceremonial formalities led by a public official. Ultimately it involved a husband and wife living together under the intention of a marriage, in conjunction wth the legal capacity of marriage under Roman law. Although no official ceremony was held, it was customary for the bride to be escorted to her bridegroom's house. The children of this union were legally members of the husband's agnatic kin. They held no legal connection with the mother's paterfamilias, and could not make claims on her intestate. It was only when the woman's father died that she became sui iuris. This union allowed… | 657 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The attacks made against Hiroshima and the World Trade Center is a no doubt unforgettable memory. Both events resulted in a terrorist attack, countless deaths, a statement for the killings and usage of destruction. There are many similarities between the two events, but there are also several differences. Hiroshima and Nagasaki attack was committed by the United States. This attack was a statement made by Colonel Tibbets as the U.S. believed this would make the Japanese easily surrender and to end WWII. With the World Trade Center, the extremist committed this attack and the statement was to start war with the United States. Both attacks were committed to make a statement for war, but it's a statement that the Countries will never forget. .
Hiroshima devastation occurred on August 6, 1945 at 8:15am. This was towards the end of World War II. The mass destruction caused over 100,000 deaths and over 100,000 more who were injured. Though the act involving World Trade Center did not have as much casualties as Hiroshima, the sole purpose is what makes these terrorist attacks very similar. The World Trade Center attack occurred on September 11, 2001 at 8:45am. Both events were strangely enough committed in the 8'clock hour. Also involving two separate attacks: Hiroshima and Nagasaki, The World Trade Center and The Pentagon. It is an understanding that the two attacks were committed as each party was trying to make a statement during the end or brink of war. The bombing of Hiroshima occurred as Colonel Tibbets instructed the United States to drop two atomic bombs in Japan as it will forcibly make them surrender, to end World War II. The destruction of the World Trade Center was committed to make a statement because of the alleged involvement the United States had with the Persian Gulf War and continued military presence in the Middle East. Regardless of the time and date of the events, both parties were committed to make their point across, War. | <urn:uuid:3f6512c0-e6ef-41af-8cfe-df05b454e2c8> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.exampleessays.com/viewpaper/215719.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251799918.97/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129133601-20200129163601-00469.warc.gz | en | 0.984221 | 387 | 3.3125 | 3 | [
-0.09657333046197891,
0.08045324683189392,
-0.09191187471151352,
-0.10528040677309036,
0.4055666923522949,
0.25066861510276794,
0.3372969925403595,
0.21074725687503815,
0.013258704915642738,
0.08891528844833374,
0.37889593839645386,
0.17784790694713593,
0.34665459394454956,
0.6914871931076... | 7 | The attacks made against Hiroshima and the World Trade Center is a no doubt unforgettable memory. Both events resulted in a terrorist attack, countless deaths, a statement for the killings and usage of destruction. There are many similarities between the two events, but there are also several differences. Hiroshima and Nagasaki attack was committed by the United States. This attack was a statement made by Colonel Tibbets as the U.S. believed this would make the Japanese easily surrender and to end WWII. With the World Trade Center, the extremist committed this attack and the statement was to start war with the United States. Both attacks were committed to make a statement for war, but it's a statement that the Countries will never forget. .
Hiroshima devastation occurred on August 6, 1945 at 8:15am. This was towards the end of World War II. The mass destruction caused over 100,000 deaths and over 100,000 more who were injured. Though the act involving World Trade Center did not have as much casualties as Hiroshima, the sole purpose is what makes these terrorist attacks very similar. The World Trade Center attack occurred on September 11, 2001 at 8:45am. Both events were strangely enough committed in the 8'clock hour. Also involving two separate attacks: Hiroshima and Nagasaki, The World Trade Center and The Pentagon. It is an understanding that the two attacks were committed as each party was trying to make a statement during the end or brink of war. The bombing of Hiroshima occurred as Colonel Tibbets instructed the United States to drop two atomic bombs in Japan as it will forcibly make them surrender, to end World War II. The destruction of the World Trade Center was committed to make a statement because of the alleged involvement the United States had with the Persian Gulf War and continued military presence in the Middle East. Regardless of the time and date of the events, both parties were committed to make their point across, War. | 414 | ENGLISH | 1 |
St. Peter’s Cathedral
National Architectural Monument, XIII – XX centuries. Skārņu Street 19 St.
Peter’s Cathedral used to be the main cathedral during the middle ages for the inhabitants of Riga, and it has belonged to the citizens of Riga since the very beginning. The church congregation mainly consisted of privileged large guild merchants and craftsmen of smaller guilds. The first time St. Peter’s cathedral was mentioned in 1209. Its oldest section, currently the central area, which used to be the altar area, built in 1408–1409 – conforms to Gothic style. The cathedral has been rebuilt and enlarged several times. In the latter half of the 15th century, the cathedral acquired its three-dimensional basilica look. In 1491 the tower was built upon the cathedral, and although it collapsed several times, it was always rebuilt.
In 1666 the tower collapsed, in 1677 it was recovered, but in the same year it was destroyed by fire. In 1690 it was rebuilt again. At that time the 64.5 m high steeple was the highest wooden structure in the world. In 1721 lightning hit the tower and it was destroyed again (reportedly, the Russian tsar Peter I, who at that time was in Riga, took part in extinguishing the fire). This time the renewed tower stayed intact by 1746. During World War II on 29 June 1941 artillery projectiles, which hit the cathedral, inflamed it, and as the cathedral burned the tower collapsed. The tower was resurrected in 1973, but the cathedral’s restoration was completed in 1984. Now there is an elevator built in the tower, which takes visitors to tower’s second gallery located on 72 m height to enjoy the city panorama. | <urn:uuid:48bbf10a-909d-4e1d-88ba-e98a4e71c6b1> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://pasvaldiba.riga.lv/EN/Channels/About_Riga/Riga_architecture/Old_Riga/Sv.PeteraBaznica.htm | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251681412.74/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125191854-20200125221854-00159.warc.gz | en | 0.981506 | 370 | 3.3125 | 3 | [
0.10465506464242935,
0.3098941147327423,
-0.025439340621232986,
-0.14835236966609955,
0.005266856402158737,
0.05580274388194084,
-0.48588475584983826,
0.5262730121612549,
-0.11403658241033554,
0.12495818734169006,
-0.09874509274959564,
-0.4598052501678467,
-0.15406674146652222,
0.356198549... | 1 | St. Peter’s Cathedral
National Architectural Monument, XIII – XX centuries. Skārņu Street 19 St.
Peter’s Cathedral used to be the main cathedral during the middle ages for the inhabitants of Riga, and it has belonged to the citizens of Riga since the very beginning. The church congregation mainly consisted of privileged large guild merchants and craftsmen of smaller guilds. The first time St. Peter’s cathedral was mentioned in 1209. Its oldest section, currently the central area, which used to be the altar area, built in 1408–1409 – conforms to Gothic style. The cathedral has been rebuilt and enlarged several times. In the latter half of the 15th century, the cathedral acquired its three-dimensional basilica look. In 1491 the tower was built upon the cathedral, and although it collapsed several times, it was always rebuilt.
In 1666 the tower collapsed, in 1677 it was recovered, but in the same year it was destroyed by fire. In 1690 it was rebuilt again. At that time the 64.5 m high steeple was the highest wooden structure in the world. In 1721 lightning hit the tower and it was destroyed again (reportedly, the Russian tsar Peter I, who at that time was in Riga, took part in extinguishing the fire). This time the renewed tower stayed intact by 1746. During World War II on 29 June 1941 artillery projectiles, which hit the cathedral, inflamed it, and as the cathedral burned the tower collapsed. The tower was resurrected in 1973, but the cathedral’s restoration was completed in 1984. Now there is an elevator built in the tower, which takes visitors to tower’s second gallery located on 72 m height to enjoy the city panorama. | 404 | ENGLISH | 1 |
George Brinton McClellan (December 3, 1826 – October 29, 1885) was an American soldier, civil engineer, railroad executive, and politician. A graduate of West Point, McClellan served with distinction during the Mexican–American War (1846–1848), and later left the Army to work in railroads until the outbreak of the American Civil War (1861–1865). Early in the conflict, McClellan was appointed to the rank of major general and played an important role in raising a well-trained and organized army, which would become the Army of the Potomac in the Eastern Theater; he served a brief period (November 1861 to March 1862) as general-in-chief of the Union Army.
McClellan organized and led the Union army in the Peninsula Campaign in southeastern Virginia from March through July 1862. It was the first large-scale offensive in the Eastern Theater. Making an amphibious clockwise turning movement around the Confederate Army in northern Virginia, McClellan's forces turned west to move up the Virginia Peninsula, between the James and York Rivers, landing from the Chesapeake Bay, with the Confederate capital, Richmond, as their objective. Initially, McClellan was somewhat successful against General Joseph E. Johnston, but the emergence of General Robert E. Lee to command the Army of Northern Virginia turned the subsequent Seven Days Battles into a partial Union defeat. However, historians note that Lee's victory was in many ways pyrrhic as he failed to destroy the Army of the Potomac and suffered a bloody repulse at Malvern Hill. Historian Stephen Sears in To the Gates of Richmond notes McClellan's Army of the Potomac inflicted 20,204 losses while only sustaining 15,855 themselves. McClellan's army would be withdrawn from the Peninsula in August 1862. Military theorist Emory Upton noted at the time that "The worst that could be said of the Peninsula campaign was that thus far it had not been successful. To make it a failure was reserved for the agency of General Halleck."
General McClellan failed to maintain the trust of President Abraham Lincoln, and did not trust his commander-in-chief and was privately derisive of him. McClellan was removed from command in November in the aftermath of the 1862 midterm elections. This decision contributed to McClellan's supposed failure to decisively pursue Lee's Army following the tactically inconclusive but strategic Union victory at the Battle of Antietam outside Sharpsburg, Maryland. Future commander of the Army of the Potomac George Gordon Meade noted in his letters that the decision was for political rather than military reasons. Even critics such as William Swinton lamented the timing of McClellan's removal: "The moment chosen was an inopportune and an ungracious one; for never had McClellan acted with such vigor and rapidity—never had he shown so much confidence in himself or the army in him." McClellan would never receive another field command and went on to become the unsuccessful Democratic Party nominee in the 1864 presidential election against the Republican Lincoln's reelection. The effectiveness of his campaign was damaged when he repudiated his party's platform, which promised an end to the war and negotiations with the southern Confederacy. He served as the 24th Governor of New Jersey from 1878 to 1881; eventually became a writer, and vigorously defended his Civil War conduct.
Most classic histories have presented McClellan as a poor battlefield general. In recent decades, however, this view has been challenged. Some historians view him as a highly capable commander whose reputation suffered unfairly at the hands of pro-Lincoln partisans who made him a scapegoat for the Union's military setbacks. In particular, McClellan's role in the Maryland Campaign has undergone a positive reassessment. Notably, after the war, subsequent commanding general and 18th President Ulysses S. Grant was asked for his opinion of McClellan as a general; he replied, "McClellan is to me one of the mysteries of the war." | <urn:uuid:860af6ab-37c5-45a4-be85-e23784c60ebe> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.virginiarelics.com/information/george-b-mcclellan/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250624328.55/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124161014-20200124190014-00370.warc.gz | en | 0.982714 | 828 | 3.609375 | 4 | [
-0.2781907916069031,
0.24562956392765045,
0.8397414684295654,
0.48149579763412476,
0.02959408611059189,
0.3374282717704773,
-0.05459185689687729,
0.04343177005648613,
-0.3657156229019165,
-0.0751374140381813,
0.44275787472724915,
0.06029975414276123,
0.21729156374931335,
0.441265344619751,... | 10 | George Brinton McClellan (December 3, 1826 – October 29, 1885) was an American soldier, civil engineer, railroad executive, and politician. A graduate of West Point, McClellan served with distinction during the Mexican–American War (1846–1848), and later left the Army to work in railroads until the outbreak of the American Civil War (1861–1865). Early in the conflict, McClellan was appointed to the rank of major general and played an important role in raising a well-trained and organized army, which would become the Army of the Potomac in the Eastern Theater; he served a brief period (November 1861 to March 1862) as general-in-chief of the Union Army.
McClellan organized and led the Union army in the Peninsula Campaign in southeastern Virginia from March through July 1862. It was the first large-scale offensive in the Eastern Theater. Making an amphibious clockwise turning movement around the Confederate Army in northern Virginia, McClellan's forces turned west to move up the Virginia Peninsula, between the James and York Rivers, landing from the Chesapeake Bay, with the Confederate capital, Richmond, as their objective. Initially, McClellan was somewhat successful against General Joseph E. Johnston, but the emergence of General Robert E. Lee to command the Army of Northern Virginia turned the subsequent Seven Days Battles into a partial Union defeat. However, historians note that Lee's victory was in many ways pyrrhic as he failed to destroy the Army of the Potomac and suffered a bloody repulse at Malvern Hill. Historian Stephen Sears in To the Gates of Richmond notes McClellan's Army of the Potomac inflicted 20,204 losses while only sustaining 15,855 themselves. McClellan's army would be withdrawn from the Peninsula in August 1862. Military theorist Emory Upton noted at the time that "The worst that could be said of the Peninsula campaign was that thus far it had not been successful. To make it a failure was reserved for the agency of General Halleck."
General McClellan failed to maintain the trust of President Abraham Lincoln, and did not trust his commander-in-chief and was privately derisive of him. McClellan was removed from command in November in the aftermath of the 1862 midterm elections. This decision contributed to McClellan's supposed failure to decisively pursue Lee's Army following the tactically inconclusive but strategic Union victory at the Battle of Antietam outside Sharpsburg, Maryland. Future commander of the Army of the Potomac George Gordon Meade noted in his letters that the decision was for political rather than military reasons. Even critics such as William Swinton lamented the timing of McClellan's removal: "The moment chosen was an inopportune and an ungracious one; for never had McClellan acted with such vigor and rapidity—never had he shown so much confidence in himself or the army in him." McClellan would never receive another field command and went on to become the unsuccessful Democratic Party nominee in the 1864 presidential election against the Republican Lincoln's reelection. The effectiveness of his campaign was damaged when he repudiated his party's platform, which promised an end to the war and negotiations with the southern Confederacy. He served as the 24th Governor of New Jersey from 1878 to 1881; eventually became a writer, and vigorously defended his Civil War conduct.
Most classic histories have presented McClellan as a poor battlefield general. In recent decades, however, this view has been challenged. Some historians view him as a highly capable commander whose reputation suffered unfairly at the hands of pro-Lincoln partisans who made him a scapegoat for the Union's military setbacks. In particular, McClellan's role in the Maryland Campaign has undergone a positive reassessment. Notably, after the war, subsequent commanding general and 18th President Ulysses S. Grant was asked for his opinion of McClellan as a general; he replied, "McClellan is to me one of the mysteries of the war." | 903 | ENGLISH | 1 |
By Renata Terrazzan
Since 1937, the second Monday of October has been set aside for Columbus Day. It is a national holiday, banners are sold, elementary school kids have a special activity for it, the post office takes a day off, and all that good holiday stuff. But should Columbus actually be the cause for all this celebration?
The response to whether or not it should be celebrated is fairly divided. Some question whether his whole fame is a lie, since he did not truly discover the Americas. Afterall, Native Americans had been on that land for years and he was not even the first European to cross the Atlantic. Leif Eriksson was the first, and he landed in Newfoundland. Even if Columbus had been the first to cross the Atlantic and see all the land that was available, that was not all he did there. He enslaved the Native Americans, made them work endless hours without getting anything in return, he took all their land, and for anyone who broke his rules punishment was severe, like cutting off hands, whipping, torture, and killing. And, this cruelty was not exclusive to the natives, but extended to his own crew. He would execute the rebel Spanish colonists. His tyranny was so great that he was reported to the Spanish crown, arrested, and brought back to Spain in 1500. Therefore, this shows that Columbus was not idolized or celebrated in his time period. Yet, today he is one of two men who have an entire holiday to themselves, and the other is Martin Luther King Jr., a man who tore down the barriers between blacks and whites.
But on the other side, he did accomplish many things. Since he had the Spanish royalty behind his expedition, news that there was more land spread quickly over Europe. This led to hundreds of Europeans to sail across the sea and inhabit the land, which led to towns, then cities, more urbanization and technology, and eventually the Americas we know today. The other side also sees Columbus’ enslavement of the natives as something that he couldn’t help, given the time period. He was in fact like many other leaders we worship here in America, like George Washington, who was a slave owner for fifty-six years and enslaved 317 people. But, even Washington does not have a whole day dedicated to his celebration, unless President’s Day can count, even if that holiday is shared with 42 other men.
So, maybe the nation should be celebrating Columbus’ discovery and not the man himself. Maybe a change of name would be appropriate, like “Day of the New Age?” Yet, is the start of the new age something that should be celebrated, since because as soon as the New Age began the lives of thousands of Native American’s were ended. This holiday goes along the same lines as a holiday called “the Day of the Beginning of the World Economy,” since the day the World Economy started was the same day that the slave trade in Africa began. That holiday doesn’t seem to be happening any time soon. | <urn:uuid:12310264-c89c-4b4c-8bc0-629acc69af57> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://wlcnews.com/2016/10/10/christopher-columbus-sailed-the-ocean-blue-in-1492/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251728207.68/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127205148-20200127235148-00468.warc.gz | en | 0.985463 | 625 | 3.4375 | 3 | [
-0.32071471214294434,
0.6333380341529846,
0.3357016444206238,
-0.046396516263484955,
-0.2745089530944824,
-0.04225927218794823,
0.12311778962612152,
-0.022656716406345367,
0.05071273818612099,
0.16607651114463806,
0.3047310411930084,
0.25708863139152527,
-0.4636921286582947,
0.536321222782... | 9 | By Renata Terrazzan
Since 1937, the second Monday of October has been set aside for Columbus Day. It is a national holiday, banners are sold, elementary school kids have a special activity for it, the post office takes a day off, and all that good holiday stuff. But should Columbus actually be the cause for all this celebration?
The response to whether or not it should be celebrated is fairly divided. Some question whether his whole fame is a lie, since he did not truly discover the Americas. Afterall, Native Americans had been on that land for years and he was not even the first European to cross the Atlantic. Leif Eriksson was the first, and he landed in Newfoundland. Even if Columbus had been the first to cross the Atlantic and see all the land that was available, that was not all he did there. He enslaved the Native Americans, made them work endless hours without getting anything in return, he took all their land, and for anyone who broke his rules punishment was severe, like cutting off hands, whipping, torture, and killing. And, this cruelty was not exclusive to the natives, but extended to his own crew. He would execute the rebel Spanish colonists. His tyranny was so great that he was reported to the Spanish crown, arrested, and brought back to Spain in 1500. Therefore, this shows that Columbus was not idolized or celebrated in his time period. Yet, today he is one of two men who have an entire holiday to themselves, and the other is Martin Luther King Jr., a man who tore down the barriers between blacks and whites.
But on the other side, he did accomplish many things. Since he had the Spanish royalty behind his expedition, news that there was more land spread quickly over Europe. This led to hundreds of Europeans to sail across the sea and inhabit the land, which led to towns, then cities, more urbanization and technology, and eventually the Americas we know today. The other side also sees Columbus’ enslavement of the natives as something that he couldn’t help, given the time period. He was in fact like many other leaders we worship here in America, like George Washington, who was a slave owner for fifty-six years and enslaved 317 people. But, even Washington does not have a whole day dedicated to his celebration, unless President’s Day can count, even if that holiday is shared with 42 other men.
So, maybe the nation should be celebrating Columbus’ discovery and not the man himself. Maybe a change of name would be appropriate, like “Day of the New Age?” Yet, is the start of the new age something that should be celebrated, since because as soon as the New Age began the lives of thousands of Native American’s were ended. This holiday goes along the same lines as a holiday called “the Day of the Beginning of the World Economy,” since the day the World Economy started was the same day that the slave trade in Africa began. That holiday doesn’t seem to be happening any time soon. | 619 | ENGLISH | 1 |
What Actually Happened At That First Thanksgiving in 1621?
There have been many many versions of the celebration we have come to call "Thanksgiving" but most versions agree on a few points:
- The traditional story of Thanksgiving sets it in 1621 at the Plymouth Colony on the coast of Massachusetts, although if you are from Virginia you may honor a smaller version that took place in that colony 2 years before the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock. We do have some historical writings from the Plymouth celebration so we'll go with that one. Documentation, documentation, documentation.
- It took place after the first Pilgrim harvest, which was a relatively bountiful one in 1621 at the Plymouth Plantation.
- Of the original 102 pilgrims that left England on the Mayflower, only 53 survived the trip and the first cold winter and were around for the celebration.
- The Pilgrims sent out a "fowling party" of four men to bring back many birds for the feast, which included some wild turkeys.
- There were 90 Indians who sent their own hunting party and brought back five deer. They would have been roasted on spits over open fire.
- Most accounts seem to agree that the Pilgrims started the celebration because it was a common practice in England to have a feast after a successful harvest. The Indian village was nearby and residents came over to see what was happening. A three day party ensued. The lovefest continued annually for about ten years until many more settlers came to the New World and problems arose.
- Other than fowl and venison, we don't have a record of the other food items that were served; but we do know what was raised at that time and can assume that onions, beans, cabbage, carrots, peas and corn were available. Corn was most likely removed from the cob and pounded into mush. Sometimes this was sweetened with molasses or honey.
- The first Day of Thanksgiving was declared by the Continental Congress in 1777, and in 1789 President George Washington declared a celebration on the fourth Thursday in November; but it wasn't yet an official holiday.
- It wasn't until the middle of the Civil War that President Lincoln made it a federal holiday. In 1863 he felt Americans sitting down together for a meal would promote some unity in a badly divided country. We have celebrated Thanksgiving ever since. | <urn:uuid:e8505b03-53d2-4808-9426-cc51e4d8f9de> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://wkdq.com/what-actually-happened-at-that-first-thanksgiving-in-1621/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250601241.42/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121014531-20200121043531-00376.warc.gz | en | 0.981846 | 483 | 3.890625 | 4 | [
0.2734260857105255,
0.09287511557340622,
0.5360900163650513,
-0.11703245341777802,
-0.05056324601173401,
-0.13750271499156952,
-0.2921268045902252,
0.4146147072315216,
-0.018799982964992523,
0.25896012783050537,
-0.07042344659566879,
0.3331732153892517,
-0.48006564378738403,
0.292590975761... | 6 | What Actually Happened At That First Thanksgiving in 1621?
There have been many many versions of the celebration we have come to call "Thanksgiving" but most versions agree on a few points:
- The traditional story of Thanksgiving sets it in 1621 at the Plymouth Colony on the coast of Massachusetts, although if you are from Virginia you may honor a smaller version that took place in that colony 2 years before the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock. We do have some historical writings from the Plymouth celebration so we'll go with that one. Documentation, documentation, documentation.
- It took place after the first Pilgrim harvest, which was a relatively bountiful one in 1621 at the Plymouth Plantation.
- Of the original 102 pilgrims that left England on the Mayflower, only 53 survived the trip and the first cold winter and were around for the celebration.
- The Pilgrims sent out a "fowling party" of four men to bring back many birds for the feast, which included some wild turkeys.
- There were 90 Indians who sent their own hunting party and brought back five deer. They would have been roasted on spits over open fire.
- Most accounts seem to agree that the Pilgrims started the celebration because it was a common practice in England to have a feast after a successful harvest. The Indian village was nearby and residents came over to see what was happening. A three day party ensued. The lovefest continued annually for about ten years until many more settlers came to the New World and problems arose.
- Other than fowl and venison, we don't have a record of the other food items that were served; but we do know what was raised at that time and can assume that onions, beans, cabbage, carrots, peas and corn were available. Corn was most likely removed from the cob and pounded into mush. Sometimes this was sweetened with molasses or honey.
- The first Day of Thanksgiving was declared by the Continental Congress in 1777, and in 1789 President George Washington declared a celebration on the fourth Thursday in November; but it wasn't yet an official holiday.
- It wasn't until the middle of the Civil War that President Lincoln made it a federal holiday. In 1863 he felt Americans sitting down together for a meal would promote some unity in a badly divided country. We have celebrated Thanksgiving ever since. | 503 | ENGLISH | 1 |
1874 On the 15th of February, in Kilkea, Kildare District, Ireland, Ernest Shackleton was born. He was an Irish polar explorer who missed only 157 km to be the first man who arrived to South Pole and who crossed Antarctic Ocean in an open boat, saving all his people after the ship they were in had sunk.
1890 Shackleton enrolled to mercantile marine and sailed to Far East and America before getting his certificate. Then he became an Officer within Union Star and he also enrolled to Navy reservists department.
1901-1903 He took part in Discovery expedition done by Robert Falcon Scott as a Lieutenant and he also went together with Scott and Edward Wilson to a sledding expedition over Ross Ice Shelf, until 82 degrees, 16 minutes South Latitude, the Southernmost point that had been reached at that moment. He went back home earlier than it had been established; he was sick but decided to become the first man who would have reached the South Pole.
1907-1908 Shackleton returned to Antarctica but this time as the Head of expedition, Nimrod, during which some sleds led by Shackleton reached 88 degrees and 23 minutes South Latitude, only 97 miles (157 km) far of South Pole. Another expedition’s team reached Magnetic South Pole. The both groups endured extreme conditions, starving being the strongest enemy. “After all, difficulties are only situations that must be overcome”, wrote Shackleton on his diary. Being always ready to endure the conditions close to his people, he was very loved by these who lovingly told him “the Boss”. At home he was considered a hero and when he returned to England he was ennobled.
1914-1916 After few months he tried to achieve money and after he had chosen 56 volunteers, Shackleton went again towards South on August 1914 while World War I was going to start. He was about to cross Antarctica from a camp near Weddell Sea, crossing South Pole to McMurdo Sound, but Endurance expeditionary vessel met unusually hard ice and drifted for ten months before being crushed. The ship disappeared under the ice cap but Shackleton and his people succeeded to survive. After five months spent under Ice Shelf, when the ice under their legs stated to crack, Shackleton led his people to rescue boats that they had picked up from Endurance and, in the end, the whole team landed on Elephant Island, in Southern Shetland Islands.
Then, Shackleton left to one of the most dangerous and daring sea crossings. Together with five people he sailed by the strongest rescue boat of whaler, that was called James Caird, over 1300 km on a sea full of ice and troubled by storms to Southern Georgia. Once they arrived there, the crew must have crossed a mountainous island that was also covered by snow in order to get help from a rescue boats harbour on the Northern shore of that island. Shackleton led four rescue expeditions until he succeeded to get out all people from Elephant Island. The fact he was able to save all his people was his greatest accomplishment.
1922 On the 5th of January, Ernest Shackleton died at Grytvicken, South Georgia.
1 - Ernest Shackleton (1874-1922), ro.biography.name
- Created on .
- Last updated on .
- Hits: 964 | <urn:uuid:326f8e6f-da02-4db9-94ce-76005e0e4df0> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://en.biography.name/explorers/77-ireland/114-ernest-shackleton-1874-1922?tmpl=component&print=1&layout=default | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250598726.39/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120110422-20200120134422-00072.warc.gz | en | 0.986005 | 693 | 3.515625 | 4 | [
0.034799039363861084,
0.3061034083366394,
0.19108682870864868,
-0.1863986998796463,
-0.24633735418319702,
-0.2389148771762848,
0.08609284460544586,
-0.15664438903331757,
-0.39636164903640747,
-0.00605868361890316,
0.5539484620094299,
-0.6711287498474121,
0.18284952640533447,
0.391626298427... | 1 | 1874 On the 15th of February, in Kilkea, Kildare District, Ireland, Ernest Shackleton was born. He was an Irish polar explorer who missed only 157 km to be the first man who arrived to South Pole and who crossed Antarctic Ocean in an open boat, saving all his people after the ship they were in had sunk.
1890 Shackleton enrolled to mercantile marine and sailed to Far East and America before getting his certificate. Then he became an Officer within Union Star and he also enrolled to Navy reservists department.
1901-1903 He took part in Discovery expedition done by Robert Falcon Scott as a Lieutenant and he also went together with Scott and Edward Wilson to a sledding expedition over Ross Ice Shelf, until 82 degrees, 16 minutes South Latitude, the Southernmost point that had been reached at that moment. He went back home earlier than it had been established; he was sick but decided to become the first man who would have reached the South Pole.
1907-1908 Shackleton returned to Antarctica but this time as the Head of expedition, Nimrod, during which some sleds led by Shackleton reached 88 degrees and 23 minutes South Latitude, only 97 miles (157 km) far of South Pole. Another expedition’s team reached Magnetic South Pole. The both groups endured extreme conditions, starving being the strongest enemy. “After all, difficulties are only situations that must be overcome”, wrote Shackleton on his diary. Being always ready to endure the conditions close to his people, he was very loved by these who lovingly told him “the Boss”. At home he was considered a hero and when he returned to England he was ennobled.
1914-1916 After few months he tried to achieve money and after he had chosen 56 volunteers, Shackleton went again towards South on August 1914 while World War I was going to start. He was about to cross Antarctica from a camp near Weddell Sea, crossing South Pole to McMurdo Sound, but Endurance expeditionary vessel met unusually hard ice and drifted for ten months before being crushed. The ship disappeared under the ice cap but Shackleton and his people succeeded to survive. After five months spent under Ice Shelf, when the ice under their legs stated to crack, Shackleton led his people to rescue boats that they had picked up from Endurance and, in the end, the whole team landed on Elephant Island, in Southern Shetland Islands.
Then, Shackleton left to one of the most dangerous and daring sea crossings. Together with five people he sailed by the strongest rescue boat of whaler, that was called James Caird, over 1300 km on a sea full of ice and troubled by storms to Southern Georgia. Once they arrived there, the crew must have crossed a mountainous island that was also covered by snow in order to get help from a rescue boats harbour on the Northern shore of that island. Shackleton led four rescue expeditions until he succeeded to get out all people from Elephant Island. The fact he was able to save all his people was his greatest accomplishment.
1922 On the 5th of January, Ernest Shackleton died at Grytvicken, South Georgia.
1 - Ernest Shackleton (1874-1922), ro.biography.name
- Created on .
- Last updated on .
- Hits: 964 | 725 | ENGLISH | 1 |
This summer I went to the largest U.S hanging site in history. It is located in Mankato where the Sioux/Dakota tribe once lived. In the park that the memorial is located, there is a wall that has a painting of what the view of the river was when the Indians lived there. I choose to go there because it sounded interesting and we in Mankato visiting my cousins. While I was there I learned that after a six-week war against the Dakota tribe in 1862, Henry Hastings Sibley, first governor of Minnesota and militia leader, had captured 2,000 Indians and sentenced 303 of them to death. The Indians crime was killing 490 white settlers, including women and children, in the Santee Sioux uprising in the previous summer. However, Lincoln who never hated the Indians disagreed with this. He looked at the case and pardoned 265 of the Indians, which was an unpopular decision among Americans. 150 years after the mass hanging occurred, Mankato built the memorial which features a large stone buffalo and a large glass scroll with the names of the 38 men who were hanged on December 26, 1862.
Essay due? We'll write it for you!
In 1862 Minnesota was a new frontier state. White settlers were pushing Indians out and a series of broken peace treaties lead to the failure of the U.S to bring promised food and supplies to the Indians which was part of the payment for new land. The Sioux leader then led his starving and angry tribe in a series of attacks against the new settlers. Andrew Myrick, a local trader, said “Let them eat grass or their own dung” when the Sioux complained of late payments and starvation. These events led to the rebellion we now call the US-Dakota War of 1862.
One thing that Historians have noticed about the mass execution of the Indians is how differently Lincoln treated the Indian rebels versus the Confederate rebels. In an article from the New York Times in 2014, it mentions how Confederate soldiers were not given the death sentence even though they killed over 400,000 Union soldiers. Whereas the Indians, who only killed 490 white settlers were given the death sentence.
The trial against the Indians was very unfair considering the Indians didn’t speak English and they didn’t have any lawyers. In the first trial, 303 Indians were being sentenced to death but only the President could sign the death orders. In a message to the Senate in December 1862 Lincoln wrote, “Anxious to not act with so much clemency as to encourage another outbreak on the one hand, nor with so much severity as to be real cruelty on the other, I caused a careful examination of the records of trials to be made.” Lincoln didn’t want to cause another uprise so he pardoned the majority of the Indians sentenced. In contrast, none of the Confederate rebels were sentenced to death even though their crimes were virtually the same. However, it is significant that Lincoln reviewed the case at all. Minnesota leaders were expecting him to stamp the cases and send them back. Lincoln was often seen as sympathetic towards minorities but still, Indian policy was clearly second to the civil war. After looking back at different decisions like this one we see now that the Indians were treated much more unfairly than they teach in most history classes.
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:da505261-f58d-4581-958d-42d97da39db1> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://eduzaurus.com/free-essay-samples/one-more-story-about-the-native-indians-trials-memorials-lincolns-fair-treatment/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251700988.64/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127143516-20200127173516-00280.warc.gz | en | 0.981498 | 780 | 3.40625 | 3 | [
-0.23717473447322845,
0.17170099914073944,
0.26013389229774475,
-0.06466139853000641,
0.13440370559692383,
-0.016056492924690247,
0.27324026823043823,
0.1325080245733261,
-0.07364697009325027,
-0.11329178512096405,
0.27747732400894165,
0.024620335549116135,
0.028059206902980804,
0.37912482... | 2 | This summer I went to the largest U.S hanging site in history. It is located in Mankato where the Sioux/Dakota tribe once lived. In the park that the memorial is located, there is a wall that has a painting of what the view of the river was when the Indians lived there. I choose to go there because it sounded interesting and we in Mankato visiting my cousins. While I was there I learned that after a six-week war against the Dakota tribe in 1862, Henry Hastings Sibley, first governor of Minnesota and militia leader, had captured 2,000 Indians and sentenced 303 of them to death. The Indians crime was killing 490 white settlers, including women and children, in the Santee Sioux uprising in the previous summer. However, Lincoln who never hated the Indians disagreed with this. He looked at the case and pardoned 265 of the Indians, which was an unpopular decision among Americans. 150 years after the mass hanging occurred, Mankato built the memorial which features a large stone buffalo and a large glass scroll with the names of the 38 men who were hanged on December 26, 1862.
Essay due? We'll write it for you!
In 1862 Minnesota was a new frontier state. White settlers were pushing Indians out and a series of broken peace treaties lead to the failure of the U.S to bring promised food and supplies to the Indians which was part of the payment for new land. The Sioux leader then led his starving and angry tribe in a series of attacks against the new settlers. Andrew Myrick, a local trader, said “Let them eat grass or their own dung” when the Sioux complained of late payments and starvation. These events led to the rebellion we now call the US-Dakota War of 1862.
One thing that Historians have noticed about the mass execution of the Indians is how differently Lincoln treated the Indian rebels versus the Confederate rebels. In an article from the New York Times in 2014, it mentions how Confederate soldiers were not given the death sentence even though they killed over 400,000 Union soldiers. Whereas the Indians, who only killed 490 white settlers were given the death sentence.
The trial against the Indians was very unfair considering the Indians didn’t speak English and they didn’t have any lawyers. In the first trial, 303 Indians were being sentenced to death but only the President could sign the death orders. In a message to the Senate in December 1862 Lincoln wrote, “Anxious to not act with so much clemency as to encourage another outbreak on the one hand, nor with so much severity as to be real cruelty on the other, I caused a careful examination of the records of trials to be made.” Lincoln didn’t want to cause another uprise so he pardoned the majority of the Indians sentenced. In contrast, none of the Confederate rebels were sentenced to death even though their crimes were virtually the same. However, it is significant that Lincoln reviewed the case at all. Minnesota leaders were expecting him to stamp the cases and send them back. Lincoln was often seen as sympathetic towards minorities but still, Indian policy was clearly second to the civil war. After looking back at different decisions like this one we see now that the Indians were treated much more unfairly than they teach in most history classes.
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 | 806 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Everyone knows what a ladder is; it is a set of steps that helps us reach high places. You usually don’t think about one until you really need one, but it is one of the most common household tools. Almost everyone has one at home, and its benefits are endless.
Starting from the fire department to your next-door neighbor, everybody uses one. It comes in handy if you are trying to clean your ceiling fan, trying to grab something that you’ve put in a high cupboard, get something stuck in a tree,etc.
So it makes the mind wonder, who invented the ladder? Who was the genius behind this revolutionary creation?
Who Invented the Ladder?
John H. Balsley, an extremely skilled carpenter,is the person who is credited for making the first foldable wooden ladder in the year of 1862. He came into this world in 1823, to George H. Balsley and Sarah Balsley.
His father, George H. Balsley was a carpenter himself. He was born in Connellsville, Pennsylvania and he was considered to be very skillful and talented at his work. Carpentry was his source of income, and it was also his passion.
Ladders had been used in the past before; there is evidence of a similar structure of a set of steps being used to reach heights. The building material and overall design of the ladder was different, but the purpose was similar. John H. Balsley invented a more user-friendly and practical version of it.
Earlier, ladders were made out of grasses or wobbly logs of wood. He invented a more stable ladder which was made out of stronger material and therefore was much safer. His design showcased a more step-like version of the conventional ladder, hence getting its name, stepladder.
Furthermore, his idea of attaching hinges at the top of the ladder and thus making it foldable was also highly appreciated due to its ease of storage. Before his idea, people used to have difficulties storing ladders, and it was a great deal of work carrying it somewhere. His idea made ladders mobile.
He received the first U.S patent issued for a safety stepladder. Later on, he continued on to become a very wealthy businessman by selling his creation.
Although he didn’t technically come up with the original idea of the ladder, he did ameliorate the concept. He introduced a handier, foolproof, and convenient version.His invention is a great contribution to society. It is a great upgrade of its initial versions and is a vital addition to your set of tools and equipment.
How the Ladder was Invented- A Short History of the Ladder
So, when exactly was the ladder invented?
The exact time and date of when the ladder was invented are unclear, but it is believed that the idea dates back ten thousand years. Although it was not as modern and well built as it is now, ladders were used in prehistoric times.
According to scientists and evidence, the ladder was first used in Spain. A painting, displaying two men employing a flimsy ladder to reach a honeybee nest, was found in the spider caves in Valencia. The ladder that was seen on the Mesolithic rock was crafted out of a specific kind of grass.
This was similar to ladders that are made out of rope. Rope ladders are often seen in gyms or often seen thrown off of helicopters on rescue missions.
As time moved on, we saw the progress of the prehistoric version in the form of wooden ladders. Ladders, like any other invention, were improved and upgraded. The idea of a set of steps created from grass inspired many and helped people come along with better ideas.
First came the ladders made of rope or wood and then came along several versions, with varying shapes and sizes, of the ladder.
You can find different kinds of ladders that are fit for your purpose. The telescopic ladder, foldable ladder, sliding ladder, reform ladder, double staircase ladder, are a few of the kinds available in the market for you. In medieval times, ladders were used in wars to cross over huge gates or climb up to windows of castles.
They were also used in daily activities like picking fruits from a tall tree or just simply reaching something placed in high places. The utility of ladders remains quite similar to the olden days. In fact, they serve us in many more ways now.
There are different types of ladders, such as step ladders, telescopic ladders. We use them without knowing their history. So, before you buy a telescopic ladder or any other ladder, you will know who invented the ladder and also a little more about the history and origin of the invention of ladders. | <urn:uuid:339d7e60-99a1-4c7b-a6b3-52909b13d89a> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://homebasereviews.com/who-invented-the-ladder/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251778168.77/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128091916-20200128121916-00557.warc.gz | en | 0.985998 | 999 | 3.5 | 4 | [
-0.38533222675323486,
-0.053858332335948944,
0.3080417811870575,
0.029400872066617012,
-0.42622196674346924,
0.01536625623703003,
0.4638661742210388,
0.10129749774932861,
-0.20200030505657196,
-0.07543046772480011,
-0.034477218985557556,
0.06059488654136658,
-0.03998565673828125,
-0.021010... | 16 | Everyone knows what a ladder is; it is a set of steps that helps us reach high places. You usually don’t think about one until you really need one, but it is one of the most common household tools. Almost everyone has one at home, and its benefits are endless.
Starting from the fire department to your next-door neighbor, everybody uses one. It comes in handy if you are trying to clean your ceiling fan, trying to grab something that you’ve put in a high cupboard, get something stuck in a tree,etc.
So it makes the mind wonder, who invented the ladder? Who was the genius behind this revolutionary creation?
Who Invented the Ladder?
John H. Balsley, an extremely skilled carpenter,is the person who is credited for making the first foldable wooden ladder in the year of 1862. He came into this world in 1823, to George H. Balsley and Sarah Balsley.
His father, George H. Balsley was a carpenter himself. He was born in Connellsville, Pennsylvania and he was considered to be very skillful and talented at his work. Carpentry was his source of income, and it was also his passion.
Ladders had been used in the past before; there is evidence of a similar structure of a set of steps being used to reach heights. The building material and overall design of the ladder was different, but the purpose was similar. John H. Balsley invented a more user-friendly and practical version of it.
Earlier, ladders were made out of grasses or wobbly logs of wood. He invented a more stable ladder which was made out of stronger material and therefore was much safer. His design showcased a more step-like version of the conventional ladder, hence getting its name, stepladder.
Furthermore, his idea of attaching hinges at the top of the ladder and thus making it foldable was also highly appreciated due to its ease of storage. Before his idea, people used to have difficulties storing ladders, and it was a great deal of work carrying it somewhere. His idea made ladders mobile.
He received the first U.S patent issued for a safety stepladder. Later on, he continued on to become a very wealthy businessman by selling his creation.
Although he didn’t technically come up with the original idea of the ladder, he did ameliorate the concept. He introduced a handier, foolproof, and convenient version.His invention is a great contribution to society. It is a great upgrade of its initial versions and is a vital addition to your set of tools and equipment.
How the Ladder was Invented- A Short History of the Ladder
So, when exactly was the ladder invented?
The exact time and date of when the ladder was invented are unclear, but it is believed that the idea dates back ten thousand years. Although it was not as modern and well built as it is now, ladders were used in prehistoric times.
According to scientists and evidence, the ladder was first used in Spain. A painting, displaying two men employing a flimsy ladder to reach a honeybee nest, was found in the spider caves in Valencia. The ladder that was seen on the Mesolithic rock was crafted out of a specific kind of grass.
This was similar to ladders that are made out of rope. Rope ladders are often seen in gyms or often seen thrown off of helicopters on rescue missions.
As time moved on, we saw the progress of the prehistoric version in the form of wooden ladders. Ladders, like any other invention, were improved and upgraded. The idea of a set of steps created from grass inspired many and helped people come along with better ideas.
First came the ladders made of rope or wood and then came along several versions, with varying shapes and sizes, of the ladder.
You can find different kinds of ladders that are fit for your purpose. The telescopic ladder, foldable ladder, sliding ladder, reform ladder, double staircase ladder, are a few of the kinds available in the market for you. In medieval times, ladders were used in wars to cross over huge gates or climb up to windows of castles.
They were also used in daily activities like picking fruits from a tall tree or just simply reaching something placed in high places. The utility of ladders remains quite similar to the olden days. In fact, they serve us in many more ways now.
There are different types of ladders, such as step ladders, telescopic ladders. We use them without knowing their history. So, before you buy a telescopic ladder or any other ladder, you will know who invented the ladder and also a little more about the history and origin of the invention of ladders. | 974 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Lab them who was later killed by
differences between Northern and Southern policies
Amongst the many reasons why Northern colonies
came to America was to; escape religious persecution they encountered in
England as well as looking for land to settle down whereas, the Southern colonies
came to make profits economically. Geographically, the Northern colonies area
had thin and rocky soil which was bad for farming while the Southern colonies
settlement area was on plains with had red clay fertile soil rich for farming.
Slavery was not popular in the Northern colonies as the farms were not many and
big enough due to the soils not being suitable for crop farming unlike, the
Southern colonies where slavery was huge due to the large tobacco plantations
that needed people to care for the crops. Economically, the Northern colonies focused
on trading and manufacturing while the Southern colonies did cash crop farming
mainly. The similarities between the Northern and southern colonies is that they
were all self-governed, they had slaves and did lumbering, ship building,
fishing and trading.
The Native Indians were not impressed by
the colonist’s settlement as they had enslaved the natives and taken their land
thus he planned a surprise attack as seen on the “Image of Native Attack on
Jamestown.” The image shows Natives attacking the Colonists who were not prepared
for the war. Opechancanough who was their chief thought the settlers would leave
after the attack, but it motivated them to plan on taking over the Indians. Virginia
colony was placed under a governor meaning it would have direct authority and
thus would initiate the attack towards the Native Indians. The surviving 900
colonists organized themselves into military bands, which then massacred scores
of Indians and devastated their villages (Give me liberty! Pg. 49). They
attacked the Indians and took Opechancanough with them who was later killed by
his guard and the Colonists took over the lands and enslaved the Natives.
Colonists wanted to take over the Native
Americans trade fully and thus planned on bringing them down by making them
follow their rules. “First by keeping them from setting corn at home and
fishing, secondly by keeping them from their accustomed trading for corn…
continually harrowing and burning all their Towns and winter, and spoiling
their wares…” (Proposal for subjugating Native Americans, 1622). They controlled
their corn trading as this was their main economic activity thus would bring
them down and made them slaves as they needed people to tend the corn and work
on the settlements.
“Brothers, we must be one as the English
are, or we shall soon all be destroyed. You know our fathers had plenty… But
brothers since these English have seized upon our country, they cut down the
grass with scythes, and the trees with axes” (Miantonomoh of the Narragansetts
appeals for native unity against English, 1643). The Natives decided to unit
once again as their property had been taken by the Colonists and started
plotting against the colony. The Colonists took over the settlements of the Natives
and everything they had.
English colonists were chiefly interested
in displacing the Indians and settling on their land, not intermarrying with
them, organizing their labor, or making them subjects of the crown (Give me
Liberty! Pg. 45). Colonists finally acquired what they wanted from the Natives. | <urn:uuid:eea5dacd-5c65-4624-ac74-8d91121a80e8> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://niagarafallshypnosiscenter.com/lab-them-who-was-later-killed-by/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251690095.81/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126165718-20200126195718-00060.warc.gz | en | 0.981683 | 738 | 3.8125 | 4 | [
-0.10107150673866272,
0.319815993309021,
0.2996007204055786,
-0.2756151258945465,
0.40066954493522644,
-0.18047679960727692,
0.1514805257320404,
0.05294825881719589,
-0.055682092905044556,
0.1464322805404663,
0.2955467104911804,
-0.19281917810440063,
-0.1553238183259964,
0.2389162480831146... | 1 | Lab them who was later killed by
differences between Northern and Southern policies
Amongst the many reasons why Northern colonies
came to America was to; escape religious persecution they encountered in
England as well as looking for land to settle down whereas, the Southern colonies
came to make profits economically. Geographically, the Northern colonies area
had thin and rocky soil which was bad for farming while the Southern colonies
settlement area was on plains with had red clay fertile soil rich for farming.
Slavery was not popular in the Northern colonies as the farms were not many and
big enough due to the soils not being suitable for crop farming unlike, the
Southern colonies where slavery was huge due to the large tobacco plantations
that needed people to care for the crops. Economically, the Northern colonies focused
on trading and manufacturing while the Southern colonies did cash crop farming
mainly. The similarities between the Northern and southern colonies is that they
were all self-governed, they had slaves and did lumbering, ship building,
fishing and trading.
The Native Indians were not impressed by
the colonist’s settlement as they had enslaved the natives and taken their land
thus he planned a surprise attack as seen on the “Image of Native Attack on
Jamestown.” The image shows Natives attacking the Colonists who were not prepared
for the war. Opechancanough who was their chief thought the settlers would leave
after the attack, but it motivated them to plan on taking over the Indians. Virginia
colony was placed under a governor meaning it would have direct authority and
thus would initiate the attack towards the Native Indians. The surviving 900
colonists organized themselves into military bands, which then massacred scores
of Indians and devastated their villages (Give me liberty! Pg. 49). They
attacked the Indians and took Opechancanough with them who was later killed by
his guard and the Colonists took over the lands and enslaved the Natives.
Colonists wanted to take over the Native
Americans trade fully and thus planned on bringing them down by making them
follow their rules. “First by keeping them from setting corn at home and
fishing, secondly by keeping them from their accustomed trading for corn…
continually harrowing and burning all their Towns and winter, and spoiling
their wares…” (Proposal for subjugating Native Americans, 1622). They controlled
their corn trading as this was their main economic activity thus would bring
them down and made them slaves as they needed people to tend the corn and work
on the settlements.
“Brothers, we must be one as the English
are, or we shall soon all be destroyed. You know our fathers had plenty… But
brothers since these English have seized upon our country, they cut down the
grass with scythes, and the trees with axes” (Miantonomoh of the Narragansetts
appeals for native unity against English, 1643). The Natives decided to unit
once again as their property had been taken by the Colonists and started
plotting against the colony. The Colonists took over the settlements of the Natives
and everything they had.
English colonists were chiefly interested
in displacing the Indians and settling on their land, not intermarrying with
them, organizing their labor, or making them subjects of the crown (Give me
Liberty! Pg. 45). Colonists finally acquired what they wanted from the Natives. | 733 | ENGLISH | 1 |
In this assignment, I will focus on the legacy of the religious movement of the colonial era. It is hard for me to say if the influence of Europeans was more negative than positive because I wasn’t born in the USA, but my personal opinion is that it was more positive. I am sure that there are a lot of Americans that wouldn’t agree with me but I think that the colonization made the Natives better and I will tell you why. Of course, there is a negative side too. A lot of Natives died because of the diseases that Europeans brought.
The other thing I want to focus is the religious refugees that came to the New World hoping they would find freedom of their beliefs. The tribes that lived in America, before the great discovery of Christopher Columbus, relied on natural sources and that is why the religions were linked with the natural world. The Natives Americans believed in many gods which were compared to crops, game, forests, rivers, and other things associated with nature. In 1492 when Genovian sailor arrived with his three ships to the coast of Bahamas, he met the first inhabitant of the New World. Columbus thought that he was in India so he called them Indians. He noticed that both of the sexes were naked. There were some exceptions. He saw a few shy and scared women that wore a leaf, small bought or an apron. In the beginning, the Natives were afraid of them even though there was no reason. They treated them with kindness, they gave them cloth and other things and they didn’t ask for anything in return.
Columbus also started bouncing around the idea to make them Christians. He chose few Indians and forced them to come with him and his crew. During their journey, they were able to understand each other by signs, gestures or words. They weren’t scared of the Europeans anymore because they thought that Columbus was God who descended from Heaven. In 1529 when King Henry VIII. of England severed with the Catholic Church because the pope didn’t let him divorce, so he appointed himself as the leader of Christian faith in England. This event is known as the English Reformation. After Henry’s death, his daughter Queen Mary who was Catholic re-established the Catholic Church and she mistreated Protestants.
After she died in 1558 her half-sister Elizabeth I. became Queen who separated England from the Catholic Church for good this time. A lot of people still weren’t satisfied with the new Church of England because they claimed for new reforms that would ‘purify’ the church. These people was known as Puritans. In 1629 Puritans left England and they founded Massachusetts Bay Colony in an undiscovered and uninhabited place. During a few decades thousands of Calvinists followed them and together they built Godly state were they behaved according to their own religious laws. The thought that held the colony together was that they believed that they were God’s chosen people. Even though Puritans separated church and state these two pillars collaborated when it came to maintaining their territory. The Bible was one of the most important elements in their religion. The Puritans played a very important role in creating American values. The popular idea that Puritans were sexual prudes was not true. They adored the family values and they were against sexual relationships outside the marriage. They were able to drink alcohol because they didn’t consider it as a sin. Roger Williams was a controversial young minister who thought that the church and state should be separated in all areas because he argued that the settlement in Massachusetts Bay would lead to corruption of the church.
He also said that the land where colonist lived is not theirs but the Natives. He and his family arrived to the New World a few months later and he got an offer from Boston church but he refused it because it would put him in a bad position with the leaders of the colony. His opinions against the organization of Massachusetts Bay were the reason why he had to leave otherwise he would be in danger of execution. After that, he settled in Narragansett where he bought a part of the land from the Narragansett Indians. He founded a town called Providence which later became Rhode Island. Rhode Island was the only colony where was complete freedom of religion.
To sum it up I really think that it has more positive impact than negative. Americans wouldn’t be so developed without the influence of colonization. I’m not saying that the legacy is only positive. Everything has some negatives and we can find a lot of things that Europeans could have done better but also even worse. | <urn:uuid:f8a20b4a-e075-42de-8b5c-6bff889795f8> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://essayhub.net/essays/religious-movements-of-united-states-in-colonial-era | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251681412.74/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125191854-20200125221854-00281.warc.gz | en | 0.991676 | 944 | 3.984375 | 4 | [
-0.20196092128753662,
0.3593589663505554,
0.14381450414657593,
-0.336633563041687,
-0.1376408338546753,
-0.07297642529010773,
0.0811152383685112,
0.09428766369819641,
0.0850822925567627,
0.22369086742401123,
0.017148185521364212,
-0.25817710161209106,
-0.27002817392349243,
0.11539167165756... | 3 | In this assignment, I will focus on the legacy of the religious movement of the colonial era. It is hard for me to say if the influence of Europeans was more negative than positive because I wasn’t born in the USA, but my personal opinion is that it was more positive. I am sure that there are a lot of Americans that wouldn’t agree with me but I think that the colonization made the Natives better and I will tell you why. Of course, there is a negative side too. A lot of Natives died because of the diseases that Europeans brought.
The other thing I want to focus is the religious refugees that came to the New World hoping they would find freedom of their beliefs. The tribes that lived in America, before the great discovery of Christopher Columbus, relied on natural sources and that is why the religions were linked with the natural world. The Natives Americans believed in many gods which were compared to crops, game, forests, rivers, and other things associated with nature. In 1492 when Genovian sailor arrived with his three ships to the coast of Bahamas, he met the first inhabitant of the New World. Columbus thought that he was in India so he called them Indians. He noticed that both of the sexes were naked. There were some exceptions. He saw a few shy and scared women that wore a leaf, small bought or an apron. In the beginning, the Natives were afraid of them even though there was no reason. They treated them with kindness, they gave them cloth and other things and they didn’t ask for anything in return.
Columbus also started bouncing around the idea to make them Christians. He chose few Indians and forced them to come with him and his crew. During their journey, they were able to understand each other by signs, gestures or words. They weren’t scared of the Europeans anymore because they thought that Columbus was God who descended from Heaven. In 1529 when King Henry VIII. of England severed with the Catholic Church because the pope didn’t let him divorce, so he appointed himself as the leader of Christian faith in England. This event is known as the English Reformation. After Henry’s death, his daughter Queen Mary who was Catholic re-established the Catholic Church and she mistreated Protestants.
After she died in 1558 her half-sister Elizabeth I. became Queen who separated England from the Catholic Church for good this time. A lot of people still weren’t satisfied with the new Church of England because they claimed for new reforms that would ‘purify’ the church. These people was known as Puritans. In 1629 Puritans left England and they founded Massachusetts Bay Colony in an undiscovered and uninhabited place. During a few decades thousands of Calvinists followed them and together they built Godly state were they behaved according to their own religious laws. The thought that held the colony together was that they believed that they were God’s chosen people. Even though Puritans separated church and state these two pillars collaborated when it came to maintaining their territory. The Bible was one of the most important elements in their religion. The Puritans played a very important role in creating American values. The popular idea that Puritans were sexual prudes was not true. They adored the family values and they were against sexual relationships outside the marriage. They were able to drink alcohol because they didn’t consider it as a sin. Roger Williams was a controversial young minister who thought that the church and state should be separated in all areas because he argued that the settlement in Massachusetts Bay would lead to corruption of the church.
He also said that the land where colonist lived is not theirs but the Natives. He and his family arrived to the New World a few months later and he got an offer from Boston church but he refused it because it would put him in a bad position with the leaders of the colony. His opinions against the organization of Massachusetts Bay were the reason why he had to leave otherwise he would be in danger of execution. After that, he settled in Narragansett where he bought a part of the land from the Narragansett Indians. He founded a town called Providence which later became Rhode Island. Rhode Island was the only colony where was complete freedom of religion.
To sum it up I really think that it has more positive impact than negative. Americans wouldn’t be so developed without the influence of colonization. I’m not saying that the legacy is only positive. Everything has some negatives and we can find a lot of things that Europeans could have done better but also even worse. | 932 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Confucianism is the cornerstone of Chinese traditional culture and a complete ideological system established by Confucius based on the traditional culture of Xia, Shang and Zhou dynasties. It ruled a feudal society that essentially lasted for 2,000 years, so its impact on Chinese history, social structure and people cannot be ignored.
Confucius proved to be the greatest influence on Chinese characters. He was not only a great educator, thinker and unsuccessful politician, but also, above all, a wise man of high morality. He pursued truth, kindness and perfection all his life, and his success and failure were largely due to his character, which had a permanent effect on China’s intelligence.
He was born in 551 BC in the state of lu, which is now qufu in shandong province. His Chinese name is kong qiu. Surname kong, first name qiu. This was because his parents had prayed on the mudhill for a son, and “qiu” was the appropriate symbol of their gratitude and joy that their prayers had been answered. Unfortunately, his father died when he was very young, and although life was difficult, he devoted himself to his studies at the age of 15.
His approach to education was avant-garde because he advocated “education without distinction” and “teaching according to the characteristics of students”. The first broke with tradition because only the nobility enjoyed the privilege of education.
He also laid out a set of principles for learning. He said, “learning without thought is Labour lost; learning without thought is perilous; Thinking instead of studying leads to laziness.” Today’s quality education is nothing new to him.
Imparting knowledge is only part of his teaching; He was a living example of the ideas he advocated, which had a profound impact on his disciples. His private life exemplifies his doctrine. The analects is a vivid record of Confucius’ teachings. Although he did not write anything himself, his words were collected and recorded by his disciples and passed down to later generations. The accumulated words of wisdom, which we call the analects of Confucius, are the most important of all Chinese classics.
He takes pleasure in learning and humbly learns from anyone. He tirelessly taught his disciples, he tirelessly pursued truth, thought and perfection of personality, his integrity, kindness, modesty and politeness inspired his disciples and later intellectuals. Only he is entitled to be called “teacher of all generations”. It is said that 72 of his 3,000 disciples were brilliant and successful in morals, literature, language and, above all, politics. These statesmen made important contributions to the spread, formation and development of Confucianism. | <urn:uuid:b10ce964-591e-42b6-b0f9-a9b77e3a511d> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.chinaexpeditiontours.com/blog/confucianism-the-cornerstone-of-traditional-chinese-culture/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250606269.37/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122012204-20200122041204-00273.warc.gz | en | 0.989339 | 573 | 4.03125 | 4 | [
-0.3078380227088928,
0.42220258712768555,
0.44553136825561523,
-0.14966227114200592,
-0.17544867098331451,
0.24244427680969238,
0.41713133454322815,
-0.11758901178836823,
0.1845071017742157,
-0.20430266857147217,
0.23288071155548096,
-0.3689380884170532,
0.4819871783256531,
0.1241461783647... | 10 | Confucianism is the cornerstone of Chinese traditional culture and a complete ideological system established by Confucius based on the traditional culture of Xia, Shang and Zhou dynasties. It ruled a feudal society that essentially lasted for 2,000 years, so its impact on Chinese history, social structure and people cannot be ignored.
Confucius proved to be the greatest influence on Chinese characters. He was not only a great educator, thinker and unsuccessful politician, but also, above all, a wise man of high morality. He pursued truth, kindness and perfection all his life, and his success and failure were largely due to his character, which had a permanent effect on China’s intelligence.
He was born in 551 BC in the state of lu, which is now qufu in shandong province. His Chinese name is kong qiu. Surname kong, first name qiu. This was because his parents had prayed on the mudhill for a son, and “qiu” was the appropriate symbol of their gratitude and joy that their prayers had been answered. Unfortunately, his father died when he was very young, and although life was difficult, he devoted himself to his studies at the age of 15.
His approach to education was avant-garde because he advocated “education without distinction” and “teaching according to the characteristics of students”. The first broke with tradition because only the nobility enjoyed the privilege of education.
He also laid out a set of principles for learning. He said, “learning without thought is Labour lost; learning without thought is perilous; Thinking instead of studying leads to laziness.” Today’s quality education is nothing new to him.
Imparting knowledge is only part of his teaching; He was a living example of the ideas he advocated, which had a profound impact on his disciples. His private life exemplifies his doctrine. The analects is a vivid record of Confucius’ teachings. Although he did not write anything himself, his words were collected and recorded by his disciples and passed down to later generations. The accumulated words of wisdom, which we call the analects of Confucius, are the most important of all Chinese classics.
He takes pleasure in learning and humbly learns from anyone. He tirelessly taught his disciples, he tirelessly pursued truth, thought and perfection of personality, his integrity, kindness, modesty and politeness inspired his disciples and later intellectuals. Only he is entitled to be called “teacher of all generations”. It is said that 72 of his 3,000 disciples were brilliant and successful in morals, literature, language and, above all, politics. These statesmen made important contributions to the spread, formation and development of Confucianism. | 561 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Miguel enjoys writing and literature but his father does not believe that is what Miguel as a male should be doing. As Gladding (2006) points out, gender roles are "the characteristics and behaviors assigned to individuals because of their sex". His father believes Miguel should play sports because of his sex. Gender roles are unrealistic because not one person is the same as another. Some boys can be interested in cooking and girls interested in sports and vice versa, it all depends on "their interests, abilities, and temperament" (Gladding, 2006). Miguel is not only trying to figure out who he is as an individual but he is also confused by the fact that other people confuse him for a race that’s not his. Additionally, Miguel looks nothing like his parents, his is more educated and speak English which they don’t. All these differences pushes him from identifying himself as his parents identify themselves. Miguel does not feel that he belongs to the same group level as his parents, which is why he identifies himself as Chicano-American.
Miguel’s parents have values of collectivism because they value their family working and staying...
... middle of paper ...
...sion, imposing their values and standards upon culturally diverse clients” (p. 96). As Miguel’s therapist I need to understand not only myself but the values, beliefs, attitudes of people around me as well. Another challenge I would I have while counseling is having him focusing on himself as an individual and not collectivism with his family. As a therapist my role is to encourage him to be autonomous. I am there to make help him make the right choices and actions, as longs those actions and choices do not affect other people (Hill, 2014, p. 55). Whatever actions or choices Miguel is going to make, will affect his family but they will not harm them; which a good thing. Before, Miguel can make any decisions about his life he will need to consult his family. With his being pregnant, it will make it even harder for Miguel to think about himself and not the family too.
Need Writing Help?
Get feedback on grammar, clarity, concision and logic instantly.Check your paper »
- My mother, Carol, was born into a somewhat dysfunctional family. Her mother and my grandmother, Lois, was a single parent to my mother and her half-brother, Charles “Bubba.” Grandma Lois passed away due to complications of the lungs when I was five years old, but I remember her well and think of her often. My mother’s father, Lon, is still living, but despite the fact that he resides in the same city as me and the rest of my family, I have never met him. I know little about the subject, but my understanding is that Lon left Carol and Grandma Lois, and by the time Carol was old enough to try to get in touch with him, he had married a new woman and acted as though he had no idea who my mother... [tags: Family, Grandparent, Father, Mother]
1004 words (2.9 pages)
- Arrowheads (7) Your paternal grandmother’s father, Willie Swanson, while working his father’s fields in Peaceful Valley with a horse drawn walk behind plow, found these arrowheads. If you wish, I can show you where this occurred. Bedroom Furniture (7) Among the non-heirloom furniture, this is our second most valuable set. It is made of oak and consists of the bed, which will accept either a full or queen size box spring and mattress, a chest of drawers, and a dresser with a mirror. Brown Checked Wool Throw (7) Your mother bought this blanket in the Amana Colonies in Iowa.... [tags: Grandparent, Family, Mother, Father]
1662 words (4.7 pages)
- Ellen Foster lived through a disturbed childhood. Within that unique childhood, there is a few things I can relate to like the resembles of Ellen to her parents, the lack of love and affection from her parents, and a fragile and feeble mother. Ellen Foster’s grandmother despises her because she sees Ellen’s father in Ellen. Ellen’s grandmother tells her, “All I know is when I look in your face I see that bastard and everything he did to my girl” (Gibbons 78). Ellen also fears that she is turning into her dad.... [tags: Family, Mother, Love, Father]
1285 words (3.7 pages)
- By doing my family genogram I was able to learn a lot about my family and come to better understand the relationship over the years. When my mother lost her grandmother it was extremely hard for her because she was her grandmother’s favorite and they had spent a lot of time together especially the latter years of her life. I believe the death of my grandmother Alice was the hardest for my Dad and it has been something that as impacted is future and also something that he has never recovered from.... [tags: Family, Father, Mother, Sibling]
1196 words (3.4 pages)
- History behind Memories The family is an important part of someone 's life; they help shape who that person is. My grandmother is important to my life, and shows me what is valuable in life. From what people struggle with can change your aspect in life. It can teach people that their families can struggle with similar things and they can have the best advice and knowledge to help. My grandmother struggled with living in poverty. My grandmother is a strong person who always there making sure I can stand on my own feet.... [tags: Family, Sibling, Father, Mother]
1948 words (5.6 pages)
- Familismo Although having a Mexican mother and an American father was not always socially acceptable, growing up with a different food taste, having a close-knit family, as well as regularly getting disciplined shaped how I am as a person today. I was dipped into a very different childhood most children did not grow up into. I not only had the influences of the Mexican culture, I was able to experience the good old fashioned American family values as well. My mother was the heart of the family. She was the one who cooked, cleaned and cared for her children full time.... [tags: Family, Mother, Father, Parent]
890 words (2.5 pages)
- Both a mother and father are essential to having a healthy household. However, which one is needed more. As a boy my father was not always in my life. There was however a memory that I can never forget. I remember when I was just a toddler I was laying in my mother’s bed. I was feeling lazy and drowsy. I heard a knock at the door as it opened. I looked over and saw my father. He came in and picked me up and doted me. He flew me around like an airplane, and as I felt this I wished it would never end.... [tags: Family, Meaning of life, Father, Mother]
1005 words (2.9 pages)
- Grandparents can play a crucial role in their grandchildren’s lives. Some may play more crucial while others play less crucial roles, but when it comes down to it they change their grandchildren. Some children don’t see their grandparents at all, but some children will see their grandparents a lot or even some are taken into custody by their grandparents and live their lives being raised by them. While they spend that time with their grandparents they can learn many things about anything whether it’s something about life when they were younger or history or even very important life lessons.... [tags: Family, Grandparent, Mother, Time]
1218 words (3.5 pages)
- The year was 1970. My father and mother, Liam and Elizabeth Taylor, had just purchased their first home, a duplex in town. It was red brick and had large steps going up to a porch shaded by large oak trees. My mother chose what she thought was a beautiful green color paint for the walls, but when my parents added it to the walls, it was a horrible color. My grandpa Levi, Elizabeth’s father, knew how much my mother hated the paint so he bought them all new paneling to put up and color that horrid green.... [tags: Family, Grandparent, Mother, Marriage]
1813 words (5.2 pages)
- The stereotypical grandmother is a sweet old woman, always carrying a plate of fresh baked cookies, who lives just over the river and through the woods. As a child, my grandmother seemed very similar to this fairy tale rendition, but as I have grown I have realized that she has played a much larger role in my life than the storybooks, and really anyone, could have predicted. When I was thirteen years old, my mother kicked me out of the house. My grandmother graciously took me in, since my father had no means of caring for me.... [tags: stereotypes, grandmothers, ]
872 words (2.5 pages) | <urn:uuid:caf63314-3f26-4431-b348-66ac711b35b4> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.123helpme.com/my-mother-father-and-grandmother-preview.asp?id=667482 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594603.8/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119122744-20200119150744-00286.warc.gz | en | 0.982746 | 1,893 | 3.296875 | 3 | [
0.2682182788848877,
0.3639970123767853,
0.34770798683166504,
-0.34768441319465637,
-0.28707557916641235,
0.4449138641357422,
0.4949989914894104,
0.3017776310443878,
0.0402255654335022,
-0.3562740683555603,
0.019889425486326218,
0.08616848289966583,
-0.23056554794311523,
0.3391140103340149,... | 1 | Miguel enjoys writing and literature but his father does not believe that is what Miguel as a male should be doing. As Gladding (2006) points out, gender roles are "the characteristics and behaviors assigned to individuals because of their sex". His father believes Miguel should play sports because of his sex. Gender roles are unrealistic because not one person is the same as another. Some boys can be interested in cooking and girls interested in sports and vice versa, it all depends on "their interests, abilities, and temperament" (Gladding, 2006). Miguel is not only trying to figure out who he is as an individual but he is also confused by the fact that other people confuse him for a race that’s not his. Additionally, Miguel looks nothing like his parents, his is more educated and speak English which they don’t. All these differences pushes him from identifying himself as his parents identify themselves. Miguel does not feel that he belongs to the same group level as his parents, which is why he identifies himself as Chicano-American.
Miguel’s parents have values of collectivism because they value their family working and staying...
... middle of paper ...
...sion, imposing their values and standards upon culturally diverse clients” (p. 96). As Miguel’s therapist I need to understand not only myself but the values, beliefs, attitudes of people around me as well. Another challenge I would I have while counseling is having him focusing on himself as an individual and not collectivism with his family. As a therapist my role is to encourage him to be autonomous. I am there to make help him make the right choices and actions, as longs those actions and choices do not affect other people (Hill, 2014, p. 55). Whatever actions or choices Miguel is going to make, will affect his family but they will not harm them; which a good thing. Before, Miguel can make any decisions about his life he will need to consult his family. With his being pregnant, it will make it even harder for Miguel to think about himself and not the family too.
Need Writing Help?
Get feedback on grammar, clarity, concision and logic instantly.Check your paper »
- My mother, Carol, was born into a somewhat dysfunctional family. Her mother and my grandmother, Lois, was a single parent to my mother and her half-brother, Charles “Bubba.” Grandma Lois passed away due to complications of the lungs when I was five years old, but I remember her well and think of her often. My mother’s father, Lon, is still living, but despite the fact that he resides in the same city as me and the rest of my family, I have never met him. I know little about the subject, but my understanding is that Lon left Carol and Grandma Lois, and by the time Carol was old enough to try to get in touch with him, he had married a new woman and acted as though he had no idea who my mother... [tags: Family, Grandparent, Father, Mother]
1004 words (2.9 pages)
- Arrowheads (7) Your paternal grandmother’s father, Willie Swanson, while working his father’s fields in Peaceful Valley with a horse drawn walk behind plow, found these arrowheads. If you wish, I can show you where this occurred. Bedroom Furniture (7) Among the non-heirloom furniture, this is our second most valuable set. It is made of oak and consists of the bed, which will accept either a full or queen size box spring and mattress, a chest of drawers, and a dresser with a mirror. Brown Checked Wool Throw (7) Your mother bought this blanket in the Amana Colonies in Iowa.... [tags: Grandparent, Family, Mother, Father]
1662 words (4.7 pages)
- Ellen Foster lived through a disturbed childhood. Within that unique childhood, there is a few things I can relate to like the resembles of Ellen to her parents, the lack of love and affection from her parents, and a fragile and feeble mother. Ellen Foster’s grandmother despises her because she sees Ellen’s father in Ellen. Ellen’s grandmother tells her, “All I know is when I look in your face I see that bastard and everything he did to my girl” (Gibbons 78). Ellen also fears that she is turning into her dad.... [tags: Family, Mother, Love, Father]
1285 words (3.7 pages)
- By doing my family genogram I was able to learn a lot about my family and come to better understand the relationship over the years. When my mother lost her grandmother it was extremely hard for her because she was her grandmother’s favorite and they had spent a lot of time together especially the latter years of her life. I believe the death of my grandmother Alice was the hardest for my Dad and it has been something that as impacted is future and also something that he has never recovered from.... [tags: Family, Father, Mother, Sibling]
1196 words (3.4 pages)
- History behind Memories The family is an important part of someone 's life; they help shape who that person is. My grandmother is important to my life, and shows me what is valuable in life. From what people struggle with can change your aspect in life. It can teach people that their families can struggle with similar things and they can have the best advice and knowledge to help. My grandmother struggled with living in poverty. My grandmother is a strong person who always there making sure I can stand on my own feet.... [tags: Family, Sibling, Father, Mother]
1948 words (5.6 pages)
- Familismo Although having a Mexican mother and an American father was not always socially acceptable, growing up with a different food taste, having a close-knit family, as well as regularly getting disciplined shaped how I am as a person today. I was dipped into a very different childhood most children did not grow up into. I not only had the influences of the Mexican culture, I was able to experience the good old fashioned American family values as well. My mother was the heart of the family. She was the one who cooked, cleaned and cared for her children full time.... [tags: Family, Mother, Father, Parent]
890 words (2.5 pages)
- Both a mother and father are essential to having a healthy household. However, which one is needed more. As a boy my father was not always in my life. There was however a memory that I can never forget. I remember when I was just a toddler I was laying in my mother’s bed. I was feeling lazy and drowsy. I heard a knock at the door as it opened. I looked over and saw my father. He came in and picked me up and doted me. He flew me around like an airplane, and as I felt this I wished it would never end.... [tags: Family, Meaning of life, Father, Mother]
1005 words (2.9 pages)
- Grandparents can play a crucial role in their grandchildren’s lives. Some may play more crucial while others play less crucial roles, but when it comes down to it they change their grandchildren. Some children don’t see their grandparents at all, but some children will see their grandparents a lot or even some are taken into custody by their grandparents and live their lives being raised by them. While they spend that time with their grandparents they can learn many things about anything whether it’s something about life when they were younger or history or even very important life lessons.... [tags: Family, Grandparent, Mother, Time]
1218 words (3.5 pages)
- The year was 1970. My father and mother, Liam and Elizabeth Taylor, had just purchased their first home, a duplex in town. It was red brick and had large steps going up to a porch shaded by large oak trees. My mother chose what she thought was a beautiful green color paint for the walls, but when my parents added it to the walls, it was a horrible color. My grandpa Levi, Elizabeth’s father, knew how much my mother hated the paint so he bought them all new paneling to put up and color that horrid green.... [tags: Family, Grandparent, Mother, Marriage]
1813 words (5.2 pages)
- The stereotypical grandmother is a sweet old woman, always carrying a plate of fresh baked cookies, who lives just over the river and through the woods. As a child, my grandmother seemed very similar to this fairy tale rendition, but as I have grown I have realized that she has played a much larger role in my life than the storybooks, and really anyone, could have predicted. When I was thirteen years old, my mother kicked me out of the house. My grandmother graciously took me in, since my father had no means of caring for me.... [tags: stereotypes, grandmothers, ]
872 words (2.5 pages) | 1,863 | ENGLISH | 1 |
WHEN sticky, black crude oil from a tanker spill at sea reaches the shore and begins to foul sandy beaches and clog rock pools, the first instinct of the authorities is often to try to remove it quickly. Unfortunately, the traditional ways of doing so—detergent sprays and high-pressure water hoses—can cause at least as much ecological damage as simply leaving the stuff to decay naturally. These days, therefore, letting Nature take its course is often regarded as a better alternative.
But that does not mean that Nature cannot be given a helping hand. And a study just published in Environmental Pollution by Philip Rowland and his colleagues at the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology in Britain, suggests how this might be done.
The rate at which oil decomposes varies widely from beach to beach. Mr Rowland wanted to know why. He and his colleagues mixed Forties light crude from the North Sea oilfields with samples of sand from five different beaches around the British coast and left them to do their stuff at the centre's laboratory in the appropriately named town of Grange-over-Sands. They found that there was a wide variation between the oil-consuming powers of their five samples.
Askernish sand, from north-west Scotland, decomposed oil the fastest: a third of it was gone in a year. At the other extreme, sand from Tain in north-east Scotland had hardly begun its work in the same period: just 5% of its oil had decomposed. Sand from Pendine in south Wales fared a little better, with 14% of its oil gone in a year. The other two sands, from Cresswell in Northumberland and Largo in east Scotland, were intermediate in their oil-consuming efficiencies.
This was, in fact, more or less the pattern that Mr Rowland and his colleagues had hoped to see. Their hypothesis was that beaches exposed to oil-spills in the past would recover faster than stretches of “virgin” coastline, and that the worse the previous pollution, the faster the recovery would be. With the exception of Tain, a previously polluted area that recovered slowly, that is what they observed.
The reason for their hypothesis was that oil on beaches is degraded mainly by bacteria, rather than by non-biological processes. Previous oil spills would encourage the growth of bacteria that eat oil, probably leaving a higher residual population behind even when the oil was gone. Such spills would also encourage the evolution of bugs better adapted to munching through the long-chain hydrocarbons that are left over when the small, volatile molecules in the crude had evaporated.
This suggests that the correct, though counter-intuitive, solution to oiled beaches might be to import polluted sand from elsewhere, in order to inoculate the coastline in question with oil-munching bacteria. Indeed, if that works, such bacteria could be sought out in parts of the world, such as the Persian Gulf, where natural oil spills have been going on for thousands, if not millions of years. The worst that a tanker spill might do to a British beach would be regarded by them as a mere canapé.
This article appeared in the Science and technology section of the print edition under the headline "Experienced cleaner required" | <urn:uuid:eb75ec22-827f-4973-9ac5-563a0cc82663> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2000/06/29/experienced-cleaner-required | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250614880.58/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124011048-20200124040048-00489.warc.gz | en | 0.982632 | 671 | 3.796875 | 4 | [
0.04726468399167061,
0.18378043174743652,
-0.036258451640605927,
-0.1143302395939827,
0.5272017121315002,
-0.2151866853237152,
0.122857965528965,
-0.19586282968521118,
-0.16149866580963135,
0.03135078400373459,
0.036900125443935394,
-0.5444371700286865,
0.28386661410331726,
0.0191821437329... | 1 | WHEN sticky, black crude oil from a tanker spill at sea reaches the shore and begins to foul sandy beaches and clog rock pools, the first instinct of the authorities is often to try to remove it quickly. Unfortunately, the traditional ways of doing so—detergent sprays and high-pressure water hoses—can cause at least as much ecological damage as simply leaving the stuff to decay naturally. These days, therefore, letting Nature take its course is often regarded as a better alternative.
But that does not mean that Nature cannot be given a helping hand. And a study just published in Environmental Pollution by Philip Rowland and his colleagues at the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology in Britain, suggests how this might be done.
The rate at which oil decomposes varies widely from beach to beach. Mr Rowland wanted to know why. He and his colleagues mixed Forties light crude from the North Sea oilfields with samples of sand from five different beaches around the British coast and left them to do their stuff at the centre's laboratory in the appropriately named town of Grange-over-Sands. They found that there was a wide variation between the oil-consuming powers of their five samples.
Askernish sand, from north-west Scotland, decomposed oil the fastest: a third of it was gone in a year. At the other extreme, sand from Tain in north-east Scotland had hardly begun its work in the same period: just 5% of its oil had decomposed. Sand from Pendine in south Wales fared a little better, with 14% of its oil gone in a year. The other two sands, from Cresswell in Northumberland and Largo in east Scotland, were intermediate in their oil-consuming efficiencies.
This was, in fact, more or less the pattern that Mr Rowland and his colleagues had hoped to see. Their hypothesis was that beaches exposed to oil-spills in the past would recover faster than stretches of “virgin” coastline, and that the worse the previous pollution, the faster the recovery would be. With the exception of Tain, a previously polluted area that recovered slowly, that is what they observed.
The reason for their hypothesis was that oil on beaches is degraded mainly by bacteria, rather than by non-biological processes. Previous oil spills would encourage the growth of bacteria that eat oil, probably leaving a higher residual population behind even when the oil was gone. Such spills would also encourage the evolution of bugs better adapted to munching through the long-chain hydrocarbons that are left over when the small, volatile molecules in the crude had evaporated.
This suggests that the correct, though counter-intuitive, solution to oiled beaches might be to import polluted sand from elsewhere, in order to inoculate the coastline in question with oil-munching bacteria. Indeed, if that works, such bacteria could be sought out in parts of the world, such as the Persian Gulf, where natural oil spills have been going on for thousands, if not millions of years. The worst that a tanker spill might do to a British beach would be regarded by them as a mere canapé.
This article appeared in the Science and technology section of the print edition under the headline "Experienced cleaner required" | 650 | ENGLISH | 1 |
During this week 371 years ago a fierce battle was fought in Preston. A new book looking at the life of Oliver Cromwell charts the Battle of Preston as author James Hobson recalls in this specially commissioned article
The Battle of Preston of 1648 deserves to be better remembered as a turning point in the execution of King Charles I.
The execution of the King in 1649 is one of the best known events in British history, and is very much associated with London, the House of Commons and Westminster Hall-but is was the
Battle of Preston in August 1648 which paved the way for this hugely significant action by Cromwell and his supporters.
If the result of the fighting had been different, modern day Britain would be ruled in a totally different way.
Other civil war battles in the Yorkshire and South may be more well known, but they did not end the civil war between the forces of Charles I and Oliver Cromwell; that happened at
Preston, when over two days in August 1648, the last army loyal to the King was destroyed and humiliated. The more famous battles of Marston Moor and Naseby were not as decisive as Preston; they did led to the King’s defeat in 1646, but in 1648 he started the war again, this time with the help of a Scottish army which had supported parliament the first time around.
In the summer of 1648, a Scottish army of 18,000 invaded Lancashire for the king. Cromwell and his colonels had spent the past year in a desperate attempt to quell rebellion all over the country and this invasion from the north had to be stopped.
The two sides met at Preston on August 17-18, 1648. The victorious side had an excellent chance of winning the second civil war. The Royalists chose Lancashire rather than Yorkshire because they believed that the hedged and enclosed land around Wigan and Preston would be a good defence from the terrifying cavalry charges of Cromwell’s ‘Ironsides’. They also expected more support from the local Catholic population; apart from Manchester and Liverpool, parliament had struggled for success in Lancashire during the war.
In reality, the local population remained neutral and fearful. It was to be a battle of outsiders that involved few Lancastrians. King Charles awaited the news as a prisoner in Carisbrooke Castle- a Royalist victory may well have saved his throne.
He had reason to hope; rebellions against Cromwell had appeared everywhere, and Cromwell himself was heading for Lancashire with a tired and depleted army after costly victories in Wales. The army had moved so quickly that the vital field artillery had been left behind.
Preston was one of the first battles were Cromwell was actually outnumbered by the enemy, and he went into battle with another major disadvantage.
It had rained so much in early August, and so that the waterlogged ground did not favour battle by cavalry charges. Cromwell’s favourite and most famous weapon of war was unavailable. Cromwell had already gained his reputation as a military genius before 1648, but whether he deserved it or not, brilliant military tactics were not needed at Preston.
The leadership of the Royalist Duke of Hamilton was terrible. He squandered his numerical superiority by splitting his army in two, and strung them out in a long line that reached to Wigan. Local commanders did not believe Cromwell could get from Pembroke - another vital victory- to Preston in so short a time. They only realised their mistake when Cromwell attacked the divided army on the morning of August 17, in the area which is now Fulwood, cutting of their retreat to Scotland and forcing them into the centre of town.
By the first day, after appalling hand-to-hand fighting of the most basic and grisly sort with muskets, swords and pikes, and with dead bodies and dying horse blocking the streets, Cromwell’s army secured the bridges over the Ribble and the Darwen.
Blood ran through the streets and the rivers. The poet John Milton, who admired Cromwell, felt the bloodshed in Preston should be commemorated in his sonnet To Cromwell
While Darwent streams with blood of Scots imbru’d
At one point the Scots took advantage of higher ground to bombard Cromwell with stones and slates. Cromwell was a brave man; the kind of bravery you have when convinced God is on your side, but he could have died on that day, and our history would have been much different.
Both armies settled down for the night in the pouring rains and storms, and the bloodletting continued the next day, with the king’s army making a fighting retreat to Wigan while the other half of the Royalist army debated about whether to help.
It was not just the terrain that made the fighting bloody. There was a particularly hatred from Cromwell’s ‘godly’ soldiers, who could only conclude that these Scots were opposing the will of God by starting a second civil war after been decisively beaten in the first one.
They also hated and feared those they called ‘papists’ or ‘malignants’, Catholics and English Royalists. In earlier battles, quarter –the right to surrender with your life- would have been offered, but not here.
It was also horribly one –sided. Two thousand people were killed in the battle, a much more intensive death count than other civil war battles; all except 100 were royalists.
The cavalry, which could not win the battle, was used for their more traditional purpose of chasing and killing the retreating enemy. The thousands of captured soldiers who had volunteered for the king’s armies were sent to New England and Barbados as ‘indentured servants’- one tiny step up from slaves.
If you wish to follow the footsteps of Oliver Cromwell in Preston today, then the best place is Cromwell’s Mound.
These earthworks would have provided shelter for infantry soldiers and emplacements for guns, and are still visible today and protected by Historic England.
It is said that Cromwell himself directed some of the battle there, perhaps standing at the same spot where the Lancashire Post is today. A week after the Battle of Preston, the House of Commons agreed to talk to the King a once more about a settlement. However, it was not Parliament which was in control now; it was the army.
Preston was the place where the hopes of Charles I were finally snuffed out, and those who were prepared to consider his execution gained the upper hand. This makes Preston the most important battle of the civil war.
* James Hobson is the author of Following in the Footsteps of Oliver Cromwell (Pen and Sword £12.99) | <urn:uuid:52af05dc-d8c3-4643-8604-fc26d18c2521> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.lep.co.uk/retro/bloody-battle-left-dead-strewn-across-preston-1-9940814 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250616186.38/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124070934-20200124095934-00525.warc.gz | en | 0.983405 | 1,412 | 4 | 4 | [
-0.0887521356344223,
0.1855243295431137,
0.2161436676979065,
0.3121167719364166,
-0.21064148843288422,
-0.042643528431653976,
0.03346506506204605,
0.17218169569969177,
-0.16705626249313354,
-0.05793624743819237,
-0.16824138164520264,
-0.5925443172454834,
0.17614488303661346,
0.040674608200... | 1 | During this week 371 years ago a fierce battle was fought in Preston. A new book looking at the life of Oliver Cromwell charts the Battle of Preston as author James Hobson recalls in this specially commissioned article
The Battle of Preston of 1648 deserves to be better remembered as a turning point in the execution of King Charles I.
The execution of the King in 1649 is one of the best known events in British history, and is very much associated with London, the House of Commons and Westminster Hall-but is was the
Battle of Preston in August 1648 which paved the way for this hugely significant action by Cromwell and his supporters.
If the result of the fighting had been different, modern day Britain would be ruled in a totally different way.
Other civil war battles in the Yorkshire and South may be more well known, but they did not end the civil war between the forces of Charles I and Oliver Cromwell; that happened at
Preston, when over two days in August 1648, the last army loyal to the King was destroyed and humiliated. The more famous battles of Marston Moor and Naseby were not as decisive as Preston; they did led to the King’s defeat in 1646, but in 1648 he started the war again, this time with the help of a Scottish army which had supported parliament the first time around.
In the summer of 1648, a Scottish army of 18,000 invaded Lancashire for the king. Cromwell and his colonels had spent the past year in a desperate attempt to quell rebellion all over the country and this invasion from the north had to be stopped.
The two sides met at Preston on August 17-18, 1648. The victorious side had an excellent chance of winning the second civil war. The Royalists chose Lancashire rather than Yorkshire because they believed that the hedged and enclosed land around Wigan and Preston would be a good defence from the terrifying cavalry charges of Cromwell’s ‘Ironsides’. They also expected more support from the local Catholic population; apart from Manchester and Liverpool, parliament had struggled for success in Lancashire during the war.
In reality, the local population remained neutral and fearful. It was to be a battle of outsiders that involved few Lancastrians. King Charles awaited the news as a prisoner in Carisbrooke Castle- a Royalist victory may well have saved his throne.
He had reason to hope; rebellions against Cromwell had appeared everywhere, and Cromwell himself was heading for Lancashire with a tired and depleted army after costly victories in Wales. The army had moved so quickly that the vital field artillery had been left behind.
Preston was one of the first battles were Cromwell was actually outnumbered by the enemy, and he went into battle with another major disadvantage.
It had rained so much in early August, and so that the waterlogged ground did not favour battle by cavalry charges. Cromwell’s favourite and most famous weapon of war was unavailable. Cromwell had already gained his reputation as a military genius before 1648, but whether he deserved it or not, brilliant military tactics were not needed at Preston.
The leadership of the Royalist Duke of Hamilton was terrible. He squandered his numerical superiority by splitting his army in two, and strung them out in a long line that reached to Wigan. Local commanders did not believe Cromwell could get from Pembroke - another vital victory- to Preston in so short a time. They only realised their mistake when Cromwell attacked the divided army on the morning of August 17, in the area which is now Fulwood, cutting of their retreat to Scotland and forcing them into the centre of town.
By the first day, after appalling hand-to-hand fighting of the most basic and grisly sort with muskets, swords and pikes, and with dead bodies and dying horse blocking the streets, Cromwell’s army secured the bridges over the Ribble and the Darwen.
Blood ran through the streets and the rivers. The poet John Milton, who admired Cromwell, felt the bloodshed in Preston should be commemorated in his sonnet To Cromwell
While Darwent streams with blood of Scots imbru’d
At one point the Scots took advantage of higher ground to bombard Cromwell with stones and slates. Cromwell was a brave man; the kind of bravery you have when convinced God is on your side, but he could have died on that day, and our history would have been much different.
Both armies settled down for the night in the pouring rains and storms, and the bloodletting continued the next day, with the king’s army making a fighting retreat to Wigan while the other half of the Royalist army debated about whether to help.
It was not just the terrain that made the fighting bloody. There was a particularly hatred from Cromwell’s ‘godly’ soldiers, who could only conclude that these Scots were opposing the will of God by starting a second civil war after been decisively beaten in the first one.
They also hated and feared those they called ‘papists’ or ‘malignants’, Catholics and English Royalists. In earlier battles, quarter –the right to surrender with your life- would have been offered, but not here.
It was also horribly one –sided. Two thousand people were killed in the battle, a much more intensive death count than other civil war battles; all except 100 were royalists.
The cavalry, which could not win the battle, was used for their more traditional purpose of chasing and killing the retreating enemy. The thousands of captured soldiers who had volunteered for the king’s armies were sent to New England and Barbados as ‘indentured servants’- one tiny step up from slaves.
If you wish to follow the footsteps of Oliver Cromwell in Preston today, then the best place is Cromwell’s Mound.
These earthworks would have provided shelter for infantry soldiers and emplacements for guns, and are still visible today and protected by Historic England.
It is said that Cromwell himself directed some of the battle there, perhaps standing at the same spot where the Lancashire Post is today. A week after the Battle of Preston, the House of Commons agreed to talk to the King a once more about a settlement. However, it was not Parliament which was in control now; it was the army.
Preston was the place where the hopes of Charles I were finally snuffed out, and those who were prepared to consider his execution gained the upper hand. This makes Preston the most important battle of the civil war.
* James Hobson is the author of Following in the Footsteps of Oliver Cromwell (Pen and Sword £12.99) | 1,396 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The first conscription referendum was held on Saturday 28 October 1916. Australian electors were asked to answer 'Yes' or 'No' to the following question:
Are you in favour of the Government having, in this grave emergency, the same compulsory powers over citizens in regard to requiring their military service, for the term of this war, outside the Commonwealth, as it has now with regard to military service within the Commonwealth?
The question was long and complex. There was no explicit mention of conscription. The reference to existing military service meant the requirement for compulsory military service within Australia for all men aged between 18 and 60, in existence since 1911.
There were eight weeks of bitter campaigning before the vote. Since voting was not compulsory in 1916, either for the referendum or for elections, each side needed to persuade electors both to support their cause, and to turn out and vote. In the days before radio, public meetings and rallies were popular means of recruiting followers. Huge meetings, marches and rallies were held by both sides and noisy, even violent heckling was common. Women were not exempt from rough treatment. The marches organised by Vida Goldstein and Adela Pankhurst's Women's Peace Army were regularly disrupted by returned soldiers and others, and many marches ended in public brawls. Both sides made extensive use of graphic pamphlets, posters and cartoons, designed to appeal to patriotism, or inspire fear. Depictions of the enemy Germany were particularly gruesome, playing on grotesque stereotypes of the murderous 'Hun'.
The 'Yes' campaigners
The Australian Government was the main proponent of the 'Yes' case, although many government MPs actually campaigned against it. It was an extraordinary situation. Almost all of the daily press was in favour, and kept up a barrage of editorial content designed to persuade voters to support conscription. The Liberal Party supported conscription, as did many conservative organisations like the Australian Natives Association, or the Australian Women's National League. Most municipal councils (Richmond and Brunswick/Coburg were exceptions), employers' groups and Chambers of Commerce also supported the 'Yes' case. Many of these groups banded together in a newly formed National Referendum League. Generally the mainstream Protestant Churches seem to have favoured conscription, but some, notably the Quakers, opposed both conscription and the war on conscientious grounds. The Catholic hierarchy took no official stance in 1916, though many individual priests were thought to oppose the measure. Catholic bishops were divided.
The arguments in favour of conscription
Proponents of conscription appealed to voters' patriotism, their support for Empire and the Mother Country in its hour of need. Emotional appeals were made to defence of British 'liberty', seen as threatened by the rampant 'militarism' and 'tyranny' of 'Prussianism'. Much of the propaganda also centred on the need to help 'our boys at the front', who were depicted in graphic posters wounded and exhausted, appealing desperately for support from home. This was often an extension of the general recruitment campaign, which played on men's conscience, or sense of shame. 'Shirkers' were stigmatised for leaving others to fight for them while they languished at home. Women were targeted specifically, now that they had the vote. Propaganda appealed to womanly pride if their husbands or sons were soldiers, or shame if they were not.
The 'No' campaigners
The 'No' campaigners faced extraordinary odds, pitted against the might of the government and national press combined. At the base of the 'No' campaign was organised labour and the labour press. Their resources were stretched to the limit, but they were highly organised, resolute, passionate and energetic. They also had the services of several very talented cartoonists, who created some of the most potent imagery of the campaign. Claude Marquet, who drew for various labour publications, created a series of graphic cartoons and posters, including the image on perhaps the most famous poster of the campaign - 'The Blood Vote'. The words were written by E.J. Dempsey, who ironically worked for a conservative newspaper, though attributed, perhaps for this reason, to W.R. Winspear. It is estimated that one million copies of this poster were distributed in 1916-17, to great effect.
Other groups who were important to the 'No' campaign included the radical Industrial Workers of the World - the IWW or 'Wobblies'. With other radical groups they formed the Anti-Conscription and Anti-Militarist League in Melbourne in July 1915. Although small in number, they were highly organised and adept at disrupting opposition meetings. They also enlivened many public meetings with rousing radical songs, including 'The Red Flag' and 'Solidarity Forever', both originating in America. Hughes saw them as seditious. Women's organisations like Vida Goldstein's Women's Peace Army, organised many large meetings and led mass rallies, supported by various other civil libertarian and anti-war groups and the Victorian Socialist Party. These rallies also featured singing. Especially popular was the American song 'I didn't raise my son to be a soldier'. This was so effective that the government declared it a 'prohibited song'.
The arguments against conscription
It is important to remember that opposition to conscription did not necessarily mean opposition to the war itself. Although there were anti-war groups, many who opposed conscription still supported Australia's involvement in the war. But they opposed compulsion on principle, arguing that it was the worst of all tyrannies. The 'No' campaigners also claimed to speak in the name of 'liberty' - the liberty of ordinary people to decide for themselves whether to fight and die. They argued that conscription was an expression of the very 'militarism' Australians were fighting in Europe.
The labour movement and the IWW also demanded what they called 'equality of sacrifice', believing that the burdens of war were borne disproportionately by working people. They feared that military conscription was only a prelude to industrial conscription, (conscripting women and foreign workers to work at lower wages as Australian men went off to war,) and indeed an employers' group in Victoria had begun to argue for industrial conscription in 1916. The trade unions feared that industrial conscription would break the power of the union movement forever. They also resented deeply the fact that while the Wages Boards had been suspended at the start of the war, effectively freezing wages, the government had made no attempt to control prices, despite promising to do so. The cost of living had risen by 28 per cent by 1917, while the value of the pound fell, compounding the impact on workers and the poor. There was deep resentment at what was seen as war profiteering and the 'famine prices' it created.
The 'No' campaign therefore drew on a complex mix of principled opposition to compulsion and deeply felt class antagonism. It was to prove a powerful combination.
A free debate?
At the start of the campaign Hughes seemed confident of victory. In fact most commentators assumed that the 'Yes' case would prevail. Hughes had promised a free debate and vote on conscription. But as the bitterness of the debate escalated, and more and more mass meetings and rallies were held, the Government became increasingly repressive. 'No' campaigners found municipal halls closed to them, forcing them into lesser halls or the open air. Government also made free use of its wartime powers of censorship, seizing literature it deemed subversive, censoring newspaper comment (although only the opposition press) and finally seizing some of the actual presses themselves. As the war progressed more regulations were added to the War Precautions Act 1915, until there were more than 100 of them. The Wobblies were subject to particularly close surveillance. Twelve of their members in Sydney were arrested during the campaign and charged with treason-felony for allegedly planning to burn down Sydney businesses. Later Hughes moved to criminalise the organization itself through the Unlawful Associations Act 1916. Such attempts to repress 'free speech' were deeply resented and were probably counter-productive.
The result was a narrow victory for the 'No' campaign. Commentators were stunned. Hughes was devastated. Voter turn-out was the highest on record: 83 per cent of registered electors cast a vote. The 'No' vote secured 51.6% of overall votes : the 'Yes' vote 48.4%. A majority of voters voted 'No' in New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia and in the country as a whole. The 'Yes' vote prevailed in Victoria, Tasmania and Western Australia. In Victoria the count divided 51.9% in favour and 48.1% against, to the great disappointment of local anti-conscriptionists.
Of particular interest was the vote of the armed forces. Hughes had ordered that the forces be polled first, assuming that they would vote overwhelmingly in favour. He planned to release those figures in advance of the poll to encourage support for conscription. But he was disappointed. Although a majority did vote in favour, it was by a much smaller margin than Hughes had hoped (55%) and he withheld the figures until after the referendum date.
The political fallout
The aftermath of the 1916 referendum was as bitter as the campaign itself. The Labor caucus moved an immediate vote of no confidence in Hughes as leader. A defiant Hughes walked out of the party room taking a group of supporters with him, and formed a coalition government with his Liberal opponents. He was expelled from the Labor Party shortly afterwards and was ever after derided in the Labor press as a 'Labor rat' - or deserter.
The opinion of the Australian people was rather different however and reflected the contradictions embedded in attitudes to conscription itself. Hughes went on to lead his coalition Nationalist Party to an overwhelming victory at the following federal election held in May 1917. In the House of Representatives the coalition won 53 seats to Labor's 22. In the Senate they won all 18 vacancies. Hughes contested the election from a new seat in Bendigo, having lost pre-selection for his former seat of West Sydney. Despite many scandals in the lead-up to the election, including actions that have been labelled 'corrupt' by historians, the Australian people seem to have trusted Hughes to manage the country in wartime. Hughes remained Prime Minister until 1923. The outcome for the Australian Labor Party was far more serious. Apart from a brief period during the Great Depression, Labor did not regain office federally until 1941. | <urn:uuid:3b807490-2c91-4ff4-a512-a1b72566b472> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.oldtreasurybuilding.org.au/the-first-conscription-referendum-1916/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250608062.57/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123011418-20200123040418-00183.warc.gz | en | 0.982885 | 2,136 | 3.828125 | 4 | [
-0.3388013541698456,
0.3123828172683716,
-0.2054273635149002,
-0.08589182049036026,
-0.014282984659075737,
0.5692136287689209,
-0.0723184198141098,
0.1443561613559723,
-0.11208118498325348,
0.053782813251018524,
0.09087921679019928,
-0.28505009412765503,
-0.08675920963287354,
0.23854491114... | 9 | The first conscription referendum was held on Saturday 28 October 1916. Australian electors were asked to answer 'Yes' or 'No' to the following question:
Are you in favour of the Government having, in this grave emergency, the same compulsory powers over citizens in regard to requiring their military service, for the term of this war, outside the Commonwealth, as it has now with regard to military service within the Commonwealth?
The question was long and complex. There was no explicit mention of conscription. The reference to existing military service meant the requirement for compulsory military service within Australia for all men aged between 18 and 60, in existence since 1911.
There were eight weeks of bitter campaigning before the vote. Since voting was not compulsory in 1916, either for the referendum or for elections, each side needed to persuade electors both to support their cause, and to turn out and vote. In the days before radio, public meetings and rallies were popular means of recruiting followers. Huge meetings, marches and rallies were held by both sides and noisy, even violent heckling was common. Women were not exempt from rough treatment. The marches organised by Vida Goldstein and Adela Pankhurst's Women's Peace Army were regularly disrupted by returned soldiers and others, and many marches ended in public brawls. Both sides made extensive use of graphic pamphlets, posters and cartoons, designed to appeal to patriotism, or inspire fear. Depictions of the enemy Germany were particularly gruesome, playing on grotesque stereotypes of the murderous 'Hun'.
The 'Yes' campaigners
The Australian Government was the main proponent of the 'Yes' case, although many government MPs actually campaigned against it. It was an extraordinary situation. Almost all of the daily press was in favour, and kept up a barrage of editorial content designed to persuade voters to support conscription. The Liberal Party supported conscription, as did many conservative organisations like the Australian Natives Association, or the Australian Women's National League. Most municipal councils (Richmond and Brunswick/Coburg were exceptions), employers' groups and Chambers of Commerce also supported the 'Yes' case. Many of these groups banded together in a newly formed National Referendum League. Generally the mainstream Protestant Churches seem to have favoured conscription, but some, notably the Quakers, opposed both conscription and the war on conscientious grounds. The Catholic hierarchy took no official stance in 1916, though many individual priests were thought to oppose the measure. Catholic bishops were divided.
The arguments in favour of conscription
Proponents of conscription appealed to voters' patriotism, their support for Empire and the Mother Country in its hour of need. Emotional appeals were made to defence of British 'liberty', seen as threatened by the rampant 'militarism' and 'tyranny' of 'Prussianism'. Much of the propaganda also centred on the need to help 'our boys at the front', who were depicted in graphic posters wounded and exhausted, appealing desperately for support from home. This was often an extension of the general recruitment campaign, which played on men's conscience, or sense of shame. 'Shirkers' were stigmatised for leaving others to fight for them while they languished at home. Women were targeted specifically, now that they had the vote. Propaganda appealed to womanly pride if their husbands or sons were soldiers, or shame if they were not.
The 'No' campaigners
The 'No' campaigners faced extraordinary odds, pitted against the might of the government and national press combined. At the base of the 'No' campaign was organised labour and the labour press. Their resources were stretched to the limit, but they were highly organised, resolute, passionate and energetic. They also had the services of several very talented cartoonists, who created some of the most potent imagery of the campaign. Claude Marquet, who drew for various labour publications, created a series of graphic cartoons and posters, including the image on perhaps the most famous poster of the campaign - 'The Blood Vote'. The words were written by E.J. Dempsey, who ironically worked for a conservative newspaper, though attributed, perhaps for this reason, to W.R. Winspear. It is estimated that one million copies of this poster were distributed in 1916-17, to great effect.
Other groups who were important to the 'No' campaign included the radical Industrial Workers of the World - the IWW or 'Wobblies'. With other radical groups they formed the Anti-Conscription and Anti-Militarist League in Melbourne in July 1915. Although small in number, they were highly organised and adept at disrupting opposition meetings. They also enlivened many public meetings with rousing radical songs, including 'The Red Flag' and 'Solidarity Forever', both originating in America. Hughes saw them as seditious. Women's organisations like Vida Goldstein's Women's Peace Army, organised many large meetings and led mass rallies, supported by various other civil libertarian and anti-war groups and the Victorian Socialist Party. These rallies also featured singing. Especially popular was the American song 'I didn't raise my son to be a soldier'. This was so effective that the government declared it a 'prohibited song'.
The arguments against conscription
It is important to remember that opposition to conscription did not necessarily mean opposition to the war itself. Although there were anti-war groups, many who opposed conscription still supported Australia's involvement in the war. But they opposed compulsion on principle, arguing that it was the worst of all tyrannies. The 'No' campaigners also claimed to speak in the name of 'liberty' - the liberty of ordinary people to decide for themselves whether to fight and die. They argued that conscription was an expression of the very 'militarism' Australians were fighting in Europe.
The labour movement and the IWW also demanded what they called 'equality of sacrifice', believing that the burdens of war were borne disproportionately by working people. They feared that military conscription was only a prelude to industrial conscription, (conscripting women and foreign workers to work at lower wages as Australian men went off to war,) and indeed an employers' group in Victoria had begun to argue for industrial conscription in 1916. The trade unions feared that industrial conscription would break the power of the union movement forever. They also resented deeply the fact that while the Wages Boards had been suspended at the start of the war, effectively freezing wages, the government had made no attempt to control prices, despite promising to do so. The cost of living had risen by 28 per cent by 1917, while the value of the pound fell, compounding the impact on workers and the poor. There was deep resentment at what was seen as war profiteering and the 'famine prices' it created.
The 'No' campaign therefore drew on a complex mix of principled opposition to compulsion and deeply felt class antagonism. It was to prove a powerful combination.
A free debate?
At the start of the campaign Hughes seemed confident of victory. In fact most commentators assumed that the 'Yes' case would prevail. Hughes had promised a free debate and vote on conscription. But as the bitterness of the debate escalated, and more and more mass meetings and rallies were held, the Government became increasingly repressive. 'No' campaigners found municipal halls closed to them, forcing them into lesser halls or the open air. Government also made free use of its wartime powers of censorship, seizing literature it deemed subversive, censoring newspaper comment (although only the opposition press) and finally seizing some of the actual presses themselves. As the war progressed more regulations were added to the War Precautions Act 1915, until there were more than 100 of them. The Wobblies were subject to particularly close surveillance. Twelve of their members in Sydney were arrested during the campaign and charged with treason-felony for allegedly planning to burn down Sydney businesses. Later Hughes moved to criminalise the organization itself through the Unlawful Associations Act 1916. Such attempts to repress 'free speech' were deeply resented and were probably counter-productive.
The result was a narrow victory for the 'No' campaign. Commentators were stunned. Hughes was devastated. Voter turn-out was the highest on record: 83 per cent of registered electors cast a vote. The 'No' vote secured 51.6% of overall votes : the 'Yes' vote 48.4%. A majority of voters voted 'No' in New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia and in the country as a whole. The 'Yes' vote prevailed in Victoria, Tasmania and Western Australia. In Victoria the count divided 51.9% in favour and 48.1% against, to the great disappointment of local anti-conscriptionists.
Of particular interest was the vote of the armed forces. Hughes had ordered that the forces be polled first, assuming that they would vote overwhelmingly in favour. He planned to release those figures in advance of the poll to encourage support for conscription. But he was disappointed. Although a majority did vote in favour, it was by a much smaller margin than Hughes had hoped (55%) and he withheld the figures until after the referendum date.
The political fallout
The aftermath of the 1916 referendum was as bitter as the campaign itself. The Labor caucus moved an immediate vote of no confidence in Hughes as leader. A defiant Hughes walked out of the party room taking a group of supporters with him, and formed a coalition government with his Liberal opponents. He was expelled from the Labor Party shortly afterwards and was ever after derided in the Labor press as a 'Labor rat' - or deserter.
The opinion of the Australian people was rather different however and reflected the contradictions embedded in attitudes to conscription itself. Hughes went on to lead his coalition Nationalist Party to an overwhelming victory at the following federal election held in May 1917. In the House of Representatives the coalition won 53 seats to Labor's 22. In the Senate they won all 18 vacancies. Hughes contested the election from a new seat in Bendigo, having lost pre-selection for his former seat of West Sydney. Despite many scandals in the lead-up to the election, including actions that have been labelled 'corrupt' by historians, the Australian people seem to have trusted Hughes to manage the country in wartime. Hughes remained Prime Minister until 1923. The outcome for the Australian Labor Party was far more serious. Apart from a brief period during the Great Depression, Labor did not regain office federally until 1941. | 2,211 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The Cathars are among the great burn victims of history. Their beliefs were an early form of Christianity originating in the East, and opposed a dogmatic, coercive Catholic Church. They were exterminated by burning at the stake on huge pyres. Catharism designates a religious movement of Christian origin dating from the late 12th century. Its followers were particularly numerous in Occitania, southern France. The Cathar vision of the universe was dualist: light and the spirit, good, confronting matter and darkness, evil. This belief led them to follow an ascetic way of life. Considered as heretics, the Cathars were decimated by the the Albigensian crusade, initiated by Pope Innocent III. The most well-known burnings were those of Minerve in 1208 and Montségur in 1244. So why so much brutality by the Catholic Church?
The Cathar theology was essentially Gnostic in nature. The gnostics were religious mystics who proclaimed gnosis, knowledge, as the way of salvation. To know oneself truly allowed gnostic men and women to know god directly, without any need for the mediation of rabbis, priests, bishops, or other religious officials.
Cathar practices were often in direct contradiction to how the Catholic Church conducted business, especially with regards to the issues of poverty and the moral character of priests. The so-called Cathar heresy was a major challenge to the Roman Catholic Church in the 12th century. Heresy is a belief or opinion contrary to orthodox religious doctrine in the Christian religion. The English word heresy comes from the Greek word hairesis, which meant “school of thought,” “sect,” or “faction.” It originally did not have negative connotation. I would be considered a heretic today because my beliefs are contrary to the Christians beliefs.
Cathar beliefs included recognition of the feminine principle of the divine. God was both man and woman with the female aspect of God was Sophia, “wisdom” encouraged equality of the sexes in Cathar communities. Gnostics also sought knowledge and wisdom from many different sources, and they accepted insight wherever it could be found. Like those who came before them, they embraced a personified wisdom, Sophia, understood variously and taken as the manifestation of divine insight.
Cathars also believed in Reincarnation. A soul would be continually reborn until it renounced the world completely and escaped incarnation.
The also believed in Cosmic Duality, meaning the the existence of two powerful deities in the universe, one good and one evil, positive and negative, who were in a constant in conflict. The purpose of life was to serve the good by serving others and escape from the cycle of rebirth and death to return home to God, much like the Gnostics.
The cathars were also vegetarians and everyone worked and believed in manual labor including their priest. Celibacy was also encouraged generally since it was thought that every person born was just another poor soul trapped by the devil in a body. Marriage overall was discouraged.
The only books of the New Testament they accepted were the gospels, completely rejecting the epistles of Paul and the others, with a special emphasis on the Gospel According to John.
The Cathars lived in communities which varied in size from 60 to 600 individuals. They appear in small numbers in records from the 1140’s CE in France, but by 1167 CE, there were enough communities in the region to require an assembly to set rules and boundaries. They were non-violence, forbidden to kill, to make war, to lie and to swear. Life was purely spiritual and the body was totally despised. Within the church, a hierarchy existed between two categories of the faithful. The had followers or believers. The priests or preaching brothers were known as Parfaits, Perfecti, the perfect ones, or “bonshommes”, good men, good women. They wore a hooded black robe girded at the waist and the men were often bearded. They preached disobedience to the Roman clergy.
Because of this and their doctrines, Cathars were regarded as heretics. Methods of execution according to the situation and the crime. Robbers were punished by hanging, while noblemen were beheaded by the sword and the common people by the axe. Death by stoning was the punishment for adultery. Punishment by fire could also take the form of roasting to death and burning on a gridiron. But death by burning at the stake, an ancient tradition, was reserved for heretics. Punishment by fire was already used in earlier times, before Jesus Christ, and ranked high among the violent methods of execution. But it was in the Middle Ages, with the Inquisition, that widespread use was made of the great bonfires which made it possible to eliminate the Cathars “en masse”.
Because the Cathars were heretics, they had to be burnt. The smallest trace of “sin” had to be extirpated, the corrupt body had to be destroyed and evil exorcised in the flames. Even corpses were disinterred and burnt if the deceased were suspected of being a heretics. Burning inflicted a double punishment, both temporal and spiritual, since the Cathar church considered that burial of a body was a necessary condition for resurrection.
In 1208 CE, Pope Innocent III sent the lawyer-monk Pierre de Castelnau to Southern France to enlist the aid of Raymond VI, Count of Toulouse in suppressing the heresy by murder. According to Church documents, 20,000 heretics were slaughtered in and around Beziers and the town burned to the ground, majority being women and children.
Reformation was fuelled by the preserved ideas of the Cathars and their fellow “heretics. As an organized religious sect, Catharism was eliminated during the churches purge of heretics in Southern France but continued as a living faith. There are even Cathars alive today, or at least people claiming to be modern Cathars. Reformers seem to have known things that the Cathars knew, and even today, some Protestant Churches claim a Cathar heritage.
Catharism may have been the survival of Gnosticism, the most fascinating and perplexing phenomena in Western religious history. Orthodox Christianity also tried to eliminate the Gnostics as heretics as well. Because scholars had to depend on writings of opponents of the Gnostics and other so-called heretical groups, there was no real understanding of their beliefs. However in 1945, one of the greatest discoveries of the century was made when a collection of thirteen ancient books, called “codices”, containing over fifty texts was found in caves. A large number Gnostic texts were found and thought to have been entirely destroyed during the early Christian struggle to define “orthodoxy” in the 2nd and 3rd centuries.
One discovery was the Gospel of Thomas, 114 Secret sayings of Jesus. Many of the saying can be found in the New testament and many others are very Gnostic in nature. The first saying Jesus tells us, “Whoever finds the meaning of these words will not taste death.”
Perhaps this is what the church was concerned about. To truly find God we do not need the church but look within as Jesus was trying to tell us in Saying three: If those who lead you say to you: See, the kingdom is in heaven, then the birds of the heaven will go before you; if they say to you: It is in the sea, then the fish will go before you. But the kingdom is within you, and it is outside of you. When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will know that you are the sons of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you are in poverty, and you are poverty. | <urn:uuid:8fba48e2-62b1-4fb8-bd49-29ebf61c271f> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://elquanah.com/2020/01/10/why-did-the-church-murder-the-cathars/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251689924.62/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126135207-20200126165207-00098.warc.gz | en | 0.983733 | 1,613 | 3.4375 | 3 | [
-0.03704442083835602,
0.2811163365840912,
-0.25906333327293396,
0.11810599267482758,
-0.04683293029665947,
-0.020750589668750763,
0.03676638752222061,
0.24272039532661438,
0.07217933982610703,
-0.00821024738252163,
-0.33595407009124756,
-0.3709840774536133,
-0.1579495370388031,
0.288935124... | 13 | The Cathars are among the great burn victims of history. Their beliefs were an early form of Christianity originating in the East, and opposed a dogmatic, coercive Catholic Church. They were exterminated by burning at the stake on huge pyres. Catharism designates a religious movement of Christian origin dating from the late 12th century. Its followers were particularly numerous in Occitania, southern France. The Cathar vision of the universe was dualist: light and the spirit, good, confronting matter and darkness, evil. This belief led them to follow an ascetic way of life. Considered as heretics, the Cathars were decimated by the the Albigensian crusade, initiated by Pope Innocent III. The most well-known burnings were those of Minerve in 1208 and Montségur in 1244. So why so much brutality by the Catholic Church?
The Cathar theology was essentially Gnostic in nature. The gnostics were religious mystics who proclaimed gnosis, knowledge, as the way of salvation. To know oneself truly allowed gnostic men and women to know god directly, without any need for the mediation of rabbis, priests, bishops, or other religious officials.
Cathar practices were often in direct contradiction to how the Catholic Church conducted business, especially with regards to the issues of poverty and the moral character of priests. The so-called Cathar heresy was a major challenge to the Roman Catholic Church in the 12th century. Heresy is a belief or opinion contrary to orthodox religious doctrine in the Christian religion. The English word heresy comes from the Greek word hairesis, which meant “school of thought,” “sect,” or “faction.” It originally did not have negative connotation. I would be considered a heretic today because my beliefs are contrary to the Christians beliefs.
Cathar beliefs included recognition of the feminine principle of the divine. God was both man and woman with the female aspect of God was Sophia, “wisdom” encouraged equality of the sexes in Cathar communities. Gnostics also sought knowledge and wisdom from many different sources, and they accepted insight wherever it could be found. Like those who came before them, they embraced a personified wisdom, Sophia, understood variously and taken as the manifestation of divine insight.
Cathars also believed in Reincarnation. A soul would be continually reborn until it renounced the world completely and escaped incarnation.
The also believed in Cosmic Duality, meaning the the existence of two powerful deities in the universe, one good and one evil, positive and negative, who were in a constant in conflict. The purpose of life was to serve the good by serving others and escape from the cycle of rebirth and death to return home to God, much like the Gnostics.
The cathars were also vegetarians and everyone worked and believed in manual labor including their priest. Celibacy was also encouraged generally since it was thought that every person born was just another poor soul trapped by the devil in a body. Marriage overall was discouraged.
The only books of the New Testament they accepted were the gospels, completely rejecting the epistles of Paul and the others, with a special emphasis on the Gospel According to John.
The Cathars lived in communities which varied in size from 60 to 600 individuals. They appear in small numbers in records from the 1140’s CE in France, but by 1167 CE, there were enough communities in the region to require an assembly to set rules and boundaries. They were non-violence, forbidden to kill, to make war, to lie and to swear. Life was purely spiritual and the body was totally despised. Within the church, a hierarchy existed between two categories of the faithful. The had followers or believers. The priests or preaching brothers were known as Parfaits, Perfecti, the perfect ones, or “bonshommes”, good men, good women. They wore a hooded black robe girded at the waist and the men were often bearded. They preached disobedience to the Roman clergy.
Because of this and their doctrines, Cathars were regarded as heretics. Methods of execution according to the situation and the crime. Robbers were punished by hanging, while noblemen were beheaded by the sword and the common people by the axe. Death by stoning was the punishment for adultery. Punishment by fire could also take the form of roasting to death and burning on a gridiron. But death by burning at the stake, an ancient tradition, was reserved for heretics. Punishment by fire was already used in earlier times, before Jesus Christ, and ranked high among the violent methods of execution. But it was in the Middle Ages, with the Inquisition, that widespread use was made of the great bonfires which made it possible to eliminate the Cathars “en masse”.
Because the Cathars were heretics, they had to be burnt. The smallest trace of “sin” had to be extirpated, the corrupt body had to be destroyed and evil exorcised in the flames. Even corpses were disinterred and burnt if the deceased were suspected of being a heretics. Burning inflicted a double punishment, both temporal and spiritual, since the Cathar church considered that burial of a body was a necessary condition for resurrection.
In 1208 CE, Pope Innocent III sent the lawyer-monk Pierre de Castelnau to Southern France to enlist the aid of Raymond VI, Count of Toulouse in suppressing the heresy by murder. According to Church documents, 20,000 heretics were slaughtered in and around Beziers and the town burned to the ground, majority being women and children.
Reformation was fuelled by the preserved ideas of the Cathars and their fellow “heretics. As an organized religious sect, Catharism was eliminated during the churches purge of heretics in Southern France but continued as a living faith. There are even Cathars alive today, or at least people claiming to be modern Cathars. Reformers seem to have known things that the Cathars knew, and even today, some Protestant Churches claim a Cathar heritage.
Catharism may have been the survival of Gnosticism, the most fascinating and perplexing phenomena in Western religious history. Orthodox Christianity also tried to eliminate the Gnostics as heretics as well. Because scholars had to depend on writings of opponents of the Gnostics and other so-called heretical groups, there was no real understanding of their beliefs. However in 1945, one of the greatest discoveries of the century was made when a collection of thirteen ancient books, called “codices”, containing over fifty texts was found in caves. A large number Gnostic texts were found and thought to have been entirely destroyed during the early Christian struggle to define “orthodoxy” in the 2nd and 3rd centuries.
One discovery was the Gospel of Thomas, 114 Secret sayings of Jesus. Many of the saying can be found in the New testament and many others are very Gnostic in nature. The first saying Jesus tells us, “Whoever finds the meaning of these words will not taste death.”
Perhaps this is what the church was concerned about. To truly find God we do not need the church but look within as Jesus was trying to tell us in Saying three: If those who lead you say to you: See, the kingdom is in heaven, then the birds of the heaven will go before you; if they say to you: It is in the sea, then the fish will go before you. But the kingdom is within you, and it is outside of you. When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will know that you are the sons of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you are in poverty, and you are poverty. | 1,626 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The Old Testament in Four Pages
(A very quick overview of the Old Testament.)
Most people will have been taught certain well known stories from the Bible. Stories such as Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, Jonah and the whale, Moses crossing the Red Sea and David and Goliath etc.
However many people cannot get their heads around the Old Testament, i.e. when did these things occur and in what order they happened?
Here is a very quick and brief history of the Old Testament.
It all began in Genesis, the first book of the Bible.
The Creation of the Heavens and Earth and all living creatures, culminating in God making Adam and Eve.
Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden of Eden and were given all the fruit of the garden to eat except one, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
God said in the day that they disobeyed and ate from that tree, they would surely die.
Satan came and tempted Eve to eat, telling her that she would not die but that she would become like God. She ate and gave some to Adam who also ate. Because of this they were sent out of the garden and their fellowship with God was broken. It was at this time that Cain killed his brother Abel and Seth was born.
Adam and Eve had many more children and so did their children.
Man began to multiply on the earth and the earth became full of evil so God called Noah to build a boat and then God destroyed all life by a great flood, except Noah and his family. The Biblical data places the Flood at 2304 BC ± 11 years.
Following this, man began to multiply again and it was around this time that the book of Job was written, the date of this book is not known. it is believed to be the oldest book of the Bible.
10 generations after Noah came Abraham. (2165—1990 B.C) God called Abraham and told him that He was going to bless him with a son and make him a great nation.
Abraham and his wife Sarah were very old and Sarah was past child bearing but God promised them a son.
Sarah could not wait so she told Abraham to go to her maid, he did and she had a child called Ishmael. God said He would bless Ishmael and make him a great nation. Ishmael became the father of the Arab nations.
Eventually Sarah did have a son of her own in old age and he was named Isaac.
Isaac grew and married Rebecca and they had twin boys Jacob and Esau.
Jacob married two sisters Leah and Rachael. Between them they had twelve sons that became the twelve tribes of Israel. Jacob’s name was changed to Israel.
One of these sons was a man called Joseph, (the one with the coat of many colours). Joseph was the favourite son of Jacob. The other brothers were jealous of Joseph and sold him into slavery in Egypt.
Pharaoh liked Joseph and he became very important. All Joseph’s family came to Egypt because of famine and Joseph forgave his brothers and they all lived in Egypt.
The Israelites increased in number and Pharaoh eventually made slaves of them.
It was at this time that Moses came on the scene (1525 B.C). Moses mother put him in a basket as a child and put the basket into the Nile river. Pharaoh’sdaughter found him and raised him as her own. He grew up and became very high up in Pharaoh’s kingdom.
One day he saw an Egyptian beating a Hebrew slave and Moses killed the Egyptian. Moses fled Egypt and became a shepherd, he married and when he was about 80 years old, God called him to go back to Pharaoh in Egypt and tell him to set the Israelites free.
Moses and his brother Aaron went and got the Israelites out of Egypt but they ended up wandering in the wilderness for forty years. This was called the Exodus, which happened around 1445 B.C.
Whilst in the wilderness, God gave Moses the Law, including the Ten Commandments.
This was the time that Moses wrote the first five books of the Old Testament known as “The Torah”, Genesis and Exodus account and also the book of the Law, Leviticus, he also wrote the book of Numbers and Deuteronomy.
When Moses died, Joshua took over and led the Israelites into the promised land.This was the time of the Battle of Jerecho. We read about this in the book called Joshua. Written around (1405—1385 B.C).
Israel was at this time ruled by a series Judges. Judges spans about 350 years from (1398 B.C) until the judges Eli and Samuel. Amongst these were Deborah, Gideon and Samson along with many others. This is recorded in the book of Judges.
Around this period we read of Boas and Ruth contained in the book of Ruth.
Next comes the Judges Eli and Samuel. 1 and 2 Samuel. Samuel anointed the first Kings.(1043 B.C).
All the countries around Israel had kings and Israel was crying out for a king of their own. We read about this in 1 and 2 Kings. Written between (561—538 B.C)
Saul was the first King.
Then there is the story of David and Goliath. David the son of Jesse killed Goliath with a slingshot.
When Saul died, David became King of Israel. David wrote most of the Psalms. We read of King David and Bathsheba. Bathsheba was the wife of a man called Uriah a soldier in King David’s army. David had him killed so that he could have Bathsheba for himself. David and Bathsheba had a son named Solomon.
Solomon became King after David and ruled for 40 years, (971—931 B.C). He was a very wise man and wrote the book of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon.
In 922 B.C Israel split into two separate parts, the northern kingdom ruled by Jeroboam, it included ten tribes of Israel and the southern tribes of Judah and Benjamin, which was ruled by Rehoboam.
The Israelites kept turning away from God and worshipping pagan gods. God raised up Prophets to preach to Israel.
Prophets to the northern kingdom of Israel were Jonah, Hosea and Amos. The prophets to southern Judah were Isaiah, Micah, Habakuk, Zephaniah and Nahum and the books of these prophets where written at this time.
Eventually Assyria invaded the northern kingdom of Israel in 722 B.C and the northern tribes were lost. However Judah survived.
Next to invade was Babylon in 605—597—586 B.C and took Judah into captivity. At this time the prophets Ezekiel, Daniel, Jeremiah and Obadiah prophesied and their books were written.
This was the time of Nebuchadnezzar and his dream of a great statue. The head of gold, the arms and breasts of silver, the belly of brass, the legs of iron and the feet of iron and clay. This was when Daniel the prophet, prophesied the kingdoms that would follow Babylon, Persia, Greece and Rome.In 538 B.C, Persia invaded and Cyrus the King allowed Judah to go back and rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. This was the time of Zerubabel, Ezra and Nehemiah.
Following these were the prophets Haggai, Joel and Zachariah.Last came Malachi which is the last book in the Old Testament.This was 450 B.C and there would be silence from God for the next 400 years.
In between the Old and New Testaments, the land was conquered twice more.
In 330 B.C, Persia was overtaken by the Greek Empire under Alexander the Great which only lasted seven years till 323 B.C.
In 323 B.C the kingdom was split between Syria and Egypt. This was the time of the Maccabees, who brought Jewish independence which lasted from 166—63 B.C.
In 63 B.C the land was conquered by the Roman Empire which fulfilled the prophecies given by Daniel 500 years earlier.
Daniel also prophesied that Rome would divide into two legs, the Eastern and Western Roman Empire. Which also came to pass.
It was during the time of the Roman Empire that Jesus was born, died and was raised from the dead.
This began the time of the New Testament.
We are now living in what is known as the age of Grace which according to the prophecy of Daniel is the times of the feet of iron and clay. | <urn:uuid:cacf7f26-7984-46e0-a67b-71a9d0cad15c> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://jeffreyunsworth.wixsite.com/teleiosbibleblogs/adashthroughtheoldtestament | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594101.10/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119010920-20200119034920-00328.warc.gz | en | 0.988428 | 1,807 | 3.4375 | 3 | [
0.004792535677552223,
0.6159628629684448,
0.027409259229898453,
-0.34038183093070984,
-0.1577197164297104,
-0.07590116560459137,
-0.12176962196826935,
-0.1248236671090126,
-0.13495618104934692,
0.264240026473999,
-0.0062539465725421906,
-0.1772093027830124,
0.018429145216941833,
0.20096658... | 1 | The Old Testament in Four Pages
(A very quick overview of the Old Testament.)
Most people will have been taught certain well known stories from the Bible. Stories such as Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, Jonah and the whale, Moses crossing the Red Sea and David and Goliath etc.
However many people cannot get their heads around the Old Testament, i.e. when did these things occur and in what order they happened?
Here is a very quick and brief history of the Old Testament.
It all began in Genesis, the first book of the Bible.
The Creation of the Heavens and Earth and all living creatures, culminating in God making Adam and Eve.
Adam and Eve were placed in the Garden of Eden and were given all the fruit of the garden to eat except one, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.
God said in the day that they disobeyed and ate from that tree, they would surely die.
Satan came and tempted Eve to eat, telling her that she would not die but that she would become like God. She ate and gave some to Adam who also ate. Because of this they were sent out of the garden and their fellowship with God was broken. It was at this time that Cain killed his brother Abel and Seth was born.
Adam and Eve had many more children and so did their children.
Man began to multiply on the earth and the earth became full of evil so God called Noah to build a boat and then God destroyed all life by a great flood, except Noah and his family. The Biblical data places the Flood at 2304 BC ± 11 years.
Following this, man began to multiply again and it was around this time that the book of Job was written, the date of this book is not known. it is believed to be the oldest book of the Bible.
10 generations after Noah came Abraham. (2165—1990 B.C) God called Abraham and told him that He was going to bless him with a son and make him a great nation.
Abraham and his wife Sarah were very old and Sarah was past child bearing but God promised them a son.
Sarah could not wait so she told Abraham to go to her maid, he did and she had a child called Ishmael. God said He would bless Ishmael and make him a great nation. Ishmael became the father of the Arab nations.
Eventually Sarah did have a son of her own in old age and he was named Isaac.
Isaac grew and married Rebecca and they had twin boys Jacob and Esau.
Jacob married two sisters Leah and Rachael. Between them they had twelve sons that became the twelve tribes of Israel. Jacob’s name was changed to Israel.
One of these sons was a man called Joseph, (the one with the coat of many colours). Joseph was the favourite son of Jacob. The other brothers were jealous of Joseph and sold him into slavery in Egypt.
Pharaoh liked Joseph and he became very important. All Joseph’s family came to Egypt because of famine and Joseph forgave his brothers and they all lived in Egypt.
The Israelites increased in number and Pharaoh eventually made slaves of them.
It was at this time that Moses came on the scene (1525 B.C). Moses mother put him in a basket as a child and put the basket into the Nile river. Pharaoh’sdaughter found him and raised him as her own. He grew up and became very high up in Pharaoh’s kingdom.
One day he saw an Egyptian beating a Hebrew slave and Moses killed the Egyptian. Moses fled Egypt and became a shepherd, he married and when he was about 80 years old, God called him to go back to Pharaoh in Egypt and tell him to set the Israelites free.
Moses and his brother Aaron went and got the Israelites out of Egypt but they ended up wandering in the wilderness for forty years. This was called the Exodus, which happened around 1445 B.C.
Whilst in the wilderness, God gave Moses the Law, including the Ten Commandments.
This was the time that Moses wrote the first five books of the Old Testament known as “The Torah”, Genesis and Exodus account and also the book of the Law, Leviticus, he also wrote the book of Numbers and Deuteronomy.
When Moses died, Joshua took over and led the Israelites into the promised land.This was the time of the Battle of Jerecho. We read about this in the book called Joshua. Written around (1405—1385 B.C).
Israel was at this time ruled by a series Judges. Judges spans about 350 years from (1398 B.C) until the judges Eli and Samuel. Amongst these were Deborah, Gideon and Samson along with many others. This is recorded in the book of Judges.
Around this period we read of Boas and Ruth contained in the book of Ruth.
Next comes the Judges Eli and Samuel. 1 and 2 Samuel. Samuel anointed the first Kings.(1043 B.C).
All the countries around Israel had kings and Israel was crying out for a king of their own. We read about this in 1 and 2 Kings. Written between (561—538 B.C)
Saul was the first King.
Then there is the story of David and Goliath. David the son of Jesse killed Goliath with a slingshot.
When Saul died, David became King of Israel. David wrote most of the Psalms. We read of King David and Bathsheba. Bathsheba was the wife of a man called Uriah a soldier in King David’s army. David had him killed so that he could have Bathsheba for himself. David and Bathsheba had a son named Solomon.
Solomon became King after David and ruled for 40 years, (971—931 B.C). He was a very wise man and wrote the book of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon.
In 922 B.C Israel split into two separate parts, the northern kingdom ruled by Jeroboam, it included ten tribes of Israel and the southern tribes of Judah and Benjamin, which was ruled by Rehoboam.
The Israelites kept turning away from God and worshipping pagan gods. God raised up Prophets to preach to Israel.
Prophets to the northern kingdom of Israel were Jonah, Hosea and Amos. The prophets to southern Judah were Isaiah, Micah, Habakuk, Zephaniah and Nahum and the books of these prophets where written at this time.
Eventually Assyria invaded the northern kingdom of Israel in 722 B.C and the northern tribes were lost. However Judah survived.
Next to invade was Babylon in 605—597—586 B.C and took Judah into captivity. At this time the prophets Ezekiel, Daniel, Jeremiah and Obadiah prophesied and their books were written.
This was the time of Nebuchadnezzar and his dream of a great statue. The head of gold, the arms and breasts of silver, the belly of brass, the legs of iron and the feet of iron and clay. This was when Daniel the prophet, prophesied the kingdoms that would follow Babylon, Persia, Greece and Rome.In 538 B.C, Persia invaded and Cyrus the King allowed Judah to go back and rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem. This was the time of Zerubabel, Ezra and Nehemiah.
Following these were the prophets Haggai, Joel and Zachariah.Last came Malachi which is the last book in the Old Testament.This was 450 B.C and there would be silence from God for the next 400 years.
In between the Old and New Testaments, the land was conquered twice more.
In 330 B.C, Persia was overtaken by the Greek Empire under Alexander the Great which only lasted seven years till 323 B.C.
In 323 B.C the kingdom was split between Syria and Egypt. This was the time of the Maccabees, who brought Jewish independence which lasted from 166—63 B.C.
In 63 B.C the land was conquered by the Roman Empire which fulfilled the prophecies given by Daniel 500 years earlier.
Daniel also prophesied that Rome would divide into two legs, the Eastern and Western Roman Empire. Which also came to pass.
It was during the time of the Roman Empire that Jesus was born, died and was raised from the dead.
This began the time of the New Testament.
We are now living in what is known as the age of Grace which according to the prophecy of Daniel is the times of the feet of iron and clay. | 1,822 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Egyptian sun god Ra?
Ra: “The Sun”, solar god of Heliopolis in ancient Egyptian religion. Ra was the symbol of sunlight, giver of life, as well as responsible for the cycle of death and resurrection.
His most common representation was that of a hawk- headed man, on which he carried the solar disk.
Another form of worship that was given to this deity was a solar god falcon-headed, crowned by the solar disc and uraeus, with scepter uas and Ankh.
History of Sun God Ra
At the beginning of the Old Kingdom, Ra was only one of several existing solar gods, but by 2400 BC he had become the official god of the pharaohs, who were considered his children, and even his incarnations.
During dynasty V he was elevated to national god and later linked to the Theban god Amun to become Amun-Ra, the main deity of the ancient Egyptian religion.
During the Middle Kingdom his importance was increasingly affiliated and combined with other chief deities, although in Thebes he was identified as the local god Amun in the form of Amun-Ra, revered as the “sole creator of life.”
Ra retained supremacy for centuries, except during the short period of atenism in the time of Akhenaten (c. 1350-1335 BC), when the monotheistic cult of Aten prevailed in Egypt.
Even the brief period during which Amenhotep IV – which changed his name to Akhenaten, tried to impose on Aten, the solar disk, to the detriment of Amun, is interpreted by the historians as a sample of the persistence of the old cult to Ra.
The identification of Amun-Ra with Zeus or Jupiter was recognized by Greeks and Romans. The cult of Amun-Ra has been linked on numerous occasions with that of Apollo (Rome) by the solar symbology that both represent.
Ra’s identity was often confused with that of other gods and experienced different mergers in an attempt to culturally unify the country.
Amun-Ra: As the cults of Amun and Ra were becoming increasingly popular in Upper and Lower Egypt, respectively, they combined to create Amun-Ra, the solar creator god.
Atum-Ra was another deity formed from two different deities. Ra shares more similarities with Atum than with Amun.
Atum was linked specifically with the evening sun. Both Atum and Ra were considered “father of the gods” and “father of the pharaohs”, being profusely worshiped. Thus, it was inevitable that the two deities merged under the name of Atum-Ra.
Ra-Horakhti, was really more a title or manifestation, than a compound god. It was intended to link Horakhti to Ra – as an aspect of Horus at dawn.
It has been suggested that Ra-Horakhti simply refers to the Sun’s journey, from horizon to horizon, as Ra, or that it means an aspect of the god Ra as a symbol of hope and rebirth.
This was probably encouraged because Ra and Horus were linked to the Sun and Pharaoh.
Khepri, the depicted god in the form of a beetle that drives the morning sun, is sometimes seen as the manifestation of Ra at dawn.
Khnum was also considered a veiled manifestation of Ra; Khnum would be an aspect of Ra at sunset. | <urn:uuid:e5c0e757-8b7b-44fa-b10b-cc38bd370c45> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://historicaleve.com/who-is-the-egyptian-sun-god-ra/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250598726.39/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120110422-20200120134422-00490.warc.gz | en | 0.983816 | 725 | 3.46875 | 3 | [
-0.3002470135688782,
0.9105842709541321,
-0.2468854784965515,
0.435518741607666,
-0.6760852336883545,
0.03195774555206299,
0.45750853419303894,
-0.31959664821624756,
0.17721158266067505,
-0.08492354303598404,
-0.13550889492034912,
-0.4988354444503784,
0.15141651034355164,
0.201548665761947... | 13 | Egyptian sun god Ra?
Ra: “The Sun”, solar god of Heliopolis in ancient Egyptian religion. Ra was the symbol of sunlight, giver of life, as well as responsible for the cycle of death and resurrection.
His most common representation was that of a hawk- headed man, on which he carried the solar disk.
Another form of worship that was given to this deity was a solar god falcon-headed, crowned by the solar disc and uraeus, with scepter uas and Ankh.
History of Sun God Ra
At the beginning of the Old Kingdom, Ra was only one of several existing solar gods, but by 2400 BC he had become the official god of the pharaohs, who were considered his children, and even his incarnations.
During dynasty V he was elevated to national god and later linked to the Theban god Amun to become Amun-Ra, the main deity of the ancient Egyptian religion.
During the Middle Kingdom his importance was increasingly affiliated and combined with other chief deities, although in Thebes he was identified as the local god Amun in the form of Amun-Ra, revered as the “sole creator of life.”
Ra retained supremacy for centuries, except during the short period of atenism in the time of Akhenaten (c. 1350-1335 BC), when the monotheistic cult of Aten prevailed in Egypt.
Even the brief period during which Amenhotep IV – which changed his name to Akhenaten, tried to impose on Aten, the solar disk, to the detriment of Amun, is interpreted by the historians as a sample of the persistence of the old cult to Ra.
The identification of Amun-Ra with Zeus or Jupiter was recognized by Greeks and Romans. The cult of Amun-Ra has been linked on numerous occasions with that of Apollo (Rome) by the solar symbology that both represent.
Ra’s identity was often confused with that of other gods and experienced different mergers in an attempt to culturally unify the country.
Amun-Ra: As the cults of Amun and Ra were becoming increasingly popular in Upper and Lower Egypt, respectively, they combined to create Amun-Ra, the solar creator god.
Atum-Ra was another deity formed from two different deities. Ra shares more similarities with Atum than with Amun.
Atum was linked specifically with the evening sun. Both Atum and Ra were considered “father of the gods” and “father of the pharaohs”, being profusely worshiped. Thus, it was inevitable that the two deities merged under the name of Atum-Ra.
Ra-Horakhti, was really more a title or manifestation, than a compound god. It was intended to link Horakhti to Ra – as an aspect of Horus at dawn.
It has been suggested that Ra-Horakhti simply refers to the Sun’s journey, from horizon to horizon, as Ra, or that it means an aspect of the god Ra as a symbol of hope and rebirth.
This was probably encouraged because Ra and Horus were linked to the Sun and Pharaoh.
Khepri, the depicted god in the form of a beetle that drives the morning sun, is sometimes seen as the manifestation of Ra at dawn.
Khnum was also considered a veiled manifestation of Ra; Khnum would be an aspect of Ra at sunset. | 703 | ENGLISH | 1 |
In 1971, the American psychologist Philip Zimbardo put an experiment, which was called the Stanford Prison Experiment. The scientist tried to understand the nature of the conflicts that arise in prisons between guards and prisoners. 24 people were selected for participation in the experiment - each of them got one of two possible roles. In the course of the study, the “game” process went to prison out of control: several participants had to be removed ahead of time due to a difficult moral state.
A request for research of this kind came from representatives of the US Navy, who were concerned about the situation in the Marine Correctional Institutions, where there were frequent clashes between prisoners and security guards. According to one of the popular theories, the cause of such conflicts is nature itself and the "mentality" of those who are on one side or the other of the lattice. And if in this theory, guards are represented by people with sadistic inclinations who consciously choose work, where force can be used, then criminals are individuals in whom there is no respect for law and authority, and their antisocial behavior tends to initiate conflicts.
Philip Zimbardo, who was a professor at Stanford University, who conducted research for the Navy, put forward the hypothesis that conflicts between guards and prisoners arise not because of the “flawed” nature of those and others, but as a result of following specific social roles. It is assumed that the convicted criminal in his role should rebel against the prison guards, and the taskmaster should use brute force to suppress any disobedience. To confirm or refute this hypothesis, Zimbardo decided to recruit volunteers, dividing them equally into prisoners and guards, and put them in a “prison”, which was served by one of the university corridors.
To begin with, it was necessary to select participants. 75 people responded to an ad in the newspaper about recruiting a group of test subjects. Each of them filled out a form, where he told about his family history, physical and mental health, problems with the law, if any. As a result of the selection of the 75 applicants left 24 men. All of them were recognized as emotionally stable, mature, with no signs of antisocial behavior, were in good physical shape, belonged to the middle class. In addition, all participants were white. Before the experiment, they were not familiar with each other. For participation in the project, each of them had to pay $ 15 a day, and the duration of the "conclusion" could last up to two weeks.
The second stage in the preparation of the study was the conversion of the wing of the university into a “prison”. The room was divided in such a way that it turned out three small cells, each of which was designed for three prisoners, one tiny single-sized cell that was located opposite the main ones, as well as several rooms for security guards where they could change clothes and relax, and a corner for guard, ”whose role was played by a laboratory assistant, and the“ warden ”in the person of Zimbardo himself. The room was stuffed with cameras and listening devices, so that scientists could observe the course of the experiment around the clock. The wire was in all the rooms.
The division into 2 teams took place by lot. Of the 12 people in each "camp" actively participated 9, three more were in the position of spare.
The “Guards” were given khaki uniforms, a whistle, and glasses with very dark glasses to eliminate the possibility of eye contact with the “prisoners”, as well as a rubber truncheon. However, the rules forbade any physical abuse, and all these attributes relied more on the role.
The prisoners were dressed in loose shirts made of muslin, each of which had a prisoner number sewn on, was given rubber shoes, a nylon cap (its purpose is to hide a haircut, an analogue of shaving in real prisons), a hygiene kit, a towel and bed linen. Each of them had a chain with a lock attached to the right ankle, which could not be removed. It was forbidden to have personal items. A patch with a personal number, a robe and the disguise of an individual style — all this was done in order to impersonate the person as much as possible, to bring the experimental conditions closer to those in which convicts are held.
A meeting was held with the guards the day before the experiment began, where they were explained the rules, the scope of their authority and the task of maintaining order, thereby ensuring the normal functioning of the prison. In addition, Zimbardo outlined a certain behavior strategy for the guards: he noted that they were to "create a sense of depression, arbitrariness and arbitrariness among the prisoners" so that they could feel their helplessness before the power of the guards and the system. The team of guards was confident that the main purpose of the experiment was to monitor the behavior of prisoners, while no one would look closely at them. Each of them worked in shifts: three people per shift. The duration of the working day is 8 hours.
Prisoners who were confident that the experiment would begin on Sunday, the day before, that is, on Saturday, were unexpectedly arrested by real police. Everything was carried out as realistically as possible: each of them was detained on suspicion of any not too serious offense, while not mentioning the connection at all with the experiment, put on handcuffs, searched, taken to the station and interrogated, fingerprinted. all of those arrested were taken to prison. All this performance with the participation of the present law enforcement officers was necessary for the test subjects to truly feel themselves as criminals. Upon arrival at the prison, each of them was stripped, treated with a deodorizing spray.
On the very first night, the prisoners were taken up for check. At first it was necessary to give all participants to get used to the experiment and their roles. The first check lasted no more than 10 minutes, and was more like a friendly and awkward exchange of courtesies between guards and prisoners.
According to the rules, the prisoners were supposed to have three meals a day, three trips to the toilet and two free hours a day to read or write letters. The arrested had to perform certain prison work, as well as do exercises and three times a day to line up for inspection. Twice a week there were “dates” with relatives and friends.
Events developed rapidly: after a quiet first day, a riot broke out the very next morning. The prisoners showed disregard for the rules: they tore off stripes with a personal number, removed the caps, blocked the doors of the cameras with mattresses and loudly discussed the personalities of the guards. The morning shift decided that their “colleagues” had not shown sufficient rigor the day before. The uprising was suppressed using fire extinguishers. The order was restored, and the instigator was put in a solitary cell. At the same time, the three least active participants in the rebellion were transplanted into a “special” cell with privileged conditions. Unlike the other six prisoners, they returned the mattresses and clothes, they were allowed to brush their teeth and wash and gave a large portion of food, leaving the other rebels without food.
The guards deliberately tried to "split" the team, giving the participants unequal conditions of detention. Feeding and leisure hours set by the “law” became the bonuses that could be obtained for good behavior. At the same time, the instigators of the rebellion tried to humiliate in every possible way, forcing him to beg permission from the guards, say, to smoke. The effect was incredibly powerful: just 36 hours after the start of the experiment, the test subject experienced something like a tantrum, with tears and flashes of rage. He had to be withdrawn from the project, as the tension could turn out to be too strong.
The next day, a scheduled meeting with family and friends took place - many parents of the experiment participants were shocked by the emotional state of their sons, who looked extremely depressed and exhausted, despite the fact that only two days had passed. After meetings with relatives, a “movement” began: one of the guards allegedly heard prisoners talking about how the liberated rebel leader should return with his friends and organize an escape. They even wanted to transfer the experiment to a real prison in order to ensure its continuation under the control of the police, but they refused to render assistance. In the evening, prisoners who were supposedly thinking of escaping were forced to scrub toilet bowls, push ups, squat and perform other unpleasant and difficult physical activities. Time checks increased from 10 minutes to several hours.
The "rebel" who fell out of the project was replaced by a member of the substitute team. Once in the cell, he refused to obey the rules and went on a hunger strike. By his actions, he probably tried to provoke other prisoners to a new uprising, but they no longer found the strength to open confrontation. As a result, instead of becoming a leader, he found himself in the position of an outcast. Already in the evening he had a tantrum. Professor Zimbardo first tried to give the man a break by inviting him to the rest room and letting him remove the chain and the cap. However, the guards, whom the behavior of the prisoner enraged, forced the other prisoners to brand the cellmate as a “bad one”. The condition of the test subject was alarmingly unstable, moreover, he was physically weakened due to the hunger strike. As a result, another participant had to withdraw from the project.
The next day, the prisoners were offered a deal: they refuse the money and have the right to leave the project. Practically everyone agreed on these conditions, however, for the “pro forma” they had to file a petition for clemency, which would be considered by a special jury of psychology students. And although after refusing to receive payment, prisoners could safely leave the building, they all dutifully fulfilled the requirement to file a petition for clemency by going back to the cells. They were soon announced that none of the petitions had been approved. This provoked hysteria in half of the convicted team.
By this time, the participants who played the role of guards, fully accustomed to the image. Many of them showed a truly sadistic inclinations, using the right to exercise power over prisoners. They behaved especially frivolously at night and when they took the wards out of the main “building” of the prison to the toilet, because they believed that at that time the project organizers were not watching them.
The experiment stopped after a visit to the "prison" of the bride, Dr. Zimbardo. The girl also worked as a teacher at Stanford. In her opinion, the conditions of the “prisoners” were cruel and inhuman, and the scientific interest in this case could not solve the ethical problem. In the end, Zimbardo was forced to admit that the verge of his was somewhat blurred - from an impartial observer, he gradually turned into a real prison warden, and more and more felt immersed in a new role.
As a result, the project had to be interrupted by the sixth day, although it was assumed that it would last about two weeks. The prisoners took the news with great enthusiasm, which is not the case with the guards who got used to the role and were disappointed that everything ended so quickly. Each of them conscientiously observed the time frame of shifts, no one shirked overtime and did not refuse to leave “due to illness”.
All the guards could be divided into three types: some carried out their duties and mocked the prisoners with undisguised pleasure, others did it because “this is necessary” and “official duties”, the third gave the situation discomfort, they preferred to withdraw from punitive and derogatory policies However, they did not interfere with the "colleagues".
The conclusions of the experiment, as Zimbardo himself believed, proved the theory that he put forward that the behavior of guards and prisoners in prisons is not influenced by their personality and “background”, but the situation in which they fell, as well as the environment and social roles. Receiving "good" from representatives of the authorities, which in this case were the professors of Stanford, in fact, to humiliate and break the other person within their professional duties, the guards demonstrated their readiness to follow the rules of the game. At the same time, the participants from the prisoners quickly stopped resisting moral violence. The more a person was prone to passivity and dependence on the opinions of others, the less painful was the reaction to the conditions of imprisonment. Conversely, strong, creative and independent participants showed resistance and inability to adapt.
The scientific method of Zimbardo and the ethical side of the question caused a controversial assessment of the experiment in the scientific community. This project is often compared to Milgram's experience, where participants demonstrated a willingness to inflict severe physical pain on other people as part of their “official duties”. | <urn:uuid:9e0bac93-e519-40f0-8b8e-b0de99ed0b80> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://en.broadwayblogspot.com/4360-stanford-prison-experiment.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250607118.51/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122131612-20200122160612-00176.warc.gz | en | 0.983677 | 2,703 | 3.328125 | 3 | [
-0.30687493085861206,
0.7556423544883728,
-0.16859391331672668,
-0.294619619846344,
-0.24366813898086548,
0.004629411734640598,
0.4165458083152771,
0.05261196196079254,
0.07295224070549011,
0.0034336561802774668,
0.3737797141075134,
0.10411205887794495,
0.029787283390760422,
0.570782721042... | 2 | In 1971, the American psychologist Philip Zimbardo put an experiment, which was called the Stanford Prison Experiment. The scientist tried to understand the nature of the conflicts that arise in prisons between guards and prisoners. 24 people were selected for participation in the experiment - each of them got one of two possible roles. In the course of the study, the “game” process went to prison out of control: several participants had to be removed ahead of time due to a difficult moral state.
A request for research of this kind came from representatives of the US Navy, who were concerned about the situation in the Marine Correctional Institutions, where there were frequent clashes between prisoners and security guards. According to one of the popular theories, the cause of such conflicts is nature itself and the "mentality" of those who are on one side or the other of the lattice. And if in this theory, guards are represented by people with sadistic inclinations who consciously choose work, where force can be used, then criminals are individuals in whom there is no respect for law and authority, and their antisocial behavior tends to initiate conflicts.
Philip Zimbardo, who was a professor at Stanford University, who conducted research for the Navy, put forward the hypothesis that conflicts between guards and prisoners arise not because of the “flawed” nature of those and others, but as a result of following specific social roles. It is assumed that the convicted criminal in his role should rebel against the prison guards, and the taskmaster should use brute force to suppress any disobedience. To confirm or refute this hypothesis, Zimbardo decided to recruit volunteers, dividing them equally into prisoners and guards, and put them in a “prison”, which was served by one of the university corridors.
To begin with, it was necessary to select participants. 75 people responded to an ad in the newspaper about recruiting a group of test subjects. Each of them filled out a form, where he told about his family history, physical and mental health, problems with the law, if any. As a result of the selection of the 75 applicants left 24 men. All of them were recognized as emotionally stable, mature, with no signs of antisocial behavior, were in good physical shape, belonged to the middle class. In addition, all participants were white. Before the experiment, they were not familiar with each other. For participation in the project, each of them had to pay $ 15 a day, and the duration of the "conclusion" could last up to two weeks.
The second stage in the preparation of the study was the conversion of the wing of the university into a “prison”. The room was divided in such a way that it turned out three small cells, each of which was designed for three prisoners, one tiny single-sized cell that was located opposite the main ones, as well as several rooms for security guards where they could change clothes and relax, and a corner for guard, ”whose role was played by a laboratory assistant, and the“ warden ”in the person of Zimbardo himself. The room was stuffed with cameras and listening devices, so that scientists could observe the course of the experiment around the clock. The wire was in all the rooms.
The division into 2 teams took place by lot. Of the 12 people in each "camp" actively participated 9, three more were in the position of spare.
The “Guards” were given khaki uniforms, a whistle, and glasses with very dark glasses to eliminate the possibility of eye contact with the “prisoners”, as well as a rubber truncheon. However, the rules forbade any physical abuse, and all these attributes relied more on the role.
The prisoners were dressed in loose shirts made of muslin, each of which had a prisoner number sewn on, was given rubber shoes, a nylon cap (its purpose is to hide a haircut, an analogue of shaving in real prisons), a hygiene kit, a towel and bed linen. Each of them had a chain with a lock attached to the right ankle, which could not be removed. It was forbidden to have personal items. A patch with a personal number, a robe and the disguise of an individual style — all this was done in order to impersonate the person as much as possible, to bring the experimental conditions closer to those in which convicts are held.
A meeting was held with the guards the day before the experiment began, where they were explained the rules, the scope of their authority and the task of maintaining order, thereby ensuring the normal functioning of the prison. In addition, Zimbardo outlined a certain behavior strategy for the guards: he noted that they were to "create a sense of depression, arbitrariness and arbitrariness among the prisoners" so that they could feel their helplessness before the power of the guards and the system. The team of guards was confident that the main purpose of the experiment was to monitor the behavior of prisoners, while no one would look closely at them. Each of them worked in shifts: three people per shift. The duration of the working day is 8 hours.
Prisoners who were confident that the experiment would begin on Sunday, the day before, that is, on Saturday, were unexpectedly arrested by real police. Everything was carried out as realistically as possible: each of them was detained on suspicion of any not too serious offense, while not mentioning the connection at all with the experiment, put on handcuffs, searched, taken to the station and interrogated, fingerprinted. all of those arrested were taken to prison. All this performance with the participation of the present law enforcement officers was necessary for the test subjects to truly feel themselves as criminals. Upon arrival at the prison, each of them was stripped, treated with a deodorizing spray.
On the very first night, the prisoners were taken up for check. At first it was necessary to give all participants to get used to the experiment and their roles. The first check lasted no more than 10 minutes, and was more like a friendly and awkward exchange of courtesies between guards and prisoners.
According to the rules, the prisoners were supposed to have three meals a day, three trips to the toilet and two free hours a day to read or write letters. The arrested had to perform certain prison work, as well as do exercises and three times a day to line up for inspection. Twice a week there were “dates” with relatives and friends.
Events developed rapidly: after a quiet first day, a riot broke out the very next morning. The prisoners showed disregard for the rules: they tore off stripes with a personal number, removed the caps, blocked the doors of the cameras with mattresses and loudly discussed the personalities of the guards. The morning shift decided that their “colleagues” had not shown sufficient rigor the day before. The uprising was suppressed using fire extinguishers. The order was restored, and the instigator was put in a solitary cell. At the same time, the three least active participants in the rebellion were transplanted into a “special” cell with privileged conditions. Unlike the other six prisoners, they returned the mattresses and clothes, they were allowed to brush their teeth and wash and gave a large portion of food, leaving the other rebels without food.
The guards deliberately tried to "split" the team, giving the participants unequal conditions of detention. Feeding and leisure hours set by the “law” became the bonuses that could be obtained for good behavior. At the same time, the instigators of the rebellion tried to humiliate in every possible way, forcing him to beg permission from the guards, say, to smoke. The effect was incredibly powerful: just 36 hours after the start of the experiment, the test subject experienced something like a tantrum, with tears and flashes of rage. He had to be withdrawn from the project, as the tension could turn out to be too strong.
The next day, a scheduled meeting with family and friends took place - many parents of the experiment participants were shocked by the emotional state of their sons, who looked extremely depressed and exhausted, despite the fact that only two days had passed. After meetings with relatives, a “movement” began: one of the guards allegedly heard prisoners talking about how the liberated rebel leader should return with his friends and organize an escape. They even wanted to transfer the experiment to a real prison in order to ensure its continuation under the control of the police, but they refused to render assistance. In the evening, prisoners who were supposedly thinking of escaping were forced to scrub toilet bowls, push ups, squat and perform other unpleasant and difficult physical activities. Time checks increased from 10 minutes to several hours.
The "rebel" who fell out of the project was replaced by a member of the substitute team. Once in the cell, he refused to obey the rules and went on a hunger strike. By his actions, he probably tried to provoke other prisoners to a new uprising, but they no longer found the strength to open confrontation. As a result, instead of becoming a leader, he found himself in the position of an outcast. Already in the evening he had a tantrum. Professor Zimbardo first tried to give the man a break by inviting him to the rest room and letting him remove the chain and the cap. However, the guards, whom the behavior of the prisoner enraged, forced the other prisoners to brand the cellmate as a “bad one”. The condition of the test subject was alarmingly unstable, moreover, he was physically weakened due to the hunger strike. As a result, another participant had to withdraw from the project.
The next day, the prisoners were offered a deal: they refuse the money and have the right to leave the project. Practically everyone agreed on these conditions, however, for the “pro forma” they had to file a petition for clemency, which would be considered by a special jury of psychology students. And although after refusing to receive payment, prisoners could safely leave the building, they all dutifully fulfilled the requirement to file a petition for clemency by going back to the cells. They were soon announced that none of the petitions had been approved. This provoked hysteria in half of the convicted team.
By this time, the participants who played the role of guards, fully accustomed to the image. Many of them showed a truly sadistic inclinations, using the right to exercise power over prisoners. They behaved especially frivolously at night and when they took the wards out of the main “building” of the prison to the toilet, because they believed that at that time the project organizers were not watching them.
The experiment stopped after a visit to the "prison" of the bride, Dr. Zimbardo. The girl also worked as a teacher at Stanford. In her opinion, the conditions of the “prisoners” were cruel and inhuman, and the scientific interest in this case could not solve the ethical problem. In the end, Zimbardo was forced to admit that the verge of his was somewhat blurred - from an impartial observer, he gradually turned into a real prison warden, and more and more felt immersed in a new role.
As a result, the project had to be interrupted by the sixth day, although it was assumed that it would last about two weeks. The prisoners took the news with great enthusiasm, which is not the case with the guards who got used to the role and were disappointed that everything ended so quickly. Each of them conscientiously observed the time frame of shifts, no one shirked overtime and did not refuse to leave “due to illness”.
All the guards could be divided into three types: some carried out their duties and mocked the prisoners with undisguised pleasure, others did it because “this is necessary” and “official duties”, the third gave the situation discomfort, they preferred to withdraw from punitive and derogatory policies However, they did not interfere with the "colleagues".
The conclusions of the experiment, as Zimbardo himself believed, proved the theory that he put forward that the behavior of guards and prisoners in prisons is not influenced by their personality and “background”, but the situation in which they fell, as well as the environment and social roles. Receiving "good" from representatives of the authorities, which in this case were the professors of Stanford, in fact, to humiliate and break the other person within their professional duties, the guards demonstrated their readiness to follow the rules of the game. At the same time, the participants from the prisoners quickly stopped resisting moral violence. The more a person was prone to passivity and dependence on the opinions of others, the less painful was the reaction to the conditions of imprisonment. Conversely, strong, creative and independent participants showed resistance and inability to adapt.
The scientific method of Zimbardo and the ethical side of the question caused a controversial assessment of the experiment in the scientific community. This project is often compared to Milgram's experience, where participants demonstrated a willingness to inflict severe physical pain on other people as part of their “official duties”. | 2,660 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The swine flu originating from Mexico has now spread through human-human infection to a global level, one that the World Health Organization (WHO) has rated as a stage 4 pandemic. The rapid spread of this virus is not only by natural causes, but also likely by air travel out of Mexico. Perhaps this pandemic would have not occurred so quickly if the Mexican government had closed off its borders immediately following the outbreak.
Of course, by warranting such drastic measures, possible consequences include not only panic among travellers and residents in Mexico, but also dire economical consequences. Furthermore, H1N1 swine flu itself is not considered as lethal as the avian H5N1 counterpart. Therefore, border closure is given way to on-need basis travel restrictions to maintain order and economic stability.
However, one must keep in mind that there were over 140 cases of swine flu related deaths in Mexico alone. These deaths were among people that were in their prime of life- between ages 20-40. The WHO suggests that these deaths are not due to the virus alone, but may be related to respiratory problems associated with the poor air quality in Mexico. Unfortunately, there are also a many people throughout the world suffering from asthma and other respiratory illnesses. If the virus continues to spread, will the lives of these people be at risk?
Thankfully, the swine flu can now be controlled with the help of the flu drug Tamiflu, as well as preventive measures implemented in airports around the globe. However, considering the potentially lethal consequences of the swine flu, perhaps better preventive and quarantine measures should have been implemented long ago to stop the virus from spreading pandemically. If the virus spread had been contained earlier on by closing off the Mexican borders, the virus could have already been controlled within Mexico with the help of Tamiflu and sanitary measures. Why put more people’s lives at risk by letting the virus spread? | <urn:uuid:7d311940-3056-46bb-878b-5e28a9f88c08> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://scienceblog.com/20723/pandemic-spread-of-the-swine-flu/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250620381.59/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124130719-20200124155719-00210.warc.gz | en | 0.984837 | 392 | 3.8125 | 4 | [
0.1345776468515396,
-0.07433346658945084,
0.3001691699028015,
0.1342928558588028,
0.3052060604095459,
0.12429842352867126,
0.2917015254497528,
0.45189812779426575,
-0.020397983491420746,
-0.16517947614192963,
-0.21093623340129852,
-0.08758389204740524,
0.3950302302837372,
0.363164931535720... | 2 | The swine flu originating from Mexico has now spread through human-human infection to a global level, one that the World Health Organization (WHO) has rated as a stage 4 pandemic. The rapid spread of this virus is not only by natural causes, but also likely by air travel out of Mexico. Perhaps this pandemic would have not occurred so quickly if the Mexican government had closed off its borders immediately following the outbreak.
Of course, by warranting such drastic measures, possible consequences include not only panic among travellers and residents in Mexico, but also dire economical consequences. Furthermore, H1N1 swine flu itself is not considered as lethal as the avian H5N1 counterpart. Therefore, border closure is given way to on-need basis travel restrictions to maintain order and economic stability.
However, one must keep in mind that there were over 140 cases of swine flu related deaths in Mexico alone. These deaths were among people that were in their prime of life- between ages 20-40. The WHO suggests that these deaths are not due to the virus alone, but may be related to respiratory problems associated with the poor air quality in Mexico. Unfortunately, there are also a many people throughout the world suffering from asthma and other respiratory illnesses. If the virus continues to spread, will the lives of these people be at risk?
Thankfully, the swine flu can now be controlled with the help of the flu drug Tamiflu, as well as preventive measures implemented in airports around the globe. However, considering the potentially lethal consequences of the swine flu, perhaps better preventive and quarantine measures should have been implemented long ago to stop the virus from spreading pandemically. If the virus spread had been contained earlier on by closing off the Mexican borders, the virus could have already been controlled within Mexico with the help of Tamiflu and sanitary measures. Why put more people’s lives at risk by letting the virus spread? | 391 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The role of the king in the time of Greek tragedies was simultaneously desired and dreaded because of the kings responsibility to the people and because of the effects of the position on the kings character. Creon reveals such ambivalent thoughts towards the kingship in his speech defending himself from Oedipuss conspiracy accusation in Oedipus the King; these ambivalent thoughts reveal much about the nature of the kingship, especially in conjunction with Creons later actions in Antigone.
In attempting to refute Oedipuss assertion that Creon has taken part in a conspiracy to obtain the kingship, Creon evaluates the nature of the kingship and of his present role. First, he says, “Consider, first, if you think any one/ would choose to rule and fear rather than rule and sleep” (36. 584-585). By this, Creon means that the main difference between his position and the kings is that of the accompanying action to ruling. In both positions, one is a ruler who holds great power over the state.
However, the king is placed in a greater place of accountability to the people. This accountability is what Creon says inspires “fear” in the king, for if affairs of state or of the people fall into decline, the king is the first person whom the citizenry look to blame. This is analogous to executive leaders throughout history, as one can see in looking at American presidents and the correlation between the present conditions and events of the nation to the publics opinion of the president, regardless of the actual impact that his decisions may have made in these conditions.
Creon maintains that he has the same amount of power as the king but without the accountability that inevitably leads a king to distress. Creons reasoning concerning the equality between his power and Oedipuss leads him to state: I was not born with such a frantic yearning to be a king- but to do what kings do. And so it is with every one who has learned wisdom and self-control. (36. 587-590) He means that he has never desired the position of king, because he sees no advantage over his present position in the state.
Rather, he sees the disadvantage of the fear that accompanies the position of king. Creon has evaluated this situation for his circumstances and then goes further in stating that anyone with wisdom and self-control would come to such a conclusion as well. This could be interpreted as an insult to Oedipus in two different ways. Creon could mean that Oedipus and anyone else who desires and assumes the kingship are by nature not people of wisdom and self-control- or he could be saying that the position of the kingship is one that strips an individual of his wisdom and self-control.
In support of the assertion that the kingship changes ones character, one could point to the events of Antigone and Creons striking change in character in the play. In Oedipus the King, Creon reveals himself to be a reasonable ruler, who makes rational decisions and is not quick to anger, as is revealed by his calmness in his responses to Oedipuss heated accusations. However, in Antigone, Creon has become prideful and irrational. His dealings with Antigone and Teiresias and his stubbornness in the play indicate a change in his character.
In fact, his actions, especially in his dealings with Teiresias the prophet, are very similar to Oedipuss actions in Oedipus the King. Just as Oedipus had done before him, Creon refuses to completely believe Teiresiass prophecies for the state. Creon also emulates his predecessors actions in his accusation of bribery directed towards Teiresias: “Out with it-/ but only if your words are not for gain” (201. 1128-1129). Creons words and actions in Antigone indicate that he has taken on the negative characteristics of king that he describes in his speech in Oedipus the King.
He has same amount of power as king, but he now seems to have lost his wisdom and self-control. This indicates that perhaps his words to Oedipus are, in fact, mainly an insult to the position of king and to what it evokes from a persons character rather than an insult solely directed towards Oedipus. Creon also feels that the king is generally not responsive to the desires of the citizenry: “But if I were the king myself, I must/ do much that went against the grain” (36. 590-591). By this, Creon means that in his present position, he is more apt than the king to know the will of the people and to respond accordingly.
Again, this seems to be a flaw inherent in the kingship based on Creons actions in Antigone. As king Creon is blind to the fact that the people of Thebes are opposed to his actions concerning the punishment of Antigone. One who is not king, Creons son Haemon, senses the will of the people: But what I can hear, in the dark,are things like these: the city mourns for this girl; they think she is dying most wrongly and most undeservedly of all womenkind, for the most glorious acts. (188. 746-749) Haemon has sensed that the people feel Creons actions are unjust, which is something that Creon is not aware of.
However, in his speech, Creon is also asserting that a king, even when aware of the will of the people, does not respond accordingly. He demonstrates this in Antigone when he says, “Should the city tell me how to rule them? ” (189. 794). Once again, Creons words in Oedipus the King and actions in Antigone correspond and indicate that his speech reveals characteristics that are inherent in the kingship and not just in Oedipuss rule. Creon finds these characteristics of a king to be despicable and prefers his own present position.
How should despotic rule seem sweeter to me/ than painless power and an assured authority? ” (36. 592-593). He is saying that his present power is less painful and even more effectual than that of a king. It is less painful in that he is not held directly accountable for the conditions of the state. It is more effectual both in that he has a better sense of the will of the people and in that he is less likely to allow selfish interest and pride to interfere with his execution of the will of the people.
Creons speech serves two purposes, both effectively. First, it is a convincing argument to prove that he is not involved a conspiracy to overthrow Oedipus, although Oedipuss pride does not allow him to be convinced by this argument. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, Creons speech gives insight into the two-sided nature of the kingship, for although it is a position of great honor and power, it is also a position that often corrupts the man who holds it.
Creon believes that there is a certain type of man who desires such a position, a man who has not learned wisdom and self-control. He believes that he is a man who has learned these attributes; thus, he would not be susceptible to desire for the kingship and the corruption which would inevitably follow. However, his actions in Antigone show that there are very few men who will reject the kingship if presented with the opportunity and even fewer men who will not allow the kingship to corrupt them. | <urn:uuid:ce305286-d528-4c2f-899c-806b36654faa> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://studyboss.com/essays/creons-defense-to-oedipuss-accusations-and-their-relevance.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250589560.16/warc/CC-MAIN-20200117123339-20200117151339-00477.warc.gz | en | 0.98381 | 1,580 | 3.6875 | 4 | [
0.15789876878261566,
0.39484721422195435,
0.37612318992614746,
-0.3992583453655243,
-0.12074773758649826,
0.09659987688064575,
0.945900022983551,
0.35128819942474365,
-0.1035795733332634,
-0.12385866045951843,
-0.08758620917797089,
-0.017297888174653053,
0.3507339060306549,
0.3339928090572... | 1 | The role of the king in the time of Greek tragedies was simultaneously desired and dreaded because of the kings responsibility to the people and because of the effects of the position on the kings character. Creon reveals such ambivalent thoughts towards the kingship in his speech defending himself from Oedipuss conspiracy accusation in Oedipus the King; these ambivalent thoughts reveal much about the nature of the kingship, especially in conjunction with Creons later actions in Antigone.
In attempting to refute Oedipuss assertion that Creon has taken part in a conspiracy to obtain the kingship, Creon evaluates the nature of the kingship and of his present role. First, he says, “Consider, first, if you think any one/ would choose to rule and fear rather than rule and sleep” (36. 584-585). By this, Creon means that the main difference between his position and the kings is that of the accompanying action to ruling. In both positions, one is a ruler who holds great power over the state.
However, the king is placed in a greater place of accountability to the people. This accountability is what Creon says inspires “fear” in the king, for if affairs of state or of the people fall into decline, the king is the first person whom the citizenry look to blame. This is analogous to executive leaders throughout history, as one can see in looking at American presidents and the correlation between the present conditions and events of the nation to the publics opinion of the president, regardless of the actual impact that his decisions may have made in these conditions.
Creon maintains that he has the same amount of power as the king but without the accountability that inevitably leads a king to distress. Creons reasoning concerning the equality between his power and Oedipuss leads him to state: I was not born with such a frantic yearning to be a king- but to do what kings do. And so it is with every one who has learned wisdom and self-control. (36. 587-590) He means that he has never desired the position of king, because he sees no advantage over his present position in the state.
Rather, he sees the disadvantage of the fear that accompanies the position of king. Creon has evaluated this situation for his circumstances and then goes further in stating that anyone with wisdom and self-control would come to such a conclusion as well. This could be interpreted as an insult to Oedipus in two different ways. Creon could mean that Oedipus and anyone else who desires and assumes the kingship are by nature not people of wisdom and self-control- or he could be saying that the position of the kingship is one that strips an individual of his wisdom and self-control.
In support of the assertion that the kingship changes ones character, one could point to the events of Antigone and Creons striking change in character in the play. In Oedipus the King, Creon reveals himself to be a reasonable ruler, who makes rational decisions and is not quick to anger, as is revealed by his calmness in his responses to Oedipuss heated accusations. However, in Antigone, Creon has become prideful and irrational. His dealings with Antigone and Teiresias and his stubbornness in the play indicate a change in his character.
In fact, his actions, especially in his dealings with Teiresias the prophet, are very similar to Oedipuss actions in Oedipus the King. Just as Oedipus had done before him, Creon refuses to completely believe Teiresiass prophecies for the state. Creon also emulates his predecessors actions in his accusation of bribery directed towards Teiresias: “Out with it-/ but only if your words are not for gain” (201. 1128-1129). Creons words and actions in Antigone indicate that he has taken on the negative characteristics of king that he describes in his speech in Oedipus the King.
He has same amount of power as king, but he now seems to have lost his wisdom and self-control. This indicates that perhaps his words to Oedipus are, in fact, mainly an insult to the position of king and to what it evokes from a persons character rather than an insult solely directed towards Oedipus. Creon also feels that the king is generally not responsive to the desires of the citizenry: “But if I were the king myself, I must/ do much that went against the grain” (36. 590-591). By this, Creon means that in his present position, he is more apt than the king to know the will of the people and to respond accordingly.
Again, this seems to be a flaw inherent in the kingship based on Creons actions in Antigone. As king Creon is blind to the fact that the people of Thebes are opposed to his actions concerning the punishment of Antigone. One who is not king, Creons son Haemon, senses the will of the people: But what I can hear, in the dark,are things like these: the city mourns for this girl; they think she is dying most wrongly and most undeservedly of all womenkind, for the most glorious acts. (188. 746-749) Haemon has sensed that the people feel Creons actions are unjust, which is something that Creon is not aware of.
However, in his speech, Creon is also asserting that a king, even when aware of the will of the people, does not respond accordingly. He demonstrates this in Antigone when he says, “Should the city tell me how to rule them? ” (189. 794). Once again, Creons words in Oedipus the King and actions in Antigone correspond and indicate that his speech reveals characteristics that are inherent in the kingship and not just in Oedipuss rule. Creon finds these characteristics of a king to be despicable and prefers his own present position.
How should despotic rule seem sweeter to me/ than painless power and an assured authority? ” (36. 592-593). He is saying that his present power is less painful and even more effectual than that of a king. It is less painful in that he is not held directly accountable for the conditions of the state. It is more effectual both in that he has a better sense of the will of the people and in that he is less likely to allow selfish interest and pride to interfere with his execution of the will of the people.
Creons speech serves two purposes, both effectively. First, it is a convincing argument to prove that he is not involved a conspiracy to overthrow Oedipus, although Oedipuss pride does not allow him to be convinced by this argument. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, Creons speech gives insight into the two-sided nature of the kingship, for although it is a position of great honor and power, it is also a position that often corrupts the man who holds it.
Creon believes that there is a certain type of man who desires such a position, a man who has not learned wisdom and self-control. He believes that he is a man who has learned these attributes; thus, he would not be susceptible to desire for the kingship and the corruption which would inevitably follow. However, his actions in Antigone show that there are very few men who will reject the kingship if presented with the opportunity and even fewer men who will not allow the kingship to corrupt them. | 1,587 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Today we begin a New Year and what better way to start than talk about the man man who made the Wright Brothers a success and then drifted into obscurity. The man – Charles E. Taylor – designed and built the engine for the Wright Flyer, helped develop the first wind tunnel, and he never sought notoriety from his work with the Wrights and few ever recognized his contributions.
This article is a reprint from late last year but the story of Charley needs to be kept alive and here at the 3DB we will do our part to preserve his memory.
(Aviation’s First Mechanic of Powered Flight)
When we think of the first powered flight we automatically think of Wilbur and Orville Wright; however, there was a third person involved whose skills were an essential part of the Wright’s success. Charles “Charley” Taylor was that man and without his help the Wright Brothers may have lost their place in history.
Charley was born in Illinois in 1868 and at the age of twelve quit school to find his place in life. He quickly learned that his hands, and tools, were almost one in the same, and America’s first aviation mechanic for powered flight started down a path in life that would have him working for the Wright brothers and building the first engine for the Wright Flyer.
Charley started to work for the Wright brothers on June 15, 1901, doing routine repairs on bicycles, so that the Wright brothers could pursue their experiments with gliders which included many trips to Kitty Hawk. After one of these trips, the brothers decided they needed more accurate information and decided they needed to build a small wind tunnel. With this, they would measure the amount, and direction, of air pressures on plane and curved surfaces operating at various angles and improve their theories based on their gliding experiences.
Building the wind tunnel was the first job that Charley Taylor did for the Wright brothers that had any connection with aeronautics. The wind tunnel was a rectangular box with a fan at one end driven by a natural gas engine. The Wright brothers did many experiments in their wind tunnel and from this data they began to make their 1902 glider with Charlie machining many of the parts.
On August 13, 1902, the brothers shipped the glider to Kitty Hawk. They did several flights with the glider and on October 31, 1902, the Wrights returned to Dayton to make plans for a powered airplane. Through their experiments, the Wrights were able to accurately predict the horsepower which was needed to produce and achieve powered flight. The next problem was where to get a light engine that would produce eight horsepower. The Wrights knew that a steam engine might suit their purpose, but a gasoline engine would be safer and more efficient.
In December of 1902, the Wrights sent letters to almost a dozen automobile companies, and gasoline engine manufacturers, asking if they could produce or modify an engine that would develop eight to nine brake horsepower, weigh no more than 180 pounds, and be free from vibration. Most companies replied that they were too busy to undertake building such a special engine. Falling back on their own mechanical experience, the Wright brothers decided to design and build their own engine.
They estimated they could build a four cylinders engine, with four inch stroke and four inch bore weighing no more than 200 pounds with accessories included, and by their calculations it would develop the horsepower necessary to power the glider in flight. Now the problem was who was going to build the engine; however, that problem was quickly solved when the brothers decided to give the task to Charley.
Charley was excited about his new challenge, and from his knowledge of mechanics, and design, he knew that the engine design was basic, straight forward, and simple. Charley had very limited knowledge about gasoline engines, but he used his craftsmanship, genius, and enthusiasm to tackle the task. Without any formal drawings available it was necessary for each part to be crudely sketched out by the Wrights, or Charlie, on a piece of paper, and after a thorough discussion with the brothers, Charley would pin the drawing above his workbench and go to work. Using these sketches, and specifications, he finished the engine in six weeks.
Now, you would think that Charley’s accomplishments up to this point would be sufficient to satisfy most aviation pioneers but it wasn’t to be. After the successful flight of 1903 Wilbur and Orville decided to have Charley build a more powerful engine and they started work on an improved airframe. When the new Flyer was ready they received permission to fly it at a pasture near Dayton called Huffman Prairie. The flying was more difficult there and the Wrights crashed numerous times and Charley was heard to say, “Every time one of the brothers goes up I expect it to be the last time I’ll see him alive.” However, because Charley devoted most of his time to maintaining the airplanes and facilities at Huffman Prairie Charley actually became the first Airport Manager in US aviation history.
There were several other major accomplishments in Charley’s career that I will notate at the conclusion of my story but for now I want tell you how this forgotten pioneer of aviation faded into obscurity and died a lonely man.
After Wilbur died in May of 1912, of Typhoid fever, the pioneering days of the Wright Brothers were finished. Charley traveled to California to look for work, during the Great Depression, and found a job as a factory mechanic. He invested what money he had in a few hundred acres of land near the Salton Sea and waited to make his fortune – nothing happened and he lost everything.
In 1937 he went to Greenfield Village and restored the Wrights’ bicycle shop, and home, to their 1903 condition and built a replica of the first engine. He later returned to California during the war and at the age of 73 went to work making cartridge shells but in 1945 Charley suffered a heart attack and was never able to work again. Now, all alone, the last of the original three men who had built the first successful airplane, he was almost destitute.
In November 1955, a reporter discovered Charlie in a Los Angles General Hospital’s charity ward. His income was his Social Security check and an $800 a year annuity fund belatedly established by Orville Wright before his death in 1948. The aviation community immediately started a campaign to raise funds for Charlie and he was moved to a private sanitarium where he died a few months later on January 30, 1956 at the age of 88. Having no close relatives Charles E. Taylor was buried in the Portal of Folded Wings Mausoleum dedicated to aviation pioneers, located in Valhalla Memorial Park, Los Angeles.
The Portal of the Folded Wings is located just south of the Burbank airport in beautiful Valhalla Memorial Park. Originally built in 1924, (6 years before United Airport/Burbank was built) it was once the grand entrance to the memorial park.
On December 17, 1953 (the 50th anniversary of powered flight) the Portal was dedicated as a “Shrine to Aviation” and is now listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
Bertrand B. Acosta, co-pilot with Admiral Richard Byrd in 1927
Walter R. Brookins, flew for the Wright brothers.
Mark M. Campbell, stunt pilot and aircraft designer.
Col. Warren S. Eaton, early pilot who also built airplanes for Lincoln Beachy.
W. Bertrum Kinner, built ‘Kinner’ airplanes. Amelia Earhart flew a Kinner.
A. Roy Knabenshue, balloon and dirigible pilot who flew in the Dominguez Air Meet in 1910.
Elizabeth L. McQueen, one of Los Angeles’s first women pilots.
John B. Moisant, won the Statue of Liberty Race in 1910; first to carry a passenger across the English Channel.
Matilde J. Moisant, the second licensed female pilot in the United States in 1911.
J. Floyd Smith, test pilot and instructor for Glenn Martin and manufacturer of parachutes.
Hilder F. Smith, aerial acrobat and parachute jumper.
Carl B. Squier, WWI aviator, barnstormer, test pilot, and salesman. As Vice President of Lockheed Aircraft he sold Charles and Anne Lindbergh their Sirius airplane in 1931.
Charles E. Taylor, machinist for the Wright brothers who helped design and build the first engine for the Wright Flyer flown at Kitty Hawk.
So, what were Charlie’s major accomplishments?
Charlie never sought notoriety from his work with the Wrights and few ever recognized his contributions. He was never a part of aviation’s inner circle nor was he ever invited to attend any of the big celebrations held in honor of the Wrights. It seems that if anyone had ever thought much about Charley they didn’t take the time to find him. Gone but not forgotten – Happy Friday Charley and thanks for making my world of aviation possible.
Have a good weekend, enjoy time with friends and family, and enjoy some summer time fun before the cold weather begins to settle in.
January 3, 2020 | <urn:uuid:4a7e0f12-1111-4d2e-80ec-af23038479ba> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.robertnovell.com/charley-and-the-wright-brothers-september-13-2013-2-2/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250592565.2/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118110141-20200118134141-00128.warc.gz | en | 0.980301 | 1,909 | 3.671875 | 4 | [
-0.36118921637535095,
0.17157821357250214,
0.20259933173656464,
-0.1946532130241394,
-0.41147178411483765,
0.19763678312301636,
0.02724999561905861,
0.43884336948394775,
-0.17216017842292786,
0.10945858061313629,
0.030629456043243408,
0.1538817286491394,
-0.24892550706863403,
0.23617058992... | 5 | Today we begin a New Year and what better way to start than talk about the man man who made the Wright Brothers a success and then drifted into obscurity. The man – Charles E. Taylor – designed and built the engine for the Wright Flyer, helped develop the first wind tunnel, and he never sought notoriety from his work with the Wrights and few ever recognized his contributions.
This article is a reprint from late last year but the story of Charley needs to be kept alive and here at the 3DB we will do our part to preserve his memory.
(Aviation’s First Mechanic of Powered Flight)
When we think of the first powered flight we automatically think of Wilbur and Orville Wright; however, there was a third person involved whose skills were an essential part of the Wright’s success. Charles “Charley” Taylor was that man and without his help the Wright Brothers may have lost their place in history.
Charley was born in Illinois in 1868 and at the age of twelve quit school to find his place in life. He quickly learned that his hands, and tools, were almost one in the same, and America’s first aviation mechanic for powered flight started down a path in life that would have him working for the Wright brothers and building the first engine for the Wright Flyer.
Charley started to work for the Wright brothers on June 15, 1901, doing routine repairs on bicycles, so that the Wright brothers could pursue their experiments with gliders which included many trips to Kitty Hawk. After one of these trips, the brothers decided they needed more accurate information and decided they needed to build a small wind tunnel. With this, they would measure the amount, and direction, of air pressures on plane and curved surfaces operating at various angles and improve their theories based on their gliding experiences.
Building the wind tunnel was the first job that Charley Taylor did for the Wright brothers that had any connection with aeronautics. The wind tunnel was a rectangular box with a fan at one end driven by a natural gas engine. The Wright brothers did many experiments in their wind tunnel and from this data they began to make their 1902 glider with Charlie machining many of the parts.
On August 13, 1902, the brothers shipped the glider to Kitty Hawk. They did several flights with the glider and on October 31, 1902, the Wrights returned to Dayton to make plans for a powered airplane. Through their experiments, the Wrights were able to accurately predict the horsepower which was needed to produce and achieve powered flight. The next problem was where to get a light engine that would produce eight horsepower. The Wrights knew that a steam engine might suit their purpose, but a gasoline engine would be safer and more efficient.
In December of 1902, the Wrights sent letters to almost a dozen automobile companies, and gasoline engine manufacturers, asking if they could produce or modify an engine that would develop eight to nine brake horsepower, weigh no more than 180 pounds, and be free from vibration. Most companies replied that they were too busy to undertake building such a special engine. Falling back on their own mechanical experience, the Wright brothers decided to design and build their own engine.
They estimated they could build a four cylinders engine, with four inch stroke and four inch bore weighing no more than 200 pounds with accessories included, and by their calculations it would develop the horsepower necessary to power the glider in flight. Now the problem was who was going to build the engine; however, that problem was quickly solved when the brothers decided to give the task to Charley.
Charley was excited about his new challenge, and from his knowledge of mechanics, and design, he knew that the engine design was basic, straight forward, and simple. Charley had very limited knowledge about gasoline engines, but he used his craftsmanship, genius, and enthusiasm to tackle the task. Without any formal drawings available it was necessary for each part to be crudely sketched out by the Wrights, or Charlie, on a piece of paper, and after a thorough discussion with the brothers, Charley would pin the drawing above his workbench and go to work. Using these sketches, and specifications, he finished the engine in six weeks.
Now, you would think that Charley’s accomplishments up to this point would be sufficient to satisfy most aviation pioneers but it wasn’t to be. After the successful flight of 1903 Wilbur and Orville decided to have Charley build a more powerful engine and they started work on an improved airframe. When the new Flyer was ready they received permission to fly it at a pasture near Dayton called Huffman Prairie. The flying was more difficult there and the Wrights crashed numerous times and Charley was heard to say, “Every time one of the brothers goes up I expect it to be the last time I’ll see him alive.” However, because Charley devoted most of his time to maintaining the airplanes and facilities at Huffman Prairie Charley actually became the first Airport Manager in US aviation history.
There were several other major accomplishments in Charley’s career that I will notate at the conclusion of my story but for now I want tell you how this forgotten pioneer of aviation faded into obscurity and died a lonely man.
After Wilbur died in May of 1912, of Typhoid fever, the pioneering days of the Wright Brothers were finished. Charley traveled to California to look for work, during the Great Depression, and found a job as a factory mechanic. He invested what money he had in a few hundred acres of land near the Salton Sea and waited to make his fortune – nothing happened and he lost everything.
In 1937 he went to Greenfield Village and restored the Wrights’ bicycle shop, and home, to their 1903 condition and built a replica of the first engine. He later returned to California during the war and at the age of 73 went to work making cartridge shells but in 1945 Charley suffered a heart attack and was never able to work again. Now, all alone, the last of the original three men who had built the first successful airplane, he was almost destitute.
In November 1955, a reporter discovered Charlie in a Los Angles General Hospital’s charity ward. His income was his Social Security check and an $800 a year annuity fund belatedly established by Orville Wright before his death in 1948. The aviation community immediately started a campaign to raise funds for Charlie and he was moved to a private sanitarium where he died a few months later on January 30, 1956 at the age of 88. Having no close relatives Charles E. Taylor was buried in the Portal of Folded Wings Mausoleum dedicated to aviation pioneers, located in Valhalla Memorial Park, Los Angeles.
The Portal of the Folded Wings is located just south of the Burbank airport in beautiful Valhalla Memorial Park. Originally built in 1924, (6 years before United Airport/Burbank was built) it was once the grand entrance to the memorial park.
On December 17, 1953 (the 50th anniversary of powered flight) the Portal was dedicated as a “Shrine to Aviation” and is now listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
Bertrand B. Acosta, co-pilot with Admiral Richard Byrd in 1927
Walter R. Brookins, flew for the Wright brothers.
Mark M. Campbell, stunt pilot and aircraft designer.
Col. Warren S. Eaton, early pilot who also built airplanes for Lincoln Beachy.
W. Bertrum Kinner, built ‘Kinner’ airplanes. Amelia Earhart flew a Kinner.
A. Roy Knabenshue, balloon and dirigible pilot who flew in the Dominguez Air Meet in 1910.
Elizabeth L. McQueen, one of Los Angeles’s first women pilots.
John B. Moisant, won the Statue of Liberty Race in 1910; first to carry a passenger across the English Channel.
Matilde J. Moisant, the second licensed female pilot in the United States in 1911.
J. Floyd Smith, test pilot and instructor for Glenn Martin and manufacturer of parachutes.
Hilder F. Smith, aerial acrobat and parachute jumper.
Carl B. Squier, WWI aviator, barnstormer, test pilot, and salesman. As Vice President of Lockheed Aircraft he sold Charles and Anne Lindbergh their Sirius airplane in 1931.
Charles E. Taylor, machinist for the Wright brothers who helped design and build the first engine for the Wright Flyer flown at Kitty Hawk.
So, what were Charlie’s major accomplishments?
Charlie never sought notoriety from his work with the Wrights and few ever recognized his contributions. He was never a part of aviation’s inner circle nor was he ever invited to attend any of the big celebrations held in honor of the Wrights. It seems that if anyone had ever thought much about Charley they didn’t take the time to find him. Gone but not forgotten – Happy Friday Charley and thanks for making my world of aviation possible.
Have a good weekend, enjoy time with friends and family, and enjoy some summer time fun before the cold weather begins to settle in.
January 3, 2020 | 1,959 | ENGLISH | 1 |
English Civil War battles were significant in the scope of British history but they were not arrayed in the manner of a typical war. Although this was a civil war, and the whole country was affected, there were remarkably few major battles.
English Civil War Battles: Edgehill 23rd October 1642
Both the Royalist and the Parliamentary armies were on the move. Charles’ army, commanded by the King himself, was marching from Shrewsbury to London while Parliament’s army, under Robert Devereux, third Earl of Essex was marching from London to Worcester. When the armies were a few miles apart, Prince Rupert persuaded Charles to take to the high ground at Edgehill. Essex realised that the Royalist army was close and formed his men for battle. Both commanders deployed their troops in the same way with infantry in the middle and cavalry to the flank.
The Parliamentary army opened the battle with a volley of cannon fire. Prince Rupert led a Royalist cavalry charge on the right side of the battlefield and the Parliamentarians fled. Meanwhile another group of Royalist cavalry charged the left side of the field and the Parliamentarians fled.
If the Royalist cavalry had rejoined their army it is likely that the Royalists would have won the battle. However, both cavalry commanders chose to pursue the fleeing Parliamentarians leaving Charles without a cavalry regiment.
Seeing that he now had an advantage, Essex commanded a general assault on the Royalists. Although the Royalists held ground for a while many soon decided to run. However, Essex had thought of this and had sent a cavalry regiment to the back of the field to cut down any who chose to flee the battlefield. They did not get the chance to do this as Prince Rupert had returned with his cavalry. The light was giving way to darkness by now and as both sides were exhausted it was decided to call the battle a draw.
English Civil War Battles: Adwalton Moor 30th June 1643
The Royalists were well supported in the North of England. Knowing that he had a lot of support the Royalist commander, William Cavendish, Duke of Newcastle, decided to try and enclose the Parliamentarian army in Bradford. However, Fairfax, the Parliamentary commander decided that his army had a better chance of survival if they fought the Royalists in a battle rather than being surrounded and forced to surrender.
The two armies met at Adwalton Moor, an area covered with fields enclosed by fences and hedges. This was not good country for the Royalist cavalry and Fairfax knew that this would give him an advantage even though his army was heavily outnumbered. Fairfax decided to adopt a defensive position and successfully withstood several Royalist charges. Feeling optimistic that they were successfully withstanding the Royalists and forcing them to defeat, several groups of Parliamentarian soldiers decided to pursue the Royalists rather than maintaining their defensive line. The Royalists were able to easily force the split Parliamentarians to retreat to Bradford.
English Civil War Battles: Roundaway Down 13th July 1643
The Parliamentary commander Sir William Waller, had managed to push back the Royalist army, commanded by Lord Hopton, to Devizes. Knowing that the Royalists were in a bad way and having seen a company fleeing for Salisbury, Waller allowed his army to have food and rest before mounting a final assault on the Royalists. What he did not realise was that when they reached Salisbury the Royalists turned North to seek help.
Lord Henry Wilmot was the Royalist commander who led a force to assist Hopton. When Waller realised that Hopton was approaching he took up battle position on Roundaway Down, just north of Devizes. He positioned his infantry in the middle and cavalry at the sides.
The Royalists were the first to charge and for some reason there was no Parliamentarian counter-charge. After two more charges the Parliamentary cavalry had fled. Waller then turned his attention to the Parliamentary infantry. However, they stood firm until a force led by Hopton attacked them from behind. Caught between two Royalist armies the majority of Parliamentarian soldiers simply fled from the battlefield.
First Battle of Newbury 20th September 1643
Robert Devereux, third Earl of Essex, had marched from London to Gloucester to re-supply a Parliamentary army. On his return journey he was attacked by a small company led by Prince Rupert, who wanted to slow his return to London. Rupert managed to slow the Parliamentarians enough to allow Charles I to reach the Parliamentarian town of Newbury before Essex.
Charles positioned his army across Essex’s route ensuring that the Parliamentarians would have no choice but to fight. As the two sides were stationing their soldiers, Charles foolishly allowed the Parliamentarians to station a battery of artillery and a company of infantrymen on Round Hill.
The Royalists chose to attack Round Hill first. However, they were unable to mount a successful attack because the area was covered with hedgerows and bushes making it difficult for the cavalry to be effective. The Royalists suffered a number of losses and were driven back. A second Royalist attack on Round Hill was more successful and the Parliamentarians were pushed back. But the Royalist cavalry had been badly fired upon and no further attacks were made. The battle was declared a draw.
Marston Moor 2nd July 1644
Prince Rupert was marching across the North of England to relieve a Royalist army trapped in York. News of Rupert’s position in the North reached Oliver Cromwell, the Parliamentary Lieutenant General, and an army was sent to meet the Royalists.
Rupert outmanoeuvred the Parliamentarians by sending a cavalry detachment south to Marston Moor while taking the rest of the Royalist army to York and then to Marston Moor by a Northern route. Meanwhile, Rupert sent a message to William Cavendish, Duke of Newcastle, to meet him at Marston Moor.
The combined Royalist forces were outnumbered by the Parliamentarians but decided to fight anyway. They reached their battle positions in the early evening and assumed that the battle would not begin until the early morning. Unfortunately for them the Parliamentarians had decided to mount an attack that evening and the Royalists were totally unprepared for the attack.
For the first time since the Civil War had began. Rupert’s cavalry, at one end of the field, were beaten by a Parliamentarian cavalry charge. Things were better for the Royalists at the other end of the field where the Parliamentarians had been beaten back. Having defeated Rupert, the Parliamentarians were feeling optimistic and successfully defeated the Royalist infantry, killing those who did not flee.
Second Battle of Newbury 27th October 1644
Charles positioned his army so as to defend the northern border of Newbury. He knew that he had a strong position and hoped that the Parliamentarians would not attack until Prince Rupert had joined him and strengthened his army further.
The Parliamentarian commander, Edward Montague, positioned his army on the north-eastern ridge. The Parliamentarians knew that it was going to be difficult to defeat the Royalists so they embarked on a daring plan. Sir William Waller led a large force of Parliamentarians around the edge of the Royalist army. As day broke on the 27th October, Edward Montague and William Waller attacked simultaneously. Waller succeeded in taking a Royalist outpost but made no further gains. Meanwhile the Royalists managed to hold off the attack by Montague.
The battle lasted all day with the Royalists sandwiched between two Parliamentarian forces. Each time the Parliamentarians made some gains they were beaten back by the Royalists. Heavy losses were sustained by the Roundheads. By nightfall, both armies were exhausted and Charles decided to retreat to Oxford. Although Cromwell wanted to pursue the Royalists, he did not have the backing of his army commanders and the Royalists were able to flee the battle scene safely.
The Battle of Naseby 14th June 1645
The Parliamentarian, General Fairfax, had laid siege to Oxford in a bid to lure Charles into battle. Hearing that his Royalist ‘capital’ had been placed under siege Charles had immediately marched to Oxford to release the city. As Charles neared Oxford, Fairfax broke the siege and marched north to meet Charles. Not wanting to be forced into battle against Fairfax, Charles turned north. Unfortunately for the Royalists, they could not outmarch the Parliamentarians and had no choice but to turn and fight.
They took up a good defensive position and waited for word of Fairfax’s position. Prince Rupert discovered that the Parliamentarians were camped near Naseby and suggested that the Royalists should advance on Fairfax. The decision to advance was taken and the Royalists left their strong defensive position to make an attack. This was not a good decision as Fairfax had deployed his army in a very strong position, going so far as to hide some of his troops from sight.
Both sides took up their usual positions with infantrymen in the centre and cavalry on the flanks. The Parliamentarian cavalry were commanded by Oliver Cromwell and Henry Ireton, the Royalist cavalry were commanded by Marmaduke Langdale and Prince Rupert. The Royalist cavalry, under Prince Rupert, made the first attack and pushed the Parliamentarian cavalry back. Meanwhile the Royalist infantry had some success over parliament. However, Langdale’s cavalry had not fared so well, they had been pushed back by Cromwell.
The Parliamentarian New Model Army then took to the field concentrating mainly on the Royalist infantry. Charles’ army were unable to withstand this new attack and many foot soldiers surrendered.
The battle lasted just three hours and in that time most of the Royalist foot soldiers were killed or taken prisoner. The Royalists also lost all of their artillery and most of their baggage. Charles fled the battlefield as soon as it became apparent that he had lost the battle.
This post is part of our larger historical resource on the English Civil War. For a comprehensive overview of the English Civil War, click here.
Cite This Article"English Civil War Battles" History on the Net
© 2000-2020, Salem Media.
January 28, 2020 <https://www.historyonthenet.com/english-civil-war-battles>
More Citation Information. | <urn:uuid:e832c6f0-effb-4c87-8eec-dc407a6c17c2> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.historyonthenet.com/english-civil-war-battles | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251778168.77/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128091916-20200128121916-00203.warc.gz | en | 0.987252 | 2,111 | 3.546875 | 4 | [
-0.23918533325195312,
0.22272633016109467,
0.4080932140350342,
0.21424275636672974,
-0.2652919888496399,
0.007326992228627205,
0.03343145549297333,
-0.1098768413066864,
-0.11495022475719452,
0.0240910816937685,
-0.006690871901810169,
-0.6361889839172363,
0.16112574934959412,
0.393451094627... | 1 | English Civil War battles were significant in the scope of British history but they were not arrayed in the manner of a typical war. Although this was a civil war, and the whole country was affected, there were remarkably few major battles.
English Civil War Battles: Edgehill 23rd October 1642
Both the Royalist and the Parliamentary armies were on the move. Charles’ army, commanded by the King himself, was marching from Shrewsbury to London while Parliament’s army, under Robert Devereux, third Earl of Essex was marching from London to Worcester. When the armies were a few miles apart, Prince Rupert persuaded Charles to take to the high ground at Edgehill. Essex realised that the Royalist army was close and formed his men for battle. Both commanders deployed their troops in the same way with infantry in the middle and cavalry to the flank.
The Parliamentary army opened the battle with a volley of cannon fire. Prince Rupert led a Royalist cavalry charge on the right side of the battlefield and the Parliamentarians fled. Meanwhile another group of Royalist cavalry charged the left side of the field and the Parliamentarians fled.
If the Royalist cavalry had rejoined their army it is likely that the Royalists would have won the battle. However, both cavalry commanders chose to pursue the fleeing Parliamentarians leaving Charles without a cavalry regiment.
Seeing that he now had an advantage, Essex commanded a general assault on the Royalists. Although the Royalists held ground for a while many soon decided to run. However, Essex had thought of this and had sent a cavalry regiment to the back of the field to cut down any who chose to flee the battlefield. They did not get the chance to do this as Prince Rupert had returned with his cavalry. The light was giving way to darkness by now and as both sides were exhausted it was decided to call the battle a draw.
English Civil War Battles: Adwalton Moor 30th June 1643
The Royalists were well supported in the North of England. Knowing that he had a lot of support the Royalist commander, William Cavendish, Duke of Newcastle, decided to try and enclose the Parliamentarian army in Bradford. However, Fairfax, the Parliamentary commander decided that his army had a better chance of survival if they fought the Royalists in a battle rather than being surrounded and forced to surrender.
The two armies met at Adwalton Moor, an area covered with fields enclosed by fences and hedges. This was not good country for the Royalist cavalry and Fairfax knew that this would give him an advantage even though his army was heavily outnumbered. Fairfax decided to adopt a defensive position and successfully withstood several Royalist charges. Feeling optimistic that they were successfully withstanding the Royalists and forcing them to defeat, several groups of Parliamentarian soldiers decided to pursue the Royalists rather than maintaining their defensive line. The Royalists were able to easily force the split Parliamentarians to retreat to Bradford.
English Civil War Battles: Roundaway Down 13th July 1643
The Parliamentary commander Sir William Waller, had managed to push back the Royalist army, commanded by Lord Hopton, to Devizes. Knowing that the Royalists were in a bad way and having seen a company fleeing for Salisbury, Waller allowed his army to have food and rest before mounting a final assault on the Royalists. What he did not realise was that when they reached Salisbury the Royalists turned North to seek help.
Lord Henry Wilmot was the Royalist commander who led a force to assist Hopton. When Waller realised that Hopton was approaching he took up battle position on Roundaway Down, just north of Devizes. He positioned his infantry in the middle and cavalry at the sides.
The Royalists were the first to charge and for some reason there was no Parliamentarian counter-charge. After two more charges the Parliamentary cavalry had fled. Waller then turned his attention to the Parliamentary infantry. However, they stood firm until a force led by Hopton attacked them from behind. Caught between two Royalist armies the majority of Parliamentarian soldiers simply fled from the battlefield.
First Battle of Newbury 20th September 1643
Robert Devereux, third Earl of Essex, had marched from London to Gloucester to re-supply a Parliamentary army. On his return journey he was attacked by a small company led by Prince Rupert, who wanted to slow his return to London. Rupert managed to slow the Parliamentarians enough to allow Charles I to reach the Parliamentarian town of Newbury before Essex.
Charles positioned his army across Essex’s route ensuring that the Parliamentarians would have no choice but to fight. As the two sides were stationing their soldiers, Charles foolishly allowed the Parliamentarians to station a battery of artillery and a company of infantrymen on Round Hill.
The Royalists chose to attack Round Hill first. However, they were unable to mount a successful attack because the area was covered with hedgerows and bushes making it difficult for the cavalry to be effective. The Royalists suffered a number of losses and were driven back. A second Royalist attack on Round Hill was more successful and the Parliamentarians were pushed back. But the Royalist cavalry had been badly fired upon and no further attacks were made. The battle was declared a draw.
Marston Moor 2nd July 1644
Prince Rupert was marching across the North of England to relieve a Royalist army trapped in York. News of Rupert’s position in the North reached Oliver Cromwell, the Parliamentary Lieutenant General, and an army was sent to meet the Royalists.
Rupert outmanoeuvred the Parliamentarians by sending a cavalry detachment south to Marston Moor while taking the rest of the Royalist army to York and then to Marston Moor by a Northern route. Meanwhile, Rupert sent a message to William Cavendish, Duke of Newcastle, to meet him at Marston Moor.
The combined Royalist forces were outnumbered by the Parliamentarians but decided to fight anyway. They reached their battle positions in the early evening and assumed that the battle would not begin until the early morning. Unfortunately for them the Parliamentarians had decided to mount an attack that evening and the Royalists were totally unprepared for the attack.
For the first time since the Civil War had began. Rupert’s cavalry, at one end of the field, were beaten by a Parliamentarian cavalry charge. Things were better for the Royalists at the other end of the field where the Parliamentarians had been beaten back. Having defeated Rupert, the Parliamentarians were feeling optimistic and successfully defeated the Royalist infantry, killing those who did not flee.
Second Battle of Newbury 27th October 1644
Charles positioned his army so as to defend the northern border of Newbury. He knew that he had a strong position and hoped that the Parliamentarians would not attack until Prince Rupert had joined him and strengthened his army further.
The Parliamentarian commander, Edward Montague, positioned his army on the north-eastern ridge. The Parliamentarians knew that it was going to be difficult to defeat the Royalists so they embarked on a daring plan. Sir William Waller led a large force of Parliamentarians around the edge of the Royalist army. As day broke on the 27th October, Edward Montague and William Waller attacked simultaneously. Waller succeeded in taking a Royalist outpost but made no further gains. Meanwhile the Royalists managed to hold off the attack by Montague.
The battle lasted all day with the Royalists sandwiched between two Parliamentarian forces. Each time the Parliamentarians made some gains they were beaten back by the Royalists. Heavy losses were sustained by the Roundheads. By nightfall, both armies were exhausted and Charles decided to retreat to Oxford. Although Cromwell wanted to pursue the Royalists, he did not have the backing of his army commanders and the Royalists were able to flee the battle scene safely.
The Battle of Naseby 14th June 1645
The Parliamentarian, General Fairfax, had laid siege to Oxford in a bid to lure Charles into battle. Hearing that his Royalist ‘capital’ had been placed under siege Charles had immediately marched to Oxford to release the city. As Charles neared Oxford, Fairfax broke the siege and marched north to meet Charles. Not wanting to be forced into battle against Fairfax, Charles turned north. Unfortunately for the Royalists, they could not outmarch the Parliamentarians and had no choice but to turn and fight.
They took up a good defensive position and waited for word of Fairfax’s position. Prince Rupert discovered that the Parliamentarians were camped near Naseby and suggested that the Royalists should advance on Fairfax. The decision to advance was taken and the Royalists left their strong defensive position to make an attack. This was not a good decision as Fairfax had deployed his army in a very strong position, going so far as to hide some of his troops from sight.
Both sides took up their usual positions with infantrymen in the centre and cavalry on the flanks. The Parliamentarian cavalry were commanded by Oliver Cromwell and Henry Ireton, the Royalist cavalry were commanded by Marmaduke Langdale and Prince Rupert. The Royalist cavalry, under Prince Rupert, made the first attack and pushed the Parliamentarian cavalry back. Meanwhile the Royalist infantry had some success over parliament. However, Langdale’s cavalry had not fared so well, they had been pushed back by Cromwell.
The Parliamentarian New Model Army then took to the field concentrating mainly on the Royalist infantry. Charles’ army were unable to withstand this new attack and many foot soldiers surrendered.
The battle lasted just three hours and in that time most of the Royalist foot soldiers were killed or taken prisoner. The Royalists also lost all of their artillery and most of their baggage. Charles fled the battlefield as soon as it became apparent that he had lost the battle.
This post is part of our larger historical resource on the English Civil War. For a comprehensive overview of the English Civil War, click here.
Cite This Article"English Civil War Battles" History on the Net
© 2000-2020, Salem Media.
January 28, 2020 <https://www.historyonthenet.com/english-civil-war-battles>
More Citation Information. | 2,118 | ENGLISH | 1 |
About Muskoka District
Beginning in the late 1840's the Ontario government gradually implemented a policy of northern expansion in Canada West. As part of this policy Muskoka was surveyed and made accessible during the next two decades.
In 1850 a treaty was signed between the Honorable B. Robinson and 36 chiefs of the Ojibway Nation ceding to the government the parcel of land northwest of Penetanguishine to Sault Saint Marie and eastward to the Ottawa River. In 1852 a resolution was introduced urging implementation of a free land grant policy. Despite opposition and reports that "the country was unfit as a whole for agricultural purposes" in 1857 Muskoka and Macaulay Townships were surveyed. The following year the first Muskoka road was surveyed from Washago to Muskoka Falls and settlement was underway.
Settlement was slow prior to the passing of the Free Grant and Homestead Act of 1868. The obligations of the settlers in this act were "to clear and have under cultivation at least 15 acres, two acres of which were to be cleared annually during the 5 years following the date of location; to build a house at least 16'x20' and to have actually and continually resided upon the land for 5 years after date of location", Each settler over 18 years of age could receive 100 acres or with a family 200 acres. (The act also applied to the townships of Parry Sound District). All applications were to made to Charles W. Lount, Crown Land Agent in Bracebridge
A strong campaign was carried out to attract settlers. In the late 1860's posters and pamphlets were distributed in Canada, Britain and several European Countries. By 1871 the population of Muskoka was 6,000. By 1881 the population increased to 13,000.
These free grants were not the success that either the government or the settlers had hoped for. So often the farmers were stuck with poor land and were forced to work in lumber camps and sawmills or shingle mills to augment their income As early as 1879 farmers were getting "Manitoba Fever" and heading west. Between 1900 and 1910 the pine trees were depleted and the number of farmers decreased by almost 50%! The tourism industry "took off" after 1896.
This article first appeared in the November 1985 newsletter, Volume 1 - Number 2 | <urn:uuid:c3f6dc11-daa6-4b85-95c9-04ec2e727900> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://mpsgg.com/district-history/muskoka-district/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251684146.65/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126013015-20200126043015-00428.warc.gz | en | 0.983692 | 475 | 3.34375 | 3 | [
-0.0634390339255333,
-0.09177291393280029,
0.48043543100357056,
-0.06704893708229065,
-0.05074742063879967,
-0.22362716495990753,
-0.4461040496826172,
0.08174871653318405,
-0.3076815903186798,
0.6126618981361389,
0.42748546600341797,
-0.45790165662765503,
-0.1401071548461914,
-0.0567580461... | 8 | About Muskoka District
Beginning in the late 1840's the Ontario government gradually implemented a policy of northern expansion in Canada West. As part of this policy Muskoka was surveyed and made accessible during the next two decades.
In 1850 a treaty was signed between the Honorable B. Robinson and 36 chiefs of the Ojibway Nation ceding to the government the parcel of land northwest of Penetanguishine to Sault Saint Marie and eastward to the Ottawa River. In 1852 a resolution was introduced urging implementation of a free land grant policy. Despite opposition and reports that "the country was unfit as a whole for agricultural purposes" in 1857 Muskoka and Macaulay Townships were surveyed. The following year the first Muskoka road was surveyed from Washago to Muskoka Falls and settlement was underway.
Settlement was slow prior to the passing of the Free Grant and Homestead Act of 1868. The obligations of the settlers in this act were "to clear and have under cultivation at least 15 acres, two acres of which were to be cleared annually during the 5 years following the date of location; to build a house at least 16'x20' and to have actually and continually resided upon the land for 5 years after date of location", Each settler over 18 years of age could receive 100 acres or with a family 200 acres. (The act also applied to the townships of Parry Sound District). All applications were to made to Charles W. Lount, Crown Land Agent in Bracebridge
A strong campaign was carried out to attract settlers. In the late 1860's posters and pamphlets were distributed in Canada, Britain and several European Countries. By 1871 the population of Muskoka was 6,000. By 1881 the population increased to 13,000.
These free grants were not the success that either the government or the settlers had hoped for. So often the farmers were stuck with poor land and were forced to work in lumber camps and sawmills or shingle mills to augment their income As early as 1879 farmers were getting "Manitoba Fever" and heading west. Between 1900 and 1910 the pine trees were depleted and the number of farmers decreased by almost 50%! The tourism industry "took off" after 1896.
This article first appeared in the November 1985 newsletter, Volume 1 - Number 2 | 544 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Paper type: Essay Pages: 3 (746 words)
Child labor has changed dramatically since the time of the industrial revolution. Teens everywhere can now have part time jobs that aren’t hazardous to their health and follow strict child labor laws. Although pretty much all our ancestors weren’t so lucky. During n the Industrial Revolution there were no child labor laws. The factory owners just saw it as jobs that could be done by anyone, and grown men would not stand for such low pay so who better than children who are just as happy with pennies and nickels.
Children working in factories didn’t just have to deal with low income they also had horrid working conditions, health hazards, low wages, long hours worked per day, and almost every day worked per week. Child Labor had existed long before the Industrial Revolution; children were usually forced to work in family farms or as servants. But it wasn’t until the Industrial Revolution that children were forced into factories with horrid working conditions.
These kids would often work 10-12 hours a day, and also had to deal with constant abuse from superiors who demanded faster production.
Children as young as four were employed to work in coal mines. Conditions were dangerous very dangerous in the coal mines, many children developed lung cancer and other diseases and died before the age of 25, while others died from gas explosions. Some children were employed as “scavengers” by cotton mills, their jobs would be to climb under machinery to pick up cotton, some died from being crushed under the machines, and some lost hands or even limbs.
After reports of these atrocities became widespread politicians and the government tried to limit child labor by law, but factory owners resisted; some felt that they were aiding the poor by giving their children money to buy food to avoid starvation, and others simply welcomed the cheap labor. The English governments’ efforts only led to the limit of 10 hours of work per day for children but working conditions were still atrocious. In the 21st century there are many regulations that have drastically improved safety and limits on child workers in the U. S.
The minimum age for “Non-Hazardous” work is 14, and for agricultural work that age is dropped to 10-11 years old with parental consent on farms not regulated by minimum wage requirements, and 12-13 years old just with parental consent. The laws on today’s limit on hours of employment are as follows: No work during school hours, on school days: 3 hours/day, 18 hours/week maximum, when school is out of session: 8 hours/day, 40 hours/week with at least 30 minute s of break time included each day.
These laws helped to keep hours of work limited to ensure more time for school and other activities. There have also been laws for minimum wage that a teen can receive for work. Federal Minimum is $7. 25 per hour as of 7/24/09 youth minimum is $4. 25 per hour for employees under 20 years of age during their first 90 consecutive calendar days of employment with an employer. In today’s working world hazards teens will face while working are limited to just slipping on wet floors, minor burns, and small cuts. Granted this is if most safety precautions are carried out and it was accidental.
So far no child worker has been exposed to any harmful diseases while working, during the 21st century. The managers overseeing children working are very helpful and are punished by law if they harass or physically injure any employees. Since the Industrial revolution the ages of child workers have changed from as young as 4 to, at the very least, 10. Child workers today are no longer allowed to work 12 or 14 hours a day, instead there are strict laws that allow for a thirty minute break everyday and no more than 18 hours of work per week.
Minimum wage has been changed from pennies and nickels to $7. 25 since the Industrial Revolution. Teems working nowadays are ensured by workers compensation and serious injuries are rare because of safety precautions taken; as opposed to frequent diseases, serious injuries, and even death that were reported in the Industrial Revolution. Thankfully many changes have ensured the health and safety of child workers today. I am personally thankful for these laws and regulations because as of next week I will be working at Panera Bread and it is nice to know that I am safe as a working teen.
Cite this page
Child Labor Since the Industrial Revolution. (2016, Oct 02). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/child-labor-since-the-industrial-revolution-essay | <urn:uuid:4cd65db4-4860-4b23-b776-ac3e5b450082> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://studymoose.com/child-labor-since-the-industrial-revolution-essay | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594391.21/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119093733-20200119121733-00298.warc.gz | en | 0.983439 | 950 | 3.265625 | 3 | [
-0.5308581590652466,
-0.0064520202577114105,
0.1751910299062729,
0.011454309336841106,
0.03847133368253708,
0.5582880973815918,
-0.3808440864086151,
0.0736311674118042,
-0.5793501138687134,
0.05099327862262726,
0.07182040810585022,
0.4672800302505493,
-0.08687543869018555,
0.21670725941658... | 1 | Paper type: Essay Pages: 3 (746 words)
Child labor has changed dramatically since the time of the industrial revolution. Teens everywhere can now have part time jobs that aren’t hazardous to their health and follow strict child labor laws. Although pretty much all our ancestors weren’t so lucky. During n the Industrial Revolution there were no child labor laws. The factory owners just saw it as jobs that could be done by anyone, and grown men would not stand for such low pay so who better than children who are just as happy with pennies and nickels.
Children working in factories didn’t just have to deal with low income they also had horrid working conditions, health hazards, low wages, long hours worked per day, and almost every day worked per week. Child Labor had existed long before the Industrial Revolution; children were usually forced to work in family farms or as servants. But it wasn’t until the Industrial Revolution that children were forced into factories with horrid working conditions.
These kids would often work 10-12 hours a day, and also had to deal with constant abuse from superiors who demanded faster production.
Children as young as four were employed to work in coal mines. Conditions were dangerous very dangerous in the coal mines, many children developed lung cancer and other diseases and died before the age of 25, while others died from gas explosions. Some children were employed as “scavengers” by cotton mills, their jobs would be to climb under machinery to pick up cotton, some died from being crushed under the machines, and some lost hands or even limbs.
After reports of these atrocities became widespread politicians and the government tried to limit child labor by law, but factory owners resisted; some felt that they were aiding the poor by giving their children money to buy food to avoid starvation, and others simply welcomed the cheap labor. The English governments’ efforts only led to the limit of 10 hours of work per day for children but working conditions were still atrocious. In the 21st century there are many regulations that have drastically improved safety and limits on child workers in the U. S.
The minimum age for “Non-Hazardous” work is 14, and for agricultural work that age is dropped to 10-11 years old with parental consent on farms not regulated by minimum wage requirements, and 12-13 years old just with parental consent. The laws on today’s limit on hours of employment are as follows: No work during school hours, on school days: 3 hours/day, 18 hours/week maximum, when school is out of session: 8 hours/day, 40 hours/week with at least 30 minute s of break time included each day.
These laws helped to keep hours of work limited to ensure more time for school and other activities. There have also been laws for minimum wage that a teen can receive for work. Federal Minimum is $7. 25 per hour as of 7/24/09 youth minimum is $4. 25 per hour for employees under 20 years of age during their first 90 consecutive calendar days of employment with an employer. In today’s working world hazards teens will face while working are limited to just slipping on wet floors, minor burns, and small cuts. Granted this is if most safety precautions are carried out and it was accidental.
So far no child worker has been exposed to any harmful diseases while working, during the 21st century. The managers overseeing children working are very helpful and are punished by law if they harass or physically injure any employees. Since the Industrial revolution the ages of child workers have changed from as young as 4 to, at the very least, 10. Child workers today are no longer allowed to work 12 or 14 hours a day, instead there are strict laws that allow for a thirty minute break everyday and no more than 18 hours of work per week.
Minimum wage has been changed from pennies and nickels to $7. 25 since the Industrial Revolution. Teems working nowadays are ensured by workers compensation and serious injuries are rare because of safety precautions taken; as opposed to frequent diseases, serious injuries, and even death that were reported in the Industrial Revolution. Thankfully many changes have ensured the health and safety of child workers today. I am personally thankful for these laws and regulations because as of next week I will be working at Panera Bread and it is nice to know that I am safe as a working teen.
Cite this page
Child Labor Since the Industrial Revolution. (2016, Oct 02). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/child-labor-since-the-industrial-revolution-essay | 969 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Gull Rocks Light Lighthouse Log (Rhode Island). “January 1, 1931: New Years Day. All dressed up and no place to go.” But Keeper James Gallen had hardly dressed in a special garb for the celebration. In 1883, the Lighthouse Service had published a 14-page pamphlet describing and illustrating the type of dress and work uniforms that keepers and assistants were obliged to wear. The dress uniform consisted of blue pants, vest, suit jacket and flat top, navy-blue cap. The station’s personnel were also expected to wear well-kept brown working duds while occupied with “dirty work” around the lighthouse or its dwelling. If found out of uniform in any way by a Lighthouse Inspector, the keeper and/or his assistant were subject to a fine, reduction in pay or immediate dismissal from their post. Women keepers, usually the wife of a deceased husband-keeper, were never supplied with an official uniform.
The unannounced arrival of a Lighthouse Inspector could send a keeper and his family into a state of panic. These official intruders often wore white gloves, as they searched for any amount of dust around ledges, table-tops, windows and door frames. At the end of the inspection, the white gloves had to be as clean as they had been when first worn. The station’s log book was also carefully checked along with additional records regarding oil inventory and other lighthouse supplies.
Lighthouse duty was a 24 hours per day, 365 days per year occupation. Throughout most of the 1800’s, there were no provisions for days off, illness or vacation. Light stations maned by only one keeper were particularly difficult. If he or she had to leave the site, a family member was expected to take over or a substitute had to be hired at the keeper’s own expense. Typically, a lighthouse’s lanterns were exhibited from sunset to sunrise. The keeper was expected to remain with the beacon for at least a half-hour after its lighting and check it at twice overnight. During storms, keepers were instructed to remain with the beacon to assure that it continued to show a light. Any winter ice also had to be constantly clear away from the lantern-rooms windows. Then, under the light of a new day, the lens and lantern had to be properly cleaned along with a host of other maintenance tasks.
The Boston Light located on Little Brewster Island, was the Nation’s first lighthouse (1716). Initially, it used canon fire as a fog signal. An approaching sailing vessel fired (hopefully a blank) its cannon, which was answered as many times as necessary by the light’s keeper. Luckily, fog bells were soon introduced that were eventually operated by a clock work mechanism. Unfortunately for Keeper Thomas Chase at Long Point Light, Provincetown, Massachusetts, the mechanism had become disabled during a particularly heavy fog. Over the next two nights, he was forced to strike the bell by hand, three strokes, every minute. A fog horn was also probably not too peasant to be around. On visiting England’s Eddystone Lighthouse, a reporter had found its keeper with “cotton wool in each ear”; one way to partially block the aggravating, repetitive noise!
With sufficient land surrounding a lighthouse, keepers raised poultry, cows and owned horse(s) for transportation. Fishing was also an important food source. But some light stations that simply stood on a rock surface, made its occupants dependent on deliveries of fresh water and all other supplies.
Lighthouse keepers were instructed to summon aid or, if possible, assist in saving lives and property of vessels in distress. There are many examples of successful rescues performed by keepers and personnel aboard lightships. But at age 18 years, Ida Lewis who officially took over light keeping at Rhode Island’s Lime Rock Light after her dad suffered a stroke, is probably the Nation’s best-known lighthouse hero. As America’s first female keeper, she managed to save 18 lives during her 54 years at Lime Rock. She was only a 15-years-old kid when she made her first rescue. Two soldiers stationed at Fort Adams, had spent the day at Newport. A winter storm struck as they were making their way back to their base in a rowboat. In the issuing waves, the vessel capsized. Without hesitation, Ida made her way to them and pulled them into her boat. Years later, when questioned about all of her heroic deeds, she stated “we have only one life to live and when our time comes, we’ve got to go. I never thought of danger when people needed help.”
To help whyle their way in their isolated confines, keepers went fishing, played cards, checkers, chess and/or took up reading. To fill some of those needs, during the late 1800’s, the Lighthouse Establishment began distributing small libraries of books that were rotated every three months. Out of concern for these in valuable lighthouse sentinels, in 1929, Captain William Wincapaw began delivering Christmas gift parcels to some isolated lights. Boarding his Travel Air A 6000 single radial engine aircraft, he airdropped the packages to lighthouses along the coast of Maine. Thus was born “The Flying Santa.” Included in the packages were “newspapers, magazines, books, coffee, tea, candy, tobacco, soup and other items.” The program became so popular that, with outside financial help, it was soon expanded to lights from Maine to Connecticut and eventually on both coasts. In the late 1930’s, Wincapaw was joined by author Edward Rowe Snow who continued the program until 1981. By then he was 80 years of age.
In 1939, the US Coast Guard took over all operations regarding aids to navigation. Civilian keepers were given the option of (#1) retiring, provided that they had enough time in service, (#2) transferring to the service at an applicable rate or (#3) remaining on as a civilian keeper under the aegis of the Coast Guard. The Nation’s last civilian keeper, Frank Schubert, grew up on Staten Island. Just out of High School, he joined the Lighthouse Service where he was assigned to the buoy tender Tulip. In 1939, he was transferred to New York’s Old Orchard Shoal Lighthouse. He later served at Governors Island and was assigned to the Coney Island Light in July of 1960. Despite its eventual automation, he remained at the station until 2003, where he past away at age 88. Frank exemplified the dedication of all of the Nation’s lighthouse keepers. | <urn:uuid:85765aa7-82f6-46d4-8d72-076908210fde> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.liboatingworld.com/single-post/2019/09/25/Serving-At-a-Lighthouse | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250607407.48/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122191620-20200122220620-00370.warc.gz | en | 0.986037 | 1,389 | 3.3125 | 3 | [
-0.0920524075627327,
0.01379353180527687,
0.2204405963420868,
-0.22194868326187134,
0.09453756362199783,
0.11555067449808121,
0.0647684782743454,
-0.19614264369010925,
-0.4073578715324402,
0.054539769887924194,
-0.045550547540187836,
0.2759479284286499,
0.013486692681908607,
0.379754006862... | 5 | Gull Rocks Light Lighthouse Log (Rhode Island). “January 1, 1931: New Years Day. All dressed up and no place to go.” But Keeper James Gallen had hardly dressed in a special garb for the celebration. In 1883, the Lighthouse Service had published a 14-page pamphlet describing and illustrating the type of dress and work uniforms that keepers and assistants were obliged to wear. The dress uniform consisted of blue pants, vest, suit jacket and flat top, navy-blue cap. The station’s personnel were also expected to wear well-kept brown working duds while occupied with “dirty work” around the lighthouse or its dwelling. If found out of uniform in any way by a Lighthouse Inspector, the keeper and/or his assistant were subject to a fine, reduction in pay or immediate dismissal from their post. Women keepers, usually the wife of a deceased husband-keeper, were never supplied with an official uniform.
The unannounced arrival of a Lighthouse Inspector could send a keeper and his family into a state of panic. These official intruders often wore white gloves, as they searched for any amount of dust around ledges, table-tops, windows and door frames. At the end of the inspection, the white gloves had to be as clean as they had been when first worn. The station’s log book was also carefully checked along with additional records regarding oil inventory and other lighthouse supplies.
Lighthouse duty was a 24 hours per day, 365 days per year occupation. Throughout most of the 1800’s, there were no provisions for days off, illness or vacation. Light stations maned by only one keeper were particularly difficult. If he or she had to leave the site, a family member was expected to take over or a substitute had to be hired at the keeper’s own expense. Typically, a lighthouse’s lanterns were exhibited from sunset to sunrise. The keeper was expected to remain with the beacon for at least a half-hour after its lighting and check it at twice overnight. During storms, keepers were instructed to remain with the beacon to assure that it continued to show a light. Any winter ice also had to be constantly clear away from the lantern-rooms windows. Then, under the light of a new day, the lens and lantern had to be properly cleaned along with a host of other maintenance tasks.
The Boston Light located on Little Brewster Island, was the Nation’s first lighthouse (1716). Initially, it used canon fire as a fog signal. An approaching sailing vessel fired (hopefully a blank) its cannon, which was answered as many times as necessary by the light’s keeper. Luckily, fog bells were soon introduced that were eventually operated by a clock work mechanism. Unfortunately for Keeper Thomas Chase at Long Point Light, Provincetown, Massachusetts, the mechanism had become disabled during a particularly heavy fog. Over the next two nights, he was forced to strike the bell by hand, three strokes, every minute. A fog horn was also probably not too peasant to be around. On visiting England’s Eddystone Lighthouse, a reporter had found its keeper with “cotton wool in each ear”; one way to partially block the aggravating, repetitive noise!
With sufficient land surrounding a lighthouse, keepers raised poultry, cows and owned horse(s) for transportation. Fishing was also an important food source. But some light stations that simply stood on a rock surface, made its occupants dependent on deliveries of fresh water and all other supplies.
Lighthouse keepers were instructed to summon aid or, if possible, assist in saving lives and property of vessels in distress. There are many examples of successful rescues performed by keepers and personnel aboard lightships. But at age 18 years, Ida Lewis who officially took over light keeping at Rhode Island’s Lime Rock Light after her dad suffered a stroke, is probably the Nation’s best-known lighthouse hero. As America’s first female keeper, she managed to save 18 lives during her 54 years at Lime Rock. She was only a 15-years-old kid when she made her first rescue. Two soldiers stationed at Fort Adams, had spent the day at Newport. A winter storm struck as they were making their way back to their base in a rowboat. In the issuing waves, the vessel capsized. Without hesitation, Ida made her way to them and pulled them into her boat. Years later, when questioned about all of her heroic deeds, she stated “we have only one life to live and when our time comes, we’ve got to go. I never thought of danger when people needed help.”
To help whyle their way in their isolated confines, keepers went fishing, played cards, checkers, chess and/or took up reading. To fill some of those needs, during the late 1800’s, the Lighthouse Establishment began distributing small libraries of books that were rotated every three months. Out of concern for these in valuable lighthouse sentinels, in 1929, Captain William Wincapaw began delivering Christmas gift parcels to some isolated lights. Boarding his Travel Air A 6000 single radial engine aircraft, he airdropped the packages to lighthouses along the coast of Maine. Thus was born “The Flying Santa.” Included in the packages were “newspapers, magazines, books, coffee, tea, candy, tobacco, soup and other items.” The program became so popular that, with outside financial help, it was soon expanded to lights from Maine to Connecticut and eventually on both coasts. In the late 1930’s, Wincapaw was joined by author Edward Rowe Snow who continued the program until 1981. By then he was 80 years of age.
In 1939, the US Coast Guard took over all operations regarding aids to navigation. Civilian keepers were given the option of (#1) retiring, provided that they had enough time in service, (#2) transferring to the service at an applicable rate or (#3) remaining on as a civilian keeper under the aegis of the Coast Guard. The Nation’s last civilian keeper, Frank Schubert, grew up on Staten Island. Just out of High School, he joined the Lighthouse Service where he was assigned to the buoy tender Tulip. In 1939, he was transferred to New York’s Old Orchard Shoal Lighthouse. He later served at Governors Island and was assigned to the Coney Island Light in July of 1960. Despite its eventual automation, he remained at the station until 2003, where he past away at age 88. Frank exemplified the dedication of all of the Nation’s lighthouse keepers. | 1,401 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The Rhodesian Ridgeback is known and named for the ridge of hair running along its back in the opposite direction from the rest of its coat. Male Ridgebacks weigh about 85 pounds and females about 70 pounds. Ridgebacks are typically muscular and have a light wheaten to red wheaten coat, which is short, dense, and glossy in appearance. Rhodesian Ridgebacks are loyal, intelligent, and somewhat aloof to strangers. Not to be confused with aggression, this aloofness tends to mean that a Ridgeback of good temperament is more inclined to ignore a stranger rather than approach him or her aggressively. Rhodesians often have a penchant for mischief. They are an energetic breed and need plenty of daily exercise and stimulus, or they may get into mischief out of boredom. They are also known to be protective of their owners and families.
The Khoikhoi people who occupied the Cape Peninsula, which is located at the southernmost tip of Africa, during the mid 17th century had a hunting dog which was described as ugly, but was known for its ferociousness when acting as a guard dog. The most distinctive feature of this hunting dog was the length of hair growing in the reverse direction along its back. During the mid 17th century, the Dutch began to settle this area of Africa and within 50 years the Europeans were using these local dogs themselves. European settlers began to bring many of their own various dog breeds to the area, including Great Danes, Bloodhounds, Greyhounds, and terriers. These breeds were bred with the African dogs, including the dog of the Khoikhoi people, which eventually resulted in the Boer hunting dogs, a predecessor to the modern Rhodesian Ridgeback.
While traveling in Southern Rhodesia in the 1870s, Reverend Charles Helm had two of these early ridged dogs with him. It was there that Cornelius van Rooyen, a big-game hunter, took notice of the breed and decided to breed his own dogs with them to incorporate their guarding abilities. The offspring were dogs with red coats and the signature ridges. Over the next 35 years they were further bred to have the ability to bay lions, that is, to hold them at bay while the hunter makes the kill. The dogs hunted not only lions but also other large game like pigs and baboons.
It wasn’t until the 1950s that the breed first made its way to the United States.
While the Rhodesian Ridgeback was used to hunt lions, it never actually attacked a lion. Typically a pack of three Ridgebacks would track the lions, then distracted them for the huntsman on horseback.
Ridgebacks are considered the world’s hungriest dog, meaning if left enough food to eat they will happily eat themselves sick or obese. So be careful when considering free-feeding with this breed.
Ridgebacks generally don't bark a lot. Many will bark to alert you to something unusual, and some will bark when they are bored, but for the most part, this isn't a yappy breed. | <urn:uuid:7858eac0-a14f-4b55-89ee-25c2b8c3d1f5> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.manhattanpetservice.com/single-post/2014/01/28/Dogology-Rhodesian-Ridgeback | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250593994.14/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118221909-20200119005909-00207.warc.gz | en | 0.984674 | 626 | 3.3125 | 3 | [
-0.12063537538051605,
0.39738374948501587,
0.0055777039378881454,
0.3762648105621338,
-0.007680328097194433,
0.3999023735523224,
-0.08945052325725555,
0.08924994617700577,
-0.32087916135787964,
0.041986133903265,
0.6563511490821838,
-0.7022576928138733,
-0.029724467545747757,
-0.1901257038... | 4 | The Rhodesian Ridgeback is known and named for the ridge of hair running along its back in the opposite direction from the rest of its coat. Male Ridgebacks weigh about 85 pounds and females about 70 pounds. Ridgebacks are typically muscular and have a light wheaten to red wheaten coat, which is short, dense, and glossy in appearance. Rhodesian Ridgebacks are loyal, intelligent, and somewhat aloof to strangers. Not to be confused with aggression, this aloofness tends to mean that a Ridgeback of good temperament is more inclined to ignore a stranger rather than approach him or her aggressively. Rhodesians often have a penchant for mischief. They are an energetic breed and need plenty of daily exercise and stimulus, or they may get into mischief out of boredom. They are also known to be protective of their owners and families.
The Khoikhoi people who occupied the Cape Peninsula, which is located at the southernmost tip of Africa, during the mid 17th century had a hunting dog which was described as ugly, but was known for its ferociousness when acting as a guard dog. The most distinctive feature of this hunting dog was the length of hair growing in the reverse direction along its back. During the mid 17th century, the Dutch began to settle this area of Africa and within 50 years the Europeans were using these local dogs themselves. European settlers began to bring many of their own various dog breeds to the area, including Great Danes, Bloodhounds, Greyhounds, and terriers. These breeds were bred with the African dogs, including the dog of the Khoikhoi people, which eventually resulted in the Boer hunting dogs, a predecessor to the modern Rhodesian Ridgeback.
While traveling in Southern Rhodesia in the 1870s, Reverend Charles Helm had two of these early ridged dogs with him. It was there that Cornelius van Rooyen, a big-game hunter, took notice of the breed and decided to breed his own dogs with them to incorporate their guarding abilities. The offspring were dogs with red coats and the signature ridges. Over the next 35 years they were further bred to have the ability to bay lions, that is, to hold them at bay while the hunter makes the kill. The dogs hunted not only lions but also other large game like pigs and baboons.
It wasn’t until the 1950s that the breed first made its way to the United States.
While the Rhodesian Ridgeback was used to hunt lions, it never actually attacked a lion. Typically a pack of three Ridgebacks would track the lions, then distracted them for the huntsman on horseback.
Ridgebacks are considered the world’s hungriest dog, meaning if left enough food to eat they will happily eat themselves sick or obese. So be careful when considering free-feeding with this breed.
Ridgebacks generally don't bark a lot. Many will bark to alert you to something unusual, and some will bark when they are bored, but for the most part, this isn't a yappy breed. | 637 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Julius Caesar’s time was up as the General in charge of Cisalpine Gaul, a province of the Roman Republic encompassing current France, etc.
The Senate had ordered Caesar home to Rome…and by tradition, to leave his army behind; Armies were not allowed in the Republic proper, and for good reason.
As Caesar sat on the other side of the river Rubicon, with his army, he made a decision to cross. Once he did so he would become a criminal, committing an act of war. And there would be no turning back.
He made his decision and plunged Rome into a civil war. He would be named dictator for life when he was victorious, something that was as significant for Romans as it would be for us.
Hence, “crossing the Rubicon” and “the die is cast” are synonymous with making an irreversible decision. | <urn:uuid:eed1b799-5aac-4356-869f-0026fc0f07c1> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://markloveshistory.com/tag/january-10/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250606872.19/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122071919-20200122100919-00236.warc.gz | en | 0.989498 | 186 | 3.5 | 4 | [
-0.21211948990821838,
0.16153940558433533,
0.4161932170391083,
0.01147858053445816,
-0.3537934422492981,
-0.027417823672294617,
0.4625925123691559,
0.45331862568855286,
0.1914616823196411,
-0.03367067873477936,
0.06956503540277481,
-0.16688236594200134,
0.1012197881937027,
0.27080610394477... | 4 | Julius Caesar’s time was up as the General in charge of Cisalpine Gaul, a province of the Roman Republic encompassing current France, etc.
The Senate had ordered Caesar home to Rome…and by tradition, to leave his army behind; Armies were not allowed in the Republic proper, and for good reason.
As Caesar sat on the other side of the river Rubicon, with his army, he made a decision to cross. Once he did so he would become a criminal, committing an act of war. And there would be no turning back.
He made his decision and plunged Rome into a civil war. He would be named dictator for life when he was victorious, something that was as significant for Romans as it would be for us.
Hence, “crossing the Rubicon” and “the die is cast” are synonymous with making an irreversible decision. | 176 | ENGLISH | 1 |
reason given to them by God more effectively than in the past. They should introduce crop rotations, build better storage facilities for food, use fertilizer and better seeds. In short, the crisis, they believed, could have been avoided if the Enlightened programme for improvements in the field of agriculture had been implemented.
Fifth, those inspired by the Enlightenment took a new interest in the cultures outside of Europe. While the Pietists sent missionaries to foreign lands, Enlightened scientists attempted to explore and describe societies in Asia and Africa, particularly in non-Christian countries like Iran, India, China, andJapan. They looked at these cultures not as the missionaries did, that is as heathens who needed nothing more than the light of the gospel, but with the eyes of ethnologists. In the belief that all cultures and all peoples were equal, as explained by Johann Gottfried Herder, they tried to learn. European imperialism and colonialism came later.
Sixth and finally, a special concern of committed members of the Enlightened elite was the toleration of Jews. Well into the eighteenth century Jews in Germany were barely tolerated. In order to secure residence, they had to pay extra fees, without ever reaching a state of civil acceptance. This was so when the Enlightened elite began to demand the complete equality of all members of all religions, including the Jews. Major steps in this direction were first made by Emperor Joseph II of Austria. Other sovereigns, including Frederick the Great, followed his example. At the time of the outbreak of the French Revolution, Jewish citizens of many towns had been given a more secure status, but popular hostility, both in the Catholic as well as in the Protestant parts of Germany, persisted. Many Protestants, and especially those who felt attached to the cause of mission, propagated the idea that the conversion of all Jews to Christianity (the Judenmission) would be the solution to the problem. It was still a long way before the vision of a multi-faith Germany that would include all the various forms of Protestants, Catholics, and Jews would be realized. By 1789, the programme of religious tolerance so eloquently and impressively spelled out by Lessing in his Nathan der Weise was far from being accepted as a way of life.
As can be imagined, it took an enormous effort before such a comprehensive and challenging agenda as the one proposed by the representatives of the Enlightenment could be implemented, even if only in part. When the French Revolution totally changed European affairs, much had not been completed. As many observers of the events in France came to believe that the radical Enlightenment was to blame for the sudden upheaval of the old order, it became much harder to carry through reforms based on Enlightened ideas
Was this article helpful?
Always wondered what meditation is all about but didn't knew who to ask? Here are some great information which will answer all of you questions on meditation. Do you want to improve your life? Are there areas of your life that just aren’t quite right? I felt the same way a few years ago. Although I had a good job and a nice family, there were parts of my life that definitely needed improvement. | <urn:uuid:f4ae692a-5bf3-4a10-8ebb-bc5a040ad106> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.wilmingtonfavs.com/french-revolution/info-pwk.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250589861.0/warc/CC-MAIN-20200117152059-20200117180059-00456.warc.gz | en | 0.980809 | 641 | 3.3125 | 3 | [
-0.11606231331825256,
0.47603940963745117,
-0.1461019217967987,
-0.329711377620697,
0.24579942226409912,
0.01826479472219944,
-0.24840395152568817,
0.446327269077301,
0.04170577973127365,
0.21661075949668884,
-0.06413376331329346,
-0.3315146565437317,
0.07228454947471619,
0.105273731052875... | 1 | reason given to them by God more effectively than in the past. They should introduce crop rotations, build better storage facilities for food, use fertilizer and better seeds. In short, the crisis, they believed, could have been avoided if the Enlightened programme for improvements in the field of agriculture had been implemented.
Fifth, those inspired by the Enlightenment took a new interest in the cultures outside of Europe. While the Pietists sent missionaries to foreign lands, Enlightened scientists attempted to explore and describe societies in Asia and Africa, particularly in non-Christian countries like Iran, India, China, andJapan. They looked at these cultures not as the missionaries did, that is as heathens who needed nothing more than the light of the gospel, but with the eyes of ethnologists. In the belief that all cultures and all peoples were equal, as explained by Johann Gottfried Herder, they tried to learn. European imperialism and colonialism came later.
Sixth and finally, a special concern of committed members of the Enlightened elite was the toleration of Jews. Well into the eighteenth century Jews in Germany were barely tolerated. In order to secure residence, they had to pay extra fees, without ever reaching a state of civil acceptance. This was so when the Enlightened elite began to demand the complete equality of all members of all religions, including the Jews. Major steps in this direction were first made by Emperor Joseph II of Austria. Other sovereigns, including Frederick the Great, followed his example. At the time of the outbreak of the French Revolution, Jewish citizens of many towns had been given a more secure status, but popular hostility, both in the Catholic as well as in the Protestant parts of Germany, persisted. Many Protestants, and especially those who felt attached to the cause of mission, propagated the idea that the conversion of all Jews to Christianity (the Judenmission) would be the solution to the problem. It was still a long way before the vision of a multi-faith Germany that would include all the various forms of Protestants, Catholics, and Jews would be realized. By 1789, the programme of religious tolerance so eloquently and impressively spelled out by Lessing in his Nathan der Weise was far from being accepted as a way of life.
As can be imagined, it took an enormous effort before such a comprehensive and challenging agenda as the one proposed by the representatives of the Enlightenment could be implemented, even if only in part. When the French Revolution totally changed European affairs, much had not been completed. As many observers of the events in France came to believe that the radical Enlightenment was to blame for the sudden upheaval of the old order, it became much harder to carry through reforms based on Enlightened ideas
Was this article helpful?
Always wondered what meditation is all about but didn't knew who to ask? Here are some great information which will answer all of you questions on meditation. Do you want to improve your life? Are there areas of your life that just aren’t quite right? I felt the same way a few years ago. Although I had a good job and a nice family, there were parts of my life that definitely needed improvement. | 643 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Homework Question on Industrialisation
- What were some of the social, political, geographic, and other factors that can explain why Great Britain was the first nation to industrialize?
Homework Answer on Industrialisation
Britain was the first country to industrialize because of a couple of factors. Britain relied mainly on wood as a source of energy, which meant it had large sources of coal that were not tapped. These coal mines provided cheap energy that was used in industries and transport systems. This coal was to be very useful because the country had a large workforce comprised of its citizens and slaves from its colonies. Colonies were sources of raw materials and markets for finished products.
These were two conditions that most countries did not have. Britain had the highest number of colonies mostly those, which were well endowed with natural resources that were important at the time. Its citizens were educated and provided skilled labor that was crucial in development of industries. People also had a positive working attitude and were willing to migrate from the countryside to the cities to provide labor. This led to rapid growth of industries as Britons supplied skilled labor, and slaves’ cheap manual labor.
Britain is located in a region that was free from wars. The country was fighting in its colonies against insurgents and invasion by other European countries. This meant that its industrialization plans at home went ahead without interruption. This was a huge advantage to the country bearing in mind at that time most nations were at war with their neighbors. This forced their governments to concentrate on the war rather than industrial growth. | <urn:uuid:60e0194c-9449-46a7-94ce-da328dae020c> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.bestessayservices.com/blog/sample-history-essays-on-industrialisation/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250591431.4/warc/CC-MAIN-20200117234621-20200118022621-00447.warc.gz | en | 0.993443 | 310 | 3.859375 | 4 | [
-0.23365391790866852,
0.08762583136558533,
0.4277534484863281,
-0.32234805822372437,
0.247018963098526,
-0.18671636283397675,
0.35692211985588074,
0.11723997443914413,
-0.3483067452907562,
-0.27468323707580566,
-0.15771496295928955,
-0.3852611482143402,
-0.148764967918396,
0.31693464517593... | 3 | Homework Question on Industrialisation
- What were some of the social, political, geographic, and other factors that can explain why Great Britain was the first nation to industrialize?
Homework Answer on Industrialisation
Britain was the first country to industrialize because of a couple of factors. Britain relied mainly on wood as a source of energy, which meant it had large sources of coal that were not tapped. These coal mines provided cheap energy that was used in industries and transport systems. This coal was to be very useful because the country had a large workforce comprised of its citizens and slaves from its colonies. Colonies were sources of raw materials and markets for finished products.
These were two conditions that most countries did not have. Britain had the highest number of colonies mostly those, which were well endowed with natural resources that were important at the time. Its citizens were educated and provided skilled labor that was crucial in development of industries. People also had a positive working attitude and were willing to migrate from the countryside to the cities to provide labor. This led to rapid growth of industries as Britons supplied skilled labor, and slaves’ cheap manual labor.
Britain is located in a region that was free from wars. The country was fighting in its colonies against insurgents and invasion by other European countries. This meant that its industrialization plans at home went ahead without interruption. This was a huge advantage to the country bearing in mind at that time most nations were at war with their neighbors. This forced their governments to concentrate on the war rather than industrial growth. | 307 | ENGLISH | 1 |
A people’s history of the United States
It was there that Europeans and Native Americans first came into contact; the Arrack natives came out to greet the whites, and the whites were only interested in finding the gold, “They brought us parrots and balls of cotton and spears and many other things, which they owned They were well-built, with good bodies and handsome features_. They do not bear arms, and do not know them, four showed them a sword, they took it by the edge and cut themselves out of ignorance.
Need Help with Your Essay?
Leave your essay topic in comments and get a free help
They have no iron. Their spears are made of cane… They would make fine servants… With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want” (Zion 1)_ This was Columbus first idea as soon as he arrived on the island. Expedition after expedition sent into the interior by Columbus had no success. The gold was not found, and hundreds of Indians had been killed for not finding anything of what was requested.
After Columbus, comes Bartholomew De Lass Cocas who was a young priest that participated in the conquest of Cuba, but then gave up and became a vehement critic of Spanish cruelty. Lass Cocas wanted to replace the Indians by Black slaves, thinking they were stronger and would survive, but later he found out the effects on black slaves so he decided to tell about the Spaniards and how hey treated the Indians.
The Indians attempted to save their lives from the Spaniards who used to cut their bodies in pieces to “test the sharpness oftener blades” (Zion 6), The population of the Indians reduced a lot going from 10 million to less than a million, I IS years later and CISCO miles to the north, the colony of Jamestown was founded by a group of English settlers led by John Smith; shortly after that the Massachusetts Bay Colony was founded by a group of Puritans known to us today as Pilgrims. When the English first settled Marsh’s Vineyard in 1642, there were probably three thousand Woman’s left.
There were no wars on that island, but by 1 764, only 313 Indians veer left there… Behind the English invasion Of North America, behind their massacre Of Indians, their deception, their brutality, was that special powerful drive born in civilizations based on private property. It was a morally ambiguous drive; the need for space, for land, was real human need. But in conditions of scarcity, in a barbarous epoch Of history ruled by competition, this human need was transformed into the murder of whole peoples” (Zion 16). This is how the real history began.
Not only with triumphs and victories but also tit blood spread all over the lands where the “wars” took place. Reflection ZION’S DARK SIDES OF COLUMBUS In A People’s History of the united States. Zion writes about the dark sides of United States icons. I believe Zion feels that students are merely being taught from the viewpoint of a person in power rather than including the views of the oppressed. In the first chapter of his book, Howard Zion suggests that we should think about what Christopher Columbus did to others to become so famous.
It is implied that this author is not really being amiable toward this hero, and the act that he is trying to make it obvious to us that Columbus took the American Arrack Indians as slaves, took advantage Of their goods, and killed thousands proves this. In my opinion, even though we should not hide the fact that Columbus and Other heroes were not perfect, we should not forget all the good they have done. For instance, although Columbus took advantage of the Indians and their good, he gained wealth, as did the Indians that both had previously never enjoyed.
Through his discoveries, Columbus cleared the way for the expansion of the European colonies in the Americas. If we strictly look from the viewpoint of the downtrodden we can make our heroes out to seem much worse then they really were. There is no such thing as unbiased, truthful history. History is in the eye tooth teller. In this case, Howard Zion’s view of history of this great country is extremely Marxist. He seems to pick and choose historical data that fits his agenda in an attempt to evoke an emotional response from the reader.
He does make some good points pertaining to injustices and misconceptions regarding the idealistic view of history, but unrealistic perceptions are made of the founding and progress of this country. You have to ask yourself, which is more important, that Columbus made his bay to America or that he treated the Indians horribly when he got there? Zion seems to argue that we cannot end evils like genocide, exploitation, and abuse until eve “face” there.. Drag them into the light of the day. To that point we are in complete agreement.
But, the very heart of Zion’s “history” is distorted. To use the most obvious example; he condemns Columbus for genocide. However, Zion tries to convey a perspective of history that is not glorified, but that is realistic using his own way _ Together with the negative sides Zion presents us, we should remind ourselves that Columbus was a hero whose impact on history should not be discredited. Summary II DRAWING THE COLOR LINE Racism is the main topic of this chapter which Howard Zion considers it as one of the most important issues of the world starting from the early 16005.
The “Color Line” was one of the world’s most important problems. Getting to the top of the history, the English were the ones who kept coming to America bringing Trance slaves into the middle colonies. Before resorting to Africans, the colonists had tried to subdue the Indians, but that idea failed before it was created, Zion rites: “They couldn’t force the Indians to work for them, as Columbus had done. They were outnumbered, and while, with superior firearms, they could massacre the Indians, they would face massacre in return.
They could not capture them and keep them enslaved; the Indians were tough, resourceful, defiant, and at home in these woods, as the transplanted Englishmen were not’ “White servants had not yet been brought over in sufficient quantity… As for free White settlers, many Of them were skilled craftsmen, or even men Of leisure back in England, who were so little inclined to work the land that John Smith, in hose early years, had to declare a kind Of martial law, organize them into work gangs, and force them into fields for survival… “Blacks slaves were the answer.
And it was natural to consider imported blacks as slaves, even if the institution of slavers would not be regularities and legalized for several decades” (Zion 25). As we all know, blacks were treated like slaves and there was a kind of antagonism and animosity toward them. Wherever they went, they were discriminated and humiliated just because of their skin color. According to Zion, the first slaves appeared in Virginia and they were brought room Europe. Even though they were called servants, they still belonged to a lower level than the white servants, “being treated differently, and in tact were slaves” (Zion, 24).
Zion continues his identification with the oppressed as he discusses black-white relations. He says that blacks and whites are not naturally prejudiced against each other as some would hue us believe; he points to the fact that laws actually had to be passed to keep blacks and whites from fraternities. Servants and slaves of different races saw each other as oppressed workers first and as embers of a specific race second. On the topic of slavery, Zion berates the American system, calling it “lifelong, morally crippling destructive of family ties, without hope of any future” (Zion 27).
Some argue that African tribes had slavery of their own so it was a part Of their culture to begin with, but Zion says that “the slaves of Africa were more like the serfs of Europe-in other words, like most of the population Of Europe” (Zion 27). Black slavery became an American institution that the southern and middle colonies began to depend on for their economic success. Zion asserts that there ere clear contentions between the races that ultimately led to the revolution.
Reflection II THE BELLIGERENT FEELING OF BEING A RACIST noticed that Howard Zion, the author tot the “controversial” book A People’s History of United States has one purpose and following his goal he is trying to convey his famous ideas that America, no matter how hard it is for us to face it, is not the ultimate guardian of equality, truth and justice it claims to be, The facts are there, in the book, and you can notice them starting from the very single page that introduces the beginning of this “History” book, Maybe this is easier ND probably a satisfactory detail for immigrants to know and believe because am sure that even though people immigrate to America they still store some strong old feelings that are malicious and antagonistic. Am one of the millions and millions of immigrants that live here in America. I came here only a year and a half ago, but am certainly against these emotions immigrants usually have toward this gorgeous country. Always believed and thought Of America as the country Of liberalism, freedom, and opportunities. Of course, like any other thing, America was not and it SMS isn’t perfect but we can’t lame it or even worse characterize it as the country who discriminated black people. In Albania, the place am from, there was always fear; fear toward the government which since SO years ago was taken over by Turkey. We were kind of slaves obeying the rules of the Ottoman government and know how it feels to be treated like a slave especially in your own country. We all know now what a bad thing racism was and how bad it infected our countries, but we cannot change the past.
Instead, we should try to learn trot it and try to get our lives better. Now, maybe not truly and completely, there is no more “declared racism” n the world, at least not in LISA. In front tooth law we are considered equal people with equal rights no matter what color or race we belong to. However, there is a silent humiliation or racism that exists among us. Do not think it has any importance at all but however unimportant it is, it is still not supposed to exist at all. In Europe, my continent, people are really strange when it comes to racism. They changed from what they used to be before, but there are still marks of aversion toward the “other” people.
If we look at this world in another angle different room the one Zion is looking when he writes this book, we will find ourselves discovering that no matter how slow or fast we are moving, we are changing and stepping into a better condition to live, a better world for ourselves, a better community to work with, a better universe! Summary Ill PERSONS OF MEAN AND VILE CONDITION In the third chapter of A People’s History of the United States, Howard Zion writes and describes the history of the colonies in “war” with the English people. Many revolutions were led from the British people in order to secure their lives from the Indian attacks. One of these people was Nathaniel Bacon.
Nathaniel Bacon led a revolution against Virginia governor William Berkeley and his conciliatory Indian policies. Bacon and others who lived on the western frontier wanted more protection from the government against Indian attacks. Berkeley and his cronies were 50 concerned with their own financial and political gain that they ignored Bacon’s Rebellion and continued their policies. In the end, Bacon died a natural death and his friends were hanged, but for the first time ever, the government was forced to listen to the grievances of the underclass hat had been for the most part largely ignorable up to that point. Meanwhile, class distinctions became sharper and the poor grew in number.
Citizens were put into work houses for debt and occasionally rioted against the wealthy. More and more though, the anger turned from being just a class war to being a war of nationalities. Impressments and other British policies distracted the colonists from being mad at the bourgeoisie to being mad at their mother country. At the end of chapter three, the tension is mounting, pitting the Americans against the English and the workers against the rich. The atmosphere as ripe for revolution. Reflection Ill A PROLETARIAT’S HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES Looking at the first three chapters of A People’s History of the United States I would better title it A Proletariat’s History tot the United States.
This is because Howard Zion’s main focus on the book besides the actual history is the effect of the history on the common people and the workers, or proletarians as Marx and Engel’s referred to them, While most history books focus on the dominating Europeans, Zion focuses on the dominated Native Americans, who Zion holds to be at least as advanced as their European masters. Zion commiserates with the plight of the oppressed frontier whites, making Nathaniel Bacon out to be a hero. Over the course of the next 80 years, Zion cites routine injustices against the working and under classes, saying that is “seems quite clear that the class lines hardened through the colonial period; the distinction between rich and poor became sharper” (Zion 47)_ It is refreshing and commendable to see a history text that takes a stance on the side of the peoples that seldom get represented. | <urn:uuid:ae062380-6f77-4843-a306-4eedbc6b42e2> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://benjaminbarber.org/a-peoples-history-of-the-united-states/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250601241.42/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121014531-20200121043531-00170.warc.gz | en | 0.980966 | 2,842 | 3.46875 | 3 | [
-0.2108668088912964,
0.2765134871006012,
0.20103581249713898,
0.012039411813020706,
-0.23687851428985596,
-0.21816150844097137,
0.19155281782150269,
0.12153535336256027,
-0.10597719252109528,
-0.05237969756126404,
0.29307833313941956,
-0.09964390099048615,
-0.31395959854125977,
0.295412838... | 1 | A people’s history of the United States
It was there that Europeans and Native Americans first came into contact; the Arrack natives came out to greet the whites, and the whites were only interested in finding the gold, “They brought us parrots and balls of cotton and spears and many other things, which they owned They were well-built, with good bodies and handsome features_. They do not bear arms, and do not know them, four showed them a sword, they took it by the edge and cut themselves out of ignorance.
Need Help with Your Essay?
Leave your essay topic in comments and get a free help
They have no iron. Their spears are made of cane… They would make fine servants… With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want” (Zion 1)_ This was Columbus first idea as soon as he arrived on the island. Expedition after expedition sent into the interior by Columbus had no success. The gold was not found, and hundreds of Indians had been killed for not finding anything of what was requested.
After Columbus, comes Bartholomew De Lass Cocas who was a young priest that participated in the conquest of Cuba, but then gave up and became a vehement critic of Spanish cruelty. Lass Cocas wanted to replace the Indians by Black slaves, thinking they were stronger and would survive, but later he found out the effects on black slaves so he decided to tell about the Spaniards and how hey treated the Indians.
The Indians attempted to save their lives from the Spaniards who used to cut their bodies in pieces to “test the sharpness oftener blades” (Zion 6), The population of the Indians reduced a lot going from 10 million to less than a million, I IS years later and CISCO miles to the north, the colony of Jamestown was founded by a group of English settlers led by John Smith; shortly after that the Massachusetts Bay Colony was founded by a group of Puritans known to us today as Pilgrims. When the English first settled Marsh’s Vineyard in 1642, there were probably three thousand Woman’s left.
There were no wars on that island, but by 1 764, only 313 Indians veer left there… Behind the English invasion Of North America, behind their massacre Of Indians, their deception, their brutality, was that special powerful drive born in civilizations based on private property. It was a morally ambiguous drive; the need for space, for land, was real human need. But in conditions of scarcity, in a barbarous epoch Of history ruled by competition, this human need was transformed into the murder of whole peoples” (Zion 16). This is how the real history began.
Not only with triumphs and victories but also tit blood spread all over the lands where the “wars” took place. Reflection ZION’S DARK SIDES OF COLUMBUS In A People’s History of the united States. Zion writes about the dark sides of United States icons. I believe Zion feels that students are merely being taught from the viewpoint of a person in power rather than including the views of the oppressed. In the first chapter of his book, Howard Zion suggests that we should think about what Christopher Columbus did to others to become so famous.
It is implied that this author is not really being amiable toward this hero, and the act that he is trying to make it obvious to us that Columbus took the American Arrack Indians as slaves, took advantage Of their goods, and killed thousands proves this. In my opinion, even though we should not hide the fact that Columbus and Other heroes were not perfect, we should not forget all the good they have done. For instance, although Columbus took advantage of the Indians and their good, he gained wealth, as did the Indians that both had previously never enjoyed.
Through his discoveries, Columbus cleared the way for the expansion of the European colonies in the Americas. If we strictly look from the viewpoint of the downtrodden we can make our heroes out to seem much worse then they really were. There is no such thing as unbiased, truthful history. History is in the eye tooth teller. In this case, Howard Zion’s view of history of this great country is extremely Marxist. He seems to pick and choose historical data that fits his agenda in an attempt to evoke an emotional response from the reader.
He does make some good points pertaining to injustices and misconceptions regarding the idealistic view of history, but unrealistic perceptions are made of the founding and progress of this country. You have to ask yourself, which is more important, that Columbus made his bay to America or that he treated the Indians horribly when he got there? Zion seems to argue that we cannot end evils like genocide, exploitation, and abuse until eve “face” there.. Drag them into the light of the day. To that point we are in complete agreement.
But, the very heart of Zion’s “history” is distorted. To use the most obvious example; he condemns Columbus for genocide. However, Zion tries to convey a perspective of history that is not glorified, but that is realistic using his own way _ Together with the negative sides Zion presents us, we should remind ourselves that Columbus was a hero whose impact on history should not be discredited. Summary II DRAWING THE COLOR LINE Racism is the main topic of this chapter which Howard Zion considers it as one of the most important issues of the world starting from the early 16005.
The “Color Line” was one of the world’s most important problems. Getting to the top of the history, the English were the ones who kept coming to America bringing Trance slaves into the middle colonies. Before resorting to Africans, the colonists had tried to subdue the Indians, but that idea failed before it was created, Zion rites: “They couldn’t force the Indians to work for them, as Columbus had done. They were outnumbered, and while, with superior firearms, they could massacre the Indians, they would face massacre in return.
They could not capture them and keep them enslaved; the Indians were tough, resourceful, defiant, and at home in these woods, as the transplanted Englishmen were not’ “White servants had not yet been brought over in sufficient quantity… As for free White settlers, many Of them were skilled craftsmen, or even men Of leisure back in England, who were so little inclined to work the land that John Smith, in hose early years, had to declare a kind Of martial law, organize them into work gangs, and force them into fields for survival… “Blacks slaves were the answer.
And it was natural to consider imported blacks as slaves, even if the institution of slavers would not be regularities and legalized for several decades” (Zion 25). As we all know, blacks were treated like slaves and there was a kind of antagonism and animosity toward them. Wherever they went, they were discriminated and humiliated just because of their skin color. According to Zion, the first slaves appeared in Virginia and they were brought room Europe. Even though they were called servants, they still belonged to a lower level than the white servants, “being treated differently, and in tact were slaves” (Zion, 24).
Zion continues his identification with the oppressed as he discusses black-white relations. He says that blacks and whites are not naturally prejudiced against each other as some would hue us believe; he points to the fact that laws actually had to be passed to keep blacks and whites from fraternities. Servants and slaves of different races saw each other as oppressed workers first and as embers of a specific race second. On the topic of slavery, Zion berates the American system, calling it “lifelong, morally crippling destructive of family ties, without hope of any future” (Zion 27).
Some argue that African tribes had slavery of their own so it was a part Of their culture to begin with, but Zion says that “the slaves of Africa were more like the serfs of Europe-in other words, like most of the population Of Europe” (Zion 27). Black slavery became an American institution that the southern and middle colonies began to depend on for their economic success. Zion asserts that there ere clear contentions between the races that ultimately led to the revolution.
Reflection II THE BELLIGERENT FEELING OF BEING A RACIST noticed that Howard Zion, the author tot the “controversial” book A People’s History of United States has one purpose and following his goal he is trying to convey his famous ideas that America, no matter how hard it is for us to face it, is not the ultimate guardian of equality, truth and justice it claims to be, The facts are there, in the book, and you can notice them starting from the very single page that introduces the beginning of this “History” book, Maybe this is easier ND probably a satisfactory detail for immigrants to know and believe because am sure that even though people immigrate to America they still store some strong old feelings that are malicious and antagonistic. Am one of the millions and millions of immigrants that live here in America. I came here only a year and a half ago, but am certainly against these emotions immigrants usually have toward this gorgeous country. Always believed and thought Of America as the country Of liberalism, freedom, and opportunities. Of course, like any other thing, America was not and it SMS isn’t perfect but we can’t lame it or even worse characterize it as the country who discriminated black people. In Albania, the place am from, there was always fear; fear toward the government which since SO years ago was taken over by Turkey. We were kind of slaves obeying the rules of the Ottoman government and know how it feels to be treated like a slave especially in your own country. We all know now what a bad thing racism was and how bad it infected our countries, but we cannot change the past.
Instead, we should try to learn trot it and try to get our lives better. Now, maybe not truly and completely, there is no more “declared racism” n the world, at least not in LISA. In front tooth law we are considered equal people with equal rights no matter what color or race we belong to. However, there is a silent humiliation or racism that exists among us. Do not think it has any importance at all but however unimportant it is, it is still not supposed to exist at all. In Europe, my continent, people are really strange when it comes to racism. They changed from what they used to be before, but there are still marks of aversion toward the “other” people.
If we look at this world in another angle different room the one Zion is looking when he writes this book, we will find ourselves discovering that no matter how slow or fast we are moving, we are changing and stepping into a better condition to live, a better world for ourselves, a better community to work with, a better universe! Summary Ill PERSONS OF MEAN AND VILE CONDITION In the third chapter of A People’s History of the United States, Howard Zion writes and describes the history of the colonies in “war” with the English people. Many revolutions were led from the British people in order to secure their lives from the Indian attacks. One of these people was Nathaniel Bacon.
Nathaniel Bacon led a revolution against Virginia governor William Berkeley and his conciliatory Indian policies. Bacon and others who lived on the western frontier wanted more protection from the government against Indian attacks. Berkeley and his cronies were 50 concerned with their own financial and political gain that they ignored Bacon’s Rebellion and continued their policies. In the end, Bacon died a natural death and his friends were hanged, but for the first time ever, the government was forced to listen to the grievances of the underclass hat had been for the most part largely ignorable up to that point. Meanwhile, class distinctions became sharper and the poor grew in number.
Citizens were put into work houses for debt and occasionally rioted against the wealthy. More and more though, the anger turned from being just a class war to being a war of nationalities. Impressments and other British policies distracted the colonists from being mad at the bourgeoisie to being mad at their mother country. At the end of chapter three, the tension is mounting, pitting the Americans against the English and the workers against the rich. The atmosphere as ripe for revolution. Reflection Ill A PROLETARIAT’S HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES Looking at the first three chapters of A People’s History of the United States I would better title it A Proletariat’s History tot the United States.
This is because Howard Zion’s main focus on the book besides the actual history is the effect of the history on the common people and the workers, or proletarians as Marx and Engel’s referred to them, While most history books focus on the dominating Europeans, Zion focuses on the dominated Native Americans, who Zion holds to be at least as advanced as their European masters. Zion commiserates with the plight of the oppressed frontier whites, making Nathaniel Bacon out to be a hero. Over the course of the next 80 years, Zion cites routine injustices against the working and under classes, saying that is “seems quite clear that the class lines hardened through the colonial period; the distinction between rich and poor became sharper” (Zion 47)_ It is refreshing and commendable to see a history text that takes a stance on the side of the peoples that seldom get represented. | 2,784 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The beliefs of the time can shape an author’s words. Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God is a sermon written by Jonathon Edwards in 1741. During this time was the Great Awakening, a series of religious revivals meant to turn church members from passive listeners to passionate and emotionally involved. Puritans were a large part of the colonies in this time also. Puritans, who were escaping persecution, formed some of the 13 colonies but in turn they enforced their religion and beliefs in the colonies. Jonathan Edwards focused this sermon on the beliefs of the Puritans to turn them to God.
“1. That they were always exposed to destruction; as one that stands or walks in slippery places is always exposed to fall. This is implied in the manner of their destruction coming upon them, being represented by their foot sliding.” (Edwards) Here Edwards is saying that God can cast the wicked men into hell any time He wants. Similarly, Puritans believed that you were predestined for either heaven or hell. God alone determined a person’s salvation.
“Your wickedness makes you as it were heavy as lead, and to tend downwards with great weight and pressure towards hell; and if God should let you go, you would immediately sink and swiftly descend and plunge into the bottomless gulf…” (Edwards) Likewise, the Puritans believed in total depravity. Everyone is full of sin. They accepted that every part of them was sinful, their thoughts, emotions, and actions.
“And now you have an extraordinary opportunity, a day wherein Christ has thrown the door of mercy wide open, and stands in calling and crying with a loud voice to poor sinners; a day wherein many are flocking to him, and pressing into the kingdom of God. Many are daily coming from the east, west, north and south; many that were very lately in the same miserable condition that you are in, are now in a happy state, with their hearts filled with love to him who has loved them, and washed them from their sins in his own blood, and rejoicing in hope of the glory of God.” Edwards paints a picture of Christ calling and crying with a loud voice His offer of grace to the sinners of the world. Puritans believed that His grace was irresistible and once you were elected for heaven, you could not escape it.
Edward’s allowed the views of his time to shape his powerful sermon. He knew from the response of the Great Awakening that many people were asking what God would do with them. He gave them a memorable answer telling them of their sinful state before a Holy God. He used their Puritan beliefs about salvation and divine judgment to shape a message that would bring many into God’s fold. | <urn:uuid:f22ebece-a6c9-447f-9b24-85c4500c7f3e> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://woodstock-online.com/sinners-hands-angry-god/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594391.21/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119093733-20200119121733-00522.warc.gz | en | 0.985208 | 568 | 3.375 | 3 | [
-0.2027328759431839,
0.20821550488471985,
0.18326139450073242,
0.0740405023097992,
-0.21473830938339233,
0.3793829679489136,
0.2011929750442505,
-0.29895341396331787,
0.06925953924655914,
0.27540603280067444,
-0.31593191623687744,
-0.13011495769023895,
0.15159821510314941,
0.00211689295247... | 2 | The beliefs of the time can shape an author’s words. Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God is a sermon written by Jonathon Edwards in 1741. During this time was the Great Awakening, a series of religious revivals meant to turn church members from passive listeners to passionate and emotionally involved. Puritans were a large part of the colonies in this time also. Puritans, who were escaping persecution, formed some of the 13 colonies but in turn they enforced their religion and beliefs in the colonies. Jonathan Edwards focused this sermon on the beliefs of the Puritans to turn them to God.
“1. That they were always exposed to destruction; as one that stands or walks in slippery places is always exposed to fall. This is implied in the manner of their destruction coming upon them, being represented by their foot sliding.” (Edwards) Here Edwards is saying that God can cast the wicked men into hell any time He wants. Similarly, Puritans believed that you were predestined for either heaven or hell. God alone determined a person’s salvation.
“Your wickedness makes you as it were heavy as lead, and to tend downwards with great weight and pressure towards hell; and if God should let you go, you would immediately sink and swiftly descend and plunge into the bottomless gulf…” (Edwards) Likewise, the Puritans believed in total depravity. Everyone is full of sin. They accepted that every part of them was sinful, their thoughts, emotions, and actions.
“And now you have an extraordinary opportunity, a day wherein Christ has thrown the door of mercy wide open, and stands in calling and crying with a loud voice to poor sinners; a day wherein many are flocking to him, and pressing into the kingdom of God. Many are daily coming from the east, west, north and south; many that were very lately in the same miserable condition that you are in, are now in a happy state, with their hearts filled with love to him who has loved them, and washed them from their sins in his own blood, and rejoicing in hope of the glory of God.” Edwards paints a picture of Christ calling and crying with a loud voice His offer of grace to the sinners of the world. Puritans believed that His grace was irresistible and once you were elected for heaven, you could not escape it.
Edward’s allowed the views of his time to shape his powerful sermon. He knew from the response of the Great Awakening that many people were asking what God would do with them. He gave them a memorable answer telling them of their sinful state before a Holy God. He used their Puritan beliefs about salvation and divine judgment to shape a message that would bring many into God’s fold. | 560 | ENGLISH | 1 |
1879 Albert Einstein, an American physicist of German origin was born on the 14th of March at Ulm, Germany. He was son of Hermann, a Hebrew industrialist and of Paulina. He spent his youth at Munich, where his family owned a small shop that produced appliances. Even if he had not spoken until 3 years old, when he did it he had the vocabulary and the fluency of an adult. Since he was young, he was very interested in nature and had an innate ability to understand hard mathematical concepts.
1891 Being 12 years old, he learnt by himself Euclidean geometry. Einstein hated the routine and unimaginative spirit of the school in Munich. When the repeated failure of business determined his family to leave Germany and go to Milano, in Italy, Einstein, 15 years old, used the opportunity to give up to school. He spent one year with his parents at Milano and when he realized he had to go on by himself Einstein graduated high school in Arrau, Switzerland.
1896 He enrolled to Polytechnic in Zurich. He did not like teaching methods used here that is why he usually missed the classes using the entire time to study Physics by himself or to play his loved violin.
1902 He secured for him the position of examiner to Patent Office in Bern.
1903 He married to Mileva Maric, a former colleague to Polytechnic. They had two sons: the first became a mechanical engineering teacher and the second was schizophrenic. Einstein married again later.
1905 Einstein took his doctorate to University in Zurich with a theoretical dissertation on molecules size; he also published three scientific articles that were extremely important for the subsequent development of Physics during century XX. The first article, “About the Suspended Small Particles in an Immiscible Liquid”, statistically explained the movement of particles that are randomly distributed in a fluid. The second work, dedicated to photoelectric effect explanation, contained a revolutionary hypothesis regarding the light nature. Einstein considered that light could be considered an amount of particles on certain conditions and he also speculated that energy carried by any light particle, called photon, is proportionally to radiation frequency.
His third important work that was published by Einstein in 1905, “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”, contained what would be known later as “relativity theory”. Since Newton, natural philosophers (name under which physicists and chemists were known) had tried to understand matter and radiation nature and also the way they interacted into a unified picture of the world. The idea that the laws of mechanic are essential was known as the mechanistic conception of the world, while the idea that electricity laws are fundamental was known as electromagnetic conception of the world.
In the spring of 1905, after he had reflected a lot to these problems, Einstein elaborated “special theory of relativity”. The essence of this theory was the finding that all time and space measurements depend on signals speed. The fastest signal is light.
The hardships the other savants had dealing with Einstein’s laws were not because his theories are complex from mathematical point of view or technically obscure; the problems rather derived from Einstein’s convictions on the nature of valid theories and on the relationship between experiment and theory.
The first that sustained him was the German physicist Max Planck. Einstein remained to Patent Office for four years after he had started to be famous within Physicists community.
1907 Even before leaving Patent Office, Einstein had started his work to expand and generalize relativity theory for all coordinate systems.
1909 His first academic job was at University in Zurich.
1911 He removed to German Language University in Prague.
1912 He returned to Polytechnic in Zurich.
1913 He was appointed director of Physics Institute in Berlin, “Kaiser Wilhem”.
1916 “Generalized Theory of Relativity” was published on its complete form. Based on this theory, Einstein justified the unexplained variations of the motion on planets orbit and he predicted starlight blending near a massive body, like the Sun. This year he also divorced.
1919 During solar eclipse this phenomenon sustained by Einstein was confirmed and became a media phenomenon.
1920 He got Nobel Award for Physics (because he had explained photoelectric effect).
1928 Einstein’s supremacy regarding Physics stopped because of quantum Physics development.
1933 Being a Jew his books were burnt by Hitlerites at Berlin and his fortune was seized. Einstein, who was a teacher in USA, had never gone back to Nazi Germany. Hitler’s ascension determined him to give up to pacifist beliefs and agreed atomic bomb building (but he did not take part in its construction).
After Hiroshima and Nagasaki explosions, he became a fierce advocate of nuclear disarmament. In the same time, as a Jew, he rejected the proposal to become president of Israel, considering that he was a physicist not a politician. He married again, to his cousin, Elsa, who died in 1936.
1955 After a period of quiet and lonely life at Princeton, New Jersey, USA, great physicist Albert Einstein passed away.
- Albert Einstein (1879-1955), ro.biography.name
- Created on .
- Last updated on .
- Hits: 1294 | <urn:uuid:7cd3ad19-dd66-4c13-a7ee-239ed91f1812> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://en.biography.name/physicists/67-germany/90-albert-einstein-1879-1955?tmpl=component&print=1&layout=default | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250598726.39/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120110422-20200120134422-00540.warc.gz | en | 0.983415 | 1,091 | 3.375 | 3 | [
-0.0690302699804306,
0.14402905106544495,
-0.16677609086036682,
0.09742549061775208,
-0.3866320550441742,
-0.14081867039203644,
0.3834829330444336,
0.21338140964508057,
-0.18918061256408691,
-0.27397698163986206,
0.47630590200424194,
-0.6158967614173889,
-0.25980228185653687,
0.37006485462... | 1 | 1879 Albert Einstein, an American physicist of German origin was born on the 14th of March at Ulm, Germany. He was son of Hermann, a Hebrew industrialist and of Paulina. He spent his youth at Munich, where his family owned a small shop that produced appliances. Even if he had not spoken until 3 years old, when he did it he had the vocabulary and the fluency of an adult. Since he was young, he was very interested in nature and had an innate ability to understand hard mathematical concepts.
1891 Being 12 years old, he learnt by himself Euclidean geometry. Einstein hated the routine and unimaginative spirit of the school in Munich. When the repeated failure of business determined his family to leave Germany and go to Milano, in Italy, Einstein, 15 years old, used the opportunity to give up to school. He spent one year with his parents at Milano and when he realized he had to go on by himself Einstein graduated high school in Arrau, Switzerland.
1896 He enrolled to Polytechnic in Zurich. He did not like teaching methods used here that is why he usually missed the classes using the entire time to study Physics by himself or to play his loved violin.
1902 He secured for him the position of examiner to Patent Office in Bern.
1903 He married to Mileva Maric, a former colleague to Polytechnic. They had two sons: the first became a mechanical engineering teacher and the second was schizophrenic. Einstein married again later.
1905 Einstein took his doctorate to University in Zurich with a theoretical dissertation on molecules size; he also published three scientific articles that were extremely important for the subsequent development of Physics during century XX. The first article, “About the Suspended Small Particles in an Immiscible Liquid”, statistically explained the movement of particles that are randomly distributed in a fluid. The second work, dedicated to photoelectric effect explanation, contained a revolutionary hypothesis regarding the light nature. Einstein considered that light could be considered an amount of particles on certain conditions and he also speculated that energy carried by any light particle, called photon, is proportionally to radiation frequency.
His third important work that was published by Einstein in 1905, “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”, contained what would be known later as “relativity theory”. Since Newton, natural philosophers (name under which physicists and chemists were known) had tried to understand matter and radiation nature and also the way they interacted into a unified picture of the world. The idea that the laws of mechanic are essential was known as the mechanistic conception of the world, while the idea that electricity laws are fundamental was known as electromagnetic conception of the world.
In the spring of 1905, after he had reflected a lot to these problems, Einstein elaborated “special theory of relativity”. The essence of this theory was the finding that all time and space measurements depend on signals speed. The fastest signal is light.
The hardships the other savants had dealing with Einstein’s laws were not because his theories are complex from mathematical point of view or technically obscure; the problems rather derived from Einstein’s convictions on the nature of valid theories and on the relationship between experiment and theory.
The first that sustained him was the German physicist Max Planck. Einstein remained to Patent Office for four years after he had started to be famous within Physicists community.
1907 Even before leaving Patent Office, Einstein had started his work to expand and generalize relativity theory for all coordinate systems.
1909 His first academic job was at University in Zurich.
1911 He removed to German Language University in Prague.
1912 He returned to Polytechnic in Zurich.
1913 He was appointed director of Physics Institute in Berlin, “Kaiser Wilhem”.
1916 “Generalized Theory of Relativity” was published on its complete form. Based on this theory, Einstein justified the unexplained variations of the motion on planets orbit and he predicted starlight blending near a massive body, like the Sun. This year he also divorced.
1919 During solar eclipse this phenomenon sustained by Einstein was confirmed and became a media phenomenon.
1920 He got Nobel Award for Physics (because he had explained photoelectric effect).
1928 Einstein’s supremacy regarding Physics stopped because of quantum Physics development.
1933 Being a Jew his books were burnt by Hitlerites at Berlin and his fortune was seized. Einstein, who was a teacher in USA, had never gone back to Nazi Germany. Hitler’s ascension determined him to give up to pacifist beliefs and agreed atomic bomb building (but he did not take part in its construction).
After Hiroshima and Nagasaki explosions, he became a fierce advocate of nuclear disarmament. In the same time, as a Jew, he rejected the proposal to become president of Israel, considering that he was a physicist not a politician. He married again, to his cousin, Elsa, who died in 1936.
1955 After a period of quiet and lonely life at Princeton, New Jersey, USA, great physicist Albert Einstein passed away.
- Albert Einstein (1879-1955), ro.biography.name
- Created on .
- Last updated on .
- Hits: 1294 | 1,102 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Progress tracking tools for students FREE Video Lesson Worth $20! 10,000 Math Questions From P1 to P6! Access 300 Hours of Video Explanations! Video Tutorials to Tough PSLE Questions! Step-by-step worked solutions
Your questions answered, explained
e.g. straight line,distance,algebra
showing results for "before" difficulty: [ALL]
Dean and Sam had a total of $123 at first. Mary gave Sam $7 and John gave Sam $10. In the end, Sam had thirteen times as much money as Dean. (a) How much money did Sam have at first? (b) How much money did Dean have at first? Notes to students: If the que ...
A box has 6 times as much rice as a bucket. John transfers some rice from the box to the bucket so that each container became filled with 16.1 kg of rice? How much rice did John transfer from the box to the bucket? Notes to students: Round your answer off to 2 decimal places ...
At an airport, there were a total of 16000 people at terminal A and terminal B. After 2000 people from terminal A left the airport, terminal A had 6 times as many people as terminal B. Find : (a) the number of people at terminal A in the end. (b) the number of people at terminal B initially. Notes to student: ...
There were a total of 1080 fruits in two racks, A and B. After 450 fruits from rack B were sold, rack B had 6 times as many fruits as rack A. How many more fruits than rack A did rack B have at first?
School A has 192 more students than school B. 64 students transferred from school B to school A. School A now has 5 times as many students as school B. (a) Find the number of students in school A before the transfer. (b) Find the total number of students in both schools. Notes to student: ...
In a class, 21 kids were assigned the task of collecting a certain number of flowers. After a while, 12 kids stopped collecting flowers and ran off to play. Because of this, the remaining kids had to collect 60 more flowers each. (a) How many flowers had to be collected by each kid originally before 12 kids ran off to play? (b) How many flowers were collected by the kids in total ... | <urn:uuid:884dbfcb-9bd9-452d-9f9d-d33fc06b20c8> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://www.singaporemathguru.com/question_bank?key=before | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251778168.77/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128091916-20200128121916-00142.warc.gz | en | 0.9827 | 492 | 3.703125 | 4 | [
-0.15410034358501434,
-0.324955016374588,
0.1703868955373764,
-0.5541109442710876,
-0.012346998788416386,
0.18691842257976532,
0.06372061371803284,
0.028855925425887108,
0.10823387652635574,
0.010864874348044395,
0.1363728940486908,
-0.08644890785217285,
0.15860602259635925,
0.067997440695... | 2 | Progress tracking tools for students FREE Video Lesson Worth $20! 10,000 Math Questions From P1 to P6! Access 300 Hours of Video Explanations! Video Tutorials to Tough PSLE Questions! Step-by-step worked solutions
Your questions answered, explained
e.g. straight line,distance,algebra
showing results for "before" difficulty: [ALL]
Dean and Sam had a total of $123 at first. Mary gave Sam $7 and John gave Sam $10. In the end, Sam had thirteen times as much money as Dean. (a) How much money did Sam have at first? (b) How much money did Dean have at first? Notes to students: If the que ...
A box has 6 times as much rice as a bucket. John transfers some rice from the box to the bucket so that each container became filled with 16.1 kg of rice? How much rice did John transfer from the box to the bucket? Notes to students: Round your answer off to 2 decimal places ...
At an airport, there were a total of 16000 people at terminal A and terminal B. After 2000 people from terminal A left the airport, terminal A had 6 times as many people as terminal B. Find : (a) the number of people at terminal A in the end. (b) the number of people at terminal B initially. Notes to student: ...
There were a total of 1080 fruits in two racks, A and B. After 450 fruits from rack B were sold, rack B had 6 times as many fruits as rack A. How many more fruits than rack A did rack B have at first?
School A has 192 more students than school B. 64 students transferred from school B to school A. School A now has 5 times as many students as school B. (a) Find the number of students in school A before the transfer. (b) Find the total number of students in both schools. Notes to student: ...
In a class, 21 kids were assigned the task of collecting a certain number of flowers. After a while, 12 kids stopped collecting flowers and ran off to play. Because of this, the remaining kids had to collect 60 more flowers each. (a) How many flowers had to be collected by each kid originally before 12 kids ran off to play? (b) How many flowers were collected by the kids in total ... | 529 | ENGLISH | 1 |
In 1509 Henry VIII (8th) came to the throne after his father, Henry VII (7th) died. The old king had been unpopular towards the end of his reign for being dull, penny-pinching, and for squeezing money out of the nobles. The new king Henry was a contrast. He was 17 years old, well-educated, tall and athletic. He loved sport, especially jousting, and hunting.
An appetite for glory!
Soon after he came to the throne, Henry VIII turned his attention to foreign policy. He was determined that England should be seen as a more powerful country in Europe. In times gone by, England had ruled parts of France. Henry wanted to get them back.
In 1513 Henry went to war in France and captured the towns of Tournai and Therouanne. While he was away the Scots invaded England. But they were defeated and the Scottish king was killed. It all seemed to be going so well...
But as his reign went on, Henry was frustrated in his ambitions of glory and conquest. The truth was that England was a lot less powerful than the other main players in Europe at the time. England ended up being somewhat eclipsed by the superpowers of Europe: France, Spain and the Holy Roman Empire (a collection of territories centred on Germany). In addition to this, the people of England (who had to pay for Henry’s wars through their taxes) did not share Henry’s appetite for conquest.
His main opponents were Francis I (1st), King of France and Charles V (5th), who ruled Spain and the Holy Roman Empire.
Who helped Henry run the country?
Henry was advised by various people during his reign, but none more influential than Thomas Wolsey. Wolsey was a churchman who had come from an ordinary family and had risen up through his great intelligence, ambition and organisational skill to be the king’s right-hand man. He held various important roles in the church as cardinal, legate and Archbishop of York, but he also held political roles, becoming Lord Chancellor (the most important man in government) in 1515. He advised Henry on every aspect of domestic and foreign policy.
At times it seemed that Wolsey was more powerful than the king himself. His power made people jealous and resentful. In particular, the noblemen in the Privy Council (who thought that they should be the ones advising Henry) disliked Wolsey. These people were always trying to turn Henry against Wolsey.
Wolsey remained powerful until 1529. Henry had become determined to get a divorce from his wife, Catherine of Aragon. Henry wanted a son (Catherine had been unable to give him one) and had fallen in love with Anne Boleyn.
To divorce Catherine, Henry needed permission from the Pope in Rome. It was Wolsey’s job to get Henry what he wanted. But in this instance, Wolsey was unable to persuade the Pope to annul the marriage. In addition to this, the Boleyn faction, a group of nobles at court (including Anne’s family), wanted to bring Wolsey down to increase their own power.
After Wolsey’s fall, the Henry was advised by Thomas Cromwell (a lawyer who had previously worked for Wolsey) and by various noblemen at court. These noblemen formed factions (groupings) who fought among themselves for the King’s favour.
Henry was still no nearer to getting a divorce. He was not helped by the fact that Catherine’s nephew was Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor, whom the Pope was unwilling to cross.
But Henry was determined. He argued that his marriage to Catherine was wrong because she had previously been married to his brother, Arthur. A passage in the Old Testament (Leviticus) said it was sinful to marry one’s dead brother’s wife.
Henry became frustrated by the Pope. As King of England, why couldn’t he do as he pleased and grant his own divorce? The idea of disobeying the Pope was completely new, and suddenly (encouraged by Thomas Cromwell), Henry realised just how powerful he could be. He went on to establish Royal Supremacy (i.e. he… | <urn:uuid:5b495a6d-ddb9-45f3-ba47-dc070ce93ebe> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.majortests.com/essay/Henry-Viii-586116.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251789055.93/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129071944-20200129101944-00144.warc.gz | en | 0.991177 | 889 | 3.671875 | 4 | [
-0.26300591230392456,
0.5126214623451233,
0.1959170699119568,
-0.3613510727882385,
-0.32879161834716797,
-0.1214410737156868,
0.34003567695617676,
0.0713726282119751,
0.03134620189666748,
-0.19379889965057373,
-0.12799760699272156,
-0.5424212217330933,
0.1446705460548401,
0.320883959531784... | 1 | In 1509 Henry VIII (8th) came to the throne after his father, Henry VII (7th) died. The old king had been unpopular towards the end of his reign for being dull, penny-pinching, and for squeezing money out of the nobles. The new king Henry was a contrast. He was 17 years old, well-educated, tall and athletic. He loved sport, especially jousting, and hunting.
An appetite for glory!
Soon after he came to the throne, Henry VIII turned his attention to foreign policy. He was determined that England should be seen as a more powerful country in Europe. In times gone by, England had ruled parts of France. Henry wanted to get them back.
In 1513 Henry went to war in France and captured the towns of Tournai and Therouanne. While he was away the Scots invaded England. But they were defeated and the Scottish king was killed. It all seemed to be going so well...
But as his reign went on, Henry was frustrated in his ambitions of glory and conquest. The truth was that England was a lot less powerful than the other main players in Europe at the time. England ended up being somewhat eclipsed by the superpowers of Europe: France, Spain and the Holy Roman Empire (a collection of territories centred on Germany). In addition to this, the people of England (who had to pay for Henry’s wars through their taxes) did not share Henry’s appetite for conquest.
His main opponents were Francis I (1st), King of France and Charles V (5th), who ruled Spain and the Holy Roman Empire.
Who helped Henry run the country?
Henry was advised by various people during his reign, but none more influential than Thomas Wolsey. Wolsey was a churchman who had come from an ordinary family and had risen up through his great intelligence, ambition and organisational skill to be the king’s right-hand man. He held various important roles in the church as cardinal, legate and Archbishop of York, but he also held political roles, becoming Lord Chancellor (the most important man in government) in 1515. He advised Henry on every aspect of domestic and foreign policy.
At times it seemed that Wolsey was more powerful than the king himself. His power made people jealous and resentful. In particular, the noblemen in the Privy Council (who thought that they should be the ones advising Henry) disliked Wolsey. These people were always trying to turn Henry against Wolsey.
Wolsey remained powerful until 1529. Henry had become determined to get a divorce from his wife, Catherine of Aragon. Henry wanted a son (Catherine had been unable to give him one) and had fallen in love with Anne Boleyn.
To divorce Catherine, Henry needed permission from the Pope in Rome. It was Wolsey’s job to get Henry what he wanted. But in this instance, Wolsey was unable to persuade the Pope to annul the marriage. In addition to this, the Boleyn faction, a group of nobles at court (including Anne’s family), wanted to bring Wolsey down to increase their own power.
After Wolsey’s fall, the Henry was advised by Thomas Cromwell (a lawyer who had previously worked for Wolsey) and by various noblemen at court. These noblemen formed factions (groupings) who fought among themselves for the King’s favour.
Henry was still no nearer to getting a divorce. He was not helped by the fact that Catherine’s nephew was Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor, whom the Pope was unwilling to cross.
But Henry was determined. He argued that his marriage to Catherine was wrong because she had previously been married to his brother, Arthur. A passage in the Old Testament (Leviticus) said it was sinful to marry one’s dead brother’s wife.
Henry became frustrated by the Pope. As King of England, why couldn’t he do as he pleased and grant his own divorce? The idea of disobeying the Pope was completely new, and suddenly (encouraged by Thomas Cromwell), Henry realised just how powerful he could be. He went on to establish Royal Supremacy (i.e. he… | 865 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The Life of Native Americans in the Pacific Northwest: Then & Now It has been estimated that the population of Native Americans living on or very near reservations in the United States ranges from about 1.1 to 1.3 million, and is distributed across more than 330 Indian nations in America (16). American Indian nations display an incredibly wide variety of social and economic characteristics. Although “American Indian” is identified as a single race category on the US Census, each tribe boasts its own culture and values. Members of two separate tribes may be as different as the populations of China and Africa.
Long ago, the Indians of the Pacific Northwest depended entirely on their environment to support them. They were
…show more content…
In this era, it was not an abundance of money, but rather food that caused a group to be considered wealthy. It was said that the Indians of the Pacific Northwest, especially those in the Puget Sound region, had rivers so packed with salmon that you could walk across it on the backs of fish without getting your feet wet. Although this may be a tall tale, the waters were, in fact, teeming with salmon. In addition, clams were plentiful on the beaches; the woods were full of elk and deer, and there were copious amounts of blackberries, raspberries, salmonberries, and nuts in the area. Beyond food, cedar trees covered the region. The Indians used cedar to make everything from their homes to eating utensils, from shoes to blankets. With such useful resources, you can see why these groups were considered ‘rich’!
In the Northwest, Native American cultures lived in a shelter known as the plank house, or longhouse. These houses varied in shape, size, and design, depending on the tribe who built it. Some were as simple as shed-like buildings, while others were more complex, some even built partially underground. Evidence shows that they ranged from 100 to 1,000 feet long. They were made primarily of cedar from forested areas or pieces of wood from beaches near bodies of water. Using beaver teeth and stone axes, these early people cleverly chopped down and split massive trees. | <urn:uuid:30cd42f1-2493-4b6f-ab2d-123e68b8b33c> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.cram.com/essay/the-life-of-native-americans-in-the/PKC2P33XC | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251776516.99/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128060946-20200128090946-00094.warc.gz | en | 0.981914 | 448 | 3.53125 | 4 | [
0.29940229654312134,
0.10691545158624649,
-0.06986327469348907,
0.036275818943977356,
0.08686349540948868,
0.13773365318775177,
0.12699651718139648,
-0.11431298404932022,
-0.12941455841064453,
-0.021912792697548866,
0.38637641072273254,
-0.44780826568603516,
-0.057560570538043976,
-0.11201... | 1 | The Life of Native Americans in the Pacific Northwest: Then & Now It has been estimated that the population of Native Americans living on or very near reservations in the United States ranges from about 1.1 to 1.3 million, and is distributed across more than 330 Indian nations in America (16). American Indian nations display an incredibly wide variety of social and economic characteristics. Although “American Indian” is identified as a single race category on the US Census, each tribe boasts its own culture and values. Members of two separate tribes may be as different as the populations of China and Africa.
Long ago, the Indians of the Pacific Northwest depended entirely on their environment to support them. They were
…show more content…
In this era, it was not an abundance of money, but rather food that caused a group to be considered wealthy. It was said that the Indians of the Pacific Northwest, especially those in the Puget Sound region, had rivers so packed with salmon that you could walk across it on the backs of fish without getting your feet wet. Although this may be a tall tale, the waters were, in fact, teeming with salmon. In addition, clams were plentiful on the beaches; the woods were full of elk and deer, and there were copious amounts of blackberries, raspberries, salmonberries, and nuts in the area. Beyond food, cedar trees covered the region. The Indians used cedar to make everything from their homes to eating utensils, from shoes to blankets. With such useful resources, you can see why these groups were considered ‘rich’!
In the Northwest, Native American cultures lived in a shelter known as the plank house, or longhouse. These houses varied in shape, size, and design, depending on the tribe who built it. Some were as simple as shed-like buildings, while others were more complex, some even built partially underground. Evidence shows that they ranged from 100 to 1,000 feet long. They were made primarily of cedar from forested areas or pieces of wood from beaches near bodies of water. Using beaver teeth and stone axes, these early people cleverly chopped down and split massive trees. | 445 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Babies who are years away from being able to say "one," "two," and "three" actually already have a sense of what counting means, Johns Hopkins University researchers have discovered.
The findings reveal that very early on—years earlier than previously believed, in fact—babies who hear counting realize that counting indicates quantity.
"Although they are years away from understanding the exact meanings of number words, babies are already in the business of recognizing that counting is about number," said senior author Lisa Feigenson, a cognitive scientist at Johns Hopkins who specializes in the development of numeric ability in children. "Research like ours shows that babies actually have a pretty sophisticated understanding of the world—they're already trying to make sense of what adults around them are saying, and that includes this domain of counting and numbers."
The findings are published in Developmental Science.
Most children don't understand the full meaning of number words until they're about 4 years old. That's surprising, Feigenson said, considering how much counting young children are exposed to.
"We buy counting books for babies and we count aloud with toddlers," she says. "All of that raises the question: Are kids really clueless about what counting means until they're in the preschool years?"
To find out, Feigenson and first author Jenny Wang, a former graduate student at Johns Hopkins who is slated to become an assistant professor at Rutgers University, worked with 14- and 18-month-old infants. The babies watched as toys—little dogs or cars—were hidden in a box that they couldn't see inside of but could reach into.
Sometimes the researchers counted each toy aloud as they dropped them into the box, saying, "Look! One, two, three, four! Four dogs!" Other times the researchers simply dropped each toy into the box, saying, "This, this, this, and this—these dogs."
Without counting, the babies had a hard time remembering that the box held four things. They tended to become distracted after the researchers pulled just one out—as if there was nothing else to see. But when the toys were counted, the babies clearly expected more than one to be pulled from the box. They didn't remember the exact number but they did remember the approximate number.
"When we counted the toys for the babies before we hid them, the babies were much better at remembering how many toys there were," Wang said. "As a researcher these results were really surprising. And our results are the first to show that very young infants have a sense that when other people are counting it is tied to the rough dimension of quantity in the world."
The team is now conducting several follow-up studies to determine whether early counting practice leads to later number skills and if English-speaking babies react to counting in a foreign language. | <urn:uuid:cbf94b24-689e-4efc-a87d-dc5f03f33ec5> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://hub.jhu.edu/2019/10/24/babies-understand-counting/?mc_cid=42076abb90&mc_eid=0d9c6e233c | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250608062.57/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123011418-20200123040418-00311.warc.gz | en | 0.982354 | 574 | 3.28125 | 3 | [
-0.14507627487182617,
-0.1717594861984253,
-0.04419107735157013,
0.09403720498085022,
-0.32743510603904724,
0.12713198363780975,
0.5245265960693359,
0.028174694627523422,
0.21168753504753113,
-0.0013402209151536226,
0.25685811042785645,
0.13188323378562927,
0.05944233387708664,
0.425319999... | 7 | Babies who are years away from being able to say "one," "two," and "three" actually already have a sense of what counting means, Johns Hopkins University researchers have discovered.
The findings reveal that very early on—years earlier than previously believed, in fact—babies who hear counting realize that counting indicates quantity.
"Although they are years away from understanding the exact meanings of number words, babies are already in the business of recognizing that counting is about number," said senior author Lisa Feigenson, a cognitive scientist at Johns Hopkins who specializes in the development of numeric ability in children. "Research like ours shows that babies actually have a pretty sophisticated understanding of the world—they're already trying to make sense of what adults around them are saying, and that includes this domain of counting and numbers."
The findings are published in Developmental Science.
Most children don't understand the full meaning of number words until they're about 4 years old. That's surprising, Feigenson said, considering how much counting young children are exposed to.
"We buy counting books for babies and we count aloud with toddlers," she says. "All of that raises the question: Are kids really clueless about what counting means until they're in the preschool years?"
To find out, Feigenson and first author Jenny Wang, a former graduate student at Johns Hopkins who is slated to become an assistant professor at Rutgers University, worked with 14- and 18-month-old infants. The babies watched as toys—little dogs or cars—were hidden in a box that they couldn't see inside of but could reach into.
Sometimes the researchers counted each toy aloud as they dropped them into the box, saying, "Look! One, two, three, four! Four dogs!" Other times the researchers simply dropped each toy into the box, saying, "This, this, this, and this—these dogs."
Without counting, the babies had a hard time remembering that the box held four things. They tended to become distracted after the researchers pulled just one out—as if there was nothing else to see. But when the toys were counted, the babies clearly expected more than one to be pulled from the box. They didn't remember the exact number but they did remember the approximate number.
"When we counted the toys for the babies before we hid them, the babies were much better at remembering how many toys there were," Wang said. "As a researcher these results were really surprising. And our results are the first to show that very young infants have a sense that when other people are counting it is tied to the rough dimension of quantity in the world."
The team is now conducting several follow-up studies to determine whether early counting practice leads to later number skills and if English-speaking babies react to counting in a foreign language. | 562 | ENGLISH | 1 |
In spite of the advances made in agriculture, many people around the world still go hungry
Despite the fact that over the last century, farming methods and yields have improved dramatically, millions of people still do not have enough food to eat. There are myriads of reasons why starvation is happened among some countries which famine and harsh weather conditions are two of the major ones.
Hunger or lack of food affects only the weak. Whether or not they cultivate their food, the rich must make sure they have got enough on their plate. The weak neglect this purchasing power, unfortunately. They cannot have access to it, if food is not made available at concessional rate. Poor people do not own any property, most of the time. They are therefore unable to grow their own food. They have to buy their food and they cannot get their fill as food prices increase.
Climate change also causes starvation. In some countries, severe drought like conditions continue. For instance, it has not rained in years in some parts of Africa. People living in these areas are therefore unable to cultivate their crops. They rely on food grown in other region, and if that is not available, they will have to go hungry. Perhaps contributing to this issue are political reasons. Many countries are refusing to share with other countries their water resources. This is often exacerbated by the enmity between these nations. Sadly, in those counties that do not have adequate water supplies on their own, this activity affects food security.
Governments need to ensure that food is available to the poor free of charge or at concessional rates to solve this problem. Rich food-growing countries should demonstrate the magnanimity of sharing their surplus with poor countries that do not have enough food to feed their people. International organizations may play an important role in ensuring that nations share with those who need in their wealth and resources.
In conclusions, even in the 21st century, hunger continues to haunt millions of people. This is often exacerbated by the unequal distribution of wealth and resources. Rich countries and rich people can do a lot to make sure the poor have access to be basic necessity such as food as well. | <urn:uuid:90447f90-76b4-4846-8229-9795eba0d5e6> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://essayforum.com/writing/new-era-millions-people-enough-food-eat-85027/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250604397.40/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121132900-20200121161900-00295.warc.gz | en | 0.980646 | 435 | 3.4375 | 3 | [
-0.3985559344291687,
0.24636203050613403,
0.017037440091371536,
-0.04253484681248665,
0.5158453583717346,
-0.03013414330780506,
-0.4107562303543091,
-0.11522173136472702,
-0.2332686185836792,
0.23247851431369781,
0.24670378863811493,
-0.5722496509552002,
0.4636145830154419,
0.2276163101196... | 4 | In spite of the advances made in agriculture, many people around the world still go hungry
Despite the fact that over the last century, farming methods and yields have improved dramatically, millions of people still do not have enough food to eat. There are myriads of reasons why starvation is happened among some countries which famine and harsh weather conditions are two of the major ones.
Hunger or lack of food affects only the weak. Whether or not they cultivate their food, the rich must make sure they have got enough on their plate. The weak neglect this purchasing power, unfortunately. They cannot have access to it, if food is not made available at concessional rate. Poor people do not own any property, most of the time. They are therefore unable to grow their own food. They have to buy their food and they cannot get their fill as food prices increase.
Climate change also causes starvation. In some countries, severe drought like conditions continue. For instance, it has not rained in years in some parts of Africa. People living in these areas are therefore unable to cultivate their crops. They rely on food grown in other region, and if that is not available, they will have to go hungry. Perhaps contributing to this issue are political reasons. Many countries are refusing to share with other countries their water resources. This is often exacerbated by the enmity between these nations. Sadly, in those counties that do not have adequate water supplies on their own, this activity affects food security.
Governments need to ensure that food is available to the poor free of charge or at concessional rates to solve this problem. Rich food-growing countries should demonstrate the magnanimity of sharing their surplus with poor countries that do not have enough food to feed their people. International organizations may play an important role in ensuring that nations share with those who need in their wealth and resources.
In conclusions, even in the 21st century, hunger continues to haunt millions of people. This is often exacerbated by the unequal distribution of wealth and resources. Rich countries and rich people can do a lot to make sure the poor have access to be basic necessity such as food as well. | 432 | ENGLISH | 1 |
General Hugh Mercer dies
On this day in history, January 12, 1777, General Hugh Mercer dies from wounds received at the Battle of Princeton. General Mercer was born in Scotland in 1726 and trained as a doctor. He served as a surgeon in the army of Bonnie Prince Charlie and was present at the defeat of his army at the Battle of Culloden, an army which was raised to put a Stuart King back on the throne of England.
This army was destroyed by the forces of Hanover King George II at the Battle of Culloden, Scotland on April 16, 1746. George’s forces massacred as many survivors as they could find, forcing Mercer into exile as a result. He eventually made his way to the colony of Pennsylvania where he settled and resumed his medical practice.
When the Braddock Expedition was massacred in 1755, Mercer came to the aid of some of the wounded soldiers and was moved by the experience because it reminded him of the massacre of his countrymen at the Battle of Culloden. This caused him to join the British army, which he had once fought against, to fight the Indians during the French and Indian War.
He became a captain of Pennsylvania militia in 1756 and was severely wounded during a raid on an Indian village that year. He was separated from his troops and marched across the wilderness for 100 miles alone to get back to his fort, after which he was promoted to colonel. During the French and Indian War, Mercer became friends with George Washington, who was also a colonel at the same time. They were such good friends that Mercer moved to Virginia after the war and settled in Fredericksburg, resuming his medical practice.
When the American Revolution began, Mercer was appointed a Brigadier General in the Continental Army by the Continental Congress. He directed the building of Fort Lee on the New Jersey side of the Hudson River to impede British access up the river.
After the Continental Army was driven from New York and across New Jersey in the fall of 1776, they stopped their retreat on the Pennsylvania side of the Delaware River. Mercer is sometimes credited with coming up with the plan to attack the Hessian outpost at Trenton, which helped stem the discouraging tide of American losses. Washington’s forces ferried across the river in the middle of the night on Christmas Day and captured 1,000 Hessians at the outpost.
This led to another victory a week later when Washington repulsed a counterattack from Lt. General Charles Cornwallis at Trenton again. After that victory, Washington’s men marched through the night toward Princeton to capture the British outpost there and continue its string of victories.
Hugh Mercer led an advance party of 1200 men that ran into a large British force at an orchard along the way and fighting began. The British force quickly defeated the green American militia units and General Mercer was surrounded by British troops who mistook him for George Washington and demanded that he surrender. Mercer fiercely attacked his antagonizers, but was struck to the ground, bayoneted seven times and left for dead. He was attended by Declaration of Independence signer Doctor Benjamin Rush, but he died nine days later on January 12, 1777. He was buried at Christ Church in Philadelphia originally, but his body was reinterred at Laurel Hill Cemetery in 1840.
National Society Sons of the American Revolution
“If the Freedom of Speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” | <urn:uuid:0ece61e6-a57f-45bd-b5e3-f704322f14bc> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://blog.alssar.org/uncategorized/general-hugh-mercer-dies-5/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250624328.55/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124161014-20200124190014-00104.warc.gz | en | 0.984767 | 712 | 3.5 | 4 | [
0.1162230521440506,
-0.09345598518848419,
0.7031110525131226,
-0.09124626219272614,
-0.27686184644699097,
-0.29717856645584106,
0.09983979165554047,
0.09703613072633743,
-0.44321346282958984,
-0.3541950583457947,
0.11919644474983215,
-0.07129742205142975,
0.4299964904785156,
0.546854496002... | 2 | General Hugh Mercer dies
On this day in history, January 12, 1777, General Hugh Mercer dies from wounds received at the Battle of Princeton. General Mercer was born in Scotland in 1726 and trained as a doctor. He served as a surgeon in the army of Bonnie Prince Charlie and was present at the defeat of his army at the Battle of Culloden, an army which was raised to put a Stuart King back on the throne of England.
This army was destroyed by the forces of Hanover King George II at the Battle of Culloden, Scotland on April 16, 1746. George’s forces massacred as many survivors as they could find, forcing Mercer into exile as a result. He eventually made his way to the colony of Pennsylvania where he settled and resumed his medical practice.
When the Braddock Expedition was massacred in 1755, Mercer came to the aid of some of the wounded soldiers and was moved by the experience because it reminded him of the massacre of his countrymen at the Battle of Culloden. This caused him to join the British army, which he had once fought against, to fight the Indians during the French and Indian War.
He became a captain of Pennsylvania militia in 1756 and was severely wounded during a raid on an Indian village that year. He was separated from his troops and marched across the wilderness for 100 miles alone to get back to his fort, after which he was promoted to colonel. During the French and Indian War, Mercer became friends with George Washington, who was also a colonel at the same time. They were such good friends that Mercer moved to Virginia after the war and settled in Fredericksburg, resuming his medical practice.
When the American Revolution began, Mercer was appointed a Brigadier General in the Continental Army by the Continental Congress. He directed the building of Fort Lee on the New Jersey side of the Hudson River to impede British access up the river.
After the Continental Army was driven from New York and across New Jersey in the fall of 1776, they stopped their retreat on the Pennsylvania side of the Delaware River. Mercer is sometimes credited with coming up with the plan to attack the Hessian outpost at Trenton, which helped stem the discouraging tide of American losses. Washington’s forces ferried across the river in the middle of the night on Christmas Day and captured 1,000 Hessians at the outpost.
This led to another victory a week later when Washington repulsed a counterattack from Lt. General Charles Cornwallis at Trenton again. After that victory, Washington’s men marched through the night toward Princeton to capture the British outpost there and continue its string of victories.
Hugh Mercer led an advance party of 1200 men that ran into a large British force at an orchard along the way and fighting began. The British force quickly defeated the green American militia units and General Mercer was surrounded by British troops who mistook him for George Washington and demanded that he surrender. Mercer fiercely attacked his antagonizers, but was struck to the ground, bayoneted seven times and left for dead. He was attended by Declaration of Independence signer Doctor Benjamin Rush, but he died nine days later on January 12, 1777. He was buried at Christ Church in Philadelphia originally, but his body was reinterred at Laurel Hill Cemetery in 1840.
National Society Sons of the American Revolution
“If the Freedom of Speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” | 737 | ENGLISH | 1 |
During the 1590s there were an average of 14 English expeditions to the Caribbean every year, with as many as 25 in 1598. That led by Francis Drake and John Hawkins in 1595- 96, aimed at San Juan de Puerto Rico and Panama, was the largest, comprising 27 ships, 1,500 seamen, and 2,500- 3,000 soldiers, but it met with even less good fortune than Drake’s solo foray a decade earlier. Hawkins died on the outward passage, and the Spaniards, long since forewarned of the impending English attack, had time to reinforce Puerto Rico with 1,500 fresh troops from Spain. When his attack was consequently driven off with considerable loss Drake sailed for Nombre de Dios, raiding along the coast of the mainland as he went. Nombre de Dios was found largely deserted, and he seized the fort and burned the town. He then despatched 900 men, organised into five or seven companies under his lieutenant, Thomas Baskerville, to traverse the Isthmus and take Panama, but after marching through torrential rain for three days these encountered stiff Spanish opposition on the fourth and, with their provisions and powder ruined by the downpour, they were obliged to withdraw. Re-embarking its landingparty, the fleet then sailed along the coast of Honduras and Nicaragua, its crews contracting dysentery en route after landing to find water. When Drake himself died of the `bloody flux’ in January 1596 command devolved on Baskerville, who called an end to the disastrous expedition and sailed for home with the remaining 14 or 15 ships (several having either been lost to the enemy or scuttled in consequence of having insufficient men left to crew them). It was left to another celebrated English corsair, George Clifford, Earl of Cumberland – author of a dozen raids between 1586 and 1598 – to succeed where Drake had not in capturing San Juan de Puerto Rico, which he did in 1598 with a fleet of 18 ships and 1,000 men. He had intended to hold the port permanently, but once again unsustainable losses to tropical disease obliged the English to withdraw without installing a garrison. The frequency of such semi-official English ventures subsequently declined, there being only ten altogether between 1600 and 1603, when the long-running Anglo-Spanish conflict effectively came to an end.
The majority of pirate flotillas operating in American waters initially consisted of no more than a single ship equipped for both fighting and trading, accompanied by a smaller vessel of a type called a pinnace or patache, which, having a shallow draft and being provided with up to 18 oars a side as well as sails, was better suited to the inshore work called for in coastal operations. The pinnace might displace as little as 20 tons and could have a crew of as few as 20 men or as many as 70, but carried little or no armament beyond a number of small versos (1-11/2 pdr breech-loading swivels). No raiding force recorded in the first half of the century ever comprised more than 800- 1,000 men and six vessels, of which two at the very least were pinnaces. During the 1550s, however, the French despatched larger fleets which included royal warships as well as privateers, and carried sizeable contingents of troops for deployment ashore. The ten ships which sailed under François le Clerc in 1553-54 constituted the first of these more substantial ventures, and included two royal warships and three or four pinnaces. Most English expeditions of the period 1572-1603 were of three ships or less. Only those which received royal backing were any larger, being sometimes accompanied by royal warships (two served under Drake in 1585-86, and five in 1595-96). Drake’s expedition of 1572-73 appears to have been unique in carrying three prefabricated pinnaces aboard one of its two ships, which were unloaded and re-assembled when he arrived at his destination in the Gulf of Darién. Pinnaces were sufficiently important to the success of a privateering enterprise that expeditions were generally abandoned if the larger ships lost touch with them for any reason, while the pinnace commander sometimes decided to utilise the advantages of his vessel for his own profit, abandoning the accompanying ship to go a-roving on his own.
Drake knew from experience that a surprise assault was critical to their success. They laid in wait, crouching by the side of the jungle path for what must have seemed an eternity before the tinkling of mule bells rang sweetly in their ears. Suddenly, the gallop of a lone horse coming from the wrong direction warned Drake that all was not as it should be. Before the rider could be stopped he had alerted the muleteers to head back, and that the pirate Drake would pounce on them any moment. The Spanish cleverly separated out the silver shipment from the more valuable gold—estimated at some £35,000 ($12.32 million or £6.66 million today)—and sent the mules carrying the silver on into Drake’s arms. Realizing that they had been discovered, Drake and Pedro decided that it would be too risky to return to base the same way they had come, and opted instead to boldly take Venta Cruces. The raiding party marched through the town, burning and pillaging as they went. Any casualties incurred were in defense of property, not in brutal murder, according to reports both Spanish and English. Drake had also ordered his men that the women must remain “inviolate,” and he even entered homes to reassure the women personally that none of them would be raped. While there is no excuse for the terror Drake and his raiders inflicted on their victims, this level of humanity in the sixteenth century—let alone in the twentieth or twenty-first—is remarkable.
Now that he had made his strike, Drake once again lay low, hoping to trick the Spaniards into believing that he had left the Caribbean with his paltry treasure. While his good “Plymouth lads” grumbled about the heat, humidity, and their ill-luck, the Cimarrones tended the sick and injured and made moccasins for the foot-sore rovers. Drake marveled at their strength, their courage, and above all their loyalty. “Yea many times when some of our company fainted with sickness or weariness,” Drake wrote later, “two Cimarrones would carry him [the sick] with ease between them two miles together, and at other times (when need was) they would show themselves no less valiant than industrious and of good judgement.”
After their retreat, there was little else to do than plan their next raid for the spring of 1573, and capture a prize that would hopefully keep them well provided in victuals and water. Then, nearly a month after they had rejoined their ships following the Venta Cruces raids, a large French ship bore down on them just off Cativas Headland near Nombre de Díos. Her captain, who had been looking for Drake for some five weeks, was none other than the Huguenot corsair Guillaume le Testu. Le Testu was no ordinary pirate. He had been the personal protégé of Admiral de Coligny, and was captaining a ship for the merchant adventurer Philippe Strozzi.
Le Testu was well known to Drake. After all, Le Testu had taken part in the French colonial adventure to Brazil, and Drake admired the French challenge in South America to the Spaniards. So when the Frenchman asked for water, and explained some of his men were ill, Drake ordered provisions to be sent aboard; then he asked Le Testu to follow him to one of his storehouses so that they could be fully replenished. When they finally anchored, the Huguenot captain gave Drake a gilt scimitar that had been a gift of his dear, now butchered, leader, Admiral de Coligny. This devastating news, and the carnage that had ensued in France, shocked and angered Drake, making the gift all the more dear.
The two men had already respected each other before they ever met, but once in the same cabin together, that respect grew into mutual admiration. Le Testu showed Drake his invaluable folio atlas of fifty-six maps that he had drawn based on his own experiences, and which had been dedicated to Coligny some years earlier. This treasure of experience would have driven home the fact to Drake of how poor English knowledge of the seas had truly been. Le Testu had been a royal pilot at Le Havre, and had been born and bred with the sea coursing through his soul like Drake. The main difference between the two was that Le Testu had high-level contacts in Coligny and, lately, André Thévet, Catherine de’ Medici’s chaplain. Drake had to make his own way through hard graft. What is striking from this encounter of great “pirates” is that Le Testu would have not been a corsair or outlaw if he had adhered to the Catholic faith.
Naturally, Drake and Le Testu fell in together, and agreed on how to mount another raid on the trajín. Le Testu believed that if they attacked closer to Nombre de Díos, after the gold and silver shipments had been separated at the Chagres River, the soldiers would be more relaxed as their journey was nearing its end. It would be easier to box them in or, preferably, disperse the mule train’s defenders more easily, he ventured. Drake agreed.
On March 31, 1573, the combined Cimarrone, English, and Huguenot forces stole into the jungle. Cimaroon scouts edged forward in the night, returning to their positions before daybreak. The trajín had nearly two hundred mules in all and an escort of around forty-five poorly armed, barefoot soldiers.
The assault was rapid and deadly. The Cimaroons led the charge. Within the first few seconds, a Negro harquebusier fired at Le Testu, wounding him in the stomach, and killing a Cimaroon. The attackers surged forward regardless, shouting fierce battle cries and shooting off their weapons. The Spaniards quickly recognized that if they stayed and defended the trajín, it would be a turkey shoot, and they would be the turkeys. While they turned tail and ran, the raiders leapt onto the baggage and prized open the chests. The mules were carrying more than 200,000 pesos de oro ($23.24 million or £12.56 million today). What made the prize sweeter was that 18,363 pesos de oro ($2.13 million or £1.15 million today) personally belonged to the King of Spain.
The fifteen tons of silver looted was hastily hidden in burrows made by land crabs, or under fallen trees. They had to be quick about it, though, since again, they were only two leagues from Nombre de Díos. Half of the gold was loaded back onto the mules and carried to the mouth of the Francisca River, where their pinnaces were waiting. But Le Testu was mortally wounded, and he knew it. He told Drake to go ahead and leave him, that he would guard the silver until they could return. The last thing Le Testu wanted was for Spanish soldiers to cut off their retreat to the sea, and Drake reluctantly agreed. Two of his men volunteered to keep him company, while the others marched laboriously away.
Two days later, after yet another torrential downpour in the jungle, the raiders arrived at their rendezvous. But instead of their own pinnaces, they found Spanish shallops. Had the pinnaces been captured? How would they escape back to their pirate’s haven? the men asked. Had the Spaniards wrecked the Pasco and dashed their hopes of returning home? Drake knew from experience that action would keep these worries from overpowering his men. As ever ingenious, he instructed them to make a raft from fallen trees, binding the trunks together and using a slashed biscuit sack for its puny sail. It wasn’t pretty, but it just about floated. After the Spaniards rounded the headland, Drake and three men waded out in their ludicrous tree raft, at times sailing waist high in seawater, before they spotted the Bear and the Minion, nestled in a safe harbor nearby. As Drake boarded the ship, he broke into a sudden smile and brought out a quoit (disc) of gold from his shirt. Their voyage had been made.
After his men had been brought safely on board, the Cimarrones came forward with the sad news that captain Le Testu had been killed. Drake said a prayer for the Frenchman’s soul and gave the order to weigh anchor. It was unsafe to return for the silver. Their voyage had been made, thanks in large part to the Cimaroons and the Huguenots, with whom he gladly shared their prize. They had been away for more than a year, and more than half of them were dead, including Drake’s two brothers.
In an incredibly swift and uneventful crossing of only twenty-three days, Drake and his remaining crew pulled into Plymouth harbor on Sunday, August 9, 1574. All the good men and women of the town were at prayer in St. Andrew’s Church, listening to their vicar’s sermon, when a murmuring among the parishoners grew into a roar. Drake had returned, they whispered to one another. One by one they left, until finally the entire flock deserted its preacher and raced to the waterfront to welcome home their heroes.
In the absence of their own navigational charts, early French raiders depended heavily on the knowledge and experience of disaffected Spanish pilots, Benzoni recording in the 1540s that `it was some Spaniards, practised in that navigation, who led the enemy, so that the French also became as familiar with those waters as the Spaniards themselves’. It was, for instance, a Spaniard who guided five French ships into Cartagena harbour in 1544, where they landed 100 men and sacked and burnt the town. Before long, however, French corsairs knew as much about navigating in the Caribbean and the Atlantic sea-lanes as their Spanish counterparts, and had accumulated sufficient intelligence of Spanish strength in the region to enable them to launch their attacks with impunity. Benzoni noted that `although in the beginning they restricted themselves to the vicinity of Hispaniola and San Juan de Puerto Rico, yet when those districts ceased to yield rich prizes, they frequented more of the islands, and even some of the provinces on the mainland’, pillaging towns and capturing ships wherever they went. The audiencia of Santo Domingo reported in 1541 that French corsairs `knowing the weakness of these ports landed in many of them, in full daylight, [and] burned and robbed some without meeting any resistance’. Very few Spanish attempts to repel pirate landing-parties were ever successful, and at least some of those that were owed their success more to bribery than force of arms. Indeed, Blasco Nuñez Vela (1539) considered that 300 corsairs could seize any coastal town on the Spanish Main that they cared to, regardless of its size or strength, and it is readily apparent from the sources that the Spaniards’ poor leadership and lack of adequate arms virtually guaranteed the pirates success on land. So long as they managed to avoid the larger and more heavily-armed Spanish warships sometimes despatched against them there was also very little that they needed to fear at sea.
Normal French raiding practice, as recorded by a Spanish eye-witness in 1571, was for the crew of the pinnace to make the attack while the larger ship stood offshore, the booty being subsequently transferred to the ship, which would periodically return to Normandy to sell it. This is exactly how Sores went about attacking Havana in 1555, when he landed the bulk of his men by means of his pinnaces and ships’ boats to outflank the town’s defences and launch an overland attack from the rear. On this particular occasion the French set fire to the fort’s gates to smoke out its garrison after several hours of fighting. The Spanish governor had meanwhile rallied the population (which, as was customary under such circumstances, had fled inland with the greater part of its portable valuables at first site of the corsairs) and returned with such armed men as he could muster, but was beaten off. Drake employed much the same tactics in his attack on Santo Domingo in 1586, putting his landing-party ashore several miles away to launch a surprise attack from the rear while his main fleet kept the town’s defences occupied from the seaward side. This became the characteristic modus operandi of English privateers thereafter. | <urn:uuid:d45dabbb-5286-41b4-ab84-341c281d6222> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://weaponsandwarfare.com/2019/06/07/british-piracy/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251802249.87/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129194333-20200129223333-00453.warc.gz | en | 0.982495 | 3,577 | 3.578125 | 4 | [
-0.002584017813205719,
-0.04659987986087799,
0.5360352993011475,
-0.2570981979370117,
0.19151507318019867,
-0.299335777759552,
-0.13337519764900208,
0.41252169013023376,
-0.20116911828517914,
-0.3566310703754425,
0.30973154306411743,
-0.38967180252075195,
-0.11611638963222504,
0.2774061858... | 3 | During the 1590s there were an average of 14 English expeditions to the Caribbean every year, with as many as 25 in 1598. That led by Francis Drake and John Hawkins in 1595- 96, aimed at San Juan de Puerto Rico and Panama, was the largest, comprising 27 ships, 1,500 seamen, and 2,500- 3,000 soldiers, but it met with even less good fortune than Drake’s solo foray a decade earlier. Hawkins died on the outward passage, and the Spaniards, long since forewarned of the impending English attack, had time to reinforce Puerto Rico with 1,500 fresh troops from Spain. When his attack was consequently driven off with considerable loss Drake sailed for Nombre de Dios, raiding along the coast of the mainland as he went. Nombre de Dios was found largely deserted, and he seized the fort and burned the town. He then despatched 900 men, organised into five or seven companies under his lieutenant, Thomas Baskerville, to traverse the Isthmus and take Panama, but after marching through torrential rain for three days these encountered stiff Spanish opposition on the fourth and, with their provisions and powder ruined by the downpour, they were obliged to withdraw. Re-embarking its landingparty, the fleet then sailed along the coast of Honduras and Nicaragua, its crews contracting dysentery en route after landing to find water. When Drake himself died of the `bloody flux’ in January 1596 command devolved on Baskerville, who called an end to the disastrous expedition and sailed for home with the remaining 14 or 15 ships (several having either been lost to the enemy or scuttled in consequence of having insufficient men left to crew them). It was left to another celebrated English corsair, George Clifford, Earl of Cumberland – author of a dozen raids between 1586 and 1598 – to succeed where Drake had not in capturing San Juan de Puerto Rico, which he did in 1598 with a fleet of 18 ships and 1,000 men. He had intended to hold the port permanently, but once again unsustainable losses to tropical disease obliged the English to withdraw without installing a garrison. The frequency of such semi-official English ventures subsequently declined, there being only ten altogether between 1600 and 1603, when the long-running Anglo-Spanish conflict effectively came to an end.
The majority of pirate flotillas operating in American waters initially consisted of no more than a single ship equipped for both fighting and trading, accompanied by a smaller vessel of a type called a pinnace or patache, which, having a shallow draft and being provided with up to 18 oars a side as well as sails, was better suited to the inshore work called for in coastal operations. The pinnace might displace as little as 20 tons and could have a crew of as few as 20 men or as many as 70, but carried little or no armament beyond a number of small versos (1-11/2 pdr breech-loading swivels). No raiding force recorded in the first half of the century ever comprised more than 800- 1,000 men and six vessels, of which two at the very least were pinnaces. During the 1550s, however, the French despatched larger fleets which included royal warships as well as privateers, and carried sizeable contingents of troops for deployment ashore. The ten ships which sailed under François le Clerc in 1553-54 constituted the first of these more substantial ventures, and included two royal warships and three or four pinnaces. Most English expeditions of the period 1572-1603 were of three ships or less. Only those which received royal backing were any larger, being sometimes accompanied by royal warships (two served under Drake in 1585-86, and five in 1595-96). Drake’s expedition of 1572-73 appears to have been unique in carrying three prefabricated pinnaces aboard one of its two ships, which were unloaded and re-assembled when he arrived at his destination in the Gulf of Darién. Pinnaces were sufficiently important to the success of a privateering enterprise that expeditions were generally abandoned if the larger ships lost touch with them for any reason, while the pinnace commander sometimes decided to utilise the advantages of his vessel for his own profit, abandoning the accompanying ship to go a-roving on his own.
Drake knew from experience that a surprise assault was critical to their success. They laid in wait, crouching by the side of the jungle path for what must have seemed an eternity before the tinkling of mule bells rang sweetly in their ears. Suddenly, the gallop of a lone horse coming from the wrong direction warned Drake that all was not as it should be. Before the rider could be stopped he had alerted the muleteers to head back, and that the pirate Drake would pounce on them any moment. The Spanish cleverly separated out the silver shipment from the more valuable gold—estimated at some £35,000 ($12.32 million or £6.66 million today)—and sent the mules carrying the silver on into Drake’s arms. Realizing that they had been discovered, Drake and Pedro decided that it would be too risky to return to base the same way they had come, and opted instead to boldly take Venta Cruces. The raiding party marched through the town, burning and pillaging as they went. Any casualties incurred were in defense of property, not in brutal murder, according to reports both Spanish and English. Drake had also ordered his men that the women must remain “inviolate,” and he even entered homes to reassure the women personally that none of them would be raped. While there is no excuse for the terror Drake and his raiders inflicted on their victims, this level of humanity in the sixteenth century—let alone in the twentieth or twenty-first—is remarkable.
Now that he had made his strike, Drake once again lay low, hoping to trick the Spaniards into believing that he had left the Caribbean with his paltry treasure. While his good “Plymouth lads” grumbled about the heat, humidity, and their ill-luck, the Cimarrones tended the sick and injured and made moccasins for the foot-sore rovers. Drake marveled at their strength, their courage, and above all their loyalty. “Yea many times when some of our company fainted with sickness or weariness,” Drake wrote later, “two Cimarrones would carry him [the sick] with ease between them two miles together, and at other times (when need was) they would show themselves no less valiant than industrious and of good judgement.”
After their retreat, there was little else to do than plan their next raid for the spring of 1573, and capture a prize that would hopefully keep them well provided in victuals and water. Then, nearly a month after they had rejoined their ships following the Venta Cruces raids, a large French ship bore down on them just off Cativas Headland near Nombre de Díos. Her captain, who had been looking for Drake for some five weeks, was none other than the Huguenot corsair Guillaume le Testu. Le Testu was no ordinary pirate. He had been the personal protégé of Admiral de Coligny, and was captaining a ship for the merchant adventurer Philippe Strozzi.
Le Testu was well known to Drake. After all, Le Testu had taken part in the French colonial adventure to Brazil, and Drake admired the French challenge in South America to the Spaniards. So when the Frenchman asked for water, and explained some of his men were ill, Drake ordered provisions to be sent aboard; then he asked Le Testu to follow him to one of his storehouses so that they could be fully replenished. When they finally anchored, the Huguenot captain gave Drake a gilt scimitar that had been a gift of his dear, now butchered, leader, Admiral de Coligny. This devastating news, and the carnage that had ensued in France, shocked and angered Drake, making the gift all the more dear.
The two men had already respected each other before they ever met, but once in the same cabin together, that respect grew into mutual admiration. Le Testu showed Drake his invaluable folio atlas of fifty-six maps that he had drawn based on his own experiences, and which had been dedicated to Coligny some years earlier. This treasure of experience would have driven home the fact to Drake of how poor English knowledge of the seas had truly been. Le Testu had been a royal pilot at Le Havre, and had been born and bred with the sea coursing through his soul like Drake. The main difference between the two was that Le Testu had high-level contacts in Coligny and, lately, André Thévet, Catherine de’ Medici’s chaplain. Drake had to make his own way through hard graft. What is striking from this encounter of great “pirates” is that Le Testu would have not been a corsair or outlaw if he had adhered to the Catholic faith.
Naturally, Drake and Le Testu fell in together, and agreed on how to mount another raid on the trajín. Le Testu believed that if they attacked closer to Nombre de Díos, after the gold and silver shipments had been separated at the Chagres River, the soldiers would be more relaxed as their journey was nearing its end. It would be easier to box them in or, preferably, disperse the mule train’s defenders more easily, he ventured. Drake agreed.
On March 31, 1573, the combined Cimarrone, English, and Huguenot forces stole into the jungle. Cimaroon scouts edged forward in the night, returning to their positions before daybreak. The trajín had nearly two hundred mules in all and an escort of around forty-five poorly armed, barefoot soldiers.
The assault was rapid and deadly. The Cimaroons led the charge. Within the first few seconds, a Negro harquebusier fired at Le Testu, wounding him in the stomach, and killing a Cimaroon. The attackers surged forward regardless, shouting fierce battle cries and shooting off their weapons. The Spaniards quickly recognized that if they stayed and defended the trajín, it would be a turkey shoot, and they would be the turkeys. While they turned tail and ran, the raiders leapt onto the baggage and prized open the chests. The mules were carrying more than 200,000 pesos de oro ($23.24 million or £12.56 million today). What made the prize sweeter was that 18,363 pesos de oro ($2.13 million or £1.15 million today) personally belonged to the King of Spain.
The fifteen tons of silver looted was hastily hidden in burrows made by land crabs, or under fallen trees. They had to be quick about it, though, since again, they were only two leagues from Nombre de Díos. Half of the gold was loaded back onto the mules and carried to the mouth of the Francisca River, where their pinnaces were waiting. But Le Testu was mortally wounded, and he knew it. He told Drake to go ahead and leave him, that he would guard the silver until they could return. The last thing Le Testu wanted was for Spanish soldiers to cut off their retreat to the sea, and Drake reluctantly agreed. Two of his men volunteered to keep him company, while the others marched laboriously away.
Two days later, after yet another torrential downpour in the jungle, the raiders arrived at their rendezvous. But instead of their own pinnaces, they found Spanish shallops. Had the pinnaces been captured? How would they escape back to their pirate’s haven? the men asked. Had the Spaniards wrecked the Pasco and dashed their hopes of returning home? Drake knew from experience that action would keep these worries from overpowering his men. As ever ingenious, he instructed them to make a raft from fallen trees, binding the trunks together and using a slashed biscuit sack for its puny sail. It wasn’t pretty, but it just about floated. After the Spaniards rounded the headland, Drake and three men waded out in their ludicrous tree raft, at times sailing waist high in seawater, before they spotted the Bear and the Minion, nestled in a safe harbor nearby. As Drake boarded the ship, he broke into a sudden smile and brought out a quoit (disc) of gold from his shirt. Their voyage had been made.
After his men had been brought safely on board, the Cimarrones came forward with the sad news that captain Le Testu had been killed. Drake said a prayer for the Frenchman’s soul and gave the order to weigh anchor. It was unsafe to return for the silver. Their voyage had been made, thanks in large part to the Cimaroons and the Huguenots, with whom he gladly shared their prize. They had been away for more than a year, and more than half of them were dead, including Drake’s two brothers.
In an incredibly swift and uneventful crossing of only twenty-three days, Drake and his remaining crew pulled into Plymouth harbor on Sunday, August 9, 1574. All the good men and women of the town were at prayer in St. Andrew’s Church, listening to their vicar’s sermon, when a murmuring among the parishoners grew into a roar. Drake had returned, they whispered to one another. One by one they left, until finally the entire flock deserted its preacher and raced to the waterfront to welcome home their heroes.
In the absence of their own navigational charts, early French raiders depended heavily on the knowledge and experience of disaffected Spanish pilots, Benzoni recording in the 1540s that `it was some Spaniards, practised in that navigation, who led the enemy, so that the French also became as familiar with those waters as the Spaniards themselves’. It was, for instance, a Spaniard who guided five French ships into Cartagena harbour in 1544, where they landed 100 men and sacked and burnt the town. Before long, however, French corsairs knew as much about navigating in the Caribbean and the Atlantic sea-lanes as their Spanish counterparts, and had accumulated sufficient intelligence of Spanish strength in the region to enable them to launch their attacks with impunity. Benzoni noted that `although in the beginning they restricted themselves to the vicinity of Hispaniola and San Juan de Puerto Rico, yet when those districts ceased to yield rich prizes, they frequented more of the islands, and even some of the provinces on the mainland’, pillaging towns and capturing ships wherever they went. The audiencia of Santo Domingo reported in 1541 that French corsairs `knowing the weakness of these ports landed in many of them, in full daylight, [and] burned and robbed some without meeting any resistance’. Very few Spanish attempts to repel pirate landing-parties were ever successful, and at least some of those that were owed their success more to bribery than force of arms. Indeed, Blasco Nuñez Vela (1539) considered that 300 corsairs could seize any coastal town on the Spanish Main that they cared to, regardless of its size or strength, and it is readily apparent from the sources that the Spaniards’ poor leadership and lack of adequate arms virtually guaranteed the pirates success on land. So long as they managed to avoid the larger and more heavily-armed Spanish warships sometimes despatched against them there was also very little that they needed to fear at sea.
Normal French raiding practice, as recorded by a Spanish eye-witness in 1571, was for the crew of the pinnace to make the attack while the larger ship stood offshore, the booty being subsequently transferred to the ship, which would periodically return to Normandy to sell it. This is exactly how Sores went about attacking Havana in 1555, when he landed the bulk of his men by means of his pinnaces and ships’ boats to outflank the town’s defences and launch an overland attack from the rear. On this particular occasion the French set fire to the fort’s gates to smoke out its garrison after several hours of fighting. The Spanish governor had meanwhile rallied the population (which, as was customary under such circumstances, had fled inland with the greater part of its portable valuables at first site of the corsairs) and returned with such armed men as he could muster, but was beaten off. Drake employed much the same tactics in his attack on Santo Domingo in 1586, putting his landing-party ashore several miles away to launch a surprise attack from the rear while his main fleet kept the town’s defences occupied from the seaward side. This became the characteristic modus operandi of English privateers thereafter. | 3,643 | ENGLISH | 1 |
This idea will help children focus on the type of discussion they have had. It will give them a physical way of seeing the quality of their discussion.
What do you do?
Each group will have a set of Lego bricks to represent each child’s contribution to the discussion. When a child has spoken they will add a brick to the group’s tower. Each child will add a brick to the tower after they have spoken provided the contribution built on what was said previously. If the contribution did not build on what was previously said then a new tower is started.
This is quite a powerful exercise as it will demonstrate how successful a group has been and the quality of the discussion. If you have a number of very small towers then you will clearly see that the group were not particularly good at building on others’ ideas. They would then perhaps need to focus on what others’ have said in order to develop one line of inquiry rather than too many. | <urn:uuid:3a9ec329-e842-4f3f-aabf-9d9e47a78dd1> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://teachmychild.co.uk/talk-towers/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251700675.78/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127112805-20200127142805-00270.warc.gz | en | 0.983578 | 197 | 3.75 | 4 | [
-0.32298341393470764,
0.042611539363861084,
0.17472612857818604,
-0.35352885723114014,
-0.4410111904144287,
0.6158810257911682,
-0.23680554330348969,
0.15301279723644257,
-0.34659409523010254,
-0.07818553596735,
0.2730589807033539,
0.01899300515651703,
0.2585258483886719,
0.379078716039657... | 2 | This idea will help children focus on the type of discussion they have had. It will give them a physical way of seeing the quality of their discussion.
What do you do?
Each group will have a set of Lego bricks to represent each child’s contribution to the discussion. When a child has spoken they will add a brick to the group’s tower. Each child will add a brick to the tower after they have spoken provided the contribution built on what was said previously. If the contribution did not build on what was previously said then a new tower is started.
This is quite a powerful exercise as it will demonstrate how successful a group has been and the quality of the discussion. If you have a number of very small towers then you will clearly see that the group were not particularly good at building on others’ ideas. They would then perhaps need to focus on what others’ have said in order to develop one line of inquiry rather than too many. | 188 | ENGLISH | 1 |
1933 (30th January )
1933 (22nd March)
The first concentration camp was opened at Dachau in Germany.
1933 (24th March)
The Enabling Act was passed. The terms of this act allowed Hitler to become dictator of Germany.
1933 (1st April)
German people were told not to buy from Jewish shops or businesses.
1933 (11th April)
The Nazis announced that anyone who had non-Aryan parents or grandparents was also determined to be non-Aryan.
1933 (26th April)
The Nazi secret police, the Gestapo, was created by Hermann Goring.
1933 (10th May)
Books that did not support the Nazi ideals were publicly burnt.
A law was passed that imposed forced sterilisation on people with genetic defects.
1933 (14th July)
The Nazi Party was declared the only legal party in Germany.
1933 (29th September)
Jews were no longer allowed to own land.
1933 (24th November)
Homeless, alcoholic and unemployed people were sent to concentration camps.
1934 (17th May)
An order was issued which prohibited Jewish people from having health insurance.
1934 (22nd July
Jews were prevented from gaining legal qualifications.
1935 (21st May)
Jews were banned from serving in the armed forces.
1935 (15th September )
The Nuremberg Laws were introduced. These laws were designed to take away Jewish rights of citizenship and included orders that:
Jews were no longer allowed to be German citizens
Jews were not allowed to marry non-Jews
Jews were forbidden from having sexual relations with non-Jews
Sachsenhausen concentration camp was opened.
A special section of the Nazi security services, known as the SS, was created to guard concentration camps.
Jews were banned from being teachers, accountants or dentists.
Buchenwald concentration camp was opened
1937 (8th November)
The Nazi propaganda exhibition ‘The Eternal Jew’ opened in Munich. The exhibition showed images and text explaining typical features of Jews.
1938 (13th March)
After Anschluss, which joined Germany and Austria, Jews in Austria were persecuted and victimised. The Mauthausen concentration camp was opened to deal with Austrian Jews.
1938 (26th April)
Jews were told they had to register the property they owned and also how much money they had.
1938 (8th July)
The Jewish synagogue in Munich was destroyed.
1938 (23rd July)
All Jews over the age of 15 years had to apply for an identity card.
1938 (25th July)
Jewish doctors were no longer allowed to practice medicine.
1938 (11th August)
The synagogue in Nuremberg was destroyed.
1938 )5th October)
The passports of all Austrian and German Jews had to be stamped with a large red letter ‘J’.
1938 (28th October)
Polish Jews living in Germany were arrested and sent back to Poland. Poland refused them entry and they were stranded on the border.
1938 (7th November)
Herschel Grynszpan, the son of one of the Polish Jews expelled from Germany, killed Ernst vom Rath, German Embassador to France.
1938 (9th November)
Prompted by the murder of Ernst Vom Rath, this was a night of extreme violence where approximately 100 Jews were murdered, 20,000 German and Austrian Jews arrested and sent to camps, hundreds of synagogues burned and the windows of Jewish shops all over Germany and Austria smashed.
1938 (12th November)
Jews were made to pay one billion marks for the damage caused by Kristallnacht.
1938 (15th November)
An order was issued that stated that Jewish children should not be allowed to attend non-Jewish German schools.
1939 (24th January)
Hermann Goring ordered the leader of the SS, Reinhard Heydrich, to expel the Jews faster.
1939 (21st February)
Jews were forced to hand all gold and silver items to the state.
Ravensbruck concentration camp for women was opened.
1939 (4th July)
German Jews were no longer allowed to hold government jobs.
1939 (1st September)
A curfew was imposed for Jews in Germany – they were to be indoors by 8pm in the Summer and 9pm in the Winter.
1939 (21st September)
The SS Einsatzgruppen (killing squads) were instructed to move Jews in Poland to ghettos.
1939 (23rd September)
German Jews were no longer allowed to own wireless sets.
1939 (12th October)
Jews living in Austria and Czechoslovakia were sent to Poland.
1939 (26th October)
Polish Jews aged between 14 and 60 were to be put to forced labour.
1939 (23rd November)
Jews in Poland were forced to sew a yellow star onto their clothes so that they could be easily identified.
Jews in German occupied countries were persecuted by the Nazis and many were sent to concentration camps.
1940 (25th January)
Work began on a new concentration camp at Auschwitz near Krakow in Poland.
1940 (30th April)
The Lodz Ghetto in Poland was sealed with around 230,000 Jews inside.
1940 (20th May)
A new concentration camp, Auschwitz, opened.
The Krakow Ghetto was sealed with around 70,000 Jews inside.
1940 (15th November)
The Warsaw Ghetto was sealed off. There were around 400,000 Jewish people inside.
Around 2,000 Jews in Romania were killed.
1941 (1st March)
Plans were made to expand Auschwitz to enable it to hold 100,000 people at a time.
1941 (14th May)
3,600 Jews were arrested in Paris.
The Einsatzgruppen (killing squads) began rounding up and murdering Jews in Russia. 33,000 Jews were murdered in two days at Babi Yar near Kiev.
Jewish ghettos were set up in Russian areas held by the Nazis.
1941 (21st July)
Majdanek concentration was opened in Poland.
1941 (25th and 26th July)
3,800 Jews were killed in Lithuania.
1941 (31st July)
Reinhard Heydrich chosen to implement ‘Final Solution’, a genocide against Jewish people.
1941 (3rd September)
Zyklon B gas was used at Auschwitz for the first time.
1941 (27th and 28th September)
23,000 Jews were killed in Ukraine.
1941 (23rd October)
Jews were forbidden to leave Germany.
1941 (24th November)
Theresienstadt ghetto was established in Czechoslovakia.
1941 (8th December)
The first ‘Death Camp’ was opened at Chelmno.
Mass-gassing of Jews began at Auschwitz-Birkenau.
1942 (17th March)
Polish Jews from Lublin were sent to Belzec extermination camp.
1942 (24th March)
Slovak Jews were sent to Auschwitz.
1942 (27th March)
French Jews were sent to Auschwitz.
1942 (20th April)
German Jews were no longer allowed to use public transport.
Sobibor extermination camp opened in Poland.
1942 (1st June)
Jews in German occupied countries were told to wear yellow stars.
1942 (2nd July)
Berlin Jews were sent to Theresienstadt.
1942 (14th July
Dutch Jews were sent to Auschwitz.
1942 (22nd July)
Belgian Jews were sent to Auschwitz.
1942 (23rd July)
A new extermination camp was opened at Treblinka in Poland. The Germans began deporting Jews from the Warsaw ghetto to the camp.
1942 (5th October)
An order was issued for all Jews in Germany to be sent to Auschwitz and Majdanek.
The camp at Belzec was destroyed.
1943 (29th January )
An order was issued for gypsies to be sent to concentration camps.
Jews in Greece were put into ghettos.
The Greek Jews were sent to Auschwitz.
1943 (14th March)
The Krakow ghetto was liquidated and inhabitants were sent to the Plaszow camp if they were fit to work or to Auschwitz.
1943 (19th April – 16th May)
Warsaw Ghetto Uprising
An order was issued to empty the Warsaw Ghetto and deport the inmates to Treblinka. Following the deportation of some Warsaw Jews, news leaked back to those remaining in the Ghetto of mass killings.
A group of about 750 mainly young people decided that they had nothing to lose by resisting deportation. Using weapons smuggled into the Ghetto they fired on German troops who tried to round up inmates for deportation.
They held out for nearly a month before they were taken by the Nazis and shot or sent to death camps.
1943 (11th June)
Himmler ordered that all ghettos in Poland should be liquidated.
1943 (25th June)
A fourth gas chamber was opened at Auschwitz.
With the Russians advancing from the East, the Germans were keen to destroy evidence of the death camps. Treblinka ceased operation.
1943 (11th September)
Jews were sent from Theresienstadt to Auschwitz.
1943 (14th October)
A large number of Jews escaped from Sobibor camp. The Germans made the decision to close the camp and destroy evidence of its existence.
Two Jews escaped from Auschwitz and reached Czechoslovakia where they reported what was ahppening at Auschwitz.
1944 (14th May – 8th July)
440,000 Hungarian Jews were transported to Auschwitz.
1944 (24th July)
Russian troops liberated Majdanek.
1944 (4th August)
The Frank family were discovered hiding in Amsterdam. They were sent to Auschwitz.
1944 (6th August)
The Lodz ghetto in Poland was liquidated. Inhabitants were sent to Auschwitz.
1944 (30th October)
The gas chambers at Auschwitz were used for the last time.
1944 (8th November)
25,000 Hungarian Jews were force marched to Austria.
Oskar Schindler saved 1200 Jews from Plaszow labour camp in Poland.
1945 (18th January)
66,000 Jews were taken from Auschwitz.
1945 (27th January)
Russian troops liberated Auschwitz.
1945 (10th April)
Allied troops liberated Buchenwald.
1945 (15th April)
British troops liberated Bergen Belsen.
1945 (29th April)
US troops liberated Dachau.
1945 (30th April)
Hitler committed suicide in Berlin.
1945 (7th May)
Germany surrendered and the war in Europe was over.
1945 (20th November)
Nuremberg War Trial
Surviving Nazi leaders were put on trial at Nuremberg.
1946 (16th April)
Rudolph Hoss was hanged at Auschwitz. | <urn:uuid:0d6728f9-3419-4af4-a476-d793f1212e18> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.totallytimelines.com/the-holocaust-1933-1946/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251669967.70/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125041318-20200125070318-00479.warc.gz | en | 0.987386 | 2,421 | 3.65625 | 4 | [
-0.1987975686788559,
0.5449304580688477,
-0.1409761905670166,
-0.15720689296722412,
-0.24933353066444397,
0.24798496067523956,
-0.07132019102573395,
-0.04061787948012352,
-0.14434915781021118,
-0.37305575609207153,
0.33095431327819824,
-0.34100234508514404,
-0.23673494160175323,
0.40439757... | 5 | 1933 (30th January )
1933 (22nd March)
The first concentration camp was opened at Dachau in Germany.
1933 (24th March)
The Enabling Act was passed. The terms of this act allowed Hitler to become dictator of Germany.
1933 (1st April)
German people were told not to buy from Jewish shops or businesses.
1933 (11th April)
The Nazis announced that anyone who had non-Aryan parents or grandparents was also determined to be non-Aryan.
1933 (26th April)
The Nazi secret police, the Gestapo, was created by Hermann Goring.
1933 (10th May)
Books that did not support the Nazi ideals were publicly burnt.
A law was passed that imposed forced sterilisation on people with genetic defects.
1933 (14th July)
The Nazi Party was declared the only legal party in Germany.
1933 (29th September)
Jews were no longer allowed to own land.
1933 (24th November)
Homeless, alcoholic and unemployed people were sent to concentration camps.
1934 (17th May)
An order was issued which prohibited Jewish people from having health insurance.
1934 (22nd July
Jews were prevented from gaining legal qualifications.
1935 (21st May)
Jews were banned from serving in the armed forces.
1935 (15th September )
The Nuremberg Laws were introduced. These laws were designed to take away Jewish rights of citizenship and included orders that:
Jews were no longer allowed to be German citizens
Jews were not allowed to marry non-Jews
Jews were forbidden from having sexual relations with non-Jews
Sachsenhausen concentration camp was opened.
A special section of the Nazi security services, known as the SS, was created to guard concentration camps.
Jews were banned from being teachers, accountants or dentists.
Buchenwald concentration camp was opened
1937 (8th November)
The Nazi propaganda exhibition ‘The Eternal Jew’ opened in Munich. The exhibition showed images and text explaining typical features of Jews.
1938 (13th March)
After Anschluss, which joined Germany and Austria, Jews in Austria were persecuted and victimised. The Mauthausen concentration camp was opened to deal with Austrian Jews.
1938 (26th April)
Jews were told they had to register the property they owned and also how much money they had.
1938 (8th July)
The Jewish synagogue in Munich was destroyed.
1938 (23rd July)
All Jews over the age of 15 years had to apply for an identity card.
1938 (25th July)
Jewish doctors were no longer allowed to practice medicine.
1938 (11th August)
The synagogue in Nuremberg was destroyed.
1938 )5th October)
The passports of all Austrian and German Jews had to be stamped with a large red letter ‘J’.
1938 (28th October)
Polish Jews living in Germany were arrested and sent back to Poland. Poland refused them entry and they were stranded on the border.
1938 (7th November)
Herschel Grynszpan, the son of one of the Polish Jews expelled from Germany, killed Ernst vom Rath, German Embassador to France.
1938 (9th November)
Prompted by the murder of Ernst Vom Rath, this was a night of extreme violence where approximately 100 Jews were murdered, 20,000 German and Austrian Jews arrested and sent to camps, hundreds of synagogues burned and the windows of Jewish shops all over Germany and Austria smashed.
1938 (12th November)
Jews were made to pay one billion marks for the damage caused by Kristallnacht.
1938 (15th November)
An order was issued that stated that Jewish children should not be allowed to attend non-Jewish German schools.
1939 (24th January)
Hermann Goring ordered the leader of the SS, Reinhard Heydrich, to expel the Jews faster.
1939 (21st February)
Jews were forced to hand all gold and silver items to the state.
Ravensbruck concentration camp for women was opened.
1939 (4th July)
German Jews were no longer allowed to hold government jobs.
1939 (1st September)
A curfew was imposed for Jews in Germany – they were to be indoors by 8pm in the Summer and 9pm in the Winter.
1939 (21st September)
The SS Einsatzgruppen (killing squads) were instructed to move Jews in Poland to ghettos.
1939 (23rd September)
German Jews were no longer allowed to own wireless sets.
1939 (12th October)
Jews living in Austria and Czechoslovakia were sent to Poland.
1939 (26th October)
Polish Jews aged between 14 and 60 were to be put to forced labour.
1939 (23rd November)
Jews in Poland were forced to sew a yellow star onto their clothes so that they could be easily identified.
Jews in German occupied countries were persecuted by the Nazis and many were sent to concentration camps.
1940 (25th January)
Work began on a new concentration camp at Auschwitz near Krakow in Poland.
1940 (30th April)
The Lodz Ghetto in Poland was sealed with around 230,000 Jews inside.
1940 (20th May)
A new concentration camp, Auschwitz, opened.
The Krakow Ghetto was sealed with around 70,000 Jews inside.
1940 (15th November)
The Warsaw Ghetto was sealed off. There were around 400,000 Jewish people inside.
Around 2,000 Jews in Romania were killed.
1941 (1st March)
Plans were made to expand Auschwitz to enable it to hold 100,000 people at a time.
1941 (14th May)
3,600 Jews were arrested in Paris.
The Einsatzgruppen (killing squads) began rounding up and murdering Jews in Russia. 33,000 Jews were murdered in two days at Babi Yar near Kiev.
Jewish ghettos were set up in Russian areas held by the Nazis.
1941 (21st July)
Majdanek concentration was opened in Poland.
1941 (25th and 26th July)
3,800 Jews were killed in Lithuania.
1941 (31st July)
Reinhard Heydrich chosen to implement ‘Final Solution’, a genocide against Jewish people.
1941 (3rd September)
Zyklon B gas was used at Auschwitz for the first time.
1941 (27th and 28th September)
23,000 Jews were killed in Ukraine.
1941 (23rd October)
Jews were forbidden to leave Germany.
1941 (24th November)
Theresienstadt ghetto was established in Czechoslovakia.
1941 (8th December)
The first ‘Death Camp’ was opened at Chelmno.
Mass-gassing of Jews began at Auschwitz-Birkenau.
1942 (17th March)
Polish Jews from Lublin were sent to Belzec extermination camp.
1942 (24th March)
Slovak Jews were sent to Auschwitz.
1942 (27th March)
French Jews were sent to Auschwitz.
1942 (20th April)
German Jews were no longer allowed to use public transport.
Sobibor extermination camp opened in Poland.
1942 (1st June)
Jews in German occupied countries were told to wear yellow stars.
1942 (2nd July)
Berlin Jews were sent to Theresienstadt.
1942 (14th July
Dutch Jews were sent to Auschwitz.
1942 (22nd July)
Belgian Jews were sent to Auschwitz.
1942 (23rd July)
A new extermination camp was opened at Treblinka in Poland. The Germans began deporting Jews from the Warsaw ghetto to the camp.
1942 (5th October)
An order was issued for all Jews in Germany to be sent to Auschwitz and Majdanek.
The camp at Belzec was destroyed.
1943 (29th January )
An order was issued for gypsies to be sent to concentration camps.
Jews in Greece were put into ghettos.
The Greek Jews were sent to Auschwitz.
1943 (14th March)
The Krakow ghetto was liquidated and inhabitants were sent to the Plaszow camp if they were fit to work or to Auschwitz.
1943 (19th April – 16th May)
Warsaw Ghetto Uprising
An order was issued to empty the Warsaw Ghetto and deport the inmates to Treblinka. Following the deportation of some Warsaw Jews, news leaked back to those remaining in the Ghetto of mass killings.
A group of about 750 mainly young people decided that they had nothing to lose by resisting deportation. Using weapons smuggled into the Ghetto they fired on German troops who tried to round up inmates for deportation.
They held out for nearly a month before they were taken by the Nazis and shot or sent to death camps.
1943 (11th June)
Himmler ordered that all ghettos in Poland should be liquidated.
1943 (25th June)
A fourth gas chamber was opened at Auschwitz.
With the Russians advancing from the East, the Germans were keen to destroy evidence of the death camps. Treblinka ceased operation.
1943 (11th September)
Jews were sent from Theresienstadt to Auschwitz.
1943 (14th October)
A large number of Jews escaped from Sobibor camp. The Germans made the decision to close the camp and destroy evidence of its existence.
Two Jews escaped from Auschwitz and reached Czechoslovakia where they reported what was ahppening at Auschwitz.
1944 (14th May – 8th July)
440,000 Hungarian Jews were transported to Auschwitz.
1944 (24th July)
Russian troops liberated Majdanek.
1944 (4th August)
The Frank family were discovered hiding in Amsterdam. They were sent to Auschwitz.
1944 (6th August)
The Lodz ghetto in Poland was liquidated. Inhabitants were sent to Auschwitz.
1944 (30th October)
The gas chambers at Auschwitz were used for the last time.
1944 (8th November)
25,000 Hungarian Jews were force marched to Austria.
Oskar Schindler saved 1200 Jews from Plaszow labour camp in Poland.
1945 (18th January)
66,000 Jews were taken from Auschwitz.
1945 (27th January)
Russian troops liberated Auschwitz.
1945 (10th April)
Allied troops liberated Buchenwald.
1945 (15th April)
British troops liberated Bergen Belsen.
1945 (29th April)
US troops liberated Dachau.
1945 (30th April)
Hitler committed suicide in Berlin.
1945 (7th May)
Germany surrendered and the war in Europe was over.
1945 (20th November)
Nuremberg War Trial
Surviving Nazi leaders were put on trial at Nuremberg.
1946 (16th April)
Rudolph Hoss was hanged at Auschwitz. | 2,559 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Detailed map of Martinique, with many details along the coast in the interior.
George-Louis Le Rouge (1712-1790), though known for his work in Paris, was originally born Georg Ludwig of Hanover, Germany. He grew up and was educated in Hanover, after which he became a surveyor and military engineer. Around 1740, however, Le Rouge moved to Paris and set up shop as an engraver and publisher on the Rue des Grands Augustins. It was at this time that he changed his name, adopting a French pseudonym that would later become quite famous.
Le Rouge spent much of his forty-year career translating various works from English to French, and his cartographic influence often came from English maps. His experience as a surveyor and engineer in Germany made him a skilled and prolific cartographer, and he produced thousands of charts, maps, atlases, and plans. His work spans from garden views and small-town plans to huge, multiple-continent maps. Le Rouge eventually accepted the position of Geographical Engineer for Louid XV, the King of France.
Later in life, Le Rouge became well-known for publishing North American maps, such as in his Atlas ameriquain septentrional of 1778. One of Le Rouge’s other more famous works is the Franklin/Folger chart of the Gulf Stream, which he worked on with Benjamin Franklin. Franklin and Le Rouge corresponded around 1780 and collaborated to create this map, a French version of Franklin’s famous chart which was originally printed in 1769. | <urn:uuid:3aba90f0-b311-4296-ba64-8c1169debe1c> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.raremaps.com/gallery/detail/59481/isle-de-la-martinique-le-rouge?q=2 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251690379.95/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126195918-20200126225918-00440.warc.gz | en | 0.983459 | 328 | 3.328125 | 3 | [
-0.25962698459625244,
0.16409988701343536,
0.0651407241821289,
-0.33796268701553345,
-0.06293841451406479,
-0.05341796576976776,
0.12059491872787476,
0.31019988656044006,
0.0392933189868927,
0.0011790593853220344,
0.3024827241897583,
-0.24868561327457428,
-0.2931683659553528,
0.24194429814... | 5 | Detailed map of Martinique, with many details along the coast in the interior.
George-Louis Le Rouge (1712-1790), though known for his work in Paris, was originally born Georg Ludwig of Hanover, Germany. He grew up and was educated in Hanover, after which he became a surveyor and military engineer. Around 1740, however, Le Rouge moved to Paris and set up shop as an engraver and publisher on the Rue des Grands Augustins. It was at this time that he changed his name, adopting a French pseudonym that would later become quite famous.
Le Rouge spent much of his forty-year career translating various works from English to French, and his cartographic influence often came from English maps. His experience as a surveyor and engineer in Germany made him a skilled and prolific cartographer, and he produced thousands of charts, maps, atlases, and plans. His work spans from garden views and small-town plans to huge, multiple-continent maps. Le Rouge eventually accepted the position of Geographical Engineer for Louid XV, the King of France.
Later in life, Le Rouge became well-known for publishing North American maps, such as in his Atlas ameriquain septentrional of 1778. One of Le Rouge’s other more famous works is the Franklin/Folger chart of the Gulf Stream, which he worked on with Benjamin Franklin. Franklin and Le Rouge corresponded around 1780 and collaborated to create this map, a French version of Franklin’s famous chart which was originally printed in 1769. | 328 | ENGLISH | 1 |
John Quincy Adams Biography: Sixth President of the United States
John Quincy Adams was taught by his parents from an early age to be a public servant, and indeed he was. He served as the secretary to the American envoy to Russia at age fourteen and literally died on the floor of the House of Representatives at age eighty. As the oldest son of the prominent politician and U.S. president John Adams, he grew up in a fervent political climate, accompanying his father on diplomatic missions, and ultimately forged his own path in diplomacy and public administration.
In addition to serving for years as a diplomat, minister, and ambassador to foreign countries, Adams had a successful career as a U.S. senator and congressman. He was known to be an ardent opponent of slavery, but also for his ability to negotiate favorable treaties with the great powers of the world, such as Britain, Russia, and Prussia. Adams would go on to become the sixth president of the United States and finish his career in the House of Representatives.
John Quincy Adams was born on July 11, 1767, to John Adams and Abigail Smith Adams from Massachusetts Bay Colony. At the time of his birth, his father, John Adams, had a seat as selectman for the town of Braintree (later renamed Quincy) and later served as a diplomat, eventually being elected the second United States president.
Growing up in the politically charged time of the American Revolution, John Quincy Adams had patriotism instilled in his blood. As the son of a politician and diplomat, he witnessed directly the birth and growth of the nation, even watching the first major battle of the American Revolutionary War, the Battle of Bunker Hill, from a hilltop near his house. Much of his adolescence was spent overseas as he joined his father’s diplomatic delegations to France and the Netherlands; there, he acquired practical diplomatic experience that would serve him the rest of his life. While in Europe, John Quincy attended prestigious schools in Paris, France, and Leiden, Netherlands. He became fluent in the French language and learned conversational Dutch. Upon his return to the United States in 1780, John Quincy started to keep a regular diary, a habit he maintained for the next 60 years.
In 1781, despite being only fourteen years old, Adams became the private secretary of the American envoy to Russia, Francis Dana. John Quincy provided his services as a translator of French. This was the first small step of what would later be his long and extraordinary international career. When the assignment in St. Petersburg ended, Adams traveled through Finland, Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands before meeting his father again in France.
Without holding an official position, Adams took part in the negotiations at the signing of the Peace of Paris, which ended the American Revolutionary War with Great Britain. Meanwhile, his father was appointed U.S. minister to Great Britain, but instead of joining his father, young Adams returned home to Massachusetts to complete his studies at Harvard College. In 1787, Adams graduated from Harvard College, after acquiring an excellent knowledge of classical studies and becoming fluent in Latin and Greek. From 1787 to 1789, Adams studied to be a lawyer under Theophilus Parsons in Newburyport, a small town in Massachusetts.
In 1790, John Quincy Adams was admitted to the Massachusetts bar and while practicing in Boston, he devoted his spare time to writing political and social commentaries for newspapers. Mainly, he wrote about his support for the neutrality policy adopted by the administration of President George Washington regarding the French-British War of 1793. Reading the articles, the president became convinced of Adams’s wise political insights and offered him a position as United States minister in the Netherlands. Adams began his diplomatic career at The Hague, where his primary responsibility was to keep the American government informed regarding diplomatic and military activities in Europe, especially as the revolutionary movement in France exploded into war.
Adams’s diplomatic responsibilities soon stretched beyond his posting at The Hague. He traveled to London in 1795 and was involved in the negotiations of the Jay Treaty between the United States and the British Foreign Office. His skill at diplomacy impressed George Washington, who considered him the most important Foreign Service officer of his administration. Trusting his competence, Washington later appointed Adams minister to Portugal. In 1796, John Adams replaced Washington as president and changed his son’s appointment, sending him to Prussia instead of Portugal.
In 1797, before taking his position in Berlin, John Quincy married Louisa Catherine Johnson. She was of English birth and the daughter of American consul Joshua Johnson and Katherine Nuth, living in London. Louisa was a highly educated and charming young woman, with extensive knowledge of music, literature, and languages. She accompanied her husband in all his travels in various European countries.
The United States Senate
As a diplomat in Berlin, Adams managed to negotiate an advantageous treaty of trade and amity with Prussia. His father recalled him from Europe at the end of his presidential term in 1800. John Quincy and Louisa returned to America and by the end of the next year, young Adams was elected to the Massachusetts Senate. From there, his political ascent was rapid and in 1803, he was elected to the United States Senate, as a representative from the state of Massachusetts. Besides his political career, Adams also taught rhetoric and oratory at Harvard College between 1806 and 1809.
In the U.S. Senate, John Quincy Adams was generally regarded as a Federalist like his father, but he soon realized that his views were not aligned with those of the party. The purchase of the Louisiana territory created tensions in the Senate because many Federalists were against it, but Adams supported the purchase even though he hadn’t been in Washington to give his vote for ratification of the treaty. He later sided with the Federalists against President Thomas Jefferson, who wanted to pass a bill that gave him unwarranted powers over the newly purchased territory.
In 1807, Adams supported the president’s idea of an embargo to stop international commerce and force Britain to recognize the rights of the United States. Adams insisted on prompt action, and the Senate quickly approved the embargo bill, even though the Federalists fought passionately against it. Overall, the bill was not favored in New England because it suppressed the region’s economic progress. His support for the bill brought Adams’s downfall in the Senate.
Since the Massachusetts legislature was controlled by the Federalists and Adams became in opposition to them, they chose a replacement for him several months before the end of his term. Finding himself alone and powerless, Adams resigned in June 1808, but maintained his political aspirations. When the Republicans formed their own political structure, Adams decided to ally himself with the nascent party and support James Madison as a presidential candidate.
Despite his failure in the Senate, Adams regained his political stature when President Madison appointed him the first official United States ambassador to Russia. Adams and Louisa received a warm welcome from Russian Tsar Alexander I, especially since the monarch had already decided to develop closer commercial relations with the United States. While living at the tsar’s court, Adams witnessed Napoleon’s invasion of Russia and the calamitous end of his army. In 1812, when the conflict between the United States and Britain escalated to war, Adams was in St. Petersburg, discussing with the Russian officials the possibility of the tsar becoming the mediator that could negotiate an end to the conflict. President Madison accepted his proposal and appointed Albert Gallatin and James Bayard as U.S. delegates to Russia to assist Adams; however, the British refused to discuss the proposal.
At the end of his diplomatic appointment in St. Petersburg, Adams visited Paris, right in time to witness the return from Elba of a defeated Napoleon. From Paris, he traveled to London in 1814 and served as the lead negotiator in the signing of the Treaty of Ghent, which settled the War of 1812. His colleagues considered him ill-tempered and rude, but he was influential in negotiating a lasting peace between the United States and Great Britain. Shortly after, Adams was appointed U.S. minister to Great Britain, a position his father had held.
Secretary of State (1817-1825)
In 1817, Adams returned to the United States and, because of his extensive experience in foreign services, President James Monroe appointed him secretary of state. In his new position, Adams was responsible for negotiating the Adams-Onis or Transcontinental Treaty, which settled the acquisition of Florida. After the United States bought the Louisiana Purchase territory, all succeeding administrations had attempted to purchase Florida, but the negotiations with the Spanish government brought no results. With his diplomatic expertise, Adams convinced the Spanish minister to sign a treaty with the United States. Spain agreed to relinquish all claims to lands east of the Mississippi River while the United States gave up on the territory that is now Texas. The Adams-Onis Treaty was an outstanding victory because it gave the United States a natural boundary from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean. By coming up with the idea of moving the country’s boundary towards the Pacific, Adams proved his political savvy, and his accomplishment marked a key milestone in the continental expansion of the United States.
In his outstanding record of achievements, one of Adams’s most important contributions to public service was the formulation of the Monroe Doctrine. After several Latin American colonies of Spain declared their independence, President Monroe gave a speech to Congress, crafted by Adams, in which he declared that the United States would not accept any European country colonizing the emergent nations in Latin America. The Monroe Doctrine became an important foreign policy of the United States with lasting implications even in the twentieth century.
John Quincy Adams - 6th U.S. President & Son of Founding Father John Adams
President of the United States
At the end of President James Monroe’s second term, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams, Secretary of War John C. Calhoun, and Secretary of the Treasury William H. Crawford all hoped to become the next president. Speaker of the House Henry Clay and General Andrew Jackson also sought the office. Jackson received the highest number of electoral votes, followed by Adams and Crawford, but since no one obtained a majority, the House of Representatives had to choose between the three candidates with the highest number of Electoral votes. Realizing he had no chance of becoming president, Clay decided to endorse Adams, who in turn offered him the position of secretary of state. While this enabled Adams’s victory, it also brought anger and resentment from Jackson’s supporters, who thought that Clay and Adams had made a “corrupt bargain.”
Despite his many years of political success, John Quincy Adams discovered that as president, he could not realize his many goals because of his need for independence and his lack of political savvy in developing key relationships with influential statesmen. The fierce opposition of Jackson’s supporters and Adams’s lack of confidence turned his presidency into a bitter time for him and Louisa. Adams was aware that he did not have a captivating personality that could move crowds, but he had many progressive ideas he knew would benefit the country. He proposed the creation of a national university and the development of the country’s infrastructure. Even though his initiatives were valuable, his many opponents in Congress failed to offer Adams the support he needed to implement his ideas.
In 1828, after a brutal campaign, Adams lost the election to a second presidential term to Andrew Jackson, a man he disliked intensely. Besides their different political agendas, Adams believed that Jackson was an uneducated and uncultured man whose rise to power was a disgrace. At the end of his second term he said, “The greatest change in my condition occurred…which has ever befallen me—dismission from the public service and retirement from public life.”
During Adams’s presidency, his personal life also went through some turbulent episodes. The harassment by his opponents and personal attacks during his presidency played a key role in the marital problems that developed between himself and Louisa. By the end of his presidency, they were taking separate vacations. Moreover, he suffered bouts of depression, and many of his political opponents regarded him as a recluse.
The relationship between Adams and his wife went through a very turbulent time when two of their three sons died tragically in adulthood. Their firstborn son, George Washington Adams, possibly committed suicide after a life of gambling, alcoholism, and scandalous affairs. Their second son, John Quincy Adams II, died of complications from his alcoholism. Only their third son, Charles Francis Adams, followed his father’s footsteps, becoming a prominent American politician and serving as the U.S. minister to England during the American Civil War. Adams and his wife also had a daughter who died in infancy while they were in Russia.
I am a man of reserved, cold, austere, and forbidding manners: my political adversaries say, a gloomy misanthropist, and my personal enemies, an unsocial savage. With a knowledge of the actual defect in my character, I have not the pliability to reform it.— John Quincy Adams
After his one term in office, John Quincy and Louisa decided to retire to Massachusetts and from public life. His retirement was brief, however, and he returned to politics with greater enthusiasm. With the backing of the Anti-Masonic group, Adams won a seat to the House of Representatives in 1830, where he served until his death in 1848. Adams holds the distinction of the only former president to serve in Congress.
In his second career as a congressman, he took his responsibility very seriously and managed to make several notable accomplishments. His hope for a second term at the White House as the nominee of one of the emerging parties, including the Anti-Masonic Party, the National Republican Party, or the Whig Party, remained, but withered with time.
In Congress, Adams became a fierce opponent of slavery. In 1839, he proposed a constitutional amendment that no one born in the United States after 1845 could be a slave. However, the “gag rules” didn’t allow the topic of slavery in the House of Representatives, thus Adams’s amendment was not even proposed for debate. Without feeling deterred, Adams began a prolonged and strenuous fight to repeal the gag rules. He wanted to regain people’s right to petition for the abolition of slavery, and he concentrated all his energy on achieving this goal. Adams claimed that the gag rules were a violation of the First Amendment to the federal Constitution, and this contention gave him the power to resist the attempts of fellow Congressmen to silence him on the matter. Each year, Adams presented to Congress an increasing number of antislavery petitions that he would receive from people in the Northern states. Despite the resentment and criticism of his opponents, he remained firm in his position and after years of struggle, Adams won the repeal of the standing gag rule in 1844.
In addition to his efforts to support the antislavery movement, Adams was also a fervent supporter of the arts and sciences, always talking about the need for enterprise and innovation. He was responsible for developing the Smithsonian Institute as the legacy of the Englishman James Smithson, who had left his enormous fortune to the U.S. government.
Death and Legacy
On February 21, 1848, John Quincy Adams’s unbridled life ended dramatically. While debating the situation of the Mexican-American war veterans in Congress, Adams suffered a cerebral stroke and fell lifeless to the floor. Some fellow congressmen claimed that when Adams collapsed to the floor in the House he said, “This is the last of earth—I am composed.” Taken to the Speaker's Room in the Capitol Building, he died two days later in the presence of his wife and fellow congressmen.
Many believe that Adams’s most significant accomplishments didn’t happen during his years as president, but during his time as a diplomat and as a member of the House of Representatives. His spirit of independence, intelligence, and diligence never got him the credit he deserved because of his reserved and serious personality. Although he failed to appeal to the affections of people in ways that other presidents did, he always worked to serve his country—a true public servant until his final day.
Hamilton, Neil A. and Ian C. Friedman, Reviser. Presidents: A Biographical Dictionary. Third Edition. Checkmark Books. 2010.
Remini, Robert V. John Quincy Adams. Times Books. 2002.
West, Doug. John Quincy Adams: A Short Biography – Sixth President of the United States. C&D Publications. 2018.
Whitney, David C. and Robin V. Whitney. The American Presidents: Biographies of the Chief Executives, from George Washington through Barack Obama. 11th Edition. The Reader’s Digest Association, Inc. 2012. | <urn:uuid:0002ccec-cc55-495c-8eeb-50a65776a4f4> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://soapboxie.com/us-politics/John-Quincy-Adams-Biography-Sixth-President-of-the-United-States | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250593994.14/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118221909-20200119005909-00252.warc.gz | en | 0.983871 | 3,474 | 3.671875 | 4 | [
0.0963258370757103,
0.42575329542160034,
0.574332594871521,
-0.5169373750686646,
-0.24245914816856384,
0.1669979989528656,
0.3826254606246948,
-0.1032698005437851,
-0.10643355548381805,
0.11882157623767853,
-0.05185859277844429,
0.503460705280304,
0.240284264087677,
0.5042996406555176,
-... | 2 | John Quincy Adams Biography: Sixth President of the United States
John Quincy Adams was taught by his parents from an early age to be a public servant, and indeed he was. He served as the secretary to the American envoy to Russia at age fourteen and literally died on the floor of the House of Representatives at age eighty. As the oldest son of the prominent politician and U.S. president John Adams, he grew up in a fervent political climate, accompanying his father on diplomatic missions, and ultimately forged his own path in diplomacy and public administration.
In addition to serving for years as a diplomat, minister, and ambassador to foreign countries, Adams had a successful career as a U.S. senator and congressman. He was known to be an ardent opponent of slavery, but also for his ability to negotiate favorable treaties with the great powers of the world, such as Britain, Russia, and Prussia. Adams would go on to become the sixth president of the United States and finish his career in the House of Representatives.
John Quincy Adams was born on July 11, 1767, to John Adams and Abigail Smith Adams from Massachusetts Bay Colony. At the time of his birth, his father, John Adams, had a seat as selectman for the town of Braintree (later renamed Quincy) and later served as a diplomat, eventually being elected the second United States president.
Growing up in the politically charged time of the American Revolution, John Quincy Adams had patriotism instilled in his blood. As the son of a politician and diplomat, he witnessed directly the birth and growth of the nation, even watching the first major battle of the American Revolutionary War, the Battle of Bunker Hill, from a hilltop near his house. Much of his adolescence was spent overseas as he joined his father’s diplomatic delegations to France and the Netherlands; there, he acquired practical diplomatic experience that would serve him the rest of his life. While in Europe, John Quincy attended prestigious schools in Paris, France, and Leiden, Netherlands. He became fluent in the French language and learned conversational Dutch. Upon his return to the United States in 1780, John Quincy started to keep a regular diary, a habit he maintained for the next 60 years.
In 1781, despite being only fourteen years old, Adams became the private secretary of the American envoy to Russia, Francis Dana. John Quincy provided his services as a translator of French. This was the first small step of what would later be his long and extraordinary international career. When the assignment in St. Petersburg ended, Adams traveled through Finland, Sweden, Denmark, and the Netherlands before meeting his father again in France.
Without holding an official position, Adams took part in the negotiations at the signing of the Peace of Paris, which ended the American Revolutionary War with Great Britain. Meanwhile, his father was appointed U.S. minister to Great Britain, but instead of joining his father, young Adams returned home to Massachusetts to complete his studies at Harvard College. In 1787, Adams graduated from Harvard College, after acquiring an excellent knowledge of classical studies and becoming fluent in Latin and Greek. From 1787 to 1789, Adams studied to be a lawyer under Theophilus Parsons in Newburyport, a small town in Massachusetts.
In 1790, John Quincy Adams was admitted to the Massachusetts bar and while practicing in Boston, he devoted his spare time to writing political and social commentaries for newspapers. Mainly, he wrote about his support for the neutrality policy adopted by the administration of President George Washington regarding the French-British War of 1793. Reading the articles, the president became convinced of Adams’s wise political insights and offered him a position as United States minister in the Netherlands. Adams began his diplomatic career at The Hague, where his primary responsibility was to keep the American government informed regarding diplomatic and military activities in Europe, especially as the revolutionary movement in France exploded into war.
Adams’s diplomatic responsibilities soon stretched beyond his posting at The Hague. He traveled to London in 1795 and was involved in the negotiations of the Jay Treaty between the United States and the British Foreign Office. His skill at diplomacy impressed George Washington, who considered him the most important Foreign Service officer of his administration. Trusting his competence, Washington later appointed Adams minister to Portugal. In 1796, John Adams replaced Washington as president and changed his son’s appointment, sending him to Prussia instead of Portugal.
In 1797, before taking his position in Berlin, John Quincy married Louisa Catherine Johnson. She was of English birth and the daughter of American consul Joshua Johnson and Katherine Nuth, living in London. Louisa was a highly educated and charming young woman, with extensive knowledge of music, literature, and languages. She accompanied her husband in all his travels in various European countries.
The United States Senate
As a diplomat in Berlin, Adams managed to negotiate an advantageous treaty of trade and amity with Prussia. His father recalled him from Europe at the end of his presidential term in 1800. John Quincy and Louisa returned to America and by the end of the next year, young Adams was elected to the Massachusetts Senate. From there, his political ascent was rapid and in 1803, he was elected to the United States Senate, as a representative from the state of Massachusetts. Besides his political career, Adams also taught rhetoric and oratory at Harvard College between 1806 and 1809.
In the U.S. Senate, John Quincy Adams was generally regarded as a Federalist like his father, but he soon realized that his views were not aligned with those of the party. The purchase of the Louisiana territory created tensions in the Senate because many Federalists were against it, but Adams supported the purchase even though he hadn’t been in Washington to give his vote for ratification of the treaty. He later sided with the Federalists against President Thomas Jefferson, who wanted to pass a bill that gave him unwarranted powers over the newly purchased territory.
In 1807, Adams supported the president’s idea of an embargo to stop international commerce and force Britain to recognize the rights of the United States. Adams insisted on prompt action, and the Senate quickly approved the embargo bill, even though the Federalists fought passionately against it. Overall, the bill was not favored in New England because it suppressed the region’s economic progress. His support for the bill brought Adams’s downfall in the Senate.
Since the Massachusetts legislature was controlled by the Federalists and Adams became in opposition to them, they chose a replacement for him several months before the end of his term. Finding himself alone and powerless, Adams resigned in June 1808, but maintained his political aspirations. When the Republicans formed their own political structure, Adams decided to ally himself with the nascent party and support James Madison as a presidential candidate.
Despite his failure in the Senate, Adams regained his political stature when President Madison appointed him the first official United States ambassador to Russia. Adams and Louisa received a warm welcome from Russian Tsar Alexander I, especially since the monarch had already decided to develop closer commercial relations with the United States. While living at the tsar’s court, Adams witnessed Napoleon’s invasion of Russia and the calamitous end of his army. In 1812, when the conflict between the United States and Britain escalated to war, Adams was in St. Petersburg, discussing with the Russian officials the possibility of the tsar becoming the mediator that could negotiate an end to the conflict. President Madison accepted his proposal and appointed Albert Gallatin and James Bayard as U.S. delegates to Russia to assist Adams; however, the British refused to discuss the proposal.
At the end of his diplomatic appointment in St. Petersburg, Adams visited Paris, right in time to witness the return from Elba of a defeated Napoleon. From Paris, he traveled to London in 1814 and served as the lead negotiator in the signing of the Treaty of Ghent, which settled the War of 1812. His colleagues considered him ill-tempered and rude, but he was influential in negotiating a lasting peace between the United States and Great Britain. Shortly after, Adams was appointed U.S. minister to Great Britain, a position his father had held.
Secretary of State (1817-1825)
In 1817, Adams returned to the United States and, because of his extensive experience in foreign services, President James Monroe appointed him secretary of state. In his new position, Adams was responsible for negotiating the Adams-Onis or Transcontinental Treaty, which settled the acquisition of Florida. After the United States bought the Louisiana Purchase territory, all succeeding administrations had attempted to purchase Florida, but the negotiations with the Spanish government brought no results. With his diplomatic expertise, Adams convinced the Spanish minister to sign a treaty with the United States. Spain agreed to relinquish all claims to lands east of the Mississippi River while the United States gave up on the territory that is now Texas. The Adams-Onis Treaty was an outstanding victory because it gave the United States a natural boundary from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean. By coming up with the idea of moving the country’s boundary towards the Pacific, Adams proved his political savvy, and his accomplishment marked a key milestone in the continental expansion of the United States.
In his outstanding record of achievements, one of Adams’s most important contributions to public service was the formulation of the Monroe Doctrine. After several Latin American colonies of Spain declared their independence, President Monroe gave a speech to Congress, crafted by Adams, in which he declared that the United States would not accept any European country colonizing the emergent nations in Latin America. The Monroe Doctrine became an important foreign policy of the United States with lasting implications even in the twentieth century.
John Quincy Adams - 6th U.S. President & Son of Founding Father John Adams
President of the United States
At the end of President James Monroe’s second term, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams, Secretary of War John C. Calhoun, and Secretary of the Treasury William H. Crawford all hoped to become the next president. Speaker of the House Henry Clay and General Andrew Jackson also sought the office. Jackson received the highest number of electoral votes, followed by Adams and Crawford, but since no one obtained a majority, the House of Representatives had to choose between the three candidates with the highest number of Electoral votes. Realizing he had no chance of becoming president, Clay decided to endorse Adams, who in turn offered him the position of secretary of state. While this enabled Adams’s victory, it also brought anger and resentment from Jackson’s supporters, who thought that Clay and Adams had made a “corrupt bargain.”
Despite his many years of political success, John Quincy Adams discovered that as president, he could not realize his many goals because of his need for independence and his lack of political savvy in developing key relationships with influential statesmen. The fierce opposition of Jackson’s supporters and Adams’s lack of confidence turned his presidency into a bitter time for him and Louisa. Adams was aware that he did not have a captivating personality that could move crowds, but he had many progressive ideas he knew would benefit the country. He proposed the creation of a national university and the development of the country’s infrastructure. Even though his initiatives were valuable, his many opponents in Congress failed to offer Adams the support he needed to implement his ideas.
In 1828, after a brutal campaign, Adams lost the election to a second presidential term to Andrew Jackson, a man he disliked intensely. Besides their different political agendas, Adams believed that Jackson was an uneducated and uncultured man whose rise to power was a disgrace. At the end of his second term he said, “The greatest change in my condition occurred…which has ever befallen me—dismission from the public service and retirement from public life.”
During Adams’s presidency, his personal life also went through some turbulent episodes. The harassment by his opponents and personal attacks during his presidency played a key role in the marital problems that developed between himself and Louisa. By the end of his presidency, they were taking separate vacations. Moreover, he suffered bouts of depression, and many of his political opponents regarded him as a recluse.
The relationship between Adams and his wife went through a very turbulent time when two of their three sons died tragically in adulthood. Their firstborn son, George Washington Adams, possibly committed suicide after a life of gambling, alcoholism, and scandalous affairs. Their second son, John Quincy Adams II, died of complications from his alcoholism. Only their third son, Charles Francis Adams, followed his father’s footsteps, becoming a prominent American politician and serving as the U.S. minister to England during the American Civil War. Adams and his wife also had a daughter who died in infancy while they were in Russia.
I am a man of reserved, cold, austere, and forbidding manners: my political adversaries say, a gloomy misanthropist, and my personal enemies, an unsocial savage. With a knowledge of the actual defect in my character, I have not the pliability to reform it.— John Quincy Adams
After his one term in office, John Quincy and Louisa decided to retire to Massachusetts and from public life. His retirement was brief, however, and he returned to politics with greater enthusiasm. With the backing of the Anti-Masonic group, Adams won a seat to the House of Representatives in 1830, where he served until his death in 1848. Adams holds the distinction of the only former president to serve in Congress.
In his second career as a congressman, he took his responsibility very seriously and managed to make several notable accomplishments. His hope for a second term at the White House as the nominee of one of the emerging parties, including the Anti-Masonic Party, the National Republican Party, or the Whig Party, remained, but withered with time.
In Congress, Adams became a fierce opponent of slavery. In 1839, he proposed a constitutional amendment that no one born in the United States after 1845 could be a slave. However, the “gag rules” didn’t allow the topic of slavery in the House of Representatives, thus Adams’s amendment was not even proposed for debate. Without feeling deterred, Adams began a prolonged and strenuous fight to repeal the gag rules. He wanted to regain people’s right to petition for the abolition of slavery, and he concentrated all his energy on achieving this goal. Adams claimed that the gag rules were a violation of the First Amendment to the federal Constitution, and this contention gave him the power to resist the attempts of fellow Congressmen to silence him on the matter. Each year, Adams presented to Congress an increasing number of antislavery petitions that he would receive from people in the Northern states. Despite the resentment and criticism of his opponents, he remained firm in his position and after years of struggle, Adams won the repeal of the standing gag rule in 1844.
In addition to his efforts to support the antislavery movement, Adams was also a fervent supporter of the arts and sciences, always talking about the need for enterprise and innovation. He was responsible for developing the Smithsonian Institute as the legacy of the Englishman James Smithson, who had left his enormous fortune to the U.S. government.
Death and Legacy
On February 21, 1848, John Quincy Adams’s unbridled life ended dramatically. While debating the situation of the Mexican-American war veterans in Congress, Adams suffered a cerebral stroke and fell lifeless to the floor. Some fellow congressmen claimed that when Adams collapsed to the floor in the House he said, “This is the last of earth—I am composed.” Taken to the Speaker's Room in the Capitol Building, he died two days later in the presence of his wife and fellow congressmen.
Many believe that Adams’s most significant accomplishments didn’t happen during his years as president, but during his time as a diplomat and as a member of the House of Representatives. His spirit of independence, intelligence, and diligence never got him the credit he deserved because of his reserved and serious personality. Although he failed to appeal to the affections of people in ways that other presidents did, he always worked to serve his country—a true public servant until his final day.
Hamilton, Neil A. and Ian C. Friedman, Reviser. Presidents: A Biographical Dictionary. Third Edition. Checkmark Books. 2010.
Remini, Robert V. John Quincy Adams. Times Books. 2002.
West, Doug. John Quincy Adams: A Short Biography – Sixth President of the United States. C&D Publications. 2018.
Whitney, David C. and Robin V. Whitney. The American Presidents: Biographies of the Chief Executives, from George Washington through Barack Obama. 11th Edition. The Reader’s Digest Association, Inc. 2012. | 3,485 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Accidents and disasters tend of happen every now and then. Sometimes they are natural, while sometimes they are manmade. The Great Fire of London took place from 2nd September to 5th September, 1666. Above all, this fire was so huge that it almost covered the entire city within its flames. The results were completely catastrophic and loss of public property. The fire damaged a great number of houses, churches and public buildings as well. So, feeling curious to know more about the Great Fire of London. Below are some interesting facts about the Great Fire of London.
At 1660, London was a major city for the British empire. Above all, the city was overcrowded with people. It was also the beginning of colonization by Britain. For this reason, London became the central trading hub for the traders. It used to be one of the largest dock in the world in those days. The inner circle of the city was full of inhabitants.
The Fire Hazards in London
Before the Great Fire of London there has been various cases of fire. In most of those cases the fire came from foundries, smithies and glaziers in the crowded areas. However, cheap building materials in the buildings increased the fire hazards in various areas of city. In conclusion, over population was the major hazard of any fire in the area.
The Trained Bands of London
Modern cities have Fire Service ready to deploy at any moment. But London was also equipped with such service for the city. They were famous as the trained band. In other words, they were like the modern day fire fighters. They were also available to extinguish the fire in case of emergencies.
Charles II and his orders
Charles II knew that London was under a complete threat of fire. For this reason, he issued a proclamation that was forbidding any kind of overhanging windows and jetties around the city. However, his orders were completely ignored by the local government of London. Again in 1665 he again warns the government about the narrowness of the streets of London.
The Firefighters were unable to extinguish
During the Great Fire of London, the firefighters were responsive enough to respond to the wakeup call. However, due to the narrowness of the streets they weren’t able to region with fire. Moreover, the narrow roads were full chaos and therefore the fire engines became useless.
Monument to resemble the terrible disaster
If you happen to visit London. Then you will find a 61-meter statute near Pudding Lane, London. After the fire Charles II asked to design his huge statue to commemorate the disaster.
A special court for the fire
The fire was definitely a catastrophic disaster. It results into huge loss of private and public property as well. For this reason, a special court was established to solve the disputes between the landlords and the tenants. It was later decided to rebuild on their ability to pay.
The damage from the fire
The name itself suggests that this fire was a huge event. In fact, the fire almost covered the entire city within its flames. The fire successfully destroyed over 13,200 homes, 87 churches and St. Paul’s Cathedral as well. It was the biggest manmade disaster mankind had ever seen.
The Death troll
Okay, every disaster brings huge amount of deaths. However, if we consider the official reports on this fire then there was only a small number of deaths. In the newspapers also there was no reported death after the incident. However, it is also said that the heat of fire ate everyone away leaving no sign of life behind.
Novel based on the disaster
Famous author Peter Ackyord wrote his novel The Great Fire of London based on this disaster. Above all, the novel was a well-received novel. | <urn:uuid:72b35f78-7286-42f6-9203-83b1807b0a91> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://www.suttanews.com/interesting-facts-great-fire-london/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251801423.98/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129164403-20200129193403-00365.warc.gz | en | 0.986812 | 776 | 3.453125 | 3 | [
0.1862814575433731,
-0.018014896661043167,
0.6608322858810425,
-0.32847386598587036,
0.4120141863822937,
-0.026283949613571167,
0.5419917106628418,
-0.10349845886230469,
-0.16714191436767578,
-0.1433447301387787,
-0.16243848204612732,
-0.24730701744556427,
-0.15172718465328217,
0.431328833... | 4 | Accidents and disasters tend of happen every now and then. Sometimes they are natural, while sometimes they are manmade. The Great Fire of London took place from 2nd September to 5th September, 1666. Above all, this fire was so huge that it almost covered the entire city within its flames. The results were completely catastrophic and loss of public property. The fire damaged a great number of houses, churches and public buildings as well. So, feeling curious to know more about the Great Fire of London. Below are some interesting facts about the Great Fire of London.
At 1660, London was a major city for the British empire. Above all, the city was overcrowded with people. It was also the beginning of colonization by Britain. For this reason, London became the central trading hub for the traders. It used to be one of the largest dock in the world in those days. The inner circle of the city was full of inhabitants.
The Fire Hazards in London
Before the Great Fire of London there has been various cases of fire. In most of those cases the fire came from foundries, smithies and glaziers in the crowded areas. However, cheap building materials in the buildings increased the fire hazards in various areas of city. In conclusion, over population was the major hazard of any fire in the area.
The Trained Bands of London
Modern cities have Fire Service ready to deploy at any moment. But London was also equipped with such service for the city. They were famous as the trained band. In other words, they were like the modern day fire fighters. They were also available to extinguish the fire in case of emergencies.
Charles II and his orders
Charles II knew that London was under a complete threat of fire. For this reason, he issued a proclamation that was forbidding any kind of overhanging windows and jetties around the city. However, his orders were completely ignored by the local government of London. Again in 1665 he again warns the government about the narrowness of the streets of London.
The Firefighters were unable to extinguish
During the Great Fire of London, the firefighters were responsive enough to respond to the wakeup call. However, due to the narrowness of the streets they weren’t able to region with fire. Moreover, the narrow roads were full chaos and therefore the fire engines became useless.
Monument to resemble the terrible disaster
If you happen to visit London. Then you will find a 61-meter statute near Pudding Lane, London. After the fire Charles II asked to design his huge statue to commemorate the disaster.
A special court for the fire
The fire was definitely a catastrophic disaster. It results into huge loss of private and public property as well. For this reason, a special court was established to solve the disputes between the landlords and the tenants. It was later decided to rebuild on their ability to pay.
The damage from the fire
The name itself suggests that this fire was a huge event. In fact, the fire almost covered the entire city within its flames. The fire successfully destroyed over 13,200 homes, 87 churches and St. Paul’s Cathedral as well. It was the biggest manmade disaster mankind had ever seen.
The Death troll
Okay, every disaster brings huge amount of deaths. However, if we consider the official reports on this fire then there was only a small number of deaths. In the newspapers also there was no reported death after the incident. However, it is also said that the heat of fire ate everyone away leaving no sign of life behind.
Novel based on the disaster
Famous author Peter Ackyord wrote his novel The Great Fire of London based on this disaster. Above all, the novel was a well-received novel. | 776 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Egyptian days, also known as Dismal days after the Latin dies mali (“evil days”), are days of the year that are considered to be unlucky to carry out any important undertaking such as getting married or travelling. Such lists of days had been known in Anglo-Saxon England, but it was not until the 16th century that they started to be based on astrological calculations, becoming so popular in England that almanacs containing such prognostications were even outselling the Bible by the mid-17th century.
There is no plausible explanation for why Egyptan days were so named, but suggestions have included that they were first computed by Egyptian astrologers, or may correspond to the dates of the Biblical plagues that affected ancient Egypt.
Certainly Egyptian astrologers did produce lists of inauspicious days, two in each month, the most potentially harmful of which were said to correspond to the last Monday of April, the second Monday of August, and the third Monday of December, in our modern calendar.[a]The Ancient Egyptian calendar consisted of a year of 365 days divided into 12 months of 30 days each; an additional 5 days were added on at the end of each year, but were not considered to be part of the year. The Romans had similar days they called deis nefastus (“unlawful days”), on which no public business was to be transacted.
English astrological almanacs
Various translations of continental prognostication had long been been in circulation in England, but it was not until 1545 that Andrew Boorde, an ex-Carthusian monk, produced the first English almanac. By the end of the 16th century more than 600 almanacs had been published, and it has been estimated that more than 2000 were issued in the following century. William Lilly’s Merlinus Anglicanus alone was selling 30,000 copies a year by 1649. The standard price of an almanac in the 17th century was two pence.[b]Two pence in the mid-17th century is the equivalent of about £18 when comparing average earnings with 2017.
There appears to have been no general agreement about how to calculate the Egyptian days, as the dates published in various almanacs rarely agreed with one another.
There were several mock almanacs that poked fun at the ambiguous hedging of the prognostications of the astrological almanacs with many “ifs” and “buts”, some of which were almost as popular as the real thing. In its predictions for February 1664 Poor Robin stated that “We may expect some showers or rain either this month or the next, or the next after that, or else we shall have a very dry spring”. In addition it was claimed that what the astrologer William Lilly called judicial astrology could only consider natural causes, not God’s miracles such as Noah’s Floods. Thus Vincent Wing, in his prognostications for 1647, concluded with the remark that “the Almighty [might] dispose otherwise and so frustrate the portents of Heaven”. Another common excuse astrologers produced for their failures was errors in their calculations.
Attitude of the Church
The medieval Church had battled against what it regarded as the superstition of Egyptian days but with limited success, at least partly owing to the apparently similar vagaries of its own liturgical year. Every day had been given some symbolic significance, added to which were seasonal taboos and observances such as abstention from meat on Fridays and during Lent. Saints’ days in particular had a “supernatural aura”; a sin committed on a saints day was considered more serious than one committed on any other day of the year. Friday was considered to be particularly unlucky, as it was the day of Christ’s crucifixion. Thus the Church essentially reinforced the idea of the unevenness of time underlying the notion of Egyptian days, rather than arguing effectively against it.
Notes [ + ]
|a.||^||The Ancient Egyptian calendar consisted of a year of 365 days divided into 12 months of 30 days each; an additional 5 days were added on at the end of each year, but were not considered to be part of the year.|
|b.||^||Two pence in the mid-17th century is the equivalent of about £18 when comparing average earnings with 2017.| | <urn:uuid:1121aff5-f884-4506-a17f-df101cad4082> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://engole.info/egyptian-days/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250601241.42/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121014531-20200121043531-00131.warc.gz | en | 0.982285 | 927 | 3.96875 | 4 | [
-0.24356617033481598,
0.3405551612377167,
0.06885478645563126,
0.007911616936326027,
-0.5188159346580505,
-0.2737639844417572,
-0.27506086230278015,
-0.0034860889427363873,
0.1320071965456009,
-0.0712684690952301,
0.3064497709274292,
-0.3209986686706543,
0.08075949549674988,
0.233062848448... | 4 | Egyptian days, also known as Dismal days after the Latin dies mali (“evil days”), are days of the year that are considered to be unlucky to carry out any important undertaking such as getting married or travelling. Such lists of days had been known in Anglo-Saxon England, but it was not until the 16th century that they started to be based on astrological calculations, becoming so popular in England that almanacs containing such prognostications were even outselling the Bible by the mid-17th century.
There is no plausible explanation for why Egyptan days were so named, but suggestions have included that they were first computed by Egyptian astrologers, or may correspond to the dates of the Biblical plagues that affected ancient Egypt.
Certainly Egyptian astrologers did produce lists of inauspicious days, two in each month, the most potentially harmful of which were said to correspond to the last Monday of April, the second Monday of August, and the third Monday of December, in our modern calendar.[a]The Ancient Egyptian calendar consisted of a year of 365 days divided into 12 months of 30 days each; an additional 5 days were added on at the end of each year, but were not considered to be part of the year. The Romans had similar days they called deis nefastus (“unlawful days”), on which no public business was to be transacted.
English astrological almanacs
Various translations of continental prognostication had long been been in circulation in England, but it was not until 1545 that Andrew Boorde, an ex-Carthusian monk, produced the first English almanac. By the end of the 16th century more than 600 almanacs had been published, and it has been estimated that more than 2000 were issued in the following century. William Lilly’s Merlinus Anglicanus alone was selling 30,000 copies a year by 1649. The standard price of an almanac in the 17th century was two pence.[b]Two pence in the mid-17th century is the equivalent of about £18 when comparing average earnings with 2017.
There appears to have been no general agreement about how to calculate the Egyptian days, as the dates published in various almanacs rarely agreed with one another.
There were several mock almanacs that poked fun at the ambiguous hedging of the prognostications of the astrological almanacs with many “ifs” and “buts”, some of which were almost as popular as the real thing. In its predictions for February 1664 Poor Robin stated that “We may expect some showers or rain either this month or the next, or the next after that, or else we shall have a very dry spring”. In addition it was claimed that what the astrologer William Lilly called judicial astrology could only consider natural causes, not God’s miracles such as Noah’s Floods. Thus Vincent Wing, in his prognostications for 1647, concluded with the remark that “the Almighty [might] dispose otherwise and so frustrate the portents of Heaven”. Another common excuse astrologers produced for their failures was errors in their calculations.
Attitude of the Church
The medieval Church had battled against what it regarded as the superstition of Egyptian days but with limited success, at least partly owing to the apparently similar vagaries of its own liturgical year. Every day had been given some symbolic significance, added to which were seasonal taboos and observances such as abstention from meat on Fridays and during Lent. Saints’ days in particular had a “supernatural aura”; a sin committed on a saints day was considered more serious than one committed on any other day of the year. Friday was considered to be particularly unlucky, as it was the day of Christ’s crucifixion. Thus the Church essentially reinforced the idea of the unevenness of time underlying the notion of Egyptian days, rather than arguing effectively against it.
Notes [ + ]
|a.||^||The Ancient Egyptian calendar consisted of a year of 365 days divided into 12 months of 30 days each; an additional 5 days were added on at the end of each year, but were not considered to be part of the year.|
|b.||^||Two pence in the mid-17th century is the equivalent of about £18 when comparing average earnings with 2017.| | 944 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Standard 8 (std) English Topical Questions
Read the following passage below and answer questions 39 to 50.
The pupils of Kimbuni Primary School and the neighboring community have realized that it is possible to grow a forest even in a dry area.
Ten year ago, Mr. Kumbi was posted to the school to teach science. The head teacher said that the new teacher was very keen on tree planting and farming. “he will be in charge of afforestation campaign and he will help us establish a school farm, “the head teacher declared. The pupils stared as the head teacher and Mr. Kumbi in disbelief. What kind of farming could happen in this place which received rain only in November and remained dry and dusty for the rest of the year?
The head teacher was a Local resident and he knew what r. Kumbi was proposing was not going to be easy. But he promised to co-operate, Mr. Kumbi had received agricultural training in college. He was so enthusiastic and confident that the head teacher admired him.
Today. Mr. Kumbi is the proud patron of the Environmental club, the young Farmers’ Association and the Green Belt Movement in the school. He has inspired such love for growing trees that each pupil in the school has planted at least two trees and is taking care of them. The species include the exotic and indigenous ones. The pupils believe that the greenery of the whole compound which has even spread to the surrounding village is entirely the work of Mr. Kumbi. However emphasis that it is the efforts of the pupils. At no stage does he give himself that is so obvious his.
The students remember the trips Mr. Kumbi used to make in his pick-up truck to get red soil and seedlings. They remember going to collect cow dung from the fields and their homes. Fetching water from the stream was very tiring. Later, the head teacher and the parents organized a fundraising event and the school was able to buy a water pump.
The water pump has enabled the school not only to water the trees but also to grow food crops. Nowadays, pupils of Kiambuni Primary school can boast of a good meal at lunch time and a quiet retreat into the forest they have helped to grow. The school is a big contrast to what it used to be ten years ago when parents had to buy every food item on the menu. draw water and meet the cost of replacing corrugated sheets blown off by the wind.
Kimbuni Primary School is now a model school. It is surrounded by trees and there are lovely plots of potatoes. cabbages, beans, cauliflower and kales. There are also banana gloves and small plantations of maize and millet. The school also keeps dairy cows, pigs and poultry. The boys and girls no longer look for manure for they have more than enough. The school is a living example of what determination can do.
39. Other school started planting trees
a. Because the area was very dry
b.In November when its wet
c.When it got a water pump
d. When Mr. Kumbi was posted there
40. The pupils’ reaction when they were first told about tree planting and farming shows that they
a.Though that the head teacher was not serious
b.Wondered if they had heard properly
c.Were doubtful that the project would succeed
d.Had never considered such a thing.
41. The school had not planted trees before because
a. It only rained once a year
b.Nobody wanted to plant trees
c.There was no red soil
d.Everybody thought it was too difficult
42. What made Mr. Kumbi succeed in his efforts?
a.He was determined and interested in everything he did
b. He was determined and got support from everybody
c.He was an enthusiastic and confident person
d.He was an enthusiastic and co-operative person
43.From the fourth paragraph we Learn that
a.The pupils enjoy taking care of trees
b.The trees on the school were planted by “the Green Belt Movement”
c.Only exotic trees were planted in the school
d.Mr. Kumbi is proud of the work he has done.
44. The word exotic as used in the passage means?
45. Which of the following does not describe Mr. Kumbi’s character?
46. How has the keeping of livestock helped to improve the school farm?
a. It has made the school farm a model
b. It has provided manure for the school farm
c.It has made milk and meat available
d.It has made the school farm attractive
47. Why don’t the parents keep replacing the roof anymore?
a. The wind does not blow any more
b.They have put on a permanent roof
c.The wind is not blown off by the wind anymore
d.They have planted trees all round
48. Why do you think its necessary to buy a water pump?
a.It made it easier to water the trees and crops
b.It was very tiring to keep walking to the stream
c.The parents wanted to expand the school farm
d.The parents had raised enough money to buy the pump
49. We are told in the passage that, the greenery spread to the surrounding villages. This means?
a.The whole area has become green
b.The water pump was helping everyone
c.The community realised the importance of trees
d.The community also began to plant trees
50. What do you think would be a suitable title for this passage?
a.Trees in the desert
b.Successful tree planting
c.Mr. Kumbi and the trees
d.Transformation of Kimbuni.
Click here to learn how to be a member in order to get answers. If you still are a member, click here to download answers
Read the passage below and then answer questions 26 to 38.
Stasha considered herself a very lucky little girl. She had the most loving parents . Her parents were immensely rich. She lacked for nothing. Hr favourite time was bedtime when her parents would tell her wonderful inspiring stories. However, all was shattered one afternoon when her mother died suddenly of an unknown illness. Stasha and her father were heart brocken. He suddenly looked old. Decisding to devote himself to stasha, he swore never to remarry.
It wasn’t long, however, before it became clear that he couldn’t manage to bring his daughter up on his own. He therefore remarried and got two other daughters. If Stasha had hoped to gain another loving mother and siblings to share things and play with, she was badly mistaken. Her stepmother turned her into a servant- one could even say a slave. She was expected to do all the household chores and the farm work as well. Heavy beating awaited her if she failed to finish the work. She always looked dirty, overworked, weak and farmished for she never had enough to eat.
One day when Stasha’s father was travelling to another country, he asked his three daughters what they would like him to bring each of them. The step sisters asked for expensive shoes, clothes and jewellery. Stasha, on the other hand, paused for a long time and then requested, “ please bring me the most beautiful plant that you can find.” And for once in a long time, her father did not fail her. The plant was truly beautiful. She planted it on her mother’s grave and watered it faithfully. As if to respond on her tender loving care, it blossomed and produced the most beatiful flowers ever seen. It attracted colourful birds and insects. One particular bird, called Chapchap, became Stasha’s best friend and advisor. Whenever the stepmother and sisters tried to uproot the plant, Chapchap ordered the insects to attack them viciously.
Days turned into years, then one day, the son of the king declared that he wanted nto marry. He ordered that all the beautiful young girls of the land attend a three-day party at the palace. It was from among them that he would choose his bride. Each girl adorned herself in her best clothes and jewellery. Poor Stasha had no such but her friend, Chapchap, came in handy. He not only gave her beatiful clothes and shoes but also helped her finish her chores in good time. At the palace, the prince was simply enchanted with her beauty. On the second day, Chapchap gave her gold bracelets for her small shapely wrists. The prince could hardly take his eyes off her. He danced with her all evening. Stasha’s stepsisters were green with envy and wondered which heaven this rival had dropped from. They were relieved when she left early but the prince was very disappointed.
On the final day of the party, Stacha lost opne bracelet as the prince tried to stop her from escaping early yet again. The following day, the prince swore that his bride would be the girl that the discarded bracelet would fit. He went from home to home looking for the girl. When he eventually came to stasha’s home, her stepsisters found a golden opportunity to try their luck. The elder one tried to cut hr thumb so that the bracelet could fit her but Chapchap alerted the prince. The younger one, whose hand was too small had herself stung by a bee in the wrist, but once again, Chapchap blew the wistle on her.
Chapchap then advised the prince to try the bracelet on the dirty covered-girl in the garden. It fitted her perfectly. The prince immediately ordered that plans for the wedding commence. Even more colourful was the wedding that followed a few days later. Stasha, against the advice of Chapchap, had invited even her stepmother and stepsisters.
Read the passage below and then answer questions 39 to 50
One of the most amazing things about the discovery of a 2,000 year old cemetery in the Bahariyah Oasis in Egypt was that no one was looking for it. No one even knew it existed. It had been completely buried by sand.
In 1996, a donkey belonging to a guard at the neraby temple stumbled into a hole in the sand a mile from the temple. When the guard peered into the hole, he saw something shining brightly. He reported the discovery to Egyptian archaeologists right away.
However, the archaeologists did not begin serious digging immediately. They did not have the workers or the money. So they made a quick survey of the site, and then covered everything up again. They wanted to hid it from thieves and protect it from exposure to the sun and weather. Finally, in 1999, they had enough money to begin exploring the site.
On their very first day of work, after digging only several feet into the sand, they found a lot of mummies. Mummies are dead bodies that have been preserved for a long time. They are mostly found in Egypt. One of them had an especially beautiful mask. It was no a pharao’s mummy, though. It turned out that none of the tombs in this cemetery belonged to royalty. Most of the people buried here came from families that grew rich by trading in wine.
The most spectacular of these mummies have masks made of plaster covered with a thin layer of gold. Many are in wonderful condition. And because grave robbers never found these tombs, everything that was buried with them is still there. Most of the mummies have been left where they were found, but a few of the best preserved ones are on display in the Bahariya Museum, where the public can take a look at them.
Two mummies were found lying side by side and were probably a husband and a wife. His mask and chest plate were decorated with religious figures. Her head was turned in his direction, indicating that the husband had died first.
The other mummies are of children. Archaeologists think they were brother and sister because they were found together. The boy was probably about five years old. His mask with its painted eyes and features are so real – he almost seems alive!
Did archaeologists find treasures in these tombs? It depends on what you mean by ‘treasures’. They have not found any solid gold, but they have discovered all sorts of objects. The people buried in the cemetery may have thought some of these items would be useful in the afterlife. Or some may have been intended as gifts to the gods. For example, archaeologists have unearthed small statues of various gods. They have found many pieces of jewellery – necklaces, bracelets and anklets – made of copper, glass, ivory and semi-precious stones.
They have also discovered many pottery pieces used for storing, cooking or serving food. There were some bronze Greek and Roman coins too. And in the children’s tombs, they found toys – carved animals for the children to play with in the afterlife.
Archaeologists will be able to learn more about these people and their way of life by further studying their mummies and the things buried with them. And so many mummies were buried in the valley of Golden Mummies that excavation and learning will continue at the site for years to come.
(Adapted from secrets of past by World Book, Inc. 2002)
Maurice A. Nyamoti is a teacher by profession and has passion for assisting students improve performance
P.O Box 1189 - 40200 Kisii
Tel: 0728 450 424
Tel: 0738 619 279
Tel: 0763 450 425
E-mail - email@example.com | <urn:uuid:b924b30b-559a-4e4a-bde5-6e70f8205159> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.atikaschool.org/standard-8-std-english-topical-questions/archives/08-2016 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251687958.71/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126074227-20200126104227-00107.warc.gz | en | 0.98575 | 2,870 | 3.296875 | 3 | [
-0.011026609688997269,
0.04755261540412903,
0.342113196849823,
-0.08839036524295807,
0.4439157247543335,
-0.09528076648712158,
0.009135264903306961,
-0.09568198025226593,
-0.005969067104160786,
0.2472737729549408,
-0.2849697470664978,
-0.6200045347213745,
-0.020526252686977386,
0.376868128... | 1 | Standard 8 (std) English Topical Questions
Read the following passage below and answer questions 39 to 50.
The pupils of Kimbuni Primary School and the neighboring community have realized that it is possible to grow a forest even in a dry area.
Ten year ago, Mr. Kumbi was posted to the school to teach science. The head teacher said that the new teacher was very keen on tree planting and farming. “he will be in charge of afforestation campaign and he will help us establish a school farm, “the head teacher declared. The pupils stared as the head teacher and Mr. Kumbi in disbelief. What kind of farming could happen in this place which received rain only in November and remained dry and dusty for the rest of the year?
The head teacher was a Local resident and he knew what r. Kumbi was proposing was not going to be easy. But he promised to co-operate, Mr. Kumbi had received agricultural training in college. He was so enthusiastic and confident that the head teacher admired him.
Today. Mr. Kumbi is the proud patron of the Environmental club, the young Farmers’ Association and the Green Belt Movement in the school. He has inspired such love for growing trees that each pupil in the school has planted at least two trees and is taking care of them. The species include the exotic and indigenous ones. The pupils believe that the greenery of the whole compound which has even spread to the surrounding village is entirely the work of Mr. Kumbi. However emphasis that it is the efforts of the pupils. At no stage does he give himself that is so obvious his.
The students remember the trips Mr. Kumbi used to make in his pick-up truck to get red soil and seedlings. They remember going to collect cow dung from the fields and their homes. Fetching water from the stream was very tiring. Later, the head teacher and the parents organized a fundraising event and the school was able to buy a water pump.
The water pump has enabled the school not only to water the trees but also to grow food crops. Nowadays, pupils of Kiambuni Primary school can boast of a good meal at lunch time and a quiet retreat into the forest they have helped to grow. The school is a big contrast to what it used to be ten years ago when parents had to buy every food item on the menu. draw water and meet the cost of replacing corrugated sheets blown off by the wind.
Kimbuni Primary School is now a model school. It is surrounded by trees and there are lovely plots of potatoes. cabbages, beans, cauliflower and kales. There are also banana gloves and small plantations of maize and millet. The school also keeps dairy cows, pigs and poultry. The boys and girls no longer look for manure for they have more than enough. The school is a living example of what determination can do.
39. Other school started planting trees
a. Because the area was very dry
b.In November when its wet
c.When it got a water pump
d. When Mr. Kumbi was posted there
40. The pupils’ reaction when they were first told about tree planting and farming shows that they
a.Though that the head teacher was not serious
b.Wondered if they had heard properly
c.Were doubtful that the project would succeed
d.Had never considered such a thing.
41. The school had not planted trees before because
a. It only rained once a year
b.Nobody wanted to plant trees
c.There was no red soil
d.Everybody thought it was too difficult
42. What made Mr. Kumbi succeed in his efforts?
a.He was determined and interested in everything he did
b. He was determined and got support from everybody
c.He was an enthusiastic and confident person
d.He was an enthusiastic and co-operative person
43.From the fourth paragraph we Learn that
a.The pupils enjoy taking care of trees
b.The trees on the school were planted by “the Green Belt Movement”
c.Only exotic trees were planted in the school
d.Mr. Kumbi is proud of the work he has done.
44. The word exotic as used in the passage means?
45. Which of the following does not describe Mr. Kumbi’s character?
46. How has the keeping of livestock helped to improve the school farm?
a. It has made the school farm a model
b. It has provided manure for the school farm
c.It has made milk and meat available
d.It has made the school farm attractive
47. Why don’t the parents keep replacing the roof anymore?
a. The wind does not blow any more
b.They have put on a permanent roof
c.The wind is not blown off by the wind anymore
d.They have planted trees all round
48. Why do you think its necessary to buy a water pump?
a.It made it easier to water the trees and crops
b.It was very tiring to keep walking to the stream
c.The parents wanted to expand the school farm
d.The parents had raised enough money to buy the pump
49. We are told in the passage that, the greenery spread to the surrounding villages. This means?
a.The whole area has become green
b.The water pump was helping everyone
c.The community realised the importance of trees
d.The community also began to plant trees
50. What do you think would be a suitable title for this passage?
a.Trees in the desert
b.Successful tree planting
c.Mr. Kumbi and the trees
d.Transformation of Kimbuni.
Click here to learn how to be a member in order to get answers. If you still are a member, click here to download answers
Read the passage below and then answer questions 26 to 38.
Stasha considered herself a very lucky little girl. She had the most loving parents . Her parents were immensely rich. She lacked for nothing. Hr favourite time was bedtime when her parents would tell her wonderful inspiring stories. However, all was shattered one afternoon when her mother died suddenly of an unknown illness. Stasha and her father were heart brocken. He suddenly looked old. Decisding to devote himself to stasha, he swore never to remarry.
It wasn’t long, however, before it became clear that he couldn’t manage to bring his daughter up on his own. He therefore remarried and got two other daughters. If Stasha had hoped to gain another loving mother and siblings to share things and play with, she was badly mistaken. Her stepmother turned her into a servant- one could even say a slave. She was expected to do all the household chores and the farm work as well. Heavy beating awaited her if she failed to finish the work. She always looked dirty, overworked, weak and farmished for she never had enough to eat.
One day when Stasha’s father was travelling to another country, he asked his three daughters what they would like him to bring each of them. The step sisters asked for expensive shoes, clothes and jewellery. Stasha, on the other hand, paused for a long time and then requested, “ please bring me the most beautiful plant that you can find.” And for once in a long time, her father did not fail her. The plant was truly beautiful. She planted it on her mother’s grave and watered it faithfully. As if to respond on her tender loving care, it blossomed and produced the most beatiful flowers ever seen. It attracted colourful birds and insects. One particular bird, called Chapchap, became Stasha’s best friend and advisor. Whenever the stepmother and sisters tried to uproot the plant, Chapchap ordered the insects to attack them viciously.
Days turned into years, then one day, the son of the king declared that he wanted nto marry. He ordered that all the beautiful young girls of the land attend a three-day party at the palace. It was from among them that he would choose his bride. Each girl adorned herself in her best clothes and jewellery. Poor Stasha had no such but her friend, Chapchap, came in handy. He not only gave her beatiful clothes and shoes but also helped her finish her chores in good time. At the palace, the prince was simply enchanted with her beauty. On the second day, Chapchap gave her gold bracelets for her small shapely wrists. The prince could hardly take his eyes off her. He danced with her all evening. Stasha’s stepsisters were green with envy and wondered which heaven this rival had dropped from. They were relieved when she left early but the prince was very disappointed.
On the final day of the party, Stacha lost opne bracelet as the prince tried to stop her from escaping early yet again. The following day, the prince swore that his bride would be the girl that the discarded bracelet would fit. He went from home to home looking for the girl. When he eventually came to stasha’s home, her stepsisters found a golden opportunity to try their luck. The elder one tried to cut hr thumb so that the bracelet could fit her but Chapchap alerted the prince. The younger one, whose hand was too small had herself stung by a bee in the wrist, but once again, Chapchap blew the wistle on her.
Chapchap then advised the prince to try the bracelet on the dirty covered-girl in the garden. It fitted her perfectly. The prince immediately ordered that plans for the wedding commence. Even more colourful was the wedding that followed a few days later. Stasha, against the advice of Chapchap, had invited even her stepmother and stepsisters.
Read the passage below and then answer questions 39 to 50
One of the most amazing things about the discovery of a 2,000 year old cemetery in the Bahariyah Oasis in Egypt was that no one was looking for it. No one even knew it existed. It had been completely buried by sand.
In 1996, a donkey belonging to a guard at the neraby temple stumbled into a hole in the sand a mile from the temple. When the guard peered into the hole, he saw something shining brightly. He reported the discovery to Egyptian archaeologists right away.
However, the archaeologists did not begin serious digging immediately. They did not have the workers or the money. So they made a quick survey of the site, and then covered everything up again. They wanted to hid it from thieves and protect it from exposure to the sun and weather. Finally, in 1999, they had enough money to begin exploring the site.
On their very first day of work, after digging only several feet into the sand, they found a lot of mummies. Mummies are dead bodies that have been preserved for a long time. They are mostly found in Egypt. One of them had an especially beautiful mask. It was no a pharao’s mummy, though. It turned out that none of the tombs in this cemetery belonged to royalty. Most of the people buried here came from families that grew rich by trading in wine.
The most spectacular of these mummies have masks made of plaster covered with a thin layer of gold. Many are in wonderful condition. And because grave robbers never found these tombs, everything that was buried with them is still there. Most of the mummies have been left where they were found, but a few of the best preserved ones are on display in the Bahariya Museum, where the public can take a look at them.
Two mummies were found lying side by side and were probably a husband and a wife. His mask and chest plate were decorated with religious figures. Her head was turned in his direction, indicating that the husband had died first.
The other mummies are of children. Archaeologists think they were brother and sister because they were found together. The boy was probably about five years old. His mask with its painted eyes and features are so real – he almost seems alive!
Did archaeologists find treasures in these tombs? It depends on what you mean by ‘treasures’. They have not found any solid gold, but they have discovered all sorts of objects. The people buried in the cemetery may have thought some of these items would be useful in the afterlife. Or some may have been intended as gifts to the gods. For example, archaeologists have unearthed small statues of various gods. They have found many pieces of jewellery – necklaces, bracelets and anklets – made of copper, glass, ivory and semi-precious stones.
They have also discovered many pottery pieces used for storing, cooking or serving food. There were some bronze Greek and Roman coins too. And in the children’s tombs, they found toys – carved animals for the children to play with in the afterlife.
Archaeologists will be able to learn more about these people and their way of life by further studying their mummies and the things buried with them. And so many mummies were buried in the valley of Golden Mummies that excavation and learning will continue at the site for years to come.
(Adapted from secrets of past by World Book, Inc. 2002)
Maurice A. Nyamoti is a teacher by profession and has passion for assisting students improve performance
P.O Box 1189 - 40200 Kisii
Tel: 0728 450 424
Tel: 0738 619 279
Tel: 0763 450 425
E-mail - email@example.com | 2,823 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Set up a net," blow up a balloon, and play balloon volleyball. Objectives follow the rules of the game. Keywords game, balloon volleyball, balloon, volleyball, team Materials Needed rope or yarn Lesson Plan Students need to release some energy?
History of Volleyball Volleyball was invented in in Holyoke, Massachusetts. It actually began as a game called Mintonette. Morgan, a physical education director at the local YMCA, created the indoor game, incorporating aspects of handball and tennis. The intention was to invent an indoor sport somewhat similar to basketball, also gaining popularity at the time, which could be enjoyed by older, less athletic members of the YMCA.
While basketball included a great deal of running, Mintonette required players to basically stand in one place. A specific game ball for Mintonette was designed in Volleyball Rules Morgan was responsible for documenting the first rules of the game.
These included the net size, number of innings, fouls, and a scoring system.
History of Volleyball The name of Mintonette changed inwhen someone noticed the number of volleys that were required to play the game. The rules of the game evolved over time.
Inthe addition of the set and spike were introduced. Other skills required to play the game include serving, passing, attacking, blocking, and digging. Like many sports, volleyball features a variety of strategies and players can be aligned in a variety of formations for best results.
Inthe number of points required to win a game was lowered from 21 to Volleyball was popular in the United States and spread slowly throughout the world. Canadians began playing volleyball around The advent of the Federation of Internationale de Volleyball began in and the first World Championships were held shortly after.
The popularity of the sport spread to Europe, Brazil, and Eastern European areas. Olympic Games Volleyball first appeared at the Olympics at the games in Paris. It was a demonstration game, though, and was not officially added to the Olympic game roster until The game was originally included in a round-robin system, but organizers quickly realized it would be more successful as a traditional tournament.
A variation of the game grew popular mid-way through the 20th century. Beach volleyball, played on sand with fewer players, was added to the Olympic Games inbut had been played since The game continues to evolve and there have been changes to the rules as recently as It was also during this year that the service area was expanded.
Players could now serve from anywhere behind the line, as long as they were within the sidelines. Multiple contacts by single players were also allowed on first contact, as long as they occur on a single play of the ball.
Inthe scoring system was changed in NCAA play for women. In the fifth set, the minimum number is still The History of Volleyball – Few Important Rules Changes and International Growth. One of the big milestones on the rules timeline is the introduction of a specifically for volleyball designed ball in Number of Players: In the amount of players in a team was set at six, which is the same as today.
Schuylkill Haven is a small borough in the state of Pennsylvania, located about one hundred miles northwest of Philadelphia and fifty miles east of Harrisburg. Jul 27, · In a wide-ranging speech, former President Bill Clinton vigorously defended his wife and made the case for her presidency.
Delegation strategies for the NCLEX, Prioritization for the NCLEX, Infection Control for the NCLEX, FREE resources for the NCLEX, FREE NCLEX Quizzes for the NCLEX, FREE NCLEX exams for the NCLEX, Failed the NCLEX - Help is here.
The overwhelming spectator and television success of beach volleyball since its introduction to the Olympic Games at Atlanta and the stunning success of the FIVB World Tour, the World Championships and the Continental Cup has opened up volleyball to a completely new market.
Volleyball: Volleyball, game played by two teams, usually of six players on a side, in which the players use their hands to bat a ball back and forth over a high net, trying to make the ball touch the court within the opponents’ playing area before it can be returned.
Learn more about the rules and history of volleyball. | <urn:uuid:345b7f23-303e-4e01-a27c-f09d14599b0e> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://hikotatitilyfycub.alphabetnyc.com/a-brief-introduction-and-the-history-of-volleyball-46393ie.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251801423.98/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129164403-20200129193403-00347.warc.gz | en | 0.982205 | 892 | 3.65625 | 4 | [
-0.24355223774909973,
-0.036600399762392044,
0.4139578938484192,
-0.6304804682731628,
-0.45488691329956055,
0.40815651416778564,
0.277478963136673,
0.02264130488038063,
0.34730613231658936,
0.2853952646255493,
-0.1468656361103058,
-0.19019579887390137,
-0.01370931789278984,
0.1670825481414... | 1 | Set up a net," blow up a balloon, and play balloon volleyball. Objectives follow the rules of the game. Keywords game, balloon volleyball, balloon, volleyball, team Materials Needed rope or yarn Lesson Plan Students need to release some energy?
History of Volleyball Volleyball was invented in in Holyoke, Massachusetts. It actually began as a game called Mintonette. Morgan, a physical education director at the local YMCA, created the indoor game, incorporating aspects of handball and tennis. The intention was to invent an indoor sport somewhat similar to basketball, also gaining popularity at the time, which could be enjoyed by older, less athletic members of the YMCA.
While basketball included a great deal of running, Mintonette required players to basically stand in one place. A specific game ball for Mintonette was designed in Volleyball Rules Morgan was responsible for documenting the first rules of the game.
These included the net size, number of innings, fouls, and a scoring system.
History of Volleyball The name of Mintonette changed inwhen someone noticed the number of volleys that were required to play the game. The rules of the game evolved over time.
Inthe addition of the set and spike were introduced. Other skills required to play the game include serving, passing, attacking, blocking, and digging. Like many sports, volleyball features a variety of strategies and players can be aligned in a variety of formations for best results.
Inthe number of points required to win a game was lowered from 21 to Volleyball was popular in the United States and spread slowly throughout the world. Canadians began playing volleyball around The advent of the Federation of Internationale de Volleyball began in and the first World Championships were held shortly after.
The popularity of the sport spread to Europe, Brazil, and Eastern European areas. Olympic Games Volleyball first appeared at the Olympics at the games in Paris. It was a demonstration game, though, and was not officially added to the Olympic game roster until The game was originally included in a round-robin system, but organizers quickly realized it would be more successful as a traditional tournament.
A variation of the game grew popular mid-way through the 20th century. Beach volleyball, played on sand with fewer players, was added to the Olympic Games inbut had been played since The game continues to evolve and there have been changes to the rules as recently as It was also during this year that the service area was expanded.
Players could now serve from anywhere behind the line, as long as they were within the sidelines. Multiple contacts by single players were also allowed on first contact, as long as they occur on a single play of the ball.
Inthe scoring system was changed in NCAA play for women. In the fifth set, the minimum number is still The History of Volleyball – Few Important Rules Changes and International Growth. One of the big milestones on the rules timeline is the introduction of a specifically for volleyball designed ball in Number of Players: In the amount of players in a team was set at six, which is the same as today.
Schuylkill Haven is a small borough in the state of Pennsylvania, located about one hundred miles northwest of Philadelphia and fifty miles east of Harrisburg. Jul 27, · In a wide-ranging speech, former President Bill Clinton vigorously defended his wife and made the case for her presidency.
Delegation strategies for the NCLEX, Prioritization for the NCLEX, Infection Control for the NCLEX, FREE resources for the NCLEX, FREE NCLEX Quizzes for the NCLEX, FREE NCLEX exams for the NCLEX, Failed the NCLEX - Help is here.
The overwhelming spectator and television success of beach volleyball since its introduction to the Olympic Games at Atlanta and the stunning success of the FIVB World Tour, the World Championships and the Continental Cup has opened up volleyball to a completely new market.
Volleyball: Volleyball, game played by two teams, usually of six players on a side, in which the players use their hands to bat a ball back and forth over a high net, trying to make the ball touch the court within the opponents’ playing area before it can be returned.
Learn more about the rules and history of volleyball. | 854 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Monteverdi's eighth book of madrigals, published in 1638, was not made up of just any old pieces thrown together. The collection has a distinct plan, divided into two halves which respectively focus on the contrasting states of war and love. While some of the works in the anthology, such as the large dramatic work "The Combat of Tancredi and Clorinda," had been written substantially earlier, others, like this rollicking madrigal, were probably much more recent. Long before Monteverdi's day, madrigals had made frequent use of temperature extremes as metaphors for emotional extremity. Poor, unfortunate lovers were freezing and burning all over the place. This hot-and-cold literary tradition is often traced back to 14th-century Italian poet Francesco Petrarch. | <urn:uuid:e886093c-73e3-4734-99ec-e8630790051f> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://indianapublicmedia.org/ethergame/hot-cold-5.php | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251678287.60/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125161753-20200125190753-00005.warc.gz | en | 0.983539 | 164 | 3.40625 | 3 | [
-0.24069805443286896,
0.29208093881607056,
0.4690302610397339,
0.18230077624320984,
-0.07376733422279358,
-0.04832754656672478,
-0.3846336305141449,
-0.10062531381845474,
-0.12823985517024994,
-0.37234631180763245,
-0.15646034479141235,
0.1480722427368164,
0.16579341888427734,
0.6519031524... | 1 | Monteverdi's eighth book of madrigals, published in 1638, was not made up of just any old pieces thrown together. The collection has a distinct plan, divided into two halves which respectively focus on the contrasting states of war and love. While some of the works in the anthology, such as the large dramatic work "The Combat of Tancredi and Clorinda," had been written substantially earlier, others, like this rollicking madrigal, were probably much more recent. Long before Monteverdi's day, madrigals had made frequent use of temperature extremes as metaphors for emotional extremity. Poor, unfortunate lovers were freezing and burning all over the place. This hot-and-cold literary tradition is often traced back to 14th-century Italian poet Francesco Petrarch. | 166 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Top Tips for Helping Your Kids with their Literacy Skills
Literacy skills are important in order to help students succeed academically. They will need to have strong reading, writing and analytical skills in order to do well in their future exams and coursework across many of their subjects. I have teamed up with a private nursery school in Surrey to offer parents some top tips to help them understand how best to support their youngsters’ literacy skills.
First and foremost, parents should engage with their children as much as possible, from the minute they are born. Talk to them, read to them, and sing with them. Let them hear words in different contexts as much as possible and as early as possible. It’s never too early to introduce your child to books!
Learning To Talk
When your children are old enough to talk, always encourage them to tell you stories. They can be about their real-life experiences or made-up stories, just be sure to ask them lots of questions and encourage them to elaborate. The idea is to get them to use different adjectives and explore their vocabulary. Nursery rhymes are also a great option for little ones because they help them learn new words.
For older children you could play word games together, like Scrabble, to increase their vocabulary in a fun way. Start to encourage them to write down their stories, rather than say them out loud; you could even buy them a nice diary where they can write down their thoughts. Talk to them about current events and encourage them to read the news and stay up-to-date with everything that’s going on in the world. The more your kids learn about life outside of their little bubble, the richer their knowledge, and consequently, their vocabulary will become.
Parents should model the type of behaviour they hope to see from their kids. With that said, if you want your youngsters to be avid readers, be sure to read regularly yourself and discuss literature with them. | <urn:uuid:421d7924-2e32-4145-b657-76dc312d09fb> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://clearlybex.co.uk/2020/01/top-tips-for-helping-your-kids-with-their-literacy-skills/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250604397.40/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121132900-20200121161900-00367.warc.gz | en | 0.981316 | 402 | 3.421875 | 3 | [
0.16786395013332367,
-0.2809129059314728,
0.12073816359043121,
-0.6995595693588257,
-0.3856021463871002,
0.19937393069267273,
0.121407151222229,
0.04517063871026039,
-0.42276015877723694,
-0.0835808515548706,
-0.018591396510601044,
0.059321947395801544,
-0.03026113659143448,
0.423451066017... | 4 | Top Tips for Helping Your Kids with their Literacy Skills
Literacy skills are important in order to help students succeed academically. They will need to have strong reading, writing and analytical skills in order to do well in their future exams and coursework across many of their subjects. I have teamed up with a private nursery school in Surrey to offer parents some top tips to help them understand how best to support their youngsters’ literacy skills.
First and foremost, parents should engage with their children as much as possible, from the minute they are born. Talk to them, read to them, and sing with them. Let them hear words in different contexts as much as possible and as early as possible. It’s never too early to introduce your child to books!
Learning To Talk
When your children are old enough to talk, always encourage them to tell you stories. They can be about their real-life experiences or made-up stories, just be sure to ask them lots of questions and encourage them to elaborate. The idea is to get them to use different adjectives and explore their vocabulary. Nursery rhymes are also a great option for little ones because they help them learn new words.
For older children you could play word games together, like Scrabble, to increase their vocabulary in a fun way. Start to encourage them to write down their stories, rather than say them out loud; you could even buy them a nice diary where they can write down their thoughts. Talk to them about current events and encourage them to read the news and stay up-to-date with everything that’s going on in the world. The more your kids learn about life outside of their little bubble, the richer their knowledge, and consequently, their vocabulary will become.
Parents should model the type of behaviour they hope to see from their kids. With that said, if you want your youngsters to be avid readers, be sure to read regularly yourself and discuss literature with them. | 386 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Moshe ben Maimon (1135-1204), known in the Jewish world as the Rambam (his initials) and to the rest of the world as Moses Maimonides, was born in Cordoba, Spain, the son of a famed rabbi. In 1148, the Almohads conquered Cordoba and began persecuting the Jews. Maimonides’ family fled and remained on the move across Spain for 10 years before settling in Morocco. There, Maimonides studied at the University of al-Karaouine, focusing on the field of medicine. At the same time, he composed his famous commentary on the Mishnah – the central text of Jewish oral laws. Along with his two sons, he then traveled to the Holy Land, despite the danger of the ongoing Crusades. After visiting the holy sites and praying at the Temple Mount, he journeyed to Egypt and settled there, continuing his work and studies at the local yeshiva. During this time, he played a central role in saving a community of Jews taken captive by King Amalric I. In 1171, Maimonides was appointed president of the Egyptian Jewish community. When his brother’s merchant ship sank in the Indian Ocean, Maimonides lost all of his wealth and started working as a physician. Having studied both Greek and Arabic medicine, and being well-versed in folk healing and mysticism, Maimonides quickly became the top doctor in the world and was soon hired by the legendary Sultan Saladin. Even after Saladin’s death, Maimonides remained the royal family’s physician, and rejected offers by a handful of European kings. He wrote a number of healing manuals that were influential for many future generations (and still studied today). He also composed several religious and philosophical works, including the famous Guide for the Perplexed and Treatise on Logic. His Mishneh Torah remains one of the central compilations of Jewish law to this day. He also set forth Judaism’s 13 Principles of Faith. Scholars are puzzled at how he was able to accomplish so much: his typical day included a visit to the Sultan’s Palace before returning home to a long line of patients that lasted into the night. He would rarely take any breaks, and ended his day hungry and spent. Even on Shabbat he had little rest, dealing with life-or-death situations that trumped the sanctity of observing the Sabbath. Many believe that he passed away because of this difficult lifestyle. Maimonides writes that he wished he had more time to pray, study, and grow closer to God, but his obligation to care for the masses superseded all these. He passed away on December 12th (809 years tomorrow) to great sorrow, and true to his nature, had demanded the humblest of funerals. He remains highly respected in Spain and across the Middle East, the Arab world (as Abu Musa bin Maymun) and the medical community. Countless institutions continue to bear his name, and he is a central hero for modern Jews as a man who was both pious and worldly, bridging the gaps between Torah and science, Jewish wisdom and secular philosophy.
Words of the Week
Gems from Moses Maimonides:
“Do not consider it proof just because it is written in books, for a liar who will deceive with his tongue will not hesitate to do the same with his pen.”
“Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.”
“No disease that can be treated by diet should be treated with any other means.”
“One who wishes to attain human perfection must therefore first study Logic, next the various branches of Mathematics in their proper order, then Physics, and lastly Metaphysics.”
“One should see the world, and see himself as a scale with an equal balance of good and evil. When he does one good deed the scale is tipped to the good – he and the world is saved. When he does one evil deed the scale is tipped to the bad – he and the world is destroyed.” | <urn:uuid:246ac711-3988-4144-ad8b-3c9bb99582d3> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.jewoftheweek.net/tag/medieval/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250615407.46/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124040939-20200124065939-00218.warc.gz | en | 0.980905 | 864 | 3.546875 | 4 | [
0.03520788252353668,
0.7689942121505737,
-0.00642260629683733,
-0.2314150035381317,
-0.17931926250457764,
-0.13863924145698547,
0.14537453651428223,
0.19674871861934662,
-0.12020908296108246,
0.021632689982652664,
-0.13638105988502502,
-0.3614077866077423,
0.5204662084579468,
0.42688113451... | 9 | Moshe ben Maimon (1135-1204), known in the Jewish world as the Rambam (his initials) and to the rest of the world as Moses Maimonides, was born in Cordoba, Spain, the son of a famed rabbi. In 1148, the Almohads conquered Cordoba and began persecuting the Jews. Maimonides’ family fled and remained on the move across Spain for 10 years before settling in Morocco. There, Maimonides studied at the University of al-Karaouine, focusing on the field of medicine. At the same time, he composed his famous commentary on the Mishnah – the central text of Jewish oral laws. Along with his two sons, he then traveled to the Holy Land, despite the danger of the ongoing Crusades. After visiting the holy sites and praying at the Temple Mount, he journeyed to Egypt and settled there, continuing his work and studies at the local yeshiva. During this time, he played a central role in saving a community of Jews taken captive by King Amalric I. In 1171, Maimonides was appointed president of the Egyptian Jewish community. When his brother’s merchant ship sank in the Indian Ocean, Maimonides lost all of his wealth and started working as a physician. Having studied both Greek and Arabic medicine, and being well-versed in folk healing and mysticism, Maimonides quickly became the top doctor in the world and was soon hired by the legendary Sultan Saladin. Even after Saladin’s death, Maimonides remained the royal family’s physician, and rejected offers by a handful of European kings. He wrote a number of healing manuals that were influential for many future generations (and still studied today). He also composed several religious and philosophical works, including the famous Guide for the Perplexed and Treatise on Logic. His Mishneh Torah remains one of the central compilations of Jewish law to this day. He also set forth Judaism’s 13 Principles of Faith. Scholars are puzzled at how he was able to accomplish so much: his typical day included a visit to the Sultan’s Palace before returning home to a long line of patients that lasted into the night. He would rarely take any breaks, and ended his day hungry and spent. Even on Shabbat he had little rest, dealing with life-or-death situations that trumped the sanctity of observing the Sabbath. Many believe that he passed away because of this difficult lifestyle. Maimonides writes that he wished he had more time to pray, study, and grow closer to God, but his obligation to care for the masses superseded all these. He passed away on December 12th (809 years tomorrow) to great sorrow, and true to his nature, had demanded the humblest of funerals. He remains highly respected in Spain and across the Middle East, the Arab world (as Abu Musa bin Maymun) and the medical community. Countless institutions continue to bear his name, and he is a central hero for modern Jews as a man who was both pious and worldly, bridging the gaps between Torah and science, Jewish wisdom and secular philosophy.
Words of the Week
Gems from Moses Maimonides:
“Do not consider it proof just because it is written in books, for a liar who will deceive with his tongue will not hesitate to do the same with his pen.”
“Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.”
“No disease that can be treated by diet should be treated with any other means.”
“One who wishes to attain human perfection must therefore first study Logic, next the various branches of Mathematics in their proper order, then Physics, and lastly Metaphysics.”
“One should see the world, and see himself as a scale with an equal balance of good and evil. When he does one good deed the scale is tipped to the good – he and the world is saved. When he does one evil deed the scale is tipped to the bad – he and the world is destroyed.” | 853 | ENGLISH | 1 |
In the Black Forest of Germany 250 years ago, Todtnau was the cradle of brushes and brooms, which were made with beech wood and pig bristles. Brushes were already known in antiquity as findings in Egypt and Greece proved that brushes were used for cleaning, clothes and hair care. North of the Alps, discoveries from Roman military camps also show that brushes were used to care for soldiers and horses. Already around the year 1400 brush making was known to exist in Germany in Nuremberg.
How did this industry come to the deep Black Forest and Todtnau? In the second half of the 18th century, Josef Thoma in Todtnau ran a grain mill that worked with water power. While the carrying, emptying and filling of the sacks was handled by the stronger sons, the smallest of the boys, Leodegar, was responsible for the cleanliness of the mill, the clothes and the shoes. He found this activity particularly difficult, since there were no brushes or brooms. He pondered the concept of making an appropriate tool that could ease his work. Finally, he came up with the idea to use the bristles of the pigs. But somehow these had to be held together to be effective. To solve that issue, he sawed a piece of wood into an oblong shape, drilled holes in it and filled them with bundles of bristles, which he attached with wooden wedges. This represented the first Todtnauer brush in 1770.
However, with the known pre-history from Egypt and Greece, Leodegar Thoma would not be viewed as the inventor of the brush. However, in the course of manufacturing process, material procurement and sales, he implemented the division of labor in this industry and was thus superior to other imitators.
From the earliest beginnings, a trade and prosperous industry developed that still competes with its products on the world market after 250 years. The inauguration of a brush museum in Todtnau, in the year of Interbrush 2020, is to be acknowledged at the beginning of the event. For several years, a dedicated team of the Kulturhaus Todtnau has been working hard to professionally set up the brush museum with historic machines constructed and built in Todtnau.
Text and photo provided by Kulturhaus Todtnau. | <urn:uuid:0025a7db-970b-4eba-987b-be3f4f1562fe> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.brushwaremag.com/2019/12/todtnaus-250-year-black-forest-legacy/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250598217.23/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120081337-20200120105337-00113.warc.gz | en | 0.983875 | 481 | 3.578125 | 4 | [
-0.08745010197162628,
0.7037019729614258,
0.01733141764998436,
0.10909862071275711,
0.03268063813447952,
-0.42987826466560364,
-0.09770472347736359,
-0.12460537999868393,
-0.24933864176273346,
-0.016428746283054352,
-0.13801021873950958,
-1.015604019165039,
-0.46436989307403564,
0.46539285... | 2 | In the Black Forest of Germany 250 years ago, Todtnau was the cradle of brushes and brooms, which were made with beech wood and pig bristles. Brushes were already known in antiquity as findings in Egypt and Greece proved that brushes were used for cleaning, clothes and hair care. North of the Alps, discoveries from Roman military camps also show that brushes were used to care for soldiers and horses. Already around the year 1400 brush making was known to exist in Germany in Nuremberg.
How did this industry come to the deep Black Forest and Todtnau? In the second half of the 18th century, Josef Thoma in Todtnau ran a grain mill that worked with water power. While the carrying, emptying and filling of the sacks was handled by the stronger sons, the smallest of the boys, Leodegar, was responsible for the cleanliness of the mill, the clothes and the shoes. He found this activity particularly difficult, since there were no brushes or brooms. He pondered the concept of making an appropriate tool that could ease his work. Finally, he came up with the idea to use the bristles of the pigs. But somehow these had to be held together to be effective. To solve that issue, he sawed a piece of wood into an oblong shape, drilled holes in it and filled them with bundles of bristles, which he attached with wooden wedges. This represented the first Todtnauer brush in 1770.
However, with the known pre-history from Egypt and Greece, Leodegar Thoma would not be viewed as the inventor of the brush. However, in the course of manufacturing process, material procurement and sales, he implemented the division of labor in this industry and was thus superior to other imitators.
From the earliest beginnings, a trade and prosperous industry developed that still competes with its products on the world market after 250 years. The inauguration of a brush museum in Todtnau, in the year of Interbrush 2020, is to be acknowledged at the beginning of the event. For several years, a dedicated team of the Kulturhaus Todtnau has been working hard to professionally set up the brush museum with historic machines constructed and built in Todtnau.
Text and photo provided by Kulturhaus Todtnau. | 485 | ENGLISH | 1 |
William Wells Brown Biography, Life, Interesting Facts
Died On :
Also Known For :
Birth Place :
William Wells Brown was an African-American author, historian, and lecturer.
William was born into slavery near the city of Lexington, Kentucky. His exact birth date is not known. He was born either sometime in 1814 or on March 15, 1815. His mother, Elizabeth, was a slave. His father, George W. Higgins, was a plantation owner. William was bought and sold several times. He mostly worked on steamboats in St. Louis. In 1833, he tried to escape slavery with his mother, but they were captured. He finally managed to escape in 1834.
William took the names Wells and Brown from the man who helped him escape. He taught himself how to read and write. He moved to Buffalo, New York, where he continued to work on steamboats. He joined the Negro Convention Movement and the Temperance Society. He helped many other slaves escape to freedom. In 1847, he released his first memoir, called Narrative of William W. Brown, a Fugitive Slave, Written by Himself.
In 1849, Brown moved to Europe. He traveled around the United Kingdom and gave lectures against slavery. He also took part in the International Peace Congress in Paris as a representative of the U. S. He wrote about his travels in his work Three Years in Europe: Places I Have Seen and People I Have Met. In 1853, he published the novel Clotel: The President’s Daughter. It was the first novel ever written by an African American. It told the story of the children that President Thomas Jefferson had with one of his slaves.
In 1854, Brown’s freedom was purchased by the Richardson family from England. After that, he returned to the United States. He regularly gave lectures against slavery around the country. In 1858, he published his first play, called The Escape: A Leap for Freedom. He also wrote another play, Experience: How to Give a Northern Man a Backbone, but he never published it. He wrote the history The Rising Son: The Antecedents and Advancements of the Colored Race, as well as The Black Man: His Antecedents, His Genius, and His Achievements. He also wrote The Negro in the American Rebellion: His Heroism and His Fidelity, talking about the black soldiers in the Civil War. In 1880, he wrote his final memoir, called My Southern Home: The South and Its People.
In 1834, Brown married a woman named Elizabeth Schooner. They had two daughters, named Josephine and Clarissa. He and his wife eventually started living apart. She passed away in 1851. In 1856, his daughter Josephine published his biography, titled Biography of an American Bondman. In 1860, he married Anna Elizabeth Gray.
Brown opened up his own medical practice for homeopathic medicine in Boston. He spent his later years working there. He passed away in Chelsea, Massachusetts, on November 6, 1884.
Brown was inducted into the Kentucky Writers Hall of Fame. There is a school in Lexington named after him. There is a historic marker near the location of his home in Buffalo.
Alexander Sergeyevich Pushkin | <urn:uuid:c6765f8c-3619-4151-ad98-8b5850af4e91> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.sunsigns.org/famousbirthdays/profile/william-wells-brown/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251690379.95/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126195918-20200126225918-00269.warc.gz | en | 0.988435 | 678 | 3.53125 | 4 | [
-0.009577393531799316,
-0.03602360934019089,
0.43648672103881836,
0.5903337597846985,
-0.3372405767440796,
0.006915600970387459,
0.19127896428108215,
-0.35853269696235657,
-0.2572171986103058,
0.10849259793758392,
0.03405557572841644,
0.07318216562271118,
-0.4432523250579834,
0.02909098565... | 1 | William Wells Brown Biography, Life, Interesting Facts
Died On :
Also Known For :
Birth Place :
William Wells Brown was an African-American author, historian, and lecturer.
William was born into slavery near the city of Lexington, Kentucky. His exact birth date is not known. He was born either sometime in 1814 or on March 15, 1815. His mother, Elizabeth, was a slave. His father, George W. Higgins, was a plantation owner. William was bought and sold several times. He mostly worked on steamboats in St. Louis. In 1833, he tried to escape slavery with his mother, but they were captured. He finally managed to escape in 1834.
William took the names Wells and Brown from the man who helped him escape. He taught himself how to read and write. He moved to Buffalo, New York, where he continued to work on steamboats. He joined the Negro Convention Movement and the Temperance Society. He helped many other slaves escape to freedom. In 1847, he released his first memoir, called Narrative of William W. Brown, a Fugitive Slave, Written by Himself.
In 1849, Brown moved to Europe. He traveled around the United Kingdom and gave lectures against slavery. He also took part in the International Peace Congress in Paris as a representative of the U. S. He wrote about his travels in his work Three Years in Europe: Places I Have Seen and People I Have Met. In 1853, he published the novel Clotel: The President’s Daughter. It was the first novel ever written by an African American. It told the story of the children that President Thomas Jefferson had with one of his slaves.
In 1854, Brown’s freedom was purchased by the Richardson family from England. After that, he returned to the United States. He regularly gave lectures against slavery around the country. In 1858, he published his first play, called The Escape: A Leap for Freedom. He also wrote another play, Experience: How to Give a Northern Man a Backbone, but he never published it. He wrote the history The Rising Son: The Antecedents and Advancements of the Colored Race, as well as The Black Man: His Antecedents, His Genius, and His Achievements. He also wrote The Negro in the American Rebellion: His Heroism and His Fidelity, talking about the black soldiers in the Civil War. In 1880, he wrote his final memoir, called My Southern Home: The South and Its People.
In 1834, Brown married a woman named Elizabeth Schooner. They had two daughters, named Josephine and Clarissa. He and his wife eventually started living apart. She passed away in 1851. In 1856, his daughter Josephine published his biography, titled Biography of an American Bondman. In 1860, he married Anna Elizabeth Gray.
Brown opened up his own medical practice for homeopathic medicine in Boston. He spent his later years working there. He passed away in Chelsea, Massachusetts, on November 6, 1884.
Brown was inducted into the Kentucky Writers Hall of Fame. There is a school in Lexington named after him. There is a historic marker near the location of his home in Buffalo.
Alexander Sergeyevich Pushkin | 706 | ENGLISH | 1 |
August 1961, Berlin decided to build a wall. They divided the East and the West part of Berlin. The East side was communist, and the West side was non-communists. The wall also divided France, Britain, and America. When all of that was done they thought that it was a good idea to put guidelines on the people. The people were also affected by the Berlin Wall, and after a while, the people got so affected that they started to break down the wall.
The wall was built to keep communist and non-communists separated, the people who helped build the wall were some construction workers, government people, and the police. They brought those people to help because they knew that the people were going to try to fight it. They could not build the wall themselves so that where they come in, and they brought the government because they knew that they would agree with East Berlin. The Berlin Wall was a symbol of the Cold War, separation of Germany, and Berlin. The people did not like the idea of the Berlin Wall being up.
Life in the West was much better than the East side of Berlin. The West side got financial help from the Marshall Plan (from the USA). On the East side of Berlin, the communist system was established and many people had to tolerate being watched by the people of the communist party. The East side of Berlin did not like that the people on the West side got help from the Marshall plan. The West side thought it was fine because they were the ones who were getting the help, so they really think of the people on the east side.
The guidelines that they had on the people were harsh. If they tried to cross the wall, they got killed if they got caught. But if they did not get caught, then they lived and went on with their life. The people on the West side could get cheap goods from the East side, but the people on the East side did not get that privilege. They had to get goods from their side of Berlin. It used to be that the people on either side could cross the wall, but that stopped in 1961. The people on the East side did not think it was fair, but on the other hand the people on the West side thought it was completely fair. | <urn:uuid:93663cc4-6eac-4751-9a1e-67aa1888cbf3> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://brightkite.com/essay-on/berlin-9 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251669967.70/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125041318-20200125070318-00539.warc.gz | en | 0.99402 | 460 | 3.609375 | 4 | [
-0.3437404930591583,
0.22957585752010345,
0.2822812795639038,
0.2417888045310974,
0.13456784188747406,
0.3599308431148529,
-0.27713248133659363,
0.02803824469447136,
-0.2990790009498596,
-0.09302694350481033,
0.37982478737831116,
0.03249344229698181,
0.17996296286582947,
0.0180405452847480... | 1 | August 1961, Berlin decided to build a wall. They divided the East and the West part of Berlin. The East side was communist, and the West side was non-communists. The wall also divided France, Britain, and America. When all of that was done they thought that it was a good idea to put guidelines on the people. The people were also affected by the Berlin Wall, and after a while, the people got so affected that they started to break down the wall.
The wall was built to keep communist and non-communists separated, the people who helped build the wall were some construction workers, government people, and the police. They brought those people to help because they knew that the people were going to try to fight it. They could not build the wall themselves so that where they come in, and they brought the government because they knew that they would agree with East Berlin. The Berlin Wall was a symbol of the Cold War, separation of Germany, and Berlin. The people did not like the idea of the Berlin Wall being up.
Life in the West was much better than the East side of Berlin. The West side got financial help from the Marshall Plan (from the USA). On the East side of Berlin, the communist system was established and many people had to tolerate being watched by the people of the communist party. The East side of Berlin did not like that the people on the West side got help from the Marshall plan. The West side thought it was fine because they were the ones who were getting the help, so they really think of the people on the east side.
The guidelines that they had on the people were harsh. If they tried to cross the wall, they got killed if they got caught. But if they did not get caught, then they lived and went on with their life. The people on the West side could get cheap goods from the East side, but the people on the East side did not get that privilege. They had to get goods from their side of Berlin. It used to be that the people on either side could cross the wall, but that stopped in 1961. The people on the East side did not think it was fair, but on the other hand the people on the West side thought it was completely fair. | 465 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Paper type: Essay Pages: 6 (1361 words)
The treaty of Versailles was a treaty made upon the surrender of Germany in the WW1. This treaty was made to stop another war happening again. The treaty was made by the France, Britain and USA. In my opinion, I agree that the treaty of Versailles was unfair for Germany. I have made a few points considering the both sides whether the treaty is unfair or unfair for Germany Fair
Treaty of Brest-Litovsk When Russia lost the war against Germany, Germany forced Russia to sign the treaty of Bvest-Litovsk.
In the treaty of Brest-Litovsk, Germany did not think about how Russian civilians would think and treated Russia harshly. Now, that Germany lost the war, and they have to signed the treaty of Versailles they complained that the treaty was too harsh for them.
The armistice signed by Germany
When Germany surrendered , they signed the armistice. When they signed the armistice, they had been told about the probability of the reparation, loss of territory and reduced army forces and they signed it.
They knew about it and they signed it even though those were just probabilities, they knew that those might happen, so if they thought that the treaty of Versailles unfair they should not have signed the armistice and carry on fighting.
Alsasce and Lorraine Alsasace and Lorraine were lands taken from France when France lost the war in 1871. Germany thought it was unfair to take Alsasce and Lorraine because they had taken it from France before but, the people in Alsasce and Lorraine mainly show them as French not Germans and speak French not German. It was not wrong to take Alsasce and Lorraine because it was originally part of France.
The impact of reparation on Germany economy
Germany said that the reparation hurt them but actually Germany economy recovered quickly and by 1925, Germany produced more steel than Britain which means that the reparation does not hurt the Germany economy like they thought it would. It was just Germany people mumbling about the taken land that were not actually theirs and how they supposed to pay the reparation if the allies took their lands that most of the lands were actually taken from other countries.
Three leaders different aims
The big three had a different perspective on how to treat Germany. Like, Clemenceau wanted Germany to be punished harshly to the point that Germany could not attack France again, Lloyd George did not want to punish Germany harshly not to the point where Britain could not trade with Germany and France would get too much power in Europe, Meanwhile Wilson did not want Germany to be punished harshly that they could feel bitter and resentment because it could lead to another war. But, they somehow could agree on all the terms covered in the treaty which means during that time that was the fairest terms that they could give to Germany. And all the leaders also listened to the public opinion about the treaty and many people that time (the winning civilians side) thought that the treaty was fair.
Clause 231 about War Guilt
The war guilt was on Germany. Its mean that Germany was blamed for starting the war. It was wrong to put the blame on Germany because it was not only Germany who started the war but also other countries that were hungry of power. One of the main causes was imperialism; many countries in Europe were actually hungry of power and money and too busy creating empires around the world.
Germany was forced to disarm. The army was limited to 100,000 and no conscription. Tanks were banned and only had 6 battleships. Germany is a big country if the army was reduced how would they protect their countries if there were countries attacking them. And also the other countries did not disarm, the only country who was disarming was Germany so how would they expect that no other country would attack them if other countries still have weapons and war stuff and they only have a small amount of army that were not enough to protect the country and six battleships.
Anchluss was forbidden
Germany was prohibited to unite or in other word make a contact with Austria. It was unfair because Austria was their only ally, and if something happens in Germany, Austria would be the only country who most likely to help Germany, People in Austria and Germany that time speak the same language, share the same tradition and ethnics and also other countries still have their allies it was unfair for them to be prohibited to unite while others can.
The idea of reparation was not totally wrong but the reparation actually hurt ordinary German civilians who had nothing to do with the war. Germany was also in the war, some of the parts of Germany was also destroyed and Germany economy also not in a good state, they also need to build up after the war. France should know about this since some parts in France e.g Verdun was also destroyed after the war. And instead of punishing the leaders who decided to go to the war they punished Germany civilians who had nothing to do with the war. Lost of territories
Germany was forced to pay reparation but the allies took Saarland from Germnay. It was unfair to take Saarland because unlike the other territories that were taken, the Saarland was originally Germany’s territories not what they took from other countries. Saarland were full of natural resources, so how Germany was supposed to pay for the repairs if the location of natural resources was taken from them.
Germany was forbidden to enter the League of Nations The league of nation was set after the war, it was set to stop another war happening again but one of the main keys of the war was not allowed to join the league. It made many Germans felt bitter and resentment to be isolated and treated like a naughty child.
Many Germans thought that the treaty was unfair but the winning civilians side thought that the treaty was fair. I have never experienced live in the war and I hoped never would be. I have no idea what France people think after the First World War but I think that the treaty of Versailles was partially unfair for Germany. If the treaty of Versailles was made to establish long term of peace, The treaty of Versailles was partially unfair for Germany. It was wrong to punish Germany to the extent where many Germans felt bitter and wanting revenge, it could start another war.
Not all of the terms were unfair some of the terms were actually fair. The idea of reparation was not totally wrong. The allies win, and they need money to build up after the war, to pay their debt to the USA and they had Germany who lost the war. Germany also did that to other countries when they were winning but the amount of money and who were punished were wrong. Instead of punishing the ‘criminal’ behind the war, the reparation hurts Germans civilians who were not guilty. The idea of war guilt was completely wrong. It was wrong for them to make the losing side was the one who blamed for the war. The war would never happen if countries in Europe never acted aggressively for imperialism.
If Austria never colonized Serbia, the Archduke would never be murdered by an assassin and the countries who were ‘allies’ with both countries would never declare war against each other. The setting up of League of Nation was a good idea but if they did not allow the main player who were in the war, the League is completely pointless. How could they make sure that League of Nation would succeed if Germany was not allowed to join at all and actually the League of Nation was controlled by Britain and France so therefore the ex-colonized Germany countries did not get self determination but were colonized by Britain and France. So therefore, the Treaty of Versailles was partially unfair for the Germany.
View as multi-pages
Cite this page
How far do you agree with the statement “The Treaty of Versailles Was Unfair for Germany”. (2016, May 08). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/how-far-do-you-agree-with-the-statement-the-treaty-of-versailles-was-unfair-for-germany-essay | <urn:uuid:6e362733-7211-49a5-85e5-29d8dad67b39> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://studymoose.com/how-far-do-you-agree-with-the-statement-the-treaty-of-versailles-was-unfair-for-germany-essay | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250611127.53/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123160903-20200123185903-00141.warc.gz | en | 0.991835 | 1,701 | 3.734375 | 4 | [
-0.6809557676315308,
0.010644180700182915,
-0.2551853060722351,
0.15163277089595795,
0.07727412134408951,
-0.15735235810279846,
0.05022355914115906,
0.2538174092769623,
0.20124879479408264,
-0.24843452870845795,
0.09730155766010284,
-0.16934344172477722,
0.03805944323539734,
0.550737500190... | 1 | Paper type: Essay Pages: 6 (1361 words)
The treaty of Versailles was a treaty made upon the surrender of Germany in the WW1. This treaty was made to stop another war happening again. The treaty was made by the France, Britain and USA. In my opinion, I agree that the treaty of Versailles was unfair for Germany. I have made a few points considering the both sides whether the treaty is unfair or unfair for Germany Fair
Treaty of Brest-Litovsk When Russia lost the war against Germany, Germany forced Russia to sign the treaty of Bvest-Litovsk.
In the treaty of Brest-Litovsk, Germany did not think about how Russian civilians would think and treated Russia harshly. Now, that Germany lost the war, and they have to signed the treaty of Versailles they complained that the treaty was too harsh for them.
The armistice signed by Germany
When Germany surrendered , they signed the armistice. When they signed the armistice, they had been told about the probability of the reparation, loss of territory and reduced army forces and they signed it.
They knew about it and they signed it even though those were just probabilities, they knew that those might happen, so if they thought that the treaty of Versailles unfair they should not have signed the armistice and carry on fighting.
Alsasce and Lorraine Alsasace and Lorraine were lands taken from France when France lost the war in 1871. Germany thought it was unfair to take Alsasce and Lorraine because they had taken it from France before but, the people in Alsasce and Lorraine mainly show them as French not Germans and speak French not German. It was not wrong to take Alsasce and Lorraine because it was originally part of France.
The impact of reparation on Germany economy
Germany said that the reparation hurt them but actually Germany economy recovered quickly and by 1925, Germany produced more steel than Britain which means that the reparation does not hurt the Germany economy like they thought it would. It was just Germany people mumbling about the taken land that were not actually theirs and how they supposed to pay the reparation if the allies took their lands that most of the lands were actually taken from other countries.
Three leaders different aims
The big three had a different perspective on how to treat Germany. Like, Clemenceau wanted Germany to be punished harshly to the point that Germany could not attack France again, Lloyd George did not want to punish Germany harshly not to the point where Britain could not trade with Germany and France would get too much power in Europe, Meanwhile Wilson did not want Germany to be punished harshly that they could feel bitter and resentment because it could lead to another war. But, they somehow could agree on all the terms covered in the treaty which means during that time that was the fairest terms that they could give to Germany. And all the leaders also listened to the public opinion about the treaty and many people that time (the winning civilians side) thought that the treaty was fair.
Clause 231 about War Guilt
The war guilt was on Germany. Its mean that Germany was blamed for starting the war. It was wrong to put the blame on Germany because it was not only Germany who started the war but also other countries that were hungry of power. One of the main causes was imperialism; many countries in Europe were actually hungry of power and money and too busy creating empires around the world.
Germany was forced to disarm. The army was limited to 100,000 and no conscription. Tanks were banned and only had 6 battleships. Germany is a big country if the army was reduced how would they protect their countries if there were countries attacking them. And also the other countries did not disarm, the only country who was disarming was Germany so how would they expect that no other country would attack them if other countries still have weapons and war stuff and they only have a small amount of army that were not enough to protect the country and six battleships.
Anchluss was forbidden
Germany was prohibited to unite or in other word make a contact with Austria. It was unfair because Austria was their only ally, and if something happens in Germany, Austria would be the only country who most likely to help Germany, People in Austria and Germany that time speak the same language, share the same tradition and ethnics and also other countries still have their allies it was unfair for them to be prohibited to unite while others can.
The idea of reparation was not totally wrong but the reparation actually hurt ordinary German civilians who had nothing to do with the war. Germany was also in the war, some of the parts of Germany was also destroyed and Germany economy also not in a good state, they also need to build up after the war. France should know about this since some parts in France e.g Verdun was also destroyed after the war. And instead of punishing the leaders who decided to go to the war they punished Germany civilians who had nothing to do with the war. Lost of territories
Germany was forced to pay reparation but the allies took Saarland from Germnay. It was unfair to take Saarland because unlike the other territories that were taken, the Saarland was originally Germany’s territories not what they took from other countries. Saarland were full of natural resources, so how Germany was supposed to pay for the repairs if the location of natural resources was taken from them.
Germany was forbidden to enter the League of Nations The league of nation was set after the war, it was set to stop another war happening again but one of the main keys of the war was not allowed to join the league. It made many Germans felt bitter and resentment to be isolated and treated like a naughty child.
Many Germans thought that the treaty was unfair but the winning civilians side thought that the treaty was fair. I have never experienced live in the war and I hoped never would be. I have no idea what France people think after the First World War but I think that the treaty of Versailles was partially unfair for Germany. If the treaty of Versailles was made to establish long term of peace, The treaty of Versailles was partially unfair for Germany. It was wrong to punish Germany to the extent where many Germans felt bitter and wanting revenge, it could start another war.
Not all of the terms were unfair some of the terms were actually fair. The idea of reparation was not totally wrong. The allies win, and they need money to build up after the war, to pay their debt to the USA and they had Germany who lost the war. Germany also did that to other countries when they were winning but the amount of money and who were punished were wrong. Instead of punishing the ‘criminal’ behind the war, the reparation hurts Germans civilians who were not guilty. The idea of war guilt was completely wrong. It was wrong for them to make the losing side was the one who blamed for the war. The war would never happen if countries in Europe never acted aggressively for imperialism.
If Austria never colonized Serbia, the Archduke would never be murdered by an assassin and the countries who were ‘allies’ with both countries would never declare war against each other. The setting up of League of Nation was a good idea but if they did not allow the main player who were in the war, the League is completely pointless. How could they make sure that League of Nation would succeed if Germany was not allowed to join at all and actually the League of Nation was controlled by Britain and France so therefore the ex-colonized Germany countries did not get self determination but were colonized by Britain and France. So therefore, the Treaty of Versailles was partially unfair for the Germany.
View as multi-pages
Cite this page
How far do you agree with the statement “The Treaty of Versailles Was Unfair for Germany”. (2016, May 08). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/how-far-do-you-agree-with-the-statement-the-treaty-of-versailles-was-unfair-for-germany-essay | 1,665 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The coastal settlement of Cascais originated in the 12th century, depending administratively on the town of Sintra, located to the north. In its humble beginnings, Cascais lived from the products of the sea and land, but by the 13th century, its fish production served the capital Lisbon, located nearby. During the 14th century, the population increased to the outside of the walls of its castle. Its prosperity led to the administrative independence from Sintra in 1364. This statue is Cascais' version of the Monument to the Discoveries, which commemorates Portugal's early sea-faring heritage.
Originally, the Castle of Sintra was built by the Moors, possibly between the 9th and 10th centuries. Arab chronicles depict the Sintra region as being very rich in cultivated fields. Its castle was one of the most important in the surroundings and served as an excellent observation point for monitoring the coast as you can see in the picture above. In 1109, the castle became subject to an attack by crusading Norwegians, led by King Sigurd I, on their way to the Holy Land. Every man at the castle was said to have been killed as they had refused to become christened.
We took a day trip to Sintra to see the town, the Pena Palace and the Moorish Castle. The old town of Sintra is dominated by the Palácio Nacional de Sintra, which can be seen from far away at its gigantic conical chimneys. In the course of the centuries this popular summer residence of the kings got several rebuilding and modifications, so that today it consists of a mixture of different architectural styles. | <urn:uuid:6c0736f4-8985-4938-8d10-fad9737d0c2d> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://traveltoeat.com/tag/portugal/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250625097.75/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124191133-20200124220133-00131.warc.gz | en | 0.985235 | 351 | 3.390625 | 3 | [
0.47591227293014526,
0.5680064558982849,
0.16000723838806152,
-0.040393758565187454,
-0.0445665679872036,
-0.10626426339149475,
0.19489163160324097,
-0.469874769449234,
0.17924350500106812,
-0.20397651195526123,
-0.014066553674638271,
-0.891901433467865,
0.3828822672367096,
0.2451018393039... | 4 | The coastal settlement of Cascais originated in the 12th century, depending administratively on the town of Sintra, located to the north. In its humble beginnings, Cascais lived from the products of the sea and land, but by the 13th century, its fish production served the capital Lisbon, located nearby. During the 14th century, the population increased to the outside of the walls of its castle. Its prosperity led to the administrative independence from Sintra in 1364. This statue is Cascais' version of the Monument to the Discoveries, which commemorates Portugal's early sea-faring heritage.
Originally, the Castle of Sintra was built by the Moors, possibly between the 9th and 10th centuries. Arab chronicles depict the Sintra region as being very rich in cultivated fields. Its castle was one of the most important in the surroundings and served as an excellent observation point for monitoring the coast as you can see in the picture above. In 1109, the castle became subject to an attack by crusading Norwegians, led by King Sigurd I, on their way to the Holy Land. Every man at the castle was said to have been killed as they had refused to become christened.
We took a day trip to Sintra to see the town, the Pena Palace and the Moorish Castle. The old town of Sintra is dominated by the Palácio Nacional de Sintra, which can be seen from far away at its gigantic conical chimneys. In the course of the centuries this popular summer residence of the kings got several rebuilding and modifications, so that today it consists of a mixture of different architectural styles. | 352 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Sean Cowen’s Today’s memory
Imprisonment of Voltaire in the Bastille
Originally shared by Sean Cowen
Voltaire is imprisoned in the Bastille On This Day in History, 1717
Writer Francois-Marie Arouet, better known as Voltaire, is imprisoned in the Bastille on this day in 1717.
The outspoken writer was born to middle-class parents, attended college in Paris, and began to study law. However, he quit law to become a playwright and made a name for himself with classical tragedies. Critics embraced his epic poem, La Henriade, but its satirical attack on politics and religion infuriated the government, and Voltaire was arrested in 1717. He spent nearly a year in the Bastille.
Voltaire’s time in prison failed to dry up his satirical pen. In 1726, he was forced to flee to England. He returned several years later and continued to write plays. In 1734, his Lettres Philosophiques criticized established religions and political institutions, and he was forced to flee again. He retreated to the region of Champagne, where he lived with his mistress and patroness, Madame du Chatelet.
In 1750, he moved to Berlin on the invitation of Frederick II of Prussia and later settled in Switzerland, where he wrote his best-known work, Candide. He died in Paris in 1778, having returned to supervise the production of one of his plays.
#voltaire #thisdayinhistory #literaryhistory #humor #humour #satire #play #playwright #France #bastille #philosopher #ageofenlightenment | <urn:uuid:7a2706fb-c45e-48d0-800b-b437e87931e5> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.bunicutavirtuala.com/2016/05/16/sean-cowens-todays-memory-4/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251684146.65/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126013015-20200126043015-00182.warc.gz | en | 0.981027 | 352 | 3.421875 | 3 | [
0.09128416329622269,
0.4305466115474701,
0.07597348839044571,
-0.4445705711841583,
0.168620303273201,
0.25576597452163696,
0.14963386952877045,
0.15169186890125275,
0.3262059688568115,
-0.2412160485982895,
-0.30147111415863037,
0.10939373821020126,
0.41792675852775574,
0.4932648241519928,
... | 2 | Sean Cowen’s Today’s memory
Imprisonment of Voltaire in the Bastille
Originally shared by Sean Cowen
Voltaire is imprisoned in the Bastille On This Day in History, 1717
Writer Francois-Marie Arouet, better known as Voltaire, is imprisoned in the Bastille on this day in 1717.
The outspoken writer was born to middle-class parents, attended college in Paris, and began to study law. However, he quit law to become a playwright and made a name for himself with classical tragedies. Critics embraced his epic poem, La Henriade, but its satirical attack on politics and religion infuriated the government, and Voltaire was arrested in 1717. He spent nearly a year in the Bastille.
Voltaire’s time in prison failed to dry up his satirical pen. In 1726, he was forced to flee to England. He returned several years later and continued to write plays. In 1734, his Lettres Philosophiques criticized established religions and political institutions, and he was forced to flee again. He retreated to the region of Champagne, where he lived with his mistress and patroness, Madame du Chatelet.
In 1750, he moved to Berlin on the invitation of Frederick II of Prussia and later settled in Switzerland, where he wrote his best-known work, Candide. He died in Paris in 1778, having returned to supervise the production of one of his plays.
#voltaire #thisdayinhistory #literaryhistory #humor #humour #satire #play #playwright #France #bastille #philosopher #ageofenlightenment | 355 | ENGLISH | 1 |
- from Vikings
One early Viking raid, or invasion, took place in 793 CE. It shocked everyone who heard about it. It took place on Lindisfarne, off the east coast of England. The island had a famous monastery (a place for monks or other religious people). Warriors looted (stole from) and destroyed it. They killed many of the monks.
Vikings raided more places after that. They stole anything they wanted. They took precious gems, fine fabrics, and even people – young men and women to sell into slavery.
Viking raids at first took place along the North Sea and the English Channel. But soon their search for loot took them inland. They attacked places along rivers all over Europe. These included the Rhine, Seine, Loire, and Rhône Rivers. Swedish Vikings sailed across the Baltic Sea to Russia. They followed the Dnieper and Volga Rivers. They settled in parts of what are now Russia and Ukraine. Some traveled to the Black and Caspian Seas. From there, they went to Constantinople and Baghdad.
The Vikings sailed all over looking for treasure. As they searched, they frightened people and destroyed whole towns. | <urn:uuid:218dc6cd-1ba5-4fee-95b6-d8738ab0a129> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://online.kidsdiscover.com/unit/vikings/topic/invasions/1 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250589560.16/warc/CC-MAIN-20200117123339-20200117151339-00186.warc.gz | en | 0.981338 | 244 | 3.703125 | 4 | [
0.054595161229372025,
0.19059938192367554,
-0.07030651718378067,
-0.2487981766462326,
0.39489641785621643,
-0.20417505502700806,
-0.30237677693367004,
0.1565440446138382,
0.1301223188638687,
-0.08104506134986877,
0.4258027672767639,
-0.22126995027065277,
-0.1737511307001114,
0.094494946300... | 2 | - from Vikings
One early Viking raid, or invasion, took place in 793 CE. It shocked everyone who heard about it. It took place on Lindisfarne, off the east coast of England. The island had a famous monastery (a place for monks or other religious people). Warriors looted (stole from) and destroyed it. They killed many of the monks.
Vikings raided more places after that. They stole anything they wanted. They took precious gems, fine fabrics, and even people – young men and women to sell into slavery.
Viking raids at first took place along the North Sea and the English Channel. But soon their search for loot took them inland. They attacked places along rivers all over Europe. These included the Rhine, Seine, Loire, and Rhône Rivers. Swedish Vikings sailed across the Baltic Sea to Russia. They followed the Dnieper and Volga Rivers. They settled in parts of what are now Russia and Ukraine. Some traveled to the Black and Caspian Seas. From there, they went to Constantinople and Baghdad.
The Vikings sailed all over looking for treasure. As they searched, they frightened people and destroyed whole towns. | 245 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Germany lost ALL of her overseas colonies
Alsace-Lorraine was given to France
Eupen and Malmedy were given to Belgium
North-Schleswig was given to Denmark
Posen was given to Poland so that she would have access to the Baltic Sea. This area became known as the Polish Corridor. It meant that East Prussia was cut off from the rest of Germany.
The Rhineland was to be de-militarized
The Saar coalfields were given to France for fifteen years
The port of Danzig was made a Free City under the control of the League of Nations
"The Allied and Associated Governments affirm, and Germany accepts, the responsibility of Germany and her Allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associate Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of a war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her Allies."
GERMANY ACCEPTED RESPONSIBILITY FOR STARTING THE WAR
Germany agreed to pay for the damage caused by her armies during the war. The sum she had to pay was later fixed at £6,600 million
Germany was forbidden to unite with Austria
Germans thought the Treaty was a “diktat” : a dictated peace. They had not been invited to the peace conference at Versailles and when the Treaty was presented to them they were threatened with war if they did not sign it.
The Treaty was NOT based on Wilson’s Fourteen Points as the Germans had been promised it would.
Most Germans believed that the War Guilt Clause was unjustified. The French and British had done just as much to start the war
The loss of territory and population angered most Germans who believed that the losses were too severe.
Many Germans believed the German economy would be crippled by having to pay reparations. | <urn:uuid:c1b35105-7278-4464-bdf9-e91a2cf38e9a> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://www.sliderbase.com/spitem-1251-2.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594209.12/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119035851-20200119063851-00156.warc.gz | en | 0.989739 | 385 | 3.609375 | 4 | [
-0.10447455197572708,
0.36566105484962463,
-0.023424731567502022,
-0.11567406356334686,
0.11150181293487549,
-0.03230735659599304,
-0.07452504336833954,
0.28150540590286255,
-0.2381022572517395,
-0.20277757942676544,
0.23218446969985962,
-0.7789035439491272,
0.10753867030143738,
0.48883786... | 4 | Germany lost ALL of her overseas colonies
Alsace-Lorraine was given to France
Eupen and Malmedy were given to Belgium
North-Schleswig was given to Denmark
Posen was given to Poland so that she would have access to the Baltic Sea. This area became known as the Polish Corridor. It meant that East Prussia was cut off from the rest of Germany.
The Rhineland was to be de-militarized
The Saar coalfields were given to France for fifteen years
The port of Danzig was made a Free City under the control of the League of Nations
"The Allied and Associated Governments affirm, and Germany accepts, the responsibility of Germany and her Allies for causing all the loss and damage to which the Allied and Associate Governments and their nationals have been subjected as a consequence of a war imposed upon them by the aggression of Germany and her Allies."
GERMANY ACCEPTED RESPONSIBILITY FOR STARTING THE WAR
Germany agreed to pay for the damage caused by her armies during the war. The sum she had to pay was later fixed at £6,600 million
Germany was forbidden to unite with Austria
Germans thought the Treaty was a “diktat” : a dictated peace. They had not been invited to the peace conference at Versailles and when the Treaty was presented to them they were threatened with war if they did not sign it.
The Treaty was NOT based on Wilson’s Fourteen Points as the Germans had been promised it would.
Most Germans believed that the War Guilt Clause was unjustified. The French and British had done just as much to start the war
The loss of territory and population angered most Germans who believed that the losses were too severe.
Many Germans believed the German economy would be crippled by having to pay reparations. | 367 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The Revolt of 1857 holds a significant position in the history of India. It was an event after which the territory of India came under the direct rule of British.
Dastanbuy written by Ghalib throws light on the socio-political and economical as well as religious conditions and scenario during the revolt.
Ghalib’s Dastanbuy was an addition of the element of continuity to his pension case, yet he splendidly describes the miseries suffered by Britishers as well as by the natives of Delhi.
In a letter he says, “From the Jami Masjid to the Rajghat Gate is a barren wilderness without an exaggeration. By God Dilli is now not a city, now it is a camp, it is a cantonment. No fort, no bazaar, no canals.”
As a customary practice of the poets, Ghalib opens his Dastanbuy by praising the greatness and bounty of Almighty and seeks His Blessings, thus giving the Diary an effect of epic.
Describing his personal grief and despair, he comes to the event of a revolt. According to him, on May 11, 1857, the rebels attacked Delhi and the Indians who were guarding the city also joined them that marked the beginning of mass killing of Britishers.
There were looting and plundering and bloody fights were being fought everywhere. the sufferers were not only the Britishers but the commoners also faced the same fate.
Ghalib says in Dastanbuy, “A few poor, reclusive men, who received their bread and salt by the grace of the British, lived scattered throughout different parts of the city, in lanes and by-lanes, but quite distant from one another. These humble, peaceful people did not know an arrow from an axe, their hands were empty of the sword, and even the sound of thieves in the dark night frightened them. They could do nothing but sit, helpless, and grief-stricken, in their locked houses.”
The rebels had spread throughout Delhi. They entered into the royal chambers, murdered the inhabitants and after plundering the palaces destroyed them.
Even those who were leaderless also participated in the battle. seized the weapons from the British and continued their rebellion. Ghalib says, “Throughout the day, the rebels looted the city and at night they slept in silken beds.”
They broke the jails and set the prisoners free who were imprisoned by the British, who also joined the rebels. At that time, some slaves who had thirst for power had had their masters murdered.
Ghalib says, “In these days we think of ourselves as prisoners and we are, in truth, passing our days as prisoners.” A lot of nobles like Khan Bahadur Khan along with some of their soldiers raided their respective cities and proclaimed themselves as the new rulers. All this remained so for about four months. The British were ultimately successful in regaining power.
After the revolt, the commoners were compelled to stay within the four walls of their houses and Ghalib was no exception to it. He says, “For two or three days, all the roads from Kashmiri Gate to Chandani Chowk were battlegrounds.”
After some days, however, Maharaja of Patiala, who was a close acquaintance of British, sent his troops to Delhi to protect from further plundering.
Thus people felt relief from being imprisoned in their houses. Now they were able to open the doors and bring water and other essential things from outside.
In addition to being a good source of events of revolt, the Diary is also a significant record of alienation of Muslims. After the end of revolt, Hindus were given liberty and freedom whereas Muslims were deprived of these basic human rights.
Due to inhumane conditions like such, many Muslims preferred leading nomadic life and left the bloody lap of Delhi and therefore only a few were left and Ghalib was one of them. | <urn:uuid:74d55508-7bdb-473f-9d74-16c8bd3f791f> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://englishsummary.com/dastanbuy-ghalib/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251788528.85/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129041149-20200129071149-00386.warc.gz | en | 0.987778 | 827 | 3.578125 | 4 | [
0.045664798468351364,
0.4246983528137207,
0.2785302996635437,
-0.08482436090707779,
-0.25722944736480713,
0.14395840466022491,
0.418305903673172,
-0.08705291897058487,
-0.41311824321746826,
-0.12285606563091278,
-0.397941529750824,
-0.22919663786888123,
-0.037515390664339066,
0.20591902732... | 13 | The Revolt of 1857 holds a significant position in the history of India. It was an event after which the territory of India came under the direct rule of British.
Dastanbuy written by Ghalib throws light on the socio-political and economical as well as religious conditions and scenario during the revolt.
Ghalib’s Dastanbuy was an addition of the element of continuity to his pension case, yet he splendidly describes the miseries suffered by Britishers as well as by the natives of Delhi.
In a letter he says, “From the Jami Masjid to the Rajghat Gate is a barren wilderness without an exaggeration. By God Dilli is now not a city, now it is a camp, it is a cantonment. No fort, no bazaar, no canals.”
As a customary practice of the poets, Ghalib opens his Dastanbuy by praising the greatness and bounty of Almighty and seeks His Blessings, thus giving the Diary an effect of epic.
Describing his personal grief and despair, he comes to the event of a revolt. According to him, on May 11, 1857, the rebels attacked Delhi and the Indians who were guarding the city also joined them that marked the beginning of mass killing of Britishers.
There were looting and plundering and bloody fights were being fought everywhere. the sufferers were not only the Britishers but the commoners also faced the same fate.
Ghalib says in Dastanbuy, “A few poor, reclusive men, who received their bread and salt by the grace of the British, lived scattered throughout different parts of the city, in lanes and by-lanes, but quite distant from one another. These humble, peaceful people did not know an arrow from an axe, their hands were empty of the sword, and even the sound of thieves in the dark night frightened them. They could do nothing but sit, helpless, and grief-stricken, in their locked houses.”
The rebels had spread throughout Delhi. They entered into the royal chambers, murdered the inhabitants and after plundering the palaces destroyed them.
Even those who were leaderless also participated in the battle. seized the weapons from the British and continued their rebellion. Ghalib says, “Throughout the day, the rebels looted the city and at night they slept in silken beds.”
They broke the jails and set the prisoners free who were imprisoned by the British, who also joined the rebels. At that time, some slaves who had thirst for power had had their masters murdered.
Ghalib says, “In these days we think of ourselves as prisoners and we are, in truth, passing our days as prisoners.” A lot of nobles like Khan Bahadur Khan along with some of their soldiers raided their respective cities and proclaimed themselves as the new rulers. All this remained so for about four months. The British were ultimately successful in regaining power.
After the revolt, the commoners were compelled to stay within the four walls of their houses and Ghalib was no exception to it. He says, “For two or three days, all the roads from Kashmiri Gate to Chandani Chowk were battlegrounds.”
After some days, however, Maharaja of Patiala, who was a close acquaintance of British, sent his troops to Delhi to protect from further plundering.
Thus people felt relief from being imprisoned in their houses. Now they were able to open the doors and bring water and other essential things from outside.
In addition to being a good source of events of revolt, the Diary is also a significant record of alienation of Muslims. After the end of revolt, Hindus were given liberty and freedom whereas Muslims were deprived of these basic human rights.
Due to inhumane conditions like such, many Muslims preferred leading nomadic life and left the bloody lap of Delhi and therefore only a few were left and Ghalib was one of them. | 804 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Malala explains that she was born at dawn (traditionally a sign of luck in her community), but many people in the village still felt sorry for her family because Malala was a girl. As she puts it, women in her country are seen as second-class citizens, fit only for making food and birthing more children.
One of the only people to celebrate Malala’s birth was her father’s cousin, Jehan Sher Khan Yousafzai. He gave Malala a “handsome gift of money.” He also brought with him a large family tree, showing the sons and fathers of Malala’s family. Malala’s father, Ziauddin, had an unusual reaction when his cousin brought the family free. Instead of accepting it as a gift, he took a pen and drew a line to indicate Malala’s birth, even though she was a woman. Ziauddin insisted that Malala was special, and celebrated her birth with coins and fruit—gifts usually reserved for male children.
At times Malala makes large, sweeping statements about the state of sexism, religious extremism, etc., in Pakistan. Yet she’s very careful never to paint Pakistan with too broad a brush—she always recognizes that there are exceptions to the statements she’s making (like Jehan Sher Khan). Ziauddin will be a huge influence on Malala, and we see that he adored her from the start, refusing to treat her any differently from male children.
Malala is named after Malalai, a heroine of Afghanistan. Malala’s ethnic group, the Pashtuns, are divided between two countries, Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan. The Pashtuns obey a strict moral code of honor, which obligates them to treat all people with honor and respect. The Pashtuns are also a proud, warlike people. Malalai is a heroine to them because in the 1880s, she led the Pashtuns in a successful uprising against the British Empire. Malalai was only a teenager at the time, and she set aside married life to become a general and a warrior. British soldiers killed her, but her troops eventually defeated the British. To this day, monuments to Malalai are built in Afghanistan, and she’s a symbol of the native resistance to foreign aggression.
Malala’s description of her namesake creates a curious tension in the book. It’s clear that Pashtun culture as it exists in the early 21st century is in many ways highly repressive and sexist. Yet at the same time, women have played an unusually large role in Pashtun history, and in fact one stands at the center of its single greatest military victory. Thus it seems self-contradictory that this society should so revere the women of its past while having so little respect for the women of its present. Malalai will be an important historical precedent for Malala’s own heroism.
Malala continues explaining her culture. She lives in Swat Valley, a beautiful place full of fruit trees, rivers, and forests. In the winter, the villagers ski in the nearby mountains. Swat is currently a part of the province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, in Pakistan. Formerly, Swat was an independent state, but following Indian independence in 1947, it became an autonomous state of Pakistan. The people of Swat use the Pakistan currency—the rupee—but nonetheless maintain an unusually large amount of cultural and political autonomy from Pakistan. Most of the people of Swat have never left their valley, even though the capital of Pakistan, Islamabad, is only a hundred miles away.
One thing to keep in mind, Malala stresses, is that everyone in Mingora is restricted in his or her movements—not just the women. Indeed, the majority of people in the community haven’t even left Swat. This is also a very beautiful part of the world, and it’s clear that Malala loves her homeland deeply. This then makes it all the more tragic when Swat is beset with violence, oppression, and suffering.
Malala and her family live in the village of Mingora, the largest town in Swat. Swat has been an Islamic town since the 11th century. Prior to this time, however, it was a Buddhist state, and there are still ruins of Buddhist temples in Swat. Malala has grown up surrounded by birds and other animals, enjoying the beauty of the valley and the surrounding Hindu Kush mountains.
Swat is unique from its Pakistani neighbors in many ways. It’s the home of many different religious traditions, including Buddhist, Hindu, and Muslim. This religious diversity is a large part of its appeal to Malala from a young age, as she loves exploring the ruins of the temples.
Malala’s family is very poor. Despite founding the first school for girls in Mingora, Malala’s father and his family live in a shack. Nevertheless, Malala’s family frequently entertains visitors, cooking for them and spending time with them. Hospitality, Malala explains, is a crucial part of her culture. Malala’s brother, Khushal, is named after their father’s school, which he attends. Her youngest brother, Atal, is seven years younger than she. Her family is very small by Swati standards. Malala’s father, unlike the majority of Swati men, never hits his wife, whose name is Tor Pekai. Malala notes that the people in her community aspire to have paler skin. Malala’s father, for instance, was always ashamed of his dark skin as a child. Only after he married Tor Pekai did he overcome his shame. Tor Pekai and Ziauddin had an unusual marriage, since they married out of love, not social obligation. This is highly rare in Pakistan, Malala notes.
It’s hard to imagine a family in any other place being so committed to hospitality, even when the family itself is in danger of falling into poverty. And yet in many ways, Malala’s family isn’t at all typical of the Pashtun or Pakistani norms. On the contrary, Ziauddin and Tor Pekai married for love—something which may seem familiar to American readers, but is irregular for Pakistanis, as we’re meant to understand. It’s also notable that Ziauddin doesn’t beat his wife or children—he doesn’t assume that he is naturally superior and entitled to violence just because he is a man. Many Pakistani men do feel this way, Malala explains, which doesn’t bode well for the rise of extremism in the coming years.
Malala continues describing her family. Tor Pekai is very religious, and always prays five times a day, as is the Muslim custom. Malala’s father was rarely around when Malala was growing up: Ziauddin was busy writing poetry, organizing literary societies, and taking measures to preserve the environment in the valley. Although he is from an impoverished village, Ziauddin used his intelligence and hard work to become successful. Malala grew up respecting the power of language, largely as a result of her father’s influence.
Malala benefits from strong role models from a very early age. While Ziauddin isn’t often directly present in Malala’s life while she’s growing up, his “presence” as an influence in her life is enormous. He teaches her to respect the environment, literature, and poetry, and to understand the power of words. This will become more important as Malala becomes a public speaker and writer (of this very memoir, among other things).
Malala’s family is descended from the Yousafzai, a noted Pashtun tribe who celebrated combat as well as poetry. The Yousafzai feuded with one another constantly, but in 1917, one Yousafzai warrior managed to impose order on the Swati Valley. His son, Jehanzeb, brought great wealth and prosperity to the Valley. In 1969, the year Malala’s father was born, the Valley firmly united with Pakistan. Malala thinks of herself as Swati first, then Pashtun, then Pakistani.
Malala’s identity thus far has seemed to be based almost entirely on peace, nonviolence, and forgiveness—even of the Taliban who threaten her life. Ironically, she’s descended from a family that celebrates war and conflict as a way of life. And yet the Yousafzais also celebrate poetry, again emphasizing the power of words for Malala.
Growing up, Malala noticed that, as a woman, she was restricted from traveling where she wanted. From an early age, however, Malala decided that she wouldn’t let the sexism of her society stifle her. Her father encouraged her to be “free as a bird.”
Malala seems to be born with a sense of freedom and natural morality, but then also has these traits nurtured and encouraged by her father, who is an excellent role model, it seems. | <urn:uuid:3eb219d8-3691-498d-bac4-f53d75a17397> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.litcharts.com/lit/i-am-malala/chapter-1-a-daughter-is-born | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250620381.59/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124130719-20200124155719-00546.warc.gz | en | 0.980543 | 1,931 | 3.515625 | 4 | [
0.137397900223732,
0.8575714826583862,
0.059216104447841644,
0.05216382443904877,
-0.34927597641944885,
0.1293877810239792,
0.433819979429245,
-0.19093793630599976,
-0.12080561369657516,
-0.3300900459289551,
0.13712896406650543,
-0.20847269892692566,
0.3920121192932129,
-0.0885583162307739... | 7 | Malala explains that she was born at dawn (traditionally a sign of luck in her community), but many people in the village still felt sorry for her family because Malala was a girl. As she puts it, women in her country are seen as second-class citizens, fit only for making food and birthing more children.
One of the only people to celebrate Malala’s birth was her father’s cousin, Jehan Sher Khan Yousafzai. He gave Malala a “handsome gift of money.” He also brought with him a large family tree, showing the sons and fathers of Malala’s family. Malala’s father, Ziauddin, had an unusual reaction when his cousin brought the family free. Instead of accepting it as a gift, he took a pen and drew a line to indicate Malala’s birth, even though she was a woman. Ziauddin insisted that Malala was special, and celebrated her birth with coins and fruit—gifts usually reserved for male children.
At times Malala makes large, sweeping statements about the state of sexism, religious extremism, etc., in Pakistan. Yet she’s very careful never to paint Pakistan with too broad a brush—she always recognizes that there are exceptions to the statements she’s making (like Jehan Sher Khan). Ziauddin will be a huge influence on Malala, and we see that he adored her from the start, refusing to treat her any differently from male children.
Malala is named after Malalai, a heroine of Afghanistan. Malala’s ethnic group, the Pashtuns, are divided between two countries, Afghanistan and neighboring Pakistan. The Pashtuns obey a strict moral code of honor, which obligates them to treat all people with honor and respect. The Pashtuns are also a proud, warlike people. Malalai is a heroine to them because in the 1880s, she led the Pashtuns in a successful uprising against the British Empire. Malalai was only a teenager at the time, and she set aside married life to become a general and a warrior. British soldiers killed her, but her troops eventually defeated the British. To this day, monuments to Malalai are built in Afghanistan, and she’s a symbol of the native resistance to foreign aggression.
Malala’s description of her namesake creates a curious tension in the book. It’s clear that Pashtun culture as it exists in the early 21st century is in many ways highly repressive and sexist. Yet at the same time, women have played an unusually large role in Pashtun history, and in fact one stands at the center of its single greatest military victory. Thus it seems self-contradictory that this society should so revere the women of its past while having so little respect for the women of its present. Malalai will be an important historical precedent for Malala’s own heroism.
Malala continues explaining her culture. She lives in Swat Valley, a beautiful place full of fruit trees, rivers, and forests. In the winter, the villagers ski in the nearby mountains. Swat is currently a part of the province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, in Pakistan. Formerly, Swat was an independent state, but following Indian independence in 1947, it became an autonomous state of Pakistan. The people of Swat use the Pakistan currency—the rupee—but nonetheless maintain an unusually large amount of cultural and political autonomy from Pakistan. Most of the people of Swat have never left their valley, even though the capital of Pakistan, Islamabad, is only a hundred miles away.
One thing to keep in mind, Malala stresses, is that everyone in Mingora is restricted in his or her movements—not just the women. Indeed, the majority of people in the community haven’t even left Swat. This is also a very beautiful part of the world, and it’s clear that Malala loves her homeland deeply. This then makes it all the more tragic when Swat is beset with violence, oppression, and suffering.
Malala and her family live in the village of Mingora, the largest town in Swat. Swat has been an Islamic town since the 11th century. Prior to this time, however, it was a Buddhist state, and there are still ruins of Buddhist temples in Swat. Malala has grown up surrounded by birds and other animals, enjoying the beauty of the valley and the surrounding Hindu Kush mountains.
Swat is unique from its Pakistani neighbors in many ways. It’s the home of many different religious traditions, including Buddhist, Hindu, and Muslim. This religious diversity is a large part of its appeal to Malala from a young age, as she loves exploring the ruins of the temples.
Malala’s family is very poor. Despite founding the first school for girls in Mingora, Malala’s father and his family live in a shack. Nevertheless, Malala’s family frequently entertains visitors, cooking for them and spending time with them. Hospitality, Malala explains, is a crucial part of her culture. Malala’s brother, Khushal, is named after their father’s school, which he attends. Her youngest brother, Atal, is seven years younger than she. Her family is very small by Swati standards. Malala’s father, unlike the majority of Swati men, never hits his wife, whose name is Tor Pekai. Malala notes that the people in her community aspire to have paler skin. Malala’s father, for instance, was always ashamed of his dark skin as a child. Only after he married Tor Pekai did he overcome his shame. Tor Pekai and Ziauddin had an unusual marriage, since they married out of love, not social obligation. This is highly rare in Pakistan, Malala notes.
It’s hard to imagine a family in any other place being so committed to hospitality, even when the family itself is in danger of falling into poverty. And yet in many ways, Malala’s family isn’t at all typical of the Pashtun or Pakistani norms. On the contrary, Ziauddin and Tor Pekai married for love—something which may seem familiar to American readers, but is irregular for Pakistanis, as we’re meant to understand. It’s also notable that Ziauddin doesn’t beat his wife or children—he doesn’t assume that he is naturally superior and entitled to violence just because he is a man. Many Pakistani men do feel this way, Malala explains, which doesn’t bode well for the rise of extremism in the coming years.
Malala continues describing her family. Tor Pekai is very religious, and always prays five times a day, as is the Muslim custom. Malala’s father was rarely around when Malala was growing up: Ziauddin was busy writing poetry, organizing literary societies, and taking measures to preserve the environment in the valley. Although he is from an impoverished village, Ziauddin used his intelligence and hard work to become successful. Malala grew up respecting the power of language, largely as a result of her father’s influence.
Malala benefits from strong role models from a very early age. While Ziauddin isn’t often directly present in Malala’s life while she’s growing up, his “presence” as an influence in her life is enormous. He teaches her to respect the environment, literature, and poetry, and to understand the power of words. This will become more important as Malala becomes a public speaker and writer (of this very memoir, among other things).
Malala’s family is descended from the Yousafzai, a noted Pashtun tribe who celebrated combat as well as poetry. The Yousafzai feuded with one another constantly, but in 1917, one Yousafzai warrior managed to impose order on the Swati Valley. His son, Jehanzeb, brought great wealth and prosperity to the Valley. In 1969, the year Malala’s father was born, the Valley firmly united with Pakistan. Malala thinks of herself as Swati first, then Pashtun, then Pakistani.
Malala’s identity thus far has seemed to be based almost entirely on peace, nonviolence, and forgiveness—even of the Taliban who threaten her life. Ironically, she’s descended from a family that celebrates war and conflict as a way of life. And yet the Yousafzais also celebrate poetry, again emphasizing the power of words for Malala.
Growing up, Malala noticed that, as a woman, she was restricted from traveling where she wanted. From an early age, however, Malala decided that she wouldn’t let the sexism of her society stifle her. Her father encouraged her to be “free as a bird.”
Malala seems to be born with a sense of freedom and natural morality, but then also has these traits nurtured and encouraged by her father, who is an excellent role model, it seems. | 1,851 | ENGLISH | 1 |
In 1902, New York's Coney Island amusement park planned to install a new roller coaster with a unique feature - a gap in its track.
The idea of George Francis Meyer's Cannon Coaster was that the train would leap over the gap, in a thrilling effect that had never been attempted before. Had the park managed to pull it off, the ride would have simulated the "car leaps canyon" seen in innumerable action movies since.
The "leap the gap" concept would see the cars race through the bore of a wooden "cannon", accelerating downwards and then hopping over the gap. It was tested with sandbags, but numerous crashes resulted. In the end, no humans ever rode this bizarre contraption.
The gap in the tracks was filled in, and the Cannon Coaster operated for several years as a traditional coaster. Without the gap, it was a little boring - but that didn't stop people flocking to ride it. They had heard false rumors of numerous injuries and even deaths that had occured during the testing phase.
Would you ride the Cannon Coaster?
If the Cannon Coaster was around today - complete with gap - would you brave it? Let us know in the comments! | <urn:uuid:de274b53-0e72-41bb-9736-9d6a175c5979> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.themeparktourist.com/features/20140112/15765/would-you-ridecannon-coaster-insane-roller-coaster-jumped-gap-its-track | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250599718.13/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120165335-20200120194335-00456.warc.gz | en | 0.98325 | 247 | 3.375 | 3 | [
-0.3350253403186798,
-0.09483636915683746,
0.38699790835380554,
0.1477532684803009,
-0.2685910165309906,
0.3590014576911926,
0.11086046695709229,
0.0671629011631012,
0.040472518652677536,
0.050757501274347305,
0.2599709630012512,
0.23428238928318024,
0.11776190996170044,
0.4893245398998260... | 2 | In 1902, New York's Coney Island amusement park planned to install a new roller coaster with a unique feature - a gap in its track.
The idea of George Francis Meyer's Cannon Coaster was that the train would leap over the gap, in a thrilling effect that had never been attempted before. Had the park managed to pull it off, the ride would have simulated the "car leaps canyon" seen in innumerable action movies since.
The "leap the gap" concept would see the cars race through the bore of a wooden "cannon", accelerating downwards and then hopping over the gap. It was tested with sandbags, but numerous crashes resulted. In the end, no humans ever rode this bizarre contraption.
The gap in the tracks was filled in, and the Cannon Coaster operated for several years as a traditional coaster. Without the gap, it was a little boring - but that didn't stop people flocking to ride it. They had heard false rumors of numerous injuries and even deaths that had occured during the testing phase.
Would you ride the Cannon Coaster?
If the Cannon Coaster was around today - complete with gap - would you brave it? Let us know in the comments! | 247 | ENGLISH | 1 |
As early as the 1780s, the Post Office Department contracted with stagecoach owners to carry mail along designated on post roads. Private carriers, using stages and wagons, transported mail across the trans-Mississippi west in the 19th century. But horses did not always pull mail vehicles—sometimes they were the vehicles themselves, including the horses used by the famous, privately-owned Pony Express service from 1860-1861.
Horse-pulled wagons were also familiar sites in American cities. Screen wagons were used to carry mailbags between railroad stations and post offices. The screened sides and rear locks insured the mail’s security in traffic and worked so well that when trucks began to replace wagons, many were built with screened sides.
When horses were unavailable, or unable to perform that duty, other animals were brought in, depending on the region. While mules continue to carry mail in the Grand Canyon, camels were used briefly in the southwest, but proved poor mail carriers. Some rural carriers have even strapped oxen to their wagons for making their daily rounds. But the most commonly used replacement for horses were dogs, used to pull mail sleds across snowy, frozen areas in northern U.S. states and Alaskan territory.
Nancy A. Pope, National Postal Museum | <urn:uuid:407b66c5-64ae-4857-9290-9d76b3fcba99> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://postalmuseum.si.edu/exhibition/about-postal-operations-transportation/animal-powered | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251696046.73/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127081933-20200127111933-00471.warc.gz | en | 0.981261 | 269 | 4 | 4 | [
-0.2698677182197571,
-0.21313048899173737,
0.3861347734928131,
0.11255313456058502,
-0.04533996060490608,
-0.10088902711868286,
0.06360305100679398,
0.4539349377155304,
-0.1383255124092102,
0.11168595403432846,
-0.02554679661989212,
0.15122447907924652,
0.27561038732528687,
-0.112051889300... | 11 | As early as the 1780s, the Post Office Department contracted with stagecoach owners to carry mail along designated on post roads. Private carriers, using stages and wagons, transported mail across the trans-Mississippi west in the 19th century. But horses did not always pull mail vehicles—sometimes they were the vehicles themselves, including the horses used by the famous, privately-owned Pony Express service from 1860-1861.
Horse-pulled wagons were also familiar sites in American cities. Screen wagons were used to carry mailbags between railroad stations and post offices. The screened sides and rear locks insured the mail’s security in traffic and worked so well that when trucks began to replace wagons, many were built with screened sides.
When horses were unavailable, or unable to perform that duty, other animals were brought in, depending on the region. While mules continue to carry mail in the Grand Canyon, camels were used briefly in the southwest, but proved poor mail carriers. Some rural carriers have even strapped oxen to their wagons for making their daily rounds. But the most commonly used replacement for horses were dogs, used to pull mail sleds across snowy, frozen areas in northern U.S. states and Alaskan territory.
Nancy A. Pope, National Postal Museum | 269 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.