Split (1)

train · 729k rows

text string	id string	dump string	url string	file_path string	language string	language_score float64	token_count int64	score float64	int_score int64	embedding list	count int64	Content string	Tokens int64	Top_Lang string	Top_Conf float64
RT @britishcounties: You can see most of Lancashire from the top😄 A Brief History of Lancashire At the time of the Norman Conquest in 1066 the County of Lancashire had not yet been defined, but its subsequent components already existed as administrative areas. Six or seven years after the conquest (1072/3) King William gave the land between the Ribble and the Mersey, together with Amounderness to Roger of Poitou. In the early 1090s King William II (William Rufus) added Lonsdale, Cartmel and Furness to Roger's estates, thereby giving him control of all the land between the river Mersey in the south and the river Duddon in the north. Roger chose Lancaster as the site for his castle which thereby became the centre of administration for the lands that he controlled. As the area of lands held by a lord were known as his 'honour', Roger's lands became known as the Honour of Roger of Poitou or the Honour of Lancaster. In 1102 Roger supported his brother Robert of Bellene in an unsuccessful rebellion against King Henry I and all his English estates were confiscated and given to Stephen of Blois the grandson of the Conqueror. In 1182 Lancashire was first termed 'the county of Lancashire' in the pipe rolls (which were the main record of central government transactions) under King Henry II. 1267 Edmund Crouchback was created 1st Earl of Lancaster. In 1351 Henry, Earl of Lancaster, was made a Duke and was also granted Palatinate powers - the royal powers, or the powers belonging to the palace. These powers lapsed with Henry's Death, but were restored to the most famous Duke of Lancaster, John of Gaunt and were made hereditary. Palatinate status was granted to Lancashire because of its strategic position in defending England from the Scots and conferred legal recognition of the extraordinary powers of the Duke within Lancashire. The county developed its own chancery, could issue writs under its own seal and even had its own dating year running from 6th March 1351, the date of the establishment of the palatine. The Duke was able to appoint his own sheriff who was answerable to the Duke, not the King. Lancaster had its own justices and the king's writ did not run within the palatine county. The king did however still collect the taxes and reserved the right to correct 'errors of judgement' in the duke's courts. For a short period in the 16th century the Duke appointed a butler to collect dues payable to him for wine brought into the county.	<urn:uuid:3aad197f-be60-472d-9cb0-6f1569da5b4b>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	http://www.forl.co.uk/online-resources/brief-history-of-lancashire	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250609478.50/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123071220-20200123100220-00384.warc.gz	en	0.985742	554	3.59375	4	[ -0.05882972851395607, -0.054289765655994415, 0.42776793241500854, -0.21757370233535767, -0.1321069300174713, -0.1986590325832367, 0.338941365480423, -0.3733951449394226, -0.006884331814944744, -0.12982746958732605, -0.1335945874452591, -0.6416217088699341, 0.3383945822715759, -0.1874776780...	1	RT @britishcounties: You can see most of Lancashire from the top😄 A Brief History of Lancashire At the time of the Norman Conquest in 1066 the County of Lancashire had not yet been defined, but its subsequent components already existed as administrative areas. Six or seven years after the conquest (1072/3) King William gave the land between the Ribble and the Mersey, together with Amounderness to Roger of Poitou. In the early 1090s King William II (William Rufus) added Lonsdale, Cartmel and Furness to Roger's estates, thereby giving him control of all the land between the river Mersey in the south and the river Duddon in the north. Roger chose Lancaster as the site for his castle which thereby became the centre of administration for the lands that he controlled. As the area of lands held by a lord were known as his 'honour', Roger's lands became known as the Honour of Roger of Poitou or the Honour of Lancaster. In 1102 Roger supported his brother Robert of Bellene in an unsuccessful rebellion against King Henry I and all his English estates were confiscated and given to Stephen of Blois the grandson of the Conqueror. In 1182 Lancashire was first termed 'the county of Lancashire' in the pipe rolls (which were the main record of central government transactions) under King Henry II. 1267 Edmund Crouchback was created 1st Earl of Lancaster. In 1351 Henry, Earl of Lancaster, was made a Duke and was also granted Palatinate powers - the royal powers, or the powers belonging to the palace. These powers lapsed with Henry's Death, but were restored to the most famous Duke of Lancaster, John of Gaunt and were made hereditary. Palatinate status was granted to Lancashire because of its strategic position in defending England from the Scots and conferred legal recognition of the extraordinary powers of the Duke within Lancashire. The county developed its own chancery, could issue writs under its own seal and even had its own dating year running from 6th March 1351, the date of the establishment of the palatine. The Duke was able to appoint his own sheriff who was answerable to the Duke, not the King. Lancaster had its own justices and the king's writ did not run within the palatine county. The king did however still collect the taxes and reserved the right to correct 'errors of judgement' in the duke's courts. For a short period in the 16th century the Duke appointed a butler to collect dues payable to him for wine brought into the county.	564	ENGLISH	1
Throughout the Shakespearian play, Hamlet, the main character is given the overwhelming responsibility of avenging his father’s "foul and most unnatural murder" (I.iv.36). Such a burden can slowly drive a man off the deep end psychologically. Because of this, Hamlet’s disposition is extremely inconsistent and erratic throughout the play. At times he shows signs of uncontrollable insanity. Whenever he interacts with the characters he is wild, crazy, and plays a fool. At other times, he exemplifies intelligence and method in his madness. In instances when he is alone or with Horatio, he is civilized and sane. Hamlet goes through different stages of insanity throughout the story, but his neurotic and skeptical personality amplifies his persona of seeming insane to the other characters. Hamlet comes up with the idea to fake madness in the beginning of the play in order to confuse his enemies. However, for Hamlet to fulfill his duty of getting revenge, he must be totally sane. Hamlet’s intellectual brilliance make it seem too impossible for him to actually be mad, for to be insane means that one is irrational and without any sense. When one is irrational, one is not governed by or according to reason. So, Hamlet is only acting mad in order to plan his revenge on Claudius. In order for Hamlet to carry out his goal of revenge, he had to be totally sane. In Act I, he is warned by the ghost not to go mad and not to harm his mother. If Hamlet were truly mad, he would have done many unorthodox acts, which would only wreck his plan of getting revenge. There can be no such thing as restrained insanity. Hamlet’s sanity is displayed when he does not harm his mother. Gertrude has hurt Hamlet. She betrayed his father by having an affair with Claudius and eventually marrying him. Since Hamlet does not kill her, it shows he is in full control of his mental state and that he is not controlled by his feelings like most mad people. Another reason why Hamlet is not mad is in the way he escaped his awaited execution in England. Hamlet knew that he was to be sent to England to be killed on the orders of Claudius. But once he saw a chance of escape on the pirate ship, he took this opportunity to board the ship, which made him escape death, thus prolonging his life a little longer. If Hamlet were actually mad, it would be doubtful that he would know of Claudius’ plans, and he most likely would have been executed. By not becoming insane, Hamlet’s intellectual sharpness was able to prevent him from making regretful mistake and also saving his life. Hamlet is far too on top of things to be mad. Hamlet’s intellectual brilliance is first brought out in Act I, scene V when he plans on acting mad to confuse his enemies. Hamlet is also quick to figure out who his enemies and who are his real friends. “I know the good King and Queen have sent for you” (I.iv.37). Hamlet instantly knows that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are not paying a social visit to Hamlet,...	<urn:uuid:cfcd02c7-c2ec-40c1-920a-1f075d931927>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://brightkite.com/essay-on/hamlet-intelligent-not-insane	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250604849.31/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121162615-20200121191615-00115.warc.gz	en	0.98636	667	3.34375	3	[ 0.13557767868041992, -0.030558008700609207, 0.3786361813545227, -0.4306575357913971, -0.12898777425289154, 0.042050544172525406, 0.6613198518753052, 0.3883593678474426, 0.0973677858710289, -0.4785977005958557, 0.16066426038742065, -0.3401940166950226, -0.2178604155778885, 0.057040765881538...	1	Throughout the Shakespearian play, Hamlet, the main character is given the overwhelming responsibility of avenging his father’s "foul and most unnatural murder" (I.iv.36). Such a burden can slowly drive a man off the deep end psychologically. Because of this, Hamlet’s disposition is extremely inconsistent and erratic throughout the play. At times he shows signs of uncontrollable insanity. Whenever he interacts with the characters he is wild, crazy, and plays a fool. At other times, he exemplifies intelligence and method in his madness. In instances when he is alone or with Horatio, he is civilized and sane. Hamlet goes through different stages of insanity throughout the story, but his neurotic and skeptical personality amplifies his persona of seeming insane to the other characters. Hamlet comes up with the idea to fake madness in the beginning of the play in order to confuse his enemies. However, for Hamlet to fulfill his duty of getting revenge, he must be totally sane. Hamlet’s intellectual brilliance make it seem too impossible for him to actually be mad, for to be insane means that one is irrational and without any sense. When one is irrational, one is not governed by or according to reason. So, Hamlet is only acting mad in order to plan his revenge on Claudius. In order for Hamlet to carry out his goal of revenge, he had to be totally sane. In Act I, he is warned by the ghost not to go mad and not to harm his mother. If Hamlet were truly mad, he would have done many unorthodox acts, which would only wreck his plan of getting revenge. There can be no such thing as restrained insanity. Hamlet’s sanity is displayed when he does not harm his mother. Gertrude has hurt Hamlet. She betrayed his father by having an affair with Claudius and eventually marrying him. Since Hamlet does not kill her, it shows he is in full control of his mental state and that he is not controlled by his feelings like most mad people. Another reason why Hamlet is not mad is in the way he escaped his awaited execution in England. Hamlet knew that he was to be sent to England to be killed on the orders of Claudius. But once he saw a chance of escape on the pirate ship, he took this opportunity to board the ship, which made him escape death, thus prolonging his life a little longer. If Hamlet were actually mad, it would be doubtful that he would know of Claudius’ plans, and he most likely would have been executed. By not becoming insane, Hamlet’s intellectual sharpness was able to prevent him from making regretful mistake and also saving his life. Hamlet is far too on top of things to be mad. Hamlet’s intellectual brilliance is first brought out in Act I, scene V when he plans on acting mad to confuse his enemies. Hamlet is also quick to figure out who his enemies and who are his real friends. “I know the good King and Queen have sent for you” (I.iv.37). Hamlet instantly knows that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are not paying a social visit to Hamlet,...	652	ENGLISH	1
Witch trials in Early Modern Scotland are the judicial proceedings in that country between the early 16th century and the mid-18th century concerned with crimes of witchcraft, part of a series of witch trials in Early Modern Europe. In the late middle age there were a handful of prosecutions for harm done through witchcraft, but the passing of the Witchcraft Act 1563 Until the passage of Henry VIII’s Act of 1542 witchcraft was dealt with by the ecclesiastical courts rather being seen as a secular felony. It is unknown what triggered the perceived need for such a law, but it undoubtedly suited Henry’s agenda of wresting power from the Catholic Church. made witchcraft, or consulting with witches, capital crimes. The first major series of trials under the new Act were the North Berwick witch trials, beginning in 1589, in which King James VI played a major role as “victim” and investigator. He became interested in witchcraft and published a defence of witch-hunting in the Daemonologie in 1597, but he appears to have become increasingly sceptical and eventually took steps to limit prosecutions. An estimated 4,000 to 6,000 people, mostly from the Scottish Lowlands, were tried for witchcraft in this period, a much higher rate than for neighbouring England. There were major series of trials in 1590–1591, 1597, 1628–1631, 1649–1650 and 1661–1662. Eighty-five per cent of the accused were women. Modern estimates indicate that more than 1,500 persons were executed; most were strangled and then burned. The hunts subsided under English occupation after the Civil Wars during the period of the Commonwealth led by Oliver Cromwell in the 1650s, but returned after the Restoration in 1660, causing some alarm and leading to the Privy Council of Scotland limiting arrests, prosecutions and torture. There was also growing scepticism in the later 17th century, while some of the factors that may have contributed to the trials, such as economic distress, subsided. Although there were occasional local outbreaks of witch-hunting, the last recorded executions were in 1706 and the last trial in 1727. The Scottish and English parliaments merged in 1707, and the unified British parliament repealed the 1563 Act in 1736. Many causes have been suggested for the hunts, including economic distress, changing attitudes to women, the rise of a “godly state”, the inquisitorial Scottish judicial system, the widespread use of judicial torture, the role of the local kirk, decentralised justice and the prevalence of the idea of the diabolic pact. The proliferation of partial explanations for the witch-hunt has led some historians to proffer the concept of “associated circumstances”, rather than one single significant cause. For late Medieval Scotland there is evidence of occasional prosecutions of individuals for causing harm through witchcraft. High-profile political cases included the action against John Stewart, Earl of Mar for allegedly using sorcery against his brother King James III in 1479. Evidence of these political cases indicates that they were becoming rarer in the first half of the 16th century however. Popular belief in magic was widespread in the Middle Ages, but theologians had been generally sceptical, and lawyers only interested in prosecuting cases in which harm from magic was evident. From the late 16th century attitudes began to change, and witches were seen as deriving their power from the Devil, with the result that witchcraft was seen as a form of heresy. These ideas were widely accepted by both Catholics and Protestants in the 16th century. In the aftermath of the initial Reformation settlement of 1560, Parliament passed the Witchcraft Act 1563, one of a series of laws underpinning Biblical laws and similar to that passed in England a year earlier, which made the practice of witchcraft itself, and consulting with witches, capital crimes. The first witch-hunt under the Act was in the east of the country in 1568–1569 in Angus and the Mearns, where there were unsuccessful attempts to introduce elements of the diabolic pact and the hunt collapsed. Role of James VI James VI’s visit to Denmark in 1589, where witch-hunts were already common, may have encouraged his interest in the study of witchcraft, and he came to see the storms he encountered on his voyage as the result of magic. After his return to Scotland, he attended the North Berwick witch trials, the first major persecution of witches in Scotland under the 1563 Act and the first known to successfully involve the diabolic pact. Several people, most notably Agnes SampsonScottish midwife, cunning woman and healer; central figure in the North Berwick witch trials and the schoolmaster John FianSchool teacher convicted of witchcraft in 1590, a central figure in the North Berwick witch trials, were convicted of using witchcraft to send storms against James’ ship. James became obsessed with the threat posed by witches. He subsequently believed that a nobleman, Francis Stewart, 5th Earl of Bothwell, was a witch, and after the latter fled in fear of his life, he was outlawed as a traitor. The King subsequently set up royal commissions to hunt down witches in his realm, recommending torture in dealing with suspects; James is known to have personally supervised the torture of women accused of being witches. Inspired by his personal involvement, in 1597 he published the Daemonologie, a tract that denounced the practice of witchcraft, and which provided background material for Shakespeare’s Tragedy of Macbeth, which contains probably the most famous literary depiction of Scottish witches. James imported continental explanations of witchcraft.[a]Historian Christina Larner believed the King brought continental type witch theory back from Denmark; this has since been demonstrated as incorrect by 21st-century academics. Jenny Wormald and Peter Maxwell-Stuart independently reached the conclusion that in this respect Larner’s excellent work was incorrect. In the view of Thomas Lolis, James I’s goal was to divert suspicion away from male homosociality among the elite, and focus fear on female communities and large gatherings of women. He thought they threatened his political power, so he laid the foundation for witchcraft and occultism policies, especially in Scotland; a widespread belief in the conspiracy of witches and a witches’ Sabbath with the Devil deprived women of political influence. Occult power was supposedly a womanly trait, because women were weaker and more susceptible to the Devil. James became more sceptical after the publication of Daemonologie however, and in the same year he revoked the standing commissions on witchcraft, limiting prosecutions by the central courts. Nature of the trials Despite the fact that Scotland probably had about one quarter of the population of England, it had three times the number of witchcraft prosecutions, at an estimated 4,000 to 6,000 over the entire period. This was about four times the European average. The overwhelming majority were in the Lowlands, where the Kirk had more control, despite the evidence that basic magical beliefs were very widespread in the Highlands. Persecution of witchcraft in Orkney Witchcraft in Orkney possibly has its roots in the settlement of Norsemen on the archipelago from the eighth century onwards. Until the early modern period magical powers were accepted as part of the general lifestyle, but witch-hunts began on the mainland of Scotland in about 1550. differed from the mainland with most trials taking place before 1650. Large series of trials included those in 1590–1591 and the Great Scottish Witch Hunt of 1597, which took place across Scotland from March to October. At least 400 people were put on trial for various forms of diabolism. The exact number of those executed as a result of these trials is unknown, but is believed to be about 200. Later major trials included hunts in 1628–1631 and 1649–1650. Probably the most intense witch-hunt was in 1661–1662, which involved some 664 named witches in four counties. Most of the accused, about 85 per cent, were women, although some men were also executed as witches warlocks. Modern estimates indicate that more than 1,500 persons were executed. Most were older women, with some younger women and men accused because they were related to an accused witch, usually as daughters or husbands. Some men were accused because they were folk healers who were felt to have misused their powers, although folk healers as a group were not targeted. Most were not vagrants or beggars, but settled members of their communities. The majority had built a reputation for witchcraft over years, which resulted in prosecution when a “victim” suffered ill fortune, particularly after a curse had been issued. The use of curses by some women as a means of acquiring social power may have made this process more likely to occur. Almost all witchcraft prosecutions took place in secular courts under the provisions of the 1563 Act. In 1649 the religiously radical Covenanter regime passed a new witchcraft act that ratified the existing act and extended it to deal with consulters of “Devils and familiar spirits”, who would now be punished with death. There were three main types of court in which accused witches could be tried. First was the Court of Justiciary in Edinburgh, which took cases from all over Scotland, with a heavy bias to the local region. Next were the circuit courts, presided over by judges from the central courts and held in the various shires of the country. Finally, there were a series of ad hoc local courts, held under commissions by the Privy Council or Parliament and staffed by local landholders and gentlemen to try witches in the places where they were accused. Based on known outcomes, the execution rates for the local courts was much higher than the courts run by professional lawyers, with the local courts executing some 90 per cent of the accused, the Judiciary Court 55 per cent, but the circuit courts only 16 per cent. After the revocation of the standing commissions in 1597, the pursuit of witchcraft was largely taken over by kirk sessions, disciplinary committees run by the parish elite, and was often used to attack “superstitious” and Catholic practices. The central courts only launched a trial when the Privy Council issued a commission, although the council did not have full control over prosecutions in the Court of Judiciary. Scottish witchcraft trials were notable for their use of prickingMethods used to identify witches. , in which a suspect’s skin was pierced with needles, pins and bodkins as it was believed that they would possess a Devil’s mark through which they could not feel pain. Professional prickers included John Kincaid John Kincaid or Kinkaid was a professional witch-finder or pricker of witches based in Tranent, East Lothian. and John Dick, whose actions helped set off the outbreak of witch-hunting in 1661–1662, and whose exposure as frauds, and subsequent imprisonment, helped end the trials. Judicial torture was used in some high-profile cases, like that of John Fine, one of the witches accused of plotting the death of the King in 1590, whose feet were crushed in a shin press, known as the boots. However, these cases were relatively rare. Confessions, considered the best evidence for conviction, were more usually extracted by “waking” the witch, keeping the suspect sleep deprived. After about three days individuals tend to hallucinate, and this provided some exotic detail in witchcraft trials. In Scotland, convicted witches were usually strangled at the stake before having their bodies burned, although there are instances where they were burned alive. The belief that witches could cause harm was common among all social groups in early modern Scotland. In 1701 in Anstruther, Elizabeth Dick had been turned away from the local mill when begging. She cursed the mill and several witnesses testified that the grain in the mill turned red. Only when one of the people who had refused her help ran after her and gave her alms did she bless the mill and everything returned to normal. About half of accused witches had already gained a reputation for causing harm over a long period of time. The fact that only four per cent of recorded accused witches were involved in folk healing seems to indicate that healing skills were largely seen as different from witchcraft. The Aberdeenshire trials of 1596 reveal that spells could be purchased from folk magicians for success at fishing, to ensure a happy marriage, to prolong life and to affect the weather, but harmful spells were considered witchcraft. Many accusations included sexual fears. Margaret Bain, a midwife, it was claimed, could transfer the pains of childbirth to a woman’s husband and Helen Gray cast a spell on a man that gave him a permanent erection. Witches and other sorts of folk magicians could also carry out divinations. These included by reading the marks on the shoulder blade of a slaughtered animal, measuring a person’s sleeve or waist to see if they were suffering from a fever, or being able to find answers based on which way a sieve suspended from scissors or shears swung, as Margaret Mungo was accused of doing before the kirk session of Dingwall in 1649. It has often been stated that Scottish witchcraft was particularly concerned with the demonic pact. In the high court, Katherine Sands, who was one of four women accused of witchcraft at Culross in 1675, admitted to renouncing her baptism, receiving the Devil’s mark and having sex with the Devil, but in local trials these demonic elements were rarer. Stuart MacDonald notes that in trials from Fife the Devil was a relatively insignificant and indistinct figure and that a number of instances of covens meeting look like fairy revels, where the dancing fairies traditionally disappeared when a human broke the ring, rather than satanic gatherings. Fairies were an important part of magical beliefs in Scotland. Isobel GowdieIsobel Gowdie was accused of witchcraft in 1662; she was likely executed although that is uncertain. Her detailed testimony provides one of the most comprehensive insights into European witchcraft folklore at the end of the era of witch-hunts. , the young wife of a cottar from near Auldearn, who was tried for witchcraft in 1662, left four depositions, gained without torture, that provide one of the most detailed insights into magical beliefs in Britain. She stated that her coven met on nearby Downie Hill, that they could transform themselves into hares and that she had been entertained by the Queen of the Fairies in her home under the hill. J. A. MacCulloch argued that there was a “mingling of beliefs” in Scotland, between popular belief in fairies and elite Christian ideas of demonic action. In the seventeenth century there was growing scepticism about the reality of witchcraft among the educated elite. Scotland was defeated in the Civil Wars by the forces of the English parliament led by Oliver Cromwell and occupied. In 1652 Scotland was declared part of a Commonwealth with England and Ireland and the Privy Council and courts ceased to exist. The English judges who replaced them were hostile to the use of torture and often sceptical of the evidence it produced, resulting in a decline in prosecutions. In an attempt to gain support among the landholding orders, Sheriff’s courts were re-established and Justices of the Peace returned in 1656. The result was a wave of witchcraft cases, with 102 in the period 1657–1659. The limitations on prosecutions were fully reversed with the Restoration of the monarchy in 1660, and there was a flood of more than 600 cases that alarmed the restored Privy Council, leading it to insist on the necessity of its commission for an arrest or prosecution, and banning judicial torture. Prosecutions began to decline as trials were more tightly controlled by the judiciary and government, torture was more sparingly used and standards of evidence were raised. The exposure of prickers as frauds in 1662 removed a major form of evidence. The Lord Advocate George Mackenzie made efforts to make prosecutions ineffective. There may also have been a growing popular scepticism, and, with relative peace and stability, the economic and social tensions that may have contributed to accusations were reduced, although there were occasional local outbreaks, like those in East Lothian in 1678 and in Paisley in 1697. The last executions in the records of the central courts were in 1706. The last trial was held in the court of a sheriff-depute at Dornoch in 1727, and was of questionable legality. The British parliament repealed the 1563 Act in 1736, making the legal pursuit of witches impossible. Nevertheless, basic magical beliefs persisted, particularly in the Highlands and Islands. Various reasons for the Scottish witch-hunt, and its more intense nature than that in England, have been advanced by historians. Older theories, that there was a widespread pagan cult that was persecuted in this period and that the witch-hunts were the result of a rising medical profession eliminating folk healers, have been discredited among professional historians. Most of the major periods of prosecution coincided with periods of intense economic distress, and some accusations may have followed the withdrawal of charity from marginal figures, particularly the single women that made up many of the accused. The reformed Kirk that emerged from 1560 was heavily influenced by Calvinism and Presbyterianism, and may have perceived women as more of a moral threat. As a result the witch-hunt in Scotland has been seen as a means of controlling women. Christina Larner suggested that the outbreak of the hunt in the mid-sixteenth century was tied to the rise of a “godly state”, where the reformed Kirk was closely linked to an increasingly intrusive Scottish crown and legal system. It has been suggested that the intensity of Scottish witch-hunting was due to an inquisitorial judicial system and the widespread use of judicial torture. However, Brian P. Levack argues that the Scottish system was only partly inquisitorial and that use of judicial torture was extremely limited, similar to the situation in England. A relatively high level of acquittal in Scottish trials may have been due to the employment of defence lawyers in Scottish courts, a benefit not given accused witches in England. The close involvement of the Scottish Kirk in trials and the decentralised nature of Scottish courts, where local magistrates heard many cases (in contrast to England where most were before a small number of circuit judges), may have contributed to higher rates of prosecution. The diabolic pact is often stated as a major difference between Scottish and English witchcraft cases, but Stuart Maxwell argues that the iconography of Satan may be an imposition of central government beliefs on local traditions, particularly those concerned with fairies, which were more persistent in Scotland than in England. The proliferation of partial explanations for the witch-hunt has led some historians to proffer the concept of “associated circumstances”, rather than one single significant cause. Notes [ + ] \|a.\|\|^\|\|Historian Christina Larner believed the King brought continental type witch theory back from Denmark; this has since been demonstrated as incorrect by 21st-century academics. Jenny Wormald and Peter Maxwell-Stuart independently reached the conclusion that in this respect Larner’s excellent work was incorrect.\|	<urn:uuid:8fffb84a-9cf3-448a-9ffe-58fcbfbeb5d5>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://engole.info/witch-trials-in-early-modern-scotland/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250590107.3/warc/CC-MAIN-20200117180950-20200117204950-00246.warc.gz	en	0.980862	3,961	3.640625	4	[ -0.25529372692108154, 0.18816810846328735, -0.001772432355210185, 0.0362420454621315, 0.16308937966823578, -0.09231719374656677, 0.01704174466431141, -0.06576025485992432, 0.14194534718990326, 0.015353440307080746, -0.35933998227119446, -0.07788287848234177, -0.3651208281517029, 0.33478760...	4	Witch trials in Early Modern Scotland are the judicial proceedings in that country between the early 16th century and the mid-18th century concerned with crimes of witchcraft, part of a series of witch trials in Early Modern Europe. In the late middle age there were a handful of prosecutions for harm done through witchcraft, but the passing of the Witchcraft Act 1563 Until the passage of Henry VIII’s Act of 1542 witchcraft was dealt with by the ecclesiastical courts rather being seen as a secular felony. It is unknown what triggered the perceived need for such a law, but it undoubtedly suited Henry’s agenda of wresting power from the Catholic Church. made witchcraft, or consulting with witches, capital crimes. The first major series of trials under the new Act were the North Berwick witch trials, beginning in 1589, in which King James VI played a major role as “victim” and investigator. He became interested in witchcraft and published a defence of witch-hunting in the Daemonologie in 1597, but he appears to have become increasingly sceptical and eventually took steps to limit prosecutions. An estimated 4,000 to 6,000 people, mostly from the Scottish Lowlands, were tried for witchcraft in this period, a much higher rate than for neighbouring England. There were major series of trials in 1590–1591, 1597, 1628–1631, 1649–1650 and 1661–1662. Eighty-five per cent of the accused were women. Modern estimates indicate that more than 1,500 persons were executed; most were strangled and then burned. The hunts subsided under English occupation after the Civil Wars during the period of the Commonwealth led by Oliver Cromwell in the 1650s, but returned after the Restoration in 1660, causing some alarm and leading to the Privy Council of Scotland limiting arrests, prosecutions and torture. There was also growing scepticism in the later 17th century, while some of the factors that may have contributed to the trials, such as economic distress, subsided. Although there were occasional local outbreaks of witch-hunting, the last recorded executions were in 1706 and the last trial in 1727. The Scottish and English parliaments merged in 1707, and the unified British parliament repealed the 1563 Act in 1736. Many causes have been suggested for the hunts, including economic distress, changing attitudes to women, the rise of a “godly state”, the inquisitorial Scottish judicial system, the widespread use of judicial torture, the role of the local kirk, decentralised justice and the prevalence of the idea of the diabolic pact. The proliferation of partial explanations for the witch-hunt has led some historians to proffer the concept of “associated circumstances”, rather than one single significant cause. For late Medieval Scotland there is evidence of occasional prosecutions of individuals for causing harm through witchcraft. High-profile political cases included the action against John Stewart, Earl of Mar for allegedly using sorcery against his brother King James III in 1479. Evidence of these political cases indicates that they were becoming rarer in the first half of the 16th century however. Popular belief in magic was widespread in the Middle Ages, but theologians had been generally sceptical, and lawyers only interested in prosecuting cases in which harm from magic was evident. From the late 16th century attitudes began to change, and witches were seen as deriving their power from the Devil, with the result that witchcraft was seen as a form of heresy. These ideas were widely accepted by both Catholics and Protestants in the 16th century. In the aftermath of the initial Reformation settlement of 1560, Parliament passed the Witchcraft Act 1563, one of a series of laws underpinning Biblical laws and similar to that passed in England a year earlier, which made the practice of witchcraft itself, and consulting with witches, capital crimes. The first witch-hunt under the Act was in the east of the country in 1568–1569 in Angus and the Mearns, where there were unsuccessful attempts to introduce elements of the diabolic pact and the hunt collapsed. Role of James VI James VI’s visit to Denmark in 1589, where witch-hunts were already common, may have encouraged his interest in the study of witchcraft, and he came to see the storms he encountered on his voyage as the result of magic. After his return to Scotland, he attended the North Berwick witch trials, the first major persecution of witches in Scotland under the 1563 Act and the first known to successfully involve the diabolic pact. Several people, most notably Agnes SampsonScottish midwife, cunning woman and healer; central figure in the North Berwick witch trials and the schoolmaster John FianSchool teacher convicted of witchcraft in 1590, a central figure in the North Berwick witch trials, were convicted of using witchcraft to send storms against James’ ship. James became obsessed with the threat posed by witches. He subsequently believed that a nobleman, Francis Stewart, 5th Earl of Bothwell, was a witch, and after the latter fled in fear of his life, he was outlawed as a traitor. The King subsequently set up royal commissions to hunt down witches in his realm, recommending torture in dealing with suspects; James is known to have personally supervised the torture of women accused of being witches. Inspired by his personal involvement, in 1597 he published the Daemonologie, a tract that denounced the practice of witchcraft, and which provided background material for Shakespeare’s Tragedy of Macbeth, which contains probably the most famous literary depiction of Scottish witches. James imported continental explanations of witchcraft.[a]Historian Christina Larner believed the King brought continental type witch theory back from Denmark; this has since been demonstrated as incorrect by 21st-century academics. Jenny Wormald and Peter Maxwell-Stuart independently reached the conclusion that in this respect Larner’s excellent work was incorrect. In the view of Thomas Lolis, James I’s goal was to divert suspicion away from male homosociality among the elite, and focus fear on female communities and large gatherings of women. He thought they threatened his political power, so he laid the foundation for witchcraft and occultism policies, especially in Scotland; a widespread belief in the conspiracy of witches and a witches’ Sabbath with the Devil deprived women of political influence. Occult power was supposedly a womanly trait, because women were weaker and more susceptible to the Devil. James became more sceptical after the publication of Daemonologie however, and in the same year he revoked the standing commissions on witchcraft, limiting prosecutions by the central courts. Nature of the trials Despite the fact that Scotland probably had about one quarter of the population of England, it had three times the number of witchcraft prosecutions, at an estimated 4,000 to 6,000 over the entire period. This was about four times the European average. The overwhelming majority were in the Lowlands, where the Kirk had more control, despite the evidence that basic magical beliefs were very widespread in the Highlands. Persecution of witchcraft in Orkney Witchcraft in Orkney possibly has its roots in the settlement of Norsemen on the archipelago from the eighth century onwards. Until the early modern period magical powers were accepted as part of the general lifestyle, but witch-hunts began on the mainland of Scotland in about 1550. differed from the mainland with most trials taking place before 1650. Large series of trials included those in 1590–1591 and the Great Scottish Witch Hunt of 1597, which took place across Scotland from March to October. At least 400 people were put on trial for various forms of diabolism. The exact number of those executed as a result of these trials is unknown, but is believed to be about 200. Later major trials included hunts in 1628–1631 and 1649–1650. Probably the most intense witch-hunt was in 1661–1662, which involved some 664 named witches in four counties. Most of the accused, about 85 per cent, were women, although some men were also executed as witches warlocks. Modern estimates indicate that more than 1,500 persons were executed. Most were older women, with some younger women and men accused because they were related to an accused witch, usually as daughters or husbands. Some men were accused because they were folk healers who were felt to have misused their powers, although folk healers as a group were not targeted. Most were not vagrants or beggars, but settled members of their communities. The majority had built a reputation for witchcraft over years, which resulted in prosecution when a “victim” suffered ill fortune, particularly after a curse had been issued. The use of curses by some women as a means of acquiring social power may have made this process more likely to occur. Almost all witchcraft prosecutions took place in secular courts under the provisions of the 1563 Act. In 1649 the religiously radical Covenanter regime passed a new witchcraft act that ratified the existing act and extended it to deal with consulters of “Devils and familiar spirits”, who would now be punished with death. There were three main types of court in which accused witches could be tried. First was the Court of Justiciary in Edinburgh, which took cases from all over Scotland, with a heavy bias to the local region. Next were the circuit courts, presided over by judges from the central courts and held in the various shires of the country. Finally, there were a series of ad hoc local courts, held under commissions by the Privy Council or Parliament and staffed by local landholders and gentlemen to try witches in the places where they were accused. Based on known outcomes, the execution rates for the local courts was much higher than the courts run by professional lawyers, with the local courts executing some 90 per cent of the accused, the Judiciary Court 55 per cent, but the circuit courts only 16 per cent. After the revocation of the standing commissions in 1597, the pursuit of witchcraft was largely taken over by kirk sessions, disciplinary committees run by the parish elite, and was often used to attack “superstitious” and Catholic practices. The central courts only launched a trial when the Privy Council issued a commission, although the council did not have full control over prosecutions in the Court of Judiciary. Scottish witchcraft trials were notable for their use of prickingMethods used to identify witches. , in which a suspect’s skin was pierced with needles, pins and bodkins as it was believed that they would possess a Devil’s mark through which they could not feel pain. Professional prickers included John Kincaid John Kincaid or Kinkaid was a professional witch-finder or pricker of witches based in Tranent, East Lothian. and John Dick, whose actions helped set off the outbreak of witch-hunting in 1661–1662, and whose exposure as frauds, and subsequent imprisonment, helped end the trials. Judicial torture was used in some high-profile cases, like that of John Fine, one of the witches accused of plotting the death of the King in 1590, whose feet were crushed in a shin press, known as the boots. However, these cases were relatively rare. Confessions, considered the best evidence for conviction, were more usually extracted by “waking” the witch, keeping the suspect sleep deprived. After about three days individuals tend to hallucinate, and this provided some exotic detail in witchcraft trials. In Scotland, convicted witches were usually strangled at the stake before having their bodies burned, although there are instances where they were burned alive. The belief that witches could cause harm was common among all social groups in early modern Scotland. In 1701 in Anstruther, Elizabeth Dick had been turned away from the local mill when begging. She cursed the mill and several witnesses testified that the grain in the mill turned red. Only when one of the people who had refused her help ran after her and gave her alms did she bless the mill and everything returned to normal. About half of accused witches had already gained a reputation for causing harm over a long period of time. The fact that only four per cent of recorded accused witches were involved in folk healing seems to indicate that healing skills were largely seen as different from witchcraft. The Aberdeenshire trials of 1596 reveal that spells could be purchased from folk magicians for success at fishing, to ensure a happy marriage, to prolong life and to affect the weather, but harmful spells were considered witchcraft. Many accusations included sexual fears. Margaret Bain, a midwife, it was claimed, could transfer the pains of childbirth to a woman’s husband and Helen Gray cast a spell on a man that gave him a permanent erection. Witches and other sorts of folk magicians could also carry out divinations. These included by reading the marks on the shoulder blade of a slaughtered animal, measuring a person’s sleeve or waist to see if they were suffering from a fever, or being able to find answers based on which way a sieve suspended from scissors or shears swung, as Margaret Mungo was accused of doing before the kirk session of Dingwall in 1649. It has often been stated that Scottish witchcraft was particularly concerned with the demonic pact. In the high court, Katherine Sands, who was one of four women accused of witchcraft at Culross in 1675, admitted to renouncing her baptism, receiving the Devil’s mark and having sex with the Devil, but in local trials these demonic elements were rarer. Stuart MacDonald notes that in trials from Fife the Devil was a relatively insignificant and indistinct figure and that a number of instances of covens meeting look like fairy revels, where the dancing fairies traditionally disappeared when a human broke the ring, rather than satanic gatherings. Fairies were an important part of magical beliefs in Scotland. Isobel GowdieIsobel Gowdie was accused of witchcraft in 1662; she was likely executed although that is uncertain. Her detailed testimony provides one of the most comprehensive insights into European witchcraft folklore at the end of the era of witch-hunts. , the young wife of a cottar from near Auldearn, who was tried for witchcraft in 1662, left four depositions, gained without torture, that provide one of the most detailed insights into magical beliefs in Britain. She stated that her coven met on nearby Downie Hill, that they could transform themselves into hares and that she had been entertained by the Queen of the Fairies in her home under the hill. J. A. MacCulloch argued that there was a “mingling of beliefs” in Scotland, between popular belief in fairies and elite Christian ideas of demonic action. In the seventeenth century there was growing scepticism about the reality of witchcraft among the educated elite. Scotland was defeated in the Civil Wars by the forces of the English parliament led by Oliver Cromwell and occupied. In 1652 Scotland was declared part of a Commonwealth with England and Ireland and the Privy Council and courts ceased to exist. The English judges who replaced them were hostile to the use of torture and often sceptical of the evidence it produced, resulting in a decline in prosecutions. In an attempt to gain support among the landholding orders, Sheriff’s courts were re-established and Justices of the Peace returned in 1656. The result was a wave of witchcraft cases, with 102 in the period 1657–1659. The limitations on prosecutions were fully reversed with the Restoration of the monarchy in 1660, and there was a flood of more than 600 cases that alarmed the restored Privy Council, leading it to insist on the necessity of its commission for an arrest or prosecution, and banning judicial torture. Prosecutions began to decline as trials were more tightly controlled by the judiciary and government, torture was more sparingly used and standards of evidence were raised. The exposure of prickers as frauds in 1662 removed a major form of evidence. The Lord Advocate George Mackenzie made efforts to make prosecutions ineffective. There may also have been a growing popular scepticism, and, with relative peace and stability, the economic and social tensions that may have contributed to accusations were reduced, although there were occasional local outbreaks, like those in East Lothian in 1678 and in Paisley in 1697. The last executions in the records of the central courts were in 1706. The last trial was held in the court of a sheriff-depute at Dornoch in 1727, and was of questionable legality. The British parliament repealed the 1563 Act in 1736, making the legal pursuit of witches impossible. Nevertheless, basic magical beliefs persisted, particularly in the Highlands and Islands. Various reasons for the Scottish witch-hunt, and its more intense nature than that in England, have been advanced by historians. Older theories, that there was a widespread pagan cult that was persecuted in this period and that the witch-hunts were the result of a rising medical profession eliminating folk healers, have been discredited among professional historians. Most of the major periods of prosecution coincided with periods of intense economic distress, and some accusations may have followed the withdrawal of charity from marginal figures, particularly the single women that made up many of the accused. The reformed Kirk that emerged from 1560 was heavily influenced by Calvinism and Presbyterianism, and may have perceived women as more of a moral threat. As a result the witch-hunt in Scotland has been seen as a means of controlling women. Christina Larner suggested that the outbreak of the hunt in the mid-sixteenth century was tied to the rise of a “godly state”, where the reformed Kirk was closely linked to an increasingly intrusive Scottish crown and legal system. It has been suggested that the intensity of Scottish witch-hunting was due to an inquisitorial judicial system and the widespread use of judicial torture. However, Brian P. Levack argues that the Scottish system was only partly inquisitorial and that use of judicial torture was extremely limited, similar to the situation in England. A relatively high level of acquittal in Scottish trials may have been due to the employment of defence lawyers in Scottish courts, a benefit not given accused witches in England. The close involvement of the Scottish Kirk in trials and the decentralised nature of Scottish courts, where local magistrates heard many cases (in contrast to England where most were before a small number of circuit judges), may have contributed to higher rates of prosecution. The diabolic pact is often stated as a major difference between Scottish and English witchcraft cases, but Stuart Maxwell argues that the iconography of Satan may be an imposition of central government beliefs on local traditions, particularly those concerned with fairies, which were more persistent in Scotland than in England. The proliferation of partial explanations for the witch-hunt has led some historians to proffer the concept of “associated circumstances”, rather than one single significant cause. Notes [ + ] \|a.\|\|^\|\|Historian Christina Larner believed the King brought continental type witch theory back from Denmark; this has since been demonstrated as incorrect by 21st-century academics. Jenny Wormald and Peter Maxwell-Stuart independently reached the conclusion that in this respect Larner’s excellent work was incorrect.\|	4,148	ENGLISH	1
An Act known as ‘Act for Better Government of India’ was rushed through the British Parliament which transferred power from the Company to the Crown. (ii) A new administrative machinery consisting of a Secretary of State with a Council of 15 members was created to supervise the administration of India on behalf of the Crown. (iii) British Government made a new declaration of their policy toward India. This was done in the form of the Queen’s Proclamation issued in 1858. (iv) A new policy was definitely initiated towards the Indian States. ‘Sanads’ were issued to the Indian princes guaranteeing them freedom of adopting heir. Hence forward if there was any dereliction of duty on the part of a ruler he alone was to be held responsible; misgovernment was no longer an excuse for the extinction of the Indian States. 2. Social and Cultural : (i) The old policy of promoting reforms was abandoned because it was contended that it was this policy which had been one of the important causes of the revolt of 1857. (ii) The cause of reform was now wholly left to the initiative of the Indians themselves. This continued to be the basic policy of the Government of India for over half a century. (iii) The Muslim Renaissance which had been growing in Delhi before 1857 got an irreparable shock. Decay immediately overtook the revival of learning in Delhi from which it never recovered. The army and the Muslims were regarded by the British as the chief instigators of the revolt. They, therefore, received special attention. (i) The army was reorganized after 1858. The proportion of British troops in the Indian army was increased. They were primarily used to maintain internal security, while the Indian troops were organized and trained for services aboard to subjugate Asian and African territories for British imperialism. (ii) The artillery was taken away from the Indian hands. (iii) All higher and sensitive appointments were reserved for the British; an Indian could not get employment in the Army Headquarters except as a clerk in a non-military capacity. (iv) The Indian armies were recognized. Battalions were drawn from such diverse elements as the Sikhs, the Punjabi Muslims, the Pathans, the Rajputs, the Gurkhas, etc., and it was quite easy for the British to exploit communal, caste and regional difference of the sepoys. (v) A subtle distinction was also drawn between ‘martial’ and non-martial” races and a myth on this basis were propounded. The Sikhs and Gurkahs, who were loyal to the British in the revolt were termed as the ‘martial races’. As a result of the Revolt, changes were made in the Judicial field. New Civil and Criminal Procedure Codes were passed. The judiciary was reorganized under the Indian High Courts Act, 1861. High Courts were established at Calcutta, Bombay and Madras in place of the Sadar Courts and Supreme Courts which had existed before the Revolt.	<urn:uuid:2840779f-e319-4f38-ab6c-114ac5574278>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://lucasdipasquale.com/3-important-impact-of-the-revolt-mutiny-in-india/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250601241.42/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121014531-20200121043531-00173.warc.gz	en	0.9863	631	3.703125	4	[ -0.47536835074424744, -0.15358316898345947, 0.39052706956863403, -0.22862225770950317, -0.20623314380645752, 0.07446277141571045, 0.17017191648483276, 0.08165477216243744, -0.057739078998565674, 0.16218015551567078, 0.12228597700595856, -0.34284377098083496, 0.0419158861041069, 0.027868427...	2	An Act known as ‘Act for Better Government of India’ was rushed through the British Parliament which transferred power from the Company to the Crown. (ii) A new administrative machinery consisting of a Secretary of State with a Council of 15 members was created to supervise the administration of India on behalf of the Crown. (iii) British Government made a new declaration of their policy toward India. This was done in the form of the Queen’s Proclamation issued in 1858. (iv) A new policy was definitely initiated towards the Indian States. ‘Sanads’ were issued to the Indian princes guaranteeing them freedom of adopting heir. Hence forward if there was any dereliction of duty on the part of a ruler he alone was to be held responsible; misgovernment was no longer an excuse for the extinction of the Indian States. 2. Social and Cultural : (i) The old policy of promoting reforms was abandoned because it was contended that it was this policy which had been one of the important causes of the revolt of 1857. (ii) The cause of reform was now wholly left to the initiative of the Indians themselves. This continued to be the basic policy of the Government of India for over half a century. (iii) The Muslim Renaissance which had been growing in Delhi before 1857 got an irreparable shock. Decay immediately overtook the revival of learning in Delhi from which it never recovered. The army and the Muslims were regarded by the British as the chief instigators of the revolt. They, therefore, received special attention. (i) The army was reorganized after 1858. The proportion of British troops in the Indian army was increased. They were primarily used to maintain internal security, while the Indian troops were organized and trained for services aboard to subjugate Asian and African territories for British imperialism. (ii) The artillery was taken away from the Indian hands. (iii) All higher and sensitive appointments were reserved for the British; an Indian could not get employment in the Army Headquarters except as a clerk in a non-military capacity. (iv) The Indian armies were recognized. Battalions were drawn from such diverse elements as the Sikhs, the Punjabi Muslims, the Pathans, the Rajputs, the Gurkhas, etc., and it was quite easy for the British to exploit communal, caste and regional difference of the sepoys. (v) A subtle distinction was also drawn between ‘martial’ and non-martial” races and a myth on this basis were propounded. The Sikhs and Gurkahs, who were loyal to the British in the revolt were termed as the ‘martial races’. As a result of the Revolt, changes were made in the Judicial field. New Civil and Criminal Procedure Codes were passed. The judiciary was reorganized under the Indian High Courts Act, 1861. High Courts were established at Calcutta, Bombay and Madras in place of the Sadar Courts and Supreme Courts which had existed before the Revolt.	615	ENGLISH	1
Day 31, Wednesday, August 15, 2018 I have for so long wanted to visit the site where our sixteenth President, Abraham Lincoln was born. I have seen where he was a young man, where he was a lawyer, where he was President, and where he died… It was so humbling to stand at the place where this great man began his life! Lincoln was born here at Sinking Spring Farm (named for the water source) on February 12, 1809; he lived here for the first two years of his life. His parents, Thomas and Nancy Hanks Lincoln made their living as farmers, and contrary to the usual story, Lincoln didn’t grow up particularly poor, by the standards of the day. He did move around a lot though, as the family had to leave Sinking Spring Farm after a dispute about the ownership of the land. They moved to nearby Knob Creek Farm in 1811, when Lincoln was two years old. The birthplace memorial here was completed in 1911, a few years after the 100th anniversary of Lincoln’s birth. A huge marble and granite Memorial Building was built between 1909 and 1911, in Greek and Roman architectural styles. It has 56 steps up to the building, to represent the 56 years that Lincoln was alive. Sixteen windows on the building and sixteen rosettes on the ceiling represent the fact that he was our nation’s 16th President. Inside, a symbolic birth cabin gives visitors an idea of what the cabin where Lincoln was born might have looked like. The symbolic birth cabin was moved to the site when the Memorial Building was constructed, and had to be made smaller to fit inside the building, and to more accurately represent what Lincoln’s first home probably looked like. At the time the Memorial Building was constructed, many people actually believed that this was the cabin where Lincoln was born. Later technology allowed them to do dendochronology (tree ring analysis) in 2004 to determine that the cabin was not built until the 1840s, so it could not have been Lincoln’s birthplace. When I first arrived, it had been pouring down rain, so I hurried into the Visitor’s Center and then hurried over to the Memorial Building. When I went back outside, the sun had come back out! I went down the 56 steps of the Memorial Building to check out Sinking Spring, the water feature which gave the farm its name. Sinking Spring is an underground spring, with an outlet to the surface set down into a hole; this was certainly the first water Abraham Lincoln ever drank! Knob Creek Farm is also part of the Abraham Lincoln Birthplace National Historical Park; it is located ten miles away from Sinking Spring Farm. Unfortunately, due to budget cuts, this portion of the park was not staffed, so I didn’t get to see inside this cabin. It was also not original to Lincoln or his family, but belonged to the family of one of the Lincolns’ neighbors. The young boy who lived in this cabin is thought to have once saved young Abe Lincoln’s life when he fell into Knob Creek. The cabin was moved here when the historical park was created. It was peaceful and quiet and interesting to see another place where Lincoln spent time as a child; he lived here from the ages of two to seven. Another land ownership dispute caused the family’s move to Indiana. There were several signs posted indicating that Copperhead snakes make their home in the area. I didn’t see any, but also didn’t go tromping off through the field to the creek! After leaving Lincoln behind for the day, I made my way to Lexington, Kentucky, where I would be stopping for the night. I saw a highway sign advertising Wildside Winery and decided to check it out! They had good wines, and a nice selection of both dry and sweet wines. I enjoyed talking with my server – it was his first day working at the winery – but he had lived in Brookings, Oregon for eight years, so we had the Pacific Northwest in common! I purchased four bottles; one was their Wild Duet. Sadly, they are all long gone now – but they were delicious! That evening I camped at Boonesboro State Park in Lexington; the first of two nights I would spend there!	<urn:uuid:4bb1bae6-fc65-4fa5-8add-08f1fbead8c5>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://wineandhistory.wordpress.com/category/historical-sites/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250601241.42/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121014531-20200121043531-00272.warc.gz	en	0.987944	896	3.4375	3	[ 0.16022588312625885, 0.4130595624446869, 0.2406354546546936, 0.49727895855903625, -0.1806720346212387, -0.06625832617282867, 0.16005375981330872, -0.01174458209425211, -0.17082379758358002, -0.15978950262069702, 0.045309778302907944, -0.41760197281837463, 0.08280748128890991, 0.48966604471...	8	Day 31, Wednesday, August 15, 2018 I have for so long wanted to visit the site where our sixteenth President, Abraham Lincoln was born. I have seen where he was a young man, where he was a lawyer, where he was President, and where he died… It was so humbling to stand at the place where this great man began his life! Lincoln was born here at Sinking Spring Farm (named for the water source) on February 12, 1809; he lived here for the first two years of his life. His parents, Thomas and Nancy Hanks Lincoln made their living as farmers, and contrary to the usual story, Lincoln didn’t grow up particularly poor, by the standards of the day. He did move around a lot though, as the family had to leave Sinking Spring Farm after a dispute about the ownership of the land. They moved to nearby Knob Creek Farm in 1811, when Lincoln was two years old. The birthplace memorial here was completed in 1911, a few years after the 100th anniversary of Lincoln’s birth. A huge marble and granite Memorial Building was built between 1909 and 1911, in Greek and Roman architectural styles. It has 56 steps up to the building, to represent the 56 years that Lincoln was alive. Sixteen windows on the building and sixteen rosettes on the ceiling represent the fact that he was our nation’s 16th President. Inside, a symbolic birth cabin gives visitors an idea of what the cabin where Lincoln was born might have looked like. The symbolic birth cabin was moved to the site when the Memorial Building was constructed, and had to be made smaller to fit inside the building, and to more accurately represent what Lincoln’s first home probably looked like. At the time the Memorial Building was constructed, many people actually believed that this was the cabin where Lincoln was born. Later technology allowed them to do dendochronology (tree ring analysis) in 2004 to determine that the cabin was not built until the 1840s, so it could not have been Lincoln’s birthplace. When I first arrived, it had been pouring down rain, so I hurried into the Visitor’s Center and then hurried over to the Memorial Building. When I went back outside, the sun had come back out! I went down the 56 steps of the Memorial Building to check out Sinking Spring, the water feature which gave the farm its name. Sinking Spring is an underground spring, with an outlet to the surface set down into a hole; this was certainly the first water Abraham Lincoln ever drank! Knob Creek Farm is also part of the Abraham Lincoln Birthplace National Historical Park; it is located ten miles away from Sinking Spring Farm. Unfortunately, due to budget cuts, this portion of the park was not staffed, so I didn’t get to see inside this cabin. It was also not original to Lincoln or his family, but belonged to the family of one of the Lincolns’ neighbors. The young boy who lived in this cabin is thought to have once saved young Abe Lincoln’s life when he fell into Knob Creek. The cabin was moved here when the historical park was created. It was peaceful and quiet and interesting to see another place where Lincoln spent time as a child; he lived here from the ages of two to seven. Another land ownership dispute caused the family’s move to Indiana. There were several signs posted indicating that Copperhead snakes make their home in the area. I didn’t see any, but also didn’t go tromping off through the field to the creek! After leaving Lincoln behind for the day, I made my way to Lexington, Kentucky, where I would be stopping for the night. I saw a highway sign advertising Wildside Winery and decided to check it out! They had good wines, and a nice selection of both dry and sweet wines. I enjoyed talking with my server – it was his first day working at the winery – but he had lived in Brookings, Oregon for eight years, so we had the Pacific Northwest in common! I purchased four bottles; one was their Wild Duet. Sadly, they are all long gone now – but they were delicious! That evening I camped at Boonesboro State Park in Lexington; the first of two nights I would spend there!	912	ENGLISH	1
1 Kings 6 Solomon builds the temple 1 So, Solomon began to build the temple of the Lord. It was 480 years after the Israelites had come out from Egypt. Solomon had been king for 4 years. It was in the month called Ziv, the second month of the year. 2 The temple that Solomon the king built for the Lord was 27 metres long. It was 9 metres wide and 14 metres high. 3 The temple had a group of columns. It was at the front of the larger room. This group was as wide as the temple. That is, it was 9 metres wide. It was 4.5 metres from the front of the columns to the temple itself. 4 And Solomon made narrow windows near the tops of the temple walls. 5 Outside the walls of the temple Solomon built rooms at the side. These were outside the larger room of the temple and the holy of holies. The side rooms had three storeys. 6 The lowest storey was 2.3 metres wide. The middle storey was 2.7 metres wide and the third one was 3.2 metres wide. Beams of wood kept the storeys up. The beams rested on stone pillars so they did not go into the temple walls. 7 When they made the temple, there was no sound of hammers, axes or any iron tools. They used only big stones that they had cut already. They cut them into the right shape at the place where they found them. 8 The door to the lowest storey was on the south side of the temple. And stairs went up to the middle storey and to the top storey. 9 So Solomon built the temple and he finished it. He made the roof out of beams of wood and cedar boards. 10 And he built the rooms all along the sides of the temple. Each room was 2.3 metres high. Cedar beams fastened the rooms to the temple. 6:1It says ‘Solomon made’ and 'Solomon built'. But it means that his men did the work. He told them what they should do. 6:4The windows were narrow. They may have let smoke out rather than let light in. 6:5There were only two rooms inside the temple. There was a larger room and a smaller room, called the ‘holy of holies’. Only the leader of the priests could go in to it, and that only on one day every year. Buildings with two or three storeys means that they have one or two floors upstairs. 6:8Each storey was about 2.3 metres high. So this is why the windows were high up, verse 4. 11 And the word of the Lord came to Solomon. The Lord said, 12 ‘You are building this temple. I will do everything for you that I promised to your father David. But you must: Obey my laws. Obey my rules. Do everything that I order you to do. 13 If you do those things, I will live among the Israelites. And I will not leave my people Israel.’ 14 So Solomon built the temple and he finished it. 15 He put boards that his men made from cedar wood on the inside walls. The boards went from the floor of the temple to its ceiling. He covered the floor of the temple with pine wood. 16 Solomon made a Most Holy Place at the back of the temple. It was inside the temple and it was 9 metres long. It had cedar boards from floor to ceiling. It made a very special place. It was called the Most Holy Place. 17 The room in front of this Most Holy Place was 18 metres long. 18 They made the inside of the temple with cedar wood. They made pictures on the wood of plants like flowers. They made everything out of cedar wood. You could not see any stone. 19 Solomon made the Most Holy place inside the temple for the Covenant Box of the Lord. 20 The Most Holy Place was 9 metres long, 9 metres wide and 9 metres high. Solomon put pure gold on everything in this room. He also covered the cedar altar with gold. 21 Solomon covered everything inside the temple with pure gold. Also, he put gold chains across the door of the Most Holy Place. He covered everything there with gold. 22 So he covered everything inside the temple with gold. He also covered with gold the altar inside the Most Holy Place. 6:16The temple itself was the Holy Place. They believed that God lived there. Because the holy God lived there it also was called holy. Only the priests could go into this temple. At the back of the temple was a Most Holy Place. Only the leader of the priests could go in to it, and that only on one day every year. 23 In the Most Holy Place, Solomon made two cherubs from olive wood. Each one was 2.3 metres high. 24 One wing of the first cherub was 2.3 metres long. Its other wing was also 2.3 metres long. So it was 4.6metres from the end of one wing to the end of the other wing. 25 The second cherub was also 4.6 metres long. The two cherubs were the same in size and shape. 26 Each cherub was 4.6 metres high. 27 Solomon put the cherubs in the inside room of the temple. Their wings were very wide. The wing of one cherub touched one wall of the temple. The wing of the other cherub touched the other wall. And their wings touched each other in the middle of the room. 28 Solomon covered the cherubs with gold. 29 Solomon made pictures in the wood of cherubs, palm trees and open flowers. He put them on the walls, all round both the rooms in the temple. 30 He also covered the floors of both the rooms in the temple with gold. 31 He made the doors to the Most Holy Place out of olive wood. The wood that held the doors had five sides. 32 And on the doors he put pictures in the wood of cherubs, palm trees and open flowers. Then he covered the cherubs and the palm trees with very thin gold. 33 The olive wood that held the doors to the temple itself had four sides. 34 Solomon also made two doors out of pine wood. Each door had two parts that turned separately. 35 He put pictures of cherubs, palm trees and open flowers on the doors. He covered them with gold. 36 He also built a yard called a courtyard, round the temple. The wall round the courtyard was three stones high. There were cedar wood boards on top of it. 37 They put down the first stones of the temple of the Lord in the fourth year that Solomon was king. It was in the month called Ziv. 38 They finished building the temple in the 11th year that Solomon was king. It was the eighth month, the month called Bul. Everything was as it was in the plans. It had taken him seven years to build it.	<urn:uuid:5ae87b80-0ab7-412d-99be-93c659618e0e>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.easyenglish.bible/bible/easy/1-kings/6/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251796127.92/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129102701-20200129132701-00536.warc.gz	en	0.989266	1,446	3.4375	3	[ -0.06902068853378296, 0.41438227891921997, 0.250585675239563, -0.17288491129875183, -0.45001524686813354, -0.01224651001393795, -0.09509192407131195, 0.20308223366737366, 0.034236181527376175, 0.5140148997306824, 0.17878027260303497, -0.30365049839019775, -0.03228868171572685, 0.1577418744...	1	1 Kings 6 Solomon builds the temple 1 So, Solomon began to build the temple of the Lord. It was 480 years after the Israelites had come out from Egypt. Solomon had been king for 4 years. It was in the month called Ziv, the second month of the year. 2 The temple that Solomon the king built for the Lord was 27 metres long. It was 9 metres wide and 14 metres high. 3 The temple had a group of columns. It was at the front of the larger room. This group was as wide as the temple. That is, it was 9 metres wide. It was 4.5 metres from the front of the columns to the temple itself. 4 And Solomon made narrow windows near the tops of the temple walls. 5 Outside the walls of the temple Solomon built rooms at the side. These were outside the larger room of the temple and the holy of holies. The side rooms had three storeys. 6 The lowest storey was 2.3 metres wide. The middle storey was 2.7 metres wide and the third one was 3.2 metres wide. Beams of wood kept the storeys up. The beams rested on stone pillars so they did not go into the temple walls. 7 When they made the temple, there was no sound of hammers, axes or any iron tools. They used only big stones that they had cut already. They cut them into the right shape at the place where they found them. 8 The door to the lowest storey was on the south side of the temple. And stairs went up to the middle storey and to the top storey. 9 So Solomon built the temple and he finished it. He made the roof out of beams of wood and cedar boards. 10 And he built the rooms all along the sides of the temple. Each room was 2.3 metres high. Cedar beams fastened the rooms to the temple. 6:1It says ‘Solomon made’ and 'Solomon built'. But it means that his men did the work. He told them what they should do. 6:4The windows were narrow. They may have let smoke out rather than let light in. 6:5There were only two rooms inside the temple. There was a larger room and a smaller room, called the ‘holy of holies’. Only the leader of the priests could go in to it, and that only on one day every year. Buildings with two or three storeys means that they have one or two floors upstairs. 6:8Each storey was about 2.3 metres high. So this is why the windows were high up, verse 4. 11 And the word of the Lord came to Solomon. The Lord said, 12 ‘You are building this temple. I will do everything for you that I promised to your father David. But you must: Obey my laws. Obey my rules. Do everything that I order you to do. 13 If you do those things, I will live among the Israelites. And I will not leave my people Israel.’ 14 So Solomon built the temple and he finished it. 15 He put boards that his men made from cedar wood on the inside walls. The boards went from the floor of the temple to its ceiling. He covered the floor of the temple with pine wood. 16 Solomon made a Most Holy Place at the back of the temple. It was inside the temple and it was 9 metres long. It had cedar boards from floor to ceiling. It made a very special place. It was called the Most Holy Place. 17 The room in front of this Most Holy Place was 18 metres long. 18 They made the inside of the temple with cedar wood. They made pictures on the wood of plants like flowers. They made everything out of cedar wood. You could not see any stone. 19 Solomon made the Most Holy place inside the temple for the Covenant Box of the Lord. 20 The Most Holy Place was 9 metres long, 9 metres wide and 9 metres high. Solomon put pure gold on everything in this room. He also covered the cedar altar with gold. 21 Solomon covered everything inside the temple with pure gold. Also, he put gold chains across the door of the Most Holy Place. He covered everything there with gold. 22 So he covered everything inside the temple with gold. He also covered with gold the altar inside the Most Holy Place. 6:16The temple itself was the Holy Place. They believed that God lived there. Because the holy God lived there it also was called holy. Only the priests could go into this temple. At the back of the temple was a Most Holy Place. Only the leader of the priests could go in to it, and that only on one day every year. 23 In the Most Holy Place, Solomon made two cherubs from olive wood. Each one was 2.3 metres high. 24 One wing of the first cherub was 2.3 metres long. Its other wing was also 2.3 metres long. So it was 4.6metres from the end of one wing to the end of the other wing. 25 The second cherub was also 4.6 metres long. The two cherubs were the same in size and shape. 26 Each cherub was 4.6 metres high. 27 Solomon put the cherubs in the inside room of the temple. Their wings were very wide. The wing of one cherub touched one wall of the temple. The wing of the other cherub touched the other wall. And their wings touched each other in the middle of the room. 28 Solomon covered the cherubs with gold. 29 Solomon made pictures in the wood of cherubs, palm trees and open flowers. He put them on the walls, all round both the rooms in the temple. 30 He also covered the floors of both the rooms in the temple with gold. 31 He made the doors to the Most Holy Place out of olive wood. The wood that held the doors had five sides. 32 And on the doors he put pictures in the wood of cherubs, palm trees and open flowers. Then he covered the cherubs and the palm trees with very thin gold. 33 The olive wood that held the doors to the temple itself had four sides. 34 Solomon also made two doors out of pine wood. Each door had two parts that turned separately. 35 He put pictures of cherubs, palm trees and open flowers on the doors. He covered them with gold. 36 He also built a yard called a courtyard, round the temple. The wall round the courtyard was three stones high. There were cedar wood boards on top of it. 37 They put down the first stones of the temple of the Lord in the fourth year that Solomon was king. It was in the month called Ziv. 38 They finished building the temple in the 11th year that Solomon was king. It was the eighth month, the month called Bul. Everything was as it was in the plans. It had taken him seven years to build it.	1,510	ENGLISH	1
Facts about Martin Luther King Junior, the man who was inspired by Mahatma Gandhi 15th January is celebrated as the birth anniversary of one of the most revolutionary man- Martin Luther King Junior. Born in Atlanta, United States of America, he was the face of the Civil Rights Movement. He led the battle for fighting for equality through non-violent measures- that were inspired by Mahatma Gandhi. He was also the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. There are a lot of things that we can learn from him and apply it to our general life. Here are a few things to learn from him: - Dare to dream This is probably one of the most widely recognized speeches in the world. ‘I have a dream’ speech in 1963 showed us how Martin started with a dream which he translated into reality. We all can learn from it and have a vision for ourselves that we can work towards. - Serve people MLK was driven by his cause to serve people. He believed that there is no bigger deed than serving humanity and rising above the individual needs. - Focus on quality Just as the famous Hindi dialogue goes- “Zindagi lambi nahi badi honi chaiye”. Martin also believed that life should have quality and not just longevity. - Spread love He was of the strong belief that love can help win over everyone. Hatred, he believed was the lowest level a man could stoop to. - Move forward, Never Quit He fought his entire life for equality, no matter what the hurdles were. He fell and stood back up, but never stopped. Standing up for injustice is what he did and he wanted people to do the same. “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” We all should learn to fight for what we believe in and never shy away from our duty to secure justice for all. - Be a leader He took the lead that changed history. He was one of the finest leaders ever seen and has always been a huge inspiration for many. Leadership is an admirable quality to have that helps us and others as well. For more such informative articles stay tuned to OWN Guru.	<urn:uuid:2ab4976d-323b-4e91-aeb1-bfd88900f529>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	http://www.ownguru.com/blog/martin-luther-king-junior/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250595787.7/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119234426-20200120022426-00497.warc.gz	en	0.981589	454	3.53125	4	[ -0.35866671800613403, 0.8688272833824158, 0.4586147665977478, -0.20102855563163757, -0.4847962260246277, 0.38704121112823486, 0.5313487648963928, 0.13265228271484375, -0.08812305331230164, 0.3234403729438782, -0.04967275261878967, 0.12155304104089737, 0.08705954998731613, 0.028879933059215...	2	Facts about Martin Luther King Junior, the man who was inspired by Mahatma Gandhi 15th January is celebrated as the birth anniversary of one of the most revolutionary man- Martin Luther King Junior. Born in Atlanta, United States of America, he was the face of the Civil Rights Movement. He led the battle for fighting for equality through non-violent measures- that were inspired by Mahatma Gandhi. He was also the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. There are a lot of things that we can learn from him and apply it to our general life. Here are a few things to learn from him: - Dare to dream This is probably one of the most widely recognized speeches in the world. ‘I have a dream’ speech in 1963 showed us how Martin started with a dream which he translated into reality. We all can learn from it and have a vision for ourselves that we can work towards. - Serve people MLK was driven by his cause to serve people. He believed that there is no bigger deed than serving humanity and rising above the individual needs. - Focus on quality Just as the famous Hindi dialogue goes- “Zindagi lambi nahi badi honi chaiye”. Martin also believed that life should have quality and not just longevity. - Spread love He was of the strong belief that love can help win over everyone. Hatred, he believed was the lowest level a man could stoop to. - Move forward, Never Quit He fought his entire life for equality, no matter what the hurdles were. He fell and stood back up, but never stopped. Standing up for injustice is what he did and he wanted people to do the same. “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” We all should learn to fight for what we believe in and never shy away from our duty to secure justice for all. - Be a leader He took the lead that changed history. He was one of the finest leaders ever seen and has always been a huge inspiration for many. Leadership is an admirable quality to have that helps us and others as well. For more such informative articles stay tuned to OWN Guru.	440	ENGLISH	1
Jane Austen is a well known and loved author. Some of her novels of romantic fiction have been turned into films and they have aroused intense emotional attachments among the readers and viewers. Her books have become the basis for the true love romance story since their appearance on the literary scene. Today, Jane Austen is as popular as ever and revered as much as any literary figure in history because of her realism and biting social commentary. Austen’s plots highlight the dependence of women on marriage to secure social standing and economic security, and moral issues. Marriage was crucial because it was the only accessible form of self-definition for girls on society. Some critics suggest that her novels are based on her own life, that the character of the protagonist is herself. She wrote some her novels in Bath a place in London were she lived. This can be proved in her novels Persuasion and Northanger Abbey. Her two heroines lived in Bath some time and it marks a change in their lives. In Northanger Abbey she uses her brother’s name to name a character who is actually the brother of her protagonist in the book, Catherine Morland. Something very peculiar about her stories is that she focuses in the importance of marriage and how her protagonist always end the books with a happy marriage with their beloved man; even though she never got married. However, Jane Austen uses matrimony as more than a plot device. In fact, she had her own purpose and mission in her description of marriage. In Northanger Abbey, when Henry dances with Catherine at the Pump-Room, his comparison of dancing to marriage reveals Henry’s intentions. Henry can see the dance as a symbol of something more than what it is physically “It is an engagement between man and woman”. He says: I consider a country dance as an emblem of marriage. Fidelity and complaisance are the principal duties of both; those men who do not choose to dance or marry themselves, have no business with the partners or wives of their neighbors. (51) Catherine considers the fact that “They are such a very different things. People that marry can never part, but must go and keep house together. People that dance only stand opposite each other in a long room for half an hour” (51). She fails to understand Henry’s metaphor but he defends his point with a series of logical appeals. Even he points out the many similarities of the two, Catherine feels uncertain about taking a stance. Here it is described that men goals were not a molded woman but an intelligent and freethinking wife. And there here again is a referring to the relation of the author’s life and her story. The character of Catherine Morland also shows that Austen had a strong opinion about marriage without love “And to marry...	<urn:uuid:83e68359-3062-49b6-948c-46f559847c9a>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://brightkite.com/essay-on/jane-austen-s-portrayal-of-marriage	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250610004.56/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123101110-20200123130110-00000.warc.gz	en	0.982546	577	3.421875	3	[ 0.150146022439003, 0.16473841667175293, -0.11668503284454346, -0.04671892151236534, -0.11393675208091736, 0.13136497139930725, 0.022293467074632645, -0.06341612339019775, 0.40367546677589417, -0.07844694703817368, 0.2178080677986145, 0.018724095076322556, 0.3408694863319397, -0.01918218471...	1	Jane Austen is a well known and loved author. Some of her novels of romantic fiction have been turned into films and they have aroused intense emotional attachments among the readers and viewers. Her books have become the basis for the true love romance story since their appearance on the literary scene. Today, Jane Austen is as popular as ever and revered as much as any literary figure in history because of her realism and biting social commentary. Austen’s plots highlight the dependence of women on marriage to secure social standing and economic security, and moral issues. Marriage was crucial because it was the only accessible form of self-definition for girls on society. Some critics suggest that her novels are based on her own life, that the character of the protagonist is herself. She wrote some her novels in Bath a place in London were she lived. This can be proved in her novels Persuasion and Northanger Abbey. Her two heroines lived in Bath some time and it marks a change in their lives. In Northanger Abbey she uses her brother’s name to name a character who is actually the brother of her protagonist in the book, Catherine Morland. Something very peculiar about her stories is that she focuses in the importance of marriage and how her protagonist always end the books with a happy marriage with their beloved man; even though she never got married. However, Jane Austen uses matrimony as more than a plot device. In fact, she had her own purpose and mission in her description of marriage. In Northanger Abbey, when Henry dances with Catherine at the Pump-Room, his comparison of dancing to marriage reveals Henry’s intentions. Henry can see the dance as a symbol of something more than what it is physically “It is an engagement between man and woman”. He says: I consider a country dance as an emblem of marriage. Fidelity and complaisance are the principal duties of both; those men who do not choose to dance or marry themselves, have no business with the partners or wives of their neighbors. (51) Catherine considers the fact that “They are such a very different things. People that marry can never part, but must go and keep house together. People that dance only stand opposite each other in a long room for half an hour” (51). She fails to understand Henry’s metaphor but he defends his point with a series of logical appeals. Even he points out the many similarities of the two, Catherine feels uncertain about taking a stance. Here it is described that men goals were not a molded woman but an intelligent and freethinking wife. And there here again is a referring to the relation of the author’s life and her story. The character of Catherine Morland also shows that Austen had a strong opinion about marriage without love “And to marry...	558	ENGLISH	1
St. Augustine is the son of St. Monica, celebrated on August 27. He was born in Tagaste, Africa, in 354, and for much of his youth and early adulthood, he lived in sin and revelry, having fallen away from the Catholic Church quickly. He was a well-known scholar and became a follower of Manichaeanism, which claimed that it could disprove the Scriptures. In 386, Augustine went to Milan and met St. Ambrose, a bishop and Doctor of the Church. St. Ambrose inspired him to delve into Catholicism, and Augustine eventually was baptized into the faith. His mother, St. Monica, who had consistently prayed for his conversion, died shortly thereafter with her dream fulfilled. Augustine returned to Tagaste, and was eventually made the bishop of Hippo. He remained their pastor for the rest of his life, writing many autobiographical and theological teachings that continue to influence and shape the Church today. St. Augustine died on August 28, 430, at age 76. Start your day with Always Forward, our award-winning e-newsletter. Get this smart, handpicked selection of the day’s top news, analysis, and opinion, delivered to your inbox. Sign up absolutely free today!	<urn:uuid:70497652-e780-4772-acc3-1d2e3aae411b>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://angelusnews.com/faith/saint-of-the-day-augustine/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251694071.63/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126230255-20200127020255-00002.warc.gz	en	0.987837	255	3.28125	3	[ 0.05801135674118996, 0.6246142983436584, -0.011884497478604317, -0.14656822383403778, -0.029234090819954872, 0.06178764998912811, -0.17948126792907715, 0.2634621560573578, 0.025689756497740746, -0.3697417974472046, -0.16555120050907135, -0.0007157173240557313, 0.17807786166667938, 0.282243...	1	St. Augustine is the son of St. Monica, celebrated on August 27. He was born in Tagaste, Africa, in 354, and for much of his youth and early adulthood, he lived in sin and revelry, having fallen away from the Catholic Church quickly. He was a well-known scholar and became a follower of Manichaeanism, which claimed that it could disprove the Scriptures. In 386, Augustine went to Milan and met St. Ambrose, a bishop and Doctor of the Church. St. Ambrose inspired him to delve into Catholicism, and Augustine eventually was baptized into the faith. His mother, St. Monica, who had consistently prayed for his conversion, died shortly thereafter with her dream fulfilled. Augustine returned to Tagaste, and was eventually made the bishop of Hippo. He remained their pastor for the rest of his life, writing many autobiographical and theological teachings that continue to influence and shape the Church today. St. Augustine died on August 28, 430, at age 76. Start your day with Always Forward, our award-winning e-newsletter. Get this smart, handpicked selection of the day’s top news, analysis, and opinion, delivered to your inbox. Sign up absolutely free today!	265	ENGLISH	1
Welcome to Our Class 9 Page! Over the summer holidays, Mr Nicholls found a Roman coin behind the swimming pool. He sent it to the Time Team who suggested that perhaps the children in Year 4 could excavate the area to see if anything else may be buried there. Of course, we couldn’t say no to Tony Robinson! So with metal detectors, shovels and trowels we set off to in the school grounds. Having been successful in finding a number or Roman coins as well as other artefacts we were interested to learn more about Roman life. One of the things we found out was the Romans were famous for their army. We decided to create shields that resembled those of the Roman army. Here are some pictures of our shields… In Autumn 2, we have been learning about Antarctica and global warming. To kick start our topic we began by looking at extracts from Shackleton’s Journey. The children spotted posters around the school which stated: We unpicked the language on this poster and had a reciprocal reading session discussing what the purpose of this poster was. We then decided if we would like to apply for this journey or not! We wrote letters to Shackleton convincing him of our ideas. Here is an example: The children have become fully immersed in the story of Shackleton’s Endurance expedition and have researched animals he may have found. We sketched Emperor Penguins using shapes to create the body shape. Here is an example: Welcome back, I hope you all had a lovely Christmas! Happy New Year. This term we have kicked started our topic learning by visiting Salisbury Museum. The staff at the museum were very impressed with both the children’s behaviour and their knowledge. It was a great day had by all. We started our trip by entering the Wessex gallery. We discussed how we would lay out a museum if we were designing it. We decided we would put things in chronological order so our visitors could pass through the different ages in history. Funnily enough, Salisbury seemed to have the same idea! We looked at various artefacts in the museum which included things from the Stone-Age through to the Normans. We enjoyed being able to open draws and cupboards to find even more interesting items. Here are some pictures of us exploring: After lunch, we went into a class room and were able to look at Saxon artefacts. We all became archaeologists, filling in a ‘Finds Record’ sheet about items we were looking at which included weapons, jewellery and ceramics. Things we had to note down included: What it was made of? If it had any decoration on it. How big was it? What it was used for? What kind of person would have used it? If it was the complete artefact or if it was broken? What it felt like? After this, we learnt that Saxon’s loved to make extravagant accessories like brooches. We were impressed with the intricate details the Saxon’s carved into them and had a go at making our own. We used a sheet of gold paper to imprint our designs onto and then stuck a safety pin on the back so we could wear them like real Saxon’s. They turned out brilliantly! Then finally, we did some role play. This showcased a Saxon dying and the process that happened afterwards. Important items were placed with the deceased to be buried with him/her. Here are some pictures of this: We thoroughly enjoyed our time at the museum and cannot wait to learn more about the Anglo-Saxons this term!	<urn:uuid:3a082e53-06a6-477f-a585-79ff1958cd4a>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.overtonprimary.co.uk/children/class-9/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251687725.76/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126043644-20200126073644-00448.warc.gz	en	0.984791	746	3.765625	4	[ -0.2072463184595108, 0.40005263686180115, 0.42973414063453674, 0.00045463163405656815, -0.2688983678817749, 0.12973971664905548, -0.03293134272098541, 0.319050133228302, -0.1786477118730545, -0.42418819665908813, 0.3268640339374542, -0.7682895660400391, -0.154682457447052, 0.54491865634918...	1	Welcome to Our Class 9 Page! Over the summer holidays, Mr Nicholls found a Roman coin behind the swimming pool. He sent it to the Time Team who suggested that perhaps the children in Year 4 could excavate the area to see if anything else may be buried there. Of course, we couldn’t say no to Tony Robinson! So with metal detectors, shovels and trowels we set off to in the school grounds. Having been successful in finding a number or Roman coins as well as other artefacts we were interested to learn more about Roman life. One of the things we found out was the Romans were famous for their army. We decided to create shields that resembled those of the Roman army. Here are some pictures of our shields… In Autumn 2, we have been learning about Antarctica and global warming. To kick start our topic we began by looking at extracts from Shackleton’s Journey. The children spotted posters around the school which stated: We unpicked the language on this poster and had a reciprocal reading session discussing what the purpose of this poster was. We then decided if we would like to apply for this journey or not! We wrote letters to Shackleton convincing him of our ideas. Here is an example: The children have become fully immersed in the story of Shackleton’s Endurance expedition and have researched animals he may have found. We sketched Emperor Penguins using shapes to create the body shape. Here is an example: Welcome back, I hope you all had a lovely Christmas! Happy New Year. This term we have kicked started our topic learning by visiting Salisbury Museum. The staff at the museum were very impressed with both the children’s behaviour and their knowledge. It was a great day had by all. We started our trip by entering the Wessex gallery. We discussed how we would lay out a museum if we were designing it. We decided we would put things in chronological order so our visitors could pass through the different ages in history. Funnily enough, Salisbury seemed to have the same idea! We looked at various artefacts in the museum which included things from the Stone-Age through to the Normans. We enjoyed being able to open draws and cupboards to find even more interesting items. Here are some pictures of us exploring: After lunch, we went into a class room and were able to look at Saxon artefacts. We all became archaeologists, filling in a ‘Finds Record’ sheet about items we were looking at which included weapons, jewellery and ceramics. Things we had to note down included: What it was made of? If it had any decoration on it. How big was it? What it was used for? What kind of person would have used it? If it was the complete artefact or if it was broken? What it felt like? After this, we learnt that Saxon’s loved to make extravagant accessories like brooches. We were impressed with the intricate details the Saxon’s carved into them and had a go at making our own. We used a sheet of gold paper to imprint our designs onto and then stuck a safety pin on the back so we could wear them like real Saxon’s. They turned out brilliantly! Then finally, we did some role play. This showcased a Saxon dying and the process that happened afterwards. Important items were placed with the deceased to be buried with him/her. Here are some pictures of this: We thoroughly enjoyed our time at the museum and cannot wait to learn more about the Anglo-Saxons this term!	712	ENGLISH	1
Artist's Biography - Rembrandt ( July 15, 1606 - October 4,1669 ) Dutch painter, draftsman, and etcher of the 17th century, a giant in the history of art. His paintings are characterized by luxuriant brushwork, rich colour, and a mastery of chiaroscuro. Numerous portraits and self-portraits exhibit a profound penetration of character. His drawings constitute a vivid record of contemporary Amsterdam life. The greatest artist of the Dutch school, he was a master of light and shadow whose paintings, drawings, and etchings made him a giant in the history of art. Rembrandt Harmenszoon van Rijn was born on July 15, 1606, in Leiden, the Netherlands. His father was a miller who wanted the boy to follow a learned profession, but Rembrandt left the University of Leiden to study painting. His early work was devoted to showing the lines, light and shade, and color of the people he saw about him. He was influenced by the work of Caravaggio and was fascinated by the work of many other Italian artists. When Rembrandt became established as a painter, he began to teach and continued teaching art throughout his life. In 1631, when Rembrandt's work had become well known and his studio in Leiden was flourishing, he moved to Amsterdam. He became the leading portrait painter in Holland and received many commissions for portraits as well as for paintings of religious subjects. He lived the life of a wealthy, respected citizen and met the beautiful Saskia van Uylenburgh, whom he married in 1634. She was the model for many of his paintings and drawings. Rembrandt's works from this period are characterized by strong lighting effects. In addition to portraits, Rembrandt attained fame for his landscapes, while as an etcher he ranks among the foremost of all time. When he had no other model, he painted or sketched his own image. It is estimated that he painted between 50 and 60 self-portraits. In 1636 Rembrandt began to depict quieter, more contemplative scenes with a new warmth in color. During the next few years three of his four children died in infancy, and in 1642 his wife died. In the 1630s and 1640s he made many landscape drawings and etchings. His landscape paintings are imaginative, rich portrayals of the land around him. Rembrandt was at his most inventive in the work popularly known as The Night Watch, painted in 1642. It depicts a group of city guardsmen awaiting the command to fall in line. Each man is painted with the care that Rembrandt gave to single portraits, yet the composition is such that the separate figures are second in interest to the effect of the whole. The canvas is brilliant with color, movement, and light. In the foreground are two men, one in bright yellow, the other in black. The shadow of one color tones down the lightness of the other. In the center of the painting is a little girl dressed in yellow. Rembrandt had become accustomed to living comfortably. From the time he could afford to, he bought many paintings by other artists. By the mid-1650s he was living so far beyond his means that his house and his goods had to be auctioned to pay some of his debts. He had fewer commissions in the 1640s and 1650s, but his financial circumstances were not unbearable. For today's student of art, Rembrandt remains, as the Dutch painter Jozef Israels said, "the true type of artist, free, untrammeled by traditions." The number of works attributed to Rembrandt varies. He produced approximately 600 paintings, 300 etchings, and 1,400 drawings. Some of his works are: St. Paul in Prison (1627); Supper at Emmaus (1630); The Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Nicolaes Tulp (1632); Young Girl at an Open Half-Door (1645); The Mill (1650); Aristotle Contemplating the Bust of Homer (1653); The Return of the Prodigal Son (after 1660); The Syndics of the Drapers' Guild (1662); and many portraits. Copyright © 2020 Doubletake Gallery, All Rights Reserved	<urn:uuid:04a71887-1264-42d0-9597-70108a7abc46>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	http://www.doubletakeart.com/rembrandt4.html	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250597458.22/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120052454-20200120080454-00291.warc.gz	en	0.986998	898	3.359375	3	[ 0.048372820019721985, 0.1927870213985443, 0.41407066583633423, -0.1056702733039856, -0.07083951681852341, 0.13799181580543518, 0.194419264793396, 0.13480091094970703, -0.04573893919587135, -0.12293100357055664, -0.16290855407714844, -0.21003833413124084, -0.15230223536491394, 0.60009813308...	5	Artist's Biography - Rembrandt ( July 15, 1606 - October 4,1669 ) Dutch painter, draftsman, and etcher of the 17th century, a giant in the history of art. His paintings are characterized by luxuriant brushwork, rich colour, and a mastery of chiaroscuro. Numerous portraits and self-portraits exhibit a profound penetration of character. His drawings constitute a vivid record of contemporary Amsterdam life. The greatest artist of the Dutch school, he was a master of light and shadow whose paintings, drawings, and etchings made him a giant in the history of art. Rembrandt Harmenszoon van Rijn was born on July 15, 1606, in Leiden, the Netherlands. His father was a miller who wanted the boy to follow a learned profession, but Rembrandt left the University of Leiden to study painting. His early work was devoted to showing the lines, light and shade, and color of the people he saw about him. He was influenced by the work of Caravaggio and was fascinated by the work of many other Italian artists. When Rembrandt became established as a painter, he began to teach and continued teaching art throughout his life. In 1631, when Rembrandt's work had become well known and his studio in Leiden was flourishing, he moved to Amsterdam. He became the leading portrait painter in Holland and received many commissions for portraits as well as for paintings of religious subjects. He lived the life of a wealthy, respected citizen and met the beautiful Saskia van Uylenburgh, whom he married in 1634. She was the model for many of his paintings and drawings. Rembrandt's works from this period are characterized by strong lighting effects. In addition to portraits, Rembrandt attained fame for his landscapes, while as an etcher he ranks among the foremost of all time. When he had no other model, he painted or sketched his own image. It is estimated that he painted between 50 and 60 self-portraits. In 1636 Rembrandt began to depict quieter, more contemplative scenes with a new warmth in color. During the next few years three of his four children died in infancy, and in 1642 his wife died. In the 1630s and 1640s he made many landscape drawings and etchings. His landscape paintings are imaginative, rich portrayals of the land around him. Rembrandt was at his most inventive in the work popularly known as The Night Watch, painted in 1642. It depicts a group of city guardsmen awaiting the command to fall in line. Each man is painted with the care that Rembrandt gave to single portraits, yet the composition is such that the separate figures are second in interest to the effect of the whole. The canvas is brilliant with color, movement, and light. In the foreground are two men, one in bright yellow, the other in black. The shadow of one color tones down the lightness of the other. In the center of the painting is a little girl dressed in yellow. Rembrandt had become accustomed to living comfortably. From the time he could afford to, he bought many paintings by other artists. By the mid-1650s he was living so far beyond his means that his house and his goods had to be auctioned to pay some of his debts. He had fewer commissions in the 1640s and 1650s, but his financial circumstances were not unbearable. For today's student of art, Rembrandt remains, as the Dutch painter Jozef Israels said, "the true type of artist, free, untrammeled by traditions." The number of works attributed to Rembrandt varies. He produced approximately 600 paintings, 300 etchings, and 1,400 drawings. Some of his works are: St. Paul in Prison (1627); Supper at Emmaus (1630); The Anatomy Lesson of Dr. Nicolaes Tulp (1632); Young Girl at an Open Half-Door (1645); The Mill (1650); Aristotle Contemplating the Bust of Homer (1653); The Return of the Prodigal Son (after 1660); The Syndics of the Drapers' Guild (1662); and many portraits. Copyright © 2020 Doubletake Gallery, All Rights Reserved	961	ENGLISH	1
Only a small percentage of Southerners owned slaves and in their agriculture based economy, poor and mariginal white people often competed against slave labor. The overabunance of slaves had depreciated the value of owning slaves and so did the cost of feeding them (keeping them healthy). Increasingly, only farmers with large cotton farms were reaping significant financial benefit from owning slaves. Slavery, in the United States, was on the way out. There never was a large demand for slave labor out West and the large influx of European immigrants and the push of white people people to move westward, destroyed any notion forever. The complaint that Southerners had against Northern politicians and federal policies were legion. Property rights was one of many concerns along with unfair taxation and under funding of projects, such as railroads. In Texas, the citizens were constantly being attacked by hostile Indians on the frontier and Mexican bandits, with very little of the army support promised by the federal government at the time of annexation. The Southern States simply did not have any power to abuse the rights of Northeners. The facts portray quite the opposite.	<urn:uuid:f3aa5870-ac6f-466f-b3f8-f357d4123469>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	http://www.history-sites.com/cgi-bin/bbs62x/nvcwmb/webbbs_config.pl?md=read;id=64484	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250598800.30/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120135447-20200120164447-00141.warc.gz	en	0.987739	229	4.03125	4	[ -0.13528446853160858, 0.09501051157712936, 0.08645261824131012, -0.06188490241765976, 0.3972085118293762, 0.21517369151115417, -0.1179698035120964, -0.1937725991010666, -0.10429272055625916, 0.1551453322172165, 0.36779412627220154, 0.257437527179718, -0.09424985945224762, 0.081014424562454...	2	Only a small percentage of Southerners owned slaves and in their agriculture based economy, poor and mariginal white people often competed against slave labor. The overabunance of slaves had depreciated the value of owning slaves and so did the cost of feeding them (keeping them healthy). Increasingly, only farmers with large cotton farms were reaping significant financial benefit from owning slaves. Slavery, in the United States, was on the way out. There never was a large demand for slave labor out West and the large influx of European immigrants and the push of white people people to move westward, destroyed any notion forever. The complaint that Southerners had against Northern politicians and federal policies were legion. Property rights was one of many concerns along with unfair taxation and under funding of projects, such as railroads. In Texas, the citizens were constantly being attacked by hostile Indians on the frontier and Mexican bandits, with very little of the army support promised by the federal government at the time of annexation. The Southern States simply did not have any power to abuse the rights of Northeners. The facts portray quite the opposite.	226	ENGLISH	1
August 6, 1945, around 70,000 lives were ended in a matter of seconds. The United States had dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Hiroshima. Today many argue about whether or not the US should have taken such a strong measure. Was it entirely necessary to drop such a devastating weapon? Yes, it was. First, look at what was going on at the time the decision was made. The U.S had been fighting a massive war since 1941. Morale was most likely low, and resources were probably at the same level as morale. However, each side continued to fight, and both were determined to win. Obviously, the best thing that could have possibly have happened would have been to bring the war to a quick end, with a minimum number of deaths. What would have happened if the Atomic bomb was not used? The most obvious thing is that the war would have continued. Its possible that Japan was just about to surrender, but most evidence would not agree with that statement. I’m sure that most of us have heard of a group of men called the Kamikaze. Kamikazes were “suicide” pilots. They would load an airplane with explosives and try to crash into an enemy target. Think about what must be on this pilot’s mind. Imagine the tremendous love they must have had for their country. They would fight until the end, for their emperor and their country. The scary thing about this is the majority of the Japanese military thought this way. Once more I must bring into the picture the fact that a longer war means more deaths, and it appears that a longer war is exactly what Japan had in mind. Most opponents of the bomb say that it was immoral to drop the bomb on such targets as Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but they cannot disagree with the fact that the major manufacturing of wartime products was conducted there. I don’t believe that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the best places to bomb, due to the high civilian numbers; however, it is still my belief that the Atomic Bomb was necessary to end the war. Is it immoral to use a bomb? No, it’s not very nice, but it’s not immoral. These are the kinds of things that happen in war, however unfortunate they are. Despite other arguments, the Atomic Bomb was a necessity. Without it, the number of men that would have died on both sides far surpasses that of the number that were killed in the droppings of both Atomic Bombs.	<urn:uuid:0c17eede-a7e3-4c15-a904-bd8e51fc71b9>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://artscolumbia.org/essays/atomic-bomb2-essay-68029/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250604397.40/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121132900-20200121161900-00487.warc.gz	en	0.991735	513	3.328125	3	[ -0.4087929427623749, 0.23138803243637085, 0.04516856372356415, -0.3635900020599365, 0.46045011281967163, 0.39196911454200745, 0.2140088975429535, 0.549409031867981, 0.17063845694065094, 0.20390085875988007, 0.4063747823238373, 0.07054552435874939, 0.3400907814502716, 0.6789253950119019, ...	5	August 6, 1945, around 70,000 lives were ended in a matter of seconds. The United States had dropped an atomic bomb on the city of Hiroshima. Today many argue about whether or not the US should have taken such a strong measure. Was it entirely necessary to drop such a devastating weapon? Yes, it was. First, look at what was going on at the time the decision was made. The U.S had been fighting a massive war since 1941. Morale was most likely low, and resources were probably at the same level as morale. However, each side continued to fight, and both were determined to win. Obviously, the best thing that could have possibly have happened would have been to bring the war to a quick end, with a minimum number of deaths. What would have happened if the Atomic bomb was not used? The most obvious thing is that the war would have continued. Its possible that Japan was just about to surrender, but most evidence would not agree with that statement. I’m sure that most of us have heard of a group of men called the Kamikaze. Kamikazes were “suicide” pilots. They would load an airplane with explosives and try to crash into an enemy target. Think about what must be on this pilot’s mind. Imagine the tremendous love they must have had for their country. They would fight until the end, for their emperor and their country. The scary thing about this is the majority of the Japanese military thought this way. Once more I must bring into the picture the fact that a longer war means more deaths, and it appears that a longer war is exactly what Japan had in mind. Most opponents of the bomb say that it was immoral to drop the bomb on such targets as Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but they cannot disagree with the fact that the major manufacturing of wartime products was conducted there. I don’t believe that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the best places to bomb, due to the high civilian numbers; however, it is still my belief that the Atomic Bomb was necessary to end the war. Is it immoral to use a bomb? No, it’s not very nice, but it’s not immoral. These are the kinds of things that happen in war, however unfortunate they are. Despite other arguments, the Atomic Bomb was a necessity. Without it, the number of men that would have died on both sides far surpasses that of the number that were killed in the droppings of both Atomic Bombs.	514	ENGLISH	1
Fujiwara no Fuhito (藤原不比等: 659 - September 13, 720) was a powerful member of the imperial court of Japan during the Asuka and Nara periods. Second son of Fujiwara no Kamatari (or, according to one theory, of Emperor Tenji), he had sons by two women, and those sons were the founders of the four principal lineages of the Fujiwara clan: the South, North, Ceremonial, and Capital lineages. Also, he had four daughters by two other women. three by Kamohime, one by Tachibana no Michiyo. One daughter by Kamohime became Emperor Monmu's wife Miyako, who in turn gave birth to Emperor Shōmu. The daughter by Michiyo became the empress of his grandson Shōmu, Empress Kōmyō. During the reign of Emperor Monmu, the government ordered that only the descendants of Fuhito could bear the Fujiwara surname and could be appointed in the Office of Dajokan, the center of administratives. Fuhito was 13 years old when the Jinshin incident occurred. His father Kamatari had been a strong supporter of Emperor Tenji, but Kamatari had already died and Fuhito was too young to be appointed a governmental officer, so he was not involved in this political conflict. In 688 he appeared first as a courtier. In 697 Prince Karu, the son of Prince Kusakabe and therefore grandson of Emperor Tenmu and Empress Jitō, was appointed crown prince. Fuhito supported this appointment strongly and gained the favor of Empress Jitō. After that, his position in the court rose steadily. In 701 Prince Obito, later the emperor Shōmu was born by Miyako. Fuhito succeeded in persuading the court to appoint Obito the crown prince, and made his other daughter a wife of Obito. Until then only a royal lady could be promoted to the empress, but he succeeded in gaining his daughter the position of empress of Obito by the emperor Shōmu. It was the first empress who did not derive from the imperial household. He moved Yamashina-dera, the Buddhist temple which was the main temple his clan supported, to Nara and renamed it Kōfuku-ji. After his death, Kasuga shrine, the main Shinto shrine of the Fujiwara clan, was settled near Kofuku-ji in 768. He played a role in the establishment of the state law, ritsuryō, in Japan. He participated in the edition called Taihō Ritsuryō. He also joined in making its revision, the Yōrō ritsuryō. Before its completion, he died in the summer of 720. When he died, he was appointed Udaijin, one of the ministers. After his death the court honored him with two titles Bunchu Kō (文忠公) and Tankai Kō (淡海公) and with the office of Daijō-daijin, the highest office of the court.	<urn:uuid:894a214c-9fec-4b7d-92a0-36e2069de5e8>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	http://everything.explained.today/Fujiwara_no_Fuhito/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250601615.66/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121044233-20200121073233-00478.warc.gz	en	0.986708	668	3.265625	3	[ -0.6684150695800781, 0.3084949851036072, -0.052999988198280334, -0.32028472423553467, -0.28301453590393066, 0.15383198857307434, 0.48430943489074707, 0.025178998708724976, 0.18186622858047485, -0.06568530201911926, -0.03792063891887665, -0.6348628997802734, 0.5493942499160767, 0.4214705824...	1	Fujiwara no Fuhito (藤原不比等: 659 - September 13, 720) was a powerful member of the imperial court of Japan during the Asuka and Nara periods. Second son of Fujiwara no Kamatari (or, according to one theory, of Emperor Tenji), he had sons by two women, and those sons were the founders of the four principal lineages of the Fujiwara clan: the South, North, Ceremonial, and Capital lineages. Also, he had four daughters by two other women. three by Kamohime, one by Tachibana no Michiyo. One daughter by Kamohime became Emperor Monmu's wife Miyako, who in turn gave birth to Emperor Shōmu. The daughter by Michiyo became the empress of his grandson Shōmu, Empress Kōmyō. During the reign of Emperor Monmu, the government ordered that only the descendants of Fuhito could bear the Fujiwara surname and could be appointed in the Office of Dajokan, the center of administratives. Fuhito was 13 years old when the Jinshin incident occurred. His father Kamatari had been a strong supporter of Emperor Tenji, but Kamatari had already died and Fuhito was too young to be appointed a governmental officer, so he was not involved in this political conflict. In 688 he appeared first as a courtier. In 697 Prince Karu, the son of Prince Kusakabe and therefore grandson of Emperor Tenmu and Empress Jitō, was appointed crown prince. Fuhito supported this appointment strongly and gained the favor of Empress Jitō. After that, his position in the court rose steadily. In 701 Prince Obito, later the emperor Shōmu was born by Miyako. Fuhito succeeded in persuading the court to appoint Obito the crown prince, and made his other daughter a wife of Obito. Until then only a royal lady could be promoted to the empress, but he succeeded in gaining his daughter the position of empress of Obito by the emperor Shōmu. It was the first empress who did not derive from the imperial household. He moved Yamashina-dera, the Buddhist temple which was the main temple his clan supported, to Nara and renamed it Kōfuku-ji. After his death, Kasuga shrine, the main Shinto shrine of the Fujiwara clan, was settled near Kofuku-ji in 768. He played a role in the establishment of the state law, ritsuryō, in Japan. He participated in the edition called Taihō Ritsuryō. He also joined in making its revision, the Yōrō ritsuryō. Before its completion, he died in the summer of 720. When he died, he was appointed Udaijin, one of the ministers. After his death the court honored him with two titles Bunchu Kō (文忠公) and Tankai Kō (淡海公) and with the office of Daijō-daijin, the highest office of the court.	679	ENGLISH	1
Bigfoot Wallace Museum This cabin, the exact replica of Texas legend “Bigfoot” Wallace’s home, opened in 1954 as the result of local inventor and philanthropist Bunyan Balckwell’s many months of organizing and planning. Later, rooms were added to house the numerous items of interest donated by people from near and far, all interested in preserving the colorful heritage of Bigfoot Wallace’s adopted state. William Alexander Anderson Wallace was born April 3, 1817, in Virginia. He came to Texas to avenge the death of relatives who were killed in battles for Texas’ independence from Mexico. By the time he arrived, Texas was already a republic. He stayed in his beloved adopted state and fought Indians, joined the famed Texas Rangers, and carried the mail for the Pony Express from San Antonio to El Paso. Wallace was imprisoned in Mexico and took part in the famous Mier Expedition, where beans were drawn from a bucket to determine which prisoners would live or die. He fortunately “drew deep” and got a white bean, saving his life. The name “Bigfoot” originally belonged to a large Indian who stole livestock and many things from the settlers. A good friend of Wallace’s, William Fox, jokingly gave Wallace the name of “Bigfoot”, saying that when the Indian wasn’t around, Wallace — being a man of large stature– could easily take his place. The same story also goes that Fox was killed in a raid by the “bigfooted” Indian several years later. Bigfoot Wallace never married. He died in the town of Bigfoot, named for him, in 1899 and was buried at Longview Cemetery. Later his remains were moved to the State Cemetery at Austin. Next door to the museum is a replica of the building where the Texas Declaration of Independence was signed at Washington-on-the-Brazos. Inside are antique wagons, buggies and clothes from the past.	<urn:uuid:a5065d03-f7f1-4426-9a16-847f073d5fff>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://bakerbloch.com/2015/10/28/bigfoot-reference-03-bigfoot-wallace/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251671078.88/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125071430-20200125100430-00515.warc.gz	en	0.983724	412	3.453125	3	[ -0.03958932310342789, 0.022917484864592552, 0.4224451184272766, 0.09834890067577362, -0.2341584712266922, -0.19519752264022827, 0.10184186697006226, 0.09009303897619247, -0.49645063281059265, -0.19917038083076477, 0.33681246638298035, -0.05147204548120499, 0.26102104783058167, -0.168431147...	2	Bigfoot Wallace Museum This cabin, the exact replica of Texas legend “Bigfoot” Wallace’s home, opened in 1954 as the result of local inventor and philanthropist Bunyan Balckwell’s many months of organizing and planning. Later, rooms were added to house the numerous items of interest donated by people from near and far, all interested in preserving the colorful heritage of Bigfoot Wallace’s adopted state. William Alexander Anderson Wallace was born April 3, 1817, in Virginia. He came to Texas to avenge the death of relatives who were killed in battles for Texas’ independence from Mexico. By the time he arrived, Texas was already a republic. He stayed in his beloved adopted state and fought Indians, joined the famed Texas Rangers, and carried the mail for the Pony Express from San Antonio to El Paso. Wallace was imprisoned in Mexico and took part in the famous Mier Expedition, where beans were drawn from a bucket to determine which prisoners would live or die. He fortunately “drew deep” and got a white bean, saving his life. The name “Bigfoot” originally belonged to a large Indian who stole livestock and many things from the settlers. A good friend of Wallace’s, William Fox, jokingly gave Wallace the name of “Bigfoot”, saying that when the Indian wasn’t around, Wallace — being a man of large stature– could easily take his place. The same story also goes that Fox was killed in a raid by the “bigfooted” Indian several years later. Bigfoot Wallace never married. He died in the town of Bigfoot, named for him, in 1899 and was buried at Longview Cemetery. Later his remains were moved to the State Cemetery at Austin. Next door to the museum is a replica of the building where the Texas Declaration of Independence was signed at Washington-on-the-Brazos. Inside are antique wagons, buggies and clothes from the past.	400	ENGLISH	1
A Look Back At The First Presidential Impeachment In the U.S. ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: We've talked on this program with people who worked on President Clinton's impeachment and President Nixon's, trying to gain insight into the impeachment of President Trump. Well, our next guest argues that the best historical comparison is to a presidential impeachment that took place 150 years ago against Andrew Johnson, who became president after Abraham Lincoln's assassination. Manisha Sinha is a history professor at the University of Connecticut. Welcome to ALL THINGS CONSIDERED. MANISHA SINHA: Thank you for having me. SHAPIRO: Before we get to the impeachment itself, tell us about the man. Who was Andrew Johnson? SINHA: So Andrew Johnson was a unionist, actually, during the Civil War, from Tennessee. So because of that, he was rewarded by being made the military governor of Tennessee by Lincoln during the Civil War and then, finally, was Lincoln's vice president. SHAPIRO: You describe Johnson as one of the most reviled presidents in American history, but that's not enough to get someone impeached. So why did impeachment proceedings ultimately begin against him? SINHA: The reason why he was impeached was mainly his racist objections to black citizenship and to this whole program of Reconstruction, which was to establish an interracial democracy in the South. So Congress passes a law called the Tenure of Office Act that prevents Johnson from firing union army officers and from firing Lincoln's secretary of war, Edwin Stanton, who were really overseeing this process. And Johnson violates it by firing Stanton, even though he had earlier assured Republicans that he would not do that. SHAPIRO: So this is about presidential overreach, executive abuse of power. SINHA: Absolutely. It was presidential overreach and, as they say very clearly in the articles of impeachment, that he was encroaching on congressional power and had actually disrespected Congress, had obstructed Congress, which is also one of the articles of impeachment that was laid out yesterday against Donald Trump. SHAPIRO: So I was going to ask what other parallels you see here when you read the articles of impeachment from 150 years ago and from yesterday. SINHA: Both impeachments have a smoking gun. For Johnson, it was violation of the Tenure of Office Act. For Trump, it was his phone call with the Ukrainian president. But both presidents also had a pattern of seeming to violate national interests, national ideals, playing on racial divisions in the country. I think in that way, they are both somewhat similar. SHAPIRO: In last week's House Judiciary Committee hearing, another parallel between the Trump and Johnson impeachment came up. It was legal expert Jonathan Turley who said this. (SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING) JONATHAN TURLEY: I believe that this is much like the Johnson impeachment. It's manufactured until you build a record. I'm not saying you can't build a record, but you can't do it like this. SHAPIRO: Whether or not you agree that the record for the Trump administration is insufficient, do you think it's true that the record with the Johnson impeachment was kind of manufactured and ad hoc? SINHA: I wouldn't agree that it was manufactured because there were 11 articles of impeachment against Johnson, and the first nine very clearly pointed to the so-called smoking gun, which was violation of the Tenure of Office Act. One could see that as Congress sort of encroaching on executive privilege. But that, in fact, was in response to Johnson's obstructionism and his attempt to disregard federal law when it came to Reconstruction because he was turning a blind eye to racial terror, the rise of the Ku Klux Klan, etc. SHAPIRO: If, as expected, the Trump impeachment moves on to a trial in the Senate, what would you look for to see whether these parallels continue with Johnson? SINHA: Well, that's where the parallel will break down. It's quite clear that the Republican Party today is lock-step-and-barrel (ph) behind Trump and that no matter what happens, they are not going to vote to convict him. And since they do have a slight majority in the Senate, it seems conviction is unlikely. But I do think that the entire process is important to make sure that presidents don't think that they are above the law and that we don't completely give up on checks and balances, separation of powers that have been put into place by the founders of the American republic. SHAPIRO: That's history Professor Manisha Sinha of the University of Connecticut. Thanks for speaking with us. SINHA: Thank you for having me, Ari. NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.	<urn:uuid:10adb654-4779-4573-a0a7-7e6372ea5956>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.npr.org/2019/12/11/787192528/a-look-back-at-the-first-presidential-impeachment-in-the-u-s?utm_medium=RSS&utm_campaign=allthingsconsidered	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250615407.46/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124040939-20200124065939-00435.warc.gz	en	0.983192	1,067	3.5625	4	[ -0.0074521577917039394, 0.1833152323961258, 0.38401877880096436, -0.1659785658121109, 0.035763997584581375, 0.4503917694091797, 0.4163286089897156, 0.0017502129776403308, 0.030072011053562164, 0.10943403840065002, 0.34551388025283813, 0.2713315784931183, -0.02103639766573906, 0.67299157381...	3	A Look Back At The First Presidential Impeachment In the U.S. ARI SHAPIRO, HOST: We've talked on this program with people who worked on President Clinton's impeachment and President Nixon's, trying to gain insight into the impeachment of President Trump. Well, our next guest argues that the best historical comparison is to a presidential impeachment that took place 150 years ago against Andrew Johnson, who became president after Abraham Lincoln's assassination. Manisha Sinha is a history professor at the University of Connecticut. Welcome to ALL THINGS CONSIDERED. MANISHA SINHA: Thank you for having me. SHAPIRO: Before we get to the impeachment itself, tell us about the man. Who was Andrew Johnson? SINHA: So Andrew Johnson was a unionist, actually, during the Civil War, from Tennessee. So because of that, he was rewarded by being made the military governor of Tennessee by Lincoln during the Civil War and then, finally, was Lincoln's vice president. SHAPIRO: You describe Johnson as one of the most reviled presidents in American history, but that's not enough to get someone impeached. So why did impeachment proceedings ultimately begin against him? SINHA: The reason why he was impeached was mainly his racist objections to black citizenship and to this whole program of Reconstruction, which was to establish an interracial democracy in the South. So Congress passes a law called the Tenure of Office Act that prevents Johnson from firing union army officers and from firing Lincoln's secretary of war, Edwin Stanton, who were really overseeing this process. And Johnson violates it by firing Stanton, even though he had earlier assured Republicans that he would not do that. SHAPIRO: So this is about presidential overreach, executive abuse of power. SINHA: Absolutely. It was presidential overreach and, as they say very clearly in the articles of impeachment, that he was encroaching on congressional power and had actually disrespected Congress, had obstructed Congress, which is also one of the articles of impeachment that was laid out yesterday against Donald Trump. SHAPIRO: So I was going to ask what other parallels you see here when you read the articles of impeachment from 150 years ago and from yesterday. SINHA: Both impeachments have a smoking gun. For Johnson, it was violation of the Tenure of Office Act. For Trump, it was his phone call with the Ukrainian president. But both presidents also had a pattern of seeming to violate national interests, national ideals, playing on racial divisions in the country. I think in that way, they are both somewhat similar. SHAPIRO: In last week's House Judiciary Committee hearing, another parallel between the Trump and Johnson impeachment came up. It was legal expert Jonathan Turley who said this. (SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING) JONATHAN TURLEY: I believe that this is much like the Johnson impeachment. It's manufactured until you build a record. I'm not saying you can't build a record, but you can't do it like this. SHAPIRO: Whether or not you agree that the record for the Trump administration is insufficient, do you think it's true that the record with the Johnson impeachment was kind of manufactured and ad hoc? SINHA: I wouldn't agree that it was manufactured because there were 11 articles of impeachment against Johnson, and the first nine very clearly pointed to the so-called smoking gun, which was violation of the Tenure of Office Act. One could see that as Congress sort of encroaching on executive privilege. But that, in fact, was in response to Johnson's obstructionism and his attempt to disregard federal law when it came to Reconstruction because he was turning a blind eye to racial terror, the rise of the Ku Klux Klan, etc. SHAPIRO: If, as expected, the Trump impeachment moves on to a trial in the Senate, what would you look for to see whether these parallels continue with Johnson? SINHA: Well, that's where the parallel will break down. It's quite clear that the Republican Party today is lock-step-and-barrel (ph) behind Trump and that no matter what happens, they are not going to vote to convict him. And since they do have a slight majority in the Senate, it seems conviction is unlikely. But I do think that the entire process is important to make sure that presidents don't think that they are above the law and that we don't completely give up on checks and balances, separation of powers that have been put into place by the founders of the American republic. SHAPIRO: That's history Professor Manisha Sinha of the University of Connecticut. Thanks for speaking with us. SINHA: Thank you for having me, Ari. NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.	1,044	ENGLISH	1
I may not be quite as precise in my wording, but there were many references in the several ordinances of secession of the several southern states that referred to the concept that since the Northern legislators were willing to violate the "Contract" (The Constitution) that they felt no binding arguement by which they were compelled to remain in that Union. Lincoln on the other hand said that he would be President of all the States or none. THAT is the statement of a dictator. That without regards to the legality of his actions his intent was that he was willing to start a war in order to keep a people from exercising their legal rights. That had nothing to do with slavery and its rightness, or wrongness. Therefore secession and the right of the states to exercise that right was the cause of the war. This is unique to the United States only. Since whereas in no other case of rebellions or other forms of unrest, resulted in the freeing of a slave populas, were the slave holders empowered with the right to withdraw, as a political entity, from their home country. The Southern States secession was not rebellion under the Constitution because the southern states did not attempt to overthrow the Government of the United States. They simply withdrew as being a part of that government. A right not specifically enumerated as being prohibited in the Constitution and therefore permited under the 9th Amendment. The Constiution would probably never have been ratified in 1787 had in not been for the addition of the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution, given the difficulties of the definitions of Liberties among the 13 originals states under the Articles of Confederation. Differences that caused the breakup of that form of United States government, and making it necessary to form a "More Perfect Union". Most people do not reailze that there was a United States before the Constitution, and that the Constitution did not simply drop out of thin air. George Washington was not the first United States President. He was the first under the NEW Constitution. There were fourteen previous Presidents of the United States before him during the 10 years under the Articles of Confederation. Why so many? This country has already failed once in 1787, and again in 1861. What emerged after the second revolution in 1865 was not what our forefathers had in mind. We returned to being European again where the bureaucrats, starting with reconstruction, determine your Liberties.	<urn:uuid:cdf2ae5f-68ee-4972-bf17-0332450584e9>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	http://www.history-sites.com/cgi-bin/bbs62x/nvcwmb/webbbs_config.pl?md=read;id=62987	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250606696.26/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122042145-20200122071145-00247.warc.gz	en	0.986422	484	3.421875	3	[ -0.4880041778087616, -0.08002947270870209, 0.03889729827642441, -0.2623463571071625, -0.24115495383739471, 0.24052897095680237, 0.2080061286687851, -0.027100462466478348, -0.055092860013246536, 0.22327832877635956, 0.1664871871471405, 0.2327527403831482, -0.01315819937735796, 0.34971392154...	3	I may not be quite as precise in my wording, but there were many references in the several ordinances of secession of the several southern states that referred to the concept that since the Northern legislators were willing to violate the "Contract" (The Constitution) that they felt no binding arguement by which they were compelled to remain in that Union. Lincoln on the other hand said that he would be President of all the States or none. THAT is the statement of a dictator. That without regards to the legality of his actions his intent was that he was willing to start a war in order to keep a people from exercising their legal rights. That had nothing to do with slavery and its rightness, or wrongness. Therefore secession and the right of the states to exercise that right was the cause of the war. This is unique to the United States only. Since whereas in no other case of rebellions or other forms of unrest, resulted in the freeing of a slave populas, were the slave holders empowered with the right to withdraw, as a political entity, from their home country. The Southern States secession was not rebellion under the Constitution because the southern states did not attempt to overthrow the Government of the United States. They simply withdrew as being a part of that government. A right not specifically enumerated as being prohibited in the Constitution and therefore permited under the 9th Amendment. The Constiution would probably never have been ratified in 1787 had in not been for the addition of the 9th and 10th Amendments to the Constitution, given the difficulties of the definitions of Liberties among the 13 originals states under the Articles of Confederation. Differences that caused the breakup of that form of United States government, and making it necessary to form a "More Perfect Union". Most people do not reailze that there was a United States before the Constitution, and that the Constitution did not simply drop out of thin air. George Washington was not the first United States President. He was the first under the NEW Constitution. There were fourteen previous Presidents of the United States before him during the 10 years under the Articles of Confederation. Why so many? This country has already failed once in 1787, and again in 1861. What emerged after the second revolution in 1865 was not what our forefathers had in mind. We returned to being European again where the bureaucrats, starting with reconstruction, determine your Liberties.	504	ENGLISH	1
North and South Divide America is different. Today, when American "exceptionalism," as it is called, has become the subject of academic study, the United States, except in wealth and military power, is less exceptional than it was in the years when it was to be reached only by sailing ship across the Atlantic. Then, before American culture had been universalised by Hollywood, the technology of television, and the international music industry, America really was a different place and society from the Old World, which had given it birth. Europeans who made the voyage noted differences of every sort, not only political and economic, but human and social as well. Americans were bigger than Europeans — even their slaves were bigger than their African forebears — thanks to the superabundance of food that American farms produced. American parents allowed their children a freedom not known in Europe; they shrank from punishing their sons and daughters in the ways European fathers and mothers did. Ulysses S. Grant, the future general in chief of the Union armies and president of the United States, recalled in his memoirs that there was "never any scolding or punishment by my parents, no objection to rational enjoyments such as fishing, going to the creek a mile away to swim in summer, taking a horse and visiting my grandparents in the adjoining county, fifteen miles off, skating on the ice in winter, taking a horse and sleigh when there was snow on the ground." It was a description of childhood as experienced in most prosperous country-dwelling families of the period. The Grants were modestly well-to-do, Jesse Grant, the future president's father, having a tanning business and also working an extensive property of arable land and forest. But then most established American families, and the Grants had come to the New World in 1630, were prosperous. It was prosperity that underlay their easy way with their offspring, since they were not obliged to please neighbours by constraining their children. The children of the prosperous were nevertheless well-behaved because they were schooled and churchgoing. The two went together, though not in lockstep. Lincoln was a notably indulgent father though he was not a doctrinal Christian. Churchgoing America, overwhelmingly Protestant before 1850, needed to read the Bible, and north of the Mason-Dixon line, which informally divided North from South, four-fifths of Americans could read and write. Almost all American children in the North, and effectively all in New England, went to school, a far higher proportion than in Europe, where literacy even in Britain, France, and Germany lay around two-thirds. America was also becoming college-going, with the seats of higher education, Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Princeton, the College of William and Mary, established and flourishing. America could afford to fund and run colleges because it was already visibly richer than Europe, rich agriculturally, though it was not yet a food-exporting economy, and increasingly rich industrially. It was a newspaper country with a vast newspaper-reading public and a large number of local and some widely distributed city newspapers. Its medical profession was large and skilful, and the inventiveness and mechanical aptitude of its population was remarked upon by all visitors. So too was the vibrant and passionate nature of its politics. America was already a country of ideas and movements, highly conscious of its birth in freedom and its legacy of revolution; anti-imperialism had been its founding principle. During the decades before the Civil War, America was experiencing an industrial boom and its own distinctive industrial revolution. England's industrial revolution had taken its impetus from the development of steam power, fuelled by the island's abundant deposits of coal and directed to the exploitation of its large deposits of metal ores. Early-nineteenth-century America was also beginning to dig coal and iron ore, of which its soil contained enormous quantities, but at the outset it was two other sources of power which drove its proliferating factories and workshops: waterpower and wood. The rivers of New England, New York, and Pennsylvania were harnessed to turn waterwheels and its extensive forests to supply timber for burning. In Europe the days were long gone when forests could be cut down to supply heat. The Continent, outside Scandinavia and the Russian interior, was highly deforested. In America, trees were still an encumbrance which had to be felled to provide land for farming, but which also, when sawn, provided the raw material for every sort of building and manufactured item. America needed deforestation if its soils were to be farmed in the future, and in that process industrialisation and land clearing went hand in hand. During the 1830s and later, New York City consumed several million loads of wood every year, cut and stripped from Maine and New Jersey. It was only gradually that mines were dug and extended, originally by immigrants from the English coalfields and Welsh valleys, but by 1860 production in the Pennsylvanian anthracite fields had increased fortyfold in thirty years. By that date a distinctive economic geography of the United States could be discerned, with expanding industrial regions centred on New York and Philadelphia, exploited coalfields in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and the Allegheny region of the Appalachians, a developing industrial region around Pittsburgh, and a thriving textile and engineering zone in southern New England. In the North the proportion of farmworkers in the labour force had fallen below 40 percent, while it remained above 80 percent in the South. An economic map would show that there was no industrial centre south of a line drawn from St. Louis to Louisville to Baltimore; in the South nine-tenths of the population lived in the countryside, but in the North only a quarter. Timber also provided the steam power for paddleboats, which by 1850 were to be seen on every navigable waterway, and the railway locomotives, which were becoming familiar on the tracks which were stretching out to link all the more important cities to one another and to the seaboard ports. By 1850 there were 9,000 miles of track in the United States; by 1860, 30,000. Rivers and then canals had been the means of transportation and distribution in the early stages of the boom. Canal boats and river steamers were rapidly overtaken in importance by the railroad. By 1850, America had surpassed Britain, home of the railroad revolution, in miles of operating track; indeed, American track mileage exceeded that of the rest of the world put together. The United States was still an industrial client of Europe, particularly Britain, from which most manufactured goods came, but that was due to Britain's head start in the industrial revolution. By the end of the century this would no longer be the case. In the meantime, America was ceasing to be a predominately rural country and becoming an urban one. At the outbreak of the Civil War, America had more country-dwellers than town-dwellers, many more in the South, but the trend was for town-dwellers to outnumber country-dwellers. Cities were being founded at a breakneck rate and growing at exponential speed. The old cities of colonial settlement, Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, retained their importance, but new cities were appearing and expanding, particularly beyond the Appalachian chain and even beyond the Mississippi; for a time Cincinnati promised to be the most important of the new metropolises, but it was rapidly overtaken by Chicago, which grew from a population of 5,000 in 1840 to 109,000 in 1860. It might be said that Chicago was only keeping pace with the United States itself, whose population increased from 5,306,000 in 1800 to 23,192,000 in 1850. Part of the increase came from migration, though the decades of mass immigration lay in the future; most of it was the result of a high birthrate. The astonishing productivity of the United States furnished work for all who chose to stay in the towns, while the abundant availability of land for settlement in the new states beyond the Appalachians and the Mississippi attracted would-be farmers, or employed farmers seeking better land, in large numbers. In whichever direction a visitor to the United States looked, the country was growing. It was not that America was giving up the land. On the contrary: in the twenty years before 1860 enormous areas of the subcontinent were put under the plough; but the work was done by internal migrants who abandoned their homes on the thin, worked-out soils of New England, Virginia, and the Carolinas to trek westward into the new land in and beyond the Mississippi and Missouri valleys. Federal land policy encouraged the migrants. In 1800 public land was sold at $2 an acre, with a quarter to be paid down and four years to pay off the residue. By 1820 the price had gone down to $1.25 an acre. Land was sold in subdivisions of a section of 640 acres. By 1832 the government accepted bids for a quarter of a quarter section, 40 acres. In 1862 Congress passed the Homestead Act, which allowed a settler free possession of 160 acres if farmed for five years. The legislation effectively transferred eighty million acres of public land into private hands, and accommodated half a million people. American land policy was the making of such states as Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, the Middle West proper. As settlement moved on to the more distant lands of the prairies in Iowa, Kansas, and Nebraska, the first comers got the best of the deal. The prairies were settled during an uncharacteristic era of moist climate, which conferred bountiful crops on the hardworking. By the twentieth century, desiccation had set in and many farms joined the dust bowl. Settlement was not exclusively by free men. Cotton profits pulled plantation owners westward into new lands during the period 1830–50, particularly onto the dark, rich soils of the "black belt" of Alabama and Mississippi, but even as far away as the river lands of Texas. It is calculated that 800,000 slaves were moved, by their owners, from the Atlantic coast farther inland between 1800 and 1860. America was growing not only in population but also in wealth. Not yet an exporting country, except of cotton, its enormous internal market consumed all that could be produced. The whole of America was industrialising in the 1850s, particularly those parts settled since the eighteenth century: New England, Pennsylvania, New York, and some of Virginia. The industrialisation had its centre in Connecticut, which had both excellent river and canal connections with other parts of the region, and plentiful waterpower to drive factory machinery. Even as a pre-industrial economy, America wanted and bought the output of New England's workshops and factories, which worked by methods that would be copied all over the world. It was in Connecticut that what came to be called "the American system of manufacture" first established itself. The American system also became known as the "system of interchangeable parts," which is exactly descriptive. A well-educated and well-trained workforce learnt to make parts in metal or wood to such narrow tolerances that one manufactured item could be assembled from a random selection of parts. The American army's rifle, the Springfield, was such a product. It so impressed British visitors to the Springfield armoury that the British government bought the appropriate machinery to equip its armoury at Enfield for the Crimean War. When in 1861 the American government was gripped by demand for large quantities of rifles, the Enfield armoury supplied much of the need. Because the Springfield and Enfield products were manufactured in almost the same calibre, the Enfield being slightly larger, American cartridges fitted both quite satisfactorily, so well in fact that Union soldiers did not differentiate between Springfields and Enfields. Many good republicans thus went into battle with a weapon which bore the letters VR under a crown on the plate of the lock. The "system of interchangeable parts" also enabled the manufacture and assembly of clocks, watches, household and agricultural machinery, and the increasing number of labour-saving devices which American inventiveness brought to the world. America was chronically short of labour, both in town and country, so that any device that could multiply the work of a pair of hands was rapidly adopted. The sewing machine, which allowed housewives to dress themselves and their families at home or the local dressmaker to set up as a businesswoman, was widely adopted across America as soon as it was perfected. American farmers meanwhile were buying reaping machines, binders, and seed drills which could perform the tasks for which labour was lacking. The most significant element of mechanisation antedated the nineteenth century. It was the invention by Eli Whitney in 1793 of the cotton gin, a machine that separated the cotton fibre from the seed on which it grew, the boll. The gin revolutionised cotton production. A process which required a slave's hard labour for an hour to produce a pound of cotton could be completed by the machine in a few minutes. Little was turned into manufactured goods in the South, which, having sent raw cotton north to be spun, then had to buy it back as woven cloth or finished apparel. The South's dependence on the industrial resources of the North underlay a visible social split. The South remained, as the North had been in the eighteenth century, agrarian and rural, with most Southerners living on the land and working as subsistence farmers, raising corn, hogs, and root crops, most of which they consumed themselves or sold locally, while the Northerners began during the nineteenth century to migrate from the land to towns in which they found wage-paying work. The readiness during the war of the two sides to fraternise at times of truce, formal and informal, and the willingness of both to be taken prisoner dispose of the idea that North and South were markedly different societies; despite the war, Americans remained American. Accent apart, and many Northerners complained they could hardly understand the way Southerners spoke, the soldiers of the two sides resembled each other much more than they differed. Both, in overwhelming majority, were country boys, in their twenties, farmers' sons who had left their land to join the army. Nevertheless, North and South were different, and the differences showed in the character of the armies. Southerners were almost without exception small-town boys, or the sons of small farmers. Only a minority were slave owners. Of the South's white population of five million, only 48,000 were identified as planters, that is, men owning more than twenty slaves. Only 3,000 owned more than a hundred slaves, only 11 more than five hundred, truly staggering wealth in times when a fit, young field hand cost a thousand dollars. The white-pillared mansion, surrounded by shade trees and at a distance from the cabins of the field hands, existed, but more substantially in the imagination of outsiders than in reality. Of the four million slaves in the South, half belonged to men who owned fewer than twenty. Most owned only one or two and used them to work subsistence farms on which they raised corn — maize, to Europeans — and pigs. Most Southerners were hand-to-mouth farmers who owned no slaves at all.	<urn:uuid:c6e5a918-6937-4209-ae63-281f576e1743>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/16/books/excerpt-american-civil-war.html	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251681625.83/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125222506-20200126012506-00189.warc.gz	en	0.980952	3,123	3.65625	4	[ 0.16007643938064575, 0.11641114205121994, 0.31832802295684814, -0.09573288261890411, 0.2981756627559662, 0.1740007996559143, -0.32646673917770386, -0.06647154688835144, -0.03631587699055672, -0.023541275411844254, 0.2731606364250183, 0.36156123876571655, -0.0344238355755806, 0.411474376916...	1	North and South Divide America is different. Today, when American "exceptionalism," as it is called, has become the subject of academic study, the United States, except in wealth and military power, is less exceptional than it was in the years when it was to be reached only by sailing ship across the Atlantic. Then, before American culture had been universalised by Hollywood, the technology of television, and the international music industry, America really was a different place and society from the Old World, which had given it birth. Europeans who made the voyage noted differences of every sort, not only political and economic, but human and social as well. Americans were bigger than Europeans — even their slaves were bigger than their African forebears — thanks to the superabundance of food that American farms produced. American parents allowed their children a freedom not known in Europe; they shrank from punishing their sons and daughters in the ways European fathers and mothers did. Ulysses S. Grant, the future general in chief of the Union armies and president of the United States, recalled in his memoirs that there was "never any scolding or punishment by my parents, no objection to rational enjoyments such as fishing, going to the creek a mile away to swim in summer, taking a horse and visiting my grandparents in the adjoining county, fifteen miles off, skating on the ice in winter, taking a horse and sleigh when there was snow on the ground." It was a description of childhood as experienced in most prosperous country-dwelling families of the period. The Grants were modestly well-to-do, Jesse Grant, the future president's father, having a tanning business and also working an extensive property of arable land and forest. But then most established American families, and the Grants had come to the New World in 1630, were prosperous. It was prosperity that underlay their easy way with their offspring, since they were not obliged to please neighbours by constraining their children. The children of the prosperous were nevertheless well-behaved because they were schooled and churchgoing. The two went together, though not in lockstep. Lincoln was a notably indulgent father though he was not a doctrinal Christian. Churchgoing America, overwhelmingly Protestant before 1850, needed to read the Bible, and north of the Mason-Dixon line, which informally divided North from South, four-fifths of Americans could read and write. Almost all American children in the North, and effectively all in New England, went to school, a far higher proportion than in Europe, where literacy even in Britain, France, and Germany lay around two-thirds. America was also becoming college-going, with the seats of higher education, Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Princeton, the College of William and Mary, established and flourishing. America could afford to fund and run colleges because it was already visibly richer than Europe, rich agriculturally, though it was not yet a food-exporting economy, and increasingly rich industrially. It was a newspaper country with a vast newspaper-reading public and a large number of local and some widely distributed city newspapers. Its medical profession was large and skilful, and the inventiveness and mechanical aptitude of its population was remarked upon by all visitors. So too was the vibrant and passionate nature of its politics. America was already a country of ideas and movements, highly conscious of its birth in freedom and its legacy of revolution; anti-imperialism had been its founding principle. During the decades before the Civil War, America was experiencing an industrial boom and its own distinctive industrial revolution. England's industrial revolution had taken its impetus from the development of steam power, fuelled by the island's abundant deposits of coal and directed to the exploitation of its large deposits of metal ores. Early-nineteenth-century America was also beginning to dig coal and iron ore, of which its soil contained enormous quantities, but at the outset it was two other sources of power which drove its proliferating factories and workshops: waterpower and wood. The rivers of New England, New York, and Pennsylvania were harnessed to turn waterwheels and its extensive forests to supply timber for burning. In Europe the days were long gone when forests could be cut down to supply heat. The Continent, outside Scandinavia and the Russian interior, was highly deforested. In America, trees were still an encumbrance which had to be felled to provide land for farming, but which also, when sawn, provided the raw material for every sort of building and manufactured item. America needed deforestation if its soils were to be farmed in the future, and in that process industrialisation and land clearing went hand in hand. During the 1830s and later, New York City consumed several million loads of wood every year, cut and stripped from Maine and New Jersey. It was only gradually that mines were dug and extended, originally by immigrants from the English coalfields and Welsh valleys, but by 1860 production in the Pennsylvanian anthracite fields had increased fortyfold in thirty years. By that date a distinctive economic geography of the United States could be discerned, with expanding industrial regions centred on New York and Philadelphia, exploited coalfields in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and the Allegheny region of the Appalachians, a developing industrial region around Pittsburgh, and a thriving textile and engineering zone in southern New England. In the North the proportion of farmworkers in the labour force had fallen below 40 percent, while it remained above 80 percent in the South. An economic map would show that there was no industrial centre south of a line drawn from St. Louis to Louisville to Baltimore; in the South nine-tenths of the population lived in the countryside, but in the North only a quarter. Timber also provided the steam power for paddleboats, which by 1850 were to be seen on every navigable waterway, and the railway locomotives, which were becoming familiar on the tracks which were stretching out to link all the more important cities to one another and to the seaboard ports. By 1850 there were 9,000 miles of track in the United States; by 1860, 30,000. Rivers and then canals had been the means of transportation and distribution in the early stages of the boom. Canal boats and river steamers were rapidly overtaken in importance by the railroad. By 1850, America had surpassed Britain, home of the railroad revolution, in miles of operating track; indeed, American track mileage exceeded that of the rest of the world put together. The United States was still an industrial client of Europe, particularly Britain, from which most manufactured goods came, but that was due to Britain's head start in the industrial revolution. By the end of the century this would no longer be the case. In the meantime, America was ceasing to be a predominately rural country and becoming an urban one. At the outbreak of the Civil War, America had more country-dwellers than town-dwellers, many more in the South, but the trend was for town-dwellers to outnumber country-dwellers. Cities were being founded at a breakneck rate and growing at exponential speed. The old cities of colonial settlement, Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, retained their importance, but new cities were appearing and expanding, particularly beyond the Appalachian chain and even beyond the Mississippi; for a time Cincinnati promised to be the most important of the new metropolises, but it was rapidly overtaken by Chicago, which grew from a population of 5,000 in 1840 to 109,000 in 1860. It might be said that Chicago was only keeping pace with the United States itself, whose population increased from 5,306,000 in 1800 to 23,192,000 in 1850. Part of the increase came from migration, though the decades of mass immigration lay in the future; most of it was the result of a high birthrate. The astonishing productivity of the United States furnished work for all who chose to stay in the towns, while the abundant availability of land for settlement in the new states beyond the Appalachians and the Mississippi attracted would-be farmers, or employed farmers seeking better land, in large numbers. In whichever direction a visitor to the United States looked, the country was growing. It was not that America was giving up the land. On the contrary: in the twenty years before 1860 enormous areas of the subcontinent were put under the plough; but the work was done by internal migrants who abandoned their homes on the thin, worked-out soils of New England, Virginia, and the Carolinas to trek westward into the new land in and beyond the Mississippi and Missouri valleys. Federal land policy encouraged the migrants. In 1800 public land was sold at $2 an acre, with a quarter to be paid down and four years to pay off the residue. By 1820 the price had gone down to $1.25 an acre. Land was sold in subdivisions of a section of 640 acres. By 1832 the government accepted bids for a quarter of a quarter section, 40 acres. In 1862 Congress passed the Homestead Act, which allowed a settler free possession of 160 acres if farmed for five years. The legislation effectively transferred eighty million acres of public land into private hands, and accommodated half a million people. American land policy was the making of such states as Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, the Middle West proper. As settlement moved on to the more distant lands of the prairies in Iowa, Kansas, and Nebraska, the first comers got the best of the deal. The prairies were settled during an uncharacteristic era of moist climate, which conferred bountiful crops on the hardworking. By the twentieth century, desiccation had set in and many farms joined the dust bowl. Settlement was not exclusively by free men. Cotton profits pulled plantation owners westward into new lands during the period 1830–50, particularly onto the dark, rich soils of the "black belt" of Alabama and Mississippi, but even as far away as the river lands of Texas. It is calculated that 800,000 slaves were moved, by their owners, from the Atlantic coast farther inland between 1800 and 1860. America was growing not only in population but also in wealth. Not yet an exporting country, except of cotton, its enormous internal market consumed all that could be produced. The whole of America was industrialising in the 1850s, particularly those parts settled since the eighteenth century: New England, Pennsylvania, New York, and some of Virginia. The industrialisation had its centre in Connecticut, which had both excellent river and canal connections with other parts of the region, and plentiful waterpower to drive factory machinery. Even as a pre-industrial economy, America wanted and bought the output of New England's workshops and factories, which worked by methods that would be copied all over the world. It was in Connecticut that what came to be called "the American system of manufacture" first established itself. The American system also became known as the "system of interchangeable parts," which is exactly descriptive. A well-educated and well-trained workforce learnt to make parts in metal or wood to such narrow tolerances that one manufactured item could be assembled from a random selection of parts. The American army's rifle, the Springfield, was such a product. It so impressed British visitors to the Springfield armoury that the British government bought the appropriate machinery to equip its armoury at Enfield for the Crimean War. When in 1861 the American government was gripped by demand for large quantities of rifles, the Enfield armoury supplied much of the need. Because the Springfield and Enfield products were manufactured in almost the same calibre, the Enfield being slightly larger, American cartridges fitted both quite satisfactorily, so well in fact that Union soldiers did not differentiate between Springfields and Enfields. Many good republicans thus went into battle with a weapon which bore the letters VR under a crown on the plate of the lock. The "system of interchangeable parts" also enabled the manufacture and assembly of clocks, watches, household and agricultural machinery, and the increasing number of labour-saving devices which American inventiveness brought to the world. America was chronically short of labour, both in town and country, so that any device that could multiply the work of a pair of hands was rapidly adopted. The sewing machine, which allowed housewives to dress themselves and their families at home or the local dressmaker to set up as a businesswoman, was widely adopted across America as soon as it was perfected. American farmers meanwhile were buying reaping machines, binders, and seed drills which could perform the tasks for which labour was lacking. The most significant element of mechanisation antedated the nineteenth century. It was the invention by Eli Whitney in 1793 of the cotton gin, a machine that separated the cotton fibre from the seed on which it grew, the boll. The gin revolutionised cotton production. A process which required a slave's hard labour for an hour to produce a pound of cotton could be completed by the machine in a few minutes. Little was turned into manufactured goods in the South, which, having sent raw cotton north to be spun, then had to buy it back as woven cloth or finished apparel. The South's dependence on the industrial resources of the North underlay a visible social split. The South remained, as the North had been in the eighteenth century, agrarian and rural, with most Southerners living on the land and working as subsistence farmers, raising corn, hogs, and root crops, most of which they consumed themselves or sold locally, while the Northerners began during the nineteenth century to migrate from the land to towns in which they found wage-paying work. The readiness during the war of the two sides to fraternise at times of truce, formal and informal, and the willingness of both to be taken prisoner dispose of the idea that North and South were markedly different societies; despite the war, Americans remained American. Accent apart, and many Northerners complained they could hardly understand the way Southerners spoke, the soldiers of the two sides resembled each other much more than they differed. Both, in overwhelming majority, were country boys, in their twenties, farmers' sons who had left their land to join the army. Nevertheless, North and South were different, and the differences showed in the character of the armies. Southerners were almost without exception small-town boys, or the sons of small farmers. Only a minority were slave owners. Of the South's white population of five million, only 48,000 were identified as planters, that is, men owning more than twenty slaves. Only 3,000 owned more than a hundred slaves, only 11 more than five hundred, truly staggering wealth in times when a fit, young field hand cost a thousand dollars. The white-pillared mansion, surrounded by shade trees and at a distance from the cabins of the field hands, existed, but more substantially in the imagination of outsiders than in reality. Of the four million slaves in the South, half belonged to men who owned fewer than twenty. Most owned only one or two and used them to work subsistence farms on which they raised corn — maize, to Europeans — and pigs. Most Southerners were hand-to-mouth farmers who owned no slaves at all.	3,239	ENGLISH	1
Love is an uncontrollable force that strikes an individual from the outside and can occur suddenly as well as unexpectedly. The story tends to have more weaknesses compared to strengths. Any subject. Stereotypes are nothing new, as seen with the problem of slavery in America during the Nineteenth Century. Although Dido developed the perception that she and Aeneas were married, this was not the case for Aeneas. It cannot be made to happen by an outside force or it will be doomed to fail. It was because of these deceptions that finally resulted to the tragic death of the two couples. This implies that love can cause harmony to dominate in a region that that marred by wrangles. Early on in the Aeneid, when the city of Troy fell, Aeneas was challenged with rounding up what was left of the Trojan people and leaving the city to find a new home In this essay we will look at two different texts. The one to lead the descendants from Troy that would build Rome was Aeneas Allecto can be regarded as a female figure whose actions are far from minor, rather a source of the larger scale complications that contribute to annihilation, bloodshed, and misery	<urn:uuid:39cbb692-3f45-4312-9ee3-a90d3861c5e6>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://jecyriqamiwyqu.ettroisptitspointscompagnie.com/aeneas-and-dido-essay-writer636129124dm.html	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594662.6/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119151736-20200119175736-00124.warc.gz	en	0.981044	244	3.734375	4	[ -0.0009024667670018971, 0.14149272441864014, 0.26362115144729614, 0.3520168662071228, -0.26829615235328674, -0.07353748381137848, -0.023171432316303253, 0.45868316292762756, 0.08927849680185318, -0.33951959013938904, 0.1468104124069214, -0.22894954681396484, 0.04298055171966553, 0.08090032...	2	Love is an uncontrollable force that strikes an individual from the outside and can occur suddenly as well as unexpectedly. The story tends to have more weaknesses compared to strengths. Any subject. Stereotypes are nothing new, as seen with the problem of slavery in America during the Nineteenth Century. Although Dido developed the perception that she and Aeneas were married, this was not the case for Aeneas. It cannot be made to happen by an outside force or it will be doomed to fail. It was because of these deceptions that finally resulted to the tragic death of the two couples. This implies that love can cause harmony to dominate in a region that that marred by wrangles. Early on in the Aeneid, when the city of Troy fell, Aeneas was challenged with rounding up what was left of the Trojan people and leaving the city to find a new home In this essay we will look at two different texts. The one to lead the descendants from Troy that would build Rome was Aeneas Allecto can be regarded as a female figure whose actions are far from minor, rather a source of the larger scale complications that contribute to annihilation, bloodshed, and misery	243	ENGLISH	1
Photo Cyprus Alive Choirocoitia is known as one of the most important and best preserved prehistoric sites of the eastern Mediterranean dating from the Neolithic age. The settlement of Choirocoitia is situated on the slope of a hill in the valley of the Maroni River, towards the southern coast of the island about 6 km from the sea. It has been listed as a World Heritage Site by UNESCO since 1998 Much of its importance lies in the evidence of an organised functional society in the form of a collective settlement, with surrounding fortifications for communal protection. The Neolithic aceramic period is represented by this settlement and around 20 other similar settlements spread throughout the island. Subsistence methods practiced by its Neolithic inhabitants included farming crops, herding sheep and goats, and raising pigs. It is a closed village, cut off from the outside world, apart from by the river, by a strong wall of stones 2.5 m thick and 3 m at its highest preserved level. Access into the village was probably via several entry points through the wall. The buildings within this wall consist of round structures huddled close together. The lower parts of these buildings are often of stone and attain massive proportions by constant additions of further skins of stones. Their external diameter varies between 2.3 m and 9.20 m while the internal diameter is only between 1.4 m and 4.80 m. A collapsed flat roof of one building found recently indicates that not all roofs were dome shaped as was originally believed. The internal divisions of each hut were according to the purpose of its usage. Low walls, platforms designated work, rest or storage areas. They had hearths presumably used for cooking and heating, benches and windows and in many cases there is evidence of piers to support an upper floor. It is believed that the huts were like rooms several of which were grouped around an open courtyard and together formed the home. The population of the village at any one time is thought not to have exceeded 300 to 600 inhabitants. The people were rather short – the men about 5′ 3″ on average and the women about 4′ 11″. Infant mortality was very high. On average adult men reached 35 years of age and women 33. The dead were buried in crouched positions just under the floors of the houses. In some instances provision was made for offerings, possibly indicating a form of Ancestor cult within the households. This, the earliest known culture in Cyprus, consisted of a well-organised, developed society mainly engaged in farming, hunting and herding. Farming was mainly of cereal crops. They also picked the fruit of trees growing wild in the surrounding area such as pistachio nuts, figs, olives and prunes. The four main species of animals whose remains were found on the site were deer, sheep, goats and pigs. The village of Choirokoitia was suddenly abandoned for reasons unknown at around 6000 BC and it seems that the island remained uninhabited for about 1500 years until the next recorded entity, the Sotira group. More recent discoveries, however, including several sites in the vicinity of the ancient acropolis of Amathus on the eastern edge of modern Limassol, have filled this chronological gap considerably, revealing that the island was probably occupied continuously at least from the ninth millennium BC. Early communities were small and widely dispersed, so not every region would have been as heavily exploited as later in prehistory According to the dominating opinion the name of the village is a composite of the word “Khiros” (hog / pig) and the word “Kiti”, thus suggesting an area where pigs were raised. Other sources claim that the original name was “Sidirokitida”, thus an area were iron was found. It is also said that it might have originated from the word “Khirogetia”, which implies the practice of palmistry. According yet to another opinion, it may have originated from some initial name like “Ierokitida” (Sacred place). Yet more imaginative opinions claim that the name came from the words “gyros” and “oikia” due to the fact that the prehistoric huts are round. Furthermore, tradition has it that the name is derived from the phrase “Chere Kitia” a phrased used by the Queen “Rigena” to address a certain female friend of hers from Kition. It was also claimed that maybe the name originated from the plant Annona cherimola, which is found cultivated in Cyprus under the more simple name “Cheromolia”, although this is considered very unlikely. At any rate, in old maps the village is marked as either Cherochetica or as Chierochitia. Panagia tou Kampou built in a traditional style	<urn:uuid:f74e2258-6d8e-411b-b3d9-186047a58c18>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://in-cyprus.com/choirokoitia-exploring-neolithic-settlement/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250595787.7/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119234426-20200120022426-00515.warc.gz	en	0.981273	999	3.828125	4	[ 0.04627762362360954, 0.5097054839134216, 0.3661354184150696, -0.10403591394424438, -0.19952821731567383, -0.3503325581550598, -0.2501164376735687, 0.16545386612415314, -0.048275142908096313, 0.20693226158618927, -0.427450567483902, -1.1762633323669434, 0.30621713399887085, 0.64619708061218...	11	Photo Cyprus Alive Choirocoitia is known as one of the most important and best preserved prehistoric sites of the eastern Mediterranean dating from the Neolithic age. The settlement of Choirocoitia is situated on the slope of a hill in the valley of the Maroni River, towards the southern coast of the island about 6 km from the sea. It has been listed as a World Heritage Site by UNESCO since 1998 Much of its importance lies in the evidence of an organised functional society in the form of a collective settlement, with surrounding fortifications for communal protection. The Neolithic aceramic period is represented by this settlement and around 20 other similar settlements spread throughout the island. Subsistence methods practiced by its Neolithic inhabitants included farming crops, herding sheep and goats, and raising pigs. It is a closed village, cut off from the outside world, apart from by the river, by a strong wall of stones 2.5 m thick and 3 m at its highest preserved level. Access into the village was probably via several entry points through the wall. The buildings within this wall consist of round structures huddled close together. The lower parts of these buildings are often of stone and attain massive proportions by constant additions of further skins of stones. Their external diameter varies between 2.3 m and 9.20 m while the internal diameter is only between 1.4 m and 4.80 m. A collapsed flat roof of one building found recently indicates that not all roofs were dome shaped as was originally believed. The internal divisions of each hut were according to the purpose of its usage. Low walls, platforms designated work, rest or storage areas. They had hearths presumably used for cooking and heating, benches and windows and in many cases there is evidence of piers to support an upper floor. It is believed that the huts were like rooms several of which were grouped around an open courtyard and together formed the home. The population of the village at any one time is thought not to have exceeded 300 to 600 inhabitants. The people were rather short – the men about 5′ 3″ on average and the women about 4′ 11″. Infant mortality was very high. On average adult men reached 35 years of age and women 33. The dead were buried in crouched positions just under the floors of the houses. In some instances provision was made for offerings, possibly indicating a form of Ancestor cult within the households. This, the earliest known culture in Cyprus, consisted of a well-organised, developed society mainly engaged in farming, hunting and herding. Farming was mainly of cereal crops. They also picked the fruit of trees growing wild in the surrounding area such as pistachio nuts, figs, olives and prunes. The four main species of animals whose remains were found on the site were deer, sheep, goats and pigs. The village of Choirokoitia was suddenly abandoned for reasons unknown at around 6000 BC and it seems that the island remained uninhabited for about 1500 years until the next recorded entity, the Sotira group. More recent discoveries, however, including several sites in the vicinity of the ancient acropolis of Amathus on the eastern edge of modern Limassol, have filled this chronological gap considerably, revealing that the island was probably occupied continuously at least from the ninth millennium BC. Early communities were small and widely dispersed, so not every region would have been as heavily exploited as later in prehistory According to the dominating opinion the name of the village is a composite of the word “Khiros” (hog / pig) and the word “Kiti”, thus suggesting an area where pigs were raised. Other sources claim that the original name was “Sidirokitida”, thus an area were iron was found. It is also said that it might have originated from the word “Khirogetia”, which implies the practice of palmistry. According yet to another opinion, it may have originated from some initial name like “Ierokitida” (Sacred place). Yet more imaginative opinions claim that the name came from the words “gyros” and “oikia” due to the fact that the prehistoric huts are round. Furthermore, tradition has it that the name is derived from the phrase “Chere Kitia” a phrased used by the Queen “Rigena” to address a certain female friend of hers from Kition. It was also claimed that maybe the name originated from the plant Annona cherimola, which is found cultivated in Cyprus under the more simple name “Cheromolia”, although this is considered very unlikely. At any rate, in old maps the village is marked as either Cherochetica or as Chierochitia. Panagia tou Kampou built in a traditional style	1,008	ENGLISH	1
Was Samson really a mighty man when his hair was long? Samson appears in the book of Judges. Judges 13:24 records his birth and Judges 16:30 describes his death. The book of Judges was written about 1043 B. C. and Samson was born about 1105 B.C. We are told in Judges 13:24-25 that when Samson was an adult, the Spirit of God “began to stir him.” Then the woman gave birth to a son and named him Samson; and the child grew up and the LORD blessed him. And the Spirit of the LORD began to stir him in Mahaneh-dan, between Zorah and Eshtaol. Judges 13:24-25 (NASB) He became a judge in the nation of Israel (Judges 15:20). First Marriage and Thirty Philistines Killed Chapter fourteen of Judges tells us that Samson married a Philistine woman whose name we do not know (Judges 14:5-11). She manipulated him into giving her the answer to a riddle about honey and a lion (Judges 14:12-16). Then she told the answer to the riddle to “the sons of her people” (Judges 14:17). Samson discovered her treachery, killed thirty of the Philistines and his wife was given to his friend by her father (Judges 14:19-20). Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon him mightily, and he went down to Ashkelon and killed thirty of them and took their spoil and gave the changes of clothes to those who told the riddle. And his anger burned, and he went up to his father’s house. 20 But Samson’s wife was given to his companion who had been his friend. Judges 14:19-20 (NASB) First Wife Murdered and Many Killed In chapter fifteen we are told that the Philistines murdered the woman and her father because Samson had burned the grain fields of the Philistines in his anger (Judges 15:6). Samson slaughtered them for the injustice (Judges 15:8). In retaliation they tried to murder Samson but Samson killed one thousand of the Philistines (Judges 15:16). But God split the hollow place that is in Lehi so that water came out of it. When he drank, his strength returned and he revived. Therefore he named it En-hakkore, which is in Lehi to this day. So he judged Israel twenty years in the days of the Philistines. Judges 15:19-20 (NASB) Second Woman and Final Acts of Justice Chapter sixteen is the final chapter that describes the days of Samson’s life. The chapter opens with him having sex with a harlot and then marrying another women called Delilah (Judges 16:1, 4). This woman four times asked Samson what the secret was to his power (Judges 16:5-17). The first three times Samson lied to her, but the fourth time he told her the truth (Judges 16:15-22). The secret to his ability to kill a lion with his bare hands (Judges 14:5-7), to kill thirty men in Ashkelon (Judges 14:19), to catch three hundred foxes (Judges 15:4-5), to kill an unknown number of Philistines (Judges 15:6-8), to slaughter one thousand Philistines in Lehi (Judges 15:15) and to rip up the door of the Gazites’ gate (Judges 16:3) was that the hair of his head had never been shaved. He had taken a Nazirite vow. Then she said to him, “How can you say, ‘I love you,’ when your heart is not with me? You have deceived me these three times and have not told me where your great strength is.” It came about when she pressed him daily with her words and urged him, that his soul was annoyed to death. So he told her all that was in his heart and said to her, “A razor has never come on my head, for I have been a Nazirite to God from my mother’s womb. If I am shaved, then my strength will leave me and I will become weak and be like any other man.” Judges 16:15-17 (NASB) Then in Judges 16:18-19, Delilah cut off the hair of his head and he became weak. Then the Philistines were able to abuse and punish Samson. Samson asked a boy to let him feel the pillars of the temple. He asked God to give him great strength one last time. God granted his request and he caused the temple to collapse and killed about 3,000 men and women (Judges 16:27-31). What was the source of Samson’s strength? While Samson said it was because he had taken a Nazirite vow and, therefore, he had this power because the hair on his head had never been cut (Judges 16:17), the actual answer was that God the Holy Spirit had empowered him when Samson obeyed God by not cutting his hair or shaving it. And the Spirit of the LORD began to stir him . . . Judges 13:25 (NASB) The Spirit of the LORD came upon him mightily, so that he tore him as one tears a young goat though he had nothing in his hand . . . Judges 14:6 (NASB) Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon him mightily, and he went down to Ashkelon and killed thirty of them . . . Judges 14:19 (NASB) And the Spirit of the LORD came upon him mightily so that the ropes that were on his arms were as flax that is burned with fire, and his bonds dropped from his hands. He found a fresh jawbone of a donkey, so he reached out and took it and killed a thousand men with it. Judges 15:14-15 (NASB) God the Holy Spirit was the source of his power. God had chosen to empower him. There are other examples of God the Holy Spirit empowering men to perform extraordinary feats. A list of these can be found in the study “The Spirit’s Ministry – Tongues and Prophecy.” Samson had great strength because he obeyed and kept a Nazirite vow. When he violated that vow by allowing his hair to be shaved, God withdrew the power. Otherwise, Samson was just an ordinary man. Suggested Links:The Spirit’s Ministry – Tongues and Prophecy Did Samson go to heaven? – Did Samson commit suicide? What is sweeter than honey and stronger than a lion in Samson’s riddle? When Another Person Offends Did the Holy Spirit come upon or fill the Old Testament saints? Do people who commit suicide go to hell since they cannot repent? Is it a sin to watch movies containing the supernatural or the occult? What does the Bible say about suicide? Is it wise to allow children to watch superman or batman? To The Glory of Christ Thus says the LORD, “Let not a wise man boast of his wisdom, and let not the mighty man boast of his might, let not a rich man boast of his riches; but let him who boasts boast of this, that he understands and knows Me . . . Jeremiah 9:23-24 Like The Master Ministries P.O. Box 31976 Tucson, AZ 85751-1976 A non-profit, 501(c)3 corporation. Donations to this ministry are tax-deductible.	<urn:uuid:153db92d-d6e9-492f-a4d4-2552003db612>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.neverthirsty.org/bible-qa/qa-archives/question/was-samson-really-a-mighty-man-when-his-hair-was-long/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251783000.84/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128184745-20200128214745-00193.warc.gz	en	0.984986	1,617	3.5	4	[ -0.37159186601638794, 0.46899914741516113, -0.20392444729804993, -0.14472392201423645, -0.12312163412570953, -0.29944995045661926, 0.5867956280708313, 0.23410499095916748, 0.03647259622812271, 0.1977766752243042, 0.2976958155632019, -0.03771386295557022, 0.3144526481628418, 0.0325766690075...	1	Was Samson really a mighty man when his hair was long? Samson appears in the book of Judges. Judges 13:24 records his birth and Judges 16:30 describes his death. The book of Judges was written about 1043 B. C. and Samson was born about 1105 B.C. We are told in Judges 13:24-25 that when Samson was an adult, the Spirit of God “began to stir him.” Then the woman gave birth to a son and named him Samson; and the child grew up and the LORD blessed him. And the Spirit of the LORD began to stir him in Mahaneh-dan, between Zorah and Eshtaol. Judges 13:24-25 (NASB) He became a judge in the nation of Israel (Judges 15:20). First Marriage and Thirty Philistines Killed Chapter fourteen of Judges tells us that Samson married a Philistine woman whose name we do not know (Judges 14:5-11). She manipulated him into giving her the answer to a riddle about honey and a lion (Judges 14:12-16). Then she told the answer to the riddle to “the sons of her people” (Judges 14:17). Samson discovered her treachery, killed thirty of the Philistines and his wife was given to his friend by her father (Judges 14:19-20). Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon him mightily, and he went down to Ashkelon and killed thirty of them and took their spoil and gave the changes of clothes to those who told the riddle. And his anger burned, and he went up to his father’s house. 20 But Samson’s wife was given to his companion who had been his friend. Judges 14:19-20 (NASB) First Wife Murdered and Many Killed In chapter fifteen we are told that the Philistines murdered the woman and her father because Samson had burned the grain fields of the Philistines in his anger (Judges 15:6). Samson slaughtered them for the injustice (Judges 15:8). In retaliation they tried to murder Samson but Samson killed one thousand of the Philistines (Judges 15:16). But God split the hollow place that is in Lehi so that water came out of it. When he drank, his strength returned and he revived. Therefore he named it En-hakkore, which is in Lehi to this day. So he judged Israel twenty years in the days of the Philistines. Judges 15:19-20 (NASB) Second Woman and Final Acts of Justice Chapter sixteen is the final chapter that describes the days of Samson’s life. The chapter opens with him having sex with a harlot and then marrying another women called Delilah (Judges 16:1, 4). This woman four times asked Samson what the secret was to his power (Judges 16:5-17). The first three times Samson lied to her, but the fourth time he told her the truth (Judges 16:15-22). The secret to his ability to kill a lion with his bare hands (Judges 14:5-7), to kill thirty men in Ashkelon (Judges 14:19), to catch three hundred foxes (Judges 15:4-5), to kill an unknown number of Philistines (Judges 15:6-8), to slaughter one thousand Philistines in Lehi (Judges 15:15) and to rip up the door of the Gazites’ gate (Judges 16:3) was that the hair of his head had never been shaved. He had taken a Nazirite vow. Then she said to him, “How can you say, ‘I love you,’ when your heart is not with me? You have deceived me these three times and have not told me where your great strength is.” It came about when she pressed him daily with her words and urged him, that his soul was annoyed to death. So he told her all that was in his heart and said to her, “A razor has never come on my head, for I have been a Nazirite to God from my mother’s womb. If I am shaved, then my strength will leave me and I will become weak and be like any other man.” Judges 16:15-17 (NASB) Then in Judges 16:18-19, Delilah cut off the hair of his head and he became weak. Then the Philistines were able to abuse and punish Samson. Samson asked a boy to let him feel the pillars of the temple. He asked God to give him great strength one last time. God granted his request and he caused the temple to collapse and killed about 3,000 men and women (Judges 16:27-31). What was the source of Samson’s strength? While Samson said it was because he had taken a Nazirite vow and, therefore, he had this power because the hair on his head had never been cut (Judges 16:17), the actual answer was that God the Holy Spirit had empowered him when Samson obeyed God by not cutting his hair or shaving it. And the Spirit of the LORD began to stir him . . . Judges 13:25 (NASB) The Spirit of the LORD came upon him mightily, so that he tore him as one tears a young goat though he had nothing in his hand . . . Judges 14:6 (NASB) Then the Spirit of the LORD came upon him mightily, and he went down to Ashkelon and killed thirty of them . . . Judges 14:19 (NASB) And the Spirit of the LORD came upon him mightily so that the ropes that were on his arms were as flax that is burned with fire, and his bonds dropped from his hands. He found a fresh jawbone of a donkey, so he reached out and took it and killed a thousand men with it. Judges 15:14-15 (NASB) God the Holy Spirit was the source of his power. God had chosen to empower him. There are other examples of God the Holy Spirit empowering men to perform extraordinary feats. A list of these can be found in the study “The Spirit’s Ministry – Tongues and Prophecy.” Samson had great strength because he obeyed and kept a Nazirite vow. When he violated that vow by allowing his hair to be shaved, God withdrew the power. Otherwise, Samson was just an ordinary man. Suggested Links:The Spirit’s Ministry – Tongues and Prophecy Did Samson go to heaven? – Did Samson commit suicide? What is sweeter than honey and stronger than a lion in Samson’s riddle? When Another Person Offends Did the Holy Spirit come upon or fill the Old Testament saints? Do people who commit suicide go to hell since they cannot repent? Is it a sin to watch movies containing the supernatural or the occult? What does the Bible say about suicide? Is it wise to allow children to watch superman or batman? To The Glory of Christ Thus says the LORD, “Let not a wise man boast of his wisdom, and let not the mighty man boast of his might, let not a rich man boast of his riches; but let him who boasts boast of this, that he understands and knows Me . . . Jeremiah 9:23-24 Like The Master Ministries P.O. Box 31976 Tucson, AZ 85751-1976 A non-profit, 501(c)3 corporation. Donations to this ministry are tax-deductible.	1,701	ENGLISH	1
We all know Santa but not many of us know there was a true St. Nicholas, in Greece, a couple of hundred years after Jesus’ birth. He would later become a Bishop in the Catholic Church and finally a Saint. He use to throw small bags of coins out his window for children to celebrate the coming of the holiday season. The bags resembled socks and are now represented by the hanging of stockings at Christmas. His identity was not turned into Santa until the early 1800’s in America. While Santa is not exactly the religious type, Saint Nicholas was. As a Cardinal he would have worn lots of red and he most likely had a beard in his later years. How to celebrate – Learn about the real St. Nicholas. Discover who turns Santa fat! Visit Greece!	<urn:uuid:8686ceed-5c6d-4069-b3ed-ae426b5f2bb2>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://unboxingthebizarre.wordpress.com/2019/12/06/december-6th-st-nicholas-day-2/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250614086.44/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123221108-20200124010108-00130.warc.gz	en	0.982949	160	3.5	4	[ 0.3037622570991516, 0.23528535664081573, 0.5104324817657471, -0.26577281951904297, 0.026598196476697922, -0.24878668785095215, 0.2673306167125702, 0.6165651679039001, -0.01852664165198803, 0.027812110260128975, -0.2117641717195511, 0.2239764779806137, 0.05381082743406296, 0.281164914369583...	5	We all know Santa but not many of us know there was a true St. Nicholas, in Greece, a couple of hundred years after Jesus’ birth. He would later become a Bishop in the Catholic Church and finally a Saint. He use to throw small bags of coins out his window for children to celebrate the coming of the holiday season. The bags resembled socks and are now represented by the hanging of stockings at Christmas. His identity was not turned into Santa until the early 1800’s in America. While Santa is not exactly the religious type, Saint Nicholas was. As a Cardinal he would have worn lots of red and he most likely had a beard in his later years. How to celebrate – Learn about the real St. Nicholas. Discover who turns Santa fat! Visit Greece!	159	ENGLISH	1
Language mainly describes the ability of a human being to learn and adapt to complex methods through which he or she can pass information to another human being. In human beings, the learning of language begins when a baby is born. The baby utters some sounds, which are then interpreted by the adults in its surrounding and react to them. For example, a baby crying may be interpreted as a sign that the baby is in discomfort or that the baby is hungry and therefore the adult has to react and give the baby the necessary attention. Universally, the initial language that all babies have is the same (Bus, 2009). As time moves on, the baby acquires different language from the surroundings and the people he or she interacts with. Taking into account that the brain of a baby can be said to be “blank” at birth and filled with information as the baby grows, it has been found that a baby learns quickly at its tender age. This implies that the surrounding plays a very big role in shaping what language the baby learns. Therefore, it is vital to expose the child to proper environment in order to enhance his or her language development. Buy The Effects of Watching Television essay paper online In the current world, children are born to parents who are at the height of their careers and it has been found out that these parents have hardly any time to spend with their children during the development stage. What happens is that television is given the role of babysitting; it keeps the baby or the child occupied until the time the parent gets back home later. What the parents do not realize is that there has been research that shows that using television to occupy children has a negative social effect on them and affects their language development. It has been shown through several studies that television viewing is likely to decrease a child’s chance of getting to know new words, talking, responding to communication as well as learning how to intonate the speech. A research by a pediatrician Dr. Dimitri Christakis (University of Washington) shows that television viewing among children inhibits their potential to interact with other people. He continues to report that the parents are affected too when their children get engrossed with whatever they are viewing and thus this puts a cap to the exchanges between the child and the parent thereby inhibiting the development of language for the infant. He continues to show that the television has caused a major detachment of the parents from their children, which in turn limits the words that are exchanged between the parent and the child. This exchange of words is the one that provides the building blocks for the development of the child’s language. Christakis further provides figures that every hour that the television was switched on, the child was likely to have heard 770 words less from a human adult in the same room. This meant that the baby could only hear but not talk as is shown that conversational exchange between the parent and the child decreased by alarming 15% (Benson and Haith, 2009). This is a proof that television has slowly but surely crippled the primary language teacher to the child, the parent. During the period in which a child is learning to talk, dialogue is very essential between the child and the other party. Research work has found that social one-on-one talk between children and adults resulted in better language development. It showed that the more the children participated in a dialogue with their parents, the more their skills towards language sharpened. What happens with television viewing is that the child only listens and the television talks. This creates a monologue in which the child hardly pays attention to the sound but is very fascinated by the pictures he or she is viewing. This creates a language development that is weakly correlated; meaning that the children cannot easily relate to what they hear or how they can respond to it. Furthermore, the conversations in the television are not directed at the child; the child is rather just a third party and is left out. Children who have grown entirely on television have the tendency of having impaired speech; they can easily comprehend what is being said but it is difficult for them to put express themselves in wording. They tend to segregate themselves from their peers, which further inhibits their interaction. They tend to have low esteem, as other children who are better than they are tend to laugh at them because of their inability to talk fluently. The inhibition of interaction has a very negative effect on the child. Children need each other to learn how to communicate to different categories of people. Children tend to speak jokingly among children in their age bracket but more seriously when speaking to adults. Most of television programming hardly categorizes this and in fact instills a method of communication that has no basis. For instance, a child may be exposed to viewing a program that has violence, characters are shouting and there is a lot of property damage. The child will adopt this in his or her communication and the words from his or her mouth will be fierce and venomous. The child may even break a glass in order to be heard, since he or she observed that breaking things is a form o communication that enables one gain attention. Television also has developed a way of presenting the so-called children friendly programs like for example cartoons, animations or magic shows. What the producers do is incorporate screen shots that change very fast, special effects, lot of color splashes and so on captivate the young viewer. Such presentation makes it difficult for the child to maintain and focus on some things and they have a feeling of confusion since they cannot understand how some things happen. Another thing is that these programs and even more cartoons have characters that speak loudly and have lot of background noises as well as funny noises in order to attract the child’s attention. The worrying result of these is that children may emulate the characters and speak like them in real life, use bodily language that they have seen on television which adults may not understand, in addition to having problems in maintaining concentration since theirs is mainly controlled by the box. These in long run will affect how the children adapt to the real world language. In conclusion, television should not be given the role to bring up children, as it tends to impair their language growth. Parents should spend more time with children, teach them how to communicate and introduce them to their language. The children should be allowed to interact with their peers as this helps them learn how to talk better than learning it from television. Related Free Informative Essays Most popular orders	<urn:uuid:f145fc06-a21c-401e-bc2c-6bba7972d751>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://exclusivepapers.com/essays/informative/the-effects-of-watching-television.php	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250606269.37/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122012204-20200122041204-00220.warc.gz	en	0.981715	1,306	3.9375	4	[ -0.19503682851791382, -0.023147759959101677, 0.176118403673172, -0.22426797449588776, -0.2650293707847595, 0.3659425675868988, 0.5745747685432434, 0.09883318096399307, -0.046742960810661316, 0.05959296226501465, 0.16814489662647247, -0.2564453184604645, 0.07729190587997437, 0.4958056211471...	1	Language mainly describes the ability of a human being to learn and adapt to complex methods through which he or she can pass information to another human being. In human beings, the learning of language begins when a baby is born. The baby utters some sounds, which are then interpreted by the adults in its surrounding and react to them. For example, a baby crying may be interpreted as a sign that the baby is in discomfort or that the baby is hungry and therefore the adult has to react and give the baby the necessary attention. Universally, the initial language that all babies have is the same (Bus, 2009). As time moves on, the baby acquires different language from the surroundings and the people he or she interacts with. Taking into account that the brain of a baby can be said to be “blank” at birth and filled with information as the baby grows, it has been found that a baby learns quickly at its tender age. This implies that the surrounding plays a very big role in shaping what language the baby learns. Therefore, it is vital to expose the child to proper environment in order to enhance his or her language development. Buy The Effects of Watching Television essay paper online In the current world, children are born to parents who are at the height of their careers and it has been found out that these parents have hardly any time to spend with their children during the development stage. What happens is that television is given the role of babysitting; it keeps the baby or the child occupied until the time the parent gets back home later. What the parents do not realize is that there has been research that shows that using television to occupy children has a negative social effect on them and affects their language development. It has been shown through several studies that television viewing is likely to decrease a child’s chance of getting to know new words, talking, responding to communication as well as learning how to intonate the speech. A research by a pediatrician Dr. Dimitri Christakis (University of Washington) shows that television viewing among children inhibits their potential to interact with other people. He continues to report that the parents are affected too when their children get engrossed with whatever they are viewing and thus this puts a cap to the exchanges between the child and the parent thereby inhibiting the development of language for the infant. He continues to show that the television has caused a major detachment of the parents from their children, which in turn limits the words that are exchanged between the parent and the child. This exchange of words is the one that provides the building blocks for the development of the child’s language. Christakis further provides figures that every hour that the television was switched on, the child was likely to have heard 770 words less from a human adult in the same room. This meant that the baby could only hear but not talk as is shown that conversational exchange between the parent and the child decreased by alarming 15% (Benson and Haith, 2009). This is a proof that television has slowly but surely crippled the primary language teacher to the child, the parent. During the period in which a child is learning to talk, dialogue is very essential between the child and the other party. Research work has found that social one-on-one talk between children and adults resulted in better language development. It showed that the more the children participated in a dialogue with their parents, the more their skills towards language sharpened. What happens with television viewing is that the child only listens and the television talks. This creates a monologue in which the child hardly pays attention to the sound but is very fascinated by the pictures he or she is viewing. This creates a language development that is weakly correlated; meaning that the children cannot easily relate to what they hear or how they can respond to it. Furthermore, the conversations in the television are not directed at the child; the child is rather just a third party and is left out. Children who have grown entirely on television have the tendency of having impaired speech; they can easily comprehend what is being said but it is difficult for them to put express themselves in wording. They tend to segregate themselves from their peers, which further inhibits their interaction. They tend to have low esteem, as other children who are better than they are tend to laugh at them because of their inability to talk fluently. The inhibition of interaction has a very negative effect on the child. Children need each other to learn how to communicate to different categories of people. Children tend to speak jokingly among children in their age bracket but more seriously when speaking to adults. Most of television programming hardly categorizes this and in fact instills a method of communication that has no basis. For instance, a child may be exposed to viewing a program that has violence, characters are shouting and there is a lot of property damage. The child will adopt this in his or her communication and the words from his or her mouth will be fierce and venomous. The child may even break a glass in order to be heard, since he or she observed that breaking things is a form o communication that enables one gain attention. Television also has developed a way of presenting the so-called children friendly programs like for example cartoons, animations or magic shows. What the producers do is incorporate screen shots that change very fast, special effects, lot of color splashes and so on captivate the young viewer. Such presentation makes it difficult for the child to maintain and focus on some things and they have a feeling of confusion since they cannot understand how some things happen. Another thing is that these programs and even more cartoons have characters that speak loudly and have lot of background noises as well as funny noises in order to attract the child’s attention. The worrying result of these is that children may emulate the characters and speak like them in real life, use bodily language that they have seen on television which adults may not understand, in addition to having problems in maintaining concentration since theirs is mainly controlled by the box. These in long run will affect how the children adapt to the real world language. In conclusion, television should not be given the role to bring up children, as it tends to impair their language growth. Parents should spend more time with children, teach them how to communicate and introduce them to their language. The children should be allowed to interact with their peers as this helps them learn how to talk better than learning it from television. Related Free Informative Essays Most popular orders	1,303	ENGLISH	1
Section 1: Identification and Evaluation of Sources This investigation will explore the question: To what extent did Coco Chanel influences women’s rights in the 20’s. We will be focusing on the years 1920-1930 for this investigation. In this internal assessment we will be focusing on how Coco changed women’s fashion by not catering to women fashion at that time and made clothes for the working, everyday women and how she redefined women’s role in society through her clothing. The first source we will begin investigating in depth would be “The Designer COCO CHANEL,” This text is a secondary source from Time magazine article written by Ingrid Sischy and published on June 8, 1998. This source is very valuable because it provides detailed historical information about Coco Chanel’s life and the time period in which she lived, as well as evaluating the impact of her work through contemporary fashion. But it doesn’t only discuss Chanel’s impact on the fashion movement and risks she’s made, but it also explores how the change in fashion influenced the lives of European women and redefined their roles in society. Because it is a secondary source written over twenty years after Chanel’s death, hindsight allows the author to reflect upon almost one hundred years of time, citing examples from many authors from decades ago when chanel was living. Its purpose is to provide information in detail about Chanel’s personal life and as well as her professional life , it also provides information how she linked her revolutionary designs with the work of contemporary designers to support her legacy in both works in fashion and feminism. The second source we will evaluate “Coco Chanel: My first feminist hero” an article written by Sarah Sahagian. The origin of the source is valuable because it was published in a website called “Gender focus” which is known for focusing on the flexibility of gender roles and feminism. The article is also valuable because it was written in 2015 which allows the author to rely on other sources in writing this article on Coco Chanel’s fashion. However it is also limited because it again like the first source only gives one perspective instead of multiple when writing about Coco Chanel. The purpose of Sahagian’s article is show and inform the reader on how Coco Chanel changed the way women looked and how her not being married in an era were women were taught and pressured to find a man. Section 2: Investigation Coco Chanel born 1883, in Saumur, France was not a typical feminist that campaigned for suffrage or sexual freedom for women yet still made a profound impact on the European feminist movement by redefining women’s roles deemed by society through her changing and revolutionizing women’s fashion. Coco Chanel also known as Gabrielle Bonheur Chanel, can undoubtedly be described as the Fashion Queen of the 1920s (Wilson). Chanel was always going out of the box and changing up what the society ideal women should dress like, one of her many quotes were “In order to be irreplaceable one must always be different” so based on her own quote she didn’t believe that she being a women should be the same cookie cutter women that society wants and forces on to women. Chanel was the first couture fashion designer to cater to the independent working European women by making loose “boyish” clothes and rejecting the corset. The 1920’s was a significant period of time for women because some were given the right to vote in several western countries and were given professional that used to be reserved just for men. Coco also didn’t get married which was definitely not common with the era she was in were a women’s main goal was to get married and find a man rather than actually having a job. “In an era where there was so much pressure on women to find and become legally bound to a man, Chanel was her own master, becoming more successful and renowned than her male counterparts in the male-dominated French fashion scene” (Sahagian).which could’ve influenced women to be more independent and have rights of their own. By Chanel being the only women in a male dominated field also influences women by showing them they could also be in a male dominated field but still dominate the men or work alongside men. Even though she didn’t speak on feminism she spoke a lot about femininity and the liberation of women “Chanel would not have defined herself as a feminist–in fact, she consistently spoke of femininity rather than of feminism–yet her work is unquestionably part of the liberation of women” (Time). However Chanel was also said to be homophobic and Anti-semitic which means she didn’t influence all aspect of women’s rights by being against what some could have been. “Gabrielle Chanel — better known as Coco— was a wretched human being. Anti-Semitic, homophobic” (NY TIMES). This shows you that Chanel didn’t care for all women because if she did she would have been ‘anti-semitic’ or homophobic which shows that she couldn’t care less about those or their rights if they were gay or jewish which shows the Chanel wasn’t for them. But some say that she was just associated with a nazi during World War II and didn’t particularly believe in those particular views herself. However she is a Nazi sympathizer for profiting off of her Nazi alignment and antisemitism and also still associating with someone who was a Nazi “Chanel wasn’t the only French woman to engage this kind of self-serving collaboration horizontale, but she likely profited from her Nazi alignment and antisemitism more than any of her fellow French women” (Warner). However, even though Chanel was said to not be for those who were Jewish or gay that doesn’t show that they still were not influenced by her in other aspects of their women’s rights. With all that being said, It still seems to me that regardless of Chanel’s values or who she was linked or associated or whether or not she profited from antisemitism, Chanel still made an impact on women and also influenced them by her bending and breaking societal norms of what a women should do and look like through her fashion designs and her way of living which in turn influences how women are depicted and influences their rights. Section 3: Reflection This Internal Assessment was written in order to gain knowledge on Coco Chanel’s affect on women. The challenges the historian faced was to deliver legitimate information to give to the reader on Coco Chanel’s legacy and determine how she influenced women rights during the ‘roaring 20’s’. What this taught me about being an historian is to make sure that the information you’re reading and especially the sources you’re reading can be trusted. How you can tell the sources are reliable would be to check what website you’re reading it from and who’s writing them and if the website allows you to change the article or answer it’s most definitely not reliable. I feel as though there are ways to describe historical events without giving out bias opinions but you just have to be careful of what words you use to write of a particular historic event. I feel like i’ve developed a sense of restriction on where i’d find my sources and how i would receive them as well When comparing different perspectives it was rather difficult to distinguish what was just a rumor or what was actual facts considering Chanel was a public figure and was a very well known fashion designer. So that shows me that historians would have to really make sure and be very cautious and careful with where they get their information from. It was also hard trying to not let my own belief like for example “you are who you hang out with” decide whether to call Chanel an Anti-semitic and homophobic or not. Overall, this IA has provided me an insight of the challenges that historian face doing what they do as a job and made me more aware to make my investigation of any essay more legitimate and make sure that my sources are reliable Eschner, Kat ” Why Coco Chanel created the little black dress”, Published by Smithsonian Magazine, 2017 Nichols, Michelle “Chanel advanced women’s rights” Published by Reuters, 2009 Sahagian, Sarah “Chanel, My first feminist fallen hero” Published by Gender focus, 2015 Sischy, Ingrid ” The designer COCO CHANEL” Published by Times Magazine. 1998 Warner, Judith “Sleeping with a nazi agent?” Published by NY Times, 2011 Wilson, Holly “1920s Fashion Icon: Coco Chanel” Published by The Mancunion, 2017	<urn:uuid:51c5fc49-9883-4028-a1da-210ca3b6405b>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://brightinvisiblegreen.com/section-1/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250614880.58/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124011048-20200124040048-00322.warc.gz	en	0.982089	1,869	3.671875	4	[ -0.050586141645908356, 0.49603867530822754, 0.18464121222496033, -0.00873618945479393, -0.07600918412208557, 0.37221142649650574, 0.37244367599487305, 0.29974743723869324, -0.14398236572742462, -0.30979639291763306, 0.23723429441452026, -0.10023455321788788, 0.09265153110027313, 0.21220290...	3	Section 1: Identification and Evaluation of Sources This investigation will explore the question: To what extent did Coco Chanel influences women’s rights in the 20’s. We will be focusing on the years 1920-1930 for this investigation. In this internal assessment we will be focusing on how Coco changed women’s fashion by not catering to women fashion at that time and made clothes for the working, everyday women and how she redefined women’s role in society through her clothing. The first source we will begin investigating in depth would be “The Designer COCO CHANEL,” This text is a secondary source from Time magazine article written by Ingrid Sischy and published on June 8, 1998. This source is very valuable because it provides detailed historical information about Coco Chanel’s life and the time period in which she lived, as well as evaluating the impact of her work through contemporary fashion. But it doesn’t only discuss Chanel’s impact on the fashion movement and risks she’s made, but it also explores how the change in fashion influenced the lives of European women and redefined their roles in society. Because it is a secondary source written over twenty years after Chanel’s death, hindsight allows the author to reflect upon almost one hundred years of time, citing examples from many authors from decades ago when chanel was living. Its purpose is to provide information in detail about Chanel’s personal life and as well as her professional life , it also provides information how she linked her revolutionary designs with the work of contemporary designers to support her legacy in both works in fashion and feminism. The second source we will evaluate “Coco Chanel: My first feminist hero” an article written by Sarah Sahagian. The origin of the source is valuable because it was published in a website called “Gender focus” which is known for focusing on the flexibility of gender roles and feminism. The article is also valuable because it was written in 2015 which allows the author to rely on other sources in writing this article on Coco Chanel’s fashion. However it is also limited because it again like the first source only gives one perspective instead of multiple when writing about Coco Chanel. The purpose of Sahagian’s article is show and inform the reader on how Coco Chanel changed the way women looked and how her not being married in an era were women were taught and pressured to find a man. Section 2: Investigation Coco Chanel born 1883, in Saumur, France was not a typical feminist that campaigned for suffrage or sexual freedom for women yet still made a profound impact on the European feminist movement by redefining women’s roles deemed by society through her changing and revolutionizing women’s fashion. Coco Chanel also known as Gabrielle Bonheur Chanel, can undoubtedly be described as the Fashion Queen of the 1920s (Wilson). Chanel was always going out of the box and changing up what the society ideal women should dress like, one of her many quotes were “In order to be irreplaceable one must always be different” so based on her own quote she didn’t believe that she being a women should be the same cookie cutter women that society wants and forces on to women. Chanel was the first couture fashion designer to cater to the independent working European women by making loose “boyish” clothes and rejecting the corset. The 1920’s was a significant period of time for women because some were given the right to vote in several western countries and were given professional that used to be reserved just for men. Coco also didn’t get married which was definitely not common with the era she was in were a women’s main goal was to get married and find a man rather than actually having a job. “In an era where there was so much pressure on women to find and become legally bound to a man, Chanel was her own master, becoming more successful and renowned than her male counterparts in the male-dominated French fashion scene” (Sahagian).which could’ve influenced women to be more independent and have rights of their own. By Chanel being the only women in a male dominated field also influences women by showing them they could also be in a male dominated field but still dominate the men or work alongside men. Even though she didn’t speak on feminism she spoke a lot about femininity and the liberation of women “Chanel would not have defined herself as a feminist–in fact, she consistently spoke of femininity rather than of feminism–yet her work is unquestionably part of the liberation of women” (Time). However Chanel was also said to be homophobic and Anti-semitic which means she didn’t influence all aspect of women’s rights by being against what some could have been. “Gabrielle Chanel — better known as Coco— was a wretched human being. Anti-Semitic, homophobic” (NY TIMES). This shows you that Chanel didn’t care for all women because if she did she would have been ‘anti-semitic’ or homophobic which shows that she couldn’t care less about those or their rights if they were gay or jewish which shows the Chanel wasn’t for them. But some say that she was just associated with a nazi during World War II and didn’t particularly believe in those particular views herself. However she is a Nazi sympathizer for profiting off of her Nazi alignment and antisemitism and also still associating with someone who was a Nazi “Chanel wasn’t the only French woman to engage this kind of self-serving collaboration horizontale, but she likely profited from her Nazi alignment and antisemitism more than any of her fellow French women” (Warner). However, even though Chanel was said to not be for those who were Jewish or gay that doesn’t show that they still were not influenced by her in other aspects of their women’s rights. With all that being said, It still seems to me that regardless of Chanel’s values or who she was linked or associated or whether or not she profited from antisemitism, Chanel still made an impact on women and also influenced them by her bending and breaking societal norms of what a women should do and look like through her fashion designs and her way of living which in turn influences how women are depicted and influences their rights. Section 3: Reflection This Internal Assessment was written in order to gain knowledge on Coco Chanel’s affect on women. The challenges the historian faced was to deliver legitimate information to give to the reader on Coco Chanel’s legacy and determine how she influenced women rights during the ‘roaring 20’s’. What this taught me about being an historian is to make sure that the information you’re reading and especially the sources you’re reading can be trusted. How you can tell the sources are reliable would be to check what website you’re reading it from and who’s writing them and if the website allows you to change the article or answer it’s most definitely not reliable. I feel as though there are ways to describe historical events without giving out bias opinions but you just have to be careful of what words you use to write of a particular historic event. I feel like i’ve developed a sense of restriction on where i’d find my sources and how i would receive them as well When comparing different perspectives it was rather difficult to distinguish what was just a rumor or what was actual facts considering Chanel was a public figure and was a very well known fashion designer. So that shows me that historians would have to really make sure and be very cautious and careful with where they get their information from. It was also hard trying to not let my own belief like for example “you are who you hang out with” decide whether to call Chanel an Anti-semitic and homophobic or not. Overall, this IA has provided me an insight of the challenges that historian face doing what they do as a job and made me more aware to make my investigation of any essay more legitimate and make sure that my sources are reliable Eschner, Kat ” Why Coco Chanel created the little black dress”, Published by Smithsonian Magazine, 2017 Nichols, Michelle “Chanel advanced women’s rights” Published by Reuters, 2009 Sahagian, Sarah “Chanel, My first feminist fallen hero” Published by Gender focus, 2015 Sischy, Ingrid ” The designer COCO CHANEL” Published by Times Magazine. 1998 Warner, Judith “Sleeping with a nazi agent?” Published by NY Times, 2011 Wilson, Holly “1920s Fashion Icon: Coco Chanel” Published by The Mancunion, 2017	1,758	ENGLISH	1
One of the main problems that Mao Zedong and the Chinese Communist Party faced in 1949 was the challenges that a transition government presented. Fresh on the heels of repelling the Kuomintang forces, Mao Zedong established the People’s Republic of China. The main problem that he had to contend with at this time was the pocket resistance forces and the remaining sentiments that the public may have had regarding the Kuomintang forces. As such, Mao Zedong, through the Chinese Communist Party, took over all the media outlets to manage the image of Chairman Mao and the CCP. In line with this, they also portrayed the Kuomintang forces as enemies of the state. Having gotten rid of most of the opposition, Mao then decided to implement his plans in line with eventually filling in his five year plan for the newly founded People’s Republic of China. The first challenge was the land reform since it brought about the campaigns for mass repressions. The counter-revolutionaries during this period were dissidents who thwarted the goals for progress of the government, according to Mao Zedong. In an effort to quell all of them, Mao ordered the public execution of everyone connected to dissidents and also those who did not pledge loyalty to the Chinese Communist Party. These plans were only precursors to the plan of Mao to implement his socialist society. In 1953, Mao began targeting the wealthy capitalists in the progressive cities of China. He accused these people of not supporting the Chinese Communist Party and ordered their arrest and in certain cases their death. All of these acts were admitted by Chairman Mao and he defended himself and the Chinese Communist Party on the ground that these acts were necessary for him to retain his power and lead China to the glorious future that he had in mind for the newly forged People’s Republic of China.	<urn:uuid:ece95a80-909a-4a2e-9705-e88f9828db11>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://custom-essays-writings.com/chinese-communist-party	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250598726.39/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120110422-20200120134422-00068.warc.gz	en	0.98212	370	3.8125	4	[ -1.002374529838562, 0.26881736516952515, 0.2323078066110611, 0.0008117043180391192, -0.1791575849056244, 0.34364670515060425, 0.10015711933374405, -0.06054551899433136, -0.3612629175186157, -0.003119952743873, 0.7345544695854187, -0.04653506726026535, 0.14851590991020203, 0.315549969673156...	10	One of the main problems that Mao Zedong and the Chinese Communist Party faced in 1949 was the challenges that a transition government presented. Fresh on the heels of repelling the Kuomintang forces, Mao Zedong established the People’s Republic of China. The main problem that he had to contend with at this time was the pocket resistance forces and the remaining sentiments that the public may have had regarding the Kuomintang forces. As such, Mao Zedong, through the Chinese Communist Party, took over all the media outlets to manage the image of Chairman Mao and the CCP. In line with this, they also portrayed the Kuomintang forces as enemies of the state. Having gotten rid of most of the opposition, Mao then decided to implement his plans in line with eventually filling in his five year plan for the newly founded People’s Republic of China. The first challenge was the land reform since it brought about the campaigns for mass repressions. The counter-revolutionaries during this period were dissidents who thwarted the goals for progress of the government, according to Mao Zedong. In an effort to quell all of them, Mao ordered the public execution of everyone connected to dissidents and also those who did not pledge loyalty to the Chinese Communist Party. These plans were only precursors to the plan of Mao to implement his socialist society. In 1953, Mao began targeting the wealthy capitalists in the progressive cities of China. He accused these people of not supporting the Chinese Communist Party and ordered their arrest and in certain cases their death. All of these acts were admitted by Chairman Mao and he defended himself and the Chinese Communist Party on the ground that these acts were necessary for him to retain his power and lead China to the glorious future that he had in mind for the newly forged People’s Republic of China.	374	ENGLISH	1
March is National Women’s History Month and this year’s theme is “Honoring Trailblazing Women in Labor and Business.” Women joining together have always been a force for moving toward positive change in this country. This year is no different considering the number of women who have joined together throughout the country in marches to let their voices be heard to protect their rights and those of future generations. Consider the following women in medicine who you may have never heard about but who have made a difference. Not much is known about Jane Sharp other than she wrote The Whole Art of Midwifery Discovered in 1671. This book provided practical knowledge and promoted antenatal care. It also brought to light why male midwifes that had no understanding of the female body were not the best for women. Having faced sexist and racial discrimination throughout her medical career, Mary Seacole was not one to give up. Born to a Jamaican mother and a Scottish father in Jamaica, she travelled to London to volunteer as a nurse during the Crimean War. She was turned away from Florence Nightingale’s unit, so she took it upon herself to go to frontlines and provide medical care to both sides. Margaret “James Barry” Bulkely With the assistance of her affluent family, Margaret Bulkely was able to masquerade as “James Barry” and study as a doctor during the early part of the 1800s. During the Crimean War, James had a higher rate of recovery than any other medic. Under the persona of James, she performed one of the first Caesarian sections. James’ true identity was not revealed until after her death. Not taking no for an answer, Yoshioka Yayoi was not going to let a little thing like the Japanese government prevent women from becoming doctors. She opened the Tokyo Women’s Medical University in 1900. This was 12 years before women were permitted to practice medicine in Japan. As a suffragist, Yayoi fought for women’s rights and women’s rights to an education her entire life.	<urn:uuid:42ed32aa-3608-4d5e-b516-07409d46a7db>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.angelesinstitute.edu/thenightingale/national-womens-month-march	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250601241.42/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121014531-20200121043531-00259.warc.gz	en	0.983708	436	3.515625	4	[ -0.12952834367752075, 0.16126087307929993, 0.1874237358570099, 0.21120361983776093, -0.0895146057009697, 0.3887269198894501, -0.02098517306149006, 0.34430739283561707, -0.080717071890831, 0.011180680245161057, -0.2376449853181839, 0.012383784167468548, -0.01440553180873394, 0.3998076915740...	5	March is National Women’s History Month and this year’s theme is “Honoring Trailblazing Women in Labor and Business.” Women joining together have always been a force for moving toward positive change in this country. This year is no different considering the number of women who have joined together throughout the country in marches to let their voices be heard to protect their rights and those of future generations. Consider the following women in medicine who you may have never heard about but who have made a difference. Not much is known about Jane Sharp other than she wrote The Whole Art of Midwifery Discovered in 1671. This book provided practical knowledge and promoted antenatal care. It also brought to light why male midwifes that had no understanding of the female body were not the best for women. Having faced sexist and racial discrimination throughout her medical career, Mary Seacole was not one to give up. Born to a Jamaican mother and a Scottish father in Jamaica, she travelled to London to volunteer as a nurse during the Crimean War. She was turned away from Florence Nightingale’s unit, so she took it upon herself to go to frontlines and provide medical care to both sides. Margaret “James Barry” Bulkely With the assistance of her affluent family, Margaret Bulkely was able to masquerade as “James Barry” and study as a doctor during the early part of the 1800s. During the Crimean War, James had a higher rate of recovery than any other medic. Under the persona of James, she performed one of the first Caesarian sections. James’ true identity was not revealed until after her death. Not taking no for an answer, Yoshioka Yayoi was not going to let a little thing like the Japanese government prevent women from becoming doctors. She opened the Tokyo Women’s Medical University in 1900. This was 12 years before women were permitted to practice medicine in Japan. As a suffragist, Yayoi fought for women’s rights and women’s rights to an education her entire life.	423	ENGLISH	1
The Empress Wu Zetian (690-704 CE) is the only female ruler in the history of China. Even though there were many important and influential women throughout China's history, only one ever became the most powerful political figure in the country. She ruled China with complete authority and no one dared to challenge her when she was in control. As soon as her power began to slip though, and immediately after she died, historians began to criticize her rule primarily because she was a woman holding a traditionally male position of power. Wu Zetian's reign has been highly controversial ever since because later historians just accepted what earlier ones had written on Wu Zetian without considering the bias which might have been motivating the early historians. N. Harry Rothschild's book, Wu Zhao: China's Only Woman Emperor, is a comprehensive work on Wu Zetian. Wu Zhao was her birth name before she took `Wu Zetian' ("Ruler of the Heavens") as her name on becoming emperor. Rothschild does not gloss over the difficult aspects of Wu Zetian's rise to power but places them in context and explains how and why this woman was demonized by the Chinese historians who wrote about her. He uses primary documents to show how the members of the court felt that nature had been turned upsidedown because a woman had assumed a man's role of ultimate authority. Rothschild tells the story of how, when one of her ministers requested in writing that she step aside because she was destroying the fabric of reality by assuming a man's position, Wu Zetian had him banished to the swamp lands and continued on with her reign. She refused to be controlled by men or the traditions men forced women to follow and believed she was the equal or better of anyone at court. A very interesting aspect of Wu Zetian's reign is her devotion to Buddhism. Her predecessors had both favored Buddhism over other religions but Rothschild makes clear why Buddhism was especially important and politically useful to Wu Zetian: Containing none of the longstanding historical and philosophical impediments to female rule that were imbedded so deeply in Chinese tradition, Buddhism offered Wu Zhao ideological and political validation. The universalism of Buddhism provided a common cultural ground that helped bring together the multi-ethnic inhabitants of her cosmopolitan empire. One Buddhist scroll written by Wu Zhao's non-Chinese subjects on the Western borderlands extolled her in glorious fashion (138). This was a very different treatment from the one she received from the Chinese historians who wrote about her and Rothschild explains exactly why that would have been so. Even though their primary complaint was that she was a woman in a man's job, her refusal to compromise on any subject made her very difficult to deal with. Wu Zhao had been raised by her father to believe she was the equal of any man and she saw no reason to listen to her ministers, just because they were men, when she felt she knew better. Under her reign, China became incredibly prosperous and her reforms of the military, bureaucracy, agriculture, and imperial court all laid the foundation for the success of the later emperor Xuanzong (712-756 CE). Rothschild deals easily with her many accomplishments but does not gloss over the darker aspects of her reign such as the alleged murder of her infant daughter, framing innocents for crimes, executing or banishing anyone who might pose the slightest threat, or the secret police and informants she used to secure her rule. Rothschild's writing style is very easy and interesting and he does a great job of bringing his subject to life. Wu Zetian was an interesting and complex woman and too many historians of the past have just repeated what earlier writers reported without much thought. Rothschild's work shows real depth and understanding of his subject and should be required reading for anyone studying Chinese history or thinking of enrolling in a Women's History course at university. Wu Zhao was one of the most interesting people in ancient Chinese history and Rothschild's book helps a reader understand who she was and why she should be remembered. About the Reviewer Cite This Work Rothschild, N. H. (2016, March 15). Wu Zhao: China's Only Woman Emperor. Ancient History Encyclopedia. Retrieved from https://www.ancient.eu/review/113/ Rothschild, N. H. "Wu Zhao: China's Only Woman Emperor." Ancient History Encyclopedia. Last modified March 15, 2016. https://www.ancient.eu/review/113/. Rothschild, N. H. "Wu Zhao: China's Only Woman Emperor." Ancient History Encyclopedia. Ancient History Encyclopedia, 15 Mar 2016. Web. 25 Jan 2020.	<urn:uuid:04ce5873-e3d2-4cef-9bb4-c725f57e2c0b>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.ancient.eu/review/113/wu-zhao-chinas-only-woman-emperor/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251672440.80/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125101544-20200125130544-00261.warc.gz	en	0.980323	949	3.46875	3	[ -0.22793829441070557, 0.6715564727783203, 0.3325164318084717, -0.07600758969783783, -0.34066659212112427, 0.49335774779319763, 0.2832619845867157, 0.2687792181968689, -0.16940799355506897, 0.007771552540361881, 0.3405288755893707, -0.14841000735759735, 0.14512619376182556, 0.17655667662620...	1	The Empress Wu Zetian (690-704 CE) is the only female ruler in the history of China. Even though there were many important and influential women throughout China's history, only one ever became the most powerful political figure in the country. She ruled China with complete authority and no one dared to challenge her when she was in control. As soon as her power began to slip though, and immediately after she died, historians began to criticize her rule primarily because she was a woman holding a traditionally male position of power. Wu Zetian's reign has been highly controversial ever since because later historians just accepted what earlier ones had written on Wu Zetian without considering the bias which might have been motivating the early historians. N. Harry Rothschild's book, Wu Zhao: China's Only Woman Emperor, is a comprehensive work on Wu Zetian. Wu Zhao was her birth name before she took `Wu Zetian' ("Ruler of the Heavens") as her name on becoming emperor. Rothschild does not gloss over the difficult aspects of Wu Zetian's rise to power but places them in context and explains how and why this woman was demonized by the Chinese historians who wrote about her. He uses primary documents to show how the members of the court felt that nature had been turned upsidedown because a woman had assumed a man's role of ultimate authority. Rothschild tells the story of how, when one of her ministers requested in writing that she step aside because she was destroying the fabric of reality by assuming a man's position, Wu Zetian had him banished to the swamp lands and continued on with her reign. She refused to be controlled by men or the traditions men forced women to follow and believed she was the equal or better of anyone at court. A very interesting aspect of Wu Zetian's reign is her devotion to Buddhism. Her predecessors had both favored Buddhism over other religions but Rothschild makes clear why Buddhism was especially important and politically useful to Wu Zetian: Containing none of the longstanding historical and philosophical impediments to female rule that were imbedded so deeply in Chinese tradition, Buddhism offered Wu Zhao ideological and political validation. The universalism of Buddhism provided a common cultural ground that helped bring together the multi-ethnic inhabitants of her cosmopolitan empire. One Buddhist scroll written by Wu Zhao's non-Chinese subjects on the Western borderlands extolled her in glorious fashion (138). This was a very different treatment from the one she received from the Chinese historians who wrote about her and Rothschild explains exactly why that would have been so. Even though their primary complaint was that she was a woman in a man's job, her refusal to compromise on any subject made her very difficult to deal with. Wu Zhao had been raised by her father to believe she was the equal of any man and she saw no reason to listen to her ministers, just because they were men, when she felt she knew better. Under her reign, China became incredibly prosperous and her reforms of the military, bureaucracy, agriculture, and imperial court all laid the foundation for the success of the later emperor Xuanzong (712-756 CE). Rothschild deals easily with her many accomplishments but does not gloss over the darker aspects of her reign such as the alleged murder of her infant daughter, framing innocents for crimes, executing or banishing anyone who might pose the slightest threat, or the secret police and informants she used to secure her rule. Rothschild's writing style is very easy and interesting and he does a great job of bringing his subject to life. Wu Zetian was an interesting and complex woman and too many historians of the past have just repeated what earlier writers reported without much thought. Rothschild's work shows real depth and understanding of his subject and should be required reading for anyone studying Chinese history or thinking of enrolling in a Women's History course at university. Wu Zhao was one of the most interesting people in ancient Chinese history and Rothschild's book helps a reader understand who she was and why she should be remembered. About the Reviewer Cite This Work Rothschild, N. H. (2016, March 15). Wu Zhao: China's Only Woman Emperor. Ancient History Encyclopedia. Retrieved from https://www.ancient.eu/review/113/ Rothschild, N. H. "Wu Zhao: China's Only Woman Emperor." Ancient History Encyclopedia. Last modified March 15, 2016. https://www.ancient.eu/review/113/. Rothschild, N. H. "Wu Zhao: China's Only Woman Emperor." Ancient History Encyclopedia. Ancient History Encyclopedia, 15 Mar 2016. Web. 25 Jan 2020.	992	ENGLISH	1
The Story of An Hour by Kate Chopin is a short story written on April 19, 1894. According to Wikipedia, it was initially published as The Dream of an Hour. We will discuss the title later on. The story of The Story of An Hour revolves around Louise Mallard who is a loving and caring wife. She comes to know that her husband has died in a bus accident (a rumor). Initially, she weeps a lot but soon feels a kind of freedom and liberty. It seems to her as if she has come out of slavery. But soon her husband returns. Seeing him on the door, she dies. People think that she died because of happiness (on seeing his husband). However, the truth is that she was shocked to see him and feared that her freedom will again be taken away. In this course, we will discuss the summary, analysis, characters, symbolism, setting, and irony. The story has a lot of ironies which we will find while reading the summary and analysis in detail.	<urn:uuid:ee46cd67-2fa3-462c-8a6f-619d00532494>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://englishsummary.com/course/the-story-of-an-hour-by-kate-chopin/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251690379.95/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126195918-20200126225918-00407.warc.gz	en	0.990892	210	3.265625	3	[ -0.35484880208969116, 0.6178204417228699, 0.13081449270248413, 0.1002742350101471, 0.02281653881072998, -0.0007986297132447362, 0.18834903836250305, 0.11703707277774811, 0.3612009286880493, -0.45471903681755066, 0.12628334760665894, 0.5294980406761169, 0.04519079253077507, 0.06788203865289...	14	The Story of An Hour by Kate Chopin is a short story written on April 19, 1894. According to Wikipedia, it was initially published as The Dream of an Hour. We will discuss the title later on. The story of The Story of An Hour revolves around Louise Mallard who is a loving and caring wife. She comes to know that her husband has died in a bus accident (a rumor). Initially, she weeps a lot but soon feels a kind of freedom and liberty. It seems to her as if she has come out of slavery. But soon her husband returns. Seeing him on the door, she dies. People think that she died because of happiness (on seeing his husband). However, the truth is that she was shocked to see him and feared that her freedom will again be taken away. In this course, we will discuss the summary, analysis, characters, symbolism, setting, and irony. The story has a lot of ironies which we will find while reading the summary and analysis in detail.	211	ENGLISH	1
Bell Hooks is a well-known Feminist. She has achieved a lot through her lifetime, and is still going strong. Bell Hooks is mostly known for her fight for feminism and for mainly African American females. She is also known for the many books she has written and for her public speaking. But besides all the major facts above, there is a lot more to Bell Hooks then you think. Throughout your readings you will learn a little more about Bell and her accomplishments. The main resource I used to do my research was the internet. Bell Hooks Theory Paper Bell Hooks is a famous scholar. She is known for her work with feminism and black women in the United States. She is also a well-known author. Many have impacted her, as well as she has done for many. Bell Hooks was born Gloria Jean Watkins on September 25, 1952, in Hopkinsville, Kentucky. Gloria was raised in a small segregated town. Her family wasn’t very wealthy back then, but it didn’t bother her. She went to an all-black school in her early years then as she got older she was introduced to a school where the people were prominently white. These changes affected her in a good way. She learned a lot about everyone’s differences and similarities. Gloria went through many experiences as she grew up and it helped her become who she is now. College years. Once Gloria Jean Watkins started to write she changed her name to Bell Hooks, after her grandmother. She did not capitalize her name so that people would focus more on her work. Bell Hooks attended many University including Stanford, Wisconsin, and California. Growing up in a low poverty segregated town made Bell a very shy and quiet woman. When she was a student at Stanford she saw how the students treated each other and their parents. She definitely learned that people had different beliefs and values. Bell Hooks also noticed that her fellow students hid their past and background if they were embarrassed or ashamed of them. She didn’t think that this should effect their education but it did. Bell stated in her book Keeping Close to Home: Class and Education “I did not intend to forget my class background or alter my class allegiance.” She never let anyone or anything change her. Career. In college she wrote her first book titled Ain't I a Woman. Even though she got some fame from that first book she continued writing after graduating from college. Once she...	<urn:uuid:294e229a-ee1a-441f-bf8f-6ebdf50e7bf8>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://brightkite.com/essay-on/accomplishments-of-bell-hooks	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250591431.4/warc/CC-MAIN-20200117234621-20200118022621-00020.warc.gz	en	0.992836	504	3.546875	4	[ -0.1245141476392746, 0.06508315354585648, 0.22512024641036987, 0.20819759368896484, -0.45889219641685486, 0.06048612669110298, 0.3912593126296997, 0.1292053759098053, 0.08651429414749146, -0.14851821959018707, 0.005381781607866287, 0.07270616292953491, -0.17662367224693298, -0.114555418491...	1	Bell Hooks is a well-known Feminist. She has achieved a lot through her lifetime, and is still going strong. Bell Hooks is mostly known for her fight for feminism and for mainly African American females. She is also known for the many books she has written and for her public speaking. But besides all the major facts above, there is a lot more to Bell Hooks then you think. Throughout your readings you will learn a little more about Bell and her accomplishments. The main resource I used to do my research was the internet. Bell Hooks Theory Paper Bell Hooks is a famous scholar. She is known for her work with feminism and black women in the United States. She is also a well-known author. Many have impacted her, as well as she has done for many. Bell Hooks was born Gloria Jean Watkins on September 25, 1952, in Hopkinsville, Kentucky. Gloria was raised in a small segregated town. Her family wasn’t very wealthy back then, but it didn’t bother her. She went to an all-black school in her early years then as she got older she was introduced to a school where the people were prominently white. These changes affected her in a good way. She learned a lot about everyone’s differences and similarities. Gloria went through many experiences as she grew up and it helped her become who she is now. College years. Once Gloria Jean Watkins started to write she changed her name to Bell Hooks, after her grandmother. She did not capitalize her name so that people would focus more on her work. Bell Hooks attended many University including Stanford, Wisconsin, and California. Growing up in a low poverty segregated town made Bell a very shy and quiet woman. When she was a student at Stanford she saw how the students treated each other and their parents. She definitely learned that people had different beliefs and values. Bell Hooks also noticed that her fellow students hid their past and background if they were embarrassed or ashamed of them. She didn’t think that this should effect their education but it did. Bell stated in her book Keeping Close to Home: Class and Education “I did not intend to forget my class background or alter my class allegiance.” She never let anyone or anything change her. Career. In college she wrote her first book titled Ain't I a Woman. Even though she got some fame from that first book she continued writing after graduating from college. Once she...	483	ENGLISH	1
Harris was the first African American woman in a presidential Cabinet. Divorced or single women often found it difficult to obtain credit to purchase a house or a car. Historians differ as to whether Wilson actually changed his mind on suffrage or if he felt compelled to act to avoid a political disaster. A military look crept into fashion designs as well, bringing military-style tunic jackets, belts, and epaulets. That reform effort evolved during the 19th century, initially emphasizing a broad spectrum of goals before focusing solely on securing the franchise for women. When World War I began inmany suffrage organizations shifted their focus to supporting the war effort, although some activists continued to fight for suffrage. As women dressed for new roles, gender-dictated dress codes relaxed. Many retail stores would not issue independent credit cards to married women. Not until the early s was a law passed that equalized pay scales for men and women in the British civil service. A year later Montana granted women the right to vote, thanks in part to the efforts of another future Congresswoman, Jeannette Rankin. Norway followed, granting full women's suffrage in In the 20th century, however, women in most nations won the right to vote and increased their educational and job opportunities. Until well into the 20th century, women in Western European countries lived under many of the same legal disabilities as women in the United States. Because of manpower shortages in warring countries, women took on many roles traditionally held by men and changed the dominant idea of what women were capable of doing, giving further momentum to the suffrage movement. Indeed, obstetrics was the domain of women. Jeanette Rankin of Montana, elected inwas the first woman member of the United States House of Representatives. Equity law had a liberalizing effect upon the legal rights of women in the United States. Women also had not greatly improved their status in other professions. Hills was secretary of housing and urban development in Gerald R. Skirts became shorter, as they often do during wartime, and colors became sober and muted. By women had acquired equal suffrage with men in 15 states. For the next two decades the NAWSA worked as a nonpartisan organization focused on gaining the vote in states, although managerial problems and a lack of coordination initially limited its success. Black women with children are more likely to work than are white or Hispanic women who have children. The labor shortage caused by World War I that allowed women to move into roles traditionally held by men also made it increasingly difficult for opponents to argue that women were unworthy of the vote on the grounds of physical and mental inferiority. In ancient India, for example, women were not deprived of property rights or individual freedoms by marriage. Between andthe NAWSA intensified its lobbying efforts and additional states extended the franchise to women: The AWSA was better funded and the larger of the two groups, but it had only a regional reach. Nevertheless, when they were allowed personal and intellectual freedom, women made significant achievements. By the s, it became clear that the two organizations would be more effective if they merged back into one group, so they formed the National American Women Suffrage Association NAWSA inwith Stanton as president and Anthony as vice president. In Dixie, even more than in other parts of the country, feminism ran counter to a culture in which conservative religion, tradition, and respect for the law was deeply engrained. In Africa, the right to vote was generally conferred on both men and women as colonial rule ended and nations became independent—the same is true for India, which granted universal suffrage with its constitution in Granting women political rights was intended to bring more women westward and to boost the population. Contrary to most of her religious female colleagues, she believed further that organized religion would have to be abolished before true emancipation for women could be achieved. When the franchise was widened, as it was in the United Kingdom inwomen continued to be denied all voting rights. Others suggest that women had long played nontraditional roles on the hardscrabble frontier and were accorded a more equal status by men.Ultimately, the suffrage movement provided political training for some of the early women pioneers in Congress, but its internal divisions foreshadowed the persistent disagreements among women in Congress and among women’s rights activists after the passage of the 19th Amendment. National First Ladies' Library's biography for Lou Hoover. Oct 04, · Woman suffrage: Woman suffrage, the right of women by law to vote in national and local elections. Women were excluded from voting in ancient Greece and Republican Rome, as well as in the few democracies that had emerged in Europe by the end of the 18th century. By the early years of the 20th century, women had won the right to vote in. Late 19th-Early 20th century women's suffrage movement The women's suffrage movement took place in the United States from the latter half of the 19th century up until the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment inwhich put into law women's right to vote. Voting Rights for Women: Pro- and Anti-Suffrage. An article originally published in the Session Weekly of the Minnesota House of Representatives recalls the arguments put forth in objection to the Minnesota Equal Suffrage Association's decision, early in the 20th century, to push for the right of women to vote in presidential elections. One lawmaker declared that all-male voting was. Teacher-created and classroom-tested lesson plans using primary sources from the Library of Congress.Download	<urn:uuid:cb2135ed-e4dd-4e75-a536-90c187674b05>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://rehipoj.bistroriviere.com/women-s-suffrage-and-early-20th-century-60114js.html	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250591234.15/warc/CC-MAIN-20200117205732-20200117233732-00399.warc.gz	en	0.980052	1,140	4.25	4	[ -0.3486160635948181, 0.3477301299571991, -0.05575122684240341, 0.06526625156402588, -0.2937205731868744, 0.5849458575248718, -0.3323536217212677, 0.026913650333881378, -0.012333808466792107, 0.05862978845834732, 0.17927254736423492, 0.3451574444770813, -0.1399427056312561, 0.06273737549781...	1	Harris was the first African American woman in a presidential Cabinet. Divorced or single women often found it difficult to obtain credit to purchase a house or a car. Historians differ as to whether Wilson actually changed his mind on suffrage or if he felt compelled to act to avoid a political disaster. A military look crept into fashion designs as well, bringing military-style tunic jackets, belts, and epaulets. That reform effort evolved during the 19th century, initially emphasizing a broad spectrum of goals before focusing solely on securing the franchise for women. When World War I began inmany suffrage organizations shifted their focus to supporting the war effort, although some activists continued to fight for suffrage. As women dressed for new roles, gender-dictated dress codes relaxed. Many retail stores would not issue independent credit cards to married women. Not until the early s was a law passed that equalized pay scales for men and women in the British civil service. A year later Montana granted women the right to vote, thanks in part to the efforts of another future Congresswoman, Jeannette Rankin. Norway followed, granting full women's suffrage in In the 20th century, however, women in most nations won the right to vote and increased their educational and job opportunities. Until well into the 20th century, women in Western European countries lived under many of the same legal disabilities as women in the United States. Because of manpower shortages in warring countries, women took on many roles traditionally held by men and changed the dominant idea of what women were capable of doing, giving further momentum to the suffrage movement. Indeed, obstetrics was the domain of women. Jeanette Rankin of Montana, elected inwas the first woman member of the United States House of Representatives. Equity law had a liberalizing effect upon the legal rights of women in the United States. Women also had not greatly improved their status in other professions. Hills was secretary of housing and urban development in Gerald R. Skirts became shorter, as they often do during wartime, and colors became sober and muted. By women had acquired equal suffrage with men in 15 states. For the next two decades the NAWSA worked as a nonpartisan organization focused on gaining the vote in states, although managerial problems and a lack of coordination initially limited its success. Black women with children are more likely to work than are white or Hispanic women who have children. The labor shortage caused by World War I that allowed women to move into roles traditionally held by men also made it increasingly difficult for opponents to argue that women were unworthy of the vote on the grounds of physical and mental inferiority. In ancient India, for example, women were not deprived of property rights or individual freedoms by marriage. Between andthe NAWSA intensified its lobbying efforts and additional states extended the franchise to women: The AWSA was better funded and the larger of the two groups, but it had only a regional reach. Nevertheless, when they were allowed personal and intellectual freedom, women made significant achievements. By the s, it became clear that the two organizations would be more effective if they merged back into one group, so they formed the National American Women Suffrage Association NAWSA inwith Stanton as president and Anthony as vice president. In Dixie, even more than in other parts of the country, feminism ran counter to a culture in which conservative religion, tradition, and respect for the law was deeply engrained. In Africa, the right to vote was generally conferred on both men and women as colonial rule ended and nations became independent—the same is true for India, which granted universal suffrage with its constitution in Granting women political rights was intended to bring more women westward and to boost the population. Contrary to most of her religious female colleagues, she believed further that organized religion would have to be abolished before true emancipation for women could be achieved. When the franchise was widened, as it was in the United Kingdom inwomen continued to be denied all voting rights. Others suggest that women had long played nontraditional roles on the hardscrabble frontier and were accorded a more equal status by men.Ultimately, the suffrage movement provided political training for some of the early women pioneers in Congress, but its internal divisions foreshadowed the persistent disagreements among women in Congress and among women’s rights activists after the passage of the 19th Amendment. National First Ladies' Library's biography for Lou Hoover. Oct 04, · Woman suffrage: Woman suffrage, the right of women by law to vote in national and local elections. Women were excluded from voting in ancient Greece and Republican Rome, as well as in the few democracies that had emerged in Europe by the end of the 18th century. By the early years of the 20th century, women had won the right to vote in. Late 19th-Early 20th century women's suffrage movement The women's suffrage movement took place in the United States from the latter half of the 19th century up until the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment inwhich put into law women's right to vote. Voting Rights for Women: Pro- and Anti-Suffrage. An article originally published in the Session Weekly of the Minnesota House of Representatives recalls the arguments put forth in objection to the Minnesota Equal Suffrage Association's decision, early in the 20th century, to push for the right of women to vote in presidential elections. One lawmaker declared that all-male voting was. Teacher-created and classroom-tested lesson plans using primary sources from the Library of Congress.Download	1,148	ENGLISH	1
Dido Elizabeth Belle A mixed-race woman, Dido Belle was raised as part of an aristocratic family in Georgian Britain at the height of the transatlantic slave trade. - Lived: 1761–1804 - Field: London gentlewoman - Top fact: Was raised by Lord Mansfield, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales who presided over landmark court cases in the history of slavery and the slave trade. Dido Elizabeth Belle was the illegitimate daughter of Sir John Lindsay (1737–88), an officer in the Royal Navy who was stationed for a time in the Caribbean. Her mother was an African woman named Maria Bell whom he met when his ship was on duty there. Some sources suggest that Dido’s mother was a slave who was seized from a Spanish ship by Lindsay during the Battle of Havana in 1762. However, Dido’s baptism record shows that she was actually born in 1761. By November 1766, when she was baptised in London, Dido had been brought to England, never to return to the Caribbean. She was entrusted to the care of her father’s uncle William Murray, Lord Chief Justice and later 1st Earl of Mansfield, owner of Kenwood House in north London.Find out more about Kenwood Life at Kenwood It was not unheard of for a powerful aristocrat to be the legal guardian to such a relation. But it was extremely unusual at this time for a mixed-race woman – who had perhaps been born to an enslaved mother – to be raised as part of an aristocratic British family. Dido’s exact position within Lord Mansfield’s household is unclear, but the evidence suggests that she was brought up as a lady rather than as a servant. We know that she was taught to read, write, play music and practise other social skills. She also received an annual allowance. In her father’s obituary, the London Chronicle noted that ‘[her] amiable disposition and accomplishments have gained her the highest respect from all his Lordship’s relations and visitants’. Dido also supervised Kenwood’s dairy and poultry yard, a common hobby for genteel women at the time. An Unusual Portrait The only known portrait of Dido Belle shows her standing beside her cousin Lady Elizabeth Murray on the terrace at Kenwood. Elizabeth was also brought up in the care of Lord Mansfield at Kenwood after her mother’s death, and she and Dido were close companions. A dinner guest noted in 1779: A Black came in after dinner and sat with the ladies and after coffee, walked with the company in the gardens, one of the young ladies having her arm within the other.. The portrait of the two women is highly unusual in 18th-century British art for showing a black woman as the near equal of her white companion, rather than as a servant or slave. Dido’s aristocratic upbringing is apparent in her expensive silk gown and pearl necklace. However, art historians have noted that her race is still a feature of the painting. Symbols of exoticism such as the fruit she carries and the turban on her head suggest that while Dido may not be a servant, she is still considered different from her more conventionally styled white cousin. Lord mansfield and slavery Dido lived at a time when the transatlantic slave trade was at its height, and Britain’s economic prosperity relied on slave labour in the Caribbean and Britain’s American colonies. However, public opinion about the practice was changing. From 1756 to 1788 Dido’s great-uncle Lord Mansfield was Lord Chief Justice, the most powerful judge in England. He presided over a number of court cases that examined the legality of the slave trade. In the most significant of these, the case of James Somerset (1772), Lord Mansfield ruled that slavers could not forcibly send any slaves in England out of the country. We don’t know whether his affection for Dido influenced Lord Mansfield’s opinions on the slave trade. In his summing up at the trial in 1772 he is recorded as describing slavery as ‘odious’, but as Lord Chief Justice he had to adhere to a strict reading of the law. While the Somerset case was a significant point along the road to abolition, it didn’t end the slave trade. Mansfield was clearly aware of this and in his will of 1782 he made sure to protect his niece’s rights, clearly stating that Dido was a free woman. It would be another 35 years after the Somerset case before the transatlantic slave trade was abolished, and a further 26 years after that before the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 finally put an end to the practice across the British Empire. In contrast to her early life in the grand environment of Kenwood, Dido’s later life was relatively humble. When he died in 1793, Lord Mansfield left her an annuity of at least £100 and a lump sum of £500. This was a much smaller sum than that given to her cousin Elizabeth, but it is unclear if this had anything to do with Dido’s race – it was not unusual to treat illegitimate offspring as lesser family. Later that year Dido married a steward (a senior servant) named John Davinier, and the couple went on to have three sons. They lived in London, near Hanover Square, until Dido’s death in 1804 at the age of 43. Dido was buried at St George’s Church burial ground in Tyburn (near the modern Bayswater Road). Her grave was moved during redevelopment of the site in the 1960s. In 2013 the film Belle, starring Gugu Mbatha-Raw, brought a fictionalised version of Dido’s story to an international audience. History of Kenwood Find out more about Kenwood, the mansion on the edge of London’s Hampstead Heath which was transformed by Robert Adam for Lord Mansfield and is now home to a world-famous art collection. Women who made history Read about the remarkable lives of some of the women who have left their mark on society and shaped our way of life – from Anglo-Saxon times to the 20th century. Pioneering women in London Discover some of London’s famous residents who took the historic first steps to open up new opportunities for women, and are now commemorated by blue plaques.	<urn:uuid:19feed68-a553-46b4-bf2e-dfaac5348a78>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/learn/histories/women-in-history/dido-belle/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251773463.72/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128030221-20200128060221-00290.warc.gz	en	0.98047	1,363	3.28125	3	[ -0.32635733485221863, 0.10924959182739258, 0.7546584010124207, 0.4690515995025635, -0.04980364069342613, -0.08621358126401901, 0.3429281413555145, -0.22912481427192688, -0.2696433663368225, -0.14885464310646057, -0.024203136563301086, -0.36687225103378296, 0.07907713949680328, 0.1667040437...	2	Dido Elizabeth Belle A mixed-race woman, Dido Belle was raised as part of an aristocratic family in Georgian Britain at the height of the transatlantic slave trade. - Lived: 1761–1804 - Field: London gentlewoman - Top fact: Was raised by Lord Mansfield, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales who presided over landmark court cases in the history of slavery and the slave trade. Dido Elizabeth Belle was the illegitimate daughter of Sir John Lindsay (1737–88), an officer in the Royal Navy who was stationed for a time in the Caribbean. Her mother was an African woman named Maria Bell whom he met when his ship was on duty there. Some sources suggest that Dido’s mother was a slave who was seized from a Spanish ship by Lindsay during the Battle of Havana in 1762. However, Dido’s baptism record shows that she was actually born in 1761. By November 1766, when she was baptised in London, Dido had been brought to England, never to return to the Caribbean. She was entrusted to the care of her father’s uncle William Murray, Lord Chief Justice and later 1st Earl of Mansfield, owner of Kenwood House in north London.Find out more about Kenwood Life at Kenwood It was not unheard of for a powerful aristocrat to be the legal guardian to such a relation. But it was extremely unusual at this time for a mixed-race woman – who had perhaps been born to an enslaved mother – to be raised as part of an aristocratic British family. Dido’s exact position within Lord Mansfield’s household is unclear, but the evidence suggests that she was brought up as a lady rather than as a servant. We know that she was taught to read, write, play music and practise other social skills. She also received an annual allowance. In her father’s obituary, the London Chronicle noted that ‘[her] amiable disposition and accomplishments have gained her the highest respect from all his Lordship’s relations and visitants’. Dido also supervised Kenwood’s dairy and poultry yard, a common hobby for genteel women at the time. An Unusual Portrait The only known portrait of Dido Belle shows her standing beside her cousin Lady Elizabeth Murray on the terrace at Kenwood. Elizabeth was also brought up in the care of Lord Mansfield at Kenwood after her mother’s death, and she and Dido were close companions. A dinner guest noted in 1779: A Black came in after dinner and sat with the ladies and after coffee, walked with the company in the gardens, one of the young ladies having her arm within the other.. The portrait of the two women is highly unusual in 18th-century British art for showing a black woman as the near equal of her white companion, rather than as a servant or slave. Dido’s aristocratic upbringing is apparent in her expensive silk gown and pearl necklace. However, art historians have noted that her race is still a feature of the painting. Symbols of exoticism such as the fruit she carries and the turban on her head suggest that while Dido may not be a servant, she is still considered different from her more conventionally styled white cousin. Lord mansfield and slavery Dido lived at a time when the transatlantic slave trade was at its height, and Britain’s economic prosperity relied on slave labour in the Caribbean and Britain’s American colonies. However, public opinion about the practice was changing. From 1756 to 1788 Dido’s great-uncle Lord Mansfield was Lord Chief Justice, the most powerful judge in England. He presided over a number of court cases that examined the legality of the slave trade. In the most significant of these, the case of James Somerset (1772), Lord Mansfield ruled that slavers could not forcibly send any slaves in England out of the country. We don’t know whether his affection for Dido influenced Lord Mansfield’s opinions on the slave trade. In his summing up at the trial in 1772 he is recorded as describing slavery as ‘odious’, but as Lord Chief Justice he had to adhere to a strict reading of the law. While the Somerset case was a significant point along the road to abolition, it didn’t end the slave trade. Mansfield was clearly aware of this and in his will of 1782 he made sure to protect his niece’s rights, clearly stating that Dido was a free woman. It would be another 35 years after the Somerset case before the transatlantic slave trade was abolished, and a further 26 years after that before the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 finally put an end to the practice across the British Empire. In contrast to her early life in the grand environment of Kenwood, Dido’s later life was relatively humble. When he died in 1793, Lord Mansfield left her an annuity of at least £100 and a lump sum of £500. This was a much smaller sum than that given to her cousin Elizabeth, but it is unclear if this had anything to do with Dido’s race – it was not unusual to treat illegitimate offspring as lesser family. Later that year Dido married a steward (a senior servant) named John Davinier, and the couple went on to have three sons. They lived in London, near Hanover Square, until Dido’s death in 1804 at the age of 43. Dido was buried at St George’s Church burial ground in Tyburn (near the modern Bayswater Road). Her grave was moved during redevelopment of the site in the 1960s. In 2013 the film Belle, starring Gugu Mbatha-Raw, brought a fictionalised version of Dido’s story to an international audience. History of Kenwood Find out more about Kenwood, the mansion on the edge of London’s Hampstead Heath which was transformed by Robert Adam for Lord Mansfield and is now home to a world-famous art collection. Women who made history Read about the remarkable lives of some of the women who have left their mark on society and shaped our way of life – from Anglo-Saxon times to the 20th century. Pioneering women in London Discover some of London’s famous residents who took the historic first steps to open up new opportunities for women, and are now commemorated by blue plaques.	1,360	ENGLISH	1
Paste this HTML code on your site to embed this video. Embed this video Einstein shot to fame within the scientific community ina year christened as his annus mirabilis. While working eight hours days, six days a week at the Swiss patent office in Bern, he wrote four papers in his spare time that changed the course of physics. Princeton, Massachusetts German-born American physicist and scientist The German-born American physicist one who studies matter and energy and the relationships between them Albert Einstein revolutionized the science of physics. He is best known for his theory of relativity, which holds that measurements of space and time vary according to conditions such as the state of motion of the observer. Early years and education Albert Einstein was born on March 14,in Ulm, Germany, but he grew up and obtained his early education in Munich, Germany. He was a poor student, and some of his teachers thought he might be retarded mentally handicapped ; he was unable to speak fluently with ease and grace at age nine. Still, he was fascinated by the laws of nature, experiencing a deep feeling of wonder when puzzling over the invisible, yet real, force directing the needle of a compass. He began playing the violin at age six and would continue to play throughout his life. At age twelve he discovered geometry the study of points, lines, and surfaces and was taken by its clear and certain proofs. Einstein mastered calculus a form of higher mathematics used to solve problems in physics and engineering by age sixteen. He disliked school, and just as he was planning to find a way to leave without hurting his chances for entering the university, his teacher expelled him because his bad attitude was affecting his classmates. Einstein tried to enter the Federal Institute of Technology FIT in Zurich, Switzerland, but his knowledge of subjects other than mathematics was not up to par, and he failed the entrance examination. On the advice of the principal, he first obtained his diploma at the Cantonal School in Aarau, Switzerland, and in he was automatically admitted into the FIT. There he came to realize that he was more interested in and better suited for physics than mathematics. Einstein passed his examination to graduate from the FIT inbut due to the opposition of one of his professors he was unable to go on to obtain the usual university assistantship. In he was hired as an inspector in the patent office in Bern, Switzerland. Six months later he married Mileva Maric, a former classmate in Zurich. They had two sons. It was in Bern, too, that Einstein, at twenty-six, completed the requirements for his doctoral degree and wrote the first of his revolutionary scientific papers. Famous papers Thermodynamics the study of heat processes made the deepest impression on Einstein. From until he reworked the foundations of thermodynamics and statistical mechanics the study of forces and their effect on matter ; this work formed the immediate background to his revolutionary papers ofone of which was on Brownian motion. In Brownian motion, first observed in by the Scottish botanist scientist who studies plants Robert Brown —small particles suspended in a liquid such as water undergo a rapid, irregular motion. He was guided by the thought that if the liquid in which the particles are suspended is made up of atoms, they should collide with the particles and set them into motion. He found that the motion of the particles will in time experience a forward movement.Albert Einstein's name has become synonymous with genius, but few elementary students understand much about his methods or ideas. This book portrays Einstein first and foremost as a curious thinker—someone whose ideas and imagery changed over time as he furthered and influenced scientific thought and understanding in profound ways. Revolution in science – New theory of the Universe – Newtonian ideas overthrown. Honors and More Honors. Albert Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in Albert Einstein, one of the greatest minds of the 20th century, forever changed the landscape of science by introducing revolutionary concepts that shook our understanding of the physical world. One of Einstein's most defining qualities was his remarkable ability to conceptualize complex scientific ideas by imagining real-life scenarios. Albert Einstein Albert Einstein was one of the greatest brains ever to come to the 20th century. Einstein contributed to the 20th century more than any other scientist ever. His theory of relativity is held as the highest quality of a human thought ever to come. Einstein submitted one of his scientific papers to the University of Zurich to obtain a Ph.D. degree in In he sent a second paper to the University of Bern and became lecturer there. In he sent a second paper to the University of Bern and became lecturer there. It was a hundred years ago this November, and Albert Einstein was enjoying a rare moment of contentment. Days earlier, on November 25, , he had taken to the stage at .	<urn:uuid:a1081294-6011-4b65-8ea3-60840868d3ce>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://xisyduguhej.torosgazete.com/how-albert-einstein-revolutionized-science-and-became-a-leading-scientific-thinker-of-his-time-25493di.html	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250613416.54/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123191130-20200123220130-00070.warc.gz	en	0.982863	993	3.296875	3	[ -0.10274393856525421, 0.09896650165319443, -0.0665166825056076, -0.06872212141752243, -0.23924699425697327, -0.09021038562059402, 0.29682809114456177, 0.2609863877296448, -0.127354234457016, -0.24606353044509888, 0.4664042294025421, -0.5107921361923218, 0.008156131953001022, 0.237304747104...	1	Paste this HTML code on your site to embed this video. Embed this video Einstein shot to fame within the scientific community ina year christened as his annus mirabilis. While working eight hours days, six days a week at the Swiss patent office in Bern, he wrote four papers in his spare time that changed the course of physics. Princeton, Massachusetts German-born American physicist and scientist The German-born American physicist one who studies matter and energy and the relationships between them Albert Einstein revolutionized the science of physics. He is best known for his theory of relativity, which holds that measurements of space and time vary according to conditions such as the state of motion of the observer. Early years and education Albert Einstein was born on March 14,in Ulm, Germany, but he grew up and obtained his early education in Munich, Germany. He was a poor student, and some of his teachers thought he might be retarded mentally handicapped ; he was unable to speak fluently with ease and grace at age nine. Still, he was fascinated by the laws of nature, experiencing a deep feeling of wonder when puzzling over the invisible, yet real, force directing the needle of a compass. He began playing the violin at age six and would continue to play throughout his life. At age twelve he discovered geometry the study of points, lines, and surfaces and was taken by its clear and certain proofs. Einstein mastered calculus a form of higher mathematics used to solve problems in physics and engineering by age sixteen. He disliked school, and just as he was planning to find a way to leave without hurting his chances for entering the university, his teacher expelled him because his bad attitude was affecting his classmates. Einstein tried to enter the Federal Institute of Technology FIT in Zurich, Switzerland, but his knowledge of subjects other than mathematics was not up to par, and he failed the entrance examination. On the advice of the principal, he first obtained his diploma at the Cantonal School in Aarau, Switzerland, and in he was automatically admitted into the FIT. There he came to realize that he was more interested in and better suited for physics than mathematics. Einstein passed his examination to graduate from the FIT inbut due to the opposition of one of his professors he was unable to go on to obtain the usual university assistantship. In he was hired as an inspector in the patent office in Bern, Switzerland. Six months later he married Mileva Maric, a former classmate in Zurich. They had two sons. It was in Bern, too, that Einstein, at twenty-six, completed the requirements for his doctoral degree and wrote the first of his revolutionary scientific papers. Famous papers Thermodynamics the study of heat processes made the deepest impression on Einstein. From until he reworked the foundations of thermodynamics and statistical mechanics the study of forces and their effect on matter ; this work formed the immediate background to his revolutionary papers ofone of which was on Brownian motion. In Brownian motion, first observed in by the Scottish botanist scientist who studies plants Robert Brown —small particles suspended in a liquid such as water undergo a rapid, irregular motion. He was guided by the thought that if the liquid in which the particles are suspended is made up of atoms, they should collide with the particles and set them into motion. He found that the motion of the particles will in time experience a forward movement.Albert Einstein's name has become synonymous with genius, but few elementary students understand much about his methods or ideas. This book portrays Einstein first and foremost as a curious thinker—someone whose ideas and imagery changed over time as he furthered and influenced scientific thought and understanding in profound ways. Revolution in science – New theory of the Universe – Newtonian ideas overthrown. Honors and More Honors. Albert Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in Albert Einstein, one of the greatest minds of the 20th century, forever changed the landscape of science by introducing revolutionary concepts that shook our understanding of the physical world. One of Einstein's most defining qualities was his remarkable ability to conceptualize complex scientific ideas by imagining real-life scenarios. Albert Einstein Albert Einstein was one of the greatest brains ever to come to the 20th century. Einstein contributed to the 20th century more than any other scientist ever. His theory of relativity is held as the highest quality of a human thought ever to come. Einstein submitted one of his scientific papers to the University of Zurich to obtain a Ph.D. degree in In he sent a second paper to the University of Bern and became lecturer there. In he sent a second paper to the University of Bern and became lecturer there. It was a hundred years ago this November, and Albert Einstein was enjoying a rare moment of contentment. Days earlier, on November 25, , he had taken to the stage at .	977	ENGLISH	1
Located in Buffalo, New York, the Edwdard M. Cotter is the oldest active fireboat in the world. It was built in 1900 and named the William S. Grattan. It was named Firefighter in 1953 and a year later, the Edward M. Cotter. The vessel also serves as an icebreaker, which is invaluable on Lake Ontario and the Buffalo waters during the winter. Its design features elements specific to the Great Lakes. The vessel was placed on the National Register of Historic Places and designated a National Historic Landmark in 1996. In July 1928, the Cotter was virtually destroyed in an explosion caused by an oil barge that had gotten stuck. As the Cotter towed the barge, the barge hit a dock and exploded and the fires spread to the Cotter which then exploded. The Cotter is the only fireboat to have fully exploded while firefighting. The city of Buffalo decided to rebuild it rather than buy a new one, which would have been far more expensive. Repairs were finished in 1930. In 1960, the Port Colborne authorities in Ontario, Canada, asked the Cotter to help with a burning building they could not put out by conventional means nor did they have fireboats. It is the first time in U.S. history that a fireboat crossed international boundaries.	<urn:uuid:6ac7ce47-7c84-4236-83fa-dae5e5a5dd8e>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.theclio.com/entry/18944	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251778168.77/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128091916-20200128121916-00338.warc.gz	en	0.985224	270	3.421875	3	[ -0.058682117611169815, -0.12475466728210449, 0.3471717834472656, -0.43164679408073425, 0.019152866676449776, -0.1542906016111374, 0.19973522424697876, 0.3012743592262268, -0.6932353377342224, 0.1016354188323021, -0.04658695310354233, -0.04593845084309578, -0.6787385940551758, 0.35684877634...	2	Located in Buffalo, New York, the Edwdard M. Cotter is the oldest active fireboat in the world. It was built in 1900 and named the William S. Grattan. It was named Firefighter in 1953 and a year later, the Edward M. Cotter. The vessel also serves as an icebreaker, which is invaluable on Lake Ontario and the Buffalo waters during the winter. Its design features elements specific to the Great Lakes. The vessel was placed on the National Register of Historic Places and designated a National Historic Landmark in 1996. In July 1928, the Cotter was virtually destroyed in an explosion caused by an oil barge that had gotten stuck. As the Cotter towed the barge, the barge hit a dock and exploded and the fires spread to the Cotter which then exploded. The Cotter is the only fireboat to have fully exploded while firefighting. The city of Buffalo decided to rebuild it rather than buy a new one, which would have been far more expensive. Repairs were finished in 1930. In 1960, the Port Colborne authorities in Ontario, Canada, asked the Cotter to help with a burning building they could not put out by conventional means nor did they have fireboats. It is the first time in U.S. history that a fireboat crossed international boundaries.	293	ENGLISH	1
Martin Luther, family man In 1525 the Protestant reformer Martin Luther married a former nun, Katharina von Bora. The couple had six children, four of whom survived into adulthood. Their household was a hospitable one: they also took in the orphaned children of relatives, and regularly offered a home to Luther’s friends, colleagues and students. It became increasingly common, especially in the 19th century, to depict the Luthers and their family as an ideal of clerical marriage and the Christian home. Illustrations to popular biographies show Luther in the bosom of his family, often at the same time reflecting contemporary mores, as in the examples below. In the first, the furnishings of the house and the dress and attitudes of the figures owe as much to early 19th century ‘Biedermeier’ period as to the reality of the 15th century, while in the second, from an 1905 publication, a positively Dickensian Luther beams over his brood. Luther and his family. Above, from Christian Franz Gottlieb Stang, Martin Luther. Sein Leben und Wirken (Stuttgart, 1839) 1372.k.5; Below from M. Wartburger, Martin Luther: Lebensgeschichte des Reformators (Berlin, 1905) 4887.f.17. However idealised – or occasionally saccharine – such pictures might be, they do reflect a certain reality. Luther took much pleasure from family life and his letters show that he was an observant, affectionate and proud father. There are touching descriptions of his grief over the deaths of his daughters Elisabeth (in infancy) and Magdalena (aged 13). He was, of course, a man of his times, who believed in the necessity of firm discipline and corporal punishment in child-rearing, but he recognised that the kind of exaggerated beatings he had received as a child for small transgressions, both at home and at school, were counter-productive, and that punishment should be tempered with rewards. A often-quoted example of Luther’s paternal affection is a letter that he wrote to his eldest son Hans (‘Hänschen’) in 1530 from Coburg. Hans had recently started lessons at home and Luther was pleased to hear that he was working hard. He goes on to describe: … a pretty and cheerful garden, where there are many children. They wear little golden coats, and gather beautiful apples and pears, cherries and plums under the trees; they sing and run about and are happy. They have lovely ponies, with golden bridles and silver saddles. I asked the owner of the garden whose the children were. And he said, “They are the children who love to pray and to learn and are good.” Then I said, “My dear sir, I also have a son, called Hänschen Luther: could he come into the garden too …?” The man said, “If he loves to pray and to learn and is good, then he too may come into the garden, and Lippus and Jost ; and if they all come together, they can play on fifes, drums and lutes, and all kinds of instruments, and dance, and shoot with little crossbows.” He then showed me a beautiful lawn in the garden, prepared for dancing, where a great many golden fifes and drums and silver crossbows were hanging. (You can read the original here. ‘Lippus and Jost’ were the sons of Luther’s fellow-reformers Philipp Melanchthon and Justus Jonas.) The letter’s vision of a ‘children’s paradise’ shows that Luther had a good idea of what might appeal to a little boy, and that he wanted to encourage Hans with kindness rather threats. However, Hans was only four years old, and I can’t help thinking that he would have been too young to understand this delightful vision as a metaphor for the heavenly rewards of learning and piety and that Luther’s good intentions may have backfired. Did the little boy sit down to his lessons every day hoping for the actual reward of a visit to the enchanted garden described in the letter, only to be disappointed by the realities of early modern education and disillusioned by his father’s apparent deception? The realities of early modern education? This 19th-century picture by Gustav König imagines Martin Luther being taken to school for the first tine by his own father. The teacher holds a switch and a boy who has just been beaten sobs behind the chair. From Heinrich Gelzer and Gustav König, Dr Martin Luther der deutsche Reformator (Hamburg, 1847-51) 4885.f.13. As Hans grew older he tended to show a lack of application in his studies and lapses in his behaviour that concerned and sometimes angered his father. I wouldn’t for a moment argue that this was all the result of childhood trauma caused by a lack of ponies and golden fifes but perhaps a little bit of iron had entered into his soul when he realised that these things were not literally going to come his way. (In fairness to Luther, however, I should point out that he did bring Hans the very real gift of sweetmeats back from Coburg, which may have made a greater impression than the letter.) Hans made good in the end; he settled to his studies and went on to become a lawyer – appropriately enough the career that his paternal grandfather and namesake had originally intended for Luther himself. He never had a son of his own, so we don’t know how if he would have used his father’s method of encouraging a little boy to study, pray and be good. Susan Reed, Lead Curator Germanic Collections Our free display, Martin Luther: 500 Years of Reformation, continues in the British Library Treasures Gallery until 4 February 2018.	<urn:uuid:18b46f72-8ad7-40df-ac22-ab231c3f9c38>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://blogs.bl.uk/european/2017/12/martin-luther-family-man.html	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251687958.71/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126074227-20200126104227-00534.warc.gz	en	0.982471	1,260	3.59375	4	[ -0.1060284823179245, 0.3999153971672058, -0.0038242386654019356, -0.15652526915073395, -0.07200347632169724, -0.04194331169128418, -0.03320741653442383, 0.21749484539031982, -0.005346175283193588, 0.056860167533159256, 0.008126231841742992, -0.3997649550437927, 0.16475431621074677, -0.2338...	1	Martin Luther, family man In 1525 the Protestant reformer Martin Luther married a former nun, Katharina von Bora. The couple had six children, four of whom survived into adulthood. Their household was a hospitable one: they also took in the orphaned children of relatives, and regularly offered a home to Luther’s friends, colleagues and students. It became increasingly common, especially in the 19th century, to depict the Luthers and their family as an ideal of clerical marriage and the Christian home. Illustrations to popular biographies show Luther in the bosom of his family, often at the same time reflecting contemporary mores, as in the examples below. In the first, the furnishings of the house and the dress and attitudes of the figures owe as much to early 19th century ‘Biedermeier’ period as to the reality of the 15th century, while in the second, from an 1905 publication, a positively Dickensian Luther beams over his brood. Luther and his family. Above, from Christian Franz Gottlieb Stang, Martin Luther. Sein Leben und Wirken (Stuttgart, 1839) 1372.k.5; Below from M. Wartburger, Martin Luther: Lebensgeschichte des Reformators (Berlin, 1905) 4887.f.17. However idealised – or occasionally saccharine – such pictures might be, they do reflect a certain reality. Luther took much pleasure from family life and his letters show that he was an observant, affectionate and proud father. There are touching descriptions of his grief over the deaths of his daughters Elisabeth (in infancy) and Magdalena (aged 13). He was, of course, a man of his times, who believed in the necessity of firm discipline and corporal punishment in child-rearing, but he recognised that the kind of exaggerated beatings he had received as a child for small transgressions, both at home and at school, were counter-productive, and that punishment should be tempered with rewards. A often-quoted example of Luther’s paternal affection is a letter that he wrote to his eldest son Hans (‘Hänschen’) in 1530 from Coburg. Hans had recently started lessons at home and Luther was pleased to hear that he was working hard. He goes on to describe: … a pretty and cheerful garden, where there are many children. They wear little golden coats, and gather beautiful apples and pears, cherries and plums under the trees; they sing and run about and are happy. They have lovely ponies, with golden bridles and silver saddles. I asked the owner of the garden whose the children were. And he said, “They are the children who love to pray and to learn and are good.” Then I said, “My dear sir, I also have a son, called Hänschen Luther: could he come into the garden too …?” The man said, “If he loves to pray and to learn and is good, then he too may come into the garden, and Lippus and Jost ; and if they all come together, they can play on fifes, drums and lutes, and all kinds of instruments, and dance, and shoot with little crossbows.” He then showed me a beautiful lawn in the garden, prepared for dancing, where a great many golden fifes and drums and silver crossbows were hanging. (You can read the original here. ‘Lippus and Jost’ were the sons of Luther’s fellow-reformers Philipp Melanchthon and Justus Jonas.) The letter’s vision of a ‘children’s paradise’ shows that Luther had a good idea of what might appeal to a little boy, and that he wanted to encourage Hans with kindness rather threats. However, Hans was only four years old, and I can’t help thinking that he would have been too young to understand this delightful vision as a metaphor for the heavenly rewards of learning and piety and that Luther’s good intentions may have backfired. Did the little boy sit down to his lessons every day hoping for the actual reward of a visit to the enchanted garden described in the letter, only to be disappointed by the realities of early modern education and disillusioned by his father’s apparent deception? The realities of early modern education? This 19th-century picture by Gustav König imagines Martin Luther being taken to school for the first tine by his own father. The teacher holds a switch and a boy who has just been beaten sobs behind the chair. From Heinrich Gelzer and Gustav König, Dr Martin Luther der deutsche Reformator (Hamburg, 1847-51) 4885.f.13. As Hans grew older he tended to show a lack of application in his studies and lapses in his behaviour that concerned and sometimes angered his father. I wouldn’t for a moment argue that this was all the result of childhood trauma caused by a lack of ponies and golden fifes but perhaps a little bit of iron had entered into his soul when he realised that these things were not literally going to come his way. (In fairness to Luther, however, I should point out that he did bring Hans the very real gift of sweetmeats back from Coburg, which may have made a greater impression than the letter.) Hans made good in the end; he settled to his studies and went on to become a lawyer – appropriately enough the career that his paternal grandfather and namesake had originally intended for Luther himself. He never had a son of his own, so we don’t know how if he would have used his father’s method of encouraging a little boy to study, pray and be good. Susan Reed, Lead Curator Germanic Collections Our free display, Martin Luther: 500 Years of Reformation, continues in the British Library Treasures Gallery until 4 February 2018.	1,240	ENGLISH	1
- Aboriginal women - Economic status - Leadership and Participation - Safety and wellbeing - Women in STEM - Office for Women eNews - Useful Links and Resources - 125th Anniversary of Women's Suffrage Life in 1894 In England during the Victorian era, women were idealised as being morally superior to men, considered to be always cheerful, dutiful and good, providing a strong moral base for her family. This continued into life outside the home, with some women becoming involved in social movements in their communities such as campaigns to abolish slavery. Industrialisation brought women into contact with poverty, alcoholism and disease however their will to bring about positive change was stalled by their lack of political agency. Poorer women worked as a temporary means of supporting themselves until they could depend on a husband however the 1840s brought the opportunity for young men to emigrate to colonies or join armies leaving many women without this chance of support. Being an unmarried woman, or 'spinster', was unthinkable for women of all backgrounds given the prevailing social attitudes at the time, which viewed marriage as the only legitimate place for women, where they could be a 'helpmeet' or 'complement' to their husband. By not being married, a middle-class woman lived in shame and was prevented from working as this would have been out of the question. A working-class woman would have taken up factory or domestic work to scrape out a living. At this time, many women took advantage of the opportunity to emigrate to colonies where marriage prospects were better than at home in England. This was an extremely brave thing for a young woman to do at the time, as it was unlikely that she would return from this long, difficult journey. Following its colonisation in 1836, South Australian settlers lived under British common law which made women subordinate to men. This meant that they were subject first to their fathers, and then when they got married, subject to their husbands. Their property, income and children were the legal property of their husbands. As the nineteenth century rolled on however, certain progressive legislative changes began to occur that separated women's legal identity from this archaic system, such as the 1858 Matrimonial Causes Act that allowed divorce, and the Municipal Corporations Act of 1861 that allowed owner/occupiers of property (including women) to vote in local government elections. A nationwide depression in the early 1890s meant that many women had to seek work to assist in supporting their families, and by 1891, 19% of breadwinners were women (although at considerably lower wages than men). This, coupled with the fact that the only work women could get was menial labour, prompted some to band together, leading Mary Lee, Agnes Milne and Augusta Zadow to form the Working Women's Trade Union in 1890. This was the beginning of a movement for the rights of women in the workplace, home and society, culminating in many ways in the push for women's suffrage. Meredith McLean (1981) 'Votes for Women, 1894-1928', Constitutional Museum Exhibition 20 February - 24 July 1981 and Bonnie Ramsay (1994) 'The Enfranchisement of Women in South Australia', essay in 'Cabbages and kings: selected essays in history and Australian studies', Department of History and Australian Studies, Murray Park College of Advanced Education, 1973-1996.	<urn:uuid:5ce0030d-f9e5-4b19-bf02-6dd6fb254a30>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://officeforwomen.sa.gov.au/womens-policy/125th-anniversary-of-suffrage/life-in-1894	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250626449.79/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124221147-20200125010147-00002.warc.gz	en	0.98049	693	4.34375	4	[ -0.23066112399101257, 0.2776932716369629, 0.06114014983177185, 0.3740476369857788, -0.021764053031802177, 0.2451542615890503, -0.18196293711662292, 0.045751363039016724, -0.3080832064151764, 0.08494977653026581, 0.14737457036972046, -0.25119706988334656, -0.025577470660209656, -0.059401508...	8	- Aboriginal women - Economic status - Leadership and Participation - Safety and wellbeing - Women in STEM - Office for Women eNews - Useful Links and Resources - 125th Anniversary of Women's Suffrage Life in 1894 In England during the Victorian era, women were idealised as being morally superior to men, considered to be always cheerful, dutiful and good, providing a strong moral base for her family. This continued into life outside the home, with some women becoming involved in social movements in their communities such as campaigns to abolish slavery. Industrialisation brought women into contact with poverty, alcoholism and disease however their will to bring about positive change was stalled by their lack of political agency. Poorer women worked as a temporary means of supporting themselves until they could depend on a husband however the 1840s brought the opportunity for young men to emigrate to colonies or join armies leaving many women without this chance of support. Being an unmarried woman, or 'spinster', was unthinkable for women of all backgrounds given the prevailing social attitudes at the time, which viewed marriage as the only legitimate place for women, where they could be a 'helpmeet' or 'complement' to their husband. By not being married, a middle-class woman lived in shame and was prevented from working as this would have been out of the question. A working-class woman would have taken up factory or domestic work to scrape out a living. At this time, many women took advantage of the opportunity to emigrate to colonies where marriage prospects were better than at home in England. This was an extremely brave thing for a young woman to do at the time, as it was unlikely that she would return from this long, difficult journey. Following its colonisation in 1836, South Australian settlers lived under British common law which made women subordinate to men. This meant that they were subject first to their fathers, and then when they got married, subject to their husbands. Their property, income and children were the legal property of their husbands. As the nineteenth century rolled on however, certain progressive legislative changes began to occur that separated women's legal identity from this archaic system, such as the 1858 Matrimonial Causes Act that allowed divorce, and the Municipal Corporations Act of 1861 that allowed owner/occupiers of property (including women) to vote in local government elections. A nationwide depression in the early 1890s meant that many women had to seek work to assist in supporting their families, and by 1891, 19% of breadwinners were women (although at considerably lower wages than men). This, coupled with the fact that the only work women could get was menial labour, prompted some to band together, leading Mary Lee, Agnes Milne and Augusta Zadow to form the Working Women's Trade Union in 1890. This was the beginning of a movement for the rights of women in the workplace, home and society, culminating in many ways in the push for women's suffrage. Meredith McLean (1981) 'Votes for Women, 1894-1928', Constitutional Museum Exhibition 20 February - 24 July 1981 and Bonnie Ramsay (1994) 'The Enfranchisement of Women in South Australia', essay in 'Cabbages and kings: selected essays in history and Australian studies', Department of History and Australian Studies, Murray Park College of Advanced Education, 1973-1996.	746	ENGLISH	1
Gupta Period is known as the golden era of India. India witnessed many dynasties but not all of them were as successful as Gupta’s. After much disintegration in India’s politics, the Gupta dynasty in India rose in 320 CE. Gupta Empire was not larger than Maurya Empire but it was successful to keep North India united for a longer time. Here are the 13 most interesting facts about the Gupta dynasty - Very little information is available related to the initial family members of Gupta dynasty. The ancestry of Gupta’s started from Shri Gupta. He was succeeded by Ghatotkacha, his son. - Earlier Gupta’s were landowner and they had political control in the region of present East Utter Pradesh and Magadha. Chandragupta-I was the first famous ruler of the Gupta Dynasty. - Chandragupta-I enjoyed material advantages. He married the princess of Lichchhavi and gained prestige. He received Patliputra as dowry. He ruled Magadha and few parts of eastern Uttar Pradesh (mainly Prayaga). He was the real founder of the Gupta He also took the title of Maharajadhiraja. - Samudragupta the successor of Chandragupta-I was the brilliant leader. He is also called the Napoleon of India. Samudragupta expended the borders of his kingdom. Samudragupta has the largest army of that time. He, himself was a great warrior. It is said that his body was covered with marks of wounds. Harishena, Vasubandhu, and Asanga were the famous scholars in the court of Samudragupta. - Samudragupta made 7 different types of Gold and Silver coins that were used as currency. During Gupta Empire, a huge number of gold coins were made. - Ramagupta was the successor of Samudragupta but he was not as good as his father. So Ramagupta was deposed by his brother Chandragupta-II. Chandragupta-II also followed his grandfather and used marriage alliance to expand his kingdom. - During the Gupta dynasty, India had trade relations with China, and with the Roman. - The emperors of the Gupta dynasty founded free hospitals for their citizens. - Sanskrit was on its peak under the Gupta Empire. It was the official language (the language of court) at that time. Takshila and Nalanda both of the universities were established during the Gupta Empire, under the rule of Kumaragupta-I. At that time Ramayana and Mahabharata became very popular. Many Purans and Smiritis were also created under the rule of Gupta rulers. - During the rule of the Gupta dynasty, many temples were made. Dashavatara Temple of Deogarh, Vishnu Temple of Tigawa, and Temple of Sarnath were just a few examples. Architecture and sculpture development was on the peak at that time, temples of that time are the example of this. In Gupta era, first timebricks were used in the construction of Temple. - Kalidasa, Vatsyayana, Harisena, Aryabhata, Brahmagupta, Vishnu Sharma, Bharavi all these scholars born in the Gupta era. Many well-known books like Kamasutra, Panchatantra, were written at this time. Aryabhata also discovered zero and wrote his famous book Aryabhatiya in the Gupta - The condition of women in society was not very good at that time. The first incident of Sati happened in the Gupta Era. - Gupta Empire ended in 550 CE because of weak leadership of the Gupta rulers and invasion of Huns. We have summarized the main incidents of Gupta Era in these 13 points. The Gupta Era is known as a golden period in Indian history because Astronomy, Mathematics, Literature, Ayurveda, and every type of arts flourished during that time. The Gupta ruler not only expanded their kingdom but also gave shelter to art, science, and literature. Want to add something to the article? Please drop your suggestion in the comment box.	<urn:uuid:57b16e72-052f-4c54-bda1-2f3ff5a4b036>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.opennaukri.com/13-most-fascinating-facts-about-gupta-dynasty/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250606696.26/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122042145-20200122071145-00347.warc.gz	en	0.989548	873	3.828125	4	[ -0.16950076818466187, 0.3922581374645233, 0.1803901344537735, -0.13084371387958527, -0.3446827232837677, -0.06105556711554527, 0.5924445390701294, -0.1741788387298584, -0.4032801389694214, -0.2909078896045685, 0.1398460566997528, -0.3259528577327728, -0.004410487599670887, 0.14295613765716...	1	Gupta Period is known as the golden era of India. India witnessed many dynasties but not all of them were as successful as Gupta’s. After much disintegration in India’s politics, the Gupta dynasty in India rose in 320 CE. Gupta Empire was not larger than Maurya Empire but it was successful to keep North India united for a longer time. Here are the 13 most interesting facts about the Gupta dynasty - Very little information is available related to the initial family members of Gupta dynasty. The ancestry of Gupta’s started from Shri Gupta. He was succeeded by Ghatotkacha, his son. - Earlier Gupta’s were landowner and they had political control in the region of present East Utter Pradesh and Magadha. Chandragupta-I was the first famous ruler of the Gupta Dynasty. - Chandragupta-I enjoyed material advantages. He married the princess of Lichchhavi and gained prestige. He received Patliputra as dowry. He ruled Magadha and few parts of eastern Uttar Pradesh (mainly Prayaga). He was the real founder of the Gupta He also took the title of Maharajadhiraja. - Samudragupta the successor of Chandragupta-I was the brilliant leader. He is also called the Napoleon of India. Samudragupta expended the borders of his kingdom. Samudragupta has the largest army of that time. He, himself was a great warrior. It is said that his body was covered with marks of wounds. Harishena, Vasubandhu, and Asanga were the famous scholars in the court of Samudragupta. - Samudragupta made 7 different types of Gold and Silver coins that were used as currency. During Gupta Empire, a huge number of gold coins were made. - Ramagupta was the successor of Samudragupta but he was not as good as his father. So Ramagupta was deposed by his brother Chandragupta-II. Chandragupta-II also followed his grandfather and used marriage alliance to expand his kingdom. - During the Gupta dynasty, India had trade relations with China, and with the Roman. - The emperors of the Gupta dynasty founded free hospitals for their citizens. - Sanskrit was on its peak under the Gupta Empire. It was the official language (the language of court) at that time. Takshila and Nalanda both of the universities were established during the Gupta Empire, under the rule of Kumaragupta-I. At that time Ramayana and Mahabharata became very popular. Many Purans and Smiritis were also created under the rule of Gupta rulers. - During the rule of the Gupta dynasty, many temples were made. Dashavatara Temple of Deogarh, Vishnu Temple of Tigawa, and Temple of Sarnath were just a few examples. Architecture and sculpture development was on the peak at that time, temples of that time are the example of this. In Gupta era, first timebricks were used in the construction of Temple. - Kalidasa, Vatsyayana, Harisena, Aryabhata, Brahmagupta, Vishnu Sharma, Bharavi all these scholars born in the Gupta era. Many well-known books like Kamasutra, Panchatantra, were written at this time. Aryabhata also discovered zero and wrote his famous book Aryabhatiya in the Gupta - The condition of women in society was not very good at that time. The first incident of Sati happened in the Gupta Era. - Gupta Empire ended in 550 CE because of weak leadership of the Gupta rulers and invasion of Huns. We have summarized the main incidents of Gupta Era in these 13 points. The Gupta Era is known as a golden period in Indian history because Astronomy, Mathematics, Literature, Ayurveda, and every type of arts flourished during that time. The Gupta ruler not only expanded their kingdom but also gave shelter to art, science, and literature. Want to add something to the article? Please drop your suggestion in the comment box.	857	ENGLISH	1
The Missouri Compromise A compromise is when two or more parties in disagreement reach an agreement that does not give all sides exactly what they want, but enough of what they want so that they can be happy. Compromise is the best possible solution to a conflict however it does not always work. One needs only to look at situations such as the Bosnia-Herzegovina to see that. During the events prior to the American Civil War, many different compromises were made in an attempt to impede the growing disagreements. However this merely prolonged the inevitable. The differences between North and South were far to great and compromise did not stand a chance at preventing the impending conflict. This was most clearly shown in the ways in which the three main compromises, the Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of 1850 and the Kansas-Nebraska Act, failed. In 1820 Missouri wanted to join the Union as a slave state. As this would ruin the balance between Slave states and Free states in the Senate, Henry Clay proposed the Missouri compromise. This arranged it that while Missouri was admitted as a Slave state, Maine was also admitted as a free state. It also created an imaginary line along the 36o latitude, where slavery was allowed below it but prevented above it. However they limited themselves by only applying the Compromise to lands gained in the Louisiana purchase. This led to conflict after the Mexican war in which America gained new territories in the West. This doomed the Missouri Compromise, which was probably the most promising of the three. Had the Compromise been applied to all American lands then perhaps it could have succeeded. Instead the Missouri Compromise failed and only led to further conflict between north and south in the future. In 1849 once again the Union was facing the same crises it had faced in 1820. California now wanted to be admitted as a free state. Once again Henry Clay came up with a compromise to resolve this conflict. California would indeed be admitted as free while the rest of the Southwest territories would decide the slavery issue by popular sovereignty. It would also abolish slavery altogether in Washington DC and initiate a stronger fugitive slave law to appease the South. This last concession angered people in the North however. Free blacks were concerned as now a Southerner could accuse any black person as being a runaway slave. The special commission set up to handle such issues also had a higher incentive to rule in favour of the South as it meant more money. This angered the free blacks and abolitionists in the North. This Compromise once again only prolonged the inevitable and intensified the conflict between North and South. The third compromise which failed came in the form of the Kansas-Nebraska Act. The act came about when Senator Stephen Douglas wanted to build a transcontinental railway which had to pass through the Nebraska territory. He proposed that Nebraska become a free state but the idea was quickly defeated by the South. Douglas then suggested that the territory become two states, Nebraska entering as a free state and Kansas deciding by popular sovereignty. This nullified the Missouri Compromise entirely however the South agreed. However people in the North against the expansion of slavery paid for people to move to Kansas and vote against slavery. This angered the South and resulted in Southerners crossing the border on voting day to vote in favour of slavery. This just resulted in distrust between Northerners and Southerners and led to Northerners establishing their own illegal government. Violence erupted and a civil war broke out in ‘bleeding Kansas’ much earlier than the rest of the country. It was clear at this point that the two sides were far beyond Compromise as shown by their actions. This compromise did not even prolong the coming war as much as it pushed the country towards it. It is obvious that these compromises could do nothing to prevent the oncoming violence. Indeed it could be argued that the constant attempts at compromise is what brought about the Civil War. This shows that although compromise is the preferable option it was not a viable option to prevent the American Civil War. The difference between North and South were far to numerous and significant to be satisfied by compromise. Sadly in human history it is often results so that it is only possible to resolve conflicts with violence.	<urn:uuid:f22d35aa-9970-4f5b-901f-704c3b4d5499>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://aero-net.org/the-missouri-compromise/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251694908.82/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127051112-20200127081112-00021.warc.gz	en	0.982252	857	4.25	4	[ -0.2650042772293091, 0.20555631816387177, 0.28510579466819763, -0.07504389435052872, -0.12117193639278412, -0.2911805808544159, -0.4521239995956421, 0.03348933532834053, -0.27206286787986755, 0.28947383165359497, 0.3611767888069153, -0.3673091530799866, -0.07956179976463318, 0.252978444099...	1	The Missouri Compromise A compromise is when two or more parties in disagreement reach an agreement that does not give all sides exactly what they want, but enough of what they want so that they can be happy. Compromise is the best possible solution to a conflict however it does not always work. One needs only to look at situations such as the Bosnia-Herzegovina to see that. During the events prior to the American Civil War, many different compromises were made in an attempt to impede the growing disagreements. However this merely prolonged the inevitable. The differences between North and South were far to great and compromise did not stand a chance at preventing the impending conflict. This was most clearly shown in the ways in which the three main compromises, the Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of 1850 and the Kansas-Nebraska Act, failed. In 1820 Missouri wanted to join the Union as a slave state. As this would ruin the balance between Slave states and Free states in the Senate, Henry Clay proposed the Missouri compromise. This arranged it that while Missouri was admitted as a Slave state, Maine was also admitted as a free state. It also created an imaginary line along the 36o latitude, where slavery was allowed below it but prevented above it. However they limited themselves by only applying the Compromise to lands gained in the Louisiana purchase. This led to conflict after the Mexican war in which America gained new territories in the West. This doomed the Missouri Compromise, which was probably the most promising of the three. Had the Compromise been applied to all American lands then perhaps it could have succeeded. Instead the Missouri Compromise failed and only led to further conflict between north and south in the future. In 1849 once again the Union was facing the same crises it had faced in 1820. California now wanted to be admitted as a free state. Once again Henry Clay came up with a compromise to resolve this conflict. California would indeed be admitted as free while the rest of the Southwest territories would decide the slavery issue by popular sovereignty. It would also abolish slavery altogether in Washington DC and initiate a stronger fugitive slave law to appease the South. This last concession angered people in the North however. Free blacks were concerned as now a Southerner could accuse any black person as being a runaway slave. The special commission set up to handle such issues also had a higher incentive to rule in favour of the South as it meant more money. This angered the free blacks and abolitionists in the North. This Compromise once again only prolonged the inevitable and intensified the conflict between North and South. The third compromise which failed came in the form of the Kansas-Nebraska Act. The act came about when Senator Stephen Douglas wanted to build a transcontinental railway which had to pass through the Nebraska territory. He proposed that Nebraska become a free state but the idea was quickly defeated by the South. Douglas then suggested that the territory become two states, Nebraska entering as a free state and Kansas deciding by popular sovereignty. This nullified the Missouri Compromise entirely however the South agreed. However people in the North against the expansion of slavery paid for people to move to Kansas and vote against slavery. This angered the South and resulted in Southerners crossing the border on voting day to vote in favour of slavery. This just resulted in distrust between Northerners and Southerners and led to Northerners establishing their own illegal government. Violence erupted and a civil war broke out in ‘bleeding Kansas’ much earlier than the rest of the country. It was clear at this point that the two sides were far beyond Compromise as shown by their actions. This compromise did not even prolong the coming war as much as it pushed the country towards it. It is obvious that these compromises could do nothing to prevent the oncoming violence. Indeed it could be argued that the constant attempts at compromise is what brought about the Civil War. This shows that although compromise is the preferable option it was not a viable option to prevent the American Civil War. The difference between North and South were far to numerous and significant to be satisfied by compromise. Sadly in human history it is often results so that it is only possible to resolve conflicts with violence.	857	ENGLISH	1
Abraham lincolns strong desire to free all slaves What did abraham lincoln do It is the same spirit that says, "You work and toil and earn bread, and I'll eat it. These all against us, and the job on our hands is too large for us. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved. If slavery did not now exist amongst them, they would not introduce it. Congress, stated that emancipating slaves would create economic "inconveniences" and justified compensation to the slave owners. The Civil War was fundamentally a conflict over slavery. Now this grave argument comes to just nothing at all, by the other fact, that they did not at once, or ever afterwards, actually place all white people on an equality with one or another. Lincoln lost the case, by the way. I observed that, although awkward, he was not in the least embarrassed. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. Several of the colonists flee to the mainland of Haiti, others try to start settlements on the beach, and as a result of this giant convergence of problems, in early , Lincoln had to send a ship back to Haiti to rescue the survivors and bring them back to the United States. McClellan, the commanding general of the largest Union force, the Army of the Potomac. There were several measures that could combine to plow that path and Lincoln favored all of them. It was also in the summer of that Lincoln initiated his intensified effort to get various slave states to abolish slavery on their own. After he issued the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln never again publicly mentioned colonization, and a mention of it in an earlier draft was deleted by the time the final proclamation was issued in January He wanted to make a needed change, right a right, but at the right time, while he was waiting he wanted to keep the machine of the Union running. Lincoln sought to test the idea on the small slave population in Delaware, but the idea met fierce opposition from abolitionists when it went public. I submit these opinions as being entitled to some weight against the objections often urged that emancipation and arming the blacks are unwise as military measures and were not adopted as such in good faith. Whenever you shall have conquered all resistance to the Union, if I shall urge you to continue fighting, it will be an apt time, then, for you to declare you will not fight to free negroes. Now this grave argument comes to just nothing at all, by the other fact, that they did not at once, or ever afterwards, actually place all white people on an equality with one or another. Chief Justice Roger B. Abraham lincoln emancipation proclamation We believe -- nay, we know, that that is the only thing that has ever threatened the perpetuity of the Union itself. But national concern about the future of slavery was growing. His views became clear during an series of debates with his opponent in the Illinois race for U. He realised that as the agitation for abolition grew, so the Southerners would demand further guarantees to protect their own peculiar slave society. And he rejected the idea that free states could bestow freedom on those within their own borders who had come in as slaves. Wright wrote: The most remarkable feature of the Peoria Speech was the way it foreshadowed almost every later Lincoln position. Mitchell's Washington D. Douglas, Alton, Illinois In the final Lincoln-Douglas debate, Lincoln claimed that the issues over which the two candidates had sparred, were not just issues of his time, rather, Lincoln believed that these debates were small battles in the larger war between individual rights and the divine right of kings. What has the reaction to your research been like? Still, a complete end to slavery would require a constitutional amendment. In that environment, it is quite apparent that the Lincoln connection [for Fleurville] must have been as valuable to the black barber as it was unique. But his votes show that he had no clear conception how this was to be accomplished. Southern leaders denounced Lincoln as a bloodthirsty revolutionary whose emancipation policies proved that the secessionists were right all along about those they labeled "Black Republicans. This question is compounded by the unclear meaning of Hay's diary, and another article by Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welleswhich suggests that Lincoln intended to revive colonization in his second term. In AprilLincoln was still of the mind that emancipation and deportation was the key to a peaceful United States. They did not mean to assert the obvious untruth, that all were then actually enjoying that equality, nor yet, that they were about to confer it immediately upon them. In those early days of Illinois, it took great courage for a young lawyer and budding politician to fight for Negro freedom. What were lincoln?s views on slavery and did they change over time? I want to tease out the historical truth, I want to reveal what was really going on in his mind as he was coping with the slavery problem. Since neither history nor human nature could readily be changed, the best strategy was an appeal to an ideal moral standard and to gradual emancipation. Does it appear otherwise to you? I know, as fully as one can know the opinions of others, that some of the commanders of our armies in the field who have given us our most important successes believe the emancipation policy and the use of the colored troops constitute the heaviest blow yet dealt to the Rebellion, and that at least one of these important successes could not have been achieved when it was but for the aid of black soldiers. He left no surviving statements in his own hand on the subject during the last two years of his presidency, although he apparently wrote Attorney General Edward Bates in November to inquire whether earlier legislation allowed him to continue pursuing colonization and to retain Mitchell's services irrespective of the loss of funding. By the end of tens of thousands of slaves were emancipated as they came into Union lines at Fortress Monroe, Virginia, the Sea Islands off South Carolina, and in western Missouri. Some of those decisions were good, some of those decisions were bad, and some of them had vague gray areas that are very uncertain. That much is true, but there is more to the story. based on 33 review	<urn:uuid:fecdce7c-f7e6-42e3-83cc-3cd0c1cfca23>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://cuvoqagely.anygivenchildtulsa.com/abraham-lincolns-strong-desire-to-free-all-slaves115408896oi.html	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594391.21/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119093733-20200119121733-00431.warc.gz	en	0.985586	1,319	3.359375	3	[ -0.4322054982185364, 0.3541012406349182, 0.07250519096851349, 0.04200083389878273, -0.22088578343391418, 0.02824428305029869, -0.09662799537181854, -0.06988610327243805, -0.018828703090548515, -0.00863635167479515, 0.08830031752586365, 0.06136053055524826, -0.43903130292892456, 0.274671912...	2	Abraham lincolns strong desire to free all slaves What did abraham lincoln do It is the same spirit that says, "You work and toil and earn bread, and I'll eat it. These all against us, and the job on our hands is too large for us. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved. If slavery did not now exist amongst them, they would not introduce it. Congress, stated that emancipating slaves would create economic "inconveniences" and justified compensation to the slave owners. The Civil War was fundamentally a conflict over slavery. Now this grave argument comes to just nothing at all, by the other fact, that they did not at once, or ever afterwards, actually place all white people on an equality with one or another. Lincoln lost the case, by the way. I observed that, although awkward, he was not in the least embarrassed. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. Several of the colonists flee to the mainland of Haiti, others try to start settlements on the beach, and as a result of this giant convergence of problems, in early , Lincoln had to send a ship back to Haiti to rescue the survivors and bring them back to the United States. McClellan, the commanding general of the largest Union force, the Army of the Potomac. There were several measures that could combine to plow that path and Lincoln favored all of them. It was also in the summer of that Lincoln initiated his intensified effort to get various slave states to abolish slavery on their own. After he issued the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, Lincoln never again publicly mentioned colonization, and a mention of it in an earlier draft was deleted by the time the final proclamation was issued in January He wanted to make a needed change, right a right, but at the right time, while he was waiting he wanted to keep the machine of the Union running. Lincoln sought to test the idea on the small slave population in Delaware, but the idea met fierce opposition from abolitionists when it went public. I submit these opinions as being entitled to some weight against the objections often urged that emancipation and arming the blacks are unwise as military measures and were not adopted as such in good faith. Whenever you shall have conquered all resistance to the Union, if I shall urge you to continue fighting, it will be an apt time, then, for you to declare you will not fight to free negroes. Now this grave argument comes to just nothing at all, by the other fact, that they did not at once, or ever afterwards, actually place all white people on an equality with one or another. Chief Justice Roger B. Abraham lincoln emancipation proclamation We believe -- nay, we know, that that is the only thing that has ever threatened the perpetuity of the Union itself. But national concern about the future of slavery was growing. His views became clear during an series of debates with his opponent in the Illinois race for U. He realised that as the agitation for abolition grew, so the Southerners would demand further guarantees to protect their own peculiar slave society. And he rejected the idea that free states could bestow freedom on those within their own borders who had come in as slaves. Wright wrote: The most remarkable feature of the Peoria Speech was the way it foreshadowed almost every later Lincoln position. Mitchell's Washington D. Douglas, Alton, Illinois In the final Lincoln-Douglas debate, Lincoln claimed that the issues over which the two candidates had sparred, were not just issues of his time, rather, Lincoln believed that these debates were small battles in the larger war between individual rights and the divine right of kings. What has the reaction to your research been like? Still, a complete end to slavery would require a constitutional amendment. In that environment, it is quite apparent that the Lincoln connection [for Fleurville] must have been as valuable to the black barber as it was unique. But his votes show that he had no clear conception how this was to be accomplished. Southern leaders denounced Lincoln as a bloodthirsty revolutionary whose emancipation policies proved that the secessionists were right all along about those they labeled "Black Republicans. This question is compounded by the unclear meaning of Hay's diary, and another article by Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welleswhich suggests that Lincoln intended to revive colonization in his second term. In AprilLincoln was still of the mind that emancipation and deportation was the key to a peaceful United States. They did not mean to assert the obvious untruth, that all were then actually enjoying that equality, nor yet, that they were about to confer it immediately upon them. In those early days of Illinois, it took great courage for a young lawyer and budding politician to fight for Negro freedom. What were lincoln?s views on slavery and did they change over time? I want to tease out the historical truth, I want to reveal what was really going on in his mind as he was coping with the slavery problem. Since neither history nor human nature could readily be changed, the best strategy was an appeal to an ideal moral standard and to gradual emancipation. Does it appear otherwise to you? I know, as fully as one can know the opinions of others, that some of the commanders of our armies in the field who have given us our most important successes believe the emancipation policy and the use of the colored troops constitute the heaviest blow yet dealt to the Rebellion, and that at least one of these important successes could not have been achieved when it was but for the aid of black soldiers. He left no surviving statements in his own hand on the subject during the last two years of his presidency, although he apparently wrote Attorney General Edward Bates in November to inquire whether earlier legislation allowed him to continue pursuing colonization and to retain Mitchell's services irrespective of the loss of funding. By the end of tens of thousands of slaves were emancipated as they came into Union lines at Fortress Monroe, Virginia, the Sea Islands off South Carolina, and in western Missouri. Some of those decisions were good, some of those decisions were bad, and some of them had vague gray areas that are very uncertain. That much is true, but there is more to the story. based on 33 review	1,316	ENGLISH	1
Today at 2:45, half of Year one had their class assembly about George and the Dragon. To start off their remarkable show, they told us about the lead character (George) and his courageous personality and how brave he was. 1P began to tell the audience the start of the story, they managed to captivate the viewers and take them on a journey to a small village were George had rode on his horse to save the princess from a towering monster know as a dragon. The dragon wanted to eat the princess because it was very hungry. They started to sing a song about the knight who was very helpful to all the people in the old town were the beast had tried to eat every female in the area. After they had sang the song, that they had learnt over the past few weeks, then they told the audience about what they did on their school trip to Skipton Castle at the castle they drew landscape pictures of what they saw.They really enjoyed their visit to Skipton Castle and wished they could go again. By Emily Mae and Taylor	<urn:uuid:07dd8082-61c4-4097-b681-9dde63d9ea47>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://theblog.is/blakehill/2018/05/11/1p-class-assembly-5/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250609478.50/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123071220-20200123100220-00502.warc.gz	en	0.994575	216	3.3125	3	[ -0.43256112933158875, 0.07934273034334183, 0.589523196220398, -0.2951980233192444, -0.2652890384197235, 0.08293581753969193, 0.30740657448768616, 0.14898380637168884, -0.22447606921195984, -0.04603720083832741, 0.08104356378316879, 0.1040833368897438, 0.5580135583877563, -0.026869710534811...	2	Today at 2:45, half of Year one had their class assembly about George and the Dragon. To start off their remarkable show, they told us about the lead character (George) and his courageous personality and how brave he was. 1P began to tell the audience the start of the story, they managed to captivate the viewers and take them on a journey to a small village were George had rode on his horse to save the princess from a towering monster know as a dragon. The dragon wanted to eat the princess because it was very hungry. They started to sing a song about the knight who was very helpful to all the people in the old town were the beast had tried to eat every female in the area. After they had sang the song, that they had learnt over the past few weeks, then they told the audience about what they did on their school trip to Skipton Castle at the castle they drew landscape pictures of what they saw.They really enjoyed their visit to Skipton Castle and wished they could go again. By Emily Mae and Taylor	215	ENGLISH	1
Socially and economically, the flow of silver sprouted from the desire of luxury. Merchants from countries, such as China, would return with only silver. Taxes had transformed into having to be paid in silver due to the high demand of it. Although silver had a positive social consequence towards the Chinese, neighboring countries, such as Spain, were economically impacted due to the discovery of the silver mines which had kick-started the global trade.The silver had took a toll on countries, like Spain and China, in a way in which benefits arose, but problems followed behind. A decrease in economics occurred in China around 1593. De Mercado discussed silver as being the currency, a cause of which ruined Spain and resulted in the Asian commodities being paid (Doc 2). Taxes were also desired to be paid using silver, but since the low dispersion of silver prices of crops are being decreased (Doc 3). Since money is worth so much, the price of product goes down. A man with just a bar of silver would have more than a man who would have a thousand and still never have what’s needed (Doc 1).Chinese, as well as Portuguese, merchants come from China with luxury goods such as: gold, silk, and copper and go to Japan to bring in return only silver (Doc 4). China refused to trade with anything other than silver (in return). The main item in China’s economy became silver, and paper money slowly begun to be replaced. Vázquez discusses on the desire of silver on Spanish merchants (Doc 6). He mentions the million coins of silver taken from mines and about the large amount of silver being smuggled out to avoid taxes and registry fees to places China and the Philippines. European traders take the silver to China as well as gold in exchange for materials to supply luxury. They admit in document 8 that this is the only thing of solid worth they get from Asia.?Silver was an important part of the economy but only because of greed and luxury. Governments wanted silver so bad it became the main currency. Silver was smuggled out of mines to avoid taxes. Suppliers of silver were exploited by their consumers need for silver.	<urn:uuid:b5ab5d02-4e25-49cd-9a06-afa5252a5fcd>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://finnolux.com/socially-from-the-desire-of-luxury-merchants-from/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594391.21/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119093733-20200119121733-00219.warc.gz	en	0.984823	438	3.671875	4	[ -0.1336246132850647, 0.11176353693008423, 0.20081236958503723, -0.006918325554579496, 0.32144874334335327, 0.016573399305343628, 0.045926958322525024, -0.06701567769050598, 0.03644226863980293, -0.04825647920370102, 0.523630678653717, 0.015952710062265396, 0.09604804962873459, 0.3288722336...	1	Socially and economically, the flow of silver sprouted from the desire of luxury. Merchants from countries, such as China, would return with only silver. Taxes had transformed into having to be paid in silver due to the high demand of it. Although silver had a positive social consequence towards the Chinese, neighboring countries, such as Spain, were economically impacted due to the discovery of the silver mines which had kick-started the global trade.The silver had took a toll on countries, like Spain and China, in a way in which benefits arose, but problems followed behind. A decrease in economics occurred in China around 1593. De Mercado discussed silver as being the currency, a cause of which ruined Spain and resulted in the Asian commodities being paid (Doc 2). Taxes were also desired to be paid using silver, but since the low dispersion of silver prices of crops are being decreased (Doc 3). Since money is worth so much, the price of product goes down. A man with just a bar of silver would have more than a man who would have a thousand and still never have what’s needed (Doc 1).Chinese, as well as Portuguese, merchants come from China with luxury goods such as: gold, silk, and copper and go to Japan to bring in return only silver (Doc 4). China refused to trade with anything other than silver (in return). The main item in China’s economy became silver, and paper money slowly begun to be replaced. Vázquez discusses on the desire of silver on Spanish merchants (Doc 6). He mentions the million coins of silver taken from mines and about the large amount of silver being smuggled out to avoid taxes and registry fees to places China and the Philippines. European traders take the silver to China as well as gold in exchange for materials to supply luxury. They admit in document 8 that this is the only thing of solid worth they get from Asia.?Silver was an important part of the economy but only because of greed and luxury. Governments wanted silver so bad it became the main currency. Silver was smuggled out of mines to avoid taxes. Suppliers of silver were exploited by their consumers need for silver.	440	ENGLISH	1
What happens to an alligator that loses its tail? For most, it's game over. But not for Mr. Stubbs. The alligator has a new lease on life thanks in part to 3D-printing technology. It took a team effort by researchers at the CORE Institute in Phoenix and Midwestern University to design a better kind of replacement tail. Before, that required making a mold of an actual alligator's tail, which was expensive. But 3D technology has made it more practical. Mr. Stubbs lost his posterior when he was owned by a man who had an illegal alligator facility, says Dan Marchand, executive curator of the nonprofit Phoenix Herpetological Society. "He basically had purchased a new alligator and it was smaller than his others, and he had placed it into an enclosure where the other alligators thought they were being fed something, and they actually bit off his original tail," Marchand tells Here & Now's Lisa Mullins. On how researchers are tweaking the tail's design over time "They actually made three different versions of it — one was short and stubby, one was what they believe the correct length was and one was actually made a little bit longer, so it gave them the ability to try different things with the tail to see what the reaction would be and the things that would happen by changing some of the dimensions. "Based on his size and his weight, they basically took the dimensions from alligators similar in size. So they had a really good idea of what it should have been. So they created a tail exactly, based off those dimensions, what they thought it should be. But then they wanted to play with the concept of, what happens if the tail was a little bit shorter? What would it do, and if the tail is a little longer what would it do?" "We save animals every day. This is a very special one to us. We've been able to do something that no one else has ever done."Dan Marchand On what the tail is made out of "The material is called Dragon Skin, and they use it again in prosthetics with humans ... It could be on the skin, against the skin, for very long periods of time and not cause irritation or uncomfortable feeling." On how Mr. Stubbs has adjusted to the new tail "We were concerned that when we put something on him that now had weight behind it, that maybe he felt that he was being pulled on and he would want to turn around and basically bite his own tail, because he didn't know what it was. So what we had to do is we had to see if he would know how to swim, so we actually would put him in our swimming pool and we would hold him down under water, and then at the point where he needed a breath of air, he would basically wiggle his body, if you want to call it that, and he would make his way to the surface. So we basically gave him swimming lessons." On why researchers took on the challenge of helping the alligator "We save animals every day. This is a very special one to us. We've been able to do something that no one else has ever done. With a lot of things that we learn through medical procedures and things today, animals are where we get some of our basic information. Alligators, for example, are resistant to a lot of bacterias that humans are not, and there's a lot of research being done today to find out why alligators are resistant to bacteria that are very harmful to humans." This segment aired on August 17, 2018. Support the news Support the news	<urn:uuid:49582a8c-f14d-4f44-959b-a22dcf8eea70>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2018/08/17/alligator-3d-printed-tail	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250599789.45/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120195035-20200120224035-00495.warc.gz	en	0.991216	753	3.484375	3	[ -0.39359772205352783, -0.07845479249954224, 0.15738025307655334, 0.11399461328983307, -0.3286839723587036, -0.27763253450393677, 0.19927948713302612, 0.2448720932006836, 0.000035931821912527084, -0.06299468874931335, 0.15603579580783844, -0.20085370540618896, 0.3868459463119507, 0.28041517...	1	What happens to an alligator that loses its tail? For most, it's game over. But not for Mr. Stubbs. The alligator has a new lease on life thanks in part to 3D-printing technology. It took a team effort by researchers at the CORE Institute in Phoenix and Midwestern University to design a better kind of replacement tail. Before, that required making a mold of an actual alligator's tail, which was expensive. But 3D technology has made it more practical. Mr. Stubbs lost his posterior when he was owned by a man who had an illegal alligator facility, says Dan Marchand, executive curator of the nonprofit Phoenix Herpetological Society. "He basically had purchased a new alligator and it was smaller than his others, and he had placed it into an enclosure where the other alligators thought they were being fed something, and they actually bit off his original tail," Marchand tells Here & Now's Lisa Mullins. On how researchers are tweaking the tail's design over time "They actually made three different versions of it — one was short and stubby, one was what they believe the correct length was and one was actually made a little bit longer, so it gave them the ability to try different things with the tail to see what the reaction would be and the things that would happen by changing some of the dimensions. "Based on his size and his weight, they basically took the dimensions from alligators similar in size. So they had a really good idea of what it should have been. So they created a tail exactly, based off those dimensions, what they thought it should be. But then they wanted to play with the concept of, what happens if the tail was a little bit shorter? What would it do, and if the tail is a little longer what would it do?" "We save animals every day. This is a very special one to us. We've been able to do something that no one else has ever done."Dan Marchand On what the tail is made out of "The material is called Dragon Skin, and they use it again in prosthetics with humans ... It could be on the skin, against the skin, for very long periods of time and not cause irritation or uncomfortable feeling." On how Mr. Stubbs has adjusted to the new tail "We were concerned that when we put something on him that now had weight behind it, that maybe he felt that he was being pulled on and he would want to turn around and basically bite his own tail, because he didn't know what it was. So what we had to do is we had to see if he would know how to swim, so we actually would put him in our swimming pool and we would hold him down under water, and then at the point where he needed a breath of air, he would basically wiggle his body, if you want to call it that, and he would make his way to the surface. So we basically gave him swimming lessons." On why researchers took on the challenge of helping the alligator "We save animals every day. This is a very special one to us. We've been able to do something that no one else has ever done. With a lot of things that we learn through medical procedures and things today, animals are where we get some of our basic information. Alligators, for example, are resistant to a lot of bacterias that humans are not, and there's a lot of research being done today to find out why alligators are resistant to bacteria that are very harmful to humans." This segment aired on August 17, 2018. Support the news Support the news	742	ENGLISH	1
On April 18, 1906, disaster struck Northern California at 5:12 a.m. when a huge earthquake hit. It was an estimated 7.8 on the moment magnitude scale. It was felt from Eureka down to Salinas Valley. Subsequently, huge fires broke out in San Francisco that would last for many more died. About 80% of the city was destroyed and 3,000 people died. The earthquake is one of the worst and deadliest natural disasters to occur in the U.S. The death toll is also the greatest of any Californian natural disaster. 7.8 on the moment magnitude scale is the most widely accepted estimate for the earthquake’s magnitude, though the exact number is unknown. Other estimates from 7.7 to 8.3 have been suggested. About two miles offshore from the city, the main shock epicenter occurred. It was felt all the way to Oregon down to Los Angeles and as far as Nevada. By about 20-25 seconds, a strong foreshock happened before the main shock, which lasted for about 42 second. Shortly after the earthquake, they had reported 375 deaths. There were hundred of fatalities in Chinatown that went unrecorded. To this day, the number of casualties is still unknown, but it is estimated to be no less than 3,000. While most deaths were in San Francisco, 189 were reported in other places in the Bay Area such as Santa Rosa and San Jose. The Salinas River in Monterey County was permanently shifted due to the earthquake. It had diverted six miles to the south that was north of Marina instead of where it previously emptied between Moss Landing and Watsonville More than half of the city’s population was left homeless afterwards. With a population of about 410,000, about 227,000-300,000 were without homes. About half of those evacuated across the bay to Oakland and Berkeley. Golden Gate Park, the Presidio, the Panhandle, and other beaches were covered with tens. Most refugee camps were still in use over two years after the disaster. Over 80% of San Francisco was destroyed by the earthquake and subsequent fires. At the time it had been the financial, trade, and cultural center on the West Coast. However, the earthquake put a hold on this and Los Angeles instead took its place. The city was rebuilt quickly though. The earthquake and aftershocks may have caused a lot of damage, but the fires caused even more. They began after the fire, burning out of control for days. An estimated 90% of the destruction of the whole disaster was from the fires. Over 30 fires destroyed about 490 blocks and 25,000 in the course of three days. A woman making breakfast for her family in their home on Hayes Street accidently started one of the largest fires. It late ron became known as the “Ham and Eggs Fire.” Some had started because firefighters were not properly trained with using dynamite. To create firebreaks, they had attempted to unsuccessfully demolish buildings in the city. For four days and nights, fires raged throughout San Francisco. Some property owners purposely set fire to their buildings to claim insurance. This was because insurers in san Francisco covered fires, but not earthquakes. Others blamed most of the destruction on the fires. The notable Palace Hotel had attracted many visitors, royalty and celebrities included. However, when it was burnt down in the fire, it was immediately rebuilt. Many scientific laboratories were also lost. The curator of botany at the San Francisco California Academy of Sciences, Alice Eastwood, has been credited for saving close to 1,500 specimens. Some of those specimens included a newly discovered and very rare species. Biochemist Benjamin R. Jacobs was researching the nutrition of everyday foods, but his laboratory and records were destroyed as well. The fire cost about $350 million, which is equivalent to $8.97 billion today. Soldiers patrolled the streets for the first few days after the disaster. They discouraged looting and the guarded building, the U.S. Mint, post office, and county jail included. They also assisted the fire department in demolishing buildings with dynamite. The army was in charge of feeding, sheltering, and clothing the tens of thousands of citizens affected by the disaster. On July 1, 1906, the army withdrew from the city when civil authorities assumed their responsibilities. Mayor Eugene Schmitz issued an order on April 18 responding to the rioting and looting evacuees that “The Federal Troops, the members of the Regular Police Force and all Special Police Officer” were given permission to kill any looters. Though the city had been completely destroyed, it was able to quickly recover. Citizens worked to rebuild the city and planners created a new and improved San Francisco. They rebuilt it with a more clean, logical, and elegant structure.	<urn:uuid:c7da4532-da2d-445a-a5e6-651e3d769827>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://historythings.com/brief-look-disastrous-san-francisco-earthquake-1906/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251689924.62/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126135207-20200126165207-00225.warc.gz	en	0.985212	987	3.578125	4	[ 0.08002761006355286, -0.32023942470550537, 0.22028258442878723, -0.3477778136730194, 0.27278077602386475, 0.40423810482025146, -0.09641841799020767, 0.36749571561813354, 0.2835123538970947, 0.30875223875045776, 0.009594332426786423, -0.13990084826946259, 0.05858615040779114, 0.268749177455...	8	On April 18, 1906, disaster struck Northern California at 5:12 a.m. when a huge earthquake hit. It was an estimated 7.8 on the moment magnitude scale. It was felt from Eureka down to Salinas Valley. Subsequently, huge fires broke out in San Francisco that would last for many more died. About 80% of the city was destroyed and 3,000 people died. The earthquake is one of the worst and deadliest natural disasters to occur in the U.S. The death toll is also the greatest of any Californian natural disaster. 7.8 on the moment magnitude scale is the most widely accepted estimate for the earthquake’s magnitude, though the exact number is unknown. Other estimates from 7.7 to 8.3 have been suggested. About two miles offshore from the city, the main shock epicenter occurred. It was felt all the way to Oregon down to Los Angeles and as far as Nevada. By about 20-25 seconds, a strong foreshock happened before the main shock, which lasted for about 42 second. Shortly after the earthquake, they had reported 375 deaths. There were hundred of fatalities in Chinatown that went unrecorded. To this day, the number of casualties is still unknown, but it is estimated to be no less than 3,000. While most deaths were in San Francisco, 189 were reported in other places in the Bay Area such as Santa Rosa and San Jose. The Salinas River in Monterey County was permanently shifted due to the earthquake. It had diverted six miles to the south that was north of Marina instead of where it previously emptied between Moss Landing and Watsonville More than half of the city’s population was left homeless afterwards. With a population of about 410,000, about 227,000-300,000 were without homes. About half of those evacuated across the bay to Oakland and Berkeley. Golden Gate Park, the Presidio, the Panhandle, and other beaches were covered with tens. Most refugee camps were still in use over two years after the disaster. Over 80% of San Francisco was destroyed by the earthquake and subsequent fires. At the time it had been the financial, trade, and cultural center on the West Coast. However, the earthquake put a hold on this and Los Angeles instead took its place. The city was rebuilt quickly though. The earthquake and aftershocks may have caused a lot of damage, but the fires caused even more. They began after the fire, burning out of control for days. An estimated 90% of the destruction of the whole disaster was from the fires. Over 30 fires destroyed about 490 blocks and 25,000 in the course of three days. A woman making breakfast for her family in their home on Hayes Street accidently started one of the largest fires. It late ron became known as the “Ham and Eggs Fire.” Some had started because firefighters were not properly trained with using dynamite. To create firebreaks, they had attempted to unsuccessfully demolish buildings in the city. For four days and nights, fires raged throughout San Francisco. Some property owners purposely set fire to their buildings to claim insurance. This was because insurers in san Francisco covered fires, but not earthquakes. Others blamed most of the destruction on the fires. The notable Palace Hotel had attracted many visitors, royalty and celebrities included. However, when it was burnt down in the fire, it was immediately rebuilt. Many scientific laboratories were also lost. The curator of botany at the San Francisco California Academy of Sciences, Alice Eastwood, has been credited for saving close to 1,500 specimens. Some of those specimens included a newly discovered and very rare species. Biochemist Benjamin R. Jacobs was researching the nutrition of everyday foods, but his laboratory and records were destroyed as well. The fire cost about $350 million, which is equivalent to $8.97 billion today. Soldiers patrolled the streets for the first few days after the disaster. They discouraged looting and the guarded building, the U.S. Mint, post office, and county jail included. They also assisted the fire department in demolishing buildings with dynamite. The army was in charge of feeding, sheltering, and clothing the tens of thousands of citizens affected by the disaster. On July 1, 1906, the army withdrew from the city when civil authorities assumed their responsibilities. Mayor Eugene Schmitz issued an order on April 18 responding to the rioting and looting evacuees that “The Federal Troops, the members of the Regular Police Force and all Special Police Officer” were given permission to kill any looters. Though the city had been completely destroyed, it was able to quickly recover. Citizens worked to rebuild the city and planners created a new and improved San Francisco. They rebuilt it with a more clean, logical, and elegant structure.	1,039	ENGLISH	1
Who led Rome? Who led Rome? From the 8th century BC, Ancient Rome grew from a tiny town on the Tiber River in modern-day Italy to a sprawling empire, that spanned across most of continental Europe, Britain, a large portion of western Asia, northern Africa and the Mediterranean islands. Let us learn some more about the protagonists in this story and the emperors that saw this civilisation prosper. While some of them are very well known, others are less so. Some ascended to leadership via lineage and others forced their way to power. What they all have in common is that they left a mark on Roman history and made lasting impressions on the world as we know it. This article will intend to give a brief profile of key Roman emperors, how they got to power and what legacy they left on the Ancient Roman Empire. Before reading, find additional context in our article on The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire. The First Roman Emperor: Augustus (27 BC to 14 AD) Augustus Caesar is the name given to the first, and many argue, the greatest Roman Emperor. Augustus was born Gaius Octavius Thurinus in 63 BCE and was adopted by Julius Caesar, his great-uncle. Throughout his life he was known by many different names, such as Octavius, Octavian and Augustus. When Julius Caesar was assassinated on the Ides of March in 44 BC, Octavian was named as his heir. Octavian allied himself with Caesar’s close friend and relative, Mark Anthony, and Marcus Aemilus Lepidus. Together, the three formed the Second Triumvirate, dividing up Roman territories between each other. However, as time went on, relations between Octavian and Anthony began to sour. This was in part due to Anthony’s sustained affair with Cleopatra, Queen of Egypt, in spite of his marriage to Octavian’s sister, Octavia. Octavian and Anthony feuded at the Battle of Actium in 31 BC where Antony and Cleopatra were defeated, eventually committing suicide. Octavian then had Caesar deified, thereby proclaiming himself as the a son of god and naming himself Augustus Caesar. His victory saw the end of the Roman Republic and the beginning of the Roman Empire with Augustus as the undisputed leader. Throughout his 41 years as emperor, Augustus made vast changes to the government structure and underwent a number of public works in Rome. He reduced the Senate to 600 elite men from around the empire (Spawforth 2018, p. 257), excluding the previously represented plebians. He championed the distinguishing between citizens and non-citizens, by making clear the status, rights and duties of citizens (Norwich University Online 2017). He made legal reforms in favour of increasing the population, such as incentives for large families and penalties for not having children (Mark 2018). He also renewed the tax system in order to pay for a multitude of new buildings and roads, welfare and retirement plans, as well as emergency services. Augustus added new territories in Europe and Asia Minor to the empire and secured alliances that meant he effectively ruled from Britain to India. He created the Pax Romana, restoring peace to the empire, and allowing the economy, the arts and commerce to flourish. Augustus was particularly interested in the arts and was a personal patron of many artists. I found Rome of clay and leave her to you of marble. – Augustus Caesar When visiting Rome, you will be hard pressed to spend a day without seeing the influence of Augustus. Some highlights are the Mausoleum of Augustus, a number obelisks, and especially the Pantheon which began in Augustus’ time and was completed in Hadrian’s. The Mausoleum of Augustus, which was neglected for many years, has been restored and reopened to visitors. The Mausoleum is the final resting place of many emperors including Tiberius, Claudius and the tyrannical Caligula. Augustus’ influence can be felt in many of the wonders of Roman times but an essential stop on a visit to Rome is Casa di Augusto, Augustus’ private residence that he shared with his wife Livia. Augustus passed many sweeping reforms before his death in 14 AD and was succeeded by Tiberius, his stepson who he had adopted in 4 BCE. Bloody, Brutal Rule Tiberius (14 to 37 AD) Tiberius was adopted by Augustus Caesar. However, Tiberius was not Augustus’ first pick as successor but Augustus’ grandsons, who were expected to ascend to the throne, both died before Augustus. Despite not being the preferred heir, Tiberius had enjoyed a brilliant and successful military career before becoming Emperor, and had made many sacrifices at Augustus’ request, including divorcing his much-loved wife Vipsania to marry Augustus’ unfaithful daughter, Julia. Tiberius did not share Augustus’ political skill and he became increasingly unpopular with the Senate. He quickly became a suspicious and paranoid emperor, prosecuting anybody he sensed was against him. His reign plunged the empire into an era of political purges, exiles, murders and terror. According to Tacitus and Suetonius, Roman historians, the penalty for treason against Tiberius was be pushed off a cliff (Lang 2018). This immense paranoia led to self-imposed exile on the island of Capri, where he remained until he died. Caligula (37 to 41 AD) According to Donald Wasson, Emperor Caligula was hailed as a ‘monster’ by historian Suetonius (2011) and is known for leading a four-year reign of excess and carnage. With Augustan lineage and under the forced tutelage of Emperor Tiberius, Caligula was deemed a rightful heir to the imperial throne. For a brief time, he shared the throne with Gemellus, Tiberius’ son; however, Gemellus died soon after in suspicious circumstances. Despite this questionable start, his rule began with the full support of Roman citizens because he reversed Tiberius’ strict treason laws as well as fixing temples and constructing works of aqueducts, lighthouses, and amphitheatres. But, this productive and admired persona dramatically shifted six months later after a medical emergency (Wasson 2011). His brush with death allowed for paranoia to set in, and he became hostile to the Senate and the people. He re-instituted treason trials, took pleasure in torture, ostracized Jewish citizens, and shamed the Senate, famously claiming that he could make anyone consul, including his horse (Lang 2018). His biographer Suetonius quotes him as often saying ‘Remember that I have the right to do anything to anybody’ and it seems he did just this. His treatment of others led to him being the first Roman Emperor to be assassinated in 41 AD by the Praetorian Guard. Nero (54 to 68 AD) Nero was born Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus in 37 AD, but adopted the name Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus when he became the stepson of Emperor Claudius in 49 AD (Wasson 2012). There are suspicions that Nero poisoned his step-father using poisonous mushrooms, and Nero, upon assuming the throne, expressed his dislike of the way Claudius managed the Empire. He was also meant to co-lead with his brother Britannicus, but he was murdered, undoubtedly by Nero. He used entertainment, such as games, concerts, races, and gladiators, to subdue his citizens. But, this was also a means of personal gain as he had a forced audience for his greatest pleasure in life: singing and lyre playing, in both of which he lacked talent (Wasson 2012). With time, the population grew to hate Nero, due to his cruelty toward Christians and his expensive taste and extravagant lifestyle, as exhibited by the construction of the Domus Aurea, or golden house, in central Rome (Lang 2018). In order to construct the Domus Aurea, complete with gold-plated ceilings, a lake and exotic animals, he had to raise taxes for the funds (Wasson 2012). In addition to draining the treasury, ineffective response to the great fire of 63 AD led to his impeachment as Emperor and his suicide. Domitian (81 to 96 AD) Domitian, born 51 AD, was the son of Vespasian, who became Roman Emperor in the year following Nero’s fall. He was not a military man and thus was nervous at the prospect of being overthrown or assassinated. His initial response to to these fears was to distract his potential foes with entertainment including chariot races and gladiators, often held in the world-famous Roman Colosseum, which was built by his father. Domitian also provided for citizens’ welfare. However, the expenses to be liked weighed down on the Emperor as a financial burden, which led to his high taxation and fortune seizures of wealthy senators. He forcefully took more money and paid for more games, festivals, and even personal security. He also increased treason charges and executions. However, he met his demise by an assassination orchestrated by his wife in 96 AD. This event was rumoured to be celebrated by the senate and citizens alike. The ‘golden era’ of the Roman empire fell under the watchful eye of five key emperors. It was Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antonius Pius, and Marcus Aurelius who consolidated the Roman Empire at its height of expansion, and imposed a unified language and civil society in all of its territory. The emperors succeeded in implementing the foundations for modern democracy by enforcing a legal system and tax reforms, providing welfare for citizens, and building infrastructure for the people. Nerva (96 to 98 AD) After Domitian’s assassination, the next successor was unclear because he had no heirs. His brutal reign alienated most of the Senate, which inspired the need for a replacement who was a stark contrast to Domitian. Nerva was only put in power as a temporary place holder while a more suitable leader was decided. He was on the verge of exile under Domitian’s reign for his opposition to the totalitarian governing style. Nerva was put forward due to his esteemed family lineage and career in imperial positions. In his two years in power, he reversed many of Domitian’s laws and returned goods to senators that Domitian had stolen from. Nerva had a stabilizing effect on the Empire because he incorporated the Senate in every policy decision. In is short time in power, he also reduced spending and better invested resources into public works. Before passing away 28 January 98 AD, Nerva adopted Trajan as his son so that he would succeed him. This was the most lasting impact he would have on the Empire as Trajan became the crux of the Roman golden age. Trajan (98 to 117 AD) Trajan was born 53 AD to a legacy of military greatness. Following his biological father’s footsteps, he set off to battle from a young age and served under Domitian’s army. Despite tensions between the senate and the military over the assassination of Domitian, Trajan remained well-liked by both sides and bridged the gap between them. He is best known for his military accomplishments as Emperor, including expanding the Empire to its height, including the gold-rich lands in Dacia (Romania), Arabia and Mesopotamia, but he was also a worthy emperor in terms of his welfare to his citizens. He freed prisoners, supported poor children, and repaired and built more roads, bridges, and institutions than most other emperors. Moreover, he had the greatest population of citizens to care for, nearly 1 million at the time. To appease these citizens, Trajan constructed a central hub where all of the administrative, market and religious centres could be and where all the citizens could mingle and trade. Hadrian (117 to 138 AD) Hadrian was born in now-Seville, the same area as Trajan, a factor that may have contributed to his adoption to be come successor to the imperial throne. The name may sound familiar because of Hadrian’s Wall, which demonstrate’s Hadrian’s main tenant. Unlike his adoptive father, Trajan, Hadrian’s focus was not on expanding the Roman Empire, but protecting the existing territory. At the time of its construction, the Hadrian Wall was the Roman Empire’s northernmost border. His time of rule was one of widespread peace and he was well loved by most of the Empire. This is most likely because he spent over half of his time as ruler, travelling to all territories of the Empire, meeting its citizens and directly overseeing its administration and construction. Hadrian was a man of the people. His lasting designs in Roman architecture include the still-standing Pantheon and his villa at Trivoli. His legacy is even immortalised by the Arch of Hadrian in Athens. Hadrian died of natural causes in 138 AD, before which he named the two successors that should follow him: Antonius Pius and Marcus Aurelius. Antonius Pius (138 to 161 AD) Despite not being Hadrian’s first choice, as he wanted Marcus Aurelius to ascend the throne but thought him too young to do so, Antonius still proved himself to be a strong leader and a champion for peace throughout the Empire. According to Donald Wasson, his biographer described him as having a calm and kind temperament (2013). He continued following the legislation that Hadrian had set out, but added his own influence on ensuring that the law be fair and equal to citizens of the entire Empire. He instilled the first instance of “natural law” (Norwich University) and grew trade and economic reform, bringing in prosperity for all citizens. Antonius Pius performed his role well and created a stable land of peace. He also kept his promise to Hadrian and safeguarded the throne for Marcus Aurelius to succeed him upon his death. Marcus Aurelius (161 to 180 AD) Marcus Aurelius was nicknamed the ‘philosopher emperor’ (Ricketts 2018) because of his impressive intellect and his twenty years as a just and equal ruler. Marcus was so utterly different from the pre-golden era, brutal rulers who succumbed to fear that he, in fact, advocated for free speech and welcomed criticism. He is one of the most highly referenced writers on stoicism and maintained composure in responding to crises that arose. His stoic nature and brilliant mind lent themselves well to competent administration that reverberated throughout the Empire. His important accomplishments for the empire were his support of the arts and education among the citizenry, economic reform, including the introduction of new currency, his fair adjudication of court cases, and welfare provisions to all citizens. He was a well-rounded Emperor that also effectively commanded the army to protect its borders from Germanic and Quadi attacks. His leadership made a lasting impression on the Empire and increased profitability and happiness throughout his reign. It is the leadership of an Empire or nation that most greatly impacts its history and progress. Despite a bloody start to the Roman Empire, new rulers in the golden era managed to thwart cruel practices and create the foundations of modern democratic society. Leaders with their priorities focused on bettering the majority of the population were able to avoid the paranoia that intensified the tyranny and brutality of previous leaders. Many of today’s European countries based their legal systems on the institutions established by Emperors such as Antonius Pius and Marcus Aurelius and based their welfare policies on the foundations established by Emperor Augustus. Today, looking back at the heart of Ancient Rome and the men at its centre can help us understand the systems, policies and politics we see today. If you want to learn more about Rome and the ancient Romans, join Odyssey Traveller’s escorted trip to the Eternal City. Odyssey Traveller’s tours are all designed for the mature or senior traveller, whether travelling alone or with a partner. You may also consider: - Romans in France – which explores some of the major remains of the Roman occupation between the 1st century BC and the 4th century AD. Roman Gaul occupied an area that includes modern France, Belgium, Luxembourg, and Germany southwest of the Rhine. - Romans in Britain – explore the world of Roman Britain as we trace the visible remains of the Roman occupation. The Romans occupied Britain for some 400 years and left behind a lasting legacy. Many of their buildings were pulled down and reused but there is still a lot left for us to discover. Join us as we travel in the footsteps of the legions through England and Wales, exploring what remains of their cities, fortresses, villas, bath houses and roads.	<urn:uuid:099a8351-d5f0-4b92-8faa-fb50a17c3d6b>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.odysseytraveller.com/articles/ready-who-were-the-roman-emperors/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250607407.48/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122191620-20200122220620-00217.warc.gz	en	0.981715	3,500	3.625	4	[ -0.23013359308242798, 0.319243848323822, 0.5855394601821899, 0.5072822570800781, -0.41016069054603577, -0.1278589814901352, 0.03249816596508026, 0.2350873500108719, 0.29554831981658936, -0.18618686497211456, 0.21574808657169342, -0.6161595582962036, -0.2564508318901062, 0.14581099152565002...	1	Who led Rome? Who led Rome? From the 8th century BC, Ancient Rome grew from a tiny town on the Tiber River in modern-day Italy to a sprawling empire, that spanned across most of continental Europe, Britain, a large portion of western Asia, northern Africa and the Mediterranean islands. Let us learn some more about the protagonists in this story and the emperors that saw this civilisation prosper. While some of them are very well known, others are less so. Some ascended to leadership via lineage and others forced their way to power. What they all have in common is that they left a mark on Roman history and made lasting impressions on the world as we know it. This article will intend to give a brief profile of key Roman emperors, how they got to power and what legacy they left on the Ancient Roman Empire. Before reading, find additional context in our article on The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire. The First Roman Emperor: Augustus (27 BC to 14 AD) Augustus Caesar is the name given to the first, and many argue, the greatest Roman Emperor. Augustus was born Gaius Octavius Thurinus in 63 BCE and was adopted by Julius Caesar, his great-uncle. Throughout his life he was known by many different names, such as Octavius, Octavian and Augustus. When Julius Caesar was assassinated on the Ides of March in 44 BC, Octavian was named as his heir. Octavian allied himself with Caesar’s close friend and relative, Mark Anthony, and Marcus Aemilus Lepidus. Together, the three formed the Second Triumvirate, dividing up Roman territories between each other. However, as time went on, relations between Octavian and Anthony began to sour. This was in part due to Anthony’s sustained affair with Cleopatra, Queen of Egypt, in spite of his marriage to Octavian’s sister, Octavia. Octavian and Anthony feuded at the Battle of Actium in 31 BC where Antony and Cleopatra were defeated, eventually committing suicide. Octavian then had Caesar deified, thereby proclaiming himself as the a son of god and naming himself Augustus Caesar. His victory saw the end of the Roman Republic and the beginning of the Roman Empire with Augustus as the undisputed leader. Throughout his 41 years as emperor, Augustus made vast changes to the government structure and underwent a number of public works in Rome. He reduced the Senate to 600 elite men from around the empire (Spawforth 2018, p. 257), excluding the previously represented plebians. He championed the distinguishing between citizens and non-citizens, by making clear the status, rights and duties of citizens (Norwich University Online 2017). He made legal reforms in favour of increasing the population, such as incentives for large families and penalties for not having children (Mark 2018). He also renewed the tax system in order to pay for a multitude of new buildings and roads, welfare and retirement plans, as well as emergency services. Augustus added new territories in Europe and Asia Minor to the empire and secured alliances that meant he effectively ruled from Britain to India. He created the Pax Romana, restoring peace to the empire, and allowing the economy, the arts and commerce to flourish. Augustus was particularly interested in the arts and was a personal patron of many artists. I found Rome of clay and leave her to you of marble. – Augustus Caesar When visiting Rome, you will be hard pressed to spend a day without seeing the influence of Augustus. Some highlights are the Mausoleum of Augustus, a number obelisks, and especially the Pantheon which began in Augustus’ time and was completed in Hadrian’s. The Mausoleum of Augustus, which was neglected for many years, has been restored and reopened to visitors. The Mausoleum is the final resting place of many emperors including Tiberius, Claudius and the tyrannical Caligula. Augustus’ influence can be felt in many of the wonders of Roman times but an essential stop on a visit to Rome is Casa di Augusto, Augustus’ private residence that he shared with his wife Livia. Augustus passed many sweeping reforms before his death in 14 AD and was succeeded by Tiberius, his stepson who he had adopted in 4 BCE. Bloody, Brutal Rule Tiberius (14 to 37 AD) Tiberius was adopted by Augustus Caesar. However, Tiberius was not Augustus’ first pick as successor but Augustus’ grandsons, who were expected to ascend to the throne, both died before Augustus. Despite not being the preferred heir, Tiberius had enjoyed a brilliant and successful military career before becoming Emperor, and had made many sacrifices at Augustus’ request, including divorcing his much-loved wife Vipsania to marry Augustus’ unfaithful daughter, Julia. Tiberius did not share Augustus’ political skill and he became increasingly unpopular with the Senate. He quickly became a suspicious and paranoid emperor, prosecuting anybody he sensed was against him. His reign plunged the empire into an era of political purges, exiles, murders and terror. According to Tacitus and Suetonius, Roman historians, the penalty for treason against Tiberius was be pushed off a cliff (Lang 2018). This immense paranoia led to self-imposed exile on the island of Capri, where he remained until he died. Caligula (37 to 41 AD) According to Donald Wasson, Emperor Caligula was hailed as a ‘monster’ by historian Suetonius (2011) and is known for leading a four-year reign of excess and carnage. With Augustan lineage and under the forced tutelage of Emperor Tiberius, Caligula was deemed a rightful heir to the imperial throne. For a brief time, he shared the throne with Gemellus, Tiberius’ son; however, Gemellus died soon after in suspicious circumstances. Despite this questionable start, his rule began with the full support of Roman citizens because he reversed Tiberius’ strict treason laws as well as fixing temples and constructing works of aqueducts, lighthouses, and amphitheatres. But, this productive and admired persona dramatically shifted six months later after a medical emergency (Wasson 2011). His brush with death allowed for paranoia to set in, and he became hostile to the Senate and the people. He re-instituted treason trials, took pleasure in torture, ostracized Jewish citizens, and shamed the Senate, famously claiming that he could make anyone consul, including his horse (Lang 2018). His biographer Suetonius quotes him as often saying ‘Remember that I have the right to do anything to anybody’ and it seems he did just this. His treatment of others led to him being the first Roman Emperor to be assassinated in 41 AD by the Praetorian Guard. Nero (54 to 68 AD) Nero was born Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus in 37 AD, but adopted the name Nero Claudius Caesar Augustus when he became the stepson of Emperor Claudius in 49 AD (Wasson 2012). There are suspicions that Nero poisoned his step-father using poisonous mushrooms, and Nero, upon assuming the throne, expressed his dislike of the way Claudius managed the Empire. He was also meant to co-lead with his brother Britannicus, but he was murdered, undoubtedly by Nero. He used entertainment, such as games, concerts, races, and gladiators, to subdue his citizens. But, this was also a means of personal gain as he had a forced audience for his greatest pleasure in life: singing and lyre playing, in both of which he lacked talent (Wasson 2012). With time, the population grew to hate Nero, due to his cruelty toward Christians and his expensive taste and extravagant lifestyle, as exhibited by the construction of the Domus Aurea, or golden house, in central Rome (Lang 2018). In order to construct the Domus Aurea, complete with gold-plated ceilings, a lake and exotic animals, he had to raise taxes for the funds (Wasson 2012). In addition to draining the treasury, ineffective response to the great fire of 63 AD led to his impeachment as Emperor and his suicide. Domitian (81 to 96 AD) Domitian, born 51 AD, was the son of Vespasian, who became Roman Emperor in the year following Nero’s fall. He was not a military man and thus was nervous at the prospect of being overthrown or assassinated. His initial response to to these fears was to distract his potential foes with entertainment including chariot races and gladiators, often held in the world-famous Roman Colosseum, which was built by his father. Domitian also provided for citizens’ welfare. However, the expenses to be liked weighed down on the Emperor as a financial burden, which led to his high taxation and fortune seizures of wealthy senators. He forcefully took more money and paid for more games, festivals, and even personal security. He also increased treason charges and executions. However, he met his demise by an assassination orchestrated by his wife in 96 AD. This event was rumoured to be celebrated by the senate and citizens alike. The ‘golden era’ of the Roman empire fell under the watchful eye of five key emperors. It was Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antonius Pius, and Marcus Aurelius who consolidated the Roman Empire at its height of expansion, and imposed a unified language and civil society in all of its territory. The emperors succeeded in implementing the foundations for modern democracy by enforcing a legal system and tax reforms, providing welfare for citizens, and building infrastructure for the people. Nerva (96 to 98 AD) After Domitian’s assassination, the next successor was unclear because he had no heirs. His brutal reign alienated most of the Senate, which inspired the need for a replacement who was a stark contrast to Domitian. Nerva was only put in power as a temporary place holder while a more suitable leader was decided. He was on the verge of exile under Domitian’s reign for his opposition to the totalitarian governing style. Nerva was put forward due to his esteemed family lineage and career in imperial positions. In his two years in power, he reversed many of Domitian’s laws and returned goods to senators that Domitian had stolen from. Nerva had a stabilizing effect on the Empire because he incorporated the Senate in every policy decision. In is short time in power, he also reduced spending and better invested resources into public works. Before passing away 28 January 98 AD, Nerva adopted Trajan as his son so that he would succeed him. This was the most lasting impact he would have on the Empire as Trajan became the crux of the Roman golden age. Trajan (98 to 117 AD) Trajan was born 53 AD to a legacy of military greatness. Following his biological father’s footsteps, he set off to battle from a young age and served under Domitian’s army. Despite tensions between the senate and the military over the assassination of Domitian, Trajan remained well-liked by both sides and bridged the gap between them. He is best known for his military accomplishments as Emperor, including expanding the Empire to its height, including the gold-rich lands in Dacia (Romania), Arabia and Mesopotamia, but he was also a worthy emperor in terms of his welfare to his citizens. He freed prisoners, supported poor children, and repaired and built more roads, bridges, and institutions than most other emperors. Moreover, he had the greatest population of citizens to care for, nearly 1 million at the time. To appease these citizens, Trajan constructed a central hub where all of the administrative, market and religious centres could be and where all the citizens could mingle and trade. Hadrian (117 to 138 AD) Hadrian was born in now-Seville, the same area as Trajan, a factor that may have contributed to his adoption to be come successor to the imperial throne. The name may sound familiar because of Hadrian’s Wall, which demonstrate’s Hadrian’s main tenant. Unlike his adoptive father, Trajan, Hadrian’s focus was not on expanding the Roman Empire, but protecting the existing territory. At the time of its construction, the Hadrian Wall was the Roman Empire’s northernmost border. His time of rule was one of widespread peace and he was well loved by most of the Empire. This is most likely because he spent over half of his time as ruler, travelling to all territories of the Empire, meeting its citizens and directly overseeing its administration and construction. Hadrian was a man of the people. His lasting designs in Roman architecture include the still-standing Pantheon and his villa at Trivoli. His legacy is even immortalised by the Arch of Hadrian in Athens. Hadrian died of natural causes in 138 AD, before which he named the two successors that should follow him: Antonius Pius and Marcus Aurelius. Antonius Pius (138 to 161 AD) Despite not being Hadrian’s first choice, as he wanted Marcus Aurelius to ascend the throne but thought him too young to do so, Antonius still proved himself to be a strong leader and a champion for peace throughout the Empire. According to Donald Wasson, his biographer described him as having a calm and kind temperament (2013). He continued following the legislation that Hadrian had set out, but added his own influence on ensuring that the law be fair and equal to citizens of the entire Empire. He instilled the first instance of “natural law” (Norwich University) and grew trade and economic reform, bringing in prosperity for all citizens. Antonius Pius performed his role well and created a stable land of peace. He also kept his promise to Hadrian and safeguarded the throne for Marcus Aurelius to succeed him upon his death. Marcus Aurelius (161 to 180 AD) Marcus Aurelius was nicknamed the ‘philosopher emperor’ (Ricketts 2018) because of his impressive intellect and his twenty years as a just and equal ruler. Marcus was so utterly different from the pre-golden era, brutal rulers who succumbed to fear that he, in fact, advocated for free speech and welcomed criticism. He is one of the most highly referenced writers on stoicism and maintained composure in responding to crises that arose. His stoic nature and brilliant mind lent themselves well to competent administration that reverberated throughout the Empire. His important accomplishments for the empire were his support of the arts and education among the citizenry, economic reform, including the introduction of new currency, his fair adjudication of court cases, and welfare provisions to all citizens. He was a well-rounded Emperor that also effectively commanded the army to protect its borders from Germanic and Quadi attacks. His leadership made a lasting impression on the Empire and increased profitability and happiness throughout his reign. It is the leadership of an Empire or nation that most greatly impacts its history and progress. Despite a bloody start to the Roman Empire, new rulers in the golden era managed to thwart cruel practices and create the foundations of modern democratic society. Leaders with their priorities focused on bettering the majority of the population were able to avoid the paranoia that intensified the tyranny and brutality of previous leaders. Many of today’s European countries based their legal systems on the institutions established by Emperors such as Antonius Pius and Marcus Aurelius and based their welfare policies on the foundations established by Emperor Augustus. Today, looking back at the heart of Ancient Rome and the men at its centre can help us understand the systems, policies and politics we see today. If you want to learn more about Rome and the ancient Romans, join Odyssey Traveller’s escorted trip to the Eternal City. Odyssey Traveller’s tours are all designed for the mature or senior traveller, whether travelling alone or with a partner. You may also consider: - Romans in France – which explores some of the major remains of the Roman occupation between the 1st century BC and the 4th century AD. Roman Gaul occupied an area that includes modern France, Belgium, Luxembourg, and Germany southwest of the Rhine. - Romans in Britain – explore the world of Roman Britain as we trace the visible remains of the Roman occupation. The Romans occupied Britain for some 400 years and left behind a lasting legacy. Many of their buildings were pulled down and reused but there is still a lot left for us to discover. Join us as we travel in the footsteps of the legions through England and Wales, exploring what remains of their cities, fortresses, villas, bath houses and roads.	3,548	ENGLISH	1
Jane Addams was born in Cedarville, Illinois on September 6, 1860. She grew up in Cedarville, but later moved to Chicago where she died on May 21, 1935 of cancer. Being a woman, she made up about fifty percent of the population. Addams was very well known. Addams was quoted by President Theadore Roosevelt as "America's most useful citizen." She was a social reformer, internationalist, and feminist, but she was most well known for founding the Hull House. For the most part, she did live the "American Dream," if you interpret the "American Dream" as wealth and success. She never had financial problems at all. Her father was a wealthy businessman and Illinois senator for eight consecutive years. He was a friend of Abraham Lincoln and he was a widely respected leader in his community. He also helped to bring a railroad into the country. She was also a very prominent member of society, and was very widely respected. In some ways, though, she did not live the "American Dream." She did not strive to be wealthy and successful, she spent more of her time giving back to society than trying to become wealthy, prosperous and successful, which was what many people wanted. She worked for gaining the rights for everyone in society including the right for women to vote and anti child labor laws. This was not true for most people of that time. Many people were very poor and tried to become prosperous, but could not. There were many immigrants, especially around Chicago where Addams was. They came here in hope of prosperity, but instead had to work long hard hours for very low wages. Addams was greatly influenced by her father's strong morals. She was the eighth of nine children. Her parents were Sarah and John Huy Addams. Addams' mother died when she was only two while in childbirth. Addams attended public schools in her neighborhood until she went to Rockford College (then Rockford Women's Seminary). It was here that her foundations for feminism were laid and she learned to uphold the "women's cause." In 1881, she graduated the Valedictorian of her class of seventeen. She studied medicine in Europe over the next six years, but realized that there were limited career options for women. At this, she decided to help society. While touring Europe, she and Ellen Gates Star, a college friend visited a pioneering settlement house called Tonybee Hall. ...	<urn:uuid:6119c4d1-c74d-4894-9ff5-3faece760012>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://brightkite.com/essay-on/jane-addams-5	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250607407.48/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122191620-20200122220620-00240.warc.gz	en	0.99615	498	3.328125	3	[ -0.0854816660284996, 0.05729950964450836, 0.2895260155200958, 0.06890138238668442, -0.07155360281467438, 0.45635196566581726, 0.08622968941926956, 0.0433134026825428, -0.22202245891094208, -0.10622848570346832, 0.50760418176651, -0.18337838351726532, -0.253004789352417, 0.3364938497543335,...	1	Jane Addams was born in Cedarville, Illinois on September 6, 1860. She grew up in Cedarville, but later moved to Chicago where she died on May 21, 1935 of cancer. Being a woman, she made up about fifty percent of the population. Addams was very well known. Addams was quoted by President Theadore Roosevelt as "America's most useful citizen." She was a social reformer, internationalist, and feminist, but she was most well known for founding the Hull House. For the most part, she did live the "American Dream," if you interpret the "American Dream" as wealth and success. She never had financial problems at all. Her father was a wealthy businessman and Illinois senator for eight consecutive years. He was a friend of Abraham Lincoln and he was a widely respected leader in his community. He also helped to bring a railroad into the country. She was also a very prominent member of society, and was very widely respected. In some ways, though, she did not live the "American Dream." She did not strive to be wealthy and successful, she spent more of her time giving back to society than trying to become wealthy, prosperous and successful, which was what many people wanted. She worked for gaining the rights for everyone in society including the right for women to vote and anti child labor laws. This was not true for most people of that time. Many people were very poor and tried to become prosperous, but could not. There were many immigrants, especially around Chicago where Addams was. They came here in hope of prosperity, but instead had to work long hard hours for very low wages. Addams was greatly influenced by her father's strong morals. She was the eighth of nine children. Her parents were Sarah and John Huy Addams. Addams' mother died when she was only two while in childbirth. Addams attended public schools in her neighborhood until she went to Rockford College (then Rockford Women's Seminary). It was here that her foundations for feminism were laid and she learned to uphold the "women's cause." In 1881, she graduated the Valedictorian of her class of seventeen. She studied medicine in Europe over the next six years, but realized that there were limited career options for women. At this, she decided to help society. While touring Europe, she and Ellen Gates Star, a college friend visited a pioneering settlement house called Tonybee Hall. ...	507	ENGLISH	1
Geographically, of course, there were similarities between Wales and Scotland that a first-time visitor would have readily appreciated, and this meant that economically, too, they had certain similarities – Wales, like Scotland, was poor in comparison with England. Culturally, however, Wales was very different from both its near neighbours. Perhaps most obviously, the Welsh spoke Welsh, even at the highest social levels. This was a source of pride to the Welsh themselves, but to the French-speaking kings and nobles of England and Scotland it sounded like so much incomprehensible babble. More perplexing still for English and Scottish onlookers, and far more problematic, were Welsh social attitudes, which stood in sharp opposition to their own. Take, for instance, the rules governing inheritance. In England and Scotland, and indeed almost everywhere else in western Europe, the rule was primogeniture: firstborn sons inherited estates in their entirety. This was hard on any younger brothers or sisters, but had the great advantage of keeping a family’s lands intact from one generation to the next. In Wales, by contrast, the rule was ‘partibility’: every male member of the family – not just sons and brothers, but uncles and nephews too – expected his portion of the spoils, and rules of precedence were only loosely defined. This meant that the death of a Welsh landowner was almost always followed by a violent, sometimes fratricidal struggle, as each male kinsman strove to claim the lion’s share. The result of this idiosyncratic approach to inheritance was that Welsh politics were wont to be tumultuous. The fact that partibility applied at the highest levels was one of the main reasons why there was no single political authority in Wales as there was in England and Scotland. Welsh poets spoke of their country as if it were neatly divided into three kingdoms, but this was a broad simplification; the reality was a complex patchwork of petty lordships. Occasionally one ruler might, through force of arms, diplomacy or sheer good luck, contrive to establish something greater. But such constructs were always temporary. When a successful Welsh ruler died, his work was swiftly undone by the general carve-up that inevitably followed. Such cultural and political differences meant that the English found it difficult to do business with the Welsh as they did with the Scots. Inherent instability meant that amicable relations were hard to sustain. The king of England could marry his daughter to the king of Scots, safe in the knowledge that her rights would be guaranteed; but he would not give her away to a Welsh ruler, no matter how great, for who knew how long his greatness might last? And yet, if the English found the practice of partibility baffling, they were far more troubled when the Welsh showed any signs of abandoning it. From the start of the thirteenth century, up until the time of Edward’s birth, there had been a worrying (from the English point of view) movement in the direction of pan-Welsh political unity. Gwynedd, the most remote and traditional of Wales’s three ancient ‘kingdoms’, had extended its power from the mountains of Snowdonia to cover much of the rest of the country. When, therefore, the architect of this expansion, Llywelyn the Great, had died in 1240, Henry III had been quick to intervene and undo his work. In the years that followed, Gwynedd was torn down to size, and its pretensions to leadership were crushed. Llywelyn’s descendants were forcibly persuaded to follow traditional Welsh practice and share power among themselves. Lesser Welsh rulers who had formerly acknowledged Llywelyn’s mastery were disabused, and obliged to recognise that their proper overlord was, in actual fact, the king of England. Most contentiously, Henry confiscated and kept for himself a large and comparatively prosperous area of north Wales. Known as Perfeddwlad (middle country) to the Welsh, and as the Four Cantrefs to the English, this region between the rivers Dee and Conwy had been contested by both sides for hundreds of years, but Henry was determined that from that point on the English would retain it for good. The Four Cantrefs, he declared, were an inseparable part of the Crown of England, and to give force to this assertion he built two new royal castles there, one at Dyserth, the other at Deganwy. At the same time, lordship in the region was made more exacting. From their base at Chester, royal officials introduced English customs and practices, including more punitive financial demands. By 1254, when the Four Cantrefs (or ‘the king’s new conquest in Wales’, as they were now also being termed) were handed over to Edward as part of his endowment, the castles were complete, and the process of anglicisation well advanced. At the time of Edward’s visit two years later, his officials there were in a supremely confident mood. According to chronicle reports, his chief steward boasted openly before the king and queen that he had the Welsh in the palm of his hand.	<urn:uuid:23add8e3-a0b2-4032-9bd6-6065b20c8757>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://faroutliers.wordpress.com/category/language/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250628549.43/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125011232-20200125040232-00405.warc.gz	en	0.990581	1,066	3.34375	3	[ -0.29610008001327515, 0.26117849349975586, 0.2046172171831131, -0.10730478167533875, 0.18100807070732117, -0.17554259300231934, 0.1521560549736023, 0.050051070749759674, 0.07402978092432022, -0.35196906328201294, -0.02814103662967682, -0.09152045845985413, 0.3847389221191406, 0.17153736948...	3	Geographically, of course, there were similarities between Wales and Scotland that a first-time visitor would have readily appreciated, and this meant that economically, too, they had certain similarities – Wales, like Scotland, was poor in comparison with England. Culturally, however, Wales was very different from both its near neighbours. Perhaps most obviously, the Welsh spoke Welsh, even at the highest social levels. This was a source of pride to the Welsh themselves, but to the French-speaking kings and nobles of England and Scotland it sounded like so much incomprehensible babble. More perplexing still for English and Scottish onlookers, and far more problematic, were Welsh social attitudes, which stood in sharp opposition to their own. Take, for instance, the rules governing inheritance. In England and Scotland, and indeed almost everywhere else in western Europe, the rule was primogeniture: firstborn sons inherited estates in their entirety. This was hard on any younger brothers or sisters, but had the great advantage of keeping a family’s lands intact from one generation to the next. In Wales, by contrast, the rule was ‘partibility’: every male member of the family – not just sons and brothers, but uncles and nephews too – expected his portion of the spoils, and rules of precedence were only loosely defined. This meant that the death of a Welsh landowner was almost always followed by a violent, sometimes fratricidal struggle, as each male kinsman strove to claim the lion’s share. The result of this idiosyncratic approach to inheritance was that Welsh politics were wont to be tumultuous. The fact that partibility applied at the highest levels was one of the main reasons why there was no single political authority in Wales as there was in England and Scotland. Welsh poets spoke of their country as if it were neatly divided into three kingdoms, but this was a broad simplification; the reality was a complex patchwork of petty lordships. Occasionally one ruler might, through force of arms, diplomacy or sheer good luck, contrive to establish something greater. But such constructs were always temporary. When a successful Welsh ruler died, his work was swiftly undone by the general carve-up that inevitably followed. Such cultural and political differences meant that the English found it difficult to do business with the Welsh as they did with the Scots. Inherent instability meant that amicable relations were hard to sustain. The king of England could marry his daughter to the king of Scots, safe in the knowledge that her rights would be guaranteed; but he would not give her away to a Welsh ruler, no matter how great, for who knew how long his greatness might last? And yet, if the English found the practice of partibility baffling, they were far more troubled when the Welsh showed any signs of abandoning it. From the start of the thirteenth century, up until the time of Edward’s birth, there had been a worrying (from the English point of view) movement in the direction of pan-Welsh political unity. Gwynedd, the most remote and traditional of Wales’s three ancient ‘kingdoms’, had extended its power from the mountains of Snowdonia to cover much of the rest of the country. When, therefore, the architect of this expansion, Llywelyn the Great, had died in 1240, Henry III had been quick to intervene and undo his work. In the years that followed, Gwynedd was torn down to size, and its pretensions to leadership were crushed. Llywelyn’s descendants were forcibly persuaded to follow traditional Welsh practice and share power among themselves. Lesser Welsh rulers who had formerly acknowledged Llywelyn’s mastery were disabused, and obliged to recognise that their proper overlord was, in actual fact, the king of England. Most contentiously, Henry confiscated and kept for himself a large and comparatively prosperous area of north Wales. Known as Perfeddwlad (middle country) to the Welsh, and as the Four Cantrefs to the English, this region between the rivers Dee and Conwy had been contested by both sides for hundreds of years, but Henry was determined that from that point on the English would retain it for good. The Four Cantrefs, he declared, were an inseparable part of the Crown of England, and to give force to this assertion he built two new royal castles there, one at Dyserth, the other at Deganwy. At the same time, lordship in the region was made more exacting. From their base at Chester, royal officials introduced English customs and practices, including more punitive financial demands. By 1254, when the Four Cantrefs (or ‘the king’s new conquest in Wales’, as they were now also being termed) were handed over to Edward as part of his endowment, the castles were complete, and the process of anglicisation well advanced. At the time of Edward’s visit two years later, his officials there were in a supremely confident mood. According to chronicle reports, his chief steward boasted openly before the king and queen that he had the Welsh in the palm of his hand.	1,045	ENGLISH	1
About 150 years ago from 1861 to 1865, the American Civil War occurred. Anytime there’s a civil war, that’s because there are warring factions or different sides that claim allegiance to the same country. Next Lesson: The Civil War Ends Continue learning. The transcript is for your convenience. The conflict between the North and the South grew. The people in the South thought that abolitionists would be starting slave rebellions and there were southerners who preferred to quit the Union. Northerners, on the other hand, were afraid that slavery would spread and some Americans that were opposed to slavery started to form the Republican Party. Republicans were opposed to slavery in all territories and Abraham Lincoln was also a Republican, though he was born in a slave state, Kentucky. Lincoln was raised, however, on an Illinois farm and Illinois was a free state. He came from a poor family and didn’t go to school. But Lincoln was reading very much and later, after becoming a lawyer, went on to be a political leader. Lincoln ran in Illinois for Senate in 1858 against Stephen Douglas. The two men debated in public so everybody was able to learn about their ideas. Douglas demanded popular sovereignty in the territories and he didn’t think slavery was a wrong thing. Lincoln, on the other hand, thought of slavery as evil though he wasn’t supportive of abolition. Lincoln lost the election, but his debates had made him a famous man. Many southerners were thinking that Lincoln favored slavery abolition. In 1860, Lincoln was running for President. He was actually the only candidate who was against slavery. Lincoln won the election but it made also clear how divided the country was. There wasn’t one southern state that voted for him and there were southerners that said that the federal government had become too strong. They claimed that the laws that limited slavery and the tariffs were threatening the states’ rights and some southern states decided for secession to protect the right to keep slaves. Begin of Secession South Carolina said goodbye to the union in 1860. In total, 11 southern states then formed the Confederacy and the president was Jefferson Davis. Lincoln favored peace and unity but it was already too late. In 1862, on April 12th, Confederate forces attacked Fort Sumter and Lincoln called for soldiers and men to fight the southern rebellion. The Civil War had begun. Last Updated on	<urn:uuid:07ea77db-6294-4c1f-ac52-663a6e6187a4>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://bestgedclasses.org/civil-war/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251672440.80/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125101544-20200125130544-00534.warc.gz	en	0.987735	505	3.609375	4	[ -0.3883727192878723, 0.19741278886795044, 0.07626869529485703, 0.06267736107110977, -0.22928810119628906, 0.022511666640639305, -0.04318104684352875, -0.08655291050672531, -0.2840717136859894, 0.1031918153166771, 0.149354487657547, 0.11348703503608704, -0.12344206124544144, 0.6250701546669...	2	About 150 years ago from 1861 to 1865, the American Civil War occurred. Anytime there’s a civil war, that’s because there are warring factions or different sides that claim allegiance to the same country. Next Lesson: The Civil War Ends Continue learning. The transcript is for your convenience. The conflict between the North and the South grew. The people in the South thought that abolitionists would be starting slave rebellions and there were southerners who preferred to quit the Union. Northerners, on the other hand, were afraid that slavery would spread and some Americans that were opposed to slavery started to form the Republican Party. Republicans were opposed to slavery in all territories and Abraham Lincoln was also a Republican, though he was born in a slave state, Kentucky. Lincoln was raised, however, on an Illinois farm and Illinois was a free state. He came from a poor family and didn’t go to school. But Lincoln was reading very much and later, after becoming a lawyer, went on to be a political leader. Lincoln ran in Illinois for Senate in 1858 against Stephen Douglas. The two men debated in public so everybody was able to learn about their ideas. Douglas demanded popular sovereignty in the territories and he didn’t think slavery was a wrong thing. Lincoln, on the other hand, thought of slavery as evil though he wasn’t supportive of abolition. Lincoln lost the election, but his debates had made him a famous man. Many southerners were thinking that Lincoln favored slavery abolition. In 1860, Lincoln was running for President. He was actually the only candidate who was against slavery. Lincoln won the election but it made also clear how divided the country was. There wasn’t one southern state that voted for him and there were southerners that said that the federal government had become too strong. They claimed that the laws that limited slavery and the tariffs were threatening the states’ rights and some southern states decided for secession to protect the right to keep slaves. Begin of Secession South Carolina said goodbye to the union in 1860. In total, 11 southern states then formed the Confederacy and the president was Jefferson Davis. Lincoln favored peace and unity but it was already too late. In 1862, on April 12th, Confederate forces attacked Fort Sumter and Lincoln called for soldiers and men to fight the southern rebellion. The Civil War had begun. Last Updated on	510	ENGLISH	1
Franklin boost prices of the products. But Franklin Delano Roosevelt, was an american president of the United States. He became president in 1933 until 1945. He was the only president to have been elected four times, that is for 12 years. Which is a very long time. Usually the president can only be elected twice. FDR was born in January 30 1882 in New York and died at the age of 63 in April 12 1945. FDR led the americans through the great depression and during WWII. He probably did allot more changes to america than any other president. FDR has done many amazing things. FDR was elected in 1932 because americans believed that he would be able to help america with the great depression better than the opponent. FDR promised a “New Deal”, this was a series of experimental projects and programs, to help the american government and economy get back together. This was very successful and had the americans get more jobs. There was actually two new deals. The first one made the economy stronger. The “New Deal” built dams along the Tennessee river, this was to regulated the flow of water and to avoid flooding. This also made electric power. Also during this time it passed bills to pay commodity farmers. They did this to end agricultural surplus, so it can boost prices of the products. But after all this there was still a lot of people unemployed. The second new deal fixed this by creating the Works Progress Administration (WPA). This was to provide jobs for unemployed people. This was not allowed to oppose the private industry. And to keep the workers safe, the wagner act was there to make sure that the workers were not being treated unfairly. The United States did not want to enter WWII, and FDR was really focused on the post war. FDR also wanted to abandon its neutrality acts and wanted to get Britain and France to buy from them any armed forces. FDR is a very important person. He has done many things that helped the United States become survive WWII and the great depression. He is the one who the United States to what it is today.	<urn:uuid:557c8f85-d7fb-40ba-b0e4-63a7819354e6>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://niagarafallshypnosiscenter.com/franklin-boost-prices-of-the-products-but/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250606226.29/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121222429-20200122011429-00001.warc.gz	en	0.991437	430	3.375	3	[ -0.34335577487945557, 0.1679762750864029, 0.026224229484796524, 0.05585100129246712, 0.4957667887210846, 0.19669777154922485, 0.06415272504091263, 0.49780675768852234, -0.2514089047908783, -0.19717685878276825, 0.700941801071167, 0.09573129564523697, -0.3310653567314148, 0.5104081630706787...	1	Franklin boost prices of the products. But Franklin Delano Roosevelt, was an american president of the United States. He became president in 1933 until 1945. He was the only president to have been elected four times, that is for 12 years. Which is a very long time. Usually the president can only be elected twice. FDR was born in January 30 1882 in New York and died at the age of 63 in April 12 1945. FDR led the americans through the great depression and during WWII. He probably did allot more changes to america than any other president. FDR has done many amazing things. FDR was elected in 1932 because americans believed that he would be able to help america with the great depression better than the opponent. FDR promised a “New Deal”, this was a series of experimental projects and programs, to help the american government and economy get back together. This was very successful and had the americans get more jobs. There was actually two new deals. The first one made the economy stronger. The “New Deal” built dams along the Tennessee river, this was to regulated the flow of water and to avoid flooding. This also made electric power. Also during this time it passed bills to pay commodity farmers. They did this to end agricultural surplus, so it can boost prices of the products. But after all this there was still a lot of people unemployed. The second new deal fixed this by creating the Works Progress Administration (WPA). This was to provide jobs for unemployed people. This was not allowed to oppose the private industry. And to keep the workers safe, the wagner act was there to make sure that the workers were not being treated unfairly. The United States did not want to enter WWII, and FDR was really focused on the post war. FDR also wanted to abandon its neutrality acts and wanted to get Britain and France to buy from them any armed forces. FDR is a very important person. He has done many things that helped the United States become survive WWII and the great depression. He is the one who the United States to what it is today.	455	ENGLISH	1
By Catherine Rose The origins of St Valentine’s Day are said to have begun as early as the third century although, as is the case with many of our modern celebrations, it is also likely to have been influenced by the Romans. Their fertility feast of Lupercalia took place on 15th February and consisted of themes and rituals that were centred around coupling and new birth. But who was the original St Valentine? In fact, no one is entirely sure. Valentine or Valentinus was a popular name in Rome and there are at least three Catholic saints known as Valentine who have been venerated over the centuries. Any one of them could have been responsible for having the Feast of St Valentine named after him when, in 496 AD, Pope Gelasius replaced Lupercalia with a Christian festival held on 14th February. Probably the most attractive theory is that St Valentine was a Christian priest in the third century who defied Emperor Claudius II’s edict that no Roman soldiers could marry as it weakened their commitment to Rome. Valentine began performing secret wedding ceremonies for young lovers and is said to have given the couple cut-out hearts made from parchment to symbolise both romantic love and agape (the love of God) – echoing the Valentine’s card. The priest was also said to have worn a purple amethyst ring, the stone being a symbol of love that later became the birthstone of February. Eventually Valentine was captured, beheaded (allegedly on 14th February) and buried under a Roman road. He was later canonised. It is also thought that St Valentine’s Day may have come to be associated with love and romance due to a Norman celebration that took place around the same time of year known as Galatin’s Day, meaning ‘a gallant’ or lover. Galatin also sounds a lot like Valentine so it’s easy to see how the two could have possibly become confused. The link between Valentine’s Day and romance was solidified in the late 1300s with Geoffrey Chaucer’s poem Parliament of Foules (Fowls), said to have been written in honour of King Richard II’s betrothal to Anne of Bohemia. It contains the lines: “…For this was on seynt Volantynys day Whan euery bryd comyth there to chese his make.” (For this was on St Valentine’s Day when every bird comes there to choose his mate.) Chaucer was a very influential writer of the time. Following this, a Charter of the Court of Love was allegedly issued by King Charles VI of France in 1400. It was the first time St Valentine’s Day had been officially associated with courtly love, and by the 1400s it had become traditional for noblemen to write romantic poems to their love interest or ‘Valentine’. The oldest known Valentine still in existence is a poem entitled Farewell to Love written in French by Charles, Duke of Orleans, to his wife while he was imprisoned in the Tower of London following capture at the Battle of Agincourt. It currently resides in the British Library. The earliest surviving English example occurs in a letter written in 1477 by Margary Brewes to her future husband John Paxton, where she refers to him as ‘my right well-beloved Valentine’. St Valentine’s Day was clearly established as a day for lovers by 1600 when Shakespeare referred to it in Hamlet during a speech by Ophelia. “…Tomorrow is St Valentine’s Day, all in the morning betime, and I a maid at your window, to be your Valentine.” By the eighteenth century, handmade Valentine’s cards had become popular and were very elaborate with flowers, ribbons and lace. They would often feature Cupid (whose name means ‘desire’), the mischievous winged son of Venus, Roman goddess of love. He also appeared in much romantic verse as the bringer of often unrequited love – hence a missive was necessary to let the object of your desire know of your affections! With their sentimental notion of romance and the language of flowers, the Victorians elevated Valentine’s Day to the popular celebration it has become today. In 1858, The London Journal wrote of St Valentine’s Day that it was both “natural and proper that at the start of spring the predominating sentiment in the human mind should be the sentiment of love; and to this accordingly the anniversary of our saint is directed.”	<urn:uuid:0ceba69a-adc8-40ae-adf5-e014a2f721f7>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	http://www.chilternviewmagazines.co.uk/latest-articles/valentines-day/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250601241.42/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121014531-20200121043531-00335.warc.gz	en	0.98387	963	3.765625	4	[ -0.10167886316776276, 0.2654414176940918, 0.2391921579837799, -0.07872611284255981, -0.2623887062072754, -0.30083292722702026, -0.2626943290233612, 0.3560941517353058, 0.33203351497650146, -0.1916697919368744, 0.0027076678816229105, 0.1394941508769989, 0.2521941661834717, -0.11081846058368...	4	By Catherine Rose The origins of St Valentine’s Day are said to have begun as early as the third century although, as is the case with many of our modern celebrations, it is also likely to have been influenced by the Romans. Their fertility feast of Lupercalia took place on 15th February and consisted of themes and rituals that were centred around coupling and new birth. But who was the original St Valentine? In fact, no one is entirely sure. Valentine or Valentinus was a popular name in Rome and there are at least three Catholic saints known as Valentine who have been venerated over the centuries. Any one of them could have been responsible for having the Feast of St Valentine named after him when, in 496 AD, Pope Gelasius replaced Lupercalia with a Christian festival held on 14th February. Probably the most attractive theory is that St Valentine was a Christian priest in the third century who defied Emperor Claudius II’s edict that no Roman soldiers could marry as it weakened their commitment to Rome. Valentine began performing secret wedding ceremonies for young lovers and is said to have given the couple cut-out hearts made from parchment to symbolise both romantic love and agape (the love of God) – echoing the Valentine’s card. The priest was also said to have worn a purple amethyst ring, the stone being a symbol of love that later became the birthstone of February. Eventually Valentine was captured, beheaded (allegedly on 14th February) and buried under a Roman road. He was later canonised. It is also thought that St Valentine’s Day may have come to be associated with love and romance due to a Norman celebration that took place around the same time of year known as Galatin’s Day, meaning ‘a gallant’ or lover. Galatin also sounds a lot like Valentine so it’s easy to see how the two could have possibly become confused. The link between Valentine’s Day and romance was solidified in the late 1300s with Geoffrey Chaucer’s poem Parliament of Foules (Fowls), said to have been written in honour of King Richard II’s betrothal to Anne of Bohemia. It contains the lines: “…For this was on seynt Volantynys day Whan euery bryd comyth there to chese his make.” (For this was on St Valentine’s Day when every bird comes there to choose his mate.) Chaucer was a very influential writer of the time. Following this, a Charter of the Court of Love was allegedly issued by King Charles VI of France in 1400. It was the first time St Valentine’s Day had been officially associated with courtly love, and by the 1400s it had become traditional for noblemen to write romantic poems to their love interest or ‘Valentine’. The oldest known Valentine still in existence is a poem entitled Farewell to Love written in French by Charles, Duke of Orleans, to his wife while he was imprisoned in the Tower of London following capture at the Battle of Agincourt. It currently resides in the British Library. The earliest surviving English example occurs in a letter written in 1477 by Margary Brewes to her future husband John Paxton, where she refers to him as ‘my right well-beloved Valentine’. St Valentine’s Day was clearly established as a day for lovers by 1600 when Shakespeare referred to it in Hamlet during a speech by Ophelia. “…Tomorrow is St Valentine’s Day, all in the morning betime, and I a maid at your window, to be your Valentine.” By the eighteenth century, handmade Valentine’s cards had become popular and were very elaborate with flowers, ribbons and lace. They would often feature Cupid (whose name means ‘desire’), the mischievous winged son of Venus, Roman goddess of love. He also appeared in much romantic verse as the bringer of often unrequited love – hence a missive was necessary to let the object of your desire know of your affections! With their sentimental notion of romance and the language of flowers, the Victorians elevated Valentine’s Day to the popular celebration it has become today. In 1858, The London Journal wrote of St Valentine’s Day that it was both “natural and proper that at the start of spring the predominating sentiment in the human mind should be the sentiment of love; and to this accordingly the anniversary of our saint is directed.”	929	ENGLISH	1
By now, the intelligence of birds is well known. Alex the African gray parrot had great verbal skills. Scrub jays, which hide caches of seeds and other food, have remarkable memories. And New Caledonian crows make and use tools in ways that would put the average home plumber to shame. Pigeons, it turns out, are no slouches either. It was known that they could count. But all sorts of animals, including bees, can count. Pigeons have now shown that they can learn abstract rules about numbers, an ability that until now had been demonstrated only in primates. In the 1990s scientists trained rhesus monkeys to look at groups of items on a screen and to rank them from the lowest number of items to the highest. They learned to rank groups of one, two and three items in various sizes and shapes. When tested, they were able to do the task even when unfamiliar numbers of things were introduced. In other words, having learned that two was more than one and three more than two, they could also figure out that five was more than two, or eight more than six. Damian Scarf, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Otago, in New Zealand, tried the same experiment with pigeons, and he and two colleagues report in the current issue of the journal Science that the pigeons did just as well as the monkeys. Elizabeth Brannon, a professor of psychology and neuroscience at Duke University, and one of the scientists who did the original experiments with monkeys, was impressed by the new results. “Their performance looks just like the monkeys’,” she said. Score one for the birds. The pigeons had learned an abstract rule: peck images on a screen in order, lower numbers to higher. It may have taken a year of training, with different shapes, sizes and colors of items, always in groups of one, two or three, but all that work paid off when it was time for higher math. Given groups of six and nine, they could pick, or peck, the images in the right order. This is one more bit of evidence of how smart birds really are, and it is intriguing because the pigeons’ performance was so similar to the monkeys’. “I was surprised,” Dr. Scarf said. He and his colleagues wrote that the common ability to learn rules about numbers is an example either of different groups — birds and primates, in this case — evolving these abilities separately, or of both pigeons and primates using an ability that was already present in their last common ancestor. That would really be something, because the common ancestor of pigeons and primates would have been alive around 300 million years ago, before dinosaurs and mammals. It may be that counting was already important, but Dr. Scarf said that if he had to guess, he would lean toward the idea that the numerical ability he tested evolved separately. “I can definitely see why both monkeys and pigeons could profit from this ability,” he said. No testing has been done with numbers greater than nine, so whether a pigeon can count large numbers of bread crumbs or popcorn kernels is a question still open to investigation.	<urn:uuid:c916d905-c43b-4e65-a56d-38d368363c26>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/23/science/pigeons-can-learn-higher-math-as-well-as-monkeys-study-suggests.html?_r=2&hp	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251776516.99/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128060946-20200128090946-00154.warc.gz	en	0.984771	667	3.859375	4	[ -0.144258052110672, -0.13101784884929657, 0.09140042960643768, 0.08019115030765533, 0.160705104470253, 0.4588959515094757, 0.5364413857460022, 0.11157726496458054, 0.22499428689479828, 0.3030647933483124, -0.2029014527797699, -0.45637112855911255, 0.17669498920440674, 0.268521249294281, ...	2	By now, the intelligence of birds is well known. Alex the African gray parrot had great verbal skills. Scrub jays, which hide caches of seeds and other food, have remarkable memories. And New Caledonian crows make and use tools in ways that would put the average home plumber to shame. Pigeons, it turns out, are no slouches either. It was known that they could count. But all sorts of animals, including bees, can count. Pigeons have now shown that they can learn abstract rules about numbers, an ability that until now had been demonstrated only in primates. In the 1990s scientists trained rhesus monkeys to look at groups of items on a screen and to rank them from the lowest number of items to the highest. They learned to rank groups of one, two and three items in various sizes and shapes. When tested, they were able to do the task even when unfamiliar numbers of things were introduced. In other words, having learned that two was more than one and three more than two, they could also figure out that five was more than two, or eight more than six. Damian Scarf, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Otago, in New Zealand, tried the same experiment with pigeons, and he and two colleagues report in the current issue of the journal Science that the pigeons did just as well as the monkeys. Elizabeth Brannon, a professor of psychology and neuroscience at Duke University, and one of the scientists who did the original experiments with monkeys, was impressed by the new results. “Their performance looks just like the monkeys’,” she said. Score one for the birds. The pigeons had learned an abstract rule: peck images on a screen in order, lower numbers to higher. It may have taken a year of training, with different shapes, sizes and colors of items, always in groups of one, two or three, but all that work paid off when it was time for higher math. Given groups of six and nine, they could pick, or peck, the images in the right order. This is one more bit of evidence of how smart birds really are, and it is intriguing because the pigeons’ performance was so similar to the monkeys’. “I was surprised,” Dr. Scarf said. He and his colleagues wrote that the common ability to learn rules about numbers is an example either of different groups — birds and primates, in this case — evolving these abilities separately, or of both pigeons and primates using an ability that was already present in their last common ancestor. That would really be something, because the common ancestor of pigeons and primates would have been alive around 300 million years ago, before dinosaurs and mammals. It may be that counting was already important, but Dr. Scarf said that if he had to guess, he would lean toward the idea that the numerical ability he tested evolved separately. “I can definitely see why both monkeys and pigeons could profit from this ability,” he said. No testing has been done with numbers greater than nine, so whether a pigeon can count large numbers of bread crumbs or popcorn kernels is a question still open to investigation.	656	ENGLISH	1
Mir kasim was a famous traitor. Read the below article to know how he changed the history of India Why does a man betray his own country king or empire? This answer is simple and at the same time complex. Some do it for plain jealousy and some for money and women and some for power, that elusive ingredient that is the root of most human traitorous acts. Thus when Ephialtes betrayed Leonidas his reward was revenge and some of the most beautiful Persian girls. India has had its fair share of traitors. Maybe their numbers would be more than that of all other nations added up together. But that is perhaps due to the fact that India was never a single entity or nation and smaller kingdoms generated greater clan rivalries. One of the most famous traitors is Mir Jafar who helped Robert Clive win the famous battle of Plessey. (1757). This victory of Robert Clive established British rule in India for the next 200 years. Mir Jafar was thus instrumental in the establishment of British rule. And is given the title ‘Gaddar –e-Hind’. The Battle of Plessey was fought between the troops of the East India Company against the Nawab Siraj-ud- Dowla of Oudh. The Nawab had a force of over a100, 000 while the force of Clive was much smaller. But Mir Jafar just before the battle changed horses and came over to the side of Robert Clive. He expected to be enthroned as Nawab after the battle and readily betrayed his mentor and ruler. The rest is history as the larger force of the Nawab of Oudh was defeated and Nawab –Siraj-ud-Dowla was taken into custody. Mir Jafar was a traitor whose surrender of the forces at Plessey established British rule in India. Worse after the battle Mir Jafar had taken into custody Nawab Siraj-ud Dowla. Many do not know that nawab Siraj was aged only 23.Instead of treating him as a prisoner of war, he allowed his son to execute him. This act is another example of the perfidy of Mir Jafar India is a great nation, but it was never a cohesive unit and the number of traitors thus that have spanned the pages of history are a legion. Otherwise India would not have been conquered. Nationalist spirit was lacking, perhaps we owe this spirit to the English who brought in the one nation concept. Elephants were the mainstay of Kings and soldiers on the battlefield for thousands of years. They served their purpose and have left behind their imprint. Martin Luther King Jr. was an unforgettable crusader for the rights of Blacks. Many journalists have played major role in the freedom movement. Read about them here..	<urn:uuid:9020b392-a401-47ba-b610-19cafe4ff7a4>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://travelandculture.expertscolumn.com/traitor-who-changed-history-india-mir-kasim	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250589560.16/warc/CC-MAIN-20200117123339-20200117151339-00141.warc.gz	en	0.98059	582	3.390625	3	[ -0.2248556911945343, -0.037441790103912354, 0.19763782620429993, -0.041770435869693756, -0.42676711082458496, -0.2506791949272156, 0.5178334712982178, -0.0003956947475671768, -0.004532918334007263, 0.37734663486480713, 0.1723843216896057, -0.5708518028259277, 0.09296102821826935, 0.1310136...	1	Mir kasim was a famous traitor. Read the below article to know how he changed the history of India Why does a man betray his own country king or empire? This answer is simple and at the same time complex. Some do it for plain jealousy and some for money and women and some for power, that elusive ingredient that is the root of most human traitorous acts. Thus when Ephialtes betrayed Leonidas his reward was revenge and some of the most beautiful Persian girls. India has had its fair share of traitors. Maybe their numbers would be more than that of all other nations added up together. But that is perhaps due to the fact that India was never a single entity or nation and smaller kingdoms generated greater clan rivalries. One of the most famous traitors is Mir Jafar who helped Robert Clive win the famous battle of Plessey. (1757). This victory of Robert Clive established British rule in India for the next 200 years. Mir Jafar was thus instrumental in the establishment of British rule. And is given the title ‘Gaddar –e-Hind’. The Battle of Plessey was fought between the troops of the East India Company against the Nawab Siraj-ud- Dowla of Oudh. The Nawab had a force of over a100, 000 while the force of Clive was much smaller. But Mir Jafar just before the battle changed horses and came over to the side of Robert Clive. He expected to be enthroned as Nawab after the battle and readily betrayed his mentor and ruler. The rest is history as the larger force of the Nawab of Oudh was defeated and Nawab –Siraj-ud-Dowla was taken into custody. Mir Jafar was a traitor whose surrender of the forces at Plessey established British rule in India. Worse after the battle Mir Jafar had taken into custody Nawab Siraj-ud Dowla. Many do not know that nawab Siraj was aged only 23.Instead of treating him as a prisoner of war, he allowed his son to execute him. This act is another example of the perfidy of Mir Jafar India is a great nation, but it was never a cohesive unit and the number of traitors thus that have spanned the pages of history are a legion. Otherwise India would not have been conquered. Nationalist spirit was lacking, perhaps we owe this spirit to the English who brought in the one nation concept. Elephants were the mainstay of Kings and soldiers on the battlefield for thousands of years. They served their purpose and have left behind their imprint. Martin Luther King Jr. was an unforgettable crusader for the rights of Blacks. Many journalists have played major role in the freedom movement. Read about them here..	583	ENGLISH	1
Richard I of England, also known as Richard the Lionheart (Cœur de Lion), reigned as king of England from 1189 to 1199 CE. The son of Henry II of England (r. 1154-1189 CE) and Eleanor of Aquitaine (c. 1122-1204 CE), Richard was known for his courage and successes in warfare, but he became so busy with the Third Crusade (1189–1192 CE) and then the defence of English-held territory in France, that he would only spend six months of his reign in England. A legend in his own lifetime, famed both for his military leadership and utterly ruthless approach to warfare, Richard the Lionheart has become one of the greatest figures in European history, and his arms of three lions are still used by the British royal family today. Following his death in battle at Chalus in France, Richard was succeeded by his younger brother King John of England (r. 1199-1216 CE). Early Life & Succession Richard was born on 8 September 1157 CE in Beaumont Palace, Oxford, as the third son of King Henry II of England and Eleanor of Aquitaine, former wife of King Louis VII of France (r. 1137-1180 CE). Richard’s education involved a good dose of chivalric medieval literature thanks to his mother’s interest in the subject. Poetry was another favourite pastime and the king composed his own poems in both French and Occitan (a French dialect commonly used in romances). The young prince was said to have been a tall, blue-eyed, handsome fellow with reddish-blonde hair and he was already noted for his courage. This was a period of troubled and complex relations between England and France, and Richard, whose family had been the principal cause, would be involved in two rebellions against his father. The first bid to topple the king came in 1173 CE when Richard, his brothers Henry and Geoffrey, the Count of Brittany (b. 1158 CE), and William the Lion of Scotland (r. 1165-1214 CE) all conspired to join forces, almost certainly a pact orchestrated by Eleanor of Aquitaine. Eager to increase their own domains at the expense of the English crown, the murder of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Becket (1162-1170 CE), in his own cathedral in 1170 CE proved a rallying point, given Henry’s alleged involvement in this shocking crime. Aged just 15, Richard had been knighted by Louis VII, another interested party in seeing the downfall of Henry, and dispatched on a campaign to invade eastern Normandy, then under the English crown. The rebels failed to oust Henry II thanks to his loyal barons and many castles, but Richard was pardoned after he swore allegiance to his father. Eleanor, in contrast, was imprisoned for her troubles. This was not the end of the affair, though, as Henry struggled to keep a grip on his kingdom in his final years. Richard, as a prince, held the titles of the Duke of Aquitaine and Count of Poitou (both in France and arranged by his mother), and he cemented his growing reputation as a gifted field commander and besieger of castles by quashing a revolt by the barons of Aquitaine. His taking of the once-thought impregnable castle of Taillebourg in 1179 CE was an especially splendid feather in his prince’s coronet. Less splendid were the tales of his ruthless treatment of prisoners and forced prostitution of captured noblewomen. Still, despite his successes, Richard wanted more. Then, the fates intervened and Richard’s chief rival for the throne of England, his elder brother Henry the Young King (b. 1155 CE) died in June 1183 CE. Henry II had gone so far as to make his son king-designate in 1170 CE, but the young Henry’s death from dysentery scuppered the king’s neatly arranged succession plans. In addition, his other brother Geoffrey died in an accident at a medieval tournament on 19 August 1186 CE. Richard was now in prime position to become the next king of England, but he was not prepared to simply wait for nature to take its course. Richard again challenged his father in 1188-9 CE when he and his younger brother John formed an alliance with Philip II, the new King of France (r. 1180-1223 CE). The rebellion was again supported by Eleanor, and the war included the legendary episode in which the famous medieval knight Sir William Marshal (c. 1146-1219 CE) fought Richard, had the prince at his mercy but chose to kill his horse instead. Notwithstanding their rivalry, or perhaps in gratitude for his chivalry, Richard later gave William Chepstow Castle, as had been promised him by Henry II. Losing control of both Maine and Touraine, Henry eventually agreed to peace terms which recognised Richard as his sole heir. When the king died shortly after, Richard was crowned his successor in Westminster Abbey on 2 September 1189 CE. Also part of his kingdom were those lands in France still belonging to his family the Angevins (aka Plantagenets): Normandy, Maine, and Aquitaine. Richard refused to give John Aquitaine, as he had promised his father he would, and this only acerbated the rivalry between the two brothers. Richard’s first priority, indeed, perhaps his only one, was to make good on his promise made in 1187 CE to ‘take the cross’ and help capture Jerusalem from the Muslims. The king emptied his kingdom's coffers for his mission, even striking up a deal with William the Lion - giving the Scottish king full feudal autonomy in return for cash. For a monarch who spent most of his reign outside of England, did not speak English, and recklessly spent the kingdom’s wealth on foreign wars, Richard has enjoyed a remarkably favourable position in the English popular imagination ever since. The Third Crusade (1189-1192 CE) was called by Pope Gregory VIII following the capture of Jerusalem in 1187 CE by Saladin, the Sultan of Egypt and Syria (r. 1174-1193 CE). No fewer than three monarchs took up the call: Frederick I Barbarossa (King of Germany and Holy Roman Emperor, r. 1152-1190 CE), Philip II of France and Richard himself. With these being the three most powerful men in western Europe, the campaign promised to be a more favourable one than the Second Crusade of 1147-49 CE. Unfortunately for Christendom, though, the Crusaders only managed to get within sight of Jerusalem and no attempt was made to attack the holy city. Indeed, the whole project was beset with problems, none bigger than Barbarossa drowning in a river before they even got to the Holy Land. The Holy Roman Emperor’s death resulted in most of his army trudging back home in grief which left only the English and French knights, who were not particularly fond allies at the best of times. Still, despite the bad start, there were some military highlights to write home about. Richard, who took the sea route to the Middle East, first captured Messina on Sicily in 1190 CE and then Cyprus in May 1191 CE. In the latter campaign the island’s self-proclaimed ruler Isaac Komnenos (r. 1184-1191 CE), who had broken away from the Byzantine Empire, was captured and the Crusaders would then govern until the Venetians took over in 1571 CE. However, these detours were not really helping the overall aim of recapturing Jerusalem, even if Cyprus proved to be a useful supply base. The Crusaders did eventually arrive in the Holy Land and managed to bring a successful conclusion to the siege of Acre (aka Acra) on the coast of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, on 12 July 1191 CE. Begun by the French nobleman Guy of Lusignan, who attacked from the sea, the protracted siege finally worked when sappers, offered cash incentives by Richard, undermined the fortification walls of the city on the land side. The ‘Lionheart’, as Richard was now known thanks to his courage and audacity in warfare, had achieved in five weeks what Guy had failed to do in 20. According to legend, the king was ill at the time, struck down by scurvy, although he had retainers carry him on a stretcher so that he could fire at the enemy battlements with his crossbow. Richard then rather blemished his ‘good king’ reputation when he ordered 2,500-3,000 prisoners to be executed. Guy of Lusignan, meanwhile, was made the new king of Cyprus which had been sold by Richard to the Knights Templar. There was also a famous victory for the English king over Saladin’s army at Arsuf, in September 1191 CE, but the advantage could not be pursued. Richard marched to within sight of Jerusalem but he knew that even if he could storm the city, his reduced army would most likely not be able to hold it against an inevitable counterattack. In any case, domestic affairs in France and England necessitated both kings to return home and the whole Crusade project was effectively abandoned. Richard salvaged something for all the effort and negotiated a peace deal with Saladin at Jaffa. A small strip of land around Acre and the future safe treatment of Christian pilgrims to the Holy Land was also bargained for. It was not quite what was hoped for at the outset but there could always be a Fourth Crusade at some time in the future. Indeed, Richard noted that in any future campaign against the Arabs it could be advantageous to attack from Egypt, the weak underbelly of the Arab empire. It was precisely this plan which the Fourth Crusaders (1202-1204 CE) adopted even if they again were distracted, this time by the jewel of the Byzantine Empire: Constantinople. There were also some take-home technology innovations for the English king. The Byzantines had long used a fearsome weapon known as Greek Fire - a highly flammable liquid shot out of tubes under pressure - which, although a state secret for centuries, was eventually stolen by the Arabs. Richard must have acquired the formula from Arab alchemists he came into contact with on the Crusade for he used it to good effect back in England and on his later campaigns in France. Before King Richard could return home, though, there would be one final sting of the ill-fated Crusade, for on the return journey in 1192 CE Richard was shipwrecked, arrested by Leopold of Austria (r. 1075-1095 CE) - whom Richard had gravely insulted during the Crusade - and taken to Vienna. Passed on to Henry VI, the new Holy Roman Emperor (r. 1191-1197 CE), the English King was held for ransom. Richard would only be released in 1194 CE, and one can imagine the frustration for the swashbuckling king almost two years of captivity. The ransom was a massive 150,000 marks (which equates to several million dollars today) so that it was largely through new taxes in England and Normandy that the money was raised. Indeed, the sum was so high that even taxation could not raise enough, and Richard was forced to provide a number of noblemen hostages to make up for the shortfall. While the king was fighting abroad, English politics was left in the capable hands of Hubert Walter, who was Bishop of Salisbury in 1189 CE and was made Archbishop of Canterbury in 1193 CE. Walter proved himself an able statesman and events would unravel which required exactly that at the helm of the ship of state. While captive in the Holy Roman Empire, Richard’s younger brother John, conspiring with Philip II of France, made an unsuccessful attempt to seize the throne, but Walter managed to contain the usurper thanks to the help of another able if somewhat insensitive minister: he who looked after the realm’s purse strings in Richard’s absence, the chancellor, William Longchamp. The war was principally one of sieges and control of strategically important castles such as at Nottingham and Windsor Castle but in the end, the crown prevailed. Richard forgave his brother his excessive ambition and even nominated him as his successor. Hubert Walter was also responsible for raising the hefty ransom which had gained his king’s release. In 1193 CE Walter was made Chief Justiciar and given overall responsibility for government, a position he held until 1199 CE. One area the king was wary of was tournaments, those events where knights attacked each other in mock cavalry battles. Richard only permitted their organisation under license - allowing five places to host them - and made knights pay an entrance fee. The latter measure and the imposition of heavy fines for anyone daring to hold an unofficial event were a useful means to fill the state’s coffers which were so often emptied by the king’s expensive military escapades. Still, Richard also appreciated that tournaments could be a useful training ground for his knights and, soon to be up against the French, whose knights were famed for their horsemanship, he would need as skilled an army as he could muster. Given Richard’s need to fund his armies throughout his reign it is perhaps not surprising that he was nowhere near the big spender on English castles that his father had been. There was a major investment in revamping and extending the Tower of London in 1189-90 CE as indicated in the Pipe Rolls expenditure records but, otherwise, castle-building came to halt as the decade of the 1190s CE wore on. Yet another fund-raising strategy of the perennially cash-strapped king was to open up royal forests to local lords for hunting, with an appropriate fee, of course. Clearly, Richard needed all the money he could get his hands on for the conflicts yet to come. Campaigns in France & Death After a brief stint back in England and a second coronation in April 1194 CE at Winchester, Richard then spent much of his time on campaign in France where he defended the Angevin lands against his former Crusader ally, Philip II of France. The pair had fallen out when Richard did not marry Philip’s sister Alice, despite the pair being engaged for 20 years. Richard instead had married Berengaria of Navarre (c. 1164-1230 CE) on 12 May 1191 CE, as arranged by his mother. Berengaria would be the only reigning English queen never to set foot in her own realm. The English king assembled an army to attack Philip by requiring his barons to merely supply the king with only seven knights each instead of the usual vassal fighting force. As an alternative, Richard demanded cash with which he could purchase his own mercenaries. It was an arrangement the barons were only too happy to agree to as it meant they could remain, and defend if necessary, their own castles and lands rather than abandon them to opportunists while far away in France. Richard might have neglected English fortifications but he invested big in Normandy, notably constructing the Chateau Gaillard by the River Seine from 1197 CE to better defend his territorial claims there. Then disaster struck. Richard was mortally wounded in Aquitaine during his siege of the castle of Chalus in 1199 CE. The king, hit in the neck by a crossbow bolt, died on 6 April after the wound had become gangrenous. Richard was buried alongside his parents at Fontevraud Abbey near Chinon while his effigy at Rouen contains his heart. As he had no heir Richard I was succeeded by his brother John who would reign until 1216 CE. King John of England (aka John Lackland) managed to make himself one of the most unpopular kings in English history, and his oppression and military failures brought about a major uprising of barons who obliged the king to sign the Magna Carta in 1215 CE, upon which a constitution was based with the power of the monarch curbed and with the rights of the barons protected. Richard, meanwhile, gained legendary status as one of the great medieval knights and kings thanks to his daring deeds and the love and respect of his soldiers. After his death the myths only grew bigger, starting with the Anglo-Norman novel Romance of Richard Cœur de Lion published around 1250 CE. Already having proven himself as courageous, a determined foe of the Saracens and a composer of poetry to boot, Richard was the very model of the chivalrous knight and so his legend grew along those lines. Medieval artworks depicted the king improbably jousting Saladin, he was attributed fine speeches about saving his men or he would not be worthy of his crown, and stories sprang up of him being such a determined foe of the Arabs that he cooked and ate those he captured. Even today, the presence of a dramatic statue of the king outside the Houses of Parliament in London is an indicator of the special place Richard has gained and continues to hold in the hearts of Englanders. Finally, Richard has left a lasting legacy in medieval heraldry. The king’s choice of three golden lions (although they may originally have been leopards) on a red background on his shield were an extension of his family’s traditional two lions. The three lions, perhaps originally rearing figures ('rampant' in heraldic terms) but subsequently established as strolling forward with their heads turned at the onlooker ('passant guardant') have become not only a part of the English royal coat of arms ever since but also appear today in many other badges, especially sporting ones such as the England national football and cricket teams.	<urn:uuid:e6c51f7e-ffd7-4e24-8a91-f01b30f54880>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.ancient.eu/Richard_I_of_England/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250613416.54/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123191130-20200123220130-00078.warc.gz	en	0.985868	3,673	3.453125	3	[ -0.3076982796192169, 0.4856143593788147, -0.023217493668198586, -0.026395659893751144, -0.19489474594593048, -0.24311834573745728, -0.029057245701551437, 0.14008241891860962, 0.08445411920547485, -0.42965078353881836, -0.0676310658454895, -0.5754836797714233, 0.41466736793518066, -0.019870...	6	Richard I of England, also known as Richard the Lionheart (Cœur de Lion), reigned as king of England from 1189 to 1199 CE. The son of Henry II of England (r. 1154-1189 CE) and Eleanor of Aquitaine (c. 1122-1204 CE), Richard was known for his courage and successes in warfare, but he became so busy with the Third Crusade (1189–1192 CE) and then the defence of English-held territory in France, that he would only spend six months of his reign in England. A legend in his own lifetime, famed both for his military leadership and utterly ruthless approach to warfare, Richard the Lionheart has become one of the greatest figures in European history, and his arms of three lions are still used by the British royal family today. Following his death in battle at Chalus in France, Richard was succeeded by his younger brother King John of England (r. 1199-1216 CE). Early Life & Succession Richard was born on 8 September 1157 CE in Beaumont Palace, Oxford, as the third son of King Henry II of England and Eleanor of Aquitaine, former wife of King Louis VII of France (r. 1137-1180 CE). Richard’s education involved a good dose of chivalric medieval literature thanks to his mother’s interest in the subject. Poetry was another favourite pastime and the king composed his own poems in both French and Occitan (a French dialect commonly used in romances). The young prince was said to have been a tall, blue-eyed, handsome fellow with reddish-blonde hair and he was already noted for his courage. This was a period of troubled and complex relations between England and France, and Richard, whose family had been the principal cause, would be involved in two rebellions against his father. The first bid to topple the king came in 1173 CE when Richard, his brothers Henry and Geoffrey, the Count of Brittany (b. 1158 CE), and William the Lion of Scotland (r. 1165-1214 CE) all conspired to join forces, almost certainly a pact orchestrated by Eleanor of Aquitaine. Eager to increase their own domains at the expense of the English crown, the murder of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Becket (1162-1170 CE), in his own cathedral in 1170 CE proved a rallying point, given Henry’s alleged involvement in this shocking crime. Aged just 15, Richard had been knighted by Louis VII, another interested party in seeing the downfall of Henry, and dispatched on a campaign to invade eastern Normandy, then under the English crown. The rebels failed to oust Henry II thanks to his loyal barons and many castles, but Richard was pardoned after he swore allegiance to his father. Eleanor, in contrast, was imprisoned for her troubles. This was not the end of the affair, though, as Henry struggled to keep a grip on his kingdom in his final years. Richard, as a prince, held the titles of the Duke of Aquitaine and Count of Poitou (both in France and arranged by his mother), and he cemented his growing reputation as a gifted field commander and besieger of castles by quashing a revolt by the barons of Aquitaine. His taking of the once-thought impregnable castle of Taillebourg in 1179 CE was an especially splendid feather in his prince’s coronet. Less splendid were the tales of his ruthless treatment of prisoners and forced prostitution of captured noblewomen. Still, despite his successes, Richard wanted more. Then, the fates intervened and Richard’s chief rival for the throne of England, his elder brother Henry the Young King (b. 1155 CE) died in June 1183 CE. Henry II had gone so far as to make his son king-designate in 1170 CE, but the young Henry’s death from dysentery scuppered the king’s neatly arranged succession plans. In addition, his other brother Geoffrey died in an accident at a medieval tournament on 19 August 1186 CE. Richard was now in prime position to become the next king of England, but he was not prepared to simply wait for nature to take its course. Richard again challenged his father in 1188-9 CE when he and his younger brother John formed an alliance with Philip II, the new King of France (r. 1180-1223 CE). The rebellion was again supported by Eleanor, and the war included the legendary episode in which the famous medieval knight Sir William Marshal (c. 1146-1219 CE) fought Richard, had the prince at his mercy but chose to kill his horse instead. Notwithstanding their rivalry, or perhaps in gratitude for his chivalry, Richard later gave William Chepstow Castle, as had been promised him by Henry II. Losing control of both Maine and Touraine, Henry eventually agreed to peace terms which recognised Richard as his sole heir. When the king died shortly after, Richard was crowned his successor in Westminster Abbey on 2 September 1189 CE. Also part of his kingdom were those lands in France still belonging to his family the Angevins (aka Plantagenets): Normandy, Maine, and Aquitaine. Richard refused to give John Aquitaine, as he had promised his father he would, and this only acerbated the rivalry between the two brothers. Richard’s first priority, indeed, perhaps his only one, was to make good on his promise made in 1187 CE to ‘take the cross’ and help capture Jerusalem from the Muslims. The king emptied his kingdom's coffers for his mission, even striking up a deal with William the Lion - giving the Scottish king full feudal autonomy in return for cash. For a monarch who spent most of his reign outside of England, did not speak English, and recklessly spent the kingdom’s wealth on foreign wars, Richard has enjoyed a remarkably favourable position in the English popular imagination ever since. The Third Crusade (1189-1192 CE) was called by Pope Gregory VIII following the capture of Jerusalem in 1187 CE by Saladin, the Sultan of Egypt and Syria (r. 1174-1193 CE). No fewer than three monarchs took up the call: Frederick I Barbarossa (King of Germany and Holy Roman Emperor, r. 1152-1190 CE), Philip II of France and Richard himself. With these being the three most powerful men in western Europe, the campaign promised to be a more favourable one than the Second Crusade of 1147-49 CE. Unfortunately for Christendom, though, the Crusaders only managed to get within sight of Jerusalem and no attempt was made to attack the holy city. Indeed, the whole project was beset with problems, none bigger than Barbarossa drowning in a river before they even got to the Holy Land. The Holy Roman Emperor’s death resulted in most of his army trudging back home in grief which left only the English and French knights, who were not particularly fond allies at the best of times. Still, despite the bad start, there were some military highlights to write home about. Richard, who took the sea route to the Middle East, first captured Messina on Sicily in 1190 CE and then Cyprus in May 1191 CE. In the latter campaign the island’s self-proclaimed ruler Isaac Komnenos (r. 1184-1191 CE), who had broken away from the Byzantine Empire, was captured and the Crusaders would then govern until the Venetians took over in 1571 CE. However, these detours were not really helping the overall aim of recapturing Jerusalem, even if Cyprus proved to be a useful supply base. The Crusaders did eventually arrive in the Holy Land and managed to bring a successful conclusion to the siege of Acre (aka Acra) on the coast of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, on 12 July 1191 CE. Begun by the French nobleman Guy of Lusignan, who attacked from the sea, the protracted siege finally worked when sappers, offered cash incentives by Richard, undermined the fortification walls of the city on the land side. The ‘Lionheart’, as Richard was now known thanks to his courage and audacity in warfare, had achieved in five weeks what Guy had failed to do in 20. According to legend, the king was ill at the time, struck down by scurvy, although he had retainers carry him on a stretcher so that he could fire at the enemy battlements with his crossbow. Richard then rather blemished his ‘good king’ reputation when he ordered 2,500-3,000 prisoners to be executed. Guy of Lusignan, meanwhile, was made the new king of Cyprus which had been sold by Richard to the Knights Templar. There was also a famous victory for the English king over Saladin’s army at Arsuf, in September 1191 CE, but the advantage could not be pursued. Richard marched to within sight of Jerusalem but he knew that even if he could storm the city, his reduced army would most likely not be able to hold it against an inevitable counterattack. In any case, domestic affairs in France and England necessitated both kings to return home and the whole Crusade project was effectively abandoned. Richard salvaged something for all the effort and negotiated a peace deal with Saladin at Jaffa. A small strip of land around Acre and the future safe treatment of Christian pilgrims to the Holy Land was also bargained for. It was not quite what was hoped for at the outset but there could always be a Fourth Crusade at some time in the future. Indeed, Richard noted that in any future campaign against the Arabs it could be advantageous to attack from Egypt, the weak underbelly of the Arab empire. It was precisely this plan which the Fourth Crusaders (1202-1204 CE) adopted even if they again were distracted, this time by the jewel of the Byzantine Empire: Constantinople. There were also some take-home technology innovations for the English king. The Byzantines had long used a fearsome weapon known as Greek Fire - a highly flammable liquid shot out of tubes under pressure - which, although a state secret for centuries, was eventually stolen by the Arabs. Richard must have acquired the formula from Arab alchemists he came into contact with on the Crusade for he used it to good effect back in England and on his later campaigns in France. Before King Richard could return home, though, there would be one final sting of the ill-fated Crusade, for on the return journey in 1192 CE Richard was shipwrecked, arrested by Leopold of Austria (r. 1075-1095 CE) - whom Richard had gravely insulted during the Crusade - and taken to Vienna. Passed on to Henry VI, the new Holy Roman Emperor (r. 1191-1197 CE), the English King was held for ransom. Richard would only be released in 1194 CE, and one can imagine the frustration for the swashbuckling king almost two years of captivity. The ransom was a massive 150,000 marks (which equates to several million dollars today) so that it was largely through new taxes in England and Normandy that the money was raised. Indeed, the sum was so high that even taxation could not raise enough, and Richard was forced to provide a number of noblemen hostages to make up for the shortfall. While the king was fighting abroad, English politics was left in the capable hands of Hubert Walter, who was Bishop of Salisbury in 1189 CE and was made Archbishop of Canterbury in 1193 CE. Walter proved himself an able statesman and events would unravel which required exactly that at the helm of the ship of state. While captive in the Holy Roman Empire, Richard’s younger brother John, conspiring with Philip II of France, made an unsuccessful attempt to seize the throne, but Walter managed to contain the usurper thanks to the help of another able if somewhat insensitive minister: he who looked after the realm’s purse strings in Richard’s absence, the chancellor, William Longchamp. The war was principally one of sieges and control of strategically important castles such as at Nottingham and Windsor Castle but in the end, the crown prevailed. Richard forgave his brother his excessive ambition and even nominated him as his successor. Hubert Walter was also responsible for raising the hefty ransom which had gained his king’s release. In 1193 CE Walter was made Chief Justiciar and given overall responsibility for government, a position he held until 1199 CE. One area the king was wary of was tournaments, those events where knights attacked each other in mock cavalry battles. Richard only permitted their organisation under license - allowing five places to host them - and made knights pay an entrance fee. The latter measure and the imposition of heavy fines for anyone daring to hold an unofficial event were a useful means to fill the state’s coffers which were so often emptied by the king’s expensive military escapades. Still, Richard also appreciated that tournaments could be a useful training ground for his knights and, soon to be up against the French, whose knights were famed for their horsemanship, he would need as skilled an army as he could muster. Given Richard’s need to fund his armies throughout his reign it is perhaps not surprising that he was nowhere near the big spender on English castles that his father had been. There was a major investment in revamping and extending the Tower of London in 1189-90 CE as indicated in the Pipe Rolls expenditure records but, otherwise, castle-building came to halt as the decade of the 1190s CE wore on. Yet another fund-raising strategy of the perennially cash-strapped king was to open up royal forests to local lords for hunting, with an appropriate fee, of course. Clearly, Richard needed all the money he could get his hands on for the conflicts yet to come. Campaigns in France & Death After a brief stint back in England and a second coronation in April 1194 CE at Winchester, Richard then spent much of his time on campaign in France where he defended the Angevin lands against his former Crusader ally, Philip II of France. The pair had fallen out when Richard did not marry Philip’s sister Alice, despite the pair being engaged for 20 years. Richard instead had married Berengaria of Navarre (c. 1164-1230 CE) on 12 May 1191 CE, as arranged by his mother. Berengaria would be the only reigning English queen never to set foot in her own realm. The English king assembled an army to attack Philip by requiring his barons to merely supply the king with only seven knights each instead of the usual vassal fighting force. As an alternative, Richard demanded cash with which he could purchase his own mercenaries. It was an arrangement the barons were only too happy to agree to as it meant they could remain, and defend if necessary, their own castles and lands rather than abandon them to opportunists while far away in France. Richard might have neglected English fortifications but he invested big in Normandy, notably constructing the Chateau Gaillard by the River Seine from 1197 CE to better defend his territorial claims there. Then disaster struck. Richard was mortally wounded in Aquitaine during his siege of the castle of Chalus in 1199 CE. The king, hit in the neck by a crossbow bolt, died on 6 April after the wound had become gangrenous. Richard was buried alongside his parents at Fontevraud Abbey near Chinon while his effigy at Rouen contains his heart. As he had no heir Richard I was succeeded by his brother John who would reign until 1216 CE. King John of England (aka John Lackland) managed to make himself one of the most unpopular kings in English history, and his oppression and military failures brought about a major uprising of barons who obliged the king to sign the Magna Carta in 1215 CE, upon which a constitution was based with the power of the monarch curbed and with the rights of the barons protected. Richard, meanwhile, gained legendary status as one of the great medieval knights and kings thanks to his daring deeds and the love and respect of his soldiers. After his death the myths only grew bigger, starting with the Anglo-Norman novel Romance of Richard Cœur de Lion published around 1250 CE. Already having proven himself as courageous, a determined foe of the Saracens and a composer of poetry to boot, Richard was the very model of the chivalrous knight and so his legend grew along those lines. Medieval artworks depicted the king improbably jousting Saladin, he was attributed fine speeches about saving his men or he would not be worthy of his crown, and stories sprang up of him being such a determined foe of the Arabs that he cooked and ate those he captured. Even today, the presence of a dramatic statue of the king outside the Houses of Parliament in London is an indicator of the special place Richard has gained and continues to hold in the hearts of Englanders. Finally, Richard has left a lasting legacy in medieval heraldry. The king’s choice of three golden lions (although they may originally have been leopards) on a red background on his shield were an extension of his family’s traditional two lions. The three lions, perhaps originally rearing figures ('rampant' in heraldic terms) but subsequently established as strolling forward with their heads turned at the onlooker ('passant guardant') have become not only a part of the English royal coat of arms ever since but also appear today in many other badges, especially sporting ones such as the England national football and cricket teams.	3,831	ENGLISH	1
Jean (eng. John) Calvin developed his theology in his biblical commentaries as well as his sermons and treatises, but the most concise expression of his views is found in his magnum opus, the Institutes of the Christian Religion. He intended that the book be used as a summary of his views on Christian theology and that it be read in conjunction with his commentaries.Calvin provided many of the foundational documents for reformed churches, including documents on the catechism, the liturgy, and church governance. He also produced several confessions of faith in order to unite the churches.Calvin produced commentaries on most of the books of the Bible. His first commentary on Romans was published in 1540, and he planned to write commentaries on the entire New Testament. Six years passed before he wrote his second, a commentary on I Corinthians, but after that he devoted more attention to reaching his goal. Within four years he had published commentaries on all the Pauline epistles, and he also revised the commentary on Romans. He then turned his attention to the general epistles, dedicating them to Edward VI of England. By 1555 he had completed his work on the New Testament, finishing with the Acts and the Gospels (he omitted only the brief second and third Epistles of John and the Book of Revelation). For the Old Testament, he wrote commentaries on Isaiah, the books of the Pentateuch, the Psalms, and Joshua. The material for the commentaries often originated from lectures to students and ministers that he reworked for publication.	<urn:uuid:35021bab-2ed5-466b-a17b-d2b25f37a86c>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.bol.com/nl/p/the-harmony-of-the-law-volume-3/9200000051715499/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250599718.13/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120165335-20200120194335-00048.warc.gz	en	0.984801	318	3.265625	3	[ -0.1516370326280594, 0.41943201422691345, 0.06161946803331375, -0.17165979743003845, -0.05066361650824547, -0.06372752785682678, -0.6843300461769104, 0.5188097953796387, 0.22396054863929749, 0.45375630259513855, -0.17120665311813354, 0.03525078296661377, 0.28826603293418884, 0.126489013433...	4	Jean (eng. John) Calvin developed his theology in his biblical commentaries as well as his sermons and treatises, but the most concise expression of his views is found in his magnum opus, the Institutes of the Christian Religion. He intended that the book be used as a summary of his views on Christian theology and that it be read in conjunction with his commentaries.Calvin provided many of the foundational documents for reformed churches, including documents on the catechism, the liturgy, and church governance. He also produced several confessions of faith in order to unite the churches.Calvin produced commentaries on most of the books of the Bible. His first commentary on Romans was published in 1540, and he planned to write commentaries on the entire New Testament. Six years passed before he wrote his second, a commentary on I Corinthians, but after that he devoted more attention to reaching his goal. Within four years he had published commentaries on all the Pauline epistles, and he also revised the commentary on Romans. He then turned his attention to the general epistles, dedicating them to Edward VI of England. By 1555 he had completed his work on the New Testament, finishing with the Acts and the Gospels (he omitted only the brief second and third Epistles of John and the Book of Revelation). For the Old Testament, he wrote commentaries on Isaiah, the books of the Pentateuch, the Psalms, and Joshua. The material for the commentaries often originated from lectures to students and ministers that he reworked for publication.	326	ENGLISH	1
German Picture gallery The Holy Roman Empire (HRE) The history of medieval Germany is a highly complex one. I have found it impossible to put together an introduction which covers it successfully.The intertwined political situation alone would require a book to explore. Below is my brief introduction to medieval Germany, not too much detail but hopefully enough to provide a flavour. Medieval German is a bit of a misnomer. The Country of Germany as we know it today is a modern invention coming out of the 19 Century state of Prussia. In the medieval period the area of modern Germany was a myriad of feuding Cities, Principalities, Kingdoms, Republics and Episcopal dioceses. These all theoretically fell under the authority of the King of Germany, a hereditary monarch. He in turn under the authority of the Holy Roman Emperor. The reality was the King of Germany could be and on occasion was deposed by the princes of Germany and replaced by their choice. The same is also true for the Holy Roman Emperor, he was also open to disposition and replacement by the Electors. The Holy Roman Empire (HRE) The HRE was an elective monarchy and primarily for these reason never developed a strong centralised government. The Electoral college of the Holy Roman Empire was comprised of seven German Princes. These seven comprised of four lay Princes, the King of Bohemia, the Count Palatine of Rhine, the Margrave of Brandenburg, and the Duke of Saxony and three princes of the Church, the archbishops of Mainz, Triers, and Cologne. These Electors primary interest was preventing a strong leader becoming Emperor who would stamp his authority over the Empire and potentially create a hereditary succession. Most Holy Roman Emperors never managed to assert their authority as they were frequently embroiled in their own hereditary lands problems. Even those Emperors who managed to focus their attention on the concerns of the Empire found themselves defeated by the Imperial Diet (parliament) who possessed a stranglehold over monetary matters. Below is a brief rundown of some of the major types of protagonists in the Empire and the troops they fielded Towns and cities of a particular area banded together protection. These threats could be from local 'robber' knights but as often as not the threats faced by these towns were from their own overlord's, either their Prince or Bishop. These alliances to deal with a specific problem were the norm and they usually fragmented afterwards. There were some notable exceptions to this. The most famous of these is the Hanse League of Northern Germany founded in the 13 Century. The primary purpose of this League was to protect the trading interests of its members. As a result the League found itself in an intermittent war with the Danes. By 1370 AD the League had captured Copenhagen and forced Waldemar IV of Denmark to sign a peace treaty. At its height in the 14 Century the League recorded 72 members at its meetings. This is not likely to have included lesser cities who were represented by proxy. This had dropped by the late 15 Century to 38. The Swabian (founded 1376) and Rhennish (1381) Leagues were set up to prevent the Emperor ceding Imperial cities to cover debts. These Leagues became as much of a threat to their neighbours as those they were set up to counter. The power of these two Leagues were destroyed at the battle of Doffingen in 1388 when they were decisively defeated by an alliance of Knights. A new Swabian League was founded in 1488 and included over 22 Cities, numerous Knights, Nobles and Prelates. The League provided much need support to Charles V, was instrumental in destroying the Knight revolt of Franz Von Sickingenin 1522 and the Peasant war of 1524-26. The instability of the region meant towns and cities tended to have some form of fortifications and a town militia for defence. The town militia was raised and drilled by quarters. Each quarter of a town being expected to provide, arm and train a certain number of troops. Some of the 'quarters' were centred around the Merchant guilds of the district. Towns often contained arsenals of equipment for their militia, although usually it was up to the individual to supply his personal arms. Those rich enough would have been mounted. The majority of the militia were a mix of missile men, usually crossbows, and spearmen. The militias were normally only expected to fight in defence of the town and in the immediate locality. Although many cities and towns had ordinances requiring their citizens to train during peace time these were difficult to enforce and as a result the militias tended to be of dubious quality. Though frequently adequate for the defence of the city walls and better than the mass levy, their battlefield role was secondary. From the mid 15 century many of the larger militias had started to convert to the use of Pike. This is in part due to the influence of the Swiss Canton mercenaries and those of the Lowland armies. The additional advantage of pikes over the traditional spears was the cost. A city was able to raise many more pikemen than they could spearmen. An effective spearmans equipment included a large shield, chain or similar armour, helmet and sword/dagger. A pike phalanx however only realistically needed the first few ranks to be armoured. The Pike offered a far greater deterrent to mounted knights, even troops with limited training could form an effective Pike phalanx. Those militias that did march with a field army were usually from large city states. By the 15 century many of the larger cities had their own artillery. These were often commanded and crewed by mercenaries as they usually had the required skills. The use of mercenaries to supplement and in some case replace the militia became an increasingly common practise in the 15 century. The advantages to the city were various, the troops were professionals, usually well armed and not citizens. The obvious disadvantage was the possibility of treachery or desertions should they not get paid. The Leagues of Knights These Leagues were formed to counter Town Leagues and the threats that caused them. Once the Leagues dealt with their immediate threats many of them remained in existence and offered their services to the highest bidder. Some went as far as to adopt uniforms and Heraldic images as their insignia. Many of the Knightly Leagues were little more than robber bands and preyed heavily on the local populations, causing more destruction than they prevented. The behaviour of these bands caused several peasant rebellions, all brutally crushed. Knightly League troops were essentially feudal so are described under Feudal Forces The decline of the Leagues The power of the Town and Knightly Leagues had peaked by the end of the 14 Century. Most floundered as the Dukes and Princes of Germany re-asserted their authority over their towns and feudal subordinates. The Hanse League lasted until 1668 but by the end of the 15 Century the back of its power had already been broken. The Swabian League (of 1488) was dissolved in 1534 due to a break down of trust between the Feudal elements and the Cities along with the religious tensions of the reformation. These Republics were situated in inhospitable areas of Germany. The most famous of the republics was the Eternal Alliance of Swiss Cantons. From 1308 the Eternal Alliance was a permanent and important part of the HRE, although the Emperor never managed to reassert Imperial governance. Austria and Burgundy attempted to reclaim lost lands from the Swiss Cantons and both failed. However for the rest of the HRE the Swiss republic was a vital source of Mercenaries, even the Emperor employed Swiss troops. The largest of the other Republics was the Dithmarschen situated in the South West of Schleswig-Holstein between the Elbe and Eider rivers. It is also referred to as the Dithmarschen of Saxony as it was originally part of this state. The Dithmarschen was a communal state and relied heavily on the inhospitable terrain for their defence. It formed an Alliance with the Bishopric of Bremen and although not a member of the Hanse League had a 'preferred trading status'. The army of Dithmarschen defeated numerous attempts to conquer them. The battle of Wohrden saw the Dithmarschen kill Gerhard the Great. Gerhardt VI was killed along with a large proportion of his Knights at the battle of Hamme in 1404. The battle of Hemmingstedt February 1500 King Johann I of Denmark and Duke Friedrich ordered the Dithmarscheners to pay 15,000 marks and recognise their sovereignty. The Dithmarscheners refused and the royal forces comprising some 10,000 Schleswig, Holstein and Danish Knights and 5,000 Black guard mercenaries invaded. The Dithmarscheners built a fortification line across the only road not made impassable by the spring thaw and flooded the surrounding countryside by opening the sluice gates. The dismounted royalists charged the fortifications and were repulsed and then fled from the counter attack. Most of the Royalist casualties, predominately Noble born as they insisted on leading the attack died from drowning in the mud rather than to the spears of Dithmarscheners. The Danes also lost the Royal battle banner 'Dannebrog'. Swiss troops are covered under mercenaries. The other Republics relied upon a general levy of all able bodied men for their defence. As a result the majority of the armies were farmers, with little armour and armed with spears or weapons improvised from agricultural equipment. Within the confines of their territory they presented formidable foes to their Knightly opponents who had great difficulty operating in the Marshy terrain. The Republic forces also had a small expert archer and crossbow contingent made up from the local hunters. These are the armies of the Princes, Dukes, Counts and lesser Nobility holding the Imperial Cities. Feudalism had not spread evenly over the HRE, some areas being more influenced by Eastern practises. Knights with feudal obligations were expected to provide themselves and a predetermined number of retainers for service in their overlords army. The size of the retinue was usually determined by wealth rather than by the amount of land held. Length of service could vary. The basic unit of a levy was the 'Gleve' originally referring to the Knight. By the end of the 13 Century this term covered the Knight and two other lesser armoured retainers, sometimes mercenaries. By the 14 Century the Gleve could also have included one or more missilemen or spearmen. The raising of feudal forces often caused difficulties as 40 days notice had to be given for assembly and troops were often not obligated to fight outside of their overlord's lands. As a result it became increasingly common for Overlord's to accept a cash alternative to service. This money being used to hire mercenaries who provided a much more reliable fighting force with far fewer restrictions. Frequently the mercenary troops were actually raised from the very men who had bought themselves out of feudal service. Cities were also obligated to provide troops for their overlords. These were largely infantry contingents made up of the militia but the richer merchants did fight as armoured horsemen and some where made into municipal Knights. Mercenary or feudal the mounted Knight of a Gleve was expected to be equipped in the best armour available. The German Plate of the era represents the peak of Knightly armour. By the 15 century coverings of plate even been used to armour their horses. The expense of such armour however meant that only a proportion of the knights were so equipped. This proportion became ever smaller as the armour developed and the cost increased. This changed the way Knight commands deployed. They increasingly deployed in deep and narrow formations, to allow the lesser armoured to be protected in the rear ranks. From the 1450's the 'lesser' Knights and those mercenaries owning partial plate armour were sometimes deployed as separate lancer commands as they were more mobile and flexible than those of the heavy knights. The Prelates, like their secular counterparts, relied heavily on feudal obligations for their troops. Tenants of Church lands being expected to provide troops for the defence of the See. Clerical armies also contained troops from cities and on occasion contingents from the Peasant republics. The Bishopric of Bremen was aided by the Dithmarscheners. Mercenaries were also heavily employed by Prelates, particularly as the Church lands were more 'cash' rich than those of the Secular Lords. The Clerical councils being more amenable than the Feudal Diets. The anarchy that ranged over much of the HRE made it a fertile recruiting ground for mercenaries and a ready source of employment. All types of Mercenary units plied their trade in the Empire. From the 13 Century German Mercenary Knights were for hire around Europe and had a formidable reputation. Although by the 15 Century the Italian Condotteri were dismissive of their German counterparts skills with the lance. Never the less the Mercenary Knight was to be found in most armies of the period. It was the mercenary foot though that were the most numerous and desired. Mercenary foot fell into several main category's. The crossbowmen and archers of the line, trained to fight in a close group, using volley fire to break up and disrupt enemy units. Skirmisher units, usually less well equipped or small commands of crossbow (later also handguns) armed troops. These being used to delay the enemy by harassment. These two types of mercenary units were in high demand for siege warfare, by both sides. The increasing use of artillery also saw master gunners offering their services for hire. Cities frequently hired such gunners to oversee their municipal cannon. Some were offered a year's salary as a bonus if they successful repelled an assault. It was the heavy foot though that were the most sort after. Up until the mid 15 Century these were armoured Spearmen who were usually capable of withstanding the charge of Knights. The spearwall was sometimes supported by Axe, Sword or halberd armed 'shock' troops. The adoption of Pikes by the Swiss Cantons altered the form of mercenary foot through out Europe. Using mass infantry formations armed with pikes the Swiss were able to inflict a series of stinging defeats on their Noble opponents. The effectiveness of the Swiss led to them becoming highly sort after as mercenaries. It also brought about the re-arming of many mercenary units and City militias with pikes. This process was pretty much complete by the time of the battle of Guinegatte in 1479 where massed pike formations from Germany and the Lowlands fought the French. The future Emperor Maximilian commanded at the battle and took his experiences back to Germany. There he proceeded to raise 'landsknecht' pikemen. Raised from existing mercenary units but under trusted Imperial officers. These landsknechts clashed with their Swiss counterparts in the Swabian war of 1499, setting the scene for numerous brutal, no quarter clashes in the following years. The effectiveness of Hussite Warwagon tactics and their final defeat saw many ex- Hussite troops being employed by States in the HRE. Theoretically the Emperor could call upon all those within the HRE to serve in his armies. The Emperor's major stumbling block was his own Imperial Diet. The Imperial Diet comprised the representatives of Imperial Lands, Cities and Prelates. It was effectively controlled by the Seven Electors. The only time where the Imperial Diet was obliged to agree to provide the Emperor with troops was to accompany him on his procession to Rome to be crowned. The Emperors through out this period almost never managed to tame the Imperial Diet sufficiently to get enough money to raise an effective army. As a result the Emperors relied heavily on their own hereditary lands for the core of their armies. This was supplemented by mercenaries and those Nobles of the HRE with a vested interest in the current crisis. The Hussite wars for example saw Imperial armies (few in number) heavily supported by the Nobility surrounding Bohemia who saw the Hussite cause as a threat to their own power. Emperor Sigismund managed to convince the Pope to declare a crusade against the Hussites adding many volunteers to his cause. Their enthusiasm for the crusade faded away after the initial set backs. Maximilian managed to increase the Imperial army by relying on Italian banking families to fund his mercenary landsknechts but even then his forces had to be supplemented by the Swabian League. Copyright © 2002-2020 Matthew Haywood All images and text, unless otherwise noted, may not be copied without my written permission.	<urn:uuid:141121ab-f9cd-43cb-b948-c7288dd95efa>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	http://warfareeast.co.uk/main/Medieval_Germany.htm	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251694071.63/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126230255-20200127020255-00387.warc.gz	en	0.980946	3,432	3.46875	3	[ -0.08085830509662628, 0.6634653806686401, 0.2007410228252411, -0.2497694492340088, -0.08420445024967194, -0.021424833685159683, -0.05048387125134468, 0.07651171833276749, -0.4941418766975403, -0.2945316433906555, -0.10192684829235077, -0.5580094456672668, 0.27362561225891113, 0.14519408345...	7	German Picture gallery The Holy Roman Empire (HRE) The history of medieval Germany is a highly complex one. I have found it impossible to put together an introduction which covers it successfully.The intertwined political situation alone would require a book to explore. Below is my brief introduction to medieval Germany, not too much detail but hopefully enough to provide a flavour. Medieval German is a bit of a misnomer. The Country of Germany as we know it today is a modern invention coming out of the 19 Century state of Prussia. In the medieval period the area of modern Germany was a myriad of feuding Cities, Principalities, Kingdoms, Republics and Episcopal dioceses. These all theoretically fell under the authority of the King of Germany, a hereditary monarch. He in turn under the authority of the Holy Roman Emperor. The reality was the King of Germany could be and on occasion was deposed by the princes of Germany and replaced by their choice. The same is also true for the Holy Roman Emperor, he was also open to disposition and replacement by the Electors. The Holy Roman Empire (HRE) The HRE was an elective monarchy and primarily for these reason never developed a strong centralised government. The Electoral college of the Holy Roman Empire was comprised of seven German Princes. These seven comprised of four lay Princes, the King of Bohemia, the Count Palatine of Rhine, the Margrave of Brandenburg, and the Duke of Saxony and three princes of the Church, the archbishops of Mainz, Triers, and Cologne. These Electors primary interest was preventing a strong leader becoming Emperor who would stamp his authority over the Empire and potentially create a hereditary succession. Most Holy Roman Emperors never managed to assert their authority as they were frequently embroiled in their own hereditary lands problems. Even those Emperors who managed to focus their attention on the concerns of the Empire found themselves defeated by the Imperial Diet (parliament) who possessed a stranglehold over monetary matters. Below is a brief rundown of some of the major types of protagonists in the Empire and the troops they fielded Towns and cities of a particular area banded together protection. These threats could be from local 'robber' knights but as often as not the threats faced by these towns were from their own overlord's, either their Prince or Bishop. These alliances to deal with a specific problem were the norm and they usually fragmented afterwards. There were some notable exceptions to this. The most famous of these is the Hanse League of Northern Germany founded in the 13 Century. The primary purpose of this League was to protect the trading interests of its members. As a result the League found itself in an intermittent war with the Danes. By 1370 AD the League had captured Copenhagen and forced Waldemar IV of Denmark to sign a peace treaty. At its height in the 14 Century the League recorded 72 members at its meetings. This is not likely to have included lesser cities who were represented by proxy. This had dropped by the late 15 Century to 38. The Swabian (founded 1376) and Rhennish (1381) Leagues were set up to prevent the Emperor ceding Imperial cities to cover debts. These Leagues became as much of a threat to their neighbours as those they were set up to counter. The power of these two Leagues were destroyed at the battle of Doffingen in 1388 when they were decisively defeated by an alliance of Knights. A new Swabian League was founded in 1488 and included over 22 Cities, numerous Knights, Nobles and Prelates. The League provided much need support to Charles V, was instrumental in destroying the Knight revolt of Franz Von Sickingenin 1522 and the Peasant war of 1524-26. The instability of the region meant towns and cities tended to have some form of fortifications and a town militia for defence. The town militia was raised and drilled by quarters. Each quarter of a town being expected to provide, arm and train a certain number of troops. Some of the 'quarters' were centred around the Merchant guilds of the district. Towns often contained arsenals of equipment for their militia, although usually it was up to the individual to supply his personal arms. Those rich enough would have been mounted. The majority of the militia were a mix of missile men, usually crossbows, and spearmen. The militias were normally only expected to fight in defence of the town and in the immediate locality. Although many cities and towns had ordinances requiring their citizens to train during peace time these were difficult to enforce and as a result the militias tended to be of dubious quality. Though frequently adequate for the defence of the city walls and better than the mass levy, their battlefield role was secondary. From the mid 15 century many of the larger militias had started to convert to the use of Pike. This is in part due to the influence of the Swiss Canton mercenaries and those of the Lowland armies. The additional advantage of pikes over the traditional spears was the cost. A city was able to raise many more pikemen than they could spearmen. An effective spearmans equipment included a large shield, chain or similar armour, helmet and sword/dagger. A pike phalanx however only realistically needed the first few ranks to be armoured. The Pike offered a far greater deterrent to mounted knights, even troops with limited training could form an effective Pike phalanx. Those militias that did march with a field army were usually from large city states. By the 15 century many of the larger cities had their own artillery. These were often commanded and crewed by mercenaries as they usually had the required skills. The use of mercenaries to supplement and in some case replace the militia became an increasingly common practise in the 15 century. The advantages to the city were various, the troops were professionals, usually well armed and not citizens. The obvious disadvantage was the possibility of treachery or desertions should they not get paid. The Leagues of Knights These Leagues were formed to counter Town Leagues and the threats that caused them. Once the Leagues dealt with their immediate threats many of them remained in existence and offered their services to the highest bidder. Some went as far as to adopt uniforms and Heraldic images as their insignia. Many of the Knightly Leagues were little more than robber bands and preyed heavily on the local populations, causing more destruction than they prevented. The behaviour of these bands caused several peasant rebellions, all brutally crushed. Knightly League troops were essentially feudal so are described under Feudal Forces The decline of the Leagues The power of the Town and Knightly Leagues had peaked by the end of the 14 Century. Most floundered as the Dukes and Princes of Germany re-asserted their authority over their towns and feudal subordinates. The Hanse League lasted until 1668 but by the end of the 15 Century the back of its power had already been broken. The Swabian League (of 1488) was dissolved in 1534 due to a break down of trust between the Feudal elements and the Cities along with the religious tensions of the reformation. These Republics were situated in inhospitable areas of Germany. The most famous of the republics was the Eternal Alliance of Swiss Cantons. From 1308 the Eternal Alliance was a permanent and important part of the HRE, although the Emperor never managed to reassert Imperial governance. Austria and Burgundy attempted to reclaim lost lands from the Swiss Cantons and both failed. However for the rest of the HRE the Swiss republic was a vital source of Mercenaries, even the Emperor employed Swiss troops. The largest of the other Republics was the Dithmarschen situated in the South West of Schleswig-Holstein between the Elbe and Eider rivers. It is also referred to as the Dithmarschen of Saxony as it was originally part of this state. The Dithmarschen was a communal state and relied heavily on the inhospitable terrain for their defence. It formed an Alliance with the Bishopric of Bremen and although not a member of the Hanse League had a 'preferred trading status'. The army of Dithmarschen defeated numerous attempts to conquer them. The battle of Wohrden saw the Dithmarschen kill Gerhard the Great. Gerhardt VI was killed along with a large proportion of his Knights at the battle of Hamme in 1404. The battle of Hemmingstedt February 1500 King Johann I of Denmark and Duke Friedrich ordered the Dithmarscheners to pay 15,000 marks and recognise their sovereignty. The Dithmarscheners refused and the royal forces comprising some 10,000 Schleswig, Holstein and Danish Knights and 5,000 Black guard mercenaries invaded. The Dithmarscheners built a fortification line across the only road not made impassable by the spring thaw and flooded the surrounding countryside by opening the sluice gates. The dismounted royalists charged the fortifications and were repulsed and then fled from the counter attack. Most of the Royalist casualties, predominately Noble born as they insisted on leading the attack died from drowning in the mud rather than to the spears of Dithmarscheners. The Danes also lost the Royal battle banner 'Dannebrog'. Swiss troops are covered under mercenaries. The other Republics relied upon a general levy of all able bodied men for their defence. As a result the majority of the armies were farmers, with little armour and armed with spears or weapons improvised from agricultural equipment. Within the confines of their territory they presented formidable foes to their Knightly opponents who had great difficulty operating in the Marshy terrain. The Republic forces also had a small expert archer and crossbow contingent made up from the local hunters. These are the armies of the Princes, Dukes, Counts and lesser Nobility holding the Imperial Cities. Feudalism had not spread evenly over the HRE, some areas being more influenced by Eastern practises. Knights with feudal obligations were expected to provide themselves and a predetermined number of retainers for service in their overlords army. The size of the retinue was usually determined by wealth rather than by the amount of land held. Length of service could vary. The basic unit of a levy was the 'Gleve' originally referring to the Knight. By the end of the 13 Century this term covered the Knight and two other lesser armoured retainers, sometimes mercenaries. By the 14 Century the Gleve could also have included one or more missilemen or spearmen. The raising of feudal forces often caused difficulties as 40 days notice had to be given for assembly and troops were often not obligated to fight outside of their overlord's lands. As a result it became increasingly common for Overlord's to accept a cash alternative to service. This money being used to hire mercenaries who provided a much more reliable fighting force with far fewer restrictions. Frequently the mercenary troops were actually raised from the very men who had bought themselves out of feudal service. Cities were also obligated to provide troops for their overlords. These were largely infantry contingents made up of the militia but the richer merchants did fight as armoured horsemen and some where made into municipal Knights. Mercenary or feudal the mounted Knight of a Gleve was expected to be equipped in the best armour available. The German Plate of the era represents the peak of Knightly armour. By the 15 century coverings of plate even been used to armour their horses. The expense of such armour however meant that only a proportion of the knights were so equipped. This proportion became ever smaller as the armour developed and the cost increased. This changed the way Knight commands deployed. They increasingly deployed in deep and narrow formations, to allow the lesser armoured to be protected in the rear ranks. From the 1450's the 'lesser' Knights and those mercenaries owning partial plate armour were sometimes deployed as separate lancer commands as they were more mobile and flexible than those of the heavy knights. The Prelates, like their secular counterparts, relied heavily on feudal obligations for their troops. Tenants of Church lands being expected to provide troops for the defence of the See. Clerical armies also contained troops from cities and on occasion contingents from the Peasant republics. The Bishopric of Bremen was aided by the Dithmarscheners. Mercenaries were also heavily employed by Prelates, particularly as the Church lands were more 'cash' rich than those of the Secular Lords. The Clerical councils being more amenable than the Feudal Diets. The anarchy that ranged over much of the HRE made it a fertile recruiting ground for mercenaries and a ready source of employment. All types of Mercenary units plied their trade in the Empire. From the 13 Century German Mercenary Knights were for hire around Europe and had a formidable reputation. Although by the 15 Century the Italian Condotteri were dismissive of their German counterparts skills with the lance. Never the less the Mercenary Knight was to be found in most armies of the period. It was the mercenary foot though that were the most numerous and desired. Mercenary foot fell into several main category's. The crossbowmen and archers of the line, trained to fight in a close group, using volley fire to break up and disrupt enemy units. Skirmisher units, usually less well equipped or small commands of crossbow (later also handguns) armed troops. These being used to delay the enemy by harassment. These two types of mercenary units were in high demand for siege warfare, by both sides. The increasing use of artillery also saw master gunners offering their services for hire. Cities frequently hired such gunners to oversee their municipal cannon. Some were offered a year's salary as a bonus if they successful repelled an assault. It was the heavy foot though that were the most sort after. Up until the mid 15 Century these were armoured Spearmen who were usually capable of withstanding the charge of Knights. The spearwall was sometimes supported by Axe, Sword or halberd armed 'shock' troops. The adoption of Pikes by the Swiss Cantons altered the form of mercenary foot through out Europe. Using mass infantry formations armed with pikes the Swiss were able to inflict a series of stinging defeats on their Noble opponents. The effectiveness of the Swiss led to them becoming highly sort after as mercenaries. It also brought about the re-arming of many mercenary units and City militias with pikes. This process was pretty much complete by the time of the battle of Guinegatte in 1479 where massed pike formations from Germany and the Lowlands fought the French. The future Emperor Maximilian commanded at the battle and took his experiences back to Germany. There he proceeded to raise 'landsknecht' pikemen. Raised from existing mercenary units but under trusted Imperial officers. These landsknechts clashed with their Swiss counterparts in the Swabian war of 1499, setting the scene for numerous brutal, no quarter clashes in the following years. The effectiveness of Hussite Warwagon tactics and their final defeat saw many ex- Hussite troops being employed by States in the HRE. Theoretically the Emperor could call upon all those within the HRE to serve in his armies. The Emperor's major stumbling block was his own Imperial Diet. The Imperial Diet comprised the representatives of Imperial Lands, Cities and Prelates. It was effectively controlled by the Seven Electors. The only time where the Imperial Diet was obliged to agree to provide the Emperor with troops was to accompany him on his procession to Rome to be crowned. The Emperors through out this period almost never managed to tame the Imperial Diet sufficiently to get enough money to raise an effective army. As a result the Emperors relied heavily on their own hereditary lands for the core of their armies. This was supplemented by mercenaries and those Nobles of the HRE with a vested interest in the current crisis. The Hussite wars for example saw Imperial armies (few in number) heavily supported by the Nobility surrounding Bohemia who saw the Hussite cause as a threat to their own power. Emperor Sigismund managed to convince the Pope to declare a crusade against the Hussites adding many volunteers to his cause. Their enthusiasm for the crusade faded away after the initial set backs. Maximilian managed to increase the Imperial army by relying on Italian banking families to fund his mercenary landsknechts but even then his forces had to be supplemented by the Swabian League. Copyright © 2002-2020 Matthew Haywood All images and text, unless otherwise noted, may not be copied without my written permission.	3,519	ENGLISH	1
Boston tea partyWritten by Business Writing Services Many American have heard of events that lead the founding father of the nation and others to dump British tea in Boston harbor. This is the event that was to later on be called Boston tea party, but not every America understand the significance of this Boston tea party nor why it has to be remembered even today. Boston tea party was an event that saw American patriots throw 342 chests of tea into the harbor while disguised as the Mohawk Indians. The tea belonged to a British east India company , that had anchored in Boston harbor. The reason why these took place was to protest, various punitive taxes the British parliament had imposed on the colonists. In 1766, town-shed act was adopted and this allowed the British parliament to tax the colonist on various items such as tea, paint, lead, paper and many other items that they were acquiring from foreign countries. After several protest from the colonists in 1770, the acts were repealed but the tax on tea remained. The colonist love tea and the British parliament needed to take advantage of it. This was a mistake the British government made and it cost them the colonies in the preceding war of dependence. The Boston tea party took place exactly on 16th December 1773 and it was the beginning of war of independence. The tea taxes imposed by the British parliament were meant to save the falling British east Indian company in addition to covering the cost of offering protection to the colonists. There had been other taxes the parliament had been demanding from the colonist, in order to cover war debts from French and Indian wars. The taxing regime was not well perceived by the colonists. Introduction of the tea tax was meant to remove all other taxes except the townshend tax. Most of the people who were first to revolt on this tax were the merchants in Boston. The British east India tea was being offered at lower price than the dutch smuggled tea. The colonist made several attempts in sending the British tea away but were not able to convince the British government representatives in the harbor why they had to do that. If the colonist accepted to buy the British east Indian tea, it meant they were conceding to taxation by the British parliament. The complaints by colonist at these time were not in unison as most if the colonies were operating as independent entities. The union of states had not taken place by these time. The actions at the boson harbor made the colonist to come together in revolt against the British rule. The colonist were more better placed to identify with America more than with their respective mother countries. Consecutive intermarriages and integration of various cultures in America, had many colonist identifying with one another. This and the action at the harbor hardened their resolve to be independent. Many first European settles in America had fled their mother land to settle in America with a dream of being independent. The large British crown followed them to the new land and continued controlling them. The wishes of being independent were in all colonist irrespective of their mother countries. Introduction of the various taxes were the unifying factor that made the colonist to realize their common destiny. They had to revolt against the crown to gain their independence. The Boston tea party was the first violence revolt against the crown. The consequent events after the Boston tea party are highly docume3nted at the essayWritingTips.org. A website that is dedicated in offering free American history information and essays. Visit the essayWritingTips.org for detailed actions of all the people who were involved in organizing and executing the Boston tea party.	<urn:uuid:89a11855-c579-4998-b13e-63be1c5f7f5a>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.businesswritingservices.org/component/k2/item/5-boston-tea-party?tmpl=component&print=1	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594705.17/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119180644-20200119204644-00130.warc.gz	en	0.989842	722	3.65625	4	[ 0.06466243416070938, -0.31368839740753174, 0.24539238214492798, -0.37845873832702637, -0.38880854845046997, -0.06261913478374481, 0.40737277269363403, -0.1589609831571579, -0.20758278667926788, 0.15804798901081085, 0.05168641358613968, -0.07477176189422607, -0.26873987913131714, 0.19236075...	1	Boston tea partyWritten by Business Writing Services Many American have heard of events that lead the founding father of the nation and others to dump British tea in Boston harbor. This is the event that was to later on be called Boston tea party, but not every America understand the significance of this Boston tea party nor why it has to be remembered even today. Boston tea party was an event that saw American patriots throw 342 chests of tea into the harbor while disguised as the Mohawk Indians. The tea belonged to a British east India company , that had anchored in Boston harbor. The reason why these took place was to protest, various punitive taxes the British parliament had imposed on the colonists. In 1766, town-shed act was adopted and this allowed the British parliament to tax the colonist on various items such as tea, paint, lead, paper and many other items that they were acquiring from foreign countries. After several protest from the colonists in 1770, the acts were repealed but the tax on tea remained. The colonist love tea and the British parliament needed to take advantage of it. This was a mistake the British government made and it cost them the colonies in the preceding war of dependence. The Boston tea party took place exactly on 16th December 1773 and it was the beginning of war of independence. The tea taxes imposed by the British parliament were meant to save the falling British east Indian company in addition to covering the cost of offering protection to the colonists. There had been other taxes the parliament had been demanding from the colonist, in order to cover war debts from French and Indian wars. The taxing regime was not well perceived by the colonists. Introduction of the tea tax was meant to remove all other taxes except the townshend tax. Most of the people who were first to revolt on this tax were the merchants in Boston. The British east India tea was being offered at lower price than the dutch smuggled tea. The colonist made several attempts in sending the British tea away but were not able to convince the British government representatives in the harbor why they had to do that. If the colonist accepted to buy the British east Indian tea, it meant they were conceding to taxation by the British parliament. The complaints by colonist at these time were not in unison as most if the colonies were operating as independent entities. The union of states had not taken place by these time. The actions at the boson harbor made the colonist to come together in revolt against the British rule. The colonist were more better placed to identify with America more than with their respective mother countries. Consecutive intermarriages and integration of various cultures in America, had many colonist identifying with one another. This and the action at the harbor hardened their resolve to be independent. Many first European settles in America had fled their mother land to settle in America with a dream of being independent. The large British crown followed them to the new land and continued controlling them. The wishes of being independent were in all colonist irrespective of their mother countries. Introduction of the various taxes were the unifying factor that made the colonist to realize their common destiny. They had to revolt against the crown to gain their independence. The Boston tea party was the first violence revolt against the crown. The consequent events after the Boston tea party are highly docume3nted at the essayWritingTips.org. A website that is dedicated in offering free American history information and essays. Visit the essayWritingTips.org for detailed actions of all the people who were involved in organizing and executing the Boston tea party.	736	ENGLISH	1
In what part of the New Testament is found the first mention of the first day of the week? "In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulcher." Matt. 28:1. NOTE. - Sunday is the first day of the week. See Webster. Matthew wrote his Gospel six years after the resurrection of Christ, yet calls the day before the first day, the Sabbath. Where is the first day next mentioned? "And when the Sabbath was past,... very early in the morning the first day of the week they came unto the sepulcher at the rising of the sun." Mark 16:1, 2. NOTE. - This is the same incident as that related by Matthew, and Mark wrote his gospel thirty-two years after the resurrection of Christ. On what day was Jesus raised from the dead? "Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He had cast seven devils." Mark 16:9. On what day was Christ laid in the tomb? "This man [Joseph] went unto Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. And he took it down, and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulcher that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid. And that day was the preparation, and the Sabbath drew on." Luke 23:52-54. What did the holy women do, after seeing where He was laid? "And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment." Luke 23:56. What work did they postpone till the first day because they would not do it on the Sabbath? "Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulcher, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them." Luke 24:1. NOTE. - Luke wrote his gospel twenty-four years after the events he records had occurred, and he, too, by Inspiration, calls the day before the first day of the week, the Sabbath. How does John speak of these events? "The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulcher, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulcher." John 20:1. NOTE. - John wrote his gospel in 97 A.D., and yet he gives no title of sacredness to the first day. He gives substantially the same account as the other evangelists. What took place in the evening of that same first day?" Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you." John 20:19. Had Jesus previously appeared to some of His disciples? "He appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country." Mark 16:12. When they went and told the others who were assembled, how did they receive the news? "And they went and told it unto the residue; neither believed they them." Mark 16:13. When Jesus afterward met the eleven, what did He say to them? "Afterward He appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen Him after He was risen." Mark 16:14. NOTE. - From this testimony it is plain that the eleven were not assembled together to celebrate His resurrection; for they did not believe He was risen. Did Christ appear to the eleven while the two who had seen Him at Emmaus were relating their experience? "And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon... And as they thus spake, Jesus Himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you." Luke 24:33-36. Were the disciples here assembled to partake of the communion? "And while they believed not for joy, and wondered, He said unto them, Have ye here any meat? And they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And He took it, and did eat before them." Luke 24:41-43. NOTE. - Fish and honey are never used at the communion. Where did the disciples live when in Jerusalem? "And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James, the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James." Acts 1:13. NOTE. - They all abode in this room, and were probably at home, partaking of their evening meal, when the Saviour met with them. He knew their habits and their time of eating, and when He came, He found them with their doors closed for fear of the Jews. When did the Saviour next meet with His disciples? " And after eight days, again His disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you." John 20:26. NOTE. - This is not the eighth day, but "after eight days," an indefinite expression. If this were a definite expression, it would carry the meeting (counting from Sunday night) over beyond Monday of the next week. (For meaning of such expressions, compare the text with Matt. 17:1 and Luke 9:28.) On what day did Paul once meet with the brethren at Troas? "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until mid. night." Acts 20:7. At what time of day was this meeting held? "And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together." Acts 20:8. How many accompanied Paul on his journey into Asia on this occasion? "And there accompanied him into Asia Sopater of Berea; and of the Thessalonians, Aristarchus and Secundus; and Gaius of Derbe, and Timotheus; and of Asia, Tychicus and Trophimus." Acts 20:4 While Paul was walking across the peninsula (nineteen and one half miles) to Assos, what were his companions doing?" And we went before to ship, and sailed unto Assos, there intending to take in Paul; for so had he appointed, minding himself to go afoot." Acts 20:13. NOTE. - None of them regarded Sunday as anything more than an ordinary day. What did Paul tell the Corinthian church to do on Sunday? "Upon the first day of the week let everyone of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come." 1 Cor. 16:2. What was the collection for? "Now concerning the collection of the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye." 1 Cor. 16:1. NOTE. - This was not to be taken up in the public congregation. "let everyone of you lay by him in store." This is generally translated in other places as being with one's self, at home by himself, near himself, at his own house, etc.. This completes the entire list of texts in the New Testament containing a mention of the first day of the week, and they all treat that day as only a common day. When was John in the Spirit? "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet." Rev. 1:10. What day has God called His? "If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on My holy day." Isa. 58:13. Of what day has Christ claimed to be Lord? "Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath." Mark 2:28. NOTE. - The other six are for man's use, in which to labor. Sunday sacredness is not known in the New Testament. Was this article helpful?	<urn:uuid:bc2dceaf-2e5f-42b2-9f39-9d0519942a7a>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.wilmingtonfavs.com/bible-readings/sunday-sacredness.html	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594705.17/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119180644-20200119204644-00463.warc.gz	en	0.981876	1,817	3.65625	4	[ -0.6143372058868408, 0.20857062935829163, -0.029162926599383354, -0.4890945553779602, -0.1247934103012085, -0.034804124385118484, -0.043788373470306396, 0.03863488882780075, 0.36750009655952454, -0.02375512197613716, -0.10822568833827972, 0.32201436161994934, 0.010849115438759327, 0.334359...	1	In what part of the New Testament is found the first mention of the first day of the week? "In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulcher." Matt. 28:1. NOTE. - Sunday is the first day of the week. See Webster. Matthew wrote his Gospel six years after the resurrection of Christ, yet calls the day before the first day, the Sabbath. Where is the first day next mentioned? "And when the Sabbath was past,... very early in the morning the first day of the week they came unto the sepulcher at the rising of the sun." Mark 16:1, 2. NOTE. - This is the same incident as that related by Matthew, and Mark wrote his gospel thirty-two years after the resurrection of Christ. On what day was Jesus raised from the dead? "Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom He had cast seven devils." Mark 16:9. On what day was Christ laid in the tomb? "This man [Joseph] went unto Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. And he took it down, and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulcher that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was laid. And that day was the preparation, and the Sabbath drew on." Luke 23:52-54. What did the holy women do, after seeing where He was laid? "And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments; and rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment." Luke 23:56. What work did they postpone till the first day because they would not do it on the Sabbath? "Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulcher, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them." Luke 24:1. NOTE. - Luke wrote his gospel twenty-four years after the events he records had occurred, and he, too, by Inspiration, calls the day before the first day of the week, the Sabbath. How does John speak of these events? "The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulcher, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulcher." John 20:1. NOTE. - John wrote his gospel in 97 A.D., and yet he gives no title of sacredness to the first day. He gives substantially the same account as the other evangelists. What took place in the evening of that same first day?" Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you." John 20:19. Had Jesus previously appeared to some of His disciples? "He appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country." Mark 16:12. When they went and told the others who were assembled, how did they receive the news? "And they went and told it unto the residue; neither believed they them." Mark 16:13. When Jesus afterward met the eleven, what did He say to them? "Afterward He appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which had seen Him after He was risen." Mark 16:14. NOTE. - From this testimony it is plain that the eleven were not assembled together to celebrate His resurrection; for they did not believe He was risen. Did Christ appear to the eleven while the two who had seen Him at Emmaus were relating their experience? "And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon... And as they thus spake, Jesus Himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you." Luke 24:33-36. Were the disciples here assembled to partake of the communion? "And while they believed not for joy, and wondered, He said unto them, Have ye here any meat? And they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb. And He took it, and did eat before them." Luke 24:41-43. NOTE. - Fish and honey are never used at the communion. Where did the disciples live when in Jerusalem? "And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James, the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James." Acts 1:13. NOTE. - They all abode in this room, and were probably at home, partaking of their evening meal, when the Saviour met with them. He knew their habits and their time of eating, and when He came, He found them with their doors closed for fear of the Jews. When did the Saviour next meet with His disciples? " And after eight days, again His disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you." John 20:26. NOTE. - This is not the eighth day, but "after eight days," an indefinite expression. If this were a definite expression, it would carry the meeting (counting from Sunday night) over beyond Monday of the next week. (For meaning of such expressions, compare the text with Matt. 17:1 and Luke 9:28.) On what day did Paul once meet with the brethren at Troas? "And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until mid. night." Acts 20:7. At what time of day was this meeting held? "And there were many lights in the upper chamber, where they were gathered together." Acts 20:8. How many accompanied Paul on his journey into Asia on this occasion? "And there accompanied him into Asia Sopater of Berea; and of the Thessalonians, Aristarchus and Secundus; and Gaius of Derbe, and Timotheus; and of Asia, Tychicus and Trophimus." Acts 20:4 While Paul was walking across the peninsula (nineteen and one half miles) to Assos, what were his companions doing?" And we went before to ship, and sailed unto Assos, there intending to take in Paul; for so had he appointed, minding himself to go afoot." Acts 20:13. NOTE. - None of them regarded Sunday as anything more than an ordinary day. What did Paul tell the Corinthian church to do on Sunday? "Upon the first day of the week let everyone of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come." 1 Cor. 16:2. What was the collection for? "Now concerning the collection of the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye." 1 Cor. 16:1. NOTE. - This was not to be taken up in the public congregation. "let everyone of you lay by him in store." This is generally translated in other places as being with one's self, at home by himself, near himself, at his own house, etc.. This completes the entire list of texts in the New Testament containing a mention of the first day of the week, and they all treat that day as only a common day. When was John in the Spirit? "I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet." Rev. 1:10. What day has God called His? "If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on My holy day." Isa. 58:13. Of what day has Christ claimed to be Lord? "Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the Sabbath." Mark 2:28. NOTE. - The other six are for man's use, in which to labor. Sunday sacredness is not known in the New Testament. Was this article helpful?	1,855	ENGLISH	1
Wars of religion often seem to lead to the most despicable acts of cruelty and barbarism, with both sides claiming to have divine sanction for the horrors that they choose to visit on their enemies. This was certainly the case on 12th December 1098 when a Crusader army breached the defences of Ma’arat al-Numan, a fortified town that lies in what is now Syria. In 1095 Pope Urban II had called on the Christians of western Europe to recover the Holy Land for Christianity from the Muslims who now occupied it. Being utterly convinced of the rightness of their cause, and having a firm belief that Muslims were a depraved form of humanity who deserved no mercy or respect, the Christian armies swept towards Jerusalem, slaughtering anyone who opposed them. The Crusaders did not have everything their own way. The city of Antioch withstood a siege that lasted 21 months, and when it fell the inhabitants were treated extremely badly with many civilians losing their lives. However, the long siege had meant that there was very little food left in the city, and the Crusaders, whose own supplies were running low, found nothing to replenish their stocks. With winter approaching, the surrounding countryside had little to offer either, so a plan was drawn up to advance the short distance to Ma’arat al-Numan and hope for more luck there. When the town fell to the Crusaders some 20,000 people were killed and the children captured as slaves, but there was still no food to be found. The Crusaders then turned to the only solution they could think of. They started to feed on the bodies of the people they had killed. Some reports said that they went as far as killing people for the purpose of eating them, including impaling children on spits so that they could be grilled, but these accounts cannot be relied upon. Even so, for an army to turn to cannibalism, in the belief that they were fighting against people who were animals rather than humans, was terrible enough. This event placed a huge stain on the reputation of the Crusaders, and Christianity in general. The Muslim world has long held the Christian west in detestation, and this incident was one that caused that view to be created and to prevail down the centuries.	<urn:uuid:e528b48b-2135-4cc3-b6ce-36abc870446a>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://virily.com/culture/a-despicable-crusader-act-in-1098/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251799918.97/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129133601-20200129163601-00091.warc.gz	en	0.989437	460	3.359375	3	[ -0.18149369955062866, 0.5372974276542664, -0.10669499635696411, -0.17682631313800812, -0.02324235625565052, -0.10916061699390411, -0.12796032428741455, 0.3399120271205902, 0.28569504618644714, 0.1792670339345932, -0.05234472453594208, -0.42994531989097595, 0.04750315845012665, 0.2340928316...	2	Wars of religion often seem to lead to the most despicable acts of cruelty and barbarism, with both sides claiming to have divine sanction for the horrors that they choose to visit on their enemies. This was certainly the case on 12th December 1098 when a Crusader army breached the defences of Ma’arat al-Numan, a fortified town that lies in what is now Syria. In 1095 Pope Urban II had called on the Christians of western Europe to recover the Holy Land for Christianity from the Muslims who now occupied it. Being utterly convinced of the rightness of their cause, and having a firm belief that Muslims were a depraved form of humanity who deserved no mercy or respect, the Christian armies swept towards Jerusalem, slaughtering anyone who opposed them. The Crusaders did not have everything their own way. The city of Antioch withstood a siege that lasted 21 months, and when it fell the inhabitants were treated extremely badly with many civilians losing their lives. However, the long siege had meant that there was very little food left in the city, and the Crusaders, whose own supplies were running low, found nothing to replenish their stocks. With winter approaching, the surrounding countryside had little to offer either, so a plan was drawn up to advance the short distance to Ma’arat al-Numan and hope for more luck there. When the town fell to the Crusaders some 20,000 people were killed and the children captured as slaves, but there was still no food to be found. The Crusaders then turned to the only solution they could think of. They started to feed on the bodies of the people they had killed. Some reports said that they went as far as killing people for the purpose of eating them, including impaling children on spits so that they could be grilled, but these accounts cannot be relied upon. Even so, for an army to turn to cannibalism, in the belief that they were fighting against people who were animals rather than humans, was terrible enough. This event placed a huge stain on the reputation of the Crusaders, and Christianity in general. The Muslim world has long held the Christian west in detestation, and this incident was one that caused that view to be created and to prevail down the centuries.	473	ENGLISH	1
Julius Caesar invaded Britain in 55-54 BC and changed the British landscape forever. In Latin, the Roman word for Britain was “Britannia.” For a while, the British were kept content with gifts and were allowed to keep their own power. This all changed under Emperor Claudius. Emperor Claudius got stricter and wanted more control, so he carried out a full invasion of Britain in AD 43. This invasion ended the rule of Britain by a people called the Celts. The Romans really wanted Britain’s supply of precious metals. The Romans let the Celts keep their own laws so many Celts were happy to let Romans rule. However, some did want to fight. One of these was the mighty Queen Boudica of the Iceni tribe. She burnt down London (Londinium) and Colchester. Boudica had 200,000 warriors but the Romans were expert fighters. The Romans won and continued to rule. The Roman way of life Over time, even poor farmers in the remote countryside were affected by the Roman way of life. Roman ways of dressing and Roman goods could be found all over the country. Romans built villas, towns and roads and spread their languages and culture around the country. The Romans left their mark on the British landscape. Many road networks you can see now across the country started off as long, straight, Roman roads. The Romans created a network across the country that covered 2000 miles. The Romans knew that creating straight pathways meant they could transport goods more easily and that their soldiers could march to and from places more quickly. The Romans even built pathways over mountains in Wales to get where they were going in the most direct way. There are many remains of Roman Britain, like giant aqueducts. These were impressive structures, like bridges, but they carry water over a gap (for example, a valley). The Romans were the first to invent these structures and many of them were copied during the industrial revolution. The Romans built giant towns with villas and bathhouses. They also built Hadrian’s wall in Scotland to keep out the threats from up north. Some Roman towns in Britain still remain. Chester in the north of England still has Roman ruins. Bath, in the south of England, now takes its name from the impressive baths that were built in Roman times. Wroxeter, called Viroconium Cornoviorum, is now just a small village with Roman ruins. But it was once the fourth largest town in Roman Britain. Historians and archaeologists have estimated that it once had a population of 15,000. It was in a very good place for trade, just in between England and Wales. The Romans leave When Rome became Christian under Constantine, Britain also had to become Christian. Rome did not just leave Britain overnight. It took a while and it happened at different times for different parts of the country. In the north and west, Magnus Maximus withdrew in 383 AD. However, coins dating from beyond 383 have been found along Hadrian’s wall. This suggests that many Roman legionaries stayed behind for some time. In the 4th Century, the Saxons, Picts and the Scoti of Ireland had been raiding and invading Britain. The Roman troops did not have support from Rome. Also, the threat of attacks from the Vandals or Visigoths from Europe created challenges for defending Britain. With no help, between 409 and 410 AD, the remaining Romans eventually left Britain for good.	<urn:uuid:13d06191-243d-4478-ab20-5994604d8a0e>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.savvyleo.com/world-history/ancient-rome/roman-britain/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250598726.39/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120110422-20200120134422-00281.warc.gz	en	0.981118	736	3.953125	4	[ -0.06711692363023758, -0.1723996251821518, 0.7644357681274414, 0.2740497887134552, -0.12426501512527466, -0.31612420082092285, -0.21478894352912903, 0.23918074369430542, 0.1189078614115715, -0.1747865229845047, -0.1240881085395813, -0.6226121783256531, -0.1800474226474762, 0.01308457553386...	13	Julius Caesar invaded Britain in 55-54 BC and changed the British landscape forever. In Latin, the Roman word for Britain was “Britannia.” For a while, the British were kept content with gifts and were allowed to keep their own power. This all changed under Emperor Claudius. Emperor Claudius got stricter and wanted more control, so he carried out a full invasion of Britain in AD 43. This invasion ended the rule of Britain by a people called the Celts. The Romans really wanted Britain’s supply of precious metals. The Romans let the Celts keep their own laws so many Celts were happy to let Romans rule. However, some did want to fight. One of these was the mighty Queen Boudica of the Iceni tribe. She burnt down London (Londinium) and Colchester. Boudica had 200,000 warriors but the Romans were expert fighters. The Romans won and continued to rule. The Roman way of life Over time, even poor farmers in the remote countryside were affected by the Roman way of life. Roman ways of dressing and Roman goods could be found all over the country. Romans built villas, towns and roads and spread their languages and culture around the country. The Romans left their mark on the British landscape. Many road networks you can see now across the country started off as long, straight, Roman roads. The Romans created a network across the country that covered 2000 miles. The Romans knew that creating straight pathways meant they could transport goods more easily and that their soldiers could march to and from places more quickly. The Romans even built pathways over mountains in Wales to get where they were going in the most direct way. There are many remains of Roman Britain, like giant aqueducts. These were impressive structures, like bridges, but they carry water over a gap (for example, a valley). The Romans were the first to invent these structures and many of them were copied during the industrial revolution. The Romans built giant towns with villas and bathhouses. They also built Hadrian’s wall in Scotland to keep out the threats from up north. Some Roman towns in Britain still remain. Chester in the north of England still has Roman ruins. Bath, in the south of England, now takes its name from the impressive baths that were built in Roman times. Wroxeter, called Viroconium Cornoviorum, is now just a small village with Roman ruins. But it was once the fourth largest town in Roman Britain. Historians and archaeologists have estimated that it once had a population of 15,000. It was in a very good place for trade, just in between England and Wales. The Romans leave When Rome became Christian under Constantine, Britain also had to become Christian. Rome did not just leave Britain overnight. It took a while and it happened at different times for different parts of the country. In the north and west, Magnus Maximus withdrew in 383 AD. However, coins dating from beyond 383 have been found along Hadrian’s wall. This suggests that many Roman legionaries stayed behind for some time. In the 4th Century, the Saxons, Picts and the Scoti of Ireland had been raiding and invading Britain. The Roman troops did not have support from Rome. Also, the threat of attacks from the Vandals or Visigoths from Europe created challenges for defending Britain. With no help, between 409 and 410 AD, the remaining Romans eventually left Britain for good.	735	ENGLISH	1
President William McKinley Assassinated On September 6, 1901, President William McKinley was shot while visiting the Pan-American Exposition in Buffalo, New York; he died eight days later. Both the man responsible for the assassination, and the man who assumed the presidency as a result, had some interesting connections to our neighborhoods. McKinley was only the third U.S. President to be assassinated, after Abraham Lincoln and James A. Garfield, and the penultimate, followed by John F. Kennedy (though attempts were made on Gerald Ford by Charles Manson follower Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme and Sara Jane Moore, and Ronald Reagan by Jon Hinckley Jr.). McKinley’s assassination shocked the nation, and led to the Secret Service being charged with protecting the security of U.S. Presidents, as well as some tough new laws and ugly backlash against those suspected of seditious or dangerous activities. As a result of the assassination, Vice-President Teddy Roosevelt became the 26th President of the United States on September 14th, 1901. Largely credited with ushering in the “Progressive Era” in U.S. politics (at least at the federal level), Roosevelt was also the first and only U.S. President born in New York City. In fact Roosevelt was born and raised just north of Greenwich Village and the East Village at 28 East 20th Street, now a National Historic Site and Museum. One of many stages of Roosevelt’s storied career was as New York City Police Commissioner beginning in 1895. Among many facets of his notable tenure as Police Commissioner was his commission of new police precinct station houses across the city, starting with the 9th Police Precinct House at 135 Charles Street, now known as “Le Gendarme” Apartments. Roosevelt was also known as police chief to roam the streets with friend and muckraking journalist Jacob Riis, who would come to expose the terrible living conditions prevalent among the poor in Lower Manhattan, including in parts of Greenwich Village and today’s East Village. At the time, however, Roosevelt and Riis were on the lookout for corrupt or inept police officers; Roosevelt is also credited with rooting out corruption in the notoriously shady and crooked New York City Police Department. McKinley’s assassin, unsurprisingly, enjoys a less wholesome reputation. Leon Frank Czolgosz was the child of Polish immigrants who grew up in Michigan; following the loss of his job in the Panic of 1893, Czolgosz turned to anarchism, a common political philosophy among radicals of the time. Czolgosz sought to kill President McKinley, whom he saw as a symbol and embodiment of the power structure which, to his mind, oppressed him and most of the rest of the world. It was anarchism and anarchists, Czolgosz claimed, that motivated him to shoot McKinley. In fact, Czolgosz claimed that he was particularly inspired by East Village radical Emma Goldman, whom he had seen and heard speak. As a result, Goldman was jailed and questioned for three weeks by police after the assassination, before being released without charges. Czolgosz was caught, tried, and quickly convicted of the murder and killed by the electric chair on October 29th, 1901. Ironically, McKinley’s assassination might have been prevented if the warnings of another prominent figure in downtown life had been heeded. Lt. Joseph Petrosino was born in Padua, Italy, and became the first Italian-American to lead the NYPD’s homicide division, appointed by then-Police Commissioner and good friend Teddy Roosevelt. Petrosino later became the head of the department’s “Italian Squad,” an elite corps of Italian-American detectives organized specifically to uproot organized crime and combat the mafia. Petrosino was considered a pioneer in organized crime-fighting techniques, many of which are still used today. It was from this work that in 1901 Petrosino infiltrated an Italian anarchist group that had previously been involved with the assassination of King Umberto I of Italy. During this mission, he discovered evidence that this group would seek to assassinate President McKinley during his visit to Buffalo. Though he reported this to the Secret Service, the warnings were ignored by President McKinley, who reveled in greeting and talking to the public, and thus refused to take safety precautions of which he was advised. In fact, McKinley’s public reception at the fair was twice removed from his schedule based upon these threats. But even after Petrosino’s competence and reliability was vouched for by then-Vice-President Roosevelt, McKinley had the event placed back upon his schedule. It was at this public reception that Czolgosz found the opportunity to fire two bullets at the President. In 1987, the small park at Lafayette and Kenmare Streets was renamed Lt. Petrosino Square. An apartment building located at 111-115 East 7th Street, between Avenue A and First Avenue, bears the name “McKinley”over the entrance. As per our East Village Building Blocks webpage for this building, plans were filed for construction of the building in April, 1901. This likely meant it was not completed until late 1901 at the earliest, probably after the assassination. This would tend to indicate there is a good chance the building was given this name to commemorate the recently fallen president.	<urn:uuid:3bbe13d7-2d9a-497c-a4ea-ca4bcc8aa62e>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://gvshp.org/blog/2013/09/05/president-william-mckinley-assassinated/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251796127.92/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129102701-20200129132701-00523.warc.gz	en	0.983782	1,134	3.40625	3	[ 0.018282998353242874, -0.034195322543382645, 0.44290268421173096, -0.010588557459414005, 0.37574076652526855, 0.21386083960533142, 0.38211119174957275, -0.08940006792545319, -0.010203603655099869, -0.2615859806537628, 0.581326425075531, 0.42594897747039795, -0.05344796180725098, 0.57343220...	3	President William McKinley Assassinated On September 6, 1901, President William McKinley was shot while visiting the Pan-American Exposition in Buffalo, New York; he died eight days later. Both the man responsible for the assassination, and the man who assumed the presidency as a result, had some interesting connections to our neighborhoods. McKinley was only the third U.S. President to be assassinated, after Abraham Lincoln and James A. Garfield, and the penultimate, followed by John F. Kennedy (though attempts were made on Gerald Ford by Charles Manson follower Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme and Sara Jane Moore, and Ronald Reagan by Jon Hinckley Jr.). McKinley’s assassination shocked the nation, and led to the Secret Service being charged with protecting the security of U.S. Presidents, as well as some tough new laws and ugly backlash against those suspected of seditious or dangerous activities. As a result of the assassination, Vice-President Teddy Roosevelt became the 26th President of the United States on September 14th, 1901. Largely credited with ushering in the “Progressive Era” in U.S. politics (at least at the federal level), Roosevelt was also the first and only U.S. President born in New York City. In fact Roosevelt was born and raised just north of Greenwich Village and the East Village at 28 East 20th Street, now a National Historic Site and Museum. One of many stages of Roosevelt’s storied career was as New York City Police Commissioner beginning in 1895. Among many facets of his notable tenure as Police Commissioner was his commission of new police precinct station houses across the city, starting with the 9th Police Precinct House at 135 Charles Street, now known as “Le Gendarme” Apartments. Roosevelt was also known as police chief to roam the streets with friend and muckraking journalist Jacob Riis, who would come to expose the terrible living conditions prevalent among the poor in Lower Manhattan, including in parts of Greenwich Village and today’s East Village. At the time, however, Roosevelt and Riis were on the lookout for corrupt or inept police officers; Roosevelt is also credited with rooting out corruption in the notoriously shady and crooked New York City Police Department. McKinley’s assassin, unsurprisingly, enjoys a less wholesome reputation. Leon Frank Czolgosz was the child of Polish immigrants who grew up in Michigan; following the loss of his job in the Panic of 1893, Czolgosz turned to anarchism, a common political philosophy among radicals of the time. Czolgosz sought to kill President McKinley, whom he saw as a symbol and embodiment of the power structure which, to his mind, oppressed him and most of the rest of the world. It was anarchism and anarchists, Czolgosz claimed, that motivated him to shoot McKinley. In fact, Czolgosz claimed that he was particularly inspired by East Village radical Emma Goldman, whom he had seen and heard speak. As a result, Goldman was jailed and questioned for three weeks by police after the assassination, before being released without charges. Czolgosz was caught, tried, and quickly convicted of the murder and killed by the electric chair on October 29th, 1901. Ironically, McKinley’s assassination might have been prevented if the warnings of another prominent figure in downtown life had been heeded. Lt. Joseph Petrosino was born in Padua, Italy, and became the first Italian-American to lead the NYPD’s homicide division, appointed by then-Police Commissioner and good friend Teddy Roosevelt. Petrosino later became the head of the department’s “Italian Squad,” an elite corps of Italian-American detectives organized specifically to uproot organized crime and combat the mafia. Petrosino was considered a pioneer in organized crime-fighting techniques, many of which are still used today. It was from this work that in 1901 Petrosino infiltrated an Italian anarchist group that had previously been involved with the assassination of King Umberto I of Italy. During this mission, he discovered evidence that this group would seek to assassinate President McKinley during his visit to Buffalo. Though he reported this to the Secret Service, the warnings were ignored by President McKinley, who reveled in greeting and talking to the public, and thus refused to take safety precautions of which he was advised. In fact, McKinley’s public reception at the fair was twice removed from his schedule based upon these threats. But even after Petrosino’s competence and reliability was vouched for by then-Vice-President Roosevelt, McKinley had the event placed back upon his schedule. It was at this public reception that Czolgosz found the opportunity to fire two bullets at the President. In 1987, the small park at Lafayette and Kenmare Streets was renamed Lt. Petrosino Square. An apartment building located at 111-115 East 7th Street, between Avenue A and First Avenue, bears the name “McKinley”over the entrance. As per our East Village Building Blocks webpage for this building, plans were filed for construction of the building in April, 1901. This likely meant it was not completed until late 1901 at the earliest, probably after the assassination. This would tend to indicate there is a good chance the building was given this name to commemorate the recently fallen president.	1,141	ENGLISH	1
Residential Schools in Canada Residential schools were government-sponsored religious schools that were established to assimilate Indigenous children into Euro-Canadian culture. Although the first residential facilities were established in New France, the term usually refers to schools established after 1880. Residential schools were created by Christian churches and the Canadian government as an attempt to both educate and convert Indigenous youth and to integrate them into Canadian society. However, the schools disrupted lives and communities, causing long-term problems among Indigenous peoples. Since the last residential school closed in 1996, former students have demanded recognition and restitution, resulting in the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement in 2007 and a formal public apology by Prime Minister Stephen Harper in 2008. In total, an estimated 150,000 First Nation, Inuit, and Métis children attended residential schools. This is the full-length entry about residential schools in Canada. For a plain language summary, please see Residential Schools in Canada (Plain Language Summary).	<urn:uuid:1052a3ac-5849-4ae9-a62f-a7c0c380c4d1>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/search?category_id=3c4cba44-80eb-47be-8fc1-e0b11a749e71&search=M%C3%A9tis&type=tag	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251737572.61/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127235617-20200128025617-00140.warc.gz	en	0.980319	192	3.296875	3	[ 0.19392326474189758, 0.40827205777168274, 0.4121851921081543, -0.1914239227771759, -0.5047417879104614, 0.054166752845048904, -0.3625539541244507, 0.32588645815849304, 0.4450159966945648, 0.2557109594345093, 0.26301735639572144, -0.41019460558891296, -0.10741294175386429, 0.157489120960235...	1	Residential Schools in Canada Residential schools were government-sponsored religious schools that were established to assimilate Indigenous children into Euro-Canadian culture. Although the first residential facilities were established in New France, the term usually refers to schools established after 1880. Residential schools were created by Christian churches and the Canadian government as an attempt to both educate and convert Indigenous youth and to integrate them into Canadian society. However, the schools disrupted lives and communities, causing long-term problems among Indigenous peoples. Since the last residential school closed in 1996, former students have demanded recognition and restitution, resulting in the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement in 2007 and a formal public apology by Prime Minister Stephen Harper in 2008. In total, an estimated 150,000 First Nation, Inuit, and Métis children attended residential schools. This is the full-length entry about residential schools in Canada. For a plain language summary, please see Residential Schools in Canada (Plain Language Summary).	207	ENGLISH	1
“I ʻike ʻia nō ke aliʻi i ka nui o nā makaʻāinana.” “The chief is known by many of his followers.” In the Native Hawaiian culture, the ali‘i were the high-ranking chiefs that governed an island or in some cases, several islands. They were distinct in the way they upheld themselves around the makaʻāinana or the people of the islands. Highly respected, the ali‘i were adorned in the beautiful pieces that were handmade by the people. These pieces were often symbols of ranking for the ali‘i. The most intricate Native Hawaiian garments were feather cloaks, also known as ‘ahu ʻula (red garments). In Native Hawaiian culture, the color red was associated with gods and chiefs. It represented nobility and high ranking. One ‘ahu ʻula often required hundreds of thousands of distinctive red feathers from local birds known as the ʻIʻiwi and the ʻApapane – both still found in Hawaii. In addition to red feathers, the ‘ahu ʻula were decorated with black and yellow feathers which came from a species of bird called ʻōʻōs – which became extinct in 1987. In order to obtain the feathers, a special bird catcher would gather their feathers and then release them back into the wild. The feathers covered the entire cloak using fine techniques that are still cherished by the Native Hawaiian community to this day. While the ‘ahu ʻula was originally used as a symbol to adorn the highest ranking chiefs of Hawaii – they also represent a crucial part of the Native Hawaiian culture. The attention to detail in the feather work, usage of bright colors and intricate patterns of each feather cloak gives us a deeper look at the skills possessed by the Native Hawaiians. The remaining pieces of art are admired across the world and can be viewed at museums in Honolulu, Scotland, San Francisco, London and New Zealand. Subscribe & Save Join To Receive 20% OFF Your First Order*	<urn:uuid:28522eab-6d73-4102-bb4a-07ab6a81e0e8>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.hilohattie.com/blogs/news/hawaiian-ahu-ula	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251789055.93/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129071944-20200129101944-00304.warc.gz	en	0.982785	440	3.890625	4	[ -0.3525189757347107, 0.38207560777664185, -0.1345353126525879, 0.0006438576383516192, -0.08284473419189453, 0.26242342591285706, 0.6047198176383972, 0.08577754348516464, -0.12269949167966843, 0.3542610704898834, -0.06465929001569748, -0.7611363530158997, -0.05573843792080879, 0.20846185088...	6	“I ʻike ʻia nō ke aliʻi i ka nui o nā makaʻāinana.” “The chief is known by many of his followers.” In the Native Hawaiian culture, the ali‘i were the high-ranking chiefs that governed an island or in some cases, several islands. They were distinct in the way they upheld themselves around the makaʻāinana or the people of the islands. Highly respected, the ali‘i were adorned in the beautiful pieces that were handmade by the people. These pieces were often symbols of ranking for the ali‘i. The most intricate Native Hawaiian garments were feather cloaks, also known as ‘ahu ʻula (red garments). In Native Hawaiian culture, the color red was associated with gods and chiefs. It represented nobility and high ranking. One ‘ahu ʻula often required hundreds of thousands of distinctive red feathers from local birds known as the ʻIʻiwi and the ʻApapane – both still found in Hawaii. In addition to red feathers, the ‘ahu ʻula were decorated with black and yellow feathers which came from a species of bird called ʻōʻōs – which became extinct in 1987. In order to obtain the feathers, a special bird catcher would gather their feathers and then release them back into the wild. The feathers covered the entire cloak using fine techniques that are still cherished by the Native Hawaiian community to this day. While the ‘ahu ʻula was originally used as a symbol to adorn the highest ranking chiefs of Hawaii – they also represent a crucial part of the Native Hawaiian culture. The attention to detail in the feather work, usage of bright colors and intricate patterns of each feather cloak gives us a deeper look at the skills possessed by the Native Hawaiians. The remaining pieces of art are admired across the world and can be viewed at museums in Honolulu, Scotland, San Francisco, London and New Zealand. Subscribe & Save Join To Receive 20% OFF Your First Order*	411	ENGLISH	1
In the U.S., we associate log cabins with pioneer days; intrepid early Americans leaving their homes in the East or Europe to build a new life on the frontier. For many of us, the first image that comes to mind when we think of a log cabin is Little House on the Prairie. The original log cabin designs were simple, as trees were the only building material, and the ax, adz, and auger were the only tools for construction. The typical log cabin design was a small, one-room hut with one door and possibly one or more small windows. The logs were stacked and the spaces were filled with mud to keep out the wind and cold. There were no nails during this time, so the logs were fastened with notched ends, or with wooden pegs. For the roof, overlapping rows of short boards were used. The floor was hard packed clay and the window openings were covered with oiled paper to let in a little light. The home was heated with an open fireplace that also served as the cookstove. Log cabins were also widely used in European countries like Germany, Switzerland, and the Scandinavian countries. In 1638 Swedish settlers built log cabins when they came to Delaware and other colonists followed their example. After the Revolution, a large number of settlers began to move westward and found thick forests in Tennessee, Kentucky, and the Northwest Territory, making the log cabin the standard home for backwoodsmen. In 1840, log cabins gained notoriety and fame in the U.S. during the presidential campaign. Small log cabins were used in parades by William Henry Harrison to show his support of the frontier people. Log cabins reached their peak complexity, however, during the mid-19th century with the Adirondack-style. Log cabin building never died out, but was surpassed by the needs of a growing urban country. During the 1930’s and the Great Depression, log cabins were built throughout the West for use by the Forest Service and the National Park Service under the Civilian Conservation Corps. The modern version of a log cabin today is a log home, which is a house built typically with milled logs. These are mass manufactured with squared milled logs that are pre-cut for easy assembly. Log homes are popular in rural areas and sometimes suburban and resort communities. With today’s tools and technology, the log cabin has evolved from the original frontier model but today’s log homes still reflect the independent, adventurous spirit of the settlers who first built them. If you’re drawn to the rugged beauty of a log or timber frame home, take a look at our photo gallery and get inspired about the log home you can build with Town + Country Cedar Homes.	<urn:uuid:cafa3ae0-8f9b-4cfc-b2bd-90c21d6c5bf5>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.cedarhomes.com/mainpost/the-history-of-the-log-cabin/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251694071.63/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126230255-20200127020255-00442.warc.gz	en	0.983844	567	3.5	4	[ 0.1827632188796997, 0.34335920214653015, 0.43577978014945984, -0.18491941690444946, 0.25028255581855774, 0.22393131256103516, -0.48695990443229675, -0.1163775697350502, -0.17956405878067017, -0.0043945154175162315, 0.15176793932914734, 0.16467803716659546, -0.3813081979751587, 0.5643025636...	4	In the U.S., we associate log cabins with pioneer days; intrepid early Americans leaving their homes in the East or Europe to build a new life on the frontier. For many of us, the first image that comes to mind when we think of a log cabin is Little House on the Prairie. The original log cabin designs were simple, as trees were the only building material, and the ax, adz, and auger were the only tools for construction. The typical log cabin design was a small, one-room hut with one door and possibly one or more small windows. The logs were stacked and the spaces were filled with mud to keep out the wind and cold. There were no nails during this time, so the logs were fastened with notched ends, or with wooden pegs. For the roof, overlapping rows of short boards were used. The floor was hard packed clay and the window openings were covered with oiled paper to let in a little light. The home was heated with an open fireplace that also served as the cookstove. Log cabins were also widely used in European countries like Germany, Switzerland, and the Scandinavian countries. In 1638 Swedish settlers built log cabins when they came to Delaware and other colonists followed their example. After the Revolution, a large number of settlers began to move westward and found thick forests in Tennessee, Kentucky, and the Northwest Territory, making the log cabin the standard home for backwoodsmen. In 1840, log cabins gained notoriety and fame in the U.S. during the presidential campaign. Small log cabins were used in parades by William Henry Harrison to show his support of the frontier people. Log cabins reached their peak complexity, however, during the mid-19th century with the Adirondack-style. Log cabin building never died out, but was surpassed by the needs of a growing urban country. During the 1930’s and the Great Depression, log cabins were built throughout the West for use by the Forest Service and the National Park Service under the Civilian Conservation Corps. The modern version of a log cabin today is a log home, which is a house built typically with milled logs. These are mass manufactured with squared milled logs that are pre-cut for easy assembly. Log homes are popular in rural areas and sometimes suburban and resort communities. With today’s tools and technology, the log cabin has evolved from the original frontier model but today’s log homes still reflect the independent, adventurous spirit of the settlers who first built them. If you’re drawn to the rugged beauty of a log or timber frame home, take a look at our photo gallery and get inspired about the log home you can build with Town + Country Cedar Homes.	556	ENGLISH	1
Louis Philippe I, ruler during the July Monarchy of the, was the last king to rule France. Although originally exiled by the French government, he returned 37 years later to be elected sovereign by popular vote, a popularity that quickly deteriorated once he took the throne. Louis Philippe was born into a family of nobility and inherited the title of Duke of Chartres. He showed liberal tendencies from a young age, and as theapproached, Louis sided with the revolutionaries. He was appointed Colonel of the 14th Regiment of Dragoons, and he proved himself a worthy officer, earning a civic crown for his brave deeds. Louis was soon promoted to brigadier, and he commanded a troop of cavalrymen in the Army of the North. He was continually praised for his skill in battle, but events in Paris left him alienated and without supplies, as troops began to desert the army. After ’s death, the young Duke became involved in a plot to align with Austria and overthrow the Revolutionary government, and he chose to flee to save his life. He and an ally set out for the Austrian camp, but they were intercepted and forced into exile after their army turned against them. Louis kept a low profile, traveling throughout Switzerland in search of refuge. Finally, after several months, he was offered a position as a teacher at a boys’ school, where he worked under an assumed name. Early the next year, he began courting the schoolmaster’s cook, but he was fired when she was found to be pregnant. Louis Philippe began once again to travel extensively, visiting Scandinavia (where he fathered a second child), Finland, and the United States. In the U.S., he resumed a position as a teacher and met many American politicians, among them and . He and his brothers, who had also been exiled, sailed for England next, where Louis Philippe would remain for fifteen years. There he married the daughter of King Ferdinand I. After ’s abdication, Louis Philippe returned to France, where he sided with the liberal opposition to King . He was on far better terms with Louis’s successor, , but his opposition to several policies made him a threat to the new king’s government. After Charles’s abdication, an increasingly popular Louis-Philippe was chosen to assume the throne. Five years after his coronation, he survived an assassination attempt, but his eldest son died soon after, in a carriage accident. Louis Philippe was at first admired for his unpretentious fashion, but his popularity suffered due to deteriorating conditions of the working class and the widening income gap. During the February 1848 Revolution, Louis abdicated in favor of his grandson and, fearful of what had happened to, left France. Rather than accept his grandson as king, a new republic was established with Louis Napoleon as president. Louis Philippe and his family remained in exile in England, where he passed away two years later. \|Appointed Colonel of the 14th Regiment of Dragoons\| \|Forced into exile\| \|Offered a position as teacher of a boys' school\| \|Father was guillotined\| \|Visited the United States\| \|Arrived in England\| \|Married Princess Marie Amalie\| \|Returned to France\| \|Became King of France\| \|Survived an assaination attempt\| \|Economic crisis led to Revolution\| \|Abdicated during the revolutions of 1848\| \|Later Days in\|\|France: Peeps at History by John Finnemore\| \|Revolution of July in\|\|The Story of France by Mary Macgregor\| \|Europe in Arms in 1848 in\|\|Nations of Europe and the Great War by Charles Morris\| \|Last King of France in\|\|Growth of the British Empire by M. B. Synge\| \|Founding Father, principal author of Federalist Papers. Secretary of Treasury.\| \|Leader of the Continental Army of the U.S. during the Revolutionary War, and first President.\| \|Victorious general who rose to power during the French Revolution. Crowned himself Emperor and restored France to greatness.\| \|King during the French revolution. Beheaded by republicans who sought to overthrow the monarchy.\| \|Aristocratic wife of Napoloeon Bonaparte.\|	<urn:uuid:d8a5c6c4-5d90-49f3-ab0d-77194afc19d7>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://heritage-history.com/index.php?c=resources&s=char-dir&f=philippe	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251779833.86/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128153713-20200128183713-00288.warc.gz	en	0.982941	896	3.359375	3	[ -0.3275761306285858, 0.8134225606918335, 0.3393534719944, -0.36425936222076416, -0.2656239867210388, -0.08134330064058304, 0.27480655908584595, 0.27651846408843994, 0.23964491486549377, 0.2234843671321869, 0.6931251287460327, 0.10928946733474731, 0.0005579134449362755, 0.017973970621824265...	6	Louis Philippe I, ruler during the July Monarchy of the, was the last king to rule France. Although originally exiled by the French government, he returned 37 years later to be elected sovereign by popular vote, a popularity that quickly deteriorated once he took the throne. Louis Philippe was born into a family of nobility and inherited the title of Duke of Chartres. He showed liberal tendencies from a young age, and as theapproached, Louis sided with the revolutionaries. He was appointed Colonel of the 14th Regiment of Dragoons, and he proved himself a worthy officer, earning a civic crown for his brave deeds. Louis was soon promoted to brigadier, and he commanded a troop of cavalrymen in the Army of the North. He was continually praised for his skill in battle, but events in Paris left him alienated and without supplies, as troops began to desert the army. After ’s death, the young Duke became involved in a plot to align with Austria and overthrow the Revolutionary government, and he chose to flee to save his life. He and an ally set out for the Austrian camp, but they were intercepted and forced into exile after their army turned against them. Louis kept a low profile, traveling throughout Switzerland in search of refuge. Finally, after several months, he was offered a position as a teacher at a boys’ school, where he worked under an assumed name. Early the next year, he began courting the schoolmaster’s cook, but he was fired when she was found to be pregnant. Louis Philippe began once again to travel extensively, visiting Scandinavia (where he fathered a second child), Finland, and the United States. In the U.S., he resumed a position as a teacher and met many American politicians, among them and . He and his brothers, who had also been exiled, sailed for England next, where Louis Philippe would remain for fifteen years. There he married the daughter of King Ferdinand I. After ’s abdication, Louis Philippe returned to France, where he sided with the liberal opposition to King . He was on far better terms with Louis’s successor, , but his opposition to several policies made him a threat to the new king’s government. After Charles’s abdication, an increasingly popular Louis-Philippe was chosen to assume the throne. Five years after his coronation, he survived an assassination attempt, but his eldest son died soon after, in a carriage accident. Louis Philippe was at first admired for his unpretentious fashion, but his popularity suffered due to deteriorating conditions of the working class and the widening income gap. During the February 1848 Revolution, Louis abdicated in favor of his grandson and, fearful of what had happened to, left France. Rather than accept his grandson as king, a new republic was established with Louis Napoleon as president. Louis Philippe and his family remained in exile in England, where he passed away two years later. \|Appointed Colonel of the 14th Regiment of Dragoons\| \|Forced into exile\| \|Offered a position as teacher of a boys' school\| \|Father was guillotined\| \|Visited the United States\| \|Arrived in England\| \|Married Princess Marie Amalie\| \|Returned to France\| \|Became King of France\| \|Survived an assaination attempt\| \|Economic crisis led to Revolution\| \|Abdicated during the revolutions of 1848\| \|Later Days in\|\|France: Peeps at History by John Finnemore\| \|Revolution of July in\|\|The Story of France by Mary Macgregor\| \|Europe in Arms in 1848 in\|\|Nations of Europe and the Great War by Charles Morris\| \|Last King of France in\|\|Growth of the British Empire by M. B. Synge\| \|Founding Father, principal author of Federalist Papers. Secretary of Treasury.\| \|Leader of the Continental Army of the U.S. during the Revolutionary War, and first President.\| \|Victorious general who rose to power during the French Revolution. Crowned himself Emperor and restored France to greatness.\| \|King during the French revolution. Beheaded by republicans who sought to overthrow the monarchy.\| \|Aristocratic wife of Napoloeon Bonaparte.\|	881	ENGLISH	1
In this article, I am going to write about a literary period in Latin America called the “Vanguardia.” This period took place between the years of the 1920s and 1930s. In this period the idea was to break the social traditions of the time and traditional customs. Silvina Ocampo and María Luisa Bombal are writers who tried to promote feminism by writing from a female perspective, about how women feel within a patriarchal society, where they must comply with social rules, such as, for example, staying in a marriage in which they are not happy – either for convenience or by following social norms. In the story of María Luisa Bombal, “El Árbol” (The Tree) wants to let the reader know that women and men have the same rights to be happy in a marriage, and if they are not, they will look for an escape that makes them forget their unhappiness. And when that emotional escape no longer exists, women often leave an unhappy marriage regardless of the social rules prohibiting that. Conversely, the author also points out that men can also stay in an unhappy marriage, just for convenience and to follow social rules as long as they have an emotional escape, such as infidelity or some other outlet. In the “Tree,” the writer explains the life of Brigida, who got married for convenience. She wanted to have a husband who loves and protects her, but she began to feel bad in her marriage when she realized that her husband didn’t relly love her and began to suffer. This character started to analyze her life and came to the conclusion that she had to make some decisions to change that situation, but for some reason, she didn’t know how to do it and decided to find an emotional escape that will help her to forget about it. Consequently, she found an emotional escape when she discovers that there was a beautiful rubber- tree next to her window. Brigida entertained herself by admiring the beauty and the variety of birds that perched on the tree. When that tree was cut down she decided to leave her husband. Luis, her husband, on the other hand, married Brigida for convenience, and was not happy in his marriage because he didn’t love her; then avoided her all the time but pretended that he loved her. His escape was to be busy and away from home as much as possible. Nevertheless, he preferred to stay in his marriage for convenience and to follow social norms. In the story, María Luisa Bombal, explains that Brigida was a pretty-young girl, and very ignorant because she never wanted to study. Apparently, her father marries her off to Luis for convenience, a man who is much older than her. He was a close friend of her father. In the first year of their marriage, Brigida was very loving with her husband, and she felt that she loved him, but unlike her, her husband Luis was not sincere. He was fond of her, but he didn’t love her as a woman; he did not show her love or passion; his kisses, affection and smiles were not sincere. In addition, Luis looked for excuses not to be with her, for example, he said: “I’m busy, I cannot accompany you, I have a lot to do, I would not be able to come home for lunch; eat and go to bed, I don’t know, you better not wait for me” (Bombal, 23). These things disturbed Brigida. She also to asked herself why her husband didn’t want to have children? Why did he avoided her and never wanted to be with her? Nevertheless, she never complained about anything. But, one day, something unexpected happened, when her husband said: “Brigida, it is going to be a hot heat in Buenos Aires, why don’t you go to your father’s farm?” (Bombal, 25). This situation made her realize that her husband did not love her, and she stoped talking to him for a long time. Finally, when her husband asked, “is it true that you do not love me? in any case, we should not separate; you have to think about it” (Bombal, 27). There, Brigida realized that her husband wanted to maintain a marriage without love only to follow customs and social norms. Brigida didn’t want to be in that marriage anymore, but she didn’t know how she could get out of it. So she started looking for an emotional escape that really filled her emotionaly, so she entertained herself with a beautiful rubber- tree that was next to her window. This tree recreated her sight because she saw a variety of birds perched on it and children playing around the tree. That tree made Brigida forget the situation that she lived in her marriage, until one day the tree was not there anymore. When the tree disappeared from her life, Brigida realized that she could not stay in a marriage with a man twice her age; who didn’t want to have children with her. Consequently, she had nothing left but to seek her freedom instead of agreeing to stay in a marriage for convenience, receiving crumbs of affection that was not even real. Then, she decided to leave her husband. In conclusion, I think that the author in this story states that there is no difference between men and women, in the sense of staying in an unhappy or unloving marriage if they have an entertainment or something external that fills them with joy. Brigida’s husband agreed to stay married as long as he enjoyed himself with daily commitments. Brigida, in the same way, would’ve remained in her marriage if the tree had never been cut down. Finally, I will say that, in this story, the only difference between man and woman, is that women are the only ones who suffer in the marriage and cannot stand when there is nothing that fills them emotionally. Men, on the other hand, do not get affected emotionally because they are not loved. In this case, Brigida, is less methodical and cold, and if there is nothing else that fills her emotionally, she will not tolerate to stay in a marriage where she doesn’t feel loved. Hence, she must end the marriage and move on. Bombal, María Luisa. “El Árbol.” Editorial Del Cardo, 2003. Written By: Erika Knodler Translator and Psychologist	<urn:uuid:e5e93501-6dac-4382-a33d-fb2f6160b69a>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://bostonnous.com/women-in-a-world-of-social-rules/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251776516.99/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128060946-20200128090946-00018.warc.gz	en	0.983168	1,362	3.8125	4	[ 0.09792418777942657, 0.5025241374969482, 0.061452724039554596, 0.30064478516578674, -0.14375996589660645, -0.2063259333372116, -0.07529744505882263, 0.12107878178358078, 0.3117515742778778, -0.15715822577476501, -0.11235776543617249, 0.37274208664894104, 0.19241434335708618, 0.141640931367...	1	In this article, I am going to write about a literary period in Latin America called the “Vanguardia.” This period took place between the years of the 1920s and 1930s. In this period the idea was to break the social traditions of the time and traditional customs. Silvina Ocampo and María Luisa Bombal are writers who tried to promote feminism by writing from a female perspective, about how women feel within a patriarchal society, where they must comply with social rules, such as, for example, staying in a marriage in which they are not happy – either for convenience or by following social norms. In the story of María Luisa Bombal, “El Árbol” (The Tree) wants to let the reader know that women and men have the same rights to be happy in a marriage, and if they are not, they will look for an escape that makes them forget their unhappiness. And when that emotional escape no longer exists, women often leave an unhappy marriage regardless of the social rules prohibiting that. Conversely, the author also points out that men can also stay in an unhappy marriage, just for convenience and to follow social rules as long as they have an emotional escape, such as infidelity or some other outlet. In the “Tree,” the writer explains the life of Brigida, who got married for convenience. She wanted to have a husband who loves and protects her, but she began to feel bad in her marriage when she realized that her husband didn’t relly love her and began to suffer. This character started to analyze her life and came to the conclusion that she had to make some decisions to change that situation, but for some reason, she didn’t know how to do it and decided to find an emotional escape that will help her to forget about it. Consequently, she found an emotional escape when she discovers that there was a beautiful rubber- tree next to her window. Brigida entertained herself by admiring the beauty and the variety of birds that perched on the tree. When that tree was cut down she decided to leave her husband. Luis, her husband, on the other hand, married Brigida for convenience, and was not happy in his marriage because he didn’t love her; then avoided her all the time but pretended that he loved her. His escape was to be busy and away from home as much as possible. Nevertheless, he preferred to stay in his marriage for convenience and to follow social norms. In the story, María Luisa Bombal, explains that Brigida was a pretty-young girl, and very ignorant because she never wanted to study. Apparently, her father marries her off to Luis for convenience, a man who is much older than her. He was a close friend of her father. In the first year of their marriage, Brigida was very loving with her husband, and she felt that she loved him, but unlike her, her husband Luis was not sincere. He was fond of her, but he didn’t love her as a woman; he did not show her love or passion; his kisses, affection and smiles were not sincere. In addition, Luis looked for excuses not to be with her, for example, he said: “I’m busy, I cannot accompany you, I have a lot to do, I would not be able to come home for lunch; eat and go to bed, I don’t know, you better not wait for me” (Bombal, 23). These things disturbed Brigida. She also to asked herself why her husband didn’t want to have children? Why did he avoided her and never wanted to be with her? Nevertheless, she never complained about anything. But, one day, something unexpected happened, when her husband said: “Brigida, it is going to be a hot heat in Buenos Aires, why don’t you go to your father’s farm?” (Bombal, 25). This situation made her realize that her husband did not love her, and she stoped talking to him for a long time. Finally, when her husband asked, “is it true that you do not love me? in any case, we should not separate; you have to think about it” (Bombal, 27). There, Brigida realized that her husband wanted to maintain a marriage without love only to follow customs and social norms. Brigida didn’t want to be in that marriage anymore, but she didn’t know how she could get out of it. So she started looking for an emotional escape that really filled her emotionaly, so she entertained herself with a beautiful rubber- tree that was next to her window. This tree recreated her sight because she saw a variety of birds perched on it and children playing around the tree. That tree made Brigida forget the situation that she lived in her marriage, until one day the tree was not there anymore. When the tree disappeared from her life, Brigida realized that she could not stay in a marriage with a man twice her age; who didn’t want to have children with her. Consequently, she had nothing left but to seek her freedom instead of agreeing to stay in a marriage for convenience, receiving crumbs of affection that was not even real. Then, she decided to leave her husband. In conclusion, I think that the author in this story states that there is no difference between men and women, in the sense of staying in an unhappy or unloving marriage if they have an entertainment or something external that fills them with joy. Brigida’s husband agreed to stay married as long as he enjoyed himself with daily commitments. Brigida, in the same way, would’ve remained in her marriage if the tree had never been cut down. Finally, I will say that, in this story, the only difference between man and woman, is that women are the only ones who suffer in the marriage and cannot stand when there is nothing that fills them emotionally. Men, on the other hand, do not get affected emotionally because they are not loved. In this case, Brigida, is less methodical and cold, and if there is nothing else that fills her emotionally, she will not tolerate to stay in a marriage where she doesn’t feel loved. Hence, she must end the marriage and move on. Bombal, María Luisa. “El Árbol.” Editorial Del Cardo, 2003. Written By: Erika Knodler Translator and Psychologist	1,315	ENGLISH	1
Prague Castle is considered one of the symbols of the Czech state. Once the seat of Bohemian kings, it now houses the Office of the Czech President, and its museums and galleries annually attract millions of visitors. But for over a hundred years, Prague Castle was half-forgotten. With the imperial court residing in Vienna throughout the 19th century, the castle only served as a luxurious hotel for the royal family and their relatives and friends. A recently published book of memoirs entitled A Greeting from the Castle Hill now offers an insider’s look into those times. In this edition of Czech History, I discussed the book with one of its editors, Martin Halata from Prague Castle archives. In the 19th century, Prague Castle was an interesting place. You say its history was hidden because the Habsburg court no longer lived here. So what was it used for? What function did it have? “Prague Castle was one of 19 residences owned by the royal family. In the language of the court, it was referred to as Administration, building of residence for the royal family when they were present in Prague or in the Kingdom of Bohemia. It was common for many European royal families to have residences around their realms which they used as hotels.” It does look from the memoirs that it served as an upscale hotel for Habsburgs and their relatives and friends. The author, Joseph Rudolf of Wartburg, describes various visits, for instance one court from Italy came here to escape an epidemic of cholera. Why did these people usually come here? “They often came for significant events such as coronations, burials, for various church festivals. Sometimes they also wanted to escaped from their main residence due to diseases like cholera, or they came because of wars. Whenever they needed to leave their home cities, they used Prague Castle for some time.” “Ferdinand’s case is different. He was under pension, so he was provided with a private residence to that he could spend the rest of life comfortably, in a nice environment. He was quite well off, and he also lived in the chateaus of Ploskovice and Zákupy in northern Bohemia. “And what he did here? Not much. He was fond of Czech music, he liked music by Bedřich Smetana and Ladislav Škroup, and he spent most of his days in various social functions.” Were there any members of the royal family who like coming here more than others? “Not in the 19th century. Before that, Rudolph II and Leopold like Prague. They really enjoyed living at Prague Castle.” So what was life at Prague Castle like for a boy? The author of the memories captured his life there in mid 19th century. How did he like growing up there? “Well, the environment was very attractive. It was a magnificent building, and the boy was in touch with members of the royal family and other aristocrats who were close to the court. So he was quite privileged: imagine spending your days there, in the castle, in the cathedral, and the whole area. So his life was very different from an ordinary boy’s life.” Was the building empty, besides the homes of the administration employees? “Most of it was empty, and the castle came to life only when someone’s court arrived. But on the other hand, it was – and still is – a very large building which had to be maintained so the employees took day-to-day care about the gardens, the roofs, about the horses in stables, and so on. So it was probably much livelier than today.” At one point, the author says how much he was looking forward to another of these visits. He’s very happy; he says the castle will again fill with people, the gates will open, and so on. He says when no royal visitors were present, very few people from the city below actually came to the area. Was it regularly open to the public at those times? “It was. But the entire area was known as Prague Castle District, and there were people living there. The district closed each day at 9 PM and opened again at 8 in the morning. But during this time, it was open for anyone, it was in fact a town of its own. It had its stores such as a tobacconist’s, and other small shops. Even the royal gardens were open but not for free; visitors had to pay to get in.” How was Prague Castle different architecturally from today? “Not really. All you can see today is nearly the same as it was in the 19th century. One big difference originated in the 1920s when Czechoslovakia’s first president, Tomáš Gariggue Masaryk, began remodel the castle to make it ‘democratic’. They changed the gardens, the courtyards were rebuilt to suit the different needs, and so on. But overall, Prague Castle has not changed much since the 19th century.” Could people also rent rooms here or sections of the castle, or was it exclusively for use by the royal family and their guests? “It was not common. Bu for example, the Vladislavský Hall was used for workshops and course by the Academy of Fine Arts. But that’s all I know about the so-called commercial use of the premises.” People still live today in the castle; there are some employees of the president’s office who have apartments here. A former aide of ex-president Václav Klaus recently said he had been looking forward to leaving because he felt isolated here, with no services available and so on. How do you feel working here – and would you like to live here? “Living here in the 19th century was probably better because you could use all kinds of top quality services, from food to laundry, and so on. There were many kitchens here, many servants. But now, it’s very different, it really only houses the president’s office. So that’s the difference.” The episode featured today was first broadcast on August 10, 2013. Jana Ciglerová: Americans say their lives are fantastic, Czechs say everything is terrible – neither is true Czech IT specialists organize “hackathon” to give government online motorway vignette sales system for free Minister: Czech Republic won’t take in 40 child refugees from Greek camps CzechTourism head hints attracting tourists no longer agency’s main goal Screenshot: a hybrid English-friendly Prague art-house cinema where screenings are events	<urn:uuid:47f4afd1-4dd0-4c91-aac8-b9776e060fe7>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.radio.cz/en/section/czech-history/a-greeting-from-castle-hill-an-insiders-look-into-prague-castles-forgotten-era--1	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250624328.55/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124161014-20200124190014-00063.warc.gz	en	0.987231	1,426	3.546875	4	[ -0.14731073379516602, 0.5315504670143127, 0.273396372795105, -0.05116309970617294, -0.01404948066920042, -0.10407313704490662, 0.3988657295703888, -0.08822101354598999, -0.06690236181020737, -0.11469200253486633, 0.13307031989097595, 0.07795858383178711, 0.21316105127334595, -0.15583673119...	1	Prague Castle is considered one of the symbols of the Czech state. Once the seat of Bohemian kings, it now houses the Office of the Czech President, and its museums and galleries annually attract millions of visitors. But for over a hundred years, Prague Castle was half-forgotten. With the imperial court residing in Vienna throughout the 19th century, the castle only served as a luxurious hotel for the royal family and their relatives and friends. A recently published book of memoirs entitled A Greeting from the Castle Hill now offers an insider’s look into those times. In this edition of Czech History, I discussed the book with one of its editors, Martin Halata from Prague Castle archives. In the 19th century, Prague Castle was an interesting place. You say its history was hidden because the Habsburg court no longer lived here. So what was it used for? What function did it have? “Prague Castle was one of 19 residences owned by the royal family. In the language of the court, it was referred to as Administration, building of residence for the royal family when they were present in Prague or in the Kingdom of Bohemia. It was common for many European royal families to have residences around their realms which they used as hotels.” It does look from the memoirs that it served as an upscale hotel for Habsburgs and their relatives and friends. The author, Joseph Rudolf of Wartburg, describes various visits, for instance one court from Italy came here to escape an epidemic of cholera. Why did these people usually come here? “They often came for significant events such as coronations, burials, for various church festivals. Sometimes they also wanted to escaped from their main residence due to diseases like cholera, or they came because of wars. Whenever they needed to leave their home cities, they used Prague Castle for some time.” “Ferdinand’s case is different. He was under pension, so he was provided with a private residence to that he could spend the rest of life comfortably, in a nice environment. He was quite well off, and he also lived in the chateaus of Ploskovice and Zákupy in northern Bohemia. “And what he did here? Not much. He was fond of Czech music, he liked music by Bedřich Smetana and Ladislav Škroup, and he spent most of his days in various social functions.” Were there any members of the royal family who like coming here more than others? “Not in the 19th century. Before that, Rudolph II and Leopold like Prague. They really enjoyed living at Prague Castle.” So what was life at Prague Castle like for a boy? The author of the memories captured his life there in mid 19th century. How did he like growing up there? “Well, the environment was very attractive. It was a magnificent building, and the boy was in touch with members of the royal family and other aristocrats who were close to the court. So he was quite privileged: imagine spending your days there, in the castle, in the cathedral, and the whole area. So his life was very different from an ordinary boy’s life.” Was the building empty, besides the homes of the administration employees? “Most of it was empty, and the castle came to life only when someone’s court arrived. But on the other hand, it was – and still is – a very large building which had to be maintained so the employees took day-to-day care about the gardens, the roofs, about the horses in stables, and so on. So it was probably much livelier than today.” At one point, the author says how much he was looking forward to another of these visits. He’s very happy; he says the castle will again fill with people, the gates will open, and so on. He says when no royal visitors were present, very few people from the city below actually came to the area. Was it regularly open to the public at those times? “It was. But the entire area was known as Prague Castle District, and there were people living there. The district closed each day at 9 PM and opened again at 8 in the morning. But during this time, it was open for anyone, it was in fact a town of its own. It had its stores such as a tobacconist’s, and other small shops. Even the royal gardens were open but not for free; visitors had to pay to get in.” How was Prague Castle different architecturally from today? “Not really. All you can see today is nearly the same as it was in the 19th century. One big difference originated in the 1920s when Czechoslovakia’s first president, Tomáš Gariggue Masaryk, began remodel the castle to make it ‘democratic’. They changed the gardens, the courtyards were rebuilt to suit the different needs, and so on. But overall, Prague Castle has not changed much since the 19th century.” Could people also rent rooms here or sections of the castle, or was it exclusively for use by the royal family and their guests? “It was not common. Bu for example, the Vladislavský Hall was used for workshops and course by the Academy of Fine Arts. But that’s all I know about the so-called commercial use of the premises.” People still live today in the castle; there are some employees of the president’s office who have apartments here. A former aide of ex-president Václav Klaus recently said he had been looking forward to leaving because he felt isolated here, with no services available and so on. How do you feel working here – and would you like to live here? “Living here in the 19th century was probably better because you could use all kinds of top quality services, from food to laundry, and so on. There were many kitchens here, many servants. But now, it’s very different, it really only houses the president’s office. So that’s the difference.” The episode featured today was first broadcast on August 10, 2013. Jana Ciglerová: Americans say their lives are fantastic, Czechs say everything is terrible – neither is true Czech IT specialists organize “hackathon” to give government online motorway vignette sales system for free Minister: Czech Republic won’t take in 40 child refugees from Greek camps CzechTourism head hints attracting tourists no longer agency’s main goal Screenshot: a hybrid English-friendly Prague art-house cinema where screenings are events	1,356	ENGLISH	1
Top 10 Decisive Battles in History There are a large number of battles fought in human history. Most of these battles have less significance and does not impact a wide range of people. However, some battles would have changed the whole map of the world had it gone another way. Just imagine what would have happened if the Nazis had won WW2. 1. The Battle of Marathon - 490 BC The Battle of Marathon was fought between the Persians under Darius-I and the Athenians during 490 BC. During the Ionian revolt, the Athens and Eritrea had sent troops to assist overthrow their Persian rulers. The forces had even managed to burn down the city of Sardis. Even though the revolt was swiftly crushed, Darius would never forget this insult. He would have one of his servants remind him, "Master, remember the Athenians" three times before dinner each day. It was only a matter of time before the Persian empire descended on the Greeks for judgment. In September 490 BC, a Persian invasion force of 600 ships carrying around 25,000 infantry and 1000 cavalry landed on Greek soil just north of Athens. The Geeks had a force of about 10,000 Athenian and 1000 Plataean hoplites. The Greeks were outnumbered and facing certain annihilation. The Greek generals hesitated to attack due to the situation they were in. However, a Greek general of the name Miltiades made a passionate plea to attack the Persians. He ordered the Greeks to charge straight into the line of the Persians. Their enemy even thought that the Greeks had gone mad to make such an attack. The Greek center was weakened but the flanks engulfed the Persians. The battle ended when the Persian center broke ranks and fled for their ships. The retreating Persians were slaughtered by the Greeks and many drowned at sea. The Persians tried to sail around the Greek army to attack Athens but the Athenians made an incredible march at full speed to reach their city before the Persians. The Persian fleet was then forced to return home. The Persians lost about 6,400 dead whereas the Athenians lost 192 men and the Plataeans lost just 11 men. This battle was significant because of the fact that Greek culture had survived due to this battle. If the Athenians had lost, then the Persians would have conquered all of Greece and Western culture would be so much different from what it is now. The Greeks now knew that they could defend themselves from any invader. They would soon be tested again at the battle of Salamis. 2. The Battle of Salamis - 480 BC Darius was not going to give up on his revenge on the Greeks. So after the Persian loss in the Battle of Marathon, he immediately planned for another invasion. However, his invasion was postponed by an Egyptian uprising. Darius then died before he could carry out his plans on the conquest of Greece. The task was then passed on to his son Xerxes-I who quickly crushed the Egyptian revolt and began his preparations for invading Greece. Xerxes bridged the Hellespont so that his troops could cross it to reach Europe and a canal was dug across the isthmus of Mount Athos. Both of these were exceptional instances of engineering ingenuity which were born from ambition that no one else could have imagined at the time. The stage was now set for another clash between Greece and the Persian empire. This time, however, the battle will take place at sea. The Greeks had a total of around 371 ships whereas the Persians had around 1207 ships. The heavily outnumbered Greeks would now face the Persian armada in the straits of Salamis. The Athenian general Themistocles persuaded the Greeks to engage the Persian fleet to decisively beat them. Xerxes was also eager for battle and took the bait. His fleet followed the Greek ships into the straits of Salamis in order to trap them. Once inside the narrow straits, the Persian numbers didn’t matter and their ships could not maneuver. The Greeks then formed up and struck the disorganized Persians. The largest naval battle was now turning into a slaughter. The Persians lost about 200 - 300 ships whereas the Greeks lost a mere 40 ships. The Persians were on the retreat from this point forward and Greek civilization was saved. 3. The Battle of Gaugamela - 331 BC This is the third battle involving the Persian Empire and the Greeks. However, this time it was the Greeks who were on the offensive under Alexander the Great of Macedonia. The Battle of Gaugamela or Battle of Arbela was the final decisive battle which handed Alexander control over the Persian Empire by decisively defeating Darius-III. The Macedonians under Alexander had about 47,000 troops whereas the Persians had about 90,000 to 120,000. The Persians heavily outnumbered Alexander’s forces but they were very low on morale after a string of defeats. The Macedonians were elite warriors and under the leadership of Alexander, they were unstoppable. After the humiliating defeat in the battle of Issus Darius’s family was captured which forced him to engage Alexander in one final decisive battle. Alexander knew that his forces were outnumbered and they could be flanked so he kept his infantry at both his flanks at an angle to prevent a flanking maneuver. Alexander asked his phalanx to advance in the center and rode along with his companion cavalry to the edge of his right flank. He planned on drawing out much of the Persian cavalry so that he could create a gap which he could exploit in the center. When Alexander charged the center of the Persian line which was already facing the Macedonian Phalanx they broke down. Darius was on the verge of being cut off and seeing this he fled the battlefield followed by his army. With their leader gone the Persian line broke. Alexander could have followed Darius to finish him off but his left flank under Parmenion was under heavy pressure and he had to rush to relieve his forces. Darius was then murdered by one of his satraps ending the Persian Empire. The Persians lost 40,000 - 90,000 troops whereas Alexander is said to have lost only around 100 - 1,000 troops. 4. The Battle of Cannae - 216 BC The Battle of Cannae was fought between Hannibal of Carthage and the Romans during the Second Punic War. The battle would be remembered forever for its tactical brilliance and its tactics would be followed by military generals even after centuries. This would be one of the worst defeats for the Roman empire which almost brought Rome to its knees. Hannibal had crossed the Alps and threatened Rome with his huge army. After the battle of Trebia and Lake Trasimene in which Rome was defeated soundly, they avoided direct battle and built up their army. But the mere presence of Hannibal in Roman soil was an insult to Rome and something needed to be done before all their allies defected. Hannibal had at his disposal 40,000 infantry and 10,000 cavalries. The Romans managed to raise the largest army they had ever built with 80,000 infantry and 6,400 cavalries. Having outnumbered Hannibal almost 2 to 1 the Romans were confident in engaging him in battle. The Roman army was under the command of consuls Lucius Aemilius Paullus and Gaius Terentius Varro. On the 2nd of August 216 BC Hannibal offered battle and the Romans obliged. The Romans deployed their army in the conventional fashion, infantry in the center and cavalry on both flanks. They concentrated their army in the center hoping to break through Hannibal’s lines with sheer numbers. Hannibal, on the other hand, placed his elite troops on the flanks and intentionally weakened his center to draw in the Romans. When the two armies clashed Hannibal’s center slowly began to retreat back under the weight of the Roman onslaught. The Romans sensing victory put all their troops into the attack. The troops had actually retreated back on Hannibal’s orders and now the stronger flank of the Carthaginians reeled inward engulfing the Roman army. Meanwhile, the Carthaginian cavalry had successfully chased their Roman counterparts out of the battlefield and now hit the Romans in the rear. The Romans were caught in the first double envelopment tactic in history. With no way to run they were slaughtered where they stood. The destruction of the Roman army was complete. Around 70,000 Romans were killed and 10,000 more were captured. Carthage lost only 5,700 troops. Rome was devastated and ordered a national day of mourning. Not a single person in Rome was there who didn’t have a relative who died in Cannae. Rome lost one-fifth of its population over 17 years. This, however, did not finish Rome off as Hannibal had hoped and they would be back for revenge soon. 5. The Battle of Tours - 732 AD The Battle of Tours also known as the Battle of Poitiers was fought between the Frankish and Burgundian forces under Charles Martel against the Umayyad Caliphate led by Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi. The Battle took place between the cities of Poitiers and Tours on 10 October 732 AD. The Muslims were rampaging across Europe and this was the battle which turned the tide of the war for the Europeans. The quick tactics of the Muslim horse archers could not be countered by the European armies who were burdened with heavy armor. The Muslims had to be stopped now or they would overrun the whole of Christian Europe. The Frankish kingdom under Charles Martel was the only obstacle that stood in front of the Muslims. The number of troops that faced each other varies a lot. The Franks had about 15,000 to 75,000 troops whereas the Muslims had between 60,000 to 400,000 cavalry. Charles Martel arranged his troops in a defensive square. The Muslims had to charge uphill and fight a battle which was fought in the terms of their enemy. The Muslim cavalry charged multiple times but the Franks stood their ground. A part of Charles’ army began to harass the Muslim baggage train and this made part of their army retreat. When Rahman tried to bring some order to the chaos he was surrounded and killed by the Franks. The Muslims did not renew the battle and retreated and Charles earned the title Martel in this battle which means ‘Hammer’. 6. The Battle of Agincourt - 1415 AD The Battle of Agincourt was part of the Hundred years war between England and France. In 1413 King Henry-V invaded France to claim the French crown with about 30,000 men. Fighting and disease hit his army hard and during the Battle of Agincourt, he had only around 6,000 to 9,000 men. Most of them were longbows and about ⅙ of them were dismounted knights and heavy infantry. The English army was weary and retreating to Calais but their path was blocked by a large French army. The French had at their disposal about 12,000 to 36,000 troops. The majority of the army was comprised of heavily armored knights. The French also had infantry and crossbowmen. They outnumbered Henry’s men by a huge margin and the English were stuck on foreign soil with no supplies. The more the English waited, the bigger the French army would get and so Henry offered battle. The English deployed with their longbows at their flanks with their men at arms and knights in the center. The English were positioned on a muddy wooded hilltop with the forest on both sides preventing the French from doing any flanking maneuvers. Till this point in history, the role of the archer was ignored. The chronicler Edmond de Dyntner even stated that there were “ten French nobles against one English” by completely ignoring the English longbows. The terrain favored the English longbows as the French had to charge up muddy hilltop while constantly under fire. The English also planted stakes on the ground as protection from the cavalry charge. As the French finally attacked, they were showered with volley after volley of arrows. After reaching the top, the French could not go through the wooden stakes planted on the ground and were shot at point-blank range. As the bodies piled up in front of them the other French units had an even more difficult time walking around or over their fallen comrades. The initial cavalry charge also churned up the mud and many of the French drowned in the mud under the weight of their own armor. Several repeated attempts could not break the English lines and the French had to give up their attempts with heavy losses. Since the English had very few soldiers they could not keep the prisoners which they had captured and brutally slaughtered them. Around 1,500 to 11,000 French were killed and about 2,000 were captured. The English lost only about 112 - 600 men. This was an amazing tactical victory for Henry but he chose to retreat home rather than press the attack. This battle, however, asserted the dominance of the English Longbows and their effectiveness when used in large numbers. 7. The Battle of Waterloo - 1815 AD After Napoleon’s return to power in March 1815 the Seventh coalition was formed to overthrow him. The Coalition forces were divided in two. One force was led by the Duke of Wellington whereas the Prussian army was led by Blucher. Napoleon knew that the best chance he had of winning was to engage these two armies separately before they had the chance to unite. Napoleon moved swiftly and engaged the Prussians in the battle of Ligny and defeated them. Wellington was then forced to take up defensive positions near Waterloo where the final battle would take place. He had about 68,000 troops at his disposal and was facing a French army of 73,000 men. Wellington was however promised support by Blucher who had 50,000 men and was regrouping for a counter-attack. Wellington needed to buy time for the Prussians to arrive and held his ground. The British coalition forces fought hard and repulsed all French attacks. But in the end, they were at the edge of their ropes. Just at that moment Napoleon spotted Prussian troops arriving at the battlefield and had to send a part of his troops to defend against them. As a last resort, he ordered his Imperial Guard to charge Wellington’s troops. The coalition forces which were hiding under the ridge now stood up and fired at the French Imperial Guard in point blank range. The Prussian troops now attacked the French from the other side as well. This broke the French army and the battle was over. The French lost 41,000 troops whereas the coalition forces lost 24,000. Napoleon was captured and exiled to the island of Saint Helena. 8. The Battle of the Atlantic - 1939 - 1945 AD The Battle of the Atlantic is more significant than the Battle of Britain in many ways. If the British were to lose World War-2 it would have been due to this crucial battle on the seas. Britain is an island nation and most of its supplies are brought in through shipping. The Germans knew that and they attempted to perform a blockade of Britain by sinking merchant shipping by using their surface raiders and U-boats. Churchill on the Battle of the Atlantic, “The only thing that ever really frightened me during the war was the U-boat peril.” Due to the restrictions imposed by the Treaty of Versailles, the German navy was very weak with no aircraft carriers and very few ships. Compared to them the British had the largest navy in the world. The Germans could never hope to challenge the British navy head on so they resorted to guerrilla tactics. Although the Germans did not have many ships they had excellent submarines. The U-boats wreaked havoc in the allied shipping lines. The British needed supplies to continue the war effort and all Germany had to do was to sink more vessels than the British could build and eventually they would starve. The Battle began on September 3, 1939, and would be the longest most decisive battle fought lasting 5 years 8 months and 5 days. During the early years the U-boats were sinking many merchant ships and so the allies decided to escort the merchant ships in convoys. The Germans then grouped their U-boats into “wolf packs” to hunt down the convoys. Then more countermeasures such as depth charges and more advanced radars were equipped for destroyers to hunt down the submarines. The Germans retaliated with more advanced submarines with lower radar signatures and capable of staying underwater longer. In the end, the Germans could not sink enough merchant shipping to make Britain surrender. After the entry of US into the war, the production capacity of the allies was just too much. The Battle of the Atlantic had cost the allies 3,500 merchant ships and 175 warships. The Germans and Italians had lost 783 submarines and 47 warships. But Britain held on and survived the U-boat peril. 9. The Battle of Stalingrad - 1942 AD The Battle of Stalingrad is one of the most iconic battles of World War 2. This was the battle in which the tide of battle changed in the Eastern front. The German juggernaut was finally stopped in its tracks and from this point onward it would have to fight a losing battle. Fighting the never-ending flow of Russian troops and the onset of winter had taken its toll on the German army and the myth of German invulnerability was shattered. On July 28, 1942, Stalin issued the order no. 227 which is famous for the line, “Not a step back!” The Battle started on August 23, 1942, and ended on 2nd February 1943 with the destruction of the German 6th Army. The city held a good strategic value and it held Stalin’s name. This meant that capturing the city would deal a heavy blow to the morale of Soviet troops. So Stalin made sure that the city would not fall into enemy hands. This was one of the bloodiest battles of WW2 costing the lives of millions. The German army made good progress in the early stages of the battle. They occupied more than half of the city and air bombing had destroyed most of the city. However, fierce resistance and sniping operations from the Russians was having devastating consequences for the German army. They were unable to take full control over the city before winter set in. The Soviets were well prepared for the winter whereas the Germans were not. On 19 November 1942, the Soviets launched Operation Uranus for the liberation of the city of Stalingrad. The German 6th Army was surrounded in the city and their situation became dire. However, Hitler ordered the German 6th Army to not break out and stay within the city promising to send reinforcements and supplies. The reinforcements never came and on 2 February 1943, the Germans surrendered to the Red Army. The Battle had cost the Germans and their allies over 647,300 troops whereas the Soviets lost over 1.1 million. Stalingrad would be the symbolic battle which asserted the dominance of the Red Army. They would not take a step back from this point onwards! 10. The Battle of Iwo Jima - 1945 AD The Battle of Iwo Jima takes precedence over the dropping of the atomic bombs itself because of the fact that it was this battle that eventually led to the decision of unleashing the nuclear weapons. The Americans realized that if they were to capture a Japanese island they will have to kill every single person in it and they would pay a huge price for each step they take in the Japanese homeland. The island of Iwo Jima is barren and has no industrial significance. However, it was within the range of the Japanese mainland for the American fighters. The Americans could use this island’s airfields as a base for operations against Japan itself. So Tadamichi Kuribayashi was tasked to defend the island to the last man. The island was defended by just over 20,000 Japanese troops and 23 tanks. The Americans had 110,000 marines for the assault supported by over 500 ships. With no naval or air cover, the island was doomed from the start and there was no doubt in the outcome of the battle. The Japanese garrison, however, refused to surrender and the Americans had to take it by force. On 19 February 1945 they Americans landed on Iwo Jima. Kuribayashi had asked the Japanese not to fire until the Americans had landed and so they had no idea where the Japanese were. This saved all the defenses of the island. When the fighting started, it was fierce. Progress was measured in yards and the Americans became pinned down at the beaches. Capturing Mount Suribachi was one of the toughest tasks and was nicknamed the Meat Grinder hill. When the Americans finally did capture Iwo Jima they had lost 6,821 killed and 19,217 wounded. The Japanese had lost about 18,000 dead and only 216 were captured alive! The Americans had learned one thing for sure. The Japanese were not gonna surrender easily and they were going to make the Americans pay dearly for each step they take in their homeland. This was the reason which ultimately led to the dropping of the Atomic bombs. - The Battle of Iwo Jima: A 36-day bloody slog on a sulfuric island The Japanese defending Iwo Jima on D-day displayed superb tactical discipline. As Lieutenant Colonel Justus M. ‘Jumpin’ Joe’ Chambers led his 3rd Battalion, 25th Marines, across the first terrace on the right flank of the landing beaches, he encounte - The Battle of Stalingrad Encyclopedia of Jewish and Israeli history, politics and culture, with biographies, statistics, articles and documents on topics from anti-Semitism to Zionism. - Battle of the Atlantic - Wikipedia - Battle of Waterloo The Battle of Waterloo on 18th June 1815; the battle that ended the dominance of the French Emperor Napoleon over Europe; the end of an epoch - Battle of Agincourt - Wikipedia - Battle of Tours (732 A.D.) - Ancient Rome’s Darkest Day: The Battle of Cannae - HISTORY Republican Rome was pushed to the brink of collapse on August 2, 216 B.C., when the Carthaginian general Hannibal annihilated at least 50,000 of its legionaries at the Second Punic War’s Battle of Cannae. - Battle of Gaugamela - Wikipedia - Battle of Salamis - Ancient History Encyclopedia With defeat at Thermopylae, the inconclusive naval battle at Artemision, and Xerxes’ Persian army on the rampage, the Greek city-states... - Battle of Marathon - Wikipedia Questions & Answers © 2018 Random Thoughts	<urn:uuid:7df053ee-513a-4747-96be-05c6df65fbd6>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://owlcation.com/humanities/Top-10-Decisive-Battles-in-History	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251696046.73/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127081933-20200127111933-00371.warc.gz	en	0.984369	4,680	3.796875	4	[ -0.490695595741272, 0.4452973008155823, 0.17997753620147705, -0.21919676661491394, -0.717299222946167, -0.06816160678863525, 0.05948188900947571, 0.6400414705276489, -0.051870379596948624, -0.18581166863441467, -0.47698068618774414, -0.18505915999412537, -0.009960637427866459, 0.6600100994...	1	Top 10 Decisive Battles in History There are a large number of battles fought in human history. Most of these battles have less significance and does not impact a wide range of people. However, some battles would have changed the whole map of the world had it gone another way. Just imagine what would have happened if the Nazis had won WW2. 1. The Battle of Marathon - 490 BC The Battle of Marathon was fought between the Persians under Darius-I and the Athenians during 490 BC. During the Ionian revolt, the Athens and Eritrea had sent troops to assist overthrow their Persian rulers. The forces had even managed to burn down the city of Sardis. Even though the revolt was swiftly crushed, Darius would never forget this insult. He would have one of his servants remind him, "Master, remember the Athenians" three times before dinner each day. It was only a matter of time before the Persian empire descended on the Greeks for judgment. In September 490 BC, a Persian invasion force of 600 ships carrying around 25,000 infantry and 1000 cavalry landed on Greek soil just north of Athens. The Geeks had a force of about 10,000 Athenian and 1000 Plataean hoplites. The Greeks were outnumbered and facing certain annihilation. The Greek generals hesitated to attack due to the situation they were in. However, a Greek general of the name Miltiades made a passionate plea to attack the Persians. He ordered the Greeks to charge straight into the line of the Persians. Their enemy even thought that the Greeks had gone mad to make such an attack. The Greek center was weakened but the flanks engulfed the Persians. The battle ended when the Persian center broke ranks and fled for their ships. The retreating Persians were slaughtered by the Greeks and many drowned at sea. The Persians tried to sail around the Greek army to attack Athens but the Athenians made an incredible march at full speed to reach their city before the Persians. The Persian fleet was then forced to return home. The Persians lost about 6,400 dead whereas the Athenians lost 192 men and the Plataeans lost just 11 men. This battle was significant because of the fact that Greek culture had survived due to this battle. If the Athenians had lost, then the Persians would have conquered all of Greece and Western culture would be so much different from what it is now. The Greeks now knew that they could defend themselves from any invader. They would soon be tested again at the battle of Salamis. 2. The Battle of Salamis - 480 BC Darius was not going to give up on his revenge on the Greeks. So after the Persian loss in the Battle of Marathon, he immediately planned for another invasion. However, his invasion was postponed by an Egyptian uprising. Darius then died before he could carry out his plans on the conquest of Greece. The task was then passed on to his son Xerxes-I who quickly crushed the Egyptian revolt and began his preparations for invading Greece. Xerxes bridged the Hellespont so that his troops could cross it to reach Europe and a canal was dug across the isthmus of Mount Athos. Both of these were exceptional instances of engineering ingenuity which were born from ambition that no one else could have imagined at the time. The stage was now set for another clash between Greece and the Persian empire. This time, however, the battle will take place at sea. The Greeks had a total of around 371 ships whereas the Persians had around 1207 ships. The heavily outnumbered Greeks would now face the Persian armada in the straits of Salamis. The Athenian general Themistocles persuaded the Greeks to engage the Persian fleet to decisively beat them. Xerxes was also eager for battle and took the bait. His fleet followed the Greek ships into the straits of Salamis in order to trap them. Once inside the narrow straits, the Persian numbers didn’t matter and their ships could not maneuver. The Greeks then formed up and struck the disorganized Persians. The largest naval battle was now turning into a slaughter. The Persians lost about 200 - 300 ships whereas the Greeks lost a mere 40 ships. The Persians were on the retreat from this point forward and Greek civilization was saved. 3. The Battle of Gaugamela - 331 BC This is the third battle involving the Persian Empire and the Greeks. However, this time it was the Greeks who were on the offensive under Alexander the Great of Macedonia. The Battle of Gaugamela or Battle of Arbela was the final decisive battle which handed Alexander control over the Persian Empire by decisively defeating Darius-III. The Macedonians under Alexander had about 47,000 troops whereas the Persians had about 90,000 to 120,000. The Persians heavily outnumbered Alexander’s forces but they were very low on morale after a string of defeats. The Macedonians were elite warriors and under the leadership of Alexander, they were unstoppable. After the humiliating defeat in the battle of Issus Darius’s family was captured which forced him to engage Alexander in one final decisive battle. Alexander knew that his forces were outnumbered and they could be flanked so he kept his infantry at both his flanks at an angle to prevent a flanking maneuver. Alexander asked his phalanx to advance in the center and rode along with his companion cavalry to the edge of his right flank. He planned on drawing out much of the Persian cavalry so that he could create a gap which he could exploit in the center. When Alexander charged the center of the Persian line which was already facing the Macedonian Phalanx they broke down. Darius was on the verge of being cut off and seeing this he fled the battlefield followed by his army. With their leader gone the Persian line broke. Alexander could have followed Darius to finish him off but his left flank under Parmenion was under heavy pressure and he had to rush to relieve his forces. Darius was then murdered by one of his satraps ending the Persian Empire. The Persians lost 40,000 - 90,000 troops whereas Alexander is said to have lost only around 100 - 1,000 troops. 4. The Battle of Cannae - 216 BC The Battle of Cannae was fought between Hannibal of Carthage and the Romans during the Second Punic War. The battle would be remembered forever for its tactical brilliance and its tactics would be followed by military generals even after centuries. This would be one of the worst defeats for the Roman empire which almost brought Rome to its knees. Hannibal had crossed the Alps and threatened Rome with his huge army. After the battle of Trebia and Lake Trasimene in which Rome was defeated soundly, they avoided direct battle and built up their army. But the mere presence of Hannibal in Roman soil was an insult to Rome and something needed to be done before all their allies defected. Hannibal had at his disposal 40,000 infantry and 10,000 cavalries. The Romans managed to raise the largest army they had ever built with 80,000 infantry and 6,400 cavalries. Having outnumbered Hannibal almost 2 to 1 the Romans were confident in engaging him in battle. The Roman army was under the command of consuls Lucius Aemilius Paullus and Gaius Terentius Varro. On the 2nd of August 216 BC Hannibal offered battle and the Romans obliged. The Romans deployed their army in the conventional fashion, infantry in the center and cavalry on both flanks. They concentrated their army in the center hoping to break through Hannibal’s lines with sheer numbers. Hannibal, on the other hand, placed his elite troops on the flanks and intentionally weakened his center to draw in the Romans. When the two armies clashed Hannibal’s center slowly began to retreat back under the weight of the Roman onslaught. The Romans sensing victory put all their troops into the attack. The troops had actually retreated back on Hannibal’s orders and now the stronger flank of the Carthaginians reeled inward engulfing the Roman army. Meanwhile, the Carthaginian cavalry had successfully chased their Roman counterparts out of the battlefield and now hit the Romans in the rear. The Romans were caught in the first double envelopment tactic in history. With no way to run they were slaughtered where they stood. The destruction of the Roman army was complete. Around 70,000 Romans were killed and 10,000 more were captured. Carthage lost only 5,700 troops. Rome was devastated and ordered a national day of mourning. Not a single person in Rome was there who didn’t have a relative who died in Cannae. Rome lost one-fifth of its population over 17 years. This, however, did not finish Rome off as Hannibal had hoped and they would be back for revenge soon. 5. The Battle of Tours - 732 AD The Battle of Tours also known as the Battle of Poitiers was fought between the Frankish and Burgundian forces under Charles Martel against the Umayyad Caliphate led by Abdul Rahman Al Ghafiqi. The Battle took place between the cities of Poitiers and Tours on 10 October 732 AD. The Muslims were rampaging across Europe and this was the battle which turned the tide of the war for the Europeans. The quick tactics of the Muslim horse archers could not be countered by the European armies who were burdened with heavy armor. The Muslims had to be stopped now or they would overrun the whole of Christian Europe. The Frankish kingdom under Charles Martel was the only obstacle that stood in front of the Muslims. The number of troops that faced each other varies a lot. The Franks had about 15,000 to 75,000 troops whereas the Muslims had between 60,000 to 400,000 cavalry. Charles Martel arranged his troops in a defensive square. The Muslims had to charge uphill and fight a battle which was fought in the terms of their enemy. The Muslim cavalry charged multiple times but the Franks stood their ground. A part of Charles’ army began to harass the Muslim baggage train and this made part of their army retreat. When Rahman tried to bring some order to the chaos he was surrounded and killed by the Franks. The Muslims did not renew the battle and retreated and Charles earned the title Martel in this battle which means ‘Hammer’. 6. The Battle of Agincourt - 1415 AD The Battle of Agincourt was part of the Hundred years war between England and France. In 1413 King Henry-V invaded France to claim the French crown with about 30,000 men. Fighting and disease hit his army hard and during the Battle of Agincourt, he had only around 6,000 to 9,000 men. Most of them were longbows and about ⅙ of them were dismounted knights and heavy infantry. The English army was weary and retreating to Calais but their path was blocked by a large French army. The French had at their disposal about 12,000 to 36,000 troops. The majority of the army was comprised of heavily armored knights. The French also had infantry and crossbowmen. They outnumbered Henry’s men by a huge margin and the English were stuck on foreign soil with no supplies. The more the English waited, the bigger the French army would get and so Henry offered battle. The English deployed with their longbows at their flanks with their men at arms and knights in the center. The English were positioned on a muddy wooded hilltop with the forest on both sides preventing the French from doing any flanking maneuvers. Till this point in history, the role of the archer was ignored. The chronicler Edmond de Dyntner even stated that there were “ten French nobles against one English” by completely ignoring the English longbows. The terrain favored the English longbows as the French had to charge up muddy hilltop while constantly under fire. The English also planted stakes on the ground as protection from the cavalry charge. As the French finally attacked, they were showered with volley after volley of arrows. After reaching the top, the French could not go through the wooden stakes planted on the ground and were shot at point-blank range. As the bodies piled up in front of them the other French units had an even more difficult time walking around or over their fallen comrades. The initial cavalry charge also churned up the mud and many of the French drowned in the mud under the weight of their own armor. Several repeated attempts could not break the English lines and the French had to give up their attempts with heavy losses. Since the English had very few soldiers they could not keep the prisoners which they had captured and brutally slaughtered them. Around 1,500 to 11,000 French were killed and about 2,000 were captured. The English lost only about 112 - 600 men. This was an amazing tactical victory for Henry but he chose to retreat home rather than press the attack. This battle, however, asserted the dominance of the English Longbows and their effectiveness when used in large numbers. 7. The Battle of Waterloo - 1815 AD After Napoleon’s return to power in March 1815 the Seventh coalition was formed to overthrow him. The Coalition forces were divided in two. One force was led by the Duke of Wellington whereas the Prussian army was led by Blucher. Napoleon knew that the best chance he had of winning was to engage these two armies separately before they had the chance to unite. Napoleon moved swiftly and engaged the Prussians in the battle of Ligny and defeated them. Wellington was then forced to take up defensive positions near Waterloo where the final battle would take place. He had about 68,000 troops at his disposal and was facing a French army of 73,000 men. Wellington was however promised support by Blucher who had 50,000 men and was regrouping for a counter-attack. Wellington needed to buy time for the Prussians to arrive and held his ground. The British coalition forces fought hard and repulsed all French attacks. But in the end, they were at the edge of their ropes. Just at that moment Napoleon spotted Prussian troops arriving at the battlefield and had to send a part of his troops to defend against them. As a last resort, he ordered his Imperial Guard to charge Wellington’s troops. The coalition forces which were hiding under the ridge now stood up and fired at the French Imperial Guard in point blank range. The Prussian troops now attacked the French from the other side as well. This broke the French army and the battle was over. The French lost 41,000 troops whereas the coalition forces lost 24,000. Napoleon was captured and exiled to the island of Saint Helena. 8. The Battle of the Atlantic - 1939 - 1945 AD The Battle of the Atlantic is more significant than the Battle of Britain in many ways. If the British were to lose World War-2 it would have been due to this crucial battle on the seas. Britain is an island nation and most of its supplies are brought in through shipping. The Germans knew that and they attempted to perform a blockade of Britain by sinking merchant shipping by using their surface raiders and U-boats. Churchill on the Battle of the Atlantic, “The only thing that ever really frightened me during the war was the U-boat peril.” Due to the restrictions imposed by the Treaty of Versailles, the German navy was very weak with no aircraft carriers and very few ships. Compared to them the British had the largest navy in the world. The Germans could never hope to challenge the British navy head on so they resorted to guerrilla tactics. Although the Germans did not have many ships they had excellent submarines. The U-boats wreaked havoc in the allied shipping lines. The British needed supplies to continue the war effort and all Germany had to do was to sink more vessels than the British could build and eventually they would starve. The Battle began on September 3, 1939, and would be the longest most decisive battle fought lasting 5 years 8 months and 5 days. During the early years the U-boats were sinking many merchant ships and so the allies decided to escort the merchant ships in convoys. The Germans then grouped their U-boats into “wolf packs” to hunt down the convoys. Then more countermeasures such as depth charges and more advanced radars were equipped for destroyers to hunt down the submarines. The Germans retaliated with more advanced submarines with lower radar signatures and capable of staying underwater longer. In the end, the Germans could not sink enough merchant shipping to make Britain surrender. After the entry of US into the war, the production capacity of the allies was just too much. The Battle of the Atlantic had cost the allies 3,500 merchant ships and 175 warships. The Germans and Italians had lost 783 submarines and 47 warships. But Britain held on and survived the U-boat peril. 9. The Battle of Stalingrad - 1942 AD The Battle of Stalingrad is one of the most iconic battles of World War 2. This was the battle in which the tide of battle changed in the Eastern front. The German juggernaut was finally stopped in its tracks and from this point onward it would have to fight a losing battle. Fighting the never-ending flow of Russian troops and the onset of winter had taken its toll on the German army and the myth of German invulnerability was shattered. On July 28, 1942, Stalin issued the order no. 227 which is famous for the line, “Not a step back!” The Battle started on August 23, 1942, and ended on 2nd February 1943 with the destruction of the German 6th Army. The city held a good strategic value and it held Stalin’s name. This meant that capturing the city would deal a heavy blow to the morale of Soviet troops. So Stalin made sure that the city would not fall into enemy hands. This was one of the bloodiest battles of WW2 costing the lives of millions. The German army made good progress in the early stages of the battle. They occupied more than half of the city and air bombing had destroyed most of the city. However, fierce resistance and sniping operations from the Russians was having devastating consequences for the German army. They were unable to take full control over the city before winter set in. The Soviets were well prepared for the winter whereas the Germans were not. On 19 November 1942, the Soviets launched Operation Uranus for the liberation of the city of Stalingrad. The German 6th Army was surrounded in the city and their situation became dire. However, Hitler ordered the German 6th Army to not break out and stay within the city promising to send reinforcements and supplies. The reinforcements never came and on 2 February 1943, the Germans surrendered to the Red Army. The Battle had cost the Germans and their allies over 647,300 troops whereas the Soviets lost over 1.1 million. Stalingrad would be the symbolic battle which asserted the dominance of the Red Army. They would not take a step back from this point onwards! 10. The Battle of Iwo Jima - 1945 AD The Battle of Iwo Jima takes precedence over the dropping of the atomic bombs itself because of the fact that it was this battle that eventually led to the decision of unleashing the nuclear weapons. The Americans realized that if they were to capture a Japanese island they will have to kill every single person in it and they would pay a huge price for each step they take in the Japanese homeland. The island of Iwo Jima is barren and has no industrial significance. However, it was within the range of the Japanese mainland for the American fighters. The Americans could use this island’s airfields as a base for operations against Japan itself. So Tadamichi Kuribayashi was tasked to defend the island to the last man. The island was defended by just over 20,000 Japanese troops and 23 tanks. The Americans had 110,000 marines for the assault supported by over 500 ships. With no naval or air cover, the island was doomed from the start and there was no doubt in the outcome of the battle. The Japanese garrison, however, refused to surrender and the Americans had to take it by force. On 19 February 1945 they Americans landed on Iwo Jima. Kuribayashi had asked the Japanese not to fire until the Americans had landed and so they had no idea where the Japanese were. This saved all the defenses of the island. When the fighting started, it was fierce. Progress was measured in yards and the Americans became pinned down at the beaches. Capturing Mount Suribachi was one of the toughest tasks and was nicknamed the Meat Grinder hill. When the Americans finally did capture Iwo Jima they had lost 6,821 killed and 19,217 wounded. The Japanese had lost about 18,000 dead and only 216 were captured alive! The Americans had learned one thing for sure. The Japanese were not gonna surrender easily and they were going to make the Americans pay dearly for each step they take in their homeland. This was the reason which ultimately led to the dropping of the Atomic bombs. - The Battle of Iwo Jima: A 36-day bloody slog on a sulfuric island The Japanese defending Iwo Jima on D-day displayed superb tactical discipline. As Lieutenant Colonel Justus M. ‘Jumpin’ Joe’ Chambers led his 3rd Battalion, 25th Marines, across the first terrace on the right flank of the landing beaches, he encounte - The Battle of Stalingrad Encyclopedia of Jewish and Israeli history, politics and culture, with biographies, statistics, articles and documents on topics from anti-Semitism to Zionism. - Battle of the Atlantic - Wikipedia - Battle of Waterloo The Battle of Waterloo on 18th June 1815; the battle that ended the dominance of the French Emperor Napoleon over Europe; the end of an epoch - Battle of Agincourt - Wikipedia - Battle of Tours (732 A.D.) - Ancient Rome’s Darkest Day: The Battle of Cannae - HISTORY Republican Rome was pushed to the brink of collapse on August 2, 216 B.C., when the Carthaginian general Hannibal annihilated at least 50,000 of its legionaries at the Second Punic War’s Battle of Cannae. - Battle of Gaugamela - Wikipedia - Battle of Salamis - Ancient History Encyclopedia With defeat at Thermopylae, the inconclusive naval battle at Artemision, and Xerxes’ Persian army on the rampage, the Greek city-states... - Battle of Marathon - Wikipedia Questions & Answers © 2018 Random Thoughts	4,971	ENGLISH	1
It has been more than 400 years since Guy Fawkes was arrested for trying to blow up the Houses of Parliament, but he was not alone and not even the leader of the conspiracy. So why does the 5 November bonfire celebrations focus on him? In 1605 religious freedom in Britain was severely restricted and, to all intents and purposes, nonexistent. Since Henry VIII created the Church of England, the country had endured 70 years of wavering religious enforcement. Henry VIII was surprisingly accepting of Catholicism, but his son Edward VI (1547-1553) was a passionate Protestant and enforced his religion in law. This was overturned by Edward’s Catholic sister, Mary I (1553-1558). So many Protestants were executed under her reign that she became known as Bloody Mary in the years after her death. Celebrate may refer to: Why we celebrate Guy Fawkes Night Fawkes is a surname of Norman-French origin, first appearing in the British Isles after the Norman Conquest of England in 1066. The name ultimately derives from the pre-6th century Germanic given name of Falco (later Faulques) meaning “falcon”. The first recorded spelling of the surname in England is that of one Geoffrey Faukes in 1221.It is also, less frequently, a given name. When Elizabeth I came to the throne in 1558 Protestantism returned. It became illegal to miss church on a Sunday, with hefty fines for being absent. Worse, in 1581 being a Catholic was made a treasonable offence. The punishment for treason was execution. For a round-up of the most important stories from around the world – and a concise, refreshing and balanced take on the week’s news agenda – try The Week magazine. Get your first six issues free Why we celebrate Guy Fawkes Night James I, who was Protestant, became King of England and Scotland in 1603 and he was more moderate, preferring to punish Catholics through exile rather than execution, but there was no hope of Catholicism returning as the national religion. It was into this repressive atmosphere that a group of Catholics plotted to kill the king and all his senior ministers during the state opening of Parliament using 36 barrels of gunpowder (enough to destroy the building) placed in a rented cellar below the House of Lords. Their aim was to install a new Catholic monarch on the throne. There were 13 plotters, including leader Robert Catesby. So why is Guy Fawkes the one we remember? Fawkes was in charge of the gunpowder and lighting the fuse. He was also the first to be caught. An anonymous letter warning Catholic sympathisers not to attend Parliament led to an investigation. The morning before the state opening on 5 November 1605, Fawkes was arrested. “Royal guards searched The House of Lords at midnight and in the early hours of 5 November Fawkes was discovered in the cellars, with a fuse, a small lamp, a box of matches and 36 poorly-hidden barrels of gunpowder,” says the Tower of London website. The site says it was “highly likely” that he was racked in the Tower of London, where he eventualy named his co-conspirators and signed a confession after holding out “bravely” for several days. “Their fate was grisly: on 31 January 1606, they were dragged behind a horse along the streets of London to Westminster Yard where, one by one, they were hanged, drawn and quartered,” says the website. The body parts were then displayed throughout the capital as a warning to others. Who was Guy Fawkes? Born in York in 1570, Fawkes was one of three sons born to a Protestant church lawyer. When his father died, his mother married a Catholic, and Fawkes later converted to the religion. At 21, he set off to Spain (where he was known as Guido) to help the Catholic country fight Protestant Dutch reformers. It was there that he met Englishman Thomas Wintour, a Catholic conspirator and cousin of Catesby. They returned to England in 1604 and a year later Fawkes was chosen to set the fuse underneath the Houses of Parliament because of his gunpowder knowledge from his military days. Why do we celebrate a terror plot? After the Gunpowder Plot of 1605, King James I passed “An Act for a Public Thanksgiving to Almighty God every Year on the Fifth Day of November”, also known as the Thanksgiving Act. Under the provisions of the act, special church services were held and people were encouraged to light bonfires each year on 5 November to commemorate Fawkes’s failure to blow up the king. By the time the law changed two centuries later it had become an ingrained part of national culture: Bonfire Night. If the original anti-Catholic terrorist meaning of the celebration had disappeared, an excuse for a party was not easily forgotten. The image of Fawkes also persists as a symbol of rebellion with his stylised face emblazoned on masks worn by protesters around the world.	<urn:uuid:4a113751-1bcf-46f2-a699-52e74e137998>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://newsmim.com/why-we-have-fun-man-fawkes-night-time.html	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251802249.87/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129194333-20200129223333-00321.warc.gz	en	0.982265	1,059	3.328125	3	[ -0.17040973901748657, 0.4512631893157959, -0.14053085446357727, -0.13198703527450562, 0.03753965348005295, -0.022227361798286438, 0.34993109107017517, 0.005990378092974424, 0.3593375086784363, -0.12480053305625916, -0.39317870140075684, -0.20486962795257568, -0.317501962184906, 0.044152785...	1	It has been more than 400 years since Guy Fawkes was arrested for trying to blow up the Houses of Parliament, but he was not alone and not even the leader of the conspiracy. So why does the 5 November bonfire celebrations focus on him? In 1605 religious freedom in Britain was severely restricted and, to all intents and purposes, nonexistent. Since Henry VIII created the Church of England, the country had endured 70 years of wavering religious enforcement. Henry VIII was surprisingly accepting of Catholicism, but his son Edward VI (1547-1553) was a passionate Protestant and enforced his religion in law. This was overturned by Edward’s Catholic sister, Mary I (1553-1558). So many Protestants were executed under her reign that she became known as Bloody Mary in the years after her death. Celebrate may refer to: Why we celebrate Guy Fawkes Night Fawkes is a surname of Norman-French origin, first appearing in the British Isles after the Norman Conquest of England in 1066. The name ultimately derives from the pre-6th century Germanic given name of Falco (later Faulques) meaning “falcon”. The first recorded spelling of the surname in England is that of one Geoffrey Faukes in 1221.It is also, less frequently, a given name. When Elizabeth I came to the throne in 1558 Protestantism returned. It became illegal to miss church on a Sunday, with hefty fines for being absent. Worse, in 1581 being a Catholic was made a treasonable offence. The punishment for treason was execution. For a round-up of the most important stories from around the world – and a concise, refreshing and balanced take on the week’s news agenda – try The Week magazine. Get your first six issues free Why we celebrate Guy Fawkes Night James I, who was Protestant, became King of England and Scotland in 1603 and he was more moderate, preferring to punish Catholics through exile rather than execution, but there was no hope of Catholicism returning as the national religion. It was into this repressive atmosphere that a group of Catholics plotted to kill the king and all his senior ministers during the state opening of Parliament using 36 barrels of gunpowder (enough to destroy the building) placed in a rented cellar below the House of Lords. Their aim was to install a new Catholic monarch on the throne. There were 13 plotters, including leader Robert Catesby. So why is Guy Fawkes the one we remember? Fawkes was in charge of the gunpowder and lighting the fuse. He was also the first to be caught. An anonymous letter warning Catholic sympathisers not to attend Parliament led to an investigation. The morning before the state opening on 5 November 1605, Fawkes was arrested. “Royal guards searched The House of Lords at midnight and in the early hours of 5 November Fawkes was discovered in the cellars, with a fuse, a small lamp, a box of matches and 36 poorly-hidden barrels of gunpowder,” says the Tower of London website. The site says it was “highly likely” that he was racked in the Tower of London, where he eventualy named his co-conspirators and signed a confession after holding out “bravely” for several days. “Their fate was grisly: on 31 January 1606, they were dragged behind a horse along the streets of London to Westminster Yard where, one by one, they were hanged, drawn and quartered,” says the website. The body parts were then displayed throughout the capital as a warning to others. Who was Guy Fawkes? Born in York in 1570, Fawkes was one of three sons born to a Protestant church lawyer. When his father died, his mother married a Catholic, and Fawkes later converted to the religion. At 21, he set off to Spain (where he was known as Guido) to help the Catholic country fight Protestant Dutch reformers. It was there that he met Englishman Thomas Wintour, a Catholic conspirator and cousin of Catesby. They returned to England in 1604 and a year later Fawkes was chosen to set the fuse underneath the Houses of Parliament because of his gunpowder knowledge from his military days. Why do we celebrate a terror plot? After the Gunpowder Plot of 1605, King James I passed “An Act for a Public Thanksgiving to Almighty God every Year on the Fifth Day of November”, also known as the Thanksgiving Act. Under the provisions of the act, special church services were held and people were encouraged to light bonfires each year on 5 November to commemorate Fawkes’s failure to blow up the king. By the time the law changed two centuries later it had become an ingrained part of national culture: Bonfire Night. If the original anti-Catholic terrorist meaning of the celebration had disappeared, an excuse for a party was not easily forgotten. The image of Fawkes also persists as a symbol of rebellion with his stylised face emblazoned on masks worn by protesters around the world.	1,098	ENGLISH	1
When the Romans first arrived in Caledonia, they were not welcomed by the locals. However, relations did improve with some tribes, as indicated by remains of Roman coins and goods found at the sites of some Celtic settlements. It is thought that some Celts even learned to speak Latin. Students could discuss what they think was the impact of the Romans on Caledonia. What evidence is there that Romans and native Caledonians mixed at times? By researching the Roman occupation they could find more evidence to support the idea that people mixed, but they could also find evidence of conflict. So, to what extent do students agree with the opinion expressed in the clip? And what evidence do they have to support their conclusion? Students could discuss their ideas about why some tribes came to accept the Romans, while others did not. The clip highlights that the Celts and Romans spoke different languages - students could try communicating with each other without talking. Working in pairs, students could be given an item or phrase to try to communicate to their partner without words. What other ways are there of communicating?	<urn:uuid:3f433df2-d46d-45e3-8f90-b37d1321177c>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/clips/z6cncdm	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250613416.54/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123191130-20200123220130-00172.warc.gz	en	0.985067	220	4.4375	4	[ -0.3604707717895508, 0.25025904178619385, 0.4052371382713318, 0.08453302830457687, -0.20081892609596252, -0.5973498821258545, 0.05639336630702019, 0.5388301014900208, -0.1262076497077942, -0.14138317108154297, 0.11201789975166321, -0.428795725107193, -0.10620767623186111, 0.234637737274169...	1	When the Romans first arrived in Caledonia, they were not welcomed by the locals. However, relations did improve with some tribes, as indicated by remains of Roman coins and goods found at the sites of some Celtic settlements. It is thought that some Celts even learned to speak Latin. Students could discuss what they think was the impact of the Romans on Caledonia. What evidence is there that Romans and native Caledonians mixed at times? By researching the Roman occupation they could find more evidence to support the idea that people mixed, but they could also find evidence of conflict. So, to what extent do students agree with the opinion expressed in the clip? And what evidence do they have to support their conclusion? Students could discuss their ideas about why some tribes came to accept the Romans, while others did not. The clip highlights that the Celts and Romans spoke different languages - students could try communicating with each other without talking. Working in pairs, students could be given an item or phrase to try to communicate to their partner without words. What other ways are there of communicating?	218	ENGLISH	1
As the Cold War escalated in the United States, Eisenhower and Washington would make their anti-communist policies felt by stopping Ho Chi Minh from realizing his goal of reunification of Vietnam. The Americans would erect a new non-communist government in Nam, or south, and put at its helm, Ngo Dinh Diem. From 1954-1963, Diem presided over an increasingly corrupt, devious, and repressive regime. Communist guerrillas backed by North Vietnam launched a new rebellion, but a civil disobedience campaign led by the country’s Buddhist monks contributed more directly to his downfall. Writing an essay? Get a bunch of related essays for free. Leave a comment with your theme Or A Order Custom Essay Brutal persecution of the dissident monks in 1963 damaged the regime’s already shaky international reputation. With American support, Vietnamese generals overthrew and assassinated Ngo later that year. This basically sums up how the majority of people thought of Ngo Dinh Diem. He was a narrow leader only worried about gaining and keeping loyalty. Diem believed that he had a mandate of God to rule over Vietnam, and he did not have to earn the public’s trust and admiration. Rather, these two items should be automatically bestowed. Diem thought the people owe him that much. The factors that led to his increased unpopularity and later demise are well documented in nearly all works on the Vietnam War. But is there more to the story? How did the people of Saigon, the ones that were most loyal, view their leader? Khiem Khac Pham, a native citizen of Vietnam believed Ngo Dinh Diem was a great man. Khiem believes that Diem loved his country, and would do anything to fight the communists threatening to take it over. Khiem was born in a village 50 miles outside of Hanoi in 1944. His father saw Ho Chi Minh recite the American Declaration of Independence. Events, however, would soon turn sour for Khiem’s family. His father worked in the market, selling various items. He saved all his money and gave it to Khiem and his siblings. They built a house in the village and lived peacefully. After the fall of the French, the Viet Cong occupied the village and rounded up all the people they thought were dangerous to their movement. Among these was Khiem’s father. The Viet Cong charged him with treason against the welfare of the people and an advocator of imperialism. He was executed by decapitation. Khiem remembers, “They came in and took my father and they said that he was a traitor. I remember that day clear as anything. I was 12 when it happened. He was one of many. They rounded up lawyers, doctors, merchants, French translators and teachers, and anyone wearing the colors white, red ,or green. These were the colors of the French. Many people didn’t even know that. It is just clothing, but they were all caught. The Viet Cong buried them all alive or beheaded them. Others they drowned. I remember walking out of the village and seeing hundreds of mounds. ” Khiem would grow up to know the communist and fear them. In 1955 he and his family took advantage of the Cathlolic migration from north to south. They fled to avoid communist persecution and settled in Saigon. Khiem remembers life to be relaxing and prosperous in the city. However, he was Buddhist and would soon protest alongside monks to rebel against Diem. As the war in Vietnam escalated, Khiem is drafted to join the army and would later be assigned to rank of lieutenant of a naval ship. As Americans pulled out in 1963, Khiem was captured by Vietcong troops and sent to a concentration camp where he spent 3 years. After he is released, he and his family fled Vietnam as one of the many “boat people,” and were picked up by an American cruiser. He would soon find himself in the United States where he has lived for over 15 years. Today, Khiem still reveres Ngo Dinh Diem despite his knowledge of Diem’s actions and policies in Vietnam. Khiem argues that one must see Diem in the light of Vietnam and its indigenous people to understand why he did the things that he did. Khiem’s reasons for respecting and admiring Ngo Dinh Diem will be examined and contrasted with the opposition’s views. According to historians, the entire Diem reign can be summed up in a few words: corruption, repression, and alienation. Corruption marked Diem’s rule from the very beginning. With the help of Ed Lansdale, CIA agent and chief American advisor to Diem, elections were held in 1955 to formally place Diem at the head of the South Vietnam government as Chief of State. The choices on the ballot were hardly fair. Citizens had the choice of either Ngo Dinh Diem or Bao Dai. The latter was hardly a formidable opponent. A powerless symbol of Vietnam’s past, the last emperor, Bao Dai was seen as only a figurehead and a puppet of the former French regime that ruled Vietnam for over one hundred years. Lansdale noted to Diem, “I said, all you need is a fairly large majority,” (Young) but the rigged election gave Diem an overwhelming 98. 2 percent of the voters. Out of a total 450,000 registered voters, Diem received a dashing 605,000 votes.	<urn:uuid:1b6743d8-a894-4a96-9df0-0a030779a3c7>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://studyboss.com/essays/ngo-dinh-diem-or-bao-dai.html	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250616186.38/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124070934-20200124095934-00536.warc.gz	en	0.986201	1,157	3.3125	3	[ -0.5617455244064331, 0.5551953315734863, 0.12062147259712219, -0.11882685869932175, 0.6039588451385498, 0.3963278532028198, 0.284036248922348, -0.08367069065570831, -0.32152578234672546, 0.12552180886268616, 0.2010248452425003, 0.14391429722309113, 0.5478277206420898, 0.35124629735946655, ...	1	As the Cold War escalated in the United States, Eisenhower and Washington would make their anti-communist policies felt by stopping Ho Chi Minh from realizing his goal of reunification of Vietnam. The Americans would erect a new non-communist government in Nam, or south, and put at its helm, Ngo Dinh Diem. From 1954-1963, Diem presided over an increasingly corrupt, devious, and repressive regime. Communist guerrillas backed by North Vietnam launched a new rebellion, but a civil disobedience campaign led by the country’s Buddhist monks contributed more directly to his downfall. Writing an essay? Get a bunch of related essays for free. Leave a comment with your theme Or A Order Custom Essay Brutal persecution of the dissident monks in 1963 damaged the regime’s already shaky international reputation. With American support, Vietnamese generals overthrew and assassinated Ngo later that year. This basically sums up how the majority of people thought of Ngo Dinh Diem. He was a narrow leader only worried about gaining and keeping loyalty. Diem believed that he had a mandate of God to rule over Vietnam, and he did not have to earn the public’s trust and admiration. Rather, these two items should be automatically bestowed. Diem thought the people owe him that much. The factors that led to his increased unpopularity and later demise are well documented in nearly all works on the Vietnam War. But is there more to the story? How did the people of Saigon, the ones that were most loyal, view their leader? Khiem Khac Pham, a native citizen of Vietnam believed Ngo Dinh Diem was a great man. Khiem believes that Diem loved his country, and would do anything to fight the communists threatening to take it over. Khiem was born in a village 50 miles outside of Hanoi in 1944. His father saw Ho Chi Minh recite the American Declaration of Independence. Events, however, would soon turn sour for Khiem’s family. His father worked in the market, selling various items. He saved all his money and gave it to Khiem and his siblings. They built a house in the village and lived peacefully. After the fall of the French, the Viet Cong occupied the village and rounded up all the people they thought were dangerous to their movement. Among these was Khiem’s father. The Viet Cong charged him with treason against the welfare of the people and an advocator of imperialism. He was executed by decapitation. Khiem remembers, “They came in and took my father and they said that he was a traitor. I remember that day clear as anything. I was 12 when it happened. He was one of many. They rounded up lawyers, doctors, merchants, French translators and teachers, and anyone wearing the colors white, red ,or green. These were the colors of the French. Many people didn’t even know that. It is just clothing, but they were all caught. The Viet Cong buried them all alive or beheaded them. Others they drowned. I remember walking out of the village and seeing hundreds of mounds. ” Khiem would grow up to know the communist and fear them. In 1955 he and his family took advantage of the Cathlolic migration from north to south. They fled to avoid communist persecution and settled in Saigon. Khiem remembers life to be relaxing and prosperous in the city. However, he was Buddhist and would soon protest alongside monks to rebel against Diem. As the war in Vietnam escalated, Khiem is drafted to join the army and would later be assigned to rank of lieutenant of a naval ship. As Americans pulled out in 1963, Khiem was captured by Vietcong troops and sent to a concentration camp where he spent 3 years. After he is released, he and his family fled Vietnam as one of the many “boat people,” and were picked up by an American cruiser. He would soon find himself in the United States where he has lived for over 15 years. Today, Khiem still reveres Ngo Dinh Diem despite his knowledge of Diem’s actions and policies in Vietnam. Khiem argues that one must see Diem in the light of Vietnam and its indigenous people to understand why he did the things that he did. Khiem’s reasons for respecting and admiring Ngo Dinh Diem will be examined and contrasted with the opposition’s views. According to historians, the entire Diem reign can be summed up in a few words: corruption, repression, and alienation. Corruption marked Diem’s rule from the very beginning. With the help of Ed Lansdale, CIA agent and chief American advisor to Diem, elections were held in 1955 to formally place Diem at the head of the South Vietnam government as Chief of State. The choices on the ballot were hardly fair. Citizens had the choice of either Ngo Dinh Diem or Bao Dai. The latter was hardly a formidable opponent. A powerless symbol of Vietnam’s past, the last emperor, Bao Dai was seen as only a figurehead and a puppet of the former French regime that ruled Vietnam for over one hundred years. Lansdale noted to Diem, “I said, all you need is a fairly large majority,” (Young) but the rigged election gave Diem an overwhelming 98. 2 percent of the voters. Out of a total 450,000 registered voters, Diem received a dashing 605,000 votes.	1,162	ENGLISH	1
Notes of a native son: the world according to James Baldwin - Christina Greer - 169,068 Views - 1,247 Questions Answered - TEDEd Animation If you read the various novels written by Baldwin or watch his debates and speeches, you will discover a man who has thought deeply about his placement in the country of his birth, but also as a Black American man living abroad and analyzing his country from afar. If James Baldwin were alive today, what do you think his primary agenda would be? Do you think he would choose to leave the country permanently during this political climate? Overt racism is not the same today as it was during Baldwin’s lifetime. However, what other systems, institutions, and practices are currently being used to maintain the racial oppressions Baldwin famously wrote about? Many people do not see racism as an ill that effects individuals and groups, both in the United States and abroad. Because inequality has taken many different forms since the time period in which Baldwin wrote, some people do not see racism, homophobia, and inequality as major concerns of today. Indeed, race relations in America have gotten better (or at least evolved). Although the types of racism are not as prevalent as they once were, there are still much more work to be done to provide racial and economic equality. Why do you think so many refuse to recognize racial inequality as a major problem in American society? Baldwin witnessed his friends Medgar Evers, Malcolm X, ad Dr Martin Luther King be assassinated for speaking out against racism and inequality. Why do you think Baldwin had the courage to write and speak about these issues during a time when it was dangerous to do so? Do you think you would have had the courage of James Baldwin if you lived during his time? Have a conversation with someone of a different race, gender, sexuality, or age. What has been their experience living in the U.S.? What were the experiences of their parents or grandparents? Do you know other people who have read the writing of James Baldwin? Do they know about the history of the Civil Rights Movement in the United States? Imagine you were James Baldwin. What would you change about racial and sexual orientation discrimination? How would you ensure that all Americans are given equal treatment for generations to come? Create and share a new lesson based on this one.	<urn:uuid:7e383ded-f6cb-46d4-bb0e-93b7a19770a6>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://ed.ted.com/lessons/notes-of-a-native-son-the-world-according-to-james-baldwin-christina-greer	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250591234.15/warc/CC-MAIN-20200117205732-20200117233732-00351.warc.gz	en	0.988323	474	3.359375	3	[ -0.05578838288784027, 0.19737567007541656, 0.2053661197423935, -0.17930379509925842, -0.33305469155311584, 0.3091049790382385, 0.1861020177602768, 0.12984128296375275, -0.2038036733865738, 0.21622171998023987, 0.10125136375427246, 0.22274863719940186, 0.04565280303359032, 0.210591003298759...	1	Notes of a native son: the world according to James Baldwin - Christina Greer - 169,068 Views - 1,247 Questions Answered - TEDEd Animation If you read the various novels written by Baldwin or watch his debates and speeches, you will discover a man who has thought deeply about his placement in the country of his birth, but also as a Black American man living abroad and analyzing his country from afar. If James Baldwin were alive today, what do you think his primary agenda would be? Do you think he would choose to leave the country permanently during this political climate? Overt racism is not the same today as it was during Baldwin’s lifetime. However, what other systems, institutions, and practices are currently being used to maintain the racial oppressions Baldwin famously wrote about? Many people do not see racism as an ill that effects individuals and groups, both in the United States and abroad. Because inequality has taken many different forms since the time period in which Baldwin wrote, some people do not see racism, homophobia, and inequality as major concerns of today. Indeed, race relations in America have gotten better (or at least evolved). Although the types of racism are not as prevalent as they once were, there are still much more work to be done to provide racial and economic equality. Why do you think so many refuse to recognize racial inequality as a major problem in American society? Baldwin witnessed his friends Medgar Evers, Malcolm X, ad Dr Martin Luther King be assassinated for speaking out against racism and inequality. Why do you think Baldwin had the courage to write and speak about these issues during a time when it was dangerous to do so? Do you think you would have had the courage of James Baldwin if you lived during his time? Have a conversation with someone of a different race, gender, sexuality, or age. What has been their experience living in the U.S.? What were the experiences of their parents or grandparents? Do you know other people who have read the writing of James Baldwin? Do they know about the history of the Civil Rights Movement in the United States? Imagine you were James Baldwin. What would you change about racial and sexual orientation discrimination? How would you ensure that all Americans are given equal treatment for generations to come? Create and share a new lesson based on this one.	476	ENGLISH	1
Who were the Minoans? We know that they were a civilisation that inhabited Crete over 4000 years ago. Do we understand exactly who they were when so much of their history is entwined in Mythology? The Minoans never developed an army since they had no enemies, maybe that is why mythology became such an important and integral part of their lives. Many questions regarding the Minoan civilisation remained unanswered until the dawning of the 20th century. Enter Arthur Evans - born into a wealthy British family, a bright boy who attended Harrow School, then Oxford University, and who later became keeper of the prestigious Ashmolean collection. He travelled to Crete, and whilst there became convinced that a typical olive tree covered hillside close to Irakleio was the site of the ancient Palace of Knossos. Crete's liberation from the Ottoman rule in 1898, four years after his visit, then made it possible for him to buy the land and he began work excavating it in 1900. He endeavoured to find sponsors and help, but no one had any interest in sponsoring or working on what was considered at the time to be simply "fairy tales". Evans decided to fund all of the work himself, paying colleagues and friends to assist him - his belief in his own conviction was deep and profoundly held. Unbelievably within the first few months of excavating he hit the jack pot by discovering the palace's 4000 year old 'throne room' much to everyone's surprise, that is, apart from Evans himself. The two storeys in the eastern wing are connected to one another by means of a system of stairways know as the Grand Staircase. There are a total of four flights of stairs, two for each storey. There is some controversy connected with the restoration work carried out at Knossos which involved the re-creation of several Minoan frescoes by Piet de Jong and Emile Gilliéron. They worked with Evans to make sense of the wall painting fragments that were found - the original fragments and reconstruction of which can be seen today at the museum in Irakleio. I personally liked them, they gave me a sense of just how colourful and attractive the Palace must have been. A bull fresco adorns the Northern Propylaea. Images of sacred bulls outlasted the Minoan civilisation which in turn helped to foster the legend of the Labyrinth and the Minotaur. This Northern Propylaea was the main gateway to the palace complex. An entrance ramp is located just below the propylaea seen to the left. Large robust square columns lined the entrance, which along with the floors were all made out of polished white alabaster. It would have all looked absolutely incredible - pure white, translucent and highly polished. The entrance then leads on down to The Royal Road which is the last vestige of a Minoan road. This connected the port and harbour to the palace complex, thus providing travellers with easy access to the palace. This area also acted as a reception courtyard - the Royal family would entertain guests here along with the members of court who would stand on the tiered platforms, parts of which can just be seen on the left. The Throne Room was the first area that Evans discovered. This chamber was built for ceremonial purposes, and the squat alabaster type dishes were actually found on the floor during excavation. They indicate that a ceremony to propitiate the deity was actually in progress at the time of the palaces destruction. There is much more to see than I have shown, but this print gives some indication of how the palace looked and also the large area that it covered. It is now known that it wasn't just a palace, but also a ceremonial and political centre for the Minoan civilisation and culture. The indications are that the most likely cause of the devastating destruction of the palace was due to fire and a large earthquake in 1700BC.	<urn:uuid:929db26a-1b4d-4177-b846-8a79205ac8a5>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://wherefivevalleysmeet.blogspot.com/2019/03/knossos-palace.html	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251705142.94/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127174507-20200127204507-00373.warc.gz	en	0.984751	805	3.421875	3	[ 0.11093714833259583, 0.2834354043006897, 0.49230271577835083, -0.04017679765820503, -0.05151674151420593, -0.12353356182575226, 0.15797215700149536, 0.14614337682724, -0.13913895189762115, -0.26704102754592896, -0.176871657371521, -0.5140851140022278, 0.24311546981334686, 0.509908556938171...	1	Who were the Minoans? We know that they were a civilisation that inhabited Crete over 4000 years ago. Do we understand exactly who they were when so much of their history is entwined in Mythology? The Minoans never developed an army since they had no enemies, maybe that is why mythology became such an important and integral part of their lives. Many questions regarding the Minoan civilisation remained unanswered until the dawning of the 20th century. Enter Arthur Evans - born into a wealthy British family, a bright boy who attended Harrow School, then Oxford University, and who later became keeper of the prestigious Ashmolean collection. He travelled to Crete, and whilst there became convinced that a typical olive tree covered hillside close to Irakleio was the site of the ancient Palace of Knossos. Crete's liberation from the Ottoman rule in 1898, four years after his visit, then made it possible for him to buy the land and he began work excavating it in 1900. He endeavoured to find sponsors and help, but no one had any interest in sponsoring or working on what was considered at the time to be simply "fairy tales". Evans decided to fund all of the work himself, paying colleagues and friends to assist him - his belief in his own conviction was deep and profoundly held. Unbelievably within the first few months of excavating he hit the jack pot by discovering the palace's 4000 year old 'throne room' much to everyone's surprise, that is, apart from Evans himself. The two storeys in the eastern wing are connected to one another by means of a system of stairways know as the Grand Staircase. There are a total of four flights of stairs, two for each storey. There is some controversy connected with the restoration work carried out at Knossos which involved the re-creation of several Minoan frescoes by Piet de Jong and Emile Gilliéron. They worked with Evans to make sense of the wall painting fragments that were found - the original fragments and reconstruction of which can be seen today at the museum in Irakleio. I personally liked them, they gave me a sense of just how colourful and attractive the Palace must have been. A bull fresco adorns the Northern Propylaea. Images of sacred bulls outlasted the Minoan civilisation which in turn helped to foster the legend of the Labyrinth and the Minotaur. This Northern Propylaea was the main gateway to the palace complex. An entrance ramp is located just below the propylaea seen to the left. Large robust square columns lined the entrance, which along with the floors were all made out of polished white alabaster. It would have all looked absolutely incredible - pure white, translucent and highly polished. The entrance then leads on down to The Royal Road which is the last vestige of a Minoan road. This connected the port and harbour to the palace complex, thus providing travellers with easy access to the palace. This area also acted as a reception courtyard - the Royal family would entertain guests here along with the members of court who would stand on the tiered platforms, parts of which can just be seen on the left. The Throne Room was the first area that Evans discovered. This chamber was built for ceremonial purposes, and the squat alabaster type dishes were actually found on the floor during excavation. They indicate that a ceremony to propitiate the deity was actually in progress at the time of the palaces destruction. There is much more to see than I have shown, but this print gives some indication of how the palace looked and also the large area that it covered. It is now known that it wasn't just a palace, but also a ceremonial and political centre for the Minoan civilisation and culture. The indications are that the most likely cause of the devastating destruction of the palace was due to fire and a large earthquake in 1700BC.	825	ENGLISH	1
Ulmus minor var. vulgaris (formerly U. procera) Elms are native trees but were relatively rare until the late 17th century when they were planted in hedgerows; later they were used in parks. In Britain English Elm is one of the oldest living links with the past. It was used by Bronze age farmers and, because it seldom produces viable seed, propagation since then has been vegetative, mostly through naturally spreading root suckers. Root systems under hedges around old settlements may still contain clonal material planted over 3,000 years ago! Unfortunately it is this fact the most of them were clones that the Dutch Elm disease was so serious, as there was very little natural variability between the plants. One in five of our elms was destroyed by the disease which entered the country in the 1960s. Dutch Elm disease is a fungus which blocks vessels in the metabolic system of the tree. The disease is spread between trees by the burrowing Scolytus beetle, so it only affects trees that are old enough to have a thick bark. It is thought that 25 million of our elms were destroyed in the following decade. - winged seeds - hairy leaves and twigs - Chair seats - Table tops - Boat building	<urn:uuid:f5835b44-cbe2-4968-bffe-8dcce1230c4b>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	http://www.bidstonhill.org.uk/elm/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250616186.38/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124070934-20200124095934-00064.warc.gz	en	0.987048	260	3.734375	4	[ 0.014464483596384525, -0.22963041067123413, 0.6760791540145874, 0.014138263650238514, 0.7428660988807678, -0.22569960355758667, -0.31835371255874634, 0.03656015172600746, -0.24966803193092346, 0.1543155461549759, 0.13841915130615234, -0.480368971824646, 0.06746166199445724, 0.0038102206308...	9	Ulmus minor var. vulgaris (formerly U. procera) Elms are native trees but were relatively rare until the late 17th century when they were planted in hedgerows; later they were used in parks. In Britain English Elm is one of the oldest living links with the past. It was used by Bronze age farmers and, because it seldom produces viable seed, propagation since then has been vegetative, mostly through naturally spreading root suckers. Root systems under hedges around old settlements may still contain clonal material planted over 3,000 years ago! Unfortunately it is this fact the most of them were clones that the Dutch Elm disease was so serious, as there was very little natural variability between the plants. One in five of our elms was destroyed by the disease which entered the country in the 1960s. Dutch Elm disease is a fungus which blocks vessels in the metabolic system of the tree. The disease is spread between trees by the burrowing Scolytus beetle, so it only affects trees that are old enough to have a thick bark. It is thought that 25 million of our elms were destroyed in the following decade. - winged seeds - hairy leaves and twigs - Chair seats - Table tops - Boat building	266	ENGLISH	1
Harriet Beecher Stowe was an American author and abolitionist, most famous for authoring Uncle Tom's Cabin in 1852. Harriet was born on June 14, 1811, in Litchfield, Connecticut. She had four siblings, including her brother, the famous abolitionist preacher Henry Ward Beecher. After enrolling in a seminary run by her sister, Harriet moved to Cincinnati, Ohio to be with her father who was the president of Lane Theological Seminary. In 1836, she married Calvin Ellis Stowe, a professor at the seminary and outspoken abolitionist. Together, they had seven children and housed several runaway slaves as part of the Underground Railroad. They eventually moved to Brunswick, Maine, where Calvin became a professor at Bowdoin College. A Polarizing Publication After the passage of the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act, Harriet published her first installment of Uncle Tom's Cabin in an antislavery journal known as The Era. Uncle Tom's Cabin was an antislavery novel, fully published in 1852, that illustrated the horrors of slavery in the Southern United States. The book was meant to convince Northern readers of the urgency in ending slavery. The story was so powerful, and so polarizing, that it had a significant effect on sectional relations in the United States, and is often considered one of the causes of the deterioration in relations between the North and South. Slavery advocates were outraged by the novel, many of whom claimed it to be utterly false. The book was wildly popular in England, where over 1.5 million copies eventually circulated. Only Outsold by the Bible! Harriet Beecher Stowe quickly became a household name and Uncle Tom's Cabin became the best-selling novel, and second best-selling book in the 19th Century - it was only outsold by the Bible. Stowe's book helped fuel the abolitionist cause and Abraham Lincoln is sometimes quoted as saying "So you're the little lady that started this great war!" upon their meeting at the start of the Civil War. After Uncle Tom's Cabin, Harriet wrote many other books. For 23 years prior to her death, she lived next door to the famous author Mark Twain in Hartford, Connecticut. Today, the house is preserved as the Harriet Beecher Stowe House. There is also a Harriet Beecher Stowe House in Brunswick, Maine, where her famous novel was written. She died on July 1, 1896.	<urn:uuid:23f9b57f-f666-49dc-b4b5-5a9f3f9ab9e1>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://mrnussbaum.com/uncle-toms-cabin	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250624328.55/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124161014-20200124190014-00064.warc.gz	en	0.985778	503	4.03125	4	[ 0.18012027442455292, 0.202012300491333, 0.36080026626586914, 0.17206819355487823, 0.1559523344039917, -0.021103423088788986, -0.18606773018836975, -0.18845395743846893, -0.10967226326465607, 0.28565219044685364, 0.32747867703437805, 0.30967119336128235, -0.10238425433635712, 0.260519355535...	4	Harriet Beecher Stowe was an American author and abolitionist, most famous for authoring Uncle Tom's Cabin in 1852. Harriet was born on June 14, 1811, in Litchfield, Connecticut. She had four siblings, including her brother, the famous abolitionist preacher Henry Ward Beecher. After enrolling in a seminary run by her sister, Harriet moved to Cincinnati, Ohio to be with her father who was the president of Lane Theological Seminary. In 1836, she married Calvin Ellis Stowe, a professor at the seminary and outspoken abolitionist. Together, they had seven children and housed several runaway slaves as part of the Underground Railroad. They eventually moved to Brunswick, Maine, where Calvin became a professor at Bowdoin College. A Polarizing Publication After the passage of the 1850 Fugitive Slave Act, Harriet published her first installment of Uncle Tom's Cabin in an antislavery journal known as The Era. Uncle Tom's Cabin was an antislavery novel, fully published in 1852, that illustrated the horrors of slavery in the Southern United States. The book was meant to convince Northern readers of the urgency in ending slavery. The story was so powerful, and so polarizing, that it had a significant effect on sectional relations in the United States, and is often considered one of the causes of the deterioration in relations between the North and South. Slavery advocates were outraged by the novel, many of whom claimed it to be utterly false. The book was wildly popular in England, where over 1.5 million copies eventually circulated. Only Outsold by the Bible! Harriet Beecher Stowe quickly became a household name and Uncle Tom's Cabin became the best-selling novel, and second best-selling book in the 19th Century - it was only outsold by the Bible. Stowe's book helped fuel the abolitionist cause and Abraham Lincoln is sometimes quoted as saying "So you're the little lady that started this great war!" upon their meeting at the start of the Civil War. After Uncle Tom's Cabin, Harriet wrote many other books. For 23 years prior to her death, she lived next door to the famous author Mark Twain in Hartford, Connecticut. Today, the house is preserved as the Harriet Beecher Stowe House. There is also a Harriet Beecher Stowe House in Brunswick, Maine, where her famous novel was written. She died on July 1, 1896.	525	ENGLISH	1
“Letters were a great comfort. And the mail was indispensable. We couldn’t have won the war without it. It was terribly important as a motivator of the troops. Mail call, whenever it happened it was a delight,” Paul Fussel commented about mail during World War II. Love letters had a large impact on soldiers and their loved ones; they also affected their attitudes and performances, and the letter content was similar in almost all letters home. Receiving a letter was one of the best things a person could get whether you were in the war or you were home while a loved one was at war. Because soldiers were gone for long periods of time, people depended on their letters from their loved ones at the war (“Letters from the Front”). Letters, however, were not only important to the mothers, wives, children, and other relatives, but they were also important to all the soldiers at war. When families received letters it let them know how the soldier was doing which would give the family relief. When a loved one is away constant worry becomes real, getting a letter telling loved ones they are okay is the best thing. A private named Sid Phillips celebrated his eighteenth birthday in the war, and the next day he got a letter from home and said it was “The best present possible” (“Communication”). All the letters sent out of the war were monitored so that the enemy could not get any information to help them get ahead in the war. When soldiers wrote letters they were sent to a place that would black out any information that would be useful to the enemy before it was sent home. The place that would black out information on the letters was known as the blackout station. Even though the letters would be sent away for monitoring, the soldiers themselves would try to watch what they revealed also. Because the letters were so strictly monitored, all the soldiers could really tell their families was that they were okay (“Communication”). Locations were always kept a secret in the war and if a soldier were to put their secret location in a letter it would be blacked out at the blackout station. Soldiers would rarely get more that a twenty-four hour notice before they had to leave their present locations. So, they would have to spontaneously pick up what they had and go someplace new. Most of the soldiers would not care that they had little time to pack up and leave because they were working toward ending the war (Frederick). Some soldiers would have to visit all the secret locations to get statements, so they had to move every day (“Letters from the Front”). Probably the hardest part about getting letters was the waiting game. It took a long time to send and receive mail from the soldiers because it had to be monitored and sent very far away (“Communication”). Because soldiers were gone for long periods of time it made their loved ones have to wait to see them again. This is why families depended on letters from their loved ones. It was hard for them to wait because...	<urn:uuid:df02cb8d-0b0b-4591-84ad-22c8944e84e5>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://brightkite.com/essay-on/love-letters-of-world-war-ii	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250605075.24/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121192553-20200121221553-00200.warc.gz	en	0.993996	633	3.671875	4	[ -0.37652528285980225, 0.6504285931587219, 0.2535374164581299, -0.19627316296100616, 0.09323443472385406, -0.019879112020134926, 0.25043272972106934, 0.044429853558540344, -0.15724441409111023, -0.2773498594760895, 0.31245946884155273, 0.4939485788345337, 0.2028011679649353, 0.2030707597732...	1	“Letters were a great comfort. And the mail was indispensable. We couldn’t have won the war without it. It was terribly important as a motivator of the troops. Mail call, whenever it happened it was a delight,” Paul Fussel commented about mail during World War II. Love letters had a large impact on soldiers and their loved ones; they also affected their attitudes and performances, and the letter content was similar in almost all letters home. Receiving a letter was one of the best things a person could get whether you were in the war or you were home while a loved one was at war. Because soldiers were gone for long periods of time, people depended on their letters from their loved ones at the war (“Letters from the Front”). Letters, however, were not only important to the mothers, wives, children, and other relatives, but they were also important to all the soldiers at war. When families received letters it let them know how the soldier was doing which would give the family relief. When a loved one is away constant worry becomes real, getting a letter telling loved ones they are okay is the best thing. A private named Sid Phillips celebrated his eighteenth birthday in the war, and the next day he got a letter from home and said it was “The best present possible” (“Communication”). All the letters sent out of the war were monitored so that the enemy could not get any information to help them get ahead in the war. When soldiers wrote letters they were sent to a place that would black out any information that would be useful to the enemy before it was sent home. The place that would black out information on the letters was known as the blackout station. Even though the letters would be sent away for monitoring, the soldiers themselves would try to watch what they revealed also. Because the letters were so strictly monitored, all the soldiers could really tell their families was that they were okay (“Communication”). Locations were always kept a secret in the war and if a soldier were to put their secret location in a letter it would be blacked out at the blackout station. Soldiers would rarely get more that a twenty-four hour notice before they had to leave their present locations. So, they would have to spontaneously pick up what they had and go someplace new. Most of the soldiers would not care that they had little time to pack up and leave because they were working toward ending the war (Frederick). Some soldiers would have to visit all the secret locations to get statements, so they had to move every day (“Letters from the Front”). Probably the hardest part about getting letters was the waiting game. It took a long time to send and receive mail from the soldiers because it had to be monitored and sent very far away (“Communication”). Because soldiers were gone for long periods of time it made their loved ones have to wait to see them again. This is why families depended on letters from their loved ones. It was hard for them to wait because...	599	ENGLISH	1
« السابقةمتابعة » A mountain town called Guaccachiulla secretly sent to treat with Cortes and to offer assistance against the inhabitants of the province of Colua who were allies of Temistitan, and of whom they had reason to complain because of various outrages and assaults; they had even carried off their women. Guaccachiulla is on this side of the mountains while their enemies of the province of Colua are on the other side. Cortes was informed that in the regions beyond the range an ambuscade of thirty thousand soldiers had learned that the Spaniards were advancing with the intention of entering the territory of Colua. Taking with him only two hundred foot-soldiers, thirteen horsemen, three thousand allies, and some cannon, Cortes marched against Guaccachiulla. The commanders of the ambuscade, who were sound asleep in the town, were either all killed or captured. The town of Guaccachiulla is surrounded by strong walls furnished with towers and is protected by the mountains. The soil is fertile; the town numbers about six thousand houses, built of stone and mortar, and two rivers water the plain in which it stands. There is one other town, four leagues distant from Guaccachiulla, whose inhabitants proposed to surrender to Cortes, but their cacique fled with the Coluans and would not give his submission when invited to do so. Cortes appointed his brother in his place and promised the inhabitants that he would not revoke his decision. Some days later Cortes marched by another road to a city called Izzuccan, also four leagues distant from Guaccachiulla. He learned that an army of Coluans was awaiting him on the road not far from the frontiers of that town. Their number was reported to be twenty thousand men, who felt certain of repulsing the invasion of their territory. Six thousand men defended the town from within, and the others were scattered in groups amongst the villages and hamlets. The women and all men incapable of fighting had been sent, together with their treasure, into the forests and mountains. Both its situation and its defences render Izzuccan a formidable place; but I weary myself by enumerating all these fortified towns. Let it suffice to say that this city was taken by assault, and that the greater part of its defenders, fearing to be captured, sprang from the walls and fled towards the neighbouring river. The town once captured, Cortes gave quarter to the inhabitants, but ordered them to bring back the fugitives with all their treasure. They quickly returned, each to his own home, and the town was repopulated. Two messengers were sent to the cacique who had fled with the people of Temistitan and Colua, but he refused to come, preferring exile. This cacique had a bastard brother older than himself, and also a grandson ten years old, who was of the legitimate line. Cortes named the latter king, but appointed his great uncle as his tutor, associating also in the government three inhabitants of Guaccachiulla, who were noted for their fidelity and loyalty. These counsellors were to administer the country for their people, until the youth became of age and able to govern in person. This town of Izzuccan numbers three thousand houses and about a hundred temples, consecrated to various gods. Human victims are sacrificed in these temples. Cortes counted them from a lofty place, and ordered every one of them, together with the statues in them, to be burned. He forbade the celebration of any such ceremonies, declaring that God, who made the heavens and the earth, detested homicide, and that the killing of man by man was repugnant both to the law of God and of Nature. Izzuccan is dominated by a fortress and surrounded by hills which protect it against the winds, so the temperature is warm. Cotton grows there in abundance. The soil is well watered, and during the summer the irrigation canals keep the fields green. Fruits are numerous and vegetables are not wanting. There are many towns and hamlets. With the occupation of Guaccachiulla and the fall of Izzucca, the news that Fortune once more showed herself a tender mother to the Spaniards spread through the country. At this turn of her wheel the natives abandoned the people of Temistitan, and hastened to come back to Cortes. Messengers arrived from every direction, offering submission, saying that the only reason they had not sooner ventured to render the homage due to the great sovereign power the Spaniards possessed, was because they feared the reprisals of the Coluans and the great lords of Temistitan; but seeing that, thanks to their protection, there was nothing more to fear from the tyranny of the neighbouring caciques, they came to offer their submission. It is time to bring this overlong narrative to an end. Some prisoners informed Cortes that after Muteczuma's death, his brother, Hastapalappa, had been named king at Temistitan, but after a reign of four months had died of a smallpox and had been succeeded by his sister's son, Catamazin"; of Muteczuma's three sons, the first had been killed at the bridges, during the retreat; the second was mad, and the third paralysed. Quauhtemotzin employed all his resources in collecting weapons, especially very long lances, with which it was hoped to strike the horses from a distance, for an attack by the cavalry is what they most fear. The new sovereign expected that Cortes would take the offensive, for he understood that all the neighbouring country was falling away from him and asking help from the Spaniards against himself. In this he was not mistaken, for Cortes had ordered thirteen of those boats having two banks of oars, which "Quauhtemotzin: the proper name of this ruler will be henceforth used in the text. are called brigantines, to be constructed, intending with them to ravage the country bordering the great salt lake. He hoped that when Temistitan was deprived of provisions and its water supply was cut off, the city would be reduced to the necessity of accepting the yoke of the King of Spain. Moreover, he sent four ships to Hispaniola to obtain horses, a sufficient number of musketeers, and a quantity of powder. Cortes writes that this region, with its mountains, rivers, and valleys well grown with fruit trees, resembles Spain; and he therefore asks the Emperor to confirm the name, New Spain, which he has given to the part he has discovered. He likewise, at the close of his most important report, begs his Majesty to send a man eminent for his virtues and experience to visit and report upon the conquered country. This letter" is dated the thirtieth day of October, 1520, and was written at the fortress he founded and named Segura de la Frontera. * This is the Second Letter of Relation. It was first published by Cromberger in Seville in 1522. HILE these writings lay ready in my cabinet V V awaiting the absent secretaries from whom distance and insecure roads separate me, behold the pregnant ocean produces a new, recently born progeny. I shall therefore conclude this work with two appendices exceeding in interest anything preceding it. In the beginning I shall speak of the journey round the world, the discovery of the spice islands, and the most extraordinary and almost incredible events. In the second place I will state by what means, by what stratagems, force of arms, and courage Fernando Cortes, assisted by the Tascaltecans and the people of Guazuzingo and other peoples hostile to Muteczuma, captured the great city of Temistitan, annihilated and almost destroyed it from top to bottom. This conquest notably increases the number of states subject to Your Holiness, and especially the extent of the kingdoms of Great Castile. I shall begin with the journey round the world and the description of the spiceries; but I must go back somewhat in my narrative. It was, if you remember, while the Emperor was presiding over the Cortes of Catalonia at Barcelona, and Your Holiness directed the affairs of our Imperial Indian Council, that the Portuguese, Ferdinand Magellan, who had quit the Portuguese service, was commissioned to visit the Moluccan archipelago, where spices grow. Magellan had, in fact, passed seven years at Cochin, Cananor, at Calicut in the Chersonesus, other	<urn:uuid:6dc6eb77-3e24-41ec-8e7c-884fdead4891>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://books.google.com.eg/books?id=IBQ1TCJxjEkC&pg=PA147&focus=viewport&vq=Portuguese&dq=editions:HARVARD32044022680755&hl=ar&output=html_text	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250613416.54/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123191130-20200123220130-00510.warc.gz	en	0.982326	1,767	3.296875	3	[ -0.15573421120643616, 0.3055470585823059, 0.07367033511400223, 0.3942069411277771, 0.07201255112886429, -0.3586098551750183, 0.3058030903339386, -0.18984761834144592, 0.023533791303634644, -0.2634209394454956, -0.0161212719976902, -0.8948708772659302, 0.048408567905426025, -0.0432892367243...	1	« السابقةمتابعة » A mountain town called Guaccachiulla secretly sent to treat with Cortes and to offer assistance against the inhabitants of the province of Colua who were allies of Temistitan, and of whom they had reason to complain because of various outrages and assaults; they had even carried off their women. Guaccachiulla is on this side of the mountains while their enemies of the province of Colua are on the other side. Cortes was informed that in the regions beyond the range an ambuscade of thirty thousand soldiers had learned that the Spaniards were advancing with the intention of entering the territory of Colua. Taking with him only two hundred foot-soldiers, thirteen horsemen, three thousand allies, and some cannon, Cortes marched against Guaccachiulla. The commanders of the ambuscade, who were sound asleep in the town, were either all killed or captured. The town of Guaccachiulla is surrounded by strong walls furnished with towers and is protected by the mountains. The soil is fertile; the town numbers about six thousand houses, built of stone and mortar, and two rivers water the plain in which it stands. There is one other town, four leagues distant from Guaccachiulla, whose inhabitants proposed to surrender to Cortes, but their cacique fled with the Coluans and would not give his submission when invited to do so. Cortes appointed his brother in his place and promised the inhabitants that he would not revoke his decision. Some days later Cortes marched by another road to a city called Izzuccan, also four leagues distant from Guaccachiulla. He learned that an army of Coluans was awaiting him on the road not far from the frontiers of that town. Their number was reported to be twenty thousand men, who felt certain of repulsing the invasion of their territory. Six thousand men defended the town from within, and the others were scattered in groups amongst the villages and hamlets. The women and all men incapable of fighting had been sent, together with their treasure, into the forests and mountains. Both its situation and its defences render Izzuccan a formidable place; but I weary myself by enumerating all these fortified towns. Let it suffice to say that this city was taken by assault, and that the greater part of its defenders, fearing to be captured, sprang from the walls and fled towards the neighbouring river. The town once captured, Cortes gave quarter to the inhabitants, but ordered them to bring back the fugitives with all their treasure. They quickly returned, each to his own home, and the town was repopulated. Two messengers were sent to the cacique who had fled with the people of Temistitan and Colua, but he refused to come, preferring exile. This cacique had a bastard brother older than himself, and also a grandson ten years old, who was of the legitimate line. Cortes named the latter king, but appointed his great uncle as his tutor, associating also in the government three inhabitants of Guaccachiulla, who were noted for their fidelity and loyalty. These counsellors were to administer the country for their people, until the youth became of age and able to govern in person. This town of Izzuccan numbers three thousand houses and about a hundred temples, consecrated to various gods. Human victims are sacrificed in these temples. Cortes counted them from a lofty place, and ordered every one of them, together with the statues in them, to be burned. He forbade the celebration of any such ceremonies, declaring that God, who made the heavens and the earth, detested homicide, and that the killing of man by man was repugnant both to the law of God and of Nature. Izzuccan is dominated by a fortress and surrounded by hills which protect it against the winds, so the temperature is warm. Cotton grows there in abundance. The soil is well watered, and during the summer the irrigation canals keep the fields green. Fruits are numerous and vegetables are not wanting. There are many towns and hamlets. With the occupation of Guaccachiulla and the fall of Izzucca, the news that Fortune once more showed herself a tender mother to the Spaniards spread through the country. At this turn of her wheel the natives abandoned the people of Temistitan, and hastened to come back to Cortes. Messengers arrived from every direction, offering submission, saying that the only reason they had not sooner ventured to render the homage due to the great sovereign power the Spaniards possessed, was because they feared the reprisals of the Coluans and the great lords of Temistitan; but seeing that, thanks to their protection, there was nothing more to fear from the tyranny of the neighbouring caciques, they came to offer their submission. It is time to bring this overlong narrative to an end. Some prisoners informed Cortes that after Muteczuma's death, his brother, Hastapalappa, had been named king at Temistitan, but after a reign of four months had died of a smallpox and had been succeeded by his sister's son, Catamazin"; of Muteczuma's three sons, the first had been killed at the bridges, during the retreat; the second was mad, and the third paralysed. Quauhtemotzin employed all his resources in collecting weapons, especially very long lances, with which it was hoped to strike the horses from a distance, for an attack by the cavalry is what they most fear. The new sovereign expected that Cortes would take the offensive, for he understood that all the neighbouring country was falling away from him and asking help from the Spaniards against himself. In this he was not mistaken, for Cortes had ordered thirteen of those boats having two banks of oars, which "Quauhtemotzin: the proper name of this ruler will be henceforth used in the text. are called brigantines, to be constructed, intending with them to ravage the country bordering the great salt lake. He hoped that when Temistitan was deprived of provisions and its water supply was cut off, the city would be reduced to the necessity of accepting the yoke of the King of Spain. Moreover, he sent four ships to Hispaniola to obtain horses, a sufficient number of musketeers, and a quantity of powder. Cortes writes that this region, with its mountains, rivers, and valleys well grown with fruit trees, resembles Spain; and he therefore asks the Emperor to confirm the name, New Spain, which he has given to the part he has discovered. He likewise, at the close of his most important report, begs his Majesty to send a man eminent for his virtues and experience to visit and report upon the conquered country. This letter" is dated the thirtieth day of October, 1520, and was written at the fortress he founded and named Segura de la Frontera. * This is the Second Letter of Relation. It was first published by Cromberger in Seville in 1522. HILE these writings lay ready in my cabinet V V awaiting the absent secretaries from whom distance and insecure roads separate me, behold the pregnant ocean produces a new, recently born progeny. I shall therefore conclude this work with two appendices exceeding in interest anything preceding it. In the beginning I shall speak of the journey round the world, the discovery of the spice islands, and the most extraordinary and almost incredible events. In the second place I will state by what means, by what stratagems, force of arms, and courage Fernando Cortes, assisted by the Tascaltecans and the people of Guazuzingo and other peoples hostile to Muteczuma, captured the great city of Temistitan, annihilated and almost destroyed it from top to bottom. This conquest notably increases the number of states subject to Your Holiness, and especially the extent of the kingdoms of Great Castile. I shall begin with the journey round the world and the description of the spiceries; but I must go back somewhat in my narrative. It was, if you remember, while the Emperor was presiding over the Cortes of Catalonia at Barcelona, and Your Holiness directed the affairs of our Imperial Indian Council, that the Portuguese, Ferdinand Magellan, who had quit the Portuguese service, was commissioned to visit the Moluccan archipelago, where spices grow. Magellan had, in fact, passed seven years at Cochin, Cananor, at Calicut in the Chersonesus, other	1,762	ENGLISH	1
During the 2015 – 2016 school year, I decided to challenge my students to improve their reading level by one grade level. We set the goal at 1/2 grade level for some students. My kiddos really want to be able to read and read at a more proficient level. We have tried a few different strategies to help improve reading abilities and have seen some success. We wanted more progress. A colleague had used the RazKids reading program during the previous school year and had seen a lot of improvement. I did not have access to RazKids, but I did have access to Reading A-Z. The first thing I did was administer the San Diego Quick Assessment to my students to determine their current reading level. I completed this assessment three times over the course of the 2015 – 2016 school year. The first time was in August to determine a baseline. Then it was done again in December. Finally, it was completed in May. After the reading level was determined, I started reviewing the Dolch sight words and created flash cards. I created a binder to store the materials. The binder was dived by levels. The flash cards were made and placed in groups of no more than ten words per group. The flash cards were clipped together and placed in a pencil pouch in the binder. I did this for each of the word groups. Behind these groups, I inserted a simple data collection sheet. I had decided to use the system of least prompting when working with the flash cards. Since the San Diego Assessment had been administered, I had an idea of the level to begin each student on. It was time for instruction. I wanted the students to be held accountable for their learning. In addition to the flash cards, the students had homework. I created a home work folder for each student. I inserted a reading log sheet for parents to sign off on as well as a leveled reader book from the Reading A-Z website. (I printed these out in black and white. Color costs way too much!) Each Monday the students would receive a new reader and a new log sheet. Each day that the students came in with their homework completed and the log sheet signed, they would receive an extra 10 minutes of free time. This was a great motivator! On Fridays, I would collect the homework folder in order to prepare it for Monday. There was no homework over the weekend. Each day I had the students read me their leveled reader. I noted on the log sheet the words missed, so I could focus on those. After reading, we immediately practiced the flash cards. Students read the same book each day for one week. I am pleased to note that one of my student’s increased her reading level by two grade levels. Three other students increased their reading levels by one grade level. Two of them increased by 1/2 a grade level. Since they did not make it to preprimer, the progress sheet shows no growth. (Although, I was thrilled with the half a grade level.) One of my students maintained at a 2nd grade level reading since we focused on comprehension with him. After working on the reading, I started including a comprehension quiz. The students read the book to me for three consecutive days. On Wednesday after reading the book, I administered the comprehension quiz from the Reading A-Z website. Comprehension scores also started to rise.	<urn:uuid:5075b616-1e82-4cde-9bb7-7784fb04b455>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	http://thespecialedteacher.com/2016/08/15/leveled-reading-activities/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250597458.22/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120052454-20200120080454-00441.warc.gz	en	0.984975	687	3.265625	3	[ -0.3969111442565918, 0.15326723456382751, 0.07453729212284088, -0.23379766941070557, -0.45191341638565063, -0.059461262077093124, -0.2855704426765442, 0.48794442415237427, 0.032674290239810944, -0.41852933168411255, 0.19163602590560913, 0.04780438169836998, 0.04610732942819595, 0.444536298...	2	During the 2015 – 2016 school year, I decided to challenge my students to improve their reading level by one grade level. We set the goal at 1/2 grade level for some students. My kiddos really want to be able to read and read at a more proficient level. We have tried a few different strategies to help improve reading abilities and have seen some success. We wanted more progress. A colleague had used the RazKids reading program during the previous school year and had seen a lot of improvement. I did not have access to RazKids, but I did have access to Reading A-Z. The first thing I did was administer the San Diego Quick Assessment to my students to determine their current reading level. I completed this assessment three times over the course of the 2015 – 2016 school year. The first time was in August to determine a baseline. Then it was done again in December. Finally, it was completed in May. After the reading level was determined, I started reviewing the Dolch sight words and created flash cards. I created a binder to store the materials. The binder was dived by levels. The flash cards were made and placed in groups of no more than ten words per group. The flash cards were clipped together and placed in a pencil pouch in the binder. I did this for each of the word groups. Behind these groups, I inserted a simple data collection sheet. I had decided to use the system of least prompting when working with the flash cards. Since the San Diego Assessment had been administered, I had an idea of the level to begin each student on. It was time for instruction. I wanted the students to be held accountable for their learning. In addition to the flash cards, the students had homework. I created a home work folder for each student. I inserted a reading log sheet for parents to sign off on as well as a leveled reader book from the Reading A-Z website. (I printed these out in black and white. Color costs way too much!) Each Monday the students would receive a new reader and a new log sheet. Each day that the students came in with their homework completed and the log sheet signed, they would receive an extra 10 minutes of free time. This was a great motivator! On Fridays, I would collect the homework folder in order to prepare it for Monday. There was no homework over the weekend. Each day I had the students read me their leveled reader. I noted on the log sheet the words missed, so I could focus on those. After reading, we immediately practiced the flash cards. Students read the same book each day for one week. I am pleased to note that one of my student’s increased her reading level by two grade levels. Three other students increased their reading levels by one grade level. Two of them increased by 1/2 a grade level. Since they did not make it to preprimer, the progress sheet shows no growth. (Although, I was thrilled with the half a grade level.) One of my students maintained at a 2nd grade level reading since we focused on comprehension with him. After working on the reading, I started including a comprehension quiz. The students read the book to me for three consecutive days. On Wednesday after reading the book, I administered the comprehension quiz from the Reading A-Z website. Comprehension scores also started to rise.	693	ENGLISH	1
The Christmas Pickle The Christmas pickle is a Christmas tradition in the United States. A decoration in the shape of a pickle is hidden on a Christmas tree, with the finder receiving either a reward or good fortune for the following year. There are a number of different origin stories attributed to the tradition, but it was primarily thought to have originated in Germany. This has since been disproved and is now thought to be an American tradition from the late 19th century. Traditionally, an ornamental pickle is placed on a Christmas tree as one of the Christmas decorations. On Christmas morning, the first child to find the pickle on the tree would receive an extra present from Santa Claus or would be said to have a year of good fortune. This tradition is commonly believed by Americans to come from Germany and be referred to as a Weihnachtsgurke but this is probably apocryphal In fact, the tradition is completely unknown in Germany. It has been suggested that the origin of the Christmas pickle may have been developed for marketing purposes in the 1890s to coincide with the importation of glass Christmas tree decorations from Germany. Woolworths was the first company to import these types of decorations into the United States in 1890, and glass blown decorative vegetables were imported from France from 1892 onwards. Despite the evidence showing that the tradition did not originate in Germany, the concept of Christmas pickles has since been imported from the United States and they are now on sale in the country traditionally associated with it. One suggested origin has been that the tradition came from Camp Sumter during the American Civil War. The Bavarian-born Private John C. Lower had enlisted in the 103rd Pennsylvania Infantry, but was captured in April 1864 and taken to the prison camp. As the story is told, on Christmas Eve he begged a guard for a pickle while starving. The guard provided the pickle, which Lower later credited for saving his life. After returning to his family, he began a tradition of hiding a pickle on their Christmas tree each year.	<urn:uuid:7b0236c5-4d20-4d89-90c3-a5a0f1df2276>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://ocs1849.com/made-in-germany/the-story-about-the-pickle/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251783342.96/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128215526-20200129005526-00264.warc.gz	en	0.981795	421	3.53125	4	[ 0.11219032853841782, 0.27352842688560486, 0.21257245540618896, -0.45715245604515076, 0.3600149154663086, -0.16433259844779968, 0.22997727990150452, 0.046687331050634384, 0.14760711789131165, 0.008961995132267475, 0.22918269038200378, 0.009388884529471397, -0.0641188696026802, -0.0180083513...	9	The Christmas Pickle The Christmas pickle is a Christmas tradition in the United States. A decoration in the shape of a pickle is hidden on a Christmas tree, with the finder receiving either a reward or good fortune for the following year. There are a number of different origin stories attributed to the tradition, but it was primarily thought to have originated in Germany. This has since been disproved and is now thought to be an American tradition from the late 19th century. Traditionally, an ornamental pickle is placed on a Christmas tree as one of the Christmas decorations. On Christmas morning, the first child to find the pickle on the tree would receive an extra present from Santa Claus or would be said to have a year of good fortune. This tradition is commonly believed by Americans to come from Germany and be referred to as a Weihnachtsgurke but this is probably apocryphal In fact, the tradition is completely unknown in Germany. It has been suggested that the origin of the Christmas pickle may have been developed for marketing purposes in the 1890s to coincide with the importation of glass Christmas tree decorations from Germany. Woolworths was the first company to import these types of decorations into the United States in 1890, and glass blown decorative vegetables were imported from France from 1892 onwards. Despite the evidence showing that the tradition did not originate in Germany, the concept of Christmas pickles has since been imported from the United States and they are now on sale in the country traditionally associated with it. One suggested origin has been that the tradition came from Camp Sumter during the American Civil War. The Bavarian-born Private John C. Lower had enlisted in the 103rd Pennsylvania Infantry, but was captured in April 1864 and taken to the prison camp. As the story is told, on Christmas Eve he begged a guard for a pickle while starving. The guard provided the pickle, which Lower later credited for saving his life. After returning to his family, he began a tradition of hiding a pickle on their Christmas tree each year.	427	ENGLISH	1
- How did old chaps and little children use the pond? (2 marks) - Who are allowed to swim on the deeper side of the pond? (1 mark) Only those who knew how to swim safely were allowed to swim on the deeper side of the pond. - Why was the narrator always allowed to swim without any conditions? (1 mark1) The narrator was allowed to swim in the pond without any conditions because the instructors were sure that she, being a fat girl, would not drown in the water. - Why was the narrator not interested in diving although she was allowed to do so? (2 marks) … glasses…. take off …. Can’t see… - “And they stopped nagging about it long ago.” - Who are ‘they?’ - About what did they use to nag? - When do ducks start duck-diving? - Why did the narrator’s friends and instructors insist on her practicing duck-diving? They insisted that the narrator learn duck-dive to train her to rescue in case someone drowned in the water. - How did the instructors train the narrator in duck-dive? The narrator had to dive down the bottom of the pond and pick up a brick that the instructors had thrown in. slowly they trained her to lift heavier objects and then people. - What is duck-diving? Duck-diving is a way of swimming by which the swimmer puts head under water and bottom up while diving underwater. - Why did the instructor ask Sausage to go after the brick? The instructor asked Sausage to follow the brick so that she could get it before it got settled in the mud. - Why was a white flannel tied round the brick? An old white flannel was tied round the brick to make it visible to Sausage. - Why did the instructor ask everyone else to come out of the water before Sausage dived? - What did Sausage feel when the instructor threw the brick over her head? When the instructor threw the brick over Sausage’s head, she saw it drop and water splash. Suddenly Sausage was filled with terror. She lost her confidence. She began to doubt if she would up-end. - How did water appear to Sausage while she was diving? Thick greeny-brown lemonade… wispy little things moving around in it… maybe things, maybe the movement of water… hard to tell. - What does Sausage mean by the funny thing about swimming underwater? - No sunlight - No Still, quiet - No shouting - No splashing - Only shade. - How did water change colour as Sausage went down? - Thick greeny-brown lemonade - Dark blackish-brown. - Bright lemonade - What did Sausage do once she got hold of the brick? - Why was Sausage scared while shooting herself upward? - She had spent much time under water - She would come up where people were fishing with hooks and lines - One of the hooks pierce her cheeks - That she would never reach the surface of the water. - Do you think Sausage is a strong character? Why do you think so? - She was determined - She was scared but did not lose hope - What did Sausage lift up from the mud? Sausage lifted an old tin box from the mud. - How did Sausage miss the brick? - The real brick had a white flannel around it. - The tin box had no flannel. - Sausage thought that the flannel had gone loose from the brick. - It was dark. - The tin box was heavy and slimy. - The tin box was rectangular as a brick. - She was scared and was in a hurry. - In your opinion, how did the tin box get there? - Probably it was a tiffin box used by the old chaps who used to fish in the pond. - Maybe it was a bait-box. - It must have dropped in the fishing area and was later moved to the swimming end. - Why is the story titled ‘Return to Air?’ - Why does sausage say that she would live to be a hundred?	<urn:uuid:3e57d80d-4ba2-44c9-8912-6151dc8d96ed>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.kiddingtown.com/return-air-ann-philippa-pearce/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250604849.31/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121162615-20200121191615-00124.warc.gz	en	0.980132	933	3.453125	3	[ -0.04844328761100769, -0.27319425344467163, -0.1280890256166458, -0.047961488366127014, -0.49932241439819336, 0.07063496112823486, 0.746344804763794, -0.12158884108066559, -0.21175508201122284, -0.022821858525276184, -0.07853148877620697, -0.4774886965751648, 0.07699792087078094, 0.1621881...	1	- How did old chaps and little children use the pond? (2 marks) - Who are allowed to swim on the deeper side of the pond? (1 mark) Only those who knew how to swim safely were allowed to swim on the deeper side of the pond. - Why was the narrator always allowed to swim without any conditions? (1 mark1) The narrator was allowed to swim in the pond without any conditions because the instructors were sure that she, being a fat girl, would not drown in the water. - Why was the narrator not interested in diving although she was allowed to do so? (2 marks) … glasses…. take off …. Can’t see… - “And they stopped nagging about it long ago.” - Who are ‘they?’ - About what did they use to nag? - When do ducks start duck-diving? - Why did the narrator’s friends and instructors insist on her practicing duck-diving? They insisted that the narrator learn duck-dive to train her to rescue in case someone drowned in the water. - How did the instructors train the narrator in duck-dive? The narrator had to dive down the bottom of the pond and pick up a brick that the instructors had thrown in. slowly they trained her to lift heavier objects and then people. - What is duck-diving? Duck-diving is a way of swimming by which the swimmer puts head under water and bottom up while diving underwater. - Why did the instructor ask Sausage to go after the brick? The instructor asked Sausage to follow the brick so that she could get it before it got settled in the mud. - Why was a white flannel tied round the brick? An old white flannel was tied round the brick to make it visible to Sausage. - Why did the instructor ask everyone else to come out of the water before Sausage dived? - What did Sausage feel when the instructor threw the brick over her head? When the instructor threw the brick over Sausage’s head, she saw it drop and water splash. Suddenly Sausage was filled with terror. She lost her confidence. She began to doubt if she would up-end. - How did water appear to Sausage while she was diving? Thick greeny-brown lemonade… wispy little things moving around in it… maybe things, maybe the movement of water… hard to tell. - What does Sausage mean by the funny thing about swimming underwater? - No sunlight - No Still, quiet - No shouting - No splashing - Only shade. - How did water change colour as Sausage went down? - Thick greeny-brown lemonade - Dark blackish-brown. - Bright lemonade - What did Sausage do once she got hold of the brick? - Why was Sausage scared while shooting herself upward? - She had spent much time under water - She would come up where people were fishing with hooks and lines - One of the hooks pierce her cheeks - That she would never reach the surface of the water. - Do you think Sausage is a strong character? Why do you think so? - She was determined - She was scared but did not lose hope - What did Sausage lift up from the mud? Sausage lifted an old tin box from the mud. - How did Sausage miss the brick? - The real brick had a white flannel around it. - The tin box had no flannel. - Sausage thought that the flannel had gone loose from the brick. - It was dark. - The tin box was heavy and slimy. - The tin box was rectangular as a brick. - She was scared and was in a hurry. - In your opinion, how did the tin box get there? - Probably it was a tiffin box used by the old chaps who used to fish in the pond. - Maybe it was a bait-box. - It must have dropped in the fishing area and was later moved to the swimming end. - Why is the story titled ‘Return to Air?’ - Why does sausage say that she would live to be a hundred?	860	ENGLISH	1
Lesson time 19:54 min Judy calls her notebooks her security blankets. Take a peek inside them to see how she bridged information with imagination to fictionalize a story she personally experienced. Topics include: Keep Notes • Pull Details From Real Life • Brainstorm Names and Titles • Ask Yourself Questions • Round It Out With Imagination • Make the Connection In going through the notebooks, I just pulled some pages from one of them, because I really wanted you to see what goes into it. This doesn't mean you need to do it this way. Why would you? But this is what's worked for me for so many years. And this is just one example. And in this case, I thought that I knew the whole story. So in the notebooks-- I don't know-- I found how much I didn't know and how much I wanted to put in the story. And that's what the notebooks helped me find. Example for you. This is now April 2011. And I think it was 2009 when I actually got the idea. And this is what it says. "Oi! Ugh! I read what I have. I have next to nothing. I have to start from the beginning. Help!" With a lot of exclamation points. It also says, "Who are these characters?" This is a really important note for me because it means I read what I had, and I didn't know the characters. And that was my job, to make you know the characters and care about the characters. So I had to dig deeper and deeper into who were these people. Because there was just an idea of them at the beginning, not the reality of who are they really. So I think those two notes-- I don't know. They mean a lot to me now. And I hope they mean something to you. The reading what you have and finding out, oh, I have next to nothing, what do I do? I go back. I go back to the beginning. And I try to go deeper, more layers, more complexity, more story. I have another page here that is shocking to me, that if I hadn't seen this, I would have told you that I knew all the characters on that day in 2009. And yet this note says, "Question. Could somebody be a reporter? Maybe Benny's uncle?" Now Benny became Miri. Name was wrong. She became Miri. And she has a young uncle. I thought from the beginning I knew that Uncle Henry was going to be one of the most important characters in the book. He certainly turns into one of the most important characters in the book. But on this day, I didn't know that. I wrote myself, "Question. Could somebody be a reporter?" And of course, Uncle Henry became the reporter that has all the by lines. And these are his stories. And he is essential to this book. But I didn't know it. And I surprised myself by finding that out. (WHISPERS) What else do I have? I have a note here about Natalie. And it says, "Dentist, privileged, siblings, housekeeper, eat dinner promptly at 6:00 so the housekeeper can go home, laundress in basement all day on Monday. No one tells Natalie anything about anything." This becomes Natalie's family. Her father is a dentist. They are a privileged family. The mother comes from money. She has siblings. She has a six-year-old sister, Fern, who is a very important character. In telling this book, I'm using a lot of young characters, from Fe... Judy Blume broke the rules. Her refreshingly honest children’s books were banned by hundreds of libraries and loved by generations of readers, who bought 85 million copies of classics like Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret and Superfudge. In her first online writing class, the award-winning author teaches you how to invent vivid characters, write realistic dialogue, and turn your experiences into stories people will treasure. Beautifully done. Ms. Blume is as natural a teacher as she is a writer. I'll definitely be watching this again. This series starts out with brief sessions, and then deepens. By example, she gives strength to the sensitive. Thank you, Judy! How lovely to take a writing course from one of my favorite writers from my childhood! Thank you for your compassion, honesty, and excellent advice. Very exciting to hear from Judy, probably one of the first and most formative early writers for me. Kind of her to share so much.	<urn:uuid:6d46ffc2-1b15-472d-b148-bba84af338f8>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.masterclass.com/classes/judy-blume-teaches-writing/chapters/in-the-unlikely-event-case-study-part-2	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250593994.14/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118221909-20200119005909-00399.warc.gz	en	0.985503	950	3.40625	3	[ -0.46055740118026733, 0.16838157176971436, 0.14497850835323334, -0.07448259741067886, -0.34770429134368896, 0.2666251063346863, 0.32825320959091187, 0.36696648597717285, 0.5524917244911194, -0.22096824645996094, 0.06176309287548065, 0.09655280411243439, 0.13415521383285522, 0.2664583921432...	1	Lesson time 19:54 min Judy calls her notebooks her security blankets. Take a peek inside them to see how she bridged information with imagination to fictionalize a story she personally experienced. Topics include: Keep Notes • Pull Details From Real Life • Brainstorm Names and Titles • Ask Yourself Questions • Round It Out With Imagination • Make the Connection In going through the notebooks, I just pulled some pages from one of them, because I really wanted you to see what goes into it. This doesn't mean you need to do it this way. Why would you? But this is what's worked for me for so many years. And this is just one example. And in this case, I thought that I knew the whole story. So in the notebooks-- I don't know-- I found how much I didn't know and how much I wanted to put in the story. And that's what the notebooks helped me find. Example for you. This is now April 2011. And I think it was 2009 when I actually got the idea. And this is what it says. "Oi! Ugh! I read what I have. I have next to nothing. I have to start from the beginning. Help!" With a lot of exclamation points. It also says, "Who are these characters?" This is a really important note for me because it means I read what I had, and I didn't know the characters. And that was my job, to make you know the characters and care about the characters. So I had to dig deeper and deeper into who were these people. Because there was just an idea of them at the beginning, not the reality of who are they really. So I think those two notes-- I don't know. They mean a lot to me now. And I hope they mean something to you. The reading what you have and finding out, oh, I have next to nothing, what do I do? I go back. I go back to the beginning. And I try to go deeper, more layers, more complexity, more story. I have another page here that is shocking to me, that if I hadn't seen this, I would have told you that I knew all the characters on that day in 2009. And yet this note says, "Question. Could somebody be a reporter? Maybe Benny's uncle?" Now Benny became Miri. Name was wrong. She became Miri. And she has a young uncle. I thought from the beginning I knew that Uncle Henry was going to be one of the most important characters in the book. He certainly turns into one of the most important characters in the book. But on this day, I didn't know that. I wrote myself, "Question. Could somebody be a reporter?" And of course, Uncle Henry became the reporter that has all the by lines. And these are his stories. And he is essential to this book. But I didn't know it. And I surprised myself by finding that out. (WHISPERS) What else do I have? I have a note here about Natalie. And it says, "Dentist, privileged, siblings, housekeeper, eat dinner promptly at 6:00 so the housekeeper can go home, laundress in basement all day on Monday. No one tells Natalie anything about anything." This becomes Natalie's family. Her father is a dentist. They are a privileged family. The mother comes from money. She has siblings. She has a six-year-old sister, Fern, who is a very important character. In telling this book, I'm using a lot of young characters, from Fe... Judy Blume broke the rules. Her refreshingly honest children’s books were banned by hundreds of libraries and loved by generations of readers, who bought 85 million copies of classics like Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret and Superfudge. In her first online writing class, the award-winning author teaches you how to invent vivid characters, write realistic dialogue, and turn your experiences into stories people will treasure. Beautifully done. Ms. Blume is as natural a teacher as she is a writer. I'll definitely be watching this again. This series starts out with brief sessions, and then deepens. By example, she gives strength to the sensitive. Thank you, Judy! How lovely to take a writing course from one of my favorite writers from my childhood! Thank you for your compassion, honesty, and excellent advice. Very exciting to hear from Judy, probably one of the first and most formative early writers for me. Kind of her to share so much.	953	ENGLISH	1
Dr . Shane The articles or blog posts that will be disused in this article are while followed " Report in conditions in the south (1865)” and " Reconstruction (1865). The articles have got connections to the progressive change movement. Situations in the southern were cheap and nasty when congress asked for the present conditions during 1865. The progressive reform movement was placed during that time in order that many of these concerns would go away such as the terrible conditions inside the south. The congress got these reports in mind if the progressive reform movement is at place. When the reform moves were set up the our elected representatives would notify the southern region that these poor conditions would go away over time and that the intensifying reform was put in place intended for exact as this. Andrews Johnson's work to restore the south had stalled. " Congress exercised its constitutional authority to deny car seats to delegations from the To the south and launched an investigation into conditions there” said in the article ROCINTS. This sentence is saying that congress denied seats to delegates (someone who addresses or serves on behalf of a company at a gathering or meeting between companies of the same level) from the souths which lead to a release of an research of the conditions in the to the south. When these kinds of delegates were attempting to go to these meetings the congress had the authority to deny these people the gain access to of the meetings. When they had been denied the congress experienced launched a study to see what needed to be satisfied in order to better the conditions in the south. Reconstruction played a big role in the progressive change movement. Renovation is the same thing as progressivism in a sense. Renovation was applied so that following your civil conflict the personal, economic, and social concerns arising would dissolve after having a while. The congress had many meetings in regards to this theme " Reconstruction” there were many delegates that had to speak up concerning this...	<urn:uuid:a42fcc14-5617-482c-ad07-81727ffa44de>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://thehomeschoolofmoney.com/dr-shane/59515-dr-shane-essay.html	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594705.17/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119180644-20200119204644-00489.warc.gz	en	0.984149	395	3.4375	3	[ -0.2223949283361435, -0.042536038905382156, 0.42326274514198303, 0.38085851073265076, 0.12198995053768158, 0.36098042130470276, -0.3114510476589203, -0.3285906910896301, -0.4577587842941284, 0.27439644932746887, 0.645041823387146, 0.1630774289369583, 0.3667783737182617, 0.10779295861721039...	1	Dr . Shane The articles or blog posts that will be disused in this article are while followed " Report in conditions in the south (1865)” and " Reconstruction (1865). The articles have got connections to the progressive change movement. Situations in the southern were cheap and nasty when congress asked for the present conditions during 1865. The progressive reform movement was placed during that time in order that many of these concerns would go away such as the terrible conditions inside the south. The congress got these reports in mind if the progressive reform movement is at place. When the reform moves were set up the our elected representatives would notify the southern region that these poor conditions would go away over time and that the intensifying reform was put in place intended for exact as this. Andrews Johnson's work to restore the south had stalled. " Congress exercised its constitutional authority to deny car seats to delegations from the To the south and launched an investigation into conditions there” said in the article ROCINTS. This sentence is saying that congress denied seats to delegates (someone who addresses or serves on behalf of a company at a gathering or meeting between companies of the same level) from the souths which lead to a release of an research of the conditions in the to the south. When these kinds of delegates were attempting to go to these meetings the congress had the authority to deny these people the gain access to of the meetings. When they had been denied the congress experienced launched a study to see what needed to be satisfied in order to better the conditions in the south. Reconstruction played a big role in the progressive change movement. Renovation is the same thing as progressivism in a sense. Renovation was applied so that following your civil conflict the personal, economic, and social concerns arising would dissolve after having a while. The congress had many meetings in regards to this theme " Reconstruction” there were many delegates that had to speak up concerning this...	394	ENGLISH	1
Doolittle Raid – 16 B-52 bombers were launched from an aircraft carrier (the Hornet) to bomb Japan Dr Dolittle (Doolittle) watched the aircraft raid from an aircraft carrier. The watchtower had a giant horn (aircraft carrier The Hornet). After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, on December 7 1941, America's President Roosevelt told his military to find a way of striking back against Japan. One result of this was the Doolittle Raid on the Japanese capital, Tokyo. A special unit of USAAF B-25 Mitchell bombers – which were much bigger than naval aircraft – was trained under Colonel James Doolittle to take off from the aircraft carrier USS Hornet. The unit was to drop its bombs then fly on to land in an area of China controlled by the pro-Allied Nationalists. Colonel Doolittle and his sixteen bombers took off from the USS Hornet, which had sailed to within about 650 miles of Japan, on April 18, 1942. The take-off from a short runway was quite a feat for relatively heavy aircraft laden with bombs and fuel. The bombers suffered little damage from enemy action – almost all succeeded in bombing Japanese targets, mostly in Tokyo but also in Kobe, Yokosuka, and Osaka. After the attack, all of the aircraft ran short of fuel. One diverted and landed in Soviet Russia. The other fifteen headed for Nationalist China but had to abandon plans to land at airfields. Instead, they crash-landed or bailed out. Three crew members were killed and eight were captured by the Japanese, who subjected them to torture and starvation. All of the aircraft were lost. The raid caused little material damage to Japan but had major psychological effects. In the US, it raised morale. In Japan, it raised doubts about the ability of military leaders to defend the home islands. James Doolittle, who had bailed out over China after his B-25's fuel ran out, went on to fly more missions. He died in 1993, aged 96. Interesting fact: Because the American naval force had been spotted by the Japanese, the launch of the B-25 bombers was made 650 miles from Japan, instead of 400 miles as originally planned.	<urn:uuid:1ffc0645-e7e7-4301-9dc2-d4b650846add>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://mammothmemory.net/history/world-war-ii/important-facts-of-world-war-ii/doolittle-raid.html	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251783000.84/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128184745-20200128214745-00382.warc.gz	en	0.984789	466	3.328125	3	[ -0.008662859909236431, 0.045943498611450195, -0.028408732265233994, -0.4594002366065979, 0.25182053446769714, 0.20163896679878235, -0.09374960511922836, 0.3203081786632538, 0.06386323273181915, -0.12742774188518524, 0.3979126811027527, -0.18520481884479523, 0.02239750698208809, 0.637988209...	13	Doolittle Raid – 16 B-52 bombers were launched from an aircraft carrier (the Hornet) to bomb Japan Dr Dolittle (Doolittle) watched the aircraft raid from an aircraft carrier. The watchtower had a giant horn (aircraft carrier The Hornet). After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, on December 7 1941, America's President Roosevelt told his military to find a way of striking back against Japan. One result of this was the Doolittle Raid on the Japanese capital, Tokyo. A special unit of USAAF B-25 Mitchell bombers – which were much bigger than naval aircraft – was trained under Colonel James Doolittle to take off from the aircraft carrier USS Hornet. The unit was to drop its bombs then fly on to land in an area of China controlled by the pro-Allied Nationalists. Colonel Doolittle and his sixteen bombers took off from the USS Hornet, which had sailed to within about 650 miles of Japan, on April 18, 1942. The take-off from a short runway was quite a feat for relatively heavy aircraft laden with bombs and fuel. The bombers suffered little damage from enemy action – almost all succeeded in bombing Japanese targets, mostly in Tokyo but also in Kobe, Yokosuka, and Osaka. After the attack, all of the aircraft ran short of fuel. One diverted and landed in Soviet Russia. The other fifteen headed for Nationalist China but had to abandon plans to land at airfields. Instead, they crash-landed or bailed out. Three crew members were killed and eight were captured by the Japanese, who subjected them to torture and starvation. All of the aircraft were lost. The raid caused little material damage to Japan but had major psychological effects. In the US, it raised morale. In Japan, it raised doubts about the ability of military leaders to defend the home islands. James Doolittle, who had bailed out over China after his B-25's fuel ran out, went on to fly more missions. He died in 1993, aged 96. Interesting fact: Because the American naval force had been spotted by the Japanese, the launch of the B-25 bombers was made 650 miles from Japan, instead of 400 miles as originally planned.	486	ENGLISH	1
View This Storyboard as a Slide Show! Create your own! Like What You See? This storyboard was created with Rosa parks parents splited up at very young age Rosa's mother wanted her to got to school so she did and tried to get a high school diploma but her mother got ill so she went to go take care of her and segregation was around so whites and blacks did separate things white class only she was told to get out of a seat on the bus because of segregation but she refused doing this made a giant boycott because of the law she was told to pay a fine of $10. She refused to pay, however, saying that she was not guilty and that the law was illegal. so her and martin luther king jr worked together and so the supreme court ended segregation Over 12 Million Create My First Storyboard	<urn:uuid:8e064951-255f-46f1-856f-bb9d9d82728d>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.storyboardthat.com/storyboards/d483dcac/rosa-parks	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251776516.99/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128060946-20200128090946-00432.warc.gz	en	0.983297	182	3.578125	4	[ -0.14373496174812317, 0.0631597712635994, 0.2774985730648041, -0.3295091986656189, -0.3677535951137543, 0.02385711669921875, -0.07868049293756485, 0.09341040253639221, 0.22585035860538483, 0.26315659284591675, 0.006925550289452076, 0.10867929458618164, 0.04554847627878189, -0.0352880358695...	1	View This Storyboard as a Slide Show! Create your own! Like What You See? This storyboard was created with Rosa parks parents splited up at very young age Rosa's mother wanted her to got to school so she did and tried to get a high school diploma but her mother got ill so she went to go take care of her and segregation was around so whites and blacks did separate things white class only she was told to get out of a seat on the bus because of segregation but she refused doing this made a giant boycott because of the law she was told to pay a fine of $10. She refused to pay, however, saying that she was not guilty and that the law was illegal. so her and martin luther king jr worked together and so the supreme court ended segregation Over 12 Million Create My First Storyboard	178	ENGLISH	1
“If you don’t believe in God, you had better hope your right!” All religions basically believe in one God. Lutheranism is no exception, and as it just so happens it is very close to the Catholic religion I practice. This paper will attempt to explain the Lutheran Church and how it came to be. Martin Luther, a German monk, known to many as the “Father of Reformation” did not initially or intentionally, start the Lutheran religion. However, his teachings became the cornerstone of what is known today as the Lutheran Religion. Marting Luther was born in Germany in 1483, became a monk, got ordained in 1507 then began to teach at the University of Wittenberg. Even though Martin Luther was ordained in the Catholic Church he became torn as some of the acts of the church he believed to be wrong. So began the reform. Luther thought that the specific act in the Catholic Church of indulgences was wrong so he decided to try to reform the Catholic Church through his own teachings. Martin believed that the act of taking money in return for a promise of eternal happiness with God was wrong. This is what some of the Catholic leaders were doing and as time went on the act of accepting indulgences became greater and greater. Indulgences, in simpler terms, meant a peasant could pay to have his sins forgiven. You could literally, according to the clergy, buy your way out of Hell and/or buy less time in Purgatory! The reformation that Luther had hoped for the Catholic Church did not work. They were many other reasons that Martin Luther had issues with the Catholic Church besides the indulgences, but that was the big one. Others included, but are not limited to, priest celibacy, the great respect for saints, sacred images and the idea that the pope was perfect. Martin Luther of course had his own agenda in mind when he started the Lutheran Church. As a monk, he was not allowed to marry and neither were priests in the Catholic Church. Marriage was between one man and one woman, forever, there was no way you could marry more than one women. Luther had many noble supporters and one in particular was the Elector of Saxony, Frederick III as well as other German nobility including Phillip of Hesse who supported Luther because Luther and his partner Phillip Melanchton gave his consent for Phillip to take more than one wife. Phillip was one of the initial leaders in the Lutheran Church along with German royalty and Martin Luther himself. Henry the VIII (eighth) was once a great supporter of the Catholic Church, and defended the Catholic Church against Martin Luther. However, things changed in Henry’s mind once the Catholic Church denied him the ability to divorce his wife Catherine of Aragon because she could not bear him a son/heir. Since the Catholic Church would not annul his marriage and he learned that he could take much land owned by the Catholic Church and increase his wealth, he turned on the Catholic Church. Henry the eighth became a supporter of Martin Luther in...	<urn:uuid:b9e4697e-37d1-4265-9c1a-e07c8f5cdde1>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://brightkite.com/essay-on/lutheranism-1	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250599789.45/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120195035-20200120224035-00147.warc.gz	en	0.993194	625	3.390625	3	[ -0.1651742160320282, 0.1721881926059723, -0.3178035616874695, -0.09701619297266006, -0.21194925904273987, -0.1028449609875679, -0.10801089555025101, 0.13941971957683563, 0.28427737951278687, 0.10219300538301468, -0.14391601085662842, -0.27909260988235474, -0.06754949688911438, -0.058049358...	1	“If you don’t believe in God, you had better hope your right!” All religions basically believe in one God. Lutheranism is no exception, and as it just so happens it is very close to the Catholic religion I practice. This paper will attempt to explain the Lutheran Church and how it came to be. Martin Luther, a German monk, known to many as the “Father of Reformation” did not initially or intentionally, start the Lutheran religion. However, his teachings became the cornerstone of what is known today as the Lutheran Religion. Marting Luther was born in Germany in 1483, became a monk, got ordained in 1507 then began to teach at the University of Wittenberg. Even though Martin Luther was ordained in the Catholic Church he became torn as some of the acts of the church he believed to be wrong. So began the reform. Luther thought that the specific act in the Catholic Church of indulgences was wrong so he decided to try to reform the Catholic Church through his own teachings. Martin believed that the act of taking money in return for a promise of eternal happiness with God was wrong. This is what some of the Catholic leaders were doing and as time went on the act of accepting indulgences became greater and greater. Indulgences, in simpler terms, meant a peasant could pay to have his sins forgiven. You could literally, according to the clergy, buy your way out of Hell and/or buy less time in Purgatory! The reformation that Luther had hoped for the Catholic Church did not work. They were many other reasons that Martin Luther had issues with the Catholic Church besides the indulgences, but that was the big one. Others included, but are not limited to, priest celibacy, the great respect for saints, sacred images and the idea that the pope was perfect. Martin Luther of course had his own agenda in mind when he started the Lutheran Church. As a monk, he was not allowed to marry and neither were priests in the Catholic Church. Marriage was between one man and one woman, forever, there was no way you could marry more than one women. Luther had many noble supporters and one in particular was the Elector of Saxony, Frederick III as well as other German nobility including Phillip of Hesse who supported Luther because Luther and his partner Phillip Melanchton gave his consent for Phillip to take more than one wife. Phillip was one of the initial leaders in the Lutheran Church along with German royalty and Martin Luther himself. Henry the VIII (eighth) was once a great supporter of the Catholic Church, and defended the Catholic Church against Martin Luther. However, things changed in Henry’s mind once the Catholic Church denied him the ability to divorce his wife Catherine of Aragon because she could not bear him a son/heir. Since the Catholic Church would not annul his marriage and he learned that he could take much land owned by the Catholic Church and increase his wealth, he turned on the Catholic Church. Henry the eighth became a supporter of Martin Luther in...	616	ENGLISH	1
The following is an Excerpt from ALABAMA FOOTPRINTS: Confrontation – (Excerpt continued below) The Breaking Point The hunting grounds of the Creeks once stretched across Georgia; but by treaties, first with Georgia and then with the United States, the bounds had been narrowed until in 1800 they were the Tennessee river, the western half of Georgia, and the Mississippi. Territory. Benjamin Hawkins presided as agent for the United States over the Native Americans at the time. He had been appointed in 1796, and following the policy of the Government, he had taught the Native Americans how to plow and sow, raise crops, spin cotton, and even persuaded them to adopt a sort of national organization for the purpose of preserving peace and enforcing law. In 1800, many of the Native Americans in what would become Alabama, dwelt in villages and owned farms, cattle, slaves, and knew the use of many implements of agriculture. Most of these villages, perhaps two-thirds of them, belonged to the Upper Creeks and were scattered along the banks of the Coosa and Tallapoosa rivers in the heart of what is now Alabama. The Lower Creek towns were on the Chattahoochee. Hawkins had established a strong connection with the Native Americans and felt secure that they would never take up the tomahawk and give serious trouble. He knew the visit of Tecumseh had greatly excited the young warriors and that the prophets in the villages were busy teaching the young men in the villages war songs and dances of the Indians of the Great Lakes, but the old chiefs were peaceful and vigilant. No one was more surprised than Hawkins when he heard that the whole Upper Creek country was rising for war. According to John Bach McMaster, the following series of events led to their war plans. The first began shortly after Tecumseh’s visit. In 1812, the Creek Nation dispatched a half dozen Indians on a mission to the Chickasaws. Little Warrior, a headman of a town called Wewocan, led the mission. Having delivered their “talk”, they should have returned back to the Creek Nation in present day Alabama, but Little Warrior took them northward and joined Tecumseh at Malden. They were present at the massacre at the river Raisin, also known as the Battle of Frenchtown on January 18, 1813. This massacre was a series of conflicts between the United States and a British and Native American alliance near the Rasin River in Frenchtown, Michgan Territory. Tecumseh commanded the native forces that fought in the battle, although he was not in Frenchtown at the time of the battle. This was the deadliest conflict recorded on Michigan soil, and the casualties included the highest number of Americans killed in a single battle during the War of 1812. The group, exhilarated from the recent conflict, returned homeward and they carried “talks” from the British and the Shawnee, as well as a letter from a British officer at Malden to the Spanish officials at Pensacola. Crossing the present State of Illinois, Little Warrior and his band reached the Ohio River early in February and some seven miles above the mouth of the river they came upon the cabins of families of settlers. Still excited from the success of their conflict at Raisin, the Native Americans murdered these settlers on February 9, 1813. The band then crossed the Ohio, and hurried through the Chickasaw country, boasting of their deed as they went, and by the middle of March, they were once more on the Coosa River in Alabama. Since Little Warrior had “talks” from the British, the chiefs all met with him at Tuckabatchie to hear them. The chiefs at the gathering were surprised to also receive a letter from the Indian Agent Benjamin Hawkins complaining of the murders of the settlers on the Ohio River. As per the custom between the Americans and Native Americans at the time, Hawkins demanded the delivery of the seven murderers so they could be tried. The accused men immediately took off to the woods, but the chiefs declared them guilty, decreed death, and sent out two parties of warriors to carry out the sentence. Chief McIntosh commanded one party while Captain Isaacs led the other. Within a few days, all seven were dead. The incident and dire punishment caused much excitement in the Indian Nation and war dances continued in earnest. The Nation was ripe for a civil war—a war of factions among themselves; it only needed a spark to create an explosion, and the spark was not long in coming. Outrages against friendly Native Americans and white settlers which were designed to force a war were committed. A United States mail-carrier was killed as he was traveling to Pensacola and the contents of his bags were stolen. Prophets and orators in the Indian Nation denounced the “peacefuls,” as they called the Creeks opposed to war. The old chiefs noticed the excitement and sent a message to the Alabamas, a small tribe living at the junction of the Coosa and Tallapoosa rivers who were greatly influenced by the prophets, particularly Red Eagle (also known as William Weatherford). The old chiefs said, “We have heard much of what is going on among you, and how the Great Spirit comes in the sun and speaks to you. Let us see and hear some of these things, that we also may believe.” However, the Alabamas were in no state of mind to hear the message from the old chiefs. They killed the runner and sent his scalp about among their friends. Still the peaceful Native Americans remained true to their allegiance and fought their hostile brethren when the occasion required. The killing of Little Warrior seemed to be the breaking point and the pent-up anger and excitement since Tecumseh’s visit broke out. Every warrior who had borne a part in killing the murderers was driven from the country. Even the Tuckabatchee chiefs fled to Coweta and sought protection from Benjamin Hawkins. About two thousand Native Americans, armed with red sticks and war clubs set out to kill all who had aided in putting Little Warrior and his band to death. They planned to destroy Tuckabatchee and Coweta, march against the whites, and not leave one white man or friendly Native American living between the Chattahoochee and the sea. The warriors were called ‘Red Sticks’ because of the red sticks they carried, and along with bows, arrow, and the magic of the prophets, they were determined that they would be successful. Other stores include: - Tecumseh Causes Earthquake - Terrified Settlers Abandon Farms - Survivor Stories From Fort Mims Massacre - Hillabee Massacre - Threat of Starvation Men Turn To Mutiny - Red Eagle After The War See larger image	<urn:uuid:aa2f631b-324b-4a7b-8d7a-461c1e459fa2>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.alabamapioneers.com/the-breaking-point-for-the-native-americans/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250610004.56/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123101110-20200123130110-00456.warc.gz	en	0.983024	1,421	3.328125	3	[ -0.6505470871925354, 0.24260655045509338, 0.14760372042655945, 0.20527863502502441, -0.28725069761276245, -0.28579628467559814, 0.11388318240642548, -0.06891340017318726, -0.5280910134315491, -0.2365160882472992, 0.18494753539562225, -0.19110415875911713, 0.2271539866924286, 0.270262300968...	8	The following is an Excerpt from ALABAMA FOOTPRINTS: Confrontation – (Excerpt continued below) The Breaking Point The hunting grounds of the Creeks once stretched across Georgia; but by treaties, first with Georgia and then with the United States, the bounds had been narrowed until in 1800 they were the Tennessee river, the western half of Georgia, and the Mississippi. Territory. Benjamin Hawkins presided as agent for the United States over the Native Americans at the time. He had been appointed in 1796, and following the policy of the Government, he had taught the Native Americans how to plow and sow, raise crops, spin cotton, and even persuaded them to adopt a sort of national organization for the purpose of preserving peace and enforcing law. In 1800, many of the Native Americans in what would become Alabama, dwelt in villages and owned farms, cattle, slaves, and knew the use of many implements of agriculture. Most of these villages, perhaps two-thirds of them, belonged to the Upper Creeks and were scattered along the banks of the Coosa and Tallapoosa rivers in the heart of what is now Alabama. The Lower Creek towns were on the Chattahoochee. Hawkins had established a strong connection with the Native Americans and felt secure that they would never take up the tomahawk and give serious trouble. He knew the visit of Tecumseh had greatly excited the young warriors and that the prophets in the villages were busy teaching the young men in the villages war songs and dances of the Indians of the Great Lakes, but the old chiefs were peaceful and vigilant. No one was more surprised than Hawkins when he heard that the whole Upper Creek country was rising for war. According to John Bach McMaster, the following series of events led to their war plans. The first began shortly after Tecumseh’s visit. In 1812, the Creek Nation dispatched a half dozen Indians on a mission to the Chickasaws. Little Warrior, a headman of a town called Wewocan, led the mission. Having delivered their “talk”, they should have returned back to the Creek Nation in present day Alabama, but Little Warrior took them northward and joined Tecumseh at Malden. They were present at the massacre at the river Raisin, also known as the Battle of Frenchtown on January 18, 1813. This massacre was a series of conflicts between the United States and a British and Native American alliance near the Rasin River in Frenchtown, Michgan Territory. Tecumseh commanded the native forces that fought in the battle, although he was not in Frenchtown at the time of the battle. This was the deadliest conflict recorded on Michigan soil, and the casualties included the highest number of Americans killed in a single battle during the War of 1812. The group, exhilarated from the recent conflict, returned homeward and they carried “talks” from the British and the Shawnee, as well as a letter from a British officer at Malden to the Spanish officials at Pensacola. Crossing the present State of Illinois, Little Warrior and his band reached the Ohio River early in February and some seven miles above the mouth of the river they came upon the cabins of families of settlers. Still excited from the success of their conflict at Raisin, the Native Americans murdered these settlers on February 9, 1813. The band then crossed the Ohio, and hurried through the Chickasaw country, boasting of their deed as they went, and by the middle of March, they were once more on the Coosa River in Alabama. Since Little Warrior had “talks” from the British, the chiefs all met with him at Tuckabatchie to hear them. The chiefs at the gathering were surprised to also receive a letter from the Indian Agent Benjamin Hawkins complaining of the murders of the settlers on the Ohio River. As per the custom between the Americans and Native Americans at the time, Hawkins demanded the delivery of the seven murderers so they could be tried. The accused men immediately took off to the woods, but the chiefs declared them guilty, decreed death, and sent out two parties of warriors to carry out the sentence. Chief McIntosh commanded one party while Captain Isaacs led the other. Within a few days, all seven were dead. The incident and dire punishment caused much excitement in the Indian Nation and war dances continued in earnest. The Nation was ripe for a civil war—a war of factions among themselves; it only needed a spark to create an explosion, and the spark was not long in coming. Outrages against friendly Native Americans and white settlers which were designed to force a war were committed. A United States mail-carrier was killed as he was traveling to Pensacola and the contents of his bags were stolen. Prophets and orators in the Indian Nation denounced the “peacefuls,” as they called the Creeks opposed to war. The old chiefs noticed the excitement and sent a message to the Alabamas, a small tribe living at the junction of the Coosa and Tallapoosa rivers who were greatly influenced by the prophets, particularly Red Eagle (also known as William Weatherford). The old chiefs said, “We have heard much of what is going on among you, and how the Great Spirit comes in the sun and speaks to you. Let us see and hear some of these things, that we also may believe.” However, the Alabamas were in no state of mind to hear the message from the old chiefs. They killed the runner and sent his scalp about among their friends. Still the peaceful Native Americans remained true to their allegiance and fought their hostile brethren when the occasion required. The killing of Little Warrior seemed to be the breaking point and the pent-up anger and excitement since Tecumseh’s visit broke out. Every warrior who had borne a part in killing the murderers was driven from the country. Even the Tuckabatchee chiefs fled to Coweta and sought protection from Benjamin Hawkins. About two thousand Native Americans, armed with red sticks and war clubs set out to kill all who had aided in putting Little Warrior and his band to death. They planned to destroy Tuckabatchee and Coweta, march against the whites, and not leave one white man or friendly Native American living between the Chattahoochee and the sea. The warriors were called ‘Red Sticks’ because of the red sticks they carried, and along with bows, arrow, and the magic of the prophets, they were determined that they would be successful. Other stores include: - Tecumseh Causes Earthquake - Terrified Settlers Abandon Farms - Survivor Stories From Fort Mims Massacre - Hillabee Massacre - Threat of Starvation Men Turn To Mutiny - Red Eagle After The War See larger image	1,413	ENGLISH	1
Attention: For textbook, access codes and supplements are not guaranteed with used items. The first lookouts were rustic camps on mountaintops, where men and women were stationed to keep an eye out for wildfires. As the importance of fire prevention grew, a lookout construction boom resulted in hundreds of cabins and towers being built on Oregons high points. When aircraft and cameras became more cost-effective and efficient methods of fire detection, many old lookouts were abandoned or removed. Of the many hundreds of lookouts built in Oregon over the past 100 years, less than 175 remain, and only about half of these are still manned. However, some lookouts are being repurposed as rental cabins, and volunteers are constantly working to save endangered lookouts. This book tells the story of Oregons fire lookouts, from their heyday to their decline, and of the effort to save the ones that are left.	<urn:uuid:e115758b-fb91-4a74-9024-e0dedaf4d36c>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://bookhillside.com/products/9781467134866-1467134864-fire-lookouts-of-oregon-images-of-america	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251778168.77/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128091916-20200128121916-00188.warc.gz	en	0.984909	189	3.53125	4	[ -0.27389001846313477, 0.3555200695991516, 0.10495290905237198, -0.16241100430488586, 0.47135451436042786, 0.3200300931930542, 0.11314910650253296, 0.36516281962394714, -0.2590183913707733, 0.0798809677362442, -0.03425292670726776, -0.046182114630937576, 0.068733349442482, 0.566090643405914...	1	Attention: For textbook, access codes and supplements are not guaranteed with used items. The first lookouts were rustic camps on mountaintops, where men and women were stationed to keep an eye out for wildfires. As the importance of fire prevention grew, a lookout construction boom resulted in hundreds of cabins and towers being built on Oregons high points. When aircraft and cameras became more cost-effective and efficient methods of fire detection, many old lookouts were abandoned or removed. Of the many hundreds of lookouts built in Oregon over the past 100 years, less than 175 remain, and only about half of these are still manned. However, some lookouts are being repurposed as rental cabins, and volunteers are constantly working to save endangered lookouts. This book tells the story of Oregons fire lookouts, from their heyday to their decline, and of the effort to save the ones that are left.	189	ENGLISH	1
The History of Sports in the United States Sports have been a big part of American culture for many years. Professional sports like baseball, basketball, football, and hockey have become massive industries and the economic center of many cities. Sports are also a big part of growing up in this country since these sports and others are prominent in youth leagues, high schools and colleges. The popularity of sports is a big part of the history of the United States. Baseball is considered America's national pastime. Major league baseball is a central part of American sports and attracts more fans and sells more tickets than any other professional sport in the world. It is believed to have been developed based on sports like rounders and cricket. For many years most fans believed that Abner Doubleday created the first set of baseball rules, but others suggest the first official set of rules was created by Alexander Cartwright of the New York Knickerbockers. The Cincinnati Red Stockings were the first official professional baseball team, and soon there were several different leagues. The American and National Leagues are the major leagues today. There are also hundreds of minor and independent leagues. In the 1920's, a more precise set of rules was created which made the sport more organized and less physical. Until 1946, African-American players were not allowed in the major leagues, but today the sport is played by athletes of different ethnicities from countries around the world. The sport of basketball was invented by Dr. James Naismith, a Canadian-born physical education instructor at the YMCA in Springfield, Massachusetts, in 1891. While teaching at the YMCA, Naismith wanted to give his students something active to do while inside on a rainy day. After many ideas, he eventually came up with the sport by hanging a peach basket from the elevated running track, 10 feet above the gymnasium floor. The game evolved over the years from Naismith's original rules. Many more rules and new equipment helped to perfect the game. Eventually professional teams and leagues were developed. The sport also became quite popular on playgrounds, especially in thickly settled urban areas. Today, the National Basketball Association, or NBA, is one of the most popular sport leagues in the world. In the 1870s rugby was becoming a favorite sport played by college athletes in the United States. In 1876, Walter Camp developed a new sport based on rugby and called it football 1. In the 1890s the sport gained interest and started to become a professional sport. The Allegheny Athletic Association was the first completely professional team and played a short two-game season against the Pittsburgh Athletic Club. In 1902, baseball's Philadelphia Athletics and Philadelphia Phillies formed professional football teams, along with the Pittsburgh Stars, and formed the first professional football league, the National Football League. Through the years the rules and scoring of the sport changed several times. The American Football League, or AFL, was also formed in 1960 as an alternative league considered by some to be inferior to the NFL. But in 1970 the two merged with the AFL teams becoming the American Football Conference, or AFC, and the NFL teams becoming the National Football Conference, or NFC, The top team from each conference would compete yearly in the Super Bowl for the NFL championship. Today the NFL, is one of the most popular sports leagues in the world, and the Super Bowl is one of television's most watched events. The sport of hockey, considered by many to have been invented in Canada after a game called "shinny," has history dating back to the late 1800s. A similar sport, originally called "ice polo," was already being played on American college ice rinks. Ice hockey started to become more popular, and professional leagues started popping up in the United States, the first being the International Professional Hockey League with teams from Pennsylvania and Michigan. In 1910, the National Hockey League, or NHL, was created in Canada. It was called the National Hockey Association until 1917, and later expanded to include American teams in 1924. - Weston_Miller/iStock/Getty Images	<urn:uuid:7cef1dd3-f5dd-4d79-8454-3edd4b6ba9af>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://howtoadult.com/371109-the-history-of-sports-in-the-united-states.html	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251783000.84/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128184745-20200128214745-00145.warc.gz	en	0.982345	826	3.4375	3	[ -0.035433124750852585, 0.27666372060775757, 0.22830873727798462, -0.3361903429031372, -0.1277722716331482, 0.4999675750732422, 0.21219608187675476, 0.09490987658500671, 0.2902093827724457, 0.31459903717041016, -0.06476617604494095, -0.24406147003173828, -0.026127787306904793, -0.1012120097...	10	The History of Sports in the United States Sports have been a big part of American culture for many years. Professional sports like baseball, basketball, football, and hockey have become massive industries and the economic center of many cities. Sports are also a big part of growing up in this country since these sports and others are prominent in youth leagues, high schools and colleges. The popularity of sports is a big part of the history of the United States. Baseball is considered America's national pastime. Major league baseball is a central part of American sports and attracts more fans and sells more tickets than any other professional sport in the world. It is believed to have been developed based on sports like rounders and cricket. For many years most fans believed that Abner Doubleday created the first set of baseball rules, but others suggest the first official set of rules was created by Alexander Cartwright of the New York Knickerbockers. The Cincinnati Red Stockings were the first official professional baseball team, and soon there were several different leagues. The American and National Leagues are the major leagues today. There are also hundreds of minor and independent leagues. In the 1920's, a more precise set of rules was created which made the sport more organized and less physical. Until 1946, African-American players were not allowed in the major leagues, but today the sport is played by athletes of different ethnicities from countries around the world. The sport of basketball was invented by Dr. James Naismith, a Canadian-born physical education instructor at the YMCA in Springfield, Massachusetts, in 1891. While teaching at the YMCA, Naismith wanted to give his students something active to do while inside on a rainy day. After many ideas, he eventually came up with the sport by hanging a peach basket from the elevated running track, 10 feet above the gymnasium floor. The game evolved over the years from Naismith's original rules. Many more rules and new equipment helped to perfect the game. Eventually professional teams and leagues were developed. The sport also became quite popular on playgrounds, especially in thickly settled urban areas. Today, the National Basketball Association, or NBA, is one of the most popular sport leagues in the world. In the 1870s rugby was becoming a favorite sport played by college athletes in the United States. In 1876, Walter Camp developed a new sport based on rugby and called it football 1. In the 1890s the sport gained interest and started to become a professional sport. The Allegheny Athletic Association was the first completely professional team and played a short two-game season against the Pittsburgh Athletic Club. In 1902, baseball's Philadelphia Athletics and Philadelphia Phillies formed professional football teams, along with the Pittsburgh Stars, and formed the first professional football league, the National Football League. Through the years the rules and scoring of the sport changed several times. The American Football League, or AFL, was also formed in 1960 as an alternative league considered by some to be inferior to the NFL. But in 1970 the two merged with the AFL teams becoming the American Football Conference, or AFC, and the NFL teams becoming the National Football Conference, or NFC, The top team from each conference would compete yearly in the Super Bowl for the NFL championship. Today the NFL, is one of the most popular sports leagues in the world, and the Super Bowl is one of television's most watched events. The sport of hockey, considered by many to have been invented in Canada after a game called "shinny," has history dating back to the late 1800s. A similar sport, originally called "ice polo," was already being played on American college ice rinks. Ice hockey started to become more popular, and professional leagues started popping up in the United States, the first being the International Professional Hockey League with teams from Pennsylvania and Michigan. In 1910, the National Hockey League, or NHL, was created in Canada. It was called the National Hockey Association until 1917, and later expanded to include American teams in 1924. - Weston_Miller/iStock/Getty Images	867	ENGLISH	1
Was one of the cruelest ways of making women conform to crazy beauty standards about attractiveness for the marriage market, or was its endurance actually due to economic reasons? A series of recent studies argues that the practice was as much about women’s earnings, as about ideas of beauty. Footbinding, a Chinese custom that lasted a little less than 1,000 years, has gone down in human memory as one of the most severe forms of female body modification carried out in the name of seductiveness. It required turning women’s feet into three-inch “golden lotuses” by folding the toes under the foot and securing them with long strips of sturdy cotton. Mothers and grandmothers would bind their daughters’ feet when they were around five years of age, in order to prevent the foot’s natural growth. In many cases, the foot arch would break, drawing the heel and the toes into contact, and turning the foot into a tiny stump that made adult women totter atop tiny embroidered silk shoes. For women whose feet had been broken, unbinding them would be as painful as the binding had been, and it would not result in regaining full normal mobility. Women would be left unable to walk long distances unaided, run or carry heavy weights. From ancient erotic paintings (warning: explicit) and poems it has long been inferred that men found women’s stunted feet highly attractive, especially as most Chinese women rich enough to afford it would submit their little girls to this brutal pain. The practice is believed to have started in the “entertainment quarters” of the Chinese elite—among dancers, sex workers and courtesans—some time in the late Tang (618-907) or early Song Dynasty (960-1279) and to have then influenced the sexual taste of the upper classes of the time. As dancers and entertainers were the subject of men’s admiration, the reasoning goes, aristocratic women started binding their own and their daughters’ feet too. Peasant women initially shunned the practice, which made laboring in the fields excruciating, but as foot binding became widespread, all social classes adopted it. A number of recently published studies have a novel interpretation, arguing that while attraction might have been the initial factor, over its long history the custom evolved into a tool to control women’s sedentary labor, in particular that of young rural women, with significant geographical variations. One recent study that challenges the long-held sexual attractiveness assumption, by Harvard University anthropologist Melissa Brown and independent data scientist Damian Satterthwaite-Phillips, suggests that girls’ reduced mobility was actually an economic guarantee for both their natal family and the one they would eventually marry into. A woman whose feet did not allow her to walk too far, the study maintains, would stay at home and spin thread, weave or embroider, allowing the family to sell the product of her labor for cash. “A fully mobile woman, on the other hand, might decide to take a stroll instead of sticking to house-bound work day after day. Especially a young child, harder to convince to be home-bound, would instead sit at home and spin thread,” Brown told Quartz. Also, she adds, one key element that hasn’t been given sufficient attention so far is that most girls with bound feet “would unbind their feet at least once in their lives: a lot of this unbinding happened well before marriage. “Then, shortly before marriage, women would bind their feet again, and keep them bound: “Families wanted to prove to the families of potential husbands that their women could work a lot. So the feet would be bound,” says the academic. The interviews also showed that many women who had previously had bound feet, would marry with their feet unbound. In sync with these findings is research presented last month (pdf) by economists Xinyu Fan, from UCLA, and Lingwei Wu from the University of Bonn, which examined changes in the practice across time and region. They found that areas where cotton grew, and therefore paid textile work would be more common, were associated with more foot binding. “Rice (a major labor-intensive crop) relative to wheat predicts less foot-binding prevalence, while a greater suitability for cotton (a dominant high-value handicraft fiber) predicts more foot-binding intensity,” they wrote. A similar argument has previously been made in another academic study, published by anthropologists Laurel Bossen and Hill Gates, of McGill University and Central Michigan University respectively, in their book “Bound Feet, Young Hands.” (The authors and Brown collaborated on forming the dataset on which both sets of researchers rely.) What has made these assumption-shattering discoveries possible is strikingly simple: “We asked the women in question,” says Brown. The research was conducted by interviewing thousands of elderly Chinese women whose feet, or those of their female relatives, had been bound before 1950, when the practice was definitely outlawed. They then ran statistics that showed that marriage in areas where the incidence of foot binding was very high would happen at a later stage, as “families needed the income from their daughters.” And even if the women themselves in this late stage of the crippling custom believed it was for marriage purposes, it was actually about enhancing a bride’s attractiveness from an economic point of view, not just a physical one. “The kind of commercial work women were doing was actually in a huge range,” says Brown: “from spinning to embroidering to weaving and making opium grass mats.” A corollary of the study is that women contributed economically to their families’ wellbeing much more than it is usually acknowledged—a new take on women’s historical roles, far from Confucian idealized realities championed by more traditional scholarship. But what about the poems and the erotic paintings, with the tiny feet in such prominence? “I think what these tell us,” says Brown, “is simply that men found women attractive, and those were the feet that women had!” The demise of foot binding, too, was due to economics, even more than to social changes and progressive thinkers and missionaries struggling to modernize traditional Chinese society in the Republican era (1911-1949): “Once cloth became easily and cheaply transported, commercial handicraft stopped being viable as an alternative source of income,” says Brown. The more cotton mills opened up, the more women would need to be able to walk to the factory to earn the money that could no longer be earned by handicraft work done at home. One of the reasons such an understanding of this custom is being unearthed only now, is simply because “archaeologists didn’t really look at this,” says Brown, even when they excavated women’s bones. And few anthropologists had thought of asking women who had experienced the practice themselves. Once an assumption is made about women, it would seem, it takes centuries before it is challenged. Update, Feb. 26: This article was updated to add an additional detail from Brown’s research regarding the fact that women who unbound their feet would frequently marry without rebinding them.	<urn:uuid:531bcd3a-8ca6-4610-9f6a-c3295a3b1104>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://qz.com/1523834/chinese-footbinding-was-about-work-not-sex/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250604397.40/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121132900-20200121161900-00167.warc.gz	en	0.980072	1,513	3.265625	3	[ -0.06527003645896912, 0.2086249589920044, 0.6175426840782166, 0.32052478194236755, 0.14250971376895905, 0.5507463216781616, 0.015135983936488628, -0.07361900806427002, 0.16076001524925232, -0.15765142440795898, 0.44708460569381714, -0.20321166515350342, 0.3741394281387329, 0.09306232631206...	6	Was one of the cruelest ways of making women conform to crazy beauty standards about attractiveness for the marriage market, or was its endurance actually due to economic reasons? A series of recent studies argues that the practice was as much about women’s earnings, as about ideas of beauty. Footbinding, a Chinese custom that lasted a little less than 1,000 years, has gone down in human memory as one of the most severe forms of female body modification carried out in the name of seductiveness. It required turning women’s feet into three-inch “golden lotuses” by folding the toes under the foot and securing them with long strips of sturdy cotton. Mothers and grandmothers would bind their daughters’ feet when they were around five years of age, in order to prevent the foot’s natural growth. In many cases, the foot arch would break, drawing the heel and the toes into contact, and turning the foot into a tiny stump that made adult women totter atop tiny embroidered silk shoes. For women whose feet had been broken, unbinding them would be as painful as the binding had been, and it would not result in regaining full normal mobility. Women would be left unable to walk long distances unaided, run or carry heavy weights. From ancient erotic paintings (warning: explicit) and poems it has long been inferred that men found women’s stunted feet highly attractive, especially as most Chinese women rich enough to afford it would submit their little girls to this brutal pain. The practice is believed to have started in the “entertainment quarters” of the Chinese elite—among dancers, sex workers and courtesans—some time in the late Tang (618-907) or early Song Dynasty (960-1279) and to have then influenced the sexual taste of the upper classes of the time. As dancers and entertainers were the subject of men’s admiration, the reasoning goes, aristocratic women started binding their own and their daughters’ feet too. Peasant women initially shunned the practice, which made laboring in the fields excruciating, but as foot binding became widespread, all social classes adopted it. A number of recently published studies have a novel interpretation, arguing that while attraction might have been the initial factor, over its long history the custom evolved into a tool to control women’s sedentary labor, in particular that of young rural women, with significant geographical variations. One recent study that challenges the long-held sexual attractiveness assumption, by Harvard University anthropologist Melissa Brown and independent data scientist Damian Satterthwaite-Phillips, suggests that girls’ reduced mobility was actually an economic guarantee for both their natal family and the one they would eventually marry into. A woman whose feet did not allow her to walk too far, the study maintains, would stay at home and spin thread, weave or embroider, allowing the family to sell the product of her labor for cash. “A fully mobile woman, on the other hand, might decide to take a stroll instead of sticking to house-bound work day after day. Especially a young child, harder to convince to be home-bound, would instead sit at home and spin thread,” Brown told Quartz. Also, she adds, one key element that hasn’t been given sufficient attention so far is that most girls with bound feet “would unbind their feet at least once in their lives: a lot of this unbinding happened well before marriage. “Then, shortly before marriage, women would bind their feet again, and keep them bound: “Families wanted to prove to the families of potential husbands that their women could work a lot. So the feet would be bound,” says the academic. The interviews also showed that many women who had previously had bound feet, would marry with their feet unbound. In sync with these findings is research presented last month (pdf) by economists Xinyu Fan, from UCLA, and Lingwei Wu from the University of Bonn, which examined changes in the practice across time and region. They found that areas where cotton grew, and therefore paid textile work would be more common, were associated with more foot binding. “Rice (a major labor-intensive crop) relative to wheat predicts less foot-binding prevalence, while a greater suitability for cotton (a dominant high-value handicraft fiber) predicts more foot-binding intensity,” they wrote. A similar argument has previously been made in another academic study, published by anthropologists Laurel Bossen and Hill Gates, of McGill University and Central Michigan University respectively, in their book “Bound Feet, Young Hands.” (The authors and Brown collaborated on forming the dataset on which both sets of researchers rely.) What has made these assumption-shattering discoveries possible is strikingly simple: “We asked the women in question,” says Brown. The research was conducted by interviewing thousands of elderly Chinese women whose feet, or those of their female relatives, had been bound before 1950, when the practice was definitely outlawed. They then ran statistics that showed that marriage in areas where the incidence of foot binding was very high would happen at a later stage, as “families needed the income from their daughters.” And even if the women themselves in this late stage of the crippling custom believed it was for marriage purposes, it was actually about enhancing a bride’s attractiveness from an economic point of view, not just a physical one. “The kind of commercial work women were doing was actually in a huge range,” says Brown: “from spinning to embroidering to weaving and making opium grass mats.” A corollary of the study is that women contributed economically to their families’ wellbeing much more than it is usually acknowledged—a new take on women’s historical roles, far from Confucian idealized realities championed by more traditional scholarship. But what about the poems and the erotic paintings, with the tiny feet in such prominence? “I think what these tell us,” says Brown, “is simply that men found women attractive, and those were the feet that women had!” The demise of foot binding, too, was due to economics, even more than to social changes and progressive thinkers and missionaries struggling to modernize traditional Chinese society in the Republican era (1911-1949): “Once cloth became easily and cheaply transported, commercial handicraft stopped being viable as an alternative source of income,” says Brown. The more cotton mills opened up, the more women would need to be able to walk to the factory to earn the money that could no longer be earned by handicraft work done at home. One of the reasons such an understanding of this custom is being unearthed only now, is simply because “archaeologists didn’t really look at this,” says Brown, even when they excavated women’s bones. And few anthropologists had thought of asking women who had experienced the practice themselves. Once an assumption is made about women, it would seem, it takes centuries before it is challenged. Update, Feb. 26: This article was updated to add an additional detail from Brown’s research regarding the fact that women who unbound their feet would frequently marry without rebinding them.	1,446	ENGLISH	1
Feroz Shah Kotla (फ़िरोज़ शाह कोटला) Feroz Shah Kotla was built by Sultan Feroz Shah Tughlaq to make a place for himself so that from their he could remain and rule out the city known as Ferozabad which he used to call his region of Delhi area. He had declared the city of Ferozabad as the capital of Delhi during his reign period which was from 1351-1388. He was the new Sultan of Delhi at that time. The Feroz Shah Kotla was built in the year 1354 as Feroz Shah Tughlaq wanted his place from where he could rule out. There is a pillar inside the Feroz Shah Kotla which was made in the 3rd century BC which was associated with Maurayan ruler Ashoka. It was built in Ambala. But in 1356, Feroz Shah made orders to bring the pillar to Delhi so that he could make his fort different. But after his reign ended the following rulers dismantled the structures and they reused it in making their heritage sites. There is a Jama Masjid inside the fort which is said to be one of the oldest and ancient monuments that existing and still people go to worship there. It has a prayer hall inside it, which made up of quartzite stone. It is a large open space which can be said as the Prayer Hall where maximum people can accumulate to do prayers. Since the tomb has got old, the mosque inside it has been ruined by the natural calamities that had occurred in the past. Script on Stone The Ashokan pillar that has been shifted to the Feroz Shah Kotla from Ambala, has many inscriptions written on it which was not understandable by anyone at that time of the installation of the pillar at that time. Later, it was analyzed by James Prinsep in the year 1837 and the meaning was derived out of it.	<urn:uuid:64b8fee2-e27d-4b1e-ad91-8f8c60c542ff>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	http://www.indiaonmap.com/delhi/feroz-shah-kotla/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251681412.74/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125191854-20200125221854-00091.warc.gz	en	0.993578	422	3.34375	3	[ 0.0038997966330498457, 0.8873899579048157, -0.07695791125297546, 0.1066162958741188, -0.7172011137008667, 0.25879383087158203, 0.536048948764801, 0.3727506697177887, -0.15837709605693817, -0.23826563358306885, 0.009591269306838512, -0.5208390355110168, -0.31637251377105713, 0.3672800362110...	1	Feroz Shah Kotla (फ़िरोज़ शाह कोटला) Feroz Shah Kotla was built by Sultan Feroz Shah Tughlaq to make a place for himself so that from their he could remain and rule out the city known as Ferozabad which he used to call his region of Delhi area. He had declared the city of Ferozabad as the capital of Delhi during his reign period which was from 1351-1388. He was the new Sultan of Delhi at that time. The Feroz Shah Kotla was built in the year 1354 as Feroz Shah Tughlaq wanted his place from where he could rule out. There is a pillar inside the Feroz Shah Kotla which was made in the 3rd century BC which was associated with Maurayan ruler Ashoka. It was built in Ambala. But in 1356, Feroz Shah made orders to bring the pillar to Delhi so that he could make his fort different. But after his reign ended the following rulers dismantled the structures and they reused it in making their heritage sites. There is a Jama Masjid inside the fort which is said to be one of the oldest and ancient monuments that existing and still people go to worship there. It has a prayer hall inside it, which made up of quartzite stone. It is a large open space which can be said as the Prayer Hall where maximum people can accumulate to do prayers. Since the tomb has got old, the mosque inside it has been ruined by the natural calamities that had occurred in the past. Script on Stone The Ashokan pillar that has been shifted to the Feroz Shah Kotla from Ambala, has many inscriptions written on it which was not understandable by anyone at that time of the installation of the pillar at that time. Later, it was analyzed by James Prinsep in the year 1837 and the meaning was derived out of it.	423	ENGLISH	1
Many of the fairy tales collected by the Grimm's have a moral. Is a moral lesson a requirement for fairy tales? Some fairy tales don't have morals, and lots that do have morals that aren't that useful. For instance, the Grimm brothers wrote many amoral stories, and many (not just the Grimm's) are believed to be jabs at the government or royalty at the time. Snow White is based on Margarete von Waldeck, a girl with a horrible relationship with her stepmother, from Germany in a town where children ("dwarves") were exploited in the coal mines. Cinderella is based on Rhodopis, and the story of Cinderella goes back well before the fairy tale. Rhodopis was a slave, Charaxus fell in love with her, and bought her freedom. He received an angry poem from his sister. Dick Whittington and His Cat is based on Richard Whittington who became a successful textile trader, who had a cat. See this image. Hansel and Gretel could be based on the famine of 1315-1317, or it could be based on the story of Katharina Schraderin, a baker who in the 1600s, made a ginger bread cookie so nice that a jealous male baker accused her of being a witch. She was driven from town but angry neighbors brought her back to her home, and burned her to death in her own oven. The Pied Piper of Hamelin could actually be a true story in itself. The story is set in 1284. The town of Hamelin actually exists, and there are records of 1300 AD of a stained glass window in the church showing a piper leading children out the village. At the time, stained glass windows were a way of showing current events and remembering them. There is also a manuscript from 1440/50 AD that says that in 1284, in the town of Hamelin, 130 children were taken away by a piper and never heard of again. Although there are no rats mentioned, there could have been a rat infestation at the time, and the stories could have been merged. As for why the children were taking away, there are several theories. The rats could represent a plague that killed the children, the piper could have been a paedophile or murderer that took the children, or maybe just a child trafficker. These examples show that fairy tales weren't written to have a moral that children could learn, but storied of real life events. * - These are suspicions that haven't and cannot be proved There's a terminology conflict here. A fairy tale is a fantastical adventure, set in an indistinguishable far-off place and time, in which a good character goes through hardship and comes out with a good/happy ending.	<urn:uuid:a93c25b6-862b-44ca-9849-f92d5992ff20>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://literature.stackexchange.com/questions/6/is-a-moral-lesson-a-requirement-for-fairy-tales	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250606696.26/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122042145-20200122071145-00142.warc.gz	en	0.982856	575	3.4375	3	[ -0.08428241312503815, -0.10412325710058212, 0.09543687105178833, -0.0980929508805275, -0.07533278316259384, 0.11917658150196075, 0.06137669086456299, 0.4672520160675049, -0.4338251054286957, 0.12059389054775238, -0.12677541375160217, 0.20652221143245697, 0.33451762795448303, 0.162259399890...	11	Many of the fairy tales collected by the Grimm's have a moral. Is a moral lesson a requirement for fairy tales? Some fairy tales don't have morals, and lots that do have morals that aren't that useful. For instance, the Grimm brothers wrote many amoral stories, and many (not just the Grimm's) are believed to be jabs at the government or royalty at the time. Snow White is based on Margarete von Waldeck, a girl with a horrible relationship with her stepmother, from Germany in a town where children ("dwarves") were exploited in the coal mines. Cinderella is based on Rhodopis, and the story of Cinderella goes back well before the fairy tale. Rhodopis was a slave, Charaxus fell in love with her, and bought her freedom. He received an angry poem from his sister. Dick Whittington and His Cat is based on Richard Whittington who became a successful textile trader, who had a cat. See this image. Hansel and Gretel could be based on the famine of 1315-1317, or it could be based on the story of Katharina Schraderin, a baker who in the 1600s, made a ginger bread cookie so nice that a jealous male baker accused her of being a witch. She was driven from town but angry neighbors brought her back to her home, and burned her to death in her own oven. The Pied Piper of Hamelin could actually be a true story in itself. The story is set in 1284. The town of Hamelin actually exists, and there are records of 1300 AD of a stained glass window in the church showing a piper leading children out the village. At the time, stained glass windows were a way of showing current events and remembering them. There is also a manuscript from 1440/50 AD that says that in 1284, in the town of Hamelin, 130 children were taken away by a piper and never heard of again. Although there are no rats mentioned, there could have been a rat infestation at the time, and the stories could have been merged. As for why the children were taking away, there are several theories. The rats could represent a plague that killed the children, the piper could have been a paedophile or murderer that took the children, or maybe just a child trafficker. These examples show that fairy tales weren't written to have a moral that children could learn, but storied of real life events. * - These are suspicions that haven't and cannot be proved There's a terminology conflict here. A fairy tale is a fantastical adventure, set in an indistinguishable far-off place and time, in which a good character goes through hardship and comes out with a good/happy ending.	597	ENGLISH	1
According to the scriptures, Peter was not the first pope to the church: Jesus never elevated one bishop over others, but rather established an equal office for service between the ministers or bishops. Paul said, “He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors [i.e., bishops or elders] and teachers” (Ephesians 4:11). The supremacy of bishops is a man made tradition that originated when men strayed away from the teachings of the scripture. During the reign of Constantine (A.D. 280-337), Christianity became a “religion of power” where the bishops strengthened their position. Unlike the bishops of the apostolic era (Acts 14:23; 15:4; 20:17; Titus 1:5; James 5:14), the bishops at this period, ruled over not only one congregation, but over a “diocese,” several districts. During this time there were five metropolises: Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, and Jerusalem. Rome in the West and Constantinople in the East gained greater prominence because of their locations. And these two metropolises competed for supremacy. In 366, Damasus was elected Bishop of Rome. He fought for the pontificate to confirm his position in the Church of Rome. Damasus went further as to assert that the Church of Rome was supreme over all others because Jesus placed Peter above the rest, elevating him as the cornerstone of the church itself. In 384, Siricius was elected as the Pontiff of Rome. And he empowered himself with a higher level of authority than other bishops had demanded. He was the first to refer to himself as Peter’s heir. Siricius claimed inherent authority without consideration of the Scriptures. In 440, Leo I, became the pontiff. He was a strong defender of the supremacy of the Roman bishop over the bishops in the East. He too exalted the traditions about the supremacy of Peter. By that time it was accepted as “fact” that Peter had been the first Bishop of Rome and that he had been martyred there. In 590, Gregory the Great was named Bishop of Rome. He was another advocate of Petrine tradition, and named himself “Pope” and the “Head of the Universal Church.” By the end of his pontificate, the theory of Peter’s primacy and that of the Bishop of Rome was strongly established. Finally, with the appearance of Boniface III on the papal throne on February 19, 607, Roman papacy became universally accepted. Many other bishops followed his legacy of “runners for supremacy.” Sadly, the church deviated from the teachers of scriptures that was taught by the apostle Paul that Jesus was the only supreme head of the Church, “For the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ also is the head of the church, being Himself the savior of the body” (Ephesians 5:23). Just as there should be only one husband with authority over one wife, Jesus has the authority over His church. In His service,	<urn:uuid:ae96891d-e101-4faf-afb5-b1c5928e3393>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://bibleask.org/how-did-the-petrine-peter-the-first-pope-tradition-originate/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594209.12/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119035851-20200119063851-00392.warc.gz	en	0.985654	655	3.4375	3	[ -0.2532767653465271, 0.5569139122962952, 0.035699181258678436, -0.4139140844345093, -0.5773385763168335, -0.19059300422668457, -0.001552938250824809, 0.23028051853179932, 0.35802802443504333, -0.19826781749725342, -0.28518790006637573, -0.4305107593536377, -0.11567022651433945, 0.050958305...	3	According to the scriptures, Peter was not the first pope to the church: Jesus never elevated one bishop over others, but rather established an equal office for service between the ministers or bishops. Paul said, “He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors [i.e., bishops or elders] and teachers” (Ephesians 4:11). The supremacy of bishops is a man made tradition that originated when men strayed away from the teachings of the scripture. During the reign of Constantine (A.D. 280-337), Christianity became a “religion of power” where the bishops strengthened their position. Unlike the bishops of the apostolic era (Acts 14:23; 15:4; 20:17; Titus 1:5; James 5:14), the bishops at this period, ruled over not only one congregation, but over a “diocese,” several districts. During this time there were five metropolises: Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, and Jerusalem. Rome in the West and Constantinople in the East gained greater prominence because of their locations. And these two metropolises competed for supremacy. In 366, Damasus was elected Bishop of Rome. He fought for the pontificate to confirm his position in the Church of Rome. Damasus went further as to assert that the Church of Rome was supreme over all others because Jesus placed Peter above the rest, elevating him as the cornerstone of the church itself. In 384, Siricius was elected as the Pontiff of Rome. And he empowered himself with a higher level of authority than other bishops had demanded. He was the first to refer to himself as Peter’s heir. Siricius claimed inherent authority without consideration of the Scriptures. In 440, Leo I, became the pontiff. He was a strong defender of the supremacy of the Roman bishop over the bishops in the East. He too exalted the traditions about the supremacy of Peter. By that time it was accepted as “fact” that Peter had been the first Bishop of Rome and that he had been martyred there. In 590, Gregory the Great was named Bishop of Rome. He was another advocate of Petrine tradition, and named himself “Pope” and the “Head of the Universal Church.” By the end of his pontificate, the theory of Peter’s primacy and that of the Bishop of Rome was strongly established. Finally, with the appearance of Boniface III on the papal throne on February 19, 607, Roman papacy became universally accepted. Many other bishops followed his legacy of “runners for supremacy.” Sadly, the church deviated from the teachers of scriptures that was taught by the apostle Paul that Jesus was the only supreme head of the Church, “For the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ also is the head of the church, being Himself the savior of the body” (Ephesians 5:23). Just as there should be only one husband with authority over one wife, Jesus has the authority over His church. In His service,	667	ENGLISH	1
Earlier this year, ISIS burned to death Jordan fighter pilot Muadh al-Kasasbeh, an act decried as barbaric by much of the world when seen online. But for almost a century in America, such heinous torchings were meted out against Blacks by whites — occasions that were not only immoral and criminal, but they were events often celebrated by entire communities. They were known as “spectacular lynchings,” ceremonial torture, murder and burning alive of Black Americans by whites. On May 15, 1916, Jesse Washington was mutilated and burned to death on the City Hall grounds in Waco, Texas. He was arrested a week earlier for the rape and murder of the wife of a white farmer, although there were no witnesses or evidence against him. His trial lasted less than a day, and the jury deliberated for four minutes, according to billmoyer.com. Before the death penalty could be executed by the state, a mob of whites stormed the courtroom, wrapped a chain around his neck and dragged him out to an open area by City Hall, where they pinned him to the ground and cut off his testicles. A bonfire was quickly built and lit. For two hours, Washington — alive — was raised and lowered over the flames. Again and again and again. City officials and police stood by, approvingly. According to some estimates, the crowd grew to as many as 15,000. There were taunts, cheers and laughter. Reporters described hearing “shouts of delight.” When the flames died away, Washington’s body was torn apart, and the pieces were sold as souvenirs.	<urn:uuid:c1e1dfe0-e912-4afd-b42f-8663c26e9cbb>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://atlantablackstar.com/2015/02/25/7-times-in-history-that-people-in-america-acted-like-the-terrorist-organization-isis/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250592261.1/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118052321-20200118080321-00533.warc.gz	en	0.991934	337	3.40625	3	[ -0.2273845225572586, 0.5514901280403137, 0.17999398708343506, 0.0914350301027298, 0.2803637981414795, 0.349948912858963, 0.24445495009422302, 0.22265656292438507, 0.04216361045837402, -0.01408010721206665, 0.006320875603705645, 0.224051371216774, -0.2851437032222748, 0.2442752867937088, ...	6	Earlier this year, ISIS burned to death Jordan fighter pilot Muadh al-Kasasbeh, an act decried as barbaric by much of the world when seen online. But for almost a century in America, such heinous torchings were meted out against Blacks by whites — occasions that were not only immoral and criminal, but they were events often celebrated by entire communities. They were known as “spectacular lynchings,” ceremonial torture, murder and burning alive of Black Americans by whites. On May 15, 1916, Jesse Washington was mutilated and burned to death on the City Hall grounds in Waco, Texas. He was arrested a week earlier for the rape and murder of the wife of a white farmer, although there were no witnesses or evidence against him. His trial lasted less than a day, and the jury deliberated for four minutes, according to billmoyer.com. Before the death penalty could be executed by the state, a mob of whites stormed the courtroom, wrapped a chain around his neck and dragged him out to an open area by City Hall, where they pinned him to the ground and cut off his testicles. A bonfire was quickly built and lit. For two hours, Washington — alive — was raised and lowered over the flames. Again and again and again. City officials and police stood by, approvingly. According to some estimates, the crowd grew to as many as 15,000. There were taunts, cheers and laughter. Reporters described hearing “shouts of delight.” When the flames died away, Washington’s body was torn apart, and the pieces were sold as souvenirs.	340	ENGLISH	1
William Jennings Bryan William Jennings Bryan’s Cross of Gold Speech High inflation during the American civil war benefited farmers who were debtors and who received high prices for farm products. After the war, the U.S. went back to the gold standard causing general deflation. Various rural-based inflation movements developed. By the early 1890’s, the Populist Party and figures within the Democratic and Republican Parties advocated “free silver” (a silver-standard currency at a high price for silver that would bring inflation). The Populists represented an alliance of rural interests and silver mining interests. Free silver advocate William Jennings Bryan became the Democratic presidential candidate of 1896, delivering the famous “Cross of Gold” speech denouncing the gold standard. This is a radio broadcast on the 100th anniversary of the speech which includes a 1923 phonograph recording of excepts from the speech by Bryan. (Bryan ran for president 4 times. He was Secretary of State under Woodrow Wilson for a time. And he became the prosecutor in the Scopes “Monkey Trial” in Tennessee, convicting Scopes for teaching evolution in the public schools). He was a leading American politician from the 1890s until his death. He was a dominant force in the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, standing three times as its candidate for President of the United States (1896, 1900 and 1908). He served in Congress briefly as a Representative fromNebraska and was the 41st United States Secretary of State under President Woodrow Wilson (1913–1915), taking a pacifist position on the World War. Bryan was a devout Christian, a supporter of popular democracy, and an enemy of the gold standard as well as banks and railroads. He was a leader of the silverite movement in the 1890s, a peace advocate, a prohibitionist, and an opponent of Darwinism on religious and humanitarian grounds. With his deep, commanding voice and wide travels, he was one of the best known orators and lecturers of the era. Because of his faith in the wisdom of the common people, he was called “The Great Commoner.” In the intensely fought 1896 and 1900 elections, he was defeated by William McKinleybut retained control of the Democratic Party. With over 500 speeches in 1896, Bryan invented the national stumping tour, in an era when other presidential candidates stayed home. In his three presidential bids, he promoted Free Silver in 1896, anti-imperialism in 1900, and trust-busting in 1908, calling on Democrats to fight the trusts (big corporations) and big banks, and embrace anti-elitist ideals of republicanism. President Wilson appointed him Secretary of State in 1913, but Wilson’s strong demands on Germanyafter the Lusitania was torpedoed in 1915 caused Bryan to resign in protest. After 1920 he was a strong supporter of Prohibition and energetically attacked Darwinism and evolution, most famously at the Scopes Trial in 1925. Five days after the end of the case, he died in his sleep. Background and early career: 1860–1896 Bryan’s mother was of English heritage. Mary Bryan joined the Salem Baptists in 1872, so Bryan attended Methodist services on Sunday morning, and in the afternoon, Baptist services. At this point, William began spending his Sunday afternoons at the Cumberland Presbyterian Church. At age 14, Bryan attended arevival, was baptized, and joined the Cumberland Presbyterian Church. In later life, Bryan said the day of his baptism was the most important day in his life, but at the time it caused little change in his daily routine. He left the Cumberland Presbyterian Church and joined the larger Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. His father Silas, of Scots-Irish and English descent, was an avid Jacksonian Democrat. Silas won election to the Illinois State Senate, but was defeated for re-election in 1860. He did win election as a state circuit judge, and moved to a 520-acre (210.4 ha) farm north of Salem in 1866, living in a ten-room house that was the envy of Marion County. Until age ten, Bryan was home-schooled, finding in the Bible and McGuffey Readers support for his views that gambling and liquor were evil and sinful. To attend Whipple Academy, which was attached to Illinois College, Bryan was sent to Jacksonville, Illinois in 1874. Following high school, he entered Illinois College, graduating as valedictorian in 1881. During his time at Illinois College, Bryan was a member of the Sigma Pi literary society. He studied law at Union Law College in Chicago (which later became Northwestern University School of Law). While preparing for thebar exam, he taught high school and met Mary Elizabeth Baird, a cousin of William Sherman Jennings. He married her on October 1, 1884, and they settled in Salem, which at the time had a population of two thousand. Mary became a lawyer and collaborated with him on all his speeches and writings. He practiced law in Jacksonville from 1883 to 1887, then moved to the boom city of Lincoln, Nebraska. In Lincoln, Bryan met James Dahlman and they became lifelong friends. As chairman of the Nebraska Democratic Party, Dahlman would help carry Nebraska for Bryan in two presidential campaigns. Even when Dahlman became closely associated with Omaha’s vice elements, including the breweries as the city’s eight-term mayor, he and Bryan maintained a collegial relationship. In the Democratic landslide of 1890, Bryan was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, from Nebraska’s First Congressional District. The growing prohibitionist movement entered the election of 1890 with its own slate of candidates. In the three-way race in the First Congressional District, Bryan received 6,713 more votes than his nearest opponent. This was a plurality of the vote and was 8,000 votes short of a majority of the vote. Nonetheless, Bryan was elected and was only the second Democrat to be elected to Congress in the history of Nebraska. However in his re-election race in 1892, Bryan was re-elected by a 140-vote majority in a two person race. He ran for the Senate in 1894, but a Republican landslide led to the state Legislature’s choice of a Republican for the Senate seat.	<urn:uuid:60dfb18f-7ba3-47cf-9ea8-f85f977f4e12>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	http://purehistory.org/william-jennings-bryan/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250591431.4/warc/CC-MAIN-20200117234621-20200118022621-00354.warc.gz	en	0.98319	1,307	3.375	3	[ -0.35795217752456665, 0.028585314750671387, 0.15119177103042603, 0.18377698957920074, -0.17982225120067596, -0.25426822900772095, -0.09288442134857178, 0.08351625502109528, -0.31978461146354675, -0.20086169242858887, 0.3017728924751282, 0.20523414015769958, 0.4405510127544403, 0.1291966885...	3	William Jennings Bryan William Jennings Bryan’s Cross of Gold Speech High inflation during the American civil war benefited farmers who were debtors and who received high prices for farm products. After the war, the U.S. went back to the gold standard causing general deflation. Various rural-based inflation movements developed. By the early 1890’s, the Populist Party and figures within the Democratic and Republican Parties advocated “free silver” (a silver-standard currency at a high price for silver that would bring inflation). The Populists represented an alliance of rural interests and silver mining interests. Free silver advocate William Jennings Bryan became the Democratic presidential candidate of 1896, delivering the famous “Cross of Gold” speech denouncing the gold standard. This is a radio broadcast on the 100th anniversary of the speech which includes a 1923 phonograph recording of excepts from the speech by Bryan. (Bryan ran for president 4 times. He was Secretary of State under Woodrow Wilson for a time. And he became the prosecutor in the Scopes “Monkey Trial” in Tennessee, convicting Scopes for teaching evolution in the public schools). He was a leading American politician from the 1890s until his death. He was a dominant force in the liberal wing of the Democratic Party, standing three times as its candidate for President of the United States (1896, 1900 and 1908). He served in Congress briefly as a Representative fromNebraska and was the 41st United States Secretary of State under President Woodrow Wilson (1913–1915), taking a pacifist position on the World War. Bryan was a devout Christian, a supporter of popular democracy, and an enemy of the gold standard as well as banks and railroads. He was a leader of the silverite movement in the 1890s, a peace advocate, a prohibitionist, and an opponent of Darwinism on religious and humanitarian grounds. With his deep, commanding voice and wide travels, he was one of the best known orators and lecturers of the era. Because of his faith in the wisdom of the common people, he was called “The Great Commoner.” In the intensely fought 1896 and 1900 elections, he was defeated by William McKinleybut retained control of the Democratic Party. With over 500 speeches in 1896, Bryan invented the national stumping tour, in an era when other presidential candidates stayed home. In his three presidential bids, he promoted Free Silver in 1896, anti-imperialism in 1900, and trust-busting in 1908, calling on Democrats to fight the trusts (big corporations) and big banks, and embrace anti-elitist ideals of republicanism. President Wilson appointed him Secretary of State in 1913, but Wilson’s strong demands on Germanyafter the Lusitania was torpedoed in 1915 caused Bryan to resign in protest. After 1920 he was a strong supporter of Prohibition and energetically attacked Darwinism and evolution, most famously at the Scopes Trial in 1925. Five days after the end of the case, he died in his sleep. Background and early career: 1860–1896 Bryan’s mother was of English heritage. Mary Bryan joined the Salem Baptists in 1872, so Bryan attended Methodist services on Sunday morning, and in the afternoon, Baptist services. At this point, William began spending his Sunday afternoons at the Cumberland Presbyterian Church. At age 14, Bryan attended arevival, was baptized, and joined the Cumberland Presbyterian Church. In later life, Bryan said the day of his baptism was the most important day in his life, but at the time it caused little change in his daily routine. He left the Cumberland Presbyterian Church and joined the larger Presbyterian Church in the United States of America. His father Silas, of Scots-Irish and English descent, was an avid Jacksonian Democrat. Silas won election to the Illinois State Senate, but was defeated for re-election in 1860. He did win election as a state circuit judge, and moved to a 520-acre (210.4 ha) farm north of Salem in 1866, living in a ten-room house that was the envy of Marion County. Until age ten, Bryan was home-schooled, finding in the Bible and McGuffey Readers support for his views that gambling and liquor were evil and sinful. To attend Whipple Academy, which was attached to Illinois College, Bryan was sent to Jacksonville, Illinois in 1874. Following high school, he entered Illinois College, graduating as valedictorian in 1881. During his time at Illinois College, Bryan was a member of the Sigma Pi literary society. He studied law at Union Law College in Chicago (which later became Northwestern University School of Law). While preparing for thebar exam, he taught high school and met Mary Elizabeth Baird, a cousin of William Sherman Jennings. He married her on October 1, 1884, and they settled in Salem, which at the time had a population of two thousand. Mary became a lawyer and collaborated with him on all his speeches and writings. He practiced law in Jacksonville from 1883 to 1887, then moved to the boom city of Lincoln, Nebraska. In Lincoln, Bryan met James Dahlman and they became lifelong friends. As chairman of the Nebraska Democratic Party, Dahlman would help carry Nebraska for Bryan in two presidential campaigns. Even when Dahlman became closely associated with Omaha’s vice elements, including the breweries as the city’s eight-term mayor, he and Bryan maintained a collegial relationship. In the Democratic landslide of 1890, Bryan was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, from Nebraska’s First Congressional District. The growing prohibitionist movement entered the election of 1890 with its own slate of candidates. In the three-way race in the First Congressional District, Bryan received 6,713 more votes than his nearest opponent. This was a plurality of the vote and was 8,000 votes short of a majority of the vote. Nonetheless, Bryan was elected and was only the second Democrat to be elected to Congress in the history of Nebraska. However in his re-election race in 1892, Bryan was re-elected by a 140-vote majority in a two person race. He ran for the Senate in 1894, but a Republican landslide led to the state Legislature’s choice of a Republican for the Senate seat.	1,405	ENGLISH	1
The sinking of RMS Titanic The dangers of designer and operator hubris RMS Titanic was a British passenger liner that sank in the Atlantic ocean on an early morning in April 1912 after colliding with an iceberg during her maiden voyage from Southampton, UK, to New York City. The sinking resulted in the death of more than 1 500 passengers and crew, making it one of the deadliest commercial peacetime maritime disasters in modern history. Four days into the crossing and about 600 km south of Newfoundland, the vessel hit an iceberg at around midnight on ship’s time. The captain only had 37 seconds between the “iceberg” warning launched by the lookout (who had not found the binoculars that would have improved his ability to provide early warning of the hazard) and the collision; this was insufficient to allow the ship to avoid the iceberg. The collision caused the ship’s hull plates to buckle inwards and opened five of her sixteen watertight compartments to the sea; the ship gradually filled with water. Meanwhile, passengers and some crew members were evacuated in lifeboats, many of which were launched only partly loaded. Designer hubris.Hubris means excessive pride and confidence. The Titanic was the largest passenger ship at the time, and had been built with several new technological features. The ship was famously described by its operator as “practically unsinkable”, because its hull was separated into sixteen “watertight” compartments using remotely activated watertight doors. If the hull were to be penetrated, that compartment would be closed to prevent propagation to other parts of the vessel. In the worst case, this design, and associated pumping mechanisms that evacuated water from a breach, was assumed to enable the ship to sink very slowly and allow passengers to evacuate with time to spare. However, these compartments were not really watertight, as they did not possess a roof section (making the bulkheads higher would have reduced interior space and made the ship less comfortable for passengers). When the iceberg sliced through the hull of the first six compartments, a chain reaction began of the watertight bulkhead filling up, then flooding the compartment beside it. The ship also did not have a double hull, but only a double bottom, as a money-saving measure. Operator hubris. The Titanic had been warned of the presence of icebergs by several ships, but did not slow down.The concept of risk homeostasis suggests that people adapt and change behaviour in reaction to changes in the level of risk to which they are exposed, so as to maintain a roughly constant exposure to perceived risk. For example, we drive more slowly when on a wet road, but also tend to drive more quickly if we know our vehicle is equipped with ABS. The Titanic was thought of as a particularly safe ship, with its semi-watertight compartments and modern radio system, which may have encouraged the captain to maintain speed despite the presence of iceberg hazards. There were not enough lifeboats to accommodate all of those aboard, a fact which seems astonishing today but was allowed by the outdated maritime safety regulations of the time. Titanic only carried enough lifeboats for 1 178 people, slightly more than half of the number on board, and one-third her total capacity. This choice was partly due to hubris of the ship’s designers, who overestimated the effectiveness of the new technological measures implemented in the ship, and partly due to lax regulations. The ship designers may have preferred to maximize the space on deck which was accessible to the more wealthy passengers (first class tickets on this ship were extremely expensive, around 500 k€ in inflation-adjusted terms). The crew had not been trained adequately in carrying out an evacuation.Ironically, a lifeboat drill scheduled on the morning of the collision was cancelled to allow passengers and crew the opportunity to attend a religious service. The officers did not know how many people they could safely put aboard the lifeboats and launched many of them barely half-full. Though the Titanic had a very modern radio system, warnings from other ships about the presence of ice (which led other ships in the area to slow down or stop) were ignored by the radio crew, partly because they were overwhelmed by the large volume of telegrams sent by the wealthy passengers, possibly also because the ship’s captain wanted to show that the ship was capable of rapid service on its maiden voyage.The shipping industry at the time was undergoing major changes, with strong competition between companies, the appearance of larger and faster ships, and the use of new routes. Furthermore, the SOS sent by the Titanic was not heard by a nearby ship because its radio was switched off during the night. Outdated regulations. Regulations concerning ships were at the time written by the British Board of Trade. They determined the minimum number of lifeboats based on the ship tonnage, rather than on the number of passengers. This criterion was reasonable for historical ships, but was inappropriate for the gigantic ships that were being built at the time. The new ships were also able to travel at higher speeds, and new routes involving new risks were starting to be used commercially. The board was considering whether this regulation should be changed, but shipowners had opposed the change, resisting the increased costs it would generate. This tendency for safety regulations to be slow in reacting to technological changes, due to the inertia of regulatory authorities and to political pressure exerted by companies operating in the sector, has been seen in multiple industries and historical periods. The accident led to a number of technical and organizational changes in maritime passenger transport that aimed to prevent a similar accident: One of the most important legacies was the establishment in 1914 of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), which still governs maritime safety today. The convention, which is periodically updated, covers issues such as vessel design and construction, fire fighting, radio communication and navigation. Changes to industry recommendations concerning lifeboats: ships are now required to carry enough lifeboats for all people aboard, lifeboat drills are obligatory, and lifeboats are inspected periodically. 24-hour radio watch: radio communications on passenger ships to be operated around the clock, and be equipped with a secondary power supply, so as not to miss distress calls. Changes to ship design and retrofit to existing vessels: the double bottoms of many existing ships were extended up the sides of their hulls to give them double hulls. Another modification made to many ships were changes to the height of the bulkheads, to make compartments fully watertight. Several of these changes can be seen as a (long overdue!) implementation of defence in depth principles in the maritime industry. Image credits: Painting of the sinking by Willy Stöwer, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons. Unlike the rest of the material on this site, the concepts pages are sometimes written in a slightly provocative manner (though we try to separate the facts from the opinions). Your comments are welcome by email, or via Twitter.	<urn:uuid:c6ad06af-a4ec-4bab-8be6-2f04a3a5b543>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://risk-engineering.org/concept/Titanic	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251672440.80/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125101544-20200125130544-00171.warc.gz	en	0.983476	1,431	4.09375	4	[ 0.3741514980792999, -0.2997402548789978, 0.09307007491588593, -0.47479912638664246, 0.023059677332639694, 0.06223117187619209, 0.07483413815498352, 0.11081050336360931, -0.21617460250854492, -0.3288872241973877, 0.16926683485507965, -0.4027818739414215, 0.22857442498207092, -0.172820717096...	1	The sinking of RMS Titanic The dangers of designer and operator hubris RMS Titanic was a British passenger liner that sank in the Atlantic ocean on an early morning in April 1912 after colliding with an iceberg during her maiden voyage from Southampton, UK, to New York City. The sinking resulted in the death of more than 1 500 passengers and crew, making it one of the deadliest commercial peacetime maritime disasters in modern history. Four days into the crossing and about 600 km south of Newfoundland, the vessel hit an iceberg at around midnight on ship’s time. The captain only had 37 seconds between the “iceberg” warning launched by the lookout (who had not found the binoculars that would have improved his ability to provide early warning of the hazard) and the collision; this was insufficient to allow the ship to avoid the iceberg. The collision caused the ship’s hull plates to buckle inwards and opened five of her sixteen watertight compartments to the sea; the ship gradually filled with water. Meanwhile, passengers and some crew members were evacuated in lifeboats, many of which were launched only partly loaded. Designer hubris.Hubris means excessive pride and confidence. The Titanic was the largest passenger ship at the time, and had been built with several new technological features. The ship was famously described by its operator as “practically unsinkable”, because its hull was separated into sixteen “watertight” compartments using remotely activated watertight doors. If the hull were to be penetrated, that compartment would be closed to prevent propagation to other parts of the vessel. In the worst case, this design, and associated pumping mechanisms that evacuated water from a breach, was assumed to enable the ship to sink very slowly and allow passengers to evacuate with time to spare. However, these compartments were not really watertight, as they did not possess a roof section (making the bulkheads higher would have reduced interior space and made the ship less comfortable for passengers). When the iceberg sliced through the hull of the first six compartments, a chain reaction began of the watertight bulkhead filling up, then flooding the compartment beside it. The ship also did not have a double hull, but only a double bottom, as a money-saving measure. Operator hubris. The Titanic had been warned of the presence of icebergs by several ships, but did not slow down.The concept of risk homeostasis suggests that people adapt and change behaviour in reaction to changes in the level of risk to which they are exposed, so as to maintain a roughly constant exposure to perceived risk. For example, we drive more slowly when on a wet road, but also tend to drive more quickly if we know our vehicle is equipped with ABS. The Titanic was thought of as a particularly safe ship, with its semi-watertight compartments and modern radio system, which may have encouraged the captain to maintain speed despite the presence of iceberg hazards. There were not enough lifeboats to accommodate all of those aboard, a fact which seems astonishing today but was allowed by the outdated maritime safety regulations of the time. Titanic only carried enough lifeboats for 1 178 people, slightly more than half of the number on board, and one-third her total capacity. This choice was partly due to hubris of the ship’s designers, who overestimated the effectiveness of the new technological measures implemented in the ship, and partly due to lax regulations. The ship designers may have preferred to maximize the space on deck which was accessible to the more wealthy passengers (first class tickets on this ship were extremely expensive, around 500 k€ in inflation-adjusted terms). The crew had not been trained adequately in carrying out an evacuation.Ironically, a lifeboat drill scheduled on the morning of the collision was cancelled to allow passengers and crew the opportunity to attend a religious service. The officers did not know how many people they could safely put aboard the lifeboats and launched many of them barely half-full. Though the Titanic had a very modern radio system, warnings from other ships about the presence of ice (which led other ships in the area to slow down or stop) were ignored by the radio crew, partly because they were overwhelmed by the large volume of telegrams sent by the wealthy passengers, possibly also because the ship’s captain wanted to show that the ship was capable of rapid service on its maiden voyage.The shipping industry at the time was undergoing major changes, with strong competition between companies, the appearance of larger and faster ships, and the use of new routes. Furthermore, the SOS sent by the Titanic was not heard by a nearby ship because its radio was switched off during the night. Outdated regulations. Regulations concerning ships were at the time written by the British Board of Trade. They determined the minimum number of lifeboats based on the ship tonnage, rather than on the number of passengers. This criterion was reasonable for historical ships, but was inappropriate for the gigantic ships that were being built at the time. The new ships were also able to travel at higher speeds, and new routes involving new risks were starting to be used commercially. The board was considering whether this regulation should be changed, but shipowners had opposed the change, resisting the increased costs it would generate. This tendency for safety regulations to be slow in reacting to technological changes, due to the inertia of regulatory authorities and to political pressure exerted by companies operating in the sector, has been seen in multiple industries and historical periods. The accident led to a number of technical and organizational changes in maritime passenger transport that aimed to prevent a similar accident: One of the most important legacies was the establishment in 1914 of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS), which still governs maritime safety today. The convention, which is periodically updated, covers issues such as vessel design and construction, fire fighting, radio communication and navigation. Changes to industry recommendations concerning lifeboats: ships are now required to carry enough lifeboats for all people aboard, lifeboat drills are obligatory, and lifeboats are inspected periodically. 24-hour radio watch: radio communications on passenger ships to be operated around the clock, and be equipped with a secondary power supply, so as not to miss distress calls. Changes to ship design and retrofit to existing vessels: the double bottoms of many existing ships were extended up the sides of their hulls to give them double hulls. Another modification made to many ships were changes to the height of the bulkheads, to make compartments fully watertight. Several of these changes can be seen as a (long overdue!) implementation of defence in depth principles in the maritime industry. Image credits: Painting of the sinking by Willy Stöwer, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons. Unlike the rest of the material on this site, the concepts pages are sometimes written in a slightly provocative manner (though we try to separate the facts from the opinions). Your comments are welcome by email, or via Twitter.	1,414	ENGLISH	1
When Denver was founded in 1858, it was little more than a mining camp. By the 1870s however, Denver had gained a substantial permanent population, and many residents were clamoring for parks. In 1878, City Park became the largest tract turned into a park and was irrigated with water from the city ditch. By the start of the 20th century, Ferril Lake, the Denver Zoo, and the landmark boat pavilion, were built. In 1903, construction was completed for the first wing of the Denver Museum of Nature and Science and it opened to the public on July 1, 1908. City Park sat a mile away from the rest of Denver when it was first opened and could be reached by trolley. The neighborhood developed around the park, starting with farmers and squatters who used the city ditch to irrigate their crops. Later, many historic brick residential buildings, including many Denver square style homes and several historic brick commercial structures were constructed. 1,159 total views, 1 views today	<urn:uuid:8b013107-81c6-40f8-8c44-6d6b37822dd1>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	http://cpfan.org/history/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250604849.31/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121162615-20200121191615-00191.warc.gz	en	0.9895	205	3.265625	3	[ 0.2178872972726822, -0.20357663929462433, 0.43125975131988525, 0.00010411633411422372, -0.22504425048828125, 0.34366828203201294, -0.16395621001720428, 0.2908935248851776, -0.14156050980091095, -0.3795590400695801, -0.04782218113541603, -0.12855686247348785, -0.024454670026898384, 0.184058...	1	When Denver was founded in 1858, it was little more than a mining camp. By the 1870s however, Denver had gained a substantial permanent population, and many residents were clamoring for parks. In 1878, City Park became the largest tract turned into a park and was irrigated with water from the city ditch. By the start of the 20th century, Ferril Lake, the Denver Zoo, and the landmark boat pavilion, were built. In 1903, construction was completed for the first wing of the Denver Museum of Nature and Science and it opened to the public on July 1, 1908. City Park sat a mile away from the rest of Denver when it was first opened and could be reached by trolley. The neighborhood developed around the park, starting with farmers and squatters who used the city ditch to irrigate their crops. Later, many historic brick residential buildings, including many Denver square style homes and several historic brick commercial structures were constructed. 1,159 total views, 1 views today	226	ENGLISH	1
The Mysterious Life of Amelia Earhart By Tiona M. Amelia Earhart is a well-accomplished pilot, but how many of us know about the mystery of Amelia Earhart? On July 24th, 1897, Earhart was born into a well-promising family. Her mother, Amelia Otis Earhart, was the daughter of a judge and had inherited a fair amount of money from her parents. Her father, Samuel Earhart, was on the path of becoming a railroad lawyer and would bring in large sums of money. However, somewhere down the road, life did not turn out as her parents thought; Mr. Earhart had become a drunkard. As a result of his careless actions, Amelia’s mother divorced her husband. She took Earhart and her little sister, Grace Muriel, with her. Earhart spent most of her childhood moving around to different cities and states. Because of her childhood, Earhart learned to become an independent woman at a young age. Adult life was full of promises for Earhart. She did everything from publishing a book, becoming the 16th woman to get her pilot’s license, and becoming the first woman to fly across the Atlantic Ocean in 1928. After she came into the public eye in 1928, Earhart came out with her clothing line called “Amelia Earhart,” sold at Macy’s. Later in 1931, Earhart married the publisher of her book George P. Putnam. The disappearance of female pilot Amelia Earhart and her navigation pilot Fred Noonan took the whole world by surprise. There have been several theories on the disappearance of the two pilots. Over the past years, many believe the Japanese captured Earhart and Noonan. Recently a photo was released from Jaluit Island. In the picture, two people are said to be the legendary Amelia Earhart and her partner Fred Noonan. Some allegations about the disappearance I find to be untrue. My theory is that it was neither Earhart nor Noonan in that photo. Records prove the picture was released two years before Earhart took off to be the “first woman to fly around the world.” It stands to reason because the woman’s hair in the photo was longer that Earhart’s hair when she took off, and Noonan never wore light-colored clothing. Earlier on, evidence was found on Marshall Island that can likely prove that Earhart died on the island. Researchers have found a jar that may have contained freckle cream inside, a Talon zipper, and human bones. Beyond the shadow of the doubt, this is where I believe Earhart died. She had freckles yet did not like them, the zipper is from either pants or jacket, and the research has shown that the bones found on the island belong to a “taller than average” woman of European descent that was about 5’ 7 to 5’ 8. Documents have shown Earhart was around 5’ 8. Also, she is the only documented person whom the bones could belong to. However, it makes you wonder–what happened to Fred Noonan? Amelia Earhart left a legacy that her country will never forget. She lived her life to the fullest. In many ways, I admire Amelia Earhart. She was a self-determined, independently brave woman. She did not let things get her down; she got right back in the saddle. She tried new things and kept trying until she accomplished them. One day, I hope we can uncover the mystery of the legendary Amelia Earhart.	<urn:uuid:51958b22-61f2-4208-800e-907fa394a609>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://blog.connectionsacademy.com/the-mysterious-life-of-amelia-earhart/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251802249.87/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129194333-20200129223333-00049.warc.gz	en	0.984189	736	3.484375	3	[ -0.22634218633174896, -0.2558446526527405, 0.07775193452835083, -0.1324738711118698, 0.1245407983660698, 0.18725720047950745, 0.6773045063018799, 0.0738978385925293, -0.3420971632003784, 0.1077185720205307, 0.44889727234840393, -0.04902501776814461, -0.202030748128891, 0.3168194890022278, ...	1	The Mysterious Life of Amelia Earhart By Tiona M. Amelia Earhart is a well-accomplished pilot, but how many of us know about the mystery of Amelia Earhart? On July 24th, 1897, Earhart was born into a well-promising family. Her mother, Amelia Otis Earhart, was the daughter of a judge and had inherited a fair amount of money from her parents. Her father, Samuel Earhart, was on the path of becoming a railroad lawyer and would bring in large sums of money. However, somewhere down the road, life did not turn out as her parents thought; Mr. Earhart had become a drunkard. As a result of his careless actions, Amelia’s mother divorced her husband. She took Earhart and her little sister, Grace Muriel, with her. Earhart spent most of her childhood moving around to different cities and states. Because of her childhood, Earhart learned to become an independent woman at a young age. Adult life was full of promises for Earhart. She did everything from publishing a book, becoming the 16th woman to get her pilot’s license, and becoming the first woman to fly across the Atlantic Ocean in 1928. After she came into the public eye in 1928, Earhart came out with her clothing line called “Amelia Earhart,” sold at Macy’s. Later in 1931, Earhart married the publisher of her book George P. Putnam. The disappearance of female pilot Amelia Earhart and her navigation pilot Fred Noonan took the whole world by surprise. There have been several theories on the disappearance of the two pilots. Over the past years, many believe the Japanese captured Earhart and Noonan. Recently a photo was released from Jaluit Island. In the picture, two people are said to be the legendary Amelia Earhart and her partner Fred Noonan. Some allegations about the disappearance I find to be untrue. My theory is that it was neither Earhart nor Noonan in that photo. Records prove the picture was released two years before Earhart took off to be the “first woman to fly around the world.” It stands to reason because the woman’s hair in the photo was longer that Earhart’s hair when she took off, and Noonan never wore light-colored clothing. Earlier on, evidence was found on Marshall Island that can likely prove that Earhart died on the island. Researchers have found a jar that may have contained freckle cream inside, a Talon zipper, and human bones. Beyond the shadow of the doubt, this is where I believe Earhart died. She had freckles yet did not like them, the zipper is from either pants or jacket, and the research has shown that the bones found on the island belong to a “taller than average” woman of European descent that was about 5’ 7 to 5’ 8. Documents have shown Earhart was around 5’ 8. Also, she is the only documented person whom the bones could belong to. However, it makes you wonder–what happened to Fred Noonan? Amelia Earhart left a legacy that her country will never forget. She lived her life to the fullest. In many ways, I admire Amelia Earhart. She was a self-determined, independently brave woman. She did not let things get her down; she got right back in the saddle. She tried new things and kept trying until she accomplished them. One day, I hope we can uncover the mystery of the legendary Amelia Earhart.	735	ENGLISH	1
Botany was among the most popular of the nineteenth century sciences. Men, women and children all joined in the frantic hunt for plants, and the hedgerows were full of people cataloguing mosses, identifying ferns and pressing flowers. This popularity had five main sources: - Botany was easy especially during the decades when the Linnaean or Sexual System of classification was in widespread use because it made most plants easy to identify. - Botany was cheap it required only a few, inexpensive tools: a tin box, known as a vasculum (pl. vascula) in which freshly-picked plants were placed; a small hand lens for identification; a book or two with which to identify and classify plants; and, a supply of clean paper used to dry, press and mount the plants. - Botany was pious the study of nature was a key aspect of natural theology, studying the creator's handiwork was supposed to confirm both his existence and his goodness and plants were considered especially appropriate for children and women to collect, since one could study them without having to observe animals copulating or killing each other. - Botany was genteel and ladylike it was widely considered unfeminine to kill or dissect animals, and even the bloodless pursuit of entomology required the collectors to asphyxiate the butterflies they gathered. By contrast, botany was readily associated with traditional feminine skills such as flower-arranging and flower-painting. - Botany was healthy like other natural history pursuits, it offered healthy, outdoor exercise and respectable opportunities in which to meet members of the opposite sex, based on a common interest in rational and improving activity. In many ways, botany was seen as a natural extension of the growing middle-class interest in gardening. However, all these factors created problems for the small but influential group of Victorian botanists who wished to pursue full-time careers as botanists. The very things that made botany popular for some participants threatened its standing as a serious science in the eyes of others. One of the dominant themes in Victorian botany is the struggle between a self-appointed, predominantly male elite who were trying to redefine botany as a serious, "philosophical" science and the vast majority who wanted simply to enhance their understanding and enjoyment of flowers. Last modified 18 July 2011	<urn:uuid:351b61e6-c29c-48bc-a91f-43589fdfb36e>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	http://victorianweb.org/science/botany/1.html	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251678287.60/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125161753-20200125190753-00148.warc.gz	en	0.980329	483	3.3125	3	[ 0.25328710675239563, -0.004415940493345261, 0.2912997603416443, 0.04083382710814476, 0.4837796688079834, 0.0060002803802490234, 0.4862733483314514, 0.19275063276290894, -0.32547563314437866, 0.2925091087818146, 0.03734012320637703, -0.23734544217586517, 0.21334415674209595, 0.1445266604423...	6	Botany was among the most popular of the nineteenth century sciences. Men, women and children all joined in the frantic hunt for plants, and the hedgerows were full of people cataloguing mosses, identifying ferns and pressing flowers. This popularity had five main sources: - Botany was easy especially during the decades when the Linnaean or Sexual System of classification was in widespread use because it made most plants easy to identify. - Botany was cheap it required only a few, inexpensive tools: a tin box, known as a vasculum (pl. vascula) in which freshly-picked plants were placed; a small hand lens for identification; a book or two with which to identify and classify plants; and, a supply of clean paper used to dry, press and mount the plants. - Botany was pious the study of nature was a key aspect of natural theology, studying the creator's handiwork was supposed to confirm both his existence and his goodness and plants were considered especially appropriate for children and women to collect, since one could study them without having to observe animals copulating or killing each other. - Botany was genteel and ladylike it was widely considered unfeminine to kill or dissect animals, and even the bloodless pursuit of entomology required the collectors to asphyxiate the butterflies they gathered. By contrast, botany was readily associated with traditional feminine skills such as flower-arranging and flower-painting. - Botany was healthy like other natural history pursuits, it offered healthy, outdoor exercise and respectable opportunities in which to meet members of the opposite sex, based on a common interest in rational and improving activity. In many ways, botany was seen as a natural extension of the growing middle-class interest in gardening. However, all these factors created problems for the small but influential group of Victorian botanists who wished to pursue full-time careers as botanists. The very things that made botany popular for some participants threatened its standing as a serious science in the eyes of others. One of the dominant themes in Victorian botany is the struggle between a self-appointed, predominantly male elite who were trying to redefine botany as a serious, "philosophical" science and the vast majority who wanted simply to enhance their understanding and enjoyment of flowers. Last modified 18 July 2011	476	ENGLISH	1
The 1776 flag of the 8th Virginia Regiment survives in private hands, one of very few surviving Revolutionary War flags. It was kept by the Muhlenberg family for many years, on display as late as the 1840s. It was later owned by the late Bernard Goetz, who kept it behind plain glass in a frame. Over the years, the exposed part of the flag faded, resulting in a discolored rectangle in its central portion. Nevertheless, the flag survives, and in better condition than most other surviving banners. Part of the key to the flag's survival is its construction from "unweighted silk." According to RareFlags.com, "One of the most luxurious and expensive of all fabrics, the use of silk in American flags is typically reserved for the finest quality flags, most often for military or official use. Several qualities of silk make it an exceptionally good fabric for use in flags. The material is light-weight, exceptionally strong, tightly woven and weathers well. Its shimmering appearance is beautiful and impressive. For military standards, silk allows for large flags that are light and which dry quickly. The fineness of the material allows for the application of painted decorations, as is often seen in the painted stars and decorative cantons of flags produced for wartime use, especially those of the American Civil War. "One unfortunate problem with antique silk flags is that large numbers of them, including many Civil War era battle standards, were made of "weighted silk". Sold for centuries by length, merchants shifted from selling silk by length to selling it by weight, beginning in the early 19th century (circa 1820-1830). In order to earn more money for their silk, merchants frequently soaked the silk in water laden with mineral salts. Once dried, the mineral salts remained in the silk fibers and added weight to the silk, thus bringing the merchant more money. Unfortunately, these mineral salts proved to be caustic and caused severe breakdown in the silk fibers over time. Many flags made of weighted silk are very brittle, often deteriorating under their own weight. Yet flags made of unweighted silk, some of which are decades older than later weighted silk flags, remain in a remarkable state of preservation." Thank goodness the dishonest practice of weighting hadn't begun when this flag was made! Contemporary narratives of the Revolutionary War from enlisted soldiers are as rare as hens' teeth. Below is a very rare extended narrative from William Grant, a school teacher turned Continental soldier from Staunton, Virginia. Grant deserted and defected to the British side just before the Battle of Brandywine, having served against the Cherokee and the Shawnee in the west, and for a few months in the east. Apparently directed to give a full account of his service, he claimed never to have believed in the American cause. Grant was a soldier in Michael Bowyer's company of the 12th Virginia Regiment, a regiment that served alongside the 8th Virginia under Brigadier General Charles Scott in 1777 and 1778. Coming from Augusta County, a county that also raised men for the 8th Virginia, his narrative is very important in my work compiling a history of the 8th Virginia. It is only through this record, for instance, that we know Captain William Darke performed important service under General William Maxwell at Cooch's Bridge and Brandywine. Notably, Grant calls Darke a "Dutchman," apparently assuming he was German because of his connection with the 8th Virginia. (Darke wasn't German.) It also portrays both of the war's two fronts--the frontier war against the Indians and the eastern war against the British and Hessians. The frontier war is little-remembered today, but was top-of-mind to the men of the 8th Virginia. The western war was begun by their fathers in the French and Indian War and would not really end until the Battle of Fallen Timbers in 1794. Grant's personal story is also interesting It gives a perspective that is rarely remembered--that of a frontier Tory, too afraid to let his true inclinations be known. The entire narrative is transcribed below, with minimal corrections and broken into paragraphs for ease of reading. About the beginning of July 1776. the Cherokee Indians, excited by a number of the friends to Government, in that place commonly called Tories, who had fled from North Carolina, fell upon the Western frontiers of Virginia; whereupon the Committees of the several Counties detached severall small parties of militia to stop their progress thro’ the Country, untill such time as an army could be raised to oppose them, which at that time was very difficult, as the major part of the youth who were zealous for the cause, were already in the service against the King's troops. In this juncture they were obligated to have recourse to the Militia law, which compels every male from the age of fifteen to sixty, after having settled three months in one place, to take up arms against all enemys; upon their refusal they forfeit the sum of £20 of that currency. By virtue of which law they collected about 1200 men before the middle of August, the chief command of which was conferred upon Col. [Thomas] Smith, a native of that country. He immediately assembled his new Army at Staunton, a small town in Augusta County, lying about 20 miles to the Westward of the South Mountain, from whence he marched Aug[us]t 18th and proceeded directly to Holstein [Holston], a settlement upon the frontiers where the Indians were then ravaging; but upon the approach of the army retreated with their booty. The Col. finding they would not come to a decisive engagement so far from home, determined to pursue them to their towns, to expedite which he encamped his army on an island formed in the river Holstein, generally known by the name of the Long Island, untill such time as he could be reinforced with provisions and men, upon which there were severall draughts taken out of the Militia[.] General Washington at the same time petitioning for more troops, and a draught of the Militia being granted, it fell to my lot to go as one. At that time I taught a school in Augusta County, but being zealous for government was determined not to go, but finding I was not able to withstand their power, which was very arbitrary in that part, I thought it better to enter into the service against the Indians than to go into actual service against my Countrymen. Accordingly some troops were raising at that time by Act of the Convention of Virginia (to be stationed at the different passes on the Ohio to keep the Shawneese &c in awe and to prevent their incursions) upon these terms, vizt that they should enlist for the term of two years, that they should not be compelled to leave the said frontiers or be entred into the Continental service without their own mutual consent, as also that of the legislator. Taking this to be the only method of scree[n]ing myself from being deemed a Tory and also of preventing my being forced into the Continental service, I enlisted the third of Septemb[e]r into Capt. Michael Bowyers's Company of Riflemen, to be stationed at the mouth of the Little Kennarah [Kanawha] upon the River Ohio. Soon after we marched in company with 150 militia, to the assistance of Coll. Smith, who still continued on the Long Island. We had several skirmishes with the Indians during our march, without any considerable loss on either side. Sept[embe]r 19th we joined the main body, and on the 22d decamped and proceeded towards the Cherokee towns. The enemy continued to harrass us in our march with numberless attacks, sometimes appearing on our front, sometimes upon our flank, so giving us a brisk fire for some minutes, would immediately retreat into the woods. Thus we continued our march thro' the woods the space of three weeks, about which time we received intelligence from our spies and from some prisoners that had escaped, that the Indians had removed every thing from their towns into the mountains, had cut down their corn & set fire to every thing they could not carry away which they thought might be of service to the white army. Upon the confirmation of this account Coll. Smith being persuaded they would never hazard a general engagement, and knowing that his army was but badly supplied with provisions, sent severall companys back into the different Settlements where the Savages were still making incursions and murdring the inhabitants; the Company to which I belonged was one of this number. We were sent to a place lying in the Allegany mountains (upon the banks of the River Monongalia) known by the name of Tygar's [Tygart] Valley where we were ordered during the winter, in order both to defend the Inhabitants and to make canoes to carry us down the river to the place where we were to be stationed the ensuing Spring; in which place I was made Serg' in which I continued during my stay in the army. In the mean time the Indians, finding the Virginians fully bent to search them out and an army of Carolina troops approaching on the other side, sent Deputies to Col. Smith to sue for peace, which was granted upon their delivering up the prisoners, and restoring the goods that they carried out of the Settlements. Hereupon the Militia was disbanded, and the other troops that were enlisted on the aforementioned terms were distributed amongst the frontier settlements during the winter. About this time the war was very hot in the Jerseys, and the Congress determining to recruit their army as soon as possible in the Spring, sent a remonstrance to the Convention of Virginia, alledging that they had a number of troops on their frontiers that were of very little or no service to the country, as the Indians were peacably inclined. Therefore they desired that they should be sent to the assistance of the Continental army as early in the Spring as they possibly could. The Convention immediately repealed the Act on which the troops were raised and directly entered them into the Continental service, and issued forth commissions for the raising of six new Battalions, amongst which the troops formerly raised for the defence of the back frontiers were to be distributed. Agreeable to this new Act we received orders to march to Winchester, there to join the 12th Virga Regt commanded by Col. James Wood; pursuant to which orders we marched from Tygar's Valley in the begining of Aprill and proceeded with all expedition; which march we compleated in the space of eight days; after having rested a few days at Winchester we proceeded to join the Continental Army, which at that time lay partly in Morristown, partly at Boundbrook a small town on the Rarington [Raritan] river about 6 miles from New Brunswick, where His Excellency Generall Howe had his head quarters. May 19th we joined the grand army which then consisted of 20000 foot (chiefly composed of Virginians, Carolinians, and Pennsylvanians, the major part of whom were volunteers, altho’ for the most part disaffected to the rebel cause, they being for the most part convicts and indented servants, who had entered on purpose to get rid of their masters and of consequence of their commanders the first opportunity they can get of deserting) and about 300 light horse commanded by General Washington assisted by Lord Stirling, Major Generalls Stephens, Keyn [?], Sullivan; Brigadiers Weeden, Millenberg [Muhlenberg], Scott, Maxwell, Conway, which latter is a French man. Likewise a number of French officers who commanded in the Artillery, whose names or ranks I never had an opportunity of being acquainted with. Nothing worthy of notice happened untill the 30th of that Inst on which the Continental Army decamped and retreated about 2 miles into the Blue [Watchung] Mountains and incamped at Middle Broock, where they were joined in a few days by the other part of the army that lay at Morristown. Here they lay for some considerable time, during which they were employed in training their troops who were quite undisciplined and ignorant of every military art. Their Officers in general are equally ignorant as the private men, through which means they make but very little progress in learning. Wherefore it is generally believed by the unprejudiced part of the people that the rebells never will hazard a generall engagement, unless they are so hemmed up that they cannot have an opportunity of waving it; from which reason and the deplorable state the Country in generall is now reduced to, which in many places near to the seat of war is entirely destitute of labourers to cultivate the ground, insomuch that the women are necessitated for their own support to lay aside their wonted delicacy and take up the utensils for agriculture. From these and many other weighty reasons it is generally supposed that they cannot continue the war much longer. Nothing material was transacted on either side till about the 24th of June, when a party of General Howe's army made a movement and advanced as far as Somerset, a small town lying on the Rarington betwixt Boundbroock and Princetown, which they plundered, and set fire to two small churches and several farm houses adjacent. General Washington upon receiving notice of their marching, detached 2 Brigades of Virginia troops and the like number of New Eng[lan]d to Pluckhimin, a small town about 10 miles from Somerset, lying on the road to Morristown. Here both parties lay for several days, during which time several slight skirmishes happened with their out scouts, without any considerable loss on either side. On the 29th the enemy retreated to Brunswick with their booty and we to our former ground in the Blue Mountain. Next day His Excellency General Howe marched from Brunswick towards Bonumtown with his whole army, which was harassed on the march by Col. Morgan's Riflemen. As soon as General Howe had evacuated Brunswick, Mr Washington threw a body of the Jersey militia into it, and spread a report that he had forced them to leave it. July 2d there was a detachment of 150 Riflemen chosen from among the Virginia regiments, dispatched under the command of Capt. James [William] Dark a Dutchman, belonging to the eighth Virginia Regt to watch the enemy's motions. The same day this party, of which I was one, marched to Quibbleton [Quibbletown], and from thence proceeded towards [Perth] Amboy. July 4th we had intelligence of the enemy's being encamped within a few miles of Westfield; that night we posted ourselves within a little of their camp and sent an officer with 50 men further on the road as a picquet guard, to prevent our being surprised in the night. Next morning a little before sun rise the British army before we suspected them, were upon pretty close on our picquet before they were discovered, and fired at a negroe lad that was fetching some water for the officer of sd guard, and broke his arm. Upon which he ran to the picquet and alarmed them, affirming at the same time that there was not upwards of sixty men in the party that fired at him. This intelligence was directly sent to us, who prepared as quick as possible to receive them and assist our picquet who was then engaged, in order for which, as we were drawing up our men, an advanced guard of the enemy saluted us with several field pieces, which did no damage. We immediately retreated into the woods from whence we returned them a very brisk fire with our rifles, so continued firing and retreating without any reinforcement till about 10 oClock, they plying us very warmly both with their artillery and small arms all the time; about which time we were reinforced with about 400 Hessians (who had been taken at sea going over to America & immediately entered into the Continental service) and three brass field pieces under the command of Lord Stirling. They drew up immediately in order to defend their field pieces and cover our retreat, and in less than an hour and a half were entirely cut off; scarce sixty of them returned safe out of the field; those who did escape were so scattered over the country that a great number of them could not rejoin the Army for five or six days, whilst the Kings troops marched off in triumph with three brass field pieces and a considerable number of prisoners, having sustained but very little loss on their side. This was the last engagement that happened in the Jerseys before General Howe embarked at [New] York. During this time the rebel army advanced as far as Quibbletown where they lay three days, then countermarched back to the Blue Mountains and there continued untill they recd an account of embarkment of the enemy at York. Capt. Dark collected the remains of his shattered party in the best manner he possibly could and continued to execute his orders in reconnoitring and sending intelligence to the Camp, untill Generall Howe crossed over in Strattan [Staten] Island, at which time we returned to the Camp with scarce two thirds of the men we took away, where we remained 4 or 5 days, then decamped and marched to Morristown and lay there untill we received certain intelligence that the army had gone on board and stood out to sea bearing to the Northward. Upon this news we instantly decamped and marched toward the North River, and encamped at the Clove, about 12 miles South from King's Ferry, where Generall Sullivan left us with about 5000 men and crossed the Ferry. Soon after we again decamped and proceeded further up the River towards Albany. The weather being excessive rainy we were obliged to halt severall days during which time we rec[eive]d an account of Genl Howe's appearing in the Bay of Delaware, which caused us a very hard and fatiguing march, often marching at the rate of thirty miles per day, which killed a number of the men. It was no uncommon thing for the rear guard to see 10 or 11 men dead on the road in one day occasioned by the insufferable heat and thirst; likewise in almost every town we marched through, their Churches were converted into hospitals. Another great hurt to the army was the scarcity of salt and bread, the former of which was not to be had at any rate, for at that time in the Jerseys it sold for 20 dollars pr bushell: as to the latter they were almost in the same condition, altho’ they had plenty of flour they had not time to bake it. Thus we marched till we came to Germantown a village about 6 miles from Philadelphia, where we encamped for severall days, and we[re] reviewed by the Congress. In the interim the British fleet stood out to sea again and steering to the Northward as at first, we again removed and marched to the Cross roads in Bucks County, about 20 miles to the Northward of Philadelphia, and there we pitched our tents, expecting every day to hear of their landing at York, or in some part of the Jerseys. During our stay here we were joined by the 13th Virga Regt a small body of new raised troops to the amount of about 200. About this the Rebel army was very sickly, occasioned greatly by the scarcity of salt, and the great fatigue they had sustained, during the late hard and fatiguing march; which was soon followed by another as hard tho’ not so long. August 22d we recd an account that Generall Howe had landed in Virginia. Next day we decamped and marched 15 miles towards Philadelphia and prepared to march through the City next day, which we did in the best order our circumstances could permit, and proceeded towards Virginia with all expedition; but received soon after a true account of his being at the head of Elk in Maryland. General Washington, being determined to stop his progress towards Philadelphia, posted a body of millitia at Ironhill an eminence about three miles from General Howe's out posts. He also posted three brigades of Virginians with 6 field pieces at Christian [Christiana] Creek about 8 miles from Wilmington, from each of which they detached a party of 100 light armed men, as scouts, under the command of Col. [William] Crawford. Among this number I had the good fortune of being one, as I was determined to embrace the first opportunity of escaping, which I fortunately effected. General Washington with the remainder of his army (which in whole by his own account only consisted of 13000 men) and the artillary park, which consisted of 15 brass field pieces and severall howitts, encamped at Brandywine Creek about 12 miles from Elktown where General Howe held his head quarters. On Saturday August 30th we received intelligence by some prisoners that General Howe intended to make an attack on Ironhill next day. Accordingly next morning between two and three o'Clock, we marched over the hill, and formed our selves into an ambuscade, in which position we continued till five, when being persuaded that no attack would be made, a party of 150 men was immediately chosen and sent under the command of the aforesd Capt. Dark, to reconnoitre. In this party I went as a volunteer, fully resolved never to return unless as a prisoner. However, marching from thence, took several by roads, untill we had got past several of the Hessians posts undiscovered, and proceeding toward an iron work where they had another post, we discovered a few of the Welch fusileers cooking at a barn in the middle of a large field of Indian Corn. Capt Dark resolved to take them if possible, on which account he divided his men into 6 parties of 25 each, under the command of a Lieu[tenant] and 2 Serjeants. The party on the left to which I belonged, he ordered to surround the field, which we did, but were discovered by those whom we thought to surprise, who were only a few of a party consisting of fifty that were out foraging. They drew up immediately and marched out of the field; upon which our Lieu[tenant] and 4 of his men fired upon them, which they returned with a whole volley, and plyed us very warmly from among the trees for some considerable time, untill the other parties came up and attacked them in the rear; whom they also gallantly repulsed and put to flight. The party I belonged to upon the approach of the rest, retreated; at which time I left them, and made the best of my way to the English Camp. In my way I saw severall of the rebells lying dead, and was afterwards informed that a number more of them fell in that action; which in every probability will be the fate of the whole, if they come to a generall engagement, which of necessity they must in a short time, as it is impossible they can sustain the war much longer; the Country being entirely laid waste, the inhabitants disaffected and entirely wearied of the war, and independency; numbers of them are detained from coming to the Royal Standard only through fear of being detected by General Washington's army, the army small, undisciplined, disaffected to the cause, badly paid, in very dull spirits, being certain they are far inferior to the British troops in every point, and entirely destitute of every necessary for carrying on the war, having neither arms nor ammunition, but what they receive from the French or Dutch. From these and many other cogent reasons it is highly probable this unhappy war will soon be terminated to the honour of His Majesty and a terror to all other who may attempt to rebell in like manner for the future. Thus Sir I have given you a short narrative of the facts that came to my knowledge during my stay in the rebell army, and hope it will give your Honour the satisfaction required. I think myself happy in having the honour of serving you in this manner and of subscribing myself Your most obedient & humble Serv' Ship Queen, Indiaman William Grant. at Gravesend Novr 24th 1777 After the grueling marches to and from Trenton, only a handful of Captain William Croghan’s Pittsburgh men were able to continue on to the Battle of Princeton on January 3, 1777. Princeton was a key American victory. It proved that Trenton wasn’t just a fluke, and it breathed new life into a cause that was just about exhausted. At Williamsburg, the company’s core of about 70 men had been boosted to 140 by the addition of stragglers who had missed the 8th Virginia Regiment’s rendezvous. The company, attached to the 1st Virginia for the year, was at the very center of the action at Trenton, lined up only a few yards from the commander in chief. The marches to and from Trenton were much harder on the men than the battle itself. By the time Washington crossed the Delaware again for another go at the enemy, only a fraction of the men were able to go with him. A mere 20 men from the 1st Virginia were healthy enough to join. Of them, only five can be shown from pension records to have been from Croghan’s detachment from the 8th Virginia —one twenty-third of the original 140. The rest were dead, had deserted, or were sick in camp on the other side of the river. Even Croghan seems to have been absent, leaving Lieutenant Abraham Kirkpatrick in command. Kirkpatrick was a tough, mean, and belligerent man, but also an effective soldier. With him were privates Henry Brock, Harmon Commins, Jonathan Grant, David Williams, and perhaps others who left no record of their presence. All three of the 1st Virginia's field officers were wounded or sick, leaving command to Captain John Fleming. These men, together with the remnants of three other Continental regiments and 200 Pennsylvania state (not Continental) riflemen, were Washington’s advance force, under Brigadier General Hugh Mercer’s command. Fleming’s men went first as they clambering over the icy banks of a ravine and proceeded through an orchard. On the other side of the trees they found fifty dismounted British dragoons lying prone behind a split-rail fence. The dragoons rose and fired a volley. As often happened, this first volley went over their heads—splitting the branches of the fruit trees above them. The dragoons retreated about 40 feet to reload as they were reinforced by a British infantry regiment. Ordering his men to form up before firing, Captain Fleming shouted, “Gentlemen, dress the line before you make ready!” Within easy earshot, the British taunted back, “We will dress you!” With the rest of Mercer’s men coming as fast as they could, Fleming’s men advanced to the fence and fired at the British. “[T]he enemy screamed as if many devils had got hold of them,” recalled one soldier. After two or three minutes of firing, the British advanced with their bayonets. Most of Mercer’s men carried rifles, which lacked bayonets and took longer than muskets to reload. This was precisely the kind of engagement they had been trained to avoid. The British bayonet charge was brutal. Mercer’s desperate voice was soon heard shouting, “Retreat!” just as his his horse was shot out from under him. He was mercilessly beaten and stabbed to death by the enemy, some of whom may have thought he was George Washington. Captain Fleming was killed. His lieutenant, Bartholomew Yeates, was sadistically shot, stabbed, beaten and left to die. Lieutenant Abraham Kirkpatrick was wounded too, but also fortunate enough to be carried off the field by Private Grant. The British captured a cannon, turned it around, and fired it as the Americans ran. Colonel John Haslet of Delaware, attempting to rally the men behind a farm building, was shot through the head and “dropt dead on the spot.” A unit of Philadelphia Associators (militia) arrived to help, but were also quickly forced to retreat. With the Revolution itself hanging in the balance, George Washington brought more reinforcements and daringly risked his own life rallying the troops. “At this moment Washington appeared in front of the American army,” recalled a Pennsylvania state rifleman, “riding toward those of us who were retreating, and exclaimed ‘Parade with us, my brave fellows, there is but a handful of the enemy, and [we] will have them directly.’” The American soldiers were moved, physically and emotionally. “I shall never forget what I felt at Princeton on his account,” wrote one of the Philadelphia Associators, “when I saw him brave all the dangers of the field and his important life hanging as it were by a single hair with a thousand deaths flying around him. Believe me, I thought not of myself.” In the battle that followed, Washington and his men were victorious. After the devastating losses of 1776, Washington had learned to win smaller battles fought on his own terms and to avoid major set-piece battles like those he had lost in New York. Most importantly, his countrymen believed again that they could win. The death of Hugh Mercer, a former commandant of Fort Pitt during the French and Indian War, was widely mourned. Today, eight states have counties named for him and there are countless towns, streets, and schools named in his honor. Unfortunately, the central importance of the battle in which he, Colonel Haslet, Captain Fleming, and Lieutenant Yeates gave their lives is lost on too many people today--including the people who own the ground on which they fought. is researching the history of the Revolutionary War's 8th Virginia Regiment. Its ten companies formed on the frontier, from the Cumberland Gap to Pittsburgh. © 2015-2020 Gabriel Neville	<urn:uuid:6fd9ef31-f651-41c4-8ef5-cd360367822d>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.8thvirginia.com/blog/archives/01-2016	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251737572.61/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127235617-20200128025617-00220.warc.gz	en	0.984252	6,224	3.359375	3	[ -0.3199894428253174, 0.44914624094963074, -0.17091068625450134, 0.03145662322640419, 0.023535970598459244, 0.39826712012290955, 0.09563601016998291, 0.15952233970165253, -0.018164051696658134, 0.13333426415920258, 0.15763968229293823, -0.21759746968746185, 0.005535582546144724, 0.320508480...	5	The 1776 flag of the 8th Virginia Regiment survives in private hands, one of very few surviving Revolutionary War flags. It was kept by the Muhlenberg family for many years, on display as late as the 1840s. It was later owned by the late Bernard Goetz, who kept it behind plain glass in a frame. Over the years, the exposed part of the flag faded, resulting in a discolored rectangle in its central portion. Nevertheless, the flag survives, and in better condition than most other surviving banners. Part of the key to the flag's survival is its construction from "unweighted silk." According to RareFlags.com, "One of the most luxurious and expensive of all fabrics, the use of silk in American flags is typically reserved for the finest quality flags, most often for military or official use. Several qualities of silk make it an exceptionally good fabric for use in flags. The material is light-weight, exceptionally strong, tightly woven and weathers well. Its shimmering appearance is beautiful and impressive. For military standards, silk allows for large flags that are light and which dry quickly. The fineness of the material allows for the application of painted decorations, as is often seen in the painted stars and decorative cantons of flags produced for wartime use, especially those of the American Civil War. "One unfortunate problem with antique silk flags is that large numbers of them, including many Civil War era battle standards, were made of "weighted silk". Sold for centuries by length, merchants shifted from selling silk by length to selling it by weight, beginning in the early 19th century (circa 1820-1830). In order to earn more money for their silk, merchants frequently soaked the silk in water laden with mineral salts. Once dried, the mineral salts remained in the silk fibers and added weight to the silk, thus bringing the merchant more money. Unfortunately, these mineral salts proved to be caustic and caused severe breakdown in the silk fibers over time. Many flags made of weighted silk are very brittle, often deteriorating under their own weight. Yet flags made of unweighted silk, some of which are decades older than later weighted silk flags, remain in a remarkable state of preservation." Thank goodness the dishonest practice of weighting hadn't begun when this flag was made! Contemporary narratives of the Revolutionary War from enlisted soldiers are as rare as hens' teeth. Below is a very rare extended narrative from William Grant, a school teacher turned Continental soldier from Staunton, Virginia. Grant deserted and defected to the British side just before the Battle of Brandywine, having served against the Cherokee and the Shawnee in the west, and for a few months in the east. Apparently directed to give a full account of his service, he claimed never to have believed in the American cause. Grant was a soldier in Michael Bowyer's company of the 12th Virginia Regiment, a regiment that served alongside the 8th Virginia under Brigadier General Charles Scott in 1777 and 1778. Coming from Augusta County, a county that also raised men for the 8th Virginia, his narrative is very important in my work compiling a history of the 8th Virginia. It is only through this record, for instance, that we know Captain William Darke performed important service under General William Maxwell at Cooch's Bridge and Brandywine. Notably, Grant calls Darke a "Dutchman," apparently assuming he was German because of his connection with the 8th Virginia. (Darke wasn't German.) It also portrays both of the war's two fronts--the frontier war against the Indians and the eastern war against the British and Hessians. The frontier war is little-remembered today, but was top-of-mind to the men of the 8th Virginia. The western war was begun by their fathers in the French and Indian War and would not really end until the Battle of Fallen Timbers in 1794. Grant's personal story is also interesting It gives a perspective that is rarely remembered--that of a frontier Tory, too afraid to let his true inclinations be known. The entire narrative is transcribed below, with minimal corrections and broken into paragraphs for ease of reading. About the beginning of July 1776. the Cherokee Indians, excited by a number of the friends to Government, in that place commonly called Tories, who had fled from North Carolina, fell upon the Western frontiers of Virginia; whereupon the Committees of the several Counties detached severall small parties of militia to stop their progress thro’ the Country, untill such time as an army could be raised to oppose them, which at that time was very difficult, as the major part of the youth who were zealous for the cause, were already in the service against the King's troops. In this juncture they were obligated to have recourse to the Militia law, which compels every male from the age of fifteen to sixty, after having settled three months in one place, to take up arms against all enemys; upon their refusal they forfeit the sum of £20 of that currency. By virtue of which law they collected about 1200 men before the middle of August, the chief command of which was conferred upon Col. [Thomas] Smith, a native of that country. He immediately assembled his new Army at Staunton, a small town in Augusta County, lying about 20 miles to the Westward of the South Mountain, from whence he marched Aug[us]t 18th and proceeded directly to Holstein [Holston], a settlement upon the frontiers where the Indians were then ravaging; but upon the approach of the army retreated with their booty. The Col. finding they would not come to a decisive engagement so far from home, determined to pursue them to their towns, to expedite which he encamped his army on an island formed in the river Holstein, generally known by the name of the Long Island, untill such time as he could be reinforced with provisions and men, upon which there were severall draughts taken out of the Militia[.] General Washington at the same time petitioning for more troops, and a draught of the Militia being granted, it fell to my lot to go as one. At that time I taught a school in Augusta County, but being zealous for government was determined not to go, but finding I was not able to withstand their power, which was very arbitrary in that part, I thought it better to enter into the service against the Indians than to go into actual service against my Countrymen. Accordingly some troops were raising at that time by Act of the Convention of Virginia (to be stationed at the different passes on the Ohio to keep the Shawneese &c in awe and to prevent their incursions) upon these terms, vizt that they should enlist for the term of two years, that they should not be compelled to leave the said frontiers or be entred into the Continental service without their own mutual consent, as also that of the legislator. Taking this to be the only method of scree[n]ing myself from being deemed a Tory and also of preventing my being forced into the Continental service, I enlisted the third of Septemb[e]r into Capt. Michael Bowyers's Company of Riflemen, to be stationed at the mouth of the Little Kennarah [Kanawha] upon the River Ohio. Soon after we marched in company with 150 militia, to the assistance of Coll. Smith, who still continued on the Long Island. We had several skirmishes with the Indians during our march, without any considerable loss on either side. Sept[embe]r 19th we joined the main body, and on the 22d decamped and proceeded towards the Cherokee towns. The enemy continued to harrass us in our march with numberless attacks, sometimes appearing on our front, sometimes upon our flank, so giving us a brisk fire for some minutes, would immediately retreat into the woods. Thus we continued our march thro' the woods the space of three weeks, about which time we received intelligence from our spies and from some prisoners that had escaped, that the Indians had removed every thing from their towns into the mountains, had cut down their corn & set fire to every thing they could not carry away which they thought might be of service to the white army. Upon the confirmation of this account Coll. Smith being persuaded they would never hazard a general engagement, and knowing that his army was but badly supplied with provisions, sent severall companys back into the different Settlements where the Savages were still making incursions and murdring the inhabitants; the Company to which I belonged was one of this number. We were sent to a place lying in the Allegany mountains (upon the banks of the River Monongalia) known by the name of Tygar's [Tygart] Valley where we were ordered during the winter, in order both to defend the Inhabitants and to make canoes to carry us down the river to the place where we were to be stationed the ensuing Spring; in which place I was made Serg' in which I continued during my stay in the army. In the mean time the Indians, finding the Virginians fully bent to search them out and an army of Carolina troops approaching on the other side, sent Deputies to Col. Smith to sue for peace, which was granted upon their delivering up the prisoners, and restoring the goods that they carried out of the Settlements. Hereupon the Militia was disbanded, and the other troops that were enlisted on the aforementioned terms were distributed amongst the frontier settlements during the winter. About this time the war was very hot in the Jerseys, and the Congress determining to recruit their army as soon as possible in the Spring, sent a remonstrance to the Convention of Virginia, alledging that they had a number of troops on their frontiers that were of very little or no service to the country, as the Indians were peacably inclined. Therefore they desired that they should be sent to the assistance of the Continental army as early in the Spring as they possibly could. The Convention immediately repealed the Act on which the troops were raised and directly entered them into the Continental service, and issued forth commissions for the raising of six new Battalions, amongst which the troops formerly raised for the defence of the back frontiers were to be distributed. Agreeable to this new Act we received orders to march to Winchester, there to join the 12th Virga Regt commanded by Col. James Wood; pursuant to which orders we marched from Tygar's Valley in the begining of Aprill and proceeded with all expedition; which march we compleated in the space of eight days; after having rested a few days at Winchester we proceeded to join the Continental Army, which at that time lay partly in Morristown, partly at Boundbrook a small town on the Rarington [Raritan] river about 6 miles from New Brunswick, where His Excellency Generall Howe had his head quarters. May 19th we joined the grand army which then consisted of 20000 foot (chiefly composed of Virginians, Carolinians, and Pennsylvanians, the major part of whom were volunteers, altho’ for the most part disaffected to the rebel cause, they being for the most part convicts and indented servants, who had entered on purpose to get rid of their masters and of consequence of their commanders the first opportunity they can get of deserting) and about 300 light horse commanded by General Washington assisted by Lord Stirling, Major Generalls Stephens, Keyn [?], Sullivan; Brigadiers Weeden, Millenberg [Muhlenberg], Scott, Maxwell, Conway, which latter is a French man. Likewise a number of French officers who commanded in the Artillery, whose names or ranks I never had an opportunity of being acquainted with. Nothing worthy of notice happened untill the 30th of that Inst on which the Continental Army decamped and retreated about 2 miles into the Blue [Watchung] Mountains and incamped at Middle Broock, where they were joined in a few days by the other part of the army that lay at Morristown. Here they lay for some considerable time, during which they were employed in training their troops who were quite undisciplined and ignorant of every military art. Their Officers in general are equally ignorant as the private men, through which means they make but very little progress in learning. Wherefore it is generally believed by the unprejudiced part of the people that the rebells never will hazard a generall engagement, unless they are so hemmed up that they cannot have an opportunity of waving it; from which reason and the deplorable state the Country in generall is now reduced to, which in many places near to the seat of war is entirely destitute of labourers to cultivate the ground, insomuch that the women are necessitated for their own support to lay aside their wonted delicacy and take up the utensils for agriculture. From these and many other weighty reasons it is generally supposed that they cannot continue the war much longer. Nothing material was transacted on either side till about the 24th of June, when a party of General Howe's army made a movement and advanced as far as Somerset, a small town lying on the Rarington betwixt Boundbroock and Princetown, which they plundered, and set fire to two small churches and several farm houses adjacent. General Washington upon receiving notice of their marching, detached 2 Brigades of Virginia troops and the like number of New Eng[lan]d to Pluckhimin, a small town about 10 miles from Somerset, lying on the road to Morristown. Here both parties lay for several days, during which time several slight skirmishes happened with their out scouts, without any considerable loss on either side. On the 29th the enemy retreated to Brunswick with their booty and we to our former ground in the Blue Mountain. Next day His Excellency General Howe marched from Brunswick towards Bonumtown with his whole army, which was harassed on the march by Col. Morgan's Riflemen. As soon as General Howe had evacuated Brunswick, Mr Washington threw a body of the Jersey militia into it, and spread a report that he had forced them to leave it. July 2d there was a detachment of 150 Riflemen chosen from among the Virginia regiments, dispatched under the command of Capt. James [William] Dark a Dutchman, belonging to the eighth Virginia Regt to watch the enemy's motions. The same day this party, of which I was one, marched to Quibbleton [Quibbletown], and from thence proceeded towards [Perth] Amboy. July 4th we had intelligence of the enemy's being encamped within a few miles of Westfield; that night we posted ourselves within a little of their camp and sent an officer with 50 men further on the road as a picquet guard, to prevent our being surprised in the night. Next morning a little before sun rise the British army before we suspected them, were upon pretty close on our picquet before they were discovered, and fired at a negroe lad that was fetching some water for the officer of sd guard, and broke his arm. Upon which he ran to the picquet and alarmed them, affirming at the same time that there was not upwards of sixty men in the party that fired at him. This intelligence was directly sent to us, who prepared as quick as possible to receive them and assist our picquet who was then engaged, in order for which, as we were drawing up our men, an advanced guard of the enemy saluted us with several field pieces, which did no damage. We immediately retreated into the woods from whence we returned them a very brisk fire with our rifles, so continued firing and retreating without any reinforcement till about 10 oClock, they plying us very warmly both with their artillery and small arms all the time; about which time we were reinforced with about 400 Hessians (who had been taken at sea going over to America & immediately entered into the Continental service) and three brass field pieces under the command of Lord Stirling. They drew up immediately in order to defend their field pieces and cover our retreat, and in less than an hour and a half were entirely cut off; scarce sixty of them returned safe out of the field; those who did escape were so scattered over the country that a great number of them could not rejoin the Army for five or six days, whilst the Kings troops marched off in triumph with three brass field pieces and a considerable number of prisoners, having sustained but very little loss on their side. This was the last engagement that happened in the Jerseys before General Howe embarked at [New] York. During this time the rebel army advanced as far as Quibbletown where they lay three days, then countermarched back to the Blue Mountains and there continued untill they recd an account of embarkment of the enemy at York. Capt. Dark collected the remains of his shattered party in the best manner he possibly could and continued to execute his orders in reconnoitring and sending intelligence to the Camp, untill Generall Howe crossed over in Strattan [Staten] Island, at which time we returned to the Camp with scarce two thirds of the men we took away, where we remained 4 or 5 days, then decamped and marched to Morristown and lay there untill we received certain intelligence that the army had gone on board and stood out to sea bearing to the Northward. Upon this news we instantly decamped and marched toward the North River, and encamped at the Clove, about 12 miles South from King's Ferry, where Generall Sullivan left us with about 5000 men and crossed the Ferry. Soon after we again decamped and proceeded further up the River towards Albany. The weather being excessive rainy we were obliged to halt severall days during which time we rec[eive]d an account of Genl Howe's appearing in the Bay of Delaware, which caused us a very hard and fatiguing march, often marching at the rate of thirty miles per day, which killed a number of the men. It was no uncommon thing for the rear guard to see 10 or 11 men dead on the road in one day occasioned by the insufferable heat and thirst; likewise in almost every town we marched through, their Churches were converted into hospitals. Another great hurt to the army was the scarcity of salt and bread, the former of which was not to be had at any rate, for at that time in the Jerseys it sold for 20 dollars pr bushell: as to the latter they were almost in the same condition, altho’ they had plenty of flour they had not time to bake it. Thus we marched till we came to Germantown a village about 6 miles from Philadelphia, where we encamped for severall days, and we[re] reviewed by the Congress. In the interim the British fleet stood out to sea again and steering to the Northward as at first, we again removed and marched to the Cross roads in Bucks County, about 20 miles to the Northward of Philadelphia, and there we pitched our tents, expecting every day to hear of their landing at York, or in some part of the Jerseys. During our stay here we were joined by the 13th Virga Regt a small body of new raised troops to the amount of about 200. About this the Rebel army was very sickly, occasioned greatly by the scarcity of salt, and the great fatigue they had sustained, during the late hard and fatiguing march; which was soon followed by another as hard tho’ not so long. August 22d we recd an account that Generall Howe had landed in Virginia. Next day we decamped and marched 15 miles towards Philadelphia and prepared to march through the City next day, which we did in the best order our circumstances could permit, and proceeded towards Virginia with all expedition; but received soon after a true account of his being at the head of Elk in Maryland. General Washington, being determined to stop his progress towards Philadelphia, posted a body of millitia at Ironhill an eminence about three miles from General Howe's out posts. He also posted three brigades of Virginians with 6 field pieces at Christian [Christiana] Creek about 8 miles from Wilmington, from each of which they detached a party of 100 light armed men, as scouts, under the command of Col. [William] Crawford. Among this number I had the good fortune of being one, as I was determined to embrace the first opportunity of escaping, which I fortunately effected. General Washington with the remainder of his army (which in whole by his own account only consisted of 13000 men) and the artillary park, which consisted of 15 brass field pieces and severall howitts, encamped at Brandywine Creek about 12 miles from Elktown where General Howe held his head quarters. On Saturday August 30th we received intelligence by some prisoners that General Howe intended to make an attack on Ironhill next day. Accordingly next morning between two and three o'Clock, we marched over the hill, and formed our selves into an ambuscade, in which position we continued till five, when being persuaded that no attack would be made, a party of 150 men was immediately chosen and sent under the command of the aforesd Capt. Dark, to reconnoitre. In this party I went as a volunteer, fully resolved never to return unless as a prisoner. However, marching from thence, took several by roads, untill we had got past several of the Hessians posts undiscovered, and proceeding toward an iron work where they had another post, we discovered a few of the Welch fusileers cooking at a barn in the middle of a large field of Indian Corn. Capt Dark resolved to take them if possible, on which account he divided his men into 6 parties of 25 each, under the command of a Lieu[tenant] and 2 Serjeants. The party on the left to which I belonged, he ordered to surround the field, which we did, but were discovered by those whom we thought to surprise, who were only a few of a party consisting of fifty that were out foraging. They drew up immediately and marched out of the field; upon which our Lieu[tenant] and 4 of his men fired upon them, which they returned with a whole volley, and plyed us very warmly from among the trees for some considerable time, untill the other parties came up and attacked them in the rear; whom they also gallantly repulsed and put to flight. The party I belonged to upon the approach of the rest, retreated; at which time I left them, and made the best of my way to the English Camp. In my way I saw severall of the rebells lying dead, and was afterwards informed that a number more of them fell in that action; which in every probability will be the fate of the whole, if they come to a generall engagement, which of necessity they must in a short time, as it is impossible they can sustain the war much longer; the Country being entirely laid waste, the inhabitants disaffected and entirely wearied of the war, and independency; numbers of them are detained from coming to the Royal Standard only through fear of being detected by General Washington's army, the army small, undisciplined, disaffected to the cause, badly paid, in very dull spirits, being certain they are far inferior to the British troops in every point, and entirely destitute of every necessary for carrying on the war, having neither arms nor ammunition, but what they receive from the French or Dutch. From these and many other cogent reasons it is highly probable this unhappy war will soon be terminated to the honour of His Majesty and a terror to all other who may attempt to rebell in like manner for the future. Thus Sir I have given you a short narrative of the facts that came to my knowledge during my stay in the rebell army, and hope it will give your Honour the satisfaction required. I think myself happy in having the honour of serving you in this manner and of subscribing myself Your most obedient & humble Serv' Ship Queen, Indiaman William Grant. at Gravesend Novr 24th 1777 After the grueling marches to and from Trenton, only a handful of Captain William Croghan’s Pittsburgh men were able to continue on to the Battle of Princeton on January 3, 1777. Princeton was a key American victory. It proved that Trenton wasn’t just a fluke, and it breathed new life into a cause that was just about exhausted. At Williamsburg, the company’s core of about 70 men had been boosted to 140 by the addition of stragglers who had missed the 8th Virginia Regiment’s rendezvous. The company, attached to the 1st Virginia for the year, was at the very center of the action at Trenton, lined up only a few yards from the commander in chief. The marches to and from Trenton were much harder on the men than the battle itself. By the time Washington crossed the Delaware again for another go at the enemy, only a fraction of the men were able to go with him. A mere 20 men from the 1st Virginia were healthy enough to join. Of them, only five can be shown from pension records to have been from Croghan’s detachment from the 8th Virginia —one twenty-third of the original 140. The rest were dead, had deserted, or were sick in camp on the other side of the river. Even Croghan seems to have been absent, leaving Lieutenant Abraham Kirkpatrick in command. Kirkpatrick was a tough, mean, and belligerent man, but also an effective soldier. With him were privates Henry Brock, Harmon Commins, Jonathan Grant, David Williams, and perhaps others who left no record of their presence. All three of the 1st Virginia's field officers were wounded or sick, leaving command to Captain John Fleming. These men, together with the remnants of three other Continental regiments and 200 Pennsylvania state (not Continental) riflemen, were Washington’s advance force, under Brigadier General Hugh Mercer’s command. Fleming’s men went first as they clambering over the icy banks of a ravine and proceeded through an orchard. On the other side of the trees they found fifty dismounted British dragoons lying prone behind a split-rail fence. The dragoons rose and fired a volley. As often happened, this first volley went over their heads—splitting the branches of the fruit trees above them. The dragoons retreated about 40 feet to reload as they were reinforced by a British infantry regiment. Ordering his men to form up before firing, Captain Fleming shouted, “Gentlemen, dress the line before you make ready!” Within easy earshot, the British taunted back, “We will dress you!” With the rest of Mercer’s men coming as fast as they could, Fleming’s men advanced to the fence and fired at the British. “[T]he enemy screamed as if many devils had got hold of them,” recalled one soldier. After two or three minutes of firing, the British advanced with their bayonets. Most of Mercer’s men carried rifles, which lacked bayonets and took longer than muskets to reload. This was precisely the kind of engagement they had been trained to avoid. The British bayonet charge was brutal. Mercer’s desperate voice was soon heard shouting, “Retreat!” just as his his horse was shot out from under him. He was mercilessly beaten and stabbed to death by the enemy, some of whom may have thought he was George Washington. Captain Fleming was killed. His lieutenant, Bartholomew Yeates, was sadistically shot, stabbed, beaten and left to die. Lieutenant Abraham Kirkpatrick was wounded too, but also fortunate enough to be carried off the field by Private Grant. The British captured a cannon, turned it around, and fired it as the Americans ran. Colonel John Haslet of Delaware, attempting to rally the men behind a farm building, was shot through the head and “dropt dead on the spot.” A unit of Philadelphia Associators (militia) arrived to help, but were also quickly forced to retreat. With the Revolution itself hanging in the balance, George Washington brought more reinforcements and daringly risked his own life rallying the troops. “At this moment Washington appeared in front of the American army,” recalled a Pennsylvania state rifleman, “riding toward those of us who were retreating, and exclaimed ‘Parade with us, my brave fellows, there is but a handful of the enemy, and [we] will have them directly.’” The American soldiers were moved, physically and emotionally. “I shall never forget what I felt at Princeton on his account,” wrote one of the Philadelphia Associators, “when I saw him brave all the dangers of the field and his important life hanging as it were by a single hair with a thousand deaths flying around him. Believe me, I thought not of myself.” In the battle that followed, Washington and his men were victorious. After the devastating losses of 1776, Washington had learned to win smaller battles fought on his own terms and to avoid major set-piece battles like those he had lost in New York. Most importantly, his countrymen believed again that they could win. The death of Hugh Mercer, a former commandant of Fort Pitt during the French and Indian War, was widely mourned. Today, eight states have counties named for him and there are countless towns, streets, and schools named in his honor. Unfortunately, the central importance of the battle in which he, Colonel Haslet, Captain Fleming, and Lieutenant Yeates gave their lives is lost on too many people today--including the people who own the ground on which they fought. is researching the history of the Revolutionary War's 8th Virginia Regiment. Its ten companies formed on the frontier, from the Cumberland Gap to Pittsburgh. © 2015-2020 Gabriel Neville	6,300	ENGLISH	1
‘What do we learn from Juliet’s relationship with her father? ’ 17. 03. 13 William Shakespeare’s, ‘Romeo and Juliet’ provides an insight of the experience of women in an Elizabethan society. The play was written in the late 1600’s, and is about two feuding families whose children fall in love. Their love leads to marriage, however, Juliet’s decision to marry Romeo was against her father’s will, this made life even harder for her, as in the 1600’s a women did not have the privilege to choose her husband. This decision was made by her father only. Moreover, she was not allowed to refuse to get married as this meant being disowned by her family. This shows us the unjustness that occurred in the Elizabethan period. Therefore, this essay will be discussing ‘what we learn from Juliet’s relationship with her father? ’ At the beginning of the play, Paris asks lord Capulet for Juliet’s hand in marriage. However, lord Capulet replies ‘my child is yet a stranger in the world’. This shows us that lord Capulet does not agree with Paris and Juliet’s marriage, he has proven this to the audience by describing Juliet as a ‘stranger in the world’. By using the word ‘child’ and ‘stranger’, lord Capulet is implying that his daughter is not mature enough and that she still hasn’t seen the world properly. Nonetheless, Paris replies ‘younger than she are happy mother’s made’. This shows us how desperate Paris is, in marrying Juliet. Not only that, but it is also demonstrating how Paris is trying to persuade lord Capulet by saying ‘younger than she’. This suggests the fact that Paris believes Juliet would make a good mother even though she is fourteen and that many girls ‘younger’ than her have been made ‘happy mothers’ too. However, lord Capulet is not too keen on having his daughter married to Paris at such a young age. This shows us how protective he is of Juliet, which is why he invites Paris to his feast the following night, so he can ‘win her heart’. This shows us what a good father lord Capulet is, as he wants Juliet to be happy when married, which is why he wants her to choose her husband herself. This was a really uncommon act in the 1600’s as a woman was not allowed to make this decision herself. Despite the fact that lord Capulet was against Paris and Juliet’s marriage at the beginning, he soon changes his mind. This is proven by the quote; ‘A ‘Thursday let it be- a ‘Thursday, tell her, she shall be married to this noble earl’. The reason towards lord Capulet’s haste was because he did not want his daughter to grief over Tybalts death. This shows us how much he cares for Juliet. In addition to this, lord Capulet believes that Juliet would accept this marriage, as he is all a girl can wish for; wealth and a high status. However, lord Capulet himself is nearly fifty years old while lady Capulet is in her thirties, so he has good reasons to thinking a young wife is trouble. On the other hand, Juliet is his only surviving child, so when young Tybalt is killed unexpectedly in his duel with Romeo, lord Capulet remembers how easily young people die in medieval Verona – and decides that he wants Juliet to marry Paris as soon as possible. This shows us how Capulet’s concern towards Juliet’s future is overpowering his concern towards her feelings. In act 3 scene 5, lord Capulet approaches his daughter Juliet with the marriage proposal to Paris, through his wife. Lady Capulet enters Juliet room, and mistakes her tears for grief towards Tybalt. She tells her to stop crying and that she is to marry Paris. Juliet’s response is that if she was to marry, it would be to Romeo, not Paris. However her mother then replies saying ‘here comes your father, tell him so yourself’, this shows us how Lady Capulet was insignificant compared to lord Capulet. They had to abide by lord Capulet rules and could not make any decisions by themselves. This is, again, an example of a women’s life in the Elizabethan era. When lord Capulet enters, he tells Juliet to calm down and stop crying so much, he also believed her tears were towards Tybalt. However, he thinks that by telling her about her upcoming wedding, she would be happy and forget her sorrow, but he is mistaken; ‘Doth she not give us thanks? Is she not proud? Doth she not count her blessed, Unworthy as she is, that we have wrought so worthy a gentleman to be her bride? ’ this shows us how lord Capulet is disappointed at Juliet’s ingratitude. The phrase ‘is she not proud’ is implying the fact that a women had to depend on her husband’s wealth to stay alive. This is why lord Capulet went through a lot of hardship and ‘wrought’ her a ‘worthy gentlemen’. This shows us that lord Capulet cares for his daughter even though his daughter is disobedient. He is surprised and fuming when he hears that she does not wish to marry him. He does not stop to ask for a reason but instead he lets out a flow of insulting, intimidating and unpleasant words. This can be proven by the line 161-164, ‘Hang the, young baggage! Disobedient wretch! I tell the what- get thee to church on Thursday Or never look me on the face. Speak not, reply not, do not answer me! ’ lord Capulet’s fury could have been triggered because he did not like it that Juliet was being obstinate. Not only that, but in the 1600’s women were to be seen, not heard. The phrase ‘or never look me on the face’ could be referring to Juliet being disowned by her father. Capulet was threatening Juliet in this manner due to his outrage at her. This shows us that the relationship between Juliet and her father is getting weaker towards the end of the novel. Act 3 scene 5 is one of the few scenes where Romeo and Juliet are together. Not only that, but this scene is also a feature of tragedy. This can be proven by the line ‘O God, I have an ill-divining soul. Methinks I see thee now, thou art so low. As one dead in the bottom of a tomb. Either my eyesight fails, or thou look’st pale. ’ From this we can infer that Romeo looks pale, Romeo responds to this by saying ‘and trusts me, love, in my eye so do you. Dry sorrow drinks our blood. Adieu, adieu! ’ By the use of the phrase; ‘dry sorrow drinks our blood’, Romeo is signposting that their sadness takes away their colour. Shakespeare has used the word ‘drink’ instead of ‘take away’ as it is giving ‘sorrow’ human characteristics (personification). Romeo could also be implying that their families are ‘drinking’ their happiness. Romeo and Juliet was first written as a morality tale to youngsters, demonstrating to them what the consequences of disobeying your parents are. However, modern society views it as a ‘romance novel’, where two star-crossed lovers death reconciles two feuding families. From the above it is apparent that at the beginning of the play, Juliet was more obedient and loyal towards her family, this however changes to her becoming disobedient and disloyal. The reason towards lord Capulet wanting Juliet married to Paris, was because he wanted to see her settled and married to a man he approved of and also to raise spirits after Tybalts death. However, Juliet’s refusal was because, at the time, having two husbands was a disastrous act and lead to hell. Lord Capulet’s outrage at his daughter gave her no choice but to commit suicide. This shows us that lord Capulet did not allow his daughter to have a say in her marriage as he believed she was ‘ungrateful’ to everything he does for her. Juliet and her father have a relationship where the father is too protective of his daughter, whilst she is disobedient. This shows us that not allowing women to make their own decisions can lead to them doing it in secret and thus, causing a lot of problems as a result.	<urn:uuid:ee1a83e1-1a0b-42a0-b6b6-ec10029627da>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://lagas.org/what-do-we-learn-from-juliets-relationship-with-her-father/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594101.10/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119010920-20200119034920-00351.warc.gz	en	0.983757	1,838	3.53125	4	[ -0.10052621364593506, -0.09583006799221039, 0.12767013907432556, -0.337728887796402, -0.5211138725280762, -0.045209769159555435, 0.43761634826660156, 0.11321601271629333, -0.006311703938990831, -0.3048689365386963, 0.2620411813259125, -0.26972848176956177, 0.01687866821885109, 0.2337229698...	2	‘What do we learn from Juliet’s relationship with her father? ’ 17. 03. 13 William Shakespeare’s, ‘Romeo and Juliet’ provides an insight of the experience of women in an Elizabethan society. The play was written in the late 1600’s, and is about two feuding families whose children fall in love. Their love leads to marriage, however, Juliet’s decision to marry Romeo was against her father’s will, this made life even harder for her, as in the 1600’s a women did not have the privilege to choose her husband. This decision was made by her father only. Moreover, she was not allowed to refuse to get married as this meant being disowned by her family. This shows us the unjustness that occurred in the Elizabethan period. Therefore, this essay will be discussing ‘what we learn from Juliet’s relationship with her father? ’ At the beginning of the play, Paris asks lord Capulet for Juliet’s hand in marriage. However, lord Capulet replies ‘my child is yet a stranger in the world’. This shows us that lord Capulet does not agree with Paris and Juliet’s marriage, he has proven this to the audience by describing Juliet as a ‘stranger in the world’. By using the word ‘child’ and ‘stranger’, lord Capulet is implying that his daughter is not mature enough and that she still hasn’t seen the world properly. Nonetheless, Paris replies ‘younger than she are happy mother’s made’. This shows us how desperate Paris is, in marrying Juliet. Not only that, but it is also demonstrating how Paris is trying to persuade lord Capulet by saying ‘younger than she’. This suggests the fact that Paris believes Juliet would make a good mother even though she is fourteen and that many girls ‘younger’ than her have been made ‘happy mothers’ too. However, lord Capulet is not too keen on having his daughter married to Paris at such a young age. This shows us how protective he is of Juliet, which is why he invites Paris to his feast the following night, so he can ‘win her heart’. This shows us what a good father lord Capulet is, as he wants Juliet to be happy when married, which is why he wants her to choose her husband herself. This was a really uncommon act in the 1600’s as a woman was not allowed to make this decision herself. Despite the fact that lord Capulet was against Paris and Juliet’s marriage at the beginning, he soon changes his mind. This is proven by the quote; ‘A ‘Thursday let it be- a ‘Thursday, tell her, she shall be married to this noble earl’. The reason towards lord Capulet’s haste was because he did not want his daughter to grief over Tybalts death. This shows us how much he cares for Juliet. In addition to this, lord Capulet believes that Juliet would accept this marriage, as he is all a girl can wish for; wealth and a high status. However, lord Capulet himself is nearly fifty years old while lady Capulet is in her thirties, so he has good reasons to thinking a young wife is trouble. On the other hand, Juliet is his only surviving child, so when young Tybalt is killed unexpectedly in his duel with Romeo, lord Capulet remembers how easily young people die in medieval Verona – and decides that he wants Juliet to marry Paris as soon as possible. This shows us how Capulet’s concern towards Juliet’s future is overpowering his concern towards her feelings. In act 3 scene 5, lord Capulet approaches his daughter Juliet with the marriage proposal to Paris, through his wife. Lady Capulet enters Juliet room, and mistakes her tears for grief towards Tybalt. She tells her to stop crying and that she is to marry Paris. Juliet’s response is that if she was to marry, it would be to Romeo, not Paris. However her mother then replies saying ‘here comes your father, tell him so yourself’, this shows us how Lady Capulet was insignificant compared to lord Capulet. They had to abide by lord Capulet rules and could not make any decisions by themselves. This is, again, an example of a women’s life in the Elizabethan era. When lord Capulet enters, he tells Juliet to calm down and stop crying so much, he also believed her tears were towards Tybalt. However, he thinks that by telling her about her upcoming wedding, she would be happy and forget her sorrow, but he is mistaken; ‘Doth she not give us thanks? Is she not proud? Doth she not count her blessed, Unworthy as she is, that we have wrought so worthy a gentleman to be her bride? ’ this shows us how lord Capulet is disappointed at Juliet’s ingratitude. The phrase ‘is she not proud’ is implying the fact that a women had to depend on her husband’s wealth to stay alive. This is why lord Capulet went through a lot of hardship and ‘wrought’ her a ‘worthy gentlemen’. This shows us that lord Capulet cares for his daughter even though his daughter is disobedient. He is surprised and fuming when he hears that she does not wish to marry him. He does not stop to ask for a reason but instead he lets out a flow of insulting, intimidating and unpleasant words. This can be proven by the line 161-164, ‘Hang the, young baggage! Disobedient wretch! I tell the what- get thee to church on Thursday Or never look me on the face. Speak not, reply not, do not answer me! ’ lord Capulet’s fury could have been triggered because he did not like it that Juliet was being obstinate. Not only that, but in the 1600’s women were to be seen, not heard. The phrase ‘or never look me on the face’ could be referring to Juliet being disowned by her father. Capulet was threatening Juliet in this manner due to his outrage at her. This shows us that the relationship between Juliet and her father is getting weaker towards the end of the novel. Act 3 scene 5 is one of the few scenes where Romeo and Juliet are together. Not only that, but this scene is also a feature of tragedy. This can be proven by the line ‘O God, I have an ill-divining soul. Methinks I see thee now, thou art so low. As one dead in the bottom of a tomb. Either my eyesight fails, or thou look’st pale. ’ From this we can infer that Romeo looks pale, Romeo responds to this by saying ‘and trusts me, love, in my eye so do you. Dry sorrow drinks our blood. Adieu, adieu! ’ By the use of the phrase; ‘dry sorrow drinks our blood’, Romeo is signposting that their sadness takes away their colour. Shakespeare has used the word ‘drink’ instead of ‘take away’ as it is giving ‘sorrow’ human characteristics (personification). Romeo could also be implying that their families are ‘drinking’ their happiness. Romeo and Juliet was first written as a morality tale to youngsters, demonstrating to them what the consequences of disobeying your parents are. However, modern society views it as a ‘romance novel’, where two star-crossed lovers death reconciles two feuding families. From the above it is apparent that at the beginning of the play, Juliet was more obedient and loyal towards her family, this however changes to her becoming disobedient and disloyal. The reason towards lord Capulet wanting Juliet married to Paris, was because he wanted to see her settled and married to a man he approved of and also to raise spirits after Tybalts death. However, Juliet’s refusal was because, at the time, having two husbands was a disastrous act and lead to hell. Lord Capulet’s outrage at his daughter gave her no choice but to commit suicide. This shows us that lord Capulet did not allow his daughter to have a say in her marriage as he believed she was ‘ungrateful’ to everything he does for her. Juliet and her father have a relationship where the father is too protective of his daughter, whilst she is disobedient. This shows us that not allowing women to make their own decisions can lead to them doing it in secret and thus, causing a lot of problems as a result.	1,735	ENGLISH	1
Pegah Ghassemi English 1 12/11/00 Propaganda in Nazi Germany In the period of time around the Second World War, the German people's heads were infiltered with Nazi Propaganda. Little by little the German population was stripped away of their judgement and morality by being brainwashed by Hitler and the Nazi party with propaganda. Propaganda played a very big role in controlling and dictating the German population during the Second World War. Hitler used it "to control the press as well as all other means of expression-radio, film, art, and literature"(Rhodes 11). He also used propaganda to hypnotize the German people into believing he and his party were what was best for Germany's future. "Hitler's use of propaganda was his most sinister weapon, for it aimed at, and succeeded in persuading the Germans that the Nazi system would restore their country's greatness"(Rhodes 11). Propaganda was used so much to influence the German masses that "in Nazi Germany it [was] considered worthy of an entire government department"(Rhodes 11). They made propaganda its own section in the government to regulate and monitor what the German people would be hearing for the next several years to come. "On March 13, the Ministry for Popular Enlightenment was founded under the direction of Dr.Josef Goebbels"(Rhodes 11). "Hitler met [Goebbels] in 1926 and quickly appreciating his oratorical power of persuasion, made him head the Party Propaganda department "(Rhodes 13). Goebbels knew exactly how to influence a crowd. He knew what made the masses tick. He also had a great sense for what the German people were looking for in a leader, and so he showed them just that with Hitler through Ghassemi 2 Propaganda. "[He] was to become one of history's greatest political propagandists"(Rhodes 12). Hitler and Goebbels knew that Propaganda would work best with those less educated. Educated individuals question and interrogate what they hear.	<urn:uuid:72aece4c-30ca-4e41-a4c4-560897f76640>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.exampleessays.com/viewpaper/23573.html	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250598800.30/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120135447-20200120164447-00212.warc.gz	en	0.981048	424	3.359375	3	[ 0.17165255546569824, 0.7581196427345276, 0.09414932131767273, -0.019963283091783524, 0.45719030499458313, 0.3239411413669586, 0.10854087769985199, 0.20034284889698029, -0.282484233379364, -0.1072780191898346, 0.2630790174007416, -0.08950232714414597, 0.4280984103679657, 0.24546298384666443...	3	Pegah Ghassemi English 1 12/11/00 Propaganda in Nazi Germany In the period of time around the Second World War, the German people's heads were infiltered with Nazi Propaganda. Little by little the German population was stripped away of their judgement and morality by being brainwashed by Hitler and the Nazi party with propaganda. Propaganda played a very big role in controlling and dictating the German population during the Second World War. Hitler used it "to control the press as well as all other means of expression-radio, film, art, and literature"(Rhodes 11). He also used propaganda to hypnotize the German people into believing he and his party were what was best for Germany's future. "Hitler's use of propaganda was his most sinister weapon, for it aimed at, and succeeded in persuading the Germans that the Nazi system would restore their country's greatness"(Rhodes 11). Propaganda was used so much to influence the German masses that "in Nazi Germany it [was] considered worthy of an entire government department"(Rhodes 11). They made propaganda its own section in the government to regulate and monitor what the German people would be hearing for the next several years to come. "On March 13, the Ministry for Popular Enlightenment was founded under the direction of Dr.Josef Goebbels"(Rhodes 11). "Hitler met [Goebbels] in 1926 and quickly appreciating his oratorical power of persuasion, made him head the Party Propaganda department "(Rhodes 13). Goebbels knew exactly how to influence a crowd. He knew what made the masses tick. He also had a great sense for what the German people were looking for in a leader, and so he showed them just that with Hitler through Ghassemi 2 Propaganda. "[He] was to become one of history's greatest political propagandists"(Rhodes 12). Hitler and Goebbels knew that Propaganda would work best with those less educated. Educated individuals question and interrogate what they hear.	443	ENGLISH	1
Ancient Egyptian Toys and Games Ancient Egyptians, just like children now, loved to play games. Some games were made so that the adults could play them, but others were used for kids and adults. There were many toys that the Ancient Egyptians owned that would do things such as roll or move. Some of the toys that historians discovered from Ancient Egyptian times were made out of wood. Some of these toys would move and have moving parts. There were also dolls that were discovered and some of them were made out of papyrus reeds when they were stuffed. Rattles that were made out of clay were also found and toys that were shaped like animals or like different people. Balls were popular during Ancient Egyptian times and were made out of papyrus or they would be made out of the skin of animals. There have been many games that have been found by historians, but the problem is that some of the games were found but there are not rules that were with them, so historians do not know how the games were played. Some of the other games that have been found were figured out, but it is proven that games were a big part in the lives of the Ancient Egyptians. One type of game that was discovered by historians is called Senet. This is a board game that was most likely played by wealthy families. Just like some of our board games, the game Senet was played by using sticks and dice. The sticks were most likely used as pieces and the player would move the sticks around the board. Senet was similar to other games and the object of the game was to stop the other players from moving around the board. Many people believe that Senet was first played during the Predynastic Period. In the hieroglyphics that were found throughout temples and tombs, there are pictures of the Ancient Egyptians playing different games that look similar to games we play today such as hockey, boxing, tug of war and more. Why Did They Play Games? Historians believe that the Ancient Egyptians would play games so that they could relax and spend time with their family. Historians believe that the Ancient Egyptians would come home after work and they would play games. Ancient Egyptians believed that when someone moved to the afterlife that they would enjoy the same types of games and fun that people did while living. In the tombs, the Egyptians would put games, clothing and all sorts of items so that their loved ones could take them with them when they passed to the next world. Most of the game pieces that were used by the Ancient Egyptians were made of stones or wood. More Facts About Ancient Egyptian Toys and Games: - One Ancient Egyptians picture found shows Queen Nefertiti playing Senet. - Senet was found in the tomb of King Tut. - Horsehair was sometimes used to make animals in Ancient Egypt. - Bones of animals were sometimes used to make game pieces. - A game that is similar to the checkers we play was found by historians. - Egyptians were great at carving wood and they would make pull toys that a child could pull behind them. - Ancient Egyptians loved playing dice that were carved out of wood or stone. What Did You Learn? - What was interesting about the toys and games that the Ancient Egyptians played? The interesting thing about the toys and games that the Ancient Egyptians played was that they are like what children play with today. - What were some of the game pieces made out of? The game pieces were most likely carved out of wood or stone. - What other kinds of toys did the Ancient Egyptians have besides games? The Ancient Egyptians had toys that were pull toys, dolls, toys that had moving parts, animals that could open and close their mouths and more. - What would Ancient Egyptians do with toys and games when their loved ones died? Ancient Egyptians would put toys and games in their loved one’s tombs so they could take them with them to the afterlife. - What is one popular game that the Ancient Egyptians played, one even being Queen Nefertiti? The popular game that even Queen Nefertiti played was called Senet.	<urn:uuid:90ef0584-2946-46e8-892f-14d505b8910b>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.historyforkids.net/ancient-egyptian-toys-and-games.html	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250607596.34/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122221541-20200123010541-00224.warc.gz	en	0.995577	854	3.484375	3	[ -0.22530800104141235, 0.8115587830543518, 0.571975588798523, -0.2970714271068573, -0.5226942300796509, -0.08929171413183212, 0.3867897391319275, -0.254437118768692, -0.11485891044139862, 0.039720624685287476, -0.21719564497470856, -0.33559444546699524, -0.02676163613796234, 0.0491782277822...	14	Ancient Egyptian Toys and Games Ancient Egyptians, just like children now, loved to play games. Some games were made so that the adults could play them, but others were used for kids and adults. There were many toys that the Ancient Egyptians owned that would do things such as roll or move. Some of the toys that historians discovered from Ancient Egyptian times were made out of wood. Some of these toys would move and have moving parts. There were also dolls that were discovered and some of them were made out of papyrus reeds when they were stuffed. Rattles that were made out of clay were also found and toys that were shaped like animals or like different people. Balls were popular during Ancient Egyptian times and were made out of papyrus or they would be made out of the skin of animals. There have been many games that have been found by historians, but the problem is that some of the games were found but there are not rules that were with them, so historians do not know how the games were played. Some of the other games that have been found were figured out, but it is proven that games were a big part in the lives of the Ancient Egyptians. One type of game that was discovered by historians is called Senet. This is a board game that was most likely played by wealthy families. Just like some of our board games, the game Senet was played by using sticks and dice. The sticks were most likely used as pieces and the player would move the sticks around the board. Senet was similar to other games and the object of the game was to stop the other players from moving around the board. Many people believe that Senet was first played during the Predynastic Period. In the hieroglyphics that were found throughout temples and tombs, there are pictures of the Ancient Egyptians playing different games that look similar to games we play today such as hockey, boxing, tug of war and more. Why Did They Play Games? Historians believe that the Ancient Egyptians would play games so that they could relax and spend time with their family. Historians believe that the Ancient Egyptians would come home after work and they would play games. Ancient Egyptians believed that when someone moved to the afterlife that they would enjoy the same types of games and fun that people did while living. In the tombs, the Egyptians would put games, clothing and all sorts of items so that their loved ones could take them with them when they passed to the next world. Most of the game pieces that were used by the Ancient Egyptians were made of stones or wood. More Facts About Ancient Egyptian Toys and Games: - One Ancient Egyptians picture found shows Queen Nefertiti playing Senet. - Senet was found in the tomb of King Tut. - Horsehair was sometimes used to make animals in Ancient Egypt. - Bones of animals were sometimes used to make game pieces. - A game that is similar to the checkers we play was found by historians. - Egyptians were great at carving wood and they would make pull toys that a child could pull behind them. - Ancient Egyptians loved playing dice that were carved out of wood or stone. What Did You Learn? - What was interesting about the toys and games that the Ancient Egyptians played? The interesting thing about the toys and games that the Ancient Egyptians played was that they are like what children play with today. - What were some of the game pieces made out of? The game pieces were most likely carved out of wood or stone. - What other kinds of toys did the Ancient Egyptians have besides games? The Ancient Egyptians had toys that were pull toys, dolls, toys that had moving parts, animals that could open and close their mouths and more. - What would Ancient Egyptians do with toys and games when their loved ones died? Ancient Egyptians would put toys and games in their loved one’s tombs so they could take them with them to the afterlife. - What is one popular game that the Ancient Egyptians played, one even being Queen Nefertiti? The popular game that even Queen Nefertiti played was called Senet.	826	ENGLISH	1
Harry S. Truman was the 33rd President of the United States. Born on May 8, 1884, in Lamar, Missouri, he was the oldest of three children. Truman had no middle name. His parents apparently gave him the middle initial “S” to appease two family relatives. At age six, his family moved to Independence, Missouri, where he attended Sunday school. There he met five year-old Elizabeth Wallace, with whom he later fell in love with. Beginning school at age eight, Truman modeled thick glasses to correct his poor eyesight. Fortunately, his eyesight did not seriously interfere with his two favorite pastimes, music and reading. He woke up early everyday to practice the piano and visited a music teacher twice a week, until he was fifteen. He read about four or five books a week, developing his knowledge of world leaders and famous battles. In 1901, Truman graduated from high school, uncertain of his future. College wasn’t an option due to his family’s financial situation, and an appointment to West Point was ruled out by his poor eyesight. Without much choice, he began work. He started on the Santa Fe railroad at thirty-five dollars a month. He later moved to Kansas City where he worked for the Kansas City Star, then onto the National Bank of Commerce, and finally to the Union National Bank. In 1906, he was called back home to help his family with their farms. For the following ten years, Truman was a successful farmer. Throughout this time, his political affiliation was revealed. He joined the local Democratic Party organization, known as the Kansas City Ward Democratic Club. In 1915, he invested in lead mines, losing his money. He then turned to oil fields in Oklahoma. With the outcry of World War I, he gave up his oil shares and enlisted in the U.S. Army. He began his training at Fort Sill, in Oklahoma, but then returned to Missouri to help recruit others. He was then elected first lieutenant by Missouri’s Second Field Artillery. World War I began in 1914 creating friction amongst the European people, along with hostility and violence. Even though the United States wanted to remain neutral, they were drawn in during April of 1917. Truman left for France as a captain in the U.S.Army. He was given command of Battery D, a rowdy and out of control group, otherwise known as Dizzy D. Truman succeeded in taming his unit, and the Dizzy D distinguished themselves through the battles of Argonne and Saint-Mihiel. In April of 1919, Truman returned home, now as a major. On June 28th of the same year, he married Elizabeth Wallace, his Sunday school love. Truman decided to spark his political career. So he started by entering a four way Democratic primary for a judgeship, which was essentially a job supervising roads and buildings. His popularity was expected to increase if he got the support...	<urn:uuid:eb7997f2-07ea-4a97-a0b8-ba513d2cfd34>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://brightkite.com/essay-on/harry-s-truman-4	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250598217.23/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120081337-20200120105337-00478.warc.gz	en	0.992038	608	3.328125	3	[ -0.4619632661342621, 0.38572442531585693, 0.4756436347961426, -0.4915623068809509, -0.10193488746881485, 0.02894790843129158, 0.1951577365398407, -0.09793885052204132, -0.39938461780548096, 0.027195878326892853, 0.6641430258750916, 0.002927131950855255, 0.11711207032203674, 0.2790109217166...	1	Harry S. Truman was the 33rd President of the United States. Born on May 8, 1884, in Lamar, Missouri, he was the oldest of three children. Truman had no middle name. His parents apparently gave him the middle initial “S” to appease two family relatives. At age six, his family moved to Independence, Missouri, where he attended Sunday school. There he met five year-old Elizabeth Wallace, with whom he later fell in love with. Beginning school at age eight, Truman modeled thick glasses to correct his poor eyesight. Fortunately, his eyesight did not seriously interfere with his two favorite pastimes, music and reading. He woke up early everyday to practice the piano and visited a music teacher twice a week, until he was fifteen. He read about four or five books a week, developing his knowledge of world leaders and famous battles. In 1901, Truman graduated from high school, uncertain of his future. College wasn’t an option due to his family’s financial situation, and an appointment to West Point was ruled out by his poor eyesight. Without much choice, he began work. He started on the Santa Fe railroad at thirty-five dollars a month. He later moved to Kansas City where he worked for the Kansas City Star, then onto the National Bank of Commerce, and finally to the Union National Bank. In 1906, he was called back home to help his family with their farms. For the following ten years, Truman was a successful farmer. Throughout this time, his political affiliation was revealed. He joined the local Democratic Party organization, known as the Kansas City Ward Democratic Club. In 1915, he invested in lead mines, losing his money. He then turned to oil fields in Oklahoma. With the outcry of World War I, he gave up his oil shares and enlisted in the U.S. Army. He began his training at Fort Sill, in Oklahoma, but then returned to Missouri to help recruit others. He was then elected first lieutenant by Missouri’s Second Field Artillery. World War I began in 1914 creating friction amongst the European people, along with hostility and violence. Even though the United States wanted to remain neutral, they were drawn in during April of 1917. Truman left for France as a captain in the U.S.Army. He was given command of Battery D, a rowdy and out of control group, otherwise known as Dizzy D. Truman succeeded in taming his unit, and the Dizzy D distinguished themselves through the battles of Argonne and Saint-Mihiel. In April of 1919, Truman returned home, now as a major. On June 28th of the same year, he married Elizabeth Wallace, his Sunday school love. Truman decided to spark his political career. So he started by entering a four way Democratic primary for a judgeship, which was essentially a job supervising roads and buildings. His popularity was expected to increase if he got the support...	623	ENGLISH	1

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

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