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
Over the last couple of weeks, the children have been learning about non-fiction writing in English. This has involved looking at the key features of non-fiction books, as well as the layout and presentation of the text itself. The children have then used all this knowledge to make their own non-fiction books about bananas; making sure that they contain all the features of non-fiction texts such as contents pages, glossary and sub headings. They have also enjoyed illustrating their work with labelled diagrams. This English work has linked to their topic work on St. Lucia, where the children have researched the importance of bananas to the people of the island and the process of growing, harvesting and transporting them. This information has then been used to find content for their books. They are all very proud of their efforts and so they should be! To support this work at home, you can read from a wide range of texts, asking your child what kind of text it is and how they know this.	<urn:uuid:800def99-860e-46db-9c80-649355d53c9b>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://gatewayschool-bucks.co.uk/school-life/latest-news/year-3-learn-non-fiction-writing-english	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251681412.74/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125191854-20200125221854-00229.warc.gz	en	0.980841	202	4.46875	4	[ 0.033290330320596695, -0.055119048804044724, 0.26813602447509766, -0.3522728681564331, 0.3656816780567169, -0.07351115345954895, -0.2942960262298584, 0.15379200875759125, -0.3040631413459778, 0.3793034255504608, 0.2935265302658081, -0.10616862773895264, -0.0115048224106431, 0.2404500544071...	10	Over the last couple of weeks, the children have been learning about non-fiction writing in English. This has involved looking at the key features of non-fiction books, as well as the layout and presentation of the text itself. The children have then used all this knowledge to make their own non-fiction books about bananas; making sure that they contain all the features of non-fiction texts such as contents pages, glossary and sub headings. They have also enjoyed illustrating their work with labelled diagrams. This English work has linked to their topic work on St. Lucia, where the children have researched the importance of bananas to the people of the island and the process of growing, harvesting and transporting them. This information has then been used to find content for their books. They are all very proud of their efforts and so they should be! To support this work at home, you can read from a wide range of texts, asking your child what kind of text it is and how they know this.	195	ENGLISH	1
Myths are stories that people make up to explain things they do not understand. The ancient Greeks created myths to explain why the seasons changed, why it stormed, or why people got sick. They believed that gods and goddesses controlled events in nature and the lives of humans. When things went wrong, it was because the gods were angry. Zeus, king of the gods Zeus ruled Mount Olympus, the sacred home of the gods. He controlled the sky and the weather and threw thunderbolts when he was angry. He wrapped Mount Olympus in clouds so people could not see what the gods were doing. According to the ancient Greeks, this was why mist covered the mountain most of the time. Athena, goddess of war and wisdom Athena, the patron goddess of the ancient city-state of Athens, was Zeus's daughter. According to myth, Zeus swallowed his pregnant wife Metis because he was afraid she would bear a son mightier than himself. Athena then sprang in full armor from Zeus's head. Apollo, god of light and prophecy Apollo was the son of the god Zeus and twin brother of Artemis the huntress, goddess of wild animals and childbirth. As the god of prophecy, Apollo became more revered than his father. Worshippers from Greece and beyond flocked to his temple at Delphi. They came to consult the oracle, a priestess who gave advice and told the future. Demeter, goddess of agriculture Hades, the god of death, lived in a dark palace under the earth, where he ruled the ghosts of the dead. He fell in love with Persephone, Demeter's daughter. With Zeus's permission, Hades took her to live in the world of the dead. Demeter, the goddess of the harvest, was heartbroken at the loss of her beloved child. She forbade the trees to bear fruit and the grasses to grow. Cattle died of starvation, and famine hit the land. Something had to be done. Zeus ordered Persephone to stay with Hades half the year, but…	<urn:uuid:4b56e121-f3ce-4a52-9999-d3eeb62e55da>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.majortests.com/essay/Greek-Mythology-And-Gods-Zeus-562882.html	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250601615.66/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121044233-20200121073233-00207.warc.gz	en	0.980216	426	3.46875	3	[ 0.1908612698316574, 0.34557121992111206, 0.3007602393627167, -0.05347677692770958, -0.33015701174736023, -0.35831570625305176, 0.6893635392189026, 0.15511704981327057, 0.14704197645187378, 0.021243013441562653, -0.4162524342536926, -0.3002511262893677, -0.1259622573852539, 0.37379062175750...	1	Myths are stories that people make up to explain things they do not understand. The ancient Greeks created myths to explain why the seasons changed, why it stormed, or why people got sick. They believed that gods and goddesses controlled events in nature and the lives of humans. When things went wrong, it was because the gods were angry. Zeus, king of the gods Zeus ruled Mount Olympus, the sacred home of the gods. He controlled the sky and the weather and threw thunderbolts when he was angry. He wrapped Mount Olympus in clouds so people could not see what the gods were doing. According to the ancient Greeks, this was why mist covered the mountain most of the time. Athena, goddess of war and wisdom Athena, the patron goddess of the ancient city-state of Athens, was Zeus's daughter. According to myth, Zeus swallowed his pregnant wife Metis because he was afraid she would bear a son mightier than himself. Athena then sprang in full armor from Zeus's head. Apollo, god of light and prophecy Apollo was the son of the god Zeus and twin brother of Artemis the huntress, goddess of wild animals and childbirth. As the god of prophecy, Apollo became more revered than his father. Worshippers from Greece and beyond flocked to his temple at Delphi. They came to consult the oracle, a priestess who gave advice and told the future. Demeter, goddess of agriculture Hades, the god of death, lived in a dark palace under the earth, where he ruled the ghosts of the dead. He fell in love with Persephone, Demeter's daughter. With Zeus's permission, Hades took her to live in the world of the dead. Demeter, the goddess of the harvest, was heartbroken at the loss of her beloved child. She forbade the trees to bear fruit and the grasses to grow. Cattle died of starvation, and famine hit the land. Something had to be done. Zeus ordered Persephone to stay with Hades half the year, but…	423	ENGLISH	1
Ramakrishna (1836-1886 C.E.) was a famous Saint in the 19th century in India. He was born on 18 February 1836 into a very poor but devoutly religious Brahmin family in the village of Kamarpukur, Hooghly district of West Bengal, India. He became a priest of the Dakshineswar Kali Temple, dedicated to the goddess Kali and located near Calcutta on the Ganges River. He is famously known as Ramakrishna Paramahamsa among his devotees. Young Ramakrishna was prone to experiences of spiritual reverie and temporary loss of consciousness. His early spiritual experiences included going into a state of rapture while watching the flight of cranes, and loosing consciousness of the outer world while playing the role of the god Shiva in a school play. At one point he became frustrated, feeling he could not live any longer without seeing Kali. He demanded that the goddess appear to him. He threatened to take his own life with a ritual dagger (normally held in the hand of the Kali statue). Ramakrishna’s behavior became more erratic as time passed and began to worry his family and employer. He would take on ritual and mythical roles identifying with figures from the Puranas (medieval Indian holy books describing the adventures of gods). The group of respected religious leaders concluded that this was a case of divine madness similar in nature to that of other famous saints such as Caitanya (a fifteenth century Bengali saint). From this point on, people began to treat Ramakrishna with more respect though his unusual behavior in worship and meditation continued. A Yogi named Totapuri then became Ramakrishna’s mentor. Ramakrishna adopted the role of renunciant and learned a nondualist form of Vedanta philosophy from him. In this system, God is understood to be the formless unmanifest energy that supports the cosmos. Ramakrishna experienced a deep form of trance (nirvikalpa samadhi) under the guidance of this teacher. This state can be described as complete absorption of the soul into the divine ocean of consciousness. Ramakrishna also appealed to those with an interest in yoga and esoteric practices by practicing a non-dual form of meditation prescribed by Totapuri which seeks samadhi. He was married to Sarada Devi who later became his spiritual counterpart and was considered a saint in her own right to take charge of his disciples and carry on his message. Swami Vivekananda was one of his famous disciples. In honor of his Guru, Swami Vivekananda founded Ramakrishna Math which works for the welfare of others and spread the spiritual movement known as Ramakrishna Movement worldwide. Belur Math is the headquarters of Ramakrishna Math and Mission. According to Hindu lunar calendar it was Dwitiya, Phalguna, Shukla Paksha, Vikram Samvat 1892 when Shri Ramakrishna was born. Each year the birth anniversary of Ramakrishna is celebrated as per Hindu lunar calendar across all Ramakrishna Maths.	<urn:uuid:85a73325-e568-4505-a916-e1b852698f82>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	http://www.lauhpurush.com/event/shri-ramakrishna-jayanti/?instance_id=873	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251802249.87/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129194333-20200129223333-00203.warc.gz	en	0.980557	647	3.609375	4	[ 0.11535660177469254, 0.3334844708442688, -0.2497521936893463, 0.10484950244426727, -0.6115983128547668, 0.11719676852226257, 0.4218612015247345, 0.06950467824935913, 0.3749857246875763, -0.27056798338890076, -0.002061504404991865, -0.472814679145813, 0.28969722986221313, 0.4021269977092743...	3	Ramakrishna (1836-1886 C.E.) was a famous Saint in the 19th century in India. He was born on 18 February 1836 into a very poor but devoutly religious Brahmin family in the village of Kamarpukur, Hooghly district of West Bengal, India. He became a priest of the Dakshineswar Kali Temple, dedicated to the goddess Kali and located near Calcutta on the Ganges River. He is famously known as Ramakrishna Paramahamsa among his devotees. Young Ramakrishna was prone to experiences of spiritual reverie and temporary loss of consciousness. His early spiritual experiences included going into a state of rapture while watching the flight of cranes, and loosing consciousness of the outer world while playing the role of the god Shiva in a school play. At one point he became frustrated, feeling he could not live any longer without seeing Kali. He demanded that the goddess appear to him. He threatened to take his own life with a ritual dagger (normally held in the hand of the Kali statue). Ramakrishna’s behavior became more erratic as time passed and began to worry his family and employer. He would take on ritual and mythical roles identifying with figures from the Puranas (medieval Indian holy books describing the adventures of gods). The group of respected religious leaders concluded that this was a case of divine madness similar in nature to that of other famous saints such as Caitanya (a fifteenth century Bengali saint). From this point on, people began to treat Ramakrishna with more respect though his unusual behavior in worship and meditation continued. A Yogi named Totapuri then became Ramakrishna’s mentor. Ramakrishna adopted the role of renunciant and learned a nondualist form of Vedanta philosophy from him. In this system, God is understood to be the formless unmanifest energy that supports the cosmos. Ramakrishna experienced a deep form of trance (nirvikalpa samadhi) under the guidance of this teacher. This state can be described as complete absorption of the soul into the divine ocean of consciousness. Ramakrishna also appealed to those with an interest in yoga and esoteric practices by practicing a non-dual form of meditation prescribed by Totapuri which seeks samadhi. He was married to Sarada Devi who later became his spiritual counterpart and was considered a saint in her own right to take charge of his disciples and carry on his message. Swami Vivekananda was one of his famous disciples. In honor of his Guru, Swami Vivekananda founded Ramakrishna Math which works for the welfare of others and spread the spiritual movement known as Ramakrishna Movement worldwide. Belur Math is the headquarters of Ramakrishna Math and Mission. According to Hindu lunar calendar it was Dwitiya, Phalguna, Shukla Paksha, Vikram Samvat 1892 when Shri Ramakrishna was born. Each year the birth anniversary of Ramakrishna is celebrated as per Hindu lunar calendar across all Ramakrishna Maths.	655	ENGLISH	1
During the Roman Republic, the government wasn't much interested in keeping their citizens healthy with a trim waistline. "There were Sumtuariae Leges (sumptuary laws) designed to limit extravagance, including the amount spent on a given meal, which directly impacted how much wealthy Romans could eat at their meals. By the Imperial period, such laws were no longer in force." And thus we see the extreme meals that last throughout the night serves by the upper-class of Romans. But what about the "average Joe"? What did commoners eat? "Poor Romans would eat mostly cereal grain at all meals like porridge or bread, for which the women engaged in a daily grain-to-flour grinding. They placed the hard kernels between a concave stone and a smaller one serving as a roller. This was called a "thrusting mill." Later, they sometimes used a mortar and pestle. Grinding was unnecessary for quicker-cooking porridge." But by the latter part of the Republic period, it is believed that most Romans purchased their bread from commercial bakeries. Breakfast and lunch...Roman Style! "For those who could afford it, breakfast (jentaculum), eaten very early, would consist of salted bread, milk, or wine, and perhaps dried fruit, eggs, or cheese. It was not always eaten. The Roman lunch (cibus meridianus or prandium), a quick meal eaten at noon, could include salted bread or be more elaborate with fruit, salad, eggs, meat or fish, vegetables, and cheese." The evening or dinner meal. "The dinner (cena), the main meal of the day, would be accompanied by wine, usually well-watered. The Latin poet Horace ate a meal of onions, porridge, and pancake. An ordinary upper-class dinner would include meat, vegetables, eggs, and fruit. Comissatio was a final wine course at dinner's end." Those Romans sure did love their wine! Just as with modern meals, the salad and/or egg courses were served at different time during the meal. More often than not, they were served as the appetizer (gustatioor promulsis or antecoena). The eggs weren't always hen's eggs, either. "The list of possible items for the gustatio is long. It includes exotic items like sea urchins, raw oysters, and mussels. Apples, when in season, were a popular dessert (bellaria) item. Other Roman dessert items were figs, dates, nuts, pears, grapes, cakes, cheese, and honey. And what about etiquette? "It is believed that during the Roman Republic, most women and the poor ate sitting on chairs, while upper-class males reclined on their sides on couches along three sides of a cloth-covered table (mensa). The three-sided arrangement is called the triclinium. Banquets might last for hours, eating and watching or listening to entertainers, so being able to stretch out without shoes and relax must have enhanced the experience. Since there were no forks, diners would not have had to worry about coordinating eating utensils in each hand." So what is portrayed in the movies isn't too far off the mark! And while dancing girls weren't part of the average evening meal, the elite Romans did always have some form of entertainment. Historians know much about Roman meals and dining habits from art and archeology. But there is a fair amount of written documentation, as well. These materials include passages on agriculture, a Roman cookbook, and even a few letters that were preserved from that time. While some Romans did feast heavily nearly every day, we can assume that the poorer class, and even many of the elite, often ate far less heartily. Tomorrow is Wednesday and that means a visit and lesson from my wise teacher, The Dharma Frog. I do hope that you'll plan on stopping by to see what valuable life lesson he has in store for me. Perhaps it might help you, as well. Until then, I wish you	<urn:uuid:853dabad-d550-4265-9b47-2dbec0984bab>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.irwinquagmirewart.com/irwin-the-frogs-little-blog/they-werent-concerned-about-their-waistlines	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250626449.79/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124221147-20200125010147-00022.warc.gz	en	0.982403	852	3.375	3	[ -0.29712337255477905, 0.18099907040596008, 0.438424676656723, -0.005780155770480633, -0.11483277380466461, -0.333966463804245, -0.04032067209482193, 0.35328686237335205, -0.04407744109630585, -0.17512500286102295, 0.025988703593611717, -0.07782275229692459, -0.17504797875881195, 0.13575749...	9	During the Roman Republic, the government wasn't much interested in keeping their citizens healthy with a trim waistline. "There were Sumtuariae Leges (sumptuary laws) designed to limit extravagance, including the amount spent on a given meal, which directly impacted how much wealthy Romans could eat at their meals. By the Imperial period, such laws were no longer in force." And thus we see the extreme meals that last throughout the night serves by the upper-class of Romans. But what about the "average Joe"? What did commoners eat? "Poor Romans would eat mostly cereal grain at all meals like porridge or bread, for which the women engaged in a daily grain-to-flour grinding. They placed the hard kernels between a concave stone and a smaller one serving as a roller. This was called a "thrusting mill." Later, they sometimes used a mortar and pestle. Grinding was unnecessary for quicker-cooking porridge." But by the latter part of the Republic period, it is believed that most Romans purchased their bread from commercial bakeries. Breakfast and lunch...Roman Style! "For those who could afford it, breakfast (jentaculum), eaten very early, would consist of salted bread, milk, or wine, and perhaps dried fruit, eggs, or cheese. It was not always eaten. The Roman lunch (cibus meridianus or prandium), a quick meal eaten at noon, could include salted bread or be more elaborate with fruit, salad, eggs, meat or fish, vegetables, and cheese." The evening or dinner meal. "The dinner (cena), the main meal of the day, would be accompanied by wine, usually well-watered. The Latin poet Horace ate a meal of onions, porridge, and pancake. An ordinary upper-class dinner would include meat, vegetables, eggs, and fruit. Comissatio was a final wine course at dinner's end." Those Romans sure did love their wine! Just as with modern meals, the salad and/or egg courses were served at different time during the meal. More often than not, they were served as the appetizer (gustatioor promulsis or antecoena). The eggs weren't always hen's eggs, either. "The list of possible items for the gustatio is long. It includes exotic items like sea urchins, raw oysters, and mussels. Apples, when in season, were a popular dessert (bellaria) item. Other Roman dessert items were figs, dates, nuts, pears, grapes, cakes, cheese, and honey. And what about etiquette? "It is believed that during the Roman Republic, most women and the poor ate sitting on chairs, while upper-class males reclined on their sides on couches along three sides of a cloth-covered table (mensa). The three-sided arrangement is called the triclinium. Banquets might last for hours, eating and watching or listening to entertainers, so being able to stretch out without shoes and relax must have enhanced the experience. Since there were no forks, diners would not have had to worry about coordinating eating utensils in each hand." So what is portrayed in the movies isn't too far off the mark! And while dancing girls weren't part of the average evening meal, the elite Romans did always have some form of entertainment. Historians know much about Roman meals and dining habits from art and archeology. But there is a fair amount of written documentation, as well. These materials include passages on agriculture, a Roman cookbook, and even a few letters that were preserved from that time. While some Romans did feast heavily nearly every day, we can assume that the poorer class, and even many of the elite, often ate far less heartily. Tomorrow is Wednesday and that means a visit and lesson from my wise teacher, The Dharma Frog. I do hope that you'll plan on stopping by to see what valuable life lesson he has in store for me. Perhaps it might help you, as well. Until then, I wish you	829	ENGLISH	1
Roads turned into farm fields, inch by inch, in the central metropolitan area!? That would not occur in today’s Japan, but surprisingly happened often in the metropolitan area of medieval Kyoto (“Heiankyo”(平安京)). Was it something like rooftop greening in the present day, where people make garden park and vegetable gardens on the rooftop of buildings? No, it was not something like that. Roads in Heiankyo were laid out in a grid pattern. They were marked into blocks and developed in regular straight lines. What happened to them? The document below indicates how the roads were transformed: This diagram shows “Kosho”(巷所) near a temple called “Hensho Shin’in”(遍照心院). “Kosho” is the very term that refers to the parts of roads in Heiankyo that were tilled and turned into farm fields and housing land. The mapped area is a little to the north of the Toji temple, at the south of the present Kyoto Aquarium. The Hachijo-dori street runs from east to west, and crosses with the Omiya-dori street. Around this intersection, Kosho spread both from the northeast and from the southwest, transforming Hachijo-dori from a broad, straight road into a narrow street that was curved in the middle. Why did this happen? First, let’s review what roads in Heiankyo were like. It is well known that roads in Heiankyo were laid out in a grid pattern. Developed roads were called “Oji (lit. broader roads)” and “Shoji (lit. narrower streets)”, and had the respectively specified widths. There were also other precise requirements concerning fences for separating roads from housing land, and concerning aisles called “Inubashiri (berms)”(犬走) or “Inuyuki”(犬行) and gutters on both sides of roads. The specified width for Oji was 8 jo (24 meters) and that for Shoji was 4 jo (12 meters). Suzaku Oji had the largest width that reached as much as 28 jo (nearly 85 meters)! In today’s Japan, general national roads have the width of about three meters per lane. A road with four lanes is approximately 20 meters wide, including sidewalks. This means that ancient Ojis had the breadth equivalent to that of the present national roads. Unlike today, cars were not driving on the roads at a high speed. The roads were not paved with concrete. It may not have caused such a big trouble even if people used the rim of wide roads for some personal reasons. However, as Kosho spread from the rim to a wider area of the road, it gradually became a problem. Of course the Imperial Court prohibited Kosho, but people would not listen to it. Gradually, Kosho was made in many parts of Heiankyo. People made rice and barley. Rush grass was often grown near the gutters beside the road, because the soil was wet. The neighborhood of Toji was much crowded with passers-by and visitors to Toji, as an entrance to the central Heiankyo (“Rakuchu”(洛中)). In such a place, it should have been obstructive that more than half of the road was tilled and used for farming. The document above was also made at a petition from a temple nearby, Hensho Shin’in. This was a complicated story about roads in the ancient metropolitan Kyoto. Look forward to the sequel.	<urn:uuid:c81404b4-fb1a-4c11-a910-8b326233d294>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	http://hyakugo.kyoto.jp/eng/294	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251690095.81/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126165718-20200126195718-00210.warc.gz	en	0.985347	801	3.640625	4	[ -0.09657526016235352, -0.42687904834747314, 0.48495858907699585, 0.45424821972846985, 0.3383685350418091, 0.4144893288612366, 0.21005210280418396, 0.18515458703041077, -0.16824521124362946, 0.26799583435058594, -0.16431862115859985, -0.33599090576171875, 0.09320391714572906, 0.702926874160...	5	Roads turned into farm fields, inch by inch, in the central metropolitan area!? That would not occur in today’s Japan, but surprisingly happened often in the metropolitan area of medieval Kyoto (“Heiankyo”(平安京)). Was it something like rooftop greening in the present day, where people make garden park and vegetable gardens on the rooftop of buildings? No, it was not something like that. Roads in Heiankyo were laid out in a grid pattern. They were marked into blocks and developed in regular straight lines. What happened to them? The document below indicates how the roads were transformed: This diagram shows “Kosho”(巷所) near a temple called “Hensho Shin’in”(遍照心院). “Kosho” is the very term that refers to the parts of roads in Heiankyo that were tilled and turned into farm fields and housing land. The mapped area is a little to the north of the Toji temple, at the south of the present Kyoto Aquarium. The Hachijo-dori street runs from east to west, and crosses with the Omiya-dori street. Around this intersection, Kosho spread both from the northeast and from the southwest, transforming Hachijo-dori from a broad, straight road into a narrow street that was curved in the middle. Why did this happen? First, let’s review what roads in Heiankyo were like. It is well known that roads in Heiankyo were laid out in a grid pattern. Developed roads were called “Oji (lit. broader roads)” and “Shoji (lit. narrower streets)”, and had the respectively specified widths. There were also other precise requirements concerning fences for separating roads from housing land, and concerning aisles called “Inubashiri (berms)”(犬走) or “Inuyuki”(犬行) and gutters on both sides of roads. The specified width for Oji was 8 jo (24 meters) and that for Shoji was 4 jo (12 meters). Suzaku Oji had the largest width that reached as much as 28 jo (nearly 85 meters)! In today’s Japan, general national roads have the width of about three meters per lane. A road with four lanes is approximately 20 meters wide, including sidewalks. This means that ancient Ojis had the breadth equivalent to that of the present national roads. Unlike today, cars were not driving on the roads at a high speed. The roads were not paved with concrete. It may not have caused such a big trouble even if people used the rim of wide roads for some personal reasons. However, as Kosho spread from the rim to a wider area of the road, it gradually became a problem. Of course the Imperial Court prohibited Kosho, but people would not listen to it. Gradually, Kosho was made in many parts of Heiankyo. People made rice and barley. Rush grass was often grown near the gutters beside the road, because the soil was wet. The neighborhood of Toji was much crowded with passers-by and visitors to Toji, as an entrance to the central Heiankyo (“Rakuchu”(洛中)). In such a place, it should have been obstructive that more than half of the road was tilled and used for farming. The document above was also made at a petition from a temple nearby, Hensho Shin’in. This was a complicated story about roads in the ancient metropolitan Kyoto. Look forward to the sequel.	732	ENGLISH	1
Pennsylvania system is a penal method that advocates for solitary confinement of prisoners with the aim of contrition and reformation. The cells are sole confinements to prevent prisoners from engaging with other; each prisoner has his/her own room. The prisoners were not allowed to see any person other than occasional visitors and institution officers. The system was however modified to include some work for the prisoners for example shoemaking. Some of the critics however argued that the system was too expensive and had harmful effect on the prisoners’ minds. The system later was outdated by the Auburn system. Pennsylvania system impacted the current penal system in various ways. It formed basis for correcting and helping criminals to reform in a friendly way without having to punish them brutally. Initially prisoners were imposed hard labor as a way of punishing them without helping them to reform. By containing them in sole cells prisoners were given time to think over, apologize and reform from their bad behavior. This is the system used today; prisoners are not exposed to hard labor so as to punish them rather they are given a chance to reform and they are also offered work programs to empower them with skills. The use of solitary confinement and the rules of its use have changed over time. Initially solitary confinement was used as a way of oppression but officers justified it to be a way of protecting prisoners from their fellows who would be violent. It was however said to cause metal disorders when used for too long on a person. Human rights movements however came up and called for the end of solitary confinement. Prisoner led movements involved the media and publicly condemned solitary confinement. Prisoners also engaged in hunger strikes against the cruel practice. Other parties also went to court to gain their support in bringing this practice down. Experts and bodies at the international level also condemned this practice and demanded for its abolishment as they said it was a human rights abuse. U.N. Special Rapporteur also came up arguing that prisoners who were in solitary confinements ended up being worse that they came. In 2012 the center for constitutional right joined two people in the prisoner human rights movement in challenging the practice of solitary confinement of prisoners in California. This case argued that this practice was inhuman and unconstitutional. In 2015, CCR declared that a settlement had been reached which was to bring solitary confinement to an end. The number of people who were to be put in solitary confinement was to be reduced and those subjected to it were to be taken good care of. Other reforms were to be made in the future including end of unspecified sentences, complete end of solitary confinement, review of major prisoners and change to focus on behavior transformation practices. Finally the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in support of CCR claims which rules out that all prisoners were first to be given an opportunity to challenge their placement before being subjected to solitary confinements. The legal impact of abuse is injustice. When one is abused it means that their rights are taken away and therefore an injustice has been done on them. Once an abuse occurs and is reported the abuser faces charges in a court of law where he can be found guilty or free. If the person is found guilty he/she is imprisoned where he is expected to reflect, realize his mistakes and reform to the best. If a prisoner does not reform then the main aim of being in prison is not achieved.	<urn:uuid:84c72922-7b1d-49ee-830b-cc6a34ca47bf>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://essayhub.net/essays/the-impact-of-pennsylvania-system-on-the-current-penal-system	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250603761.28/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121103642-20200121132642-00303.warc.gz	en	0.986366	671	3.796875	4	[ -0.418599009513855, 0.1613597422838211, -0.015003473497927189, -0.05289066582918167, -0.0010131211020052433, -0.10609865188598633, 0.05775149166584015, 0.03476803004741669, 0.2228536605834961, 0.11949443817138672, 0.37591642141342163, 0.26690199971199036, -0.04500693827867508, 0.0505966432...	2	Pennsylvania system is a penal method that advocates for solitary confinement of prisoners with the aim of contrition and reformation. The cells are sole confinements to prevent prisoners from engaging with other; each prisoner has his/her own room. The prisoners were not allowed to see any person other than occasional visitors and institution officers. The system was however modified to include some work for the prisoners for example shoemaking. Some of the critics however argued that the system was too expensive and had harmful effect on the prisoners’ minds. The system later was outdated by the Auburn system. Pennsylvania system impacted the current penal system in various ways. It formed basis for correcting and helping criminals to reform in a friendly way without having to punish them brutally. Initially prisoners were imposed hard labor as a way of punishing them without helping them to reform. By containing them in sole cells prisoners were given time to think over, apologize and reform from their bad behavior. This is the system used today; prisoners are not exposed to hard labor so as to punish them rather they are given a chance to reform and they are also offered work programs to empower them with skills. The use of solitary confinement and the rules of its use have changed over time. Initially solitary confinement was used as a way of oppression but officers justified it to be a way of protecting prisoners from their fellows who would be violent. It was however said to cause metal disorders when used for too long on a person. Human rights movements however came up and called for the end of solitary confinement. Prisoner led movements involved the media and publicly condemned solitary confinement. Prisoners also engaged in hunger strikes against the cruel practice. Other parties also went to court to gain their support in bringing this practice down. Experts and bodies at the international level also condemned this practice and demanded for its abolishment as they said it was a human rights abuse. U.N. Special Rapporteur also came up arguing that prisoners who were in solitary confinements ended up being worse that they came. In 2012 the center for constitutional right joined two people in the prisoner human rights movement in challenging the practice of solitary confinement of prisoners in California. This case argued that this practice was inhuman and unconstitutional. In 2015, CCR declared that a settlement had been reached which was to bring solitary confinement to an end. The number of people who were to be put in solitary confinement was to be reduced and those subjected to it were to be taken good care of. Other reforms were to be made in the future including end of unspecified sentences, complete end of solitary confinement, review of major prisoners and change to focus on behavior transformation practices. Finally the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in support of CCR claims which rules out that all prisoners were first to be given an opportunity to challenge their placement before being subjected to solitary confinements. The legal impact of abuse is injustice. When one is abused it means that their rights are taken away and therefore an injustice has been done on them. Once an abuse occurs and is reported the abuser faces charges in a court of law where he can be found guilty or free. If the person is found guilty he/she is imprisoned where he is expected to reflect, realize his mistakes and reform to the best. If a prisoner does not reform then the main aim of being in prison is not achieved.	674	ENGLISH	1
By the early 1820s Ngāti Toa had been fighting for several years with the inland Waikato tribes for control over Kāwhia Harbour and its rich environs. Te Rauparaha, one of the leading chiefs of Ngāti Toa, urged the people to migrate to the Kāpiti region in the south, where there was an abundance of land and resources, and greater opportunity to trade with Pākehā for guns. It was not easy to move, as Kāwhia had been the tribal home since the arrival of the Tainui canoe in the 13th century. The decisive event was an overwhelming attack by a combined force of Waikato and Maniapoto tribes. Defeated, Ngāti Toa were forced to retreat to Te Arawī, a coastal stronghold south of Kāwhia. Here they remained under siege for months. The Tahutahu Ahi migration Had it not been for the compassion shown by a Ngāti Maniapoto chief who was a kinsman of Te Rauparaha, the tribe might well have been destroyed. Instead, safe passage was negotiated for them to leave Kāwhia. This was the first stage of their migration south. On departing, Te Rauparaha addressed his people, paying tribute to the land of his ancestors. Looking towards Kāwhia, he composed a song lamenting their losses and farewelling their homeland: ‘Tērā ia ngā tai o Honipaka, ka wehe koe i ahau.’ (O ye waters of Honipaka, from you, alas, I now depart.) Near the Mōkau River further down the coast, Te Rauparaha, accompanied by a small group of mainly women, encountered a war party from Ngāti Maniapoto. Te Rauparaha dressed some of the women as chiefs and told them to stand by several fires, making their enemies think his party was larger than it was. This episode provided the name for this first migration – Te Heke Tahutahuahi (the fire-lighting migration). Ngāti Toa were given sanctuary in Taranaki by relatives, notably their close kin Ngāti Mutunga. The Tātaramoa migration Ngāti Toa remained in Taranaki for some months – long enough to cultivate food and gather allies for the next stage of the journey south. Although they were well armed with muskets and numbered a few thousand, among them were many women, children and old people. All were required to walk hundreds of kilometres. Many were too exhausted to carry on, and died along the way. The journey was arduous. The migrants had to contend with many obstacles, including hostile tribes in southern Taranaki, Whanganui, Manawatū and Horowhenua. Ngāti Toa and their allies eventually reached the Kāpiti region, completing the second stage of the migration. This stage was named Te Heke Tātaramoa (the bramble bush migration), indicating the difficulties they encountered. Commemorating the migrations The whole journey was named Te Heke Mai-i-raro (the migration from the north). Many generations later, descendants of the migrating peoples named their meeting house Te Heke Mai Raro, in acknowledgement of the significance of the event in their history. The house was opened in 1997 and stands at Hongoeka marae, Plimmerton, not far from the site of Te Rauparaha’s principal residence at Taupō pā.	<urn:uuid:38301361-149f-49ff-95f3-7ae9d929b3e7>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://admin.teara.govt.nz/en/ngati-toarangatira/page-2	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251789055.93/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129071944-20200129101944-00367.warc.gz	en	0.980405	757	3.453125	3	[ -0.34329915046691895, 0.35173749923706055, -0.06242396682500839, 0.07006554305553436, -0.36496174335479736, -0.21802398562431335, 0.020827561616897583, -0.15765582025051117, -0.4921039938926697, 0.19469475746154785, 0.09313291311264038, -0.6990518569946289, 0.2749423682689667, 0.3113256096...	11	By the early 1820s Ngāti Toa had been fighting for several years with the inland Waikato tribes for control over Kāwhia Harbour and its rich environs. Te Rauparaha, one of the leading chiefs of Ngāti Toa, urged the people to migrate to the Kāpiti region in the south, where there was an abundance of land and resources, and greater opportunity to trade with Pākehā for guns. It was not easy to move, as Kāwhia had been the tribal home since the arrival of the Tainui canoe in the 13th century. The decisive event was an overwhelming attack by a combined force of Waikato and Maniapoto tribes. Defeated, Ngāti Toa were forced to retreat to Te Arawī, a coastal stronghold south of Kāwhia. Here they remained under siege for months. The Tahutahu Ahi migration Had it not been for the compassion shown by a Ngāti Maniapoto chief who was a kinsman of Te Rauparaha, the tribe might well have been destroyed. Instead, safe passage was negotiated for them to leave Kāwhia. This was the first stage of their migration south. On departing, Te Rauparaha addressed his people, paying tribute to the land of his ancestors. Looking towards Kāwhia, he composed a song lamenting their losses and farewelling their homeland: ‘Tērā ia ngā tai o Honipaka, ka wehe koe i ahau.’ (O ye waters of Honipaka, from you, alas, I now depart.) Near the Mōkau River further down the coast, Te Rauparaha, accompanied by a small group of mainly women, encountered a war party from Ngāti Maniapoto. Te Rauparaha dressed some of the women as chiefs and told them to stand by several fires, making their enemies think his party was larger than it was. This episode provided the name for this first migration – Te Heke Tahutahuahi (the fire-lighting migration). Ngāti Toa were given sanctuary in Taranaki by relatives, notably their close kin Ngāti Mutunga. The Tātaramoa migration Ngāti Toa remained in Taranaki for some months – long enough to cultivate food and gather allies for the next stage of the journey south. Although they were well armed with muskets and numbered a few thousand, among them were many women, children and old people. All were required to walk hundreds of kilometres. Many were too exhausted to carry on, and died along the way. The journey was arduous. The migrants had to contend with many obstacles, including hostile tribes in southern Taranaki, Whanganui, Manawatū and Horowhenua. Ngāti Toa and their allies eventually reached the Kāpiti region, completing the second stage of the migration. This stage was named Te Heke Tātaramoa (the bramble bush migration), indicating the difficulties they encountered. Commemorating the migrations The whole journey was named Te Heke Mai-i-raro (the migration from the north). Many generations later, descendants of the migrating peoples named their meeting house Te Heke Mai Raro, in acknowledgement of the significance of the event in their history. The house was opened in 1997 and stands at Hongoeka marae, Plimmerton, not far from the site of Te Rauparaha’s principal residence at Taupō pā.	746	ENGLISH	1
From 2014 to 2016, excavations on the coast of Ecuador uncovered the remains of 11 individuals in ancient burial mounds, including two adults, one young person, and four babies. Small artifacts and shells were found around the burials. But it was two of the infants wearing skull “helmets” found in two burial mounds dated to approximately 100 BC that really grabbed attention. The research — led by University of North Carolina at Charlotte assistant professor Sara Juengst — found that one baby was 18 months old at the time of death, and was wearing parts of the skull of another child aged between four and 12 years old. The skull was placed in a “helmet-like fashion around the head of the first, such that the primary individual’s face looked through,” the researchers said. A small shell and a child’s finger bone was found between the skull “helmet” and the infant’s head. The other infant was aged between six and nine months old, and was wearing skull fragments of a child aged between two and 12 years old. Researchers said the skull “helmets” likely still had flesh on them when they were put on the infants’ heads, as children’s skulls often don’t hold together. The story behind the skull ‘helmets’ In the study, researchers acknowledged that there were a number of questions remaining. They did not know whose skulls had been turned into “helmets” — or why two babies were wearing “helmets” while others were not. But the researchers noted that detached heads were “symbolically important” in South America, and dead children were often given special treatment in death. “The human head was a potent symbol for many South American cultures,” the study found. The researchers speculated that the skull “helmets” could have been an attempt to protect the babies’ souls — a theory that they said was given weight by the figurines found around the burial site. The area had been hit by volcanic ash fall before the burial, the study said. “A tantalizing hypothesis is that this bodily stress is related to the volcanic ash fall that preceded these burials, and that the treatment of the two infants was part of a larger, complex ritual response to environmental consequences of the eruption,” the researchers said. “More evidence is needed to confirm this.” The researchers also noted that there was no evidence of the tomb being reopened or manipulated after the initial burial. Previous studies have uncovered details of burial rites of ancient civilizations of South America.	<urn:uuid:6d91cbbb-5a97-473d-a0b2-e6712194ee13>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://celebestopnews.com/ctn-world-news/2019/12/babies-were-buried-with-helmets-made-from-childrens-skulls-in-ancient-ecuador/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251681625.83/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125222506-20200126012506-00070.warc.gz	en	0.986587	553	4.09375	4	[ -0.28474360704421997, 0.3380325436592102, 0.28567835688591003, -0.1036941409111023, -0.3912896513938904, 0.3562692105770111, 0.19631731510162354, -0.027949953451752663, -0.46246403455734253, 0.06697548925876617, 0.1457209438085556, -0.20259922742843628, -0.012898741289973259, 0.42356947064...	1	From 2014 to 2016, excavations on the coast of Ecuador uncovered the remains of 11 individuals in ancient burial mounds, including two adults, one young person, and four babies. Small artifacts and shells were found around the burials. But it was two of the infants wearing skull “helmets” found in two burial mounds dated to approximately 100 BC that really grabbed attention. The research — led by University of North Carolina at Charlotte assistant professor Sara Juengst — found that one baby was 18 months old at the time of death, and was wearing parts of the skull of another child aged between four and 12 years old. The skull was placed in a “helmet-like fashion around the head of the first, such that the primary individual’s face looked through,” the researchers said. A small shell and a child’s finger bone was found between the skull “helmet” and the infant’s head. The other infant was aged between six and nine months old, and was wearing skull fragments of a child aged between two and 12 years old. Researchers said the skull “helmets” likely still had flesh on them when they were put on the infants’ heads, as children’s skulls often don’t hold together. The story behind the skull ‘helmets’ In the study, researchers acknowledged that there were a number of questions remaining. They did not know whose skulls had been turned into “helmets” — or why two babies were wearing “helmets” while others were not. But the researchers noted that detached heads were “symbolically important” in South America, and dead children were often given special treatment in death. “The human head was a potent symbol for many South American cultures,” the study found. The researchers speculated that the skull “helmets” could have been an attempt to protect the babies’ souls — a theory that they said was given weight by the figurines found around the burial site. The area had been hit by volcanic ash fall before the burial, the study said. “A tantalizing hypothesis is that this bodily stress is related to the volcanic ash fall that preceded these burials, and that the treatment of the two infants was part of a larger, complex ritual response to environmental consequences of the eruption,” the researchers said. “More evidence is needed to confirm this.” The researchers also noted that there was no evidence of the tomb being reopened or manipulated after the initial burial. Previous studies have uncovered details of burial rites of ancient civilizations of South America.	515	ENGLISH	1
In this paper I will be writing about slaves and if the United States could have become half-slave and half-free if they didn’t fight in the Civil War. Slavery has been around for a long time. The south and north have always had disagreements when it came to owning slaves. In the south slaves were very popular. Slaves were the ones bringing in the money for their owners but they barely received any money that they worked hard for. When Lincoln first asked this question, America was slowly coming to grips with the knowledge that as a nation it could not continue to exist, half-slave and half free. This was not only because slavery was immoral or unconstitutional but on a purely practical level, slave states and free states had significantly different and incompatible interests. “A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half-slave and half-free.” ( Abraham Lincoln, 1858). Abraham Lincoln made this statement to say that there couldn’t be a half slave and half free. Due to the disagreements and after the war Abraham Lincoln decided to let all slaves free. Keywords: Civil war, Slavery, Freedom By the end of the American Revolution, slavery had proven unprofitable in the North and was dying out. The north had to figure out other ways to make money and I believe that most thought that slaves were useless. Even in the South the institution was becoming less useful to farmers as tobacco prices start to get low and began to…	<urn:uuid:c0086b1d-299c-422f-b31b-34320b56cb4d>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.cram.com/essay/Slavery-And-The-Civil-War/FKK2GXXKUY3W	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250599789.45/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120195035-20200120224035-00230.warc.gz	en	0.986569	309	3.75	4	[ -0.47997674345970154, 0.18813353776931763, 0.2142152041196823, -0.09512007981538773, -0.0916585698723793, 0.1737106889486313, -0.14377236366271973, 0.09570977836847305, -0.10251573473215103, 0.2594617009162903, 0.18710006773471832, 0.15073394775390625, -0.3492397665977478, 0.46293479204177...	1	In this paper I will be writing about slaves and if the United States could have become half-slave and half-free if they didn’t fight in the Civil War. Slavery has been around for a long time. The south and north have always had disagreements when it came to owning slaves. In the south slaves were very popular. Slaves were the ones bringing in the money for their owners but they barely received any money that they worked hard for. When Lincoln first asked this question, America was slowly coming to grips with the knowledge that as a nation it could not continue to exist, half-slave and half free. This was not only because slavery was immoral or unconstitutional but on a purely practical level, slave states and free states had significantly different and incompatible interests. “A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half-slave and half-free.” ( Abraham Lincoln, 1858). Abraham Lincoln made this statement to say that there couldn’t be a half slave and half free. Due to the disagreements and after the war Abraham Lincoln decided to let all slaves free. Keywords: Civil war, Slavery, Freedom By the end of the American Revolution, slavery had proven unprofitable in the North and was dying out. The north had to figure out other ways to make money and I believe that most thought that slaves were useless. Even in the South the institution was becoming less useful to farmers as tobacco prices start to get low and began to…	300	ENGLISH	1
In the late 1800's there lived in Missouri a sickly young black child named George Washington Carver. Too weak to work in the fields, he helped in the kitchen of the home he lived at and learned to bake, cook, sew and iron clothes. He didn't have friends but instead and found peace by tending to a hidden garden he kept in the woods. He was extremely observant and learned much about the plants in his garden. Soon, his skill as a botanist became known, and people were bringing their "sick" houseplants to him. As he was able to make many of them healthy again, people started calling him "the plant doctor." It made him feel important and he wanted to learn more about plants, but that required schooling and there were few opportunities at that time for a black child to get an education. During that time even most white people did not have an education much beyond the fifth grade. George was undaunted, however. He left home in pursuit of his dream of an education. He did anything and everything to earn money to live and to buy books so he could go to school. He faced ridicule, racism and hatred, but he persevered. Age was no obstacle to him. He was past age 30 when he finally graduated from high school. He was in his forties when he graduated from college. He was in his mid-forties when he became a teacher at the Tuskegee institute, and later, a world-renowned scientist. Before George Washington Carver, cotton was the main crop raised in the south. But rising cotton year after year on the same soil had depleted it of many essential nutrients. Dr. Carver knew that crops had to be rotated among the fields to ensure a healthy, vibrant harvest each year. But what crops to use? Peanuts and sweet potatoes could be alternated in the fields of the south, and were good for the soil he knew, but there was no market for these at that time—so he changed that. He learned how to separate peanuts into their most basic compounds, and explored how to make different products out of each of them. He invented hundreds of products from both peanuts and sweet potatoes. To prove the worth of the peanut as a viable crop he once appeared before a committee of the U.S. Congress to seek funding to further his research. One congressman made an unkind comment about him because of his skin color but Dr. Carver ignored it and went on with his presentation. As he concluded, he served them a meal consisting of soup, salad, mock chicken, and an ice cream dessert. After they finished their meal he informed them that the entire meal was made of nothing but peanuts. They were astonished. They also approved his funding request. Dr. Carver helped change the South by creating new products and the markets for them, allowing farmers to rotate crops each year and still keep farm operations profitable. Education and perseverance was the key to doing it. Each of you has the opportunity to go on to college or a trade school. Some of you may come from families with limited means but all of you can become educated if you possess the will. None of you are likely to face the challenges that Dr. Carver faced in his quest for an education, but many of you will still be confronted with barriers that you must overcome. Surmount these and get as much education as you can. Whatever level you attain, however, do not look down on people who possess less knowledge. Education without humility creates a snob. Not all of us can be Dr. Carvers, but we can still use the gift of an education to serve our fellow citizens and our country. Good night, gentlemen.	<urn:uuid:1c66892f-077d-459c-9a70-e0ee1043fe98>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	http://troop4673.org/troop_traditions/scoutmasters_minute/pages/get_an_education.html	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250601615.66/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121044233-20200121073233-00367.warc.gz	en	0.993309	758	3.59375	4	[ -0.06973470747470856, 0.4817093014717102, 0.5005142092704773, -0.11661526560783386, 0.052768439054489136, -0.15702176094055176, 0.12393193691968918, 0.04769781976938248, -0.6936754584312439, 0.2655140161514282, 0.1365814357995987, -0.33204126358032227, 0.11860040575265884, 0.35583716630935...	1	In the late 1800's there lived in Missouri a sickly young black child named George Washington Carver. Too weak to work in the fields, he helped in the kitchen of the home he lived at and learned to bake, cook, sew and iron clothes. He didn't have friends but instead and found peace by tending to a hidden garden he kept in the woods. He was extremely observant and learned much about the plants in his garden. Soon, his skill as a botanist became known, and people were bringing their "sick" houseplants to him. As he was able to make many of them healthy again, people started calling him "the plant doctor." It made him feel important and he wanted to learn more about plants, but that required schooling and there were few opportunities at that time for a black child to get an education. During that time even most white people did not have an education much beyond the fifth grade. George was undaunted, however. He left home in pursuit of his dream of an education. He did anything and everything to earn money to live and to buy books so he could go to school. He faced ridicule, racism and hatred, but he persevered. Age was no obstacle to him. He was past age 30 when he finally graduated from high school. He was in his forties when he graduated from college. He was in his mid-forties when he became a teacher at the Tuskegee institute, and later, a world-renowned scientist. Before George Washington Carver, cotton was the main crop raised in the south. But rising cotton year after year on the same soil had depleted it of many essential nutrients. Dr. Carver knew that crops had to be rotated among the fields to ensure a healthy, vibrant harvest each year. But what crops to use? Peanuts and sweet potatoes could be alternated in the fields of the south, and were good for the soil he knew, but there was no market for these at that time—so he changed that. He learned how to separate peanuts into their most basic compounds, and explored how to make different products out of each of them. He invented hundreds of products from both peanuts and sweet potatoes. To prove the worth of the peanut as a viable crop he once appeared before a committee of the U.S. Congress to seek funding to further his research. One congressman made an unkind comment about him because of his skin color but Dr. Carver ignored it and went on with his presentation. As he concluded, he served them a meal consisting of soup, salad, mock chicken, and an ice cream dessert. After they finished their meal he informed them that the entire meal was made of nothing but peanuts. They were astonished. They also approved his funding request. Dr. Carver helped change the South by creating new products and the markets for them, allowing farmers to rotate crops each year and still keep farm operations profitable. Education and perseverance was the key to doing it. Each of you has the opportunity to go on to college or a trade school. Some of you may come from families with limited means but all of you can become educated if you possess the will. None of you are likely to face the challenges that Dr. Carver faced in his quest for an education, but many of you will still be confronted with barriers that you must overcome. Surmount these and get as much education as you can. Whatever level you attain, however, do not look down on people who possess less knowledge. Education without humility creates a snob. Not all of us can be Dr. Carvers, but we can still use the gift of an education to serve our fellow citizens and our country. Good night, gentlemen.	757	ENGLISH	1
The men who put together Magna Carta were concerned, among other things, about their wives and sisters and daughters and other female relatives who would, by a husband or father's death, be made heiresses or widows. Widows – the subject of this essay – appear in clauses 7, 8, and 11 of the 1215 Charter, and in clause 7 of the 1225 version, in the context of their remarriage, maritagium, inheritance, and dower. All those provisions were intended for their protection. As the result, for several generations the reaction to Henry II and his sons moved beyond merely curtailing abuses to creating a climate favourable to women who had lost their husbands. Paul Brand has argued that, by the end of the thirteenth century, attitudes had shifted to make dower, at least, less an automatic entitlement to a valid marriage; in any event, it is certain that in the following century dower became less secure. But that has nothing to do with the world of King John and Magna Carta. The intent here is to discuss the background to the Charter provisions and analyse their practical effects. The drafters of Magna Carta had reason for their concern. Widows in England had long been the subject of royal intervention. Perhaps it is because they were vulnerable and needed protection – they are classed as personae miserabilis, persons to be cared for, at canon law – or perhaps it is because they were potentially disruptors of the orderly transmission of property from generation to generation, or because there was uneasiness about a grown woman free to some extent to make her own marital choices. Henry I's coronation charter promised that a childless surviving wife should have her dower and maritagium and that she would not be given in marriage except according to her will. If she had children, she would have dower and maritagium so long as she ‘kept her body honestly’ and again there was the provision on remarriage. Henry's barons were told ‘likewise to restrain themselves towards the sons and daughters and wives of their men’. But Henry did not restrain himself; the only pipe roll remaining from his reign shows women making payments for dower and/or maritagium and fining not to take a husband. As women in his gift, they had no choice but to bargain with him.	<urn:uuid:b683450c-8efa-4ec0-bf62-e3f626136aa6>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	http://core-cms.prod.aop.cambridge.org/core/search?filters%5BauthorTerms%5D=Janet%20S.%20Loengard&eventCode=SE-AU	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250592565.2/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118110141-20200118134141-00033.warc.gz	en	0.986005	495	3.328125	3	[ -0.23430903255939484, 0.35856565833091736, -0.02684505470097065, -0.1847541332244873, 0.11001688987016678, -0.12328208237886429, 0.1822969615459442, 0.15172116458415985, -0.024804504588246346, -0.284976065158844, -0.21914027631282806, -0.05300590768456459, 0.30236902832984924, 0.1327618062...	1	The men who put together Magna Carta were concerned, among other things, about their wives and sisters and daughters and other female relatives who would, by a husband or father's death, be made heiresses or widows. Widows – the subject of this essay – appear in clauses 7, 8, and 11 of the 1215 Charter, and in clause 7 of the 1225 version, in the context of their remarriage, maritagium, inheritance, and dower. All those provisions were intended for their protection. As the result, for several generations the reaction to Henry II and his sons moved beyond merely curtailing abuses to creating a climate favourable to women who had lost their husbands. Paul Brand has argued that, by the end of the thirteenth century, attitudes had shifted to make dower, at least, less an automatic entitlement to a valid marriage; in any event, it is certain that in the following century dower became less secure. But that has nothing to do with the world of King John and Magna Carta. The intent here is to discuss the background to the Charter provisions and analyse their practical effects. The drafters of Magna Carta had reason for their concern. Widows in England had long been the subject of royal intervention. Perhaps it is because they were vulnerable and needed protection – they are classed as personae miserabilis, persons to be cared for, at canon law – or perhaps it is because they were potentially disruptors of the orderly transmission of property from generation to generation, or because there was uneasiness about a grown woman free to some extent to make her own marital choices. Henry I's coronation charter promised that a childless surviving wife should have her dower and maritagium and that she would not be given in marriage except according to her will. If she had children, she would have dower and maritagium so long as she ‘kept her body honestly’ and again there was the provision on remarriage. Henry's barons were told ‘likewise to restrain themselves towards the sons and daughters and wives of their men’. But Henry did not restrain himself; the only pipe roll remaining from his reign shows women making payments for dower and/or maritagium and fining not to take a husband. As women in his gift, they had no choice but to bargain with him.	490	ENGLISH	1
What it means to be a father in America has changed dramatically over the past few centuries. These changes have, for the most part, been positive. But as fatherhood has progressed, some things may have fallen along the wayside which may be important to hold on too like the instilling of discipline and moral values into our children. History is our greatest teacher and there are always lessons to be learned from our forefathers. So let’s examine how the roles of fathers have shifted and changed over time. We will notice several significant improvements over the generations, but will also see the inherent value in some of our ancestors’ parenting styles and tactics. From Colonialism to Civil War Fathers During the colonial period of American history (1492-1763), the men who lived in what would one day become the United States of America were of a fairly stern breed. Disciplinarian heads of the house who made certain bread was on the table and prayers were said for it. They were robust hunters and fishermen, still venturing out into the wild to find food for dinner just as men had done for millennia prior. But in terms of parenting, it was the mothers who performed the heavy lifting at home. The father was the stoic figure resting in his chair at night, not to be disturbed as his spouse handled the household activities. She took care of him, with any daughters helping her with her work. The boys became clones of their fathers; as they got older, the colonial father would train them to do as he did, passing on the knowledge and skills to prepare his sons to take his place. For his daughters, he would help find a suitable husband once they came of age to marry. Children were expected to fulfill many responsibilities within the family. If they slacked in these duties, the colonial father was there to correct them as necessary to ensure the family unit survived. But just prior to the Civil War (1861–1865), life was starting to get a bit easier. America had existed for almost a century, and individual states were well-established by this point. Modern cities and factories were emerging across the nation, and a burgeoning middle class was forming. However, fathers were still training sons as apprentices or to tackle the laborious tasks of running a farm. And many of those factories were stocked with child employees. Childhood was a time to work and being a father meant ensuring your children were able to contribute. Many jobs were dangerous, so it was the fathers responsibility to properly train youth for their safety and well-being. Everyone had to pitch in, even more so once the Civil War began and many fathers were called to leave their homes to help fight the way, many never to return. One of the most fascinating legacies of this period is the number of letters sent between family members. These letters reveal another side of those stoic fathers who, away from their children and facing mortal danger, revealed their innermost feelings. What these fathers could never say in person, they were willing to put down on paper, knowing it could be their last words to their loved ones. With the dawn of the 20th century came an interesting change that impacted parenting significantly: the number of childbirths dropped by nearly half. Whereas families were birthing an average of six children over the course of the previous hundred years, the 1900s family was content with an average of three. Part of this was due to having less agricultural/farm work to do, coupled with a decline in the child mortality rate because of medical improvements. This could have been a great time for fathers because of the amount of time that was freed up to spend with their children. But sadly, World War I added a few hiccups to this development and many father were again forced to leave home to go fight in the war. Another major influence on the amount of time fathers had at home was the automobile boom, which allowed opportunities to travel further away for work. But then things took a turn for the worse as the Great Depression struck the nation and millions of fathers lost their jobs. This severely impacted the collective self-esteem of men around the country, but also caused a new way of thinking in terms of gender roles. Suddenly women were the primary breadwinners because the types of jobs they were doing were less impacted. And so the roles of fathers began to shift during this period. Mothers in the workforce had swapped places with men who found themselves home doing “women’s work”…and discovering that it was not as simple as they’d believed. Fathers After WWII In a study of World War II veteran fathers, it was noted that ideas of parental functions fell roughly into two categories: traditional and conceptual. Traditional concepts included making sure that children were clean, groomed, well-behaved, and respectful. These traditional concepts hearkened back to the virtues that parents had carefully tended in their children over the previous few generations. But beyond these were more subjective concepts, which included developing self-esteem as well as encouraging self-reliance, social interaction, and citizenship. Interestingly, it also put a new onus on the parent — to be a happy, positive person for the sake of their children’s wellbeing. It was no longer enough to simply tell children what to do. Another interesting correlation discovered during the study was that the more skilled in their trade a father was, the more they focused on the subjective concept areas. The better off a father was financially, the more concerned he was about ensuring his children were ready to fulfill a higher place in society. And in general, fathers felt they were more responsible for this conceptual development, whereas the mothers’ roles were to tend to the basic traditional areas. Fathers were participating more in the lives and development of their children, but there were still large distinctions regarding who was in charge of what aspects. There was still a highly strategic element to how fathers approached parenting, and how they wanted to mold their progeny and shape their futures. Following the so-called beatnik era of the 1950s, the nation soon faced yet another turbulent time. The 1960s saw major cultural and political shifts that impacted fatherhood tremendously. The post-WWII baby boom had led to a suburb boom as well, leading to many families moving out of the cities. This was a setback for women wanting to be involved in the burgeoning feminist movement, because now they were boxed in to cookie-cutter communities. Nevertheless, these subversive ideas were reaching stay-at-home moms, ensuring the topic was kept alive and well. However, the exploration of parental equality was delayed yet again as the Vietnam War escalated, causing hundreds of thousands of men to be shipped off to Southeast Asia. Many who returned home were never the same, and the poor treatment they received back in their hometowns made matters even worse. Anti-military sentiment ran high as the youthful counter-culture movement went into full swing. It was a bad decade for GI fathers who either had to postpone having children, missed years of the lives of their children, or ended up getting divorced. And as mentioned, the fathers who deployed weren’t always the same fathers who came back. Before the term Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder was coined, all too many Vietnam Vets and their families were experiencing it without having learned the necessary coping mechanisms. Meanwhile, fathers who weren’t drafted were segmented into categories of right and left, a political division which still impacts the values fathers teach and raise their children with to this day. Fatherhood by 1999 With the Vietnam Era in America’s rearview mirror, fathers had a chance to evolve rapidly, from the hypersexualized ‘70s through the neon-drenched 1980s and into the closing years of the millennium. This was a period of reasonable economic stability, as the Cold War came and vanished and the country was able to avoid any major wars. Fathers were increasingly able to spend more time at home, participating in their children’s lives in new ways while setting up new expectations. The future looked bright. Art and creativity were bursting at the same time technology was on the rise. More and more, children were presented with the idea that they could grow up to be anything they wanted, whether it was a computer programmer or a television celebrity. Not all fathers bought into this line of thinking, but many did because they had experienced it themselves. A strong middle class coupled with the advent of the Internet made the world seem more and more accessible. Fathers didn’t have to settle for hoping their children would have a better life than they’d had, or to worry about preparing them to replace their parents as breadwinners. This allowed for some relaxation of discipline as children began to develop more freedom and a voice of their own at the dinner table. Fatherhood in the 21st Century Skip ahead to the end of the 2010s, and fathers find themselves in a world where gender equality is becoming less of a concept and more of a reality. Men are not expected to be the sole income earner and women are staying at home less and less. Indeed, couples increasingly swap traditional roles, allowing fathers to stay at home, get the children up and ready for school, run them around to their various daily activities, stay involved in PTA meetings, and do their share of laundry, grocery shopping, and meal prep. The increasing fluidity of the traditional functions and assignments of child-rearing allows for more flexibility in terms of who manages the subjective parenting concepts as well. Parents are able to work together as a team more than ever before. Modern life has allowed children to be children longer, but it has also allowed fathers to retain childlike characteristics as well. We modern men behave differently than our grandfathers and great-grandfathers. We are more free to be playful, more confident to show emotions, more considerate of our own feelings. Men are also more likely to obsess over things such as movies or video games which once were considered the sole domain of children. This can be viewed as positive, considering that it helps bridge the gap between what we and our own children take an interest in. In fact, with the rise of YouTube we see tons of homemade videos of fathers engaging with their children in shared hobbies. Meanwhile, children feel more empowered by their parents to explore entrepreneurial ideas, unencumbered by strict rules of what’s allowable according to the stern expectations of the patriarch. What does this all mean for the modern father? Are there downsides to any of this? There can be. The fact that the boundaries between adult and child are growing smaller does not mean fathers may allow their children to run free and undisciplined. We fathers still have many obligations to fulfill to take care of our children and ensure they grow up right. We must be there, with all our hats, ready to serve as a role model, teacher, mentor, counselor, and now, perhaps more than ever in our history, as a friend they can trust. Fatherhood has changed over the years, but that doesn’t mean it’s any easier. It just happens to be a lot more fun.	<urn:uuid:3d408c66-36c1-4a03-b80a-7bc4ed1ac640>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://dailydad.com/how-fatherhood-has-changed-over-the-years/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250598726.39/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120110422-20200120134422-00184.warc.gz	en	0.988912	2,292	3.515625	4	[ -0.06483695656061172, 0.5096911191940308, 0.432182639837265, -0.4913997948169708, -0.1257171928882599, 0.29591697454452515, 0.12073665112257004, -0.017348188906908035, -0.2839747369289398, -0.06979621946811676, 0.36207976937294006, -0.00374189717695117, -0.26941177248954773, 0.336402595043...	6	What it means to be a father in America has changed dramatically over the past few centuries. These changes have, for the most part, been positive. But as fatherhood has progressed, some things may have fallen along the wayside which may be important to hold on too like the instilling of discipline and moral values into our children. History is our greatest teacher and there are always lessons to be learned from our forefathers. So let’s examine how the roles of fathers have shifted and changed over time. We will notice several significant improvements over the generations, but will also see the inherent value in some of our ancestors’ parenting styles and tactics. From Colonialism to Civil War Fathers During the colonial period of American history (1492-1763), the men who lived in what would one day become the United States of America were of a fairly stern breed. Disciplinarian heads of the house who made certain bread was on the table and prayers were said for it. They were robust hunters and fishermen, still venturing out into the wild to find food for dinner just as men had done for millennia prior. But in terms of parenting, it was the mothers who performed the heavy lifting at home. The father was the stoic figure resting in his chair at night, not to be disturbed as his spouse handled the household activities. She took care of him, with any daughters helping her with her work. The boys became clones of their fathers; as they got older, the colonial father would train them to do as he did, passing on the knowledge and skills to prepare his sons to take his place. For his daughters, he would help find a suitable husband once they came of age to marry. Children were expected to fulfill many responsibilities within the family. If they slacked in these duties, the colonial father was there to correct them as necessary to ensure the family unit survived. But just prior to the Civil War (1861–1865), life was starting to get a bit easier. America had existed for almost a century, and individual states were well-established by this point. Modern cities and factories were emerging across the nation, and a burgeoning middle class was forming. However, fathers were still training sons as apprentices or to tackle the laborious tasks of running a farm. And many of those factories were stocked with child employees. Childhood was a time to work and being a father meant ensuring your children were able to contribute. Many jobs were dangerous, so it was the fathers responsibility to properly train youth for their safety and well-being. Everyone had to pitch in, even more so once the Civil War began and many fathers were called to leave their homes to help fight the way, many never to return. One of the most fascinating legacies of this period is the number of letters sent between family members. These letters reveal another side of those stoic fathers who, away from their children and facing mortal danger, revealed their innermost feelings. What these fathers could never say in person, they were willing to put down on paper, knowing it could be their last words to their loved ones. With the dawn of the 20th century came an interesting change that impacted parenting significantly: the number of childbirths dropped by nearly half. Whereas families were birthing an average of six children over the course of the previous hundred years, the 1900s family was content with an average of three. Part of this was due to having less agricultural/farm work to do, coupled with a decline in the child mortality rate because of medical improvements. This could have been a great time for fathers because of the amount of time that was freed up to spend with their children. But sadly, World War I added a few hiccups to this development and many father were again forced to leave home to go fight in the war. Another major influence on the amount of time fathers had at home was the automobile boom, which allowed opportunities to travel further away for work. But then things took a turn for the worse as the Great Depression struck the nation and millions of fathers lost their jobs. This severely impacted the collective self-esteem of men around the country, but also caused a new way of thinking in terms of gender roles. Suddenly women were the primary breadwinners because the types of jobs they were doing were less impacted. And so the roles of fathers began to shift during this period. Mothers in the workforce had swapped places with men who found themselves home doing “women’s work”…and discovering that it was not as simple as they’d believed. Fathers After WWII In a study of World War II veteran fathers, it was noted that ideas of parental functions fell roughly into two categories: traditional and conceptual. Traditional concepts included making sure that children were clean, groomed, well-behaved, and respectful. These traditional concepts hearkened back to the virtues that parents had carefully tended in their children over the previous few generations. But beyond these were more subjective concepts, which included developing self-esteem as well as encouraging self-reliance, social interaction, and citizenship. Interestingly, it also put a new onus on the parent — to be a happy, positive person for the sake of their children’s wellbeing. It was no longer enough to simply tell children what to do. Another interesting correlation discovered during the study was that the more skilled in their trade a father was, the more they focused on the subjective concept areas. The better off a father was financially, the more concerned he was about ensuring his children were ready to fulfill a higher place in society. And in general, fathers felt they were more responsible for this conceptual development, whereas the mothers’ roles were to tend to the basic traditional areas. Fathers were participating more in the lives and development of their children, but there were still large distinctions regarding who was in charge of what aspects. There was still a highly strategic element to how fathers approached parenting, and how they wanted to mold their progeny and shape their futures. Following the so-called beatnik era of the 1950s, the nation soon faced yet another turbulent time. The 1960s saw major cultural and political shifts that impacted fatherhood tremendously. The post-WWII baby boom had led to a suburb boom as well, leading to many families moving out of the cities. This was a setback for women wanting to be involved in the burgeoning feminist movement, because now they were boxed in to cookie-cutter communities. Nevertheless, these subversive ideas were reaching stay-at-home moms, ensuring the topic was kept alive and well. However, the exploration of parental equality was delayed yet again as the Vietnam War escalated, causing hundreds of thousands of men to be shipped off to Southeast Asia. Many who returned home were never the same, and the poor treatment they received back in their hometowns made matters even worse. Anti-military sentiment ran high as the youthful counter-culture movement went into full swing. It was a bad decade for GI fathers who either had to postpone having children, missed years of the lives of their children, or ended up getting divorced. And as mentioned, the fathers who deployed weren’t always the same fathers who came back. Before the term Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder was coined, all too many Vietnam Vets and their families were experiencing it without having learned the necessary coping mechanisms. Meanwhile, fathers who weren’t drafted were segmented into categories of right and left, a political division which still impacts the values fathers teach and raise their children with to this day. Fatherhood by 1999 With the Vietnam Era in America’s rearview mirror, fathers had a chance to evolve rapidly, from the hypersexualized ‘70s through the neon-drenched 1980s and into the closing years of the millennium. This was a period of reasonable economic stability, as the Cold War came and vanished and the country was able to avoid any major wars. Fathers were increasingly able to spend more time at home, participating in their children’s lives in new ways while setting up new expectations. The future looked bright. Art and creativity were bursting at the same time technology was on the rise. More and more, children were presented with the idea that they could grow up to be anything they wanted, whether it was a computer programmer or a television celebrity. Not all fathers bought into this line of thinking, but many did because they had experienced it themselves. A strong middle class coupled with the advent of the Internet made the world seem more and more accessible. Fathers didn’t have to settle for hoping their children would have a better life than they’d had, or to worry about preparing them to replace their parents as breadwinners. This allowed for some relaxation of discipline as children began to develop more freedom and a voice of their own at the dinner table. Fatherhood in the 21st Century Skip ahead to the end of the 2010s, and fathers find themselves in a world where gender equality is becoming less of a concept and more of a reality. Men are not expected to be the sole income earner and women are staying at home less and less. Indeed, couples increasingly swap traditional roles, allowing fathers to stay at home, get the children up and ready for school, run them around to their various daily activities, stay involved in PTA meetings, and do their share of laundry, grocery shopping, and meal prep. The increasing fluidity of the traditional functions and assignments of child-rearing allows for more flexibility in terms of who manages the subjective parenting concepts as well. Parents are able to work together as a team more than ever before. Modern life has allowed children to be children longer, but it has also allowed fathers to retain childlike characteristics as well. We modern men behave differently than our grandfathers and great-grandfathers. We are more free to be playful, more confident to show emotions, more considerate of our own feelings. Men are also more likely to obsess over things such as movies or video games which once were considered the sole domain of children. This can be viewed as positive, considering that it helps bridge the gap between what we and our own children take an interest in. In fact, with the rise of YouTube we see tons of homemade videos of fathers engaging with their children in shared hobbies. Meanwhile, children feel more empowered by their parents to explore entrepreneurial ideas, unencumbered by strict rules of what’s allowable according to the stern expectations of the patriarch. What does this all mean for the modern father? Are there downsides to any of this? There can be. The fact that the boundaries between adult and child are growing smaller does not mean fathers may allow their children to run free and undisciplined. We fathers still have many obligations to fulfill to take care of our children and ensure they grow up right. We must be there, with all our hats, ready to serve as a role model, teacher, mentor, counselor, and now, perhaps more than ever in our history, as a friend they can trust. Fatherhood has changed over the years, but that doesn’t mean it’s any easier. It just happens to be a lot more fun.	2,265	ENGLISH	1
\|← The United States and Global Genocide\|\|Effects of British Occupation of Egypt in 1882 →\| For the longest time in history, the slave trade was one of the largest activities in America and Europe. Thousands of enslaved Africans were being ferried across the sea, seemingly aware of the hardships and torture that awaited them. Fortunately, by the beginning of 1800, several moral crusades against slavery and the slave trade had been lobbied by various abolitionists across Europe. Although it took several decades to fully abolish the slave trade and declare it an illegal trade globally, the end of slavery marked the beginning of humanity. The scars, however, will forever remain, and if history serves us right, many generations to come will be reminded of the harsh consequences of slavery through tales and stories. Pascoe G. Hill in his book Fifty Days on Board a Slave-Vessel provides an unforgettable and chilling account of the lives of slaves on a slave ship and the despicable and inhuman treatment of African slaves. It is through his eyes that the suffering of African slaves comes to light, a revelation and narration that cannot be ignored. He reveals the brutal and bitter truth of slavery, locking it into a narrative of personal experiences and observations. Through Fifty Days on Board a Slave-Vessel, fear of the known rather than fear of the unknown becomes clearer as well as the truth that will haunt mankind forever into existence. Today, people understand the magnitude of suffering that befell African slaves during the period of the slave trade through the eyes of Hill. Far away from the slave trade, over more than a hundred years now, the slave trade from a safer distance in time is examined. However, as Hill experienced real-time suffering of human beings, together readers feel the same suffering and pain of the enslaved Africans through his book. The author’s testimony has no probable agenda; it is simply a narration of what he witnessed aboard the slave ship, hopeful that keeping an account of such dehumanizing and brutal treatment will be a constant reminder that the slave trade is intolerable evil and beyond any level of human understanding. These were the sounds of anguish and shrieks of the agony of the suffering enslaved Africans at the gloom of night, towering above the sounds of waves and the wind that gave Hill endless and countless nights without sleep. Pascoe G. Hill was serving aboard a slave ship as a doctor. It was during this service that he witnessed the brutal and terrifying suffering of Africans in slavery. Although during this period, several nations such as Britain and America had taken significant steps to prohibit the slave trade, slavery was still a booming activity along the African coast. Often, suspected slave ships along the African coast that were tempting to cross over to America or Britain were seized, and the ships were confiscated. The human cargo found would then be sent back to its original destination in Africa. This did much to pull down the curtain over the overseas commercial trade of slaves to some extent. Hill was aboard a slave ship on a voyage from Brazil in Rio Jenero to South Africa en route Mozambique. In his narration, he describes most of his experiences in Mozambique and aboard the ship. Hill describes the slave ship as overly crowded by slaves who were crammed into all available spaces and corners. With little space to share, most slaves sat close to each other, while some were sitting between each other’s legs making it impossible to lie down or shift positions all day and night. The conditions were wretched and inhuman; men, women and even children were unfed, denied freedom of movement and greatly overworked within the slave ship. The inhuman treatment was quite sickening for all conscious, but Hill admits that slave traders were far from being conscious as the drive for greed and money certainly flashed out any humanity they had. How does Hill Portray Africans in Africa? Hill gives a portrait of people who were in dire need of civilization. Africans seemed to lag behind in every aspect of development compared with the Americans or even the Brazilians. This aspect largely influenced the growth of African slavery by the time the White men came to Africa. The value of life was also poorly regarded by Africans during this period. Most of the black merchants enslaved their fellow men, bidding them to the highest bidder without an ounce of guilt. Additionally, Africans were poor and uneducated. They lacked any sort of skills and expertise to march with the white men who were assumed to be better off in terms of social status and power. Poverty was especially widespread among many African homes. Food was scarce and with an increasing population, hardships became a reality for many Africans. Nevertheless, Hill also portrays Africans as a hard-working community of people who endured more than they deserved. Africans are seen from the book to be tough; they survived the harshest living and working conditions and showed exemplary zeal to get through every situation. For some Africans such as the black merchants, who were largely engrossed in the slave trade, greed for money and power was evident, and slavery became their means of prosperity. Moreover, Africans were considered to lack a definite culture, and there was little written history that could define the African community and give them an identity. Lack of this essential element of life left many Africans with no sense of identity or principles to stand their ground and easily fell into the trap of slavery out of desperation. Compare and Contrast Hill’s Observation about the System of Enslavement in Brazil with What You Know About American Slavery America and Brazil are among two the most populous nations located in the Western hemisphere. The two countries undoubtedly provide detailed and reliable background similarities and contrast on the discussion of the slave trade. Hill in his book describes his observation of the Brazilian slavery system revealing a significant amount of similarities compared to the previous American slavery systems. According to Hill, the Brazilian slavery system was set aside for a section of a stable and well off the class of people in the society who were only allowed to trade in slavery. Similarly, slavery in America was categorized as a particular class of people in society. Despite the absence of extensive and large plantations in the Caribbean, slavery in both countries was carried out depending on social classes. Both countries experienced a vital increase in the population of African Americans. With the increased number of slaves that the Caribbean was shipping in, more and more people of the African descent seemed to be taking a larger percentage of the population. Although America only took 4% of slaves from Africa and the Caribbean took over 40 %, the number of African Americans that were in the United States also became a significant threat to the white people. Thus, in order to control the increased number of African slaves, both systems resolved to inhuman treatment of African slaves, underfeeding and overloading them with work to ensure that they were emaciated and too weak to rebel. In addition, family units were discouraged and torn apart as a way of preventing crowding of Africans that would lead to upheavals. Racial discrimination was also evident as a way of under grading Africans. Brazilians were more tolerant of blacks although skin color was an essential factor in terms of economic and social status. Such systems were generated as a way of keeping slaves at bay especially after both countries witnessed tremendous rebellion from slaves. In contrast, the American system of slavery was abolished early enough, and the slave trade was declared illegal both within the United States and the regions surrounding the nation. Brazilians continued the slave trade for over twenty more years after it was abolished in America. The Caribbean slave trade focused on the African Coast and imported human cargo to Brazil to work on plantations and in emerging industries. Unlike the American system, the Caribbean system was evidently more inhuman especially considering that slavery had been abolished by most countries. Hill describes the treatment of Negros at the coast of Mozambique as horribly exaggerated and worse than anything he had seen before. Finally, in 1888, the Brazilian slave system was abolished, and it was the last country to do so in the western hemisphere. How Do those who Are Enslaved Aboard the Progressa (the ship) Feel about Being Enslaved? How Can We Know? In his testimony, Hill describes faces of the enslaved Africans as those of sheer anguish and sorrow. Many of the slaves seemed lifeless. Guilt and shame were visible among these slaves with many feeling lonely and unworthy. Hill confesses to having attended many of the auctions that took place, where slaves were traded off to the highest bidder. He describes ‘a sullenness of look’ on every slave’s face that stood to be viewed by their potential buyers. He terms it as a look of degradation and shame to be put up for sale and owned by another human being. Slaves were greatly affected by the inhuman treatment abroad in the Progressa. A great number of times that some staged rebellion against their masters is an indication of being tired of their suffering. Some slaves simply ran away once they got a certain chance to escape, and advertisements were all over for the capture of such slaves. Others committed suicide when the suffering became unbearable. This is enough evidence to prove that slaves wanted to be freed, and most of them just wanted to reunite with their families. What Challenges Do They Face once They Are Liberated by the British? According to Hill, liberation from the Brazilian slave traders by the British was equally a challenging occasion for the freed slaves. Many of them had been long separated from their families especially the young ones and did not have anywhere to go. The freed slaves suffered from horrific illnesses such as smallpox and cholera and other rampant diseases that mainly affected them. A large number of them died from starvation since they did not have a source of income to survive. With the liberation of many slaves, unions that had been created to assist the slaves started pulling back for fear of a crisis due to the large number of slaves that needed help. This further increased the death of hundreds of slaves who had been liberated. Moreover, discrimination of the black people was rapid, and access to health care and other necessary amenities was virtually impossible. They were provided with overcrowded camps that were used by the British soldiers and were no better than the prison pens they had been kept in previously. What Are the Obstacles, in Hill's View, to Ending the Trade in African Slaves in 1843? The curtains came down in 1843, and most slave traders were obliged to set the slaves free. However, several obstacles were present that Hill considered as significant enough to affect the successful abolition of the trade. The main obstacle was the level of impunity that permitted slave traders to carry on with their usual business of human trafficking. Slavery had been labeled as a crime; however, slave traders faced little or no penalties when committing this crime hence all efforts to abolish slavery were in vain. In addition, a far bigger problem laid in the motives of slave traders. The fact that they had little or no consideration for human life was a disturbing notion. Hill relates that lack of compassion for the life of the Negroes aboard the Progresso was a revelation that slave traders would only make a mockery of laws and treaties by other nations that aimed at ending the slave trade. Hill brings out a whole new account of first-hand experiences aboard a slave ship. It is a testimony that gives readers a further confirmation of the suffering and horrific experiences of the African slaves in 1800 during slavery. The author has managed to capture the appalling and brutal conditions of slave ships and the lengths of inhumanity that the slave trade had become. In his own conclusion of the book, Hill remarks that although he has taken the first step in highlighting the suffering of the African slaves, the slave trade is a deeply rooted evil that only strictly enforced measures that could pull it out of the society. Fifty Days on Board a Slave-Vessel is a vital book that gives shape to the slave trade over a hundred years ago and various social dilemmas faced by society in today’s social relations. - Effects of British Occupation of Egypt in 1882 - History-Women's Suffrage - The United States and Global Genocide - Civil Rights Movement	<urn:uuid:79e0b1f1-5981-4e75-b347-b61e7b10db16>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://bestessaywriters.org/essays/history/fifty-days-on-board-a-slave-vessel.html	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251672537.90/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125131641-20200125160641-00091.warc.gz	en	0.982979	2,452	3.34375	3	[ -0.13873142004013062, 0.6053493022918701, 0.654271125793457, 0.0698801577091217, -0.14585793018341064, -0.19958679378032684, 0.03511345386505127, -0.3357585370540619, 0.02401452139019966, 0.01883828639984131, 0.37109047174453735, -0.19402718544006348, -0.32214000821113586, 0.39702278375625...	1	\|← The United States and Global Genocide\|\|Effects of British Occupation of Egypt in 1882 →\| For the longest time in history, the slave trade was one of the largest activities in America and Europe. Thousands of enslaved Africans were being ferried across the sea, seemingly aware of the hardships and torture that awaited them. Fortunately, by the beginning of 1800, several moral crusades against slavery and the slave trade had been lobbied by various abolitionists across Europe. Although it took several decades to fully abolish the slave trade and declare it an illegal trade globally, the end of slavery marked the beginning of humanity. The scars, however, will forever remain, and if history serves us right, many generations to come will be reminded of the harsh consequences of slavery through tales and stories. Pascoe G. Hill in his book Fifty Days on Board a Slave-Vessel provides an unforgettable and chilling account of the lives of slaves on a slave ship and the despicable and inhuman treatment of African slaves. It is through his eyes that the suffering of African slaves comes to light, a revelation and narration that cannot be ignored. He reveals the brutal and bitter truth of slavery, locking it into a narrative of personal experiences and observations. Through Fifty Days on Board a Slave-Vessel, fear of the known rather than fear of the unknown becomes clearer as well as the truth that will haunt mankind forever into existence. Today, people understand the magnitude of suffering that befell African slaves during the period of the slave trade through the eyes of Hill. Far away from the slave trade, over more than a hundred years now, the slave trade from a safer distance in time is examined. However, as Hill experienced real-time suffering of human beings, together readers feel the same suffering and pain of the enslaved Africans through his book. The author’s testimony has no probable agenda; it is simply a narration of what he witnessed aboard the slave ship, hopeful that keeping an account of such dehumanizing and brutal treatment will be a constant reminder that the slave trade is intolerable evil and beyond any level of human understanding. These were the sounds of anguish and shrieks of the agony of the suffering enslaved Africans at the gloom of night, towering above the sounds of waves and the wind that gave Hill endless and countless nights without sleep. Pascoe G. Hill was serving aboard a slave ship as a doctor. It was during this service that he witnessed the brutal and terrifying suffering of Africans in slavery. Although during this period, several nations such as Britain and America had taken significant steps to prohibit the slave trade, slavery was still a booming activity along the African coast. Often, suspected slave ships along the African coast that were tempting to cross over to America or Britain were seized, and the ships were confiscated. The human cargo found would then be sent back to its original destination in Africa. This did much to pull down the curtain over the overseas commercial trade of slaves to some extent. Hill was aboard a slave ship on a voyage from Brazil in Rio Jenero to South Africa en route Mozambique. In his narration, he describes most of his experiences in Mozambique and aboard the ship. Hill describes the slave ship as overly crowded by slaves who were crammed into all available spaces and corners. With little space to share, most slaves sat close to each other, while some were sitting between each other’s legs making it impossible to lie down or shift positions all day and night. The conditions were wretched and inhuman; men, women and even children were unfed, denied freedom of movement and greatly overworked within the slave ship. The inhuman treatment was quite sickening for all conscious, but Hill admits that slave traders were far from being conscious as the drive for greed and money certainly flashed out any humanity they had. How does Hill Portray Africans in Africa? Hill gives a portrait of people who were in dire need of civilization. Africans seemed to lag behind in every aspect of development compared with the Americans or even the Brazilians. This aspect largely influenced the growth of African slavery by the time the White men came to Africa. The value of life was also poorly regarded by Africans during this period. Most of the black merchants enslaved their fellow men, bidding them to the highest bidder without an ounce of guilt. Additionally, Africans were poor and uneducated. They lacked any sort of skills and expertise to march with the white men who were assumed to be better off in terms of social status and power. Poverty was especially widespread among many African homes. Food was scarce and with an increasing population, hardships became a reality for many Africans. Nevertheless, Hill also portrays Africans as a hard-working community of people who endured more than they deserved. Africans are seen from the book to be tough; they survived the harshest living and working conditions and showed exemplary zeal to get through every situation. For some Africans such as the black merchants, who were largely engrossed in the slave trade, greed for money and power was evident, and slavery became their means of prosperity. Moreover, Africans were considered to lack a definite culture, and there was little written history that could define the African community and give them an identity. Lack of this essential element of life left many Africans with no sense of identity or principles to stand their ground and easily fell into the trap of slavery out of desperation. Compare and Contrast Hill’s Observation about the System of Enslavement in Brazil with What You Know About American Slavery America and Brazil are among two the most populous nations located in the Western hemisphere. The two countries undoubtedly provide detailed and reliable background similarities and contrast on the discussion of the slave trade. Hill in his book describes his observation of the Brazilian slavery system revealing a significant amount of similarities compared to the previous American slavery systems. According to Hill, the Brazilian slavery system was set aside for a section of a stable and well off the class of people in the society who were only allowed to trade in slavery. Similarly, slavery in America was categorized as a particular class of people in society. Despite the absence of extensive and large plantations in the Caribbean, slavery in both countries was carried out depending on social classes. Both countries experienced a vital increase in the population of African Americans. With the increased number of slaves that the Caribbean was shipping in, more and more people of the African descent seemed to be taking a larger percentage of the population. Although America only took 4% of slaves from Africa and the Caribbean took over 40 %, the number of African Americans that were in the United States also became a significant threat to the white people. Thus, in order to control the increased number of African slaves, both systems resolved to inhuman treatment of African slaves, underfeeding and overloading them with work to ensure that they were emaciated and too weak to rebel. In addition, family units were discouraged and torn apart as a way of preventing crowding of Africans that would lead to upheavals. Racial discrimination was also evident as a way of under grading Africans. Brazilians were more tolerant of blacks although skin color was an essential factor in terms of economic and social status. Such systems were generated as a way of keeping slaves at bay especially after both countries witnessed tremendous rebellion from slaves. In contrast, the American system of slavery was abolished early enough, and the slave trade was declared illegal both within the United States and the regions surrounding the nation. Brazilians continued the slave trade for over twenty more years after it was abolished in America. The Caribbean slave trade focused on the African Coast and imported human cargo to Brazil to work on plantations and in emerging industries. Unlike the American system, the Caribbean system was evidently more inhuman especially considering that slavery had been abolished by most countries. Hill describes the treatment of Negros at the coast of Mozambique as horribly exaggerated and worse than anything he had seen before. Finally, in 1888, the Brazilian slave system was abolished, and it was the last country to do so in the western hemisphere. How Do those who Are Enslaved Aboard the Progressa (the ship) Feel about Being Enslaved? How Can We Know? In his testimony, Hill describes faces of the enslaved Africans as those of sheer anguish and sorrow. Many of the slaves seemed lifeless. Guilt and shame were visible among these slaves with many feeling lonely and unworthy. Hill confesses to having attended many of the auctions that took place, where slaves were traded off to the highest bidder. He describes ‘a sullenness of look’ on every slave’s face that stood to be viewed by their potential buyers. He terms it as a look of degradation and shame to be put up for sale and owned by another human being. Slaves were greatly affected by the inhuman treatment abroad in the Progressa. A great number of times that some staged rebellion against their masters is an indication of being tired of their suffering. Some slaves simply ran away once they got a certain chance to escape, and advertisements were all over for the capture of such slaves. Others committed suicide when the suffering became unbearable. This is enough evidence to prove that slaves wanted to be freed, and most of them just wanted to reunite with their families. What Challenges Do They Face once They Are Liberated by the British? According to Hill, liberation from the Brazilian slave traders by the British was equally a challenging occasion for the freed slaves. Many of them had been long separated from their families especially the young ones and did not have anywhere to go. The freed slaves suffered from horrific illnesses such as smallpox and cholera and other rampant diseases that mainly affected them. A large number of them died from starvation since they did not have a source of income to survive. With the liberation of many slaves, unions that had been created to assist the slaves started pulling back for fear of a crisis due to the large number of slaves that needed help. This further increased the death of hundreds of slaves who had been liberated. Moreover, discrimination of the black people was rapid, and access to health care and other necessary amenities was virtually impossible. They were provided with overcrowded camps that were used by the British soldiers and were no better than the prison pens they had been kept in previously. What Are the Obstacles, in Hill's View, to Ending the Trade in African Slaves in 1843? The curtains came down in 1843, and most slave traders were obliged to set the slaves free. However, several obstacles were present that Hill considered as significant enough to affect the successful abolition of the trade. The main obstacle was the level of impunity that permitted slave traders to carry on with their usual business of human trafficking. Slavery had been labeled as a crime; however, slave traders faced little or no penalties when committing this crime hence all efforts to abolish slavery were in vain. In addition, a far bigger problem laid in the motives of slave traders. The fact that they had little or no consideration for human life was a disturbing notion. Hill relates that lack of compassion for the life of the Negroes aboard the Progresso was a revelation that slave traders would only make a mockery of laws and treaties by other nations that aimed at ending the slave trade. Hill brings out a whole new account of first-hand experiences aboard a slave ship. It is a testimony that gives readers a further confirmation of the suffering and horrific experiences of the African slaves in 1800 during slavery. The author has managed to capture the appalling and brutal conditions of slave ships and the lengths of inhumanity that the slave trade had become. In his own conclusion of the book, Hill remarks that although he has taken the first step in highlighting the suffering of the African slaves, the slave trade is a deeply rooted evil that only strictly enforced measures that could pull it out of the society. Fifty Days on Board a Slave-Vessel is a vital book that gives shape to the slave trade over a hundred years ago and various social dilemmas faced by society in today’s social relations. - Effects of British Occupation of Egypt in 1882 - History-Women's Suffrage - The United States and Global Genocide - Civil Rights Movement	2,460	ENGLISH	1
How did police departments form? As societies became more urban and cities grew, maintaining security became a major priority for governments. Although threats in the ancient world and late antiquity were seen as external, it was also internal unrest that threatened cities and kingdoms. The development of policing was an important change that allowed cities to become safe enough to grow and prosper, but that history and its origin are complex. In Mesopotamia and Egypt, but the 3rd millennium BCE, local officials appeared to have been tasked with rounding up criminals and bringing them to justice. The appearance of the first law codes during this time suggest crime was prevalent in cities and as urban places grew we begin to see an enforcement body, entrusted to local government officials, in charge with bringing in criminals and others who might have committed given crimes. We learn more about the development of policing from ancient Greece. Although the term "police" derives from Greek origins, the concept of a civil force patrolling a city had not developed yet. Rather, the task of keeping relative calm and security in a city was something that was outsourced to slaves or servants who belonged to given officials. The Scythians were an ethnic group that came from Russia and Central Asia; some of these groups settled in Greece and warriors and slaves from these populations began to be used by city magistrates. The magistrates were responsible in using this force but most likely to also spy on the urban population to help maintain government control. The city of ancient Rome probably had one of the most extensive policing forces, as the city's ancient size may have reached over a million inhabitants. Similar to Greece, magistrates used slaves to patrol and maintain order in Rome. Authority may have been problematic, as slaves were not seen as being able to give binding decisions such as arrested. Slaves, therefore, had to utilize the authority of their magistrates, and assume that their authority had credibility, in order to enforce their actions. However, by the period of Augusts in the late first century BCE and first century CE, the city of Rome developed the so-called vigiles, who acted as a group that were responsible for safety, security, and fire suppression (i.e, acted as a fire department). However, similar to earlier systems, these groups were privately owned slaves. In ancient China, the development of the prefecture system by the mid-first millennium BCE, during the so-called Spring and Autumn period, included prefects given the responsibility with internal security in their regions. They became responsible in raising a force and enforcing an arrests of criminals. During the Tang dynasty, law enforcement became organized into a force called the Gold Bird Guards. This force was responsible in making arrests and was also assisted by citizens. The guards were composed of citizens. In the Medieval period, policing began to emerge from municipalities that faced increasing crime and banditry in areas where kings could not or did not send soldiers or guards to protect citizens. One development during the Anglo-Saxon period and later was the concept of sheriff, a government official in charge of a shire or county. The office derives from a revee, who were officials responsible in a shire for security. Their jobs were to maintain order in shires and security, where in the early Medieval period banditry and raiding were common. During this time, policing was often at local levels such as shires or counties. Local towns would often band together and form groups to protect travelers on roads. The Santa Hermandades were one such group created in Spain who often kept pilgrims and others safe on roads. They were an association of individuals who saw their task was to keep order and security. Protective councils largely maintained the authority and power to protect citizens in many regions throughout Europe.	<urn:uuid:ceabedf8-5403-49c5-8f72-1c08cb7e0834>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://dailyhistory.org/index.php?title=How_did_police_departments_form%3F&oldid=4505	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251671078.88/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125071430-20200125100430-00173.warc.gz	en	0.989312	758	3.984375	4	[ -0.48885470628738403, -0.03756782039999962, 0.41887733340263367, -0.23821863532066345, 0.04133936017751694, -0.16169008612632751, -0.02888135239481926, -0.22121775150299072, -0.22665885090827942, 0.230405792593956, -0.02214265614748001, 0.1772269606590271, -0.0373237282037735, 0.0557664930...	1	How did police departments form? As societies became more urban and cities grew, maintaining security became a major priority for governments. Although threats in the ancient world and late antiquity were seen as external, it was also internal unrest that threatened cities and kingdoms. The development of policing was an important change that allowed cities to become safe enough to grow and prosper, but that history and its origin are complex. In Mesopotamia and Egypt, but the 3rd millennium BCE, local officials appeared to have been tasked with rounding up criminals and bringing them to justice. The appearance of the first law codes during this time suggest crime was prevalent in cities and as urban places grew we begin to see an enforcement body, entrusted to local government officials, in charge with bringing in criminals and others who might have committed given crimes. We learn more about the development of policing from ancient Greece. Although the term "police" derives from Greek origins, the concept of a civil force patrolling a city had not developed yet. Rather, the task of keeping relative calm and security in a city was something that was outsourced to slaves or servants who belonged to given officials. The Scythians were an ethnic group that came from Russia and Central Asia; some of these groups settled in Greece and warriors and slaves from these populations began to be used by city magistrates. The magistrates were responsible in using this force but most likely to also spy on the urban population to help maintain government control. The city of ancient Rome probably had one of the most extensive policing forces, as the city's ancient size may have reached over a million inhabitants. Similar to Greece, magistrates used slaves to patrol and maintain order in Rome. Authority may have been problematic, as slaves were not seen as being able to give binding decisions such as arrested. Slaves, therefore, had to utilize the authority of their magistrates, and assume that their authority had credibility, in order to enforce their actions. However, by the period of Augusts in the late first century BCE and first century CE, the city of Rome developed the so-called vigiles, who acted as a group that were responsible for safety, security, and fire suppression (i.e, acted as a fire department). However, similar to earlier systems, these groups were privately owned slaves. In ancient China, the development of the prefecture system by the mid-first millennium BCE, during the so-called Spring and Autumn period, included prefects given the responsibility with internal security in their regions. They became responsible in raising a force and enforcing an arrests of criminals. During the Tang dynasty, law enforcement became organized into a force called the Gold Bird Guards. This force was responsible in making arrests and was also assisted by citizens. The guards were composed of citizens. In the Medieval period, policing began to emerge from municipalities that faced increasing crime and banditry in areas where kings could not or did not send soldiers or guards to protect citizens. One development during the Anglo-Saxon period and later was the concept of sheriff, a government official in charge of a shire or county. The office derives from a revee, who were officials responsible in a shire for security. Their jobs were to maintain order in shires and security, where in the early Medieval period banditry and raiding were common. During this time, policing was often at local levels such as shires or counties. Local towns would often band together and form groups to protect travelers on roads. The Santa Hermandades were one such group created in Spain who often kept pilgrims and others safe on roads. They were an association of individuals who saw their task was to keep order and security. Protective councils largely maintained the authority and power to protect citizens in many regions throughout Europe.	753	ENGLISH	1
William Butler Yeats[a] (13 June 1865 – 28 January 1939) was an Irish poet and one of the foremost figures of 20th-century literature. A pillar of the Irish literary establishment, he helped to found the Abbey Theatre, and in his later years served two terms as a Senator of the Irish Free State. He was a driving force behind the Irish Literary Revival along with Lady Gregory, Edward Martyn and others. Yeats was born in Sandymount, Ireland and educated there and in London. He spent childhood holidays in County Sligo and studied poetry from an early age when he became fascinated by Irish legends and the occult. These topics feature in the first phase of his work, which lasted roughly until the turn of the 20th century. His earliest volume of verse was published in 1889, and its slow-paced and lyrical poems display debts to Edmund Spenser, Percy Bysshe Shelley, and the poets of the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood. From 1900, his poetry grew more physical and realistic. He largely renounced the transcendental beliefs of his youth, though he remained preoccupied with physical and spiritual masks, as well as with cyclical theories of life. In 1923, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature. William Butler Yeats was born in Sandymount in County Dublin, Ireland. His father, John Butler Yeats (1839–1922), was a descendant of Jervis Yeats, a Williamite soldier, linen merchant, and well-known painter who died in 1712. Benjamin Yeats, Jervis's grandson and William's great-great-grandfather, had in 1773 married Mary Butler of a landed family in County Kildare. Following their marriage, they kept the name Butler. Mary was of the Butler of Neigham (pronounced Nyam) Gowran family, descended from an illegitimate brother of the 8th Earl of Ormond. By his marriage, William's father John Yeats was studying law but abandoned his studies to study art at Heatherley School of Fine Art in London. His mother, Susan Mary Pollexfen, came from a wealthy merchant family in Sligo, who owned a milling and shipping business. Soon after William's birth, the family relocated to the Pollexfen home at Merville, Sligo to stay with her extended family, and the young poet came to think of the area as his childhood and spiritual home. Its landscape became, over time, both literally and symbolically, his "country of the heart". So also did its location on the sea; John Yeats stated that "by marriage with a Pollexfen, we have given a tongue to the sea cliffs". The Butler Yeats family were highly artistic; his brother Jack became an esteemed painter, while his sisters Elizabeth and Susan Mary—known to family and friends as Lollie and Lily—became involved in the Arts and Crafts movement. Yeats was raised a member of the Protestant Ascendancy, which was at the time undergoing a crisis of identity. While his family was broadly supportive of the changes Ireland was experiencing, the nationalist revival of the late 19th century directly disadvantaged his heritage and informed his outlook for the remainder of his life. In 1997, his biographer R. F. Foster observed that Napoleon's dictum that to understand the man you have to know what was happening in the world when he was twenty "is manifestly true of W.B.Y." Yeats's childhood and young adulthood were shadowed by the power-shift away from the minority Protestant Ascendancy. The 1880s saw the rise of Charles Stewart Parnell and the home rule movement; the 1890s saw the momentum of nationalism, while the Catholics became prominent around the turn of the century. These developments had a profound effect on his poetry, and his subsequent explorations of Irish identity had a significant influence on the creation of his country's biography. In 1867, the family moved to England to aid their father, John, to further his career as an artist. At first, the Yeats children were educated at home. Their mother entertained them with stories and Irish folktales. John provided an erratic education in geography and chemistry and took William on natural history explorations of the nearby Slough countryside. On 26 January 1877, the young poet entered the Godolphin school, which he attended for four years. He did not distinguish himself academically, and an early school report describes his performance as "only fair. Perhaps better in Latin than in any other subject. Very poor in spelling". Though he had difficulty with mathematics and languages (possibly because he was tone deaf), he was fascinated by biology and zoology. In 1879 the family moved to Bedford Park taking a two-year lease on 8 Woodstock Road. For financial reasons, the family returned to Dublin toward the end of 1880, living at first in the suburbs of Harold's Cross and later Howth. In October 1881, Yeats resumed his education at Dublin's Erasmus Smith High School. His father's studio was nearby and William spent a great deal of time there, where he met many of the city's artists and writers. During this period he started writing poetry, and, in 1885, the Dublin University Review published Yeats's first poems, as well as an essay entitled "The Poetry of Sir Samuel Ferguson". Between 1884 and 1886, William attended the Metropolitan School of Art—now the National College of Art and Design—in Thomas Street. In March 1888 the family moved to 3 Blenheim Road in Bedford Park. The rent on the house was £50 a year. He began writing his first works when he was seventeen; these included a poem—heavily influenced by Percy Bysshe Shelley—that describes a magician who set up a throne in central Asia. Other pieces from this period include a draft of a play about a bishop, a monk, and a woman accused of paganism by local shepherds, as well as love-poems and narrative lyrics on German knights. The early works were both conventional and, according to the critic Charles Johnston, "utterly unIrish", seeming to come out of a "vast murmurous gloom of dreams". Although Yeats's early works drew heavily on Shelley, Edmund Spenser, and on the diction and colouring of pre-Raphaelite verse, he soon turned to Irish mythology and folklore and the writings of William Blake. In later life, Yeats paid tribute to Blake by describing him as one of the "great artificers of God who uttered great truths to a little clan". In 1891, Yeats published John Sherman and "Dhoya", one a novella, the other a story. The influence of Oscar Wilde is evident in Yeats's theory of aesthetics, especially in his stage plays, and runs like a motif through his early works. The theory of masks, developed by Wilde in his polemic The Decay of Lying can clearly be seen in Yeats's play The Player Queen, while the more sensual characterisation of Salomé, in Wilde's play of the same name, provides the template for the changes Yeats made in his later plays, especially in On Baile's Strand (1904), Deirdre (1907), and his dance play The King of the Great Clock Tower (1934). The family returned to London in 1887. In March 1890 Yeats joined the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, and with Ernest Rhys co-founded the Rhymers' Club, a group of London-based poets who met regularly in a Fleet Street tavern to recite their verse. Yeats later sought to mythologize the collective, calling it the "Tragic Generation" in his autobiography, and published two anthologies of the Rhymers' work, the first one in 1892 and the second one in 1894. He collaborated with Edwin Ellis on the first complete edition of William Blake's works, in the process rediscovering a forgotten poem, "Vala, or, the Four Zoas". Yeats had a lifelong interest in mysticism, spiritualism, occultism and astrology. He read extensively on the subjects throughout his life, became a member of the paranormal research organisation "The Ghost Club" (in 1911) and was especially influenced by the writings of Emanuel Swedenborg. As early as 1892, he wrote: "If I had not made magic my constant study I could not have written a single word of my Blake book, nor would The Countess Kathleen ever have come to exist. The mystical life is the centre of all that I do and all that I think and all that I write." His mystical interests—also inspired by a study of Hinduism, under the Theosophist Mohini Chatterjee, and the occult—formed much of the basis of his late poetry. Some critics disparaged this aspect of Yeats's work. His first significant poem was "The Island of Statues", a fantasy work that took Edmund Spenser and Shelley for its poetic models. The piece was serialized in the Dublin University Review. Yeats wished to include it in his first collection, but it was deemed too long, and in fact, was never republished in his lifetime. Quinx Books published the poem in complete form for the first time in 2014. His first solo publication was the pamphlet Mosada: A Dramatic Poem (1886), which comprised a print run of 100 copies paid for by his father. This was followed by the collection The Wanderings of Oisin and Other Poems (1889), which arranged a series of verse that dated as far back as the mid-1880s. The long title poem contains, in the words of his biographer R. F. Foster, "obscure Gaelic names, striking repetitions [and] an unremitting rhythm subtly varied as the poem proceeded through its three sections": We rode in sorrow, with strong hounds three, Bran, Sceolan, and Lomair, On a morning misty and mild and fair. The mist-drops hung on the fragrant trees, And in the blossoms hung the bees. We rode in sadness above Lough Lean, For our best were dead on Gavra's green. "The Wanderings of Oisin" is based on the lyrics of the Fenian Cycle of Irish mythology and displays the influence of both Sir Samuel Ferguson and the Pre-Raphaelite poets. The poem took two years to complete and was one of the few works from this period that he did not disown in his maturity. Oisin introduces what was to become one of his most important themes: the appeal of the life of contemplation over the appeal of the life of action. Following the work, Yeats never again attempted another long poem. His other early poems, which are meditations on the themes of love or mystical and esoteric subjects, include Poems (1895), The Secret Rose (1897), and The Wind Among the Reeds (1899). The covers of these volumes were illustrated by Yeats's friend Althea Gyles. During 1885, Yeats was involved in the formation of the Dublin Hermetic Order. The society held its first meeting on 16 June, with Yeats acting as its chairman. The same year, the Dublin Theosophical lodge was opened in conjunction with Brahmin Mohini Chatterjee, who travelled from the Theosophical Society in London to lecture. Yeats attended his first séance the following year. He later became heavily involved with the Theosophy and with hermeticism, particularly with the eclectic Rosicrucianism of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. During séances held from 1912, a spirit calling itself "Leo Africanus" apparently claimed it was Yeats's Daemon or anti-self, inspiring some of the speculations in Per Amica Silentia Lunae. He was admitted into the Golden Dawn in March 1890 and took the magical motto Daemon est Deus inversus—translated as 'Devil is God inverted'.[b] He was an active recruiter for the sect's Isis-Urania Temple, and brought in his uncle George Pollexfen, Maud Gonne, and Florence Farr. Although he reserved a distaste for abstract and dogmatic religions founded around personality cults, he was attracted to the type of people he met at the Golden Dawn. He was involved in the Order's power struggles, both with Farr and Macgregor Mathers, and was involved when Mathers sent Aleister Crowley to repossess Golden Dawn paraphernalia during the "Battle of Blythe Road". After the Golden Dawn ceased and splintered into various offshoots, Yeats remained with the Stella Matutina until 1921. In 1889, Yeats met Maud Gonne, a 23-year-old English heiress and ardent Irish Nationalist.[c] She was eighteen months younger than Yeats and later claimed she met the poet as a "paint-stained art student." Gonne admired "The Island of Statues" and sought out his acquaintance. Yeats began an obsessive infatuation, and she had a significant and lasting effect on his poetry and his life thereafter. In later years he admitted, "it seems to me that she [Gonne] brought into my life those days—for as yet I saw only what lay upon the surface—the middle of the tint, a sound as of a Burmese gong, an over-powering tumult that had yet many pleasant secondary notes." Yeats's love was unrequited, in part due to his reluctance to participate in her nationalist activism. In 1891 he visited Gonne in Ireland and proposed marriage, but was rejected. He later admitted that from that point "the troubling of my life began". Yeats proposed to Gonne three more times: in 1899, 1900 and 1901. She refused each proposal, and in 1903, to his dismay, married the Irish nationalist Major John MacBride. His only other love affair during this period was with Olivia Shakespear, whom he first met in 1894, and parted from in 1897. Yeats derided MacBride in letters and in poetry. He was horrified by Gonne's marriage, at losing his muse to another man; in addition, her conversion to Catholicism before marriage offended him; Yeats was Protestant/agnostic. He worried his muse would come under the influence of the priests and do their bidding. Gonne's marriage to MacBride was a disaster. This pleased Yeats, as Gonne began to visit him in London. After the birth of her son, Seán MacBride, in 1904, Gonne and MacBride agreed to end the marriage, although they were unable to agree on the child's welfare. Despite the use of intermediaries, a divorce case ensued in Paris in 1905. Gonne made a series of allegations against her husband with Yeats as her main 'second', though he did not attend court or travel to France. A divorce was not granted, for the only accusation that held up in court was that MacBride had been drunk once during the marriage. A separation was granted, with Gonne having custody of the baby and MacBride having visiting rights. Yeats's friendship with Gonne ended, yet, in Paris in 1908, they finally consummated their relationship. "The long years of fidelity rewarded at last" was how another of his lovers described the event. Yeats was less sentimental and later remarked that "the tragedy of sexual intercourse is the perpetual virginity of the soul." The relationship did not develop into a new phase after their night together, and soon afterwards Gonne wrote to the poet indicating that despite the physical consummation, they could not continue as they had been: "I have prayed so hard to have all earthly desire taken from my love for you and dearest, loving you as I do, I have prayed and I am praying still that the bodily desire for me may be taken from you too." By January 1909, Gonne was sending Yeats letters praising the advantage given to artists who abstain from sex. Nearly twenty years later, Yeats recalled the night with Gonne in his poem "A Man Young and Old": My arms are like the twisted thorn And yet there beauty lay; The first of all the tribe lay there And did such pleasure take; She who had brought great Hector down And put all Troy to wreck. In 1896, Yeats was introduced to Lady Gregory by their mutual friend Edward Martyn. Gregory encouraged Yeats's nationalism and convinced him to continue focusing on writing drama. Although he was influenced by French Symbolism, Yeats concentrated on an identifiably Irish content and this inclination was reinforced by his involvement with a new generation of younger and emerging Irish authors. Together with Lady Gregory, Martyn, and other writers including J. M. Synge, Seán O'Casey, and Padraic Colum, Yeats was one of those responsible for the establishment of the "Irish Literary Revival" movement. Apart from these creative writers, much of the impetus for the Revival came from the work of scholarly translators who were aiding in the discovery of both the ancient sagas and Ossianic poetry and the more recent folk song tradition in Irish. One of the most significant of these was Douglas Hyde, later the first President of Ireland, whose Love Songs of Connacht was widely admired. In 1899, Yeats, Lady Gregory, Edward Martyn and George Moore began the Irish Literary Theatre to present Irish plays. The ideals of the Abbey were derived from the avant-garde French theatre, which sought to express the "ascendancy of the playwright rather than the actor-manager à l'anglais." The group's manifesto, which Yeats wrote, declared, "We hope to find in Ireland an uncorrupted & imaginative audience trained to listen by its passion for oratory ... & that freedom to experiment which is not found in the theatres of England, & without which no new movement in art or literature can succeed." The collective survived for about two years but was not successful. Working with two Irish brothers with theatrical experience, William and Frank Fay, Yeats's unpaid yet independently wealthy secretary Annie Horniman, and the leading West End actress Florence Farr, the group established the Irish National Theatre Society. Along with Synge, they acquired property in Dublin and on 27 December 1904 opened the Abbey Theatre. Yeats's play Cathleen ni Houlihan and Lady Gregory's Spreading the News were featured on the opening night. Yeats remained involved with the Abbey until his death, both as a member of the board and a prolific playwright. In 1902, he helped set up the Dun Emer Press to publish work by writers associated with the Revival. This became the Cuala Press in 1904, and inspired by the Arts and Crafts Movement, sought to "find work for Irish hands in the making of beautiful things." From then until its closure in 1946, the press—which was run by the poet's sisters—produced over 70 titles; 48 of them books by Yeats himself. Yeats met the American poet Ezra Pound in 1909. Pound had travelled to London at least partly to meet the older man, whom he considered "the only poet worthy of serious study." From that year until 1916, the two men wintered in the Stone Cottage at Ashdown Forest, with Pound nominally acting as Yeats's secretary. The relationship got off to a rocky start when Pound arranged for the publication in the magazine Poetry of some of Yeats's verse with Pound's own unauthorised alterations. These changes reflected Pound's distaste for Victorian prosody. A more indirect influence was the scholarship on Japanese Noh plays that Pound had obtained from Ernest Fenollosa's widow, which provided Yeats with a model for the aristocratic drama he intended to write. The first of his plays modelled on Noh was At the Hawk's Well, the first draft of which he dictated to Pound in January 1916. The emergence of a nationalist revolutionary movement from the ranks of the mostly Roman Catholic lower-middle and working class made Yeats reassess some of his attitudes. In the refrain of "Easter, 1916" ("All changed, changed utterly / A terrible beauty is born"), Yeats faces his own failure to recognise the merits of the leaders of the Easter Rising, due to his attitude towards their ordinary backgrounds and lives. Yeats was close to Lady Gregory and her home place of Coole Park, Co, Galway. He would often visit and stay there as it was a central meeting place for people who supported the resurgence of Irish literature and cultural traditions. His poem, "The Wild Swans at Coole" was written there, between 1916 and 1917. He wrote prefaces for two books of Irish mythological tales, compiled by Augusta, Lady Gregory: Cuchulain of Muirthemne (1902), and Gods and Fighting Men (1904). In the preface of the latter, he wrote: "One must not expect in these stories the epic lineaments, the many incidents, woven into one great event of, let us say the War for the Brown Bull of Cuailgne or that of the last gathering at Muirthemne." Yeats was an Irish Nationalist, who sought a kind of traditional lifestyle articulated through poems such as 'The Fisherman'. However, as his life progressed, he sheltered much of his revolutionary spirit and distanced himself from the intense political landscape until 1922, when he was appointed Senator for the Irish Free State. In the earlier part of his life, Yeats was a member of the Irish Republican Brotherhood. Due to the escalating tension of the political scene, Yeats distanced himself from the core political activism in the midst of the Easter Rising, even holding back his poetry inspired by the events until 1920. In the 1930s Yeats was fascinated with the authoritarian, anti-democratic, nationalist movements of Europe, and he composed several marching songs for the Blueshirts, although they were never used. He was a fierce opponent of individualism and political liberalism and saw the fascist movements as a triumph of public order and the needs of the national collective over petty individualism. On the other hand, he was also an elitist who abhorred the idea of mob-rule, and saw democracy as a threat to good governance and public order. After the Blueshirt movement began to falter in Ireland, he distanced himself somewhat from his previous views, but maintained a preference for authoritarian and nationalist leadership. D. P. Moran called him a minor poet and "crypto-Protestant conman." By 1916, Yeats was 51 years old and determined to marry and produce an heir. His rival John MacBride had been executed for his role in the 1916 Easter Rising, so Yeats hoped that his widow might remarry. His final proposal to Maud Gonne took place in mid-1916. Gonne's history of revolutionary political activism, as well as a series of personal catastrophes in the previous few years of her life—including chloroform addiction and her troubled marriage to MacBride—made her a potentially unsuitable wife; biographer R. F. Foster has observed that Yeats's last offer was motivated more by a sense of duty than by a genuine desire to marry her. Yeats proposed in an indifferent manner, with conditions attached, and he both expected and hoped she would turn him down. According to Foster, "when he duly asked Maud to marry him and was duly refused, his thoughts shifted with surprising speed to her daughter." Iseult Gonne was Maud's second child with Lucien Millevoye, and at the time was twenty-one years old. She had lived a sad life to this point; conceived as an attempt to reincarnate her short-lived brother, for the first few years of her life she was presented as her mother's adopted niece. When Maud told her that she was going to marry, Iseult cried and told her mother that she hated MacBride. When Gonne took action to divorce MacBride in 1905, the court heard allegations that he had sexually assaulted Iseult, then eleven. At fifteen, she proposed to Yeats. In 1917, he proposed to Iseult but was rejected. That September, Yeats proposed to 25-year-old Georgie Hyde-Lees (1892–1968), known as George, whom he had met through Olivia Shakespear. Despite warnings from her friends—"George ... you can't. He must be dead"—Hyde-Lees accepted, and the two were married on 20 October. Their marriage was a success, in spite of the age difference, and in spite of Yeats's feelings of remorse and regret during their honeymoon. The couple went on to have two children, Anne and Michael. Although in later years he had romantic relationships with other women, Georgie herself wrote to her husband "When you are dead, people will talk about your love affairs, but I shall say nothing, for I will remember how proud you were." During the first years of marriage, they experimented with automatic writing; she contacted a variety of spirits and guides they called "Instructors" while in a trance. The spirits communicated a complex and esoteric system of philosophy and history, which the couple developed into an exposition using geometrical shapes: phases, cones, and gyres. Yeats devoted much time to preparing this material for publication as A Vision (1925). In 1924, he wrote to his publisher T. Werner Laurie, admitting: "I dare say I delude myself in thinking this book my book of books". In December 1923, Yeats was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature, "for his always inspired poetry, which in a highly artistic form gives expression to the spirit of a whole nation". He was aware of the symbolic value of an Irish winner so soon after Ireland had gained independence, and sought to highlight the fact at each available opportunity. His reply to many of the letters of congratulations sent to him contained the words: "I consider that this honour has come to me less as an individual than as a representative of Irish literature, it is part of Europe's welcome to the Free State." Yeats used the occasion of his acceptance lecture at the Royal Academy of Sweden to present himself as a standard-bearer of Irish nationalism and Irish cultural independence. As he remarked, "The theatres of Dublin were empty buildings hired by the English travelling companies, and we wanted Irish plays and Irish players. When we thought of these plays we thought of everything that was romantic and poetical because the nationalism we had called up—the nationalism every generation had called up in moments of discouragement—was romantic and poetical." The prize led to a significant increase in the sales of his books, as his publishers Macmillan sought to capitalise on the publicity. For the first time he had money, and he was able to repay not only his own debts but those of his father. By early 1925, Yeats's health had stabilised, and he had completed most of the writing for A Vision (dated 1925, it actually appeared in January 1926, when he almost immediately started rewriting it for a second version). He had been appointed to the first Irish Senate in 1922, and was re-appointed for a second term in 1925. Early in his tenure, a debate on divorce arose, and Yeats viewed the issue as primarily a confrontation between the emerging Roman Catholic ethos and the Protestant minority. When the Roman Catholic Church weighed in with a blanket refusal to consider their anti position, The Irish Times countered that a measure to outlaw divorce would alienate Protestants and "crystallise" the partition of Ireland. In response, Yeats delivered a series of speeches that attacked the "quixotically impressive" ambitions of the government and clergy, likening their campaign tactics to those of "medieval Spain." "Marriage is not to us a Sacrament, but, upon the other hand, the love of a man and woman, and the inseparable physical desire, are sacred. This conviction has come to us through ancient philosophy and modern literature, and it seems to us a most sacrilegious thing to persuade two people who hate each other... to live together, and it is to us no remedy to permit them to part if neither can re-marry." The resulting debate has been described as one of Yeats's "supreme public moments", and began his ideological move away from pluralism towards religious confrontation. His language became more forceful; the Jesuit Father Peter Finlay was described by Yeats as a man of "monstrous discourtesy", and he lamented that "It is one of the glories of the Church in which I was born that we have put our Bishops in their place in discussions requiring legislation". During his time in the Senate, Yeats further warned his colleagues: "If you show that this country, southern Ireland, is going to be governed by Roman Catholic ideas and by Catholic ideas alone, you will never get the North... You will put a wedge in the midst of this nation". He memorably said of his fellow Irish Protestants, "we are no petty people". In 1924, he chaired a coinage committee charged with selecting a set of designs for the first currency of the Irish Free State. Aware of the symbolic power latent in the imagery of a young state's currency, he sought a form that was "elegant, racy of the soil, and utterly unpolitical". When the house finally decided on the artwork of Percy Metcalfe, Yeats was pleased, though he regretted that compromise had led to "lost muscular tension" in the finally depicted images. He retired from the Senate in 1928 because of ill health. Towards the end of his life—and especially after the Wall Street Crash of 1929 and Great Depression, which led some to question whether democracy could cope with deep economic difficulty—Yeats seems to have returned to his aristocratic sympathies. During the aftermath of the First World War, he became sceptical about the efficacy of democratic government, and anticipated political reconstruction in Europe through totalitarian rule. His later association with Pound drew him towards Benito Mussolini, for whom he expressed admiration on a number of occasions. He wrote three "marching songs"—never used—for the Irish General Eoin O'Duffy's Blueshirts. At the age of 69 he was 'rejuvenated' by the Steinach operation which was performed on 6 April 1934 by Norman Haire. For the last five years of his life Yeats found a new vigour evident from both his poetry and his intimate relations with younger women. During this time, Yeats was involved in a number of romantic affairs with, among others, the poet and actress Margot Ruddock, and the novelist, journalist and sexual radical Ethel Mannin. As in his earlier life, Yeats found erotic adventure conducive to his creative energy, and, despite age and ill-health, he remained a prolific writer. In a letter of 1935, Yeats noted: "I find my present weakness made worse by the strange second puberty the operation has given me, the ferment that has come upon my imagination. If I write poetry it will be unlike anything I have done". In 1936, he undertook editorship of the Oxford Book of Modern Verse, 1892–1935. He died at the Hôtel Idéal Séjour, in Menton, France, on 28 January 1939, aged 73. He was buried after a discreet and private funeral at Roquebrune-Cap-Martin. Attempts had been made at Roquebrune to dissuade the family from proceeding with the removal of the remains to Ireland due to the uncertainty of their identity. His body had earlier been exhumed and transferred to the ossuary. Yeats and George had often discussed his death, and his express wish was that he be buried quickly in France with a minimum of fuss. According to George, "His actual words were 'If I die, bury me up there [at Roquebrune] and then in a year's time when the newspapers have forgotten me, dig me up and plant me in Sligo'." In September 1948, Yeats's body was moved to the churchyard of St Columba's Church, Drumcliff, County Sligo, on the Irish Naval Service corvette LÉ Macha. The person in charge of this operation for the Irish Government was Seán MacBride, son of Maud Gonne MacBride, and then Minister of External Affairs. His epitaph is taken from the last lines of "Under Ben Bulben", one of his final poems: Cast a cold Eye On Life, on Death. Horseman, pass by! French ambassador Stanislas Ostroróg was involved in returning the remains of the poet from France to Ireland in 1948; in a letter to the European director of the Foreign Ministry in Paris, "Ostrorog tells how Yeats's son Michael sought official help in locating the poet's remains. Neither Michael Yeats nor Sean MacBride, the Irish foreign minister who organised the ceremony, wanted to know the details of how the remains were collected, Ostrorog notes. He repeatedly urges caution and discretion and says the Irish ambassador in Paris should not be informed." Yeats's body was exhumed in 1946 and the remains were moved to an ossuary and mixed with other remains. The French Foreign Ministry authorized Ostrorog to secretly cover the cost of repatriation from his slush fund. Authorities were worried about the fact that the much-loved poet's remains were thrown into a communal grave, causing embarrassment for both Ireland and France. Per a letter from Ostroróg to his superiors, "Mr Rebouillat, (a) forensic doctor in Roquebrune would be able to reconstitute a skeleton presenting all the characteristics of the deceased." Yeats is considered one of the key twentieth-century English-language poets. He was a Symbolist poet, using allusive imagery and symbolic structures throughout his career. He chose words and assembled them so that, in addition to a particular meaning, they suggest abstract thoughts that may seem more significant and resonant. His use of symbols is usually something physical that is both itself and a suggestion of other, perhaps immaterial, timeless qualities. Unlike other modernists who experimented with free verse, Yeats was a master of the traditional forms. The impact of modernism on his work can be seen in the increasing abandonment of the more conventionally poetic diction of his early work in favour of the more austere language and more direct approach to his themes that increasingly characterises the poetry and plays of his middle period, comprising the volumes In the Seven Woods, Responsibilities and The Green Helmet. His later poetry and plays are written in a more personal vein, and the works written in the last twenty years of his life include mention of his son and daughter, as well as meditations on the experience of growing old. In his poem, "The Circus Animals' Desertion", he describes the inspiration for these late works: During 1929, he stayed at Thoor Ballylee near Gort in County Galway (where Yeats had his summer home since 1919) for the last time. Much of the remainder of his life was lived outside Ireland, although he did lease Riversdale house in the Dublin suburb of Rathfarnham in 1932. He wrote prolifically through his final years, and published poetry, plays, and prose. In 1938, he attended the Abbey for the final time to see the premiere of his play Purgatory. His Autobiographies of William Butler Yeats was published that same year. In 1913, Yeats wrote the preface for the English translation of Rabindranath Tagore's Gitanjali (Song Offering) for which Tagore received the Nobel Prize in literature. While Yeats's early poetry drew heavily on Irish myth and folklore, his later work was engaged with more contemporary issues, and his style underwent a dramatic transformation. His work can be divided into three general periods. The early poems are lushly pre-Raphaelite in tone, self-consciously ornate, and, at times, according to unsympathetic critics, stilted. Yeats began by writing epic poems such as The Isle of Statues and The Wanderings of Oisin. His other early poems are lyrics on the themes of love or mystical and esoteric subjects. Yeats's middle period saw him abandon the pre-Raphaelite character of his early work and attempt to turn himself into a Landor-style social ironist. Critics who admire his middle work might characterize it as supple and muscular in its rhythms and sometimes harshly modernist, while others find these poems barren and weak in imaginative power. Yeats's later work found new imaginative inspiration in the mystical system he began to work out for himself under the influence of spiritualism. In many ways, this poetry is a return to the vision of his earlier work. The opposition between the worldly-minded man of the sword and the spiritually minded man of God, the theme of The Wanderings of Oisin, is reproduced in A Dialogue Between Self and Soul. Some critics claim that Yeats spanned the transition from the nineteenth century into twentieth-century modernism in poetry much as Pablo Picasso did in painting while others question whether late Yeats has much in common with modernists of the Ezra Pound and T. S. Eliot variety. Modernists read the well-known poem "The Second Coming" as a dirge for the decline of European civilisation, but it also expresses Yeats's apocalyptic mystical theories and is shaped by the 1890s. His most important collections of poetry started with The Green Helmet (1910) and Responsibilities (1914). In imagery, Yeats's poetry became sparer and more powerful as he grew older. The Tower (1928), The Winding Stair (1933), and New Poems (1938) contained some of the most potent images in twentieth-century poetry. Yeats's mystical inclinations, informed by Hinduism, theosophical beliefs and the occult, provided much of the basis of his late poetry, which some critics have judged as lacking in intellectual credibility. The metaphysics of Yeats's late works must be read in relation to his system of esoteric fundamentals in A Vision (1925). Yeats is commemorated in Sligo town by a statue, created in 1989 by sculptor Rowan Gillespie. On the 50th anniversary of the poet's death, it was erected outside the Ulster Bank, at the corner of Stephen Street and Markievicz Road. Yeats had remarked on receiving his Nobel Prize that the Royal Palace in Stockholm "resembled the Ulster Bank in Sligo". Across the river is the Yeats Memorial Building, home to the Sligo Yeats Society. Standing Figure: Knife Edge by Henry Moore is displayed in the W. B. Yeats Memorial Garden at St Stephen's Green in Dublin. \|Wikiquote has quotations related to: W. B. Yeats\| \|Presentation by R. F. Foster on W. B. Yeats: A Life: The Apprentice Mage, December 7, 1997, C-SPAN\|	<urn:uuid:12e8f201-3e53-4a67-87e8-8c7bb5b87763>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://wikiredia.info/wiki/W._B._Yeats	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250598726.39/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120110422-20200120134422-00502.warc.gz	en	0.981855	8,117	3.421875	3	[ 0.05576390400528908, 0.08147367835044861, 0.5322965979576111, -0.07933849096298218, -0.30535152554512024, -0.09441506117582321, 0.1935206949710846, -0.5148841738700867, -0.4647253751754761, -0.43669024109840393, -0.6427443027496338, -0.1400311291217804, 0.08102963119745255, 0.2230099737644...	1	William Butler Yeats[a] (13 June 1865 – 28 January 1939) was an Irish poet and one of the foremost figures of 20th-century literature. A pillar of the Irish literary establishment, he helped to found the Abbey Theatre, and in his later years served two terms as a Senator of the Irish Free State. He was a driving force behind the Irish Literary Revival along with Lady Gregory, Edward Martyn and others. Yeats was born in Sandymount, Ireland and educated there and in London. He spent childhood holidays in County Sligo and studied poetry from an early age when he became fascinated by Irish legends and the occult. These topics feature in the first phase of his work, which lasted roughly until the turn of the 20th century. His earliest volume of verse was published in 1889, and its slow-paced and lyrical poems display debts to Edmund Spenser, Percy Bysshe Shelley, and the poets of the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood. From 1900, his poetry grew more physical and realistic. He largely renounced the transcendental beliefs of his youth, though he remained preoccupied with physical and spiritual masks, as well as with cyclical theories of life. In 1923, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature. William Butler Yeats was born in Sandymount in County Dublin, Ireland. His father, John Butler Yeats (1839–1922), was a descendant of Jervis Yeats, a Williamite soldier, linen merchant, and well-known painter who died in 1712. Benjamin Yeats, Jervis's grandson and William's great-great-grandfather, had in 1773 married Mary Butler of a landed family in County Kildare. Following their marriage, they kept the name Butler. Mary was of the Butler of Neigham (pronounced Nyam) Gowran family, descended from an illegitimate brother of the 8th Earl of Ormond. By his marriage, William's father John Yeats was studying law but abandoned his studies to study art at Heatherley School of Fine Art in London. His mother, Susan Mary Pollexfen, came from a wealthy merchant family in Sligo, who owned a milling and shipping business. Soon after William's birth, the family relocated to the Pollexfen home at Merville, Sligo to stay with her extended family, and the young poet came to think of the area as his childhood and spiritual home. Its landscape became, over time, both literally and symbolically, his "country of the heart". So also did its location on the sea; John Yeats stated that "by marriage with a Pollexfen, we have given a tongue to the sea cliffs". The Butler Yeats family were highly artistic; his brother Jack became an esteemed painter, while his sisters Elizabeth and Susan Mary—known to family and friends as Lollie and Lily—became involved in the Arts and Crafts movement. Yeats was raised a member of the Protestant Ascendancy, which was at the time undergoing a crisis of identity. While his family was broadly supportive of the changes Ireland was experiencing, the nationalist revival of the late 19th century directly disadvantaged his heritage and informed his outlook for the remainder of his life. In 1997, his biographer R. F. Foster observed that Napoleon's dictum that to understand the man you have to know what was happening in the world when he was twenty "is manifestly true of W.B.Y." Yeats's childhood and young adulthood were shadowed by the power-shift away from the minority Protestant Ascendancy. The 1880s saw the rise of Charles Stewart Parnell and the home rule movement; the 1890s saw the momentum of nationalism, while the Catholics became prominent around the turn of the century. These developments had a profound effect on his poetry, and his subsequent explorations of Irish identity had a significant influence on the creation of his country's biography. In 1867, the family moved to England to aid their father, John, to further his career as an artist. At first, the Yeats children were educated at home. Their mother entertained them with stories and Irish folktales. John provided an erratic education in geography and chemistry and took William on natural history explorations of the nearby Slough countryside. On 26 January 1877, the young poet entered the Godolphin school, which he attended for four years. He did not distinguish himself academically, and an early school report describes his performance as "only fair. Perhaps better in Latin than in any other subject. Very poor in spelling". Though he had difficulty with mathematics and languages (possibly because he was tone deaf), he was fascinated by biology and zoology. In 1879 the family moved to Bedford Park taking a two-year lease on 8 Woodstock Road. For financial reasons, the family returned to Dublin toward the end of 1880, living at first in the suburbs of Harold's Cross and later Howth. In October 1881, Yeats resumed his education at Dublin's Erasmus Smith High School. His father's studio was nearby and William spent a great deal of time there, where he met many of the city's artists and writers. During this period he started writing poetry, and, in 1885, the Dublin University Review published Yeats's first poems, as well as an essay entitled "The Poetry of Sir Samuel Ferguson". Between 1884 and 1886, William attended the Metropolitan School of Art—now the National College of Art and Design—in Thomas Street. In March 1888 the family moved to 3 Blenheim Road in Bedford Park. The rent on the house was £50 a year. He began writing his first works when he was seventeen; these included a poem—heavily influenced by Percy Bysshe Shelley—that describes a magician who set up a throne in central Asia. Other pieces from this period include a draft of a play about a bishop, a monk, and a woman accused of paganism by local shepherds, as well as love-poems and narrative lyrics on German knights. The early works were both conventional and, according to the critic Charles Johnston, "utterly unIrish", seeming to come out of a "vast murmurous gloom of dreams". Although Yeats's early works drew heavily on Shelley, Edmund Spenser, and on the diction and colouring of pre-Raphaelite verse, he soon turned to Irish mythology and folklore and the writings of William Blake. In later life, Yeats paid tribute to Blake by describing him as one of the "great artificers of God who uttered great truths to a little clan". In 1891, Yeats published John Sherman and "Dhoya", one a novella, the other a story. The influence of Oscar Wilde is evident in Yeats's theory of aesthetics, especially in his stage plays, and runs like a motif through his early works. The theory of masks, developed by Wilde in his polemic The Decay of Lying can clearly be seen in Yeats's play The Player Queen, while the more sensual characterisation of Salomé, in Wilde's play of the same name, provides the template for the changes Yeats made in his later plays, especially in On Baile's Strand (1904), Deirdre (1907), and his dance play The King of the Great Clock Tower (1934). The family returned to London in 1887. In March 1890 Yeats joined the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, and with Ernest Rhys co-founded the Rhymers' Club, a group of London-based poets who met regularly in a Fleet Street tavern to recite their verse. Yeats later sought to mythologize the collective, calling it the "Tragic Generation" in his autobiography, and published two anthologies of the Rhymers' work, the first one in 1892 and the second one in 1894. He collaborated with Edwin Ellis on the first complete edition of William Blake's works, in the process rediscovering a forgotten poem, "Vala, or, the Four Zoas". Yeats had a lifelong interest in mysticism, spiritualism, occultism and astrology. He read extensively on the subjects throughout his life, became a member of the paranormal research organisation "The Ghost Club" (in 1911) and was especially influenced by the writings of Emanuel Swedenborg. As early as 1892, he wrote: "If I had not made magic my constant study I could not have written a single word of my Blake book, nor would The Countess Kathleen ever have come to exist. The mystical life is the centre of all that I do and all that I think and all that I write." His mystical interests—also inspired by a study of Hinduism, under the Theosophist Mohini Chatterjee, and the occult—formed much of the basis of his late poetry. Some critics disparaged this aspect of Yeats's work. His first significant poem was "The Island of Statues", a fantasy work that took Edmund Spenser and Shelley for its poetic models. The piece was serialized in the Dublin University Review. Yeats wished to include it in his first collection, but it was deemed too long, and in fact, was never republished in his lifetime. Quinx Books published the poem in complete form for the first time in 2014. His first solo publication was the pamphlet Mosada: A Dramatic Poem (1886), which comprised a print run of 100 copies paid for by his father. This was followed by the collection The Wanderings of Oisin and Other Poems (1889), which arranged a series of verse that dated as far back as the mid-1880s. The long title poem contains, in the words of his biographer R. F. Foster, "obscure Gaelic names, striking repetitions [and] an unremitting rhythm subtly varied as the poem proceeded through its three sections": We rode in sorrow, with strong hounds three, Bran, Sceolan, and Lomair, On a morning misty and mild and fair. The mist-drops hung on the fragrant trees, And in the blossoms hung the bees. We rode in sadness above Lough Lean, For our best were dead on Gavra's green. "The Wanderings of Oisin" is based on the lyrics of the Fenian Cycle of Irish mythology and displays the influence of both Sir Samuel Ferguson and the Pre-Raphaelite poets. The poem took two years to complete and was one of the few works from this period that he did not disown in his maturity. Oisin introduces what was to become one of his most important themes: the appeal of the life of contemplation over the appeal of the life of action. Following the work, Yeats never again attempted another long poem. His other early poems, which are meditations on the themes of love or mystical and esoteric subjects, include Poems (1895), The Secret Rose (1897), and The Wind Among the Reeds (1899). The covers of these volumes were illustrated by Yeats's friend Althea Gyles. During 1885, Yeats was involved in the formation of the Dublin Hermetic Order. The society held its first meeting on 16 June, with Yeats acting as its chairman. The same year, the Dublin Theosophical lodge was opened in conjunction with Brahmin Mohini Chatterjee, who travelled from the Theosophical Society in London to lecture. Yeats attended his first séance the following year. He later became heavily involved with the Theosophy and with hermeticism, particularly with the eclectic Rosicrucianism of the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. During séances held from 1912, a spirit calling itself "Leo Africanus" apparently claimed it was Yeats's Daemon or anti-self, inspiring some of the speculations in Per Amica Silentia Lunae. He was admitted into the Golden Dawn in March 1890 and took the magical motto Daemon est Deus inversus—translated as 'Devil is God inverted'.[b] He was an active recruiter for the sect's Isis-Urania Temple, and brought in his uncle George Pollexfen, Maud Gonne, and Florence Farr. Although he reserved a distaste for abstract and dogmatic religions founded around personality cults, he was attracted to the type of people he met at the Golden Dawn. He was involved in the Order's power struggles, both with Farr and Macgregor Mathers, and was involved when Mathers sent Aleister Crowley to repossess Golden Dawn paraphernalia during the "Battle of Blythe Road". After the Golden Dawn ceased and splintered into various offshoots, Yeats remained with the Stella Matutina until 1921. In 1889, Yeats met Maud Gonne, a 23-year-old English heiress and ardent Irish Nationalist.[c] She was eighteen months younger than Yeats and later claimed she met the poet as a "paint-stained art student." Gonne admired "The Island of Statues" and sought out his acquaintance. Yeats began an obsessive infatuation, and she had a significant and lasting effect on his poetry and his life thereafter. In later years he admitted, "it seems to me that she [Gonne] brought into my life those days—for as yet I saw only what lay upon the surface—the middle of the tint, a sound as of a Burmese gong, an over-powering tumult that had yet many pleasant secondary notes." Yeats's love was unrequited, in part due to his reluctance to participate in her nationalist activism. In 1891 he visited Gonne in Ireland and proposed marriage, but was rejected. He later admitted that from that point "the troubling of my life began". Yeats proposed to Gonne three more times: in 1899, 1900 and 1901. She refused each proposal, and in 1903, to his dismay, married the Irish nationalist Major John MacBride. His only other love affair during this period was with Olivia Shakespear, whom he first met in 1894, and parted from in 1897. Yeats derided MacBride in letters and in poetry. He was horrified by Gonne's marriage, at losing his muse to another man; in addition, her conversion to Catholicism before marriage offended him; Yeats was Protestant/agnostic. He worried his muse would come under the influence of the priests and do their bidding. Gonne's marriage to MacBride was a disaster. This pleased Yeats, as Gonne began to visit him in London. After the birth of her son, Seán MacBride, in 1904, Gonne and MacBride agreed to end the marriage, although they were unable to agree on the child's welfare. Despite the use of intermediaries, a divorce case ensued in Paris in 1905. Gonne made a series of allegations against her husband with Yeats as her main 'second', though he did not attend court or travel to France. A divorce was not granted, for the only accusation that held up in court was that MacBride had been drunk once during the marriage. A separation was granted, with Gonne having custody of the baby and MacBride having visiting rights. Yeats's friendship with Gonne ended, yet, in Paris in 1908, they finally consummated their relationship. "The long years of fidelity rewarded at last" was how another of his lovers described the event. Yeats was less sentimental and later remarked that "the tragedy of sexual intercourse is the perpetual virginity of the soul." The relationship did not develop into a new phase after their night together, and soon afterwards Gonne wrote to the poet indicating that despite the physical consummation, they could not continue as they had been: "I have prayed so hard to have all earthly desire taken from my love for you and dearest, loving you as I do, I have prayed and I am praying still that the bodily desire for me may be taken from you too." By January 1909, Gonne was sending Yeats letters praising the advantage given to artists who abstain from sex. Nearly twenty years later, Yeats recalled the night with Gonne in his poem "A Man Young and Old": My arms are like the twisted thorn And yet there beauty lay; The first of all the tribe lay there And did such pleasure take; She who had brought great Hector down And put all Troy to wreck. In 1896, Yeats was introduced to Lady Gregory by their mutual friend Edward Martyn. Gregory encouraged Yeats's nationalism and convinced him to continue focusing on writing drama. Although he was influenced by French Symbolism, Yeats concentrated on an identifiably Irish content and this inclination was reinforced by his involvement with a new generation of younger and emerging Irish authors. Together with Lady Gregory, Martyn, and other writers including J. M. Synge, Seán O'Casey, and Padraic Colum, Yeats was one of those responsible for the establishment of the "Irish Literary Revival" movement. Apart from these creative writers, much of the impetus for the Revival came from the work of scholarly translators who were aiding in the discovery of both the ancient sagas and Ossianic poetry and the more recent folk song tradition in Irish. One of the most significant of these was Douglas Hyde, later the first President of Ireland, whose Love Songs of Connacht was widely admired. In 1899, Yeats, Lady Gregory, Edward Martyn and George Moore began the Irish Literary Theatre to present Irish plays. The ideals of the Abbey were derived from the avant-garde French theatre, which sought to express the "ascendancy of the playwright rather than the actor-manager à l'anglais." The group's manifesto, which Yeats wrote, declared, "We hope to find in Ireland an uncorrupted & imaginative audience trained to listen by its passion for oratory ... & that freedom to experiment which is not found in the theatres of England, & without which no new movement in art or literature can succeed." The collective survived for about two years but was not successful. Working with two Irish brothers with theatrical experience, William and Frank Fay, Yeats's unpaid yet independently wealthy secretary Annie Horniman, and the leading West End actress Florence Farr, the group established the Irish National Theatre Society. Along with Synge, they acquired property in Dublin and on 27 December 1904 opened the Abbey Theatre. Yeats's play Cathleen ni Houlihan and Lady Gregory's Spreading the News were featured on the opening night. Yeats remained involved with the Abbey until his death, both as a member of the board and a prolific playwright. In 1902, he helped set up the Dun Emer Press to publish work by writers associated with the Revival. This became the Cuala Press in 1904, and inspired by the Arts and Crafts Movement, sought to "find work for Irish hands in the making of beautiful things." From then until its closure in 1946, the press—which was run by the poet's sisters—produced over 70 titles; 48 of them books by Yeats himself. Yeats met the American poet Ezra Pound in 1909. Pound had travelled to London at least partly to meet the older man, whom he considered "the only poet worthy of serious study." From that year until 1916, the two men wintered in the Stone Cottage at Ashdown Forest, with Pound nominally acting as Yeats's secretary. The relationship got off to a rocky start when Pound arranged for the publication in the magazine Poetry of some of Yeats's verse with Pound's own unauthorised alterations. These changes reflected Pound's distaste for Victorian prosody. A more indirect influence was the scholarship on Japanese Noh plays that Pound had obtained from Ernest Fenollosa's widow, which provided Yeats with a model for the aristocratic drama he intended to write. The first of his plays modelled on Noh was At the Hawk's Well, the first draft of which he dictated to Pound in January 1916. The emergence of a nationalist revolutionary movement from the ranks of the mostly Roman Catholic lower-middle and working class made Yeats reassess some of his attitudes. In the refrain of "Easter, 1916" ("All changed, changed utterly / A terrible beauty is born"), Yeats faces his own failure to recognise the merits of the leaders of the Easter Rising, due to his attitude towards their ordinary backgrounds and lives. Yeats was close to Lady Gregory and her home place of Coole Park, Co, Galway. He would often visit and stay there as it was a central meeting place for people who supported the resurgence of Irish literature and cultural traditions. His poem, "The Wild Swans at Coole" was written there, between 1916 and 1917. He wrote prefaces for two books of Irish mythological tales, compiled by Augusta, Lady Gregory: Cuchulain of Muirthemne (1902), and Gods and Fighting Men (1904). In the preface of the latter, he wrote: "One must not expect in these stories the epic lineaments, the many incidents, woven into one great event of, let us say the War for the Brown Bull of Cuailgne or that of the last gathering at Muirthemne." Yeats was an Irish Nationalist, who sought a kind of traditional lifestyle articulated through poems such as 'The Fisherman'. However, as his life progressed, he sheltered much of his revolutionary spirit and distanced himself from the intense political landscape until 1922, when he was appointed Senator for the Irish Free State. In the earlier part of his life, Yeats was a member of the Irish Republican Brotherhood. Due to the escalating tension of the political scene, Yeats distanced himself from the core political activism in the midst of the Easter Rising, even holding back his poetry inspired by the events until 1920. In the 1930s Yeats was fascinated with the authoritarian, anti-democratic, nationalist movements of Europe, and he composed several marching songs for the Blueshirts, although they were never used. He was a fierce opponent of individualism and political liberalism and saw the fascist movements as a triumph of public order and the needs of the national collective over petty individualism. On the other hand, he was also an elitist who abhorred the idea of mob-rule, and saw democracy as a threat to good governance and public order. After the Blueshirt movement began to falter in Ireland, he distanced himself somewhat from his previous views, but maintained a preference for authoritarian and nationalist leadership. D. P. Moran called him a minor poet and "crypto-Protestant conman." By 1916, Yeats was 51 years old and determined to marry and produce an heir. His rival John MacBride had been executed for his role in the 1916 Easter Rising, so Yeats hoped that his widow might remarry. His final proposal to Maud Gonne took place in mid-1916. Gonne's history of revolutionary political activism, as well as a series of personal catastrophes in the previous few years of her life—including chloroform addiction and her troubled marriage to MacBride—made her a potentially unsuitable wife; biographer R. F. Foster has observed that Yeats's last offer was motivated more by a sense of duty than by a genuine desire to marry her. Yeats proposed in an indifferent manner, with conditions attached, and he both expected and hoped she would turn him down. According to Foster, "when he duly asked Maud to marry him and was duly refused, his thoughts shifted with surprising speed to her daughter." Iseult Gonne was Maud's second child with Lucien Millevoye, and at the time was twenty-one years old. She had lived a sad life to this point; conceived as an attempt to reincarnate her short-lived brother, for the first few years of her life she was presented as her mother's adopted niece. When Maud told her that she was going to marry, Iseult cried and told her mother that she hated MacBride. When Gonne took action to divorce MacBride in 1905, the court heard allegations that he had sexually assaulted Iseult, then eleven. At fifteen, she proposed to Yeats. In 1917, he proposed to Iseult but was rejected. That September, Yeats proposed to 25-year-old Georgie Hyde-Lees (1892–1968), known as George, whom he had met through Olivia Shakespear. Despite warnings from her friends—"George ... you can't. He must be dead"—Hyde-Lees accepted, and the two were married on 20 October. Their marriage was a success, in spite of the age difference, and in spite of Yeats's feelings of remorse and regret during their honeymoon. The couple went on to have two children, Anne and Michael. Although in later years he had romantic relationships with other women, Georgie herself wrote to her husband "When you are dead, people will talk about your love affairs, but I shall say nothing, for I will remember how proud you were." During the first years of marriage, they experimented with automatic writing; she contacted a variety of spirits and guides they called "Instructors" while in a trance. The spirits communicated a complex and esoteric system of philosophy and history, which the couple developed into an exposition using geometrical shapes: phases, cones, and gyres. Yeats devoted much time to preparing this material for publication as A Vision (1925). In 1924, he wrote to his publisher T. Werner Laurie, admitting: "I dare say I delude myself in thinking this book my book of books". In December 1923, Yeats was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature, "for his always inspired poetry, which in a highly artistic form gives expression to the spirit of a whole nation". He was aware of the symbolic value of an Irish winner so soon after Ireland had gained independence, and sought to highlight the fact at each available opportunity. His reply to many of the letters of congratulations sent to him contained the words: "I consider that this honour has come to me less as an individual than as a representative of Irish literature, it is part of Europe's welcome to the Free State." Yeats used the occasion of his acceptance lecture at the Royal Academy of Sweden to present himself as a standard-bearer of Irish nationalism and Irish cultural independence. As he remarked, "The theatres of Dublin were empty buildings hired by the English travelling companies, and we wanted Irish plays and Irish players. When we thought of these plays we thought of everything that was romantic and poetical because the nationalism we had called up—the nationalism every generation had called up in moments of discouragement—was romantic and poetical." The prize led to a significant increase in the sales of his books, as his publishers Macmillan sought to capitalise on the publicity. For the first time he had money, and he was able to repay not only his own debts but those of his father. By early 1925, Yeats's health had stabilised, and he had completed most of the writing for A Vision (dated 1925, it actually appeared in January 1926, when he almost immediately started rewriting it for a second version). He had been appointed to the first Irish Senate in 1922, and was re-appointed for a second term in 1925. Early in his tenure, a debate on divorce arose, and Yeats viewed the issue as primarily a confrontation between the emerging Roman Catholic ethos and the Protestant minority. When the Roman Catholic Church weighed in with a blanket refusal to consider their anti position, The Irish Times countered that a measure to outlaw divorce would alienate Protestants and "crystallise" the partition of Ireland. In response, Yeats delivered a series of speeches that attacked the "quixotically impressive" ambitions of the government and clergy, likening their campaign tactics to those of "medieval Spain." "Marriage is not to us a Sacrament, but, upon the other hand, the love of a man and woman, and the inseparable physical desire, are sacred. This conviction has come to us through ancient philosophy and modern literature, and it seems to us a most sacrilegious thing to persuade two people who hate each other... to live together, and it is to us no remedy to permit them to part if neither can re-marry." The resulting debate has been described as one of Yeats's "supreme public moments", and began his ideological move away from pluralism towards religious confrontation. His language became more forceful; the Jesuit Father Peter Finlay was described by Yeats as a man of "monstrous discourtesy", and he lamented that "It is one of the glories of the Church in which I was born that we have put our Bishops in their place in discussions requiring legislation". During his time in the Senate, Yeats further warned his colleagues: "If you show that this country, southern Ireland, is going to be governed by Roman Catholic ideas and by Catholic ideas alone, you will never get the North... You will put a wedge in the midst of this nation". He memorably said of his fellow Irish Protestants, "we are no petty people". In 1924, he chaired a coinage committee charged with selecting a set of designs for the first currency of the Irish Free State. Aware of the symbolic power latent in the imagery of a young state's currency, he sought a form that was "elegant, racy of the soil, and utterly unpolitical". When the house finally decided on the artwork of Percy Metcalfe, Yeats was pleased, though he regretted that compromise had led to "lost muscular tension" in the finally depicted images. He retired from the Senate in 1928 because of ill health. Towards the end of his life—and especially after the Wall Street Crash of 1929 and Great Depression, which led some to question whether democracy could cope with deep economic difficulty—Yeats seems to have returned to his aristocratic sympathies. During the aftermath of the First World War, he became sceptical about the efficacy of democratic government, and anticipated political reconstruction in Europe through totalitarian rule. His later association with Pound drew him towards Benito Mussolini, for whom he expressed admiration on a number of occasions. He wrote three "marching songs"—never used—for the Irish General Eoin O'Duffy's Blueshirts. At the age of 69 he was 'rejuvenated' by the Steinach operation which was performed on 6 April 1934 by Norman Haire. For the last five years of his life Yeats found a new vigour evident from both his poetry and his intimate relations with younger women. During this time, Yeats was involved in a number of romantic affairs with, among others, the poet and actress Margot Ruddock, and the novelist, journalist and sexual radical Ethel Mannin. As in his earlier life, Yeats found erotic adventure conducive to his creative energy, and, despite age and ill-health, he remained a prolific writer. In a letter of 1935, Yeats noted: "I find my present weakness made worse by the strange second puberty the operation has given me, the ferment that has come upon my imagination. If I write poetry it will be unlike anything I have done". In 1936, he undertook editorship of the Oxford Book of Modern Verse, 1892–1935. He died at the Hôtel Idéal Séjour, in Menton, France, on 28 January 1939, aged 73. He was buried after a discreet and private funeral at Roquebrune-Cap-Martin. Attempts had been made at Roquebrune to dissuade the family from proceeding with the removal of the remains to Ireland due to the uncertainty of their identity. His body had earlier been exhumed and transferred to the ossuary. Yeats and George had often discussed his death, and his express wish was that he be buried quickly in France with a minimum of fuss. According to George, "His actual words were 'If I die, bury me up there [at Roquebrune] and then in a year's time when the newspapers have forgotten me, dig me up and plant me in Sligo'." In September 1948, Yeats's body was moved to the churchyard of St Columba's Church, Drumcliff, County Sligo, on the Irish Naval Service corvette LÉ Macha. The person in charge of this operation for the Irish Government was Seán MacBride, son of Maud Gonne MacBride, and then Minister of External Affairs. His epitaph is taken from the last lines of "Under Ben Bulben", one of his final poems: Cast a cold Eye On Life, on Death. Horseman, pass by! French ambassador Stanislas Ostroróg was involved in returning the remains of the poet from France to Ireland in 1948; in a letter to the European director of the Foreign Ministry in Paris, "Ostrorog tells how Yeats's son Michael sought official help in locating the poet's remains. Neither Michael Yeats nor Sean MacBride, the Irish foreign minister who organised the ceremony, wanted to know the details of how the remains were collected, Ostrorog notes. He repeatedly urges caution and discretion and says the Irish ambassador in Paris should not be informed." Yeats's body was exhumed in 1946 and the remains were moved to an ossuary and mixed with other remains. The French Foreign Ministry authorized Ostrorog to secretly cover the cost of repatriation from his slush fund. Authorities were worried about the fact that the much-loved poet's remains were thrown into a communal grave, causing embarrassment for both Ireland and France. Per a letter from Ostroróg to his superiors, "Mr Rebouillat, (a) forensic doctor in Roquebrune would be able to reconstitute a skeleton presenting all the characteristics of the deceased." Yeats is considered one of the key twentieth-century English-language poets. He was a Symbolist poet, using allusive imagery and symbolic structures throughout his career. He chose words and assembled them so that, in addition to a particular meaning, they suggest abstract thoughts that may seem more significant and resonant. His use of symbols is usually something physical that is both itself and a suggestion of other, perhaps immaterial, timeless qualities. Unlike other modernists who experimented with free verse, Yeats was a master of the traditional forms. The impact of modernism on his work can be seen in the increasing abandonment of the more conventionally poetic diction of his early work in favour of the more austere language and more direct approach to his themes that increasingly characterises the poetry and plays of his middle period, comprising the volumes In the Seven Woods, Responsibilities and The Green Helmet. His later poetry and plays are written in a more personal vein, and the works written in the last twenty years of his life include mention of his son and daughter, as well as meditations on the experience of growing old. In his poem, "The Circus Animals' Desertion", he describes the inspiration for these late works: During 1929, he stayed at Thoor Ballylee near Gort in County Galway (where Yeats had his summer home since 1919) for the last time. Much of the remainder of his life was lived outside Ireland, although he did lease Riversdale house in the Dublin suburb of Rathfarnham in 1932. He wrote prolifically through his final years, and published poetry, plays, and prose. In 1938, he attended the Abbey for the final time to see the premiere of his play Purgatory. His Autobiographies of William Butler Yeats was published that same year. In 1913, Yeats wrote the preface for the English translation of Rabindranath Tagore's Gitanjali (Song Offering) for which Tagore received the Nobel Prize in literature. While Yeats's early poetry drew heavily on Irish myth and folklore, his later work was engaged with more contemporary issues, and his style underwent a dramatic transformation. His work can be divided into three general periods. The early poems are lushly pre-Raphaelite in tone, self-consciously ornate, and, at times, according to unsympathetic critics, stilted. Yeats began by writing epic poems such as The Isle of Statues and The Wanderings of Oisin. His other early poems are lyrics on the themes of love or mystical and esoteric subjects. Yeats's middle period saw him abandon the pre-Raphaelite character of his early work and attempt to turn himself into a Landor-style social ironist. Critics who admire his middle work might characterize it as supple and muscular in its rhythms and sometimes harshly modernist, while others find these poems barren and weak in imaginative power. Yeats's later work found new imaginative inspiration in the mystical system he began to work out for himself under the influence of spiritualism. In many ways, this poetry is a return to the vision of his earlier work. The opposition between the worldly-minded man of the sword and the spiritually minded man of God, the theme of The Wanderings of Oisin, is reproduced in A Dialogue Between Self and Soul. Some critics claim that Yeats spanned the transition from the nineteenth century into twentieth-century modernism in poetry much as Pablo Picasso did in painting while others question whether late Yeats has much in common with modernists of the Ezra Pound and T. S. Eliot variety. Modernists read the well-known poem "The Second Coming" as a dirge for the decline of European civilisation, but it also expresses Yeats's apocalyptic mystical theories and is shaped by the 1890s. His most important collections of poetry started with The Green Helmet (1910) and Responsibilities (1914). In imagery, Yeats's poetry became sparer and more powerful as he grew older. The Tower (1928), The Winding Stair (1933), and New Poems (1938) contained some of the most potent images in twentieth-century poetry. Yeats's mystical inclinations, informed by Hinduism, theosophical beliefs and the occult, provided much of the basis of his late poetry, which some critics have judged as lacking in intellectual credibility. The metaphysics of Yeats's late works must be read in relation to his system of esoteric fundamentals in A Vision (1925). Yeats is commemorated in Sligo town by a statue, created in 1989 by sculptor Rowan Gillespie. On the 50th anniversary of the poet's death, it was erected outside the Ulster Bank, at the corner of Stephen Street and Markievicz Road. Yeats had remarked on receiving his Nobel Prize that the Royal Palace in Stockholm "resembled the Ulster Bank in Sligo". Across the river is the Yeats Memorial Building, home to the Sligo Yeats Society. Standing Figure: Knife Edge by Henry Moore is displayed in the W. B. Yeats Memorial Garden at St Stephen's Green in Dublin. \|Wikiquote has quotations related to: W. B. Yeats\| \|Presentation by R. F. Foster on W. B. Yeats: A Life: The Apprentice Mage, December 7, 1997, C-SPAN\|	8,435	ENGLISH	1
A capirote is a pointed hat of conical form that is used in Spain. It is part of the uniform of some brotherhoods including the Nazarenos and Fariseos during Easter observances and reenactments in some areas during Holy Week in Spain. The pointed hat was worn by clowns and jugglers who wanted to portray clumsiness or stupidity during medieval times. Because of this, pointed hats were used when vexing criminals. The criminals were forced to wear pointed hats and walk through the streets, while people threw rotten vegetables at them, spat on them, and insulted them. Later, during the celebration of the Holy Week/Easter in Mediterranean countries, penitentes (people doing penance for their sins) would walk through streets with pointed hats. It was a way of self-injury; however, they covered their faces so they would not be recognized. The capirote is not to be confused with the pointed hoods worn by members of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK).	<urn:uuid:cc434c69-188f-4582-bacb-5a3f53b48f4d>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://alchetron.com/Capirote	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250592565.2/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118110141-20200118134141-00063.warc.gz	en	0.987601	211	3.28125	3	[ -0.20492509007453918, 0.16837261617183685, 0.1481393575668335, -0.09036038815975189, 0.28466495871543884, 0.19312722980976105, 1.098212718963623, -0.0007534526521340013, -0.2856238782405853, -0.10858257859945297, -0.15444128215312958, -0.31585925817489624, -0.12358640879392624, -0.02165593...	1	A capirote is a pointed hat of conical form that is used in Spain. It is part of the uniform of some brotherhoods including the Nazarenos and Fariseos during Easter observances and reenactments in some areas during Holy Week in Spain. The pointed hat was worn by clowns and jugglers who wanted to portray clumsiness or stupidity during medieval times. Because of this, pointed hats were used when vexing criminals. The criminals were forced to wear pointed hats and walk through the streets, while people threw rotten vegetables at them, spat on them, and insulted them. Later, during the celebration of the Holy Week/Easter in Mediterranean countries, penitentes (people doing penance for their sins) would walk through streets with pointed hats. It was a way of self-injury; however, they covered their faces so they would not be recognized. The capirote is not to be confused with the pointed hoods worn by members of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK).	207	ENGLISH	1
who was responsible for the Boston massacre, captain Preston and his soldiers or the crowd? The Boston Massacre in 1770 represented a further breakdown in relations between the British and the American colonists. Moreover, it fanned the flames of revolutionary fervor already spreading widely and rapidly throughout America. The basic facts of the Massacre are not in serious dispute. On March 5th, 1770, a self-proclaimed patriotic mob clashed with British soldiers. The mob threw stones, sticks, snowballs, and anything else they could lay their hands on at the troops. In response, the British soldiers opened fire, killing several of the protesters. Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of what happened that day, the consequences were grave. Revolutionary pamphleteers and agitators made huge political capital out of the Massacre, using it as an example of the British tyranny that the Americans needed to overthrow. To many, it now seemed that some kind of armed conflict was inevitable. Tensions had been building between British troops and the citizens of Boston for some time. Citizens came to resent the presence of British soldiers, seeing them as an occupying force and an instrument of tyranny. These tensions came to a head on the day of the Massacre, which began when a mob of fifty Americans attacked a soldier on guard duty. In that sense, one could say that it was these citizens, and those who participated in the ensuing disturbance, who were ultimately responsible for what happened later. Yet at the same time one could also argue that the response of the British troops was excessive and unwarranted. They were not being shot at by the protesters, and so firing directly into the rioting crowd could be seen as disproportionate. Captain Preston was aware of the gravity of the rapidly deteriorating situation, and it's notable that he didn't personally give the orders to shoot, knowing as he did that it would be likely to inflame the situation further. But the soldiers did shoot all the same. In all likelihood, the soldiers panicked, not least because they hadn't been properly trained in dealing with civil disturbance. At the subsequent trial, Captain Preston and his men were acquitted of murder. Famously, they were represented in court by John Adams, future president of the United States. Perhaps the fairest way to answer this question is to say that, although Preston and his men were not legally responsible for the Boston Massacre, there seems little doubt that they bore some moral responsibility for the bloodshed. check Approved by eNotes Editorial	<urn:uuid:44d211d1-e98f-471b-88cf-28d0fc4bb0d0>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/who-was-responsible-boston-massacre-captain-1321899?en_action=hh-question_click&en_label=hh-sidebar&en_category=internal_campaign	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250624328.55/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124161014-20200124190014-00317.warc.gz	en	0.986733	502	3.75	4	[ -0.0034783873707056046, -0.05685494467616081, 0.3682706952095032, -0.2644919157028198, -0.03340180963277817, -0.27304354310035706, 0.4331161379814148, 0.10890688002109528, -0.30986952781677246, 0.10569410026073456, 0.0635986477136612, -0.25848883390426636, -0.10459151864051819, 0.167531564...	1	who was responsible for the Boston massacre, captain Preston and his soldiers or the crowd? The Boston Massacre in 1770 represented a further breakdown in relations between the British and the American colonists. Moreover, it fanned the flames of revolutionary fervor already spreading widely and rapidly throughout America. The basic facts of the Massacre are not in serious dispute. On March 5th, 1770, a self-proclaimed patriotic mob clashed with British soldiers. The mob threw stones, sticks, snowballs, and anything else they could lay their hands on at the troops. In response, the British soldiers opened fire, killing several of the protesters. Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of what happened that day, the consequences were grave. Revolutionary pamphleteers and agitators made huge political capital out of the Massacre, using it as an example of the British tyranny that the Americans needed to overthrow. To many, it now seemed that some kind of armed conflict was inevitable. Tensions had been building between British troops and the citizens of Boston for some time. Citizens came to resent the presence of British soldiers, seeing them as an occupying force and an instrument of tyranny. These tensions came to a head on the day of the Massacre, which began when a mob of fifty Americans attacked a soldier on guard duty. In that sense, one could say that it was these citizens, and those who participated in the ensuing disturbance, who were ultimately responsible for what happened later. Yet at the same time one could also argue that the response of the British troops was excessive and unwarranted. They were not being shot at by the protesters, and so firing directly into the rioting crowd could be seen as disproportionate. Captain Preston was aware of the gravity of the rapidly deteriorating situation, and it's notable that he didn't personally give the orders to shoot, knowing as he did that it would be likely to inflame the situation further. But the soldiers did shoot all the same. In all likelihood, the soldiers panicked, not least because they hadn't been properly trained in dealing with civil disturbance. At the subsequent trial, Captain Preston and his men were acquitted of murder. Famously, they were represented in court by John Adams, future president of the United States. Perhaps the fairest way to answer this question is to say that, although Preston and his men were not legally responsible for the Boston Massacre, there seems little doubt that they bore some moral responsibility for the bloodshed. check Approved by eNotes Editorial	512	ENGLISH	1
It is almost time for us to vote in the 2019 UK General Election – but what were Elections like for our ancestors? In England (including Wales) we have had elections since the 13th Century. These were extended to neighbouring countries following the formation of Great Britain (England, Scotland and Wales) in 1707 and the United Kingdom (England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland) in 1801. The Government (the party with the most seats) has had firm control of our country since the late 18th Century, although the Monarch did hold some influence over it. Initially the Government only dealt with taxation, defence and the legal system. Other matters were dealt with locally. Members of Parliament (MP’s) were either members of the Aristocracy or men they gave their patronage/backing to. Members of Parliament: Parliament (all elected representatives) was dominated by two main parties – the Tories and the Whigs. In general and very basic terms, the Tories (who became the Conservative Party in 1834) supported small landholders, farmers and minor gentry. The Whigs favoured the aristocratic families although later they also supported independent merchants. The Whigs became the Liberal party in 1859 when they merged with a smaller party called the Radicals. The Labour Party was formed by the Trade Unions in the late 19th century. Neither of the main parties had clear cut policies and on important matters MP’s would vote as instructed by their patron. Each County (rural areas) or Borough (towns) would send two MP’s (regardless of its size) to the Commons after an election. If, however, the two opposing parties agreed to send one MP each then no election was required. Seats could be bought by very wealthy landowners, even though they lived at the opposite end of the country. For some it was a status symbol rather than a desire to represent people and improve lives. For those who were competing against very wealthy opponents, they may have had to pay voters to vote for them. In 1780 William Wilberforce was elected MP of Kingston upon Hull after spending nearly £9,000 buying the support of 1,500 voters. Not every area was represented or represented fairly. In 1790 Cornwall had 44 MP’s out of a total 558 in Parliament. Manchester did not have its own MP from 1660 to 1832. Who Could Vote? The right to vote was initially restricted to owners of property with a rateable value of at least 40 shillings (approx. 18 days wages for a skilled tradesman in 1750*). Between 1780 and 1832 Land Tax assessments were used to determine who could vote. From 1832 the right to vote was extended to men who owned or rented property. For those in the towns the restriction was for those who rented or lease property worth at least £10 a year. In rural areas they had to own property worth 40 shillings a year, rent property worth £50 a year or have copyhold tenure worth £10 a year. The right to vote was determined by the property owned or rented in a specific area, therefore some wealthy men could vote more than once if they had qualifying properties in more than one borough or county. This was possible because elections were held over several weeks, rather than on one day as we do now. A man could vote in one area and then travel to his other property and vote again in that area. It was not until 1911 that elections were held on the same day throughout the country. They may even have voted differently in each area as voters may have been forced, persuaded or bribed to vote for a particular candidate by people of influence in that area such as their landlord or banker. As voting was not secret until 1877, voting against their wishes could have had drastic consequences to the livelihood or fortune of the voter concerned. In a ‘Pocket Borough’ control was held, or “in the pocket of”, one person or family. Therefore the voters had to vote for whoever that person or family supported. ‘Rotten Boroughs’ were areas that had once been large but later had few (if any) houses, and therefore very few voters, but would still elect MP’s. Old Sarum in Wiltshire was an example when it contained less than three houses but sent two members”. If your ancestors was entitled to vote where should you look? Poll books were published between 1696 and 1872 after each election naming the voters and who they voted for. The candidates were represented by the initial of their surname in column of each page. They were published for each area and some listed the occupation of each voter as well as where they lived. Poll Books can be found in local archives, on some genealogy subscription based websites as well as free sites such as Google Books. The electoralregisters.org.uk site has links to several free Poll books. The Institute of Historical Research Library holds a large collection of printed British parliamentary poll books, both originals and photocopies. From 1832 Electoral Registers were published listing those who were eligible to vote. These can also be found in local archives and online. Timetable of Changes: Suffrage did not just refer to the well-known fight for women to be given the vote. Instead it refers to the right of anyone to have the vote. Manchester’s Peterloo Massacre in 1819 called for Parliamentary reform, universal suffrage and equal representation. The major changes to voting rights in the UK include: 1832 – Voting was extended to men meeting property qualification. The number of rotten boroughs was reduced and Parliamentary seats were redistributed to represent urban areas. 1867 – The right to vote was given to urban working men meeting the property qualification. 1872 – Secret ballots were introduced. 1884 – The third Reform Act addressed the imbalance between men’s votes in boroughs and in the counties 1885 – Boundaries were redrawn to create equal electoral districts. Single member seats become the norm. 1918 – The right to vote was given all to men over 21 and most women over 30. 1928 – All women over 21 were allowed to vote. 1969 – Men and women over 18 were allowed to vote. To access Hull and East Riding of Yorkshire records in the local archives, contact me here: James Vernon (2017) Modern Britain, 1750 to the Present. Cambridge University Press. Accessed via Google Books. Thomas Paine. (1791) The Political Magazine and Parliamentary, Naval, Military, and Literary Journal, Volume 21. Page 19. Accessed: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=vJYrAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false	<urn:uuid:2e2d200c-bf8d-485d-8bac-26dabbac4c22>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://leavesfamilyhistory.co.uk/blog/vote/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250607596.34/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122221541-20200123010541-00297.warc.gz	en	0.986843	1,427	3.671875	4	[ -0.346110463142395, -0.01949797011911869, 0.27691155672073364, -0.24935632944107056, -0.02554526925086975, 0.17581911385059357, -0.2834068536758423, -0.09955617785453796, 0.1515684723854065, 0.23395152390003204, 0.009577516466379166, -0.03804248571395874, 0.11255855858325958, 0.00695855682...	4	It is almost time for us to vote in the 2019 UK General Election – but what were Elections like for our ancestors? In England (including Wales) we have had elections since the 13th Century. These were extended to neighbouring countries following the formation of Great Britain (England, Scotland and Wales) in 1707 and the United Kingdom (England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland) in 1801. The Government (the party with the most seats) has had firm control of our country since the late 18th Century, although the Monarch did hold some influence over it. Initially the Government only dealt with taxation, defence and the legal system. Other matters were dealt with locally. Members of Parliament (MP’s) were either members of the Aristocracy or men they gave their patronage/backing to. Members of Parliament: Parliament (all elected representatives) was dominated by two main parties – the Tories and the Whigs. In general and very basic terms, the Tories (who became the Conservative Party in 1834) supported small landholders, farmers and minor gentry. The Whigs favoured the aristocratic families although later they also supported independent merchants. The Whigs became the Liberal party in 1859 when they merged with a smaller party called the Radicals. The Labour Party was formed by the Trade Unions in the late 19th century. Neither of the main parties had clear cut policies and on important matters MP’s would vote as instructed by their patron. Each County (rural areas) or Borough (towns) would send two MP’s (regardless of its size) to the Commons after an election. If, however, the two opposing parties agreed to send one MP each then no election was required. Seats could be bought by very wealthy landowners, even though they lived at the opposite end of the country. For some it was a status symbol rather than a desire to represent people and improve lives. For those who were competing against very wealthy opponents, they may have had to pay voters to vote for them. In 1780 William Wilberforce was elected MP of Kingston upon Hull after spending nearly £9,000 buying the support of 1,500 voters. Not every area was represented or represented fairly. In 1790 Cornwall had 44 MP’s out of a total 558 in Parliament. Manchester did not have its own MP from 1660 to 1832. Who Could Vote? The right to vote was initially restricted to owners of property with a rateable value of at least 40 shillings (approx. 18 days wages for a skilled tradesman in 1750*). Between 1780 and 1832 Land Tax assessments were used to determine who could vote. From 1832 the right to vote was extended to men who owned or rented property. For those in the towns the restriction was for those who rented or lease property worth at least £10 a year. In rural areas they had to own property worth 40 shillings a year, rent property worth £50 a year or have copyhold tenure worth £10 a year. The right to vote was determined by the property owned or rented in a specific area, therefore some wealthy men could vote more than once if they had qualifying properties in more than one borough or county. This was possible because elections were held over several weeks, rather than on one day as we do now. A man could vote in one area and then travel to his other property and vote again in that area. It was not until 1911 that elections were held on the same day throughout the country. They may even have voted differently in each area as voters may have been forced, persuaded or bribed to vote for a particular candidate by people of influence in that area such as their landlord or banker. As voting was not secret until 1877, voting against their wishes could have had drastic consequences to the livelihood or fortune of the voter concerned. In a ‘Pocket Borough’ control was held, or “in the pocket of”, one person or family. Therefore the voters had to vote for whoever that person or family supported. ‘Rotten Boroughs’ were areas that had once been large but later had few (if any) houses, and therefore very few voters, but would still elect MP’s. Old Sarum in Wiltshire was an example when it contained less than three houses but sent two members”. If your ancestors was entitled to vote where should you look? Poll books were published between 1696 and 1872 after each election naming the voters and who they voted for. The candidates were represented by the initial of their surname in column of each page. They were published for each area and some listed the occupation of each voter as well as where they lived. Poll Books can be found in local archives, on some genealogy subscription based websites as well as free sites such as Google Books. The electoralregisters.org.uk site has links to several free Poll books. The Institute of Historical Research Library holds a large collection of printed British parliamentary poll books, both originals and photocopies. From 1832 Electoral Registers were published listing those who were eligible to vote. These can also be found in local archives and online. Timetable of Changes: Suffrage did not just refer to the well-known fight for women to be given the vote. Instead it refers to the right of anyone to have the vote. Manchester’s Peterloo Massacre in 1819 called for Parliamentary reform, universal suffrage and equal representation. The major changes to voting rights in the UK include: 1832 – Voting was extended to men meeting property qualification. The number of rotten boroughs was reduced and Parliamentary seats were redistributed to represent urban areas. 1867 – The right to vote was given to urban working men meeting the property qualification. 1872 – Secret ballots were introduced. 1884 – The third Reform Act addressed the imbalance between men’s votes in boroughs and in the counties 1885 – Boundaries were redrawn to create equal electoral districts. Single member seats become the norm. 1918 – The right to vote was given all to men over 21 and most women over 30. 1928 – All women over 21 were allowed to vote. 1969 – Men and women over 18 were allowed to vote. To access Hull and East Riding of Yorkshire records in the local archives, contact me here: James Vernon (2017) Modern Britain, 1750 to the Present. Cambridge University Press. Accessed via Google Books. Thomas Paine. (1791) The Political Magazine and Parliamentary, Naval, Military, and Literary Journal, Volume 21. Page 19. Accessed: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=vJYrAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false	1,478	ENGLISH	1
Hawaii was the 50th territory to be granted statehood in the United States of America. It was granted statehood after Alaska, which was the 49th state to be recognized. Hawaii was granted its statehood on August 21, 1959. It is the only state of the United States that is found in Oceania and is entirely composed of Islands. Furthermore, it is the only state that is located outside of North America. Hawaii is the 8th smallest state and the 11th least populated among the 50 states. Hawaii Before Statehood Hawaii was a territory that belonged to the United States since 1898. Before the US acquired Hawaii, it was a sovereign kingdom. It was headed by monarchs between 1810 and 1893. The monarchial form of government was overthrown in 1893 by landowners and European capitalists. Hawaii was thereafter an independent republic until August 12, 1898, when the United States took control of it. It was subsequently recognized as an official territory of the US. It remained a non-self governing territory for almost six decades before it was upgraded to a state. What Delayed Hawaii’s Statehood? Hawaii was considered a territory of the US and not a state for around 60 years due to several factors. Hawaii is very far and isolated from the rest of the states. It is approximately 2,000 miles away from the coastline. The proximity of Hawaii to the rest of the country contributed to the decision to consider it an independent territory and not part of the other states. Hawaii was elevated to statehood status mainly because of its role during World War II. Why Did Hawaii Become a State? In the first quarter of the 20th century, there were many petitions from Hawaii pushing for the federal government to grant it statehood status. These petitions were considered as void and they were therefore ignored by the federal government. In March 1959, the Hawaii Admission Act was passed by the Congress. President Dwight Eisenhower then signed it to approve Hawaii’s admission. The Act did not capture Palmyra Atoll which was part of Hawaiian territory. A referendum was held in Hawaii on June 27, 1959, in order to approve its petitions of becoming a state. Over 93% of the voters wanted Hawaii to be granted statehood. Approximately 5.7% of the voters rejected the proposal and voted for Hawaii to remain a US territory. After the success of the referendum, Hawaii was removed from the list of non-self governing territories. It officially became a state on August 21, 1959. Hawaiians claimed it was necessary for them to be considered a state and not just a mere territory due to the loyalty it granted the United States during World War II. Hawaiians pressed for their admission to statehood status because they wanted to fully exercise their democratic rights, elect their leaders, and participate in making their own leadership decisions. They did not want to be led and controlled without their participation. When did Hawaii become a state? Hawaii received statehood on August 21, 1959. About the Author John Misachi is a seasoned writer with 5+ years of experience. His favorite topics include finance, history, geography, agriculture, legal, and sports. Your MLA Citation Your APA Citation Your Chicago Citation Your Harvard CitationRemember to italicize the title of this article in your Harvard citation.	<urn:uuid:5af6e9b9-3c34-44a5-b6df-9fbdfbec7a3b>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/when-did-hawaii-become-a-state.html	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250624328.55/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124161014-20200124190014-00523.warc.gz	en	0.985222	678	3.765625	4	[ -0.709286093711853, 0.10038354992866516, 0.23957058787345886, -0.1665920615196228, -0.38675522804260254, 0.4663855731487274, 0.07022398710250854, -0.03348642215132713, -0.1007385328412056, 0.6392070055007935, 0.37093567848205566, -0.4755673408508301, 0.09226185083389282, 0.5298986434936523...	2	Hawaii was the 50th territory to be granted statehood in the United States of America. It was granted statehood after Alaska, which was the 49th state to be recognized. Hawaii was granted its statehood on August 21, 1959. It is the only state of the United States that is found in Oceania and is entirely composed of Islands. Furthermore, it is the only state that is located outside of North America. Hawaii is the 8th smallest state and the 11th least populated among the 50 states. Hawaii Before Statehood Hawaii was a territory that belonged to the United States since 1898. Before the US acquired Hawaii, it was a sovereign kingdom. It was headed by monarchs between 1810 and 1893. The monarchial form of government was overthrown in 1893 by landowners and European capitalists. Hawaii was thereafter an independent republic until August 12, 1898, when the United States took control of it. It was subsequently recognized as an official territory of the US. It remained a non-self governing territory for almost six decades before it was upgraded to a state. What Delayed Hawaii’s Statehood? Hawaii was considered a territory of the US and not a state for around 60 years due to several factors. Hawaii is very far and isolated from the rest of the states. It is approximately 2,000 miles away from the coastline. The proximity of Hawaii to the rest of the country contributed to the decision to consider it an independent territory and not part of the other states. Hawaii was elevated to statehood status mainly because of its role during World War II. Why Did Hawaii Become a State? In the first quarter of the 20th century, there were many petitions from Hawaii pushing for the federal government to grant it statehood status. These petitions were considered as void and they were therefore ignored by the federal government. In March 1959, the Hawaii Admission Act was passed by the Congress. President Dwight Eisenhower then signed it to approve Hawaii’s admission. The Act did not capture Palmyra Atoll which was part of Hawaiian territory. A referendum was held in Hawaii on June 27, 1959, in order to approve its petitions of becoming a state. Over 93% of the voters wanted Hawaii to be granted statehood. Approximately 5.7% of the voters rejected the proposal and voted for Hawaii to remain a US territory. After the success of the referendum, Hawaii was removed from the list of non-self governing territories. It officially became a state on August 21, 1959. Hawaiians claimed it was necessary for them to be considered a state and not just a mere territory due to the loyalty it granted the United States during World War II. Hawaiians pressed for their admission to statehood status because they wanted to fully exercise their democratic rights, elect their leaders, and participate in making their own leadership decisions. They did not want to be led and controlled without their participation. When did Hawaii become a state? Hawaii received statehood on August 21, 1959. About the Author John Misachi is a seasoned writer with 5+ years of experience. His favorite topics include finance, history, geography, agriculture, legal, and sports. Your MLA Citation Your APA Citation Your Chicago Citation Your Harvard CitationRemember to italicize the title of this article in your Harvard citation.	731	ENGLISH	1
Bill Traylor, regarded today as one of America’s most important artists, was born into an enslaved family in rural Alabama around 1853. Traylor and his family continued to work as farm laborers after Emancipation, work that Traylor himself spent some seven decades doing. In the late 1920s, Traylor moved by himself to Montgomery, Alabama. About a decade later, no longer able to take on heavy physical labor, he began to make drawings. What does it mean for Traylor, untrained as an artist, to now be held in such high esteem? Certainly, part of what makes Traylor’s story so profound is that he chose to become an artist of his own volition; no one suggested he make drawings or showed him how to do it. In fact, in the days of slavery, literacy was strictly the privilege of whites. Reading and writing were regarded as tools of empowerment, and blacks seeking these tools were often harshly punished. Traylor never became literate, and in his time and place, the very act of taking up pencil and paper might have been viewed as an affront to white society—even if it was becoming increasingly common for African Americans to be both educated and successful. So what Traylor did was radical in multiple ways. He was among the first generation of black people to become American citizens, and Traylor grappled with the meaning of that identity as he sat in the black business district of Montgomery in the 1930s and 1940s and watched a rising class of business owners and community leaders—finely dressed, educated black folks who were strong, creative, and were assertively shaping a cultural identity distinct from that of white America. Traylor created a record not just of his own selfhood, but also of the oral and vernacular culture that had shaped him. Many terms are bandied about for untrained artists; we often hear them called self-taught, folk, visionary, or “outsider.” Traylor may not have conceptualized being an artist in a predetermined or conventional way, but the way we talk about him and his art matters. Traylor lived and worked quite literally in a different world than that of the mainstream fine arts.. And as is true with any artist, the facts of his life provide meaningful contexts and deeply inform the work he made. It is highly significant that Traylor came through slavery and lived the rest of his days in the Jim Crow South—this life powerfully undergirds the entire body of work. Still, when we speak of an artist as being successful or important only within a subcategory of art, we diminish an artist’s larger validity. To say, for example, that Traylor is among America’s “most important self-taught artists” is to qualify his importance, to send a signal that his work is ultimately lesser than that of trained, mainstream artists—that it exists in a subcategory without full rank. To call an artist an “outsider” is to note difference as the foremost framework. The term describes the artist, not the art, and ultimately functions as a euphemism for race, class, or social agency. Marketers often grab encompassing terms because they are easy, but “outsider” has always been a disparaging way of grouping individuals by difference, rather than seeking to foster a broader understanding of art and its diverse makers. Understanding context in a deep way brings meaning to art that is unique and unaffiliated with the mainstream art world, yet it is key to remember that qualifiers always signal disparity. We recognize that it is demeaning and inappropriate to say, for example, that someone is “among the best female employees,” or “among the best black experts,” but we have yet to fully extend this to artists like Traylor. It has been clear for decades that Traylor is among the most important self-taught artists; his work fetches blue-chip prices and is recognized and collected the world over. Today we need to look at the magnitude of what he did against the larger backdrop of art in his nation. He is one of America’s most important artists—no qualifier welcome. Between Worlds fleshes this out and proposes a different, more encompassing course that moves beyond an exclusionary past. This article originally appeared on the blog of the Princeton University Press. The exhibition Between Worlds: The Art of Bill Traylor remains on view through March 17, 2019. # # # On Tuesday, November 6, from 6-7 pm join SAAM curator Leslie Umberger and folklorist Diana N’Diaye as they discuss the significance that clothing and personal adornment play in Traylor’s work and in African American history and culture. N’Diaye is a curator at the Smithsonian Center for Folklife and Cultural Heritage. Source link Art	<urn:uuid:8d93d002-d0d5-4406-a904-0182a1bdb524>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://miifplus.com/qualification-exclusion-and-the-art-of-bill-traylor/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250589861.0/warc/CC-MAIN-20200117152059-20200117180059-00088.warc.gz	en	0.982897	1,007	3.859375	4	[ -0.22769343852996826, 0.044800352305173874, 0.007361248135566711, -0.06667470932006836, -0.18064548075199127, 0.4121841788291931, 0.3964501619338989, -0.4571794867515564, -0.04661555215716362, -0.09885144233703613, 0.06514623761177063, 0.12984828650951385, 0.16678011417388916, 0.1268894523...	1	Bill Traylor, regarded today as one of America’s most important artists, was born into an enslaved family in rural Alabama around 1853. Traylor and his family continued to work as farm laborers after Emancipation, work that Traylor himself spent some seven decades doing. In the late 1920s, Traylor moved by himself to Montgomery, Alabama. About a decade later, no longer able to take on heavy physical labor, he began to make drawings. What does it mean for Traylor, untrained as an artist, to now be held in such high esteem? Certainly, part of what makes Traylor’s story so profound is that he chose to become an artist of his own volition; no one suggested he make drawings or showed him how to do it. In fact, in the days of slavery, literacy was strictly the privilege of whites. Reading and writing were regarded as tools of empowerment, and blacks seeking these tools were often harshly punished. Traylor never became literate, and in his time and place, the very act of taking up pencil and paper might have been viewed as an affront to white society—even if it was becoming increasingly common for African Americans to be both educated and successful. So what Traylor did was radical in multiple ways. He was among the first generation of black people to become American citizens, and Traylor grappled with the meaning of that identity as he sat in the black business district of Montgomery in the 1930s and 1940s and watched a rising class of business owners and community leaders—finely dressed, educated black folks who were strong, creative, and were assertively shaping a cultural identity distinct from that of white America. Traylor created a record not just of his own selfhood, but also of the oral and vernacular culture that had shaped him. Many terms are bandied about for untrained artists; we often hear them called self-taught, folk, visionary, or “outsider.” Traylor may not have conceptualized being an artist in a predetermined or conventional way, but the way we talk about him and his art matters. Traylor lived and worked quite literally in a different world than that of the mainstream fine arts.. And as is true with any artist, the facts of his life provide meaningful contexts and deeply inform the work he made. It is highly significant that Traylor came through slavery and lived the rest of his days in the Jim Crow South—this life powerfully undergirds the entire body of work. Still, when we speak of an artist as being successful or important only within a subcategory of art, we diminish an artist’s larger validity. To say, for example, that Traylor is among America’s “most important self-taught artists” is to qualify his importance, to send a signal that his work is ultimately lesser than that of trained, mainstream artists—that it exists in a subcategory without full rank. To call an artist an “outsider” is to note difference as the foremost framework. The term describes the artist, not the art, and ultimately functions as a euphemism for race, class, or social agency. Marketers often grab encompassing terms because they are easy, but “outsider” has always been a disparaging way of grouping individuals by difference, rather than seeking to foster a broader understanding of art and its diverse makers. Understanding context in a deep way brings meaning to art that is unique and unaffiliated with the mainstream art world, yet it is key to remember that qualifiers always signal disparity. We recognize that it is demeaning and inappropriate to say, for example, that someone is “among the best female employees,” or “among the best black experts,” but we have yet to fully extend this to artists like Traylor. It has been clear for decades that Traylor is among the most important self-taught artists; his work fetches blue-chip prices and is recognized and collected the world over. Today we need to look at the magnitude of what he did against the larger backdrop of art in his nation. He is one of America’s most important artists—no qualifier welcome. Between Worlds fleshes this out and proposes a different, more encompassing course that moves beyond an exclusionary past. This article originally appeared on the blog of the Princeton University Press. The exhibition Between Worlds: The Art of Bill Traylor remains on view through March 17, 2019. # # # On Tuesday, November 6, from 6-7 pm join SAAM curator Leslie Umberger and folklorist Diana N’Diaye as they discuss the significance that clothing and personal adornment play in Traylor’s work and in African American history and culture. N’Diaye is a curator at the Smithsonian Center for Folklife and Cultural Heritage. Source link Art	992	ENGLISH	1
Before Trevithick were Savery, Newcomen and Watt. And way before them, Hero of Alexandria (1st century AD) Thomas Savery, a military engineer from Devon, took out a patent in 1698 for a steam operated pump. It had no moving parts, except some valves. It had 2 low pressure boilers. Steam from one boiler was introduced into one chamber, and water was then introduced which condensed the steam, forming a partial vacuum, which sucked up water from below. Steam from the other boiler was then introduced, which pushed the water upwards. As a pump it was a failure, and it is not known if any were made. Modern reconstructions have also been unable to pump water successfully. But the patent lasted, and forced Newcomen to involve Savery with his invention in 1712. Thomas Newcomen was an ironmonger and Baptist lay-preacher from Dartmouth, Devon, and he is the reason that I am currently in this pretty Devon town. There is an original Newcomen “atmospheric engine” in Dartmouth. (taken at an angle to avoid window reflections) The Newcomen pump, (for pumping water from the mines was its purpose) also used the condensation of steam creating a partial vacuum, as its principle of action, and it was quite successful. So successful in fact, that more than 600 of them were built, and they continued to be built well after the improvements of Watt and Trevithick, into the nineteenth century. In the diagram above, the 22″ power cylinder is on the right, and the pump cylinder is on the left. The genius of this design is that the pump can operate in the depths of the mine (or canal or military trench) while the engine remains above ground. It is incredibly inefficient in thermal terms, converting only 1:200 of the energy from burning coal into the mechanical energy of the pump, but it was by far, more powerful than any pumps driven by man, horse, wind or water at that time. The room in which the Dartmouth engine is housed is just bigger than the 15′ high engine, so pictures are difficult. All wood, except the power cylinder on the right, and the pump and pipes (not seen). The curved ends of the big wooden beam keep the piston rod and pump rod vertical. Cylinder boring had not been introduced yet, so the gap between piston and cylinder was up to 1/4″. The valves to admit the steam and water were originally operated by hand, but later some automated simple levers were introduced. Note the square nuts (original). It appears that the woodwork is mostly original, albeit repaired in places. The pump connection The Newcomen engines were simple, and effective. Their main problem was that they consumed vast quantities of coal. They were widely used, but there was/are no coal deposits in Cornwall, and transporting coal from Wales was costly, and taxed. James Watt‘s big contribution to steam engines was to add a condenser to the engine, which was separated from the power cylinder. That doubled the efficiency. He also sealed the top of the cylinder, so both strokes of the piston rather than just the down stroke, were power strokes. But it was still a vacuum powered engine, and therefore had an absolute limit of working pressure of something less than atmospheric pressure (15psi). Richard Trevithick‘s main contribution in 1800 was to increase the steam pressure available, by inventing the “Cornish boiler” which produced steam at 50psi, and even up to 145psi. This more than doubled again the thermal efficiency of the steam engine, and made it much more compact, leading to his applications of steam engines in road vehicles, railway locomotives, ship engines, and industrial stationary engines (like my model dredger engine). Watt modified Newcomen engine on the left, Trevithick dredger engine on the right. Size comparison. Tomorrow I am driving to Portsmouth. So I will leave the west country inventors of steam engines. It has been a fascinating journey. First stop, Fort Nelson. To renew my acquaintance with the Ottoman bombard, which was the subject of my blogs several years ago.	<urn:uuid:3816b65f-18cb-4552-a8a1-28d29eb7237e>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://johnsmachines.com/tag/trevithick/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594101.10/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119010920-20200119034920-00495.warc.gz	en	0.982068	880	3.53125	4	[ -0.09975729882717133, 0.18618357181549072, 0.35953038930892944, -0.19557051360607147, -0.2826409339904785, -0.17464347183704376, -0.25313839316368103, 0.08768932521343231, -0.20305746793746948, -0.05957891047000885, -0.26388466358184814, -0.46189603209495544, 0.29838335514068604, -0.239469...	4	Before Trevithick were Savery, Newcomen and Watt. And way before them, Hero of Alexandria (1st century AD) Thomas Savery, a military engineer from Devon, took out a patent in 1698 for a steam operated pump. It had no moving parts, except some valves. It had 2 low pressure boilers. Steam from one boiler was introduced into one chamber, and water was then introduced which condensed the steam, forming a partial vacuum, which sucked up water from below. Steam from the other boiler was then introduced, which pushed the water upwards. As a pump it was a failure, and it is not known if any were made. Modern reconstructions have also been unable to pump water successfully. But the patent lasted, and forced Newcomen to involve Savery with his invention in 1712. Thomas Newcomen was an ironmonger and Baptist lay-preacher from Dartmouth, Devon, and he is the reason that I am currently in this pretty Devon town. There is an original Newcomen “atmospheric engine” in Dartmouth. (taken at an angle to avoid window reflections) The Newcomen pump, (for pumping water from the mines was its purpose) also used the condensation of steam creating a partial vacuum, as its principle of action, and it was quite successful. So successful in fact, that more than 600 of them were built, and they continued to be built well after the improvements of Watt and Trevithick, into the nineteenth century. In the diagram above, the 22″ power cylinder is on the right, and the pump cylinder is on the left. The genius of this design is that the pump can operate in the depths of the mine (or canal or military trench) while the engine remains above ground. It is incredibly inefficient in thermal terms, converting only 1:200 of the energy from burning coal into the mechanical energy of the pump, but it was by far, more powerful than any pumps driven by man, horse, wind or water at that time. The room in which the Dartmouth engine is housed is just bigger than the 15′ high engine, so pictures are difficult. All wood, except the power cylinder on the right, and the pump and pipes (not seen). The curved ends of the big wooden beam keep the piston rod and pump rod vertical. Cylinder boring had not been introduced yet, so the gap between piston and cylinder was up to 1/4″. The valves to admit the steam and water were originally operated by hand, but later some automated simple levers were introduced. Note the square nuts (original). It appears that the woodwork is mostly original, albeit repaired in places. The pump connection The Newcomen engines were simple, and effective. Their main problem was that they consumed vast quantities of coal. They were widely used, but there was/are no coal deposits in Cornwall, and transporting coal from Wales was costly, and taxed. James Watt‘s big contribution to steam engines was to add a condenser to the engine, which was separated from the power cylinder. That doubled the efficiency. He also sealed the top of the cylinder, so both strokes of the piston rather than just the down stroke, were power strokes. But it was still a vacuum powered engine, and therefore had an absolute limit of working pressure of something less than atmospheric pressure (15psi). Richard Trevithick‘s main contribution in 1800 was to increase the steam pressure available, by inventing the “Cornish boiler” which produced steam at 50psi, and even up to 145psi. This more than doubled again the thermal efficiency of the steam engine, and made it much more compact, leading to his applications of steam engines in road vehicles, railway locomotives, ship engines, and industrial stationary engines (like my model dredger engine). Watt modified Newcomen engine on the left, Trevithick dredger engine on the right. Size comparison. Tomorrow I am driving to Portsmouth. So I will leave the west country inventors of steam engines. It has been a fascinating journey. First stop, Fort Nelson. To renew my acquaintance with the Ottoman bombard, which was the subject of my blogs several years ago.	877	ENGLISH	1
Virginia Woolf is rightly considered the founder of modern feminist literary criticism. Prior to her landmark contributions to the field such as her works on A Room Of One's Own (1929), and Mrs. Dalloway (1925), these works projects her feminist manifesto of literary criticism. Jill (2002) claimed that "Virginia Woolf argued that women's experience, particularly in the women's movement, could be the basis for transformative social change". Virginia Woolf in her novel A Room Of One's Own is one of her effort to educate women to become more aware of their responsibilities and fight for their rights. The essay opens with Woolf's main conception that, 'a woman must have money and a room of her own if she is to write fiction'. Woolf in the essay highlighted that women are lacking in several aspect of opportunities to elevate themselves in public; first, they are lacking of financial freedom and second, the lack of 'space' for their own self. Woolf in this essay provoked that having money is essential for women because throughout of so many years, women are deprived in both material and intellectual. Women have no fortune and were mostly illiterate and only some were home-schooled during that time. In the essay, the narrator is considered herself as fortunate to have financial assistance from her aunt, cost $500 a year. She could survive on her own without being dependent on men or being a burden to somebody. Without financial freedom, Woolf implies that women will remain in second place to their male counterparts. The financial difference between men and women at the time of Woolf's writing is one of the effects that women were less successful gender in society. Thus by having money, women could be independent and the 'power' of having money will also open their horizon to great opportunities and possible chances to elevate in society. . 'A room' in the essay is necessary item for every woman to have as it provides time and space to engage in continuous writing or learning time.	<urn:uuid:ec50a9d0-29f6-44fd-970c-6e7ff935850c>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.exampleessays.com/viewpaper/216483.html	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250610004.56/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123101110-20200123130110-00550.warc.gz	en	0.982598	402	3.953125	4	[ 0.03928755596280098, -0.10994810611009598, 0.05114997923374176, 0.1520596295595169, -0.20797620713710785, 0.22618098556995392, -0.3050330877304077, 0.18761029839515686, 0.00848560780286789, 0.03551633656024933, 0.08064878731966019, 0.047772254794836044, 0.06853388994932175, -0.099905848503...	4	Virginia Woolf is rightly considered the founder of modern feminist literary criticism. Prior to her landmark contributions to the field such as her works on A Room Of One's Own (1929), and Mrs. Dalloway (1925), these works projects her feminist manifesto of literary criticism. Jill (2002) claimed that "Virginia Woolf argued that women's experience, particularly in the women's movement, could be the basis for transformative social change". Virginia Woolf in her novel A Room Of One's Own is one of her effort to educate women to become more aware of their responsibilities and fight for their rights. The essay opens with Woolf's main conception that, 'a woman must have money and a room of her own if she is to write fiction'. Woolf in the essay highlighted that women are lacking in several aspect of opportunities to elevate themselves in public; first, they are lacking of financial freedom and second, the lack of 'space' for their own self. Woolf in this essay provoked that having money is essential for women because throughout of so many years, women are deprived in both material and intellectual. Women have no fortune and were mostly illiterate and only some were home-schooled during that time. In the essay, the narrator is considered herself as fortunate to have financial assistance from her aunt, cost $500 a year. She could survive on her own without being dependent on men or being a burden to somebody. Without financial freedom, Woolf implies that women will remain in second place to their male counterparts. The financial difference between men and women at the time of Woolf's writing is one of the effects that women were less successful gender in society. Thus by having money, women could be independent and the 'power' of having money will also open their horizon to great opportunities and possible chances to elevate in society. . 'A room' in the essay is necessary item for every woman to have as it provides time and space to engage in continuous writing or learning time.	408	ENGLISH	1
Many of us think that humans have different kinds of teeth in their mouth to help us chew and grind our food. That is true, however, our various teeth serve many functions. The different kinds of teeth in our mouth support many aspects of our jaw construction. Teeth also help us to speak. There are four main types of teeth in our mouths. A further three categories, which are very rare, also exist but these mostly occur in a growing jaw. HERE ARE A FEW OF THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF HUMAN TEETH, AS WELL AS THEIR FUNCTIONS: Incisors – Humans have eight thin and straight teeth located at the front of their mouths. Four of these teeth, called incisors, are located on the top of the mouth and four of them are located on the bottom. Your incisors help you to bite into food, especially foods like apples or those which need to be bitten into smaller pieces. They also help you to pronounce words and help to support your lips and facial structure. Canines – Each human has four teeth which are pointy and sharp, located just beside the incisors. Those teeth are called canines and two of them are located on the top of your mouth and two of them are located on the bottom. They also help cut food into pieces. Canines not only support the lips, but they also help to pilot other teeth into the right place where the upper and lower jaws meet. Premolars – Premolars are also known as bicuspids and are located behind the canines. These teeth have a completely flat surface and they help to chew and grind food. Not only that, their flatness helps to support the height of the face. Fully grown adults usually have 8 premolars in their mouths. Four are located on the top and four are located at the bottom. Molars – The molars are located behind the premolars. An adult usually has 12 molars in their mouth. Six are located in the upper jaw and six are located in the lower jaw. These teeth have a completely flat surface and have the same function as the premolars; the molars help support the height of the face and help to grind food. The molars located on the lower jaw usually have two roots, whereas the molars located on the upper law have three roots. The American Dental Association also states that wisdom teeth are also forms of molars. Supernumerary Teeth – An adult usually has 32 teeth in total. However extra teeth, which are called supernumerary teeth, may grow. People may have an extra incisor, an extra canine, or even an extra molar. Natal Teeth – Natal teeth are also known as fetal teeth. These teeth usually appear at birth. Natal teeth are usually very weak and exist in the lower jaw. They can fall out very easily. Dentists often advise to have these teeth removed as early as possible to avoid any problems in the jaw or with the individual’s other teeth. Humans have quite a variety of teeth. Each of our teeth serves an important purpose, so it’s crucial that we take steps to keep them as healthy as possible. Brushing and flossing twice a day, as well as regular visits to Implant and General Dentistry of Middle Tennessee, will help you maintain your pearly whites. Schedule an appointment at Implant and General Dentistry of Middle Tennessee today!	<urn:uuid:828394c7-9ed1-46b5-ab3b-0a4d1692fb84>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://tndentistry.com/blog/many-different-kinds-teeth	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250614086.44/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123221108-20200124010108-00361.warc.gz	en	0.985662	715	3.96875	4	[ -0.23964247107505798, -0.15364791452884674, 0.2122957408428192, -0.23334799706935883, -0.3396517038345337, -0.1513265073299408, 0.12520790100097656, 0.011477140709757805, -0.0074571166187524796, 0.06234075501561165, 0.05013187974691391, -0.9052786827087402, -0.12036678194999695, -0.0837720...	1	Many of us think that humans have different kinds of teeth in their mouth to help us chew and grind our food. That is true, however, our various teeth serve many functions. The different kinds of teeth in our mouth support many aspects of our jaw construction. Teeth also help us to speak. There are four main types of teeth in our mouths. A further three categories, which are very rare, also exist but these mostly occur in a growing jaw. HERE ARE A FEW OF THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF HUMAN TEETH, AS WELL AS THEIR FUNCTIONS: Incisors – Humans have eight thin and straight teeth located at the front of their mouths. Four of these teeth, called incisors, are located on the top of the mouth and four of them are located on the bottom. Your incisors help you to bite into food, especially foods like apples or those which need to be bitten into smaller pieces. They also help you to pronounce words and help to support your lips and facial structure. Canines – Each human has four teeth which are pointy and sharp, located just beside the incisors. Those teeth are called canines and two of them are located on the top of your mouth and two of them are located on the bottom. They also help cut food into pieces. Canines not only support the lips, but they also help to pilot other teeth into the right place where the upper and lower jaws meet. Premolars – Premolars are also known as bicuspids and are located behind the canines. These teeth have a completely flat surface and they help to chew and grind food. Not only that, their flatness helps to support the height of the face. Fully grown adults usually have 8 premolars in their mouths. Four are located on the top and four are located at the bottom. Molars – The molars are located behind the premolars. An adult usually has 12 molars in their mouth. Six are located in the upper jaw and six are located in the lower jaw. These teeth have a completely flat surface and have the same function as the premolars; the molars help support the height of the face and help to grind food. The molars located on the lower jaw usually have two roots, whereas the molars located on the upper law have three roots. The American Dental Association also states that wisdom teeth are also forms of molars. Supernumerary Teeth – An adult usually has 32 teeth in total. However extra teeth, which are called supernumerary teeth, may grow. People may have an extra incisor, an extra canine, or even an extra molar. Natal Teeth – Natal teeth are also known as fetal teeth. These teeth usually appear at birth. Natal teeth are usually very weak and exist in the lower jaw. They can fall out very easily. Dentists often advise to have these teeth removed as early as possible to avoid any problems in the jaw or with the individual’s other teeth. Humans have quite a variety of teeth. Each of our teeth serves an important purpose, so it’s crucial that we take steps to keep them as healthy as possible. Brushing and flossing twice a day, as well as regular visits to Implant and General Dentistry of Middle Tennessee, will help you maintain your pearly whites. Schedule an appointment at Implant and General Dentistry of Middle Tennessee today!	685	ENGLISH	1
Rulers are the ones who make decisions on war, but the sacrifice is made by ordinary people. The Korean War, the first hot war in the cold war era, produced the most severe tragedy in the history of Korea. The impact was felt at foreign artists who had never even visited Korea. In 1951, Pablo Picasso, who was based in Paris at that time, produced a painting titled “Massacre in Korea,” reporting to the world the tragedy of the war. In the same year, Polish painter Wojciech Fangor created a painting titled “Korean Mother” to share the tragedy of the war. It depicts a bleeding mother lying on the ground, while her young son, gripping his mother’s body, stares beyond the audience. The helpless young boy looks as if he has lost the world, lacking the energy to even ask for help. On the background, black smoke appears on top of the village that has been bombed. It is unknown whether the child has survived as a war orphan or killed like his mother while seeking refuge. The artist did not explicitly show who the perpetrator is, but the audience can assume that the bombing of U.S. forces has killed the boy’s mother and the village, as the painting was created in Poland, a communist country which was under the influence of the Soviet Union at that time. The techniques used in the painting follow “Socialist Realism” from the Soviet Union. When this technique became an official art style in Poland in 1949, Fangor, who previously painted cubism style or Impressionist style paintings, had to adapt as well. The Korean War was the first theme he chose for his new style, also the first piece to convey political message. When the painting was first exhibited in Warsaw, he was criticized for not revealing the perpetrator of the bombing. However, this painting later became the symbol of anti-war and peace, encompassing the ideologies of the right and left. The sorrowful gaze of the war orphan is more powerful than any other anti-war message. It stresses that war leads to the tragedy and sacrifice of the weak and innocent.	<urn:uuid:2bad64ac-2a8f-49e1-84c9-8970ee26a523>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	http://www.donga.com/en/article/all/20190620/1766147/1/The-Korean-War-depicted-by-a-Polish-painter	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251783342.96/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128215526-20200129005526-00514.warc.gz	en	0.982837	443	4.03125	4	[ -0.13181109726428986, 0.7455002665519714, 0.4555237889289856, -0.17642106115818024, 0.09679336845874786, 0.1255691945552826, 0.2080019861459732, 0.18768800795078278, -0.4023420810699463, -0.1438540816307068, 0.12960809469223022, 0.14687234163284302, 0.21967215836048126, 0.7019749879837036,...	3	Rulers are the ones who make decisions on war, but the sacrifice is made by ordinary people. The Korean War, the first hot war in the cold war era, produced the most severe tragedy in the history of Korea. The impact was felt at foreign artists who had never even visited Korea. In 1951, Pablo Picasso, who was based in Paris at that time, produced a painting titled “Massacre in Korea,” reporting to the world the tragedy of the war. In the same year, Polish painter Wojciech Fangor created a painting titled “Korean Mother” to share the tragedy of the war. It depicts a bleeding mother lying on the ground, while her young son, gripping his mother’s body, stares beyond the audience. The helpless young boy looks as if he has lost the world, lacking the energy to even ask for help. On the background, black smoke appears on top of the village that has been bombed. It is unknown whether the child has survived as a war orphan or killed like his mother while seeking refuge. The artist did not explicitly show who the perpetrator is, but the audience can assume that the bombing of U.S. forces has killed the boy’s mother and the village, as the painting was created in Poland, a communist country which was under the influence of the Soviet Union at that time. The techniques used in the painting follow “Socialist Realism” from the Soviet Union. When this technique became an official art style in Poland in 1949, Fangor, who previously painted cubism style or Impressionist style paintings, had to adapt as well. The Korean War was the first theme he chose for his new style, also the first piece to convey political message. When the painting was first exhibited in Warsaw, he was criticized for not revealing the perpetrator of the bombing. However, this painting later became the symbol of anti-war and peace, encompassing the ideologies of the right and left. The sorrowful gaze of the war orphan is more powerful than any other anti-war message. It stresses that war leads to the tragedy and sacrifice of the weak and innocent.	430	ENGLISH	1
Luisa Moreno, (1907-1992), Labor Organizer Activist in the Mexican-American Civil Rights Movement (which preceded Chicano activism) Organized first National Congress of Spanish-Speaking People (1938) Luisa Moreno was born in Guatemala in an upper-class family. She later moved to Mexico where she married; she and her spouse moved to the United States in 1928 and settled in New York City. By the early 1930s the numbers of jobs for anyone were severely limited but Moreno found work as a sewing machine operator in Spanish Harlem. She quickly became aware of the poor conditions for workers and she founded a Latina garment workers union. This brought her to the attention of the American Federation of Labor (AFL), the mainstream organization for labor organizers. They hired her to help organize, but she soon moved on to their more progressive rival, the CIO the Congress of Industrial Organizations. Moreno became one of the prime organizers of the movement against canneries and food-processing plants in the southwest. On behalf of the CIO, she formed the United Cannery, Agricultural, Packing and Allied Workers of America (UCAPAWA). In organizing this group she brought thousands of Mexican food-processing workers into the ranks of organized labor. Of the new members, 75 percent were women. In 1939 she pulled together the first Latino civil rights assembly (El Congreso de Pueblos que Hablan Español). World War II During World War II Moreno was living in San Diego where shipping and manufacturing were gearing up for the war effort. Thousands of Mexicans moved north from Mexico to work but no matter what their qualifications, they were restricted to low-paying menial jobs—they were not allowed to work in war-related industries, including the shipyards or the petroleum industry. Life of the Migrant Workers—Full of Sorrow In 1940 she was asked to speak to before the American Committee for the Protection of the Foreign Born. She eloquently described the lives of migrant workers in words that could be added to pamphlets or websites today: “These people are not aliens. They have contributed their endurance, sacrifices, youth and labor to the Southwest. Indirectly they have paid more taxes than the stockholders of California’s industrialized agriculture, the sugar companies and the large cotton interests, that operate or have operated with the labor of Mexican workers.” Fought Against Racial Profiling and Violence In 1942 she became active during the Sleepy Lagoon murder trial in San Diego where she was living at the time. The case involved the death of Jose Diaz and the accusation was that he had been killed by a gang of marauding Mexicans. However evidence uncovered later indicated that he may have been killed by a hit-and-run driver or as a result of his own drunk driving. Nonetheless, 300 young Chicanos were arrested and 23 were convicted. The stress this raised in the community led to “riots” that were directed against Mexican-Americans. Many of these anti-Mexican campaigns were carried out by soldiers and sailors who were stationed in San Diego. One of the sailors was quoted as saying: “We’re only out to do what the police have failed to do…we’re going to clean up this situation.” As Americans came back from the war and were looking for work, the United States actively tried to remove from the country Mexicans and Mexican-Americans (Operation Wetback). Labor leaders were a particularly popular target for the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). As a result, Luisa Moreno began receiving threatening letters and On November 30, 1950, she and her second husband left the country. The reason given for her deportation was that she had one time been a member of the Communist Party. She moved first to Mexico and then Guatemala. She and her husband had to leave Guatemala when the CIA sponsored a coup against the Guatemalan government in 1954. They eventually returned to Guatemala where she lived until her death in 1992. What Was the U.S. Bracero Program? The Bracero Program was a guest worker program begun in a partnership between the United States and Mexico on August 4, 1942. It was a... » Rose Knox: Foremost Woman Industrialist of Her Day Rose Knox (1857-1950) was active in the Knox Gelatin Company from the start of the business in 1891, and she became president and CEO in... » Mary Heaton Vorse (1874-1966), Journalist and Labor Activist • Honored by the United Auto Workers (1961) as a recipient of the first UAW Social Justice Award for her work as a labor journalist... » Dolores Huerta (1930- ), labor and civil rights activist, advocate for immigrants Co-founder of the United Farm Workers of America “Democracy can only work if the people take power,” says Dolores Huerta, and she has dedicated her... »	<urn:uuid:e6984d55-32fc-4446-837b-11aaf20ee053>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://americacomesalive.com/2013/09/01/luisa-moreno-1907-1992-labor-organizer/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250591431.4/warc/CC-MAIN-20200117234621-20200118022621-00108.warc.gz	en	0.980248	1,034	3.703125	4	[ -0.13749822974205017, 0.09569595754146576, 0.1785508394241333, 0.341994047164917, -0.14982178807258606, 0.012568913400173187, -0.08901078253984451, 0.07054553925991058, -0.36977672576904297, -0.3244767189025879, 0.20212730765342712, 0.34194430708885193, -0.06445275247097015, 0.183675765991...	2	Luisa Moreno, (1907-1992), Labor Organizer Activist in the Mexican-American Civil Rights Movement (which preceded Chicano activism) Organized first National Congress of Spanish-Speaking People (1938) Luisa Moreno was born in Guatemala in an upper-class family. She later moved to Mexico where she married; she and her spouse moved to the United States in 1928 and settled in New York City. By the early 1930s the numbers of jobs for anyone were severely limited but Moreno found work as a sewing machine operator in Spanish Harlem. She quickly became aware of the poor conditions for workers and she founded a Latina garment workers union. This brought her to the attention of the American Federation of Labor (AFL), the mainstream organization for labor organizers. They hired her to help organize, but she soon moved on to their more progressive rival, the CIO the Congress of Industrial Organizations. Moreno became one of the prime organizers of the movement against canneries and food-processing plants in the southwest. On behalf of the CIO, she formed the United Cannery, Agricultural, Packing and Allied Workers of America (UCAPAWA). In organizing this group she brought thousands of Mexican food-processing workers into the ranks of organized labor. Of the new members, 75 percent were women. In 1939 she pulled together the first Latino civil rights assembly (El Congreso de Pueblos que Hablan Español). World War II During World War II Moreno was living in San Diego where shipping and manufacturing were gearing up for the war effort. Thousands of Mexicans moved north from Mexico to work but no matter what their qualifications, they were restricted to low-paying menial jobs—they were not allowed to work in war-related industries, including the shipyards or the petroleum industry. Life of the Migrant Workers—Full of Sorrow In 1940 she was asked to speak to before the American Committee for the Protection of the Foreign Born. She eloquently described the lives of migrant workers in words that could be added to pamphlets or websites today: “These people are not aliens. They have contributed their endurance, sacrifices, youth and labor to the Southwest. Indirectly they have paid more taxes than the stockholders of California’s industrialized agriculture, the sugar companies and the large cotton interests, that operate or have operated with the labor of Mexican workers.” Fought Against Racial Profiling and Violence In 1942 she became active during the Sleepy Lagoon murder trial in San Diego where she was living at the time. The case involved the death of Jose Diaz and the accusation was that he had been killed by a gang of marauding Mexicans. However evidence uncovered later indicated that he may have been killed by a hit-and-run driver or as a result of his own drunk driving. Nonetheless, 300 young Chicanos were arrested and 23 were convicted. The stress this raised in the community led to “riots” that were directed against Mexican-Americans. Many of these anti-Mexican campaigns were carried out by soldiers and sailors who were stationed in San Diego. One of the sailors was quoted as saying: “We’re only out to do what the police have failed to do…we’re going to clean up this situation.” As Americans came back from the war and were looking for work, the United States actively tried to remove from the country Mexicans and Mexican-Americans (Operation Wetback). Labor leaders were a particularly popular target for the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). As a result, Luisa Moreno began receiving threatening letters and On November 30, 1950, she and her second husband left the country. The reason given for her deportation was that she had one time been a member of the Communist Party. She moved first to Mexico and then Guatemala. She and her husband had to leave Guatemala when the CIA sponsored a coup against the Guatemalan government in 1954. They eventually returned to Guatemala where she lived until her death in 1992. What Was the U.S. Bracero Program? The Bracero Program was a guest worker program begun in a partnership between the United States and Mexico on August 4, 1942. It was a... » Rose Knox: Foremost Woman Industrialist of Her Day Rose Knox (1857-1950) was active in the Knox Gelatin Company from the start of the business in 1891, and she became president and CEO in... » Mary Heaton Vorse (1874-1966), Journalist and Labor Activist • Honored by the United Auto Workers (1961) as a recipient of the first UAW Social Justice Award for her work as a labor journalist... » Dolores Huerta (1930- ), labor and civil rights activist, advocate for immigrants Co-founder of the United Farm Workers of America “Democracy can only work if the people take power,” says Dolores Huerta, and she has dedicated her... »	1,059	ENGLISH	1
As historians we studied the Vikings, answering the question – ‘Were the Vikings always Victorious and Vicious?’ First of all, we looked at where the Vikings fit in a historical timeline, thinking about areas we have previously studied and significant periods in history. Then we used maps to locate where the Vikings were from and their pathways of invasion. We studied the longships and designed, created and evaluated our own during our DT sessions. Following this, we looked at the lives of the Vikings, studying closely their lifestyles, jobs and homes. We then wrote a diary entry imagining we were an 11-year-old Viking child. Finally we ended our topic looking at the food the Vikings ate and designed a menu. To celebrate this topic we asked the children to create their own Viking projects which we then presented to our loved ones, families and carers.	<urn:uuid:3f875ef2-da0d-4d5a-8374-918a304ee497>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	http://www.west-boldon.co.uk/learning-challenge-were-the-vikings-always-victorious-and-vicious/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250606696.26/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122042145-20200122071145-00259.warc.gz	en	0.98104	173	3.4375	3	[ -0.016126487404108047, 0.5027868747711182, 0.15668445825576782, -0.029477015137672424, 0.08476940542459488, 0.14183375239372253, -0.4310515224933624, 0.17402423918247223, -0.07687872648239136, -0.3184657394886017, 0.16874586045742035, -0.13683781027793884, 0.03272994980216026, 0.0048393546...	5	As historians we studied the Vikings, answering the question – ‘Were the Vikings always Victorious and Vicious?’ First of all, we looked at where the Vikings fit in a historical timeline, thinking about areas we have previously studied and significant periods in history. Then we used maps to locate where the Vikings were from and their pathways of invasion. We studied the longships and designed, created and evaluated our own during our DT sessions. Following this, we looked at the lives of the Vikings, studying closely their lifestyles, jobs and homes. We then wrote a diary entry imagining we were an 11-year-old Viking child. Finally we ended our topic looking at the food the Vikings ate and designed a menu. To celebrate this topic we asked the children to create their own Viking projects which we then presented to our loved ones, families and carers.	170	ENGLISH	1
The value of money has to be based on something of value, so people can count on its value and trust that it is stable over time. For this reason, many countries have migrated to a fiat currency. A fiat currency is legal tender whose value is backed by the government that issues it. This approach differs from money whose value is underpinned by some physical good such as gold or silver, called commodity money. No currency currently backs its currency with gold, but many have in the past, including the UK who were forced to leave the gold standard in 1931 after speculative attacks on the pound. The United States used a gold standard for most of the late 19th and early 20th century. A person could exchange U.S. currency, as well as many public and even some private debts for gold as late as 1971. There is no country which does not use fiat money. It is the natural evolution of currency. There is no need to back the money by any single commodity. Fiat currency is backed by the whole economy of the issuing country or every single product/service produced by it.	<urn:uuid:ad13b2a6-d6fa-41e1-85ac-ff9080d54a26>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.comparecurrencycards.co.uk/blog/what-is-a-fiat-currency/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250593295.11/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118164132-20200118192132-00553.warc.gz	en	0.987153	224	3.484375	3	[ -0.3426402807235718, -0.21231600642204285, -0.13673286139965057, 0.07721102982759476, 0.005830452777445316, -0.16541041433811188, -0.02130046673119068, -0.12924745678901672, -0.15700969099998474, -0.10226013511419296, 0.28955408930778503, -0.09437762200832367, 0.0155247263610363, 0.3131496...	3	The value of money has to be based on something of value, so people can count on its value and trust that it is stable over time. For this reason, many countries have migrated to a fiat currency. A fiat currency is legal tender whose value is backed by the government that issues it. This approach differs from money whose value is underpinned by some physical good such as gold or silver, called commodity money. No currency currently backs its currency with gold, but many have in the past, including the UK who were forced to leave the gold standard in 1931 after speculative attacks on the pound. The United States used a gold standard for most of the late 19th and early 20th century. A person could exchange U.S. currency, as well as many public and even some private debts for gold as late as 1971. There is no country which does not use fiat money. It is the natural evolution of currency. There is no need to back the money by any single commodity. Fiat currency is backed by the whole economy of the issuing country or every single product/service produced by it.	231	ENGLISH	1
The walls of a small cave on the McDonald Farm near Jane Lew are inscribed with remarkably preserved petroglyphs first documented in 1889 by W. H. Holmes of the Bureau of American Ethnology. Pottery artifacts that were found on the floor indicated that the shelter had been used between 500 and 1675 AD. The etchings were made by pecking or carving outlines of the shapes and by rubbing a depression into the stone under the entire image. The artist or artists made unusual of use of the color red. The petroglyphs were also documented in the 1958 book "Caverns of West Virginia" by William E. Davies. The site was studied by archaeologist James L. Swauger in 1970 and found to be virtually unchanged since its discovery. Nomination Form PDF	<urn:uuid:5e046256-a91a-4819-8b2c-27d39d3211bd>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://wvexplorer.com/attractions/historic-landmarks/indian-cave-petroglyphs/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250609478.50/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123071220-20200123100220-00359.warc.gz	en	0.984446	163	3.265625	3	[ -0.39368849992752075, 0.11179815977811813, 0.40004053711891174, 0.27937349677085876, 0.017806529998779297, 0.5136252641677856, -0.09850482642650604, -0.030320903286337852, -0.3687571585178375, 0.23225684463977814, -0.13710032403469086, -0.48879972100257874, -0.3022398352622986, 0.308815866...	11	The walls of a small cave on the McDonald Farm near Jane Lew are inscribed with remarkably preserved petroglyphs first documented in 1889 by W. H. Holmes of the Bureau of American Ethnology. Pottery artifacts that were found on the floor indicated that the shelter had been used between 500 and 1675 AD. The etchings were made by pecking or carving outlines of the shapes and by rubbing a depression into the stone under the entire image. The artist or artists made unusual of use of the color red. The petroglyphs were also documented in the 1958 book "Caverns of West Virginia" by William E. Davies. The site was studied by archaeologist James L. Swauger in 1970 and found to be virtually unchanged since its discovery. Nomination Form PDF	180	ENGLISH	1
World War I \|World War I\| (Clockwise from the top) \|Allied Powers:\|\|Central Powers:\| \|Commanders and leaders\| \|Total: 42,959,850\|\|Total: 25,248,321\| \|Casualties and losses\| Military deaths by country World War I (WWI or WW1), also called the First World War, began on July 28, 1914 and lasted until November 11, 1918. The war was a global war that lasted exactly 4 years, 3 months and 14 days. Most of the fighting was in Europe, but soldiers from many other countries took part, and it changed the colonial empires of the European powers. Before World War II began in 1939, World War I was called the Great War or the World War. 135 countries took part in World War I, and nearly 10 million people died while fighting. Before the war, European countries had formed alliances with each other to protect themselves. However, by doing this they had divided themselves into two groups. When Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria was assassinated on 28 June 1914, Austria-Hungary blamed Serbia and declared war on them. Serbia's ally Russia then declared war on Austria-Hungary. This set off a chain of events in which the two groups of countries declared war on each other. The two sides were the Allied Powers (mainly Russia, France and the British Empire) and the Central Powers (mainly Germany, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire). There was fighting in many different areas (fronts). The French and British fought the Germans on the Western Front in France and Belgium. Germany had tried to defeat France quickly, but were stopped in the First Battle of the Marne. After that, most of the fighting here was trench warfare. The Russians fought the Germans and Austro-Hungarians on the Eastern Front in Central and Eastern Europe. Fighting here was not trench warfare but mobile warfare. The other main areas of fighting were in the Middle East, in the Gallipoli region of Turkey and between Italy and Austria-Hungary. Fighting also took place in Africa, China, and at sea as well as in the air. World War I was the first major war where tanks, airplanes, and submarines (or U-boats) were important weapons. In 1917, the Russians had a revolution, which led to them leaving the war in March 1918. Also in 1917, the United States entered the war, though it took a year for their main army to arrive. In the gap between when the Russians left and the Americans arrived, the Germans launched a huge attack in March 1918 to try to win the war, but it was not enough. In August-November 1918, the Allied Powers won a big victory against the Germans in the Hundred Days Offensive. Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire then agreed to stop fighting. The German government collapsed and a new government agreed to end the war on 11 November. The war was ended by the signing of many different treaties, the most important being the Treaty of Versailles. It also led to the creation of the League of Nations, which was meant to prevent wars. People were shocked by the size of the war, how many people it killed and how much damage it caused. They hoped it would be the war to end all wars. Instead, it led to another, larger world war 21 years later. - 1 Beginning - 2 Germany vs Russia - 3 Britain vs Germany - 4 Turkey - 5 Bulgaria vs Serbia and Greece - 6 Russian Revolution - 7 Important events in the war - 8 Trench warfare - 9 Airplanes - 10 USA vs Germany - 11 Russia - 12 Aftermath - 13 Related pages - 14 Notes - 15 References - 16 Other websites Beginning[change \| change source] By 1914, trouble was on the rise in Europe. Many countries feared invasion from the other. For example, Germany was becoming increasingly powerful, and the British saw this as a threat to the British Empire. The countries formed alliances to protect themselves, but this divided them into two groups. Germany and Austria-Hungary had been allies since 1879. They had then formed the Triple Alliance with Italy in 1882. France and Russia became allies in 1894. They then joined with Britain to form the Triple Entente. In 1908, Austria-Hungary had taken over Bosnia, a region next to Serbia. Some people living in Bosnia were Serbian, and wanted the area to be part of Serbia. One of these was the Black Hand organization. They sent men to kill Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria when he visited Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia. They all failed to kill him with grenades while he passed through a large crowd. But one of them, a Serbian student named Gavrilo Princip, shot him and his pregnant wife with a pistol. Austria-Hungary blamed Serbia for the assassination. Germany supported Austria-Hungary and promised full support should it come to war. Austria-Hungary sent a July Ultimatum to Serbia, listing 10 very strict rules they would have to agree to. Many historians think that Austria-Hungary already wanted a war with Serbia. Serbia agreed to most of the ten rules on the list, but not all of them. Austria-Hungary then declared war on Serbia. This quickly led to a full-scale war. Both countries' allies became involved in the war in a matter of days. Russia joined the war on Serbia's side because the people of Serbia were Slavic, for example Russia, and the Slavic countries had agreed to help each other if they were attacked. Since Russia is a large country it had to move soldiers closer to the war, but Germany feared that Russia's soldiers would also attack Germany. Russia did not like Germany because of things Germany had done in the past to become stronger. Germany declared war on Russia, and began to carry out a plan created long before to fight a war in Europe. Because Germany is in the middle of Europe, Germany could not attack to the east towards Russia without weakening itself in the west, towards France. Germany's plan involved quickly defeating France in the west before Russia was ready to fight, and then moving her armies to the east to face Russia. Germany could not quickly invade France directly, because France had put a lot of forts on the border, so Germany invaded the neighboring country of Belgium to then invade France through the undefended French/Belgian border. Great Britain then joined the war, saying they wanted to protect Belgium. Some historians think that even if Germany had stayed out of Belgium, the British would have still joined the war to help France. Soon most of Europe became involved. The Ottoman Empire (now Turkey) joined the war on the side of Germany and Austria-Hungary. It is not clear why they entered or chose to fight on their side, but they had become friendly to Germany. Although Italy was allied with German and Austria-Hungary, they had only agreed to fight if those countries were attacked first. Italy said that because Austria-Hungary had attacked Serbia first, they did not need to fight. They also did not like Austria-Hungary. Italy joined the war in 1915 on the Allied Powers' side. Germany vs Russia[change \| change source] Germany was allied with Austria-Hungary. Russia was allied with Serbia. The German government was afraid that because Austria-Hungary had attacked Serbia, Russia would attack Austria-Hungary to help Serbia. Because of this, Germany felt it had to help Austria-Hungary by attacking Russia first, before it could attack Austria-Hungary. The problem was that Russia was also friends with France, and the Germans thought the French might attack them to help Russia. So the Germans decided that they could win the war if they attacked France first, and quickly. They could mobilize very quickly. They had a list of all the men who had to join the army, and where those men had to go, and the times of every train that would carry those men to where they would have to fight. France was doing the same thing, but could not do it as quickly. The Germans thought that if they attacked France first, they could 'knock France' out of the war before Russia could attack them. Russia had a big army, but Germany thought that it would take six weeks to mobilize and a long time before they could attack the Central Powers. That wasn't true, because the Russian Army mobilized in ten days. Also, the Russians drove deep into Austria. Britain vs Germany[change \| change source] Great Britain was allied with Belgium, and became quickly involved in the war. Britain had promised to protect Belgian neutrality. Germany passed through Belgium to reach Paris before Russia could mobilize and open up a second front against them. On August 4, 1914, Britain declared war against Germany in support of Belgium. Britain had the biggest empire (it ruled over a quarter of the world). If Germany conquered France, it might take Britain and France's colonies and become the most powerful and biggest empire in the world. Britain was also worried about Germany's growing military power. Germany was developing its large army into one of the most powerful in the world. The British Army was quite small. The British Royal Navy was the largest and best in the world, and in the 19th century that was enough to keep other naval powers from attacking. Germany was a land power, and Britain was a sea power. But now the Germans were building a large navy. This was seen as a threat to Britain. However, the decision to declare war was taken under its alliance with Belgium in the Treaty of London (1839). The Government might have decided differently. No-one foresaw how long the war would last, and what the terrible costs would be. Turkey[change \| change source] Britain also fought against Turkey because the Ottoman Empire was supporting Germany. Britain did not have any animosity towards the Turks. However, by fighting the Turks in the Mesopotamia region (in what is now called Iraq), in the Arabian Peninsula and other places, Britain was able to defeat them with help from the British Indian Army. Later, after the War ended, Britain was able to get some areas from the old Turkish empire which was breaking up, and to add them to the British Empire. Greece went into the war because its leader supported the Allied cause. Greece and Serbia had become independent, but many Greeks still lived in lands that were once Greek but were now in the Turkish Ottoman Empire. Having recently won the Balkan Wars, the Greeks especially wanted to control other land to the north that was under Bulgarian and Turkish rule, so they declared war. Turkey killed most of the Greek army as the Greeks tried to regain parts of Turkey. Another war started when the Greeks bombed a train. Turkey swept Greece back into their own territory. From then on the Greeks never again declared war, while Turkey had one of the biggest armies in the world. Bulgaria vs Serbia and Greece[change \| change source] Bulgaria, like Greece and Serbia, was owned by Turkey before Bulgaria broke away from Turkey. Bulgaria claimed a lot of Turkish land as belonging to Bulgaria. The Serbians and Greeks felt cheated because they felt the land belonged to Greece or Serbia. The Greeks and Serbians took back the land which angered Bulgaria and led to the country becoming allies with Turkey. They declared war on Serbia and Greece,But Bulgaria lost this war. Russian Revolution[change \| change source] The Russian Revolution makes Russia fight Germany and the Bolshevik at the same time. And Russia surrendered to Germany due to the fact that its fighting against the Soviets. It needed to get out of the war, pay Germany lots of German marks. Important events in the war[change \| change source] Most people thought the war would be short. They thought the armies would move around quickly to attack each other and one would defeat the other without too many people getting killed. They thought the war would be about brave soldiers — they did not understand how war had changed. Only a few people, for example Lord Kitchener said that the war would take a long time. Germany's generals had decided that the best way to defeat France was to go through Belgium using a plan called the Schlieffen Plan. This was invented by the German Army Chief of Staff, Alfred Von Schlieffen. They could then attack the French army at the north side and the south side at the same time. The German Army went into Belgium on August the 4th. On the same day, Great Britain started a war on Germany, because Britain was a friend of Belgium. The British had said some time before, in 1839, that they would not let anyone control Belgium, and they kept their promise. When the Germans got to the Belgian city of Liège, the Belgians fought very hard to stop them from coming into the city. The Germans did finally push the Belgians out of the city, but it had taken longer than the German generals had planned. Then the Germans attacked the north side of the French army. The French and the British moved men up to fight the Germans. They could do this because the Belgians had fought so long at Liège. But the Germans pushed the French back at the frontiers, and the British held the Germans back at Mons, but afterwards they also fell back to join up with the retreating French army, until they were stopped at the river Marne. This was the First Battle of the Marne or Miracle of the Marne. In the East, the Russians had attacked the Germans. The Russians pushed back the Germans, but then the Germans defeated the Russians at the Battle of Tannenberg. Trench warfare[change \| change source] Trench warfare killed great numbers of soldiers. New weapons, such as machine guns, and long-range artillery had an increased rate of fire that cut down huge numbers of soldiers during mass charges, a tactic leftover from older warfare. The men on both sides took spades and dug holes, because they did not want to be killed. The holes joined up into trenches, until the lines of trenches went all the way from Switzerland to the North Sea. In front of the trenches, there was barbed wire that cut anyone who tried to climb over it, and land mines that blew up anyone who tried to cross. Late in the war, poison gas was also an important weapon. The new machine guns, artillery, trenches and mines made it very difficult to attack. The generals had fought many wars without these, so they ordered their armies to attack in the old style of marching in rows- allowing the enemy to shoot them down easily. At the Battle of the Somme in 1916 60,000 British men died in a single day. It was one of the bloodiest days in the history of the British army. Late in the war the British and French invented tanks and used them to attack entrenched Germans but could not make enough of them to make a big difference. The Germans invented special Sturmabteilung tactics to infiltrate enemy positions, but they also were too little, too late. The British used whistles to communicate to other soldiers, so before they shelled the German trenches, they would sound the whistle. However, the Germans caught on to this tactic after a while, so after the shelling, when the British soldiers came to finish off the German soldiers, the Germans were ready with their machine guns, because they knew the British were coming. Airplanes[change \| change source] Airplanes were first used extensively in World War I. Airplanes were not used very much in fighting before World War I. It was the first war to use airplanes as weapons. Airplanes were first used for reconnaissance, to take pictures of enemy land and to direct artillery. Generals, military leaders, were using airplanes as an important part of their attack plans at the end of the war. World War I showed that airplanes could be important war weapons. Airplanes in World War I were made of wood and canvas, a type of rough cloth. They did not last for a long time. They could not fly very fast at the beginning of the war. They could only fly up to 116 kilometers per hour, or 72 miles per hour. At the end of the war they could fly up to 222 kilometres per hour (138 miles per hour). But they could not fly as fast as planes today. Guns were put on planes for the first time during the war. Pilots, people who fly the plane, used the guns to shoot enemy planes. One pilot used metal sheets, pieces of metal, to armor his airplane. Other pilots began using metal sheets, too. Pilots also made their airplanes better with machine guns, guns that shoot bullets much faster. Machine guns made fighting harder and more dangerous between airplanes. Pilots had to wear certain clothes when flying an airplane in World War I because they flew high where the air is cold. The pilot's clothes kept them warm and protected them from the wind and cold. Pilots wore a leather coat to protect their bodies. They wore a padded helmet and goggles, large glasses with special lenses, to protect their head and face. They wore a scarf around their neck. The scarf kept the wind from blowing against their neck when they turned their head. USA vs Germany[change \| change source] The German leaders decided to use submarines. These submarines were named U-boats, from the German word Unterseeboot (meaning underwater boat). The U-boats attacked passenger ships such as RMS Lusitania carrying civilians to Great Britain. They did not follow the laws of war, because the British would be able to destroy them if they did. America was selling weapons to Germany's enemies but not to Germany, thus not being neutral. "Neutral" means a country is not involved in the war. Many American and British noncombatants were killed by the submarines. Germany also wrote a secret telegram note to Mexico in code suggesting that the two countries work together to attack the United States. This note is called the Zimmerman Telegram because Arthur Zimmerman sent it. It offered Mexico land in the southwestern United States that the United States took in previous wars. Spies from the United Kingdom found out about the note and told the United States. American people became angry and many decided that they wanted their country to enter the war against Germany. For these and other reasons, on April 6, 1917 the United States declared war against Germany and became part of the Allies. Russia[change \| change source] The defeat of Russia on the Eastern Front caused unrest inside the Empire. The First Russian Revolution[change \| change source] In 1917, there was a revolution in Russia. The Tsar Nicholas II had to say he would not be Tsar any more, and that the people should have power. At first it was thought that Russia would fight harder now that the Tsar was gone. However, the Russian people did not want to fight anymore, because there was not sufficient food, appropriate armament, or adequate roads to supply its army. The war had been putting burdens on them, and many of them were poor and hungry. They began to hate their new government because it would not stop the war. The Second Russian Revolution[change \| change source] Then, there was the October Revolution. Two factions fought to rule over Russia. The Mensheviks lost against the Bolsheviks. The leader of the Bolsheviks was Vladimir Lenin (1870-1924) a Communist who followed the ideas of Karl Marx. The new government asked the Germans for peace and signed a peace treaty called Brest-Litovsk with the Central Powers in March 1918 at the city of Brest-Litovsk. The Germans and Russians stopped fighting. This gave Germany land in Eastern Europe and the Baltic Sea. Aftermath[change \| change source] After the war, the Germans had to agree to the Treaty of Versailles. Germany had to pay approximately $31.5 billion in reparations. They also had to take responsibility for the war. Part of the treaty said the countries of the world should come together to make an international organization to stop wars from happening. This organization was called the League of Nations. The United States Senate did not agree with this, even though it was the idea of the US president, Woodrow Wilson. Woodrow Wilson tried to tell the American people that they should agree, but the United States never joined the League of Nations. Problems with the Treaty in Germany would later lead to the World War II. Related pages[change \| change source] Notes[change \| change source] - The United States did not ratify any of the treaties agreed to at the Paris Peace Conference. - Bulgaria joined the Central Powers on 14 October 1915. - The Ottoman Empire agreed to a secret alliance with Germany on 2 August 1914. It joined the war on the side of the Central Powers on 29 October 1914. - The United States declared war on Austria-Hungary on 7 December 1917. - Austria was considered one of the successor states to Austria-Hungary. - The United States declared war on Germany on 6 April 1917. - Hungary was considered one of the successor states to Austria-Hungary. - Although the Treaty of Sèvres was intended to end the war between the Allied Powers and the Ottoman Empire, the Allied Powers and the Republic of Turkey, the successor state of the Ottoman Empire, agreed to the Treaty of Lausanne. References[change \| change source] - Tucker & Roberts 2005, p. 273 - "British Army statistics of the Great War". Retrieved 13 December 2011. - Figures are for the British Empire - Figures are for Metropolitan France and its colonies - Nash (1976). Darkest Hours. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-1590775264. - "Military Casualties of World War One". - Michael Duffy (3 November 2002). "Primary Documents: Archduke Franz Ferdinand's Assassination, 28 June 1914". First World War.com. Retrieved 16 February 2017. - Talor, AJP World War I and its aftermath, London 1998 - "Milestones: 1921â€"1936 - Office of the Historian". history.state.gov. Other websites[change \| change source] \|Wikimedia Commons has media related to World War I.\| - World War 1 Letters The Internet's Collection of World War One Mail. - World War 1 Atlas A day-by-day map of World War I - A history of World War I in pictures, audio, and video - The Heritage of the Great War, Netherlands - World War I -Citizendium	<urn:uuid:c11388ae-a7e1-4f6a-866f-1080ef3bc267>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_One	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250601628.36/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121074002-20200121103002-00337.warc.gz	en	0.981384	4,684	3.625	4	[ -0.18520331382751465, 0.41161230206489563, 0.2353864163160324, -0.19112318754196167, -0.1749999225139618, 0.16928134858608246, 0.019306782633066177, 0.2806910574436188, 0.3504354655742645, -0.07171608507633209, 0.41415178775787354, -0.254836767911911, 0.16545136272907257, 0.601294815540313...	1	World War I \|World War I\| (Clockwise from the top) \|Allied Powers:\|\|Central Powers:\| \|Commanders and leaders\| \|Total: 42,959,850\|\|Total: 25,248,321\| \|Casualties and losses\| Military deaths by country World War I (WWI or WW1), also called the First World War, began on July 28, 1914 and lasted until November 11, 1918. The war was a global war that lasted exactly 4 years, 3 months and 14 days. Most of the fighting was in Europe, but soldiers from many other countries took part, and it changed the colonial empires of the European powers. Before World War II began in 1939, World War I was called the Great War or the World War. 135 countries took part in World War I, and nearly 10 million people died while fighting. Before the war, European countries had formed alliances with each other to protect themselves. However, by doing this they had divided themselves into two groups. When Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria was assassinated on 28 June 1914, Austria-Hungary blamed Serbia and declared war on them. Serbia's ally Russia then declared war on Austria-Hungary. This set off a chain of events in which the two groups of countries declared war on each other. The two sides were the Allied Powers (mainly Russia, France and the British Empire) and the Central Powers (mainly Germany, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire). There was fighting in many different areas (fronts). The French and British fought the Germans on the Western Front in France and Belgium. Germany had tried to defeat France quickly, but were stopped in the First Battle of the Marne. After that, most of the fighting here was trench warfare. The Russians fought the Germans and Austro-Hungarians on the Eastern Front in Central and Eastern Europe. Fighting here was not trench warfare but mobile warfare. The other main areas of fighting were in the Middle East, in the Gallipoli region of Turkey and between Italy and Austria-Hungary. Fighting also took place in Africa, China, and at sea as well as in the air. World War I was the first major war where tanks, airplanes, and submarines (or U-boats) were important weapons. In 1917, the Russians had a revolution, which led to them leaving the war in March 1918. Also in 1917, the United States entered the war, though it took a year for their main army to arrive. In the gap between when the Russians left and the Americans arrived, the Germans launched a huge attack in March 1918 to try to win the war, but it was not enough. In August-November 1918, the Allied Powers won a big victory against the Germans in the Hundred Days Offensive. Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire then agreed to stop fighting. The German government collapsed and a new government agreed to end the war on 11 November. The war was ended by the signing of many different treaties, the most important being the Treaty of Versailles. It also led to the creation of the League of Nations, which was meant to prevent wars. People were shocked by the size of the war, how many people it killed and how much damage it caused. They hoped it would be the war to end all wars. Instead, it led to another, larger world war 21 years later. - 1 Beginning - 2 Germany vs Russia - 3 Britain vs Germany - 4 Turkey - 5 Bulgaria vs Serbia and Greece - 6 Russian Revolution - 7 Important events in the war - 8 Trench warfare - 9 Airplanes - 10 USA vs Germany - 11 Russia - 12 Aftermath - 13 Related pages - 14 Notes - 15 References - 16 Other websites Beginning[change \| change source] By 1914, trouble was on the rise in Europe. Many countries feared invasion from the other. For example, Germany was becoming increasingly powerful, and the British saw this as a threat to the British Empire. The countries formed alliances to protect themselves, but this divided them into two groups. Germany and Austria-Hungary had been allies since 1879. They had then formed the Triple Alliance with Italy in 1882. France and Russia became allies in 1894. They then joined with Britain to form the Triple Entente. In 1908, Austria-Hungary had taken over Bosnia, a region next to Serbia. Some people living in Bosnia were Serbian, and wanted the area to be part of Serbia. One of these was the Black Hand organization. They sent men to kill Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria when he visited Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia. They all failed to kill him with grenades while he passed through a large crowd. But one of them, a Serbian student named Gavrilo Princip, shot him and his pregnant wife with a pistol. Austria-Hungary blamed Serbia for the assassination. Germany supported Austria-Hungary and promised full support should it come to war. Austria-Hungary sent a July Ultimatum to Serbia, listing 10 very strict rules they would have to agree to. Many historians think that Austria-Hungary already wanted a war with Serbia. Serbia agreed to most of the ten rules on the list, but not all of them. Austria-Hungary then declared war on Serbia. This quickly led to a full-scale war. Both countries' allies became involved in the war in a matter of days. Russia joined the war on Serbia's side because the people of Serbia were Slavic, for example Russia, and the Slavic countries had agreed to help each other if they were attacked. Since Russia is a large country it had to move soldiers closer to the war, but Germany feared that Russia's soldiers would also attack Germany. Russia did not like Germany because of things Germany had done in the past to become stronger. Germany declared war on Russia, and began to carry out a plan created long before to fight a war in Europe. Because Germany is in the middle of Europe, Germany could not attack to the east towards Russia without weakening itself in the west, towards France. Germany's plan involved quickly defeating France in the west before Russia was ready to fight, and then moving her armies to the east to face Russia. Germany could not quickly invade France directly, because France had put a lot of forts on the border, so Germany invaded the neighboring country of Belgium to then invade France through the undefended French/Belgian border. Great Britain then joined the war, saying they wanted to protect Belgium. Some historians think that even if Germany had stayed out of Belgium, the British would have still joined the war to help France. Soon most of Europe became involved. The Ottoman Empire (now Turkey) joined the war on the side of Germany and Austria-Hungary. It is not clear why they entered or chose to fight on their side, but they had become friendly to Germany. Although Italy was allied with German and Austria-Hungary, they had only agreed to fight if those countries were attacked first. Italy said that because Austria-Hungary had attacked Serbia first, they did not need to fight. They also did not like Austria-Hungary. Italy joined the war in 1915 on the Allied Powers' side. Germany vs Russia[change \| change source] Germany was allied with Austria-Hungary. Russia was allied with Serbia. The German government was afraid that because Austria-Hungary had attacked Serbia, Russia would attack Austria-Hungary to help Serbia. Because of this, Germany felt it had to help Austria-Hungary by attacking Russia first, before it could attack Austria-Hungary. The problem was that Russia was also friends with France, and the Germans thought the French might attack them to help Russia. So the Germans decided that they could win the war if they attacked France first, and quickly. They could mobilize very quickly. They had a list of all the men who had to join the army, and where those men had to go, and the times of every train that would carry those men to where they would have to fight. France was doing the same thing, but could not do it as quickly. The Germans thought that if they attacked France first, they could 'knock France' out of the war before Russia could attack them. Russia had a big army, but Germany thought that it would take six weeks to mobilize and a long time before they could attack the Central Powers. That wasn't true, because the Russian Army mobilized in ten days. Also, the Russians drove deep into Austria. Britain vs Germany[change \| change source] Great Britain was allied with Belgium, and became quickly involved in the war. Britain had promised to protect Belgian neutrality. Germany passed through Belgium to reach Paris before Russia could mobilize and open up a second front against them. On August 4, 1914, Britain declared war against Germany in support of Belgium. Britain had the biggest empire (it ruled over a quarter of the world). If Germany conquered France, it might take Britain and France's colonies and become the most powerful and biggest empire in the world. Britain was also worried about Germany's growing military power. Germany was developing its large army into one of the most powerful in the world. The British Army was quite small. The British Royal Navy was the largest and best in the world, and in the 19th century that was enough to keep other naval powers from attacking. Germany was a land power, and Britain was a sea power. But now the Germans were building a large navy. This was seen as a threat to Britain. However, the decision to declare war was taken under its alliance with Belgium in the Treaty of London (1839). The Government might have decided differently. No-one foresaw how long the war would last, and what the terrible costs would be. Turkey[change \| change source] Britain also fought against Turkey because the Ottoman Empire was supporting Germany. Britain did not have any animosity towards the Turks. However, by fighting the Turks in the Mesopotamia region (in what is now called Iraq), in the Arabian Peninsula and other places, Britain was able to defeat them with help from the British Indian Army. Later, after the War ended, Britain was able to get some areas from the old Turkish empire which was breaking up, and to add them to the British Empire. Greece went into the war because its leader supported the Allied cause. Greece and Serbia had become independent, but many Greeks still lived in lands that were once Greek but were now in the Turkish Ottoman Empire. Having recently won the Balkan Wars, the Greeks especially wanted to control other land to the north that was under Bulgarian and Turkish rule, so they declared war. Turkey killed most of the Greek army as the Greeks tried to regain parts of Turkey. Another war started when the Greeks bombed a train. Turkey swept Greece back into their own territory. From then on the Greeks never again declared war, while Turkey had one of the biggest armies in the world. Bulgaria vs Serbia and Greece[change \| change source] Bulgaria, like Greece and Serbia, was owned by Turkey before Bulgaria broke away from Turkey. Bulgaria claimed a lot of Turkish land as belonging to Bulgaria. The Serbians and Greeks felt cheated because they felt the land belonged to Greece or Serbia. The Greeks and Serbians took back the land which angered Bulgaria and led to the country becoming allies with Turkey. They declared war on Serbia and Greece,But Bulgaria lost this war. Russian Revolution[change \| change source] The Russian Revolution makes Russia fight Germany and the Bolshevik at the same time. And Russia surrendered to Germany due to the fact that its fighting against the Soviets. It needed to get out of the war, pay Germany lots of German marks. Important events in the war[change \| change source] Most people thought the war would be short. They thought the armies would move around quickly to attack each other and one would defeat the other without too many people getting killed. They thought the war would be about brave soldiers — they did not understand how war had changed. Only a few people, for example Lord Kitchener said that the war would take a long time. Germany's generals had decided that the best way to defeat France was to go through Belgium using a plan called the Schlieffen Plan. This was invented by the German Army Chief of Staff, Alfred Von Schlieffen. They could then attack the French army at the north side and the south side at the same time. The German Army went into Belgium on August the 4th. On the same day, Great Britain started a war on Germany, because Britain was a friend of Belgium. The British had said some time before, in 1839, that they would not let anyone control Belgium, and they kept their promise. When the Germans got to the Belgian city of Liège, the Belgians fought very hard to stop them from coming into the city. The Germans did finally push the Belgians out of the city, but it had taken longer than the German generals had planned. Then the Germans attacked the north side of the French army. The French and the British moved men up to fight the Germans. They could do this because the Belgians had fought so long at Liège. But the Germans pushed the French back at the frontiers, and the British held the Germans back at Mons, but afterwards they also fell back to join up with the retreating French army, until they were stopped at the river Marne. This was the First Battle of the Marne or Miracle of the Marne. In the East, the Russians had attacked the Germans. The Russians pushed back the Germans, but then the Germans defeated the Russians at the Battle of Tannenberg. Trench warfare[change \| change source] Trench warfare killed great numbers of soldiers. New weapons, such as machine guns, and long-range artillery had an increased rate of fire that cut down huge numbers of soldiers during mass charges, a tactic leftover from older warfare. The men on both sides took spades and dug holes, because they did not want to be killed. The holes joined up into trenches, until the lines of trenches went all the way from Switzerland to the North Sea. In front of the trenches, there was barbed wire that cut anyone who tried to climb over it, and land mines that blew up anyone who tried to cross. Late in the war, poison gas was also an important weapon. The new machine guns, artillery, trenches and mines made it very difficult to attack. The generals had fought many wars without these, so they ordered their armies to attack in the old style of marching in rows- allowing the enemy to shoot them down easily. At the Battle of the Somme in 1916 60,000 British men died in a single day. It was one of the bloodiest days in the history of the British army. Late in the war the British and French invented tanks and used them to attack entrenched Germans but could not make enough of them to make a big difference. The Germans invented special Sturmabteilung tactics to infiltrate enemy positions, but they also were too little, too late. The British used whistles to communicate to other soldiers, so before they shelled the German trenches, they would sound the whistle. However, the Germans caught on to this tactic after a while, so after the shelling, when the British soldiers came to finish off the German soldiers, the Germans were ready with their machine guns, because they knew the British were coming. Airplanes[change \| change source] Airplanes were first used extensively in World War I. Airplanes were not used very much in fighting before World War I. It was the first war to use airplanes as weapons. Airplanes were first used for reconnaissance, to take pictures of enemy land and to direct artillery. Generals, military leaders, were using airplanes as an important part of their attack plans at the end of the war. World War I showed that airplanes could be important war weapons. Airplanes in World War I were made of wood and canvas, a type of rough cloth. They did not last for a long time. They could not fly very fast at the beginning of the war. They could only fly up to 116 kilometers per hour, or 72 miles per hour. At the end of the war they could fly up to 222 kilometres per hour (138 miles per hour). But they could not fly as fast as planes today. Guns were put on planes for the first time during the war. Pilots, people who fly the plane, used the guns to shoot enemy planes. One pilot used metal sheets, pieces of metal, to armor his airplane. Other pilots began using metal sheets, too. Pilots also made their airplanes better with machine guns, guns that shoot bullets much faster. Machine guns made fighting harder and more dangerous between airplanes. Pilots had to wear certain clothes when flying an airplane in World War I because they flew high where the air is cold. The pilot's clothes kept them warm and protected them from the wind and cold. Pilots wore a leather coat to protect their bodies. They wore a padded helmet and goggles, large glasses with special lenses, to protect their head and face. They wore a scarf around their neck. The scarf kept the wind from blowing against their neck when they turned their head. USA vs Germany[change \| change source] The German leaders decided to use submarines. These submarines were named U-boats, from the German word Unterseeboot (meaning underwater boat). The U-boats attacked passenger ships such as RMS Lusitania carrying civilians to Great Britain. They did not follow the laws of war, because the British would be able to destroy them if they did. America was selling weapons to Germany's enemies but not to Germany, thus not being neutral. "Neutral" means a country is not involved in the war. Many American and British noncombatants were killed by the submarines. Germany also wrote a secret telegram note to Mexico in code suggesting that the two countries work together to attack the United States. This note is called the Zimmerman Telegram because Arthur Zimmerman sent it. It offered Mexico land in the southwestern United States that the United States took in previous wars. Spies from the United Kingdom found out about the note and told the United States. American people became angry and many decided that they wanted their country to enter the war against Germany. For these and other reasons, on April 6, 1917 the United States declared war against Germany and became part of the Allies. Russia[change \| change source] The defeat of Russia on the Eastern Front caused unrest inside the Empire. The First Russian Revolution[change \| change source] In 1917, there was a revolution in Russia. The Tsar Nicholas II had to say he would not be Tsar any more, and that the people should have power. At first it was thought that Russia would fight harder now that the Tsar was gone. However, the Russian people did not want to fight anymore, because there was not sufficient food, appropriate armament, or adequate roads to supply its army. The war had been putting burdens on them, and many of them were poor and hungry. They began to hate their new government because it would not stop the war. The Second Russian Revolution[change \| change source] Then, there was the October Revolution. Two factions fought to rule over Russia. The Mensheviks lost against the Bolsheviks. The leader of the Bolsheviks was Vladimir Lenin (1870-1924) a Communist who followed the ideas of Karl Marx. The new government asked the Germans for peace and signed a peace treaty called Brest-Litovsk with the Central Powers in March 1918 at the city of Brest-Litovsk. The Germans and Russians stopped fighting. This gave Germany land in Eastern Europe and the Baltic Sea. Aftermath[change \| change source] After the war, the Germans had to agree to the Treaty of Versailles. Germany had to pay approximately $31.5 billion in reparations. They also had to take responsibility for the war. Part of the treaty said the countries of the world should come together to make an international organization to stop wars from happening. This organization was called the League of Nations. The United States Senate did not agree with this, even though it was the idea of the US president, Woodrow Wilson. Woodrow Wilson tried to tell the American people that they should agree, but the United States never joined the League of Nations. Problems with the Treaty in Germany would later lead to the World War II. Related pages[change \| change source] Notes[change \| change source] - The United States did not ratify any of the treaties agreed to at the Paris Peace Conference. - Bulgaria joined the Central Powers on 14 October 1915. - The Ottoman Empire agreed to a secret alliance with Germany on 2 August 1914. It joined the war on the side of the Central Powers on 29 October 1914. - The United States declared war on Austria-Hungary on 7 December 1917. - Austria was considered one of the successor states to Austria-Hungary. - The United States declared war on Germany on 6 April 1917. - Hungary was considered one of the successor states to Austria-Hungary. - Although the Treaty of Sèvres was intended to end the war between the Allied Powers and the Ottoman Empire, the Allied Powers and the Republic of Turkey, the successor state of the Ottoman Empire, agreed to the Treaty of Lausanne. References[change \| change source] - Tucker & Roberts 2005, p. 273 - "British Army statistics of the Great War". Retrieved 13 December 2011. - Figures are for the British Empire - Figures are for Metropolitan France and its colonies - Nash (1976). Darkest Hours. Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 978-1590775264. - "Military Casualties of World War One". - Michael Duffy (3 November 2002). "Primary Documents: Archduke Franz Ferdinand's Assassination, 28 June 1914". First World War.com. Retrieved 16 February 2017. - Talor, AJP World War I and its aftermath, London 1998 - "Milestones: 1921â€"1936 - Office of the Historian". history.state.gov. Other websites[change \| change source] \|Wikimedia Commons has media related to World War I.\| - World War 1 Letters The Internet's Collection of World War One Mail. - World War 1 Atlas A day-by-day map of World War I - A history of World War I in pictures, audio, and video - The Heritage of the Great War, Netherlands - World War I -Citizendium	4,842	ENGLISH	1
Holi Was Celebrated Like Eid In Mughal Era Holi celebrations kick started on Wednesday with full zest and zeal in Pakistan, India and around the world. Despite criticism from the religious right, many Muslims celebrated Holi with Hindus. In Thar, Muslims joined Hindu brothers in their celebrations and exchanged colour and sweets. This practice dates back to the Mughal Era, and maybe beyond. According to Scroll.In, Mughal Emperor Jalaluddin Akbar encouraged inclusiveness and tolerance. During his reign, all festivals were celebrated with equal exuberance and the practice was continued by his successors, excluding the more orthodox Aurangzeb Alamgir. Bahadur Shah Zafar was another Mughal King who loved to celebrate Holi with the Hindu community. Urdu newspaper Jam-e-Jahanuma wrote in 1844 that special arrangements were made by Zafar for the year’s Holi celebrations special arrangements were made for Holi festivities. At Qila-e-Moalla or the Red Fort, Holi was celebrated with the same exuberance and excitement as Eid. It was called Eid-e-Gulaabi or Aab-e-Pashi (Shower of Colourful Flowers), with everyone joining in. It is said that during Holi celebrations, even the poorest among the community would throw colour at the Emperor, and artists would mimic him but nobody would take offence. In fact, the Emperor would enjoy the entertainment at offer. Groups of traveling musicians and artists would gather under the Red Fort and display their tricks and talents, while nautch girls would dance. The Emperor would reward these artists handsomely as the noble women would watch the events from the balcony. Moreover, children would also go around entertainment the elderly with their acts, while in the evening, Mahfils (soirees) would be organized in the Walled City. Unfortunately, after the partition of the sub-continent and emergence of many right-wing groups among the two religious groups, examples of Hindus and Muslims celebrating Holi or Eid together have become numbered. But hopefully, people from both communities would learn from the past and re-enter the era of co-existence.	<urn:uuid:5a07c373-dd49-4682-80b2-9a7535f4c81f>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://nayadaur.tv/2019/03/holi-was-celebrated-like-eid-in-mughal-era/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250625097.75/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124191133-20200124220133-00421.warc.gz	en	0.981793	463	3.34375	3	[ -0.0864727571606636, 0.7592083811759949, -0.007289338856935501, -0.2740659713745117, -0.2491706907749176, 0.11069189757108688, 0.06808608025312424, 0.0582922101020813, -0.13510636985301971, 0.031849101185798645, -0.07771016657352448, -0.059940312057733536, 0.3230992257595062, 0.20148433744...	5	Holi Was Celebrated Like Eid In Mughal Era Holi celebrations kick started on Wednesday with full zest and zeal in Pakistan, India and around the world. Despite criticism from the religious right, many Muslims celebrated Holi with Hindus. In Thar, Muslims joined Hindu brothers in their celebrations and exchanged colour and sweets. This practice dates back to the Mughal Era, and maybe beyond. According to Scroll.In, Mughal Emperor Jalaluddin Akbar encouraged inclusiveness and tolerance. During his reign, all festivals were celebrated with equal exuberance and the practice was continued by his successors, excluding the more orthodox Aurangzeb Alamgir. Bahadur Shah Zafar was another Mughal King who loved to celebrate Holi with the Hindu community. Urdu newspaper Jam-e-Jahanuma wrote in 1844 that special arrangements were made by Zafar for the year’s Holi celebrations special arrangements were made for Holi festivities. At Qila-e-Moalla or the Red Fort, Holi was celebrated with the same exuberance and excitement as Eid. It was called Eid-e-Gulaabi or Aab-e-Pashi (Shower of Colourful Flowers), with everyone joining in. It is said that during Holi celebrations, even the poorest among the community would throw colour at the Emperor, and artists would mimic him but nobody would take offence. In fact, the Emperor would enjoy the entertainment at offer. Groups of traveling musicians and artists would gather under the Red Fort and display their tricks and talents, while nautch girls would dance. The Emperor would reward these artists handsomely as the noble women would watch the events from the balcony. Moreover, children would also go around entertainment the elderly with their acts, while in the evening, Mahfils (soirees) would be organized in the Walled City. Unfortunately, after the partition of the sub-continent and emergence of many right-wing groups among the two religious groups, examples of Hindus and Muslims celebrating Holi or Eid together have become numbered. But hopefully, people from both communities would learn from the past and re-enter the era of co-existence.	442	ENGLISH	1
The Stuarts were the United Kingdom’s first kings. For the first time, two thrones were combined when King James VI of Scotland became also King James I of England. Scroll down to see more articles about the history of Stuarts. Tudor and Stuart Timeline The Tudor and Stuart Monarchs and some of the main events of their reigns Why is Guy Fawkes Celebrated? Also known as Bonfire Night or Firework Night, Guy Fawkes is celebrated every year on the 5th of November in England (and some other countries). The history of Guy Fawkes dates back to 1605, when a group of Catholic extremists planned to assassinate King James I and hopefully get a catholic monarch on the throne. Guy Fawkes was the unfortunate soul who was put in charge of guarding the explosives that they have placed underneath the House of Lords. He was discovered and arrested, bringing an end to the Gunpowder plot and saving the king’s life. To celebrate the fact that their King survived an attempt to kill him, people lit bonfires all over London. A couple of months after the incident, the “Observance of 5th November Act” was passed as an annual public holiday. Interesting Facts about Guy Fawkes Guy Fawkes has been celebrated for over 400 years already, although Guy was not the main conspirator. Legend has it that the word, “guy” actually used to mean “ugly and repulsive,” after the name of Guy Fawkes. After years frequent use, it lost the negative connotation and just became a synonym for “man.” The 2,500kg gunpowder stashed beneath the House of Lords had the potential of causing damage in a 500 meter radius, according to the estimates of physicists. Timeline – The Tudor and Stuart Monarchs A detailed Timeline showing the Tudor and Stuart Monarchs and some of the main events of their reigns. The Stuarts – Great Fire of London 1666 Sunday 2nd September 1666 Weather Report – hot, dry and windy The Thames water level was very low following a hot summer The fire began in the Pudding Lane house of baker Thomas Farriner. When questioned later Farriner said that he had checked all five fire hearths in his house and he was certain that all fires were out. Nevertheless, when the family were woken by smoke in the early hours of the morning, the fire was so well established that the family could not use the stairs had to escape through an upstairs window. The fire was so well established that it could be seen from a quarter of a mile away. The Lord Mayor was advised to order the demolition of four houses. He decided not to issue the order because the city would then be responsible for re-building those houses. The fire spread destroying houses west of Pudding Lane. The City’s water engine was also destroyed. Samuel Pepys’s maid reported to him that more than 300 houses had been destroyed. Samuel Pepys kept a diary of events News of the fire spread through the city and the streets were filled with people running to escape the fire. The fire had burned for half a mile to the East and North of Pudding Lane. King Charles II had been informed of the fire and he had instructed the Mayor to pull down any houses necessary to stop the spread of the fire. However, in a City where the houses were very tightly packed, pulling down enough houses to stop the fire before the fire took hold was a difficult, almost impossible task. Monday 3rd September 1666 Weather Report: hot dry and windy The fire continued to spread and householders had to choose whether to help the fire-fighting effort or attempt to save goods from their own houses. The Thames was full of boats laden with property rescued from houses that had burnt down. Profiteers made money by hiring carts and boats at high prices. Most people could not afford their prices and could only save what they could carry. To reduce the numbers of people in the area of the fire, an order was given that carts could not be brought near to the fire. Charles II attempted to bring some order to the City by establishing eight fire posts around the fire with thirty foot soldiers assigned to each. His brother, the Duke of York (below), was put in charge. Because the wind was blowing from the East the fire had spread eastwards more slowly. Fire-fighters managed to prevent Westminster School from being destroyed although it was badly damaged. The fire was now 300 yards from the Tower and orders were given for extra fire engines to be sent to prevent its destruction. Many of London’s wealthiest citizens had taken their money and valuables to the Tower for safekeeping. Tuesday 4th September 1666 Weather Report: hot, dry and windy The fire showed no sign of stopping. All attempts to check its spread had failed and the fire-fighters were getting very tired. All carts, barges, boats and coaches had been hired out. The roof of St Paul’s cathedral caught fire. End of the Day This had proved to be the most destructive day of the fire. St Paul’s cathedral was among the many buildings destroyed on this day. Wednesday 5th September Weather Report: hot, dry but NO wind. The fire continued to burn but, due to the fact that the wind had dropped, it was not spreading so rapidly. The destruction of a number of houses in Cripplegate had stopped the spread of the fire and had allowed fire-fighters to put it out. All fires in the West of the City had been put out. Thursday 6th September Weather Report: hot, dry, but no wind The fire was finally put out. It had caused a huge amount of damage: 87 churches, including St Paul’s cathedral, 13,200 houses Fortunately, only 6 people lost their lives, far less than the number that would have died from the plague if the fire had not happened. The Stuarts – Fire and Fire – Fighting The risk of fire was great in Stuart England. People used candles for light and open fires for cooking. Houses were built close together and were made out of wood. Tradesmen used large ovens and often kept supplies of fuel in their houses and the many inns had stables attached to them filled with hay and straw. This picture shows a group of musicians. They are sitting next to an open fire, over which their food is cooking. The room is lit by a candle on the wall. The fire place and the roof are made from wood and there seems to be mats on the floor. It is easy to see that this type of house would set fire very quickly. There were many fires in seventeenth century London. A fire in 1633 destroyed houses on London Bridge and in 1643 another fire caused £2,880 worth of damage. In 1650 seven barrels of gunpowder exploded in a fire in Tower Street that made 41 houses uninhabitable. People did not have house insurance and if their house was damaged by fire they had to rely on the charity of other people to replace their possessions. Many Puritans believed that fire was a punishment from God for man’s sinfulness. In the years before 1666, Puritans who criticised Charles II’s love of women and good living predicted that there would be a ‘Great Fire’. As early as 1200 laws had been passed banning people from thatching their roofs. By 1600 most houses in London did not have thatched roofs. In 1620 a new order was made that new buildings should be made from brick or stone and that top floors should not jut out into the street. Suburbs appointed officers who inspected houses for fire hazards and fined owners if they did not remove the hazard. Householders were instructed to investigate any smell of smoke and raise the alarm if necessary. At night it was the night-watchman’s job to guard against fire and in hot weather householders were often told to leave buckets of water outside their doors in case of fire. Fire – Fighters Much of the equipment used by seventeenth century fire-fighters is very similar to that used today: These were used to pull down roof tiles or even buildings to prevent the spread of fire. Made out of leather, these buckets, filled with water, were passed along a chain of people from the water supply to the fire. This picture shows fire hooks being used to remove roof tiles. Buckets of water are being passed up a ladder to the men on the roof. These were used to dig up water pipes which were cut open. Hand-held water squirts were developed that allowed the fire-fighter to aim the jet of water at the fire. Fire engines were developed in the seventeenth century and were introduced in large cities from around 1625. These ‘engines’ allowed a force of water to be directed at the heart of the fire. In order for any fire to be put out quickly and easily, a good supply of water was needed. Although the new fire engines had tanks that were filled with water, they were soon emptied. They were refilled with water from the river, passed in buckets along a chain of people from the river to the fire. An early fire engine. Notice the woman on the left hurrying to the river for another bucket of water. Although the cities and towns of England in the seventeenth centuries were able to fight and put out fires, it was vital that they reached the fire before it became too big. Failure to stop a fire in its infancy could result in destruction of buildings and lives. The Stuarts – The Plague Doctor The plague doctor was a common fixture of the medieval world, with his bird-like costume that was believed to resist the plague. People in the fourteenth century did not know what caused the plague and many believed it was a punishment from God. They did realise that coming into contact with those infected increased the risk of contracting the disease yourself. Cures and preventative measures were not at all effective. \|Suggested Preventions and Cures\|\|How they were supposed to work\|\|What they actually did\| \|Carry Flowers or wear a strong perfume\|\|The smells would help to ward away the disease\|\|Nothing\| \|Drink hot drinks\|\|The victim would then sweat out the disease\|\|Nothing\| \|Carry a lucky charm\|\|The charm would ward off the disease\|\|Nothing\| \|Use leeches to bleed the victim\|\|This would remove infected blood\|\|Nothing\| \|Smoke a pipe of tobacco\|\|The smoke would ward off the disease\|\|Nothing\| \|Give a strong dose of laxatives\|\|This would cause the victim to completely empty his bowels, thus removing the disease.\|\|Strong doses of laxatives can cause death from dehydration.\| \|Coat the victims with mercury and place them in the oven.\|\|The combination of mercury and heat from the oven would kill off the disease.\|\|This could actually increase the likelihood of death – mercury is poisonous and the heat from the oven caused serious burns.\| Many doctors, knowing that they could do nothing for plague victims, simply didn’t bother trying to treat the disease. Those that did made sure that they were as protected as possible from the disease by wearing the ‘uniform’ shown above. The hat was made of leather. It was worn to show that the man was a doctor and also to add extra protection to the head. The beak that was attached to the mask was stuffed with herbs, perfumes or spices to purify the air that the doctor breathed when he was close to victims. Glass eyes were built into the mask to make sure that the eyes were fully protected. The mask covered the head completely and was gathered in at the neck for extra protecti The full-length gown was made out of thick material which was then covered with wax. Underneath the gown the doctor would wear leather breeches. The doctor wore leather gloves to protect his hands from any form of contact with the disease. The Plague Doctor carried a wooden stick so that he could drive people who came too close to him away. The Stuarts – Great Plague 1665 Bubonic Plague, known as the Black Death, first hit the British Isles in 1348, killing nearly a third of the population. Although regular outbreaks of the plague had occurred since, the outbreak of 1665 was the worst case since 1348. London – 1665 - 100,000 people – Dead! - 40,000 dogs – destroyed! - 200,000 cats – destroyed! London had changed little since this engraving was made in 1480. Houses were tightly packed together and conditions insanitary – ideal conditions for the plague to spread, particularly during the hot summer of 1665. When plague broke out in Holland in 1663, Charles II stopped trading with the country in an attempt to prevent plague infested rats arriving in London. However, despite these precautions, plague broke out in the capital in the Spring of 1665. Spread by the blood-sucking fleas that lived on the black rat. The Summer of 1665 was one of the hottest summers recorded and the numbers dying from plague rose rapidly. People began to panic and the rich fled the capital. By June it was necessary to have a certificate of health in order to travel or enter another town or city and forgers made a fortune issuing counterfeit certificates. The temperature and the numbers of deaths continued to rise. The Lord Mayor of London, desperate to be seen to be doing something, heard rumours that it was the stray dogs and cats on the streets that were spreading the disease and ordered them to be destroyed. This action unwittingly caused the numbers of deaths to rise still further since there were no stray dogs and cats to kill the rats. Bring out your dead! Those houses that contained plague victims were marked with a red cross. People only ventured into the streets when absolutely necessary preferring the ‘safety’ of their own homes. Carts were driven through the streets at night. The driver’s call of ‘bring out yer dead’ was a cue for those with a death in the house to bring the body out and place it onto the cart. Bodies were then buried in mass graves. The numbers of deaths from the plague reached a peak in August and September of 1665. However, it was November and the onset of cold weather that brought a drastic reduction in the number of deaths. Charles II did not consider it safe to return to the capital until February 1666. The Stuarts – Charles I – The Slide to Civil War Charles I came to the throne in 1625 after the death of his father, James I. Like his father, he believed in the Divine Right of Kings. Although only parliament could pass laws and grant money for war, because they refused to do as he wished, Charles chose to rule without them. Charles made repeated mistakes throughout his reign that took the country into Civil War and ultimately led to his death on January 30th 1649. Charles made mistakes in the following areas: In the first year of his reign, Charles married Princess Henrietta Maria of France, a Catholic. Parliament were concerned about the marriage because they did not want to see a return to Catholicism and they believed that a Catholic Queen would raise their children to the Catholic faith. Instead of listening to the advice of his Parliament, Charles chose the Duke of Buckingham as his main advisor. Parliament disliked Buckingham and resented his level of power over the King. In 1623 he had been responsible for taking England to war with Spain and parliament used this to bring a charge of treason against him. However, the King dismissed parliament in order to save his favourite. In 1627, Buckingham led a campaign into France which saw the English army badly defeated. In 1628, while preparing for a naval invasion of France, Buckingham was assassinated. The monarch’s income was paid out of customs duties and when a new King or Queen came to the throne parliament voted for their income to be paid for life. In Charles I’s case, though, it was only granted for one year. The members of parliament wanted to make sure that Charles did not dismiss them. Their plan did not work, Charles chose to rule alone and found his own way of getting money. It had always been the custom that in times of war, people living on the coast, would pay extra taxes for the defense of the coastline by naval ships. In 1634, Charles decided that ‘ship money’ should be paid all the time. One year later he demanded that people living inland should also pay ‘ship money’. The people were not pleased and a man named John Hampden refused to pay the tax until it had been agreed by parliament. The case went to court and the judge found Charles’ actions to be legal. The people had no choice but to pay. In 1639, Charles needed an army to go to Scotland to force the Scots to use the English Prayer book. A new tax was introduced to pay for the army. People now had to pay two taxes and many simply refused. Many of those jailed for not paying the taxes were released by sympathetic jailors. By 1639 most of the population was against Charles. ‘Ship Money’ was made illegal in 1641. The Protestants had been upset by Charles’ marriage to Catholic Henrietta Maria of France. They were even more upset when Charles, together with Archbishop Laud, began making changes to the Church of England. It was ordered that churches be decorated once again and that sermons should not be just confined to the Bible. A new English Prayer Book was introduced in 1637. Charles also demanded that the new English Prayer Book be used in Scottish Churches. This was a very big mistake. The Scots were more anti-Catholic than the English and many of them were Puritans. There were riots in Scotland against the new service and Charles was forced to raise an army to fight against the Scots. The English army was defeated by the Scots and Charles foolishly agreed to pay Scotland ?850 per day until the matter was settled. Money he did not have! The Irish Catholics were fed up with being ruled by English Protestants who had been given land in Ireland by James I. In 1641, news reached London that the Catholics were revolting. As the news travelled it was exaggerated and Londoners learned that 20,000 Protestants had been murdered. Rumours spread that Charles was behind the rebellion in a bid to make the whole of the United Kingdom Catholic. An army had to be sent to Ireland to put the rebellion down but who was to control the army. Parliament was worried that if Charles had control of the army he would use it to regain control over Parliament. In the same way, if Parliament controlled the army they would use it to control the King. It was a stalemate. One of Charles I’s major mistakes was that he was unable to gain the co-operation of his parliament. His determined belief in the Divine Right of Kings led to his dismissing parliament in 1629 and ruling without them. The fact that he did not have a parliament to grant him money meant that he had to tax his people heavier and introduce unpleasant taxes such as ship money (see above). It was only when Charles needed an army to fight against Scotland that he was forced to recall parliament in 1640. This parliament remained in office for so many years that it is known as the Long Parliament. The Long Parliament Having been dismissed from office for eleven years, this parliament was determined to make the most of being recalled and Charles’ favourite, Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford, of treason. Strafford was executed in May 1641. In November 1641, parliament presented the King with a list of complaints called the Grand Remonstrance that asked for the power of bishops to be reduced and for Charles’ councillors to be men trusted by parliament. Not all members of parliament were in favour of it and it was only passed by 159 votes to 148. In January 1642 Charles made what was the most foolish move of his reign. He burst into the Houses of Parliament with 400 soldiers and demanded that the five leading MPs be arrested. The five MPs had had advance warning and had fled. Charles demanding the arrest of the five MPs In June 1642 the Long Parliament passed a new set of demands called the Nineteen Proposals that called for the King’s powers to be greatly reduced and a greater control of government to be given to parliament. This move divided parliament between those who supported the Nineteen Proposals and those who thought parliament had gone too far. Both Parliament and Charles began collecting together their own armies. War was inevitable. People were forced to choose sides and on 22nd August 1642, the King raised his standard at Nottingham. The Stuarts – The Pilgrim Fathers When James I came to the throne, he adopted a moderate Protestant religious policy. Both Catholics and Puritans were forbidden to practice their religions. Many extreme Puritans left England for Holland where Puritanism was accepted. In 1607 Walter Raleigh had founded the colony of Virginia in America and a number of English companies had begun trading tobacco and other products between the colony and England. One stock company, anxious to protect their business interests in Virginia recruited 35 members of the radical, Puritan, English Separatist Church, who had fled to Holland. The stock company agreed to finance the voyage for them and in return they would look after the company’s business in Virginia. Other Puritans keen to start a new life in America joined the voyage. The Mayflower left the port of Southampton in August 1620 but was forced to put into Plymouth for repairs. The 102 passengers and 30 crew eventually left Plymouth for America on 16th September 1620 and steered a course for Virginia. The ship was a double-decked, three-masted vessel and initially the voyage went well but then storms blew up which blew them off course. Land was sighted on November 9th and anchor was dropped. A landing party of sixteen men left the ship on November 15th but failed to find a suitable site to establish a settlement. They set sail again and resumed their search. On December 17th they reached Plymouth Harbour and dropped anchor. On December 21st the first of the Pilgrim Fathers set foot on what would become Plymouth settlement. The harsh winter weather meant that they were unable to build adequate shelter and many of the travellers died during that first winter. Those that survived the winter went on to build houses and defences. In the late spring of 1621 a native American Samoset Indian offered to show the settlers how to farm the land and become self-sufficient if the men would help them fight a rival tribe. The settlers agreed and the Plymouth settlement flourished. This painting shows the Pilgrim Fathers landing at Plymouth Harbour. Their ship, the Mayflower, can be seen in the distance. December 21st is known as Forefather’s Day in America. The Stuarts – Puritans Towards the end of Elizabeth’s reign, an extreme branch of the Protestant religion was becoming more popular. They called themselves Puritans. This picture clearly shows the simple, plain clothing worn by the Puritans. Their clothing was usually black, white or grey and they lived a simple and religious life. The importance of religion to the Puritans is shown in the picture by the woman carrying a Bible. They believed that hard work was the key to gaining a place in heaven. Sundays and Holy days were strictly observed, with these days being devoted entirely to God. Throughout the reign of James I the Puritans gained power in Parliament. By the time of Charles I’s reign they had gained enough support in Parliament to pass laws imposing their views about living on all English people. Activities Banned by the Puritans: Horse Racing, cock-fighting and bear baiting Any gathering of people without permission Drunkenness and swearing Theatre-going, dancing and singing Games and sports on Sundays (including going for a walk) Many public houses were closed down. The Puritans were fiercely anti-Catholic and believed that churches should be plain and free from all kinds of ornament. They believed that all mankind was basically sinful, but that some would be saved because of Christ’s death. Central to their belief was the act of conversion. Conversion could take two forms – either a blinding flash during which the converted could cry out or fall to the ground – or it could be the end result of a period of preparation. Puritans believed that discipline was a vital part of human life and that frivolity was a sign of giving in to temptation. This modern-day Presbyterian church would have been acceptable to the Puritans of the seventeenth century. It is built in a plain stone with wooden panelling and pews. There is no elaborate decoration, just a plain cross above the altar and a cross on the wooden pulpit. The Stuarts – The Gunpowder Plot A Conspiracy or Not? ‘Remember, remember, the fifth of November. Gunpowder, treason and plot.’ Or was it? Read the two different versions of the Gunpowder Plot and decide for yourself… A small group of Catholics, Robert Catesby, Guido (Guy) Fawkes, Thomas Winter, John Wright and Thomas Percy decided to blow up the King on the State opening of Parliament. They hoped that this would lead to a Catholic King coming to the throne. Guido (Guy) Fawkes was an explosives expert who had served with the Spanish army in the Netherlands. The group rented a cellar beneath the Houses of Parliament and stored 20 barrels of gunpowder, supplied by Guido Fawkes. The date for the deed was set for November 5th. They recruited others sympathetic to their cause including Francis Tresham whose brother-in-law, Lord Monteagle, was a member of Parliament. Concerned for his brother-in-law’s safety, Tresham sent him a letter advising him not to attend Parliament on November 5th. Monteagle alerted the authorities and a search of the Houses of Parliament led to the discovery of Guido Fawkes standing guard over the barrels of gunpowder. He was tortured and revealed the names of the conspirators. Catesby and Percy and two others were killed resisting arrest. The others were tried for treason and executed. The Protestant View – The Conspirators were Guilty This picture shows the conspirators hatching the plot to blow up the King and parliament. They are grouped close together which shows that they are hatching a secret plot. Robert Catesby, Guido (Guy) Fawkes, Thomas Winter, John Wright and Thomas Percy were known to be Catholics. Guido Fawkes was an explosives expert. He had only recently returned to England maybe specifically to set the explosives. Francis Tresham was only thinking of his brother-in-law’s safety when he sent the letter. Gunpowder was not normally kept in the cellars under the Houses of Parliament. It was obviously put there by the conspirators. Guido Fawkes revealed the names of the conspirators. The Catholic View – The Conspirators were framed by the Protestants Many historians today agree with the Catholics of the time that the Gunpowder Plot conspirators were framed by James I’s chief minister, Robert Cecil. Cecil hated the Catholics and wanted to show them to be against the country. It is believed that Francis Tresham, who sent the warning note to his brother-in-law, may have been working for Cecil. There is evidence to support this view: This picture showing the conspirators, was made by a Dutchman who had never seen the conspirators. Cecil is quoted as saying ‘..we cannot hope to have good government while large numbers of people (Catholics) go around obeying foreign rulers (The Pope).’ This shows how much he hated the Catholics and wanted rid of them. Lord Monteagle received the warning letter at night. The night he received it was the only night in 1605 that he stayed at home. Could he have been waiting for it? All available supplies of gunpowder were kept in the Tower of London. The cellar was rented to the conspirators by a close friend of Robert Cecil. All of the conspirators were executed except one – Francis Tresham. The signature on Guy Fawkes’ confession did not match his normal signature. The Stuarts and Their Monarchs: 1603 – 1714 For more information on the Stuarts and other counter-intuitive facts of ancient and medieval history, see Anthony Esolen’s The Politically Incorrect Guide to Western Civilization. The first English monarch of the Stuarts, James I of England and VI of Scotland, succeeded to the throne of England when Elizabeth I died. He was the son of Mary Queen of Scots by her second husband Lord Darnley, and great-great grandson of Henry VIII’s sister Margaret. In all there were seven monarchs among the Stuarts: James I, Charles I, Charles II, James II, William III and Mary II Anne. The period from 1649 to 1660 was an interregnum (time without a monarch), that saw the development of the Commonwealth under Oliver Cromwell. James I (1603 – 1625) The accession of James VI of Scotland as James I of England, united the countries of England and Scotland under one monarch for the first time. James believed in the Divine Right of Kings – that he was answerable to God alone and could not be tried by any court. He forbade any interpretation of church doctrine different to his own and made Sunday Church-going compulsory. Catholics were not allowed to celebrate Mass and he refused to listen to Puritan demands for church reform, instead authorising use of the King James Bible that is still in existence today. James I also introduced English and Irish Protestants into Northern Ireland through the Ulster Plantation scheme and tried to keep England at peace with the rest of Europe. Although he was a clever man, his choice of favourites alienated Parliament and he was not able to solve the country’s financial or political problems. When he died in 1625 the country was badly in debt. Charles I came to the throne after his father’s death. He did not share his father’s love of peace and embarked on war with Spain and then with France. In order to fight these wars he needed Parliament to grant him money. However, Parliament was not happy with his choice of favourites, especially the Duke of Buckingham and made things difficult for him. In 1629 he dismissed Parliament and decided to rule alone for the next 11 years. Like his father he also believed in the Divine Right of Kings and he upset his Scottish subjects, many of whom were Puritans, by insisting that they follow the same religion as his English subjects. The result was the two Bishops Wars (1639-1640) Charles’ financial state had worsened to such a degree that he had no choice but to recall a Parliament whose condemnation of his style of rule would lead the country to Civil War and Charles I to his execution in 1649. Interregnum Oliver Cromwell (1649 – 1658) In 1649, Oliver Cromwell took the title Lord Protector of the newly formed republic in England, known as the Commonwealth. His parliament consisted of a few chosen supporters and was not popular either at home or abroad. Cromwell disliked the Irish Catholics and, on the pretence of punishment for the massacre of English Protestants in 1641, he lay siege to the town of Drogheda in 1649 and killed most of its inhabitants. Having conquered Ireland he declared war on the Netherlands – England’s greatest trade rival. He went on to establish colonies in Jamaica and the West Indies. Although he faced opposition from those who supported Charles I’s son, Charles II, as the rightful King, (especially the Scots), Oliver Cromwell succeeded in establishing a sound reputation for the Commonwealth by the time of his death in 1658. He was succeeded by his son Richard, who had no wish to rule. Cromwell’s opponents were easily able to overthrow him and after a period of anarchy the monarchy was restored with the accession of Charles II. Charles II (1660 – 1685) After the execution of his father in 1649, Charles assumed the title Charles II of England, and was formally recognised as King of Scotland and Ireland. In 1651 he led an invasion into England from Scotland to defeat Cromwell and restore the monarchy. He was defeated and fled to France where he spent the next eight years. In 1660 he was invited, by parliament, to return to England as King Charles II. This event is known as the Restoration. He is known as the ‘Merry Monarch’ because of his love of parties, music and the theatre and his abolishment of the laws passed by Cromwell that forbade music and dancing. Charles was extravagant with money and was forced to marry Portuguese Catherine of Braganza for the large dowry she would bring. He continued to have money problems and allied England with France, a move that led to war with the Dutch and the acquisition of New Amsterdam (now New York) for England. Charles II died in 1685. James II (1685 – 1688) James II succeeded his brother Charles to the throne. After the Restoration he had served as Lord High Admiral until he announced his conversion to Roman Catholicism and was forced to resign. He succeeded despite the passing of the Test Acts in 1673 (which barred all Roman Catholics from holding official positions in Great Britain) and the efforts of Parliament to have him by-passed. The Duke of Monmouth immediately mounted an uprising against James II but it was crushed and a series of treason trials known as the Bloody Assizes followed. The Lord Chief Justice, George Jeffreys, sentenced more than 300 people to death and had another 800 forcibly sold into slavery. The Bloody Assizes led to an increasing number of calls for James to be replaced by his son-in-law, William of Orange and in 1688 the Dutchman was invited to take the English throne. William’s subsequent invasion of England and accession to the throne is known as The Glorious Revolution. James fled to France where he lived until his death in 1701. William III (1688 – 1702) and Mary II (1688 -1694) William III and his wife Mary II (daughter of James II), were proclaimed joint sovereigns of England in 1688 following the Glorious Revolution. They were accepted by Scotland the following year, but Ireland, which was mainly Catholic, remained loyal to James II. William led an army into Ireland and James was defeated at the Battle of the Boyne in 1690. Mary II died in 1694 and William ruled alone until his death in 1702. Queen Anne (1702 – 1714) Queen Anne was the sister of Mary II and was married to Prince George of Denmark. She was a committed Protestant and supported the Glorious Revolution that deposed her father and replaced him with her sister and brother-in-law. In 1707 the Act of Union formally united the Kingdoms of England and Scotland. She was the last monarch of the Stuarts, as none of her eighteen children survived beyond infancy. The Stuarts – Bibliography James VI of Scotland I of England – Scotland’s Kings and Queens James VI + I – Anniina Jokinen Charles I – Britannia Charles II – Britannia James II – Britannia William and Mary – Britannia Queen Anne – Britannia Guy Fawkes, The Gunpowder Plot and Bonfire Night – Sonja Hyde Pilgrims and Puritans – Capitol Project Puritanism in England – The Victorian Web Pilgrim Fathers – Britannia The Great Plague – Historic UK The London Plague of 1665 – Britain Express Cite This Article"The Stuarts- Interesting Facts on the First Kings of the United Kingdom" History on the Net © 2000-2020, Salem Media. January 28, 2020 <https://www.historyonthenet.com/stuarts-interesting-facts-on-first-kings-of-united-kingdom> More Citation Information.	<urn:uuid:a713e052-823b-4b59-bbf2-5a578151880b>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.historyonthenet.com/stuarts-interesting-facts-on-first-kings-of-united-kingdom	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251778168.77/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128091916-20200128121916-00019.warc.gz	en	0.983208	7,624	3.453125	3	[ -0.05466517433524132, 0.7552383542060852, 0.04466791823506355, -0.13874584436416626, 0.26255369186401367, -0.15696769952774048, 0.18624809384346008, 0.06530898064374924, -0.005999140441417694, -0.10744518041610718, -0.2556914687156677, -0.27457934617996216, -0.22261321544647217, 0.18541416...	1	The Stuarts were the United Kingdom’s first kings. For the first time, two thrones were combined when King James VI of Scotland became also King James I of England. Scroll down to see more articles about the history of Stuarts. Tudor and Stuart Timeline The Tudor and Stuart Monarchs and some of the main events of their reigns Why is Guy Fawkes Celebrated? Also known as Bonfire Night or Firework Night, Guy Fawkes is celebrated every year on the 5th of November in England (and some other countries). The history of Guy Fawkes dates back to 1605, when a group of Catholic extremists planned to assassinate King James I and hopefully get a catholic monarch on the throne. Guy Fawkes was the unfortunate soul who was put in charge of guarding the explosives that they have placed underneath the House of Lords. He was discovered and arrested, bringing an end to the Gunpowder plot and saving the king’s life. To celebrate the fact that their King survived an attempt to kill him, people lit bonfires all over London. A couple of months after the incident, the “Observance of 5th November Act” was passed as an annual public holiday. Interesting Facts about Guy Fawkes Guy Fawkes has been celebrated for over 400 years already, although Guy was not the main conspirator. Legend has it that the word, “guy” actually used to mean “ugly and repulsive,” after the name of Guy Fawkes. After years frequent use, it lost the negative connotation and just became a synonym for “man.” The 2,500kg gunpowder stashed beneath the House of Lords had the potential of causing damage in a 500 meter radius, according to the estimates of physicists. Timeline – The Tudor and Stuart Monarchs A detailed Timeline showing the Tudor and Stuart Monarchs and some of the main events of their reigns. The Stuarts – Great Fire of London 1666 Sunday 2nd September 1666 Weather Report – hot, dry and windy The Thames water level was very low following a hot summer The fire began in the Pudding Lane house of baker Thomas Farriner. When questioned later Farriner said that he had checked all five fire hearths in his house and he was certain that all fires were out. Nevertheless, when the family were woken by smoke in the early hours of the morning, the fire was so well established that the family could not use the stairs had to escape through an upstairs window. The fire was so well established that it could be seen from a quarter of a mile away. The Lord Mayor was advised to order the demolition of four houses. He decided not to issue the order because the city would then be responsible for re-building those houses. The fire spread destroying houses west of Pudding Lane. The City’s water engine was also destroyed. Samuel Pepys’s maid reported to him that more than 300 houses had been destroyed. Samuel Pepys kept a diary of events News of the fire spread through the city and the streets were filled with people running to escape the fire. The fire had burned for half a mile to the East and North of Pudding Lane. King Charles II had been informed of the fire and he had instructed the Mayor to pull down any houses necessary to stop the spread of the fire. However, in a City where the houses were very tightly packed, pulling down enough houses to stop the fire before the fire took hold was a difficult, almost impossible task. Monday 3rd September 1666 Weather Report: hot dry and windy The fire continued to spread and householders had to choose whether to help the fire-fighting effort or attempt to save goods from their own houses. The Thames was full of boats laden with property rescued from houses that had burnt down. Profiteers made money by hiring carts and boats at high prices. Most people could not afford their prices and could only save what they could carry. To reduce the numbers of people in the area of the fire, an order was given that carts could not be brought near to the fire. Charles II attempted to bring some order to the City by establishing eight fire posts around the fire with thirty foot soldiers assigned to each. His brother, the Duke of York (below), was put in charge. Because the wind was blowing from the East the fire had spread eastwards more slowly. Fire-fighters managed to prevent Westminster School from being destroyed although it was badly damaged. The fire was now 300 yards from the Tower and orders were given for extra fire engines to be sent to prevent its destruction. Many of London’s wealthiest citizens had taken their money and valuables to the Tower for safekeeping. Tuesday 4th September 1666 Weather Report: hot, dry and windy The fire showed no sign of stopping. All attempts to check its spread had failed and the fire-fighters were getting very tired. All carts, barges, boats and coaches had been hired out. The roof of St Paul’s cathedral caught fire. End of the Day This had proved to be the most destructive day of the fire. St Paul’s cathedral was among the many buildings destroyed on this day. Wednesday 5th September Weather Report: hot, dry but NO wind. The fire continued to burn but, due to the fact that the wind had dropped, it was not spreading so rapidly. The destruction of a number of houses in Cripplegate had stopped the spread of the fire and had allowed fire-fighters to put it out. All fires in the West of the City had been put out. Thursday 6th September Weather Report: hot, dry, but no wind The fire was finally put out. It had caused a huge amount of damage: 87 churches, including St Paul’s cathedral, 13,200 houses Fortunately, only 6 people lost their lives, far less than the number that would have died from the plague if the fire had not happened. The Stuarts – Fire and Fire – Fighting The risk of fire was great in Stuart England. People used candles for light and open fires for cooking. Houses were built close together and were made out of wood. Tradesmen used large ovens and often kept supplies of fuel in their houses and the many inns had stables attached to them filled with hay and straw. This picture shows a group of musicians. They are sitting next to an open fire, over which their food is cooking. The room is lit by a candle on the wall. The fire place and the roof are made from wood and there seems to be mats on the floor. It is easy to see that this type of house would set fire very quickly. There were many fires in seventeenth century London. A fire in 1633 destroyed houses on London Bridge and in 1643 another fire caused £2,880 worth of damage. In 1650 seven barrels of gunpowder exploded in a fire in Tower Street that made 41 houses uninhabitable. People did not have house insurance and if their house was damaged by fire they had to rely on the charity of other people to replace their possessions. Many Puritans believed that fire was a punishment from God for man’s sinfulness. In the years before 1666, Puritans who criticised Charles II’s love of women and good living predicted that there would be a ‘Great Fire’. As early as 1200 laws had been passed banning people from thatching their roofs. By 1600 most houses in London did not have thatched roofs. In 1620 a new order was made that new buildings should be made from brick or stone and that top floors should not jut out into the street. Suburbs appointed officers who inspected houses for fire hazards and fined owners if they did not remove the hazard. Householders were instructed to investigate any smell of smoke and raise the alarm if necessary. At night it was the night-watchman’s job to guard against fire and in hot weather householders were often told to leave buckets of water outside their doors in case of fire. Fire – Fighters Much of the equipment used by seventeenth century fire-fighters is very similar to that used today: These were used to pull down roof tiles or even buildings to prevent the spread of fire. Made out of leather, these buckets, filled with water, were passed along a chain of people from the water supply to the fire. This picture shows fire hooks being used to remove roof tiles. Buckets of water are being passed up a ladder to the men on the roof. These were used to dig up water pipes which were cut open. Hand-held water squirts were developed that allowed the fire-fighter to aim the jet of water at the fire. Fire engines were developed in the seventeenth century and were introduced in large cities from around 1625. These ‘engines’ allowed a force of water to be directed at the heart of the fire. In order for any fire to be put out quickly and easily, a good supply of water was needed. Although the new fire engines had tanks that were filled with water, they were soon emptied. They were refilled with water from the river, passed in buckets along a chain of people from the river to the fire. An early fire engine. Notice the woman on the left hurrying to the river for another bucket of water. Although the cities and towns of England in the seventeenth centuries were able to fight and put out fires, it was vital that they reached the fire before it became too big. Failure to stop a fire in its infancy could result in destruction of buildings and lives. The Stuarts – The Plague Doctor The plague doctor was a common fixture of the medieval world, with his bird-like costume that was believed to resist the plague. People in the fourteenth century did not know what caused the plague and many believed it was a punishment from God. They did realise that coming into contact with those infected increased the risk of contracting the disease yourself. Cures and preventative measures were not at all effective. \|Suggested Preventions and Cures\|\|How they were supposed to work\|\|What they actually did\| \|Carry Flowers or wear a strong perfume\|\|The smells would help to ward away the disease\|\|Nothing\| \|Drink hot drinks\|\|The victim would then sweat out the disease\|\|Nothing\| \|Carry a lucky charm\|\|The charm would ward off the disease\|\|Nothing\| \|Use leeches to bleed the victim\|\|This would remove infected blood\|\|Nothing\| \|Smoke a pipe of tobacco\|\|The smoke would ward off the disease\|\|Nothing\| \|Give a strong dose of laxatives\|\|This would cause the victim to completely empty his bowels, thus removing the disease.\|\|Strong doses of laxatives can cause death from dehydration.\| \|Coat the victims with mercury and place them in the oven.\|\|The combination of mercury and heat from the oven would kill off the disease.\|\|This could actually increase the likelihood of death – mercury is poisonous and the heat from the oven caused serious burns.\| Many doctors, knowing that they could do nothing for plague victims, simply didn’t bother trying to treat the disease. Those that did made sure that they were as protected as possible from the disease by wearing the ‘uniform’ shown above. The hat was made of leather. It was worn to show that the man was a doctor and also to add extra protection to the head. The beak that was attached to the mask was stuffed with herbs, perfumes or spices to purify the air that the doctor breathed when he was close to victims. Glass eyes were built into the mask to make sure that the eyes were fully protected. The mask covered the head completely and was gathered in at the neck for extra protecti The full-length gown was made out of thick material which was then covered with wax. Underneath the gown the doctor would wear leather breeches. The doctor wore leather gloves to protect his hands from any form of contact with the disease. The Plague Doctor carried a wooden stick so that he could drive people who came too close to him away. The Stuarts – Great Plague 1665 Bubonic Plague, known as the Black Death, first hit the British Isles in 1348, killing nearly a third of the population. Although regular outbreaks of the plague had occurred since, the outbreak of 1665 was the worst case since 1348. London – 1665 - 100,000 people – Dead! - 40,000 dogs – destroyed! - 200,000 cats – destroyed! London had changed little since this engraving was made in 1480. Houses were tightly packed together and conditions insanitary – ideal conditions for the plague to spread, particularly during the hot summer of 1665. When plague broke out in Holland in 1663, Charles II stopped trading with the country in an attempt to prevent plague infested rats arriving in London. However, despite these precautions, plague broke out in the capital in the Spring of 1665. Spread by the blood-sucking fleas that lived on the black rat. The Summer of 1665 was one of the hottest summers recorded and the numbers dying from plague rose rapidly. People began to panic and the rich fled the capital. By June it was necessary to have a certificate of health in order to travel or enter another town or city and forgers made a fortune issuing counterfeit certificates. The temperature and the numbers of deaths continued to rise. The Lord Mayor of London, desperate to be seen to be doing something, heard rumours that it was the stray dogs and cats on the streets that were spreading the disease and ordered them to be destroyed. This action unwittingly caused the numbers of deaths to rise still further since there were no stray dogs and cats to kill the rats. Bring out your dead! Those houses that contained plague victims were marked with a red cross. People only ventured into the streets when absolutely necessary preferring the ‘safety’ of their own homes. Carts were driven through the streets at night. The driver’s call of ‘bring out yer dead’ was a cue for those with a death in the house to bring the body out and place it onto the cart. Bodies were then buried in mass graves. The numbers of deaths from the plague reached a peak in August and September of 1665. However, it was November and the onset of cold weather that brought a drastic reduction in the number of deaths. Charles II did not consider it safe to return to the capital until February 1666. The Stuarts – Charles I – The Slide to Civil War Charles I came to the throne in 1625 after the death of his father, James I. Like his father, he believed in the Divine Right of Kings. Although only parliament could pass laws and grant money for war, because they refused to do as he wished, Charles chose to rule without them. Charles made repeated mistakes throughout his reign that took the country into Civil War and ultimately led to his death on January 30th 1649. Charles made mistakes in the following areas: In the first year of his reign, Charles married Princess Henrietta Maria of France, a Catholic. Parliament were concerned about the marriage because they did not want to see a return to Catholicism and they believed that a Catholic Queen would raise their children to the Catholic faith. Instead of listening to the advice of his Parliament, Charles chose the Duke of Buckingham as his main advisor. Parliament disliked Buckingham and resented his level of power over the King. In 1623 he had been responsible for taking England to war with Spain and parliament used this to bring a charge of treason against him. However, the King dismissed parliament in order to save his favourite. In 1627, Buckingham led a campaign into France which saw the English army badly defeated. In 1628, while preparing for a naval invasion of France, Buckingham was assassinated. The monarch’s income was paid out of customs duties and when a new King or Queen came to the throne parliament voted for their income to be paid for life. In Charles I’s case, though, it was only granted for one year. The members of parliament wanted to make sure that Charles did not dismiss them. Their plan did not work, Charles chose to rule alone and found his own way of getting money. It had always been the custom that in times of war, people living on the coast, would pay extra taxes for the defense of the coastline by naval ships. In 1634, Charles decided that ‘ship money’ should be paid all the time. One year later he demanded that people living inland should also pay ‘ship money’. The people were not pleased and a man named John Hampden refused to pay the tax until it had been agreed by parliament. The case went to court and the judge found Charles’ actions to be legal. The people had no choice but to pay. In 1639, Charles needed an army to go to Scotland to force the Scots to use the English Prayer book. A new tax was introduced to pay for the army. People now had to pay two taxes and many simply refused. Many of those jailed for not paying the taxes were released by sympathetic jailors. By 1639 most of the population was against Charles. ‘Ship Money’ was made illegal in 1641. The Protestants had been upset by Charles’ marriage to Catholic Henrietta Maria of France. They were even more upset when Charles, together with Archbishop Laud, began making changes to the Church of England. It was ordered that churches be decorated once again and that sermons should not be just confined to the Bible. A new English Prayer Book was introduced in 1637. Charles also demanded that the new English Prayer Book be used in Scottish Churches. This was a very big mistake. The Scots were more anti-Catholic than the English and many of them were Puritans. There were riots in Scotland against the new service and Charles was forced to raise an army to fight against the Scots. The English army was defeated by the Scots and Charles foolishly agreed to pay Scotland ?850 per day until the matter was settled. Money he did not have! The Irish Catholics were fed up with being ruled by English Protestants who had been given land in Ireland by James I. In 1641, news reached London that the Catholics were revolting. As the news travelled it was exaggerated and Londoners learned that 20,000 Protestants had been murdered. Rumours spread that Charles was behind the rebellion in a bid to make the whole of the United Kingdom Catholic. An army had to be sent to Ireland to put the rebellion down but who was to control the army. Parliament was worried that if Charles had control of the army he would use it to regain control over Parliament. In the same way, if Parliament controlled the army they would use it to control the King. It was a stalemate. One of Charles I’s major mistakes was that he was unable to gain the co-operation of his parliament. His determined belief in the Divine Right of Kings led to his dismissing parliament in 1629 and ruling without them. The fact that he did not have a parliament to grant him money meant that he had to tax his people heavier and introduce unpleasant taxes such as ship money (see above). It was only when Charles needed an army to fight against Scotland that he was forced to recall parliament in 1640. This parliament remained in office for so many years that it is known as the Long Parliament. The Long Parliament Having been dismissed from office for eleven years, this parliament was determined to make the most of being recalled and Charles’ favourite, Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford, of treason. Strafford was executed in May 1641. In November 1641, parliament presented the King with a list of complaints called the Grand Remonstrance that asked for the power of bishops to be reduced and for Charles’ councillors to be men trusted by parliament. Not all members of parliament were in favour of it and it was only passed by 159 votes to 148. In January 1642 Charles made what was the most foolish move of his reign. He burst into the Houses of Parliament with 400 soldiers and demanded that the five leading MPs be arrested. The five MPs had had advance warning and had fled. Charles demanding the arrest of the five MPs In June 1642 the Long Parliament passed a new set of demands called the Nineteen Proposals that called for the King’s powers to be greatly reduced and a greater control of government to be given to parliament. This move divided parliament between those who supported the Nineteen Proposals and those who thought parliament had gone too far. Both Parliament and Charles began collecting together their own armies. War was inevitable. People were forced to choose sides and on 22nd August 1642, the King raised his standard at Nottingham. The Stuarts – The Pilgrim Fathers When James I came to the throne, he adopted a moderate Protestant religious policy. Both Catholics and Puritans were forbidden to practice their religions. Many extreme Puritans left England for Holland where Puritanism was accepted. In 1607 Walter Raleigh had founded the colony of Virginia in America and a number of English companies had begun trading tobacco and other products between the colony and England. One stock company, anxious to protect their business interests in Virginia recruited 35 members of the radical, Puritan, English Separatist Church, who had fled to Holland. The stock company agreed to finance the voyage for them and in return they would look after the company’s business in Virginia. Other Puritans keen to start a new life in America joined the voyage. The Mayflower left the port of Southampton in August 1620 but was forced to put into Plymouth for repairs. The 102 passengers and 30 crew eventually left Plymouth for America on 16th September 1620 and steered a course for Virginia. The ship was a double-decked, three-masted vessel and initially the voyage went well but then storms blew up which blew them off course. Land was sighted on November 9th and anchor was dropped. A landing party of sixteen men left the ship on November 15th but failed to find a suitable site to establish a settlement. They set sail again and resumed their search. On December 17th they reached Plymouth Harbour and dropped anchor. On December 21st the first of the Pilgrim Fathers set foot on what would become Plymouth settlement. The harsh winter weather meant that they were unable to build adequate shelter and many of the travellers died during that first winter. Those that survived the winter went on to build houses and defences. In the late spring of 1621 a native American Samoset Indian offered to show the settlers how to farm the land and become self-sufficient if the men would help them fight a rival tribe. The settlers agreed and the Plymouth settlement flourished. This painting shows the Pilgrim Fathers landing at Plymouth Harbour. Their ship, the Mayflower, can be seen in the distance. December 21st is known as Forefather’s Day in America. The Stuarts – Puritans Towards the end of Elizabeth’s reign, an extreme branch of the Protestant religion was becoming more popular. They called themselves Puritans. This picture clearly shows the simple, plain clothing worn by the Puritans. Their clothing was usually black, white or grey and they lived a simple and religious life. The importance of religion to the Puritans is shown in the picture by the woman carrying a Bible. They believed that hard work was the key to gaining a place in heaven. Sundays and Holy days were strictly observed, with these days being devoted entirely to God. Throughout the reign of James I the Puritans gained power in Parliament. By the time of Charles I’s reign they had gained enough support in Parliament to pass laws imposing their views about living on all English people. Activities Banned by the Puritans: Horse Racing, cock-fighting and bear baiting Any gathering of people without permission Drunkenness and swearing Theatre-going, dancing and singing Games and sports on Sundays (including going for a walk) Many public houses were closed down. The Puritans were fiercely anti-Catholic and believed that churches should be plain and free from all kinds of ornament. They believed that all mankind was basically sinful, but that some would be saved because of Christ’s death. Central to their belief was the act of conversion. Conversion could take two forms – either a blinding flash during which the converted could cry out or fall to the ground – or it could be the end result of a period of preparation. Puritans believed that discipline was a vital part of human life and that frivolity was a sign of giving in to temptation. This modern-day Presbyterian church would have been acceptable to the Puritans of the seventeenth century. It is built in a plain stone with wooden panelling and pews. There is no elaborate decoration, just a plain cross above the altar and a cross on the wooden pulpit. The Stuarts – The Gunpowder Plot A Conspiracy or Not? ‘Remember, remember, the fifth of November. Gunpowder, treason and plot.’ Or was it? Read the two different versions of the Gunpowder Plot and decide for yourself… A small group of Catholics, Robert Catesby, Guido (Guy) Fawkes, Thomas Winter, John Wright and Thomas Percy decided to blow up the King on the State opening of Parliament. They hoped that this would lead to a Catholic King coming to the throne. Guido (Guy) Fawkes was an explosives expert who had served with the Spanish army in the Netherlands. The group rented a cellar beneath the Houses of Parliament and stored 20 barrels of gunpowder, supplied by Guido Fawkes. The date for the deed was set for November 5th. They recruited others sympathetic to their cause including Francis Tresham whose brother-in-law, Lord Monteagle, was a member of Parliament. Concerned for his brother-in-law’s safety, Tresham sent him a letter advising him not to attend Parliament on November 5th. Monteagle alerted the authorities and a search of the Houses of Parliament led to the discovery of Guido Fawkes standing guard over the barrels of gunpowder. He was tortured and revealed the names of the conspirators. Catesby and Percy and two others were killed resisting arrest. The others were tried for treason and executed. The Protestant View – The Conspirators were Guilty This picture shows the conspirators hatching the plot to blow up the King and parliament. They are grouped close together which shows that they are hatching a secret plot. Robert Catesby, Guido (Guy) Fawkes, Thomas Winter, John Wright and Thomas Percy were known to be Catholics. Guido Fawkes was an explosives expert. He had only recently returned to England maybe specifically to set the explosives. Francis Tresham was only thinking of his brother-in-law’s safety when he sent the letter. Gunpowder was not normally kept in the cellars under the Houses of Parliament. It was obviously put there by the conspirators. Guido Fawkes revealed the names of the conspirators. The Catholic View – The Conspirators were framed by the Protestants Many historians today agree with the Catholics of the time that the Gunpowder Plot conspirators were framed by James I’s chief minister, Robert Cecil. Cecil hated the Catholics and wanted to show them to be against the country. It is believed that Francis Tresham, who sent the warning note to his brother-in-law, may have been working for Cecil. There is evidence to support this view: This picture showing the conspirators, was made by a Dutchman who had never seen the conspirators. Cecil is quoted as saying ‘..we cannot hope to have good government while large numbers of people (Catholics) go around obeying foreign rulers (The Pope).’ This shows how much he hated the Catholics and wanted rid of them. Lord Monteagle received the warning letter at night. The night he received it was the only night in 1605 that he stayed at home. Could he have been waiting for it? All available supplies of gunpowder were kept in the Tower of London. The cellar was rented to the conspirators by a close friend of Robert Cecil. All of the conspirators were executed except one – Francis Tresham. The signature on Guy Fawkes’ confession did not match his normal signature. The Stuarts and Their Monarchs: 1603 – 1714 For more information on the Stuarts and other counter-intuitive facts of ancient and medieval history, see Anthony Esolen’s The Politically Incorrect Guide to Western Civilization. The first English monarch of the Stuarts, James I of England and VI of Scotland, succeeded to the throne of England when Elizabeth I died. He was the son of Mary Queen of Scots by her second husband Lord Darnley, and great-great grandson of Henry VIII’s sister Margaret. In all there were seven monarchs among the Stuarts: James I, Charles I, Charles II, James II, William III and Mary II Anne. The period from 1649 to 1660 was an interregnum (time without a monarch), that saw the development of the Commonwealth under Oliver Cromwell. James I (1603 – 1625) The accession of James VI of Scotland as James I of England, united the countries of England and Scotland under one monarch for the first time. James believed in the Divine Right of Kings – that he was answerable to God alone and could not be tried by any court. He forbade any interpretation of church doctrine different to his own and made Sunday Church-going compulsory. Catholics were not allowed to celebrate Mass and he refused to listen to Puritan demands for church reform, instead authorising use of the King James Bible that is still in existence today. James I also introduced English and Irish Protestants into Northern Ireland through the Ulster Plantation scheme and tried to keep England at peace with the rest of Europe. Although he was a clever man, his choice of favourites alienated Parliament and he was not able to solve the country’s financial or political problems. When he died in 1625 the country was badly in debt. Charles I came to the throne after his father’s death. He did not share his father’s love of peace and embarked on war with Spain and then with France. In order to fight these wars he needed Parliament to grant him money. However, Parliament was not happy with his choice of favourites, especially the Duke of Buckingham and made things difficult for him. In 1629 he dismissed Parliament and decided to rule alone for the next 11 years. Like his father he also believed in the Divine Right of Kings and he upset his Scottish subjects, many of whom were Puritans, by insisting that they follow the same religion as his English subjects. The result was the two Bishops Wars (1639-1640) Charles’ financial state had worsened to such a degree that he had no choice but to recall a Parliament whose condemnation of his style of rule would lead the country to Civil War and Charles I to his execution in 1649. Interregnum Oliver Cromwell (1649 – 1658) In 1649, Oliver Cromwell took the title Lord Protector of the newly formed republic in England, known as the Commonwealth. His parliament consisted of a few chosen supporters and was not popular either at home or abroad. Cromwell disliked the Irish Catholics and, on the pretence of punishment for the massacre of English Protestants in 1641, he lay siege to the town of Drogheda in 1649 and killed most of its inhabitants. Having conquered Ireland he declared war on the Netherlands – England’s greatest trade rival. He went on to establish colonies in Jamaica and the West Indies. Although he faced opposition from those who supported Charles I’s son, Charles II, as the rightful King, (especially the Scots), Oliver Cromwell succeeded in establishing a sound reputation for the Commonwealth by the time of his death in 1658. He was succeeded by his son Richard, who had no wish to rule. Cromwell’s opponents were easily able to overthrow him and after a period of anarchy the monarchy was restored with the accession of Charles II. Charles II (1660 – 1685) After the execution of his father in 1649, Charles assumed the title Charles II of England, and was formally recognised as King of Scotland and Ireland. In 1651 he led an invasion into England from Scotland to defeat Cromwell and restore the monarchy. He was defeated and fled to France where he spent the next eight years. In 1660 he was invited, by parliament, to return to England as King Charles II. This event is known as the Restoration. He is known as the ‘Merry Monarch’ because of his love of parties, music and the theatre and his abolishment of the laws passed by Cromwell that forbade music and dancing. Charles was extravagant with money and was forced to marry Portuguese Catherine of Braganza for the large dowry she would bring. He continued to have money problems and allied England with France, a move that led to war with the Dutch and the acquisition of New Amsterdam (now New York) for England. Charles II died in 1685. James II (1685 – 1688) James II succeeded his brother Charles to the throne. After the Restoration he had served as Lord High Admiral until he announced his conversion to Roman Catholicism and was forced to resign. He succeeded despite the passing of the Test Acts in 1673 (which barred all Roman Catholics from holding official positions in Great Britain) and the efforts of Parliament to have him by-passed. The Duke of Monmouth immediately mounted an uprising against James II but it was crushed and a series of treason trials known as the Bloody Assizes followed. The Lord Chief Justice, George Jeffreys, sentenced more than 300 people to death and had another 800 forcibly sold into slavery. The Bloody Assizes led to an increasing number of calls for James to be replaced by his son-in-law, William of Orange and in 1688 the Dutchman was invited to take the English throne. William’s subsequent invasion of England and accession to the throne is known as The Glorious Revolution. James fled to France where he lived until his death in 1701. William III (1688 – 1702) and Mary II (1688 -1694) William III and his wife Mary II (daughter of James II), were proclaimed joint sovereigns of England in 1688 following the Glorious Revolution. They were accepted by Scotland the following year, but Ireland, which was mainly Catholic, remained loyal to James II. William led an army into Ireland and James was defeated at the Battle of the Boyne in 1690. Mary II died in 1694 and William ruled alone until his death in 1702. Queen Anne (1702 – 1714) Queen Anne was the sister of Mary II and was married to Prince George of Denmark. She was a committed Protestant and supported the Glorious Revolution that deposed her father and replaced him with her sister and brother-in-law. In 1707 the Act of Union formally united the Kingdoms of England and Scotland. She was the last monarch of the Stuarts, as none of her eighteen children survived beyond infancy. The Stuarts – Bibliography James VI of Scotland I of England – Scotland’s Kings and Queens James VI + I – Anniina Jokinen Charles I – Britannia Charles II – Britannia James II – Britannia William and Mary – Britannia Queen Anne – Britannia Guy Fawkes, The Gunpowder Plot and Bonfire Night – Sonja Hyde Pilgrims and Puritans – Capitol Project Puritanism in England – The Victorian Web Pilgrim Fathers – Britannia The Great Plague – Historic UK The London Plague of 1665 – Britain Express Cite This Article"The Stuarts- Interesting Facts on the First Kings of the United Kingdom" History on the Net © 2000-2020, Salem Media. January 28, 2020 <https://www.historyonthenet.com/stuarts-interesting-facts-on-first-kings-of-united-kingdom> More Citation Information.	7,740	ENGLISH	1
“What is right and what is practical are two different things.” James Buchanan, 15th President of the United States, was born in Pennsylvania, the son of a storeowner. He learned to add sums and keep books in his father’s store. Throughout his life, he kept strict financial accounts. He also valued obeying the law. These characteristics were both strengths and weaknesses. Buchanan served over 40 years in public office before becoming President. He served in both the U.S. House and Senate and was minister to Russia and Great Britain. He also served as secretary of state under President James K. Polk. Most of his assignments took Buchanan abroad and he missed much of the fighting over slavery. When he became President, he was ill-prepared to handle the slavery conflict here at home. He served only one term and was happy to leave the White House. - James Buchanan was born in 1791 in Cove Gap, Pennsylvania. - Buchanan was the only President never to marry or have children. People sent him animals to keep him company: a large dog, two bald eagles, and a herd of elephants. - Buchanan’s niece played the role of First Lady; the White House hosted lively parties during Buchanan’s presidency. - Buchanan had only been President for two days when the Supreme Court issued the Dred Scott ruling, which said that slavery would be legal in all new territories and that a slave owner could keep his current slaves even if he moved to a “free” state. - Both the North and the South were angry about slavery. Buchanan wanted to avoid war and keep the Union intact, but nothing he did seemed to make either party happy. - During Buchanan’s last few months of office, several Southern states seceded (left) the Union. Buchanan wasn’t happy but he didn’t think he could force the Southern states to stay. Questions and Answers Question: Did Buchanan believe in slavery? Answer: Buchanan personally didn’t like slavery and often bought slaves to set them free. However, he believed the Constitution allowed slavery. He thought the government didn’t have the power to end its practice. Perhaps he had seen the controversy Franklin Pierce had stirred up during his Presidency and was trying to avoid a similar disaster. Visit the Miller Center to learn more. Cite This Page You may cut-and-paste the below MLA and APA citation examples: MLA Style Citation Declan, Tobin. " James Buchanan Fun Facts for Kids ." Easy Science for Kids, Jan 2020. Web. 29 Jan 2020. < https://easyscienceforkids.com/james-buchanan/ >. APA Style Citation Tobin, Declan. (2020). James Buchanan Fun Facts for Kids. Easy Science for Kids. Retrieved from https://easyscienceforkids.com/james-buchanan/ Sponsored Links :	<urn:uuid:36bbcfb5-1958-4a9f-aacb-f9d819b2dc76>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://easyscienceforkids.com/james-buchanan/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251802249.87/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129194333-20200129223333-00444.warc.gz	en	0.980708	617	3.765625	4	[ -0.25619614124298096, 0.10671746730804443, 0.2717151343822479, -0.5331781506538391, 0.13435429334640503, 0.26837778091430664, 0.22021976113319397, -0.354602187871933, -0.1442711055278778, 0.4928193688392639, 0.2316066324710846, 0.24908572435379028, 0.16569337248802185, 0.5101553797721863, ...	1	“What is right and what is practical are two different things.” James Buchanan, 15th President of the United States, was born in Pennsylvania, the son of a storeowner. He learned to add sums and keep books in his father’s store. Throughout his life, he kept strict financial accounts. He also valued obeying the law. These characteristics were both strengths and weaknesses. Buchanan served over 40 years in public office before becoming President. He served in both the U.S. House and Senate and was minister to Russia and Great Britain. He also served as secretary of state under President James K. Polk. Most of his assignments took Buchanan abroad and he missed much of the fighting over slavery. When he became President, he was ill-prepared to handle the slavery conflict here at home. He served only one term and was happy to leave the White House. - James Buchanan was born in 1791 in Cove Gap, Pennsylvania. - Buchanan was the only President never to marry or have children. People sent him animals to keep him company: a large dog, two bald eagles, and a herd of elephants. - Buchanan’s niece played the role of First Lady; the White House hosted lively parties during Buchanan’s presidency. - Buchanan had only been President for two days when the Supreme Court issued the Dred Scott ruling, which said that slavery would be legal in all new territories and that a slave owner could keep his current slaves even if he moved to a “free” state. - Both the North and the South were angry about slavery. Buchanan wanted to avoid war and keep the Union intact, but nothing he did seemed to make either party happy. - During Buchanan’s last few months of office, several Southern states seceded (left) the Union. Buchanan wasn’t happy but he didn’t think he could force the Southern states to stay. Questions and Answers Question: Did Buchanan believe in slavery? Answer: Buchanan personally didn’t like slavery and often bought slaves to set them free. However, he believed the Constitution allowed slavery. He thought the government didn’t have the power to end its practice. Perhaps he had seen the controversy Franklin Pierce had stirred up during his Presidency and was trying to avoid a similar disaster. Visit the Miller Center to learn more. Cite This Page You may cut-and-paste the below MLA and APA citation examples: MLA Style Citation Declan, Tobin. " James Buchanan Fun Facts for Kids ." Easy Science for Kids, Jan 2020. Web. 29 Jan 2020. < https://easyscienceforkids.com/james-buchanan/ >. APA Style Citation Tobin, Declan. (2020). James Buchanan Fun Facts for Kids. Easy Science for Kids. Retrieved from https://easyscienceforkids.com/james-buchanan/ Sponsored Links :	595	ENGLISH	1
Computer scientists at the University of California, San Diego, have developed an immersive, first-person player video game designed to teach students in elementary to high school how to program in Java, one of the most common programming languages in use today. The researchers tested the game on a group of 40 girls, ages 10 to 12, who had never been exposed to programming before. They detailed their findings in a paper they presented at the SIGCSE conference in March in Denver. Computer scientists found that within just one hour of play, the girls had mastered some of Java’s basic components and were able to use the language to create new ways of playing with the game. Oh boy, I wish we'd had that kind of thing in my day - I didn't even get my first pocket calculator until I was 12! Good to see kids being given a fun way into programming via games, especially when there seems to be a lot of social pressure that discourages girls from getting into "nerdy" subjects these days. No more Blub for me, thank you, Vicar. Eliminate 95% of the weeds in your lawn by mowing 3 inches or higher. Then plant tiny ads:	<urn:uuid:2bdf724b-cda7-409e-b132-efad80f42533>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://coderanch.com/t/609325/Code-Spells-Video-Game-Teaches	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250605075.24/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121192553-20200121221553-00260.warc.gz	en	0.980287	245	3.59375	4	[ -0.34924477338790894, 0.13047285377979279, 0.07906410098075867, -0.8382024765014648, -0.23729872703552246, 0.22548453509807587, -0.027420876547694206, 0.44056329131126404, 0.16303835809230804, 0.0876665860414505, 0.06705575436353683, 0.09184345602989197, 0.25549331307411194, 0.060592338442...	1	Computer scientists at the University of California, San Diego, have developed an immersive, first-person player video game designed to teach students in elementary to high school how to program in Java, one of the most common programming languages in use today. The researchers tested the game on a group of 40 girls, ages 10 to 12, who had never been exposed to programming before. They detailed their findings in a paper they presented at the SIGCSE conference in March in Denver. Computer scientists found that within just one hour of play, the girls had mastered some of Java’s basic components and were able to use the language to create new ways of playing with the game. Oh boy, I wish we'd had that kind of thing in my day - I didn't even get my first pocket calculator until I was 12! Good to see kids being given a fun way into programming via games, especially when there seems to be a lot of social pressure that discourages girls from getting into "nerdy" subjects these days. No more Blub for me, thank you, Vicar. Eliminate 95% of the weeds in your lawn by mowing 3 inches or higher. Then plant tiny ads:	248	ENGLISH	1
After the outbreak of armed conflict between British soldiers and American colonial troops, the Second Continental Congress struggled to agree on how best to proceed. While most of the delegates were not leaning toward independence (though they would be within a year), there were delegates who saw the colonists’ military action as justified, paving the way toward a wider war and, eventually, independence. However there were also delegates who were eager to reconcile with Britain and put the fighting behind them. While the issues at stake in the years leading up to the American War of Independence largely affected political and economic elites, the broader communities participated in actions designed to bend the British will. One method of protest was to boycott British goods, such as tea. These documents, from 1774 and 1775, illustrate the role of women in carrying out these boycotts.	<urn:uuid:ddf2b0ee-70e7-44d2-98d1-c5abd4ac0233>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://history.mcc.edu/wordpress/history/tag/1770s/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250608062.57/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123011418-20200123040418-00053.warc.gz	en	0.982308	165	4.28125	4	[ -0.19973866641521454, 0.13888123631477356, 0.39655670523643494, 0.09176148474216461, -0.15247754752635956, 0.3351112902164459, -0.14670470356941223, 0.29262781143188477, -0.1969493329524994, -0.20721572637557983, 0.0620073564350605, -0.09078267961740494, -0.10766501724720001, 0.15915156900...	4	After the outbreak of armed conflict between British soldiers and American colonial troops, the Second Continental Congress struggled to agree on how best to proceed. While most of the delegates were not leaning toward independence (though they would be within a year), there were delegates who saw the colonists’ military action as justified, paving the way toward a wider war and, eventually, independence. However there were also delegates who were eager to reconcile with Britain and put the fighting behind them. While the issues at stake in the years leading up to the American War of Independence largely affected political and economic elites, the broader communities participated in actions designed to bend the British will. One method of protest was to boycott British goods, such as tea. These documents, from 1774 and 1775, illustrate the role of women in carrying out these boycotts.	170	ENGLISH	1
In valued these traits. They wanted to know In ancient times the Romans greatly valued heroes, but was Gaius Mucius Scaevola a genuine hero of the 500’s B.C.E.? Gaius Mucius Scaevola was an interesting man who did not receive much recognition for all accomplishments. He is said to have helped save Rome, as well as to have fought against injustice, which is one way he influenced “Roman History.” Gaius was heroic, courageous, and loyal to Rome. The strength that Gaius brought forth to fight for the the Romans was irreplaceable. The Romans greatly valued these traits. They wanted to know someone would bravely and fearlessly fight for Rome. He had a unique mindset for the time. Not many people thought like him, and Gaius challenged them to think outside of what they were told to consider. These may just merely be stories that have been passed down. It is unclear whether Gaius was fictional or a real life person. Gaius Mucius Scaevola may have been born around 524 B.C.E. He is described as a noble, heroic, brave man who saved Rome and “A legendary Roman hero” (The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica 1.) In 509 B.C.E., Rome ended their monarchy and then Lars Porsena dominated. Around 508 B.C.E., Lars Porsena, an Etruscan king, bombarded and occupied Rome. This caused an uproar of anger from the Romans. Horatius Cocles, an average man, guarded the one weak spot the enemies had not protected. Horatius Cocles “the one eyed hero” (Cartwright 2) was waiting for the enemies to come. When the enemies crossed the bridge, he was ready to fight and take back the country where he lived. Although this was noble, this plan was not the best idea. When the Etruscans, a wealthy community who supported Lars, crossed the bridge, they saw Horatius and threw spears at him. Horatius prayed, as many Romans were very religious, and threw himself into the river. Whether or not he survived is still unknown, but after this incident, the Etruscans besieged the Romans. (Livy 11:9-13) Gaius Mucius Scaevola, frustrated with the recent events, asked the Senate if he could spy on the enemies’ camp. This was also where Lars Porsena was living. The Senate agreed that Lars Porsena needed to die. With this information, Gaius volunteered to kill Lars Porsena because he was tired of him ruling over Rome. The Etruscans, a wealthy and vigorous community, were helping Lars Porsena rule over Rome. Gaius did not want either to be in charge of Rome. “Gaius brought his sword and strategically hid it behind hid tunic, setting out to kill Lars Porsena, when he was startled by a huge problem” (Ancient History Encyclopedia, Cartwright.) Gaius’s plan was incredibly flawed. He did not know what Lars Porsena looked like, so he had to choose between two men who could have been the king. Two men looked oddly similar and they were both on the throne. As well as looking similar, they also dressed identically. With this problem, Gaius took a guess who was king, but his guess was incorrect. Gaius stabbed and killed Lars Porsena’s steward by accident. After this incident, Gaius tried to flee, but he was immediately caught. He was held prisoner, but had no problem proclaiming his innocence. When brought to The Etruscan Royal Tribunal he told everyone he was not the only person who wanted Lars Porsena dead. Proclaiming his name and plan, Gaius said, “I am a Roman, my name is Gaius Mucius. I came here to kill you—my enemy I have as much courage to die as to kill. Nor am I alone in my resolve against your life; behind me is a long line of men eager for the same honor. Brace yourself, if you will, for the struggle—a struggle for your like from hour to hour, with an armed enemy always at your door.” (Livy 1) Gaius exclaimed nowhere in Rome was safe for Lars Porsena. With passion in his heart, Gaius stuck his right hand in a burning fire and held his hand in the fire until it was completely burned. Gaius said that this pain was nothing. Lars Porsena, impressed, astonished, and intrigued by his bravery and courage, which the Romans valued, set him free in 508 B.C.E. As well as witnessing Gaius’s bravery, he was also worried others would come and attempt to kill him. Lars Porsena also told about a quarter of his army to back off and they moved to Aricia in 509 B.C.E. With the brutal news that three hundred more people were going to attempt to kill him, Lars decided to send a messenger to Rome asking for forgiveness and recognition of peace. Gaius, although possibly fictional, has been credited with the prevention of the fall of Rome. The cognomen, “Scaevola” translates to “left handed” because he burned his right hand. As well as being honored with this cognomen, Gaius was rewarded with the land past the Tiber river. This is where Horatius Cocles had guarded at the very beginning of Lars Porsena’s siege. Gaius may have helped save Rome from Lars Porsena’s wrath and helped stopped the fighting. Gaius was important because he was an excellent example of what the Romans viewed as honorable. He fought for the people, was heroic, and very loyal. Although Gaius may be fictional, if Gaius was a real man, he is a genuine a hero of Rome.	<urn:uuid:9ecc0f06-58f9-4165-a167-e10d31d79e9a>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://farmersfeastmanitoba.com/in-valued-these-traits-they-wanted-to-know/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250591431.4/warc/CC-MAIN-20200117234621-20200118022621-00471.warc.gz	en	0.985477	1,276	3.765625	4	[ -0.7918928861618042, 0.6305681467056274, 0.4247039556503296, 0.19968344271183014, -0.729134202003479, -0.20485296845436096, 0.31660211086273193, 0.5411783456802368, -0.17816442251205444, -0.050025470554828644, 0.17407947778701782, -0.42425471544265747, 0.33649182319641113, 0.25911915302276...	2	In valued these traits. They wanted to know In ancient times the Romans greatly valued heroes, but was Gaius Mucius Scaevola a genuine hero of the 500’s B.C.E.? Gaius Mucius Scaevola was an interesting man who did not receive much recognition for all accomplishments. He is said to have helped save Rome, as well as to have fought against injustice, which is one way he influenced “Roman History.” Gaius was heroic, courageous, and loyal to Rome. The strength that Gaius brought forth to fight for the the Romans was irreplaceable. The Romans greatly valued these traits. They wanted to know someone would bravely and fearlessly fight for Rome. He had a unique mindset for the time. Not many people thought like him, and Gaius challenged them to think outside of what they were told to consider. These may just merely be stories that have been passed down. It is unclear whether Gaius was fictional or a real life person. Gaius Mucius Scaevola may have been born around 524 B.C.E. He is described as a noble, heroic, brave man who saved Rome and “A legendary Roman hero” (The Editors of Encyclopedia Britannica 1.) In 509 B.C.E., Rome ended their monarchy and then Lars Porsena dominated. Around 508 B.C.E., Lars Porsena, an Etruscan king, bombarded and occupied Rome. This caused an uproar of anger from the Romans. Horatius Cocles, an average man, guarded the one weak spot the enemies had not protected. Horatius Cocles “the one eyed hero” (Cartwright 2) was waiting for the enemies to come. When the enemies crossed the bridge, he was ready to fight and take back the country where he lived. Although this was noble, this plan was not the best idea. When the Etruscans, a wealthy community who supported Lars, crossed the bridge, they saw Horatius and threw spears at him. Horatius prayed, as many Romans were very religious, and threw himself into the river. Whether or not he survived is still unknown, but after this incident, the Etruscans besieged the Romans. (Livy 11:9-13) Gaius Mucius Scaevola, frustrated with the recent events, asked the Senate if he could spy on the enemies’ camp. This was also where Lars Porsena was living. The Senate agreed that Lars Porsena needed to die. With this information, Gaius volunteered to kill Lars Porsena because he was tired of him ruling over Rome. The Etruscans, a wealthy and vigorous community, were helping Lars Porsena rule over Rome. Gaius did not want either to be in charge of Rome. “Gaius brought his sword and strategically hid it behind hid tunic, setting out to kill Lars Porsena, when he was startled by a huge problem” (Ancient History Encyclopedia, Cartwright.) Gaius’s plan was incredibly flawed. He did not know what Lars Porsena looked like, so he had to choose between two men who could have been the king. Two men looked oddly similar and they were both on the throne. As well as looking similar, they also dressed identically. With this problem, Gaius took a guess who was king, but his guess was incorrect. Gaius stabbed and killed Lars Porsena’s steward by accident. After this incident, Gaius tried to flee, but he was immediately caught. He was held prisoner, but had no problem proclaiming his innocence. When brought to The Etruscan Royal Tribunal he told everyone he was not the only person who wanted Lars Porsena dead. Proclaiming his name and plan, Gaius said, “I am a Roman, my name is Gaius Mucius. I came here to kill you—my enemy I have as much courage to die as to kill. Nor am I alone in my resolve against your life; behind me is a long line of men eager for the same honor. Brace yourself, if you will, for the struggle—a struggle for your like from hour to hour, with an armed enemy always at your door.” (Livy 1) Gaius exclaimed nowhere in Rome was safe for Lars Porsena. With passion in his heart, Gaius stuck his right hand in a burning fire and held his hand in the fire until it was completely burned. Gaius said that this pain was nothing. Lars Porsena, impressed, astonished, and intrigued by his bravery and courage, which the Romans valued, set him free in 508 B.C.E. As well as witnessing Gaius’s bravery, he was also worried others would come and attempt to kill him. Lars Porsena also told about a quarter of his army to back off and they moved to Aricia in 509 B.C.E. With the brutal news that three hundred more people were going to attempt to kill him, Lars decided to send a messenger to Rome asking for forgiveness and recognition of peace. Gaius, although possibly fictional, has been credited with the prevention of the fall of Rome. The cognomen, “Scaevola” translates to “left handed” because he burned his right hand. As well as being honored with this cognomen, Gaius was rewarded with the land past the Tiber river. This is where Horatius Cocles had guarded at the very beginning of Lars Porsena’s siege. Gaius may have helped save Rome from Lars Porsena’s wrath and helped stopped the fighting. Gaius was important because he was an excellent example of what the Romans viewed as honorable. He fought for the people, was heroic, and very loyal. Although Gaius may be fictional, if Gaius was a real man, he is a genuine a hero of Rome.	1,251	ENGLISH	1
Benjamin Franklin, also widely known as one of the Founding Fathers of America, will never be forgotten in American history. This is so simply because he has contributed so much to the United States. Franklin was a very knowledgeable and talented man. He was everything from being a scientist, an inventor, a statesman, a printer, a philosopher, a musician, and an economist. Living with his grandson Temple, Franklin reached Philadelphia where the delegates of the Second Continental Congress were gathering. At this point in time, the Boston Tea Party of 1775 has been on the rampage. The Congress did not have an agreement whether this war should be taken into independence or just to gain American rights within the British. . With these arguments going on, Benjamin Franklin was chosen to be a member of the Congress. At first, Franklin remained silent of his opinion of independence and avoided talking to other delegates about it. Everyone knew of his renowned reputation of his ability to induce people to follow his opinion. Because he was so wordless, members of the Congress began to complain and even suspect Franklin as a secret Loyalist to British Empire. However, Franklin still chose to be unspoken of his concept of America's independence. . Of course Franklin had his reasons on keeping his silence. He wanted to first convert his close relations first before speaking to anyone. One was Joseph Galloway who served Franklin for ten years and William his son. However, both disagreed to Franklin and tried to argue with him and moreover convince him to stay neutral. Franklin was not at all convinced and William left defeated. Franklin could no longer hold in his thoughts to himself. The bloody Battle of Bunker Hill and the burning of Charleston led Franklin to further hatred of British and to take action. Franklin finally speaks out after signing the Olive Branch Petition in July 1775, which condemned the British of their hostility against the America.	<urn:uuid:9ed8cf60-cdbe-459d-b478-56a42f8955bb>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.exampleessays.com/viewpaper/41205.html	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251672537.90/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125131641-20200125160641-00490.warc.gz	en	0.9886	377	3.71875	4	[ -0.1693359613418579, 0.25557273626327515, -0.033023737370967865, -0.030716199427843094, -0.3983084261417389, 0.29465389251708984, 0.6735804677009583, 0.3751310706138611, -0.1877857893705368, -0.325611412525177, 0.2649574279785156, 0.047831181436777115, -0.31414076685905457, 0.2671903967857...	2	Benjamin Franklin, also widely known as one of the Founding Fathers of America, will never be forgotten in American history. This is so simply because he has contributed so much to the United States. Franklin was a very knowledgeable and talented man. He was everything from being a scientist, an inventor, a statesman, a printer, a philosopher, a musician, and an economist. Living with his grandson Temple, Franklin reached Philadelphia where the delegates of the Second Continental Congress were gathering. At this point in time, the Boston Tea Party of 1775 has been on the rampage. The Congress did not have an agreement whether this war should be taken into independence or just to gain American rights within the British. . With these arguments going on, Benjamin Franklin was chosen to be a member of the Congress. At first, Franklin remained silent of his opinion of independence and avoided talking to other delegates about it. Everyone knew of his renowned reputation of his ability to induce people to follow his opinion. Because he was so wordless, members of the Congress began to complain and even suspect Franklin as a secret Loyalist to British Empire. However, Franklin still chose to be unspoken of his concept of America's independence. . Of course Franklin had his reasons on keeping his silence. He wanted to first convert his close relations first before speaking to anyone. One was Joseph Galloway who served Franklin for ten years and William his son. However, both disagreed to Franklin and tried to argue with him and moreover convince him to stay neutral. Franklin was not at all convinced and William left defeated. Franklin could no longer hold in his thoughts to himself. The bloody Battle of Bunker Hill and the burning of Charleston led Franklin to further hatred of British and to take action. Franklin finally speaks out after signing the Olive Branch Petition in July 1775, which condemned the British of their hostility against the America.	385	ENGLISH	1
Modern architect, Le Corbusier, was famous for being a pioneer of unique and ground-breaking designs. He changed the face of urban architecture, bringing it into the technological age. Born Charles-Édouard Jeanneret-Gris, in Switzerland, in October 1887, he was encouraged to take up architecture by his teacher. He immediately showed an aptitude for design, building his first house when he was only 18. After moving to Paris in 1908 to train under famous architect Auguste Perret, he then moved to Berlin for further training with Peter Behrens on machine design and industrial processes. Architecture and machinery Le Corbusier’s passion was classical Greek architecture, combined with a fascination for the modern machine. He wrote a book called Vers une Architecture to explain his pioneering ideas. It literally meant “towards an architecture”, but was commonly translated as “towards a new architecture” when the English version was published in 1927. He referred to the house as a “machine for living”, a product of the industrial age that should be filled with functional furniture, called “equipment de l’habitation” – translated as “housing equipment”. Le Corbusier designed a system of furniture, in liaison with his cousin Pierre Jeanneret and the French architect and designer, Charlotte Perriand. The unique furniture was made of tubular steel. It included the iconic chaise longue known as the LC4, and two seating collections, known as LC2 and LC3. His tubular steel designs created a brand new rationalist aesthetic that epitomised international style. The chairs combined the purity of tubular steel with natural hide upholstery. The furniture was fashioned from chromed steel and nickel-plated steel, with the seats covered by top-grain, semi-dyed leather. Tubular steel chairs He specifically called chairs “architecture”. The tubular steel used to make the furniture was primarily used for bicycle frames in the early 1920s. He famously said that calling “chairs, baskets and objects decorative” was unnecessary, because they were, in fact, “useful tools”. The first item produced by the collaboration between Le Corbusier and his colleagues was the chrome-plated tubular steel-framed LC4, made between 1927 and 1928. The covering of cowhide gave it a somehow exotic touch. Manufactured between 1928 and 1929, the next item was the Fauteuil Grand Confort (the LC3). It was a club chair with a tubular steel frame, resembling the Art Deco comfortable chairs that were popular during the 1920s. During the same period, Le Corbusier also came up with the Fauteuil à Dossier Basculant, known as the LC4. This was a highly unusual, low seat, which was suspended in a tubular steel frame, with the same cowhide upholstery. These chairs were designed for two projects: a pavilion for the American writer and arts patron Henry Church, his wife Barbara and for the Maison la Roche, in Paris. More furniture based on the tubular steel design was made by Le Corbusier in 1929, known as Salon d’Automne – “Equipment for the Home”. He intended his furniture to be inexpensive and mass-produced. However, his designs turned out to be exactly the opposite and were very costly to make. Years later, they were finally mass-produced, but only after he became famous. Today, original furniture by Le Corbusier, who died in 1965, sells for vast amounts of money. His LC3 Grand Modele two-seater sofa retails at more than $9,000, while his LC2 Petit Modele three-seater sofa fetches around $11,300. Modern furniture is still produced today by bending tubular steel. Offering high-quality pipe bending services for a variety of applications, including furniture and custom metalwork projects, Pipecraft is an expert in the field of pipe and tube bending. For more details, contact email@example.com or telephone 01903 766778.	<urn:uuid:8561bf41-2ab6-4f40-a8fe-06a35521e06c>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.pipecraft.co.uk/blog/le-corbusier/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251783342.96/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128215526-20200129005526-00500.warc.gz	en	0.980671	887	3.390625	3	[ 0.014025685377418995, 0.16387398540973663, 0.3648830056190491, 0.058074720203876495, -0.21858753263950348, -0.3527895212173462, 0.13307076692581177, 0.29055023193359375, 0.10255865007638931, -0.14720122516155243, 0.10873281955718994, -0.02310771308839321, -0.058295298367738724, 0.150109171...	4	Modern architect, Le Corbusier, was famous for being a pioneer of unique and ground-breaking designs. He changed the face of urban architecture, bringing it into the technological age. Born Charles-Édouard Jeanneret-Gris, in Switzerland, in October 1887, he was encouraged to take up architecture by his teacher. He immediately showed an aptitude for design, building his first house when he was only 18. After moving to Paris in 1908 to train under famous architect Auguste Perret, he then moved to Berlin for further training with Peter Behrens on machine design and industrial processes. Architecture and machinery Le Corbusier’s passion was classical Greek architecture, combined with a fascination for the modern machine. He wrote a book called Vers une Architecture to explain his pioneering ideas. It literally meant “towards an architecture”, but was commonly translated as “towards a new architecture” when the English version was published in 1927. He referred to the house as a “machine for living”, a product of the industrial age that should be filled with functional furniture, called “equipment de l’habitation” – translated as “housing equipment”. Le Corbusier designed a system of furniture, in liaison with his cousin Pierre Jeanneret and the French architect and designer, Charlotte Perriand. The unique furniture was made of tubular steel. It included the iconic chaise longue known as the LC4, and two seating collections, known as LC2 and LC3. His tubular steel designs created a brand new rationalist aesthetic that epitomised international style. The chairs combined the purity of tubular steel with natural hide upholstery. The furniture was fashioned from chromed steel and nickel-plated steel, with the seats covered by top-grain, semi-dyed leather. Tubular steel chairs He specifically called chairs “architecture”. The tubular steel used to make the furniture was primarily used for bicycle frames in the early 1920s. He famously said that calling “chairs, baskets and objects decorative” was unnecessary, because they were, in fact, “useful tools”. The first item produced by the collaboration between Le Corbusier and his colleagues was the chrome-plated tubular steel-framed LC4, made between 1927 and 1928. The covering of cowhide gave it a somehow exotic touch. Manufactured between 1928 and 1929, the next item was the Fauteuil Grand Confort (the LC3). It was a club chair with a tubular steel frame, resembling the Art Deco comfortable chairs that were popular during the 1920s. During the same period, Le Corbusier also came up with the Fauteuil à Dossier Basculant, known as the LC4. This was a highly unusual, low seat, which was suspended in a tubular steel frame, with the same cowhide upholstery. These chairs were designed for two projects: a pavilion for the American writer and arts patron Henry Church, his wife Barbara and for the Maison la Roche, in Paris. More furniture based on the tubular steel design was made by Le Corbusier in 1929, known as Salon d’Automne – “Equipment for the Home”. He intended his furniture to be inexpensive and mass-produced. However, his designs turned out to be exactly the opposite and were very costly to make. Years later, they were finally mass-produced, but only after he became famous. Today, original furniture by Le Corbusier, who died in 1965, sells for vast amounts of money. His LC3 Grand Modele two-seater sofa retails at more than $9,000, while his LC2 Petit Modele three-seater sofa fetches around $11,300. Modern furniture is still produced today by bending tubular steel. Offering high-quality pipe bending services for a variety of applications, including furniture and custom metalwork projects, Pipecraft is an expert in the field of pipe and tube bending. For more details, contact email@example.com or telephone 01903 766778.	874	ENGLISH	1
Women’s suffrage in the United States begins with a series of loses. From 1777 through 1807, New York, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and eventually throughout the United States, lost the right to vote. For over a century afterward, activists worked to restore the right. One hundred and five years ago, on January 12, 1915, the United States House of Representatives rejected a voted, 204-174 (here is a breakdown by state and political party, or a more colorful depiction), to reject a constitutional amendment to give women the right to vote. This was the second time that the women’s suffrage had been defeated in less than a year, and the third vote overall. The previous vote was he’d in March 1914, shortly before World War II began. The first time that the suffrage amendment was brought to Congress was 1868. It would be another four years before the amendment was passed. In the meantime, in 1918, the amendment passed the House but failed in the Senate by two votes. In 1919, the 19th Amendment passed, declaring that the right “to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.” Politicians wanted the amendment to become effective before the 1920 general election, so President Wilson called a special session of Congress and the bill was brought before the House again. The amendment, known as the Susan B. Anthony Amendment passed 304 to 89 on May 21, 1919. After the senate ratified the amendment, 36 states needed to ratify it to become law. On August 18, 1920, Tennessee became the 36th state. The 1920 federal election was the first which allowed women to vote, which historians believe was the reason that Warren G. Harding won the presidency. What is often overlooked is that the 19th amendment only granted suffrage to white women. The 1924 Indian Citizenship Act initially stated that “full” citizenship would be granted to Native Americans, but the Senate removed the word “full” and did not include suffrage. It was not until 1948 that the last prohibitions against Native American suffrage were removed. Chinese-Americans were granted suffrage in 1943 under the Magnuson Act, also known as the Chinese Exclusion Repeal Act. The McCarran-Walter Act removed barriers for all Asians in 1952. Finally the Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibited discriminatory restrictions on voting rights, allowing blacks, who had been prevented by lynching, literacy tests, and other barriers, to vote. In 1971, the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18., as Vietnam War protestors argued that those who were old enough to fight were old enough to vote. Switzerland was one of the last countries in western Europe to grant female suffrage, in 1971. But within thirty years, it was one of the few countries to have more women serving in the government. Saudi Arabia granted women suffrage in 2011, allowing them to vote in 2015. Seventeen years after the vote failed in the House of Representatives, on January 12, 1932, Hattie Ophelia Wyatt Caraway becomes the first woman elected to the United States Senate. She served for fourteen years. Hattie Caraway (February 1, 1878-December 21, 1950) was born on a farm near Bakerville, Tennessee to William Carroll Wyatt, a farmer and shopkeeper, and Lucy Mildred Burch Wyatt. She received a B.A. in 1896 from the Dickson (Tennessee) Normal College and taught school for several years in rural Arkansas, with her fiancé , Thaddeus Horatio Caraway. They had three sons, Robert, Paul, and Forrest, who all became West Point cadets. Thaddeus became an attorney, and eventually served four terms in the House and two terms in the Senate. Though Hattie’s public role was limited, in private she place a critical role in his career, working at campaign headquarters, speaking on his behalf, and receiving much of the credit for his victory in the 1920 election. Thaddeus died on November 6, 1931, and a few days after his funeral, Governor Harvey Parnell named Hattie as his successor, because “I feel she is entitled to the office held by her distinguished husband, who was my friend..,and his widow is rightfully entitled to the honor.” The Washington Post protested that, “Mrs. Caraway should have been given the appointment on her own merit and not on the basis of sentimentality or family claim upon the seat.” A month later, on December 8, Hattie claimed her Senate seat, and her place was guaranteed through the end of term in early 1933. On January 12, 1932, Hattie won the special election against two Independent candidates. The election led to the Arkansas Women’s Democracy Club being created to get out the vote and raise money. On May 10, the deadline for filing for the August 10 Democratic primary, Hattie announced her candidacy. She won 44.7 percent of the vote, carrying 61 of the state’s 75 counties and won the Senate seat. During her 14-year career, she was known as “Silent Hattie” because she only spoke 15 times. She became the first named chair of the Enrolled Bills Committee in 1933, the first female Senate committee chair, where remained there until she left Congress in 1945. Hattie was also the first woman to preside over the Senate, the first senior woman Senator (after Joe Robinson died in 1937), and the first woman to run a Senate hearing. She was also assigned to the Commerce Committee and the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. Her civil rights record was mixed, as she voted for the Lucretia Mott Equal Rights Amendment in 1943, but she voted against the antilynching law of 1938 and, in 1942, joined other southern Senators in a filibuster to block a proposed bill that would have eliminated the poll tax. In 1938, Hattie ran again, supporting New Deal legislation, and defended her gender and age through her campaign. She won the general election, but in 1944, she finished last among the Democratic contenders. In 1945, President Roosevelt nominated her for the Federal Employees’ Compensation Commission. After serving for a year, President Truman promoted her to the commission’s appeals board, where she remained until she died on December 21, 1950.	<urn:uuid:e7ddc885-d5ba-4cec-8675-69154b152644>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://selenammoon.com/tag/senate/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250593994.14/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118221909-20200119005909-00328.warc.gz	en	0.986549	1,315	4.40625	4	[ -0.3936125338077545, -0.09314879775047302, 0.19663220643997192, 0.09812343865633011, -0.639735221862793, 0.6680494546890259, -0.24935629963874817, 0.13311946392059326, 0.0077703846618533134, 0.28904762864112854, 0.3746432065963745, 0.23623943328857422, 0.301952600479126, -0.065684273838996...	15	Women’s suffrage in the United States begins with a series of loses. From 1777 through 1807, New York, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and eventually throughout the United States, lost the right to vote. For over a century afterward, activists worked to restore the right. One hundred and five years ago, on January 12, 1915, the United States House of Representatives rejected a voted, 204-174 (here is a breakdown by state and political party, or a more colorful depiction), to reject a constitutional amendment to give women the right to vote. This was the second time that the women’s suffrage had been defeated in less than a year, and the third vote overall. The previous vote was he’d in March 1914, shortly before World War II began. The first time that the suffrage amendment was brought to Congress was 1868. It would be another four years before the amendment was passed. In the meantime, in 1918, the amendment passed the House but failed in the Senate by two votes. In 1919, the 19th Amendment passed, declaring that the right “to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.” Politicians wanted the amendment to become effective before the 1920 general election, so President Wilson called a special session of Congress and the bill was brought before the House again. The amendment, known as the Susan B. Anthony Amendment passed 304 to 89 on May 21, 1919. After the senate ratified the amendment, 36 states needed to ratify it to become law. On August 18, 1920, Tennessee became the 36th state. The 1920 federal election was the first which allowed women to vote, which historians believe was the reason that Warren G. Harding won the presidency. What is often overlooked is that the 19th amendment only granted suffrage to white women. The 1924 Indian Citizenship Act initially stated that “full” citizenship would be granted to Native Americans, but the Senate removed the word “full” and did not include suffrage. It was not until 1948 that the last prohibitions against Native American suffrage were removed. Chinese-Americans were granted suffrage in 1943 under the Magnuson Act, also known as the Chinese Exclusion Repeal Act. The McCarran-Walter Act removed barriers for all Asians in 1952. Finally the Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibited discriminatory restrictions on voting rights, allowing blacks, who had been prevented by lynching, literacy tests, and other barriers, to vote. In 1971, the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18., as Vietnam War protestors argued that those who were old enough to fight were old enough to vote. Switzerland was one of the last countries in western Europe to grant female suffrage, in 1971. But within thirty years, it was one of the few countries to have more women serving in the government. Saudi Arabia granted women suffrage in 2011, allowing them to vote in 2015. Seventeen years after the vote failed in the House of Representatives, on January 12, 1932, Hattie Ophelia Wyatt Caraway becomes the first woman elected to the United States Senate. She served for fourteen years. Hattie Caraway (February 1, 1878-December 21, 1950) was born on a farm near Bakerville, Tennessee to William Carroll Wyatt, a farmer and shopkeeper, and Lucy Mildred Burch Wyatt. She received a B.A. in 1896 from the Dickson (Tennessee) Normal College and taught school for several years in rural Arkansas, with her fiancé , Thaddeus Horatio Caraway. They had three sons, Robert, Paul, and Forrest, who all became West Point cadets. Thaddeus became an attorney, and eventually served four terms in the House and two terms in the Senate. Though Hattie’s public role was limited, in private she place a critical role in his career, working at campaign headquarters, speaking on his behalf, and receiving much of the credit for his victory in the 1920 election. Thaddeus died on November 6, 1931, and a few days after his funeral, Governor Harvey Parnell named Hattie as his successor, because “I feel she is entitled to the office held by her distinguished husband, who was my friend..,and his widow is rightfully entitled to the honor.” The Washington Post protested that, “Mrs. Caraway should have been given the appointment on her own merit and not on the basis of sentimentality or family claim upon the seat.” A month later, on December 8, Hattie claimed her Senate seat, and her place was guaranteed through the end of term in early 1933. On January 12, 1932, Hattie won the special election against two Independent candidates. The election led to the Arkansas Women’s Democracy Club being created to get out the vote and raise money. On May 10, the deadline for filing for the August 10 Democratic primary, Hattie announced her candidacy. She won 44.7 percent of the vote, carrying 61 of the state’s 75 counties and won the Senate seat. During her 14-year career, she was known as “Silent Hattie” because she only spoke 15 times. She became the first named chair of the Enrolled Bills Committee in 1933, the first female Senate committee chair, where remained there until she left Congress in 1945. Hattie was also the first woman to preside over the Senate, the first senior woman Senator (after Joe Robinson died in 1937), and the first woman to run a Senate hearing. She was also assigned to the Commerce Committee and the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry. Her civil rights record was mixed, as she voted for the Lucretia Mott Equal Rights Amendment in 1943, but she voted against the antilynching law of 1938 and, in 1942, joined other southern Senators in a filibuster to block a proposed bill that would have eliminated the poll tax. In 1938, Hattie ran again, supporting New Deal legislation, and defended her gender and age through her campaign. She won the general election, but in 1944, she finished last among the Democratic contenders. In 1945, President Roosevelt nominated her for the Federal Employees’ Compensation Commission. After serving for a year, President Truman promoted her to the commission’s appeals board, where she remained until she died on December 21, 1950.	1,484	ENGLISH	1
significant examples, significant quotes and page #s Answers 1Add Yours Language can be used to manipulate, as well as an instrument of control. The pigs in Animal Farm use rhetoric to twist and distort what is really occurring on the farm; their language is intended to justify their actions and to pacify the other animals. An example of this would be the animal's respect for Major. They respected his vision of what could be, but after his death the pigs manipulate his words. As a result, they don't meet with any resistance from the others because they initially believed in the rebellion. To oppose the pigs would mean they see their actions were wrong, that the rebellion wasn't what they expected it to be. Another example is the Seven Commandments and their constant revision. What began as equality, is redefined in terms of some creatures being more "equal" than others. Orwell uses this language to compel the reader to "think" and follow how manipulation actually works, and to realize its effects are often unconscious responses.	<urn:uuid:ca7c193a-ca0e-4ba4-995c-c4aeeebcad6a>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.gradesaver.com/animal-farm/q-and-a/in-animal-farm-orwell-gives-us-many-instances-of-language-as-a-means-of-control-on-the-farmpropaganda-is-a-tool-of-manipulation-and-influence-for-the-pigs-explain-how-and-why-the-pigsuse-language-to-control-events-and-what-the-universal-message-may-375589	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251672537.90/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125131641-20200125160641-00333.warc.gz	en	0.983241	209	3.828125	4	[ -0.3771931529045105, -0.020009558647871017, 0.023585498332977295, 0.2146434634923935, -0.33516237139701843, -0.19039763510227203, 0.4922741949558258, 0.2976820170879364, 0.15289881825447083, 0.07577252388000488, 0.06986510008573532, -0.24383246898651123, -0.15650324523448944, -0.0766631290...	1	significant examples, significant quotes and page #s Answers 1Add Yours Language can be used to manipulate, as well as an instrument of control. The pigs in Animal Farm use rhetoric to twist and distort what is really occurring on the farm; their language is intended to justify their actions and to pacify the other animals. An example of this would be the animal's respect for Major. They respected his vision of what could be, but after his death the pigs manipulate his words. As a result, they don't meet with any resistance from the others because they initially believed in the rebellion. To oppose the pigs would mean they see their actions were wrong, that the rebellion wasn't what they expected it to be. Another example is the Seven Commandments and their constant revision. What began as equality, is redefined in terms of some creatures being more "equal" than others. Orwell uses this language to compel the reader to "think" and follow how manipulation actually works, and to realize its effects are often unconscious responses.	207	ENGLISH	1
Byron was a colourful man, and led a life full of intrigue. I had read his work and read letters and stories about his life, but I went to his home to seek more inspiration. That is why I went to his home, because I wanted to be able to touch on his life and discover what it was really like rather than just read about him in books. And oh my gosh, I am so glad I went there, because I walked into room after room of inspiration. Keats was neither an upper nor lower class born child, but born to a middle-class working family. He immediately faced losing his brother at an early age, which later influenced his work as a writer. Although he was deeply saddened by this lose, Keats was able to channel this loss to create great works of poetry. Some of his most famous writings have been direct reflections of his life. For example, his Ode to a Nightingale presents the introductory line: This point again brings up a unique factor about Keats and his writings. Other Poets, like Bryon and Shelley, attempted to synthesize an issue that they found to be important in the universe nature and used that as the lead for their poetry. Keats, however, chose not to take this route of writing for a specific purpose, but writing because he simple loved to write and it provided a therapeutic outlet for him. Through the events that he experienced, writing was the exhale from the distressed world. Because he chose to write about important events that occurred during his life, he had an eclectic repertoire of literature that was written, making him one of the most diverse writers of the era. This is evident in Nightingale, where Keats uses terminology and ideologies from Greek mythology, like: This alone showed the diversity of his writings and his personality. Keats is a prime example of the amount of time that one lives on earth not being as significant as what one does with that time. Although he died young, he used his life to the fullest to compose of the most amazing poetry written. He reflections of his own life and important issues in the world teach others that if they have a passion, they should pursue it for their own enjoyment, not the enjoyment of others!Lord Byron and Percy Bysshe Shelley were two very good friends who epitomized the Romanticist Era. The two men were surprisingly very rebellious in nature. Shelley got kicked out of college for writing that atheism was a necessity and Byron just left college and led a “lady’s man’s” life. In , I had the pleasure of visiting Newstead Abbey, the property that Lord George Byron inherited from his great uncle in , when George became the sixth Baron Byron. Byron was a colourful man, and led a life full of intrigue. Its contents was directly inspired by the enlightenment movement of its era. \|Darkness By Lord Byron Poetry Reading\|\|Monday, June 8, Lord Byron: However, he was very controversial in that he was very radical in his ideals.\| \|Does Vinegar Have the Potential To Keep You Thin?\|\|Department of English University: In when Victoria became queen of England, new era was begun in history of England.\| Armenians left a lasting impression on the enlightenment thinkers and the subsequent Romantic movement pioneered by the likes of Lord Byron. Additional Sources. A stunning enclave some forty minutes outside Lisbon, filled with palaces and piles and follies of every era, Lord Byron called it “Glorious Eden,” and started “Childe Harolde” at Lawrence’s Hotel, on the Rua do Consiglieri Pedroso. Apr 03, · Romantic Literature Essay Topics/Thesis Ideas. Updated on July 22, Holle Abee. more. Contact Author. Lord Byron, a second generation romantic poet, led a tumultuous, scandalous life and is often referred to as a flesh-and-blood romantic hero. A romantic hero is a rebel who rejects the “proper” rules of society and Reviews: 2. lord alfred tennyson within the victorian era lord alfred tennyson ulysses ulysses by alfred, lord tennyson. Alfred tennyson victorian literature oxford bibliographies, alfred, lord tennyson alfred tennyson useful collection in the.	<urn:uuid:58c0296b-8686-4de3-a7f1-184ba9b09b1b>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://qoxyvakecohokax.monstermanfilm.com/the-romantic-era-lord-byron-essay-39891qf.html	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250608295.52/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123041345-20200123070345-00433.warc.gz	en	0.983531	910	3.375	3	[ -0.11083976924419403, 0.022905150428414345, 0.21007859706878662, 0.144144207239151, -0.03152572363615036, -0.20202243328094482, 0.6855792999267578, 0.11001337319612503, -0.3052240014076233, -0.40840864181518555, 0.021515216678380966, 0.10646100342273712, 0.20213532447814941, -0.10455936938...	1	Byron was a colourful man, and led a life full of intrigue. I had read his work and read letters and stories about his life, but I went to his home to seek more inspiration. That is why I went to his home, because I wanted to be able to touch on his life and discover what it was really like rather than just read about him in books. And oh my gosh, I am so glad I went there, because I walked into room after room of inspiration. Keats was neither an upper nor lower class born child, but born to a middle-class working family. He immediately faced losing his brother at an early age, which later influenced his work as a writer. Although he was deeply saddened by this lose, Keats was able to channel this loss to create great works of poetry. Some of his most famous writings have been direct reflections of his life. For example, his Ode to a Nightingale presents the introductory line: This point again brings up a unique factor about Keats and his writings. Other Poets, like Bryon and Shelley, attempted to synthesize an issue that they found to be important in the universe nature and used that as the lead for their poetry. Keats, however, chose not to take this route of writing for a specific purpose, but writing because he simple loved to write and it provided a therapeutic outlet for him. Through the events that he experienced, writing was the exhale from the distressed world. Because he chose to write about important events that occurred during his life, he had an eclectic repertoire of literature that was written, making him one of the most diverse writers of the era. This is evident in Nightingale, where Keats uses terminology and ideologies from Greek mythology, like: This alone showed the diversity of his writings and his personality. Keats is a prime example of the amount of time that one lives on earth not being as significant as what one does with that time. Although he died young, he used his life to the fullest to compose of the most amazing poetry written. He reflections of his own life and important issues in the world teach others that if they have a passion, they should pursue it for their own enjoyment, not the enjoyment of others!Lord Byron and Percy Bysshe Shelley were two very good friends who epitomized the Romanticist Era. The two men were surprisingly very rebellious in nature. Shelley got kicked out of college for writing that atheism was a necessity and Byron just left college and led a “lady’s man’s” life. In , I had the pleasure of visiting Newstead Abbey, the property that Lord George Byron inherited from his great uncle in , when George became the sixth Baron Byron. Byron was a colourful man, and led a life full of intrigue. Its contents was directly inspired by the enlightenment movement of its era. \|Darkness By Lord Byron Poetry Reading\|\|Monday, June 8, Lord Byron: However, he was very controversial in that he was very radical in his ideals.\| \|Does Vinegar Have the Potential To Keep You Thin?\|\|Department of English University: In when Victoria became queen of England, new era was begun in history of England.\| Armenians left a lasting impression on the enlightenment thinkers and the subsequent Romantic movement pioneered by the likes of Lord Byron. Additional Sources. A stunning enclave some forty minutes outside Lisbon, filled with palaces and piles and follies of every era, Lord Byron called it “Glorious Eden,” and started “Childe Harolde” at Lawrence’s Hotel, on the Rua do Consiglieri Pedroso. Apr 03, · Romantic Literature Essay Topics/Thesis Ideas. Updated on July 22, Holle Abee. more. Contact Author. Lord Byron, a second generation romantic poet, led a tumultuous, scandalous life and is often referred to as a flesh-and-blood romantic hero. A romantic hero is a rebel who rejects the “proper” rules of society and Reviews: 2. lord alfred tennyson within the victorian era lord alfred tennyson ulysses ulysses by alfred, lord tennyson. Alfred tennyson victorian literature oxford bibliographies, alfred, lord tennyson alfred tennyson useful collection in the.	883	ENGLISH	1
Robert Ley was in charge of the German Labour Front in Nazi Germany. As such Ley was in charge of ‘Strength through Joy’(Kraft durch Freude), a movement which played a major part in the lives of all German civilians. Ley was born on February 15th1890. He was one of eleven children and his father – a farmer – always struggled to make ends meet financially. Despite this, Ley got to university where he studied chemistry. World WarOne interrupted any chance Ley had of finding employment in the chemical industry. At the age of 24, he volunteered at the start of the war. Ley spent two years fighting with artillery units but then trained to become an aerial artillery spotter. In July 1917, his war ended when his aircraft was shot down and he was taken prisoner-of-war. Once World War One had ended and Ley had been released from his POW camp, he returned to university where he was awarded a doctorate. He found work in the Ruhr as a food chemist for I G Farben, one of the largest industrial concerns in Germany. Up to this point in his life there is little evidence that he was politicised. This changed in 1924. As part of the Treaty of Versailles, Weimar Germany had to accept responsibility for starting the war. When her representatives signed the document, it was seen as an admission that Germany was responsible for all the war damage in France and Belgium. Therefore, also included in the Versailles Treaty was the fact that Germany had to pay reparations – to repair war-damaged Western Europe. No figure was actually set at Versailles but eventually – and with no German input – it was set at the massive figure of £6.6 billion. In 1923, Germany failed to pay what was required and this resulted in French and Belgian forces occupying the Ruhr, Germany’s most important industrial base. This infuriated Ley as the occupation led to passive civilian resistance, including strikes, which destabilised this important region. The French arrested anyone they associated with civil disobedience and their treatment of the Germans in the Ruhr was highly questionable. What we do know is that Ley, along with many others in the Ruhr, was outraged by the French and wanted redress. He joined the Nazi Party shortly afterwards. Ley became someone who followed and accepted every word Hitler said. He became highly anti-Semitic and felt no qualms about venting his beliefs in the Nazi newspaper ‘Westdeutsche Beobachter’, which he was appointed to edit. Ley was also appointed the Nazi Party’s Gauleiter in the Southern Rhineland in 1925. However, at this period in time the Nazi Party was a noisy but small party will a minimal presence in the Reichstag. Hitler was taken in by Ley’s loyalty and in 1931 he was brought into the Nazi heart when he was appointed head of party organisation and was based at its headquarters in Munich. It soon became clear to many in the party that he was out of his depth. On top of his inability to cope with the tasks his position required, Ley’s critics were also concerned by his excessive drinking. However, Hitler would not hear any criticisms. When Hitler gained power in January 1933, he surrounded himself with ‘yes’ men and this included Ley. In April 1933, Ley was appointed the head of the German Labour Front (Deutsche Arbeitsfront – DAF). This took over the role that would have traditionally been associated with trade unions – banned by the Nazis. However, Ley was unable to cope with the pressures placed on him by the appointment and he was soon overshadowed by a subordinate within DAF – Reinhard Muchow. He was a socialist and he encouraged workers to agitate for better wages and working conditions. Employers complained to senior Nazi officials who relayed the issue to Hitler. In January 1934, the issue was resolved when all problems surrounding wages and conditions of work were placed in the hands of the Trustees of Labour – an organisation dominated by employers. Ley’s control over DAF was re-established and Muchow was removed from office. Ley remained in power solely because he had the support of Hitler. Once his control over DAF had been re-established, he embarked on a course of corruption and excess that rivalled Goering’s. Ley embezzled large amounts of money earmarked for DAF and his drinking and womanising brought DAF a notoriety that served only to embarrass the party. However, protected by Hitler, there was little that other senior Nazi officials could do. To convince the workers that the Nazi Party had some interest in their well-being, DAF introduced an organisation called Strength Through Joy (Kraft durch Freude – KdF). This organisation took control of the workers free time and organised holidays and other leisure services for them. As head of DAF, Ley was also in charge of KdF. The start of World War Two showed up Ley’s incompetence as an administrator. Now more than ever, the workers needed to be organised to ensure that the Nazi war machine was fully equipped. The war ensured the end of KdF as the workers could hardly expect leisure time during war. The work of Ley was effectively taken over by Fritz Todt, the Armaments Minister. Todt in turn was succeeded by Albert Speer. Ley was very much pushed to one side. Hitler was solely preoccupied with the war. Ley could no longer expect any protection from him. However, Ley was very much implicated in the mistreatment of slave labourers. He said in 1942 that there was no limit on the amount of force that could be used on a slave labourer. Ley told an audience in Essen that “there was no room for compassion”. He referred to Russians as “pigs”. His approach was very similar to Heinrich Himmler who once publicly stated that he did not care how many Russians died building a tank trap so long as the tank trap was built. Whether Ley adopted the same tone because he believed in it or whether he adopted it to re-ingratiate himself among the Nazi élite is not known. After the effective fall of his influence in terms of industrial production, Ley was given the task in November 1941 as tackling the housing crisis that was being brought on by the Allied bombing campaign. As Nazi Germany faced more and more bombing raids against its cities, this was a task that even an able man would have found impossible to master. Ley was not an able man and it quickly became apparent that he was unable to cope with the situation. For all this, Ley remained on the inside of Hitler’s inner circle. He stayed in Berlin until Hitler’s birthday on April 20th 1945. On April 21st, he left for southern Bavaria where he expected to be joined by Hitler at the ‘National Redoubt’. Here in the German Alps, Ley expected both he and Hitler to make a last stand. It never happened and on May 16th 1945 Ley was arrested by men from the US 101st Airborne Division. On October 21st, Ley was charged with crimes against humanity and conspiracy to wage war. He committed suicide on October 24th by hanging himself in his cell.	<urn:uuid:1a465a78-3abb-455d-b50f-fd5bf1bd5a5f>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/nazi-germany/nazi-leaders/robert-ley/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250595282.35/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119205448-20200119233448-00046.warc.gz	en	0.992092	1,511	3.484375	3	[ -0.11476001888513565, 0.4920233488082886, -0.35037848353385925, 0.0946064442396164, 0.27615886926651, 0.035002246499061584, 0.3966088593006134, 0.09099668264389038, -0.40080857276916504, -0.2592013478279114, 0.3770458698272705, -0.35267704725265503, 0.05491693690419197, 0.5913671255111694,...	7	Robert Ley was in charge of the German Labour Front in Nazi Germany. As such Ley was in charge of ‘Strength through Joy’(Kraft durch Freude), a movement which played a major part in the lives of all German civilians. Ley was born on February 15th1890. He was one of eleven children and his father – a farmer – always struggled to make ends meet financially. Despite this, Ley got to university where he studied chemistry. World WarOne interrupted any chance Ley had of finding employment in the chemical industry. At the age of 24, he volunteered at the start of the war. Ley spent two years fighting with artillery units but then trained to become an aerial artillery spotter. In July 1917, his war ended when his aircraft was shot down and he was taken prisoner-of-war. Once World War One had ended and Ley had been released from his POW camp, he returned to university where he was awarded a doctorate. He found work in the Ruhr as a food chemist for I G Farben, one of the largest industrial concerns in Germany. Up to this point in his life there is little evidence that he was politicised. This changed in 1924. As part of the Treaty of Versailles, Weimar Germany had to accept responsibility for starting the war. When her representatives signed the document, it was seen as an admission that Germany was responsible for all the war damage in France and Belgium. Therefore, also included in the Versailles Treaty was the fact that Germany had to pay reparations – to repair war-damaged Western Europe. No figure was actually set at Versailles but eventually – and with no German input – it was set at the massive figure of £6.6 billion. In 1923, Germany failed to pay what was required and this resulted in French and Belgian forces occupying the Ruhr, Germany’s most important industrial base. This infuriated Ley as the occupation led to passive civilian resistance, including strikes, which destabilised this important region. The French arrested anyone they associated with civil disobedience and their treatment of the Germans in the Ruhr was highly questionable. What we do know is that Ley, along with many others in the Ruhr, was outraged by the French and wanted redress. He joined the Nazi Party shortly afterwards. Ley became someone who followed and accepted every word Hitler said. He became highly anti-Semitic and felt no qualms about venting his beliefs in the Nazi newspaper ‘Westdeutsche Beobachter’, which he was appointed to edit. Ley was also appointed the Nazi Party’s Gauleiter in the Southern Rhineland in 1925. However, at this period in time the Nazi Party was a noisy but small party will a minimal presence in the Reichstag. Hitler was taken in by Ley’s loyalty and in 1931 he was brought into the Nazi heart when he was appointed head of party organisation and was based at its headquarters in Munich. It soon became clear to many in the party that he was out of his depth. On top of his inability to cope with the tasks his position required, Ley’s critics were also concerned by his excessive drinking. However, Hitler would not hear any criticisms. When Hitler gained power in January 1933, he surrounded himself with ‘yes’ men and this included Ley. In April 1933, Ley was appointed the head of the German Labour Front (Deutsche Arbeitsfront – DAF). This took over the role that would have traditionally been associated with trade unions – banned by the Nazis. However, Ley was unable to cope with the pressures placed on him by the appointment and he was soon overshadowed by a subordinate within DAF – Reinhard Muchow. He was a socialist and he encouraged workers to agitate for better wages and working conditions. Employers complained to senior Nazi officials who relayed the issue to Hitler. In January 1934, the issue was resolved when all problems surrounding wages and conditions of work were placed in the hands of the Trustees of Labour – an organisation dominated by employers. Ley’s control over DAF was re-established and Muchow was removed from office. Ley remained in power solely because he had the support of Hitler. Once his control over DAF had been re-established, he embarked on a course of corruption and excess that rivalled Goering’s. Ley embezzled large amounts of money earmarked for DAF and his drinking and womanising brought DAF a notoriety that served only to embarrass the party. However, protected by Hitler, there was little that other senior Nazi officials could do. To convince the workers that the Nazi Party had some interest in their well-being, DAF introduced an organisation called Strength Through Joy (Kraft durch Freude – KdF). This organisation took control of the workers free time and organised holidays and other leisure services for them. As head of DAF, Ley was also in charge of KdF. The start of World War Two showed up Ley’s incompetence as an administrator. Now more than ever, the workers needed to be organised to ensure that the Nazi war machine was fully equipped. The war ensured the end of KdF as the workers could hardly expect leisure time during war. The work of Ley was effectively taken over by Fritz Todt, the Armaments Minister. Todt in turn was succeeded by Albert Speer. Ley was very much pushed to one side. Hitler was solely preoccupied with the war. Ley could no longer expect any protection from him. However, Ley was very much implicated in the mistreatment of slave labourers. He said in 1942 that there was no limit on the amount of force that could be used on a slave labourer. Ley told an audience in Essen that “there was no room for compassion”. He referred to Russians as “pigs”. His approach was very similar to Heinrich Himmler who once publicly stated that he did not care how many Russians died building a tank trap so long as the tank trap was built. Whether Ley adopted the same tone because he believed in it or whether he adopted it to re-ingratiate himself among the Nazi élite is not known. After the effective fall of his influence in terms of industrial production, Ley was given the task in November 1941 as tackling the housing crisis that was being brought on by the Allied bombing campaign. As Nazi Germany faced more and more bombing raids against its cities, this was a task that even an able man would have found impossible to master. Ley was not an able man and it quickly became apparent that he was unable to cope with the situation. For all this, Ley remained on the inside of Hitler’s inner circle. He stayed in Berlin until Hitler’s birthday on April 20th 1945. On April 21st, he left for southern Bavaria where he expected to be joined by Hitler at the ‘National Redoubt’. Here in the German Alps, Ley expected both he and Hitler to make a last stand. It never happened and on May 16th 1945 Ley was arrested by men from the US 101st Airborne Division. On October 21st, Ley was charged with crimes against humanity and conspiracy to wage war. He committed suicide on October 24th by hanging himself in his cell.	1,513	ENGLISH	1
oct 2, 1835 - Battle of Gonzales The battle of Gonzales was a battle between the Mexican forces and the town of Gonzales. The Mexicans gave the town a little cannon to protect itself from native American attacks. When Mexican forces heard talk of revolution, they went to take the cannon from Gonzales. The people of the town got word, and buried the cannon in a field. They make a flag out of a wedding dress that read "Come and take it." When the Mexicans got there and asked for the cannon, the people of Gonzales said no. The Mexicans called for 100 dragoons. They couldn't get into the town because of the river. While they were camping outside of the little town, the people of Gonzales were secretly calling in for backup. As many as 142 texans gathered in the city. The texans decided to attack. On October 1st, there was a skirmish between the 2 forces started. It ultimately ended with the Mexicans retreat. Added to timeline: Texas revolution timeline	<urn:uuid:aafc7048-9a4a-4364-9e4c-fc2cb326cb49>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://time.graphics/event/3540917	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250608295.52/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123041345-20200123070345-00553.warc.gz	en	0.9836	210	3.671875	4	[ -0.34818607568740845, -0.06908680498600006, -0.10836142301559448, 0.33267343044281006, -0.2420998215675354, -0.31548604369163513, -0.030349688604474068, 0.31657594442367554, -0.3974571228027344, -0.14038221538066864, 0.11749167740345001, 0.107462078332901, -0.16427449882030487, -0.14423297...	1	oct 2, 1835 - Battle of Gonzales The battle of Gonzales was a battle between the Mexican forces and the town of Gonzales. The Mexicans gave the town a little cannon to protect itself from native American attacks. When Mexican forces heard talk of revolution, they went to take the cannon from Gonzales. The people of the town got word, and buried the cannon in a field. They make a flag out of a wedding dress that read "Come and take it." When the Mexicans got there and asked for the cannon, the people of Gonzales said no. The Mexicans called for 100 dragoons. They couldn't get into the town because of the river. While they were camping outside of the little town, the people of Gonzales were secretly calling in for backup. As many as 142 texans gathered in the city. The texans decided to attack. On October 1st, there was a skirmish between the 2 forces started. It ultimately ended with the Mexicans retreat. Added to timeline: Texas revolution timeline	220	ENGLISH	1
Neanderthals have played a huge role on how scientist think about evolution and their fossil finding. Their studies allowed scientist to better understand how we evolved with our current minds and bodies. Paleoanthropologist studied the remains of fossils my analyzing the body shape and brain and compared them to humans. The Neanderthals fossils finding showed extremely interesting characteristics. Neanderthals had really large brains, their brain sized at 1520 ccs. Their brains are larger than both H. heidelbergensis and modern humans. They had small back teeth and large front teeth. Their molars are taurodont, like ours, meaning that they have fused roots. They were also short and stocky. The Neanderthals fossils that were found tells us lot about their environment as well. In one of the lecture, it explained how the European neanderthals had large mid-face and noses for the cold weather, they lived in the ice age times so these facial features helped. Also Neanderthals had very few old people, suggesting that they had short and brutal lives. Many Neanderthals who were old (rare to find) had old wounds, indicating that they were cared for. Some of the elderly has lost all their teeth and had arthritis. Without these fossil findings we would never know this much detail about Neanderthals. In my opinion, the biggest contribution these findings have made to the study of human diversity is culture. The Neanderthals cultural had some similarities to ours. For example, their burial traditions is a lot like ours. They had a arrangement of graves with flowers by them. Also, they found seashells that was used as adornments, it could have been used for a necklace. Lastly, there was a baby bear femur found with drilled holes in it, that could of been used as a flute. Different characteristics like this shows us a little bit about their culture. Neanderthals social characteristics are interesting. Them caring for the elderly and injured suggest that they have some sense of sympathy, and it shows that they have emotion and are able to identify with that emotion, like humans. By discovering what modern humans and neanderthals have in common, and what makes us different helps us understand our own history. It also helps us discover why we were so successful in the history of evolution. Overall, this week’s lecture was extremely interesting. Learning about neanderthals and other early humans, gave me a better understanding as to why it’s so important to explore fossil research. It helps us get a better understanding as to where we come from.	<urn:uuid:0527f65c-ee64-48e3-85ac-deaca9532dc6>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	http://anthropology.msu.edu/anp206-us16/2016/08/12/blog-6-4/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251789055.93/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129071944-20200129101944-00433.warc.gz	en	0.986516	532	4.03125	4	[ -0.32275381684303284, 0.3944408893585205, 0.2530638873577118, 0.3207368850708008, -0.04069002717733383, -0.008112522773444653, 0.4202728569507599, 0.25151458382606506, -0.5511508584022522, -0.02352116070687771, 0.22682039439678192, -0.33894798159599304, 0.24814489483833313, 0.5079742670059...	2	Neanderthals have played a huge role on how scientist think about evolution and their fossil finding. Their studies allowed scientist to better understand how we evolved with our current minds and bodies. Paleoanthropologist studied the remains of fossils my analyzing the body shape and brain and compared them to humans. The Neanderthals fossils finding showed extremely interesting characteristics. Neanderthals had really large brains, their brain sized at 1520 ccs. Their brains are larger than both H. heidelbergensis and modern humans. They had small back teeth and large front teeth. Their molars are taurodont, like ours, meaning that they have fused roots. They were also short and stocky. The Neanderthals fossils that were found tells us lot about their environment as well. In one of the lecture, it explained how the European neanderthals had large mid-face and noses for the cold weather, they lived in the ice age times so these facial features helped. Also Neanderthals had very few old people, suggesting that they had short and brutal lives. Many Neanderthals who were old (rare to find) had old wounds, indicating that they were cared for. Some of the elderly has lost all their teeth and had arthritis. Without these fossil findings we would never know this much detail about Neanderthals. In my opinion, the biggest contribution these findings have made to the study of human diversity is culture. The Neanderthals cultural had some similarities to ours. For example, their burial traditions is a lot like ours. They had a arrangement of graves with flowers by them. Also, they found seashells that was used as adornments, it could have been used for a necklace. Lastly, there was a baby bear femur found with drilled holes in it, that could of been used as a flute. Different characteristics like this shows us a little bit about their culture. Neanderthals social characteristics are interesting. Them caring for the elderly and injured suggest that they have some sense of sympathy, and it shows that they have emotion and are able to identify with that emotion, like humans. By discovering what modern humans and neanderthals have in common, and what makes us different helps us understand our own history. It also helps us discover why we were so successful in the history of evolution. Overall, this week’s lecture was extremely interesting. Learning about neanderthals and other early humans, gave me a better understanding as to why it’s so important to explore fossil research. It helps us get a better understanding as to where we come from.	530	ENGLISH	1
the second world war Watch the treaty of versailles? Treaty of Versailles - Reparations Agressive Foreign Policy. They were catalysts to the Second War, the actual trigger as you know was Hitler's invasion of Poland. He did not think Britain would actually defend Poland if they invaded, if only we could have see his face when we declared war. Hitler's ideology and continuing campaign for Lebensraum, (although this sort of links with the question really) Nazi methods to gain more land British foreign policy The effect of WWI So..in short, it was a factor, but not the only one. I think it's up to you to decide which you think is the more influential and argue it out. 1) Treaty of Versailles obviously caused resentment as many citizens were angry as the allies nation especially France sought out huge reparation payments on Germany which caused the implosion of the German Economy 2) German citzens were also angry at their own leaders as they signed the TOV and were dubbed November Criminals. More support for the right	<urn:uuid:f634a2a4-0c9f-4366-b7c9-0c3ae4028874>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=536885	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250606226.29/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121222429-20200122011429-00139.warc.gz	en	0.983997	230	3.875	4	[ -0.579608142375946, 0.30585113167762756, -0.01955183409154415, -0.17771081626415253, 0.3846823573112488, -0.001575882313773036, 0.1770491749048233, 0.23752982914447784, 0.09062425792217255, -0.4345041811466217, 0.16560779511928558, -0.4092445969581604, -0.04703165218234062, 0.5986893177032...	1	the second world war Watch the treaty of versailles? Treaty of Versailles - Reparations Agressive Foreign Policy. They were catalysts to the Second War, the actual trigger as you know was Hitler's invasion of Poland. He did not think Britain would actually defend Poland if they invaded, if only we could have see his face when we declared war. Hitler's ideology and continuing campaign for Lebensraum, (although this sort of links with the question really) Nazi methods to gain more land British foreign policy The effect of WWI So..in short, it was a factor, but not the only one. I think it's up to you to decide which you think is the more influential and argue it out. 1) Treaty of Versailles obviously caused resentment as many citizens were angry as the allies nation especially France sought out huge reparation payments on Germany which caused the implosion of the German Economy 2) German citzens were also angry at their own leaders as they signed the TOV and were dubbed November Criminals. More support for the right	222	ENGLISH	1
The beginning of the conversion attempts weren't taken seriously at all by the Norse. Missionary monks would come into Norse areas trying to convert them and simply would be ignored. The conversion attempts began somewhere between 710 AD and 718 AD, when a Anglo-Saxon monk named Willibrord had made unsuccessful attempts to convert the Danes during the reign of King Ongendus (King Angantyr). Nevertheless of his efforts, the Christian faith was simply not appealing to the Norse. In 725 AD, Willibrord made another attempt and led a mission to Denmark, even though he was well received by the king, his mission had little effect on the general populace. This did not stop the missionary monks ...view middle of the document... These were the events that influenced the Norse in Scandinavia to finally cease all hostilities against each other and focus their attention on a mutual hatred and thus began to wage war and attacks on Christianity. This was part of what started what we know as the Viking Age, as anything Christian was considered by Norsemen as a legitimate and justified target to raid. Prior to this event in 772 AD, the kings of Norway were at war and allied against the Danes with Charlemagne. However, when the Frankish King had the Irminsûl cut down and the Saxon Nobles assassinated, the various kings of Norway switched sides, uniting with their Norse brethren (the Danes) and went to war against Charlemagne. This effectively put a damper on any attempts by missionaries on their efforts to convert the Norse to Christianity. It was later, after Charlemagne, in the 820's AD and onwards that the missionary Ansgar and his followers, with the support of the now Frankish King, Louis the Pious were able to establish missions in both Denmark and Sweden. Even though the missions were made with the support local Norse rulers, once again the missionaries had made little to no influence on the population as a whole. It was in 826 AD, that Harald Klak, the King of Jutland, was forced to flee Denmark by the Danish King Horik I. King Harald was forced to go to King Louis I of Germany and seek his help in getting back his lands in Jutland. King Louis I offered to make Harald Duke of Frisia if he would give up the old Norse gods and convert to Christianity. Harald agreed to this proposal and his family, along with the 400 Danes that were with him and they were all then baptized as Christians. When Harald returned to Jutland, the missionary monk Ansgar was assigned to accompany him and oversee Christian adherence among the new Norse converts. It was when King Horik I again forced Harald Klak from Denmark that the monk Ansgar left Denmark and focused his efforts in Sweden instead. In 829 AD, Ansgar established a small Christian community in Birka, on the island of Björkö in Sweden. By 831 AD, the Archdiocese of Hamburg was founded and assigned the proselytizing responsibility for converting the Scandinavians from their traditional Nordic beliefs to Christianity. Regardless of the mass conversions spreading through Scandinavia, Sweden did face a pagan reaction in the mid-11th century and Christianity did not became firmly established until in the 12th century. The greater increasing numbers of converts was because from the 11th to the 14th century, Christian society in Europe became less tolerant of other religions and beliefs. This was the time period when the Christian...	<urn:uuid:a8824de2-1386-461a-9aff-1d0b36e96527>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://brightkite.com/essay-on/lutheranism-4	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250593295.11/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118164132-20200118192132-00150.warc.gz	en	0.985577	721	3.65625	4	[ -0.18133366107940674, 0.6396947503089905, -0.327502965927124, -0.0984661728143692, -0.03996286541223526, 0.010179666802287102, -0.4493630528450012, 0.14574117958545685, 0.019671954214572906, 0.2023581564426422, 0.1980336606502533, -0.4819420576095581, 0.04792684689164162, 0.018595028668642...	1	The beginning of the conversion attempts weren't taken seriously at all by the Norse. Missionary monks would come into Norse areas trying to convert them and simply would be ignored. The conversion attempts began somewhere between 710 AD and 718 AD, when a Anglo-Saxon monk named Willibrord had made unsuccessful attempts to convert the Danes during the reign of King Ongendus (King Angantyr). Nevertheless of his efforts, the Christian faith was simply not appealing to the Norse. In 725 AD, Willibrord made another attempt and led a mission to Denmark, even though he was well received by the king, his mission had little effect on the general populace. This did not stop the missionary monks ...view middle of the document... These were the events that influenced the Norse in Scandinavia to finally cease all hostilities against each other and focus their attention on a mutual hatred and thus began to wage war and attacks on Christianity. This was part of what started what we know as the Viking Age, as anything Christian was considered by Norsemen as a legitimate and justified target to raid. Prior to this event in 772 AD, the kings of Norway were at war and allied against the Danes with Charlemagne. However, when the Frankish King had the Irminsûl cut down and the Saxon Nobles assassinated, the various kings of Norway switched sides, uniting with their Norse brethren (the Danes) and went to war against Charlemagne. This effectively put a damper on any attempts by missionaries on their efforts to convert the Norse to Christianity. It was later, after Charlemagne, in the 820's AD and onwards that the missionary Ansgar and his followers, with the support of the now Frankish King, Louis the Pious were able to establish missions in both Denmark and Sweden. Even though the missions were made with the support local Norse rulers, once again the missionaries had made little to no influence on the population as a whole. It was in 826 AD, that Harald Klak, the King of Jutland, was forced to flee Denmark by the Danish King Horik I. King Harald was forced to go to King Louis I of Germany and seek his help in getting back his lands in Jutland. King Louis I offered to make Harald Duke of Frisia if he would give up the old Norse gods and convert to Christianity. Harald agreed to this proposal and his family, along with the 400 Danes that were with him and they were all then baptized as Christians. When Harald returned to Jutland, the missionary monk Ansgar was assigned to accompany him and oversee Christian adherence among the new Norse converts. It was when King Horik I again forced Harald Klak from Denmark that the monk Ansgar left Denmark and focused his efforts in Sweden instead. In 829 AD, Ansgar established a small Christian community in Birka, on the island of Björkö in Sweden. By 831 AD, the Archdiocese of Hamburg was founded and assigned the proselytizing responsibility for converting the Scandinavians from their traditional Nordic beliefs to Christianity. Regardless of the mass conversions spreading through Scandinavia, Sweden did face a pagan reaction in the mid-11th century and Christianity did not became firmly established until in the 12th century. The greater increasing numbers of converts was because from the 11th to the 14th century, Christian society in Europe became less tolerant of other religions and beliefs. This was the time period when the Christian...	743	ENGLISH	1
Hippias And Hipparchus , the sons and successors of Pisistratus, tyrant of Athens. According to an early popular opinion, Hippar-chus was the elder brother; according to Herodotus and Thueydides, Hippias. While they ruled jointly the government was conducted on the same principles as that of their father, and that period was subsequently regarded by the Athenians as a kind of golden age; but from the murder of Hipparchus by Harmodius and Aristogiton (514 B. C.) the character of the government of Hippias became arbitrary, exacting, and oppressive. His despotism was, however, at length overthrown. The Delphic oracle was bribed to favor the cause of liberty, and the pythoness repeatedly enjoined the Lacedaemonians to free Athens from the despotism of the Pisistratidae. A Spartan force under Cleomenes, having defeated Hippias in the field, and captured his children, compelled him to surrender the Acropolis, and to evacuate Attica with all his relatives (510). No sooner had they departed than a decree was passed condemning the tyrant and his family to perpetual banishment, and a monument was erected in the Acropolis commemorative of their crimes and oppressions.	<urn:uuid:ba513bf3-50e9-4069-881b-450677f93eb6>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://chestofbooks.com/reference/American-Cyclopaedia-5/Hippias-And-Hipparchus.html	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250593994.14/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118221909-20200119005909-00413.warc.gz	en	0.9856	264	3.75	4	[ -0.2728063762187958, 0.42161229252815247, 0.26936718821525574, -0.5306122899055481, -0.14706026017665863, -0.46042197942733765, 0.44194409251213074, 0.3673296570777893, -0.17362956702709198, 0.2530635893344879, -0.208610400557518, -0.44692209362983704, 0.25535252690315247, 0.28800812363624...	4	Hippias And Hipparchus , the sons and successors of Pisistratus, tyrant of Athens. According to an early popular opinion, Hippar-chus was the elder brother; according to Herodotus and Thueydides, Hippias. While they ruled jointly the government was conducted on the same principles as that of their father, and that period was subsequently regarded by the Athenians as a kind of golden age; but from the murder of Hipparchus by Harmodius and Aristogiton (514 B. C.) the character of the government of Hippias became arbitrary, exacting, and oppressive. His despotism was, however, at length overthrown. The Delphic oracle was bribed to favor the cause of liberty, and the pythoness repeatedly enjoined the Lacedaemonians to free Athens from the despotism of the Pisistratidae. A Spartan force under Cleomenes, having defeated Hippias in the field, and captured his children, compelled him to surrender the Acropolis, and to evacuate Attica with all his relatives (510). No sooner had they departed than a decree was passed condemning the tyrant and his family to perpetual banishment, and a monument was erected in the Acropolis commemorative of their crimes and oppressions.	272	ENGLISH	1
Top row left: Dress of the Viktor Pisani, Supreme Commander, Admiral of the Venetian fleet in 1380. Clothing of an Italian pages and Neapolitan knight in full armor with a sword. Right: Italian soldiers, archer and knights in armor. Bottom row left: Dresses of a young Italian woman, Italian nobles and women of Siena. Right: Clothing of a young man, Senator of Rome and noble Venetians. Italian fashion history. Middle ages to Renaissance. In the fifteenth century Italian dress exhibited the same variety as that of France, England, and Germany. Still, in spite of foreign influences, it preserved its own peculiar national character, and was distinguished from German dress by far more lavish adornment and by the richness of the materials used. In Italy, as in other countries, numerous enactments were promulgated with the object of restraining the ever-increasing luxury in attire, but these were just as unsuccessful in Italy as elsewhere. For the short over-dress the styles that prevailed in the fourteenth century continued into the fifteenth. These were either close-fitting all the way down, or widened from the shoulders down, but changes in shape and finish greatly altered their appearance. Fur trimming was still in favor, and was displaced only for a brief period by points, which appealed to Italian taste also. The greatest change was in the sleeves. Fashion prescribed no special styles, and every one was left free to follow his own taste. The first changes in the shape of the coat that the fifteenth century saw were unimportant. The coat was much shorter. Although the high neck remained fashionable for a time, the neck was now mostly low, cut in a deep V-shape both back and front, allowing the underdress to be seen. Thus the slit at the breast, which came down to the waist, and could be buttoned, became unnecessary. During the first half of the fifteenth century close-fitting coats went entirely out of fashion. Coats were cut away above the hips and a pleated skirt sewn on, the seam being hidden by a girdle buckled over it. Even with the coats that widened gradually the girdle was now worn higher up, to keep in place the pleats of the coat. In most cases, however, these pleats were sewn down when the coat was made. This last style of coat, the sleeves of which were long and full, or tight and half-length, or long, wide, and pendent, was mostly open at both sides from the foot to the hips, and had all the edges trimmed with fur. These coats (Fig. 1.), widening downward, were made to fit the body closely; the skirt was sewn on in such a manner that the pleats in it reached into the upper part in the shape of thick, pointed scallops (Fig. 2.). The skirt was sewn to the body of the coat as follows. In the bottom edge of the upper part was cut a long, narrow gusset for each pointed scallop. The upper edge of the skirt, which was straight and wide, was shaped into an equal number of scallops, as long as the gussets, but much broader. These were sewn to the top of the skirt so that each formed a roll that increased in width downward. Each of these rolls represented a pleat whose size varied with the shape of the scallops. The coat was then arranged for buttoning down to the abdomen. Besides these somewhat long coats, the Italians also wore the short, close-fitting German jacket, but with wide, slashed sleeves. In ceremonial dress or dress indicating distinction the long over-garments continued almost exactly as they had been in the fourteenth century. They were, if anything, even longer, and open all down the front. The increase in width began only at the breast, and if twice or four times the width of the material was not enough, the necessary width was obtained by sufficiently large gussets at the sides. The sleeves of the long over-coats were of all kinds. They were mostly long and, especially in front, very wide. Sack sleeves were also worn, the opening for the hand being at the wrist and as tight as possible. Fur trimming continued in the 15th century. When, during the second half of the 15th century, long, wide over-coats again became the universal fashion in Italy, as elsewhere, they showed a great variety of shape, due more to small changes of detail than to any great change of general cut. The cut of the tunic was, strictly speaking, the same as before. Usually it reached to the feet, sometimes to the ankles, and sometimes only half way down the calf. The width showed similar variation, but the coats were never so tight that the wearing of a girdle did not cause numerous folds round the body. A girdle was not always worn, but when it was used it was a richly ornamented leather belt worn obliquely, or a thick cord, or a long shot silk sash. Sometimes the coat was fitted with a small strap, through which the cord or belt was passed and tied according to taste. There were other changes in these long over-garments. They were either closed all down the front or had merely a long opening at the breast. The neck was high or low, round, oval, or square, and the coat was fitted either with an erect collar or with a hood. Toward the end of the century the practice came in of omitting sleeves altogether (Fig. 3. 4.) or of making them like those of the German Tappert — i.e., open down both sides from the shoulder—or they were more or less tight instead of wide as hitherto. When the fashion of tight sleeves for the long coats came in the cut of the coat also was slightly changed. Instead of gradually widening from the breast down, it fitted closely down to the hips, the widening beginning there. This style usually had a long opening at the breast, which could be buttoned, but it was sometimes preferred to have it open all down the front, with a drawstring by means of which it could be open or closed at will. Beneath this long over-garment was worn either a long or a short coat, or even a kind of jacket. The trimming was usually a narrow edging of fur or colored material; very often the entire jacket was lined in the same way. This jacket was wide and open in front, and both sides of the front were very wide, so that they could be thrown back. This extra width at the front was often made like a wrap by being continued round the neck as a fall-over collar. Mi-parti was sometimes introduced into the long overcoats. The under-coat usually worn beneath the overcoat was of the same shape, except that it was much shorter and tighter, and in particular had short sleeves. Speaking generally, the under-coats were closefitting, the skirt gradually widening from the hips down. The neck was in most cases high rather than low, and usually had a low, upright collar. The breast was made to button. Hose were still close-fitting. They were not very different from what they had been at the end of the fourteenth century. Made of elastic material, the hose (which now had feet) came up to the hips and were sewn together both between the legs and down back and front, so that they completely covered the lower part of the body all round. They were fastened either with a belt or with a cord drawn through the top hem, or were connected with the foot of the jacket by strings or buttons. Hose made of less elastic material could not be joined in this fashion unless they were first widened greatly at the seat, for the wearer could neither have stooped nor sat down in them. At the end of the fourteenth century a beginning had already been made with this widening i.e., the wearer’s seat was covered by a broad gore. This was not, however, sewn to the hose. During the second half of the fifteenth century a better method was found—the gore and the hose were cut much wider, even somewhat convex. When the hose were sewn together there was produced an enlargement which prevented actual strain, but still left an uncomfortable tightness. In front the hose were joined, as in former times, by a pouch-shaped flap which closed them. These hose, made of coarse material, were fastened at the top in exactly the same way as the elastic variety, except that no cord was needed, as they were made to fit better above the hips than those made of elastic material and were not so likely to slip down. (See Figs. 5.-7.) The cloak, the long, wide cape over back and shoulders, without either sleeves or armholes, went entirely out of fashion in Italy in the first half of the fifteenth century. On the other hand, the coatshaped, wide plaids were in general use in rough weather. Some of them were more like a cloak than a coat. They were simply square pieces of material hanging over both shoulders down to the knees, with elongated armholes at the sides. They could be worn either like a Roman toga or down the back like a cloak. The voluminous folds gave them a handsome appearance. There was another kind of wrap, which, although similar to that just described, was really more like the sleeveless over-coats, only much wider (Fig. 8.). These were mostly of dark material, lined with brighter stuff. They were semicircular, and had armholes. The great width across the breast was disposed of by being turned back and outward at both sides. Sometimes flaps of this kind were added to wraps of a different shape; they were connected by means of a collar that reached some way down the back. To wraps of this kind a shoulder-collar (or real cape) was added, completely hiding the armholes. This garment was something like a close-fitting tunic across the breast, but was much wider behind. These collars were variously shaped, and many of them were very peculiar. (See Figs. 9. and 10.) Not content with these wraps, dandies sometimes decked themselves out in the various short and close-fitting shoulder-capes then current in France and Germany. The toghe, a shoulder-cape reaching to the feet and gathered at the breast, was worn during the fifteenth century only as part of ceremonial dress. Footwear underwent little change during the fifteenth century, and only the tops, shape, and trimming of shoes were altered. Of all the various styles of shoes, the wide, ankle-high variety was the most popular. These were made of some soft leather, and ornamented with a broad strap, usually white. Low-cut shoes of this kind were usually kept in position by means of a strap across the instep. Women’s over-dresses underwent some very important alterations during the second half of the fifteenth century. The first change affected those garments which began to widen from the bust down. These were made still more voluminous by the insertion of larger and more numerous gores or gussets. The height or lowness at the neck continued to be a matter of individual choice. Older ladies wore high-necked dresses, and younger ones favoured a low neck or an open, V-shaped front. The sleeves lost their amplitude, and were either quite close-fitting or of a moderate and equal width throughout, but they were now so long that they extended beyond the hands and had to be thrown back. These dresses were usually worn without a girdle, but one was sometimes worn to assist in tucking up the dress and thus to correct its extreme length. Something quite new was the use of thick patterned silks and velvets, interwoven at times with silver or gold. As these materials were very heavy, and could be draped only in large folds, the cut of the dress had to be altered so that the stiffness of the material should not unduly interfere with freedom of movement. Previous to any change in the cut, however, the long train was abandoned with these stiff dresses. Trains were worn only on great occasions, and were then borne by attendants. On the whole, the dresses were of the same shape as before. They were either close-fitting or wide all the way down. But both styles suffered some change in cut. The style that was close-fitting down to the hips was made open down the whole front; the two front wings were laced across the breast. The dress was usually left open from the waist down, although buttons and buttonholes were provided. The sleeves were as tight as possible, but very long—down to the tips of the fingers— and slashed longitudinally or across at the elbows, revealing a puff made of some delicate tissue disposed in folds. There was also a change in the back. It was divided longitudinally, and shaped at the waist somewhat after the manner that had previously been restricted to the sides. The two edges were then sewn together, a perfectly close fit being thus produced. The gussets at the sides extended up to the hips; they were not now pointed at the top, but were blunted or rounded. In order to secure a perfectly close fit at the back, the back was separated from the skirt. Both were shaped to some extent at the sides and again sewn together. The longitudinal folds that appeared in the dresses made of stiff material were ironed in with a warm rounded iron. Dresses that were wide from the shoulders down were cut in the same way as those made of thinner materials, but in their case the neck was low and the front slit extended to below the breast (Fig. 12.). Other differences were due to the manner of making rather than to the cut. The back and front (each being made of suitable width by the insertion of gussets) were sewn together only on the shoulders. The sides were left open, either all the way or at least from the hips down. In both cases the unjoined parts were loosely laced together. If the dress was open from the armpit only the top half of the sleeves could be sewn to the dress. This, however, was not always done with a continuous seam—the sleeves were sometimes attached to the dress by small buttons sewn on short distances apart, so as to reveal puffs of delicate tissue disposed in folds. The same delicate material peeped out from all the slashes—at the elbows, at the back of the upper arm and forearm, and sometimes also at the front of the upper sleeve. These slashes were held in place by small buttons or by loose lacing. The sleeves were close-fitting on the forearm and gradually widened from the elbow to the shoulder. Sometimes, too, these dresses were worn with short sleeves reaching only to the elbows, and occasionally they had no sleeves at all. In both cases the similarly slashed sleeves of the dress worn beneath were visible. In these under-dresses the bodice and the skirt and sometimes even the sleeves were not infrequently made of different materials. By Carl Kohler Beginning at the end of the 14th Century, the Renaissance created a new type of man, triggering economic, scientific, technical, religious, social and cultural developments that are unique in history. - A history of costume by Carl Köhler. EDITED AND AUGMENTED BY Edited and augmented by Emma von Sichart. New York, G. H. Watt 1930. - On the history of costumes. Münchener Bilderbogen. Edited by Braun and Schneider 1860. - Iconographie générale et méthodique du costume du IVe au XIXe siècle. Collection gravée à forte d’après des documents authentiques & inédits par Raphaël Jacquemin. Paris 1869.	<urn:uuid:24628547-6741-4cab-a19a-1710f3e1f7f0>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://world4.eu/italian-14th-century-clothing/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251801423.98/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129164403-20200129193403-00456.warc.gz	en	0.988341	3,349	3.34375	3	[ -0.541346549987793, 0.42340806126594543, 0.44987890124320984, -0.42701590061187744, -0.42396998405456543, -0.09428408741950989, 0.11368611454963684, 0.26139509677886963, -0.20979832112789154, -0.09088176488876343, -0.11861986666917801, -0.08891640603542328, 0.3830505311489105, 0.6476089954...	1	Top row left: Dress of the Viktor Pisani, Supreme Commander, Admiral of the Venetian fleet in 1380. Clothing of an Italian pages and Neapolitan knight in full armor with a sword. Right: Italian soldiers, archer and knights in armor. Bottom row left: Dresses of a young Italian woman, Italian nobles and women of Siena. Right: Clothing of a young man, Senator of Rome and noble Venetians. Italian fashion history. Middle ages to Renaissance. In the fifteenth century Italian dress exhibited the same variety as that of France, England, and Germany. Still, in spite of foreign influences, it preserved its own peculiar national character, and was distinguished from German dress by far more lavish adornment and by the richness of the materials used. In Italy, as in other countries, numerous enactments were promulgated with the object of restraining the ever-increasing luxury in attire, but these were just as unsuccessful in Italy as elsewhere. For the short over-dress the styles that prevailed in the fourteenth century continued into the fifteenth. These were either close-fitting all the way down, or widened from the shoulders down, but changes in shape and finish greatly altered their appearance. Fur trimming was still in favor, and was displaced only for a brief period by points, which appealed to Italian taste also. The greatest change was in the sleeves. Fashion prescribed no special styles, and every one was left free to follow his own taste. The first changes in the shape of the coat that the fifteenth century saw were unimportant. The coat was much shorter. Although the high neck remained fashionable for a time, the neck was now mostly low, cut in a deep V-shape both back and front, allowing the underdress to be seen. Thus the slit at the breast, which came down to the waist, and could be buttoned, became unnecessary. During the first half of the fifteenth century close-fitting coats went entirely out of fashion. Coats were cut away above the hips and a pleated skirt sewn on, the seam being hidden by a girdle buckled over it. Even with the coats that widened gradually the girdle was now worn higher up, to keep in place the pleats of the coat. In most cases, however, these pleats were sewn down when the coat was made. This last style of coat, the sleeves of which were long and full, or tight and half-length, or long, wide, and pendent, was mostly open at both sides from the foot to the hips, and had all the edges trimmed with fur. These coats (Fig. 1.), widening downward, were made to fit the body closely; the skirt was sewn on in such a manner that the pleats in it reached into the upper part in the shape of thick, pointed scallops (Fig. 2.). The skirt was sewn to the body of the coat as follows. In the bottom edge of the upper part was cut a long, narrow gusset for each pointed scallop. The upper edge of the skirt, which was straight and wide, was shaped into an equal number of scallops, as long as the gussets, but much broader. These were sewn to the top of the skirt so that each formed a roll that increased in width downward. Each of these rolls represented a pleat whose size varied with the shape of the scallops. The coat was then arranged for buttoning down to the abdomen. Besides these somewhat long coats, the Italians also wore the short, close-fitting German jacket, but with wide, slashed sleeves. In ceremonial dress or dress indicating distinction the long over-garments continued almost exactly as they had been in the fourteenth century. They were, if anything, even longer, and open all down the front. The increase in width began only at the breast, and if twice or four times the width of the material was not enough, the necessary width was obtained by sufficiently large gussets at the sides. The sleeves of the long over-coats were of all kinds. They were mostly long and, especially in front, very wide. Sack sleeves were also worn, the opening for the hand being at the wrist and as tight as possible. Fur trimming continued in the 15th century. When, during the second half of the 15th century, long, wide over-coats again became the universal fashion in Italy, as elsewhere, they showed a great variety of shape, due more to small changes of detail than to any great change of general cut. The cut of the tunic was, strictly speaking, the same as before. Usually it reached to the feet, sometimes to the ankles, and sometimes only half way down the calf. The width showed similar variation, but the coats were never so tight that the wearing of a girdle did not cause numerous folds round the body. A girdle was not always worn, but when it was used it was a richly ornamented leather belt worn obliquely, or a thick cord, or a long shot silk sash. Sometimes the coat was fitted with a small strap, through which the cord or belt was passed and tied according to taste. There were other changes in these long over-garments. They were either closed all down the front or had merely a long opening at the breast. The neck was high or low, round, oval, or square, and the coat was fitted either with an erect collar or with a hood. Toward the end of the century the practice came in of omitting sleeves altogether (Fig. 3. 4.) or of making them like those of the German Tappert — i.e., open down both sides from the shoulder—or they were more or less tight instead of wide as hitherto. When the fashion of tight sleeves for the long coats came in the cut of the coat also was slightly changed. Instead of gradually widening from the breast down, it fitted closely down to the hips, the widening beginning there. This style usually had a long opening at the breast, which could be buttoned, but it was sometimes preferred to have it open all down the front, with a drawstring by means of which it could be open or closed at will. Beneath this long over-garment was worn either a long or a short coat, or even a kind of jacket. The trimming was usually a narrow edging of fur or colored material; very often the entire jacket was lined in the same way. This jacket was wide and open in front, and both sides of the front were very wide, so that they could be thrown back. This extra width at the front was often made like a wrap by being continued round the neck as a fall-over collar. Mi-parti was sometimes introduced into the long overcoats. The under-coat usually worn beneath the overcoat was of the same shape, except that it was much shorter and tighter, and in particular had short sleeves. Speaking generally, the under-coats were closefitting, the skirt gradually widening from the hips down. The neck was in most cases high rather than low, and usually had a low, upright collar. The breast was made to button. Hose were still close-fitting. They were not very different from what they had been at the end of the fourteenth century. Made of elastic material, the hose (which now had feet) came up to the hips and were sewn together both between the legs and down back and front, so that they completely covered the lower part of the body all round. They were fastened either with a belt or with a cord drawn through the top hem, or were connected with the foot of the jacket by strings or buttons. Hose made of less elastic material could not be joined in this fashion unless they were first widened greatly at the seat, for the wearer could neither have stooped nor sat down in them. At the end of the fourteenth century a beginning had already been made with this widening i.e., the wearer’s seat was covered by a broad gore. This was not, however, sewn to the hose. During the second half of the fifteenth century a better method was found—the gore and the hose were cut much wider, even somewhat convex. When the hose were sewn together there was produced an enlargement which prevented actual strain, but still left an uncomfortable tightness. In front the hose were joined, as in former times, by a pouch-shaped flap which closed them. These hose, made of coarse material, were fastened at the top in exactly the same way as the elastic variety, except that no cord was needed, as they were made to fit better above the hips than those made of elastic material and were not so likely to slip down. (See Figs. 5.-7.) The cloak, the long, wide cape over back and shoulders, without either sleeves or armholes, went entirely out of fashion in Italy in the first half of the fifteenth century. On the other hand, the coatshaped, wide plaids were in general use in rough weather. Some of them were more like a cloak than a coat. They were simply square pieces of material hanging over both shoulders down to the knees, with elongated armholes at the sides. They could be worn either like a Roman toga or down the back like a cloak. The voluminous folds gave them a handsome appearance. There was another kind of wrap, which, although similar to that just described, was really more like the sleeveless over-coats, only much wider (Fig. 8.). These were mostly of dark material, lined with brighter stuff. They were semicircular, and had armholes. The great width across the breast was disposed of by being turned back and outward at both sides. Sometimes flaps of this kind were added to wraps of a different shape; they were connected by means of a collar that reached some way down the back. To wraps of this kind a shoulder-collar (or real cape) was added, completely hiding the armholes. This garment was something like a close-fitting tunic across the breast, but was much wider behind. These collars were variously shaped, and many of them were very peculiar. (See Figs. 9. and 10.) Not content with these wraps, dandies sometimes decked themselves out in the various short and close-fitting shoulder-capes then current in France and Germany. The toghe, a shoulder-cape reaching to the feet and gathered at the breast, was worn during the fifteenth century only as part of ceremonial dress. Footwear underwent little change during the fifteenth century, and only the tops, shape, and trimming of shoes were altered. Of all the various styles of shoes, the wide, ankle-high variety was the most popular. These were made of some soft leather, and ornamented with a broad strap, usually white. Low-cut shoes of this kind were usually kept in position by means of a strap across the instep. Women’s over-dresses underwent some very important alterations during the second half of the fifteenth century. The first change affected those garments which began to widen from the bust down. These were made still more voluminous by the insertion of larger and more numerous gores or gussets. The height or lowness at the neck continued to be a matter of individual choice. Older ladies wore high-necked dresses, and younger ones favoured a low neck or an open, V-shaped front. The sleeves lost their amplitude, and were either quite close-fitting or of a moderate and equal width throughout, but they were now so long that they extended beyond the hands and had to be thrown back. These dresses were usually worn without a girdle, but one was sometimes worn to assist in tucking up the dress and thus to correct its extreme length. Something quite new was the use of thick patterned silks and velvets, interwoven at times with silver or gold. As these materials were very heavy, and could be draped only in large folds, the cut of the dress had to be altered so that the stiffness of the material should not unduly interfere with freedom of movement. Previous to any change in the cut, however, the long train was abandoned with these stiff dresses. Trains were worn only on great occasions, and were then borne by attendants. On the whole, the dresses were of the same shape as before. They were either close-fitting or wide all the way down. But both styles suffered some change in cut. The style that was close-fitting down to the hips was made open down the whole front; the two front wings were laced across the breast. The dress was usually left open from the waist down, although buttons and buttonholes were provided. The sleeves were as tight as possible, but very long—down to the tips of the fingers— and slashed longitudinally or across at the elbows, revealing a puff made of some delicate tissue disposed in folds. There was also a change in the back. It was divided longitudinally, and shaped at the waist somewhat after the manner that had previously been restricted to the sides. The two edges were then sewn together, a perfectly close fit being thus produced. The gussets at the sides extended up to the hips; they were not now pointed at the top, but were blunted or rounded. In order to secure a perfectly close fit at the back, the back was separated from the skirt. Both were shaped to some extent at the sides and again sewn together. The longitudinal folds that appeared in the dresses made of stiff material were ironed in with a warm rounded iron. Dresses that were wide from the shoulders down were cut in the same way as those made of thinner materials, but in their case the neck was low and the front slit extended to below the breast (Fig. 12.). Other differences were due to the manner of making rather than to the cut. The back and front (each being made of suitable width by the insertion of gussets) were sewn together only on the shoulders. The sides were left open, either all the way or at least from the hips down. In both cases the unjoined parts were loosely laced together. If the dress was open from the armpit only the top half of the sleeves could be sewn to the dress. This, however, was not always done with a continuous seam—the sleeves were sometimes attached to the dress by small buttons sewn on short distances apart, so as to reveal puffs of delicate tissue disposed in folds. The same delicate material peeped out from all the slashes—at the elbows, at the back of the upper arm and forearm, and sometimes also at the front of the upper sleeve. These slashes were held in place by small buttons or by loose lacing. The sleeves were close-fitting on the forearm and gradually widened from the elbow to the shoulder. Sometimes, too, these dresses were worn with short sleeves reaching only to the elbows, and occasionally they had no sleeves at all. In both cases the similarly slashed sleeves of the dress worn beneath were visible. In these under-dresses the bodice and the skirt and sometimes even the sleeves were not infrequently made of different materials. By Carl Kohler Beginning at the end of the 14th Century, the Renaissance created a new type of man, triggering economic, scientific, technical, religious, social and cultural developments that are unique in history. - A history of costume by Carl Köhler. EDITED AND AUGMENTED BY Edited and augmented by Emma von Sichart. New York, G. H. Watt 1930. - On the history of costumes. Münchener Bilderbogen. Edited by Braun and Schneider 1860. - Iconographie générale et méthodique du costume du IVe au XIXe siècle. Collection gravée à forte d’après des documents authentiques & inédits par Raphaël Jacquemin. Paris 1869.	3,291	ENGLISH	1
- Author: Kathy Low Now that we're in the midst of the holiday season you see poinsettia (Euphorbia pulcherrima) plants in many homes and businesses. But how much do you know about the history of the poinsettia? And have you wondered why it's associated with the holidays? Native to Central America, the Aztecs called the plant “Cuetlaxochitl.” They used the plant's latex as a fever treatment and made a dye from the plant's leaves. The plant was named after Joel Roberts Poinsett (1779 – 1851), who was a doctor, amateur botanist, former member of Congress, and who served in a variety of government positions. He helped found the National Institute for the Promotion of Science and the Useful Arts, which later became the Smithsonian Institution. While he was the first American Ambassador to Mexico, he first encountered the red-leaved plants and was taken by its beauty. So he sent plants home to his greenhouse and began propagating the plant in smaller sizes (it can grow naturally in Central America to small tree size) and sending it to botanic gardens. Since Mr. Poinsett is credited with introducing the “Cuetlaxochitl” to the United States, the plant became known as the Poinsettia. There are a few explanations as to how it became associated with Christmas. The first is in Mexico the plant leaves only turn red naturally around Christmas. Another explanation is that the shape of the plant leaves is believed to symbolize the Star of Bethlehem and the red leaves the blood of Christ. The third explanation concerns an old Mexican legend. According to the legend, a poor Mexican girl didn't have a present to give to the Baby Jesus during Christmas Eve services. As she walked to the chapel with her cousin, her cousin told her that any gift given by someone who loves him will make him happy. She still had nothing to give him. So along the road, she gathered a small bouquet of weeds to give him. When she arrived at the chapel she placed the bouquet of weeds at the base of the nativity scene. To everyone's surprise, the weeds suddenly turned into beautiful bright red flowers, i.e. poinsettias. Poinsettias have become a very important floriculture crop in the United States. In fact, December 12th is now celebrated as National Poinsettia Day. So if you've purchased poinsettia plants for your home this holiday season, you're not alone!	<urn:uuid:16c584e2-b73f-4f82-bcfa-b99333443bdf>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://ucanr.edu/blogs/blogcore/postdetail.cfm?postnum=38844	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251783342.96/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128215526-20200129005526-00042.warc.gz	en	0.984319	531	3.625	4	[ 0.12757541239261627, 0.3496860861778259, 0.773787260055542, -0.14519906044006348, 0.28959420323371887, -0.3473508954048157, 0.5014244318008423, 0.22250406444072723, 0.02414310909807682, 0.3707488775253296, 0.4500081539154053, -0.007282399572432041, -0.09102252125740051, 0.20186839997768402...	1	- Author: Kathy Low Now that we're in the midst of the holiday season you see poinsettia (Euphorbia pulcherrima) plants in many homes and businesses. But how much do you know about the history of the poinsettia? And have you wondered why it's associated with the holidays? Native to Central America, the Aztecs called the plant “Cuetlaxochitl.” They used the plant's latex as a fever treatment and made a dye from the plant's leaves. The plant was named after Joel Roberts Poinsett (1779 – 1851), who was a doctor, amateur botanist, former member of Congress, and who served in a variety of government positions. He helped found the National Institute for the Promotion of Science and the Useful Arts, which later became the Smithsonian Institution. While he was the first American Ambassador to Mexico, he first encountered the red-leaved plants and was taken by its beauty. So he sent plants home to his greenhouse and began propagating the plant in smaller sizes (it can grow naturally in Central America to small tree size) and sending it to botanic gardens. Since Mr. Poinsett is credited with introducing the “Cuetlaxochitl” to the United States, the plant became known as the Poinsettia. There are a few explanations as to how it became associated with Christmas. The first is in Mexico the plant leaves only turn red naturally around Christmas. Another explanation is that the shape of the plant leaves is believed to symbolize the Star of Bethlehem and the red leaves the blood of Christ. The third explanation concerns an old Mexican legend. According to the legend, a poor Mexican girl didn't have a present to give to the Baby Jesus during Christmas Eve services. As she walked to the chapel with her cousin, her cousin told her that any gift given by someone who loves him will make him happy. She still had nothing to give him. So along the road, she gathered a small bouquet of weeds to give him. When she arrived at the chapel she placed the bouquet of weeds at the base of the nativity scene. To everyone's surprise, the weeds suddenly turned into beautiful bright red flowers, i.e. poinsettias. Poinsettias have become a very important floriculture crop in the United States. In fact, December 12th is now celebrated as National Poinsettia Day. So if you've purchased poinsettia plants for your home this holiday season, you're not alone!	523	ENGLISH	1
Knowledge is gained only through experience, and experiences only exist in the mind as individual units of thought. This theory of knowledge belonged to David Hume, a Scottish philosopher. Hume was born on April 26, 1711, as his familys second son. His father died when he was an infant and left his mother to care for him, his older brother, and his sister. David Hume passed through ordinary classes with great success, and found an early love for literature. He lived on his familys estate, Ninewells, near Edinburgh. Throughout his life, literature consumed his thoughts, and his life is little more than his works. By the age of 40, David Hume had been employed twice and had failed at the family careers, business and law. Occasionally, he served on diplomatic missions in France and other countries. Humes major work, A Treatise of Human Nature, was not well understood when first published, and received much criticism. The first two volumes were published in 1739, and the third in 1740. Immanuel Kant and other philosophers did notice his work and began respecting Hume for his reasoning. Later, he republished the first and third volumes as An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, and An Enquiry concerning the Principles of Morals in 1748 and 1751 respectively. The second volume was used as Part 2 of Four Dissertations in 1757. During his lifetime Humes reputation derived from the publication of his Political Discourses (1751) and six-volume History of England (1754-1762), (Langley 415). David Hume discovered he was literary celebrity when visiting France in 1763. He retired to Edinburgh in 1769 and lived a happy life. He passed away August 25, 1776 and left in his will that he only wanted his name and date on his gravestone, leaving it to posterity to add the rest, (Langley 415). Skepticism is the belief that people can not know the nature of things because perception reveals things not as they are, but as we experience them. In other words, knowledge is never known in truth, and humans should always question it. David Hume advanced skepticism to what he called mitigated skepticism. Mitigated skepticism was his approach to try to rid skepticism of the thoughts of human origin, and only include questions that people may begin to understand. Humes goal was to limit philosophical questioning to things which could be comprehended. Empiricism states that knowledge is based on experience, so everything that is known is learned through experience, but nothing is ever truly known. David Hume called lively and strong experiences, perceptions, and less lively events, beliefs or thoughts. Different words and concepts meant different things to different people due to the knowledge, or experiences they have. He believed, along with the fact that knowledge is only gained through experience, that a persons experiences are nothing more than the contents of his or her own consciousness. The knowledge of anything comes from the way it is perceived through the five senses. Hume began to distinguish between feelings and thoughts. Feelings are only impressions made upon the body, and thoughts arrive from impressions; for nothing can be thought that has not been experienced. The meaning of ideas is more important than their truth. Belief results from ideas and assumptions, which are recollected from previous knowledge. Humes analysis of causal relation is that everything that happens beyond what is available to memory rests on assumption. Let us examine two cases: I see lightning and hear thunder; I see a rabbit and then a fox. The question is why I am right in concluding that lightning causes thunder but wrong in believing that rabbits cause foxes. Experience, in both instances, reveals an A that is followed by B, and repeated experiences show that A is always followed by B. While the constant conjunction of A and B might eliminate the rabbit-fox hypothesis, it is of no help in explaining causality because there are all sorts of objects, such as tables and chairs, which are similarly conjoined but not supposed to be causally related. Thus experience reveals only that constant conjunction and priority are sufficient but not necessary conditions for establishing a causal connection. (Langley 417) David Hume was a great philosopher. He was well known for his works and respected by the people of his time. His philosophical reasonings were written down to explain the unknown, to the people who know nothing but what they have experienced. Today philosophers read his material and highly regard his theory of knowledge. Empiricists and skeptics are still improving upon his thoughts. According to David Hume, there is no truth, but humans must continue to seek it by constantly improving upon one another. His theories can be used by ordinary people to improve upon themselves and their culture. Langley, Raymond J. The McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of World Biography. 1973.Hume. Vol. 5. New York, New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, 1973. 415-17. Mannoia, V. James. Building a Christian World View, God, Man, and Knowledge. 1986. Rationalism and Empiricism. Vol. 1. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1986. 268-71. The Philosophy of David Hume. 3 May 2000. http://www.angelfire.com/mi/markhelm/.	<urn:uuid:8769c515-c92d-4fd6-80c0-6164889962b1>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://santosforcongress.com/hume/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250592261.1/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118052321-20200118080321-00071.warc.gz	en	0.981386	1,090	3.734375	4	[ 0.009276646189391613, 0.21188127994537354, 0.09789633750915527, -0.1561720073223114, -0.026285985484719276, 0.09128981828689575, 0.896762490272522, -0.030735138803720474, 0.05298634245991707, 0.08830554038286209, 0.43876081705093384, -0.45467865467071533, 0.25093474984169006, 0.24080815911...	3	Knowledge is gained only through experience, and experiences only exist in the mind as individual units of thought. This theory of knowledge belonged to David Hume, a Scottish philosopher. Hume was born on April 26, 1711, as his familys second son. His father died when he was an infant and left his mother to care for him, his older brother, and his sister. David Hume passed through ordinary classes with great success, and found an early love for literature. He lived on his familys estate, Ninewells, near Edinburgh. Throughout his life, literature consumed his thoughts, and his life is little more than his works. By the age of 40, David Hume had been employed twice and had failed at the family careers, business and law. Occasionally, he served on diplomatic missions in France and other countries. Humes major work, A Treatise of Human Nature, was not well understood when first published, and received much criticism. The first two volumes were published in 1739, and the third in 1740. Immanuel Kant and other philosophers did notice his work and began respecting Hume for his reasoning. Later, he republished the first and third volumes as An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, and An Enquiry concerning the Principles of Morals in 1748 and 1751 respectively. The second volume was used as Part 2 of Four Dissertations in 1757. During his lifetime Humes reputation derived from the publication of his Political Discourses (1751) and six-volume History of England (1754-1762), (Langley 415). David Hume discovered he was literary celebrity when visiting France in 1763. He retired to Edinburgh in 1769 and lived a happy life. He passed away August 25, 1776 and left in his will that he only wanted his name and date on his gravestone, leaving it to posterity to add the rest, (Langley 415). Skepticism is the belief that people can not know the nature of things because perception reveals things not as they are, but as we experience them. In other words, knowledge is never known in truth, and humans should always question it. David Hume advanced skepticism to what he called mitigated skepticism. Mitigated skepticism was his approach to try to rid skepticism of the thoughts of human origin, and only include questions that people may begin to understand. Humes goal was to limit philosophical questioning to things which could be comprehended. Empiricism states that knowledge is based on experience, so everything that is known is learned through experience, but nothing is ever truly known. David Hume called lively and strong experiences, perceptions, and less lively events, beliefs or thoughts. Different words and concepts meant different things to different people due to the knowledge, or experiences they have. He believed, along with the fact that knowledge is only gained through experience, that a persons experiences are nothing more than the contents of his or her own consciousness. The knowledge of anything comes from the way it is perceived through the five senses. Hume began to distinguish between feelings and thoughts. Feelings are only impressions made upon the body, and thoughts arrive from impressions; for nothing can be thought that has not been experienced. The meaning of ideas is more important than their truth. Belief results from ideas and assumptions, which are recollected from previous knowledge. Humes analysis of causal relation is that everything that happens beyond what is available to memory rests on assumption. Let us examine two cases: I see lightning and hear thunder; I see a rabbit and then a fox. The question is why I am right in concluding that lightning causes thunder but wrong in believing that rabbits cause foxes. Experience, in both instances, reveals an A that is followed by B, and repeated experiences show that A is always followed by B. While the constant conjunction of A and B might eliminate the rabbit-fox hypothesis, it is of no help in explaining causality because there are all sorts of objects, such as tables and chairs, which are similarly conjoined but not supposed to be causally related. Thus experience reveals only that constant conjunction and priority are sufficient but not necessary conditions for establishing a causal connection. (Langley 417) David Hume was a great philosopher. He was well known for his works and respected by the people of his time. His philosophical reasonings were written down to explain the unknown, to the people who know nothing but what they have experienced. Today philosophers read his material and highly regard his theory of knowledge. Empiricists and skeptics are still improving upon his thoughts. According to David Hume, there is no truth, but humans must continue to seek it by constantly improving upon one another. His theories can be used by ordinary people to improve upon themselves and their culture. Langley, Raymond J. The McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of World Biography. 1973.Hume. Vol. 5. New York, New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, 1973. 415-17. Mannoia, V. James. Building a Christian World View, God, Man, and Knowledge. 1986. Rationalism and Empiricism. Vol. 1. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1986. 268-71. The Philosophy of David Hume. 3 May 2000. http://www.angelfire.com/mi/markhelm/.	1,163	ENGLISH	1
In general, it means that people focus too much on success and miss out on those who fail, and as a result, fail to see the real issue. One of the best-known Survivorship Bias stories II. It is related to armor reinforcement on aircraft damaged in World War II. Investigating the damaged planes, researchers decide that the most damaged parts should be strengthened. However, armor strengthening did not have much effect, the number of returning planes did not change much, and the planes continued to take damage from the same place. The mathematician named Abraham Wald, who appeared in this section, said that the research was already done on surviving planes, that the damaged areas were too strong to cause the planes to fall, that the actual research had to be reduced and thus could not be returned, and that the armored reinforcement had never been restored. argues that there should be undamaged areas. Subsequent reinforcements, such as fuel depots, are being applied to parts where no return aircraft were damaged before, and Abraham Wald seems to be right. In another story, the number of soldiers wounded in the head after the use of helmets increased during World War I, so helmet wearing is considered unnecessary. However, it is realized later that the number of injuries caused by helmets has increased because the survivors of the helmet-wearing soldiers survived. Traffic accident survivors who come to the hospital, always wearing a seat belt, so that the perception of the seat belt is causing the injury occurs. However, the point that is overlooked is that those who do not wear their seat belts have already died before coming to the hospital. All this actually tells one thing. What leads to success is to know those who lead to failure.	<urn:uuid:32312850-121c-49c9-a4e7-0390265f8d1c>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.engineerwork.net/2019/12/survivorship-bias.html	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250598217.23/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120081337-20200120105337-00467.warc.gz	en	0.984479	349	3.46875	3	[ -0.37630000710487366, 0.21606487035751343, 0.21673524379730225, -0.17330116033554077, -0.27796146273612976, 0.375369668006897, 0.24366028606891632, 0.572624921798706, -0.23756588995456696, 0.05623750761151314, 0.20016129314899445, -0.15250316262245178, 0.12406941503286362, 0.48529779911041...	3	In general, it means that people focus too much on success and miss out on those who fail, and as a result, fail to see the real issue. One of the best-known Survivorship Bias stories II. It is related to armor reinforcement on aircraft damaged in World War II. Investigating the damaged planes, researchers decide that the most damaged parts should be strengthened. However, armor strengthening did not have much effect, the number of returning planes did not change much, and the planes continued to take damage from the same place. The mathematician named Abraham Wald, who appeared in this section, said that the research was already done on surviving planes, that the damaged areas were too strong to cause the planes to fall, that the actual research had to be reduced and thus could not be returned, and that the armored reinforcement had never been restored. argues that there should be undamaged areas. Subsequent reinforcements, such as fuel depots, are being applied to parts where no return aircraft were damaged before, and Abraham Wald seems to be right. In another story, the number of soldiers wounded in the head after the use of helmets increased during World War I, so helmet wearing is considered unnecessary. However, it is realized later that the number of injuries caused by helmets has increased because the survivors of the helmet-wearing soldiers survived. Traffic accident survivors who come to the hospital, always wearing a seat belt, so that the perception of the seat belt is causing the injury occurs. However, the point that is overlooked is that those who do not wear their seat belts have already died before coming to the hospital. All this actually tells one thing. What leads to success is to know those who lead to failure.	341	ENGLISH	1
Consideration is being given to raising a WWII era dive bomber aircraft that crashed into Lake Michigan in 1943. If the lift is done, the SBD Dauntless aircraft could find a new home in the American mid-west in a museum dedicated to aviation history. Early in the war, the navy had to train pilots to land on carriers, and they chose Lake Michigan as one of their training grounds. It was far from the sea, relatively calm, and they could train pilots in safety. Altogether almost 15,000 pilots gained their carrier qualification on the two aircraft carriers based on the lake. In 1943 a US Navy trainee pilot was attempting to make a landing aboard the USS Wolverine when he crashed into the lake. The pilot was injured but recovered to serve aboard the USS Yorktown and surviving the war he studied medicine and became a physician. Many of the planes that trainees crashed into Lake Michigan have been successfully recovered, restored, and put on display in museums. Estimates vary of the number of wrecks that still lie under the waters of the lake, but most agree that there are around 70 planes still lying on the lake floor. The CEO and President of the AirZoo Museum located in Portage, Michigan, Troy Thrash, said that they were interested in the recovery of the Dauntless. The plans that the museum has for the aircraft include displaying it without a complete restoration. Thrash said that AirZoo currently had 75 volunteers working hard on the restoration of two other aircraft that had been recovered from Lake Michigan. Still, the intention behind this exhibit would be to show how science had come to the aid of history. They would show how science was used to find the aircraft on the lake bed and the technology that was used to do this. Technologies such as side-scan radar that was used to find the wreck and what was used to raise the aircraft. They would also demonstrate what the marine environment meant for these old planes and how it was slowly but surely destroying them. Finally, they would explain the importance of saving these historical artifacts. The museum will have to move quickly if they want to raise this plane as it is rapidly being destroyed by Quagga mussels. These shellfish are invasive in Lake Michigan and have a devastating effect on the marine ecology as well as the wrecks themselves. Thrash said that the museum had a few years at the most to get the plane out of the water before the mussels destroy the structural integrity of the metal frame and make it impossible to raise the aircraft. The owner of the WWII wrecks that lie on the lake bed is the US Naval History and Heritage Command, and their director Admiral Sam Cox, US Navy Ret., said that plans to raise any wreck would be assessed on a case-by-case basis. The proposal would have to be funded entirely, and permits would have to be acquired from many governmental agencies. In spite of this, Cox said that he was interested in the provisional plans put forward by AirZoo. Though the Navy preferred that all aircraft wrecks, no matter where they may be, remain undisturbed, those in Lake Michigan are a particular case. This is due to the fact that they are of a specific aircraft type and the educational benefit that can be derived from them. Taras Lyssenko from the salvage company A & T Recovery said that once they had recovered aircraft purely for their historical significance but now the emphasis was more on the science behind the recovery, than the plane itself. Scientists are learning a great deal about the ecology and environment within the Great Lake’s System and the damage caused by invasive species such as the Quagga Mussel. Another Article From Us: USS Arizona and USS Oklahoma Set to Sail Again for the US Navy Also, materials scientists gain insight into how living creatures create and accelerate the corrosion and destruction of materials.	<urn:uuid:f3320a45-bb37-4fc3-a622-90e1779b5134>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.warhistoryonline.com/news/lake-michigan.html	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250606872.19/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122071919-20200122100919-00245.warc.gz	en	0.981102	804	3.328125	3	[ -0.4013616442680359, 0.13715721666812897, -0.009663252159953117, -0.18680256605148315, 0.2687985301017761, 0.2660831809043884, 0.0006455816328525543, 0.615958571434021, -0.4415205717086792, -0.18352225422859192, -0.10544665902853012, 0.07411879301071167, 0.07167473435401917, 0.585278630256...	7	Consideration is being given to raising a WWII era dive bomber aircraft that crashed into Lake Michigan in 1943. If the lift is done, the SBD Dauntless aircraft could find a new home in the American mid-west in a museum dedicated to aviation history. Early in the war, the navy had to train pilots to land on carriers, and they chose Lake Michigan as one of their training grounds. It was far from the sea, relatively calm, and they could train pilots in safety. Altogether almost 15,000 pilots gained their carrier qualification on the two aircraft carriers based on the lake. In 1943 a US Navy trainee pilot was attempting to make a landing aboard the USS Wolverine when he crashed into the lake. The pilot was injured but recovered to serve aboard the USS Yorktown and surviving the war he studied medicine and became a physician. Many of the planes that trainees crashed into Lake Michigan have been successfully recovered, restored, and put on display in museums. Estimates vary of the number of wrecks that still lie under the waters of the lake, but most agree that there are around 70 planes still lying on the lake floor. The CEO and President of the AirZoo Museum located in Portage, Michigan, Troy Thrash, said that they were interested in the recovery of the Dauntless. The plans that the museum has for the aircraft include displaying it without a complete restoration. Thrash said that AirZoo currently had 75 volunteers working hard on the restoration of two other aircraft that had been recovered from Lake Michigan. Still, the intention behind this exhibit would be to show how science had come to the aid of history. They would show how science was used to find the aircraft on the lake bed and the technology that was used to do this. Technologies such as side-scan radar that was used to find the wreck and what was used to raise the aircraft. They would also demonstrate what the marine environment meant for these old planes and how it was slowly but surely destroying them. Finally, they would explain the importance of saving these historical artifacts. The museum will have to move quickly if they want to raise this plane as it is rapidly being destroyed by Quagga mussels. These shellfish are invasive in Lake Michigan and have a devastating effect on the marine ecology as well as the wrecks themselves. Thrash said that the museum had a few years at the most to get the plane out of the water before the mussels destroy the structural integrity of the metal frame and make it impossible to raise the aircraft. The owner of the WWII wrecks that lie on the lake bed is the US Naval History and Heritage Command, and their director Admiral Sam Cox, US Navy Ret., said that plans to raise any wreck would be assessed on a case-by-case basis. The proposal would have to be funded entirely, and permits would have to be acquired from many governmental agencies. In spite of this, Cox said that he was interested in the provisional plans put forward by AirZoo. Though the Navy preferred that all aircraft wrecks, no matter where they may be, remain undisturbed, those in Lake Michigan are a particular case. This is due to the fact that they are of a specific aircraft type and the educational benefit that can be derived from them. Taras Lyssenko from the salvage company A & T Recovery said that once they had recovered aircraft purely for their historical significance but now the emphasis was more on the science behind the recovery, than the plane itself. Scientists are learning a great deal about the ecology and environment within the Great Lake’s System and the damage caused by invasive species such as the Quagga Mussel. Another Article From Us: USS Arizona and USS Oklahoma Set to Sail Again for the US Navy Also, materials scientists gain insight into how living creatures create and accelerate the corrosion and destruction of materials.	789	ENGLISH	1
King Edward IV died in 1483 leaving his 12-year-old son, Edward V, to become king. Edward IV’s brother, Richard, Duke of Gloucester, was to serve as the boy’s Protector to ensure he successfully took the throne. In the months leading to the coronation, tensions arose between the two sides of Edward V’s family. Each wanted more influence over the young king and his mother’s family did not want Richard gaining control of the kingdom. Richard escorted Edward V to London and moved him to royal apartments in the Tower of London to await his coronation. His younger brother, Richard, Duke of York, joined him there. While the boys were in the Tower, their uncle Richard acted as ruler of England and began consolidating power. Although it at first appeared he was preparing Edward V to become king, he moved to have the young princes removed from the line of succession. He claimed their parents’ marriage had been invalid and that they could not inherit the throne. Parliament agreed with his claims and declared Edward V illegitimate. Richard was crowned King Richard III. Edward V and Richard, Duke of York were reportedly seen in and outside of the Tower of London in the Spring and Summer of 1483, but by the end of the year, they had disappeared completely. Contemporary sources suggested they had died, but their ultimate fate was unknown. In 1647, during renovations at the Tower, human remains were found under a staircase. It was believed at the time that the bodies of the Princes had been found and they were given a proper burial. An examination of the bones in 1933 concluded that they belonged to two young boys. No modern scientific analysis, such as DNA testing, has ever been performed on the remains. Although they remain interred at Westminster Abbey as Edward V, King of England and Richard, Duke of York, the bodies have never been definitively identified. For centuries, people have believed that the boys were murdered in the Tower. Richard III has been considered the prime suspect, but others also had motive to eliminate the Princes. However, it is possible that one or both of the Princes survived, possibly by escaping to the European continent. Historical sources do not provide an answer and modern historians have made the case for several possible outcomes.	<urn:uuid:fad26582-4e80-4549-92ef-0d48898f8260>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://theprincesinthetower.com/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251688806.91/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126104828-20200126134828-00182.warc.gz	en	0.99176	469	3.609375	4	[ -0.3507359027862549, 0.4399198889732361, 0.23957078158855438, -0.4247327148914337, -0.2337493598461151, -0.2806525230407715, 0.21622654795646667, 0.016750169917941093, 0.07385823130607605, 0.22531916201114655, 0.11920474469661713, -0.31478336453437805, 0.22706486284732819, 0.11938719451427...	25	King Edward IV died in 1483 leaving his 12-year-old son, Edward V, to become king. Edward IV’s brother, Richard, Duke of Gloucester, was to serve as the boy’s Protector to ensure he successfully took the throne. In the months leading to the coronation, tensions arose between the two sides of Edward V’s family. Each wanted more influence over the young king and his mother’s family did not want Richard gaining control of the kingdom. Richard escorted Edward V to London and moved him to royal apartments in the Tower of London to await his coronation. His younger brother, Richard, Duke of York, joined him there. While the boys were in the Tower, their uncle Richard acted as ruler of England and began consolidating power. Although it at first appeared he was preparing Edward V to become king, he moved to have the young princes removed from the line of succession. He claimed their parents’ marriage had been invalid and that they could not inherit the throne. Parliament agreed with his claims and declared Edward V illegitimate. Richard was crowned King Richard III. Edward V and Richard, Duke of York were reportedly seen in and outside of the Tower of London in the Spring and Summer of 1483, but by the end of the year, they had disappeared completely. Contemporary sources suggested they had died, but their ultimate fate was unknown. In 1647, during renovations at the Tower, human remains were found under a staircase. It was believed at the time that the bodies of the Princes had been found and they were given a proper burial. An examination of the bones in 1933 concluded that they belonged to two young boys. No modern scientific analysis, such as DNA testing, has ever been performed on the remains. Although they remain interred at Westminster Abbey as Edward V, King of England and Richard, Duke of York, the bodies have never been definitively identified. For centuries, people have believed that the boys were murdered in the Tower. Richard III has been considered the prime suspect, but others also had motive to eliminate the Princes. However, it is possible that one or both of the Princes survived, possibly by escaping to the European continent. Historical sources do not provide an answer and modern historians have made the case for several possible outcomes.	471	ENGLISH	1
Who Was King Henry VIII? Henry Tudor was the king of England from 1509 until his death in 1547. The son of Henry VII of England and Elizabeth York, Henry became king of England following the death of his father. He married six times, beheading two of his wives, and was the main instigator of the English Reformation. His only surviving son, Edward VI, succeeded him after his death. Henry Tudor was born on June 28, 1491, at the royal residence, Greenwich Palace, in Greenwich, London, England. The son of Henry VII of England and Elizabeth York, Henry VIII was one of six children, only three of whom survived: Arthur, Margaret and Mary. As a young man and monarch, second in the Tudor Dynasty, Henry VIII exuded a charismatic athleticism and diverse appetite for art, music and culture. He was witty and highly educated, taught by private tutors for his entire upbringing. He loved music and wrote some as well. A lover of gambling and jousting, he hosted countless tournaments and banquets. His father always envisioned Arthur as king and Henry as a high-ranking church official—the appropriate role at that time for his secondary birth order. As fate would have it, Henry instead inherited an entire peaceful nation after his father ended the Wars of the Roses. Henry’s older brother Arthur was expected to take the throne. In 1502, Prince Arthur married Catherine of Aragon, the daughter of the Spanish king and queen, Ferdinand II of Aragon and Queen Isabella I of Castile. After less than four months of marriage, Arthur died at the age of 15, leaving his 10-year-old brother, Henry, the next in line to the throne. Upon King Henry VII’s death in 1509, Henry VIII took the crown at age 17. Henry was good-natured, but his court soon learned to bow to his every wish. Two days after his coronation, he arrested two of his father's ministers and promptly executed them. He began his rule seeking advisers on most matters and would end it with absolute control. From 1514 to 1529, Henry VIII had relied on Thomas Wolsey, a Catholic cardinal, to guide his domestic and foreign policies. Wolsey enjoyed a lavish existence under Henry, but when Wolsey failed to deliver Henry's quick annulment from Catherine, the cardinal quickly fell out of favor. After 16 years of power, Wolsey was arrested and falsely charged with treason. He subsequently died in custody. Henry's actions upon Wolsey gave a strong signal to the pope that he would not honor the wishes of even the highest clergy and would instead exercise full power in every realm of his court. In 1534, Henry VIII declared himself supreme head of the Church of England. After Henry declared his supremacy, the Christian church separated, forming the Church of England. Henry instituted several statutes that outlined the relationship between the king and the pope and the structure of the Church of England: the Act of Appeals, the Acts of Succession and the first Act of Supremacy, declaring the king was "the only Supreme Head in Earth of the Church of England." These macro reforms trickled down to minute details of worship. Henry ordered the clergy to preach against superstitious images, relics, miracles and pilgrimages, and to remove almost all candles from religious settings. His 1545 catechism, called the King's Primer, left out the saints. Fully separated now from the pope, the Church of England was under England's rule, not Rome's. From 1536 to 1537, a great northern uprising known as the Pilgrimage of Grace took hold, during which 30,000 people rebelled against the king's changes. It was the only major threat to Henry's authority as monarch. The rebellion's leader, Robert Aske, and 200 others were executed. When John Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, and Sir Thomas More, Henry's former Lord Chancellor, refused to take the oath to the king, they were beheaded at Tower Hill. Henry VIII’s Wives Catherine of Aragon At the age of 17, Henry married Catherine of Aragon, Spain, and the two were crowned at Westminster Abbey. Henry VIII’s father wanted to affirm his family's alliance with Spain, so he offered his young son to Catherine, who was the widow of Henry’s brother Arthur. The two families requested that Pope Julius II officially grant a dispensation to Arthur and Catherine's marriage. The pope conceded, but the official marriage of Henry and Catherine was postponed until the death of Henry VII in 1509. Although Catherine gave birth to Henry’s first child, a daughter, Mary, Henry grew frustrated by the lack of a male heir and began keeping two mistresses at his beckon. His philandering ways were tame by the standards of his contemporaries, but they nonetheless resulted in his first divorce in 1533. One of Henry’s mistresses during his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, Mary Boleyn, introduced him to her sister, Anne, and Anne and Henry began secretly seeing one another. Because Catherine was now 42 and unable to conceive another child, Henry set on a mission to obtain a male heir by configuring a way to officially abandon his marriage with Catherine. The Book of Leviticus stated that a man who takes his brother's wife shall remain childless. Though Catherine had borne him a child, that child was a girl, which, in Henry's logic, did not count. He petitioned the pope for an annulment but was refused due to pressure from Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, Catherine's nephew. The debate, during which Catherine fought mightily to maintain both her own and her daughter's titles, lasted for six years. In 1533, Anne Boleyn, who was still Henry's mistress, became pregnant. Henry decided he didn't need the pope's permission on matters of the Church of England. Thomas Cranmer, the new archbishop of Canterbury, presided over the trial that declared his first marriage annulled. Henry VIII and Anne married secretly in January 1533. Inside the court, however, Queen Anne suffered greatly from her failure to produce a living male heir. After she miscarried twice, Henry became interested in one of Anne's ladies-in-waiting, Jane Seymour. In an all-out effort to leave his unfruitful marriage, Henry contrived an elaborate story that Anne had committed adultery, had incestuous relations and was plotting to murder him. Henry charged three men on account of their adultery with his wife, and on May 15, 1536, he put her on trial. Anne, regal and calm, denied all charges against her. Four days later, Henry's marriage to Anne was annulled and declared invalid. Anne was then taken to the Tower Green, where she was beheaded in private on May 19, 1536. Within 11 days of Anne Boleyn's execution, on May 30, 1536, Jane Seymour and Henry VIII formally wed. However, Jane was never officially coronated or crowned queen. In October 1537, following a difficult pregnancy, Jane Seymour produced the king’s long-hoped-for son, Edward. Just nine days after giving birth, Jane died from a pregnancy-related infection. Because Jane was the only of Henry’s spouses to bear him a son, he considered her to be his only "true" wife. He and his court mourned for an extended period of time after her passing. Anne of Cleves Three years after the death of Jane Seymour, Henry was ready to marry again, mainly to ensure the succession of his crown. He inquired in foreign courts about the appearances of available women. Anne, the sister of the Duke of Cleves, was suggested. The German artist Hans Holbein the Younger, who served as the king's official painter, was sent out to create a portrait of her. However after the couple married, in January 1540, Henry disapproved of Anne in the flesh and divorced her after six months. She received the title of "The King's Sister" and was given Hever Castle as ample residence. Within weeks of his divorce to Anne of Cleves, Henry married the very young Catherine Howard, a first cousin of Anne Boleyn, in a private marriage on July 28, 1540. Henry, 49, and Catherine, 19, started out a happy pair. Henry was now dealing with tremendous weight gain and a bad leg, and his new wife gave him zest for life. He repaid her with lavish gifts. Happiness would not last long for the couple. Catherine began seeking the attention of men her own age—a tremendously dangerous endeavor for the queen of England. After an investigation into her behavior, she was deemed guilty of adultery. On February 13, 1542, Henry had Catherine executed on the Tower Green. Independent and well-educated, Catherine Parr was Henry's last and sixth wife; the pair were married in 1543. She was the daughter of Maud Green, a lady-in-waiting to Henry's first wife, Catherine of Aragon. Maud named her daughter after the queen; thus Henry's last wife was named after his first. Parr was a twice-made widow. The most well-documented incident of Catherine Parr's life was her effort to ban books, a truly horrible act under her husband's leadership that practically got her arrested. When Henry came to admonish her for her brash actions, she submitted to him, saying she was merely looking to create a circumstance when he could teach her the proper way to behave. Henry accepted the sentiment, either true or devised, saving her from a brutal end. King Henry VIII’s Children Mary Tudor, Henry’s first child to survive infancy with Queen Catherine, was born on February 18, 1516. Following the death of her half-brother Edward in 1553, Mary became the queen of England and ruled until her death in 1558. On September 7, 1533, Anne Boleyn gave birth to Henry VIII’s second daughter, Elizabeth. Although Elizabeth was born a princess, Henry eventually declared her illegitimate. After Mary Tudor’s death, Elizabeth was crowned as Queen Elizabeth I in 1558 and remained on the throne until her death in 1603. King Henry VIII’s only son, Edward, was born on October 12, 1537. Upon Henry’s death in 1547, Edward succeeded him as king at the tender age of 10 and ruled until his death in 1553. Henry VIII’s Death On January 28, 1547, at the age of 55, King Henry VIII of England died. As a middle-aged man, Henry became covered with pus-filled boils and possibly suffered from gout. A jousting accident opened a violent wound in his leg which ulcerated and left him unable to play sports. His eventual obesity required that he be moved with mechanical inventions. His habit of binge-eating highly fatty meats was perhaps a symptom of stress. A recent and credible theory suggests that he suffered from untreated type II diabetes. Henry VIII was interred in St. George's Chapel in Windsor Castle alongside his deceased third wife, Jane Seymour. Henry's only surviving son, Edward, inherited the throne, becoming Edward VI. Princesses Elizabeth and Mary waited in succession. We strive for accuracy and fairness. If you see something that doesn't look right, contact us!	<urn:uuid:5b1ac5ae-91c8-4dfd-9fa8-fd07c842b691>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.biography.com/royalty/henry-viii	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250608062.57/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123011418-20200123040418-00459.warc.gz	en	0.984712	2,382	3.5625	4	[ -0.1551555097103119, 0.43445849418640137, 0.13884402811527252, -0.20831772685050964, -0.5738717317581177, -0.2111780345439911, 0.423550546169281, 0.13743449747562408, 0.18776854872703552, -0.17448046803474426, -0.2583041787147522, -0.546332597732544, 0.12758341431617737, 0.3537314832210541...	5	Who Was King Henry VIII? Henry Tudor was the king of England from 1509 until his death in 1547. The son of Henry VII of England and Elizabeth York, Henry became king of England following the death of his father. He married six times, beheading two of his wives, and was the main instigator of the English Reformation. His only surviving son, Edward VI, succeeded him after his death. Henry Tudor was born on June 28, 1491, at the royal residence, Greenwich Palace, in Greenwich, London, England. The son of Henry VII of England and Elizabeth York, Henry VIII was one of six children, only three of whom survived: Arthur, Margaret and Mary. As a young man and monarch, second in the Tudor Dynasty, Henry VIII exuded a charismatic athleticism and diverse appetite for art, music and culture. He was witty and highly educated, taught by private tutors for his entire upbringing. He loved music and wrote some as well. A lover of gambling and jousting, he hosted countless tournaments and banquets. His father always envisioned Arthur as king and Henry as a high-ranking church official—the appropriate role at that time for his secondary birth order. As fate would have it, Henry instead inherited an entire peaceful nation after his father ended the Wars of the Roses. Henry’s older brother Arthur was expected to take the throne. In 1502, Prince Arthur married Catherine of Aragon, the daughter of the Spanish king and queen, Ferdinand II of Aragon and Queen Isabella I of Castile. After less than four months of marriage, Arthur died at the age of 15, leaving his 10-year-old brother, Henry, the next in line to the throne. Upon King Henry VII’s death in 1509, Henry VIII took the crown at age 17. Henry was good-natured, but his court soon learned to bow to his every wish. Two days after his coronation, he arrested two of his father's ministers and promptly executed them. He began his rule seeking advisers on most matters and would end it with absolute control. From 1514 to 1529, Henry VIII had relied on Thomas Wolsey, a Catholic cardinal, to guide his domestic and foreign policies. Wolsey enjoyed a lavish existence under Henry, but when Wolsey failed to deliver Henry's quick annulment from Catherine, the cardinal quickly fell out of favor. After 16 years of power, Wolsey was arrested and falsely charged with treason. He subsequently died in custody. Henry's actions upon Wolsey gave a strong signal to the pope that he would not honor the wishes of even the highest clergy and would instead exercise full power in every realm of his court. In 1534, Henry VIII declared himself supreme head of the Church of England. After Henry declared his supremacy, the Christian church separated, forming the Church of England. Henry instituted several statutes that outlined the relationship between the king and the pope and the structure of the Church of England: the Act of Appeals, the Acts of Succession and the first Act of Supremacy, declaring the king was "the only Supreme Head in Earth of the Church of England." These macro reforms trickled down to minute details of worship. Henry ordered the clergy to preach against superstitious images, relics, miracles and pilgrimages, and to remove almost all candles from religious settings. His 1545 catechism, called the King's Primer, left out the saints. Fully separated now from the pope, the Church of England was under England's rule, not Rome's. From 1536 to 1537, a great northern uprising known as the Pilgrimage of Grace took hold, during which 30,000 people rebelled against the king's changes. It was the only major threat to Henry's authority as monarch. The rebellion's leader, Robert Aske, and 200 others were executed. When John Fisher, Bishop of Rochester, and Sir Thomas More, Henry's former Lord Chancellor, refused to take the oath to the king, they were beheaded at Tower Hill. Henry VIII’s Wives Catherine of Aragon At the age of 17, Henry married Catherine of Aragon, Spain, and the two were crowned at Westminster Abbey. Henry VIII’s father wanted to affirm his family's alliance with Spain, so he offered his young son to Catherine, who was the widow of Henry’s brother Arthur. The two families requested that Pope Julius II officially grant a dispensation to Arthur and Catherine's marriage. The pope conceded, but the official marriage of Henry and Catherine was postponed until the death of Henry VII in 1509. Although Catherine gave birth to Henry’s first child, a daughter, Mary, Henry grew frustrated by the lack of a male heir and began keeping two mistresses at his beckon. His philandering ways were tame by the standards of his contemporaries, but they nonetheless resulted in his first divorce in 1533. One of Henry’s mistresses during his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, Mary Boleyn, introduced him to her sister, Anne, and Anne and Henry began secretly seeing one another. Because Catherine was now 42 and unable to conceive another child, Henry set on a mission to obtain a male heir by configuring a way to officially abandon his marriage with Catherine. The Book of Leviticus stated that a man who takes his brother's wife shall remain childless. Though Catherine had borne him a child, that child was a girl, which, in Henry's logic, did not count. He petitioned the pope for an annulment but was refused due to pressure from Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, Catherine's nephew. The debate, during which Catherine fought mightily to maintain both her own and her daughter's titles, lasted for six years. In 1533, Anne Boleyn, who was still Henry's mistress, became pregnant. Henry decided he didn't need the pope's permission on matters of the Church of England. Thomas Cranmer, the new archbishop of Canterbury, presided over the trial that declared his first marriage annulled. Henry VIII and Anne married secretly in January 1533. Inside the court, however, Queen Anne suffered greatly from her failure to produce a living male heir. After she miscarried twice, Henry became interested in one of Anne's ladies-in-waiting, Jane Seymour. In an all-out effort to leave his unfruitful marriage, Henry contrived an elaborate story that Anne had committed adultery, had incestuous relations and was plotting to murder him. Henry charged three men on account of their adultery with his wife, and on May 15, 1536, he put her on trial. Anne, regal and calm, denied all charges against her. Four days later, Henry's marriage to Anne was annulled and declared invalid. Anne was then taken to the Tower Green, where she was beheaded in private on May 19, 1536. Within 11 days of Anne Boleyn's execution, on May 30, 1536, Jane Seymour and Henry VIII formally wed. However, Jane was never officially coronated or crowned queen. In October 1537, following a difficult pregnancy, Jane Seymour produced the king’s long-hoped-for son, Edward. Just nine days after giving birth, Jane died from a pregnancy-related infection. Because Jane was the only of Henry’s spouses to bear him a son, he considered her to be his only "true" wife. He and his court mourned for an extended period of time after her passing. Anne of Cleves Three years after the death of Jane Seymour, Henry was ready to marry again, mainly to ensure the succession of his crown. He inquired in foreign courts about the appearances of available women. Anne, the sister of the Duke of Cleves, was suggested. The German artist Hans Holbein the Younger, who served as the king's official painter, was sent out to create a portrait of her. However after the couple married, in January 1540, Henry disapproved of Anne in the flesh and divorced her after six months. She received the title of "The King's Sister" and was given Hever Castle as ample residence. Within weeks of his divorce to Anne of Cleves, Henry married the very young Catherine Howard, a first cousin of Anne Boleyn, in a private marriage on July 28, 1540. Henry, 49, and Catherine, 19, started out a happy pair. Henry was now dealing with tremendous weight gain and a bad leg, and his new wife gave him zest for life. He repaid her with lavish gifts. Happiness would not last long for the couple. Catherine began seeking the attention of men her own age—a tremendously dangerous endeavor for the queen of England. After an investigation into her behavior, she was deemed guilty of adultery. On February 13, 1542, Henry had Catherine executed on the Tower Green. Independent and well-educated, Catherine Parr was Henry's last and sixth wife; the pair were married in 1543. She was the daughter of Maud Green, a lady-in-waiting to Henry's first wife, Catherine of Aragon. Maud named her daughter after the queen; thus Henry's last wife was named after his first. Parr was a twice-made widow. The most well-documented incident of Catherine Parr's life was her effort to ban books, a truly horrible act under her husband's leadership that practically got her arrested. When Henry came to admonish her for her brash actions, she submitted to him, saying she was merely looking to create a circumstance when he could teach her the proper way to behave. Henry accepted the sentiment, either true or devised, saving her from a brutal end. King Henry VIII’s Children Mary Tudor, Henry’s first child to survive infancy with Queen Catherine, was born on February 18, 1516. Following the death of her half-brother Edward in 1553, Mary became the queen of England and ruled until her death in 1558. On September 7, 1533, Anne Boleyn gave birth to Henry VIII’s second daughter, Elizabeth. Although Elizabeth was born a princess, Henry eventually declared her illegitimate. After Mary Tudor’s death, Elizabeth was crowned as Queen Elizabeth I in 1558 and remained on the throne until her death in 1603. King Henry VIII’s only son, Edward, was born on October 12, 1537. Upon Henry’s death in 1547, Edward succeeded him as king at the tender age of 10 and ruled until his death in 1553. Henry VIII’s Death On January 28, 1547, at the age of 55, King Henry VIII of England died. As a middle-aged man, Henry became covered with pus-filled boils and possibly suffered from gout. A jousting accident opened a violent wound in his leg which ulcerated and left him unable to play sports. His eventual obesity required that he be moved with mechanical inventions. His habit of binge-eating highly fatty meats was perhaps a symptom of stress. A recent and credible theory suggests that he suffered from untreated type II diabetes. Henry VIII was interred in St. George's Chapel in Windsor Castle alongside his deceased third wife, Jane Seymour. Henry's only surviving son, Edward, inherited the throne, becoming Edward VI. Princesses Elizabeth and Mary waited in succession. We strive for accuracy and fairness. If you see something that doesn't look right, contact us!	2,448	ENGLISH	1
Virgil Solis or Virgilius Solis (1514 - 1 August 1562), a member of a prolific family of artists, was a German draughtsman and printmaker in engraving, etching and woodcut who worked in his native city of Nuremberg. His prints were sold separately (mainly the etchings and engravings) or formed the illustrations of books (normally the woodcuts); many prints signed by him are probably by assistants. After his death his widow married his assistant and continued the workshop into the early seventeenth century. His woodcuts illustrating Ovid were especially influential, though partly borrowing from earlier illustrations by the French artist Bernard Salomon. They were reprinted and copied in many different editions, in Latin and translations into various languages; the Ovid from which the illustration at right has been taken was printed at Frankfurt in 1581. He published an armorial of the Holy Roman Empire in 1555. Jost Amman was an assistant of Solis' before starting his own workshop. Solis eventually died in Nuremberg. Eduard von Ubisch wrote a comprehensive description of Solis' life and work in relation to the Bible images in 1889.	<urn:uuid:582a201c-cce8-432b-af27-0c7d2ad2eea3>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	http://popflock.com/learn?s=Virgil_Solis	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250601040.47/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120224950-20200121013950-00022.warc.gz	en	0.989874	248	3.328125	3	[ 0.287570983171463, 0.42066702246665955, 0.349124550819397, 0.248801127076149, 0.08472064137458801, -0.23443634808063507, -0.2195524126291275, 0.6229935884475708, -0.02529997192323208, -0.3118129074573517, -0.41288912296295166, -0.6190037131309509, 0.015621750615537167, 0.28944817185401917,...	3	Virgil Solis or Virgilius Solis (1514 - 1 August 1562), a member of a prolific family of artists, was a German draughtsman and printmaker in engraving, etching and woodcut who worked in his native city of Nuremberg. His prints were sold separately (mainly the etchings and engravings) or formed the illustrations of books (normally the woodcuts); many prints signed by him are probably by assistants. After his death his widow married his assistant and continued the workshop into the early seventeenth century. His woodcuts illustrating Ovid were especially influential, though partly borrowing from earlier illustrations by the French artist Bernard Salomon. They were reprinted and copied in many different editions, in Latin and translations into various languages; the Ovid from which the illustration at right has been taken was printed at Frankfurt in 1581. He published an armorial of the Holy Roman Empire in 1555. Jost Amman was an assistant of Solis' before starting his own workshop. Solis eventually died in Nuremberg. Eduard von Ubisch wrote a comprehensive description of Solis' life and work in relation to the Bible images in 1889.	263	ENGLISH	1
Who built the Colosseum? Construction of Colosseum began under the rule of Emperor Vespasian around 70-72 AD. By the time of his death, in 79, it was completed up to the third story. Vespasian son Titus completed the construction in the year 80. It underwent several changes during the region of Domitian, also known as the Flavian, and was therefore called the Flavian Amphitheater. The construction of the Colosseum was financed from spoils taken during the Siege of Jerusalem. Jewish prisoners undertook the majority of the manual labor . But for the more specialized tasks, Emperor Vespasian hired a team of professional Roman artists, painters, builders, and engineers. Where is Colosseum located?The Colosseum is in the valley between Palatine, Esquiline and Caelian Hills. In an area that had previously been part of the imposing Domus Aurea, a complex built by Emperor Nero, after the Great Fire of Rome in 64. The Domus Aurea palace was surrounded by pavilions, gardens, and porches, with the colossal bronze statue of Nero, commonly known as “Colossus of Nero“ in the vestibule. Although the majority of Domus Aurea was destructed, the Colossus was preserved and eventually moved on a place outside the Flavian Amphitheater. It is believed that the name Colosseum originated from the statue of Nero. You can see the Colosseum location map here. The primary purpose of the Colosseum was to satisfy the public enthusiasm for games and spectacles. What was Colosseum used for? The Colosseum was built primarily for hosting gladiatorial games as well as for other various events. The games, also called “munera”, were typically organized by private individuals rather than the state – first as the religious ceremonies and after as the demonstration of family prestige and power. They became very popular due to political reasons. Romans from aristocratic class organized games for the plebeians to get their favor (and the votes). Apart from “munera”, which represents a battle between two men, very popular were “venationes” which set men against animals. For this purpose, a vast number of animals were imported from Africa. The gladiators were free Romans, slaves, condemned criminals, or prisoners of war. In case that gladiator won several fights, he had the right to ask the emperor for his liberty. As a sign of the accepted request, the fighter would get a wooden sword, which represented his liberty and a promise that he would never have to fight again. Colosseum was not used just for Gladiator contestsBeside gladiator contest, the Colosseum was often a place of open execution performed in a way inspired by the mythology. Beasts would eat convicts, or they would be burned to death. Also, in the Colosseum were held executions, dramas based on Classical mythology, mock battles, and re-enactments of famous battles. For a mock sea battle, the Colosseum would be flooded with water. It is assumed that a hydraulic pump was used to flood the arena quickly. On the other hand, Emperors usually organized shows to celebrate their victories in battles. One of the most famous was a Trajan’s celebration from 107 AD of his success in Dacia. Festival lasted for 123 days and involved more than 10,000 gladiators and 11,000 animals. If you want to visit check the best deals for Colosseum tickets here. The shows at the Colosseum were held until the 6th century AD when the costs became too high to justify the expenses, and the public’s interest had changed. Over the centuries, it has been reused for different purposes, even as a material quarry. Today it is the symbol of Rome and one of the most visited archaeological sites in the world.	<urn:uuid:f2e9b5f4-93fb-4ade-a6c8-a23a538d6e73>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://romecolosseumtickets.tours/colosseum-history-rome/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251687725.76/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126043644-20200126073644-00126.warc.gz	en	0.985797	834	3.765625	4	[ -0.28116893768310547, 0.021675920113921165, 0.49847203493118286, 0.11401883512735367, -0.2203158587217331, -0.11966812610626221, -0.04386383295059204, -0.12382102012634277, 0.28031691908836365, -0.41293734312057495, -0.19756218791007996, -0.7268573045730591, -0.00842336006462574, 0.2647327...	7	Who built the Colosseum? Construction of Colosseum began under the rule of Emperor Vespasian around 70-72 AD. By the time of his death, in 79, it was completed up to the third story. Vespasian son Titus completed the construction in the year 80. It underwent several changes during the region of Domitian, also known as the Flavian, and was therefore called the Flavian Amphitheater. The construction of the Colosseum was financed from spoils taken during the Siege of Jerusalem. Jewish prisoners undertook the majority of the manual labor . But for the more specialized tasks, Emperor Vespasian hired a team of professional Roman artists, painters, builders, and engineers. Where is Colosseum located?The Colosseum is in the valley between Palatine, Esquiline and Caelian Hills. In an area that had previously been part of the imposing Domus Aurea, a complex built by Emperor Nero, after the Great Fire of Rome in 64. The Domus Aurea palace was surrounded by pavilions, gardens, and porches, with the colossal bronze statue of Nero, commonly known as “Colossus of Nero“ in the vestibule. Although the majority of Domus Aurea was destructed, the Colossus was preserved and eventually moved on a place outside the Flavian Amphitheater. It is believed that the name Colosseum originated from the statue of Nero. You can see the Colosseum location map here. The primary purpose of the Colosseum was to satisfy the public enthusiasm for games and spectacles. What was Colosseum used for? The Colosseum was built primarily for hosting gladiatorial games as well as for other various events. The games, also called “munera”, were typically organized by private individuals rather than the state – first as the religious ceremonies and after as the demonstration of family prestige and power. They became very popular due to political reasons. Romans from aristocratic class organized games for the plebeians to get their favor (and the votes). Apart from “munera”, which represents a battle between two men, very popular were “venationes” which set men against animals. For this purpose, a vast number of animals were imported from Africa. The gladiators were free Romans, slaves, condemned criminals, or prisoners of war. In case that gladiator won several fights, he had the right to ask the emperor for his liberty. As a sign of the accepted request, the fighter would get a wooden sword, which represented his liberty and a promise that he would never have to fight again. Colosseum was not used just for Gladiator contestsBeside gladiator contest, the Colosseum was often a place of open execution performed in a way inspired by the mythology. Beasts would eat convicts, or they would be burned to death. Also, in the Colosseum were held executions, dramas based on Classical mythology, mock battles, and re-enactments of famous battles. For a mock sea battle, the Colosseum would be flooded with water. It is assumed that a hydraulic pump was used to flood the arena quickly. On the other hand, Emperors usually organized shows to celebrate their victories in battles. One of the most famous was a Trajan’s celebration from 107 AD of his success in Dacia. Festival lasted for 123 days and involved more than 10,000 gladiators and 11,000 animals. If you want to visit check the best deals for Colosseum tickets here. The shows at the Colosseum were held until the 6th century AD when the costs became too high to justify the expenses, and the public’s interest had changed. Over the centuries, it has been reused for different purposes, even as a material quarry. Today it is the symbol of Rome and one of the most visited archaeological sites in the world.	836	ENGLISH	1
Eurydice was a nymph in Greek mythology, one of the daughters of the god Apollo. She was married to Orpheus , a legendary musician and poet. After their marriage, Eurydice was pursued by Aristaeus ; in her effort to evade him, she stepped on a snake, she was bitten and died. Orpheus , devastated, started playing such a mournful melody on his lyre that the nymphs and gods wept in pain; they advised him to search for Eurydice in the Underworld and bring her back. Passing through the Gates of the Underworld, his singing and his melody touched even the hearts of the God of the Underworld, Hades , and his wife, Persephone. Articles from Britannica Encyclopedias for elementary and high school students. Orpheus Chaconne The historian William Mitford wrote in that the very earliest form of a higher and more cohesive ancient Greek religion was manifest in the Orphic poems. See also: Orpheus and Eurydice. Orpheus became famous because of his poems and his songs, excelling everyone in the beauty of his verse and music. Roman Orpheus wife mosaica very common subject. Since his love was not "true"—meaning he was Orpheus wife willing to die for it—he was punished by the deities, first by giving him only the apparition of his former wife in Amateur radio mics underworld and then by being killed by women. Orpheus in the Middle Ages. Orpheus wife. How It (Supposedly) Went Down Main article: Argonautica. Having descended to the UnderworldOrpheus accompanied his words with the music of the lyre, and it is told that Orpheus wife only the spirits wept but wief also the ERINYES were wet with tears. Orpheus took part in Orpheus wife adventure and used his skills to aid his companions. To this curious and interesting fact, abundant testimonies remain. Orpheus found his wife's body and due to his grief, started singing the most mournful songs. Studi e testi per il 'Corpus dei papiri filosofici greci e latini'. The myth of Orpheus and Eurydice is one of the most famous and beloved Greek myths. - Orpheus , ancient Greek legendary hero endowed with superhuman musical skills. - Eurydice was the wife of Orpheus , who loved her dearly; on their wedding day, he played joyful songs as his bride danced through the meadow. By dint of his music and singing, he could charm the wild beasts, coax the trees and rocks into dance, even arrest the course of rivers. The best known Orpheus myth is about his love to Eurydice, described in several musical masterpieces. When Orpheus' wife, Eurydice, was killed he went to the underworld to bring Orpheus wife back. Fascinated by the beauty of his music the god of the underworld allowed Eurydice to return to the world of Orpheuw living. Although warned Orpheus wife looking back, he did so anyway and lost his beloved wife once again. He Orpheus wife interest in women after that event, but they did not lose interest in him. Thus, a group of angry women attacked him with their bare hands, and tore him to pieces. Orpheus' head floated down the river, still singing, and came to rest on the isle of Lesbos. The mysterious power of his music today is shown in the power of science. Wofe indestructibility Orpheus wife his music symbolizes the will power needed to Orpheu significant results in life, as well as in medical research. Design and construction of this web Orpheus wife is a present of University of Zagreb, Croatia. Conference presentation. Belgrade conference Lausanne Conference. Home Orpheus Legend. About us. Conferences wige workshops. European PhD programmes. Contact Very young boy sexy. Mission statement. Executive Committee. News and events. Orpheus legend. Eurydice was the wife of Orpheus, who loved her dearly; on their wedding day, he played joyful songs as his bride danced through the meadow. One day, Aristaeus saw and pursued Eurydice, who stepped on a viper, was bitten, and died instantly. Orpheus, ancient Greek legendary hero endowed with superhuman musical skills. He became the patron of a religious movement based on sacred writings said to be his own. Traditionally, Orpheus was the son of a Muse (probably Calliope, the patron of epic poetry) and Oeagrus, a king of Thrace (other versions give Apollo).According to some legends, Apollo gave Orpheus his first lyre. Ready? Go. Orpheus and Eurydice get married, but later that night, Eurydice is bit by a snake and dies. So far, so terrible. Overcome with grief, Orpheus travels to the Underworld to bring her back to life. He convinces Hades and Persephone to let Eurydice go, but her release comes with a catch. Orpheus wife. Find a Greek Myth See Article History. Terms and Conditions Privacy Statement. Facts Matter. It is also told that when the women who killed Orpheus wished to wash off in a river the blood-stains, the river sank underground, not wishing to lend its waters to cleanse manslaughter. Eos Helios Selene. His head and lyre, still singing mournful songs, floated down the River Hebrus into the sea, after which the winds and waves carried them to the island of Lesbos , at the city of Methymna; there, the inhabitants buried his head and a shrine was built in his honour near Antissa ; there his oracle prophesied, until it was silenced by Apollo. This article appears to contain trivial, minor, or unrelated references to popular culture. Plato in particular tells of a class of vagrant beggar-priests who would go about offering purifications to the rich, a clatter of books by Orpheus and Musaeus in tow. Of course Eurydice was behind him, but as a shadow, waiting to come to light to become a full woman again. Non-necessary Non-necessary. Orpheus , ancient Greek legendary hero endowed with superhuman musical skills. Orpheus and Eurydice get married, but later that night, Eurydice is bit by a snake and dies. So far, so terrible. Overcome with grief, Orpheus travels to the Underworld to bring her back to life. He convinces Hades and Persephone to let Eurydice go, but her release comes with a catch: Eurydice must walk behind him as they ascend to the upper world, and Orpheus is forbidden from looking at her. Seems easy enough, right? Unfortunately, Orpheus is overcome with passion just as they reach the exit. He turns to look at Eurydice and she is immediately sent back to the Underworld — forever. Orpheus is devastated again and roams around Greece playing sad songs.	<urn:uuid:ce5ff18b-5cb4-4df2-84d7-0f534227dfa2>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://raulperrone.com/cum-shot/orpheus-wife.php	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250605075.24/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121192553-20200121221553-00434.warc.gz	en	0.982211	1,471	3.4375	3	[ -0.042343683540821075, -0.00697882566601038, 0.0710921511054039, -0.06740981340408325, -0.6256409883499146, -0.1389065384864807, 0.22683078050613403, 0.3644624352455139, 0.1958606243133545, -0.15299275517463684, -0.21896913647651672, 0.14221632480621338, 0.03087090328335762, 0.182452738285...	1	Eurydice was a nymph in Greek mythology, one of the daughters of the god Apollo. She was married to Orpheus , a legendary musician and poet. After their marriage, Eurydice was pursued by Aristaeus ; in her effort to evade him, she stepped on a snake, she was bitten and died. Orpheus , devastated, started playing such a mournful melody on his lyre that the nymphs and gods wept in pain; they advised him to search for Eurydice in the Underworld and bring her back. Passing through the Gates of the Underworld, his singing and his melody touched even the hearts of the God of the Underworld, Hades , and his wife, Persephone. Articles from Britannica Encyclopedias for elementary and high school students. Orpheus Chaconne The historian William Mitford wrote in that the very earliest form of a higher and more cohesive ancient Greek religion was manifest in the Orphic poems. See also: Orpheus and Eurydice. Orpheus became famous because of his poems and his songs, excelling everyone in the beauty of his verse and music. Roman Orpheus wife mosaica very common subject. Since his love was not "true"—meaning he was Orpheus wife willing to die for it—he was punished by the deities, first by giving him only the apparition of his former wife in Amateur radio mics underworld and then by being killed by women. Orpheus in the Middle Ages. Orpheus wife. How It (Supposedly) Went Down Main article: Argonautica. Having descended to the UnderworldOrpheus accompanied his words with the music of the lyre, and it is told that Orpheus wife only the spirits wept but wief also the ERINYES were wet with tears. Orpheus took part in Orpheus wife adventure and used his skills to aid his companions. To this curious and interesting fact, abundant testimonies remain. Orpheus found his wife's body and due to his grief, started singing the most mournful songs. Studi e testi per il 'Corpus dei papiri filosofici greci e latini'. The myth of Orpheus and Eurydice is one of the most famous and beloved Greek myths. - Orpheus , ancient Greek legendary hero endowed with superhuman musical skills. - Eurydice was the wife of Orpheus , who loved her dearly; on their wedding day, he played joyful songs as his bride danced through the meadow. By dint of his music and singing, he could charm the wild beasts, coax the trees and rocks into dance, even arrest the course of rivers. The best known Orpheus myth is about his love to Eurydice, described in several musical masterpieces. When Orpheus' wife, Eurydice, was killed he went to the underworld to bring Orpheus wife back. Fascinated by the beauty of his music the god of the underworld allowed Eurydice to return to the world of Orpheuw living. Although warned Orpheus wife looking back, he did so anyway and lost his beloved wife once again. He Orpheus wife interest in women after that event, but they did not lose interest in him. Thus, a group of angry women attacked him with their bare hands, and tore him to pieces. Orpheus' head floated down the river, still singing, and came to rest on the isle of Lesbos. The mysterious power of his music today is shown in the power of science. Wofe indestructibility Orpheus wife his music symbolizes the will power needed to Orpheu significant results in life, as well as in medical research. Design and construction of this web Orpheus wife is a present of University of Zagreb, Croatia. Conference presentation. Belgrade conference Lausanne Conference. Home Orpheus Legend. About us. Conferences wige workshops. European PhD programmes. Contact Very young boy sexy. Mission statement. Executive Committee. News and events. Orpheus legend. Eurydice was the wife of Orpheus, who loved her dearly; on their wedding day, he played joyful songs as his bride danced through the meadow. One day, Aristaeus saw and pursued Eurydice, who stepped on a viper, was bitten, and died instantly. Orpheus, ancient Greek legendary hero endowed with superhuman musical skills. He became the patron of a religious movement based on sacred writings said to be his own. Traditionally, Orpheus was the son of a Muse (probably Calliope, the patron of epic poetry) and Oeagrus, a king of Thrace (other versions give Apollo).According to some legends, Apollo gave Orpheus his first lyre. Ready? Go. Orpheus and Eurydice get married, but later that night, Eurydice is bit by a snake and dies. So far, so terrible. Overcome with grief, Orpheus travels to the Underworld to bring her back to life. He convinces Hades and Persephone to let Eurydice go, but her release comes with a catch. Orpheus wife. Find a Greek Myth See Article History. Terms and Conditions Privacy Statement. Facts Matter. It is also told that when the women who killed Orpheus wished to wash off in a river the blood-stains, the river sank underground, not wishing to lend its waters to cleanse manslaughter. Eos Helios Selene. His head and lyre, still singing mournful songs, floated down the River Hebrus into the sea, after which the winds and waves carried them to the island of Lesbos , at the city of Methymna; there, the inhabitants buried his head and a shrine was built in his honour near Antissa ; there his oracle prophesied, until it was silenced by Apollo. This article appears to contain trivial, minor, or unrelated references to popular culture. Plato in particular tells of a class of vagrant beggar-priests who would go about offering purifications to the rich, a clatter of books by Orpheus and Musaeus in tow. Of course Eurydice was behind him, but as a shadow, waiting to come to light to become a full woman again. Non-necessary Non-necessary. Orpheus , ancient Greek legendary hero endowed with superhuman musical skills. Orpheus and Eurydice get married, but later that night, Eurydice is bit by a snake and dies. So far, so terrible. Overcome with grief, Orpheus travels to the Underworld to bring her back to life. He convinces Hades and Persephone to let Eurydice go, but her release comes with a catch: Eurydice must walk behind him as they ascend to the upper world, and Orpheus is forbidden from looking at her. Seems easy enough, right? Unfortunately, Orpheus is overcome with passion just as they reach the exit. He turns to look at Eurydice and she is immediately sent back to the Underworld — forever. Orpheus is devastated again and roams around Greece playing sad songs.	1,491	ENGLISH	1
The camp was officially known as Camp Sumter by the Confederate government. The Confederates established Andersonville on February 24th 1864. Andersonville was originally built on 17 acres of land, it was later expanded to 27 acres. The camp was surrounded by a stockade wall made of pine logs eighteen feet high with sentry boxes located every 30 yards. There was also a twelve foot outer wall. There was artillery located in each of the four corners of the camp which could cover the entire camp in case of a revolt. There was also a dead-line located 17 feet from the main wall of the stockade. This was used to keep the prisoners away from the stockade wall. Prisoners were forbidden to go past this line, if they did they were immediately shot without warning. The interior of the camp where the prisoners were held was 1,540 feet long and 750 feet wide. The camp was built to hold a maximum of 10,000 prisoners. Living Conditions at Andersonville Andersonville was built on a very good piece of land. This land was perfectly suitable to hold a large number of men for an extended period of time. It was located in a good climate, and had plenty of clean flowing water provided by a stream that flowed through the camp. It also had small trees that could afford people protection from the sun. When the camp opened it easily held the first Union prisoners. This did not last long as more and more prisoners began to arrive. In April 1864 the camp reached it’s capacity of 10,000 men and it continued to rise. In August 1864 the camp was holding 32,899 prisoners. This was far beyond anything the camp could sustain. The trees were gone, cut down by the prisoners and used to fuel fires or to make huts for the men to live in. With the removal of the trees the men had no protection from the hot Georgia sun. They resorted to digging holes in the ground and living in them covered by makeshift tents. The clean water from the stream that flowed through the camp became a slow running sludge filled cesspool with all sorts of disgusting things such as human excrement, filth, maggots and other vile things. It was not fit for drinking and it spread disease throughout the entire camp. There were also an abundance of fleas and mosquitoes which attacked the men at night leaving them covered with large bite marks all over their faces and bodies. This made life miserable for not only the prisoners but the Confederate guards as well. Food at Andersonville Food was scarce in the camp. The Union’s constant attacks made life very difficult for the entire Confederacy. The Union army burned and looted anything of any value they came across, they had a naval blockade which cut off any outside shipments of food or medicine, and they halted all large scale prisoner exchanges since the Confederates would not agree to exchange black soldiers. These things made it virtually impossible for the Confederacy to properly take care of it’s prisoners. The men in Andersonville were on a starvation diet. The Confederate authorities could barely provide adequate provisions for their own troops. They did not take much interest in providing food for the prisoners. The Confederate government saw the prisoners as aiding the federal government who were trying to inflict great pain on the people of the south, so they were not terribly sympathetic to their problems. Prisoner Run Government Within the confines of Andersonville the Confederates did not bother the men, they did not enforce laws, they did not regulate anything and they did not protect the prisoners. The Confederate army was stretched very thin at this point in the war and did not have the manpower to properly man prisoner of war camps. The guards that were there generally were unfit for regular military service. They were either too old, too young, or unable to fight due to wounds they received previously. The Confederate guards simply stood in their guard towers and oversaw the camp. Their only job was to put down a revolt and make sure no prisoners escaped. The prisoners were left to govern and protect themselves. A few prisoners in the camp were very bad people, which resulted in a lot of crime. These men would prey on the weak and sick, they would steal from them, beat them, and even murder them just to obtain a small piece of food or clothing. People were even killed at night while they slept. This small group of prisoners terrorized the rest of the men in the camp. In July 1864 the other prisoners rose up against this group. They attacked and captured six of the worst offenders and put them on trial. These men were found guilty of theft and murder and were condemned to death. The six men were all hanged on the same day while thousands of their fellow inmates watched their execution. The Confederates did nothing to intervene and allowed the trial and execution to take place without any interference. Andersonville Prisoners Join the Confederate Army In the middle of 1864 the Confederate government desperately needed more men. They offered the Union prisoners the chance to join the Confederate army. In return they would be released from prison, given food, clothing, and treated like other Confederate soldiers. Some Union prisoners took this offer and joined the Confederate ranks. These men joined the Confederate army for two reasons. First it gave them a great opportunity to get out of the miserable conditions of the camp, a place where they were unlikely to survive until the end of the war. Second it gave these Union prisoners a chance to escape. On December 28th 1864 the Battle of Egypt Station in Mississippi took place. The night before the battle six rebel soldiers went over to the Union line and surrendered. They claimed to be Union soldiers that were captured and sent to Andersonville. They had joined the Confederate army in order to escape. They told their captors that many of the Confederate soldiers the Union would be fighting the next day were also prisoners who joined the Confederate army. These men explained that the Confederates would not put up much of a fight and would surrender quickly. The men were eager to rejoin their regiments and continue the fight against the Confederates. At the beginning of the battle on December 28th Union cavalry began to advance on the Confederate line. Confederate skirmishes opened fire on these troops killing three officers, twenty soldiers, and wounding 74 other troops. Responding to this attack Union cavalry charged the Confederates who quickly threw down their weapons and surrendered. 254 Confederate soldiers were taken prisoner. The Confederates immediately claimed to be Union soldiers who joined the rebel army in order to escape. It was determined after an investigation that these men did not intend to escape based on their actions during the battle. Since they were placed in front of the main Confederate line as skirmishers they could easily have entered Union lines and surrendered, which they did not do. They also took deliberate aim at Union soldiers killing and wounding them. If they truly intended to rejoin the Union army they would have intentionally missed when they fired. For these reasons they were charged with desertion. The six soldiers that surrendered the night before the battle were allowed to rejoin their old regiments since they were sincere in their efforts to escape the Confederacy and provided valuable information to Union authorities prior to the battle. Andersonville Commandant Henry Wirz Henry Wirz became commandant of Andersonville in April 1864. Henry Wirz was cruel and very tough with the prisoners under his command. He was responsible for the conditions in the camp, which were horrible. While not entirely his fault the blame still fell on him. Andersonville was liberated by Union troops and shutdown on May 22nd 1865. On August 23rd 1865 Henry Wirz was put on trial by the federal government. Many former Andersonville prisoners testified against Henry Wirz. They accused him of torturing and murdering inmates. He was even accused of having prisoners ripped apart by dogs. It is debatable whether these accusations were entirely true or not. Regardless Henry Wirz was found guilty of war crimes and sentenced to death. He was hanged on November 10th 1865 at the Old Capital Prison in Washington D.C. Total Death Toll at Andersonville More than 100 prisoners died per day as a result of a lack of food and the abundance of diseases such as diarrhea, dysentery, scurvy and many other ailments. Union prisoners were ordered to carry the bodies of their comrades outside of the wall. The bodies were then transported by cart a quarter mile away to a cemetery. The bodies were buried in trenches side by side about three feet deep. Wood was so scarce at the camp that coffins could not be made for the dead, so they were simply placed in a hole that was dug for them. On July 26th 1865 James M. Moore the assistant quartermaster for the United States army began the task of exhuming and identifying all of the bodies buried outside of the prison. The total number of Union soldiers that died at Andersonville prison camp was 12,912. Of these, 12,461 were identified. 451 could not be identified and were listed as unknown soldiers. Some of these men were murdered however the vast majority of them died from disease and starvation.	<urn:uuid:c7d0f975-67fb-4c0c-90eb-3b1010dee073>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.civilwaracademy.com/andersonville	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250592261.1/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118052321-20200118080321-00136.warc.gz	en	0.988823	1,905	4.03125	4	[ -0.3754309415817261, 0.3144974112510681, 0.4140191972255707, 0.3986153304576874, -0.14098739624023438, 0.052994079887866974, -0.06912564486265182, 0.10364827513694763, -0.4918041229248047, -0.16727271676063538, 0.4876837730407715, -0.411717027425766, 0.22463706135749817, 0.4514316320419311...	1	The camp was officially known as Camp Sumter by the Confederate government. The Confederates established Andersonville on February 24th 1864. Andersonville was originally built on 17 acres of land, it was later expanded to 27 acres. The camp was surrounded by a stockade wall made of pine logs eighteen feet high with sentry boxes located every 30 yards. There was also a twelve foot outer wall. There was artillery located in each of the four corners of the camp which could cover the entire camp in case of a revolt. There was also a dead-line located 17 feet from the main wall of the stockade. This was used to keep the prisoners away from the stockade wall. Prisoners were forbidden to go past this line, if they did they were immediately shot without warning. The interior of the camp where the prisoners were held was 1,540 feet long and 750 feet wide. The camp was built to hold a maximum of 10,000 prisoners. Living Conditions at Andersonville Andersonville was built on a very good piece of land. This land was perfectly suitable to hold a large number of men for an extended period of time. It was located in a good climate, and had plenty of clean flowing water provided by a stream that flowed through the camp. It also had small trees that could afford people protection from the sun. When the camp opened it easily held the first Union prisoners. This did not last long as more and more prisoners began to arrive. In April 1864 the camp reached it’s capacity of 10,000 men and it continued to rise. In August 1864 the camp was holding 32,899 prisoners. This was far beyond anything the camp could sustain. The trees were gone, cut down by the prisoners and used to fuel fires or to make huts for the men to live in. With the removal of the trees the men had no protection from the hot Georgia sun. They resorted to digging holes in the ground and living in them covered by makeshift tents. The clean water from the stream that flowed through the camp became a slow running sludge filled cesspool with all sorts of disgusting things such as human excrement, filth, maggots and other vile things. It was not fit for drinking and it spread disease throughout the entire camp. There were also an abundance of fleas and mosquitoes which attacked the men at night leaving them covered with large bite marks all over their faces and bodies. This made life miserable for not only the prisoners but the Confederate guards as well. Food at Andersonville Food was scarce in the camp. The Union’s constant attacks made life very difficult for the entire Confederacy. The Union army burned and looted anything of any value they came across, they had a naval blockade which cut off any outside shipments of food or medicine, and they halted all large scale prisoner exchanges since the Confederates would not agree to exchange black soldiers. These things made it virtually impossible for the Confederacy to properly take care of it’s prisoners. The men in Andersonville were on a starvation diet. The Confederate authorities could barely provide adequate provisions for their own troops. They did not take much interest in providing food for the prisoners. The Confederate government saw the prisoners as aiding the federal government who were trying to inflict great pain on the people of the south, so they were not terribly sympathetic to their problems. Prisoner Run Government Within the confines of Andersonville the Confederates did not bother the men, they did not enforce laws, they did not regulate anything and they did not protect the prisoners. The Confederate army was stretched very thin at this point in the war and did not have the manpower to properly man prisoner of war camps. The guards that were there generally were unfit for regular military service. They were either too old, too young, or unable to fight due to wounds they received previously. The Confederate guards simply stood in their guard towers and oversaw the camp. Their only job was to put down a revolt and make sure no prisoners escaped. The prisoners were left to govern and protect themselves. A few prisoners in the camp were very bad people, which resulted in a lot of crime. These men would prey on the weak and sick, they would steal from them, beat them, and even murder them just to obtain a small piece of food or clothing. People were even killed at night while they slept. This small group of prisoners terrorized the rest of the men in the camp. In July 1864 the other prisoners rose up against this group. They attacked and captured six of the worst offenders and put them on trial. These men were found guilty of theft and murder and were condemned to death. The six men were all hanged on the same day while thousands of their fellow inmates watched their execution. The Confederates did nothing to intervene and allowed the trial and execution to take place without any interference. Andersonville Prisoners Join the Confederate Army In the middle of 1864 the Confederate government desperately needed more men. They offered the Union prisoners the chance to join the Confederate army. In return they would be released from prison, given food, clothing, and treated like other Confederate soldiers. Some Union prisoners took this offer and joined the Confederate ranks. These men joined the Confederate army for two reasons. First it gave them a great opportunity to get out of the miserable conditions of the camp, a place where they were unlikely to survive until the end of the war. Second it gave these Union prisoners a chance to escape. On December 28th 1864 the Battle of Egypt Station in Mississippi took place. The night before the battle six rebel soldiers went over to the Union line and surrendered. They claimed to be Union soldiers that were captured and sent to Andersonville. They had joined the Confederate army in order to escape. They told their captors that many of the Confederate soldiers the Union would be fighting the next day were also prisoners who joined the Confederate army. These men explained that the Confederates would not put up much of a fight and would surrender quickly. The men were eager to rejoin their regiments and continue the fight against the Confederates. At the beginning of the battle on December 28th Union cavalry began to advance on the Confederate line. Confederate skirmishes opened fire on these troops killing three officers, twenty soldiers, and wounding 74 other troops. Responding to this attack Union cavalry charged the Confederates who quickly threw down their weapons and surrendered. 254 Confederate soldiers were taken prisoner. The Confederates immediately claimed to be Union soldiers who joined the rebel army in order to escape. It was determined after an investigation that these men did not intend to escape based on their actions during the battle. Since they were placed in front of the main Confederate line as skirmishers they could easily have entered Union lines and surrendered, which they did not do. They also took deliberate aim at Union soldiers killing and wounding them. If they truly intended to rejoin the Union army they would have intentionally missed when they fired. For these reasons they were charged with desertion. The six soldiers that surrendered the night before the battle were allowed to rejoin their old regiments since they were sincere in their efforts to escape the Confederacy and provided valuable information to Union authorities prior to the battle. Andersonville Commandant Henry Wirz Henry Wirz became commandant of Andersonville in April 1864. Henry Wirz was cruel and very tough with the prisoners under his command. He was responsible for the conditions in the camp, which were horrible. While not entirely his fault the blame still fell on him. Andersonville was liberated by Union troops and shutdown on May 22nd 1865. On August 23rd 1865 Henry Wirz was put on trial by the federal government. Many former Andersonville prisoners testified against Henry Wirz. They accused him of torturing and murdering inmates. He was even accused of having prisoners ripped apart by dogs. It is debatable whether these accusations were entirely true or not. Regardless Henry Wirz was found guilty of war crimes and sentenced to death. He was hanged on November 10th 1865 at the Old Capital Prison in Washington D.C. Total Death Toll at Andersonville More than 100 prisoners died per day as a result of a lack of food and the abundance of diseases such as diarrhea, dysentery, scurvy and many other ailments. Union prisoners were ordered to carry the bodies of their comrades outside of the wall. The bodies were then transported by cart a quarter mile away to a cemetery. The bodies were buried in trenches side by side about three feet deep. Wood was so scarce at the camp that coffins could not be made for the dead, so they were simply placed in a hole that was dug for them. On July 26th 1865 James M. Moore the assistant quartermaster for the United States army began the task of exhuming and identifying all of the bodies buried outside of the prison. The total number of Union soldiers that died at Andersonville prison camp was 12,912. Of these, 12,461 were identified. 451 could not be identified and were listed as unknown soldiers. Some of these men were murdered however the vast majority of them died from disease and starvation.	1,937	ENGLISH	1
Musical Notation is the system of symbols used to describe a music. History of Musical Notation The ancestors of modern symbolic music notation originated in the Catholic church, as monks developed methods to put plainchant (sacred songs) to paper. The earliest of these ancestral systems, from the 8th century, did not originally utilise a staff, and used neums (or neuma or pneuma), a system of dots and strokes that were placed above the text. Although capable of expressing considerable musical complexity, they could not exactly express pitch or time and served mainly as a reminder to one who already knew the tune, rather than a means by which one who had never heard the tune could sing it exactly at sight. Various modifications were made to address this issue, but the breakthrough came with the staff notation system of Guido of Arezzo. In Guido's system, each staff consisted of 4 horizontal lines. The vertical positions of each mark on the staff indicated which pitch or pitches it represented (pitches were derived from a musical mode, or key). Although the 4-line staff has remained in use until the present day for plainchant, for other types of music, staffs with differing numbers of lines have been used at various times and places for various instruments. The modern system of a universal standard 5-line staff was first adopted in France, and became widely used by the 16th century (although the use of staffs with other numbers of lines was still widespread well into the 17th century). Because the neum system arose from the need to notate songs, exact timing was initially not a particular issue as the music would generally follow the natural rhythms of the Latin language. However, by the 10th century a system of representing up to four note lengths had been developed. These lengths were relative rather than absolute, and dependeded on the duration of the neighboring notes. It was not until the 14th century that something like the present system of fixed note lengths arose. Starting in the 15th century, vertical bar lines were used to divide the staff into sections. These did not initially divide the music into measures of equal length (as most music then was far less rhythmic than in later periods), but appear to have been introduced as an aid to the eye for "lining up" notes on different staffs that were to be played or sung at the same time. The use of regular measures became commonplace by the end of the 17th century.	<urn:uuid:ea3d4c98-14c5-48f5-bca8-5da5a5750928>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://cunnan.lochac.sca.org/index.php/Musical_notation	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251728207.68/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127205148-20200127235148-00513.warc.gz	en	0.985179	500	3.953125	4	[ -0.47905781865119934, -0.1859971433877945, 0.20061957836151123, -0.3355481028556824, -0.5956932306289673, 0.24187318980693817, -0.3483511507511139, -0.025863606482744217, 0.5113534927368164, -0.2926277816295624, 0.12832330167293549, 0.200495645403862, 0.179643452167511, -0.2141735404729843...	3	Musical Notation is the system of symbols used to describe a music. History of Musical Notation The ancestors of modern symbolic music notation originated in the Catholic church, as monks developed methods to put plainchant (sacred songs) to paper. The earliest of these ancestral systems, from the 8th century, did not originally utilise a staff, and used neums (or neuma or pneuma), a system of dots and strokes that were placed above the text. Although capable of expressing considerable musical complexity, they could not exactly express pitch or time and served mainly as a reminder to one who already knew the tune, rather than a means by which one who had never heard the tune could sing it exactly at sight. Various modifications were made to address this issue, but the breakthrough came with the staff notation system of Guido of Arezzo. In Guido's system, each staff consisted of 4 horizontal lines. The vertical positions of each mark on the staff indicated which pitch or pitches it represented (pitches were derived from a musical mode, or key). Although the 4-line staff has remained in use until the present day for plainchant, for other types of music, staffs with differing numbers of lines have been used at various times and places for various instruments. The modern system of a universal standard 5-line staff was first adopted in France, and became widely used by the 16th century (although the use of staffs with other numbers of lines was still widespread well into the 17th century). Because the neum system arose from the need to notate songs, exact timing was initially not a particular issue as the music would generally follow the natural rhythms of the Latin language. However, by the 10th century a system of representing up to four note lengths had been developed. These lengths were relative rather than absolute, and dependeded on the duration of the neighboring notes. It was not until the 14th century that something like the present system of fixed note lengths arose. Starting in the 15th century, vertical bar lines were used to divide the staff into sections. These did not initially divide the music into measures of equal length (as most music then was far less rhythmic than in later periods), but appear to have been introduced as an aid to the eye for "lining up" notes on different staffs that were to be played or sung at the same time. The use of regular measures became commonplace by the end of the 17th century.	510	ENGLISH	1
By Webteam - 5th January 2019 6:02am The 5th of January 1066 The death of Edward the Confessor brought to an end a period of peace and stability in England, and presaged the violent conquest of the country by William of Normandy . Edward's reign had been relatively long by the standards of the time. He came to the throne in 1042 on the death of his half-brother Harthacanute, who had been deposed for a time by Harold Harefoot. Edward had spent 15 years in exile in Normandy, a time that seems to have had an enormous influence on him. He became more religious, his famous piety said to date from this period of his life. And he felt at ease with the Normans, making several Norman lords his close confidants when he became king, a fact resented by the English nobility. Robert of Jumièges, the Norman Bishop of London , became Archbishop of Canterbury against the express wishes of the powerful Godwin, Earl of Wessex. It may be that peace was able to prosper in England during Edward's reign because of his weakness. Earl Godwin of Wessex was the power in the land early in Edward's rule, and though he was forced in to exile with his family for a brief time the nobility pressured the king to let him return and to have his lands again. At this juncture some of the Normans who held sway over the king were forced out of his court. Edward's name was used for hundreds of years after his reign as a byword for justice in taxation — he was able to live off the income from his lands and other possessions, and so taxes at this time were reasonable — he stopped the collection of money for the Danegeld that had ceased long ago, another action that endeared him to the ordinary people of England. When Godwin died in 1053 his son Harold, Edward's brother-in-law, was thrust to the fore, leading the English army that suppressed a Welsh rising in 1063, and negotiating successfully with the rebels in Northumbria two years after that. It has been suggested that Edward took a vow of celibacy, and that his marriage to Edith, daughter of Earl Godwin, was childless because he kept his vow. We cannot know, but the fact is he had no son to follow him. To say that Edward left the succession unclear is a gross understatement. William Duke of Normandy had a claim as a distant relation, supposedly nominated by Edward (in a message William claimed was brought to him by Harold). Edgar Atheling, Edward's nephew, was nominated by him at another time, but he was a boy of 14 when Edward died. And Harold claimed the dying king had chosen him as successor on his deathbed. To make matters still more complicated, Harold's exiled brother Tostig also claimed Edward had chosen him. And the Dane Harald Hardrada also laid claim to the throne. The English were sick of Norman influence, and the Witan, the council of 60 Lords and Bishops that formally chose the king, came out for Harold, passing over the more justifiable claim of Edgar. Whatever their choice conflict would have arisen. Within months England was invaded in the north by Hardrada and Tostig, and in the south by William. Harold 's reign would be a short one. Tuesday 21st Jan Monday 20th Jan AMC Seville Room Methodist Meeting Rooms	<urn:uuid:1648335c-4a52-492a-8bd7-ccf06c9ef810>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.audlem.org/newsroom/headlines/on-this-day-5th-january.html	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250608062.57/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123011418-20200123040418-00120.warc.gz	en	0.992194	714	3.328125	3	[ -0.1728266477584839, 0.28535792231559753, 0.15211130678653717, -0.6191536784172058, -0.011578559875488281, -0.1690019816160202, 0.24749740958213806, -0.1820574700832367, 0.33491480350494385, -0.10302631556987762, -0.07385968416929245, -0.2692286968231201, 0.26682960987091064, 0.17400139570...	1	By Webteam - 5th January 2019 6:02am The 5th of January 1066 The death of Edward the Confessor brought to an end a period of peace and stability in England, and presaged the violent conquest of the country by William of Normandy . Edward's reign had been relatively long by the standards of the time. He came to the throne in 1042 on the death of his half-brother Harthacanute, who had been deposed for a time by Harold Harefoot. Edward had spent 15 years in exile in Normandy, a time that seems to have had an enormous influence on him. He became more religious, his famous piety said to date from this period of his life. And he felt at ease with the Normans, making several Norman lords his close confidants when he became king, a fact resented by the English nobility. Robert of Jumièges, the Norman Bishop of London , became Archbishop of Canterbury against the express wishes of the powerful Godwin, Earl of Wessex. It may be that peace was able to prosper in England during Edward's reign because of his weakness. Earl Godwin of Wessex was the power in the land early in Edward's rule, and though he was forced in to exile with his family for a brief time the nobility pressured the king to let him return and to have his lands again. At this juncture some of the Normans who held sway over the king were forced out of his court. Edward's name was used for hundreds of years after his reign as a byword for justice in taxation — he was able to live off the income from his lands and other possessions, and so taxes at this time were reasonable — he stopped the collection of money for the Danegeld that had ceased long ago, another action that endeared him to the ordinary people of England. When Godwin died in 1053 his son Harold, Edward's brother-in-law, was thrust to the fore, leading the English army that suppressed a Welsh rising in 1063, and negotiating successfully with the rebels in Northumbria two years after that. It has been suggested that Edward took a vow of celibacy, and that his marriage to Edith, daughter of Earl Godwin, was childless because he kept his vow. We cannot know, but the fact is he had no son to follow him. To say that Edward left the succession unclear is a gross understatement. William Duke of Normandy had a claim as a distant relation, supposedly nominated by Edward (in a message William claimed was brought to him by Harold). Edgar Atheling, Edward's nephew, was nominated by him at another time, but he was a boy of 14 when Edward died. And Harold claimed the dying king had chosen him as successor on his deathbed. To make matters still more complicated, Harold's exiled brother Tostig also claimed Edward had chosen him. And the Dane Harald Hardrada also laid claim to the throne. The English were sick of Norman influence, and the Witan, the council of 60 Lords and Bishops that formally chose the king, came out for Harold, passing over the more justifiable claim of Edgar. Whatever their choice conflict would have arisen. Within months England was invaded in the north by Hardrada and Tostig, and in the south by William. Harold 's reign would be a short one. Tuesday 21st Jan Monday 20th Jan AMC Seville Room Methodist Meeting Rooms	745	ENGLISH	1
President Thomas Jefferson held presidential office for two consecutive terms from 1801-1809. A "Renaissance Man" as many would say, Jefferson was a statesman, philosopher, scientist, architect, and lawyer. Ironically, Jefferson was a slaveholder as well. As the author of the Declaration of Independence, and the Statute for Religious Freedom, Jefferson is remembered as a great president, and for all of his great achievements and successful contributions to our country. He was a founder of the Democratic Party, and became one of the leading American architects of his time and designed the Virginia Capitol, the University of Virginia, and his own home, Monticello. Jefferson had a good-humored nature and was multi-lingual. He spoke French, Italian, Spanish, Greek, and Latin, but also studied some 40 American-Indian languages. The death of his wife and five of his six children left Jefferson with a deep sense of loneliness, and caused him to mourn. . President Andrew Jackson held office from 1829 - 1837. Jackson had little formal schooling and was orphaned at age 14, and later moved to Tennessee frontier and became a successful lawyer, land speculator, and planter, living on his estate, The Hermitage. Jackson was a general in the War of 1812, and was nicknamed "Old Hickory" because of his toughness. Like Jefferson, Jackson was also a founder of the Democratic Party. During Jackson's presidency, he disapproved of many actions by Congress. Jackson portrayed himself as a "man of the people", which won the support of many. (This group later became known as the Democratic Party.). Thomas Jefferson was born in Virginia in 1743. In 1760, when he was 16, he entered the College of William and Mary. In 1776 Thomas Jefferson was appointed to draft a formal Declaration of Independence (which officially declared the United States independent from Britain). At the young age of 33 Jefferson became chair of the committee and did most of the actual writing.	<urn:uuid:b6fb403b-efd3-41a4-9081-abe2ad722466>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.exampleessays.com/viewpaper/10012.html	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250601628.36/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121074002-20200121103002-00546.warc.gz	en	0.990742	408	3.953125	4	[ -0.24324050545692444, 0.45604220032691956, 0.39785706996917725, -0.3618617355823517, -0.39184609055519104, 0.2915681302547455, 0.31037068367004395, 0.058817457407712936, 0.20751497149467468, 0.30236661434173584, 0.3437991738319397, 0.17846962809562683, -0.08272036164999008, -0.002920858096...	4	President Thomas Jefferson held presidential office for two consecutive terms from 1801-1809. A "Renaissance Man" as many would say, Jefferson was a statesman, philosopher, scientist, architect, and lawyer. Ironically, Jefferson was a slaveholder as well. As the author of the Declaration of Independence, and the Statute for Religious Freedom, Jefferson is remembered as a great president, and for all of his great achievements and successful contributions to our country. He was a founder of the Democratic Party, and became one of the leading American architects of his time and designed the Virginia Capitol, the University of Virginia, and his own home, Monticello. Jefferson had a good-humored nature and was multi-lingual. He spoke French, Italian, Spanish, Greek, and Latin, but also studied some 40 American-Indian languages. The death of his wife and five of his six children left Jefferson with a deep sense of loneliness, and caused him to mourn. . President Andrew Jackson held office from 1829 - 1837. Jackson had little formal schooling and was orphaned at age 14, and later moved to Tennessee frontier and became a successful lawyer, land speculator, and planter, living on his estate, The Hermitage. Jackson was a general in the War of 1812, and was nicknamed "Old Hickory" because of his toughness. Like Jefferson, Jackson was also a founder of the Democratic Party. During Jackson's presidency, he disapproved of many actions by Congress. Jackson portrayed himself as a "man of the people", which won the support of many. (This group later became known as the Democratic Party.). Thomas Jefferson was born in Virginia in 1743. In 1760, when he was 16, he entered the College of William and Mary. In 1776 Thomas Jefferson was appointed to draft a formal Declaration of Independence (which officially declared the United States independent from Britain). At the young age of 33 Jefferson became chair of the committee and did most of the actual writing.	438	ENGLISH	1
In the play, Oedipus is one of the In the play, Oedipus is one of the major characters. He is depicted as a the man of swift and un-thoughtful of action and yet with great insight. In the beginning, it is visible that it is the traits that he possessed that made him an excellent leader who anticipates and acts as per the needs of his subjects. By the time, the citizens of Thebes request him to help them out with the plague that faced them; he had already sent Creon to the Oracle of Delphi to get advice. However, the swift action habit also sets the stage for his undoing as the play progresses. He tells a story of killing a band of travelers that had attempted to shove him off a three-way crossroad confirming his irrational behavior. At the start of Oedipus the King, Oedipus is incredibly confident and has good reasoning. He saved Thebes from the prevailing curse of the Sphinx and became king overnight. He proclaims his name loudly in a way to suggest that his name was in itself form of healing charm saying, “here I am myself, you all know me, the world knows me: I am Oedipus” (Dawe, 7-9). However, before the play ends, his name had been tainted and become a curse among the people. In fact in the Oedipus at Colonus, the leader of the chorus is terrified to hear his name and cries out in disbelief, “You, you are the man?” (Dawe, 47). Oedipus was a clear indication of a tragic hero. He has a clear tragic flaw that precipitates his sorrowful fate. Oedipus as the king of Thebes, he was not aware at the start of the play that he had murdered his biological father and married his biological mother, Jocasta. Soon after learning that it was he that had put the kingdom at such terrible risk, he blinds himself using a brooch. He also has a wound piercing through his ankles made by his father soon after his birth that had exposed him (Dawe, 12). This is echoed by his name that was translated as ‘swollen feet’. The tragedies befall him since his birth when he was thrown out and left for the dead by his father to the time that he runs away from where he was brought out fearing that he may murder the man he thought to be his father. He lands in the kingdom where his biological father rules and kills him even after the much effort to evade the fulfillment of the prophecy. The tragedies are what shapes the play and greatly influence the flow and the theme of the play (Dawe, 13). Oedipus is a man filled with pride, it is the character in him that makes the play takes a certain twist, and turns to support the theme set out by Sophocles. The character in Oedipus of being rational and filled with pride is what Sophocles exploits to advance the play. His pride allows Oedipus to disbelieve and defy the Gods by beginning to hunt for the source of the plague facing his kingdom instead of looking into himself (Gould, 480). In fact, some of his prideful sins occurred long before the beginning of the play. The greatest sin that Oedipus commits seems to take place when he kills a man at a crossroad following a fit of temper and that suggests that there are no deeds that go unpunished. Therefore, Oedipus had to pay the price for his sins. He has to pay the ultimate price for dismissing Teiresias’ judgment and the Oracle’s prophecy as another reminder that the Gods are infinitely of greater power than men (Gould, 482). Oedipus role in the play emphasized the Power of Fate among the Greeks. The Greeks acknowledged the role of fate as a reality outside the individual that shaped and determined the life of a human being. The character of Oedipus demonstrated the terrifying and unstoppable representation of after among the Greeks in the ancient times (Gould, 489). According to them, fate was the will of the gods that was an unstoppable reality revealed through ritual by the oracle at Delphi that spoke for Apollo in mysterious pronouncements. The promise of any form of prophecy also drew many, but the messages were usually indirect. From the character of Oedipus in the play, one can make out the conservative view held by Sophocles on augury and prophecy. It is because, the oracles in the play speak in an oblique manner and the tragedies that followed Oedipus indicated the power and the might of the gods throughout the play. It also indicated that one cannot run away from their fate. It is demonstrated by the way Oedipus tried to run away from who he thought was his father ion hearing the prophecy that he would kill his father only to land in another kingdom where his biological father ruled and fulfilled the prophecy by killing him. He tried running from his fate, but it followed him all the way (Thomas and Osborne, 69). Oedipus plays a pivotal role in expressing the theme and Sophocles intended the meaning of the play. Sophocles meant to remind the audience of the power of the gods. It was at a period that most people had begun losing faith in the Gods and thought that they were no longer operation or reigning over their lives. The role of Oedipus in the play works to emphasize the power of the Gods in the way he acted. In the play on his way as he was running away from a prophecy told of his killing his father, he ends up at a crossroad where he kills a man because of his irrationality and short temper. Then the character of Oedipus of irrational thought plays out to emphasize the theme and the intention of the play. He then goes ahead to Themes and tells the story of killing a man at the crossroad (Thomas and Osborne, 69). It is this story that seals his father because it turns out that the same man he had killed was his biological father, and he had to pay the price for it. Even with his charisma and power, he ends up blind as he inflicts it upon himself. The prophecies were all fulfilled through the character of Oedipus and hence demonstrating the power of the gods. The play also uses the character of Oedipus to emphasize on some on the need to have good morals. Sophocles uses irony when Oedipus becomes the one that leads the search for the people that had killed his father and yet it was he that had committed the crime. Moreover, he goes ahead to mock the blind prophet and yet he was the one that was blind by the end of the play and that he was blind to the truth that faced him. He could not see what the physically blind prophet could see. Moreover, his character is used to warn people of some of the traits such as pride since it is what leads to his downfall. He was once a well-poised leader and king whose name was respected and feared but later became the villain of the society with people not willing to hear of his name. He moves from being a king and fate follows him to his demise where he inflicts pain on himself by blinding himself by himself indicating regret and sorrow for his actions (Haque and Chowdhury). The misfortunes that follow Oedipus also play a significant role to warn the audience that there are no deeds that go unpunished. Oedipus even with his power and wisdom, went ahead to tell a story of how he killed a man due to his pride to one of his servants. He tried his best to conceal the act that he committed with the help of his mother and wife Jocasta who tries to convince everyone that a stranger killed her former husband (Haque and Chowdhury). However, it is the mistake made by Oedipus in telling the servant about his murder that sets the stage for his undoing since it turns out that at the crossroad, it was where his father was killed, and hence it was clear that he was the murderer. He ends up blinding himself in guilt, which indicated his punishment, and then his mother commits suicide as a way to indicate her pain and regret and guilt. The character of Oedipus also depicts a concept of Oedipus complex from the psychoanalytic theory by Sigmund Freud. According to this concept, the boy is fixated and sexually attracted to the mother while at the same time is jealous of the father and hence wants to compete for attention of the mother with the father. It is the concept depicted by the character of Oedipus whereby he kills his father and then goes ahead to marry a woman that was old enough to be his mother. Even with the awareness of such a prophecy, he acts irrationally and does not give it a thought (Haque and Chowdhury). He marries Jocasta indicating a sense of attraction between them that may be was the mother to son attraction that was confused for something else but worked well to reinforce and make the In conclusion, in the play Oedipus Rex by Sophocles, it is the character of Oedipus that shapes the play. It is the events and his character that puts the pieces of the story together and connects all the other characters in the play. Moreover, his behavior and character are what makes it possible for the writer to bring out the different themes and also attain the purpose of the play since Oedipus’s experience offers the platform for Sophocles to appeal to the audience on various issues Godfrey, D. R. "Shakespeare and the Green Eyed Monster." Neophilologus 56.2 (Apr. 1972): 207-220. Rpt. in Shakespearean Criticism. Ed. Dana Ramel Barnes. Vol. 35. Detroit: 1997. Web. 3 May. 2016. Hallett, Charles A. and Elaine S. Analyzing Shakespeare's Action: Scene Versus Sequence. New York: Cambridge, 1991. Print. Shakespeare, William. The Tragedy of Othello, Moor of Venice. Literature: An Introduction to Fiction, Poetry and Drama. Ed. X. J. Kennedy. 5th ed. New York: Harper, 1991. 1046- Sophocles. Oedipus the King. Trans. Dudley Fitts and Robert Fitzgerald. Literature: An Introduction to Fiction, Poetry and Drama. Ed. X. J. Kennedy. 5th ed. New York: Harper, 1991. 999-1039. Stinton, T. C. W. "Hamartia in Aristotle and Greek Tragedy." The Classical Quarterly 25.2 Will, Frederic. "The Knowing of Greek Tragedy." The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism16.4, 1958, 510-518. Web. 3 May. 2016.	<urn:uuid:cbdcf552-b489-4fad-963f-86400b751ada>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://mypaperhub.com/blog-post.php?id_blog_post=453	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250598217.23/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120081337-20200120105337-00271.warc.gz	en	0.98243	2,435	3.28125	3	[ -0.43356573581695557, 0.23342731595039368, 0.6191744804382324, -0.37120041251182556, 0.14487150311470032, -0.2767223119735718, 0.8834042549133301, 0.40507328510284424, -0.04678299278020859, -0.2528059780597687, -0.11579414457082748, -0.5885740518569946, -0.16769224405288696, 0.069627158343...	2	In the play, Oedipus is one of the In the play, Oedipus is one of the major characters. He is depicted as a the man of swift and un-thoughtful of action and yet with great insight. In the beginning, it is visible that it is the traits that he possessed that made him an excellent leader who anticipates and acts as per the needs of his subjects. By the time, the citizens of Thebes request him to help them out with the plague that faced them; he had already sent Creon to the Oracle of Delphi to get advice. However, the swift action habit also sets the stage for his undoing as the play progresses. He tells a story of killing a band of travelers that had attempted to shove him off a three-way crossroad confirming his irrational behavior. At the start of Oedipus the King, Oedipus is incredibly confident and has good reasoning. He saved Thebes from the prevailing curse of the Sphinx and became king overnight. He proclaims his name loudly in a way to suggest that his name was in itself form of healing charm saying, “here I am myself, you all know me, the world knows me: I am Oedipus” (Dawe, 7-9). However, before the play ends, his name had been tainted and become a curse among the people. In fact in the Oedipus at Colonus, the leader of the chorus is terrified to hear his name and cries out in disbelief, “You, you are the man?” (Dawe, 47). Oedipus was a clear indication of a tragic hero. He has a clear tragic flaw that precipitates his sorrowful fate. Oedipus as the king of Thebes, he was not aware at the start of the play that he had murdered his biological father and married his biological mother, Jocasta. Soon after learning that it was he that had put the kingdom at such terrible risk, he blinds himself using a brooch. He also has a wound piercing through his ankles made by his father soon after his birth that had exposed him (Dawe, 12). This is echoed by his name that was translated as ‘swollen feet’. The tragedies befall him since his birth when he was thrown out and left for the dead by his father to the time that he runs away from where he was brought out fearing that he may murder the man he thought to be his father. He lands in the kingdom where his biological father rules and kills him even after the much effort to evade the fulfillment of the prophecy. The tragedies are what shapes the play and greatly influence the flow and the theme of the play (Dawe, 13). Oedipus is a man filled with pride, it is the character in him that makes the play takes a certain twist, and turns to support the theme set out by Sophocles. The character in Oedipus of being rational and filled with pride is what Sophocles exploits to advance the play. His pride allows Oedipus to disbelieve and defy the Gods by beginning to hunt for the source of the plague facing his kingdom instead of looking into himself (Gould, 480). In fact, some of his prideful sins occurred long before the beginning of the play. The greatest sin that Oedipus commits seems to take place when he kills a man at a crossroad following a fit of temper and that suggests that there are no deeds that go unpunished. Therefore, Oedipus had to pay the price for his sins. He has to pay the ultimate price for dismissing Teiresias’ judgment and the Oracle’s prophecy as another reminder that the Gods are infinitely of greater power than men (Gould, 482). Oedipus role in the play emphasized the Power of Fate among the Greeks. The Greeks acknowledged the role of fate as a reality outside the individual that shaped and determined the life of a human being. The character of Oedipus demonstrated the terrifying and unstoppable representation of after among the Greeks in the ancient times (Gould, 489). According to them, fate was the will of the gods that was an unstoppable reality revealed through ritual by the oracle at Delphi that spoke for Apollo in mysterious pronouncements. The promise of any form of prophecy also drew many, but the messages were usually indirect. From the character of Oedipus in the play, one can make out the conservative view held by Sophocles on augury and prophecy. It is because, the oracles in the play speak in an oblique manner and the tragedies that followed Oedipus indicated the power and the might of the gods throughout the play. It also indicated that one cannot run away from their fate. It is demonstrated by the way Oedipus tried to run away from who he thought was his father ion hearing the prophecy that he would kill his father only to land in another kingdom where his biological father ruled and fulfilled the prophecy by killing him. He tried running from his fate, but it followed him all the way (Thomas and Osborne, 69). Oedipus plays a pivotal role in expressing the theme and Sophocles intended the meaning of the play. Sophocles meant to remind the audience of the power of the gods. It was at a period that most people had begun losing faith in the Gods and thought that they were no longer operation or reigning over their lives. The role of Oedipus in the play works to emphasize the power of the Gods in the way he acted. In the play on his way as he was running away from a prophecy told of his killing his father, he ends up at a crossroad where he kills a man because of his irrationality and short temper. Then the character of Oedipus of irrational thought plays out to emphasize the theme and the intention of the play. He then goes ahead to Themes and tells the story of killing a man at the crossroad (Thomas and Osborne, 69). It is this story that seals his father because it turns out that the same man he had killed was his biological father, and he had to pay the price for it. Even with his charisma and power, he ends up blind as he inflicts it upon himself. The prophecies were all fulfilled through the character of Oedipus and hence demonstrating the power of the gods. The play also uses the character of Oedipus to emphasize on some on the need to have good morals. Sophocles uses irony when Oedipus becomes the one that leads the search for the people that had killed his father and yet it was he that had committed the crime. Moreover, he goes ahead to mock the blind prophet and yet he was the one that was blind by the end of the play and that he was blind to the truth that faced him. He could not see what the physically blind prophet could see. Moreover, his character is used to warn people of some of the traits such as pride since it is what leads to his downfall. He was once a well-poised leader and king whose name was respected and feared but later became the villain of the society with people not willing to hear of his name. He moves from being a king and fate follows him to his demise where he inflicts pain on himself by blinding himself by himself indicating regret and sorrow for his actions (Haque and Chowdhury). The misfortunes that follow Oedipus also play a significant role to warn the audience that there are no deeds that go unpunished. Oedipus even with his power and wisdom, went ahead to tell a story of how he killed a man due to his pride to one of his servants. He tried his best to conceal the act that he committed with the help of his mother and wife Jocasta who tries to convince everyone that a stranger killed her former husband (Haque and Chowdhury). However, it is the mistake made by Oedipus in telling the servant about his murder that sets the stage for his undoing since it turns out that at the crossroad, it was where his father was killed, and hence it was clear that he was the murderer. He ends up blinding himself in guilt, which indicated his punishment, and then his mother commits suicide as a way to indicate her pain and regret and guilt. The character of Oedipus also depicts a concept of Oedipus complex from the psychoanalytic theory by Sigmund Freud. According to this concept, the boy is fixated and sexually attracted to the mother while at the same time is jealous of the father and hence wants to compete for attention of the mother with the father. It is the concept depicted by the character of Oedipus whereby he kills his father and then goes ahead to marry a woman that was old enough to be his mother. Even with the awareness of such a prophecy, he acts irrationally and does not give it a thought (Haque and Chowdhury). He marries Jocasta indicating a sense of attraction between them that may be was the mother to son attraction that was confused for something else but worked well to reinforce and make the In conclusion, in the play Oedipus Rex by Sophocles, it is the character of Oedipus that shapes the play. It is the events and his character that puts the pieces of the story together and connects all the other characters in the play. Moreover, his behavior and character are what makes it possible for the writer to bring out the different themes and also attain the purpose of the play since Oedipus’s experience offers the platform for Sophocles to appeal to the audience on various issues Godfrey, D. R. "Shakespeare and the Green Eyed Monster." Neophilologus 56.2 (Apr. 1972): 207-220. Rpt. in Shakespearean Criticism. Ed. Dana Ramel Barnes. Vol. 35. Detroit: 1997. Web. 3 May. 2016. Hallett, Charles A. and Elaine S. Analyzing Shakespeare's Action: Scene Versus Sequence. New York: Cambridge, 1991. Print. Shakespeare, William. The Tragedy of Othello, Moor of Venice. Literature: An Introduction to Fiction, Poetry and Drama. Ed. X. J. Kennedy. 5th ed. New York: Harper, 1991. 1046- Sophocles. Oedipus the King. Trans. Dudley Fitts and Robert Fitzgerald. Literature: An Introduction to Fiction, Poetry and Drama. Ed. X. J. Kennedy. 5th ed. New York: Harper, 1991. 999-1039. Stinton, T. C. W. "Hamartia in Aristotle and Greek Tragedy." The Classical Quarterly 25.2 Will, Frederic. "The Knowing of Greek Tragedy." The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism16.4, 1958, 510-518. Web. 3 May. 2016.	2,457	ENGLISH	1
He is revered as the man who freed US slaves, yet he never intended to do so and it was he who forced a war for the Union! Today Abraham Lincoln remains America’s most popular president and its historians devote enormous efforts to ensuring that his reputation survives unscathed. Yet during his presidency he was hated by millions and in 1865 he was assassinated. Even before the Civil War he was loathed by perhaps a majority of his fellow countrymen and in the presidential election of 1860, 61 per cent of the electorate voted against him. Rather than accept him as president, the South seceded from the Union. The Founding Fathers had indicated that secession was entirely legal. Lincoln should have taken the advice of the Supreme Court, but rather than that, he manipulated an attack on Fort Sumter to give him an excuse for war. Lincoln vetoed an attempted constitutional compromise and got his way by illegally organising a military invasion of Virginia. There, his troops were humiliated. Scrambling to regain control of his war, Lincoln imprisoned tens of thousands of political opponents, closed down hundreds of newspapers and jailed their editors, tapped telegraph wires, intimidated voters with army units, created new states to gain electoral college votes, and suspended habeas corpus without Congressional assent. In July 1862, General Pope, his chief of staff, issued orders instructing the army to starve the South and treat civilians as enemies. General Sherman took full advantage of these, telling his wife from Georgia, that his policy would be one of “extermination . . . not of soldiers alone, but the people.” As a result, whole towns containing only old folk, women and children, were first stripped of all valuables and livestock, and then razed to the ground. Native Americans also suffered under Lincoln. When the Sioux in Minnesota were starved into rebellion in 1862, General Pope was sent to deal with them with a plan “to utterly exterminate them.” Rebel Native Americans were given mock trials of about ten minutes each and Pope condemned 303 to hang. Lincoln approved 39 death sentences and gave Minnesota $2 million to clear the tribe from the state. Had the foreign press not been covering events, he would probably have hanged all 303. None the less, he had approved the largest public execution in US history. Lincoln had no liking for blacks either. His greatest desire was to send them all back to Africa or, failing that, to tropical Latin America. He put aside hundreds of thousands of dollars for this task. When, on 14 August 1862, he met the first delegation of blacks ever to enter the White House, he told them, “You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think. Your race suffer very greatly, many of them, by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word we suffer on each side. If this is admitted it affords a reason why we should be separated.” He then told them to prepare to go to a new colony in the Caribbean. Finally, he rationalised his policy of separating the races by blaming the Civil War on the blacks: “I need not recount to you the effects of white men, growing out of the institution of slavery. I believe in its general evil effects upon white men. See our present condition — the country engaged in war! — our white men cutting one another’s throats, none knowing how far it will extend; and then consider what we know to be the truth. But for your race among us there could not be war, although many men engaged on either side do not care for you in one way or the other. Nevertheless, I repeat, without the institution of slavery and the coloured race as a basis, the war could not have an existence.” He concluded, “It is better, therefore, for us to be separated.” His views had originally been spelt out in 1858 in a famous debate with Stephen Douglas when he confessed, “I am not, nor have I ever been, in favour of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races — and that I am not, nor ever have been, in favour of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people and I say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And insomuch as they cannot so live, while they remain together, there must be a position of superior and inferior and I as much as any man am in favour of having the superior position assigned to the white race.” He then offered one of his famous jokes, “I do not understand that because I do not want a Negro woman for a slave, I must necessarily want her for a wife.” He eventually emancipated slaves because he was forced into it. Slaves began fleeing to Union lines during the war in their tens of thousands. The army needed them as soldiers and truly abolitionist Congressional radicals pressed for emancipation. Lincoln, of course, resisted, first by sacking Union generals who freed fugitive slaves and then by issuing a Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation which offered Southern slaveholders the chance to keep their slaves if they supported the Union. Slaveholders in the three pro-Union slave states could wait until 1900 to emancipate their slaves voluntarily. It was only when these moves failed that Lincoln emancipated all slaves on 1 January 1863. At this point 250,000 unionist troops deserted, 150,000 recruits evaded conscription and 90,000 fled to Canada. By the end of the war, the question was whether to give all black men the vote. Lincoln again resisted, suggesting only highly educated blacks and black veterans might be given the vote. A few days after he stated this in a public speech he was assassinated. Today he is revered as the man who freed the slaves and saved the Union. Yet he never intended to free America’s slaves and it was he who forced a war for the Union, since the South had never had any intention of attacking the North. Years before, he had written that the North could live in peace with an independent slave-owning Texas. So why not with a slave-owning Confederacy? Was it because he was now president and wanted to govern the whole US? Was his ego to blame for the war? Admirers of this “modest” man never ask this question but it should nonetheless be considered. The Civil War was fought between two deeply racist societies who differed only over the fate of slavery. After 12 years of Reconstruction following his death, North and South agreed on a racist political system for the South which by the end of the century became the Solid South governed by Jim Crow laws. Blacks only began to experience equality after the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Lincoln’s role in their long journey to emancipation needs to be treated with great caution. Written by Alan Sked for The Critic ~ January 2020	<urn:uuid:001ac072-0333-4728-aef9-21cb63eace6d>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://metropolis.cafe/2020/01/10/dishonest-abe/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250626449.79/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124221147-20200125010147-00190.warc.gz	en	0.98029	1,496	3.453125	3	[ -0.14354342222213745, 0.7237663269042969, 0.22177797555923462, 0.2108376920223236, -0.16337677836418152, -0.031699880957603455, 0.3029722273349762, -0.06662850081920624, -0.08434262871742249, 0.043914079666137695, 0.007115124724805355, 0.07017127424478531, -0.08581214398145676, 0.588905394...	3	He is revered as the man who freed US slaves, yet he never intended to do so and it was he who forced a war for the Union! Today Abraham Lincoln remains America’s most popular president and its historians devote enormous efforts to ensuring that his reputation survives unscathed. Yet during his presidency he was hated by millions and in 1865 he was assassinated. Even before the Civil War he was loathed by perhaps a majority of his fellow countrymen and in the presidential election of 1860, 61 per cent of the electorate voted against him. Rather than accept him as president, the South seceded from the Union. The Founding Fathers had indicated that secession was entirely legal. Lincoln should have taken the advice of the Supreme Court, but rather than that, he manipulated an attack on Fort Sumter to give him an excuse for war. Lincoln vetoed an attempted constitutional compromise and got his way by illegally organising a military invasion of Virginia. There, his troops were humiliated. Scrambling to regain control of his war, Lincoln imprisoned tens of thousands of political opponents, closed down hundreds of newspapers and jailed their editors, tapped telegraph wires, intimidated voters with army units, created new states to gain electoral college votes, and suspended habeas corpus without Congressional assent. In July 1862, General Pope, his chief of staff, issued orders instructing the army to starve the South and treat civilians as enemies. General Sherman took full advantage of these, telling his wife from Georgia, that his policy would be one of “extermination . . . not of soldiers alone, but the people.” As a result, whole towns containing only old folk, women and children, were first stripped of all valuables and livestock, and then razed to the ground. Native Americans also suffered under Lincoln. When the Sioux in Minnesota were starved into rebellion in 1862, General Pope was sent to deal with them with a plan “to utterly exterminate them.” Rebel Native Americans were given mock trials of about ten minutes each and Pope condemned 303 to hang. Lincoln approved 39 death sentences and gave Minnesota $2 million to clear the tribe from the state. Had the foreign press not been covering events, he would probably have hanged all 303. None the less, he had approved the largest public execution in US history. Lincoln had no liking for blacks either. His greatest desire was to send them all back to Africa or, failing that, to tropical Latin America. He put aside hundreds of thousands of dollars for this task. When, on 14 August 1862, he met the first delegation of blacks ever to enter the White House, he told them, “You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think. Your race suffer very greatly, many of them, by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word we suffer on each side. If this is admitted it affords a reason why we should be separated.” He then told them to prepare to go to a new colony in the Caribbean. Finally, he rationalised his policy of separating the races by blaming the Civil War on the blacks: “I need not recount to you the effects of white men, growing out of the institution of slavery. I believe in its general evil effects upon white men. See our present condition — the country engaged in war! — our white men cutting one another’s throats, none knowing how far it will extend; and then consider what we know to be the truth. But for your race among us there could not be war, although many men engaged on either side do not care for you in one way or the other. Nevertheless, I repeat, without the institution of slavery and the coloured race as a basis, the war could not have an existence.” He concluded, “It is better, therefore, for us to be separated.” His views had originally been spelt out in 1858 in a famous debate with Stephen Douglas when he confessed, “I am not, nor have I ever been, in favour of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races — and that I am not, nor ever have been, in favour of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people and I say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And insomuch as they cannot so live, while they remain together, there must be a position of superior and inferior and I as much as any man am in favour of having the superior position assigned to the white race.” He then offered one of his famous jokes, “I do not understand that because I do not want a Negro woman for a slave, I must necessarily want her for a wife.” He eventually emancipated slaves because he was forced into it. Slaves began fleeing to Union lines during the war in their tens of thousands. The army needed them as soldiers and truly abolitionist Congressional radicals pressed for emancipation. Lincoln, of course, resisted, first by sacking Union generals who freed fugitive slaves and then by issuing a Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation which offered Southern slaveholders the chance to keep their slaves if they supported the Union. Slaveholders in the three pro-Union slave states could wait until 1900 to emancipate their slaves voluntarily. It was only when these moves failed that Lincoln emancipated all slaves on 1 January 1863. At this point 250,000 unionist troops deserted, 150,000 recruits evaded conscription and 90,000 fled to Canada. By the end of the war, the question was whether to give all black men the vote. Lincoln again resisted, suggesting only highly educated blacks and black veterans might be given the vote. A few days after he stated this in a public speech he was assassinated. Today he is revered as the man who freed the slaves and saved the Union. Yet he never intended to free America’s slaves and it was he who forced a war for the Union, since the South had never had any intention of attacking the North. Years before, he had written that the North could live in peace with an independent slave-owning Texas. So why not with a slave-owning Confederacy? Was it because he was now president and wanted to govern the whole US? Was his ego to blame for the war? Admirers of this “modest” man never ask this question but it should nonetheless be considered. The Civil War was fought between two deeply racist societies who differed only over the fate of slavery. After 12 years of Reconstruction following his death, North and South agreed on a racist political system for the South which by the end of the century became the Solid South governed by Jim Crow laws. Blacks only began to experience equality after the civil rights movement of the 1960s. Lincoln’s role in their long journey to emancipation needs to be treated with great caution. Written by Alan Sked for The Critic ~ January 2020	1,529	ENGLISH	1
The bay—200 miles long, up to 30 miles wide, recipient of river water from six eastern states—is the nation's largest estuary. It wasn't just a protein factory, it was the protein factory, producing more seafood per acre than any other body of water on earth. Hauls of oysters in the millions of bushels were common into the 20th century. It is estimated that in pre-colonial times there were enough oysters present to filter all the water in the bay every 3.3 days. By 1980, the same task took 325 days. In the 1970s, the bay was found to contain one of the earth's first marine dead zones—waters so depleted of oxygen that they can't support life. Masses of oxygen-starved crabs would, and still occasionally do, crawl ashore to breathe air, a behavior known by the macabre term crab jubilee.	<urn:uuid:c665799b-51a6-4eac-9e1e-3acb1ac1b6e0>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.fieldandstream.com/trump-to-chesapeake-bay-cleanup-best-luck-to-you/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250606872.19/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122071919-20200122100919-00069.warc.gz	en	0.983449	185	3.703125	4	[ -0.04260336607694626, -0.1415354162454605, 0.025746867060661316, -0.3198299705982208, 0.012700620107352734, 0.06758760660886765, 0.3049599826335907, -0.2330581545829773, -0.3555354177951813, -0.16644518077373505, 0.4102206528186798, -0.6164550185203552, -0.2329089641571045, 0.2159026861190...	1	The bay—200 miles long, up to 30 miles wide, recipient of river water from six eastern states—is the nation's largest estuary. It wasn't just a protein factory, it was the protein factory, producing more seafood per acre than any other body of water on earth. Hauls of oysters in the millions of bushels were common into the 20th century. It is estimated that in pre-colonial times there were enough oysters present to filter all the water in the bay every 3.3 days. By 1980, the same task took 325 days. In the 1970s, the bay was found to contain one of the earth's first marine dead zones—waters so depleted of oxygen that they can't support life. Masses of oxygen-starved crabs would, and still occasionally do, crawl ashore to breathe air, a behavior known by the macabre term crab jubilee.	203	ENGLISH	1
John Brown's Secret Plan No one had a deeper moral hatred of slavery than John Brown. He had grown up on the Ohio frontier, the son of a stern man who believed slavery was a sin against God. As John grew up, he became an active abolitionist -- someone who fights to abolish slavery -- by helping runaway slaves escape. He married and in 1849 moved his family to North Elba, New York, to join a farming community of ex-slaves and free blacks. A few years later, his anti-slavery views took him away from his wife and younger children to continue his personal crusade in Kansas. The Kansas territory had become known as "Bleeding Kansas" because of many pitched battles over slavery. Small homesteaders wanted Kansas to enter the Union as a free state. Bands of pro-slavery gunmen called "border ruffians" crossed over from Missouri to attack them. Brown's older sons had moved to Kansas earlier, and he joined them to help defend the free-soil homesteaders. Border ruffians attacked Lawrence, Kansas, in May 1856, and burned down much of the town. Brown led a counter-raid and ordered five pro-slavery settlers hacked to death with sabers. This brutal response was one of the most controversial events in his life. Brown fought several other battles in Kansas, defending free-soil towns, and he led guerilla raids into Missouri. During this period, Brown began to develop a much bigger plan, designed to free all slaves. He traveled to Boston in 1857 and again in 1858 to ask wealthy abolitionists for arms and money. He said he had a vision that God would make him "the deliverer of the slaves the same as Moses had delivered the children of Israel." Many abolitionists were scared off by his reputation for violence. But finally he won over a small group of financial backers, known as "The Secret Six." He convinced them that only by force could "this slave-cursed Republic be restored to the principles of the Declaration of Independence." In May 1858, Brown held a secret anti-slavery convention in Canada. About 50 black and white supporters adopted Brown's anti-slavery constitution. In December, Brown moved beyond talk and plans. He led a daring raid from Kansas across the border into Missouri, where he killed one slave owner and freed 11 slaves. In the spring of 1859, Brown traveled east to complete his plan for a large slave revolt. He gathered recruits and ordered guns, spears, and other supplies. At a meeting of the New England Anti-Slavery Society, he denounced the endless discussions of many abolitionists. "Talk! Talk! Talk!" he cried. "That will never free the slaves. What is needed is action -- action!" As the starting point for the rebellion, John Brown chose Harpers Ferry, a small town at the junction of the Shenandoah and Potomac rivers. It was far away from the large plantations near the Atlantic where most of the slaves were. But it had an arsenal where Brown's raiders could seize guns. On July 3, 1859, Brown and a few supporters rented an old farmhouse near Harper's Ferry. For five months they studied maps and finalized plans. Boxes of arms came by wagon. His remaining recruits trickled in. The raiders were all young, idealistic, and bitter opponents of slavery. Five of them were free black men who had given up their safety in the North to fight for their slave brothers and sisters. Brown believed that after he seized the arsenal, masses of slaves would rebel against their masters and join the revolt. He planned to distribute guns and spears to his new army, strike southward, and set off a chain reaction of slave uprisings throughout the South. Unfortunately, he did little to spread the word among the slaves nearby. All his attention was focused on seizing the arsenal. He made few plans for what would happen the day after. On Sunday night, October 16, 1859, Brown and 18 others, swept down on the armory and took several prisoners. In the darkness and confusion, one raider shot and killed the baggage master at the railroad station. Sadly, this free black man was the first victim of a raid to free the slaves. Brown sent some of the raiders into the countryside to try to spread the rebellion. His men returned with two slave owners and about a dozen slaves. Since Brown had given no advance warning, the slaves were as surprised and confused as their masters. By the next morning, word had spread of a massive slave uprising. Armed citizens and militia units struck back. Townspeople drove the raiders into a small fire engine house, where they traded rifle fire for most of the day. Brown appeared confused and uncertain about what to do next. This delay gave federal authorities in nearby Washington time to send a unit of U.S. Marines under the command of Colonel Robert E. Lee. When Brown's men peered out through their gun holes in the early light of Tuesday, the second day of the revolt, they saw Lee's Marines. Beyond the Marines, more than 2,000 spectators waited to see the final assault. Lee demanded that Brown surrender, and Brown refused. The Marines then rushed the engine house. Brown and most of his men resisted to the last. One of the Marine officers wounded Brown with his saber, and then used the hilt to beat him unconscious. Seventeen men died in the raid on Harper's Ferry. In addition to the African-American baggage master, the raiders killed three white townspeople and one Marine. Ten of the raiders, including two of Brown's sons were killed, plus two of the slaves they liberated. Brown and four others were taken alive. A few raiders waiting at the farm nearby escaped. A few hours after his capture, Brown regained consciousness. He was surrounded by an excited crowd, including Virginia's governor, members of Congress, and news reporters. When they asked him why he did it, Brown said simply, "We came to free the slaves, and only that." John Brown on Trial Troops transported Brown and his surviving raiders to the county courthouse in Charleston. The governor wanted a speedy trial to prevent either a lynching or a rescue attempt. One week after the raid, Brown and four of his raiders, two black and two white, were brought to court under heavy guard. The state appointed two Virginia defense attorneys. The next day, the court read the grand jury indictment. Brown and his followers were charged with treason against the government of Virginia, conspiracy to induce slaves "to rebel and make insurrection against their masters and owners," and premeditated murder. The five pleaded not guilty, and each was given a separate trial. In the afternoon John Brown, still suffering from his wounds, was carried into court on a cot to open his trial. Prospective jurors were examined and anyone who had been at Harper's Ferry during the raid was eliminated. The final jury was made up of 12 men, some of whom were slave owners. As the trial opened, one of the court-appointed defense attorneys surprised Brown. He read a telegram from an Ohio resident who claimed that several of Brown's close relatives suffered from insanity. Brown protested. He wanted the trial to be a forum to attack the institution of slavery. He insisted that the insanity defense was "a miserable artifice and pretext" to avoid discussing slavery. The judge ordered the trial to continue. The prosecution called as witnesses many Harper's Ferry townspeople and those Brown had held hostage. Under cross-examination, the hostages admitted that Brown had treated them well and had ordered his men not to shoot unless fired upon. The Secret Six in Boston hired a young Massachusetts lawyer named George H. Hoyt to help defend Brown. He was also told to scout the possibility of a rescue, but when the lawyer arrived, Brown refused to be rescued. He knew he would not have his forum if he escaped. He seemed to feel that he had to become a martyr in order to stir up more anti-slavery feeling. The prosecution introduced into evidence Brown's anti-slavery constitution, letters from his backers, and other materials found at the farmhouse. After a few defense witnesses were called, Brown denounced his Virginia attorneys. He asked for a delay because more legal help was being sent from the North. The two appointed lawyers withdrew, but Judge Parker ruled against a delay. The following morning, Samuel Chilton of Washington and Henry Griswold of Cleveland, Ohio, joined Brown's defense. They asked for a delay to prepare, but the judge refused again. The remaining defense witnesses were examined, but Brown himself did not testify. Griswold and Chilton made the closing arguments for the defense. They said that the state had failed to prove the charges. Since the state had kept the trial focused on the legal issues of treason and murder, the defense had to respond to simple questions of evidence. Brown showed little interest in this defense. He wanted to attack slavery, but had not yet found a way to do so in court. The jury deliberated for less than an hour and found John Brown guilty of all the charges. Two days later, Judge Parker sentenced Brown to be hanged. At the sentencing, Brown finally found his forum. He stood in court and made a passionate attack on slavery. Brown brushed aside questions of treason and other legal issues. He said he was simply trying to free slaves, as he had done the previous year in Missouri. He insisted that fighting against slavery was the right thing to do. His statement was published in papers all over the country. A gaunt but defiant John Brown walked to the gallows at age 59. On this last walk, he had one more chance to argue his views. He offered a terrible prophecy: "I John Brown am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away, but with Blood." For Discussion and Writing - Was it right for John Brown to cross the border into Missouri and kill slave owners to free slaves? Why or why not? - Do you think John Brown received a fair trial and a just sentence? Why or why not? - John Brown wrote, "I am worth inconceivably more to hang than for any other purpose." What did he mean by this? For Further Information John Brown and the Valley of the Shadow The story and links to newspaper articles of the time, eyewitness accounts, and pictures. John Brown's Holy War From PBS's The American Experience. John Brown A biography and primary documents. From Spartacus. John Brown Raid Photos/Illustrations From the West Virginia Division of History and Culture. John Brown's Raid From Shotgun's Home of the American Civil War. A Plea for Captain John Brown Written by Henry David Thoreau in 1859. The Kennedy Farmhouse This was the staging area for the attack on Harpers Ferry. From the John Brown Historical Foundation. John Brown: Citizen of Kent An illustrated story of Brown's life. A C T I V I T Y Is It Ever Right to Break the Law? Divide the class into small groups and have them discuss whether it is acceptable to break the law in the following situations. Each group should report back and give reasons for its decisions. - You are homeless, you have no job, and you are hungry. You steal a loaf of bread from a mini-market. - You received terribly unfair grades in a class, so you break into the teacher's desk to check the grading sheets. - You believe nuclear weapons will destroy all humanity. You sneak into a military base and smash part of a missile radar. - You believe abortion is wrong. You lie down in front of an abortion clinic to block the entrance. - You think a grove of old-growth sequoia trees is being destroyed just to raise profits. You sabotage tree-cutting machinery. - You believe all war is immoral, so you refuse to register for the draft. - What would happen to society if people only obeyed the laws they agreed with? - Are there ways to protest a law without breaking it? Should all possibilities be exhausted before breaking the law? Explain. - If you believe strongly that a law is wrong, should you break the law and try to get away with it, or break the law and face the consequences? Why?	<urn:uuid:98ad6629-8ea7-46b4-9aff-2ff5d4981482>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-9-1-b-we-came-to-free-the-slaves-john-brown-on-trial	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251700988.64/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127143516-20200127173516-00511.warc.gz	en	0.980687	2,579	3.65625	4	[ -0.2650727927684784, 0.2860167622566223, 0.1477748453617096, 0.11712349206209183, -0.0810706689953804, 0.05322152376174927, -0.17972400784492493, -0.1284349113702774, -0.44339436292648315, 0.3939575254917145, 0.19957268238067627, -0.030734103173017502, -0.2793126702308655, -0.0797286108136...	6	John Brown's Secret Plan No one had a deeper moral hatred of slavery than John Brown. He had grown up on the Ohio frontier, the son of a stern man who believed slavery was a sin against God. As John grew up, he became an active abolitionist -- someone who fights to abolish slavery -- by helping runaway slaves escape. He married and in 1849 moved his family to North Elba, New York, to join a farming community of ex-slaves and free blacks. A few years later, his anti-slavery views took him away from his wife and younger children to continue his personal crusade in Kansas. The Kansas territory had become known as "Bleeding Kansas" because of many pitched battles over slavery. Small homesteaders wanted Kansas to enter the Union as a free state. Bands of pro-slavery gunmen called "border ruffians" crossed over from Missouri to attack them. Brown's older sons had moved to Kansas earlier, and he joined them to help defend the free-soil homesteaders. Border ruffians attacked Lawrence, Kansas, in May 1856, and burned down much of the town. Brown led a counter-raid and ordered five pro-slavery settlers hacked to death with sabers. This brutal response was one of the most controversial events in his life. Brown fought several other battles in Kansas, defending free-soil towns, and he led guerilla raids into Missouri. During this period, Brown began to develop a much bigger plan, designed to free all slaves. He traveled to Boston in 1857 and again in 1858 to ask wealthy abolitionists for arms and money. He said he had a vision that God would make him "the deliverer of the slaves the same as Moses had delivered the children of Israel." Many abolitionists were scared off by his reputation for violence. But finally he won over a small group of financial backers, known as "The Secret Six." He convinced them that only by force could "this slave-cursed Republic be restored to the principles of the Declaration of Independence." In May 1858, Brown held a secret anti-slavery convention in Canada. About 50 black and white supporters adopted Brown's anti-slavery constitution. In December, Brown moved beyond talk and plans. He led a daring raid from Kansas across the border into Missouri, where he killed one slave owner and freed 11 slaves. In the spring of 1859, Brown traveled east to complete his plan for a large slave revolt. He gathered recruits and ordered guns, spears, and other supplies. At a meeting of the New England Anti-Slavery Society, he denounced the endless discussions of many abolitionists. "Talk! Talk! Talk!" he cried. "That will never free the slaves. What is needed is action -- action!" As the starting point for the rebellion, John Brown chose Harpers Ferry, a small town at the junction of the Shenandoah and Potomac rivers. It was far away from the large plantations near the Atlantic where most of the slaves were. But it had an arsenal where Brown's raiders could seize guns. On July 3, 1859, Brown and a few supporters rented an old farmhouse near Harper's Ferry. For five months they studied maps and finalized plans. Boxes of arms came by wagon. His remaining recruits trickled in. The raiders were all young, idealistic, and bitter opponents of slavery. Five of them were free black men who had given up their safety in the North to fight for their slave brothers and sisters. Brown believed that after he seized the arsenal, masses of slaves would rebel against their masters and join the revolt. He planned to distribute guns and spears to his new army, strike southward, and set off a chain reaction of slave uprisings throughout the South. Unfortunately, he did little to spread the word among the slaves nearby. All his attention was focused on seizing the arsenal. He made few plans for what would happen the day after. On Sunday night, October 16, 1859, Brown and 18 others, swept down on the armory and took several prisoners. In the darkness and confusion, one raider shot and killed the baggage master at the railroad station. Sadly, this free black man was the first victim of a raid to free the slaves. Brown sent some of the raiders into the countryside to try to spread the rebellion. His men returned with two slave owners and about a dozen slaves. Since Brown had given no advance warning, the slaves were as surprised and confused as their masters. By the next morning, word had spread of a massive slave uprising. Armed citizens and militia units struck back. Townspeople drove the raiders into a small fire engine house, where they traded rifle fire for most of the day. Brown appeared confused and uncertain about what to do next. This delay gave federal authorities in nearby Washington time to send a unit of U.S. Marines under the command of Colonel Robert E. Lee. When Brown's men peered out through their gun holes in the early light of Tuesday, the second day of the revolt, they saw Lee's Marines. Beyond the Marines, more than 2,000 spectators waited to see the final assault. Lee demanded that Brown surrender, and Brown refused. The Marines then rushed the engine house. Brown and most of his men resisted to the last. One of the Marine officers wounded Brown with his saber, and then used the hilt to beat him unconscious. Seventeen men died in the raid on Harper's Ferry. In addition to the African-American baggage master, the raiders killed three white townspeople and one Marine. Ten of the raiders, including two of Brown's sons were killed, plus two of the slaves they liberated. Brown and four others were taken alive. A few raiders waiting at the farm nearby escaped. A few hours after his capture, Brown regained consciousness. He was surrounded by an excited crowd, including Virginia's governor, members of Congress, and news reporters. When they asked him why he did it, Brown said simply, "We came to free the slaves, and only that." John Brown on Trial Troops transported Brown and his surviving raiders to the county courthouse in Charleston. The governor wanted a speedy trial to prevent either a lynching or a rescue attempt. One week after the raid, Brown and four of his raiders, two black and two white, were brought to court under heavy guard. The state appointed two Virginia defense attorneys. The next day, the court read the grand jury indictment. Brown and his followers were charged with treason against the government of Virginia, conspiracy to induce slaves "to rebel and make insurrection against their masters and owners," and premeditated murder. The five pleaded not guilty, and each was given a separate trial. In the afternoon John Brown, still suffering from his wounds, was carried into court on a cot to open his trial. Prospective jurors were examined and anyone who had been at Harper's Ferry during the raid was eliminated. The final jury was made up of 12 men, some of whom were slave owners. As the trial opened, one of the court-appointed defense attorneys surprised Brown. He read a telegram from an Ohio resident who claimed that several of Brown's close relatives suffered from insanity. Brown protested. He wanted the trial to be a forum to attack the institution of slavery. He insisted that the insanity defense was "a miserable artifice and pretext" to avoid discussing slavery. The judge ordered the trial to continue. The prosecution called as witnesses many Harper's Ferry townspeople and those Brown had held hostage. Under cross-examination, the hostages admitted that Brown had treated them well and had ordered his men not to shoot unless fired upon. The Secret Six in Boston hired a young Massachusetts lawyer named George H. Hoyt to help defend Brown. He was also told to scout the possibility of a rescue, but when the lawyer arrived, Brown refused to be rescued. He knew he would not have his forum if he escaped. He seemed to feel that he had to become a martyr in order to stir up more anti-slavery feeling. The prosecution introduced into evidence Brown's anti-slavery constitution, letters from his backers, and other materials found at the farmhouse. After a few defense witnesses were called, Brown denounced his Virginia attorneys. He asked for a delay because more legal help was being sent from the North. The two appointed lawyers withdrew, but Judge Parker ruled against a delay. The following morning, Samuel Chilton of Washington and Henry Griswold of Cleveland, Ohio, joined Brown's defense. They asked for a delay to prepare, but the judge refused again. The remaining defense witnesses were examined, but Brown himself did not testify. Griswold and Chilton made the closing arguments for the defense. They said that the state had failed to prove the charges. Since the state had kept the trial focused on the legal issues of treason and murder, the defense had to respond to simple questions of evidence. Brown showed little interest in this defense. He wanted to attack slavery, but had not yet found a way to do so in court. The jury deliberated for less than an hour and found John Brown guilty of all the charges. Two days later, Judge Parker sentenced Brown to be hanged. At the sentencing, Brown finally found his forum. He stood in court and made a passionate attack on slavery. Brown brushed aside questions of treason and other legal issues. He said he was simply trying to free slaves, as he had done the previous year in Missouri. He insisted that fighting against slavery was the right thing to do. His statement was published in papers all over the country. A gaunt but defiant John Brown walked to the gallows at age 59. On this last walk, he had one more chance to argue his views. He offered a terrible prophecy: "I John Brown am now quite certain that the crimes of this guilty land will never be purged away, but with Blood." For Discussion and Writing - Was it right for John Brown to cross the border into Missouri and kill slave owners to free slaves? Why or why not? - Do you think John Brown received a fair trial and a just sentence? Why or why not? - John Brown wrote, "I am worth inconceivably more to hang than for any other purpose." What did he mean by this? For Further Information John Brown and the Valley of the Shadow The story and links to newspaper articles of the time, eyewitness accounts, and pictures. John Brown's Holy War From PBS's The American Experience. John Brown A biography and primary documents. From Spartacus. John Brown Raid Photos/Illustrations From the West Virginia Division of History and Culture. John Brown's Raid From Shotgun's Home of the American Civil War. A Plea for Captain John Brown Written by Henry David Thoreau in 1859. The Kennedy Farmhouse This was the staging area for the attack on Harpers Ferry. From the John Brown Historical Foundation. John Brown: Citizen of Kent An illustrated story of Brown's life. A C T I V I T Y Is It Ever Right to Break the Law? Divide the class into small groups and have them discuss whether it is acceptable to break the law in the following situations. Each group should report back and give reasons for its decisions. - You are homeless, you have no job, and you are hungry. You steal a loaf of bread from a mini-market. - You received terribly unfair grades in a class, so you break into the teacher's desk to check the grading sheets. - You believe nuclear weapons will destroy all humanity. You sneak into a military base and smash part of a missile radar. - You believe abortion is wrong. You lie down in front of an abortion clinic to block the entrance. - You think a grove of old-growth sequoia trees is being destroyed just to raise profits. You sabotage tree-cutting machinery. - You believe all war is immoral, so you refuse to register for the draft. - What would happen to society if people only obeyed the laws they agreed with? - Are there ways to protest a law without breaking it? Should all possibilities be exhausted before breaking the law? Explain. - If you believe strongly that a law is wrong, should you break the law and try to get away with it, or break the law and face the consequences? Why?	2,547	ENGLISH	1
In 1607, Hudson set sail on the Hopewell to find a northeast passage to Asia through the Arctic Ocean via the North Pole. The voyage was paid for by the Moscovy Company, one of a small number of corporations given Royal Charters. In June he reached the eastern shore of Greenland and started northward, mapping as they went. On the 20th they started out for Svalbard , eventually reaching an island on the northern end of the group on the 17th of July. At this point the ship was only 577 nautical miles from the pole, but it was clear there is no way to go further due to the ice and he decided to return to England on the 31st. On the return voyage Hudson discovered what is now known as Jan Mayen Island before reaching home in September. In 1608 he tried again, this time sailing farther to the east along the northern coast of Norway. Once again all northern routes were blocked by ice and he ended up reaching Novaya Zemlya before turning back. This point had been reached by several crews in the past and was considered the end of the line, which convinced the Moscovy Company that there was no point funding further voyages. At this point Hudson wanted to continue his explorations and turned to the Dutch East India Company for funding. They were particularly interested in shorter routes to the east, and commissioned a new ship for his use, the Halve Maen (Half Moon). The ship headed north in May 1609, but was forced to turn back before reaching Novaya Zemlya. Instead the expedition headed west and eventually reached the Grand Banks, off Newfoundland, in early July. They spent the next four months exploring the east coast of North America, including Manhattan, Maine, and Cape Cod–the first Europeans to describe these locations (although Giovanni da Verrazano explored the same coast in 1524)–and sailing a distance up the Hudson River, which bears his name. The Dutch would later claim the area and set up a colony as New Amsterdam. Upon returning to Europe in November they made port at Dartmouth, where Hudson was arrested for sailing under another country's flag. He was soon released. In 1610 Hudson managed to get backing for yet another voyage under the English flag; this time the funding came from the Virginia Company and the British East India Company. At the helm of his new ship, the Discovery, he stayed to the north (some claim he deliberately went too far south with the Dutch), reaching Iceland on May 11, the southern end of Greenland on June 4, and then managing to turn around the southern tip of Greenland and continue west. Excitement was high that a ship had finally found the Northwest Passage, and on June 25th they reached Hudson Strait at the northern tip of Labrador. Following the southern coast of the strait the ship sailed into Hudson Bay and spent the next months continuing to map and explore the eastern shores. In November the ship became trapped in the ice in James Bay, and the crew moved ashore for the winter. When the ice cleared in the spring of 1611, Hudson wanted to continue exploring, but the crew wanted to return home. Eventually matters came to a head and the crew mutinied, setting Hudson, his son, and several other crew adrift in a small boat. They were never seen again, although some claim that he successfully made his way as far south as the Ottawa River. Apparently the reports by Hudson of his voyage for the Dutch have been lost, but an account was given by Johannes de Laet in his work Nieuwe Wereldt ofte beschrijvinghe van West-Indien (first edition 1625). The same situation applies to the voyage of Adriaen Block.	<urn:uuid:8b2f4350-9cb9-411e-a150-f04f3c47b7e6>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	http://www.fact-index.com/h/he/henry_hudson.html	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250593937.27/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118193018-20200118221018-00127.warc.gz	en	0.981617	769	3.984375	4	[ 0.11233142018318176, 0.34747856855392456, -0.000575145473703742, -0.21504110097885132, -0.15363112092018127, -0.2165728360414505, -0.01241419930011034, 0.015685610473155975, -0.5166523456573486, -0.3028266131877899, 0.3232036232948303, -0.4077624976634979, -0.1087041050195694, 0.3988439440...	4	In 1607, Hudson set sail on the Hopewell to find a northeast passage to Asia through the Arctic Ocean via the North Pole. The voyage was paid for by the Moscovy Company, one of a small number of corporations given Royal Charters. In June he reached the eastern shore of Greenland and started northward, mapping as they went. On the 20th they started out for Svalbard , eventually reaching an island on the northern end of the group on the 17th of July. At this point the ship was only 577 nautical miles from the pole, but it was clear there is no way to go further due to the ice and he decided to return to England on the 31st. On the return voyage Hudson discovered what is now known as Jan Mayen Island before reaching home in September. In 1608 he tried again, this time sailing farther to the east along the northern coast of Norway. Once again all northern routes were blocked by ice and he ended up reaching Novaya Zemlya before turning back. This point had been reached by several crews in the past and was considered the end of the line, which convinced the Moscovy Company that there was no point funding further voyages. At this point Hudson wanted to continue his explorations and turned to the Dutch East India Company for funding. They were particularly interested in shorter routes to the east, and commissioned a new ship for his use, the Halve Maen (Half Moon). The ship headed north in May 1609, but was forced to turn back before reaching Novaya Zemlya. Instead the expedition headed west and eventually reached the Grand Banks, off Newfoundland, in early July. They spent the next four months exploring the east coast of North America, including Manhattan, Maine, and Cape Cod–the first Europeans to describe these locations (although Giovanni da Verrazano explored the same coast in 1524)–and sailing a distance up the Hudson River, which bears his name. The Dutch would later claim the area and set up a colony as New Amsterdam. Upon returning to Europe in November they made port at Dartmouth, where Hudson was arrested for sailing under another country's flag. He was soon released. In 1610 Hudson managed to get backing for yet another voyage under the English flag; this time the funding came from the Virginia Company and the British East India Company. At the helm of his new ship, the Discovery, he stayed to the north (some claim he deliberately went too far south with the Dutch), reaching Iceland on May 11, the southern end of Greenland on June 4, and then managing to turn around the southern tip of Greenland and continue west. Excitement was high that a ship had finally found the Northwest Passage, and on June 25th they reached Hudson Strait at the northern tip of Labrador. Following the southern coast of the strait the ship sailed into Hudson Bay and spent the next months continuing to map and explore the eastern shores. In November the ship became trapped in the ice in James Bay, and the crew moved ashore for the winter. When the ice cleared in the spring of 1611, Hudson wanted to continue exploring, but the crew wanted to return home. Eventually matters came to a head and the crew mutinied, setting Hudson, his son, and several other crew adrift in a small boat. They were never seen again, although some claim that he successfully made his way as far south as the Ottawa River. Apparently the reports by Hudson of his voyage for the Dutch have been lost, but an account was given by Johannes de Laet in his work Nieuwe Wereldt ofte beschrijvinghe van West-Indien (first edition 1625). The same situation applies to the voyage of Adriaen Block.	795	ENGLISH	1
John James Audubon was an ornithologist, painter, and naturalist. He was born in 1785 as an illegitimate child in what is now the nation of Haiti. He was raised in France by his stepmother. John, who at the time was called Jean Rabin, showed an interest in birds from an early age. At the age of twelve, however, Jean Rabin was sent to military school and gained experience on ships. Jean Rabin showed little interest or skill in military matters and endeavored to study birds. In 1803, Audubon’s father arranged for him to travel to the United States to avoid being drafted in the Napoleonic Wars. Upon arrival, Jean Rabin changed his named to John James, learned English in a Quaker boarding home, and married his neighbor, Lucy Bakewell five years later. Audubon tended to a family farm near Philadelphia where he became the first person in North America to band birds. He learned that birds return to the same nesting place each year by tying yarn to the legs of an Eastern Phoebe. He also began to paint birds. After business ventures failed, Audubon decided to pursue his love of painting birds. He traveled down the Mississippi River and shot birds so he could paint them. He used wires to prop them in natural positions to make the paintings as realistic as possible. Audubon apparently shot prodigious numbers of birds and angered contemporaries such as Alexander Wilson. Audubon had no success selling pictures in America but became an instant success in London, where the English saw him as the “American Woodsman.” Audubon raised enough money to publish his now legendary Birds of America in 1827. Audubon soon published more books and returned to America, where he bought an estate on the Hudson River. In 1842, Birds of America was published in the United States. He also had a home in Key West, Florida. The Audubon Society was dedicated and named in his honor in 1896.	<urn:uuid:8739ba48-0973-4ecd-9991-69bc7e76d159>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://mrnussbaum.com/john-james-audubon-biography	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251737572.61/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127235617-20200128025617-00416.warc.gz	en	0.987688	411	3.703125	4	[ 0.07363341003656387, 0.28916633129119873, 0.18419504165649414, 0.11160839349031448, 0.2700488269329071, 0.27175453305244446, -0.1103910580277443, 0.3247888386249542, -0.25297537446022034, 0.2213679701089859, 0.04218072444200516, 0.03382460027933121, 0.07920211553573608, 0.2251608669757843,...	2	John James Audubon was an ornithologist, painter, and naturalist. He was born in 1785 as an illegitimate child in what is now the nation of Haiti. He was raised in France by his stepmother. John, who at the time was called Jean Rabin, showed an interest in birds from an early age. At the age of twelve, however, Jean Rabin was sent to military school and gained experience on ships. Jean Rabin showed little interest or skill in military matters and endeavored to study birds. In 1803, Audubon’s father arranged for him to travel to the United States to avoid being drafted in the Napoleonic Wars. Upon arrival, Jean Rabin changed his named to John James, learned English in a Quaker boarding home, and married his neighbor, Lucy Bakewell five years later. Audubon tended to a family farm near Philadelphia where he became the first person in North America to band birds. He learned that birds return to the same nesting place each year by tying yarn to the legs of an Eastern Phoebe. He also began to paint birds. After business ventures failed, Audubon decided to pursue his love of painting birds. He traveled down the Mississippi River and shot birds so he could paint them. He used wires to prop them in natural positions to make the paintings as realistic as possible. Audubon apparently shot prodigious numbers of birds and angered contemporaries such as Alexander Wilson. Audubon had no success selling pictures in America but became an instant success in London, where the English saw him as the “American Woodsman.” Audubon raised enough money to publish his now legendary Birds of America in 1827. Audubon soon published more books and returned to America, where he bought an estate on the Hudson River. In 1842, Birds of America was published in the United States. He also had a home in Key West, Florida. The Audubon Society was dedicated and named in his honor in 1896.	423	ENGLISH	1
A strong number of 5000 women of Manipur protested against the British for sending their men to Burma to collect timber in 1904. That revolution lasted for a week and eventually, the British withdrew the new regulation of forced labour. This battle, solely waged by women, later, became the World 1st All Women’s War. Another struggle was waged in 1939 by Manipur women when there was a man-made famine because of the British policy of exporting rice outside Manipur. The struggle is said to have lasted for several months, with women out on the roads, unfortunately claiming a few lives of the women protestors. The agitation subsided because of the outbreak of the 2nd World War. Both these two historic war came to be known as the 1st and 2nd Nupi Lal or Women’s War. The all women civilian troops protested against the British for their policy of forced labour and exploitation of their men in 1904 and against the price hike and scarcity of rice because of exports in 1939. This was significant as women of Manipur were on the forefront of every repressive laws made by the British imperialists. While the significance of Manipur women in fighting against social evils such as drugs to ‘repressing laws’ of the state being tackled at the forefront is immense, long before it was heard of elsewhere, their Manipur fore-mothers heralded a unique way of waging war against authorities by forming an all women’s group in the early 20th century. The uniqueness of such war shouldn’t be forgotten. The contribution of Manipuri women to women empowerment is pioneering, considering that its society is highly patriarchal. Thus, it is important for social scientists to focus their study on the role of Manipur women in uplifting their own status and also by giving their ancestors the due credit for waging the first all women’s war. READ MORE : Latest News	<urn:uuid:3c0d644e-5738-458b-8ca7-78ef524a6b2b>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.thecurrent.co.in/remembering-the-milestone-in-womens-war/news/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251778272.69/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128122813-20200128152813-00285.warc.gz	en	0.980039	388	4.09375	4	[ -0.07860924303531647, 0.23010234534740448, -0.10212376713752747, 0.17144137620925903, -0.25209298729896545, 0.4565114676952362, -0.02239760383963585, 0.2119518369436264, -0.40390709042549133, -0.3665078580379486, 0.20152203738689423, -0.516571581363678, 0.21803562343120575, 0.2015003114938...	3	A strong number of 5000 women of Manipur protested against the British for sending their men to Burma to collect timber in 1904. That revolution lasted for a week and eventually, the British withdrew the new regulation of forced labour. This battle, solely waged by women, later, became the World 1st All Women’s War. Another struggle was waged in 1939 by Manipur women when there was a man-made famine because of the British policy of exporting rice outside Manipur. The struggle is said to have lasted for several months, with women out on the roads, unfortunately claiming a few lives of the women protestors. The agitation subsided because of the outbreak of the 2nd World War. Both these two historic war came to be known as the 1st and 2nd Nupi Lal or Women’s War. The all women civilian troops protested against the British for their policy of forced labour and exploitation of their men in 1904 and against the price hike and scarcity of rice because of exports in 1939. This was significant as women of Manipur were on the forefront of every repressive laws made by the British imperialists. While the significance of Manipur women in fighting against social evils such as drugs to ‘repressing laws’ of the state being tackled at the forefront is immense, long before it was heard of elsewhere, their Manipur fore-mothers heralded a unique way of waging war against authorities by forming an all women’s group in the early 20th century. The uniqueness of such war shouldn’t be forgotten. The contribution of Manipuri women to women empowerment is pioneering, considering that its society is highly patriarchal. Thus, it is important for social scientists to focus their study on the role of Manipur women in uplifting their own status and also by giving their ancestors the due credit for waging the first all women’s war. READ MORE : Latest News	399	ENGLISH	1
The Theme of Certainty in Things Fall Apart Things Fall Apart although is an African novel but the themes and underlying messages which Achebe successfully delivers are relatable and provide true for people living all across the globe in all times to come. It is these different forms of certainty which unfold important themes of the novel and that is the need to delve into the native culture along with constructing, deconstructing and re-constructing it and also making certain additions and subtractions from it for the good of the society and one’s individual self. Achebe is one of those African writers who has successfully managed to produce indigenous texts which are rooted in the African culture and this surety and the ability to paint a quintessentially representative image of the African society while being able to give concrete insight into the psyche of the characters. These characters definitely resonate a certain form of concrete certainty. This certainty is about the richness of the African culture. Achebe has actually set the story in the pre-colonial times while it was originally written in the colonial times. We are given quite a lot of detailed descriptions of elements of African indigenous culture in the novel and this is seen more often in the beginning of the novel and that probably is to set the setting and make it clearer. We see Achebe coming up with short but concrete and vivid descriptions of the prevalent justice codes, trial process, family, cultural and other social rituals, the customs of marriage, production of food along with its preparation processes. Special references to the process of shared leadership for the community are given which inform us about the prevalence of a proper governing and check and balance system along with religious beliefs and the way they are brought into practices are discussed in great detail. We are also told of how a common man can climb the ladder of success of the clan through his own hard work, consistency and efforts. Achebe wants to instill the norms of his African culture in the reader to such an extent that he uses African names from the Igbo culture and then provides the reader with their meanings alongside. For instance he uses names like Onwuna and says that it means “death may please himself” and also expresses his certainty about them by saying that since the name meant this, the child who was named was direly affected by it and actually died (Achebe 66). However this certainty undergoes a transformation where we see that a significant kind of liminality is created purposefully by the author. We are gradually taken to witness details of the colonial influence via Christian elements in the region. This smooth transition actually leads us to see that the influence of the colonizers and Christians who have come from another end of the world but have their own form of certainty which cannot be undermined or overlooked since their certainty is as firm and certain as anybody else’s. People very much from the African culture are attracted towards it and in fact Okonkwo, who is a stringent character along with being a staunch African in behavior and conduct, his son Nwoye converts to Christianity which might imply that the certainty of this Christianity proved to be stronger for him and other converts. We also see that Obierika, who exercises his thinking skills and emotional stimulants more than anybody else, actually tries to lead Okonkwo in the direction which was being shown by the Christian missionaries which means Obierika was endorsing this other form of certainty that was about to hit them massively very soon. This implies that Achebe might not necessarily undermine or overlook the certainty with which he began the novel with but he takes a leap to a parallel form of certainty which is in stark contrast with the African way of life. Apart from the above mentioned parallel certainties, we see Achebe exploring different kinds of certainties in Okonkwo’s character too. Okonkwo was a stringent, well built man at the beginning who pretended to be devoid of emotions and the softer side of a personality. We are told with great certainty that he was “a man of action” and not of words while being “ruled by passion” (Achebe 14). However right after establishing this certainty Achebe establishes the fact with the same amount of certainty that Okonkwo does have a softer side which may not be explored or brought into limelight due to social pressures which instilled in him hatred against his “agbala” of a father and a fear to become as soft and “title-less” as him (Achebe 22). We are told that Okonkwo thinks all night before killing Ikemufuna and does not eat and step out of his obi for more than three days which shows he has a softer side too. It is stated that he was so weak that “his legs could hardly carry him” (Achebe 56). However this certainty is fluctuated when Okonkwo commits another murder along with being a part of other malicious and destructive activities like burning the church down and also curses his son Nwoye for having converted to a foreign religion while shunning the religion of his ancestors. Yet at the end of the novel we see the certainty of Okonkwo’s guilt which again is a softer side of his personality, a side which he has always overlooked and snubbed back to from where it was emerging. We see that the certainty of his emotional side surpasses the certainty of the physical and masculine traits he had had and had been known for all his life which ends as a debacle. His hanging dead body actually leaves the reader uncertain about the certainty of physicality which is avidly stressed in the beginning and affirms the certainty about the spiritual and emotional side which has been overlooked then but affirmed at the end. Hence it is concluded that Achebe in Things Fall Apart employs certainty and uncertainty to draw the readers’ attention to the underlying theme of the need to perceive the cultures in a better way along with paying keen attention to development and growth of themselves as individuals and the novel does began and end with different forms of certainties.	<urn:uuid:e4a6c94d-d1f8-4f02-ac47-aae6349b4c2e>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://freebooksummary.com/the-theme-of-certainty-in-things-fall-apart-essay	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251779833.86/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128153713-20200128183713-00179.warc.gz	en	0.980946	1,249	3.359375	3	[ 0.07985961437225342, 0.5983189344406128, -0.04307932406663895, 0.28303417563438416, 0.03478062152862549, 0.11157996207475662, 0.25610989332199097, -0.2583490014076233, 0.11326299607753754, 0.09008203446865082, -0.08568425476551056, -0.26426929235458374, 0.18331345915794373, 0.0681258589029...	1	The Theme of Certainty in Things Fall Apart Things Fall Apart although is an African novel but the themes and underlying messages which Achebe successfully delivers are relatable and provide true for people living all across the globe in all times to come. It is these different forms of certainty which unfold important themes of the novel and that is the need to delve into the native culture along with constructing, deconstructing and re-constructing it and also making certain additions and subtractions from it for the good of the society and one’s individual self. Achebe is one of those African writers who has successfully managed to produce indigenous texts which are rooted in the African culture and this surety and the ability to paint a quintessentially representative image of the African society while being able to give concrete insight into the psyche of the characters. These characters definitely resonate a certain form of concrete certainty. This certainty is about the richness of the African culture. Achebe has actually set the story in the pre-colonial times while it was originally written in the colonial times. We are given quite a lot of detailed descriptions of elements of African indigenous culture in the novel and this is seen more often in the beginning of the novel and that probably is to set the setting and make it clearer. We see Achebe coming up with short but concrete and vivid descriptions of the prevalent justice codes, trial process, family, cultural and other social rituals, the customs of marriage, production of food along with its preparation processes. Special references to the process of shared leadership for the community are given which inform us about the prevalence of a proper governing and check and balance system along with religious beliefs and the way they are brought into practices are discussed in great detail. We are also told of how a common man can climb the ladder of success of the clan through his own hard work, consistency and efforts. Achebe wants to instill the norms of his African culture in the reader to such an extent that he uses African names from the Igbo culture and then provides the reader with their meanings alongside. For instance he uses names like Onwuna and says that it means “death may please himself” and also expresses his certainty about them by saying that since the name meant this, the child who was named was direly affected by it and actually died (Achebe 66). However this certainty undergoes a transformation where we see that a significant kind of liminality is created purposefully by the author. We are gradually taken to witness details of the colonial influence via Christian elements in the region. This smooth transition actually leads us to see that the influence of the colonizers and Christians who have come from another end of the world but have their own form of certainty which cannot be undermined or overlooked since their certainty is as firm and certain as anybody else’s. People very much from the African culture are attracted towards it and in fact Okonkwo, who is a stringent character along with being a staunch African in behavior and conduct, his son Nwoye converts to Christianity which might imply that the certainty of this Christianity proved to be stronger for him and other converts. We also see that Obierika, who exercises his thinking skills and emotional stimulants more than anybody else, actually tries to lead Okonkwo in the direction which was being shown by the Christian missionaries which means Obierika was endorsing this other form of certainty that was about to hit them massively very soon. This implies that Achebe might not necessarily undermine or overlook the certainty with which he began the novel with but he takes a leap to a parallel form of certainty which is in stark contrast with the African way of life. Apart from the above mentioned parallel certainties, we see Achebe exploring different kinds of certainties in Okonkwo’s character too. Okonkwo was a stringent, well built man at the beginning who pretended to be devoid of emotions and the softer side of a personality. We are told with great certainty that he was “a man of action” and not of words while being “ruled by passion” (Achebe 14). However right after establishing this certainty Achebe establishes the fact with the same amount of certainty that Okonkwo does have a softer side which may not be explored or brought into limelight due to social pressures which instilled in him hatred against his “agbala” of a father and a fear to become as soft and “title-less” as him (Achebe 22). We are told that Okonkwo thinks all night before killing Ikemufuna and does not eat and step out of his obi for more than three days which shows he has a softer side too. It is stated that he was so weak that “his legs could hardly carry him” (Achebe 56). However this certainty is fluctuated when Okonkwo commits another murder along with being a part of other malicious and destructive activities like burning the church down and also curses his son Nwoye for having converted to a foreign religion while shunning the religion of his ancestors. Yet at the end of the novel we see the certainty of Okonkwo’s guilt which again is a softer side of his personality, a side which he has always overlooked and snubbed back to from where it was emerging. We see that the certainty of his emotional side surpasses the certainty of the physical and masculine traits he had had and had been known for all his life which ends as a debacle. His hanging dead body actually leaves the reader uncertain about the certainty of physicality which is avidly stressed in the beginning and affirms the certainty about the spiritual and emotional side which has been overlooked then but affirmed at the end. Hence it is concluded that Achebe in Things Fall Apart employs certainty and uncertainty to draw the readers’ attention to the underlying theme of the need to perceive the cultures in a better way along with paying keen attention to development and growth of themselves as individuals and the novel does began and end with different forms of certainties.	1,225	ENGLISH	1
By John Mikolsevek History is full of great men and great deeds. All American schoolchildren know the story of George Washington crossing the Delaware River in the dead of winter during the Revolutionary War. Yet how many are told of Washington’s less successful exploits in the French and Indian War? While George S. Patton was no George Washington, he nevertheless was one of the most controversial and popular commanders in American history. After World War II, children heard the saga of “Old Blood and Guts” and how he led the swift-moving Third Army across western Europe in pursuit of the crumbling Nazi Army. But Patton’s military achievements did not begin and end in World War II. Instead, they started in World War I. And without his experience in the Great War, Patton might never have learned the fine art of command, of how to combine soldiers and tanks into one irresistible, mighty phalanx—a skill that served the Allies well in the next war. Patton Joins the World War When the United States declared war on Germany and the Central Powers on April 6, 1917, Patton was serving on the staff of General John J. Pershing, his mentor and idol. As a soldier and commander, Pershing was everything the 31-year-old Patton wanted to be. Strong-jawed, muscular, and imposing, Pershing garnered respect just by walking into a room. A tough disciplinarian, he demanded the most from his staff and soldiers; his aides lived in fear of his wrath. Patton began to mimic Pershing in word and deed. Already known as a loud-mouthed martinet, Patton, during his time with Pershing, refined his ideas and beliefs on military protocol. Strict about discipline, he insisted on perfect military protocol. A formal salute became known derisively among the men as a “Georgie Patton.” After accompanying Pershing on his punitive expedition against Mexican revolutionary Pancho Villa in 1916, Patton joined the general’s personal staff, where he used his wife Beatrice’s vast fortune, his own political connections, and a growing relationship between his sister Nita and Pershing to cement his ties to the quick-rising general. After the United States declared war, Patton followed Pershing to Europe. Along with 60 other officers and 128 War Department clerks, civilians, and enlisted men, Patton left New York City on May 28 aboard the British steamer HMS Baltic. During the voyage, Patton kept himself in shape, collected money for war orphans, and worked on his French. While participating in the Stockholm Olympics in 1912, where he finished fifth in the pentathlon, Patton had fallen in love with French culture and language, and although far from fluent in French, he became an instructor on the voyage over. Even Pershing frequented his lessons. On June 8, Baltic docked at Liverpool to wild celebration, including the playing of “The Star Spangled Banner” by the Royal Welch Fusiliers. At last the Americans had arrived. After landing, Patton’s first assignment was to lead 67 troops to their quarters in the Tower of London. While not particularly thrilled with the assignment, Patton knew that almost every officer back home would trade jobs with him. Although still far from the front, he was closer to it in London than he would have been in Washington, D.C. For the next few days, Patton kept busy socializing, drinking, and fruitlessly ordering his troops around. After a week of celebrating, Pershing and his staff left for France. Arriving in Paris on June 13, Patton finally saw his first glimpse of the war, “several train loads of British wounded; they did not look very happy.” He believed that it was only a matter of time until he had his own crack at fighting. Once again without specific duties, Patton functioned basically as the commander of the headquarters troops. The job entailed commanding guards on duty, making sure that there were enough chauffeurs for the automobiles and that the cars were running perfectly. Patton complained to his wife that “personally I have not a great deal to do. I would trade jobs with almost anyone for anything.” Freely utilizing his wife’s wealth, he purchased a 12-cylinder, five-passenger Packard automobile worth $4,386—the equivalent of more than $50,000 today—and endeavored to be seen everywhere. The fancy new car turned the heads of many superior officers, who sometimes wondered how a young captain could afford such a vehicle. On July 20, Patton traveled with Pershing to meet with the British commander in chief, Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig. Prior to departure, Patton installed a license plate on the front of their automobile that read, “U.S. No. 1.” During the meeting, Pershing impressed Haig, who nevertheless judged Pershing’s staff to be rather unspectacular. But Haig liked Patton, writing in his diary after the meeting that “the A.D.C. [aide-de-camp] is a fire-eater and longs for the fray.” For Patton, there could be no greater praise. Gunning for the Tank Corps Despite the praise from Haig, Patton’s disgust with his monotonous job continued to grow, as more of his West Point classmates were promoted ahead of him. Patton soon began to look for other jobs. By late July, for the first time, he had a serious conversation about tanks and their role in the war. Trained as a cavalryman and therefore appreciative of mobile warfare and aggressive tactics, Patton seemed less than enthusiastic about tanks, writing, “The tank is not worth a damn.” He stuck with his staff job, but after following Pershing’s move to Chaumont on September 1, he grew more frustrated, reporting himself to be “nothing but [a] hired flunky. I shall be glad to get back to the line again and will try to do so in the spring. These damn French are bothering us with a lot of details which have nothing to do with any- thing. I have a hard time keeping my patience.” Patton began to discuss with his wife the possibility of joining the tank corps. “There is a lot of talk about tanks here now and I am interested as I can see no future to my present job,” he wrote. “The casualties in the tanks are high, that is lots of them get smashed, but the people in them are pretty safe as we can be in this war. It will be a long long time yet before we have any [tanks] so don’t get worried. I love you too much to try to get killed but also too much to be willing to sit on my tail and do nothing.” By early October, Patton met and discussed with Colonel LeRoy Eltinge the role of tanks. Eltinge believed Patton should join them. On October 3, Patton submitted an application to the Tank Service (later called Tank Corps). In the letter, he wrote of his cavalry background, his mechanical ability, and his fluency in French that made him the right man for the job. Showing his usual flair for self-promotion, Patton described his experience during Pershing’s expedition into Mexico, when he had led a small group of men on a raid that took the lives of three Mexican banditos, including Pancho Villa’s chief lieutenant, Julio Cardenas. During the raid, Patton noted, he had used an automobile to help in the surprise attack, adding, “I believe that I am the only American who has ever made an attack in a motor vehicle.” While waiting for an answer, Patton entered the hospital with a case of jaundice, but he was soon healthy and ready for his new duty. On November 10, he was officially chosen for the Tank Corps and was ordered to prepare a school for light tanks. Orders in hand, Patton wrote his last diary entry as a staff officer: “This is [my] last day as staff officer. Now I rise or fall on my own.” Patton’s First Tank Patton’s first assignment in the Tank Corps was to learn as much about the tank as possible. In order to begin the American Expeditionary Force Light Tank School, Patton, along with 28-year-old Lieutenant Elgin Braine, was ordered to visit the French tank training center at Chamlieu for two weeks, followed by one week at a tank factory at Bilancourt. Braine, a reserve officer, was originally assigned to the 1st Infantry Division, but was transferred to serve under Patton because of his mechanical and technical expertise. During their weeks studying French light tanks, Patton and Braine made four suggestions that were eventually adopted. These included a self-starter, improvements in the fuel tank to protect against leaks, an interchangeable mount that allowed the tank to carry a 37mm cannon or machine gun, and a steel panel to separate the crew from the engine. While at Chamlieu, Patton drove his first tank, a French Renault. His first impression of driving a tank was that it was easy to control; he thought anyone who could drive a car could operate a tank. In typical Patton fashion, he amused himself by knocking over trees with his new toy. The Light Tank School After three weeks of intense study, Patton and Braine began the process of creating the Light Tank School. Before this could happen, the Tank Corps first had to decide which tanks to use. Following a fact-finding mission, the War Department settled on the Mark VII as the nation’s heavy tank of choice. The Mark VII, a close model of the British heavy tank, weighed a massive 43 tons, had an 11-man crew, and a dizzying maximum speed of 6.5 miles per hour. For the light tank, the Americans chose to copy the French Renault. The U.S. model weighed 6.5 tons, with a maximum speed of 5.5 miles per hour and a two-man crew to operate it: a gunner, usually a sergeant, and a driver, usually a corporal. Each tank was equipped with a 37mm cannon or a French Hotchkiss 8mm machine gun. Communicating inside the tanks proved difficult. Completely closed in, with little light seeping through, early tankers devised a primitive but effective way to communicate. Unable to talk because of the noisy engines, the gunner would kick the driver in the back of the head to go forward, a kick on his head to stop, and a kick on either right or left shoulder to go left or right. Prior to the use of radio communication, this was the best the tankers could do. With heavy and light tanks selected, the Tank Corps began to organize and produce its own tanks. Unfortunately for the Americans, manufacturers at home were ill prepared for the large task ahead—only 26 ever arrived in Europe. To supply the AEF with the tanks it needed, the U.S. government reached an agreement with Allied Commander in Chief Marshal Ferdinand Foch for the transfer of existing light and heavy tanks to the Americans. With the tanks on order, the Tank Corps had to grow into a fully operational branch of the AEF. Colonel Samuel D. Rockenbach was formally appointed chief of the Tank Corps on December 22. Rockenbach, a graduate of Virginia Military Institute, was 22 years older than Patton and his opposite in almost every way. A stoic, even-tempered figure, Rockenbach lacked a sense of humor and was chosen not for his great mind but for his work ethic. At first, Patton and Rockenbach’s relationship was rocky, and Patton’s first comments on Rockenbach were extremely critical. “Col. R. is the most contrary old cuss I ever worked with,” he wrote. “As soon as you suggest anything he opposed but after about an hours argument comes round and proposes the same thing himself. So in the long run I get my way, but at a great waste of breath. It is good discipline for me for I have to keep my temper.” Patton’s Armored Tactics As the Tank Corps prepared to begin training, Patton wrote a paper about light tanks. The 58-page report was, he bragged, “the basis of the U.S. Tank Corps. I think it’s the best Technical Paper I ever wrote.” The paper dealt with the mechanical structure of the tank, the organization of tank units, the tactics of tank forces, and methods of instruction and drill. Patton, while neither a great writer nor a revolutionary thinker, correctly believed that mobility was the most important factor in a tank. Through mobility, he said, the tank could attack quickly, and with its increased speed and maneuverability, the tank would face less fire and be less vulnerable to enemy attacks. The most insightful aspect of Patton’s paper dealt with tactics and training. While a firm believer in the weapon’s power, he also believed that tanks should function as an aid for infantry. The main tactical value of a tank was to help the infantry advance by running over barbed wire, preventing the enemy from manning trench defenses, shielding infantry from enemy machine-gun fire, neutralizing enemy strongholds, preventing counterattacks, and seizing the initiative and attacking beyond the final objective. While most tanks in World War I were inserted piecemeal, Patton correctly believed that tanks should be employed en masse. The Training Ground Finding the land on which to train tankers proved to be difficult. For the training center, Patton chose Bourg, a small village five miles south of Langres. The ground was level and perfect for tank training, and a lone railroad track was beneficial in getting troops and eventually tanks to the center. At first, the French refused to allow the AEF access to the land. This infuriated Patton, who felt that the French were acting more like enemies than allies. “We are more or less held up now by the French who seem to put every obstacle in the way of our getting the ground we want for Tank center,” he groused. “You would think they were doing us a great favor to let us fight in their damn country.” Displaying great diplomatic patience, Patton was able to secure the land, and by January the tank school was becoming a reality. The next month, Patton learned of his promotion to major. He immediately pinned two golden oak leaves on his shoulders signifying his rank. Unlike most officers during this time, Patton wore his rank proudly and never feared the Germans’ penchant for shooting officers. Soon, he had the tank school up and running. With over 200 men in training at Bourg, Patton provided the best learning environment he could for his troops. Kept busy around the clock, a typical day for soldiers in the tank school began at 8:20 for morning drills, followed by close-order drills, exercises on saluting at 8:35, then calisthenics and fitness drills at 10:05, instruction in guard duty and military courtesy at 10:45, followed by foot drill at 11:20. After recess and lunch, officers were required to receive pistol instruction at 1 pm, followed by machine-gun and foot drill at 1:50 and theory and operation classes from 2:50 to 4. The rest of the day, the soldiers were expected to keep the training center in shipshape order. Patton “Ruled an Ass” in England In March, Patton and Rockenbach spent a week in England attempting to get some modifications for their tanks. “I argued in favor of four speeds,” Patton recalled, “but was ruled an ass.” Following the trip, Rockenbach made his first inspection of the tank school and was extremely impressed. After the visit, Patton was in rare form, giving a speech on discipline. “Lack of discipline in war means death or defeat, which is worse than death,” he warned. “The prize for this war is the greatest of all prizes—freedom. It is by discipline alone that all your efforts, all your patriotism, shall not have been in vain. Without it heroism is futile. You will die for nothing. With discipline you are irresistible.” On March 19, Patton received word that he had been promoted to lieutenant colonel, and he was further elated to hear that 10 Renault tanks were on their way to Bourg. Following a few weeks of training with actual tanks, he and his troops put on their first demonstration on April 22. The demonstration went extremely well, and Patton noted, “The show came off all right except that it was raining hard and very cold so that one got stuck in a shell hole but I had a reserve one ready and every thing went on fine.” To celebrate the school’s success, six days later Patton organized the 1st Light Tank Battalion, with himself as battalion commander. While happy with the tank school’s progress, Patton grew bored with the safety of rear duty and longed for a glimpse of the front. “I am getting ashamed of myself when I think of all the fine fighting and how little I have had to do with,” he told his wife. On May 21, he finally had a chance to travel to the front. Traveling with a French major named La Favre, Patton once got within 200 yards of the German line. Willing to risk his life for a bit of fun, La Favre turned sarcastically toward the German line and exposed his bottom to enemy fire as he adjusted his leggings. Patton, not to be outdone, took off his helmet, lit a cigarette, and began to smoke. Luckily for both La Favre and Patton, German sharpshooters disdained to fire on the two show-offs. Returning from his trip, Patton reorganized the tank school and formed a second battalion. As the equivalent of a regimental commander, he appointed a chief of staff, adjutant, reconnaissance officer and supply officer. He placed Captain Joseph Viner in command of the 1st Battalion, also named the 344th Tank Battalion, and Captain Sereno Brett in command of the 2nd Battalion, also named the 345th Tank Battalion. In June, Patton accepted a spot at the Army General Staff College in Langres. While busy with the tank school and not really interested in staff duty, he decided to take the class because most general officers had taken it. On August 20, while still in class, Patton received an urgent message: “You will report at once to the Chief of Tank Corps accompanied by your Reconnaissance officer and equipped for field service.” For Patton, it was a dream come true. For the first time in his life, he would lead large numbers of men into battle. First Major Engagement of the American Expeditionary Force By the late summer of 1918, the AEF had grown large enough to participate fully in the war. Although divisions had been pushed into battle to stop the German summer offensive, the St. Mihiel attack would be the first major engagement the AEF would participate in as a whole. Located 20 miles southeast of Verdun, the town of St. Mihiel had fallen into German hands in 1914. Four years later, the Germans still held on to 150 square miles of French territory. While cutting off the salient was important, the real prize was the ancient fortress of Metz, 30 miles beyond St. Mihiel. The original plan called for an all-out attack on St. Mihiel, with 15 American divisions and four French divisions moving against the flanks of the salient. Unfortunately, French and British fear caused a change in the plan. Supported by Foch, Haig believed that a complete breakthrough of the St. Mihiel salient was risky and unnecessary. Instead of pushing forward with a breakthrough, the armies would stop and prepare for the major engagement against the Hindenburg Line. The new plan called for the forces to free the railroad through St. Mihiel to Verdun and to establish a base for further operations. After cutting off the salient, the AEF would reorganize and swing north to the Meuse-Argonne Hindenburg Line. Patton set out to see the terrain on which his beloved tanks would fight. During the last week of August, Patton and some French soldiers explored the section designated for the Tank Corps. Patton found the ground soft, but he decided that it was suitable for tank use. With this knowledge in hand, he set about devising his own plan for his tanks. The plan called for Patton’s 1st Tank Brigade to support the 1st and 42nd Divisions, which were located almost directly in the center of IV Corps. Meanwhile, the AEF received 225 light tanks from the French. Out of the 225 light tanks, Patton got 144 of them and planned to put them all to use. Before going into battle, he gave another grandiloquent speech. “American tanks do not surrender,” he roared. “As long as one tank is able to move it must go forward. Its presence will save the lives of hundreds of infantry and kill many Germans. Finally, this is our big chance. Make it worthwhile.” Patton on the Front Lines The day of attack arrived. On September 12, 550,000 doughboys and 3.3 million artillery rounds launched their attack on the St. Mihiel salient. Patton wrote in his diary, “When the shelling first [started] I had some doubts about the advisability of sticking my head over the parapet, but it is just like taking a cold bath, once you get in it’s all right. And I soon got out on the parapet.” By 9:15, Patton was growing weary of staying behind the lines. The excitement of the battle and the urge to prove his courage were too much for him to ignore. He decided to leave his command post and see for himself what was going on. Patton moved on foot toward the action and immediately saw the wrath of war as the dead lay scattered across the field. As for his tanks, he came upon a few stuck in the mud and trenches, but in general the tanks were performing well. Patton eventually met up with some French tankers under his command around the town of St. Baussant, and he also encountered Brig. Gen. Douglas MacArthur, commander of the 84th Brigade. The two conversed on a hill as bullets whizzed by. “I joined him and the creeping barrage came along toward us,” Patton recalled. “We stood and talked but neither was much interested in what the other said as we could not get our minds off the shells.” One well-placed artillery round on that cold, rainy, September day could well have changed the course of World War II. After talking with MacArthur, Patton moved on toward the action. In Essey, he met some American soldiers who were afraid to cross a bridge a French soldier had told them was mined. “This made me mad,” Patton said, “so I led them through on foot but there was no danger as the Bosch [was] shelling the next town.” After crossing the bridge, he hitched a ride on a nearby tank. A few miles out of town, while still on the top of the tank, Patton noticed paint chips beginning to fly off the tank—he couldn’t hear anything over the noise—and immediately jumped off the vehicle into a shell hole. Unfortunately for Patton, the tank crew did not notice his hurried departure and went on, leaving him in a wide-open field with infantry troops still 600 yards behind. Stuck in the shell hole, Patton again pressed his luck. “The bright thought occurred to me that I could move across the front in an oblique fashion and not appear to run from the Germans yet at the same time get back,” he recalled. “Finally I decided that I could get back obliquely. So I started listening for the machine guns with all my ears. As soon as the m.g.’s opened I would lay down and beat the bullets each time. Some time I will figure the speed of sounds and bullets and see if I was right. It is the only use I know of that math has ever been to me.” After his narrow escape, Patton rejoined the infantry and began organizing an attack of the town of Beney. Around 3 pm, exhausted and content with the progression of the battle, he sat down for his first meal, only to find that a mischievous German POW had replaced the food in his hamper sack with rocks. He made do with some crackers taken from a dead German. Following the successful attack on Beney, both the 1st and 2nd Tank Battalions settled in for the night. The next day, Patton and his tanks moved forward against little German resistance. On September 14, his forces pushed aside German resistance and captured the town of Jonville. For the Allies, the battle of St. Mihiel was a tremendous success. More than 16,000 Germans were captured, along with 450 guns; and more than 7,000 Germans were killed, wounded, or missing. Only a few hundred American deaths were reported. Of Patton’s 174 tanks engaged in the battle, three were destroyed, 22 were ditched, and 14 broke down. With only five killed in action and 19 wounded, Patton’s tank forces had done extremely well. The performance of the tanks, while far from perfect, proved to doubters that tanks were an important and powerful weapon, not just a laboring machine. Patton believed that he and his forces had done well but could do better. Personally, Patton had shown great courage under fire and tremendous leadership qualities. Rockenbach, however, believed Patton’s conduct during the battle was less than exemplary. As a tank brigade commander, he felt that Patton’s duty was at headquarters, not running around in a field chasing tanks. In Rockenbach’s reprimand of Patton’s conduct, he listed three points: “1. The five light tanks of a platoon had to work together and not be allowed to be split up. 2. When a tank brigade was allotted to a corps, the commander was to remain at the corps headquarters or be in close telephonic communications with it. 3. I wish you would especially impress on your men that they are fighting [with] tanks, they are not infantry, and any man who abandons his tank will in the future be tried.” Patton’s personal leadership during the battle endeared him to his soldiers. While Rockenbach considered Patton’s wandering off to the front line a weakness, others considered it a strength. “George Patton was always on the front lines, never in the rear with the Red Cross,” wrote Captain Viner. “That was one of the secrets to his greatness.” “To Hell With Them, They Can’t Hit Me!” With the St. Mihiel salient closed, the AEF immediately readied itself for the next move, the Meuse-Argonne offensive. For that attack, 10 divisions planned to attack in the first wave, while eight others waited in reserve. Collectively, the AEF faced 18 well-trained German divisions. Following an artillery bombardment, the American forces were to attack a 20-mile-wide, 13-mile-long area. Throughout the area were countless German defense fortifications, dugouts, and other obstacles. Patton devised a plan for a concentrated tank thrust through the enemy defenses. The 1st Tank Brigade was ordered to support the 28th and 35th Divisions of I Corps as they attacked from the west. The two units would break out of the line and advance as far as they could. The attack started on September 26 as the artillery bombardment broke through the heavy fog. Around 6 am, Patton seemingly disregarded Rockenbach’s advice and reprimand and left his command post to see how his tanks were performing. Once again traveling on foot, Patton followed tank tracks on the Clermont-Neuvilly-Boureuilles-Varennes road, and after a few kilometers met up with some of his tanks. Almost immediately German artillery shells hit and were followed by machine-gun fire. After ordering everyone to hit the dirt, Patton ordered all ground troops toward a railroad cut. Once in the safety of the cut, Patton waited for the firing to end. While waiting for the attack to subside, more and more infantry troops began running from the front, seeking protection in the cut. With the attack dying down, Patton noticed tanks stopped before a large trench. Seizing a lull in the German bombardment, he organized the infantrymen and marched them to the trench. As they approached the trench, Patton ordered all to hit the dirt again, as machine-gun bullets flew over their heads. After the fire died down again, Patton immediately ordered the men to help get the tanks across the trench, and the men began to tear down the trench walls. The Germans began another barrage, and machine-gun fire burst out from the front. Unmoved by the firing, Patton ordered his troops to hold their ground and continue digging. While some continued to dig, others fled back to the railroad cut. Patton, angry at their lack of courage, continued to dig and even hit a few soldiers over the head with a shovel to keep them working. With the fire increasing and more troops falling on the side of him, he pushed forward, yelling, “To hell with them, they can’t hit me!” Finally the tanks advanced past the trenches, and Patton readied himself and his motley group of soldiers to advance. Waving his big walking stick over his head, he tried to rally the troops and shouted, “Let’s go get them! Who’s with me?” Caught in the moment, 100 soldiers jumped to their feet and ran down the hill with Patton. German machine-gun fire increased fantastically, causing Patton and his soldiers to hit the dirt after only 50 yards. With machine-gun fire growing stronger by the minute, Patton had a sudden vision: “I felt a great desire to run, I was trembling with fear when suddenly I thought of my progenitors and seemed to see them in a cloud over the German lines looking at me. I became calm at once and saying aloud, ‘It is time for another Patton to die.’ [I] called for volunteers and went forward to what I honestly believed to be certain death. Six men went with me; five were killed.” Patton quickly picked himself up, waved his walking stick, and shouted to the six men following him, “Let’s go, let’s go!” As the other men quickly fell, Patton’s orderly, Private First Class Joseph T. Angelo, wondered what the lunatic was trying to prove, armed with only a walking stick. Forced to take cover with Angelo in a shell hole, Patton once again tried to advance. A few seconds later, he felt a shock of a bullet enter his leg. Struggling to move, Patton managed to crawl back in the shell hole with Angelo. Angelo managed to bandage his wound, and the two awaited help. After a few hours, the fire abated and Patton, still conscious, was placed on a stretcher and taken to the medic tent. Injured and suffering from massive blood loss, Patton ordered the medics to take him to the 35th Division headquarters so he could give his report of the front. After reporting to the headquarters, Patton was sent to Hospital Number 11 for immediate surgery. The next morning he awoke, dazed but otherwise feeling rather good. The bullet had entered his left thigh and exited two inches to the left of his rectum. Patton wrote home to tell his wife that he was “missing half my bottom but otherwise all right.” Once again, Patton’s tanks proved their worth. Overall the two battles, St. Mihiel and the Meuse-Argonne offensive cost the AEF 117,000 casualities, but they inflicted 100,000 casualties on the enemy while 26,000 prisoners, 874 cannons, and 3,000 machine guns were captured. The two battles helped push the Germans to the brink of defeat. For Patton, however, the war was over. “Col. Patton, Hero of Tanks” A few days after being wounded, Patton was proud to read stories of his death-defying exploits. The headline of one story read, “Col. Patton, Hero of Tanks, Hit by Bullet—Crawled into Shell Hole and Directed Monsters in Argonne Battle.” While thrilled with what he had done so far, Patton was slightly depressed, writing to his wife, “I feel terribly to have missed all the fighting.” Bored with hospital life and frustrated by not being able to fight, he was cheered by another promotion—this time to colonel. To his immense gratification, he was also awarded both the Distinguished Service Medal and Distinguished Service Cross, and he wore them with pride for the remainder of his life. The war ended while Patton was still recovering, and he noted almost sadly in his diary: “Peace was signed and Langres was very excited. Many flags. Got rid of my bandage.” After getting out of the hospital and writing his numerous reports, Patton returned to his tanks, but without the war his job was boring, and he was saddened as many of his soldiers left for home. He remained in France for months after the war, and he prepared to leave with his brigade around March. Patton left aboard the SS Patria on March 1 and arrived in New York with much fanfare on March 17, 1919. Swamped by numerous newspaper reporters, Patton was quoted in the New York Evening Mail as saying, “The tank is only used in extreme cases of stubborn resistance. They are the natural answer to the machine gun, and as far as warfare is concerned, have come to stay just as much as the airplanes have.” The war was over, the Allies had won, and Patton had surpassed all expectations. The beginning of the Patton legend was born. World War I reinforced what Patton had trained his whole life to become, a battlefield commander. The Great War showed him for the first time to be a fine officer and leader of troops. Almost single-handedly, he had created a tank school and trained the 1st Tank Brigade. He had learned how to command and motivate troops and, ultimately, how to lead them in combat. Everything Patton did in World War II started in World War I. Indeed, it is hard to imagine General Patton rolling victoriously across Germany in 1945 had not Colonel Patton first slogged through the mud in France in 1918.	<urn:uuid:8e3e4c56-e94d-43a9-844d-305df3ce3b5d>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/2016/06/17/patton-in-wwi/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594391.21/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119093733-20200119121733-00481.warc.gz	en	0.984739	7,301	3.359375	3	[ -0.25539183616638184, 0.6948196887969971, 0.30900251865386963, -0.29116183519363403, -0.4625382423400879, 0.006344933528453112, 0.2553942799568176, 0.09648014605045319, -0.4354638159275055, -0.3144124746322632, 0.22576500475406647, 0.5582014322280884, 0.323101282119751, 0.27910369634628296...	7	By John Mikolsevek History is full of great men and great deeds. All American schoolchildren know the story of George Washington crossing the Delaware River in the dead of winter during the Revolutionary War. Yet how many are told of Washington’s less successful exploits in the French and Indian War? While George S. Patton was no George Washington, he nevertheless was one of the most controversial and popular commanders in American history. After World War II, children heard the saga of “Old Blood and Guts” and how he led the swift-moving Third Army across western Europe in pursuit of the crumbling Nazi Army. But Patton’s military achievements did not begin and end in World War II. Instead, they started in World War I. And without his experience in the Great War, Patton might never have learned the fine art of command, of how to combine soldiers and tanks into one irresistible, mighty phalanx—a skill that served the Allies well in the next war. Patton Joins the World War When the United States declared war on Germany and the Central Powers on April 6, 1917, Patton was serving on the staff of General John J. Pershing, his mentor and idol. As a soldier and commander, Pershing was everything the 31-year-old Patton wanted to be. Strong-jawed, muscular, and imposing, Pershing garnered respect just by walking into a room. A tough disciplinarian, he demanded the most from his staff and soldiers; his aides lived in fear of his wrath. Patton began to mimic Pershing in word and deed. Already known as a loud-mouthed martinet, Patton, during his time with Pershing, refined his ideas and beliefs on military protocol. Strict about discipline, he insisted on perfect military protocol. A formal salute became known derisively among the men as a “Georgie Patton.” After accompanying Pershing on his punitive expedition against Mexican revolutionary Pancho Villa in 1916, Patton joined the general’s personal staff, where he used his wife Beatrice’s vast fortune, his own political connections, and a growing relationship between his sister Nita and Pershing to cement his ties to the quick-rising general. After the United States declared war, Patton followed Pershing to Europe. Along with 60 other officers and 128 War Department clerks, civilians, and enlisted men, Patton left New York City on May 28 aboard the British steamer HMS Baltic. During the voyage, Patton kept himself in shape, collected money for war orphans, and worked on his French. While participating in the Stockholm Olympics in 1912, where he finished fifth in the pentathlon, Patton had fallen in love with French culture and language, and although far from fluent in French, he became an instructor on the voyage over. Even Pershing frequented his lessons. On June 8, Baltic docked at Liverpool to wild celebration, including the playing of “The Star Spangled Banner” by the Royal Welch Fusiliers. At last the Americans had arrived. After landing, Patton’s first assignment was to lead 67 troops to their quarters in the Tower of London. While not particularly thrilled with the assignment, Patton knew that almost every officer back home would trade jobs with him. Although still far from the front, he was closer to it in London than he would have been in Washington, D.C. For the next few days, Patton kept busy socializing, drinking, and fruitlessly ordering his troops around. After a week of celebrating, Pershing and his staff left for France. Arriving in Paris on June 13, Patton finally saw his first glimpse of the war, “several train loads of British wounded; they did not look very happy.” He believed that it was only a matter of time until he had his own crack at fighting. Once again without specific duties, Patton functioned basically as the commander of the headquarters troops. The job entailed commanding guards on duty, making sure that there were enough chauffeurs for the automobiles and that the cars were running perfectly. Patton complained to his wife that “personally I have not a great deal to do. I would trade jobs with almost anyone for anything.” Freely utilizing his wife’s wealth, he purchased a 12-cylinder, five-passenger Packard automobile worth $4,386—the equivalent of more than $50,000 today—and endeavored to be seen everywhere. The fancy new car turned the heads of many superior officers, who sometimes wondered how a young captain could afford such a vehicle. On July 20, Patton traveled with Pershing to meet with the British commander in chief, Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig. Prior to departure, Patton installed a license plate on the front of their automobile that read, “U.S. No. 1.” During the meeting, Pershing impressed Haig, who nevertheless judged Pershing’s staff to be rather unspectacular. But Haig liked Patton, writing in his diary after the meeting that “the A.D.C. [aide-de-camp] is a fire-eater and longs for the fray.” For Patton, there could be no greater praise. Gunning for the Tank Corps Despite the praise from Haig, Patton’s disgust with his monotonous job continued to grow, as more of his West Point classmates were promoted ahead of him. Patton soon began to look for other jobs. By late July, for the first time, he had a serious conversation about tanks and their role in the war. Trained as a cavalryman and therefore appreciative of mobile warfare and aggressive tactics, Patton seemed less than enthusiastic about tanks, writing, “The tank is not worth a damn.” He stuck with his staff job, but after following Pershing’s move to Chaumont on September 1, he grew more frustrated, reporting himself to be “nothing but [a] hired flunky. I shall be glad to get back to the line again and will try to do so in the spring. These damn French are bothering us with a lot of details which have nothing to do with any- thing. I have a hard time keeping my patience.” Patton began to discuss with his wife the possibility of joining the tank corps. “There is a lot of talk about tanks here now and I am interested as I can see no future to my present job,” he wrote. “The casualties in the tanks are high, that is lots of them get smashed, but the people in them are pretty safe as we can be in this war. It will be a long long time yet before we have any [tanks] so don’t get worried. I love you too much to try to get killed but also too much to be willing to sit on my tail and do nothing.” By early October, Patton met and discussed with Colonel LeRoy Eltinge the role of tanks. Eltinge believed Patton should join them. On October 3, Patton submitted an application to the Tank Service (later called Tank Corps). In the letter, he wrote of his cavalry background, his mechanical ability, and his fluency in French that made him the right man for the job. Showing his usual flair for self-promotion, Patton described his experience during Pershing’s expedition into Mexico, when he had led a small group of men on a raid that took the lives of three Mexican banditos, including Pancho Villa’s chief lieutenant, Julio Cardenas. During the raid, Patton noted, he had used an automobile to help in the surprise attack, adding, “I believe that I am the only American who has ever made an attack in a motor vehicle.” While waiting for an answer, Patton entered the hospital with a case of jaundice, but he was soon healthy and ready for his new duty. On November 10, he was officially chosen for the Tank Corps and was ordered to prepare a school for light tanks. Orders in hand, Patton wrote his last diary entry as a staff officer: “This is [my] last day as staff officer. Now I rise or fall on my own.” Patton’s First Tank Patton’s first assignment in the Tank Corps was to learn as much about the tank as possible. In order to begin the American Expeditionary Force Light Tank School, Patton, along with 28-year-old Lieutenant Elgin Braine, was ordered to visit the French tank training center at Chamlieu for two weeks, followed by one week at a tank factory at Bilancourt. Braine, a reserve officer, was originally assigned to the 1st Infantry Division, but was transferred to serve under Patton because of his mechanical and technical expertise. During their weeks studying French light tanks, Patton and Braine made four suggestions that were eventually adopted. These included a self-starter, improvements in the fuel tank to protect against leaks, an interchangeable mount that allowed the tank to carry a 37mm cannon or machine gun, and a steel panel to separate the crew from the engine. While at Chamlieu, Patton drove his first tank, a French Renault. His first impression of driving a tank was that it was easy to control; he thought anyone who could drive a car could operate a tank. In typical Patton fashion, he amused himself by knocking over trees with his new toy. The Light Tank School After three weeks of intense study, Patton and Braine began the process of creating the Light Tank School. Before this could happen, the Tank Corps first had to decide which tanks to use. Following a fact-finding mission, the War Department settled on the Mark VII as the nation’s heavy tank of choice. The Mark VII, a close model of the British heavy tank, weighed a massive 43 tons, had an 11-man crew, and a dizzying maximum speed of 6.5 miles per hour. For the light tank, the Americans chose to copy the French Renault. The U.S. model weighed 6.5 tons, with a maximum speed of 5.5 miles per hour and a two-man crew to operate it: a gunner, usually a sergeant, and a driver, usually a corporal. Each tank was equipped with a 37mm cannon or a French Hotchkiss 8mm machine gun. Communicating inside the tanks proved difficult. Completely closed in, with little light seeping through, early tankers devised a primitive but effective way to communicate. Unable to talk because of the noisy engines, the gunner would kick the driver in the back of the head to go forward, a kick on his head to stop, and a kick on either right or left shoulder to go left or right. Prior to the use of radio communication, this was the best the tankers could do. With heavy and light tanks selected, the Tank Corps began to organize and produce its own tanks. Unfortunately for the Americans, manufacturers at home were ill prepared for the large task ahead—only 26 ever arrived in Europe. To supply the AEF with the tanks it needed, the U.S. government reached an agreement with Allied Commander in Chief Marshal Ferdinand Foch for the transfer of existing light and heavy tanks to the Americans. With the tanks on order, the Tank Corps had to grow into a fully operational branch of the AEF. Colonel Samuel D. Rockenbach was formally appointed chief of the Tank Corps on December 22. Rockenbach, a graduate of Virginia Military Institute, was 22 years older than Patton and his opposite in almost every way. A stoic, even-tempered figure, Rockenbach lacked a sense of humor and was chosen not for his great mind but for his work ethic. At first, Patton and Rockenbach’s relationship was rocky, and Patton’s first comments on Rockenbach were extremely critical. “Col. R. is the most contrary old cuss I ever worked with,” he wrote. “As soon as you suggest anything he opposed but after about an hours argument comes round and proposes the same thing himself. So in the long run I get my way, but at a great waste of breath. It is good discipline for me for I have to keep my temper.” Patton’s Armored Tactics As the Tank Corps prepared to begin training, Patton wrote a paper about light tanks. The 58-page report was, he bragged, “the basis of the U.S. Tank Corps. I think it’s the best Technical Paper I ever wrote.” The paper dealt with the mechanical structure of the tank, the organization of tank units, the tactics of tank forces, and methods of instruction and drill. Patton, while neither a great writer nor a revolutionary thinker, correctly believed that mobility was the most important factor in a tank. Through mobility, he said, the tank could attack quickly, and with its increased speed and maneuverability, the tank would face less fire and be less vulnerable to enemy attacks. The most insightful aspect of Patton’s paper dealt with tactics and training. While a firm believer in the weapon’s power, he also believed that tanks should function as an aid for infantry. The main tactical value of a tank was to help the infantry advance by running over barbed wire, preventing the enemy from manning trench defenses, shielding infantry from enemy machine-gun fire, neutralizing enemy strongholds, preventing counterattacks, and seizing the initiative and attacking beyond the final objective. While most tanks in World War I were inserted piecemeal, Patton correctly believed that tanks should be employed en masse. The Training Ground Finding the land on which to train tankers proved to be difficult. For the training center, Patton chose Bourg, a small village five miles south of Langres. The ground was level and perfect for tank training, and a lone railroad track was beneficial in getting troops and eventually tanks to the center. At first, the French refused to allow the AEF access to the land. This infuriated Patton, who felt that the French were acting more like enemies than allies. “We are more or less held up now by the French who seem to put every obstacle in the way of our getting the ground we want for Tank center,” he groused. “You would think they were doing us a great favor to let us fight in their damn country.” Displaying great diplomatic patience, Patton was able to secure the land, and by January the tank school was becoming a reality. The next month, Patton learned of his promotion to major. He immediately pinned two golden oak leaves on his shoulders signifying his rank. Unlike most officers during this time, Patton wore his rank proudly and never feared the Germans’ penchant for shooting officers. Soon, he had the tank school up and running. With over 200 men in training at Bourg, Patton provided the best learning environment he could for his troops. Kept busy around the clock, a typical day for soldiers in the tank school began at 8:20 for morning drills, followed by close-order drills, exercises on saluting at 8:35, then calisthenics and fitness drills at 10:05, instruction in guard duty and military courtesy at 10:45, followed by foot drill at 11:20. After recess and lunch, officers were required to receive pistol instruction at 1 pm, followed by machine-gun and foot drill at 1:50 and theory and operation classes from 2:50 to 4. The rest of the day, the soldiers were expected to keep the training center in shipshape order. Patton “Ruled an Ass” in England In March, Patton and Rockenbach spent a week in England attempting to get some modifications for their tanks. “I argued in favor of four speeds,” Patton recalled, “but was ruled an ass.” Following the trip, Rockenbach made his first inspection of the tank school and was extremely impressed. After the visit, Patton was in rare form, giving a speech on discipline. “Lack of discipline in war means death or defeat, which is worse than death,” he warned. “The prize for this war is the greatest of all prizes—freedom. It is by discipline alone that all your efforts, all your patriotism, shall not have been in vain. Without it heroism is futile. You will die for nothing. With discipline you are irresistible.” On March 19, Patton received word that he had been promoted to lieutenant colonel, and he was further elated to hear that 10 Renault tanks were on their way to Bourg. Following a few weeks of training with actual tanks, he and his troops put on their first demonstration on April 22. The demonstration went extremely well, and Patton noted, “The show came off all right except that it was raining hard and very cold so that one got stuck in a shell hole but I had a reserve one ready and every thing went on fine.” To celebrate the school’s success, six days later Patton organized the 1st Light Tank Battalion, with himself as battalion commander. While happy with the tank school’s progress, Patton grew bored with the safety of rear duty and longed for a glimpse of the front. “I am getting ashamed of myself when I think of all the fine fighting and how little I have had to do with,” he told his wife. On May 21, he finally had a chance to travel to the front. Traveling with a French major named La Favre, Patton once got within 200 yards of the German line. Willing to risk his life for a bit of fun, La Favre turned sarcastically toward the German line and exposed his bottom to enemy fire as he adjusted his leggings. Patton, not to be outdone, took off his helmet, lit a cigarette, and began to smoke. Luckily for both La Favre and Patton, German sharpshooters disdained to fire on the two show-offs. Returning from his trip, Patton reorganized the tank school and formed a second battalion. As the equivalent of a regimental commander, he appointed a chief of staff, adjutant, reconnaissance officer and supply officer. He placed Captain Joseph Viner in command of the 1st Battalion, also named the 344th Tank Battalion, and Captain Sereno Brett in command of the 2nd Battalion, also named the 345th Tank Battalion. In June, Patton accepted a spot at the Army General Staff College in Langres. While busy with the tank school and not really interested in staff duty, he decided to take the class because most general officers had taken it. On August 20, while still in class, Patton received an urgent message: “You will report at once to the Chief of Tank Corps accompanied by your Reconnaissance officer and equipped for field service.” For Patton, it was a dream come true. For the first time in his life, he would lead large numbers of men into battle. First Major Engagement of the American Expeditionary Force By the late summer of 1918, the AEF had grown large enough to participate fully in the war. Although divisions had been pushed into battle to stop the German summer offensive, the St. Mihiel attack would be the first major engagement the AEF would participate in as a whole. Located 20 miles southeast of Verdun, the town of St. Mihiel had fallen into German hands in 1914. Four years later, the Germans still held on to 150 square miles of French territory. While cutting off the salient was important, the real prize was the ancient fortress of Metz, 30 miles beyond St. Mihiel. The original plan called for an all-out attack on St. Mihiel, with 15 American divisions and four French divisions moving against the flanks of the salient. Unfortunately, French and British fear caused a change in the plan. Supported by Foch, Haig believed that a complete breakthrough of the St. Mihiel salient was risky and unnecessary. Instead of pushing forward with a breakthrough, the armies would stop and prepare for the major engagement against the Hindenburg Line. The new plan called for the forces to free the railroad through St. Mihiel to Verdun and to establish a base for further operations. After cutting off the salient, the AEF would reorganize and swing north to the Meuse-Argonne Hindenburg Line. Patton set out to see the terrain on which his beloved tanks would fight. During the last week of August, Patton and some French soldiers explored the section designated for the Tank Corps. Patton found the ground soft, but he decided that it was suitable for tank use. With this knowledge in hand, he set about devising his own plan for his tanks. The plan called for Patton’s 1st Tank Brigade to support the 1st and 42nd Divisions, which were located almost directly in the center of IV Corps. Meanwhile, the AEF received 225 light tanks from the French. Out of the 225 light tanks, Patton got 144 of them and planned to put them all to use. Before going into battle, he gave another grandiloquent speech. “American tanks do not surrender,” he roared. “As long as one tank is able to move it must go forward. Its presence will save the lives of hundreds of infantry and kill many Germans. Finally, this is our big chance. Make it worthwhile.” Patton on the Front Lines The day of attack arrived. On September 12, 550,000 doughboys and 3.3 million artillery rounds launched their attack on the St. Mihiel salient. Patton wrote in his diary, “When the shelling first [started] I had some doubts about the advisability of sticking my head over the parapet, but it is just like taking a cold bath, once you get in it’s all right. And I soon got out on the parapet.” By 9:15, Patton was growing weary of staying behind the lines. The excitement of the battle and the urge to prove his courage were too much for him to ignore. He decided to leave his command post and see for himself what was going on. Patton moved on foot toward the action and immediately saw the wrath of war as the dead lay scattered across the field. As for his tanks, he came upon a few stuck in the mud and trenches, but in general the tanks were performing well. Patton eventually met up with some French tankers under his command around the town of St. Baussant, and he also encountered Brig. Gen. Douglas MacArthur, commander of the 84th Brigade. The two conversed on a hill as bullets whizzed by. “I joined him and the creeping barrage came along toward us,” Patton recalled. “We stood and talked but neither was much interested in what the other said as we could not get our minds off the shells.” One well-placed artillery round on that cold, rainy, September day could well have changed the course of World War II. After talking with MacArthur, Patton moved on toward the action. In Essey, he met some American soldiers who were afraid to cross a bridge a French soldier had told them was mined. “This made me mad,” Patton said, “so I led them through on foot but there was no danger as the Bosch [was] shelling the next town.” After crossing the bridge, he hitched a ride on a nearby tank. A few miles out of town, while still on the top of the tank, Patton noticed paint chips beginning to fly off the tank—he couldn’t hear anything over the noise—and immediately jumped off the vehicle into a shell hole. Unfortunately for Patton, the tank crew did not notice his hurried departure and went on, leaving him in a wide-open field with infantry troops still 600 yards behind. Stuck in the shell hole, Patton again pressed his luck. “The bright thought occurred to me that I could move across the front in an oblique fashion and not appear to run from the Germans yet at the same time get back,” he recalled. “Finally I decided that I could get back obliquely. So I started listening for the machine guns with all my ears. As soon as the m.g.’s opened I would lay down and beat the bullets each time. Some time I will figure the speed of sounds and bullets and see if I was right. It is the only use I know of that math has ever been to me.” After his narrow escape, Patton rejoined the infantry and began organizing an attack of the town of Beney. Around 3 pm, exhausted and content with the progression of the battle, he sat down for his first meal, only to find that a mischievous German POW had replaced the food in his hamper sack with rocks. He made do with some crackers taken from a dead German. Following the successful attack on Beney, both the 1st and 2nd Tank Battalions settled in for the night. The next day, Patton and his tanks moved forward against little German resistance. On September 14, his forces pushed aside German resistance and captured the town of Jonville. For the Allies, the battle of St. Mihiel was a tremendous success. More than 16,000 Germans were captured, along with 450 guns; and more than 7,000 Germans were killed, wounded, or missing. Only a few hundred American deaths were reported. Of Patton’s 174 tanks engaged in the battle, three were destroyed, 22 were ditched, and 14 broke down. With only five killed in action and 19 wounded, Patton’s tank forces had done extremely well. The performance of the tanks, while far from perfect, proved to doubters that tanks were an important and powerful weapon, not just a laboring machine. Patton believed that he and his forces had done well but could do better. Personally, Patton had shown great courage under fire and tremendous leadership qualities. Rockenbach, however, believed Patton’s conduct during the battle was less than exemplary. As a tank brigade commander, he felt that Patton’s duty was at headquarters, not running around in a field chasing tanks. In Rockenbach’s reprimand of Patton’s conduct, he listed three points: “1. The five light tanks of a platoon had to work together and not be allowed to be split up. 2. When a tank brigade was allotted to a corps, the commander was to remain at the corps headquarters or be in close telephonic communications with it. 3. I wish you would especially impress on your men that they are fighting [with] tanks, they are not infantry, and any man who abandons his tank will in the future be tried.” Patton’s personal leadership during the battle endeared him to his soldiers. While Rockenbach considered Patton’s wandering off to the front line a weakness, others considered it a strength. “George Patton was always on the front lines, never in the rear with the Red Cross,” wrote Captain Viner. “That was one of the secrets to his greatness.” “To Hell With Them, They Can’t Hit Me!” With the St. Mihiel salient closed, the AEF immediately readied itself for the next move, the Meuse-Argonne offensive. For that attack, 10 divisions planned to attack in the first wave, while eight others waited in reserve. Collectively, the AEF faced 18 well-trained German divisions. Following an artillery bombardment, the American forces were to attack a 20-mile-wide, 13-mile-long area. Throughout the area were countless German defense fortifications, dugouts, and other obstacles. Patton devised a plan for a concentrated tank thrust through the enemy defenses. The 1st Tank Brigade was ordered to support the 28th and 35th Divisions of I Corps as they attacked from the west. The two units would break out of the line and advance as far as they could. The attack started on September 26 as the artillery bombardment broke through the heavy fog. Around 6 am, Patton seemingly disregarded Rockenbach’s advice and reprimand and left his command post to see how his tanks were performing. Once again traveling on foot, Patton followed tank tracks on the Clermont-Neuvilly-Boureuilles-Varennes road, and after a few kilometers met up with some of his tanks. Almost immediately German artillery shells hit and were followed by machine-gun fire. After ordering everyone to hit the dirt, Patton ordered all ground troops toward a railroad cut. Once in the safety of the cut, Patton waited for the firing to end. While waiting for the attack to subside, more and more infantry troops began running from the front, seeking protection in the cut. With the attack dying down, Patton noticed tanks stopped before a large trench. Seizing a lull in the German bombardment, he organized the infantrymen and marched them to the trench. As they approached the trench, Patton ordered all to hit the dirt again, as machine-gun bullets flew over their heads. After the fire died down again, Patton immediately ordered the men to help get the tanks across the trench, and the men began to tear down the trench walls. The Germans began another barrage, and machine-gun fire burst out from the front. Unmoved by the firing, Patton ordered his troops to hold their ground and continue digging. While some continued to dig, others fled back to the railroad cut. Patton, angry at their lack of courage, continued to dig and even hit a few soldiers over the head with a shovel to keep them working. With the fire increasing and more troops falling on the side of him, he pushed forward, yelling, “To hell with them, they can’t hit me!” Finally the tanks advanced past the trenches, and Patton readied himself and his motley group of soldiers to advance. Waving his big walking stick over his head, he tried to rally the troops and shouted, “Let’s go get them! Who’s with me?” Caught in the moment, 100 soldiers jumped to their feet and ran down the hill with Patton. German machine-gun fire increased fantastically, causing Patton and his soldiers to hit the dirt after only 50 yards. With machine-gun fire growing stronger by the minute, Patton had a sudden vision: “I felt a great desire to run, I was trembling with fear when suddenly I thought of my progenitors and seemed to see them in a cloud over the German lines looking at me. I became calm at once and saying aloud, ‘It is time for another Patton to die.’ [I] called for volunteers and went forward to what I honestly believed to be certain death. Six men went with me; five were killed.” Patton quickly picked himself up, waved his walking stick, and shouted to the six men following him, “Let’s go, let’s go!” As the other men quickly fell, Patton’s orderly, Private First Class Joseph T. Angelo, wondered what the lunatic was trying to prove, armed with only a walking stick. Forced to take cover with Angelo in a shell hole, Patton once again tried to advance. A few seconds later, he felt a shock of a bullet enter his leg. Struggling to move, Patton managed to crawl back in the shell hole with Angelo. Angelo managed to bandage his wound, and the two awaited help. After a few hours, the fire abated and Patton, still conscious, was placed on a stretcher and taken to the medic tent. Injured and suffering from massive blood loss, Patton ordered the medics to take him to the 35th Division headquarters so he could give his report of the front. After reporting to the headquarters, Patton was sent to Hospital Number 11 for immediate surgery. The next morning he awoke, dazed but otherwise feeling rather good. The bullet had entered his left thigh and exited two inches to the left of his rectum. Patton wrote home to tell his wife that he was “missing half my bottom but otherwise all right.” Once again, Patton’s tanks proved their worth. Overall the two battles, St. Mihiel and the Meuse-Argonne offensive cost the AEF 117,000 casualities, but they inflicted 100,000 casualties on the enemy while 26,000 prisoners, 874 cannons, and 3,000 machine guns were captured. The two battles helped push the Germans to the brink of defeat. For Patton, however, the war was over. “Col. Patton, Hero of Tanks” A few days after being wounded, Patton was proud to read stories of his death-defying exploits. The headline of one story read, “Col. Patton, Hero of Tanks, Hit by Bullet—Crawled into Shell Hole and Directed Monsters in Argonne Battle.” While thrilled with what he had done so far, Patton was slightly depressed, writing to his wife, “I feel terribly to have missed all the fighting.” Bored with hospital life and frustrated by not being able to fight, he was cheered by another promotion—this time to colonel. To his immense gratification, he was also awarded both the Distinguished Service Medal and Distinguished Service Cross, and he wore them with pride for the remainder of his life. The war ended while Patton was still recovering, and he noted almost sadly in his diary: “Peace was signed and Langres was very excited. Many flags. Got rid of my bandage.” After getting out of the hospital and writing his numerous reports, Patton returned to his tanks, but without the war his job was boring, and he was saddened as many of his soldiers left for home. He remained in France for months after the war, and he prepared to leave with his brigade around March. Patton left aboard the SS Patria on March 1 and arrived in New York with much fanfare on March 17, 1919. Swamped by numerous newspaper reporters, Patton was quoted in the New York Evening Mail as saying, “The tank is only used in extreme cases of stubborn resistance. They are the natural answer to the machine gun, and as far as warfare is concerned, have come to stay just as much as the airplanes have.” The war was over, the Allies had won, and Patton had surpassed all expectations. The beginning of the Patton legend was born. World War I reinforced what Patton had trained his whole life to become, a battlefield commander. The Great War showed him for the first time to be a fine officer and leader of troops. Almost single-handedly, he had created a tank school and trained the 1st Tank Brigade. He had learned how to command and motivate troops and, ultimately, how to lead them in combat. Everything Patton did in World War II started in World War I. Indeed, it is hard to imagine General Patton rolling victoriously across Germany in 1945 had not Colonel Patton first slogged through the mud in France in 1918.	7,238	ENGLISH	1
One of greatest known art periods, the Paleolithic era, was around 32,000 to 11,000 years ago.Pieces of art from this time period can be placed into two categories; small, detailed figurines/objects, and cave art.The figurines were often carved from bone, stone, or clay. These were materials artists could easily get ahold of. These pieces of art were mostly found in Europe and Siberia. Unlike the portable pieces, cave art was discovered in northern spain as well as France. These often took the form of paintings, or engravings on the walls of caves or on rock like surfaces. French Paleontologist Edouard Lartet was the first to discover Paleolithic art in the 1860’s. His first discovery was an embellished objects within the caves on Southern France. These discoveries were noted as ancient as they had many similarities to the figures found during the Stone Age. After the small discovery it became a must to find more. People began to dig in caves to look for certain objects, not giving thought to the art already noticeable on the walls. It wasn’t until 1880 when the discovery of the Paleolithic paintings within the Spanish cave of Altamira were found and given great skepticism. In 1895, walls covered in engravings were discovered in La Mouthe, a cave in France. The lengths of time to discover these pieces of art was set back due to the debris that had originally blocked the entrance to the cave. In 1901, more engravings were found in the same region of France just in a difference cave, Font de Gaume. It wasn’t until right after that that archaeologists stated that cave art has a true existence. A popular and well known cave, the Chauvet cave, was brought to light by Jean-Marie Chauvet in 1994. The cave is located in the Ardeche Valley in southeast France. This cave is home to many animal paintings that date back to 32,000 years, making them the oldest paintings to be discovered, yet. It wasn’t that long ago that Paleolithic art was only found inside the cave. In 1981 archaeologists discovered multiple outdoor sites in spain, portugal and south africa. These sites were often found along rivers, on the side of large rocks, or on the entrances of caves. They’re expecting these paintings to be approximately 20,000 years old and were often engravings of human-like figures, horses, and wild cattle. Given the notable amount of repeated engravings/drawings scientists now think this type of artwork was common, despite the little that survived due to the erosion of wind and rain. Art during this era was thought to either mean two things, figurative, meaning it translates animals and humans, or non figurative, meaning signs and symbols. Animals during this time could also be translated to more than one thing depending on period and region of its use. Art within caves would mostly show animals such as bison, horses or even deer. Fish and birds are also within the paintings and engravings but were usually used more for figurine art. Despite the use of them being different they have one thing in common, they’re all drawn using their profile, or from the side. Some animals are even imaginary, as in the unicorn translated from the cave in Lascaux, France. Human bodys were not typically found in cave paintings but mostly in small portable statues. These figurines tended to be women yet their bodies often differed from what our social norm would be. For example the small female statues known as the Venus have larger than normal breasts, abdomen and hips. Statues that often represented woman had these over-sized aspects to them. They also didn’t have a face, no eyes or mouth. Making the focus be on their body and nothing else. Materials used during the Paleolithic era were very broad. They used forms by simply changing the base of a material to give it a new meaning. Beads were also commonly made and used out of ivory. Figurines were made out of ivory or a soft stone, and some were made from clay. Art on cave walls was created using multiple techniques. Some images were created using the shape of the rock or stalagmites it is placed on. The shape would help put emphasis on certain points of the paintings. On almost all wall sculptures there has been traces of a red pigment which tells scientists that they were painted. This red pigment is made of iron oxide which can be found in clays and ores. Black pigment was made out of manganese or charcoal. These materials were often only available in areas surrounding the cave. Painters often applied the paint with their fingers, giving them more control over the look they want. It was later discovered that some used animal hair brushes or small twigs were used to paint as well. Scientists have repeatedly found chunks of these pigments on cave floors believing they may have been used in pencil-like form. Within cave art scientists also found paintings on the ceilings of the caves. Although some were too tall to even imagine painting on, others show holes in which were used to help support someone paint on the ceiling. Hearths were often used to shine light within the cave however in deep caves artists would need more of a portable light source. Archaeologists have only found a few known stone lamps, which are also known as torches. The debris of charcoal within the cave also proves that fires must have been lit to use as light. Like I stated above on the ways painters applied the pigment was with their own hands, and eventually other tools were discovered. However to make special effects such as dots, figures or hand stencils, artists used a technique called “sprayed paint.” The artists would use a mixture of powder pigment, water, and a type of oil and use a straw to spit it onto the walls. This is a great way to help get different textures. Given that the size of cave paintings varies, this technique would have been of great help. For example some of the largest are over 2 m in length, and drawings of bulls at Lascaux measure as long as 5.5 m.	<urn:uuid:32acac28-90c0-4fad-8702-82b8ff93be05>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://phdessay.com/cave-painting/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250608062.57/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123011418-20200123040418-00086.warc.gz	en	0.989729	1,270	3.796875	4	[ -0.07193603366613388, 0.3146584630012512, 0.3493441939353943, 0.18912672996520996, -0.4350733757019043, -0.09284643828868866, 0.009794417768716812, -0.09290020167827606, 0.1710285246372223, -0.008659672923386097, 0.00400630384683609, -0.4852287769317627, -0.03677738830447197, 0.59975552558...	1	One of greatest known art periods, the Paleolithic era, was around 32,000 to 11,000 years ago.Pieces of art from this time period can be placed into two categories; small, detailed figurines/objects, and cave art.The figurines were often carved from bone, stone, or clay. These were materials artists could easily get ahold of. These pieces of art were mostly found in Europe and Siberia. Unlike the portable pieces, cave art was discovered in northern spain as well as France. These often took the form of paintings, or engravings on the walls of caves or on rock like surfaces. French Paleontologist Edouard Lartet was the first to discover Paleolithic art in the 1860’s. His first discovery was an embellished objects within the caves on Southern France. These discoveries were noted as ancient as they had many similarities to the figures found during the Stone Age. After the small discovery it became a must to find more. People began to dig in caves to look for certain objects, not giving thought to the art already noticeable on the walls. It wasn’t until 1880 when the discovery of the Paleolithic paintings within the Spanish cave of Altamira were found and given great skepticism. In 1895, walls covered in engravings were discovered in La Mouthe, a cave in France. The lengths of time to discover these pieces of art was set back due to the debris that had originally blocked the entrance to the cave. In 1901, more engravings were found in the same region of France just in a difference cave, Font de Gaume. It wasn’t until right after that that archaeologists stated that cave art has a true existence. A popular and well known cave, the Chauvet cave, was brought to light by Jean-Marie Chauvet in 1994. The cave is located in the Ardeche Valley in southeast France. This cave is home to many animal paintings that date back to 32,000 years, making them the oldest paintings to be discovered, yet. It wasn’t that long ago that Paleolithic art was only found inside the cave. In 1981 archaeologists discovered multiple outdoor sites in spain, portugal and south africa. These sites were often found along rivers, on the side of large rocks, or on the entrances of caves. They’re expecting these paintings to be approximately 20,000 years old and were often engravings of human-like figures, horses, and wild cattle. Given the notable amount of repeated engravings/drawings scientists now think this type of artwork was common, despite the little that survived due to the erosion of wind and rain. Art during this era was thought to either mean two things, figurative, meaning it translates animals and humans, or non figurative, meaning signs and symbols. Animals during this time could also be translated to more than one thing depending on period and region of its use. Art within caves would mostly show animals such as bison, horses or even deer. Fish and birds are also within the paintings and engravings but were usually used more for figurine art. Despite the use of them being different they have one thing in common, they’re all drawn using their profile, or from the side. Some animals are even imaginary, as in the unicorn translated from the cave in Lascaux, France. Human bodys were not typically found in cave paintings but mostly in small portable statues. These figurines tended to be women yet their bodies often differed from what our social norm would be. For example the small female statues known as the Venus have larger than normal breasts, abdomen and hips. Statues that often represented woman had these over-sized aspects to them. They also didn’t have a face, no eyes or mouth. Making the focus be on their body and nothing else. Materials used during the Paleolithic era were very broad. They used forms by simply changing the base of a material to give it a new meaning. Beads were also commonly made and used out of ivory. Figurines were made out of ivory or a soft stone, and some were made from clay. Art on cave walls was created using multiple techniques. Some images were created using the shape of the rock or stalagmites it is placed on. The shape would help put emphasis on certain points of the paintings. On almost all wall sculptures there has been traces of a red pigment which tells scientists that they were painted. This red pigment is made of iron oxide which can be found in clays and ores. Black pigment was made out of manganese or charcoal. These materials were often only available in areas surrounding the cave. Painters often applied the paint with their fingers, giving them more control over the look they want. It was later discovered that some used animal hair brushes or small twigs were used to paint as well. Scientists have repeatedly found chunks of these pigments on cave floors believing they may have been used in pencil-like form. Within cave art scientists also found paintings on the ceilings of the caves. Although some were too tall to even imagine painting on, others show holes in which were used to help support someone paint on the ceiling. Hearths were often used to shine light within the cave however in deep caves artists would need more of a portable light source. Archaeologists have only found a few known stone lamps, which are also known as torches. The debris of charcoal within the cave also proves that fires must have been lit to use as light. Like I stated above on the ways painters applied the pigment was with their own hands, and eventually other tools were discovered. However to make special effects such as dots, figures or hand stencils, artists used a technique called “sprayed paint.” The artists would use a mixture of powder pigment, water, and a type of oil and use a straw to spit it onto the walls. This is a great way to help get different textures. Given that the size of cave paintings varies, this technique would have been of great help. For example some of the largest are over 2 m in length, and drawings of bulls at Lascaux measure as long as 5.5 m.	1,283	ENGLISH	1
The Statue of Ashurnasirpal II is a sculpture in the round of a king of Assyria. He is depicted holding a scythe of the gods and a scepter of office which identifies him as king, Ashur’s representative-on-earth. This is fairly typical of kingly depictions of the era and near east cultures. The symbols of his office reinforce the notion that kings stood above mere men. The connotation of him holding a scythe wielded by gods implies, at least, that he wields similar power. I often wonder how these looked to the kings themselves. They must have known of their own mortality. The fact that they commissioned such works displays that clearly – for if they knew that they might endure, what purpose to create such memorials? Did they see these symbols of godly power as warnings, or just as the way things should be? I cant pretend to know, but I wonder at the mortal thoughts of those once placed in the realm of gods.3. Kings were perhaps the most common subjects of Near Eastern art. How did such art depict kings? What conventions were used to denote royal status? What relationship between the kings and the people did works of art portray? What was the relationship between the kings and the gods? How did Near Eastern kings use art to establish and maintain their authority? Based on Near Eastern art, what functions did kings serve, what duties did they perform, and what constituted a good ruler?It seems clear that most Kings were depicted as stiff, resolute, and stern – though, there are some notable exceptions. Even then, many included symbols of power, including scepters, rings and the use of scale to indicate power and raise kings above the status of ordinary men. This idea was very useful to those kings. Through these images, they could become more than mortal men – they could claim a divinity of a sort and rule through divine providence, thus securing their power from usurpation. After all, what mere mortal could hope to act as the gods’ spokesman on earth? In that world, kings might not have quite been gods, but they weren’t too far off either. Based on the depictions, one can assume that kings made decisions concerning the nation, held final word on determinations of justice, and, in many cases, acted as mediator between the general public and the gods simply by virtue of proximity, if nothing else. I can only imagine that the true test of any ruler would be that their kingdom lasted longer than they did.Painting from the tomb of Petosiris at Muzawaka (XI)Ever since I first learned of him, I was always a little fascinated by Anubis, a god of the dead in Egyptian mythology. To be fair, I was fascinated by death gods in any mythology. I suppose a fascination with death is something I share with the peoples of ancient Egypt. Depicted in the picture with the head of a jackal, Anubis was a guide and judge to the souls of the dead as well as the deity invoked to protect the resting places of the dead. It was he who first created mummification for the dead god Osiris, killed by Osiris’s jealous, and possibly cuckolded, brother Seth/Set. I chose Anubis because of the large impact and direction death, and, by extension, the god of death, had upon the art of ancient Egypt.2. The pyramids of Ancient Egypt represent impressive feats of architectural engineering, but they had no direct administrative or practical purpose, being used instead to house the corpses of pharaohs. What does it suggest about Egyptian society that it devoted so much labor and capital to the construction of tombs? What view of death does this practice convey, and, more importantly, what view of life does it suggest? Can one see similar traits in other works of Egyptian art? Can all Egyptian art be said to favor death over life? My overall impression of art of the period is that it was an attempt at permanence. I feel as though man was struggling to make something which would remain. I imagine that this fixation on eternity caused a preoccupation with death, the one single permanent fixture of their world. Death lasted far longer than life, and as such, required much greater attention than the fleeting gasp of mortality one experienced while alive. Life seems to have held some meaning at least, but death was, by far, the more worrisome state. I don’t know that all Egyptian art can be said as such. To be certain, there does seem to be an overall focus on the afterlife, but there are still more than enough depictions of simple, everyday life to conclude that it was at least celebrated in some way.Aulos Player, CycladesThe Cycladic figures, such as the one depicted here, were rather interesting to me. The Aulos Player, which I will be honest, I first thought was a man looking up while holding his beard, is fundamentally different from many of the rest of the pieces covered in this period, though it does seem similar to the Minoan sculptures in the text. I chose this statue because it was so different and the realization that an aulos must be some sort of flute actually made me laugh at my early impressions of the figure. I don’t have a whole lot of feeling about most of the art here. mostly I feel a bit of pity that they should struggle so hard to leave impressions that would last across the ages. A lot of the art of the period just seems so serious and desperate. This figure, though, it made me smile. It just seems like it was made by some one who was happy to be and not an attempt to reach for eternity.3. Works of art are often treated as transcendent, timeless objects. How important is it to understand the cultural context in which they arose? Can art be understood on its own, or must it be situated in time and place? How important is the artist’s intention to understanding a work of art? Might more be lost than gained if Linear A were deciphered, and the meaning and purposes of Minoan artwork were known more certainly? I assume here that transcendent here refers to the idea that art can speak across barriers of language. And it is true that some can, but I posit that it isn’t a universal truth. Some aspects of the art could be considered transcendent, but I think there is some value in the artist’s intent and the purposes and culture of the art. I cannot imagine that more knowledge gained would invalidate the impact of any of the works created by these ancient peoples. And by my own response to the piece I chose for this chapter, I don’t imagine that people will ever stop associating their own feelings or evocations with pieces of art in whatever way they might.	<urn:uuid:797ad81c-d3db-4c1e-9033-686bd9865ced>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://maryelizabethbodycare.com/the-commissioned-such-works-displays-that-clearly-for/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250599789.45/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120195035-20200120224035-00369.warc.gz	en	0.982686	1,406	3.796875	4	[ 0.2704489231109619, 0.48459428548812866, 0.20071008801460266, -0.2302429974079132, -0.4772627353668213, -0.022310320287942886, 0.693946123123169, 0.21358445286750793, -0.046708375215530396, 0.19880470633506775, 0.0426706038415432, -0.46521854400634766, 0.41278335452079773, 0.22369252145290...	5	The Statue of Ashurnasirpal II is a sculpture in the round of a king of Assyria. He is depicted holding a scythe of the gods and a scepter of office which identifies him as king, Ashur’s representative-on-earth. This is fairly typical of kingly depictions of the era and near east cultures. The symbols of his office reinforce the notion that kings stood above mere men. The connotation of him holding a scythe wielded by gods implies, at least, that he wields similar power. I often wonder how these looked to the kings themselves. They must have known of their own mortality. The fact that they commissioned such works displays that clearly – for if they knew that they might endure, what purpose to create such memorials? Did they see these symbols of godly power as warnings, or just as the way things should be? I cant pretend to know, but I wonder at the mortal thoughts of those once placed in the realm of gods.3. Kings were perhaps the most common subjects of Near Eastern art. How did such art depict kings? What conventions were used to denote royal status? What relationship between the kings and the people did works of art portray? What was the relationship between the kings and the gods? How did Near Eastern kings use art to establish and maintain their authority? Based on Near Eastern art, what functions did kings serve, what duties did they perform, and what constituted a good ruler?It seems clear that most Kings were depicted as stiff, resolute, and stern – though, there are some notable exceptions. Even then, many included symbols of power, including scepters, rings and the use of scale to indicate power and raise kings above the status of ordinary men. This idea was very useful to those kings. Through these images, they could become more than mortal men – they could claim a divinity of a sort and rule through divine providence, thus securing their power from usurpation. After all, what mere mortal could hope to act as the gods’ spokesman on earth? In that world, kings might not have quite been gods, but they weren’t too far off either. Based on the depictions, one can assume that kings made decisions concerning the nation, held final word on determinations of justice, and, in many cases, acted as mediator between the general public and the gods simply by virtue of proximity, if nothing else. I can only imagine that the true test of any ruler would be that their kingdom lasted longer than they did.Painting from the tomb of Petosiris at Muzawaka (XI)Ever since I first learned of him, I was always a little fascinated by Anubis, a god of the dead in Egyptian mythology. To be fair, I was fascinated by death gods in any mythology. I suppose a fascination with death is something I share with the peoples of ancient Egypt. Depicted in the picture with the head of a jackal, Anubis was a guide and judge to the souls of the dead as well as the deity invoked to protect the resting places of the dead. It was he who first created mummification for the dead god Osiris, killed by Osiris’s jealous, and possibly cuckolded, brother Seth/Set. I chose Anubis because of the large impact and direction death, and, by extension, the god of death, had upon the art of ancient Egypt.2. The pyramids of Ancient Egypt represent impressive feats of architectural engineering, but they had no direct administrative or practical purpose, being used instead to house the corpses of pharaohs. What does it suggest about Egyptian society that it devoted so much labor and capital to the construction of tombs? What view of death does this practice convey, and, more importantly, what view of life does it suggest? Can one see similar traits in other works of Egyptian art? Can all Egyptian art be said to favor death over life? My overall impression of art of the period is that it was an attempt at permanence. I feel as though man was struggling to make something which would remain. I imagine that this fixation on eternity caused a preoccupation with death, the one single permanent fixture of their world. Death lasted far longer than life, and as such, required much greater attention than the fleeting gasp of mortality one experienced while alive. Life seems to have held some meaning at least, but death was, by far, the more worrisome state. I don’t know that all Egyptian art can be said as such. To be certain, there does seem to be an overall focus on the afterlife, but there are still more than enough depictions of simple, everyday life to conclude that it was at least celebrated in some way.Aulos Player, CycladesThe Cycladic figures, such as the one depicted here, were rather interesting to me. The Aulos Player, which I will be honest, I first thought was a man looking up while holding his beard, is fundamentally different from many of the rest of the pieces covered in this period, though it does seem similar to the Minoan sculptures in the text. I chose this statue because it was so different and the realization that an aulos must be some sort of flute actually made me laugh at my early impressions of the figure. I don’t have a whole lot of feeling about most of the art here. mostly I feel a bit of pity that they should struggle so hard to leave impressions that would last across the ages. A lot of the art of the period just seems so serious and desperate. This figure, though, it made me smile. It just seems like it was made by some one who was happy to be and not an attempt to reach for eternity.3. Works of art are often treated as transcendent, timeless objects. How important is it to understand the cultural context in which they arose? Can art be understood on its own, or must it be situated in time and place? How important is the artist’s intention to understanding a work of art? Might more be lost than gained if Linear A were deciphered, and the meaning and purposes of Minoan artwork were known more certainly? I assume here that transcendent here refers to the idea that art can speak across barriers of language. And it is true that some can, but I posit that it isn’t a universal truth. Some aspects of the art could be considered transcendent, but I think there is some value in the artist’s intent and the purposes and culture of the art. I cannot imagine that more knowledge gained would invalidate the impact of any of the works created by these ancient peoples. And by my own response to the piece I chose for this chapter, I don’t imagine that people will ever stop associating their own feelings or evocations with pieces of art in whatever way they might.	1,382	ENGLISH	1
People who were young parents in the 1970s and 80s will remember the fear inspired by babies dying for seemingly no reason. It is not unusual for parents of this generation to recount creeping into their baby's room just to make sure he or she was still breathing. Since then, the Back to Sleep movement is credited with saving some lives and some causes have been identified for this crib death, including metabolic disease. Most FAODs are survivable, but even some relatively mild FAODs can be fatal for infants if the signs are not noticed early and treated appropriately. In fact, the inclusion of tests for FAODs on the newborn screens (the heel-prick test given on the second or third day of life) in most states appears to correlate with a dip in the number of Sudden Infant Deaths (SIDs). This correlation is unclear due to the concurrent efforts to stem SIDs from other causes. Sudden Infant Death Syndrome is the name that was given in the 1970s to unexplained deaths of infants under one year of age. Though the problem was as old as history itself, the naming of it as SIDs struck anxiety into generations of new parents. Over the last 30 years, many causes have been found for the once unexplained deaths of infants under one year of age. Long thought to have something to do with faulty respiration in infants, SIDs researchers identified risk factors for SIDs. Parents have been warned to avoid putting their babies to bed tummy-down. They have been told to leave the crib empty except for the infant – no toys, pillows, blankets, or crib bumpers. Co-sleeping, soft surfaces, respiratory illnesses and tobacco smoke have all been found to contribute to SIDs. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, in the late 1990s, as many as 6,000 deaths in the United States were listed as SIDs deaths. As late as 2001, SIDs was still a leading cause of death in infants between 28 days of age and one year. The Back to Sleep campaign had started in the mid-1990s and is generally considered a success though deaths attributed to SIDs still range between 2,000 and 2,500 per year in the United States. As SIDs is a diagnosis of exclusion – meaning it is not itself a cause, but is listed as the cause when no other can be found – those deaths remain unexplained. No one knows the exact number of deaths due to FAODs in infants that may have been attributed to SIDs over the years. What is known is that FAODs often appear in infants with quiet symptoms, sleepiness, lethargy, and unwillingness to suck. It is considered likely that some of those SIDs deaths were actually due to FAODs or perhaps some other rare mitochondrial disorders. Among scientists, estimates range from 7 percent to 20 percent of SIDs deaths were actually undiagnosed FAODs. One reason for the difficulty in pinpointing FAODs as a cause of death in infants is that many are difficult to diagnosis post-mortem because the tests that would indicate an FAOD rely on catabolism, which is a process of living organisms, not detectable after death. Less important than pinpointing the exact percentage of SIDs deaths in the past due to undiagnosed FAODs is the simple precaution of monitoring all infants, especially in their first days and weeks of life. As new parenthood is often considered an exhausting time, a sleepy baby has traditionally been viewed as “a good baby.” Parents must be made aware that infants who sleep longer than three or four hours should be checked. Any lethargy, coolness, inability to suck, or other symptom should be cause for alarm. Most families with known histories of metabolic disorders are aware of this, but when an FAOD first appears in a family, it is common that the family has no frame of reference and may fear being seen by their doctors as alarmists if they complain that their baby is too sleepy. Busy doctors may also grow used to irrationally cautious parents and dismiss legitimate concerns. Both families and doctors need to consider that while each individual FAOD is rare, taken together they form a significant population. Fortunately, the NBS has reduced the guesswork doctors must do. The NBS varies from state to state but at present, 38 states include at least one test for an FOAD in their NBS. The NBS has made identification of infants with FAODs much quicker, often before they leave the hospital. It must be kept in mind that not all FAODs are included in the tests but the more common ones are the likeliest to be included. That still leaves 12 states that do not test for any FAOD and some of the rarer FAODs are not tested for in any state. Also, most NBS are what is known as dried blood spot tests and a few FAODs require plasma for an accurate test. If any of the common symptoms of FAODs are noticed in a newborn or older infant, especially if an older sibling died in infancy of unexplained causes, FAODs should be considered and tests run. In families where there is a known history of FAODs or SIDs, parents and doctors may want their newborns treated as if the diagnosis were made, with placement in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) immediately after birth, regardless of any lack of symptoms, until such time as tests rule out an FAOD. Parents may want to familiarize themselves with the disorders included in their state NBS. For more information on specific states and what tests are done, visit http://www.babysfirsttest.org/newborn-screening/states.	<urn:uuid:aadf5e99-30e4-405a-b689-f51dba25050d>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.rforrestwrite.com/single-post/2016/07/21/Remember-SIDS	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251688806.91/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126104828-20200126134828-00266.warc.gz	en	0.980654	1,175	3.734375	4	[ -0.19515176117420197, -0.06623049825429916, 0.030574027448892593, -0.004708065185695887, 0.32250499725341797, 0.6193740367889404, 0.23685093224048615, 0.1667625457048416, 0.030917096883058548, -0.10215835273265839, 0.310380756855011, 0.0027197347953915596, -0.13993965089321136, 0.273976862...	4	People who were young parents in the 1970s and 80s will remember the fear inspired by babies dying for seemingly no reason. It is not unusual for parents of this generation to recount creeping into their baby's room just to make sure he or she was still breathing. Since then, the Back to Sleep movement is credited with saving some lives and some causes have been identified for this crib death, including metabolic disease. Most FAODs are survivable, but even some relatively mild FAODs can be fatal for infants if the signs are not noticed early and treated appropriately. In fact, the inclusion of tests for FAODs on the newborn screens (the heel-prick test given on the second or third day of life) in most states appears to correlate with a dip in the number of Sudden Infant Deaths (SIDs). This correlation is unclear due to the concurrent efforts to stem SIDs from other causes. Sudden Infant Death Syndrome is the name that was given in the 1970s to unexplained deaths of infants under one year of age. Though the problem was as old as history itself, the naming of it as SIDs struck anxiety into generations of new parents. Over the last 30 years, many causes have been found for the once unexplained deaths of infants under one year of age. Long thought to have something to do with faulty respiration in infants, SIDs researchers identified risk factors for SIDs. Parents have been warned to avoid putting their babies to bed tummy-down. They have been told to leave the crib empty except for the infant – no toys, pillows, blankets, or crib bumpers. Co-sleeping, soft surfaces, respiratory illnesses and tobacco smoke have all been found to contribute to SIDs. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, in the late 1990s, as many as 6,000 deaths in the United States were listed as SIDs deaths. As late as 2001, SIDs was still a leading cause of death in infants between 28 days of age and one year. The Back to Sleep campaign had started in the mid-1990s and is generally considered a success though deaths attributed to SIDs still range between 2,000 and 2,500 per year in the United States. As SIDs is a diagnosis of exclusion – meaning it is not itself a cause, but is listed as the cause when no other can be found – those deaths remain unexplained. No one knows the exact number of deaths due to FAODs in infants that may have been attributed to SIDs over the years. What is known is that FAODs often appear in infants with quiet symptoms, sleepiness, lethargy, and unwillingness to suck. It is considered likely that some of those SIDs deaths were actually due to FAODs or perhaps some other rare mitochondrial disorders. Among scientists, estimates range from 7 percent to 20 percent of SIDs deaths were actually undiagnosed FAODs. One reason for the difficulty in pinpointing FAODs as a cause of death in infants is that many are difficult to diagnosis post-mortem because the tests that would indicate an FAOD rely on catabolism, which is a process of living organisms, not detectable after death. Less important than pinpointing the exact percentage of SIDs deaths in the past due to undiagnosed FAODs is the simple precaution of monitoring all infants, especially in their first days and weeks of life. As new parenthood is often considered an exhausting time, a sleepy baby has traditionally been viewed as “a good baby.” Parents must be made aware that infants who sleep longer than three or four hours should be checked. Any lethargy, coolness, inability to suck, or other symptom should be cause for alarm. Most families with known histories of metabolic disorders are aware of this, but when an FAOD first appears in a family, it is common that the family has no frame of reference and may fear being seen by their doctors as alarmists if they complain that their baby is too sleepy. Busy doctors may also grow used to irrationally cautious parents and dismiss legitimate concerns. Both families and doctors need to consider that while each individual FAOD is rare, taken together they form a significant population. Fortunately, the NBS has reduced the guesswork doctors must do. The NBS varies from state to state but at present, 38 states include at least one test for an FOAD in their NBS. The NBS has made identification of infants with FAODs much quicker, often before they leave the hospital. It must be kept in mind that not all FAODs are included in the tests but the more common ones are the likeliest to be included. That still leaves 12 states that do not test for any FAOD and some of the rarer FAODs are not tested for in any state. Also, most NBS are what is known as dried blood spot tests and a few FAODs require plasma for an accurate test. If any of the common symptoms of FAODs are noticed in a newborn or older infant, especially if an older sibling died in infancy of unexplained causes, FAODs should be considered and tests run. In families where there is a known history of FAODs or SIDs, parents and doctors may want their newborns treated as if the diagnosis were made, with placement in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) immediately after birth, regardless of any lack of symptoms, until such time as tests rule out an FAOD. Parents may want to familiarize themselves with the disorders included in their state NBS. For more information on specific states and what tests are done, visit http://www.babysfirsttest.org/newborn-screening/states.	1,202	ENGLISH	1
Along the south-east coast of the island of Rapa Nui stand thirteen-foot statues representing the spirits of the leaders of the Rapanui, the native islanders of what we call Easter Island. The most remote inhabited island on earth, Rapa Nui is located about 1,289 miles away from Pitcairn Island in the southeast Pacific Ocean. Mostly, people of Polynesian descent inhabit the island. They range in size, with the tallest reaching 33 feet (10 meters). Although their significance is still somewhat of a mystery, the moai are thought to have been representations of the indigenous peoples’ ancestors. Tribespeople would probably have carved a new statue each time an important tribal figure passed away. The statues, or Moai as they were named by the Islanders, were crafted from volcanic rock. The sculptors poured water on the volcanic rock in order to soften it while they carved. It took a team of five or six sculptors about a year to complete each statue. Most of them remain in the quarry where they were created, but many were erected along the coast, and some are found peppering the interior of the island. The statues, weighing in at about 18 tons, appear to have been transported by the natives to different parts of the island. The Easter Island heads are frequently photographed and have been studied over the years since European explorers first observed them in 1722. In one of the earliest excavations in 1914, it was discovered that the statue heads were attached to torsos hidden underground due to natural erosion of the island – over the centuries, landslides had covered them. This information was not widespread, which led the public to believe the heads and shoulders that were exposed constituted the entire statue. Archaeologist Jo Anne Van Tilburg, a research associate at the UCLA Cotsen Institute of Archaeology and director of its Rock Art Archive, has been lecturing and writing about the statues for many years. In 1998, Van Tilburg initiated the Easter Island Statue Project with residents of the island in order to locate and document each statue with the most modern equipment available. When she posted photos of entirely excavated statues on the EISP website, it received so much attention the website crashed. “I was completely blindsided,” said Van Tilburg. “But now I quite understand it, because most of the photographs that are widely available on the Internet, and certainly in books, deal only with the very photogenic statues that are located on the slopes of the quarry in which they were carved… [they] do appear to be heads only. And, indeed, over the years, the statues were usually referred to as the Easter Island heads…now people are aware they have bodies. I think that’s fabulous. I love it when good science can be turned into public information so quickly.” “What we found underneath the base of one of the statues was a signature stone, a basalt rock with an incised drawing of a crescent, or canoe motif” she said, “Over time, it seems, more of these canoes were etched onto the statue in a constant repetition of identity reasserting who they were. As the community lost a sense of identity over time, perhaps they wanted to mark these statues as their own,” she supposed. How the islanders moved the giant moai is still a mystery. Some scientists believe the statues were “walked “ to their destination, as legend has said. Ropes could have been tied to the figure, and each corner moved forward one at a time. Because the heads of the moai found in the quarry are sloped downward while the heads of the transported figures are not, this could have been a factor in the center of gravity of the stone. Additionally, the relocated stones have larger bases with fractures along the edges. Some statues were broken during transport and found along the road lying on their backs on an uphill grade. These aspects tend to indicate upright transport. Another possible method involved a miro manga erua, a Y-shaped sled on which the statue was placed face down and tied with ropes around the neck, near the middle and at the bottom. In 1998, Van Tilburg’s team attempted to move a replica of one of the statues in this fashion. It took 60 men to pull the sled carrying the replica 100 meters and Van Tilburg believes this was the preferred mode of transport. On Van Tilburg’s list of conclusions regarding the experiment she states, “For us, some mysteries remain, although for today’s Rapa Nui people, they have never been in question.” “It wasn’t done the way these archaeologists did it here,” explained a young Rapa Nui tour guide to a group of Japanese tourists. They stood puzzling at the spectacle of a concrete replica moai whose They stood puzzling at the spectacle of a concrete replica moai whose pukao has now fallen off, leaving a red gash on its perfectly shaped nose. “We believe the moai were moved by ‘mana.’ They walked across the land and our ancestors have celebrated it for centuries.”	<urn:uuid:a3dd1ed8-e1b9-4c70-b4bb-b95b01af979c>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.thevintagenews.com/2018/02/27/easter-island/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251696046.73/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127081933-20200127111933-00209.warc.gz	en	0.982317	1,076	3.78125	4	[ 0.2775796055793762, 0.24327482283115387, 0.2811610698699951, -0.17961230874061584, 0.18345199525356293, 0.3646838665008545, 0.24292728304862976, -0.062293704599142075, -0.12007369101047516, 0.36533883213996887, 0.03285802900791168, -0.4363253116607666, -0.06295178085565567, 0.7979682087898...	4	Along the south-east coast of the island of Rapa Nui stand thirteen-foot statues representing the spirits of the leaders of the Rapanui, the native islanders of what we call Easter Island. The most remote inhabited island on earth, Rapa Nui is located about 1,289 miles away from Pitcairn Island in the southeast Pacific Ocean. Mostly, people of Polynesian descent inhabit the island. They range in size, with the tallest reaching 33 feet (10 meters). Although their significance is still somewhat of a mystery, the moai are thought to have been representations of the indigenous peoples’ ancestors. Tribespeople would probably have carved a new statue each time an important tribal figure passed away. The statues, or Moai as they were named by the Islanders, were crafted from volcanic rock. The sculptors poured water on the volcanic rock in order to soften it while they carved. It took a team of five or six sculptors about a year to complete each statue. Most of them remain in the quarry where they were created, but many were erected along the coast, and some are found peppering the interior of the island. The statues, weighing in at about 18 tons, appear to have been transported by the natives to different parts of the island. The Easter Island heads are frequently photographed and have been studied over the years since European explorers first observed them in 1722. In one of the earliest excavations in 1914, it was discovered that the statue heads were attached to torsos hidden underground due to natural erosion of the island – over the centuries, landslides had covered them. This information was not widespread, which led the public to believe the heads and shoulders that were exposed constituted the entire statue. Archaeologist Jo Anne Van Tilburg, a research associate at the UCLA Cotsen Institute of Archaeology and director of its Rock Art Archive, has been lecturing and writing about the statues for many years. In 1998, Van Tilburg initiated the Easter Island Statue Project with residents of the island in order to locate and document each statue with the most modern equipment available. When she posted photos of entirely excavated statues on the EISP website, it received so much attention the website crashed. “I was completely blindsided,” said Van Tilburg. “But now I quite understand it, because most of the photographs that are widely available on the Internet, and certainly in books, deal only with the very photogenic statues that are located on the slopes of the quarry in which they were carved… [they] do appear to be heads only. And, indeed, over the years, the statues were usually referred to as the Easter Island heads…now people are aware they have bodies. I think that’s fabulous. I love it when good science can be turned into public information so quickly.” “What we found underneath the base of one of the statues was a signature stone, a basalt rock with an incised drawing of a crescent, or canoe motif” she said, “Over time, it seems, more of these canoes were etched onto the statue in a constant repetition of identity reasserting who they were. As the community lost a sense of identity over time, perhaps they wanted to mark these statues as their own,” she supposed. How the islanders moved the giant moai is still a mystery. Some scientists believe the statues were “walked “ to their destination, as legend has said. Ropes could have been tied to the figure, and each corner moved forward one at a time. Because the heads of the moai found in the quarry are sloped downward while the heads of the transported figures are not, this could have been a factor in the center of gravity of the stone. Additionally, the relocated stones have larger bases with fractures along the edges. Some statues were broken during transport and found along the road lying on their backs on an uphill grade. These aspects tend to indicate upright transport. Another possible method involved a miro manga erua, a Y-shaped sled on which the statue was placed face down and tied with ropes around the neck, near the middle and at the bottom. In 1998, Van Tilburg’s team attempted to move a replica of one of the statues in this fashion. It took 60 men to pull the sled carrying the replica 100 meters and Van Tilburg believes this was the preferred mode of transport. On Van Tilburg’s list of conclusions regarding the experiment she states, “For us, some mysteries remain, although for today’s Rapa Nui people, they have never been in question.” “It wasn’t done the way these archaeologists did it here,” explained a young Rapa Nui tour guide to a group of Japanese tourists. They stood puzzling at the spectacle of a concrete replica moai whose They stood puzzling at the spectacle of a concrete replica moai whose pukao has now fallen off, leaving a red gash on its perfectly shaped nose. “We believe the moai were moved by ‘mana.’ They walked across the land and our ancestors have celebrated it for centuries.”	1,054	ENGLISH	1
Zombies in Cape Breton By Donna Spalding In September 1939 Great Britain, France and Canada declared war on Germany. Unlike other countries, war did not unite Canadians but created conflicts within the country relative to conscription. During both WWI and WWII conscription became a problem. In WWI the government enforced conscription. Conscription was very unpopular in Quebec because the French believed it was an English war. Before WWII, Prime Minister Mackenzie King and the liberal government promised the people in Quebec they would not have to serve overseas. In 1940, the government realized that the voluntary system of recruiting men for overseas duty was not working and the Canadian Army could not get the necessary reinforcements. The majority of Canadians pressured the government to require all eligible men go overseas. People in other provinces did not think it was right for the French not to join the military when their sons and fathers were risking their lives to protect Canada. The government’s solution, to this problem, was to enact National War Service Regulations in accordance with the National Resources Mobilization Act, which granted the government conscription powers, although overseas duty continued to be on a voluntary basis. All eligible men who did not want overseas duties were obliged to join the military and complete basic training. The government thought this would encourage more men to go overseas but unfortunately this was not the case. The men who remained in Canada had to work at jobs necessary for home defence. The majority of these men were from Quebec and they were referred to as “zombies.” Zombie was a derogatory term the English Canadians used to express their resentment toward the French soldiers. Zombies were considered to be the living dead because they allegedly had no souls because they refused to go overseas to fight the enemy. In my hometown of Sydney, the steel plant and the coalmines were very important to the war effort and the zombies were sent to protect these industries. There were no barracks to house the soldiers, so the military requested that the local people house them. In the early1940’s, a representative from the army turned our apartment into a boarding house. He asked my mother if she would help the military troops by giving soldiers a place to stay. My mother did not want boarders, but knew it was her duty to help in the war effort. Anti-conscription rally in front of the Chateau Frontenac, Quebec City (courtesy www.warmuseum.ca) Many of the people who manned the steel plant and coalmines refused to work for these zombies. They did not believe these men had a right to wear a military uniform. The soldier who lived with us was referred to as Frenchy. At first, it was awkward to have him in the house, but after a while he became friends with our family. He was away from his family and his culture, and was living in a town that hated people like him. Frenchy was very kind and it was easy to become attached to him. Our family was making ends meet, but we had no money for luxuries, and it was Frenchy who always brought treats home for the family. Frenchy called me his little girlfriend and he always brought me candy and sometimes a little toy. Every Sunday afternoon he would take my older brother and me out for an ice cream soda. When it was my birthday he brought a store-bought cake to my birthday supper. My mother tried to defend Frenchy to her friends. It didn’t matter what she said; my mother’s friends would not accept a man who would not fight for Canada. Like most people, they could not understand why the Canadian French did not think that Canada was worth fighting for. As far as they were concerned, zombies were cowards. One afternoon, while Frenchy was having a cup of tea with my mother, he told her how difficult it was to be in Sydney. It was a very small place, and everyone knew who he was and what he was doing. He could not hide the fact that he was a so-called zombie, and he had no choice but to take the taunts thrown at him. When Frenchy and his co-workers went to local dances the so-called “nice girls” shunned them. No matter where they went they were considered cowards and no one wanted to be seen in public with them. It was difficult to be despised and scorned wherever he went. He felt that he was not welcome in Cape Breton, and this made him feel sad and very lonely. The only place Frenchy felt welcome was at our home. He could not understand why people didn’t realize that there was more to a person than his or her political beliefs. The war ended and Frenchy went home but every year for 16 years I received a card from him on my birthday. Some things never change and we continue to judge people by our own standards. When others do not meet our standards, we ostracize them. Zombies, of course, are not the living dead without souls but men with different values. **Originally published in The Reader, NB. Donna Spalding is a displaced Cape Bretoner and retired professor living in Hampton, NB. Her articles and stories have been published in Readers’ Digest, Celtic Heritage Magazine, The Reader, Homestead Magazine and the Kings County Record.	<urn:uuid:0750749b-a491-4928-bd99-b058ffc7b4f8>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	http://www.breadnmolasses.com/2006/07/07/zombies-in-cape-breton/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250597230.18/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120023523-20200120051523-00237.warc.gz	en	0.991912	1,104	3.296875	3	[ -0.3612571060657501, 0.8088934421539307, -0.11431989073753357, -0.05493190512061119, 0.1282457411289215, -0.2252623438835144, 0.2516701817512512, 0.3300948441028595, -0.010634702630341053, 0.06518557667732239, 0.26000505685806274, 0.09997332096099854, 0.2582051157951355, 0.5902239084243774...	9	Zombies in Cape Breton By Donna Spalding In September 1939 Great Britain, France and Canada declared war on Germany. Unlike other countries, war did not unite Canadians but created conflicts within the country relative to conscription. During both WWI and WWII conscription became a problem. In WWI the government enforced conscription. Conscription was very unpopular in Quebec because the French believed it was an English war. Before WWII, Prime Minister Mackenzie King and the liberal government promised the people in Quebec they would not have to serve overseas. In 1940, the government realized that the voluntary system of recruiting men for overseas duty was not working and the Canadian Army could not get the necessary reinforcements. The majority of Canadians pressured the government to require all eligible men go overseas. People in other provinces did not think it was right for the French not to join the military when their sons and fathers were risking their lives to protect Canada. The government’s solution, to this problem, was to enact National War Service Regulations in accordance with the National Resources Mobilization Act, which granted the government conscription powers, although overseas duty continued to be on a voluntary basis. All eligible men who did not want overseas duties were obliged to join the military and complete basic training. The government thought this would encourage more men to go overseas but unfortunately this was not the case. The men who remained in Canada had to work at jobs necessary for home defence. The majority of these men were from Quebec and they were referred to as “zombies.” Zombie was a derogatory term the English Canadians used to express their resentment toward the French soldiers. Zombies were considered to be the living dead because they allegedly had no souls because they refused to go overseas to fight the enemy. In my hometown of Sydney, the steel plant and the coalmines were very important to the war effort and the zombies were sent to protect these industries. There were no barracks to house the soldiers, so the military requested that the local people house them. In the early1940’s, a representative from the army turned our apartment into a boarding house. He asked my mother if she would help the military troops by giving soldiers a place to stay. My mother did not want boarders, but knew it was her duty to help in the war effort. Anti-conscription rally in front of the Chateau Frontenac, Quebec City (courtesy www.warmuseum.ca) Many of the people who manned the steel plant and coalmines refused to work for these zombies. They did not believe these men had a right to wear a military uniform. The soldier who lived with us was referred to as Frenchy. At first, it was awkward to have him in the house, but after a while he became friends with our family. He was away from his family and his culture, and was living in a town that hated people like him. Frenchy was very kind and it was easy to become attached to him. Our family was making ends meet, but we had no money for luxuries, and it was Frenchy who always brought treats home for the family. Frenchy called me his little girlfriend and he always brought me candy and sometimes a little toy. Every Sunday afternoon he would take my older brother and me out for an ice cream soda. When it was my birthday he brought a store-bought cake to my birthday supper. My mother tried to defend Frenchy to her friends. It didn’t matter what she said; my mother’s friends would not accept a man who would not fight for Canada. Like most people, they could not understand why the Canadian French did not think that Canada was worth fighting for. As far as they were concerned, zombies were cowards. One afternoon, while Frenchy was having a cup of tea with my mother, he told her how difficult it was to be in Sydney. It was a very small place, and everyone knew who he was and what he was doing. He could not hide the fact that he was a so-called zombie, and he had no choice but to take the taunts thrown at him. When Frenchy and his co-workers went to local dances the so-called “nice girls” shunned them. No matter where they went they were considered cowards and no one wanted to be seen in public with them. It was difficult to be despised and scorned wherever he went. He felt that he was not welcome in Cape Breton, and this made him feel sad and very lonely. The only place Frenchy felt welcome was at our home. He could not understand why people didn’t realize that there was more to a person than his or her political beliefs. The war ended and Frenchy went home but every year for 16 years I received a card from him on my birthday. Some things never change and we continue to judge people by our own standards. When others do not meet our standards, we ostracize them. Zombies, of course, are not the living dead without souls but men with different values. **Originally published in The Reader, NB. Donna Spalding is a displaced Cape Bretoner and retired professor living in Hampton, NB. Her articles and stories have been published in Readers’ Digest, Celtic Heritage Magazine, The Reader, Homestead Magazine and the Kings County Record.	1,080	ENGLISH	1
Reinhard Heydrich was born in March 1904 and died in 1942. Heydrich was to become one of the most feared men in Nazi Germany helping Himmler cement the dictatorship started in March 1933 with the Enabling Act. Heydrich is one of the men most associated with the Holocaust. It is thought that Hitler looked on Heydrich as his natural successor. Heydrich, on the left, behind Himmler Heydrich was in charge of the Political Police. He was also a skilled musician, an Olympic class fencer and the mastermind behind the organisation that lead to the Holocaust. It was Heydrich who chaired and lead the meeting at Wannsee where the decision was taken to eradicate the Jews from Europe. He was a devoted Nazi who pursued his anti-Semitism with zeal. Why? Heydrich had to live with the fact that some of the Nazi hierarchy considered him to be a Jew under Nazi law. Heydrich’s father was called Bruno Richard Heydrich and had founded the First Halle Conservatory for Music, Theatre and Teaching. But research ordered by Gregor Strasser in 1932-33, came across an entry in the 1916 version of Riemann’s Musical Encyclopedia which read “Heydrich, Bruno, real name Süss”. The name Süss would have been considered by some as a Jewish name. Martin Bormann kept a card system that held detailed information on leading Nazis. This survived the war. Bormann was as thorough as any person could be and yet the card on Heydrich only goes back one generation on his mother’s side and there is no entry for his grandmother on her side. It would seem that Bormann kept this information out deliberately as he was too meticulous to leave gaps in his research and he certainly would have had access to documents throughout the Reich. The beliefs of some came to nothing as those higher up in the Nazi Party did not consider a surname to be incriminating evidence. However, Heydrich had to live with the knowledge that some believed he should have held no position in the Nazi Party at all. Perhaps this is why he was so devoted to his work against the Jews to prove to others that he was a true Nazi. Heydrich joined the SS in 1932 after leaving the navy where he had been an officer. He had left the navy in disgrace after an affair with a young girl. He joined the SS as an unemployed man. His efficiency was soon noticed and he was appointed head of the SS Srcurity Service (the SD) which acted as an intelligence agency. He was later appointed head of the Gestapo and the criminal police (the Kripo). These positions were combined into one when the Reich Security Office was established. In 1941, he was appointed Protector of Bohemia and Moravia and in the following year chaired the Wannsee meeting. Heydrich was killed by British trained Czech partisans as he was driven to work in May 1942. He travelled in an open top car and always used the same route to work. For these assassins, it was simply a matter of waiting for him to arrive at a point where his car had to slow down. One of the assassins was traced to the village of Lidice which was to pay a terrible price for having one of its townsfolk involved in this killing. Hitler ordered that everything should be killed in Lidice – including pets – and that its name should be removed from all future maps of Europe that were printed. The legacy of Heydrich lasted after his death.	<urn:uuid:8a806aa6-abc2-412c-8a61-dfa9cbd6d4ee>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/nazi-germany/nazi-leaders/reinhard-heydrich/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250592261.1/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118052321-20200118080321-00077.warc.gz	en	0.992988	740	3.84375	4	[ -0.5485724210739136, 0.5668549537658691, -0.04730933532118797, 0.029839254915714264, 0.13525548577308655, 0.10861894488334656, 0.23516234755516052, -0.041191212832927704, -0.15519699454307556, -0.4200688600540161, -0.015632659196853638, -0.1281668245792389, 0.0008978309342637658, 0.3455569...	9	Reinhard Heydrich was born in March 1904 and died in 1942. Heydrich was to become one of the most feared men in Nazi Germany helping Himmler cement the dictatorship started in March 1933 with the Enabling Act. Heydrich is one of the men most associated with the Holocaust. It is thought that Hitler looked on Heydrich as his natural successor. Heydrich, on the left, behind Himmler Heydrich was in charge of the Political Police. He was also a skilled musician, an Olympic class fencer and the mastermind behind the organisation that lead to the Holocaust. It was Heydrich who chaired and lead the meeting at Wannsee where the decision was taken to eradicate the Jews from Europe. He was a devoted Nazi who pursued his anti-Semitism with zeal. Why? Heydrich had to live with the fact that some of the Nazi hierarchy considered him to be a Jew under Nazi law. Heydrich’s father was called Bruno Richard Heydrich and had founded the First Halle Conservatory for Music, Theatre and Teaching. But research ordered by Gregor Strasser in 1932-33, came across an entry in the 1916 version of Riemann’s Musical Encyclopedia which read “Heydrich, Bruno, real name Süss”. The name Süss would have been considered by some as a Jewish name. Martin Bormann kept a card system that held detailed information on leading Nazis. This survived the war. Bormann was as thorough as any person could be and yet the card on Heydrich only goes back one generation on his mother’s side and there is no entry for his grandmother on her side. It would seem that Bormann kept this information out deliberately as he was too meticulous to leave gaps in his research and he certainly would have had access to documents throughout the Reich. The beliefs of some came to nothing as those higher up in the Nazi Party did not consider a surname to be incriminating evidence. However, Heydrich had to live with the knowledge that some believed he should have held no position in the Nazi Party at all. Perhaps this is why he was so devoted to his work against the Jews to prove to others that he was a true Nazi. Heydrich joined the SS in 1932 after leaving the navy where he had been an officer. He had left the navy in disgrace after an affair with a young girl. He joined the SS as an unemployed man. His efficiency was soon noticed and he was appointed head of the SS Srcurity Service (the SD) which acted as an intelligence agency. He was later appointed head of the Gestapo and the criminal police (the Kripo). These positions were combined into one when the Reich Security Office was established. In 1941, he was appointed Protector of Bohemia and Moravia and in the following year chaired the Wannsee meeting. Heydrich was killed by British trained Czech partisans as he was driven to work in May 1942. He travelled in an open top car and always used the same route to work. For these assassins, it was simply a matter of waiting for him to arrive at a point where his car had to slow down. One of the assassins was traced to the village of Lidice which was to pay a terrible price for having one of its townsfolk involved in this killing. Hitler ordered that everything should be killed in Lidice – including pets – and that its name should be removed from all future maps of Europe that were printed. The legacy of Heydrich lasted after his death.	754	ENGLISH	1
We’ve been living in a new decade for almost two weeks, and so many things have already happened. Yet, the month of January is, more often than not,... For the next 27 years, slave uprisings seemed to be a thing of the past. During this time, however, gladiator games had become one of the more popular forms of entertainment in Rome. So much so, that a number of schools had sprung up throughout Italy for the purpose of training slaves to be gladiators. One school in particular was owned by a businessman named Lentulus Batiatus who believed that bringing such entertainment to the people of Rome might prove to be quite lucrative. His gladiator school was located in Capua, in the vicinity of Mount Vesuvius, southern Italy. Roman army leaders, with an eye toward making a profit, willingly supplied the schools with slaves who had once been enemy soldiers. It was believed that these new slaves had the right temperament for combat in the arena. The fact that this particular type of slave possessed qualities of a combative nature, should have alerted the Roman Republic to the down side of this arrangement. They had failed to realize that the latest batch of slaves had long memories and knowledge of warlike operations and that they were likely to be angry and dangerous. Somewhere within the ranks of the Roman legions was a soldier who was virtually unknown, but whose name would soon be on the lips of many Roman citizens. He went by the name of Spartacus. The history of exactly where Spartacus came from, or how he found himself fighting in the arena, is not clear. Some sources claim that he had been one of many auxiliary soldiers in the Roman legions and was condemned to slavery after he was found to have committed a criminal act. Other sources say that he may have been an enemy soldier who had been taken prisoner. What is known for certain is that Spartacus was one of many gladiators in the school located in Capua, Italy, owned by Lentulus Batiatus. The gladiator schools consisted primarily of prisoners of war and criminals who were condemned to slavery. They had no rights. They existed for the sole purpose of training to kill and to fight to the death, so the incentive to escape was extremely high. In 73 B.C., Spartacus and his fellow gladiators planned an escape which was to occur at a certain time and day, but somehow, their scheme was betrayed. When the gladiators learned of the betrayal, they were forced to abandon their plan and take immediate action. About seventy men stormed the kitchen and used various kitchen instruments such as knives, cleavers and skewers as weapons. They overpowered the guards and hijacked several wagons filled with gladiator weapons and armor. Rome was about to fight a war in its own backyard. Spartacus and his co-leaders, Crixus and Oenomaus, began by raiding the country side for supplies and recruiting more slaves as they made their way to Mount Vesuvius. The mountain at that time was plush with vegetation and surrounded by fertile farm lands. Rome seemed unconcerned about a group of escaped slaves and did not see them as a threat. As well, at that time, most of the Republic’s military forces were occupied with battles in Spain and other parts of southeastern Europe. As Spartacus was becoming more powerful, the Senate decided that something had to be done and assigned Caius Claudius Glaber to handle the escaped slave problem. However, Glaber found that the men who had been drafted to do the job were mere civilians in uniform with little or no training and were no match for Spartacus and his band of gladiators. As Spartacus and his men plundered the countryside, word got around that they were a force not easily defeated. Consequently, Glaber chose to move cautiously. Instead of attacking Spartacus on Mount Vesuvius, Glabor decided to block any path of escape from the mountain in order to starve them into submission, but his plan didn’t work. Spartacus directed his men to weave ropes and ladders from wild vines and trees which they used to rappel down the side of the mountain in the middle of the night. The Roman encampment was taken completely by surprise as Spartacus and his men outflanked and obliterated Glaber and his soldiers. The battle resulted in the loss of Oenomaus, one of Spartacus’ co-leaders. Word of Spartacus’ success spread throughout the countryside, encouraging many slaves in the region to abandon their masters and join the gladiators. Spartacus’ forces swarmed over the countryside, concentrating on areas with little defense and a large slave populations. Spartacus was admired for his practice of dividing the spoils of battles equally. This practice enhanced his reputation for fairness and increased the number of recruits. Meanwhile, the Roman Senate was growing more impatient and appointed Consuls Lucius Gellius and Cornelius Lentulus, to defeat the slaves. By this time, Spartacus and his co-leader Crixus were believed to have increased their troop size to 40,000 and were thought to be advancing toward the Alps. Crixus, however, had decided to remain in southern Italy with his men, thus, splitting the gladiator army in two, a move which proved to be a big mistake. Roman legions under Consul Gellius advanced on Crixus and easily annihilated him and his men. Consul Gellius then turned his attention to Spartacus from the south while Consul Lentulus came at him from the north. Spartacus now found himself trapped between the two armies which happened to be larger in number and better equipped. Both Roman Consuls were counting on a quick victory, but what they didn’t know was that Spartacus had amassed a sizable cavalry force in the previous months. Roman soldiers on foot were no match against Spartacus’ men on horseback who devastated Lentulus’ forces and took possession of all their equipment and then turned to do battle against Gellius’ legions. Whether Spartacus’ troops had beaten Gellius or forced him to retreat is not clear. What is known for certain is that the way was clear for Spartacus and his men to march to the Alps and make their escape to freedom. But for some unknown reason, they turned and began a long march south. Why this happened is a mystery, but it is believed that many of Spartacus’ own men were against escaping to the Alps. Spartacus was known to be a fair leader who allowed his men to voice their views. So it is quite possible that the success of previous battles and the desire for easy pickings of rural Italy, may have gone to their heads. Whatever the reason, Spartacus and his men made the long march to the south and camped at a spot overlooking the Strait of Messina toward Sicily where they believed slaves needed to be set free. By this time, several new military leaders named Marcus Licinius Crassus, Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus, and Marcus Terentius Lucullius were in pursuit of the slave army. Their legions were among the finest Roman fighting men and they were all moving to trap the escaped gladiators. Spartacus considered himself fortunate for having struck a deal with some pirates who agreed to take all of Spartacus’ men across the Strait of Messina to Sicily. The pirates readily accepted Spartacus’ gifts but sailed away leaving Spartacus and his men to the mercy of the Roman legions. Spartacus, in an attempt to avoid a trap, was forced to launch his entire army against Crassus’ legions, but the slaves were badly outnumbered and ultimately they met their defeat at a place called Apulia. The Roman legions took 6,000 slaves prisoner and executed them all by crucifixion along the Apian Way. Their bodies were left on the crosses for several months where they were left to be eaten by vultures. The display of crucifixions was intended to discourage the slave population from taking up arms against their Roman masters. The fight against Spartacus and his army of gladiators was the Third Servile War and the last slave uprising against Rome. The body of Spartacus was never identified and so it was never determined if he had died in battle or was crucified.	<urn:uuid:5e504393-644e-4e52-bd57-1c26ebe1512b>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://italoamericano.org/story/2015-5-18/slavery-rome2	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251700988.64/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127143516-20200127173516-00476.warc.gz	en	0.98986	1,715	3.46875	3	[ -0.7103080749511719, 0.5221104025840759, 0.3502559959888458, -0.3410406708717346, -0.35155799984931946, -0.12814640998840332, -0.1986897885799408, 0.07868602871894836, 0.18383115530014038, -0.28745222091674805, 0.006968353874981403, -0.1843549907207489, -0.14353340864181519, 0.491950750350...	1	We’ve been living in a new decade for almost two weeks, and so many things have already happened. Yet, the month of January is, more often than not,... For the next 27 years, slave uprisings seemed to be a thing of the past. During this time, however, gladiator games had become one of the more popular forms of entertainment in Rome. So much so, that a number of schools had sprung up throughout Italy for the purpose of training slaves to be gladiators. One school in particular was owned by a businessman named Lentulus Batiatus who believed that bringing such entertainment to the people of Rome might prove to be quite lucrative. His gladiator school was located in Capua, in the vicinity of Mount Vesuvius, southern Italy. Roman army leaders, with an eye toward making a profit, willingly supplied the schools with slaves who had once been enemy soldiers. It was believed that these new slaves had the right temperament for combat in the arena. The fact that this particular type of slave possessed qualities of a combative nature, should have alerted the Roman Republic to the down side of this arrangement. They had failed to realize that the latest batch of slaves had long memories and knowledge of warlike operations and that they were likely to be angry and dangerous. Somewhere within the ranks of the Roman legions was a soldier who was virtually unknown, but whose name would soon be on the lips of many Roman citizens. He went by the name of Spartacus. The history of exactly where Spartacus came from, or how he found himself fighting in the arena, is not clear. Some sources claim that he had been one of many auxiliary soldiers in the Roman legions and was condemned to slavery after he was found to have committed a criminal act. Other sources say that he may have been an enemy soldier who had been taken prisoner. What is known for certain is that Spartacus was one of many gladiators in the school located in Capua, Italy, owned by Lentulus Batiatus. The gladiator schools consisted primarily of prisoners of war and criminals who were condemned to slavery. They had no rights. They existed for the sole purpose of training to kill and to fight to the death, so the incentive to escape was extremely high. In 73 B.C., Spartacus and his fellow gladiators planned an escape which was to occur at a certain time and day, but somehow, their scheme was betrayed. When the gladiators learned of the betrayal, they were forced to abandon their plan and take immediate action. About seventy men stormed the kitchen and used various kitchen instruments such as knives, cleavers and skewers as weapons. They overpowered the guards and hijacked several wagons filled with gladiator weapons and armor. Rome was about to fight a war in its own backyard. Spartacus and his co-leaders, Crixus and Oenomaus, began by raiding the country side for supplies and recruiting more slaves as they made their way to Mount Vesuvius. The mountain at that time was plush with vegetation and surrounded by fertile farm lands. Rome seemed unconcerned about a group of escaped slaves and did not see them as a threat. As well, at that time, most of the Republic’s military forces were occupied with battles in Spain and other parts of southeastern Europe. As Spartacus was becoming more powerful, the Senate decided that something had to be done and assigned Caius Claudius Glaber to handle the escaped slave problem. However, Glaber found that the men who had been drafted to do the job were mere civilians in uniform with little or no training and were no match for Spartacus and his band of gladiators. As Spartacus and his men plundered the countryside, word got around that they were a force not easily defeated. Consequently, Glaber chose to move cautiously. Instead of attacking Spartacus on Mount Vesuvius, Glabor decided to block any path of escape from the mountain in order to starve them into submission, but his plan didn’t work. Spartacus directed his men to weave ropes and ladders from wild vines and trees which they used to rappel down the side of the mountain in the middle of the night. The Roman encampment was taken completely by surprise as Spartacus and his men outflanked and obliterated Glaber and his soldiers. The battle resulted in the loss of Oenomaus, one of Spartacus’ co-leaders. Word of Spartacus’ success spread throughout the countryside, encouraging many slaves in the region to abandon their masters and join the gladiators. Spartacus’ forces swarmed over the countryside, concentrating on areas with little defense and a large slave populations. Spartacus was admired for his practice of dividing the spoils of battles equally. This practice enhanced his reputation for fairness and increased the number of recruits. Meanwhile, the Roman Senate was growing more impatient and appointed Consuls Lucius Gellius and Cornelius Lentulus, to defeat the slaves. By this time, Spartacus and his co-leader Crixus were believed to have increased their troop size to 40,000 and were thought to be advancing toward the Alps. Crixus, however, had decided to remain in southern Italy with his men, thus, splitting the gladiator army in two, a move which proved to be a big mistake. Roman legions under Consul Gellius advanced on Crixus and easily annihilated him and his men. Consul Gellius then turned his attention to Spartacus from the south while Consul Lentulus came at him from the north. Spartacus now found himself trapped between the two armies which happened to be larger in number and better equipped. Both Roman Consuls were counting on a quick victory, but what they didn’t know was that Spartacus had amassed a sizable cavalry force in the previous months. Roman soldiers on foot were no match against Spartacus’ men on horseback who devastated Lentulus’ forces and took possession of all their equipment and then turned to do battle against Gellius’ legions. Whether Spartacus’ troops had beaten Gellius or forced him to retreat is not clear. What is known for certain is that the way was clear for Spartacus and his men to march to the Alps and make their escape to freedom. But for some unknown reason, they turned and began a long march south. Why this happened is a mystery, but it is believed that many of Spartacus’ own men were against escaping to the Alps. Spartacus was known to be a fair leader who allowed his men to voice their views. So it is quite possible that the success of previous battles and the desire for easy pickings of rural Italy, may have gone to their heads. Whatever the reason, Spartacus and his men made the long march to the south and camped at a spot overlooking the Strait of Messina toward Sicily where they believed slaves needed to be set free. By this time, several new military leaders named Marcus Licinius Crassus, Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus, and Marcus Terentius Lucullius were in pursuit of the slave army. Their legions were among the finest Roman fighting men and they were all moving to trap the escaped gladiators. Spartacus considered himself fortunate for having struck a deal with some pirates who agreed to take all of Spartacus’ men across the Strait of Messina to Sicily. The pirates readily accepted Spartacus’ gifts but sailed away leaving Spartacus and his men to the mercy of the Roman legions. Spartacus, in an attempt to avoid a trap, was forced to launch his entire army against Crassus’ legions, but the slaves were badly outnumbered and ultimately they met their defeat at a place called Apulia. The Roman legions took 6,000 slaves prisoner and executed them all by crucifixion along the Apian Way. Their bodies were left on the crosses for several months where they were left to be eaten by vultures. The display of crucifixions was intended to discourage the slave population from taking up arms against their Roman masters. The fight against Spartacus and his army of gladiators was the Third Servile War and the last slave uprising against Rome. The body of Spartacus was never identified and so it was never determined if he had died in battle or was crucified.	1,708	ENGLISH	1
(Last Updated on : 20-01-2012) Jahangir, the mughal emperor, born on September 20th, 1569, succeeded to the throne a week after the death of his father Akbar . The coronation of Salim took place on 3 November 1605 A.D. and he assumed the title of Nur-ud-din Muhammad Jahangir. Like Akbar, Jahangir managed diplomatic relations on the Indian subcontinent dexterously, was tolerant of non-Muslims, and was a great patron of the art. He was greatly assisted by his wife Nur Jahan in administrative affairs. Jahangir began his reign with the declaration of many liberal laws which benefited his subjects. Jahangir was a just and kind ruler. Jahangir was a fairly obedient son, a lovable father, a good relative and an affectionate friend. He certainly revolted against his father but it was more due to his intention to behave as an independent individual rather than the desire to capture the throne of his father. Jahangir also possessed some weaknesses. He was easily influenced by his close relatives. His revolt against his father was also more due to their evil influences than his personal ambitions. His same weakness was responsible for his handing over the reigns of government in the hands of his beloved queen, Nur Jahan. Expansion of Empire by Jahangir Jahangir pursued the policy of the extension of the empire like his father. The conquest of north India was nearly complete during the reign of Akbar. Only a few petty states and Mewar could maintain their independence. Jahangir tried to subdue Mewar and the states in south India. Jahangir desired the submission of Mewar from the beginning of his reign and dispatched prince Parwez to conquer Mewar after his accession to the throne in 1605 A.D. Ultimately the Rana accepted the suzerainty of the Mughal emperor and a peace treaty was signed between the Mughals and the Rana in 1615 A.D. Thus the long-drawn war between Mewar and the Mughals ended. Jahangir tried to complete the conquest of south India. Khandesh and a part of Ahmednagar were conquered during Jahangir's reign. But the conquest of Ahmednagar could not be completed while Golkonda and Bijapur were left untouched so far. Jahangir attempted to conquer them. The campaigns of the Mughals in the Deccan during the reign of Jahangir, infact brought not much territorial gain though of course, pressure on the states of south India were increased. No rulers of the south were prepared to acknowledge the suzerainty of the Mughals. Nur Jahan, Wife of Jahangir Nur Jahan was an educated, social, generous, intelligent and cultured lady and was fond of poetry, music and painting. She was interested in administration and had the capacity to tackle the relevant problems. She participated in administration, interfered in the politics of her time, increased her influence and tried to keep the power of the state in her hands. Therefore, she influenced the history and politics of during Jahangir's reign. In 1613 A.D. Nur Jahan was elevated to the rank of Badshah Begum or the first lady of the realm. Nur Jahan's tremendous influence was the cause of disappointment among certain Mughal nobles, like Mohabbat Khan, and Jahanghir's son Prince Khurram, who struggled his way to the throne. Nur Jahan voted for Shariyar, another son of Jahangir as the next ruler. Her hostility propelled Prince Khurram to revolt in 1622.This revolt snatched away Kandahar from the Mughal Empire. Thus, the interference of Nur Jahan in the politics of the state resulted in two major rebellions during the last years of the reign of Jahangir which weakened the empire and harmed its prestige. Development of Art and Culture Jahangir was a well-educated and cultured person. He had good command over Persian and Turki language and was well-versed in other languages as well like Hindi and Arabic. He wrote his autobiography entitled Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri himself for seventeen year and later on got it prepared by others under his personal guidance. The description is fairly creditable and proves that Jahangir had not only varied interests but also knowledge of different subjects and fine arts. Jahangir was keenly interested in painting which reached to its zenith of progress during his rule. Development of Architecture Jahangir was interested in architecture as well. The tomb of Akbar at Sikandrabad near Agra was constructed by him and it is one among the beautiful buildings erected by the Mughal emperors. The mosque in Lahore, which was constructed in his reign, has been compared with the Jami Masjid, constructed by Shah Jahan , in Delhi. One of the most striking buildings constructed during his sovereignty, is the tomb of Itimad-ud-daula near Agra, which was constructed by Nur Jahan. Jahangir laid out many beautiful gardens in Kashmir and Lahore. Conquests of Jahangir Jahangir was well trained in arms and was an expert rider. But he was not prepared to undergo hardships of battlefield. He did not participate in any major battle during the reign of his father and, during his own reign all important battles were fought either under the command of his son Shah Jahan or under other talented officers. Jahangir neither tried to improve the military system which he inherited from his father nor increased the fighting strength of his army in any way. As regards religious beliefs and policy, Jahangir stands midway between his father, Akbar and his son, Shah Jahan. He believed in God and normally pursued the basic principles of Islam. Death of Jahangir Jahangir's health was adversely affected due to excessive drinking of alcohol. Jahangir died in the year 1627, while returning from Kashmir , the region of Sarai Saadabad. His deceased body was buried in Shahdara Bagh, in Lahore. He was succeeded by his son Prince Khurram, also known as Shah Jahan.	<urn:uuid:8ff6ac84-1a88-4165-b128-48d2400b4eef>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.indianetzone.com/5/jahangir.htm	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250607314.32/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122161553-20200122190553-00354.warc.gz	en	0.988934	1,314	3.609375	4	[ -0.22012677788734436, 0.49898701906204224, 0.17387881875038147, -0.4997681975364685, -0.3935680389404297, -0.20409923791885376, 0.4448862671852112, 0.043020736426115036, 0.2799747884273529, -0.3976686894893646, -0.2173544466495514, -0.5030472278594971, 0.15591366589069366, 0.09987291693687...	1	(Last Updated on : 20-01-2012) Jahangir, the mughal emperor, born on September 20th, 1569, succeeded to the throne a week after the death of his father Akbar . The coronation of Salim took place on 3 November 1605 A.D. and he assumed the title of Nur-ud-din Muhammad Jahangir. Like Akbar, Jahangir managed diplomatic relations on the Indian subcontinent dexterously, was tolerant of non-Muslims, and was a great patron of the art. He was greatly assisted by his wife Nur Jahan in administrative affairs. Jahangir began his reign with the declaration of many liberal laws which benefited his subjects. Jahangir was a just and kind ruler. Jahangir was a fairly obedient son, a lovable father, a good relative and an affectionate friend. He certainly revolted against his father but it was more due to his intention to behave as an independent individual rather than the desire to capture the throne of his father. Jahangir also possessed some weaknesses. He was easily influenced by his close relatives. His revolt against his father was also more due to their evil influences than his personal ambitions. His same weakness was responsible for his handing over the reigns of government in the hands of his beloved queen, Nur Jahan. Expansion of Empire by Jahangir Jahangir pursued the policy of the extension of the empire like his father. The conquest of north India was nearly complete during the reign of Akbar. Only a few petty states and Mewar could maintain their independence. Jahangir tried to subdue Mewar and the states in south India. Jahangir desired the submission of Mewar from the beginning of his reign and dispatched prince Parwez to conquer Mewar after his accession to the throne in 1605 A.D. Ultimately the Rana accepted the suzerainty of the Mughal emperor and a peace treaty was signed between the Mughals and the Rana in 1615 A.D. Thus the long-drawn war between Mewar and the Mughals ended. Jahangir tried to complete the conquest of south India. Khandesh and a part of Ahmednagar were conquered during Jahangir's reign. But the conquest of Ahmednagar could not be completed while Golkonda and Bijapur were left untouched so far. Jahangir attempted to conquer them. The campaigns of the Mughals in the Deccan during the reign of Jahangir, infact brought not much territorial gain though of course, pressure on the states of south India were increased. No rulers of the south were prepared to acknowledge the suzerainty of the Mughals. Nur Jahan, Wife of Jahangir Nur Jahan was an educated, social, generous, intelligent and cultured lady and was fond of poetry, music and painting. She was interested in administration and had the capacity to tackle the relevant problems. She participated in administration, interfered in the politics of her time, increased her influence and tried to keep the power of the state in her hands. Therefore, she influenced the history and politics of during Jahangir's reign. In 1613 A.D. Nur Jahan was elevated to the rank of Badshah Begum or the first lady of the realm. Nur Jahan's tremendous influence was the cause of disappointment among certain Mughal nobles, like Mohabbat Khan, and Jahanghir's son Prince Khurram, who struggled his way to the throne. Nur Jahan voted for Shariyar, another son of Jahangir as the next ruler. Her hostility propelled Prince Khurram to revolt in 1622.This revolt snatched away Kandahar from the Mughal Empire. Thus, the interference of Nur Jahan in the politics of the state resulted in two major rebellions during the last years of the reign of Jahangir which weakened the empire and harmed its prestige. Development of Art and Culture Jahangir was a well-educated and cultured person. He had good command over Persian and Turki language and was well-versed in other languages as well like Hindi and Arabic. He wrote his autobiography entitled Tuzuk-i-Jahangiri himself for seventeen year and later on got it prepared by others under his personal guidance. The description is fairly creditable and proves that Jahangir had not only varied interests but also knowledge of different subjects and fine arts. Jahangir was keenly interested in painting which reached to its zenith of progress during his rule. Development of Architecture Jahangir was interested in architecture as well. The tomb of Akbar at Sikandrabad near Agra was constructed by him and it is one among the beautiful buildings erected by the Mughal emperors. The mosque in Lahore, which was constructed in his reign, has been compared with the Jami Masjid, constructed by Shah Jahan , in Delhi. One of the most striking buildings constructed during his sovereignty, is the tomb of Itimad-ud-daula near Agra, which was constructed by Nur Jahan. Jahangir laid out many beautiful gardens in Kashmir and Lahore. Conquests of Jahangir Jahangir was well trained in arms and was an expert rider. But he was not prepared to undergo hardships of battlefield. He did not participate in any major battle during the reign of his father and, during his own reign all important battles were fought either under the command of his son Shah Jahan or under other talented officers. Jahangir neither tried to improve the military system which he inherited from his father nor increased the fighting strength of his army in any way. As regards religious beliefs and policy, Jahangir stands midway between his father, Akbar and his son, Shah Jahan. He believed in God and normally pursued the basic principles of Islam. Death of Jahangir Jahangir's health was adversely affected due to excessive drinking of alcohol. Jahangir died in the year 1627, while returning from Kashmir , the region of Sarai Saadabad. His deceased body was buried in Shahdara Bagh, in Lahore. He was succeeded by his son Prince Khurram, also known as Shah Jahan.	1,322	ENGLISH	1
Baseball is a millimetric sport. Some blows can be fielded by being positioned in the correct part of the ground, just as there are others that escape by just a couple of centimeters. However, there are some who, due to their trajectory, put physical integrity at risk, mainly that of players, coaches, and people who are on the pitch. That is why the helmet for baseball was invented. The first attempts to create protections came in 1905. However, it was not until 1908 when Roger Bresnahan, Hall of Fame receiver, was beaten, giving way to the creation of skin protection that basically covered the ear and the temple. The prototypes changed, and the protection began to take shape thanks to the helmets used in the polo. The first league to formally adopt the helmet for all players was the International League (Triple-A category circuit) for the 1939 season. Buster Mills was the first professional player to wear a helmet, and a year later, the second baseman for the White Sox in Chicago, Jackie Hayes, was the first to use protection in a game of Major League Baseball. By 1941, the National League organizations adopted the helmet during the preseason. However, teams such as the Brooklyn Dodgers and the Washington Senators made use of the device throughout the season, while others joined the initiative by halves of the calendar. In 1956, the old circuit made the use of helmets mandatory for all its teams. However, it was until December 1970 when Major League Baseball adopted the measure for all organizations, with the characteristic that the regulations are not retroactive, for which, the players who had started their career before the date, had the option of not using protection.	<urn:uuid:564e79ab-5cb1-4383-aa29-2674c3bb63e3>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	http://apieceofthegame.tv/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251671078.88/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125071430-20200125100430-00205.warc.gz	en	0.981693	344	3.546875	4	[ -0.35590967535972595, 0.3049639165401459, -0.012477555312216282, -0.4728976786136627, -0.4415505826473236, 0.6351958513259888, 0.5358641147613525, 0.3004930317401886, -0.008936137892305851, -0.11099659651517868, -0.09404438734054565, -0.24277222156524658, 0.17055515944957733, 0.02334315329...	1	Baseball is a millimetric sport. Some blows can be fielded by being positioned in the correct part of the ground, just as there are others that escape by just a couple of centimeters. However, there are some who, due to their trajectory, put physical integrity at risk, mainly that of players, coaches, and people who are on the pitch. That is why the helmet for baseball was invented. The first attempts to create protections came in 1905. However, it was not until 1908 when Roger Bresnahan, Hall of Fame receiver, was beaten, giving way to the creation of skin protection that basically covered the ear and the temple. The prototypes changed, and the protection began to take shape thanks to the helmets used in the polo. The first league to formally adopt the helmet for all players was the International League (Triple-A category circuit) for the 1939 season. Buster Mills was the first professional player to wear a helmet, and a year later, the second baseman for the White Sox in Chicago, Jackie Hayes, was the first to use protection in a game of Major League Baseball. By 1941, the National League organizations adopted the helmet during the preseason. However, teams such as the Brooklyn Dodgers and the Washington Senators made use of the device throughout the season, while others joined the initiative by halves of the calendar. In 1956, the old circuit made the use of helmets mandatory for all its teams. However, it was until December 1970 when Major League Baseball adopted the measure for all organizations, with the characteristic that the regulations are not retroactive, for which, the players who had started their career before the date, had the option of not using protection.	362	ENGLISH	1
Neatorama recently highlighted what the world looked like when Jesus was born. Thanks to Strabo, the Roman geographer, we have a 17-volume description of the world as they knew it. Here is what the world looked like to Strabo and his contemporaries: the globe was divided into five sections, with two cold bands on either end, two temperate bands, and one hot and “torrid” band at the very center. The inhabited world, a large island, was confined to a northern quarter of the globe and was surrounded by oceans. Or at least, that’s what was assumed: no one had ever circumnavigated the known world. Strabo was pretty much correct in what was known, although that still left a lot of unknowns. In his world, Israel was a small and politically insignificant place that was nonetheless a crossroads between three continents. Read about Strabo’s view of the world at Atlas Obscura. (Image credit: Flickr user Paolo Porsia)	<urn:uuid:a08ff45c-e187-471f-88ef-a0f6bfcec704>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	http://chriskidd.co.uk/tag/cartography/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250611127.53/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123160903-20200123185903-00475.warc.gz	en	0.988364	213	3.5	4	[ -0.06909094005823135, -0.1417027860879898, 0.4200803339481354, -0.16242685914039612, 0.296669065952301, 0.07101458311080933, -0.15015938878059387, 0.2963355481624603, -0.2527489960193634, 0.24295611679553986, 0.10727258026599884, -0.23262381553649902, 0.1882835179567337, 0.3915323317050934...	4	Neatorama recently highlighted what the world looked like when Jesus was born. Thanks to Strabo, the Roman geographer, we have a 17-volume description of the world as they knew it. Here is what the world looked like to Strabo and his contemporaries: the globe was divided into five sections, with two cold bands on either end, two temperate bands, and one hot and “torrid” band at the very center. The inhabited world, a large island, was confined to a northern quarter of the globe and was surrounded by oceans. Or at least, that’s what was assumed: no one had ever circumnavigated the known world. Strabo was pretty much correct in what was known, although that still left a lot of unknowns. In his world, Israel was a small and politically insignificant place that was nonetheless a crossroads between three continents. Read about Strabo’s view of the world at Atlas Obscura. (Image credit: Flickr user Paolo Porsia)	203	ENGLISH	1
NEW STUDENT GETS OLD TEACHER The bad news is that Cara Landry is the new kid at Denton Elementary School. The worse news is that her teacher, Mr. Larson, would rather read the paper and drink coffee than teach his students anything. So Cara decides to give Mr. Larson something else to read -- her own newspaper, The Landry News. Before she knows it, the whole fifth-grade class is in on the project. But then the principal finds a copy of The Landry News, with unexpected results. Tomorrow's headline: Will Cara's newspaper cost Mr. Larson his job? Discussion Topics Before Cara came to Denton Elementary School, she wrote a newspaper in her old school. What motivated her to start that newspaper? What was its tone? "Truth is good," Cara's mother says. "But when you are publishing all that truth, just be sure there's some mercy, too." What does she mean by that? Do you agree that mercy is as important as truth? Over the years, Mr. Larson became a lazy and sloppy teacher, and students became bored and restless in his classroom. How was the class's atmosphere good for Cara? Would it be good for you? Mr. Larson was stung by Cara's first editorial, but The Landry News ended up reviving his love of teaching. How? The Landry News starts small, but soon the whole school is reading it. How did Cara's duties change as the newspaper grew? What were the advantages of having a larger readership? What were the risks? Mr. Larson's students know very little about his life outside of school. How much do you know about your teachers? What do you imagine they do on their own time? Do you believe they have different in-school and out-of-school personalities? Why was the principal so upset by the "Lost and Found" article in The Landry News? Would you be? "Some people are newsmakers," observes Cara, "and some aren't." Who are the newsmakers in your school or neighborhood? What makes them so interesting to others? Activities and Research Produce your own classroom or neighborhood newspaper inspired by The Landry News. Newspaper stories begin with a headline and so does each chapter in The Landry News. Choose several of your favorite chapters and write an alternate headline for each. Come up with headlines to describe specific days in your own life. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is very short, and yet its meaning has long been the subject of heated debate. Read it for yourself. Research recent controversies over the freedom of the press. Perhaps your local newspaper or television station has been involved in First Amendment disputes. Invite a local journalist to come speak about the profession. What are the satisfactions of the job? What are the frustrations? What skills does the job require? How do you learn them? Cara discovers that there can be a big difference in the way newspapers and television cover the same story. Make your own comparisons. Track a single story through several news media. Which medium do you think is the most informative? Which is the most interesting? Attend a meeting of your local school board. Who are the members? How are they selected? What are the important educational issues in your community? Read the editorials in your local newspaper. Are they as well written and as clear as Cara's? Do you agree with them? Andrew Clements (1949–2019) was the author of the enormously popular Frindle. More than 10 million copies of his books have been sold, and he was nominated for a multitude of state awards, including two Christopher Awards and an Edgar Award. His popular works include About Average, Troublemaker, Extra Credit, Lost and Found, No Talking, Room One, Lunch Money, and more. He was also the author of the Benjamin Pratt & the Keepers of the School series. Find out more at AndrewClements.com. Brian Selznick is the author and illustrator of the bestselling The Invention of Hugo Cabret, which was awarded the Caldecott Medal and was a National Book Award finalist. He is also the illustrator of many books for children, including Frindle and Lunch Money by Andrew Clements, as well as the Doll People trilogy by Ann M. Martin and Laura Godwin, and The Dinosaurs of Waterhouse Hawkins by Barbara Kerley, which was a Caldecott Honor Book. Mr. Selznick divides his time between Brooklyn, New York, and San Diego, California. Salvatore Murdocca has illustrated more than 200 children’s trade and textbooks. He is also a librettist for children’s opera, a video artist, an avid runner, hiker, bicyclist, and a teacher of children’s illustration at the Parsons School of Design. Sal lives and works in New York with his wife, Nancy.	<urn:uuid:0acb4ef1-c229-4948-a0db-c6812559f7b7>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.simonandschuster.ca/books/The-Landry-News/Andrew-Clements/9780689828683	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250606975.49/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122101729-20200122130729-00038.warc.gz	en	0.985134	1,010	3.453125	3	[ -0.0521065890789032, -0.38570159673690796, 0.12754032015800476, 0.2734237313270569, 0.3949122726917267, 0.030625924468040466, 0.007180705200880766, 0.07909910380840302, -0.14813028275966644, 0.39378294348716736, 0.3004683256149292, 0.4616284966468811, 0.039057981222867966, 0.17237703502178...	1	NEW STUDENT GETS OLD TEACHER The bad news is that Cara Landry is the new kid at Denton Elementary School. The worse news is that her teacher, Mr. Larson, would rather read the paper and drink coffee than teach his students anything. So Cara decides to give Mr. Larson something else to read -- her own newspaper, The Landry News. Before she knows it, the whole fifth-grade class is in on the project. But then the principal finds a copy of The Landry News, with unexpected results. Tomorrow's headline: Will Cara's newspaper cost Mr. Larson his job? Discussion Topics Before Cara came to Denton Elementary School, she wrote a newspaper in her old school. What motivated her to start that newspaper? What was its tone? "Truth is good," Cara's mother says. "But when you are publishing all that truth, just be sure there's some mercy, too." What does she mean by that? Do you agree that mercy is as important as truth? Over the years, Mr. Larson became a lazy and sloppy teacher, and students became bored and restless in his classroom. How was the class's atmosphere good for Cara? Would it be good for you? Mr. Larson was stung by Cara's first editorial, but The Landry News ended up reviving his love of teaching. How? The Landry News starts small, but soon the whole school is reading it. How did Cara's duties change as the newspaper grew? What were the advantages of having a larger readership? What were the risks? Mr. Larson's students know very little about his life outside of school. How much do you know about your teachers? What do you imagine they do on their own time? Do you believe they have different in-school and out-of-school personalities? Why was the principal so upset by the "Lost and Found" article in The Landry News? Would you be? "Some people are newsmakers," observes Cara, "and some aren't." Who are the newsmakers in your school or neighborhood? What makes them so interesting to others? Activities and Research Produce your own classroom or neighborhood newspaper inspired by The Landry News. Newspaper stories begin with a headline and so does each chapter in The Landry News. Choose several of your favorite chapters and write an alternate headline for each. Come up with headlines to describe specific days in your own life. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is very short, and yet its meaning has long been the subject of heated debate. Read it for yourself. Research recent controversies over the freedom of the press. Perhaps your local newspaper or television station has been involved in First Amendment disputes. Invite a local journalist to come speak about the profession. What are the satisfactions of the job? What are the frustrations? What skills does the job require? How do you learn them? Cara discovers that there can be a big difference in the way newspapers and television cover the same story. Make your own comparisons. Track a single story through several news media. Which medium do you think is the most informative? Which is the most interesting? Attend a meeting of your local school board. Who are the members? How are they selected? What are the important educational issues in your community? Read the editorials in your local newspaper. Are they as well written and as clear as Cara's? Do you agree with them? Andrew Clements (1949–2019) was the author of the enormously popular Frindle. More than 10 million copies of his books have been sold, and he was nominated for a multitude of state awards, including two Christopher Awards and an Edgar Award. His popular works include About Average, Troublemaker, Extra Credit, Lost and Found, No Talking, Room One, Lunch Money, and more. He was also the author of the Benjamin Pratt & the Keepers of the School series. Find out more at AndrewClements.com. Brian Selznick is the author and illustrator of the bestselling The Invention of Hugo Cabret, which was awarded the Caldecott Medal and was a National Book Award finalist. He is also the illustrator of many books for children, including Frindle and Lunch Money by Andrew Clements, as well as the Doll People trilogy by Ann M. Martin and Laura Godwin, and The Dinosaurs of Waterhouse Hawkins by Barbara Kerley, which was a Caldecott Honor Book. Mr. Selznick divides his time between Brooklyn, New York, and San Diego, California. Salvatore Murdocca has illustrated more than 200 children’s trade and textbooks. He is also a librettist for children’s opera, a video artist, an avid runner, hiker, bicyclist, and a teacher of children’s illustration at the Parsons School of Design. Sal lives and works in New York with his wife, Nancy.	990	ENGLISH	1
According to some historians, "Ring Around the Rosy" is a song about the plague that wiped out nearly half the population of Europe during the Middle Ages. One sign of plague was a patch of rosy skin with a ring around it. "Pocket full of posies" probably means the fragrant flowers that doctors would stuff in their pockets to ward off the bad smell when they visited plague victims. And "ashes, ashes, we all fall down" means that everyone dropped dead. The song was probably made up during one of the plague periods. The plague itself was caused by bacteria. In the Middle Ages, plague was spread by fleas and other parasites that lived on small animals like rats. When rats died, their plague-carrying fleas needed to find another host, namely people. The disease makes it hard for a flea to swallow, so when it bites and begins to suck blood, it chokes and vomits the blood and plague bacteria back into the person's skin. Unfortunately, as long as there are rats with fleas, there'll be plague. Every year a few cases even crop up in the United States. But thanks to antibiotics, plague isn't nearly as deadly as it used to be.	<urn:uuid:d8794b06-509a-438c-809d-5f4eff18e0c7>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://indianapublicmedia.org/amomentofscience/ashes-ashes.php	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250628549.43/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125011232-20200125040232-00266.warc.gz	en	0.980714	251	3.65625	4	[ -0.31650879979133606, -0.16988007724285126, 0.4572713375091553, 0.07212089747190475, 0.47716787457466125, -0.32006314396858215, 0.6004765033721924, 0.4216111898422241, 0.05204104259610176, -0.1576104462146759, -0.015563573688268661, -0.07737741619348526, 0.06996600329875946, 0.117638014256...	3	According to some historians, "Ring Around the Rosy" is a song about the plague that wiped out nearly half the population of Europe during the Middle Ages. One sign of plague was a patch of rosy skin with a ring around it. "Pocket full of posies" probably means the fragrant flowers that doctors would stuff in their pockets to ward off the bad smell when they visited plague victims. And "ashes, ashes, we all fall down" means that everyone dropped dead. The song was probably made up during one of the plague periods. The plague itself was caused by bacteria. In the Middle Ages, plague was spread by fleas and other parasites that lived on small animals like rats. When rats died, their plague-carrying fleas needed to find another host, namely people. The disease makes it hard for a flea to swallow, so when it bites and begins to suck blood, it chokes and vomits the blood and plague bacteria back into the person's skin. Unfortunately, as long as there are rats with fleas, there'll be plague. Every year a few cases even crop up in the United States. But thanks to antibiotics, plague isn't nearly as deadly as it used to be.	247	ENGLISH	1
Scaffolding has been used to build, restore, and repair buildings throughout history. The history of scaffolding is rich, having been used to support buildings in all different cultures around the world. Have you always been curious about where scaffolding began? In this post, we explore where scaffoldings journey began and where it’s at now. Scaffolding was used by the ancient Greeks and Egyptians. The Egyptians used scaffolding to build their impressive pyramids. Scaffolds were regularly used to raise the different blocks used to create the magnificent structures quickly and easily. Sources also show that the ancient Greeks also used scaffolding in their building work frequently. The Berlin Foundry Cup shows the use of scaffolding in building work in the ancient cities of Greece. The Berlin Foundry Cup famous red-figure kylix (what we would call a cup for drinking) dates very far back, to the early 5th century BC. The cup was designed and created by an Attic vase painter, referred to by historians as the Foundry Painter. The cup shows that scaffolding was used during this time in history. Scaffolding was also used in the Medieval period. Monks were the unlikely suspects, using scaffolding to help build, repair, and restore their precious places of religious worship. In addition, history books also show that scaffolding was used by many workers in the Victorian times. Scaffolding was made out of a selection of ropes and wood to help with the building and repair of structures. Hemp rope, wire, and sisal were used as ropes to hold the different scaffolds in place for climbing up to heights as high as the building required. Sheer lashing and square lashing were used to tie the scaffolds in place (sheers are also known as roping). The Victorian scaffolds themselves were made out of wood. In addition, as would be shocking to professional scaffolders today, safety gear - such as helmets and vests were nowhere in sight on a Victorian scaffold: workers regularly wore everyday clothes, such as suits to undertake their work on the scaffolds. 7 Bays Scaffolding highlights more about the change in materials during this time: “It wasn’t until the early 1900s that metal scaffolding tubes as we know them today were introduced. Prior to this date, lengths of bamboo lashed together with hemp rope were used widely as a method of creating and erecting a scaffold frame.” Scaffolding has followed us throughout history, with scaffolding taking on stronger forms and more regulation in the modern era. From the 1920s, the materials used in scaffolding were really stepped up a notch. Before the 1920s, wood was regularly used as the basis of the scaffolding platforms used to repair and build on buildings. After the 1920s, wood was traded in for tubular steel scaffolding. Scaffolding has had an interesting history, from the pyramids of Egypt to the scaffolding of the modern day, scaffolding has been integral to many societies throughout history and without the world.	<urn:uuid:d2709cb9-e3eb-43e7-bcf4-03afcd1a7dd2>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.cambridgescaffolding.com/the-history-of-scaffolding	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250604849.31/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121162615-20200121191615-00444.warc.gz	en	0.988721	630	3.734375	4	[ -0.07034362852573395, 0.08153244107961655, 0.5635325312614441, 0.09532378613948822, -0.10310357809066772, 0.12718139588832855, -0.071896493434906, 0.26921546459198, -0.4066019356250763, -0.02005634643137455, 0.22612552344799042, -0.3662029504776001, -0.33832550048828125, 0.0311639104038476...	7	Scaffolding has been used to build, restore, and repair buildings throughout history. The history of scaffolding is rich, having been used to support buildings in all different cultures around the world. Have you always been curious about where scaffolding began? In this post, we explore where scaffoldings journey began and where it’s at now. Scaffolding was used by the ancient Greeks and Egyptians. The Egyptians used scaffolding to build their impressive pyramids. Scaffolds were regularly used to raise the different blocks used to create the magnificent structures quickly and easily. Sources also show that the ancient Greeks also used scaffolding in their building work frequently. The Berlin Foundry Cup shows the use of scaffolding in building work in the ancient cities of Greece. The Berlin Foundry Cup famous red-figure kylix (what we would call a cup for drinking) dates very far back, to the early 5th century BC. The cup was designed and created by an Attic vase painter, referred to by historians as the Foundry Painter. The cup shows that scaffolding was used during this time in history. Scaffolding was also used in the Medieval period. Monks were the unlikely suspects, using scaffolding to help build, repair, and restore their precious places of religious worship. In addition, history books also show that scaffolding was used by many workers in the Victorian times. Scaffolding was made out of a selection of ropes and wood to help with the building and repair of structures. Hemp rope, wire, and sisal were used as ropes to hold the different scaffolds in place for climbing up to heights as high as the building required. Sheer lashing and square lashing were used to tie the scaffolds in place (sheers are also known as roping). The Victorian scaffolds themselves were made out of wood. In addition, as would be shocking to professional scaffolders today, safety gear - such as helmets and vests were nowhere in sight on a Victorian scaffold: workers regularly wore everyday clothes, such as suits to undertake their work on the scaffolds. 7 Bays Scaffolding highlights more about the change in materials during this time: “It wasn’t until the early 1900s that metal scaffolding tubes as we know them today were introduced. Prior to this date, lengths of bamboo lashed together with hemp rope were used widely as a method of creating and erecting a scaffold frame.” Scaffolding has followed us throughout history, with scaffolding taking on stronger forms and more regulation in the modern era. From the 1920s, the materials used in scaffolding were really stepped up a notch. Before the 1920s, wood was regularly used as the basis of the scaffolding platforms used to repair and build on buildings. After the 1920s, wood was traded in for tubular steel scaffolding. Scaffolding has had an interesting history, from the pyramids of Egypt to the scaffolding of the modern day, scaffolding has been integral to many societies throughout history and without the world.	625	ENGLISH	1
School bullying is a type of bullying that occurs in connection with education, either inside or outside of school. Bullying can be physical, verbal, or emotional and is usually repeated over a period of time. Anti-bullying programs are designed to teach students cooperation, as well as training peer moderators in intervention and dispute resolution techniques, as a form of peer support. On Tuesday, March 22, 2011, Ambergris Today was invited to go and witness a great activity for Anti-bullying that took part at the Ambergris Caye Elementary (ACES). The guest speaker was a sweet lady from British Colombia, Canada named Mrs. Elizabeth Hamill and this is what she had to share with us about her magnificent day. “The afternoon started with the excitement of something new happening at their school. The children listened closely as I talked about the movement in Canada regarding bullies. Hands shot up when questions were asked about what a bully was. The children described situations and how they felt when it was happening. You can tell the staff of the school has talked about situations and how to avoid them. Children need to hear what bullying is and who to talk to when it occurs. They now know to go to their parents, family members, teachers whom they trust. Elizabeth talked about a situation on You-Tube where the victim fought back. Is it right or wrong? The children were divided as to supporting the victim. “We had an excellent conversation that gave them food for thought. If the victim fought back would they become the bully? Would the situation end there? My feeling is they need to talk about the situation to an adult they trust and let the adult intervene. Don’t keep the harassment to yourself as it has potential to grow. Everyone should feel safe at school and in their community.” “At our school in (formally known as ACE) we have been celebrating Anti-Bullying Day for the last 4 years,” continued Elizabeth. “We tie dye in brilliant pink and promote respecting others for their differences. Truly, that is the message. Everyone has different gifts to offer and sometimes we have to look more closely to see/hear what their gifts are. The children tie dyed their T-shirts, sang their national anthem (which was beautiful as they gave me a couple of rounds), received the bookmarks the students of Bakerview, Live and Learn Program (teacher Jodi Coleman) made and enjoyed the candy necklaces that signified our new friendship. Before I knew it our shared time was over. But then again I think it was a new beginning of my friendship with San Pedro and ACES.” “I do want to acknowledge Jan Brown for coming to my rescue for large containers to hold the hot water to do the dye. All in all, my visit will be landmarked by my visit to ACES. The teacher supplies my friends, colleagues were able to supply and the warmth of the children that are continually looking for in their educational growth. Thank you San Pedro and Ms. Dianne for your hospitality!”	<urn:uuid:835a8321-031e-4901-acf7-ce24d6c1f684>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.ambergristoday.com/content/stories/2011/march/23/ace-aces-participate-anti-bullying-program	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250620381.59/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124130719-20200124155719-00411.warc.gz	en	0.986343	633	3.546875	4	[ 0.18774861097335815, 0.10518348217010498, 0.11286020278930664, -0.0975751131772995, -0.3068486452102661, -0.20235058665275574, 0.424833208322525, -0.04377468675374985, 0.14424026012420654, -0.2968355119228363, 0.059872306883335114, -0.12158136069774628, 0.36611372232437134, 0.0073028570041...	5	School bullying is a type of bullying that occurs in connection with education, either inside or outside of school. Bullying can be physical, verbal, or emotional and is usually repeated over a period of time. Anti-bullying programs are designed to teach students cooperation, as well as training peer moderators in intervention and dispute resolution techniques, as a form of peer support. On Tuesday, March 22, 2011, Ambergris Today was invited to go and witness a great activity for Anti-bullying that took part at the Ambergris Caye Elementary (ACES). The guest speaker was a sweet lady from British Colombia, Canada named Mrs. Elizabeth Hamill and this is what she had to share with us about her magnificent day. “The afternoon started with the excitement of something new happening at their school. The children listened closely as I talked about the movement in Canada regarding bullies. Hands shot up when questions were asked about what a bully was. The children described situations and how they felt when it was happening. You can tell the staff of the school has talked about situations and how to avoid them. Children need to hear what bullying is and who to talk to when it occurs. They now know to go to their parents, family members, teachers whom they trust. Elizabeth talked about a situation on You-Tube where the victim fought back. Is it right or wrong? The children were divided as to supporting the victim. “We had an excellent conversation that gave them food for thought. If the victim fought back would they become the bully? Would the situation end there? My feeling is they need to talk about the situation to an adult they trust and let the adult intervene. Don’t keep the harassment to yourself as it has potential to grow. Everyone should feel safe at school and in their community.” “At our school in (formally known as ACE) we have been celebrating Anti-Bullying Day for the last 4 years,” continued Elizabeth. “We tie dye in brilliant pink and promote respecting others for their differences. Truly, that is the message. Everyone has different gifts to offer and sometimes we have to look more closely to see/hear what their gifts are. The children tie dyed their T-shirts, sang their national anthem (which was beautiful as they gave me a couple of rounds), received the bookmarks the students of Bakerview, Live and Learn Program (teacher Jodi Coleman) made and enjoyed the candy necklaces that signified our new friendship. Before I knew it our shared time was over. But then again I think it was a new beginning of my friendship with San Pedro and ACES.” “I do want to acknowledge Jan Brown for coming to my rescue for large containers to hold the hot water to do the dye. All in all, my visit will be landmarked by my visit to ACES. The teacher supplies my friends, colleagues were able to supply and the warmth of the children that are continually looking for in their educational growth. Thank you San Pedro and Ms. Dianne for your hospitality!”	611	ENGLISH	1
Harrisburg, Ohio facts for kids Location of Harrisburg, Ohio Location of Harrisburg in Franklin County \|• Total\|\|0.15 sq mi (0.39 km2)\| \|• Land\|\|0.15 sq mi (0.39 km2)\| \|• Water\|\|0 sq mi (0 km2)\| \|Elevation\|\|794 ft (242 m)\| \|• Estimate (2012)\|\|326\| \|• Density\|\|2,133.3/sq mi (823.7/km2)\| \|Time zone\|\|Eastern (EST) (UTC-5)\| \|• Summer (DST)\|\|EDT (UTC-4)\| \|GNIS feature ID\|\|1064801\| Harrisburg was founded in 1836 by Joseph Chenowith and surveyed and platted by Frederick Cole. Prior to the laying out of the village, the area was known as Darby Cross Roads. The present name is after Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Prior to the establishment of the village of Harrisburg a post office named Big Darby Post Office had been established on March 13, 1834, and the name was changed to Harrisburgh Post Office on February 18, 1835. The post office was for some reason, unknown at this time, discontinued or decommissioned on August 26, 1836, but quickly re-established on October 21, 1836. The spelling was officially changed to "Harrisburg" on March 30, 1893. From the outset in 1836 Harrisburg was known as a lively village. In 1836 it held about thirty families, by 1858 the population had grown to one hundred and fifteen, by 1900 to around two hundred, and in 1908 the population was estimated at three hundred. Harrisburg is located at(39.810729, -83.170728). According to the United States Census Bureau, the village has a total area of 0.15 square miles (0.39 km2), all land. As of the census of 2010, there were 320 people, 138 households, and 86 families residing in the village. The population density was 2,133.3 inhabitants per square mile (823.7/km2). There were 147 housing units at an average density of 980.0 per square mile (378.4/km2). The racial makeup of the village was 96.9% White, 0.6% African American, 0.9% Native American, 0.6% Asian, and 0.9% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 0.3% of the population. There were 138 households of which 24.6% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 50.0% were married couples living together, 8.7% had a female householder with no husband present, 3.6% had a male householder with no wife present, and 37.7% were non-families. 30.4% of all households were made up of individuals and 10.8% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.32 and the average family size was 2.91. The median age in the village was 44.7 years. 19.1% of residents were under the age of 18; 7% were between the ages of 18 and 24; 24.8% were from 25 to 44; 35% were from 45 to 64; and 14.4% were 65 years of age or older. The gender makeup of the village was 50.9% male and 49.1% female. As of the census of 2000, there were 332 people, 134 households, and 103 families residing in the village. The population density was 3,330.2 people per square mile (1,281.9/km²). There were 142 housing units at an average density of 1,424.4 per square mile (548.3/km²). The racial makeup of the village was 96.69% White, 0.30% African American, 0.90% Native American, 0.30% Asian, 0.30% from other races, and 1.51% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 0.60% of the population. There were 134 households out of which 32.1% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 61.9% were married couples living together, 7.5% had a female householder with no husband present, and 23.1% were non-families. 20.1% of all households were made up of individuals and 7.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.48 and the average family size was 2.84. In the village, the population was spread out with 24.1% under the age of 18, 6.9% from 18 to 24, 30.4% from 25 to 44, 27.1% from 45 to 64, and 11.4% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 38 years. For every 100 females there were 102.4 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 93.8 males. The median income for a household in the village was $43,438, and the median income for a family was $45,781. Males had a median income of $35,417 versus $25,833 for females. The per capita income for the village was $18,327. About 2.9% of families and 3.2% of the population were below the poverty line, including 2.4% of those under age 18 and none of those age 65 or over. Harrisburg, Ohio Facts for Kids. Kiddle Encyclopedia.	<urn:uuid:0116c37f-622f-4bf1-940d-f076e7c5f040>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://kids.kiddle.co/Harrisburg,_Ohio	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251778168.77/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128091916-20200128121916-00538.warc.gz	en	0.980997	1,204	3.40625	3	[ 0.11694670468568802, -0.11326880753040314, 0.13216876983642578, 0.07959964871406555, -0.6788856983184814, 0.1765311062335968, 0.12668462097644806, 0.09793534874916077, -0.24325570464134216, -0.1904107630252838, 0.42693305015563965, -0.2398376166820526, -0.2133895754814148, 0.23753646016120...	1	Harrisburg, Ohio facts for kids Location of Harrisburg, Ohio Location of Harrisburg in Franklin County \|• Total\|\|0.15 sq mi (0.39 km2)\| \|• Land\|\|0.15 sq mi (0.39 km2)\| \|• Water\|\|0 sq mi (0 km2)\| \|Elevation\|\|794 ft (242 m)\| \|• Estimate (2012)\|\|326\| \|• Density\|\|2,133.3/sq mi (823.7/km2)\| \|Time zone\|\|Eastern (EST) (UTC-5)\| \|• Summer (DST)\|\|EDT (UTC-4)\| \|GNIS feature ID\|\|1064801\| Harrisburg was founded in 1836 by Joseph Chenowith and surveyed and platted by Frederick Cole. Prior to the laying out of the village, the area was known as Darby Cross Roads. The present name is after Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Prior to the establishment of the village of Harrisburg a post office named Big Darby Post Office had been established on March 13, 1834, and the name was changed to Harrisburgh Post Office on February 18, 1835. The post office was for some reason, unknown at this time, discontinued or decommissioned on August 26, 1836, but quickly re-established on October 21, 1836. The spelling was officially changed to "Harrisburg" on March 30, 1893. From the outset in 1836 Harrisburg was known as a lively village. In 1836 it held about thirty families, by 1858 the population had grown to one hundred and fifteen, by 1900 to around two hundred, and in 1908 the population was estimated at three hundred. Harrisburg is located at(39.810729, -83.170728). According to the United States Census Bureau, the village has a total area of 0.15 square miles (0.39 km2), all land. As of the census of 2010, there were 320 people, 138 households, and 86 families residing in the village. The population density was 2,133.3 inhabitants per square mile (823.7/km2). There were 147 housing units at an average density of 980.0 per square mile (378.4/km2). The racial makeup of the village was 96.9% White, 0.6% African American, 0.9% Native American, 0.6% Asian, and 0.9% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 0.3% of the population. There were 138 households of which 24.6% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 50.0% were married couples living together, 8.7% had a female householder with no husband present, 3.6% had a male householder with no wife present, and 37.7% were non-families. 30.4% of all households were made up of individuals and 10.8% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.32 and the average family size was 2.91. The median age in the village was 44.7 years. 19.1% of residents were under the age of 18; 7% were between the ages of 18 and 24; 24.8% were from 25 to 44; 35% were from 45 to 64; and 14.4% were 65 years of age or older. The gender makeup of the village was 50.9% male and 49.1% female. As of the census of 2000, there were 332 people, 134 households, and 103 families residing in the village. The population density was 3,330.2 people per square mile (1,281.9/km²). There were 142 housing units at an average density of 1,424.4 per square mile (548.3/km²). The racial makeup of the village was 96.69% White, 0.30% African American, 0.90% Native American, 0.30% Asian, 0.30% from other races, and 1.51% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 0.60% of the population. There were 134 households out of which 32.1% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 61.9% were married couples living together, 7.5% had a female householder with no husband present, and 23.1% were non-families. 20.1% of all households were made up of individuals and 7.5% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.48 and the average family size was 2.84. In the village, the population was spread out with 24.1% under the age of 18, 6.9% from 18 to 24, 30.4% from 25 to 44, 27.1% from 45 to 64, and 11.4% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 38 years. For every 100 females there were 102.4 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 93.8 males. The median income for a household in the village was $43,438, and the median income for a family was $45,781. Males had a median income of $35,417 versus $25,833 for females. The per capita income for the village was $18,327. About 2.9% of families and 3.2% of the population were below the poverty line, including 2.4% of those under age 18 and none of those age 65 or over. Harrisburg, Ohio Facts for Kids. Kiddle Encyclopedia.	1,474	ENGLISH	1
A 1:10 scale model of the type of crane used in Greco–Roman building projects. It is on display at the Parthenon exhibit in Nashville, TN (USA). The original crane was 90 feet high with a base 25 ft. side and 35 ft. long. It was placed on rails and rollers that made it moveable. It was mainly made up of cypress, oak, ash, and beech. The only metal parts were the side pieces of the pulleys. It would have taken 12-14 men to operate the crane to move a block into place. Ten men were needed just to crank the take-up reel. To prevent the crane from tipping over while a block was being lifted, two rejected column drums were stacked on the rear of the base. (Adapted from the display description)	<urn:uuid:c3f0154a-e72c-49f4-ad2b-1e0a40262b3b>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	http://www.holylandphotos.org/browse.asp?s=136,3701&img=DLARBUCO01&rss=1&mode=print	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250610004.56/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123101110-20200123130110-00251.warc.gz	en	0.986986	169	3.5	4	[ -0.37463077902793884, 0.1655384600162506, 0.3426598310470581, -0.12429116666316986, -0.5955511927604675, 0.22023941576480865, -0.05764893814921379, 0.7427085638046265, -0.32547393441200256, 0.15149037539958954, 0.3339919149875641, -0.13509579002857208, 0.15307065844535828, 0.31692966818809...	1	A 1:10 scale model of the type of crane used in Greco–Roman building projects. It is on display at the Parthenon exhibit in Nashville, TN (USA). The original crane was 90 feet high with a base 25 ft. side and 35 ft. long. It was placed on rails and rollers that made it moveable. It was mainly made up of cypress, oak, ash, and beech. The only metal parts were the side pieces of the pulleys. It would have taken 12-14 men to operate the crane to move a block into place. Ten men were needed just to crank the take-up reel. To prevent the crane from tipping over while a block was being lifted, two rejected column drums were stacked on the rear of the base. (Adapted from the display description)	178	ENGLISH	1
On July 2, 1964, Lyndon Johnson sat down in front of an array of leaders in Congress and the Civil Rights movement to sign the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The law, he acknowledged, would turn the South Republican for a generation, but it was too important not to sign. He said that because he knew southern white voters would feel a sense of loss as their black and brown neighbors gained rights and status in the country and that they would blame Democrats for stripping away their supremacy. LBJ was spot on, and the Civil Rights Act was not the only instance of societal change since then. Women have gained increased rights to make their own healthcare decisions, LGBT Americans have gained increasing acceptance in society, and the Vietnam War effectively brought an end to the military draft. We’ve also seen massive shifts in economic dynamics in terms of automation and globalization. At each major milestone there were people who saw progress and felt left behind and people who saw progress and felt more free.	<urn:uuid:c64626e7-df71-45f4-8d1d-62f67a44c22f>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://joshyazman.github.io/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250598217.23/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120081337-20200120105337-00522.warc.gz	en	0.982057	195	3.28125	3	[ -0.6000875234603882, -0.21010081470012665, -0.0326070636510849, -0.4167526364326477, -0.12261100858449936, 0.9080748558044434, 0.017328409478068352, 0.02888994850218296, -0.20831263065338135, 0.039170391857624054, 0.28359875082969666, 0.5340827107429504, 0.010748649016022682, -0.0158666428...	3	On July 2, 1964, Lyndon Johnson sat down in front of an array of leaders in Congress and the Civil Rights movement to sign the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The law, he acknowledged, would turn the South Republican for a generation, but it was too important not to sign. He said that because he knew southern white voters would feel a sense of loss as their black and brown neighbors gained rights and status in the country and that they would blame Democrats for stripping away their supremacy. LBJ was spot on, and the Civil Rights Act was not the only instance of societal change since then. Women have gained increased rights to make their own healthcare decisions, LGBT Americans have gained increasing acceptance in society, and the Vietnam War effectively brought an end to the military draft. We’ve also seen massive shifts in economic dynamics in terms of automation and globalization. At each major milestone there were people who saw progress and felt left behind and people who saw progress and felt more free.	203	ENGLISH	1
We know that lab coats were adopted from scientists, but what is the origin of scrubs? In the early 1900s, surgical procedures occurred in an operating theater - an amphitheatre with tiered seating that allowed people to watch doctors perform surgery. Unlike the white, formal uniforms long required of nurses, surgeons wore their own clothes well into the 20th century. Most surgeons actually wore a butcher's apron. And the mark of a successful surgeon seemed to be defined by the quantity of bloody stains on his clothing, from operating with bare hands and non-sterile instruments. In those days, sutures were sold as open strands with reusable needles, and packing gauze came from the floors of cotton mills. The practice of ‘pretending to be a butcher’ by doing surgery for an audience thankfully stopped after the 1940s, when everyone realized that it was both dangerous and distasteful. Scrubs as an official uniform didn't become popular until the 1970s, though, because they were easier to clean and more hygienic. The first surgical scrubs were white to emphasize this new standard of cleanliness. However, the bright operating lights in an all-white environment caused eyestrain. So by the 1960s, most hospitals had switched to shades of green to provide visual contrast and make stains appear less obvious. These green scrubs were originally known as "surgical greens" but came to be called "scrubs" because they were worn primarily in a "scrubbed" (sterile) environment. As far from bloody butcher aprons as you can get, Medelita scrubs are functional, professional, and perfectly matched to the task at hand. Medelita scrubs are made with a high-performance drirelease® with FreshGuard® fabric. This means that the fabric itself is moisture-wicking, quick drying, and soft. Drirelease® yarns pull moisture away from the skin and help to regulate skin temperature, minimizing sweat and discomfort. FreshGuard® is bacteriostatic; it neutralizes and inhibits the growth of bacterial odors. This is demo store. No orders will be fulfilled.	<urn:uuid:ce2e3e61-925c-430f-b799-4e11045819e1>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://mcstaging.medelita.com/blog/the-origin-of-scrubs/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250626449.79/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124221147-20200125010147-00147.warc.gz	en	0.980415	439	3.359375	3	[ -0.26524585485458374, 0.23524464666843414, 0.2178497612476349, -0.007521651219576597, -0.06835005432367325, 0.017931632697582245, 0.6140899658203125, 0.41301512718200684, -0.07377603650093079, 0.04313242435455322, 0.04589889943599701, -0.2104557454586029, -0.2740618884563446, 0.39945536851...	2	We know that lab coats were adopted from scientists, but what is the origin of scrubs? In the early 1900s, surgical procedures occurred in an operating theater - an amphitheatre with tiered seating that allowed people to watch doctors perform surgery. Unlike the white, formal uniforms long required of nurses, surgeons wore their own clothes well into the 20th century. Most surgeons actually wore a butcher's apron. And the mark of a successful surgeon seemed to be defined by the quantity of bloody stains on his clothing, from operating with bare hands and non-sterile instruments. In those days, sutures were sold as open strands with reusable needles, and packing gauze came from the floors of cotton mills. The practice of ‘pretending to be a butcher’ by doing surgery for an audience thankfully stopped after the 1940s, when everyone realized that it was both dangerous and distasteful. Scrubs as an official uniform didn't become popular until the 1970s, though, because they were easier to clean and more hygienic. The first surgical scrubs were white to emphasize this new standard of cleanliness. However, the bright operating lights in an all-white environment caused eyestrain. So by the 1960s, most hospitals had switched to shades of green to provide visual contrast and make stains appear less obvious. These green scrubs were originally known as "surgical greens" but came to be called "scrubs" because they were worn primarily in a "scrubbed" (sterile) environment. As far from bloody butcher aprons as you can get, Medelita scrubs are functional, professional, and perfectly matched to the task at hand. Medelita scrubs are made with a high-performance drirelease® with FreshGuard® fabric. This means that the fabric itself is moisture-wicking, quick drying, and soft. Drirelease® yarns pull moisture away from the skin and help to regulate skin temperature, minimizing sweat and discomfort. FreshGuard® is bacteriostatic; it neutralizes and inhibits the growth of bacterial odors. This is demo store. No orders will be fulfilled.	449	ENGLISH	1
Get help with any kind of project - from a high school essay to a PhD dissertation A Leon Higginbotham Jr.'s debate in The Ancestry of Inferiority (1619-1662), is that the people of Virginia had already began to think of black people, be it they had been liberated or indentured servants, as inferior to themselves prior to slavery was institutionalized. The Colonist's had already begun to strategize legalities in reference on how black people were more disciplined. Higginbotham has two explanations why Africans weren't afforded the same liberties as that of the white indentured servants in Virginia. The first reason he states is that the vast majority of white indentured servants came to Virginia on their own free will. Once they had completed their five or seven-year contract with their master, they were free to buy land and begin working for themselves. Unlike the African's that he claims were brought here against their will or for desperation. The second reasoning is that the English thought that the black represented evil or danger and because African's skin coloring was black, they need to be evil. Higginbotham offers a couple of examples representing just how the English prior to the actual term of slavery being used, were already creating a racial difference in the judicial system. From court cases that he has reviewed, he states one must find what the case is not saying verses what it is. Whenever the English identified people with names the only time skin color was not used in context is when that person was a white person. Another case he made use of is a good example of black inferiority to white superiority in the early 17th century is in the case In Re Graweere, 1641. The court made certain that a particular African father had no value in society when attempting to receive his child back. However, because his son was...	<urn:uuid:b92f6df6-1e40-4d27-b262-74f073518883>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://studybay.com/example-works/essay/other/1001986/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250604397.40/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121132900-20200121161900-00516.warc.gz	en	0.983051	377	3.609375	4	[ -0.5202807188034058, 0.20380841195583344, -0.1555432379245758, -0.14898455142974854, -0.07363954186439514, -0.20795948803424835, 0.1443336009979248, -0.15227222442626953, -0.05924797058105469, 0.26636067032814026, 0.1697324514389038, -0.21975824236869812, -0.287689745426178, 0.151929423213...	1	Get help with any kind of project - from a high school essay to a PhD dissertation A Leon Higginbotham Jr.'s debate in The Ancestry of Inferiority (1619-1662), is that the people of Virginia had already began to think of black people, be it they had been liberated or indentured servants, as inferior to themselves prior to slavery was institutionalized. The Colonist's had already begun to strategize legalities in reference on how black people were more disciplined. Higginbotham has two explanations why Africans weren't afforded the same liberties as that of the white indentured servants in Virginia. The first reason he states is that the vast majority of white indentured servants came to Virginia on their own free will. Once they had completed their five or seven-year contract with their master, they were free to buy land and begin working for themselves. Unlike the African's that he claims were brought here against their will or for desperation. The second reasoning is that the English thought that the black represented evil or danger and because African's skin coloring was black, they need to be evil. Higginbotham offers a couple of examples representing just how the English prior to the actual term of slavery being used, were already creating a racial difference in the judicial system. From court cases that he has reviewed, he states one must find what the case is not saying verses what it is. Whenever the English identified people with names the only time skin color was not used in context is when that person was a white person. Another case he made use of is a good example of black inferiority to white superiority in the early 17th century is in the case In Re Graweere, 1641. The court made certain that a particular African father had no value in society when attempting to receive his child back. However, because his son was...	389	ENGLISH	1
Jane Addams (September 6, 1860 – May 28, 1935) was an American settlement activist, reformer, social worker, sociologist, public administrator and author. She was a notable figure in the history of social work and women’s suffrage in the United States and an advocate for world peace. She co-founded Chicago’s Hull House, one of America’s most famous settlement houses. In 1910, Addams was awarded an honorary master of arts degree from Yale University, becoming the first woman to receive an honorary degree from the school. In 1920, she was a co-founder for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). In 1931, she became the first American woman to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, and is recognized as the founder of the social work profession in the United States. Maurice Hamington considered her a radical pragmatist and the first woman “public philosopher” in the United States. When Addams died in 1935, she was the best-known female public figure in the United States.In the Progressive Era, when presidents such as Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson identified themselves as reformers and social activists, Addams was one of the most prominent reformers. She helped America address and focus on issues that were of concern to mothers, such as the needs of children, local public health, and world peace. In her essay “Utilization of Women in City Government,” Addams noted the connection between the workings of government and the household, stating that many departments of government, such as sanitation and the schooling of children, could be traced back to traditional women’s roles in the private sphere. Thus, these were matters of which women would have more knowledge than men, so women needed the vote to best voice their opinions. She said that if women were to be responsible for cleaning up their communities and making them better places to live, they needed to be able to vote to do so effectively. Addams became a role model for middle-class women who volunteered to uplift their communities.	<urn:uuid:af07b6c6-69ea-4090-8b87-c02d674b062c>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://goodquotes.me/authors/jane-addams/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250595282.35/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119205448-20200119233448-00174.warc.gz	en	0.986934	420	4	4	[ -0.11222317814826965, 0.11479032039642334, 0.38105127215385437, -0.08944106847047806, -0.12633617222309113, 0.441648006439209, -0.04473826661705971, 0.19672459363937378, 0.03407127410173416, 0.08913517743349075, 0.3206094205379486, -0.13541695475578308, -0.005661078728735447, 0.30181652307...	2	Jane Addams (September 6, 1860 – May 28, 1935) was an American settlement activist, reformer, social worker, sociologist, public administrator and author. She was a notable figure in the history of social work and women’s suffrage in the United States and an advocate for world peace. She co-founded Chicago’s Hull House, one of America’s most famous settlement houses. In 1910, Addams was awarded an honorary master of arts degree from Yale University, becoming the first woman to receive an honorary degree from the school. In 1920, she was a co-founder for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). In 1931, she became the first American woman to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, and is recognized as the founder of the social work profession in the United States. Maurice Hamington considered her a radical pragmatist and the first woman “public philosopher” in the United States. When Addams died in 1935, she was the best-known female public figure in the United States.In the Progressive Era, when presidents such as Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson identified themselves as reformers and social activists, Addams was one of the most prominent reformers. She helped America address and focus on issues that were of concern to mothers, such as the needs of children, local public health, and world peace. In her essay “Utilization of Women in City Government,” Addams noted the connection between the workings of government and the household, stating that many departments of government, such as sanitation and the schooling of children, could be traced back to traditional women’s roles in the private sphere. Thus, these were matters of which women would have more knowledge than men, so women needed the vote to best voice their opinions. She said that if women were to be responsible for cleaning up their communities and making them better places to live, they needed to be able to vote to do so effectively. Addams became a role model for middle-class women who volunteered to uplift their communities.	426	ENGLISH	1
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was designed mainly to invalidate many state and federal laws that discriminate against women; its central underlying principle was that sex should not determine the legal rights of American men or women. The text of the proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution stated that “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex” and further that “the Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” The amendment was first introduced to Congress in 1923, shortly after women in the United States were granted the right to vote, and it was finally approved by the U.S. Senate 49 years later, in March 1972. It was then submitted to the state legislatures for ratification within seven years but, despite a deadline extension to June 1982, was not ratified by the requisite majority of 38 states. It would have become the 27th Amendment to the Constitution. Although the ERA gained ratification of 30 states within one year of its Senate approval, mounting intense opposition from conservative religious and political organizations effectively brought ratification to a standstill. The main objections to the ERA were based on fears that women would lose privileges and protections such as exemption from compulsory military service and combat duty and economic support from husbands for themselves and their children. Advocates of the ERA, led primarily by the National Organization for Women (NOW), maintained, however, that the issue was mainly economic. NOW’s position was that many sex-discriminatory state and federal laws perpetuated a state of economic dependence among a large number of women and that laws determining child support and job opportunities should be designed for the individual rather than for one sex. Many advocates of the ERA believed that the failure to adopt the measure as an amendment would cause women to lose many gains and would give a negative mandate to courts and legislators regarding feminist issues.	<urn:uuid:636b1e14-58a8-4093-9493-2947fb6d6806>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	http://essay.ua-referat.com/Equal_Rights_Amendment	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251700988.64/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127143516-20200127173516-00168.warc.gz	en	0.983239	395	4.5625	5	[ -0.6264899969100952, 0.00614824378862977, -0.1479700207710266, -0.2028721570968628, -0.4965679347515106, 0.7651086449623108, -0.09615378826856613, -0.05300748348236084, 0.12418696284294128, 0.10484034568071365, 0.167569100856781, 0.19522413611412048, 0.2587715983390808, -0.1262357831001281...	5	The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was designed mainly to invalidate many state and federal laws that discriminate against women; its central underlying principle was that sex should not determine the legal rights of American men or women. The text of the proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution stated that “Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex” and further that “the Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” The amendment was first introduced to Congress in 1923, shortly after women in the United States were granted the right to vote, and it was finally approved by the U.S. Senate 49 years later, in March 1972. It was then submitted to the state legislatures for ratification within seven years but, despite a deadline extension to June 1982, was not ratified by the requisite majority of 38 states. It would have become the 27th Amendment to the Constitution. Although the ERA gained ratification of 30 states within one year of its Senate approval, mounting intense opposition from conservative religious and political organizations effectively brought ratification to a standstill. The main objections to the ERA were based on fears that women would lose privileges and protections such as exemption from compulsory military service and combat duty and economic support from husbands for themselves and their children. Advocates of the ERA, led primarily by the National Organization for Women (NOW), maintained, however, that the issue was mainly economic. NOW’s position was that many sex-discriminatory state and federal laws perpetuated a state of economic dependence among a large number of women and that laws determining child support and job opportunities should be designed for the individual rather than for one sex. Many advocates of the ERA believed that the failure to adopt the measure as an amendment would cause women to lose many gains and would give a negative mandate to courts and legislators regarding feminist issues.	404	ENGLISH	1
Dec. 25, 2019 Harry T. Moore and Harriet Moore’s Christmas Story On December 25, 1951, sixty-eight years ago Harry T. Moore and Harriet Moore were just laying down after celebrating not only Christmas but also their 35th wedding anniversary. Unbeknownst to the Moore was that purveyors of hate had placed dynamite under the floor of their bedroom. Within seconds their lives were shattered. Harry T. Moore died on Christmas Day murdered by the KKK, his wife Harriet Moore died nine days later. Today, The Blackman Who Reads Aloud goes back to a Christmas story that never should be forgotten in black communities across the country. While you are celebrating Christmas Day think about the Moore's who paid the ultimate price because they both wanted our ancestors and the children of those ancestors to have full rights as United States citizens. I will read this morning about the life and death of the Moore's as well as reading Langston Hughes' poem, Ode To Harry Moore on this day. You see our black history need never be a black mystery to our black community. Well, the Moore’s they indeed stood straight when others in the communities bowed. These two magnificent black people stood tall facing the belly of the beast of hatred. They defied his power and ignored his threats. Oh, I’m sure they had fear because no one wants to be murdered in cold blood. Everyone wants to live out their lives and fulfill dreams of accomplishment. No the Moore’s decided to stand tall so that others would eventually learn how to stand firm against those who oppressed. How do you think the children of the Moore’s felt now that every Christmas after that Christmas in 1951? You think they were singing joy to the world?	<urn:uuid:0582b3cd-f7ba-447a-b709-f7a77161f588>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.joesmokethoughts.com/423564185/6855202/posting/harry-t-moore-and-harriet-moore-s-christmas-story	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250592636.25/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118135205-20200118163205-00087.warc.gz	en	0.980557	358	3.28125	3	[ -0.21930184960365295, 0.4103223979473114, 0.14579160511493683, 0.17532697319984436, -0.05385681986808777, -0.33153530955314636, 0.16829781234264374, 0.0984322726726532, -0.2897399365901947, -0.2580472528934479, 0.6742469668388367, 0.18354442715644836, -0.019388049840927124, -0.079262092709...	10	Dec. 25, 2019 Harry T. Moore and Harriet Moore’s Christmas Story On December 25, 1951, sixty-eight years ago Harry T. Moore and Harriet Moore were just laying down after celebrating not only Christmas but also their 35th wedding anniversary. Unbeknownst to the Moore was that purveyors of hate had placed dynamite under the floor of their bedroom. Within seconds their lives were shattered. Harry T. Moore died on Christmas Day murdered by the KKK, his wife Harriet Moore died nine days later. Today, The Blackman Who Reads Aloud goes back to a Christmas story that never should be forgotten in black communities across the country. While you are celebrating Christmas Day think about the Moore's who paid the ultimate price because they both wanted our ancestors and the children of those ancestors to have full rights as United States citizens. I will read this morning about the life and death of the Moore's as well as reading Langston Hughes' poem, Ode To Harry Moore on this day. You see our black history need never be a black mystery to our black community. Well, the Moore’s they indeed stood straight when others in the communities bowed. These two magnificent black people stood tall facing the belly of the beast of hatred. They defied his power and ignored his threats. Oh, I’m sure they had fear because no one wants to be murdered in cold blood. Everyone wants to live out their lives and fulfill dreams of accomplishment. No the Moore’s decided to stand tall so that others would eventually learn how to stand firm against those who oppressed. How do you think the children of the Moore’s felt now that every Christmas after that Christmas in 1951? You think they were singing joy to the world?	368	ENGLISH	1
How was Czechoslovakia affected after the signing of the Munich pact? (2 marks) Ans. The independent state of Czechoslovakia, which was created after the First World War, was dismembered with the signing of the Munich Pact on September 29, 1938. The German claim over Sudenteland, a part of the Czech territory, was accepted. The Czech lost their independence as England, France, Italy, and Germany jointly took responsibility of security of Czechoslovakia. Q.18. Why is the battle of Stalingrad considered important in the history of the Second World War? Explain. (5 marks) Ans. the battle of Stalingrad was fought between Russia and Germany on Russian territory. It is an important battle in the history of the Second World War as it marked the defeat of Germany as well as the defeat of Hitler and his Nazi party. The events, which led to the battle of Stalingrad, are as follows. Hitler had signed a non- aggression treaty with Russia in August 1939 AD. But, he had no faith in Russia and considered her as a vital threat to Nazi Germany. He also had Imperial desig	<urn:uuid:0e1101d5-43bb-463d-be26-c0d136db68ae>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	http://www.experts123.com/q/how-was-czechoslovakia-affected-after-the-signing-of-the-munich-pact.html	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250606226.29/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121222429-20200122011429-00251.warc.gz	en	0.991395	233	4.125	4	[ -0.3296146094799042, 0.424545556306839, -0.15201827883720398, -0.08398602902889252, -0.3806106150150299, 0.06166604533791542, 0.3695826530456543, 0.2788878083229065, 0.0252886563539505, -0.16833648085594177, 0.3250918388366699, -0.6173620820045471, 0.3407246172428131, 0.32906240224838257, ...	2	How was Czechoslovakia affected after the signing of the Munich pact? (2 marks) Ans. The independent state of Czechoslovakia, which was created after the First World War, was dismembered with the signing of the Munich Pact on September 29, 1938. The German claim over Sudenteland, a part of the Czech territory, was accepted. The Czech lost their independence as England, France, Italy, and Germany jointly took responsibility of security of Czechoslovakia. Q.18. Why is the battle of Stalingrad considered important in the history of the Second World War? Explain. (5 marks) Ans. the battle of Stalingrad was fought between Russia and Germany on Russian territory. It is an important battle in the history of the Second World War as it marked the defeat of Germany as well as the defeat of Hitler and his Nazi party. The events, which led to the battle of Stalingrad, are as follows. Hitler had signed a non- aggression treaty with Russia in August 1939 AD. But, he had no faith in Russia and considered her as a vital threat to Nazi Germany. He also had Imperial desig	246	ENGLISH	1
As if another world war was not devastating enough, the Holocaust also occurred during World War II. The Holocaust began with the discriminatory Nuremberg Laws in 1935, which stripped Jews of their natural rights. In 1938, Kristallnacht occurred, commencing government-approved violence against all Jews for simply being Jewish. Afterwards, Jews were moved into ghettos and transported to camps. The Nazi policy of murdering Jews only intensified in 1942, with the decision to implement the Final Solution in the Wannsee Conference. By the end of the war in Europe, which lasted until 1945, approximately 6 million Jews were dead, including 1.5 million children. As a child, it was worse to be in the camps than to be hidden during World War II because camp children faced immediate deaths, or severe mental stress and physical trauma; therefore, hidden children, as uncomfortable or fearful was their experience, clearly had a better chance of survival. Being in hiding is preferable to being in the camps because there was still a chance that children could stay in hiding and survive, but when deported to the camps, children’s lives were usually doomed for immediate death. For instance, Jewish children deported from the Lodz ghetto were instantly sent to be killed in the Chelmno trucks by gas from the engine exhaust. From the moment they were deported to Chelmno, their lives were doomed because there was no escaping once the Nazis loaded the children onto the Chelmno trucks.…	<urn:uuid:50700d9a-341c-41ea-99c0-25e70796482e>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.cram.com/essay/The-Holocaust-During-World-War-II/PK4TZ9P2BXZQ	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250625097.75/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124191133-20200124220133-00275.warc.gz	en	0.982157	300	4	4	[ -0.07416209578514099, 0.3391544818878174, -0.054047178477048874, 0.020635133609175682, 0.1335168182849884, 0.46338024735450745, -0.2421717792749405, 0.1992526799440384, -0.00711823720484972, 0.04323356971144676, 0.36033156514167786, 0.05028308182954788, -0.09585238993167877, 0.545877575874...	1	As if another world war was not devastating enough, the Holocaust also occurred during World War II. The Holocaust began with the discriminatory Nuremberg Laws in 1935, which stripped Jews of their natural rights. In 1938, Kristallnacht occurred, commencing government-approved violence against all Jews for simply being Jewish. Afterwards, Jews were moved into ghettos and transported to camps. The Nazi policy of murdering Jews only intensified in 1942, with the decision to implement the Final Solution in the Wannsee Conference. By the end of the war in Europe, which lasted until 1945, approximately 6 million Jews were dead, including 1.5 million children. As a child, it was worse to be in the camps than to be hidden during World War II because camp children faced immediate deaths, or severe mental stress and physical trauma; therefore, hidden children, as uncomfortable or fearful was their experience, clearly had a better chance of survival. Being in hiding is preferable to being in the camps because there was still a chance that children could stay in hiding and survive, but when deported to the camps, children’s lives were usually doomed for immediate death. For instance, Jewish children deported from the Lodz ghetto were instantly sent to be killed in the Chelmno trucks by gas from the engine exhaust. From the moment they were deported to Chelmno, their lives were doomed because there was no escaping once the Nazis loaded the children onto the Chelmno trucks.…	313	ENGLISH	1
The role of the African American in the middle of the 18th century differs from that of their southern counterparts at this time. However, both experiences were unpleasant to say the least and in the decades leading up to the American Revolution, the call for a declaration of independence for African Americans or to simply be included in America’s fell on deaf ears. The first Africans came to America by way of what was called New Amsterdam or New York City. In 1626, eleven Africans from Angola came to clear the lands on the island of Manhattan in order that a new settlement could be established.(Burns, 1999) There existed by the middle of the 18th century, a mixture of slaves, freed blacks and day laborers that were rented out on a daily basis to the highest bidder. However, their experiences during this time were marked by oppression in the years leading up to the American Revolution that would forecast other race riots and the mistreatment of African Americans in horrific ways. In 1741, a race riot occurred in New York City that in the future decades, held the black population in New York City to only minimal levels out of fear of a repeat occurrence. (Burns, 1999) These levels would rise in the years leading up to the 1863 Draft Riots which again, subtracted the black population until as recently as the Harlem Renaissance. However, during this time, African Americans were looked upon with a great deal of content and suspicion. In 1741, a number of fires broke out in New York City. There as no sign of who or what was causing these fires but the town has become nervous and offered a $100 reward for information leading to the capture of those responsible. Mary Burton came forward and said that she knew that it was the free blacks in the city which were responsible for the fires at the town’s barracks and at King’s Chapel. “She said that the free blacks that were known to frequent the bar of John Huston, an Irish Catholic who welcomed anyone into his bar. So not only were these free blacks plotting to overthrown the town, so thought the city officials, but that an Irish Catholic was aiding their attempts.” (Burns, 1999) A strong response came at the hand of the city officials. Mary Burton, with her reward in hand, started to list dozens of African Americans whom she said was responsible for the fires. The ones accused were not given trials but were rounded up and either hung, deported or burnt at the stake while their genitals were cut off and medieval torture practices, which had been banned all over Europe, were brought back for this occasion. In all, sixteen free blacks were hung, thirteen slaves were burnt at the stake and seventy were deported. 1/6th of the population in 1740 in New York City were slaves and every effort was made after the initial accusations were levied against the suspects, to continue to keep Africans in line and submissive. (Burns, 1999) In the decades after the riot, over 500,000 Africans from the Atlantic slave trade, came directly to America. (Burns, 1989) Most went to the South to help grow the tobacco plantations in Virginia and cotton plantations in Georgia but also in New York City and Maryland as well. Africans in the South and to a lesser although important degree were seen simply as a form of capital. The formation of Wall Street, both literally and figuratively, was formed on the backs of slave labor. In the years leading up to the American Revolution, with an expansion of population, first brought on by the first effects of industrialization but also the first signs of immigration from Europe, helped to expand the need for slave labor in America. However, it would be the Southern states which would attempt to preserve forever, their forcible influence upon their slaves. Colonists who in the following decades, would decry their treatment by England for mistreatment and taxation without representation, would vacate all attempts for African Americans to participate in self-government. The reasons for this go back to supply and demand. With the Atlantic Slave trade stealing over ten million slaves from Africa, there was a steady supply of cheap labor coming to till the land and clear the fields. (Goodwin, 2006 p. 59) It was just simply cheaper to have slaves than to pay Irish or German immigrants. And when the Atlantic Slave Trade was stopped in 1818, the slaves that were already there were made that much more valuable to their owners. This coupled with the opportunity to realize higher profits and the belief in state’s rights that was to come, African Americans would be held tightly in bondage and only after a Civil War and 200,000 Southern casualties, did they finally release their grip from the institution of slavery. (Burns, 1989 p. 329) During the years in which African Americans were held in bondage leading up to the Civil War, they took on different forms of resistance as their response. Their response can be grouped into three distinct parts: education, escape and open rebellion. Due to the fact that African Americans were forbidden from receiving education which afforded them the ability to read and write, those who used education were few and far between. African Americans had a strong oral tradition but that was unable to reach the masses in the North as well as in Britain. A lone exception to this was Frederick Douglas. Douglas was the most important African American figure in the 19th century America. Nobody did more for the cause of African Americans and once slavery was abolished in 1865, Douglas championed the rights of African Americans until the day he died in 1895. Douglas was such an important figure in American history because of his high level of education that he had obtained, not from any formal schooling but through teaching himself how to read, write and to reason and think critically; all which are still samples of the Liberal Arts education today. When Douglas escaped slavery, he went to England where he taught, spoke and wrote about his experiences. He was so well versed and such a great orator, that many who heard him in both England and America, could not believe that he had once been a slave. (Douglas, 1990 p. 67) Not only was he explaining the plight of the slave; an experience that many in the white community was oblivious to, but he was also knocking down stereotypes concerning the ignorance and presumed inferiority of the African American. His autobiography The Life and Times of Frederick Douglas is still regarded as the finest and most inspiring slave narratives ever written. The book is an amazing read and although nearly nine hundred pages, each word leaps off the page and one is transplanted back to the experiences of Douglas, as much as any book can, and helps the reader to understand the evils of slavery. The other form of resistance was escape. This was more common and with the help of Harriet Tubman and the formation of her “underground railroad,” hundreds of African Americans were propelled to the North and to freedom from their former life as slaves. Not only did this rob their master of their valuable assets, a slave could be sold for as high as $1500, but also showed a level of mental and physical skill that many thought African Americans were incapable of possessing.(Burns, 1989 p. 23) Also, the escape of slaves to the North, helped to diffuse on an individual scale, the perceived notion by their oblivious owners, that slaves were somehow happy with their existence and in no way could they prefer the Northern factories to the utopian paradise of offered shelter, food and work, or at least that was what was perceived in the political cartoons in the Southern papers. Lastly, slaves resisted though open rebellion. The two most famous examples of this were the Nat Turner rebellion and John Brown’s Raid. Both rebellions struck fear and terror in the hearts and minds of the Southern community. In their hearts, the white community knew that slaves were mistreated under their treatment and it was only human nature, once somebody has been pushed past their boiling point, to want to strike back and to strike back with undeniable force. Both of the above mentioned rebellions served as an impediment to the cause of emancipation by the South. Turner’s slave rebellion only forced the slave owners to enact tougher laws and restrictions as well as physical punishments from a scared community out of fear that a similar rebellion would occur. With the case of the John Brown rebellion, after the rebellion and in the days before Brown was set to be hung, a bullet, which hit only Brown’s buckle and allowed him to talk to the press, was made a rallying call for Northern troops as the Civil War began. Brown’s rebellion was ill planned but had the cooperation of Brown’s sons as well as a number of slaves who were willing to follow Brown’s lead towards freedom. Resistance comes in many forms and for the slave, education, escape and open rebellion were some of the most common and effective ways in which to resist the notion that African Americans were inferior and therefore, belonged in bondage for the rest of their lives. The aforementioned forms of protest helped to prove otherwise. In the years before the American Revolution, the colonists, regardless of their desire to declare their independence from England or not, became more than annoyed at the series of laws and taxes which were levied against them without their being represented in Parliament. Those English, who said that they were representing the colonists’ interests, were doing anything but that. The Stamp Act, the Declaratory Act, the Sugar and Tea Act as well as the Boston Massacre, all were used by the British to not only subtract funds from the colonists, but to keep them in a subservient position. Therefore, the colonists, who only constituted 1/3 of the population, campaigned vigorously towards independence from their English oppressors.(Kuralt, 1990) The War was and is still referred to as “America’s War for Independence.” (Kuralt, 1990) However, the name that was given to this struggle, is ironic indeed. At the same time that white Americans were fighting for their freedom from a foreign power than was oppressing them, the same Americans were not only doing not only the same,. But much worse to a sizable portion of the population as well as participating in the Atlantic Slave Trade, the forcible extraction of Africans from their homeland and which was not outlawed until 1818. During the Constitutional Convention, Thomas Jefferson proposed that slavery be abolished. Jefferson said that he wept for his country when he thought of the evils of slavery and the punishment from a just God will not sleep forever.(Burns, 1997) Yet Jefferson himself owned two hundred slaves for all of his adult life. The regard for the Southern States can be seen within one man: Thomas Jefferson. When he proposed this aspect to be included in the Constitution, he was voted down by the Southern states within the delegation. Slavery had become profitable at that time and its profits would explode after the invention of the cotton gin in 1793. When it might take fifty slaves to sort a ton of cotton eight hours, with the cotton gin, the same was completed in one hour and with only a handful of needed slaves.(Burns, 1989 p. 21) Therefore, the demand and profitability of slavery just had too much money connected to the institution. This was the same for Thomas Jefferson, a plantation and President from Virginia. Jefferson was known for having no money management skills. He was unable to pay two hundred workers to build his home and to cultivate his garden. So he proposed to simply do what the law allowed and buy two hundred human beings to do the work for him. Jefferson knew this was wrong but he could see no other alternative if his own desires were going to be met and as they were paramount to anything else, Jefferson found it too difficult to ever bring himself to free his slaves. Also, the more the Southern states were pressured to free their slaves, the more they resisted until Southerners, 90% of which never had owned a single slave in his life, found themselves willing to fight for the protection of slavery or for the preservation of their states’ rights. In the North, there was little demand for slave labor. New York found itself flooded with immigrants who were willing to work for less to nothing. Maryland and for a time New York held slaves but eventually abolished the practice. Perhaps if the North had the same demand for slaves that the South had, the Civil War might never had been fought as both sides were in agreement on the issue. One will never know. The difference is demand. There is much less demand for slaves in the North. Northern law makers were not hardliners on slavery expanding to the west because they felt that slavery would die a natural death as it had in the North, because of the lack of demand. In the centuries in which African Americans were held in slavery, void of any free self expression that would impede their productivity, ways in which individuals and cultures would express themselves, were not formally allowed. So this meant that slaves would have to find other ways in which to express themselves. A strong oral tradition, a strong family tradition and a strong religious faith all helped slaves to define themselves as both individuals and within a larger group or race. Many slaves were forbidden from being taught to read or write. This forced slaves to rely upon an oral tradition of stories and of song. This is not unusual to other groups and races which did not read or have a written language in cultures of the past. Slaves had a written language. They were however, not given the tools that every person needed in order to cultivate those skills. Therefore, singing, dancing and stories were a form of cultural expression. This also served to give a number of slaves in the South their freedom as it was used in a practical way. In the formation of the Underground railroad, detailed maps and code words and songs were used in order to signal to former slaves, when and where a group was planning to escape the plantation. (Burns, 1989) Also, the family, as is the case in every society, served as the foundation of the African American. It was this feeling of importance that was placed upon the family that abolitionists who recognized this, used as one of their chief objections to slavery. Slavery broke up families and that was against the law of God. Therefore, slavery was against the law of God. And this irony of a Christian nation, willfully breaking up the families of African Americans in the name of profits and perceived racial superiority continued to be a chief objection to the institution of slavery. This would not have been the case had the slave not placed so much importance upon his family. One slave, Josiah Turner, when he could sense that the Union was going to win the Civil War, sent a letter to his former slave master who had split up his family. He said: “Ms. Nellie. You took away and tried to break what God had connected together through the bonds of fatherhood towards my daughter. You had no right to do that and God will right the wrong that you have placed against me. Neither you nor your armies will be able to keep me from my daughter.” (Burns, 1989) The family was important and therefore, slavery was that much more painful when a family was split up and sold to the highest bidder. The last source of cultural identity within the African American experience, then as well as now was the church. The African Methodist Church was formed in 1815. (Douglas, 1990 p. 34) The church gave African Americans hope at a better future and that there was a great leveler of all the injustices that occurred in the world. Also, the church gave authority and responsibility to others when the outside world gave none to them. The African American parishioner was given free range, within his own church, to express himself through song, praise, the coming together of the black community and in their faith in Christianity. Through this, African Americans, who shared the same religion and was then somehow seen as not being that much different from the white community, could use their common faith as a source of familiarity between the two races. This was true then as well as now and serves as not only an important source of cultural identity during the history of the African American but also helped sustain through some of the roughest times, any peoples were forced to endure. `In the decades leading up to the Civil War, the main source of political strife between the North and the South was slavery. The Fugitive Slave Laws, the 1820 and 1850 Compromise and the Kansas-Nebraska Act were all designed to postpone or all together avoid a Civil War. So it became ironic that once Civil War had broken out on April 14, 1861, the stated goal of the North was to preserve the Union.( Commanger, 1947 p. 72) From the Southern point of view, they made no concession towards abolition. In the North, the main goal of the Union’s efforts in the war, according to statements made by President Lincoln, was to preserve the Union and that if that could be done while preserving slavery in the states and territories where it existed, that was then seen as acceptable. Slavery had become interwoven into their society even before the signing of the Declaration of Independence. The importance of slave labor exploded after the invention of the cotton gin in 1793 and with Britain depending upon the South for their cotton and other raw materials, derived from slave labor, there was simply too much money involved for the South to make any promises towards their four million slaves regarding their freedom. Only towards the end of the Civil War, when the South was losing the war badly and the end was in sight, did General Lee ask Confederate President Davis to allow for the training of slaves as soldiers and in return, those who fought for the Southern cause, would be granted their freedom at the end of the conflict. The South was not going to make any efforts towards freeing their slaves without being made to do so. They had defended their right to own slaves, according to the beliefs in state’s rights that were prevalent at the time. It had been this strong belief in state’s rights which helped to form America’s first Constitution: The Article of Confederation. The Articles were so weak and basically useless, it should have shown the Southern states, that state’s rights, when in need of a strong centralized government, simply does not work. The North did not initially advocate for the abolition of the slaves until after the battle of Antietam in September 1862. Before that, President Lincoln, as a candidate for both the senate in Illinois in 1858, and then for the Presidency in 1960, was marked as an advocate on the issue of emancipation. He resisted the calls from more radicals like his opponent on the Republican ticket and future member of his cabinet, William Seward and abolitionist Frederick Douglas. (Goodwin, 2006 p. 129) However, it was because of Lincoln’s moderate views on slavery that he was elected in the first place. At the 1860 Republican Convention in Chicago, after three ballots, Seward, the previous favorite, was passed over for Lincoln because Seward was seen as too radical in his alliance with the abolitionists.(Burns, 1999) President Lincoln, in the months before the start of the Civil War, firmly reinstated his position on the future of slavery under his presidency: “My paramount objection is to save the union. , and is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; 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 do also do that.”(Goodwin, 2006 p. 145) So it came as a shock to his cabinet when Lincoln announced in the summer of 1862, that he was going to be emancipating the slaves. He called in his cabinet, not to discuss his idea in order to dissuade him but rather to advise him on the best way in which this should be done. It was suggested that Lincoln wait until a decisive Union victory on the battlefield occurred or else the edict would be seen as a desperate attempt by the Union. This was agreed upon and the Emancipation Proclamation went into effect on January 1, 1863 and then became an amendment in 1865 once the Union and the slaves, had earned the right for such a ruling to go into effect and to be recognized by their former masters; people who had profited off of their unpaid toil for the past two hundred and fifty years.(Commanger, 1947 p. 81) The position of the South with regard to slavery was always kept in tact. Slavery had become so interwoven into the fabric of the South, according to John Calhoun, senator from South Carolina, that to kill slavery would be the same as killing the South. The North, despite fierce opposition to slavery in the decades leading up to the war, still believed, as did President Lincoln, that the Union should be preserved at all costs. This was later amended and the war was given a nobler cause when Lincoln announced his Emancipation Proclamation. Not only did this prevent Britain from coming to the aid of the Confederates, but it gave the war a higher calling and was made in name, what it had always been, and the war to end slavery.	<urn:uuid:02702c77-8a49-4d91-8362-85dabfdc914f>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://webgamesday.com/african-american/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251802249.87/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129194333-20200129223333-00377.warc.gz	en	0.989592	4,374	4.53125	5	[ -0.14934232831001282, 0.36089199781417847, 0.2999872863292694, 0.12425331026315689, -0.0372406542301178, 0.1099793091416359, 0.12678974866867065, -0.06378918886184692, -0.3504188060760498, 0.03802623599767685, -0.008542288094758987, 0.31834089756011963, -0.6136501431465149, 0.2585440278053...	5	The role of the African American in the middle of the 18th century differs from that of their southern counterparts at this time. However, both experiences were unpleasant to say the least and in the decades leading up to the American Revolution, the call for a declaration of independence for African Americans or to simply be included in America’s fell on deaf ears. The first Africans came to America by way of what was called New Amsterdam or New York City. In 1626, eleven Africans from Angola came to clear the lands on the island of Manhattan in order that a new settlement could be established.(Burns, 1999) There existed by the middle of the 18th century, a mixture of slaves, freed blacks and day laborers that were rented out on a daily basis to the highest bidder. However, their experiences during this time were marked by oppression in the years leading up to the American Revolution that would forecast other race riots and the mistreatment of African Americans in horrific ways. In 1741, a race riot occurred in New York City that in the future decades, held the black population in New York City to only minimal levels out of fear of a repeat occurrence. (Burns, 1999) These levels would rise in the years leading up to the 1863 Draft Riots which again, subtracted the black population until as recently as the Harlem Renaissance. However, during this time, African Americans were looked upon with a great deal of content and suspicion. In 1741, a number of fires broke out in New York City. There as no sign of who or what was causing these fires but the town has become nervous and offered a $100 reward for information leading to the capture of those responsible. Mary Burton came forward and said that she knew that it was the free blacks in the city which were responsible for the fires at the town’s barracks and at King’s Chapel. “She said that the free blacks that were known to frequent the bar of John Huston, an Irish Catholic who welcomed anyone into his bar. So not only were these free blacks plotting to overthrown the town, so thought the city officials, but that an Irish Catholic was aiding their attempts.” (Burns, 1999) A strong response came at the hand of the city officials. Mary Burton, with her reward in hand, started to list dozens of African Americans whom she said was responsible for the fires. The ones accused were not given trials but were rounded up and either hung, deported or burnt at the stake while their genitals were cut off and medieval torture practices, which had been banned all over Europe, were brought back for this occasion. In all, sixteen free blacks were hung, thirteen slaves were burnt at the stake and seventy were deported. 1/6th of the population in 1740 in New York City were slaves and every effort was made after the initial accusations were levied against the suspects, to continue to keep Africans in line and submissive. (Burns, 1999) In the decades after the riot, over 500,000 Africans from the Atlantic slave trade, came directly to America. (Burns, 1989) Most went to the South to help grow the tobacco plantations in Virginia and cotton plantations in Georgia but also in New York City and Maryland as well. Africans in the South and to a lesser although important degree were seen simply as a form of capital. The formation of Wall Street, both literally and figuratively, was formed on the backs of slave labor. In the years leading up to the American Revolution, with an expansion of population, first brought on by the first effects of industrialization but also the first signs of immigration from Europe, helped to expand the need for slave labor in America. However, it would be the Southern states which would attempt to preserve forever, their forcible influence upon their slaves. Colonists who in the following decades, would decry their treatment by England for mistreatment and taxation without representation, would vacate all attempts for African Americans to participate in self-government. The reasons for this go back to supply and demand. With the Atlantic Slave trade stealing over ten million slaves from Africa, there was a steady supply of cheap labor coming to till the land and clear the fields. (Goodwin, 2006 p. 59) It was just simply cheaper to have slaves than to pay Irish or German immigrants. And when the Atlantic Slave Trade was stopped in 1818, the slaves that were already there were made that much more valuable to their owners. This coupled with the opportunity to realize higher profits and the belief in state’s rights that was to come, African Americans would be held tightly in bondage and only after a Civil War and 200,000 Southern casualties, did they finally release their grip from the institution of slavery. (Burns, 1989 p. 329) During the years in which African Americans were held in bondage leading up to the Civil War, they took on different forms of resistance as their response. Their response can be grouped into three distinct parts: education, escape and open rebellion. Due to the fact that African Americans were forbidden from receiving education which afforded them the ability to read and write, those who used education were few and far between. African Americans had a strong oral tradition but that was unable to reach the masses in the North as well as in Britain. A lone exception to this was Frederick Douglas. Douglas was the most important African American figure in the 19th century America. Nobody did more for the cause of African Americans and once slavery was abolished in 1865, Douglas championed the rights of African Americans until the day he died in 1895. Douglas was such an important figure in American history because of his high level of education that he had obtained, not from any formal schooling but through teaching himself how to read, write and to reason and think critically; all which are still samples of the Liberal Arts education today. When Douglas escaped slavery, he went to England where he taught, spoke and wrote about his experiences. He was so well versed and such a great orator, that many who heard him in both England and America, could not believe that he had once been a slave. (Douglas, 1990 p. 67) Not only was he explaining the plight of the slave; an experience that many in the white community was oblivious to, but he was also knocking down stereotypes concerning the ignorance and presumed inferiority of the African American. His autobiography The Life and Times of Frederick Douglas is still regarded as the finest and most inspiring slave narratives ever written. The book is an amazing read and although nearly nine hundred pages, each word leaps off the page and one is transplanted back to the experiences of Douglas, as much as any book can, and helps the reader to understand the evils of slavery. The other form of resistance was escape. This was more common and with the help of Harriet Tubman and the formation of her “underground railroad,” hundreds of African Americans were propelled to the North and to freedom from their former life as slaves. Not only did this rob their master of their valuable assets, a slave could be sold for as high as $1500, but also showed a level of mental and physical skill that many thought African Americans were incapable of possessing.(Burns, 1989 p. 23) Also, the escape of slaves to the North, helped to diffuse on an individual scale, the perceived notion by their oblivious owners, that slaves were somehow happy with their existence and in no way could they prefer the Northern factories to the utopian paradise of offered shelter, food and work, or at least that was what was perceived in the political cartoons in the Southern papers. Lastly, slaves resisted though open rebellion. The two most famous examples of this were the Nat Turner rebellion and John Brown’s Raid. Both rebellions struck fear and terror in the hearts and minds of the Southern community. In their hearts, the white community knew that slaves were mistreated under their treatment and it was only human nature, once somebody has been pushed past their boiling point, to want to strike back and to strike back with undeniable force. Both of the above mentioned rebellions served as an impediment to the cause of emancipation by the South. Turner’s slave rebellion only forced the slave owners to enact tougher laws and restrictions as well as physical punishments from a scared community out of fear that a similar rebellion would occur. With the case of the John Brown rebellion, after the rebellion and in the days before Brown was set to be hung, a bullet, which hit only Brown’s buckle and allowed him to talk to the press, was made a rallying call for Northern troops as the Civil War began. Brown’s rebellion was ill planned but had the cooperation of Brown’s sons as well as a number of slaves who were willing to follow Brown’s lead towards freedom. Resistance comes in many forms and for the slave, education, escape and open rebellion were some of the most common and effective ways in which to resist the notion that African Americans were inferior and therefore, belonged in bondage for the rest of their lives. The aforementioned forms of protest helped to prove otherwise. In the years before the American Revolution, the colonists, regardless of their desire to declare their independence from England or not, became more than annoyed at the series of laws and taxes which were levied against them without their being represented in Parliament. Those English, who said that they were representing the colonists’ interests, were doing anything but that. The Stamp Act, the Declaratory Act, the Sugar and Tea Act as well as the Boston Massacre, all were used by the British to not only subtract funds from the colonists, but to keep them in a subservient position. Therefore, the colonists, who only constituted 1/3 of the population, campaigned vigorously towards independence from their English oppressors.(Kuralt, 1990) The War was and is still referred to as “America’s War for Independence.” (Kuralt, 1990) However, the name that was given to this struggle, is ironic indeed. At the same time that white Americans were fighting for their freedom from a foreign power than was oppressing them, the same Americans were not only doing not only the same,. But much worse to a sizable portion of the population as well as participating in the Atlantic Slave Trade, the forcible extraction of Africans from their homeland and which was not outlawed until 1818. During the Constitutional Convention, Thomas Jefferson proposed that slavery be abolished. Jefferson said that he wept for his country when he thought of the evils of slavery and the punishment from a just God will not sleep forever.(Burns, 1997) Yet Jefferson himself owned two hundred slaves for all of his adult life. The regard for the Southern States can be seen within one man: Thomas Jefferson. When he proposed this aspect to be included in the Constitution, he was voted down by the Southern states within the delegation. Slavery had become profitable at that time and its profits would explode after the invention of the cotton gin in 1793. When it might take fifty slaves to sort a ton of cotton eight hours, with the cotton gin, the same was completed in one hour and with only a handful of needed slaves.(Burns, 1989 p. 21) Therefore, the demand and profitability of slavery just had too much money connected to the institution. This was the same for Thomas Jefferson, a plantation and President from Virginia. Jefferson was known for having no money management skills. He was unable to pay two hundred workers to build his home and to cultivate his garden. So he proposed to simply do what the law allowed and buy two hundred human beings to do the work for him. Jefferson knew this was wrong but he could see no other alternative if his own desires were going to be met and as they were paramount to anything else, Jefferson found it too difficult to ever bring himself to free his slaves. Also, the more the Southern states were pressured to free their slaves, the more they resisted until Southerners, 90% of which never had owned a single slave in his life, found themselves willing to fight for the protection of slavery or for the preservation of their states’ rights. In the North, there was little demand for slave labor. New York found itself flooded with immigrants who were willing to work for less to nothing. Maryland and for a time New York held slaves but eventually abolished the practice. Perhaps if the North had the same demand for slaves that the South had, the Civil War might never had been fought as both sides were in agreement on the issue. One will never know. The difference is demand. There is much less demand for slaves in the North. Northern law makers were not hardliners on slavery expanding to the west because they felt that slavery would die a natural death as it had in the North, because of the lack of demand. In the centuries in which African Americans were held in slavery, void of any free self expression that would impede their productivity, ways in which individuals and cultures would express themselves, were not formally allowed. So this meant that slaves would have to find other ways in which to express themselves. A strong oral tradition, a strong family tradition and a strong religious faith all helped slaves to define themselves as both individuals and within a larger group or race. Many slaves were forbidden from being taught to read or write. This forced slaves to rely upon an oral tradition of stories and of song. This is not unusual to other groups and races which did not read or have a written language in cultures of the past. Slaves had a written language. They were however, not given the tools that every person needed in order to cultivate those skills. Therefore, singing, dancing and stories were a form of cultural expression. This also served to give a number of slaves in the South their freedom as it was used in a practical way. In the formation of the Underground railroad, detailed maps and code words and songs were used in order to signal to former slaves, when and where a group was planning to escape the plantation. (Burns, 1989) Also, the family, as is the case in every society, served as the foundation of the African American. It was this feeling of importance that was placed upon the family that abolitionists who recognized this, used as one of their chief objections to slavery. Slavery broke up families and that was against the law of God. Therefore, slavery was against the law of God. And this irony of a Christian nation, willfully breaking up the families of African Americans in the name of profits and perceived racial superiority continued to be a chief objection to the institution of slavery. This would not have been the case had the slave not placed so much importance upon his family. One slave, Josiah Turner, when he could sense that the Union was going to win the Civil War, sent a letter to his former slave master who had split up his family. He said: “Ms. Nellie. You took away and tried to break what God had connected together through the bonds of fatherhood towards my daughter. You had no right to do that and God will right the wrong that you have placed against me. Neither you nor your armies will be able to keep me from my daughter.” (Burns, 1989) The family was important and therefore, slavery was that much more painful when a family was split up and sold to the highest bidder. The last source of cultural identity within the African American experience, then as well as now was the church. The African Methodist Church was formed in 1815. (Douglas, 1990 p. 34) The church gave African Americans hope at a better future and that there was a great leveler of all the injustices that occurred in the world. Also, the church gave authority and responsibility to others when the outside world gave none to them. The African American parishioner was given free range, within his own church, to express himself through song, praise, the coming together of the black community and in their faith in Christianity. Through this, African Americans, who shared the same religion and was then somehow seen as not being that much different from the white community, could use their common faith as a source of familiarity between the two races. This was true then as well as now and serves as not only an important source of cultural identity during the history of the African American but also helped sustain through some of the roughest times, any peoples were forced to endure. `In the decades leading up to the Civil War, the main source of political strife between the North and the South was slavery. The Fugitive Slave Laws, the 1820 and 1850 Compromise and the Kansas-Nebraska Act were all designed to postpone or all together avoid a Civil War. So it became ironic that once Civil War had broken out on April 14, 1861, the stated goal of the North was to preserve the Union.( Commanger, 1947 p. 72) From the Southern point of view, they made no concession towards abolition. In the North, the main goal of the Union’s efforts in the war, according to statements made by President Lincoln, was to preserve the Union and that if that could be done while preserving slavery in the states and territories where it existed, that was then seen as acceptable. Slavery had become interwoven into their society even before the signing of the Declaration of Independence. The importance of slave labor exploded after the invention of the cotton gin in 1793 and with Britain depending upon the South for their cotton and other raw materials, derived from slave labor, there was simply too much money involved for the South to make any promises towards their four million slaves regarding their freedom. Only towards the end of the Civil War, when the South was losing the war badly and the end was in sight, did General Lee ask Confederate President Davis to allow for the training of slaves as soldiers and in return, those who fought for the Southern cause, would be granted their freedom at the end of the conflict. The South was not going to make any efforts towards freeing their slaves without being made to do so. They had defended their right to own slaves, according to the beliefs in state’s rights that were prevalent at the time. It had been this strong belief in state’s rights which helped to form America’s first Constitution: The Article of Confederation. The Articles were so weak and basically useless, it should have shown the Southern states, that state’s rights, when in need of a strong centralized government, simply does not work. The North did not initially advocate for the abolition of the slaves until after the battle of Antietam in September 1862. Before that, President Lincoln, as a candidate for both the senate in Illinois in 1858, and then for the Presidency in 1960, was marked as an advocate on the issue of emancipation. He resisted the calls from more radicals like his opponent on the Republican ticket and future member of his cabinet, William Seward and abolitionist Frederick Douglas. (Goodwin, 2006 p. 129) However, it was because of Lincoln’s moderate views on slavery that he was elected in the first place. At the 1860 Republican Convention in Chicago, after three ballots, Seward, the previous favorite, was passed over for Lincoln because Seward was seen as too radical in his alliance with the abolitionists.(Burns, 1999) President Lincoln, in the months before the start of the Civil War, firmly reinstated his position on the future of slavery under his presidency: “My paramount objection is to save the union. , and is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; 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 do also do that.”(Goodwin, 2006 p. 145) So it came as a shock to his cabinet when Lincoln announced in the summer of 1862, that he was going to be emancipating the slaves. He called in his cabinet, not to discuss his idea in order to dissuade him but rather to advise him on the best way in which this should be done. It was suggested that Lincoln wait until a decisive Union victory on the battlefield occurred or else the edict would be seen as a desperate attempt by the Union. This was agreed upon and the Emancipation Proclamation went into effect on January 1, 1863 and then became an amendment in 1865 once the Union and the slaves, had earned the right for such a ruling to go into effect and to be recognized by their former masters; people who had profited off of their unpaid toil for the past two hundred and fifty years.(Commanger, 1947 p. 81) The position of the South with regard to slavery was always kept in tact. Slavery had become so interwoven into the fabric of the South, according to John Calhoun, senator from South Carolina, that to kill slavery would be the same as killing the South. The North, despite fierce opposition to slavery in the decades leading up to the war, still believed, as did President Lincoln, that the Union should be preserved at all costs. This was later amended and the war was given a nobler cause when Lincoln announced his Emancipation Proclamation. Not only did this prevent Britain from coming to the aid of the Confederates, but it gave the war a higher calling and was made in name, what it had always been, and the war to end slavery.	4,533	ENGLISH	1
Hernando De Soto FREE Catholic Classes Explorer and conqueror, born at Villanueva de la Serena, Badajoz, Spain, 1496 or 1500; died on the banks of the Mississippi the latter part of June, 1542. He was given the rank of captain of a troop of horsemen in 1516 by Pedrarias Dávila (also known as Pedro Arias de Avila), governor of Darien, who admired his courage, and he took an active part in the conquest of portions of Central America. In 1523 he accompanied Francisco Fernández de Córdoba who, by order of Pedrarias, set out from Panama with an expedition which explored Nicaragua and Honduras, conquering and colonizing the country as they proceeded. In 1532 he joined the expedition of Francisco Pizzaro starting from Panama for the conquest of Peru. Recognizing his importance, Pizzaro made de Soto second in command, though this caused some opposition from Pizzaro's brothers. In 1533 he was sent at the head of a small party to explore the highlands of Peru, and he discovered the great national road which led to the capital. Soon afterwards he was selected by Pizzaro as ambassador to visit the Inca Atahualpa, lord of Peru, and he was the first Spaniard who spoke with that chief. After the imprisonment of Atahualpa, de Soto became very friendly with him and visited him often in his confinement. De Soto played a prominent part in the engagements which completed the conquest of Peru, including the battle which resulted in the capture of Cuzco, the capital. Upon his return from an expedition, he learned that Pizzaro had treacherously ordered Atahualpa to be put to death in spite of Atahualpa's having paid a large ransom. He was much displeased at the crime, and, becoming disgusted with Pizzaro and his brothers, he returned to Spain in 1536, taking back with him about 18,000 ounces of gold which represented his share of the booty taken from the Incas. He settled in Seville, and with the gold he had brought home, he was able to set up an elaborate establishment with ushers, pages, equerry, chamberlain, and other servants required for the household of a gentleman. In 1537 he married Inés de Bobadilla (sometimes called Leonor or Isabel), the daughter of his former patron, Pedrarias Dávila. He had settled down in Seville to enjoy life quietly, when the exaggerated accounts of Cabeza de Vaca concerning the vast region then called Florida fired his ambition to undertake the conquest of this land which he considered no less rich than Peru. He therefore sold all his property, and devoted the proceeds to equipping an expedition for this purpose. He readily obtained from Charles V, to whom he had lent some money, the titles of Adelantado of Florida and Governor of Cuba, and in addition, the title of marquis of a certain portion of the territory he might conquer, said portion to be chosen by himself. The expedition consisted of 950 fighting men, eight secular priests, two Dominicans, a Franciscan and a Trinitarian, all to be transported in ten ships. To this armada was added one of twenty more ships which was on its way to Vera Cruz, but was to be under the orders of de Soto while the courses of the two fleets lay along the same route. The whole squadron set sail from Sanl&úcar, 6 April, 1538. On Easter Sunday morning, fifteen days later, they arrived safely at Gomera, one of the Canary Islands, where they stopped for one week and then continued their way without incident. When near Cuba, the twenty vessels destined for Mexico separated from the others and proceeded on their way. The ten ships of de Soto shortly after arrived in the harbour of Santiago de Cuba where the members of the expedition were well received by the Cubans, whose fêtes in honour of the new-comers lasted several weeks. The new governor visited the towns in the vicinity of Santiago and did every thing in his power to better their condition. At the same time, he gathered as many horses as he could, and, as good ones were plentiful in Cuba, it was not long before he had a fair number of mounts for the men of the Florida expedition. Just about this time, the city of Havana was sacked and burned by the French, and de Soto, upon learning of it, despatched Captain Aceituno with some men to repair the ruins. As he was contemplating an early departure for his conquest of Florida, he named Gonzalo de Guzmán as lieutenant-governor to administer justice in Santiago and vicinity, while for affairs of state, he gave full powers to his wife. Meanwhile, he continued his preparations for the expedition to Florida. In the latter part of August, 1538, the ships sailed for Havana, while de Soto started by land with 350 horses and the remainder of the expedition. The two parties arrived at Havana within a few days of each other, and de Soto immediately made plans for the rebuilding of the city. He also entrusted to Captain Aceituno the building of a fortress for the protection of the harbour and the city from any possible future attack. At the same time he ordered Juan de Añasco, a skilled and experienced sailor, to set out in advance to explore the coasts and harbours of Florida so that it would facilitate matters when the main expedition sailed. Añasco returned at the end of a few months and made a satisfactory report. The expedition was finally made ready, and on 18 May, 1539, de Soto set sail with a fleet of nine vessels. He had with him 1000 men exclusive of the sailors, all well armed and making up what was considered to be the best equipped expedition that had ever set out for conquest in the New World. They proceeded with favourable weather until 25 May, when land was seen and they cast anchor in a bay to which they gave the name of Espiritu Santo (now Tampa Bay). The army landed on Friday, 30 May, two leagues from an Indian village. From this point the Spaniards began their explorations of the wild unknown country to the north and west which lasted for nearly three years. They passed through a region already made hostile by the violence of the invader Narvaez, and they were constantly deceived by the Indians, who tried to get them as far away as possible by telling them stories of great wealth which was to be found at remote points. They wandered from place to place, always disappointed in their expectations, but still lured onward by the tales they heard of the vast riches which lay just beyond. They treated the Indians brutally whenever they met them, and they were, as a result, constantly at war with them. Setting out from Espiritu Santo, de Soto, with considerable loss of men, went through the provinces of Acuera, Ocali, Vitachuco, and Osachile (all situated in the western part of the Florida peninsula), with the purpose of finally reaching the territory of Apalache (situated in the northwestern part of Florida on the Gulf of Mexico), as he considered the fertility and maritime conditions of that country well suited to his purposes. He finally reached the province, and after some fighting with the Indians, subjugated it. In October, 1539, de Soto sent Juan Añasco with thirty men to Espiritu Santo Bay where he had left his ships and a portion of his expedition, with orders to start from there with the ships and follow the coast until he reached the bay of Aute (St. Marks on Apalachee Bay) in the province of Apalache. Here he was to be joined by Pedro Calderón, who had orders to proceed by land with the remainder of the expedition and the provisions and camp equipment that had been left on the coast. At the same time, Gómez Arias was to sail to Havana to acquaint de Soto's wife with the progress of the expedition. After many hardships, Añasco reached Espiritu Santo Bay, whence he started with the ships to carry out de Soto's orders. He arrived at Aute in safety, and was there joined by Calderón with the land forces according to arrangement. Meanwhile, Gómez Arias had fulfilled his mission to Havana and the triumphs of the Spaniards in Florida were fitly celebrated in that city. De Soto now ordered Diego Maldonado, a captain of infantry who had served him well, to give up his command, and take two ships with which he was to explore the coast of Florida for a distance of one hundred leagues to the west of Aute, and map out its bays and inlets. Maldonado did his work successfully and upon his return, in February, 1540, was sent to Havana, with orders to inform the Governor's wife and announce to the Cubans as well all that they had seen and done. De Soto gave him further orders to return in October and meet him in the Bay of Achusi which Maldonado had discovered during his exploration. He was to bring back with him as many ships as he could procure, and also munitions of war, provisions, and clothing for the soldiers. But de Soto was destined never to see Maldonado again, nor was he to have the benefit of the supplies for which he was sending him, for, though Maldonado was able to carry out his orders to the letter, when he arrived at Achusi in the fall he found neither trace nor tidings of de Soto. He waited for some time and explored the country quite a distance, but without finding him, and was forced to return to Havana. He tried again the next year and againa the following, but always with the same result. Meanwhile, de Soto had started in March, 1540, from the province of Apalache with the intention of exploring the country to the north. He explored the provinces of Altapaha (or Altamaha), Achalaque, Cofa, and Cofaque, all situated in eastern and northern Georgia, meeting with fair success. He then worked his way in a southwesterly direction, intending to reach the coast at Achusi where he had agreed to meet Maldonado with the supply ships. But when he reached the province of Tuscaluza in southern Alabama, where he had been told there were immense riches, the Indians in large numbers offered a more stubborn resistance and gave him the worst battle he had yet had. The battle lasted nine hours and was finally won by the Spaniards, though nearly all the officers and men, including de Soto himself, were wounded. According to Barcilasso, there were 70 Spaniards and 11,000 Indians killed in the battle, and in addition the town of Mauvila (now Mobile ) was destroyed by a fire which also consumed the provisions of the Spaniards. While in Tuscaluza, de Soto heard of some Spanish ships which were on the coast at Achusi. These were the ships which Maldonado had brought back from Havana with the supplies. De Soto thought he would be able to reach them in a short time for he had been informed that he was then but thirty leagues from the coast. But his troops were so exhausted that he was forced to rest for a few days. Worn out by the long marches and the hardships they had undergone, and disappointed at not finding any treasure, some of de Soto's followers secretly plotted to abandon him, make their way to Achusi, and sail to Mexico or Peru. Learning of this, de Soto changed his plans, and, instead of marching toward the coast to join Maldonado, he led his men toward the interior in a westerly direction, knowing that they would not dare to desert him with the ships so far away. He hoped to reach New Spain ( Mexico ) by land. In a night battle (December, 1540), he lost forty men and fifty horses besides having many wounded, and during the next four months he was attacked almost nightly. In April, 1541, he came upon a fort surrounded with a stockade, and in storming it nearly all his men were wounded and many were killed. It is said that over 2000 Indians were killed in this battle, but so many of the Spaniards were wounded that de Soto was compelled to stop for a few days in order to care for them. Notwithstanding his repeated losses de Soto continued toward the interior, traversing several provinces constituting the present Gulf States, until he reached the Mississippi at a point in the northern part of the present state of Mississippi. He crossed the river and pushed on to the northwest until he reached the province of Autiamque in the northwestern corner of Arkansas, where he passed the winter of 1541-42 on the Dayas River, now the Washita. In the spring of 1542, retracing his steps, he reached the Mississippi in May or June. Here, on 20 June, 1542 (according to some authorities on 21 May), he was stricken with a fever, and prepared for death. He made his will, named Luis de Moscoso de Alvarado as his successor in command of the expedition, and took leave of all. On the fifth day de Soto succumbed without having reached New Spain by land. His companions buried the body in a large hole which the natives had dug near one of their villages to get materials to build their houses. However, as de Soto had given the Indians to understand that the Christians were immortal, they afterwards disinterred the body, fearing the hostile savages might possibly discover it, and, finding him dead, make an attack. They then hollowed out the trunk of a large tree and, placing the body in it, sank it in the Mississippi which they called the Grande. The shattered remnant of the expedition under Moscoso then attempted to work their way eastward, but, driven back by the Indians, they floated down the Mississippi and, after many hardships, finally reached Pánuco in Mexico. This expedition of de Soto, though it ended so disastrously, was one of the most elaborate and persistent efforts made by the Spaniards to explore the interior of North America. It was the first extensive exploration of at least six of the Southern states: South Carolina , Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and Arkansas, and their written history often begins with narratives which tell the story of de Soto's expedition. From these same narratives we also get our first description of the Cherokees, Seminoles, Creeks, Appalachians, Choctaws, and other famous tribes of southern Indians. The story of this expedition also records the discovery of the Mississippi and the first voyage of Europeans upon it. It must be noted that Alonso de Pineda discovered the mouth of the Mississippi in 1519, and that Cabeza de Vaca crossed it near its mouth in 1528. FREE Catholic Classes Pick a class, you can learn anything Copyright 2020 Catholic Online. All materials contained on this site, whether written, audible or visual are the exclusive property of Catholic Online and are protected under U.S. and International copyright laws, © Copyright 2020 Catholic Online. Any unauthorized use, without prior written consent of Catholic Online is strictly forbidden and prohibited. Catholic Online is a Project of Your Catholic Voice Foundation, a Not-for-Profit Corporation. Your Catholic Voice Foundation has been granted a recognition of tax exemption under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Federal Tax Identification Number: 81-0596847. Your gift is tax-deductible as allowed by law.	<urn:uuid:ddaaa6be-0159-4156-9585-679e2dc057b1>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=3796	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250607596.34/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122221541-20200123010541-00233.warc.gz	en	0.985228	3,268	3.328125	3	[ -0.04334985464811325, 0.12229171395301819, 0.4733903408050537, -0.16895228624343872, -0.20289316773414612, -0.4437054991722107, 0.09362508356571198, 0.3505108952522278, -0.08761753141880035, -0.4150647521018982, 0.0023307576775550842, -0.5269347429275513, -0.11513779312372208, 0.2427515536...	1	Hernando De Soto FREE Catholic Classes Explorer and conqueror, born at Villanueva de la Serena, Badajoz, Spain, 1496 or 1500; died on the banks of the Mississippi the latter part of June, 1542. He was given the rank of captain of a troop of horsemen in 1516 by Pedrarias Dávila (also known as Pedro Arias de Avila), governor of Darien, who admired his courage, and he took an active part in the conquest of portions of Central America. In 1523 he accompanied Francisco Fernández de Córdoba who, by order of Pedrarias, set out from Panama with an expedition which explored Nicaragua and Honduras, conquering and colonizing the country as they proceeded. In 1532 he joined the expedition of Francisco Pizzaro starting from Panama for the conquest of Peru. Recognizing his importance, Pizzaro made de Soto second in command, though this caused some opposition from Pizzaro's brothers. In 1533 he was sent at the head of a small party to explore the highlands of Peru, and he discovered the great national road which led to the capital. Soon afterwards he was selected by Pizzaro as ambassador to visit the Inca Atahualpa, lord of Peru, and he was the first Spaniard who spoke with that chief. After the imprisonment of Atahualpa, de Soto became very friendly with him and visited him often in his confinement. De Soto played a prominent part in the engagements which completed the conquest of Peru, including the battle which resulted in the capture of Cuzco, the capital. Upon his return from an expedition, he learned that Pizzaro had treacherously ordered Atahualpa to be put to death in spite of Atahualpa's having paid a large ransom. He was much displeased at the crime, and, becoming disgusted with Pizzaro and his brothers, he returned to Spain in 1536, taking back with him about 18,000 ounces of gold which represented his share of the booty taken from the Incas. He settled in Seville, and with the gold he had brought home, he was able to set up an elaborate establishment with ushers, pages, equerry, chamberlain, and other servants required for the household of a gentleman. In 1537 he married Inés de Bobadilla (sometimes called Leonor or Isabel), the daughter of his former patron, Pedrarias Dávila. He had settled down in Seville to enjoy life quietly, when the exaggerated accounts of Cabeza de Vaca concerning the vast region then called Florida fired his ambition to undertake the conquest of this land which he considered no less rich than Peru. He therefore sold all his property, and devoted the proceeds to equipping an expedition for this purpose. He readily obtained from Charles V, to whom he had lent some money, the titles of Adelantado of Florida and Governor of Cuba, and in addition, the title of marquis of a certain portion of the territory he might conquer, said portion to be chosen by himself. The expedition consisted of 950 fighting men, eight secular priests, two Dominicans, a Franciscan and a Trinitarian, all to be transported in ten ships. To this armada was added one of twenty more ships which was on its way to Vera Cruz, but was to be under the orders of de Soto while the courses of the two fleets lay along the same route. The whole squadron set sail from Sanl&úcar, 6 April, 1538. On Easter Sunday morning, fifteen days later, they arrived safely at Gomera, one of the Canary Islands, where they stopped for one week and then continued their way without incident. When near Cuba, the twenty vessels destined for Mexico separated from the others and proceeded on their way. The ten ships of de Soto shortly after arrived in the harbour of Santiago de Cuba where the members of the expedition were well received by the Cubans, whose fêtes in honour of the new-comers lasted several weeks. The new governor visited the towns in the vicinity of Santiago and did every thing in his power to better their condition. At the same time, he gathered as many horses as he could, and, as good ones were plentiful in Cuba, it was not long before he had a fair number of mounts for the men of the Florida expedition. Just about this time, the city of Havana was sacked and burned by the French, and de Soto, upon learning of it, despatched Captain Aceituno with some men to repair the ruins. As he was contemplating an early departure for his conquest of Florida, he named Gonzalo de Guzmán as lieutenant-governor to administer justice in Santiago and vicinity, while for affairs of state, he gave full powers to his wife. Meanwhile, he continued his preparations for the expedition to Florida. In the latter part of August, 1538, the ships sailed for Havana, while de Soto started by land with 350 horses and the remainder of the expedition. The two parties arrived at Havana within a few days of each other, and de Soto immediately made plans for the rebuilding of the city. He also entrusted to Captain Aceituno the building of a fortress for the protection of the harbour and the city from any possible future attack. At the same time he ordered Juan de Añasco, a skilled and experienced sailor, to set out in advance to explore the coasts and harbours of Florida so that it would facilitate matters when the main expedition sailed. Añasco returned at the end of a few months and made a satisfactory report. The expedition was finally made ready, and on 18 May, 1539, de Soto set sail with a fleet of nine vessels. He had with him 1000 men exclusive of the sailors, all well armed and making up what was considered to be the best equipped expedition that had ever set out for conquest in the New World. They proceeded with favourable weather until 25 May, when land was seen and they cast anchor in a bay to which they gave the name of Espiritu Santo (now Tampa Bay). The army landed on Friday, 30 May, two leagues from an Indian village. From this point the Spaniards began their explorations of the wild unknown country to the north and west which lasted for nearly three years. They passed through a region already made hostile by the violence of the invader Narvaez, and they were constantly deceived by the Indians, who tried to get them as far away as possible by telling them stories of great wealth which was to be found at remote points. They wandered from place to place, always disappointed in their expectations, but still lured onward by the tales they heard of the vast riches which lay just beyond. They treated the Indians brutally whenever they met them, and they were, as a result, constantly at war with them. Setting out from Espiritu Santo, de Soto, with considerable loss of men, went through the provinces of Acuera, Ocali, Vitachuco, and Osachile (all situated in the western part of the Florida peninsula), with the purpose of finally reaching the territory of Apalache (situated in the northwestern part of Florida on the Gulf of Mexico), as he considered the fertility and maritime conditions of that country well suited to his purposes. He finally reached the province, and after some fighting with the Indians, subjugated it. In October, 1539, de Soto sent Juan Añasco with thirty men to Espiritu Santo Bay where he had left his ships and a portion of his expedition, with orders to start from there with the ships and follow the coast until he reached the bay of Aute (St. Marks on Apalachee Bay) in the province of Apalache. Here he was to be joined by Pedro Calderón, who had orders to proceed by land with the remainder of the expedition and the provisions and camp equipment that had been left on the coast. At the same time, Gómez Arias was to sail to Havana to acquaint de Soto's wife with the progress of the expedition. After many hardships, Añasco reached Espiritu Santo Bay, whence he started with the ships to carry out de Soto's orders. He arrived at Aute in safety, and was there joined by Calderón with the land forces according to arrangement. Meanwhile, Gómez Arias had fulfilled his mission to Havana and the triumphs of the Spaniards in Florida were fitly celebrated in that city. De Soto now ordered Diego Maldonado, a captain of infantry who had served him well, to give up his command, and take two ships with which he was to explore the coast of Florida for a distance of one hundred leagues to the west of Aute, and map out its bays and inlets. Maldonado did his work successfully and upon his return, in February, 1540, was sent to Havana, with orders to inform the Governor's wife and announce to the Cubans as well all that they had seen and done. De Soto gave him further orders to return in October and meet him in the Bay of Achusi which Maldonado had discovered during his exploration. He was to bring back with him as many ships as he could procure, and also munitions of war, provisions, and clothing for the soldiers. But de Soto was destined never to see Maldonado again, nor was he to have the benefit of the supplies for which he was sending him, for, though Maldonado was able to carry out his orders to the letter, when he arrived at Achusi in the fall he found neither trace nor tidings of de Soto. He waited for some time and explored the country quite a distance, but without finding him, and was forced to return to Havana. He tried again the next year and againa the following, but always with the same result. Meanwhile, de Soto had started in March, 1540, from the province of Apalache with the intention of exploring the country to the north. He explored the provinces of Altapaha (or Altamaha), Achalaque, Cofa, and Cofaque, all situated in eastern and northern Georgia, meeting with fair success. He then worked his way in a southwesterly direction, intending to reach the coast at Achusi where he had agreed to meet Maldonado with the supply ships. But when he reached the province of Tuscaluza in southern Alabama, where he had been told there were immense riches, the Indians in large numbers offered a more stubborn resistance and gave him the worst battle he had yet had. The battle lasted nine hours and was finally won by the Spaniards, though nearly all the officers and men, including de Soto himself, were wounded. According to Barcilasso, there were 70 Spaniards and 11,000 Indians killed in the battle, and in addition the town of Mauvila (now Mobile ) was destroyed by a fire which also consumed the provisions of the Spaniards. While in Tuscaluza, de Soto heard of some Spanish ships which were on the coast at Achusi. These were the ships which Maldonado had brought back from Havana with the supplies. De Soto thought he would be able to reach them in a short time for he had been informed that he was then but thirty leagues from the coast. But his troops were so exhausted that he was forced to rest for a few days. Worn out by the long marches and the hardships they had undergone, and disappointed at not finding any treasure, some of de Soto's followers secretly plotted to abandon him, make their way to Achusi, and sail to Mexico or Peru. Learning of this, de Soto changed his plans, and, instead of marching toward the coast to join Maldonado, he led his men toward the interior in a westerly direction, knowing that they would not dare to desert him with the ships so far away. He hoped to reach New Spain ( Mexico ) by land. In a night battle (December, 1540), he lost forty men and fifty horses besides having many wounded, and during the next four months he was attacked almost nightly. In April, 1541, he came upon a fort surrounded with a stockade, and in storming it nearly all his men were wounded and many were killed. It is said that over 2000 Indians were killed in this battle, but so many of the Spaniards were wounded that de Soto was compelled to stop for a few days in order to care for them. Notwithstanding his repeated losses de Soto continued toward the interior, traversing several provinces constituting the present Gulf States, until he reached the Mississippi at a point in the northern part of the present state of Mississippi. He crossed the river and pushed on to the northwest until he reached the province of Autiamque in the northwestern corner of Arkansas, where he passed the winter of 1541-42 on the Dayas River, now the Washita. In the spring of 1542, retracing his steps, he reached the Mississippi in May or June. Here, on 20 June, 1542 (according to some authorities on 21 May), he was stricken with a fever, and prepared for death. He made his will, named Luis de Moscoso de Alvarado as his successor in command of the expedition, and took leave of all. On the fifth day de Soto succumbed without having reached New Spain by land. His companions buried the body in a large hole which the natives had dug near one of their villages to get materials to build their houses. However, as de Soto had given the Indians to understand that the Christians were immortal, they afterwards disinterred the body, fearing the hostile savages might possibly discover it, and, finding him dead, make an attack. They then hollowed out the trunk of a large tree and, placing the body in it, sank it in the Mississippi which they called the Grande. The shattered remnant of the expedition under Moscoso then attempted to work their way eastward, but, driven back by the Indians, they floated down the Mississippi and, after many hardships, finally reached Pánuco in Mexico. This expedition of de Soto, though it ended so disastrously, was one of the most elaborate and persistent efforts made by the Spaniards to explore the interior of North America. It was the first extensive exploration of at least six of the Southern states: South Carolina , Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and Arkansas, and their written history often begins with narratives which tell the story of de Soto's expedition. From these same narratives we also get our first description of the Cherokees, Seminoles, Creeks, Appalachians, Choctaws, and other famous tribes of southern Indians. The story of this expedition also records the discovery of the Mississippi and the first voyage of Europeans upon it. It must be noted that Alonso de Pineda discovered the mouth of the Mississippi in 1519, and that Cabeza de Vaca crossed it near its mouth in 1528. FREE Catholic Classes Pick a class, you can learn anything Copyright 2020 Catholic Online. All materials contained on this site, whether written, audible or visual are the exclusive property of Catholic Online and are protected under U.S. and International copyright laws, © Copyright 2020 Catholic Online. Any unauthorized use, without prior written consent of Catholic Online is strictly forbidden and prohibited. Catholic Online is a Project of Your Catholic Voice Foundation, a Not-for-Profit Corporation. Your Catholic Voice Foundation has been granted a recognition of tax exemption under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Federal Tax Identification Number: 81-0596847. Your gift is tax-deductible as allowed by law.	3,369	ENGLISH	1
Glorious Revolution Because the Premiership was not intentionally created, there is no exact date when its evolution began. Early life Gladstone was of purely Scottish descent. His father, John, made himself a merchant prince and was a member of Parliament — Gladstone was sent to Eton, where he did not particularly distinguish himself. At Christ Church, Oxford, in he secured first classes in classics and mathematics. He originally intended to take orders in the Church of Englandbut his father dissuaded him. He mistrusted parliamentary reform; his speech against it in May at the Oxford Union, of which he had been president, made a strong impression. His maiden speech on June 3,made a decided mark. A woman of lively wit, complete discretion, and exceptional charm, she was utterly devoted to her husband, to whom she bore eight children. This marriage gave him a secure base of personal happiness for the rest of his life. It also established him in the aristocratic governing class of the time. His conversion from conservatism to liberalism took place in prolonged stages, over a generation. He embarked on a major simplification of the tariff and became a more thoroughgoing free trader than Peel. In he entered the Cabinet as president of the Board of Trade. His Railway Act of set up minimum requirements for railroad companies and provided for eventual state purchase of railway lines. Gladstone also much improved working conditions for London dock workers. Early inwhen the Cabinet proposed to increase a state grant to the Irish Roman Catholic college at Maynooth, Gladstone resigned—not because he did not approve of the increase but because it went against views he had published seven years before. Later in he rejoined the Cabinet as secretary of state for the colonies, until the government fell in While at the Colonial Office, he was led nearer to Liberalism by being forced to consider the claims of English-speaking colonists to govern themselves. Private preoccupations The Glynne family estates were deeply involved in the financial panic of For several years Gladstone was concerned with extricating them. Gladstone had moved to a High Anglican position in Italy just after leaving Oxford. The suspicion that he was Catholic was used against him by his adversaries, of whom he had many in the University of Oxfordfor which he was elected MP in August He scandalized many of his new constituents at once by voting for the admission of Jews to Parliament. Gladstone made his first weighty speech on foreign affairs in Juneopposing foreign secretary Lord Palmerston in the celebrated Don Pacifico debate over the rights of British nationals abroad. That autumn he visited Napleswhere he was appalled by the conditions that he found in the prisons. In July he published two letters to Lord Aberdeen describing the conditions, and appealing to all conservatives to set an iniquity right. The Neapolitan prisoners were treated even worse than before, and most conservatives, all over Europe, were deaf to his appeal. But Palmerston circulated the letters to all the British missions on the Continent, and they delighted every liberal who heard of them. As one of the most eminent of the dwindling band of Peelites, he was mistrusted by the leaders of both parties and distrusted some of them—particularly Palmerston and Disraeli —in his turn. In his first budget speech he put forth a bold and comprehensive plan for large reductions in duties, proposed the eventual elimination of the income taxand carried a scheme for the extension of the legacy duty to real property. He defended the Crimean War as necessary for the defense of the public law of Europe; but its outbreak disrupted his financial plans. Determined to pay for it as far as possible by taxationhe doubled the income tax in He was, as a result, unpopular in the country; and he made himself more unpopular still by speeches in Parliament in the summer ofin which he held that the war was no longer justified. Gladstone helped to defeat Palmerston in the Commons by a speech on China in March His sole, but overwhelming, reason for joining a statesman he neither liked nor trusted was the critical state of the Italian question. The triumvirate of Palmerston, Russell, and Gladstone did indeed help, over the next 18 months, to secure the unification of almost all Italy. Gladstone was constantly at issue with his prime minister over defense spending. By prolonged efforts, he managed to get the service estimates down by to a lower figure than that for A further abolition of import duties was achieved by his budget of His support of an Anglo-French trade treaty doubled the value of trade. He proposed the abolition of the duties on paper, which the House of Lords declined to do.conservatism: Great Britain imagination and astute management of Benjamin Disraeli, who was prime minister in and again from to Disraeli nurtured the party’s support among the working class by extending the franchise to industrial workers in the Reform Bill of His policy of “Tory democracy,” as it came to. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is the head of the United Kingdom tranceformingnlp.com Prime Minister (informally abbreviated to PM) and Cabinet (consisting of all the most senior ministers, most of whom are government department heads) are collectively accountable for their policies and actions to the Monarch, to Parliament, to their political party and ultimately to the electorate. Jan 12, · The 54th and current Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the Rt. Hon. Theresa May MP. The Prime Minister with her husband, Phillip. Mrs May, who has been the Leader of the Conservative Party, the largest p. The office of prime minister developed in Britain in the 18th century, when King George I ceased attending meetings of his ministers and it was left to powerful premiers to act as government chief executive. Sir Robert Walpole is generally considered to have been Britain’s first prime minister. This is a chronologically ordered list of the prime ministers, from the earliest to the most recent. Remarks by President Bush and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Washington, DC December 7, Released by the White House. Contact the Prime Minister - Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Please use the form below to email the Prime Minister's Office. All emails are read and we will do our best to ensure you receive a response.	<urn:uuid:4b53dee8-a571-40d3-b81f-dd230c016a34>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://qexarenevulobudol.tranceformingnlp.com/the-prime-minister-of-great-britain-49662uf.html	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250606226.29/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121222429-20200122011429-00023.warc.gz	en	0.982853	1,314	3.265625	3	[ -0.23663955926895142, 0.19541776180267334, 0.4256068766117096, -0.23903711140155792, -0.0845261663198471, 0.03882847726345062, 0.1178419291973114, 0.17890557646751404, 0.10556179285049438, 0.278046190738678, -0.42968326807022095, -0.48102110624313354, 0.43353936076164246, -0.11528772860765...	1	Glorious Revolution Because the Premiership was not intentionally created, there is no exact date when its evolution began. Early life Gladstone was of purely Scottish descent. His father, John, made himself a merchant prince and was a member of Parliament — Gladstone was sent to Eton, where he did not particularly distinguish himself. At Christ Church, Oxford, in he secured first classes in classics and mathematics. He originally intended to take orders in the Church of Englandbut his father dissuaded him. He mistrusted parliamentary reform; his speech against it in May at the Oxford Union, of which he had been president, made a strong impression. His maiden speech on June 3,made a decided mark. A woman of lively wit, complete discretion, and exceptional charm, she was utterly devoted to her husband, to whom she bore eight children. This marriage gave him a secure base of personal happiness for the rest of his life. It also established him in the aristocratic governing class of the time. His conversion from conservatism to liberalism took place in prolonged stages, over a generation. He embarked on a major simplification of the tariff and became a more thoroughgoing free trader than Peel. In he entered the Cabinet as president of the Board of Trade. His Railway Act of set up minimum requirements for railroad companies and provided for eventual state purchase of railway lines. Gladstone also much improved working conditions for London dock workers. Early inwhen the Cabinet proposed to increase a state grant to the Irish Roman Catholic college at Maynooth, Gladstone resigned—not because he did not approve of the increase but because it went against views he had published seven years before. Later in he rejoined the Cabinet as secretary of state for the colonies, until the government fell in While at the Colonial Office, he was led nearer to Liberalism by being forced to consider the claims of English-speaking colonists to govern themselves. Private preoccupations The Glynne family estates were deeply involved in the financial panic of For several years Gladstone was concerned with extricating them. Gladstone had moved to a High Anglican position in Italy just after leaving Oxford. The suspicion that he was Catholic was used against him by his adversaries, of whom he had many in the University of Oxfordfor which he was elected MP in August He scandalized many of his new constituents at once by voting for the admission of Jews to Parliament. Gladstone made his first weighty speech on foreign affairs in Juneopposing foreign secretary Lord Palmerston in the celebrated Don Pacifico debate over the rights of British nationals abroad. That autumn he visited Napleswhere he was appalled by the conditions that he found in the prisons. In July he published two letters to Lord Aberdeen describing the conditions, and appealing to all conservatives to set an iniquity right. The Neapolitan prisoners were treated even worse than before, and most conservatives, all over Europe, were deaf to his appeal. But Palmerston circulated the letters to all the British missions on the Continent, and they delighted every liberal who heard of them. As one of the most eminent of the dwindling band of Peelites, he was mistrusted by the leaders of both parties and distrusted some of them—particularly Palmerston and Disraeli —in his turn. In his first budget speech he put forth a bold and comprehensive plan for large reductions in duties, proposed the eventual elimination of the income taxand carried a scheme for the extension of the legacy duty to real property. He defended the Crimean War as necessary for the defense of the public law of Europe; but its outbreak disrupted his financial plans. Determined to pay for it as far as possible by taxationhe doubled the income tax in He was, as a result, unpopular in the country; and he made himself more unpopular still by speeches in Parliament in the summer ofin which he held that the war was no longer justified. Gladstone helped to defeat Palmerston in the Commons by a speech on China in March His sole, but overwhelming, reason for joining a statesman he neither liked nor trusted was the critical state of the Italian question. The triumvirate of Palmerston, Russell, and Gladstone did indeed help, over the next 18 months, to secure the unification of almost all Italy. Gladstone was constantly at issue with his prime minister over defense spending. By prolonged efforts, he managed to get the service estimates down by to a lower figure than that for A further abolition of import duties was achieved by his budget of His support of an Anglo-French trade treaty doubled the value of trade. He proposed the abolition of the duties on paper, which the House of Lords declined to do.conservatism: Great Britain imagination and astute management of Benjamin Disraeli, who was prime minister in and again from to Disraeli nurtured the party’s support among the working class by extending the franchise to industrial workers in the Reform Bill of His policy of “Tory democracy,” as it came to. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is the head of the United Kingdom tranceformingnlp.com Prime Minister (informally abbreviated to PM) and Cabinet (consisting of all the most senior ministers, most of whom are government department heads) are collectively accountable for their policies and actions to the Monarch, to Parliament, to their political party and ultimately to the electorate. Jan 12, · The 54th and current Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is the Rt. Hon. Theresa May MP. The Prime Minister with her husband, Phillip. Mrs May, who has been the Leader of the Conservative Party, the largest p. The office of prime minister developed in Britain in the 18th century, when King George I ceased attending meetings of his ministers and it was left to powerful premiers to act as government chief executive. Sir Robert Walpole is generally considered to have been Britain’s first prime minister. This is a chronologically ordered list of the prime ministers, from the earliest to the most recent. Remarks by President Bush and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Washington, DC December 7, Released by the White House. Contact the Prime Minister - Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Please use the form below to email the Prime Minister's Office. All emails are read and we will do our best to ensure you receive a response.	1,289	ENGLISH	1
On Politics: A History of Political Thought Book One: Herodotus to Machiavelli Book Two: Hobbes to the Present What do we need to know about Bartolus of Sassoferrato? Most of us have never heard of him, but in his time—he was born in 1313 in the Marche region of Italy—Bartolus was famous as a political thinker. Though he roamed between Italian cities like Bologna, Pisa, and Perugia, Bartolus confronted a world still haunted by the idea—in fact, two ideas—of universal empire: the empire of Western Christendom, under the God-given authority of the pope, and the Holy Roman Empire, under the authority of someone who was supposedly the successor of Constantine and Justinian. Relations between the two ideas were complicated beyond belief. The papacy had temporal authority over certain territories in the Empire and its authority extended to spiritual matters in the imperial jurisdiction as well. The Empire was, in theory at least, every bit as committed to upholding the Catholic faith and appointing bishops as the papacy was. In matters where their authority overlapped, no one could quite agree who was subordinate to whom: Was the temporal authority of the pope (such as it was) a donation from the emperor or was the emperor’s authority legitimized by the church? Sometimes these questions would flare up in deadly conflict. But often they seemed irrelevant to daily life. Christ had told his followers to render unto Caesar the things that were Caesar’s, as though a concession to empire were enough to account for all political obligations. But in the real world, most people’s obligations were owed to self-governing cities or to the rulers of independent kingdoms like England and France. And this posed a problem. We might be comfortable reading “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” as though it included state taxes and municipal regulations. But it was by no means obvious to Bartolus or his contemporaries that “Render unto Caesar” could be read in this way. The whole edifice of Roman law, which was the basis of jurisprudence everywhere, was erected on the assumption that only the emperor had lawmaking power. So there was an enormous gap between jurisprudence and political reality. It was as though little Californian communities fifty years hence in the postapocalyptic world of Cormac McCarthy or Justin Cronin were to approach the issue of lawmaking on the basis of Article I of the US Constitution. The distinctive thing about Bartolus was that he was sometimes willing to adapt the theory of Roman law to fourteenth-century reality rather than insisting that fourteenth-century reality always had to be redescribed to fit traditional jurisprudence. It was important, he said, to stop regarding France as a province of a notional Roman Empire or Florence as just one of its municipalities. Bartolus didn’t want to deny the Holy Roman Emperor’s title, but its holder (when there was a holder) was usually to be found in Germany and he had only a passing interest in the Italian city-states or the kingdoms of the West. So, if we accepted that law could be made only by the emperor, then, said… This is exclusive content for subscribers only. Get unlimited access to The New York Review for just $1 an issue! Continue reading this article, and thousands more from our archive, for the low introductory rate of just $1 an issue. Choose a Print, Digital, or All Access subscription.	<urn:uuid:686d6804-d988-4733-9bfc-2a99cdd9c5be>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2013/02/21/how-politics-are-haunted-past/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250604397.40/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121132900-20200121161900-00333.warc.gz	en	0.980242	739	3.359375	3	[ -0.150483638048172, 0.34815752506256104, 0.42848724126815796, -0.2916259765625, -0.2938119173049927, -0.0917893573641777, 0.141526460647583, 0.4140424132347107, -0.01381754595786333, 0.2234930694103241, -0.08047837018966675, -0.047281231731176376, -0.020278917625546455, 0.7357656955718994,...	2	On Politics: A History of Political Thought Book One: Herodotus to Machiavelli Book Two: Hobbes to the Present What do we need to know about Bartolus of Sassoferrato? Most of us have never heard of him, but in his time—he was born in 1313 in the Marche region of Italy—Bartolus was famous as a political thinker. Though he roamed between Italian cities like Bologna, Pisa, and Perugia, Bartolus confronted a world still haunted by the idea—in fact, two ideas—of universal empire: the empire of Western Christendom, under the God-given authority of the pope, and the Holy Roman Empire, under the authority of someone who was supposedly the successor of Constantine and Justinian. Relations between the two ideas were complicated beyond belief. The papacy had temporal authority over certain territories in the Empire and its authority extended to spiritual matters in the imperial jurisdiction as well. The Empire was, in theory at least, every bit as committed to upholding the Catholic faith and appointing bishops as the papacy was. In matters where their authority overlapped, no one could quite agree who was subordinate to whom: Was the temporal authority of the pope (such as it was) a donation from the emperor or was the emperor’s authority legitimized by the church? Sometimes these questions would flare up in deadly conflict. But often they seemed irrelevant to daily life. Christ had told his followers to render unto Caesar the things that were Caesar’s, as though a concession to empire were enough to account for all political obligations. But in the real world, most people’s obligations were owed to self-governing cities or to the rulers of independent kingdoms like England and France. And this posed a problem. We might be comfortable reading “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” as though it included state taxes and municipal regulations. But it was by no means obvious to Bartolus or his contemporaries that “Render unto Caesar” could be read in this way. The whole edifice of Roman law, which was the basis of jurisprudence everywhere, was erected on the assumption that only the emperor had lawmaking power. So there was an enormous gap between jurisprudence and political reality. It was as though little Californian communities fifty years hence in the postapocalyptic world of Cormac McCarthy or Justin Cronin were to approach the issue of lawmaking on the basis of Article I of the US Constitution. The distinctive thing about Bartolus was that he was sometimes willing to adapt the theory of Roman law to fourteenth-century reality rather than insisting that fourteenth-century reality always had to be redescribed to fit traditional jurisprudence. It was important, he said, to stop regarding France as a province of a notional Roman Empire or Florence as just one of its municipalities. Bartolus didn’t want to deny the Holy Roman Emperor’s title, but its holder (when there was a holder) was usually to be found in Germany and he had only a passing interest in the Italian city-states or the kingdoms of the West. So, if we accepted that law could be made only by the emperor, then, said… This is exclusive content for subscribers only. Get unlimited access to The New York Review for just $1 an issue! Continue reading this article, and thousands more from our archive, for the low introductory rate of just $1 an issue. Choose a Print, Digital, or All Access subscription.	714	ENGLISH	1
In a recent discovery and analysis of a 5700 year old fossil of a young girl in Denmark, archaeologists have discovered that the bark of a birch tree might have possibly been used as a substitute for what is chewing gum today. The bark was heated to soften the substance and then chewed on for many reasons such as to help with digestion, curb appetite etc. Further inspection of the discovered gum has also shown properties of the girl that might have chewed on it such as that she was European, quite young in age, etc. "Syltholm is completely unique. Almost everything is sealed in mud, which means that the preservation of organic remains is absolutely phenomenal.It is the biggest Stone Age site in Denmark, and the archaeological finds suggest that the people who occupied the site were heavily exploiting wild resources well into the Neolithic, which is the period when farming and domesticated animals were first introduced into southern Scandinavia," said Theis Jensen, study author and postdoctoral researcher at the University of Copenhagen's Globe Institute, who excavated at the site. This is the first time that human genomes have been extracted from anything that is not bone. The fossil that has been discovered has been name “Lola” by the archaeologists.	<urn:uuid:eb8acbd5-5004-4fd8-a44f-260784fb4058>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://thesiliconreview.com/2019/12/archaeologists-discover-substance	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250616186.38/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124070934-20200124095934-00326.warc.gz	en	0.986432	253	3.609375	4	[ -0.45678332448005676, 0.1074356883764267, 0.2375275045633316, -0.04801764711737633, 0.11932789534330368, -0.36491429805755615, -0.19337457418441772, 0.0649978443980217, -0.41150569915771484, 0.2543647289276123, 0.36400485038757324, -0.7215033769607544, 0.294526606798172, 0.3440251052379608...	3	In a recent discovery and analysis of a 5700 year old fossil of a young girl in Denmark, archaeologists have discovered that the bark of a birch tree might have possibly been used as a substitute for what is chewing gum today. The bark was heated to soften the substance and then chewed on for many reasons such as to help with digestion, curb appetite etc. Further inspection of the discovered gum has also shown properties of the girl that might have chewed on it such as that she was European, quite young in age, etc. "Syltholm is completely unique. Almost everything is sealed in mud, which means that the preservation of organic remains is absolutely phenomenal.It is the biggest Stone Age site in Denmark, and the archaeological finds suggest that the people who occupied the site were heavily exploiting wild resources well into the Neolithic, which is the period when farming and domesticated animals were first introduced into southern Scandinavia," said Theis Jensen, study author and postdoctoral researcher at the University of Copenhagen's Globe Institute, who excavated at the site. This is the first time that human genomes have been extracted from anything that is not bone. The fossil that has been discovered has been name “Lola” by the archaeologists.	253	ENGLISH	1
Spartacus (c. 109 B.C.E. - 71 B.C.E.) the leader of the major slave uprising against the Roman Republic known as the Third Servile War. Probably born in Thrace, he may have been a former soldier who deserted the Roman army, was captured, and sent to the gladiator school at Capua. In 73 B.C.E., some 70 gladiators escaped to Mt. Vesuvius, where they were joined by slaves and farm workers. There, the ragtag group was transformed by Spartacus and his comrades into a first-class fighting force. At first, the Romans were slow to respond to the uprising, with Spartacus defeating local Roman armies in three sharp engagements. The slaves then conducted raids throughout southern Italy, where their forces grew to 70,000-120,000 men. In 72 B.C.E., the Roman Senate sent two consuls with four legions against the slaves. Spartacus was victorious against these forces in separate battles in central Italy, after which he attempted to lead the slaves north to freedom beyond the Alps. However, they chose instead to turn back to Italy. In the autumn of 72, the Senate made Marcus Licinius Crassus leader of the war against the slaves. He recruited six additional legions and took up a protective position in south-central Italy. In a final battle with Crassus' main force, Spartacus and 60,000 of his men fell. Crassus crucified 6,600 prisoners from the battle along the Via Appia from Capua to Rome. Spartacus' body was never found. In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, he became a legendary figure of literature, art, and film. The ancient sources give various accounts on Spartacus' origins. Plutarch describes him as "a Greek of nomadic stock," and said Spartacus' wife, a prophetess, was enslaved with him. Others suggest that his origin as the territory of present Bulgaria. Most, however, claim that Spartacus was born in Thrace. Appian said he was "a Thracian by birth, who had once served as a soldier with the Romans, but had since been a prisoner and sold for a gladiator." Florus characterized him as "a deserter and robber, and afterwards, from consideration of his strength, a gladiator." What seems clear is that he had military experience, was a natural leader, and ended up, for whatever reason, in the position of a gladiator much against his will. Spartacus was trained at the gladiatorial school of Lentulus Batiatus near Capua. In 73 B.C.E., he and some 70 followers escaped from the school. Seizing the knives in the cook's shop and a wagon full of weapons, they fled to the area of Mount Vesuvius, near modern-day Naples. His chief aides were gladiators from Gaul and Germania, named Crixus, Castus, Gannicus, and Oenomaus. Spartacus' intention was to leave Italy and return home. The group of escaped gladiators was joined by rural runaway slaves and succeeded in overrunning the region, plundering and pillaging. The slave-to-citizen ratio at that time was very high, making this rebellion hard for Rome to control. All of Rome's experienced legions were away at the time, and the Senate sent an inexperienced praetor, Claudius Glaber, against the rebels, with a militia of about 3,000. They besieged the rebels on Vesuvius, blocking their escape. Spartacus had ropes made from vines and with his men climbed down a cliff on the other side of the volcano, to the rear of the Roman soldiers, and staged a surprise attack. Not expecting trouble, the Romans had not fortified their camp or posted adequate sentries. As a result, most of the Roman soldiers were caught sleeping and killed, including Claudius Glaber himself. Spartacus is credited as an excellent military tactician, and his reported experience as a former soldier made him a formidable enemy, but his men were mostly former slave laborers who lacked military training. Hiding out on Mount Vesuvius, which at that time was dormant and heavily wooded, enabled them to train for the upcoming fights with the Romans. Due to the short amount of time expected before battle, Spartacus delegated training to the gladiators, who trained small groups of leaders, and these then trained other small groups and so on, leading to the development of a fully trained army in a matter of weeks. With these successes, more and more slaves flocked to the Spartacan forces, as did many of the herdsmen and shepherds of the region, swelling their ranks greatly, with estimates ranging from 70,000-120,000. The rebel slaves spent the winter of 73–72 B.C.E. arming and equipping their new recruits, and expanding their raiding territory southward to include the towns of Nola, Nuceria, Thurii and Metapontum. By spring, they marched north towards Gaul. The Senate, alarmed, now sent two consuls, Gellius Publicola and Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus Clodianus, each with a legion, against the rebels. Among the slaves, Crixus wanted to stay in Italy and plunder, but Spartacus wanted to continue north. Crixus and about 30,000 Gaul and Germanic followers were then defeated by Publicola, and Crixus was killed in battle. Spartacus and his force, however, defeated Lentulus, and then defeated Publicola as well and pushed north. At Mutina (now Modena), he defeated yet another legion under Gaius Cassius Longinus, the governor of Cisalpine Gaul ("Gaul this side of the Alps"). By now, Spartacus's many followers included women, children, and elderly men. Apparently, Spartacus had intended to march his army out of Italy and into Gaul (now Belgium, Switzerland, and France), or possibly to Hispania to join the rebellion of Quintus Sertorius. However, sources indicate that he changed his mind and turned back south, under pressure from his followers, for they wanted more plunder. A group of about 10,000 or so, however, may have crossed the Alps to return to their homelands. The rest marched back south and defeated two more legions under the new Roman commander, Marcus Licinius Crassus, who at that time was the wealthiest man in Rome. At the end of 72 B.C.E., Spartacus was encamped in Italy's far south at Rhegium (Reggio Calabria), near the Strait of Messina. There, a deal with Cilician pirates to get them to Sicily fell through. In the beginning of 71 B.C.E., eight legions under Crassus isolated Spartacus' army in Calabria. With the assassination of Quintus Sertorius, the Roman Senate also recalled Pompey from Hispania and Marcus Terentius Varro Lucullus from Macedonia. The stage was now set for a final confrontation, with the full might of Rome arrayed against Spartacus and his army of slaves. Trapped in the south, Spartacus managed to break through Crassus' lines and escape northward toward Brundisium (now Brindisi), but Pompey's forces intercepted them in Lucania. The slaves were routed in a subsequent battle at the river Silarus, where Spartacus is believed to have fallen. According to Plutarch, "After his companions had taken to flight, he stood alone, surrounded by a multitude of foes, and was still defending himself when he was cut down." Appian, however, reports that his fellows fought by his side until the end: "Spartacus was wounded in the thigh with a spear and sank upon his knee, holding his shield in front of him and contending in this way against his assailants until he and the great mass of those with him were surrounded and slain." The body of Spartacus, however, was not found. After the battle, legionaries rescued 3,000 unharmed Roman prisoners in the rebel camp. Some 6,600 of Spartacus's followers were crucified along the Appian Way from Brundisium to Rome. Crassus never gave orders for the bodies to be taken down, thus travelers were forced to see the bodies for years after the final battle. Around 5,000 slaves, however, escaped the capture. They fled north and were later destroyed by Pompey, who was coming back from Roman Iberia. This enabled him to claim credit for ending this war. Pompey was greeted as a hero in Rome while Crassus received little credit or celebration. When Toussaint L'Ouverture led the slave rebellion of the Haitian Revolution (1791—1804), he was called the "Black Spartacus" by one of his defeated opponents, the Comte de Lavaux. The later revolutionary, Karl Marx, cited Spartacus as his hero, calling him the "finest fellow" antiquity had to offer. The founder of the Bavarian Illuminati, Adam Weishaupt often referred to himself as "Spartacus" within written correspondences. Spartacus' struggle, often seen as the fight for an oppressed people fighting for their freedom against a slave-owning aristocracy, has found new meaning for modern writers since the nineteenth century. The Italian writer Rafaello Giovagnoli wrote his historical novel, Spartacus, in 1874. It was subsequently translated and published in many European countries. Spartacus has also been a great inspiration to revolutionaries in more recent times, most notably the Spartacist League of Weimar Germany, as well as the far-left Spartacist groups of the 1970s in Europe and the U.S. Noted Latin American Marxist revolutionary Che Guevara was also an admirer of Spartacus. The story of Spatarcus and his revolt was also the subject of Stanley Kubrick's 1960 cinematic adaptation of Howard Fast's novel Spartacus. The film starred Kirk Douglas as the rebellious slave Spartacus and Laurence Olivier as his foe, the Roman general and politician Marcus Licinius Crassus. Peter Ustinov won an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor for his role as slave trader Lentulus Batiatus in the film. The catchphrase "I'm Spartacus!" from this film—from the dramatic scene in which the entire army claims to be Spartacus rather than turn him over to his enemy—has been referenced in a number of other films, television programs, and commercials. In addition to Howard Fast's historical novel on which Kubrick's film was based, Arthur Koestler wrote a novel about Spartacus called The Gladiators. There is also a novel Spartacus by the Scottish writer Lewis Grassic Gibbon. Spartacus is a prominent character in the novel Fortune's Favorites by Colleen McCullough. There is also a novel The students of Spartacus (Uczniowie Spartakusa) by the Polish writer Halina Rudnicka. Spartacus and His Glorious Gladiators, by Toby Brown, is part of the Dead Famous series of children's history books. All links retrieved December 14, 2019. New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here: The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:	<urn:uuid:a470c2f9-8233-4785-8bee-dba9b4d6ccae>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Spartacus	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250595282.35/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119205448-20200119233448-00377.warc.gz	en	0.980982	2,473	4.125	4	[ -0.4858955144882202, 0.6495665311813354, 0.11040683090686798, -0.24996721744537354, -0.33075931668281555, -0.12289683520793915, -0.08638399839401245, 0.31349682807922363, -0.21560806035995483, -0.19065138697624207, 0.14334453642368317, -0.5692585110664368, 0.07183653116226196, 0.4958796203...	2	Spartacus (c. 109 B.C.E. - 71 B.C.E.) the leader of the major slave uprising against the Roman Republic known as the Third Servile War. Probably born in Thrace, he may have been a former soldier who deserted the Roman army, was captured, and sent to the gladiator school at Capua. In 73 B.C.E., some 70 gladiators escaped to Mt. Vesuvius, where they were joined by slaves and farm workers. There, the ragtag group was transformed by Spartacus and his comrades into a first-class fighting force. At first, the Romans were slow to respond to the uprising, with Spartacus defeating local Roman armies in three sharp engagements. The slaves then conducted raids throughout southern Italy, where their forces grew to 70,000-120,000 men. In 72 B.C.E., the Roman Senate sent two consuls with four legions against the slaves. Spartacus was victorious against these forces in separate battles in central Italy, after which he attempted to lead the slaves north to freedom beyond the Alps. However, they chose instead to turn back to Italy. In the autumn of 72, the Senate made Marcus Licinius Crassus leader of the war against the slaves. He recruited six additional legions and took up a protective position in south-central Italy. In a final battle with Crassus' main force, Spartacus and 60,000 of his men fell. Crassus crucified 6,600 prisoners from the battle along the Via Appia from Capua to Rome. Spartacus' body was never found. In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, he became a legendary figure of literature, art, and film. The ancient sources give various accounts on Spartacus' origins. Plutarch describes him as "a Greek of nomadic stock," and said Spartacus' wife, a prophetess, was enslaved with him. Others suggest that his origin as the territory of present Bulgaria. Most, however, claim that Spartacus was born in Thrace. Appian said he was "a Thracian by birth, who had once served as a soldier with the Romans, but had since been a prisoner and sold for a gladiator." Florus characterized him as "a deserter and robber, and afterwards, from consideration of his strength, a gladiator." What seems clear is that he had military experience, was a natural leader, and ended up, for whatever reason, in the position of a gladiator much against his will. Spartacus was trained at the gladiatorial school of Lentulus Batiatus near Capua. In 73 B.C.E., he and some 70 followers escaped from the school. Seizing the knives in the cook's shop and a wagon full of weapons, they fled to the area of Mount Vesuvius, near modern-day Naples. His chief aides were gladiators from Gaul and Germania, named Crixus, Castus, Gannicus, and Oenomaus. Spartacus' intention was to leave Italy and return home. The group of escaped gladiators was joined by rural runaway slaves and succeeded in overrunning the region, plundering and pillaging. The slave-to-citizen ratio at that time was very high, making this rebellion hard for Rome to control. All of Rome's experienced legions were away at the time, and the Senate sent an inexperienced praetor, Claudius Glaber, against the rebels, with a militia of about 3,000. They besieged the rebels on Vesuvius, blocking their escape. Spartacus had ropes made from vines and with his men climbed down a cliff on the other side of the volcano, to the rear of the Roman soldiers, and staged a surprise attack. Not expecting trouble, the Romans had not fortified their camp or posted adequate sentries. As a result, most of the Roman soldiers were caught sleeping and killed, including Claudius Glaber himself. Spartacus is credited as an excellent military tactician, and his reported experience as a former soldier made him a formidable enemy, but his men were mostly former slave laborers who lacked military training. Hiding out on Mount Vesuvius, which at that time was dormant and heavily wooded, enabled them to train for the upcoming fights with the Romans. Due to the short amount of time expected before battle, Spartacus delegated training to the gladiators, who trained small groups of leaders, and these then trained other small groups and so on, leading to the development of a fully trained army in a matter of weeks. With these successes, more and more slaves flocked to the Spartacan forces, as did many of the herdsmen and shepherds of the region, swelling their ranks greatly, with estimates ranging from 70,000-120,000. The rebel slaves spent the winter of 73–72 B.C.E. arming and equipping their new recruits, and expanding their raiding territory southward to include the towns of Nola, Nuceria, Thurii and Metapontum. By spring, they marched north towards Gaul. The Senate, alarmed, now sent two consuls, Gellius Publicola and Gnaeus Cornelius Lentulus Clodianus, each with a legion, against the rebels. Among the slaves, Crixus wanted to stay in Italy and plunder, but Spartacus wanted to continue north. Crixus and about 30,000 Gaul and Germanic followers were then defeated by Publicola, and Crixus was killed in battle. Spartacus and his force, however, defeated Lentulus, and then defeated Publicola as well and pushed north. At Mutina (now Modena), he defeated yet another legion under Gaius Cassius Longinus, the governor of Cisalpine Gaul ("Gaul this side of the Alps"). By now, Spartacus's many followers included women, children, and elderly men. Apparently, Spartacus had intended to march his army out of Italy and into Gaul (now Belgium, Switzerland, and France), or possibly to Hispania to join the rebellion of Quintus Sertorius. However, sources indicate that he changed his mind and turned back south, under pressure from his followers, for they wanted more plunder. A group of about 10,000 or so, however, may have crossed the Alps to return to their homelands. The rest marched back south and defeated two more legions under the new Roman commander, Marcus Licinius Crassus, who at that time was the wealthiest man in Rome. At the end of 72 B.C.E., Spartacus was encamped in Italy's far south at Rhegium (Reggio Calabria), near the Strait of Messina. There, a deal with Cilician pirates to get them to Sicily fell through. In the beginning of 71 B.C.E., eight legions under Crassus isolated Spartacus' army in Calabria. With the assassination of Quintus Sertorius, the Roman Senate also recalled Pompey from Hispania and Marcus Terentius Varro Lucullus from Macedonia. The stage was now set for a final confrontation, with the full might of Rome arrayed against Spartacus and his army of slaves. Trapped in the south, Spartacus managed to break through Crassus' lines and escape northward toward Brundisium (now Brindisi), but Pompey's forces intercepted them in Lucania. The slaves were routed in a subsequent battle at the river Silarus, where Spartacus is believed to have fallen. According to Plutarch, "After his companions had taken to flight, he stood alone, surrounded by a multitude of foes, and was still defending himself when he was cut down." Appian, however, reports that his fellows fought by his side until the end: "Spartacus was wounded in the thigh with a spear and sank upon his knee, holding his shield in front of him and contending in this way against his assailants until he and the great mass of those with him were surrounded and slain." The body of Spartacus, however, was not found. After the battle, legionaries rescued 3,000 unharmed Roman prisoners in the rebel camp. Some 6,600 of Spartacus's followers were crucified along the Appian Way from Brundisium to Rome. Crassus never gave orders for the bodies to be taken down, thus travelers were forced to see the bodies for years after the final battle. Around 5,000 slaves, however, escaped the capture. They fled north and were later destroyed by Pompey, who was coming back from Roman Iberia. This enabled him to claim credit for ending this war. Pompey was greeted as a hero in Rome while Crassus received little credit or celebration. When Toussaint L'Ouverture led the slave rebellion of the Haitian Revolution (1791—1804), he was called the "Black Spartacus" by one of his defeated opponents, the Comte de Lavaux. The later revolutionary, Karl Marx, cited Spartacus as his hero, calling him the "finest fellow" antiquity had to offer. The founder of the Bavarian Illuminati, Adam Weishaupt often referred to himself as "Spartacus" within written correspondences. Spartacus' struggle, often seen as the fight for an oppressed people fighting for their freedom against a slave-owning aristocracy, has found new meaning for modern writers since the nineteenth century. The Italian writer Rafaello Giovagnoli wrote his historical novel, Spartacus, in 1874. It was subsequently translated and published in many European countries. Spartacus has also been a great inspiration to revolutionaries in more recent times, most notably the Spartacist League of Weimar Germany, as well as the far-left Spartacist groups of the 1970s in Europe and the U.S. Noted Latin American Marxist revolutionary Che Guevara was also an admirer of Spartacus. The story of Spatarcus and his revolt was also the subject of Stanley Kubrick's 1960 cinematic adaptation of Howard Fast's novel Spartacus. The film starred Kirk Douglas as the rebellious slave Spartacus and Laurence Olivier as his foe, the Roman general and politician Marcus Licinius Crassus. Peter Ustinov won an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor for his role as slave trader Lentulus Batiatus in the film. The catchphrase "I'm Spartacus!" from this film—from the dramatic scene in which the entire army claims to be Spartacus rather than turn him over to his enemy—has been referenced in a number of other films, television programs, and commercials. In addition to Howard Fast's historical novel on which Kubrick's film was based, Arthur Koestler wrote a novel about Spartacus called The Gladiators. There is also a novel Spartacus by the Scottish writer Lewis Grassic Gibbon. Spartacus is a prominent character in the novel Fortune's Favorites by Colleen McCullough. There is also a novel The students of Spartacus (Uczniowie Spartakusa) by the Polish writer Halina Rudnicka. Spartacus and His Glorious Gladiators, by Toby Brown, is part of the Dead Famous series of children's history books. All links retrieved December 14, 2019. New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here: The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:	2,527	ENGLISH	1
“A Doll’s House…exploded like a bomb into contemporary life…ending not in reconciliation but in inexorable calamity. It pronounced a death sentence on accepted social ethics.” What are the targets of Ibsen’s criticism and what techniques does he use to expose the flaws in contemporary Norwegian society? “For whatever one’s opinion of A Doll’s House as a play may be, there can be no question of it’s startling unconventionality.” (‘Flashes from the Footlights’ Licensed Victuallers’ Mirror, June 1889 ). Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll’s House, was unconventional in its themes and in the way in which they were presented. Ibsen questioned contemporary Norwegian society’s conventional male and female roles, the morals of marriage and challenged all human beings, particularly females, to strive to be one’s self and to be responsible for themselves. The tragedy he wrote also had technical originality. The characters were ordinary people, who spoke simple, everyday language and the play was afirst in that it didn;t have the traditional theatrical happy ending. It can be understood that this 1879 drama was excessively criticised by its audience. At the time the play was produced, Norwegian society was undergoing social and political reform. Throughout the 1860s there had been growing agitation for legal rights for women. The rights for women to work on the same terms as males had been granted only in 1866. However, it was a patriarchal society. Men still had authority over their wives. Women were commonly regarded as superficial objects, whose main concerns were with their family and home. The small towns that had developed in Norway lead to women, in particular, leading a lonely, shut-off life. The people suffered from ‘small town claustrophobia’ and prying neighbours. Ibsen was subject to narrow-mindedness and selfishness from his culture and this prompted him to reconsider ‘old certainties’. Ibsen once wrote, “that a marriage was not …	<urn:uuid:c4e75123-90cc-4394-871d-826a441541e2>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://gemmarketingsolutions.com/flaws-in-society-evident-in-henrik-ibsens-a-dolls-house/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250601040.47/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120224950-20200121013950-00127.warc.gz	en	0.986033	438	3.296875	3	[ 0.3616933822631836, 0.3362745940685272, 0.40999749302864075, -0.3364594876766205, 0.28181591629981995, 0.08910848200321198, 0.13503336906433105, 0.15408898890018463, 0.019040444865822792, -0.30225691199302673, 0.31780678033828735, -0.29228755831718445, 0.22163468599319458, 0.06028707697987...	1	“A Doll’s House…exploded like a bomb into contemporary life…ending not in reconciliation but in inexorable calamity. It pronounced a death sentence on accepted social ethics.” What are the targets of Ibsen’s criticism and what techniques does he use to expose the flaws in contemporary Norwegian society? “For whatever one’s opinion of A Doll’s House as a play may be, there can be no question of it’s startling unconventionality.” (‘Flashes from the Footlights’ Licensed Victuallers’ Mirror, June 1889 ). Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll’s House, was unconventional in its themes and in the way in which they were presented. Ibsen questioned contemporary Norwegian society’s conventional male and female roles, the morals of marriage and challenged all human beings, particularly females, to strive to be one’s self and to be responsible for themselves. The tragedy he wrote also had technical originality. The characters were ordinary people, who spoke simple, everyday language and the play was afirst in that it didn;t have the traditional theatrical happy ending. It can be understood that this 1879 drama was excessively criticised by its audience. At the time the play was produced, Norwegian society was undergoing social and political reform. Throughout the 1860s there had been growing agitation for legal rights for women. The rights for women to work on the same terms as males had been granted only in 1866. However, it was a patriarchal society. Men still had authority over their wives. Women were commonly regarded as superficial objects, whose main concerns were with their family and home. The small towns that had developed in Norway lead to women, in particular, leading a lonely, shut-off life. The people suffered from ‘small town claustrophobia’ and prying neighbours. Ibsen was subject to narrow-mindedness and selfishness from his culture and this prompted him to reconsider ‘old certainties’. Ibsen once wrote, “that a marriage was not …	412	ENGLISH	1

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

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