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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Across the nation, however the age of consent was raised slowly, unevenly, and with great reluctance.” “According to British common law during the colonial period, the age of consent was seven.
Today we are astounded that girls of this age were assumed to know enough about sex (or about sin) to make such a decision competently.” “At what age is a person capable of making and informed decision about whether or not to engage in sex?
Would it be7,10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, or 21?
Following English law, in which the age was set at 12 in 1275 and lowered to 10 in 1576, ages of consent in the American colonies were generally set at 10 or 12.
The laws protected female virginity, which at the time was considered a valuable commodity until marriage. Silbaugh is associate Professor at Boston University School of Law, they say that before the 1900s age of consent was ten years old, “The law governing the age of consent has changed dramatically in the United States during this century.
In practice, too, the consent laws only protected white females, as many non-white females were enslaved or otherwise discriminated against by the legal system.” 4. So a 50 year old man could legally have sexual intercourse with a 7 year old boy or girl.” “These early laws specified that a girl consenting to sex had to be at least 10 to 12 years old in most states, with a few specifying ages as old as 14 or 16.
In Delaware, the age of consent was seven, based on ancient English laws setting the age squire.” “Traditionally, across the globe, the age of consent for sexual union was a matter for the family to decide, or a tribal custom.
In the United States, by the 1880s, most states set the age of consent at 10-12, and in one state Delaware, the age of consent was only 7.
Social and resulting legal attitudes toward the appropriate age of consent have drifted upwards in modern times.
The theft of a girl’s chastity was seen as a property crime against her father and future husband. Most states codified a statutory age of consent during the nineteenth century, and the usual age was ten years.” “In 1962, the American Law Institute recommended that the legal age of consent to sex- that is, the age below which sex is defined as statutory rape- be dropped in every state to age 10 (Katchadourian and Lund 1972: 439).
If two people were married and had sex, no matter what their age, no crime was committed because a woman was her husband’s property. In fact, until the mid 1960s, the legal age of consent in Delaware was 7 (Kling, 1965: 216).
In most cases, this coincided with signs of puberty, menstruation for a woman and pubic hair for a man.
Sir Edward Coke in 17th century England ‘made it clear that the marriage of girls under 12 was normal, and the age at which a girl who was a wife was eligible for a dower from her husband’s estate was 9.
Society started to think of childhood as extending beyond puberty, into the later teenage years. | <urn:uuid:5f073a07-5825-4be6-b359-ac95f63492a4> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://ushinka.ru/russian-dating-in-deleware-4971.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250592261.1/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118052321-20200118080321-00007.warc.gz | en | 0.983578 | 690 | 3.484375 | 3 | [
-0.1710144579410553,
0.21658676862716675,
0.20891179144382477,
-0.48879820108413696,
-0.2002941370010376,
0.5159580111503601,
-0.09037203341722488,
-0.26711171865463257,
0.20411279797554016,
0.15456217527389526,
-0.123572438955307,
0.18629583716392517,
-0.017121925950050354,
0.242208957672... | 1 | Across the nation, however the age of consent was raised slowly, unevenly, and with great reluctance.” “According to British common law during the colonial period, the age of consent was seven.
Today we are astounded that girls of this age were assumed to know enough about sex (or about sin) to make such a decision competently.” “At what age is a person capable of making and informed decision about whether or not to engage in sex?
Would it be7,10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, or 21?
Following English law, in which the age was set at 12 in 1275 and lowered to 10 in 1576, ages of consent in the American colonies were generally set at 10 or 12.
The laws protected female virginity, which at the time was considered a valuable commodity until marriage. Silbaugh is associate Professor at Boston University School of Law, they say that before the 1900s age of consent was ten years old, “The law governing the age of consent has changed dramatically in the United States during this century.
In practice, too, the consent laws only protected white females, as many non-white females were enslaved or otherwise discriminated against by the legal system.” 4. So a 50 year old man could legally have sexual intercourse with a 7 year old boy or girl.” “These early laws specified that a girl consenting to sex had to be at least 10 to 12 years old in most states, with a few specifying ages as old as 14 or 16.
In Delaware, the age of consent was seven, based on ancient English laws setting the age squire.” “Traditionally, across the globe, the age of consent for sexual union was a matter for the family to decide, or a tribal custom.
In the United States, by the 1880s, most states set the age of consent at 10-12, and in one state Delaware, the age of consent was only 7.
Social and resulting legal attitudes toward the appropriate age of consent have drifted upwards in modern times.
The theft of a girl’s chastity was seen as a property crime against her father and future husband. Most states codified a statutory age of consent during the nineteenth century, and the usual age was ten years.” “In 1962, the American Law Institute recommended that the legal age of consent to sex- that is, the age below which sex is defined as statutory rape- be dropped in every state to age 10 (Katchadourian and Lund 1972: 439).
If two people were married and had sex, no matter what their age, no crime was committed because a woman was her husband’s property. In fact, until the mid 1960s, the legal age of consent in Delaware was 7 (Kling, 1965: 216).
In most cases, this coincided with signs of puberty, menstruation for a woman and pubic hair for a man.
Sir Edward Coke in 17th century England ‘made it clear that the marriage of girls under 12 was normal, and the age at which a girl who was a wife was eligible for a dower from her husband’s estate was 9.
Society started to think of childhood as extending beyond puberty, into the later teenage years. | 736 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Prior to 1650, many Englishmen immigrated to the New World, specifically to the North American Colonies. These immigrants fled from a society that they found to be displeasing in many specific ways. Although economic and political values led to much of the English migration to the New World, religious tumult in England was undoubtedly the main cause for the immigration.
James I, who believed in the divine right of kings, thought he was allowed to disobey Parliament because he answered to no one but God. He started a conflict with Parliament that gained momentum under Charles I's reign. This conflict finally sparked a civil war lasting seven years, during which time the government unsympathetically persecuted its citizens, driving many of them out of the country.
Furthermore, England's unstable economy and inflation led to much poverty. The demand for a certain raw material like wool could put many slaves out of a job if the landowner suddenly decided it was more profitable to raise sheep; thus requiring only a small fraction of the work force. Inflation also made life hard for the poorer people, who found they could no longer pay for basic necessities. People saw that moving to the North American Colonies was a great money-making opportunity. Growing sugar on islands off the North American coast was so profitable that one man's capital may have spilled over to a relative who lived generations later. People were also quite excited about the idea of Capitalism, the economic system in which one makes even more money by investing his capital in a growing business, for example. Finally, people saw that the vast fields in the New World would yield much produce, and that moving to the Colonies was an opportunity too good to pass up.
Religious conflict, however, was the main factor contributing to the English migration to New England. The Catholic Church had become too intense on individuals and their everyday life, and Protestantism seemed to be the best alternative for many people. Also, King Henry VIII had established the Anglican Church, which he strongly enforced upon the Englishmen. Protestants and Catholics in this society were shunned by their neighbors, fined by the government, and even sent to jail. The English nation was in a state of religious turmoil with no religion to unify its citizens.
In addition, Religious warfare had become extremely gory, and the amount of bloodshed was immense, simply because of each side's belief that any killing of the enemy was good since God was on their side. People did not know where to turn, and began looking toward the North American Colonies.
Certain Protestants, however, took the Reformation a step further and tried to simplify or "purify" the Anglican Church, since they believed that even Anglicanism was not as much a reform from Catholicism as they wanted. These Protestants were called Puritans, and they believed that they did not need priests, Anglicanism, or its Church, but that they, alone, could talk to God. Such a feeling was common to all the Protestants, so they decided that they would attempt to create a Protestant nation in North America. Since they knew that changing the ways and customs of an existing society would be far too difficult, they left England and headed straight toward the New World.
Some of the Puritans even believed in typology; that their life was a repetition of the Bible, and that they were compared to the ancient Hebrews, who fled from Egypt only to wander in the desert for forty years before entering the promised land. They believed that while they temporarily settled in the Colonies, England would be destroyed, and that they, the "saving remnants", as they called themselves, would later return and resettle it as the promised land. After a couple of generations with no word of Europe's long awaited destruction, though, the colonists decided that they would create a permanent settlement in the New World, since perhaps this was the promised land.
Many people from England fled to the New World during the late 1500s and early 1600s. Their country was in a state of economic, political, and religious tumult, and they saw great potential in the New World. They were displeased with the Catholic Church and all of England, so they came to the Colonies to start anew, and create what was, in their eyes, the perfect society. | <urn:uuid:2c3b4d47-cd4e-48cd-8b8f-f82c960dfa9d> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://ww.novelguide.com/reportessay/history/american-history/reasons-english-immigration-north-american-colonies | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251700988.64/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127143516-20200127173516-00263.warc.gz | en | 0.988012 | 866 | 4.1875 | 4 | [
-0.06538697332143784,
-0.054438814520835876,
0.13918909430503845,
-0.32303839921951294,
0.26910024881362915,
-0.0037957204040139914,
-0.22658225893974304,
-0.028635583817958832,
0.02515440061688423,
0.22351843118667603,
0.16493861377239227,
0.05066674202680588,
0.08810830861330032,
0.02251... | 2 | Prior to 1650, many Englishmen immigrated to the New World, specifically to the North American Colonies. These immigrants fled from a society that they found to be displeasing in many specific ways. Although economic and political values led to much of the English migration to the New World, religious tumult in England was undoubtedly the main cause for the immigration.
James I, who believed in the divine right of kings, thought he was allowed to disobey Parliament because he answered to no one but God. He started a conflict with Parliament that gained momentum under Charles I's reign. This conflict finally sparked a civil war lasting seven years, during which time the government unsympathetically persecuted its citizens, driving many of them out of the country.
Furthermore, England's unstable economy and inflation led to much poverty. The demand for a certain raw material like wool could put many slaves out of a job if the landowner suddenly decided it was more profitable to raise sheep; thus requiring only a small fraction of the work force. Inflation also made life hard for the poorer people, who found they could no longer pay for basic necessities. People saw that moving to the North American Colonies was a great money-making opportunity. Growing sugar on islands off the North American coast was so profitable that one man's capital may have spilled over to a relative who lived generations later. People were also quite excited about the idea of Capitalism, the economic system in which one makes even more money by investing his capital in a growing business, for example. Finally, people saw that the vast fields in the New World would yield much produce, and that moving to the Colonies was an opportunity too good to pass up.
Religious conflict, however, was the main factor contributing to the English migration to New England. The Catholic Church had become too intense on individuals and their everyday life, and Protestantism seemed to be the best alternative for many people. Also, King Henry VIII had established the Anglican Church, which he strongly enforced upon the Englishmen. Protestants and Catholics in this society were shunned by their neighbors, fined by the government, and even sent to jail. The English nation was in a state of religious turmoil with no religion to unify its citizens.
In addition, Religious warfare had become extremely gory, and the amount of bloodshed was immense, simply because of each side's belief that any killing of the enemy was good since God was on their side. People did not know where to turn, and began looking toward the North American Colonies.
Certain Protestants, however, took the Reformation a step further and tried to simplify or "purify" the Anglican Church, since they believed that even Anglicanism was not as much a reform from Catholicism as they wanted. These Protestants were called Puritans, and they believed that they did not need priests, Anglicanism, or its Church, but that they, alone, could talk to God. Such a feeling was common to all the Protestants, so they decided that they would attempt to create a Protestant nation in North America. Since they knew that changing the ways and customs of an existing society would be far too difficult, they left England and headed straight toward the New World.
Some of the Puritans even believed in typology; that their life was a repetition of the Bible, and that they were compared to the ancient Hebrews, who fled from Egypt only to wander in the desert for forty years before entering the promised land. They believed that while they temporarily settled in the Colonies, England would be destroyed, and that they, the "saving remnants", as they called themselves, would later return and resettle it as the promised land. After a couple of generations with no word of Europe's long awaited destruction, though, the colonists decided that they would create a permanent settlement in the New World, since perhaps this was the promised land.
Many people from England fled to the New World during the late 1500s and early 1600s. Their country was in a state of economic, political, and religious tumult, and they saw great potential in the New World. They were displeased with the Catholic Church and all of England, so they came to the Colonies to start anew, and create what was, in their eyes, the perfect society. | 878 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Introduction If I were teaching this lesson, I might begin by pouring water into several different shaped containers and asking class members to comment on what we can learn from that activity about the qualities of water.
Someone will probably say that water takes the shape of its environment. If you then ask for words that describe water, you might get words like these: flimsy, unsound, mercurial, capricious, changeable, wobbly, fickle, erratic, unreliable, undependable, vacillating, untrustworthy, variable, mutable, impermanent, unsteady, uncertain, transitory, ephemeral, inconsistent, precarious, and unstable.
I am amazed at how many words the English language has to describe this rather undesirable characteristic. But this lesson will require us to think about them, because we are going to talk about three people who were much like water (one was even compared to water), and one young man who was as unlike water as it is possible to be.
I. JOSEPH IS SOLD INTO SLAVERY BY HIS BRETHREN. The scriptures give us the opportunity to watch some great people come out of broken homes. Abraham was one whose life was threatened by family members. Joseph was another. We are told of his brothers that they conspired against him to slay him (Genesis 37:18). And yet few men rose higher in life than him. With examples like Abraham and Joseph in our genealogy, it may be hard for people who suffer from imperfect families to convince the Father on judgement day that their lack of devotion and obedience ought to be excused because of what happened in their homes. Seventeen-year-old Joseph was stripped of his coat and thrown into a dry pit, and then his brothers sat down to eat! (37:24,25)
Do they not seem, except for Reuben, to be cold and heartless? The initial intent of his brothers was to leave him there to die. They were tired of what they perceived to be special treatment that he received from their father. They were all, save one, older than he was and yet he was the birthright son. And he was a dreamer, a dreamer of dreams that were not flattering of his brothers, whom, he indicated, would one day bow before him (see Gen. 37:5 10).
But the pit was only the beginning of troubles. The option of murder was set aside and he was pulled from the pit and sold as a slave to Ishmaelites and Midianites journeying to Egypt. From slavery he was cast into prison. He spend 13 years of his life as a slave or a prisoner (see Gen. 37:2 & 41:46). We see in Joseph a man who was absolutely committed, constant, dedicated, determined, dependable, enduring, persistent, faithful, reliable, resolute, and steady.
Lehi said to his son Lemuel "O that thou mightest be like unto this valley, firm and steadfast, and immovable in keeping the commandments of the Lord!" (1 Nephi 2:10) Joseph was firm, steadfast, immovable. In the most hostile of circumstances, he never wavered in his devotion to his principles. But there were others who did, and Moses tells their stories just before he tells Joseph's cannot be coincidence. The fact that we are told four stories about sexual purity in six chapters suggests that Moses wanted us to learn something. So let us look first at three who were as unsteady and uncertain and unstable as water.
II. JOSEPH (FIRM, STEADFAST, AND IMMOVABLE) REFUSED TO SIN AGAINST GOD. Now we have looked briefly at the early history of Joseph. At least a dozen times the Lord has promised that those who keep the commandments will prosper (see 1N2:20; 1N4:14; 2N1:9; 2N1:20; 2N4:4; 1:9; Omni 1:6; Mosiah 1:7, etc.). The story of Joseph shows us that this can be true under any circumstances, even slavery or prison. And the LORD was with Joseph, and he was a prosperous man; and he was in the house of his master the Egyptian.
"And his master saw that the LORD [was] with him, and that the LORD made all that he did to prosper in his hand.
"And Joseph found grace in his sight, and he served him: and he made him overseer over his house, and all [that] he had he put into his hand.
"And it came to pass from the time [that] he had made him overseer in his house, and over all that he had, that the LORD blessed the Egyptian's house for Joseph's sake; and the blessing of the LORD was upon all that he had in the house, and in the field.
"And he left all that he had in Joseph's hand; and he knew not ought he had, save the bread which he did eat. And Joseph was [a] goodly [person], and well favoured" (Gen. 39:3-6).
This blessing comes only by obedience, and in this case it came to a young man who had every excuse to be disobedient. His faith in God had not seemed to help his avoid troubles. His obedience to the commandments had not prevented tragedy. He cannot ask the bishop for an interview nor seek a blessing from his father. No thoughtful members of his priests' quorum will be by to offer support in his troubles. He is alone and utterly on his own. He has no reason to keep the commandments unless he wants to. If he does not, other than God, who will ever know? We must read the drama that unfolds between Joseph and his master's wife with these thoughts in mind. "And it came to pass after these things, that his master's wife cast her eyes upon Joseph; and she said, Lie with me" (Genesis 39:7).
This was not a single occurrence. He was a captive (no pun intended) audience, and she pursued him with single-minded determination. She kept after him because she knew he could not escape.
"And it came to pass, as she spake to Joseph day by day, that he hearkened not unto her, to lie by her, or to be with her" (Genesis 39:10).
Finally Joseph had to choose and he chose prison. He fled, endured false accusations, and spend years in confinement rather than assume the configuration of his circumstances. I have taken a brick to class occasionally to represent Joseph. You can use all your efforts to put a brick into an oddly shaped container, but it will always look like a brick. The container will change its nature before the brick will.
III. REUBEN, SHECHEM, AND JUDAH COMMIT SERIOUS MORAL SINS. In Genesis 35:22 we read of Reuben, "And it came to pass, when Israel dwelt in that land, that Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his father's concubine: and Israel heard it." This matter was still an issue years later when Israel gave Reuben his final blessing: Reuben, thou art my firstborn, my might, and the beginning of my strength, the excellency of dignity, and the excellency of power . . . (Genesis 49:3)
This is a wonderful beginning to a blessing. Anyone would be pleased to have this kind of language in a patriarchal blessing. Words like "strength, excellency, dignity" might well have caused Reuben to expect something superb in this blessing. But Israel was not finished yet, for he knew that there was a problem with his son.
"Unstable as water, thou shalt not excel; because thou wentest up to thy father's bed; then defiledst thou it: he went up to my couch" (Genesis 49:4).
Or, to put it more colloquially, Reuben, if you were reliable, you could accomplish great things, but you are not. You are like water, unable to resist any outside pressure, conforming to the shape of the closest circumstance. Because of this, you shall not excel.
Henry A. Bowman, who was at one time president of a college in Missouri, might have been thinking of Reuben when he said, "When all is said and done, there is nothing gained from premarital adventure except immediate pleasure, and that at tremendous risk and exorbitant cost. No really intelligent person will burn a cathedral to fry an egg, even to satisfy a ravenous appetite" (Cited by Hugh B. Brown, in Purity is Power). I wonder how often Reuben regretted the exorbitant cost of his immorality as he wandered the ruins of his cremated cathedral.
The second story concerns a young man named Shechem and a daughter of Israel named Dinah. "And Dinah the daughter of Leah, which she bare unto Jacob, went out to see the daughters of the land. And when Shechem the son of Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took her, and lay with her, and defiled her" (Genesis 34:1,2).
Note the verbs in this passage: SAW; TOOK; LAY; DEFILED.
To this list we might add one other verb, implied in the content of Genesis 34:26: KIDNAPPED. "And [Levi and Simeon] slew Shechem his son with the edge of the sword, and took Dinah out of Shechem's house, and went out."
Shechem had not only defiled her but had kept her at his home. Now look at 34:3; Shechem was so unreliable and unstable as to mistake what he had felt and what he had done for love. "And his soul unto Dinah the daughter of Jacob, and he loved the damsel, and spake kindly unto the damsel." I hear this kind of language occasionally in interviews with students and others who want to pretend, and who perhaps even believe that their acts of immorality are the offspring of love. They need to see the progression of verbs in this story: SAW; TOOK; LAY; DEFILED; KIDNAPPED; LOVED.
What kind of relationship is that? "I loved you and so I defiled you!" A man who would say that is unstable as water.
And now to the story of Judah in Genesis 38. Judah, a widower, happened one day to see a harlot by the side of the road and stopped for a visit. He did not know that the harlot was his daughter—in—law, for she had covered her face with a veil (Gen. 38:14,15), and of course he did not know that she had been waiting for him. He had failed to keep a promise to allow her to marry his youngest son when her first two husbands had died leaving her childless. She set a trap for him, and he leapt in with both feet.
Think about this: Judah was one of the patriarchs of the 12 Tribes, a progenitor of Christ, a great grandson of Abraham, a member of the covenant race of Jehovah. And yet, when he saw a prostitute along the road, he stopped for an afternoon of immorality. How else can you account for the fact that she disguised herself and waited confidently for him at a spot where she knew he would pass?
"And he turned unto her by the way, and said, Go to, I pray thee, let me come in unto thee; (for he knew not that she was his daughter in law.) And she said, What wilt thou give me, that thou mayest come in unto me?
"And he said, I will send thee a kid from the flock. And she said, Wilt thou give me a pledge, till thou send it?
"And he said, What pledge shall I give thee? And she said, Thy signet, and thy bracelets, and thy staff that [is] in thine hand. And he gave [it] her, and came in unto her, and she conceived by him" (Gen 38:16-18).
As if the transgression itself were not enough, Judah then compounded his infamy by ordering his daughter in law burned to death when he learned that she was pregnant out of wedlock! Only the fact that she produced Judah's signet, bracelets, and staff, proving that he was the father of the unborn child, saved her life. Are you troubled like I am that this man would break solemn promises, abandon the commandments of God, and then condemn a family member to death for committing a sin that he himself had also committed? Unstable as water indeed!
Conclusion The play A Man For All Seasons, written by Robert Bolt, is the story of Sir Thomas More, a man whose conscience was not for sale. His life was less stable than his convictions. He could give up his life, but not his devotion to what he believed was right.
In the play, More has an associate named Richard Rich, a weak-willed young man interested only in the advancement of his own career and in the power and prestige that come with power and position. More is Lord Chancellor of England. Richard asks him for a job in the court of England.
MORE: Why Richard, you're shaking.
RICH: Help me.
RICH: Employ me.
RICH: (Desperately) Employ me!
RICH: I would be steadfast.
MORE: You couldn't answer for yourself even so far as tonight. (p.37).
Joseph could answer for himself. Regardless of the temptations that might come to him, and without the reinforcement of praise and acceptance from others with the same principles, Joseph kept the laws of God, particularly the law of chastity. | <urn:uuid:70c7b2eb-2c93-41da-88dc-12f14297a75a> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.ldsliving.com/Old-Testament-Lesson-11-How-Can-I-Do-This-Great-Wickedness-/s/4020 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251778272.69/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128122813-20200128152813-00064.warc.gz | en | 0.98733 | 2,925 | 3.390625 | 3 | [
0.10721207410097122,
-0.07561877369880676,
0.26149168610572815,
-0.14593851566314697,
-0.36371272802352905,
-0.06305093318223953,
0.6234511137008667,
0.05652693286538124,
-0.1573922485113144,
-0.05131464824080467,
-0.0057343654334545135,
-0.356659859418869,
-0.004220166709274054,
-0.212158... | 1 | Introduction If I were teaching this lesson, I might begin by pouring water into several different shaped containers and asking class members to comment on what we can learn from that activity about the qualities of water.
Someone will probably say that water takes the shape of its environment. If you then ask for words that describe water, you might get words like these: flimsy, unsound, mercurial, capricious, changeable, wobbly, fickle, erratic, unreliable, undependable, vacillating, untrustworthy, variable, mutable, impermanent, unsteady, uncertain, transitory, ephemeral, inconsistent, precarious, and unstable.
I am amazed at how many words the English language has to describe this rather undesirable characteristic. But this lesson will require us to think about them, because we are going to talk about three people who were much like water (one was even compared to water), and one young man who was as unlike water as it is possible to be.
I. JOSEPH IS SOLD INTO SLAVERY BY HIS BRETHREN. The scriptures give us the opportunity to watch some great people come out of broken homes. Abraham was one whose life was threatened by family members. Joseph was another. We are told of his brothers that they conspired against him to slay him (Genesis 37:18). And yet few men rose higher in life than him. With examples like Abraham and Joseph in our genealogy, it may be hard for people who suffer from imperfect families to convince the Father on judgement day that their lack of devotion and obedience ought to be excused because of what happened in their homes. Seventeen-year-old Joseph was stripped of his coat and thrown into a dry pit, and then his brothers sat down to eat! (37:24,25)
Do they not seem, except for Reuben, to be cold and heartless? The initial intent of his brothers was to leave him there to die. They were tired of what they perceived to be special treatment that he received from their father. They were all, save one, older than he was and yet he was the birthright son. And he was a dreamer, a dreamer of dreams that were not flattering of his brothers, whom, he indicated, would one day bow before him (see Gen. 37:5 10).
But the pit was only the beginning of troubles. The option of murder was set aside and he was pulled from the pit and sold as a slave to Ishmaelites and Midianites journeying to Egypt. From slavery he was cast into prison. He spend 13 years of his life as a slave or a prisoner (see Gen. 37:2 & 41:46). We see in Joseph a man who was absolutely committed, constant, dedicated, determined, dependable, enduring, persistent, faithful, reliable, resolute, and steady.
Lehi said to his son Lemuel "O that thou mightest be like unto this valley, firm and steadfast, and immovable in keeping the commandments of the Lord!" (1 Nephi 2:10) Joseph was firm, steadfast, immovable. In the most hostile of circumstances, he never wavered in his devotion to his principles. But there were others who did, and Moses tells their stories just before he tells Joseph's cannot be coincidence. The fact that we are told four stories about sexual purity in six chapters suggests that Moses wanted us to learn something. So let us look first at three who were as unsteady and uncertain and unstable as water.
II. JOSEPH (FIRM, STEADFAST, AND IMMOVABLE) REFUSED TO SIN AGAINST GOD. Now we have looked briefly at the early history of Joseph. At least a dozen times the Lord has promised that those who keep the commandments will prosper (see 1N2:20; 1N4:14; 2N1:9; 2N1:20; 2N4:4; 1:9; Omni 1:6; Mosiah 1:7, etc.). The story of Joseph shows us that this can be true under any circumstances, even slavery or prison. And the LORD was with Joseph, and he was a prosperous man; and he was in the house of his master the Egyptian.
"And his master saw that the LORD [was] with him, and that the LORD made all that he did to prosper in his hand.
"And Joseph found grace in his sight, and he served him: and he made him overseer over his house, and all [that] he had he put into his hand.
"And it came to pass from the time [that] he had made him overseer in his house, and over all that he had, that the LORD blessed the Egyptian's house for Joseph's sake; and the blessing of the LORD was upon all that he had in the house, and in the field.
"And he left all that he had in Joseph's hand; and he knew not ought he had, save the bread which he did eat. And Joseph was [a] goodly [person], and well favoured" (Gen. 39:3-6).
This blessing comes only by obedience, and in this case it came to a young man who had every excuse to be disobedient. His faith in God had not seemed to help his avoid troubles. His obedience to the commandments had not prevented tragedy. He cannot ask the bishop for an interview nor seek a blessing from his father. No thoughtful members of his priests' quorum will be by to offer support in his troubles. He is alone and utterly on his own. He has no reason to keep the commandments unless he wants to. If he does not, other than God, who will ever know? We must read the drama that unfolds between Joseph and his master's wife with these thoughts in mind. "And it came to pass after these things, that his master's wife cast her eyes upon Joseph; and she said, Lie with me" (Genesis 39:7).
This was not a single occurrence. He was a captive (no pun intended) audience, and she pursued him with single-minded determination. She kept after him because she knew he could not escape.
"And it came to pass, as she spake to Joseph day by day, that he hearkened not unto her, to lie by her, or to be with her" (Genesis 39:10).
Finally Joseph had to choose and he chose prison. He fled, endured false accusations, and spend years in confinement rather than assume the configuration of his circumstances. I have taken a brick to class occasionally to represent Joseph. You can use all your efforts to put a brick into an oddly shaped container, but it will always look like a brick. The container will change its nature before the brick will.
III. REUBEN, SHECHEM, AND JUDAH COMMIT SERIOUS MORAL SINS. In Genesis 35:22 we read of Reuben, "And it came to pass, when Israel dwelt in that land, that Reuben went and lay with Bilhah his father's concubine: and Israel heard it." This matter was still an issue years later when Israel gave Reuben his final blessing: Reuben, thou art my firstborn, my might, and the beginning of my strength, the excellency of dignity, and the excellency of power . . . (Genesis 49:3)
This is a wonderful beginning to a blessing. Anyone would be pleased to have this kind of language in a patriarchal blessing. Words like "strength, excellency, dignity" might well have caused Reuben to expect something superb in this blessing. But Israel was not finished yet, for he knew that there was a problem with his son.
"Unstable as water, thou shalt not excel; because thou wentest up to thy father's bed; then defiledst thou it: he went up to my couch" (Genesis 49:4).
Or, to put it more colloquially, Reuben, if you were reliable, you could accomplish great things, but you are not. You are like water, unable to resist any outside pressure, conforming to the shape of the closest circumstance. Because of this, you shall not excel.
Henry A. Bowman, who was at one time president of a college in Missouri, might have been thinking of Reuben when he said, "When all is said and done, there is nothing gained from premarital adventure except immediate pleasure, and that at tremendous risk and exorbitant cost. No really intelligent person will burn a cathedral to fry an egg, even to satisfy a ravenous appetite" (Cited by Hugh B. Brown, in Purity is Power). I wonder how often Reuben regretted the exorbitant cost of his immorality as he wandered the ruins of his cremated cathedral.
The second story concerns a young man named Shechem and a daughter of Israel named Dinah. "And Dinah the daughter of Leah, which she bare unto Jacob, went out to see the daughters of the land. And when Shechem the son of Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took her, and lay with her, and defiled her" (Genesis 34:1,2).
Note the verbs in this passage: SAW; TOOK; LAY; DEFILED.
To this list we might add one other verb, implied in the content of Genesis 34:26: KIDNAPPED. "And [Levi and Simeon] slew Shechem his son with the edge of the sword, and took Dinah out of Shechem's house, and went out."
Shechem had not only defiled her but had kept her at his home. Now look at 34:3; Shechem was so unreliable and unstable as to mistake what he had felt and what he had done for love. "And his soul unto Dinah the daughter of Jacob, and he loved the damsel, and spake kindly unto the damsel." I hear this kind of language occasionally in interviews with students and others who want to pretend, and who perhaps even believe that their acts of immorality are the offspring of love. They need to see the progression of verbs in this story: SAW; TOOK; LAY; DEFILED; KIDNAPPED; LOVED.
What kind of relationship is that? "I loved you and so I defiled you!" A man who would say that is unstable as water.
And now to the story of Judah in Genesis 38. Judah, a widower, happened one day to see a harlot by the side of the road and stopped for a visit. He did not know that the harlot was his daughter—in—law, for she had covered her face with a veil (Gen. 38:14,15), and of course he did not know that she had been waiting for him. He had failed to keep a promise to allow her to marry his youngest son when her first two husbands had died leaving her childless. She set a trap for him, and he leapt in with both feet.
Think about this: Judah was one of the patriarchs of the 12 Tribes, a progenitor of Christ, a great grandson of Abraham, a member of the covenant race of Jehovah. And yet, when he saw a prostitute along the road, he stopped for an afternoon of immorality. How else can you account for the fact that she disguised herself and waited confidently for him at a spot where she knew he would pass?
"And he turned unto her by the way, and said, Go to, I pray thee, let me come in unto thee; (for he knew not that she was his daughter in law.) And she said, What wilt thou give me, that thou mayest come in unto me?
"And he said, I will send thee a kid from the flock. And she said, Wilt thou give me a pledge, till thou send it?
"And he said, What pledge shall I give thee? And she said, Thy signet, and thy bracelets, and thy staff that [is] in thine hand. And he gave [it] her, and came in unto her, and she conceived by him" (Gen 38:16-18).
As if the transgression itself were not enough, Judah then compounded his infamy by ordering his daughter in law burned to death when he learned that she was pregnant out of wedlock! Only the fact that she produced Judah's signet, bracelets, and staff, proving that he was the father of the unborn child, saved her life. Are you troubled like I am that this man would break solemn promises, abandon the commandments of God, and then condemn a family member to death for committing a sin that he himself had also committed? Unstable as water indeed!
Conclusion The play A Man For All Seasons, written by Robert Bolt, is the story of Sir Thomas More, a man whose conscience was not for sale. His life was less stable than his convictions. He could give up his life, but not his devotion to what he believed was right.
In the play, More has an associate named Richard Rich, a weak-willed young man interested only in the advancement of his own career and in the power and prestige that come with power and position. More is Lord Chancellor of England. Richard asks him for a job in the court of England.
MORE: Why Richard, you're shaking.
RICH: Help me.
RICH: Employ me.
RICH: (Desperately) Employ me!
RICH: I would be steadfast.
MORE: You couldn't answer for yourself even so far as tonight. (p.37).
Joseph could answer for himself. Regardless of the temptations that might come to him, and without the reinforcement of praise and acceptance from others with the same principles, Joseph kept the laws of God, particularly the law of chastity. | 2,918 | ENGLISH | 1 |
|Søk i stiler|
William Shakespeare (1564-1616)
Om Shakepeares liv og teateret.
There is not much we know about William Shakespeare, but one thing is shore. He is one of the world’s biggest play-writers and poets who lived during the late sixteenth- and early seventeenth centuries, and still have the most popular plays. His plays are fantastic and known all over the world.
William Shakespeare was born into a middle class well-respected family in Stratford on April 23 in 1564. His father, John, was a well-known man in the town. He held several local governmental positions, and he was a glove maker who owned a small leather shop, shortly said; a businessman, and on top of that he became a mayor in 1568. Mary Arden, his mother, was a daughter of the local farmer. Though she was related to a wealthy family. William was one of eight children. He was their third child, but their first son. William was going on the Latin school in the town, but in 1576 his father came in economic problems. Then his parents couldn’t afford the Latin school anymore, and William started at King Edward VI Grammar School with some of the other boys in his class. This school was the hole year round for nine ours a day. The teachers was very strict and disciplinarians. Even though he spent much time at school, he had a fascinating childhood. When William turned 15 years, he started working. He didn’t go to any university, but he did read a lot at home.
At 28th of November 1582 did William Shakespeare marry Anne Hathaway. At that time was William only 18, and Anne was twenty-six years old. The next year they got their firs born, Susanna Shakespeare. Two years after Susanna, they got the twins Judith and Hamnet. Hamnet, their little boy, didn’t have a long life. He died in 1596. At the time Shakespeare worked in London, but in 1597 he bought a large and expensive Stratford house to his wife and daughters. He didn’t want them to live in a small house when he was working. Susanna and Judith had a nice childhood. And in 1607 did Susanna get married, and in 1616 did Judith get married.
Shakespeare had six good friends. And in 1599 they bought a new outdoor theatre in London called The Globe. The Globe was one of the biggest theatres at that age. In 1601 there was a big changes on his plays. So far his plays were happy and optimistic, but no longer, now was his plays tragic and dramatic. The reason is unknown, but there aren’t few who think it was something with his personal life.
When Queen Elizabeth I died in 1603, was her cousin James I, the new king of England. King James I was very supportive to Shakespeare and his friends. And to show them that he gave them licence to call themselves The King’s Men. But they tough had to do one thing to return, they had to entertain the court regularly.
He moved back to his family in the Stratford house, where he died peacefully on his birthday 1616, only 52 years old.
The theatre at Shakespeare’s age was a replacement of the religious theatre from the Catholic Church. It was now made out of the new tolerance, humanistic focus, partly the result of The Renaissance. This theatre was inspired the rediscovery of the antique writers. It was now usually that the actress was in travelling troupes. The troupes went different places whit different plays, and it all depended at witch kind of people there were. At this time they played outside, but as time went on, most of the troupes had a room they played in.
In the theatre you have three main categories. Those are tragedy, comedy and history. Tragedy is Shakespeare’s most popular category. Tragedies are sad, often complicated, disagreement, enemies and a bad ending were someone usually dies. If you have read or seen some of Shakespeare’s tragedies, will you see that he have some characteristic common stamps. There is often an up-class man, like a prince or a king. And this man is the tragic hero. In every play there is different complications, and the hero must solve these problem in different situations. One famous tragedy written of Shakespeare is "Romeo and Juliet"
The happy comedies are supposed to make people laugh; they shall be funny, with lots of jokes. And the characters are known for not being realistic. The romance plays are more like the fairytales. They shall be filled with romantic scenes, often with a hero rescuing a girl or a princess. And then there are the problem plays. They are also funny, but more realistic. Shakespeare isn’t known for happy comedies, his comedies are more realistic. One of Shakespeare’s well-known comedies is "The Comedy of Errors"
There are many respected writers and poets in the world, but Shakespeare is in his own class. No other writer is so popular and famous in so long time after his death, and still will be. No other writer has made that many people interested in the theatre. And he is still making people interested to his plays.
Kommentarer fra brukere
En gang i blant skrives det kommentarer som mangler seriøsitet eller som ikke har noe med oppgavens tema å gjøre. Hjelp oss å rydde! Klikk 'varsle' nederst til høyre på de meldinger du mener må bort. Så fjerner redaksjonen kommentarene etter hvert.
Legg inn en melding!
Obs! Meldinger som ikke omhandler oppgavens innhold slettes. Det samme gjelder meldinger uten stor grad av saklighet. | <urn:uuid:2cae2917-71c3-4cf9-b9dd-0f4b663808c9> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://www.daria.no/skole/?tekst=6685 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250601615.66/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121044233-20200121073233-00234.warc.gz | en | 0.985194 | 1,280 | 3.359375 | 3 | [
0.4509083032608032,
-0.08882778137922287,
0.7854188680648804,
-0.33301132917404175,
-0.4764679968357086,
-0.2914206087589264,
0.2376394420862198,
0.24143093824386597,
-0.2849815785884857,
-0.21907150745391846,
-0.008829204365611076,
-0.07811766117811203,
-0.0008300875779241323,
0.191330701... | 1 | |Søk i stiler|
William Shakespeare (1564-1616)
Om Shakepeares liv og teateret.
There is not much we know about William Shakespeare, but one thing is shore. He is one of the world’s biggest play-writers and poets who lived during the late sixteenth- and early seventeenth centuries, and still have the most popular plays. His plays are fantastic and known all over the world.
William Shakespeare was born into a middle class well-respected family in Stratford on April 23 in 1564. His father, John, was a well-known man in the town. He held several local governmental positions, and he was a glove maker who owned a small leather shop, shortly said; a businessman, and on top of that he became a mayor in 1568. Mary Arden, his mother, was a daughter of the local farmer. Though she was related to a wealthy family. William was one of eight children. He was their third child, but their first son. William was going on the Latin school in the town, but in 1576 his father came in economic problems. Then his parents couldn’t afford the Latin school anymore, and William started at King Edward VI Grammar School with some of the other boys in his class. This school was the hole year round for nine ours a day. The teachers was very strict and disciplinarians. Even though he spent much time at school, he had a fascinating childhood. When William turned 15 years, he started working. He didn’t go to any university, but he did read a lot at home.
At 28th of November 1582 did William Shakespeare marry Anne Hathaway. At that time was William only 18, and Anne was twenty-six years old. The next year they got their firs born, Susanna Shakespeare. Two years after Susanna, they got the twins Judith and Hamnet. Hamnet, their little boy, didn’t have a long life. He died in 1596. At the time Shakespeare worked in London, but in 1597 he bought a large and expensive Stratford house to his wife and daughters. He didn’t want them to live in a small house when he was working. Susanna and Judith had a nice childhood. And in 1607 did Susanna get married, and in 1616 did Judith get married.
Shakespeare had six good friends. And in 1599 they bought a new outdoor theatre in London called The Globe. The Globe was one of the biggest theatres at that age. In 1601 there was a big changes on his plays. So far his plays were happy and optimistic, but no longer, now was his plays tragic and dramatic. The reason is unknown, but there aren’t few who think it was something with his personal life.
When Queen Elizabeth I died in 1603, was her cousin James I, the new king of England. King James I was very supportive to Shakespeare and his friends. And to show them that he gave them licence to call themselves The King’s Men. But they tough had to do one thing to return, they had to entertain the court regularly.
He moved back to his family in the Stratford house, where he died peacefully on his birthday 1616, only 52 years old.
The theatre at Shakespeare’s age was a replacement of the religious theatre from the Catholic Church. It was now made out of the new tolerance, humanistic focus, partly the result of The Renaissance. This theatre was inspired the rediscovery of the antique writers. It was now usually that the actress was in travelling troupes. The troupes went different places whit different plays, and it all depended at witch kind of people there were. At this time they played outside, but as time went on, most of the troupes had a room they played in.
In the theatre you have three main categories. Those are tragedy, comedy and history. Tragedy is Shakespeare’s most popular category. Tragedies are sad, often complicated, disagreement, enemies and a bad ending were someone usually dies. If you have read or seen some of Shakespeare’s tragedies, will you see that he have some characteristic common stamps. There is often an up-class man, like a prince or a king. And this man is the tragic hero. In every play there is different complications, and the hero must solve these problem in different situations. One famous tragedy written of Shakespeare is "Romeo and Juliet"
The happy comedies are supposed to make people laugh; they shall be funny, with lots of jokes. And the characters are known for not being realistic. The romance plays are more like the fairytales. They shall be filled with romantic scenes, often with a hero rescuing a girl or a princess. And then there are the problem plays. They are also funny, but more realistic. Shakespeare isn’t known for happy comedies, his comedies are more realistic. One of Shakespeare’s well-known comedies is "The Comedy of Errors"
There are many respected writers and poets in the world, but Shakespeare is in his own class. No other writer is so popular and famous in so long time after his death, and still will be. No other writer has made that many people interested in the theatre. And he is still making people interested to his plays.
Kommentarer fra brukere
En gang i blant skrives det kommentarer som mangler seriøsitet eller som ikke har noe med oppgavens tema å gjøre. Hjelp oss å rydde! Klikk 'varsle' nederst til høyre på de meldinger du mener må bort. Så fjerner redaksjonen kommentarene etter hvert.
Legg inn en melding!
Obs! Meldinger som ikke omhandler oppgavens innhold slettes. Det samme gjelder meldinger uten stor grad av saklighet. | 1,252 | ENGLISH | 1 |
All the rest have thirty-one; Excepting leap year, that 's the time When February's days are twenty-nine. We cast out the old and welcome in the new. He looked back to the last year and forward to the new one. The Roman New Year festival was called the Calends, and people decorated their homes and gave each other gifts.
Death follows a soldier at every step of the way in the battlefield. Yet, a valiant soldier lumbers on, braving the enemy bullets and the injuries to his body.
Death often comes slowly inflicting excruciating pain on the wounded solitary soldier. As the Sun sets in his life, he finds no one to bring him succor or solace. Finally, he breathes his last. But, the gutsy soldier dies for a cause — the call to defend his country. Some unflinching steadfast soldiers, the refusal of their limbs to continue fighting brings lament and remorse.
In the present case, what hurt the dying soldier more is the fear his mother and wife could assume that he capitulated before the enemy before shedding the last drop of blood.
It is a hugely inspirational song that sings the praise of a fatally wounded soldier bemoaning not his death, but his inability to carry on fighting. He dies defying death. For generation to come, his story of valour and dedication will imbibe the never-say-die spirit in countless soldiers.
The battle ground was the scene of intense fighting the day before. Dead bodies of fallen soldiers lay strewn all over the place. Drained of all his energy, a solitary soldier had slumped on the ground under a tree.
The morning Sun had begun to shine. He had been grievously wounded. He saw another soldier nearby, and motioned him to come nearer. He stated how grueling the fighting had been the night before.
The soldier had been grievously wounded in his chest, but he chose to play it down. The second soldier the author as narrator looked at his comrade and discovered that his shirt was blood-stained and his uniform was soiled.
All this pointed to the fact that the soldier had endured a savage fight.
It was a remarkable show of defiance and grit. With astounding courage, he could conceal the excruciating pain to put up a brave face. The young soldier was fast losing his vitality, but his mind was not ready to give up.
He narrated how his 2—strong contingent had managed to climb atop a rock in the previous night. As they began to descend, the enemy rained bullets on them killing almost all of them instantly. It had been a very bloody encounter. Then the soldier looked within.
He felt cold although the Sun shone brightly. His limbs had become numb and insipid. A creeping feeling of doom had overtaken his mind.
He felt he was nearing his dotage.Robert Frost’s Poem, The Road Not Taken - Robert Frost’s poem, The Road Not Taken, is a descriptive poem about a person’s conflict with the right path to take throughout life.
The Road Not Taken and Other Poems (Dover Thrift Editions) [Robert Frost] on alphabetnyc.com *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Two roads diverged in a wood, and I I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference. These deceptively simple lines from the title poem of this collection suggest Robert Frost at his most representative: the language is simple.
is and in to a was not you i of it the be he his but for are this that by on at they with which she or from had we will have an what been one if would who has her.
From a beautiful country setting to a tragic ending, Robert Frost's poem 'Out, Out-' has it all.
In this lesson, we'll learn how a slip of a saw blade changes a young boy's life and analyze the. Many people consider Robert Frost to be one of America's greatest poets, and one of his best known poems is "Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening".
In the poem, Frost describes a person stopping just outside of town in a wooded area with his horse. Stopping By Woods On A Snowy Evening by Robert Frost.. Whose woods these are I think I know.
His house is in the village though He will not see me stopping here To watch his woods fill up with snow/5(). | <urn:uuid:9e970600-8af4-4fc2-9ea0-a9fb5df656d7> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://pocofyfaguqinade.alphabetnyc.com/the-symbolism-in-robert-frosts-poem-stopping-by-woods-on-a-snowy-evening-37927lr.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250615407.46/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124040939-20200124065939-00384.warc.gz | en | 0.985607 | 915 | 3.28125 | 3 | [
-0.6285279989242554,
0.3985044062137604,
0.36267706751823425,
-0.1649802029132843,
-0.08792908489704132,
0.34352049231529236,
0.012018883600831032,
0.313377320766449,
0.19288623332977295,
-0.5545047521591187,
0.2962329089641571,
0.0029645459726452827,
0.30818402767181396,
0.248165190219879... | 1 | All the rest have thirty-one; Excepting leap year, that 's the time When February's days are twenty-nine. We cast out the old and welcome in the new. He looked back to the last year and forward to the new one. The Roman New Year festival was called the Calends, and people decorated their homes and gave each other gifts.
Death follows a soldier at every step of the way in the battlefield. Yet, a valiant soldier lumbers on, braving the enemy bullets and the injuries to his body.
Death often comes slowly inflicting excruciating pain on the wounded solitary soldier. As the Sun sets in his life, he finds no one to bring him succor or solace. Finally, he breathes his last. But, the gutsy soldier dies for a cause — the call to defend his country. Some unflinching steadfast soldiers, the refusal of their limbs to continue fighting brings lament and remorse.
In the present case, what hurt the dying soldier more is the fear his mother and wife could assume that he capitulated before the enemy before shedding the last drop of blood.
It is a hugely inspirational song that sings the praise of a fatally wounded soldier bemoaning not his death, but his inability to carry on fighting. He dies defying death. For generation to come, his story of valour and dedication will imbibe the never-say-die spirit in countless soldiers.
The battle ground was the scene of intense fighting the day before. Dead bodies of fallen soldiers lay strewn all over the place. Drained of all his energy, a solitary soldier had slumped on the ground under a tree.
The morning Sun had begun to shine. He had been grievously wounded. He saw another soldier nearby, and motioned him to come nearer. He stated how grueling the fighting had been the night before.
The soldier had been grievously wounded in his chest, but he chose to play it down. The second soldier the author as narrator looked at his comrade and discovered that his shirt was blood-stained and his uniform was soiled.
All this pointed to the fact that the soldier had endured a savage fight.
It was a remarkable show of defiance and grit. With astounding courage, he could conceal the excruciating pain to put up a brave face. The young soldier was fast losing his vitality, but his mind was not ready to give up.
He narrated how his 2—strong contingent had managed to climb atop a rock in the previous night. As they began to descend, the enemy rained bullets on them killing almost all of them instantly. It had been a very bloody encounter. Then the soldier looked within.
He felt cold although the Sun shone brightly. His limbs had become numb and insipid. A creeping feeling of doom had overtaken his mind.
He felt he was nearing his dotage.Robert Frost’s Poem, The Road Not Taken - Robert Frost’s poem, The Road Not Taken, is a descriptive poem about a person’s conflict with the right path to take throughout life.
The Road Not Taken and Other Poems (Dover Thrift Editions) [Robert Frost] on alphabetnyc.com *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Two roads diverged in a wood, and I I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference. These deceptively simple lines from the title poem of this collection suggest Robert Frost at his most representative: the language is simple.
is and in to a was not you i of it the be he his but for are this that by on at they with which she or from had we will have an what been one if would who has her.
From a beautiful country setting to a tragic ending, Robert Frost's poem 'Out, Out-' has it all.
In this lesson, we'll learn how a slip of a saw blade changes a young boy's life and analyze the. Many people consider Robert Frost to be one of America's greatest poets, and one of his best known poems is "Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening".
In the poem, Frost describes a person stopping just outside of town in a wooded area with his horse. Stopping By Woods On A Snowy Evening by Robert Frost.. Whose woods these are I think I know.
His house is in the village though He will not see me stopping here To watch his woods fill up with snow/5(). | 899 | ENGLISH | 1 |
In the 1930s, America was in the midst of the Great Depression, but those dark days spurred a period of reinvention and reinvigoration. President Roosevelt’s New Deal created programs that reached out to workers and new immigrants. Artists were employed to document America and its people, and to ornament the new bridges, parks and buildings that were being constructed.
Planned communities sprang up across the country, including a very special one in the heart of Monmouth County, New Jersey. An exhibition at Morven Museum & Garden, “Dreaming of Utopia: Roosevelt, New Jersey” tells the story of a unique community that continues to thrive today, albeit not as the cooperative farm and factory town it was first envisioned to be.
Originally called Jersey Homesteads, Roosevelt was a town built for recent immigrants; many of which were garment workers. In this ideal cooperative community, they would live and work, making clothing from start to finish. The government-built houses were designed by Alfred Katzner and his assistant – the now revered architect Louis Kahn – who were both enamored with the Bauhaus style. They gave the modest houses high-end architectural elements unusual for the time, such as flat roofs and floor-to-ceiling windows.
However, by 1939, the cooperative had already failed, and the factory closed. This was the end of Jersey Homesteads’ first chapter, but its next chapter is what made the town more than just an historical footnote.
Artists began to move to Jersey Homesteads, renamed Roosevelt to honor the president after his death in 1945. These worldly, creative types appreciated the modern style of the houses, and the progressive nature of the town’s politics. Many had worked as artists or photographers for New Deal programs such as the Works Progress Administration and the Farm Security Administration. Their politics were progressive, and the town’s history appealed to them. These bohemians found community in Roosevelt, as well as open space for their young families and proximity to New York.
The first artists to discover Roosevelt were Ben and Bernarda Bryson Shahn. Ben Shahn was a rising star, on his way to becoming the most well-known artist in America by the 1940s. Bernarda Bryson Shahn was a writer, illustrator and painter. They arrived in Jersey Homesteads to paint a mural for the community center, which now houses the local elementary school. Their 12 x 45’ fresco mural can still be seen there. It tells the town’s story, from immigrants arriving in America, through the growth of the labor movement, to the founding of the cooperative, where farm and factory would support a decent life for workers.
After the grand experiment was called off in 1939, the government first rented, then sold off the houses. The Shahns were among the first to buy. They told their friends, and by the 1950s, there was a critical mass of artists in town. A new sort of utopia was formed, with artists playing a vital part in the small town (population about 800). Morven’s galleries include a wonderful selection of art by the first generation of artists to call Roosevelt home, including Jacob Landau, Edwin and Louise Rosskam, Elizabeth Dauber, Gregorio Prestopino, Sol Libsohn, and Ben and Bernarda Bryson Shahn.
The entrance to “Dreaming of Utopia” at Morven features a large-scale reproduction of the Shahns’ mural. Also on display are Otto Wester’s futuristic aluminum doors created for the community center, which depict the field and factory workers of Jersey Homesteads and, in the distance, the skyscrapers of a city. The exhibition’s engaging wall panels give the town’s history, illustrated by photographs of the first settlers, houses being built, workers on the job, and more. Objects on display include an original handwritten receipt for $500, the amount a prospective settler had to put down to reserve a place in the new town.
The galleries include work by Roosevelt artists up through the 2010s. Of special note are two busts, or “heads” by sculptor Jonathan Shahn, who has lived in Roosevelt since he was a year or two old. The first greets visitors at the entrance to the show; it’s a replica of an enormous head of Franklin D. Roosevelt located in a park near the Roosevelt school. It became the first public memorial to the president in the United States when it was dedicated in 1962, in a ceremony attended by Eleanor Roosevelt.
“Dreaming of Utopia” is an ambitious, unusual exhibition. It features not a single artistic style or medium, but a diverse community of artists, connected by their experience of living and working in Roosevelt. It was conceived and orchestrated by Elizabeth Allan, Morven Museum’s deputy director and curator, and Ilene Dube, writer and guest curator. Dube first became familiar with Roosevelt and its community of artists in the 1990s, when she was an editorial director at “Time Off.”
“I was just fascinated by the fact that subsequent generations of artists were continuing to this day,” says Dube. She was inspired to make a short film, “Generations of Artists: Roosevelt, NJ,” and, ultimately, to guest curate the exhibition now at Morven.
The opening of “Dreaming of Utopia” was a homecoming for Rooseveltians who have moved on, and a steady stream of locals are visiting to see the history of their town and its artists honored. But the meaning of a place like Roosevelt speaks to a wider audience. Not only were many of the artists well known, even famous in their day, but Roosevelt was founded on an ethic that intertwined labor, art, and social responsibility.
“What I find so exciting,” says Dube, “is that the issues that concerned the artists working in Roosevelt back in the 1930s are still so relevant today — civil rights, economic equality, immigration, labor issues and fair pay, the right to free speech, and women’s reproductive rights.” In today’s polarized world, many artists are returning to social and political themes. “Dreaming of Utopia: Roosevelt, New Jersey” serves as a history lesson about a place where another path was taken, and where progressive politics, art, music, and the value of a simple life continue to flourish.
To find out more about Roosevelt’s history and its artists, “Dreaming of Utopia: Roosevelt, New Jersey” at Morven Museum & Garden in Princeton is a first stop. The exhibition is on view through May 10, 2020. Next, visit the Roosevelt Arts Project for upcoming community events, concerts, and tours. | <urn:uuid:6b9f723f-a342-4d8b-8bfc-c982545b143e> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.stateoftheartsnj.com/?cat=34 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250608295.52/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123041345-20200123070345-00071.warc.gz | en | 0.980117 | 1,415 | 3.578125 | 4 | [
0.02239507995545864,
0.3389741778373718,
0.1151728630065918,
0.15419471263885498,
0.07545477151870728,
0.4117898643016815,
-0.4900415539741516,
-0.0908888578414917,
-0.4397629201412201,
-0.27255648374557495,
0.31282997131347656,
0.6312571167945862,
0.17065425217151642,
0.8004143238067627,
... | 5 | In the 1930s, America was in the midst of the Great Depression, but those dark days spurred a period of reinvention and reinvigoration. President Roosevelt’s New Deal created programs that reached out to workers and new immigrants. Artists were employed to document America and its people, and to ornament the new bridges, parks and buildings that were being constructed.
Planned communities sprang up across the country, including a very special one in the heart of Monmouth County, New Jersey. An exhibition at Morven Museum & Garden, “Dreaming of Utopia: Roosevelt, New Jersey” tells the story of a unique community that continues to thrive today, albeit not as the cooperative farm and factory town it was first envisioned to be.
Originally called Jersey Homesteads, Roosevelt was a town built for recent immigrants; many of which were garment workers. In this ideal cooperative community, they would live and work, making clothing from start to finish. The government-built houses were designed by Alfred Katzner and his assistant – the now revered architect Louis Kahn – who were both enamored with the Bauhaus style. They gave the modest houses high-end architectural elements unusual for the time, such as flat roofs and floor-to-ceiling windows.
However, by 1939, the cooperative had already failed, and the factory closed. This was the end of Jersey Homesteads’ first chapter, but its next chapter is what made the town more than just an historical footnote.
Artists began to move to Jersey Homesteads, renamed Roosevelt to honor the president after his death in 1945. These worldly, creative types appreciated the modern style of the houses, and the progressive nature of the town’s politics. Many had worked as artists or photographers for New Deal programs such as the Works Progress Administration and the Farm Security Administration. Their politics were progressive, and the town’s history appealed to them. These bohemians found community in Roosevelt, as well as open space for their young families and proximity to New York.
The first artists to discover Roosevelt were Ben and Bernarda Bryson Shahn. Ben Shahn was a rising star, on his way to becoming the most well-known artist in America by the 1940s. Bernarda Bryson Shahn was a writer, illustrator and painter. They arrived in Jersey Homesteads to paint a mural for the community center, which now houses the local elementary school. Their 12 x 45’ fresco mural can still be seen there. It tells the town’s story, from immigrants arriving in America, through the growth of the labor movement, to the founding of the cooperative, where farm and factory would support a decent life for workers.
After the grand experiment was called off in 1939, the government first rented, then sold off the houses. The Shahns were among the first to buy. They told their friends, and by the 1950s, there was a critical mass of artists in town. A new sort of utopia was formed, with artists playing a vital part in the small town (population about 800). Morven’s galleries include a wonderful selection of art by the first generation of artists to call Roosevelt home, including Jacob Landau, Edwin and Louise Rosskam, Elizabeth Dauber, Gregorio Prestopino, Sol Libsohn, and Ben and Bernarda Bryson Shahn.
The entrance to “Dreaming of Utopia” at Morven features a large-scale reproduction of the Shahns’ mural. Also on display are Otto Wester’s futuristic aluminum doors created for the community center, which depict the field and factory workers of Jersey Homesteads and, in the distance, the skyscrapers of a city. The exhibition’s engaging wall panels give the town’s history, illustrated by photographs of the first settlers, houses being built, workers on the job, and more. Objects on display include an original handwritten receipt for $500, the amount a prospective settler had to put down to reserve a place in the new town.
The galleries include work by Roosevelt artists up through the 2010s. Of special note are two busts, or “heads” by sculptor Jonathan Shahn, who has lived in Roosevelt since he was a year or two old. The first greets visitors at the entrance to the show; it’s a replica of an enormous head of Franklin D. Roosevelt located in a park near the Roosevelt school. It became the first public memorial to the president in the United States when it was dedicated in 1962, in a ceremony attended by Eleanor Roosevelt.
“Dreaming of Utopia” is an ambitious, unusual exhibition. It features not a single artistic style or medium, but a diverse community of artists, connected by their experience of living and working in Roosevelt. It was conceived and orchestrated by Elizabeth Allan, Morven Museum’s deputy director and curator, and Ilene Dube, writer and guest curator. Dube first became familiar with Roosevelt and its community of artists in the 1990s, when she was an editorial director at “Time Off.”
“I was just fascinated by the fact that subsequent generations of artists were continuing to this day,” says Dube. She was inspired to make a short film, “Generations of Artists: Roosevelt, NJ,” and, ultimately, to guest curate the exhibition now at Morven.
The opening of “Dreaming of Utopia” was a homecoming for Rooseveltians who have moved on, and a steady stream of locals are visiting to see the history of their town and its artists honored. But the meaning of a place like Roosevelt speaks to a wider audience. Not only were many of the artists well known, even famous in their day, but Roosevelt was founded on an ethic that intertwined labor, art, and social responsibility.
“What I find so exciting,” says Dube, “is that the issues that concerned the artists working in Roosevelt back in the 1930s are still so relevant today — civil rights, economic equality, immigration, labor issues and fair pay, the right to free speech, and women’s reproductive rights.” In today’s polarized world, many artists are returning to social and political themes. “Dreaming of Utopia: Roosevelt, New Jersey” serves as a history lesson about a place where another path was taken, and where progressive politics, art, music, and the value of a simple life continue to flourish.
To find out more about Roosevelt’s history and its artists, “Dreaming of Utopia: Roosevelt, New Jersey” at Morven Museum & Garden in Princeton is a first stop. The exhibition is on view through May 10, 2020. Next, visit the Roosevelt Arts Project for upcoming community events, concerts, and tours. | 1,397 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Pythagoras of Samos had lived from 570 to 490 BCE. He was an Ionian Greek who eventually became one of the most famous philosophers, mathematicians, Gnostics and brothers who has ever lived. He was the founder of a very popular religious movement called Pythagoreanism, and his followers were known as the Pythagoreans. The life and teachings of Pythagoras are still followed to this day. Especially amongst the Rosicrucians and Freemasons, who carry on his teachings to this very day.
THE MASONIC CONNECTION TO PYTHAGORAS
Manly P. Hall had written about the importance of Pythagoras in Masonry in his book, “The Secret Teachings of all Ages;”
“Pythagoras’ teachings are of the most transcendental importance to Masons, inasmuch as they are the necessary fruit of his contact with the leading philosophers of the whole civilized world of his own day, and must represent that in which all were agreed, shorn of all weeds of controversy. Thus, the determined stand made by Pythagoras, in defense of pure monotheism, is sufficient evidence that the tradition to the effect that the unity of God was the supreme secret of all the ancient initiations is substantially correct.
The philosophical school of Pythagoras was, in a measure, also a series of initiations, for he caused his pupils to pass through a series of degrees and never permitted them personal contact with himself until they had reached the higher grades. According to his biographers, his degrees were three in number. The first, that of ‘Mathematicus,’ assuring his pupils proficiency in mathematics and geometry, which was then, as it would be now if Masonry were properly inculcated, the basis upon which all other knowledge was erected. Secondly, the degree of ‘Theoreticus,’ which dealt with superficial applications of the exact sciences, and, lastly, the degree of ‘Electus,’ which entitled the candidate to pass forward into the light of the fullest illumination which he was capable of absorbing. The pupils of the Pythagorean school were divided into ‘exoterici,’ or pupils in the outer grades, and ‘esoterici,’ after they had passed the third degree of initiation and were entitled to the secret wisdom. Silence, secrecy and unconditional obedience were cardinal principles of this great order.” (See Ancient Freemasonry.)
Pythagoras was simply the lover of wisdom. He had travelled extensively around the world in seek of the secret knowledge of various cultures, religions and orders, where he would be initiated into the secret mysteries of some of these orders. Not only did he travel into Egypt and Chaldaea, he also had traveled to learn from the Ancient Brotherhood that had resided on the Island now called Crete in the Mediterranean Sea. An island that I like to call, the “land of creation”; since after all, the name Crete means “to create.” A place also known throughout history as the Garden of Eden, Atlantis, Arcadia, the Holy Land, Land of Milk and Honey, and the Sacred Mountain of Zeus (Jove or Jupiter). Crete was where the Rule of Law under the mythical Minos had first began, and where the order for thousands of years had ruled both the land and sea.
In the 20th century book, The Pythagorean Sourcebook by Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie, he explains the initiation in Crete;
Going to Crete, Pythagoras besought initiation from the priests of Morgos, one of the Idaean Dactyli, by whom he was purified with the meteoritic thunder-stone. In the morning he lay stretched upon his face by the sea-side; at night, he lay beside a river, crowned with a black lamb’s wollen wreath. Descending into the Idaean cave, wrapped in black wool, he stayed there twentyseven days, according to custom; he sacrificed to zeus, and saw the throne which there is yearly made for him. On Zeus’s tomb, Pythagoras inscribed an epigram, “Pythagoras to Zeus,” which begins: “Zeus deceased here lies, whom men call Jove.”
It was here where Pythagoras had learned the laws of Minos and was initiated by the Ancient Priesthood of Jupiter (Amon) on the Sacred Mountain of Mount Ida (Zion), and in the same cave on Crete that the greatest of all Greek Gods, Zeus was educated and also hidden from his most vengeful father, known in mythology as Cronus and in science as Saturn. This priesthood is the same one who had also initiated many other very famous people throughout history who had huge impacts on the world. People you may know, such as Alexander the Great who was initiated in the Siwa Oasis in Egypt, and Roman Emperors like Julius Caesar, and Augustus Caesar who would become the first Pontifex Maximus of this 6th Age, in which we are currently, in the year of 2014.
The Priesthood of Jupiter have been known by many names throughout history such as the the Priests of Pan, Luperci, Curetes (Kuretes)
“Some say that, of the nine Telkhines (Telchines) who lived in Rhodes, those who accompanied Rhea to Krete (Crete) and ‘reared’ Zeus ‘in his youth’ were named Kouretes (Curetes); and thatKyrbas (Cyrbas), a comrade of these, who was the founder of Hierapytna, afforded a pretext to the Prasians for saying among the Rhodians that theKorybantes(Corybantes) were certain Daimones, sons of Athena and Helios (the Sun) [i.e. this was regarded as a lie].”
Plutarch had said, “that according to a divine nature and justice, the souls of virtuous men are advanced to the rank of daemons; and that from demons, if they are properly purified, they are exalted into gods, not by any political institution, but according to right reason.”
PYTHAGORAS AND HIS INITIATES
He [Pythagoras] gathered around him a small group of sincere disciples whom he instructed in the secret wisdom which had been revealed to him, and also in the fundamentals of occult mathematics, music, and astronomy, which he considered to be the triangular foundation of all the arts and sciences. — Manly P. Hall; The Secret Teachings of all Ages
My research and travels have led me back to the original homeland of the Brotherhood, which is on the island of Crete. This conclusion is based on over three years of extensive work, communication, and science that backs up my research with real-life facts. These articles and my subsequent research on Crete are witness and testament to this truth and light I have brought forward to the Brotherhood at their request.
I believe Pythagoras is an ancient Greek ancestor of mine. The reason I state this, is NOT to claim divine right or to be on the same level as Pythagoras, but to write about truth. This information is not based on allusions of self grander, but on the science and of various physical characteristics. This would relate to my comprehension of the secret mysteries, and the fact that I easily excel most people in the occult. There is also the science such as the white birthmark on my thigh, which Pythagoras also had, and the science of DNA tests that I had done in the past two years. My birthmarks and DNA all trace back to many of the same locations where Pythagoras had lived and traveled. These same places could also be where the current original government of the Great White Brotherhood via their various secret orders had first originated on the planet earth.
Notwithstanding attempts made to obliterate all records of the teachings of Pythagoras, fragments have survived which give clues to some of the simpler parts of his philosophy. The major secrets were never committed to writing, but were communicated orally to a few chosen disciples. These apparently dated not divulge their secrets to the profane, the result being that when death sealed their lips the arcana died with them. — Manly P. Hall; The Secret Teachings of all Ages
Or so they thought. The Phoenix arises and the arcana never dies…… | <urn:uuid:80f3b7e0-8696-473c-8ad9-37db84522935> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://gnosticwarrior.com/pythagoras-initiated.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250590107.3/warc/CC-MAIN-20200117180950-20200117204950-00342.warc.gz | en | 0.983051 | 1,774 | 3.328125 | 3 | [
0.13353876769542694,
0.23680105805397034,
0.06787863373756409,
-0.16118638217449188,
-0.577616274356842,
-0.10670515149831772,
0.2347402274608612,
0.19060036540031433,
-0.17435713112354279,
0.2595289945602417,
-0.509183406829834,
-0.31200695037841797,
-0.05817189812660217,
0.37053954601287... | 6 | Pythagoras of Samos had lived from 570 to 490 BCE. He was an Ionian Greek who eventually became one of the most famous philosophers, mathematicians, Gnostics and brothers who has ever lived. He was the founder of a very popular religious movement called Pythagoreanism, and his followers were known as the Pythagoreans. The life and teachings of Pythagoras are still followed to this day. Especially amongst the Rosicrucians and Freemasons, who carry on his teachings to this very day.
THE MASONIC CONNECTION TO PYTHAGORAS
Manly P. Hall had written about the importance of Pythagoras in Masonry in his book, “The Secret Teachings of all Ages;”
“Pythagoras’ teachings are of the most transcendental importance to Masons, inasmuch as they are the necessary fruit of his contact with the leading philosophers of the whole civilized world of his own day, and must represent that in which all were agreed, shorn of all weeds of controversy. Thus, the determined stand made by Pythagoras, in defense of pure monotheism, is sufficient evidence that the tradition to the effect that the unity of God was the supreme secret of all the ancient initiations is substantially correct.
The philosophical school of Pythagoras was, in a measure, also a series of initiations, for he caused his pupils to pass through a series of degrees and never permitted them personal contact with himself until they had reached the higher grades. According to his biographers, his degrees were three in number. The first, that of ‘Mathematicus,’ assuring his pupils proficiency in mathematics and geometry, which was then, as it would be now if Masonry were properly inculcated, the basis upon which all other knowledge was erected. Secondly, the degree of ‘Theoreticus,’ which dealt with superficial applications of the exact sciences, and, lastly, the degree of ‘Electus,’ which entitled the candidate to pass forward into the light of the fullest illumination which he was capable of absorbing. The pupils of the Pythagorean school were divided into ‘exoterici,’ or pupils in the outer grades, and ‘esoterici,’ after they had passed the third degree of initiation and were entitled to the secret wisdom. Silence, secrecy and unconditional obedience were cardinal principles of this great order.” (See Ancient Freemasonry.)
Pythagoras was simply the lover of wisdom. He had travelled extensively around the world in seek of the secret knowledge of various cultures, religions and orders, where he would be initiated into the secret mysteries of some of these orders. Not only did he travel into Egypt and Chaldaea, he also had traveled to learn from the Ancient Brotherhood that had resided on the Island now called Crete in the Mediterranean Sea. An island that I like to call, the “land of creation”; since after all, the name Crete means “to create.” A place also known throughout history as the Garden of Eden, Atlantis, Arcadia, the Holy Land, Land of Milk and Honey, and the Sacred Mountain of Zeus (Jove or Jupiter). Crete was where the Rule of Law under the mythical Minos had first began, and where the order for thousands of years had ruled both the land and sea.
In the 20th century book, The Pythagorean Sourcebook by Kenneth Sylvan Guthrie, he explains the initiation in Crete;
Going to Crete, Pythagoras besought initiation from the priests of Morgos, one of the Idaean Dactyli, by whom he was purified with the meteoritic thunder-stone. In the morning he lay stretched upon his face by the sea-side; at night, he lay beside a river, crowned with a black lamb’s wollen wreath. Descending into the Idaean cave, wrapped in black wool, he stayed there twentyseven days, according to custom; he sacrificed to zeus, and saw the throne which there is yearly made for him. On Zeus’s tomb, Pythagoras inscribed an epigram, “Pythagoras to Zeus,” which begins: “Zeus deceased here lies, whom men call Jove.”
It was here where Pythagoras had learned the laws of Minos and was initiated by the Ancient Priesthood of Jupiter (Amon) on the Sacred Mountain of Mount Ida (Zion), and in the same cave on Crete that the greatest of all Greek Gods, Zeus was educated and also hidden from his most vengeful father, known in mythology as Cronus and in science as Saturn. This priesthood is the same one who had also initiated many other very famous people throughout history who had huge impacts on the world. People you may know, such as Alexander the Great who was initiated in the Siwa Oasis in Egypt, and Roman Emperors like Julius Caesar, and Augustus Caesar who would become the first Pontifex Maximus of this 6th Age, in which we are currently, in the year of 2014.
The Priesthood of Jupiter have been known by many names throughout history such as the the Priests of Pan, Luperci, Curetes (Kuretes)
“Some say that, of the nine Telkhines (Telchines) who lived in Rhodes, those who accompanied Rhea to Krete (Crete) and ‘reared’ Zeus ‘in his youth’ were named Kouretes (Curetes); and thatKyrbas (Cyrbas), a comrade of these, who was the founder of Hierapytna, afforded a pretext to the Prasians for saying among the Rhodians that theKorybantes(Corybantes) were certain Daimones, sons of Athena and Helios (the Sun) [i.e. this was regarded as a lie].”
Plutarch had said, “that according to a divine nature and justice, the souls of virtuous men are advanced to the rank of daemons; and that from demons, if they are properly purified, they are exalted into gods, not by any political institution, but according to right reason.”
PYTHAGORAS AND HIS INITIATES
He [Pythagoras] gathered around him a small group of sincere disciples whom he instructed in the secret wisdom which had been revealed to him, and also in the fundamentals of occult mathematics, music, and astronomy, which he considered to be the triangular foundation of all the arts and sciences. — Manly P. Hall; The Secret Teachings of all Ages
My research and travels have led me back to the original homeland of the Brotherhood, which is on the island of Crete. This conclusion is based on over three years of extensive work, communication, and science that backs up my research with real-life facts. These articles and my subsequent research on Crete are witness and testament to this truth and light I have brought forward to the Brotherhood at their request.
I believe Pythagoras is an ancient Greek ancestor of mine. The reason I state this, is NOT to claim divine right or to be on the same level as Pythagoras, but to write about truth. This information is not based on allusions of self grander, but on the science and of various physical characteristics. This would relate to my comprehension of the secret mysteries, and the fact that I easily excel most people in the occult. There is also the science such as the white birthmark on my thigh, which Pythagoras also had, and the science of DNA tests that I had done in the past two years. My birthmarks and DNA all trace back to many of the same locations where Pythagoras had lived and traveled. These same places could also be where the current original government of the Great White Brotherhood via their various secret orders had first originated on the planet earth.
Notwithstanding attempts made to obliterate all records of the teachings of Pythagoras, fragments have survived which give clues to some of the simpler parts of his philosophy. The major secrets were never committed to writing, but were communicated orally to a few chosen disciples. These apparently dated not divulge their secrets to the profane, the result being that when death sealed their lips the arcana died with them. — Manly P. Hall; The Secret Teachings of all Ages
Or so they thought. The Phoenix arises and the arcana never dies…… | 1,719 | ENGLISH | 1 |
During the Great War rationing was introduced for the civilians of Britain. This was not usually an issue for the armed forces as their food was supplied by the military so they had no need for ration books when with their units. If they returned home on leave, however, they would need some way of purchasing rationed food and special ration books were issued to allow them to buy food. These were small books with enough coupons for a few weeks and had yellow card covers. The front cover had space for the soldier’s details and how long he would need the book for:
This book was issued to a Lance Corporal Hewitt of the 53rd Royal Sussex Regiment who was coming back to the UK from occupation duty in Germany in 1919. The back of the book has details for the retailer:
The printing information shows that it was printed in February 1919 and was part of a batch of 500,000. The instructions to the soldier on how to use the ration book are printed on the reverse of the front cover:
The coupons themselves are printed on special paper designed to reduce the chance of someone forging the coupons:
Rationing continued in the UK until 1920 when some of the final items such as butter were finally taken off the ration. Rationing would of course return in the Second World War on a far bigger scale. This book though seems to have never been used, despite having been issued, as none of the coupons have been removed. | <urn:uuid:c185cf79-0e3d-4892-bcc4-46bddb151ab6> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://talesfromthesupplydepot.blog/2020/01/14/ww1-soldier-and-sailors-leave-or-duty-ration-book/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250598800.30/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120135447-20200120164447-00305.warc.gz | en | 0.993611 | 294 | 3.328125 | 3 | [
-0.3125026226043701,
0.31383535265922546,
0.05569375678896904,
-0.17114637792110443,
0.33720627427101135,
-0.3100934624671936,
-0.3663501441478729,
0.3040335476398468,
-0.4227977395057678,
-0.17701391875743866,
-0.11762578040361404,
-0.36061444878578186,
0.04619588702917099,
0.405254304409... | 9 | During the Great War rationing was introduced for the civilians of Britain. This was not usually an issue for the armed forces as their food was supplied by the military so they had no need for ration books when with their units. If they returned home on leave, however, they would need some way of purchasing rationed food and special ration books were issued to allow them to buy food. These were small books with enough coupons for a few weeks and had yellow card covers. The front cover had space for the soldier’s details and how long he would need the book for:
This book was issued to a Lance Corporal Hewitt of the 53rd Royal Sussex Regiment who was coming back to the UK from occupation duty in Germany in 1919. The back of the book has details for the retailer:
The printing information shows that it was printed in February 1919 and was part of a batch of 500,000. The instructions to the soldier on how to use the ration book are printed on the reverse of the front cover:
The coupons themselves are printed on special paper designed to reduce the chance of someone forging the coupons:
Rationing continued in the UK until 1920 when some of the final items such as butter were finally taken off the ration. Rationing would of course return in the Second World War on a far bigger scale. This book though seems to have never been used, despite having been issued, as none of the coupons have been removed. | 307 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Scripture Reference: Judges 4-5
Suggested Emphasis: Women played a large part in biblical events and they are a vital part of the church today.
Memory Work: If you are teaching old testament stories in chronilogical order this could be a good time to begin memorizing the names of the 39 Books of the Old Testament.
Deborah, a Judge, used to hold court while sitting beneath a palm tree. She was wise and helped the people solve their problems. She told Barak, commander of an army of Israel, that the Lord wanted him to fight an enemy named Sisera. Barak refused to fight unless Deborah accompanied him. She went along and they defeated Sisera’s army. During the battle, Sisera escaped and hid in the tent of a woman named Jael. During the night Jael killed Sisera in his sleep.
Refer to an introduction to the time of the judges. Othniel was the first judge of Israel. Then Ehud, the second judge of Israel, led the people in driving out their enemies. When Ehud died, the people began to turn away from God again.
The Lord allowed Israel’s enemy, Jabin, defeat them and rule over them. His home was at Hazor, north of the sea of Galilee. The captain of his army, Sisera, lived at Harosheth, on the Kishon river about thirty-five miles away to the southwest.
It seems that Jabin’s way of oppressing the people was to take most of their crops and their sheep and cattle. Jabin’s iron chariots pulled by swift horses would simply run over anyone who tried to stop them. The people were suffering and they turned to the Lord. They prayed to God for help.
True to the cycle of the times, the Lord sent a Judge to save the people – the prophetess, Deborah. Deborah is the only judge described as a prophet. A prophetess is a woman whom God chooses to convey His special messages to others. Other women who were prophets: Miriam (Exodus 15:20), Huldah (1 Kings 22:14), Noadiah (Nehemiah 6:14), and Anna (Luke 2:36). Since God told Deborah what to say, the people wisely went to her to have their quarrels settled. Deborah “held court under a palm tree”.
God told Deborah to have Barak gather and lead an army to Mount Tabor. That was near the home of Jabin’s captain, Sisera. God promised that Sisera would come to fight, but Barak would win. We can only guess the reasons for Barak’s hesitation. He might have been frightened. He might have wanted Deborah along to convey God’s instructions. He may have wanted Deborah to be a moral boost for his army. Whatever his reasons, he agreed to go only if Deborah would accompany him. Deborah agreed to go along but she pointed out that a man would lead in the battle, but a woman would get the credit for killing Sisera.
Zebulun and Naphtali were tribes of Israel living in the region near Jabin and Sisera. Probably they suffered most from the oppression, and the army was raised from among them. At that time, the Canaanites had a definite technological edge over the Israelites. With their iron chariots the Canaanites could control the plains. When Sisera heard about the Israelite army, he assembled his chariots and moved up the narrow plain beside the Kishon river to meet the opposition.
Again the prophetess promised victory, and Barak led his troops down from Mount Tabor. Chapter 5 explains how the Lord defeated Sisera. He brought a big rain (Judges 5:4-5). Their heavy iron chariots bogged down in the mud. This effectively evened out the advantage that Sisera’s army had. Sisera himself left his chariot and ran away on foot. The enemy troops fled back down the valley toward Harosheth, but Barak’s men destroyed them before they could get inside the city walls.
Sisera ran in panic trying to find refuge. There had been some friendly relations with the family of Jael so he made his way to her tent. This woman invited Sisera into her tent and told him to go to sleep. She gave him a warm cover. When he asked for water she gave him milk instead. All of this would have helped him sleep soundly. During the night, Jael used a hammer to drive a tent-peg through his skull.
After the rest of Sisera’s army was defeated, Jael’s heroism was celebrated in song. Just as Deborah said, a woman did receive the credit!
- What happened before this story?
- What happens after this story?
- List of all Bible stories and themes on this website.
Way to Introduce the Story:
Collect pictures from books, magazines and newspapers which depict famous women. Bring these to class along with coins or notes featuring pictures of the queen. Some notes depict famous women. Discuss these with the children. Ask them to name women in the church who work for the Lord. “There are well-known women today but there were also women long ago who were well-known. We can read about one of these women in the book of Judges. Her name was Deborah.”
The people of God had a land of their very own. It was called the land of Canaan. God’s people were called Israelites. Sometimes enemies would try to hurt God’s people but God promised to take care of them. The Lord promised to take care of His people as long as they obeyed Him. If they did not obey Him then the Lord would allow Israel’s enemies to hurt them and win their land.
Sometimes it seemed like the Israelites never learned a lesson. The same thing happened again and again. First, the Israelites would begin to leave God and disobey Him. Then, the Lord would let enemies win battles against them and treat them badly. When the people were suffering, they were sorry they had disobeyed God. They would pray to God to help them. Finally, the Lord would send someone to help the people and save them from their enemies. This person was called a JUDGE.
One famous Judge was a woman. Her name was Deborah. Deborah was so wise that everyone wanted to listen to what she said. She used to sit under a palm tree and let people come and ask her advice. The Lord knew that Deborah was a good woman. Deborah spoke the words that the Lord wanted her to. Sometimes she would help people by telling them what the Lord wanted them to do.
It was good that Deborah talked to the people because they were very unhappy. Many people had stopped following God. Israel’s enemies were very mean. One enemy, Jabin, had a big army that used to hurt the Israelites. The people were sorry that they were not obeying the Lord. They wanted Him to help them. Deborah asked the leader of Israel’s army to come to her. His name was Barak. She told him that the Lord wanted him to go into battle and fight Jabin’s army. Deborah told Barak that the Lord would help him and that he would win the battle.
Barak did not want to go alone. He knew that the enemy had a very strong general in charge of their army. The general’s name was Sisera. Barak told Deborah that he would not go to battle unless she went with him. Usually women did not go to battle but Deborah said she would help Barak. Deborah told Barak that because he needed a woman to help him then a woman would defeat Sisera.
Barak gathered an army of 10,000 men. Sisera had a huge army and 900 iron chariots. When Deborah told Barak to begin the fight, the army rushed down into a valley to fight against Sisera’s army and all of the strong chariots. Then an amazing thing happened. Clouds gathered and rain started to fall. So much rain fell that the valley flooded. All of the iron chariots got stuck in the mud! Sisera’s army began to run away.
Sisera started running too. He ran and ran until he came to the tent of a woman named Jael. Jail invited the general of the enemy into her tent. Jael was tricking Sisera. When morning came, Barak came searching for Sisera so that he could capture him. Sisera was dead. It was just like Deborah had said: a woman defeated Sisera!
Ways to Tell the Story:
This story can be told using a variety of methods. Always remain true to the facts found in the Bible but help children connect to its meaning by using drama, visual aids, voice inflection, student interaction and/or emotion.
Click here for visual aids and story-telling methods.
Click here to download these illustrations and slideshow. Be selective. Each teacher is unique so only use the illustrations that best relate to the way YOU are telling the story in THIS lesson. Too many illustrations can be confusing so eliminate any that cover other stories or details you do not wish to emphasise in this lesson.
- What was the name of the woman Judge? Deborah
- Who was the general of God’s army? Barak
- Why did Deborah go with Barak into the battle? He wouldn’t go without her.
- How did the Israelites win against an army with 900 iron chariots? The valley flooded and the chariots got stuck in the mud.
- Where did Sisera, the general of the enemy’s army hide? In the tent of a woman named Jael.
- Who killed Sisera? A woman named Jael
- I’m in the Lord’s Army Song
- Books of the Old Testament Song
- Refer to the Song Page on this website for more options.
Learning Activities and Crafts:
- Invite an active Christian woman (or women) to class today. Ask her to describe the work she does for the Lord. Older children might interview these women.
- Brainstorm and list things women can do for the Lord and write them on the chalk/white board.
- Send thank you notes to women who have helped the church in some way.
- Make sure there is some visual aid in your room which lists the books of the Old Testament. This could be a poster. Or write the name of each book on large cards and blue-tac all of the cards to the wall in the correct order. This visual should last all term.
- Use the learning activity Draw Out an Idea to talk about the characters in this story.
- Songs: Books of the Old Testament and B-I-B-L-E
- Cut palm leaves from green paper and write review questions on them. As the children answer correctly they can attach the leaves to a tree trunk.
- Make any palm tree craft (see links below for instructions).
- Draw a simple picture or outline and then fill it in with thoughts and ideas you have learned in the Bible story (photo at right).
- Make a shoebox diorama. If you are teaching over a number of weeks then you could make a diorama each week to form a collection that reviews the stories. You can have one box for each character and let the class work together or you could even have each child work on his or her own box(s). Ideas for a Deborah Box might be palm tree or leaves, battle figures, judge’s gavel, weapons, tent, container of milk.
Check the Teaching Ideas page on this website for ideas that are adaptable to any lesson.
Other Online Resources:
- Deborah colouring page & puzzle worksheets (Calvary Curriculum)
- Chart of all judges & many activities for Deborah story (Sunday School Sources)
- Short play script that tells the story (Kids Corner)
- Interesting background study information with artwork (Women in the Bible)
- Palm tree made from paper bag (Kids Corner Home)
- Coconut palm tree printable paper craft (DLTK)
- Painted footprint palm tree instructions and photos (Crafty-Crafted)
- Word search for books of the Old Testament (Christian Answers) | <urn:uuid:3579355f-e23c-40f5-bfca-4b33d1f29272> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://missionbibleclass.org/old-testament/part2/judges-and-ruth/deborah/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250598726.39/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120110422-20200120134422-00054.warc.gz | en | 0.981428 | 2,623 | 3.65625 | 4 | [
-0.46225705742836,
0.40401455760002136,
-0.11886614561080933,
-0.039116859436035156,
-0.20225238800048828,
0.0650220736861229,
0.32526910305023193,
0.22610345482826233,
0.1295941174030304,
0.28003281354904175,
-0.3057750165462494,
0.15271593630313873,
0.37563401460647583,
0.009226397611200... | 11 | Scripture Reference: Judges 4-5
Suggested Emphasis: Women played a large part in biblical events and they are a vital part of the church today.
Memory Work: If you are teaching old testament stories in chronilogical order this could be a good time to begin memorizing the names of the 39 Books of the Old Testament.
Deborah, a Judge, used to hold court while sitting beneath a palm tree. She was wise and helped the people solve their problems. She told Barak, commander of an army of Israel, that the Lord wanted him to fight an enemy named Sisera. Barak refused to fight unless Deborah accompanied him. She went along and they defeated Sisera’s army. During the battle, Sisera escaped and hid in the tent of a woman named Jael. During the night Jael killed Sisera in his sleep.
Refer to an introduction to the time of the judges. Othniel was the first judge of Israel. Then Ehud, the second judge of Israel, led the people in driving out their enemies. When Ehud died, the people began to turn away from God again.
The Lord allowed Israel’s enemy, Jabin, defeat them and rule over them. His home was at Hazor, north of the sea of Galilee. The captain of his army, Sisera, lived at Harosheth, on the Kishon river about thirty-five miles away to the southwest.
It seems that Jabin’s way of oppressing the people was to take most of their crops and their sheep and cattle. Jabin’s iron chariots pulled by swift horses would simply run over anyone who tried to stop them. The people were suffering and they turned to the Lord. They prayed to God for help.
True to the cycle of the times, the Lord sent a Judge to save the people – the prophetess, Deborah. Deborah is the only judge described as a prophet. A prophetess is a woman whom God chooses to convey His special messages to others. Other women who were prophets: Miriam (Exodus 15:20), Huldah (1 Kings 22:14), Noadiah (Nehemiah 6:14), and Anna (Luke 2:36). Since God told Deborah what to say, the people wisely went to her to have their quarrels settled. Deborah “held court under a palm tree”.
God told Deborah to have Barak gather and lead an army to Mount Tabor. That was near the home of Jabin’s captain, Sisera. God promised that Sisera would come to fight, but Barak would win. We can only guess the reasons for Barak’s hesitation. He might have been frightened. He might have wanted Deborah along to convey God’s instructions. He may have wanted Deborah to be a moral boost for his army. Whatever his reasons, he agreed to go only if Deborah would accompany him. Deborah agreed to go along but she pointed out that a man would lead in the battle, but a woman would get the credit for killing Sisera.
Zebulun and Naphtali were tribes of Israel living in the region near Jabin and Sisera. Probably they suffered most from the oppression, and the army was raised from among them. At that time, the Canaanites had a definite technological edge over the Israelites. With their iron chariots the Canaanites could control the plains. When Sisera heard about the Israelite army, he assembled his chariots and moved up the narrow plain beside the Kishon river to meet the opposition.
Again the prophetess promised victory, and Barak led his troops down from Mount Tabor. Chapter 5 explains how the Lord defeated Sisera. He brought a big rain (Judges 5:4-5). Their heavy iron chariots bogged down in the mud. This effectively evened out the advantage that Sisera’s army had. Sisera himself left his chariot and ran away on foot. The enemy troops fled back down the valley toward Harosheth, but Barak’s men destroyed them before they could get inside the city walls.
Sisera ran in panic trying to find refuge. There had been some friendly relations with the family of Jael so he made his way to her tent. This woman invited Sisera into her tent and told him to go to sleep. She gave him a warm cover. When he asked for water she gave him milk instead. All of this would have helped him sleep soundly. During the night, Jael used a hammer to drive a tent-peg through his skull.
After the rest of Sisera’s army was defeated, Jael’s heroism was celebrated in song. Just as Deborah said, a woman did receive the credit!
- What happened before this story?
- What happens after this story?
- List of all Bible stories and themes on this website.
Way to Introduce the Story:
Collect pictures from books, magazines and newspapers which depict famous women. Bring these to class along with coins or notes featuring pictures of the queen. Some notes depict famous women. Discuss these with the children. Ask them to name women in the church who work for the Lord. “There are well-known women today but there were also women long ago who were well-known. We can read about one of these women in the book of Judges. Her name was Deborah.”
The people of God had a land of their very own. It was called the land of Canaan. God’s people were called Israelites. Sometimes enemies would try to hurt God’s people but God promised to take care of them. The Lord promised to take care of His people as long as they obeyed Him. If they did not obey Him then the Lord would allow Israel’s enemies to hurt them and win their land.
Sometimes it seemed like the Israelites never learned a lesson. The same thing happened again and again. First, the Israelites would begin to leave God and disobey Him. Then, the Lord would let enemies win battles against them and treat them badly. When the people were suffering, they were sorry they had disobeyed God. They would pray to God to help them. Finally, the Lord would send someone to help the people and save them from their enemies. This person was called a JUDGE.
One famous Judge was a woman. Her name was Deborah. Deborah was so wise that everyone wanted to listen to what she said. She used to sit under a palm tree and let people come and ask her advice. The Lord knew that Deborah was a good woman. Deborah spoke the words that the Lord wanted her to. Sometimes she would help people by telling them what the Lord wanted them to do.
It was good that Deborah talked to the people because they were very unhappy. Many people had stopped following God. Israel’s enemies were very mean. One enemy, Jabin, had a big army that used to hurt the Israelites. The people were sorry that they were not obeying the Lord. They wanted Him to help them. Deborah asked the leader of Israel’s army to come to her. His name was Barak. She told him that the Lord wanted him to go into battle and fight Jabin’s army. Deborah told Barak that the Lord would help him and that he would win the battle.
Barak did not want to go alone. He knew that the enemy had a very strong general in charge of their army. The general’s name was Sisera. Barak told Deborah that he would not go to battle unless she went with him. Usually women did not go to battle but Deborah said she would help Barak. Deborah told Barak that because he needed a woman to help him then a woman would defeat Sisera.
Barak gathered an army of 10,000 men. Sisera had a huge army and 900 iron chariots. When Deborah told Barak to begin the fight, the army rushed down into a valley to fight against Sisera’s army and all of the strong chariots. Then an amazing thing happened. Clouds gathered and rain started to fall. So much rain fell that the valley flooded. All of the iron chariots got stuck in the mud! Sisera’s army began to run away.
Sisera started running too. He ran and ran until he came to the tent of a woman named Jael. Jail invited the general of the enemy into her tent. Jael was tricking Sisera. When morning came, Barak came searching for Sisera so that he could capture him. Sisera was dead. It was just like Deborah had said: a woman defeated Sisera!
Ways to Tell the Story:
This story can be told using a variety of methods. Always remain true to the facts found in the Bible but help children connect to its meaning by using drama, visual aids, voice inflection, student interaction and/or emotion.
Click here for visual aids and story-telling methods.
Click here to download these illustrations and slideshow. Be selective. Each teacher is unique so only use the illustrations that best relate to the way YOU are telling the story in THIS lesson. Too many illustrations can be confusing so eliminate any that cover other stories or details you do not wish to emphasise in this lesson.
- What was the name of the woman Judge? Deborah
- Who was the general of God’s army? Barak
- Why did Deborah go with Barak into the battle? He wouldn’t go without her.
- How did the Israelites win against an army with 900 iron chariots? The valley flooded and the chariots got stuck in the mud.
- Where did Sisera, the general of the enemy’s army hide? In the tent of a woman named Jael.
- Who killed Sisera? A woman named Jael
- I’m in the Lord’s Army Song
- Books of the Old Testament Song
- Refer to the Song Page on this website for more options.
Learning Activities and Crafts:
- Invite an active Christian woman (or women) to class today. Ask her to describe the work she does for the Lord. Older children might interview these women.
- Brainstorm and list things women can do for the Lord and write them on the chalk/white board.
- Send thank you notes to women who have helped the church in some way.
- Make sure there is some visual aid in your room which lists the books of the Old Testament. This could be a poster. Or write the name of each book on large cards and blue-tac all of the cards to the wall in the correct order. This visual should last all term.
- Use the learning activity Draw Out an Idea to talk about the characters in this story.
- Songs: Books of the Old Testament and B-I-B-L-E
- Cut palm leaves from green paper and write review questions on them. As the children answer correctly they can attach the leaves to a tree trunk.
- Make any palm tree craft (see links below for instructions).
- Draw a simple picture or outline and then fill it in with thoughts and ideas you have learned in the Bible story (photo at right).
- Make a shoebox diorama. If you are teaching over a number of weeks then you could make a diorama each week to form a collection that reviews the stories. You can have one box for each character and let the class work together or you could even have each child work on his or her own box(s). Ideas for a Deborah Box might be palm tree or leaves, battle figures, judge’s gavel, weapons, tent, container of milk.
Check the Teaching Ideas page on this website for ideas that are adaptable to any lesson.
Other Online Resources:
- Deborah colouring page & puzzle worksheets (Calvary Curriculum)
- Chart of all judges & many activities for Deborah story (Sunday School Sources)
- Short play script that tells the story (Kids Corner)
- Interesting background study information with artwork (Women in the Bible)
- Palm tree made from paper bag (Kids Corner Home)
- Coconut palm tree printable paper craft (DLTK)
- Painted footprint palm tree instructions and photos (Crafty-Crafted)
- Word search for books of the Old Testament (Christian Answers) | 2,527 | ENGLISH | 1 |
On April 12, 1961, the Civil War was getting underway and would continue for four years. No one really knows what the actual goal of the war was or if it was even successful. It truly depends on who you ask. The Civil War is discussed almost on a daily basis and even more so now with the current political climate. People say the war wasn't about slavery at all, while others say that's all it was about.
The Civil War shaped what we know as America, and there's so much information out there. There are tales of women in the Civil War who were straight up heroes: from fighting in the war when they weren't supposed to, to the nurses who healed the injured soldiers and went on to do more amazing stuff. There were documents signed, proclamations made, surrenders and many, many battles.
Learning about the Civil War is a requirement in mostly all schools in the United States, but how it's taught can range based on location. The southern region might have different interpretations of how things happened, while the North could have a completely different story. Think you can pass the ultimate Civil War quiz? Take it and find out!
Think the Union army was all American? Think again. How many of the Union soldiers were immigrants?
The Union army featured just over 7% Irish soldiers and about 10% Germans. There were also French, Italian, Polish, English and Scottish soldiers. Due to the diversity and the inclusion of blacks, some say that changed the whole trajectory of the war.
Who led a raid to free slaves during the war?
Harriet Tubman was an escaped slave who guided others to freedom through the now famous Underground Railroad. More than 720 slaves were freed during the underground mission, and she would teach the women slaves who were freed vital skills that would help them make wages.
Perhaps one of the most famous presidents, who was the president during the Civil War?
Abraham Lincoln, or Honest Abe, was president for the duration of the Civil War. He was notoriously shot and killed by John Wilkes Booth at the theater in 1865 soon after he narrowly won reelection.
There were many battles of the Civil War, but what was the one that started it all?
What started it all was when Southern troops made their way to, and bombarded, Fort Sumpter, South Carolina. It is said this happened because President Lincoln wouldn't surrender the fort, which was still manned by Union soldiers.
Were the North and South fighting a fair fight?
Not only did the North have more people by almost 20 million, it also had more money, more factories, more horses, railroads and food. This put the South at a definite disadvantage. However, the South did tend to be more skilled with their fighting.
Out of all of the Civil War Battles, which one was the bloodiest?
Nearly 52,000 men were killed during the three-day battle of Gettysburg. It was this battle after which President Lincoln gave the Gettysburg Address, which became one of the most famous speeches in American history.
What happened to the Constitution after the Civil War ended?
The 13th Amendment freed slaves, the 14th Amendment assured equal protection under the law, and the 15th Amendment granted African American men the right to vote. To this day, the 14th Amendment is still under scrutiny to actually define "equal protection."
All wars are deadly, but the Civil War was the deadliest. How many soldiers were killed?
Out of all of the wars that the United States has been a part of, the Civil War saw the most casualties. The 620,000 deaths were caused by combat, accident, starvation, and disease.
When a soldier died, what happened to their body?
Typically, the bodies of the fallen soldiers were buried where they were killed on the battlefield. Others were buried near hospitals if that's where they ultimately died. Most of the bodies at the battlegrounds have been exhumed and moved to National or Confederate cemeteries.
Did the soldiers get paid?
White Union soldiers were paid thirteen dollars a month while African American Union soldiers made seven dollars per month, until the discrepancy was rectified by Congress. Some people were paid more, but many went long periods without pay.
Soldiers gotta eat! What was the food like for them?
Neither side had the luxuries of good or abundant food. In addition to hardtack (hard, dry bread or biscuit), coffee and salt pork, they ate whatever fruits, vegetables or berries could be gathered.
Where did Robert E. Lee surrender?
Robert E. Lee surrendered in Appomattox, Virginia on or around April 13, 1865. His surrender is said to be the end of the Civil War even though several confederate armies remained in the field.
Who was the last person killed in the Civil War?
About a month after Robert E. Lee's surrender, Private John J. Williams was killed in a battle at Palmito Ranch, Texas. He was the last soldier killed in the American Civil War, and that battle was a victory for the Confederate army.
With states divided, there was more than one leader. What role did Jefferson Davis play in the Civil War?
He was the President of the Confederate States throughout the duration of the war. He was imprisoned for two years following the war, accused of treason. He was never tried and died on December 6, 1889.
Both the North and South had other names for the Civil War. What is NOT one of them?
The Civil War went by many other names among the North and South, as they both had different ideas of what the war was really about and what the focus should be. In later years, in order to not offend anyone, it was heard being called The Late Unpleasantness.
What was used for the first time in the Civil War?
The Civil War had so many firsts and the use of quinine to treat typhoid fever was one of them. The drug was originally used to treat malaria when it was discovered in the 17th century.
At which battle did General Thomas Jonathan Jackson earn his nickname, "Stonewall"?
He was given the nickname because of his defensive efforts at the battle. He became one of the most well-known Confederate generals, after Robert E. Lee, and also had another nickname, Old Blue Light.
Did the Emancipation Proclamation actually ban slavery?
Contrary to popular belief, the Emancipation Proclamation signed by President Lincoln did not ban slavery. The proclamation only applied to slaves who had escaped into Union territory. The aim of the proclamation was to punish the Confederate States, not make slavery illegal.
While payment was offered, why did the African American's refuse payment for over a year?
The African American people who fought in the Civil War were offered wages, but wages lower than their white counterparts. Because of this, they refused payments for 18 months in protest of those lower wages. Not to mention, they were charged for their uniforms, while others were not.
The Confederate States' gold was moved once the North started invading. Where did it end up?
The treasury of the Confederate States was located in New Orleans, but as the North got closer, it had to be moved to Columbus, Georgia. It was ordered moved once more, but it vanished. The Treasurer of the Confederate States of America was arrested and accused of stealing it, but it was never found.
Were there pictures taken of the war?
While cameras were new, they were used during the Civil War. In fact, the Civil War was one of the first wars with journalists and photographers following the troops and using photos along with written stories of the war.
How many words was Lincoln's Gettysburg Address?
It started with the famous "Four score and seven years ago," and went on for 266 more words. The speech was given at the Dedication Ceremony of the National Cemetery of Gettysburg and on the site of the Battle of Gettysburg.
Was there a minimum age in which to join the Union?
While the technical minimum age to join the Union was 18, there were many, many men/boys fighting who were well under that age. Maybe that's why the Civil War has been nicknamed "The Boys' War."
Nurses and medical staff were in high demand during the war. Who was the most famous medical worker of the Civil War?
Clara Barton was given the nickname "Angel of the Battlefields" because she was that good of a nurse. She would later go on to create the very well-known American Red Cross. She was entirely self-taught.
There were other restrictions on who could fight in the war besides age. Were women allowed to join?
Much like the age minimum, even though women weren't technically allowed to join either the Union or the Confederate armies, they did so anyway. They would disguise themselves as men and fight anyway. There were some 250 to 400 of those brave women.
Which state was the first one to secede from the Union?
Abraham Lincoln's election is what spurred the secession convention. On December 20, 1860, South Carolina became the first state to secede from the Union. They decided to secede because Lincoln promised to end slavery if he was elected president.
When did the Civil War actually end?
While many believe that the war ended when Robert E. Lee surrendered, there were still plenty of little battles fought after that. It wasn't until President Andrew Johnson signed the proclamation ending the war on August 20, 1866.
A war like this has many surrenders. Who was the last Confederate general to surrender?
General Watie surrendered on June 23, 1865, which was a little more than a month after the last official battle of the Civil War. At the time of the war, Watie was in exile from his tribe for surrendering Cherokee land.
Are there places that still recognize important Confederate dates?
Mississippi and Alabama, while controversial, close state office for a day known as Confederate Memorial Day. Other states observe this holiday as well, but on different days. Virginia celebrates Confederate leaders on the Friday before Martin Luther King Day.
The term "Juneteenth" has great meaning to people. Why is that?
Even though the Emancipation Proclamation was signed two years prior, the slaves in Texas didn't find out until June 19, 1865. There are seemingly the last slaves to be freed, since they did not know about the proclamation.
How many terms in office did Jefferson Davis serve?
Despite being elected to many offices such as the House of Representatives, the Senate on two different occasions, and the President of the Confederate States, he did not serve a full term of any of those positions.
The Civil War saw the advances of medicine and technology, but what other fun thing came out of the war?
Where would you store things without the hip pocket? Thanks to the Civil War, you'll never have to know. The hip pocket was invented by the U.S. Army during the war. Maybe they used the pockets to house pocket watches, which were also invented during the Civil War.
Was there a draft for the Civil War?
The Enrollment Act was also know as the Civil War Military Draft Act. It was passed during the Civil War in order to replenish Union troops. Even if people were drafted, they were allowed to choose substitutes to go to war on their behalf.
Where is the National Civil War Museum located?
The museum cost 32 million dollars to build and was built at the behest of former Harrisburg Mayor Steve Reed, who was also a Civil War enthusiast. The museum aims to tell the story of the Civil War "without bias."
Of all of the artifacts at the National Civil War Museum, do they have anything from Lincoln's assassination?
Among the artifacts and exhibits are items from Lincoln's assassination. These items include a lock of Lincoln's hair, the original telegram ordering the arrest of John Wilkes Booth, a ticket to the show at Ford's Theater that the President was attending, and more.
How much do you know about dinosaurs? What is an octane rating? And how do you use a proper noun? Lucky for you, HowStuffWorks Play is here to help. Our award-winning website offers reliable, easy-to-understand explanations about how the world works. From fun quizzes that bring joy to your day, to compelling photography and fascinating lists, HowStuffWorks Play offers something for everyone. Sometimes we explain how stuff works, other times, we ask you, but we’re always exploring in the name of fun! Because learning is fun, so stick with us!
Get smarter every day! Subscribe & get 1 quiz every week.
Playing quizzes is free! We send trivia questions and personality tests every week to your inbox. By clicking "Sign Up" you are agreeing to our
and confirming that you are 13 years old or over. | <urn:uuid:8d71aa62-ad89-473d-ace9-5282ada32d61> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://learn.howstuffworks.com/quiz/the-ultimate-civil-war-quiz?rmalg=es&remorapos=7&remorasrc=08faeee5-e319-4b7b-9af7-0578e1c0f652 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250593295.11/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118164132-20200118192132-00417.warc.gz | en | 0.984976 | 2,681 | 3.609375 | 4 | [
-0.296328067779541,
0.25095582008361816,
0.3951393961906433,
0.1942983865737915,
-0.0623185932636261,
0.22956418991088867,
0.034703340381383896,
-0.0759509950876236,
-0.24992503225803375,
0.1284814476966858,
0.38306379318237305,
0.19582664966583252,
-0.16239313781261444,
0.3791394233703613... | 20 | On April 12, 1961, the Civil War was getting underway and would continue for four years. No one really knows what the actual goal of the war was or if it was even successful. It truly depends on who you ask. The Civil War is discussed almost on a daily basis and even more so now with the current political climate. People say the war wasn't about slavery at all, while others say that's all it was about.
The Civil War shaped what we know as America, and there's so much information out there. There are tales of women in the Civil War who were straight up heroes: from fighting in the war when they weren't supposed to, to the nurses who healed the injured soldiers and went on to do more amazing stuff. There were documents signed, proclamations made, surrenders and many, many battles.
Learning about the Civil War is a requirement in mostly all schools in the United States, but how it's taught can range based on location. The southern region might have different interpretations of how things happened, while the North could have a completely different story. Think you can pass the ultimate Civil War quiz? Take it and find out!
Think the Union army was all American? Think again. How many of the Union soldiers were immigrants?
The Union army featured just over 7% Irish soldiers and about 10% Germans. There were also French, Italian, Polish, English and Scottish soldiers. Due to the diversity and the inclusion of blacks, some say that changed the whole trajectory of the war.
Who led a raid to free slaves during the war?
Harriet Tubman was an escaped slave who guided others to freedom through the now famous Underground Railroad. More than 720 slaves were freed during the underground mission, and she would teach the women slaves who were freed vital skills that would help them make wages.
Perhaps one of the most famous presidents, who was the president during the Civil War?
Abraham Lincoln, or Honest Abe, was president for the duration of the Civil War. He was notoriously shot and killed by John Wilkes Booth at the theater in 1865 soon after he narrowly won reelection.
There were many battles of the Civil War, but what was the one that started it all?
What started it all was when Southern troops made their way to, and bombarded, Fort Sumpter, South Carolina. It is said this happened because President Lincoln wouldn't surrender the fort, which was still manned by Union soldiers.
Were the North and South fighting a fair fight?
Not only did the North have more people by almost 20 million, it also had more money, more factories, more horses, railroads and food. This put the South at a definite disadvantage. However, the South did tend to be more skilled with their fighting.
Out of all of the Civil War Battles, which one was the bloodiest?
Nearly 52,000 men were killed during the three-day battle of Gettysburg. It was this battle after which President Lincoln gave the Gettysburg Address, which became one of the most famous speeches in American history.
What happened to the Constitution after the Civil War ended?
The 13th Amendment freed slaves, the 14th Amendment assured equal protection under the law, and the 15th Amendment granted African American men the right to vote. To this day, the 14th Amendment is still under scrutiny to actually define "equal protection."
All wars are deadly, but the Civil War was the deadliest. How many soldiers were killed?
Out of all of the wars that the United States has been a part of, the Civil War saw the most casualties. The 620,000 deaths were caused by combat, accident, starvation, and disease.
When a soldier died, what happened to their body?
Typically, the bodies of the fallen soldiers were buried where they were killed on the battlefield. Others were buried near hospitals if that's where they ultimately died. Most of the bodies at the battlegrounds have been exhumed and moved to National or Confederate cemeteries.
Did the soldiers get paid?
White Union soldiers were paid thirteen dollars a month while African American Union soldiers made seven dollars per month, until the discrepancy was rectified by Congress. Some people were paid more, but many went long periods without pay.
Soldiers gotta eat! What was the food like for them?
Neither side had the luxuries of good or abundant food. In addition to hardtack (hard, dry bread or biscuit), coffee and salt pork, they ate whatever fruits, vegetables or berries could be gathered.
Where did Robert E. Lee surrender?
Robert E. Lee surrendered in Appomattox, Virginia on or around April 13, 1865. His surrender is said to be the end of the Civil War even though several confederate armies remained in the field.
Who was the last person killed in the Civil War?
About a month after Robert E. Lee's surrender, Private John J. Williams was killed in a battle at Palmito Ranch, Texas. He was the last soldier killed in the American Civil War, and that battle was a victory for the Confederate army.
With states divided, there was more than one leader. What role did Jefferson Davis play in the Civil War?
He was the President of the Confederate States throughout the duration of the war. He was imprisoned for two years following the war, accused of treason. He was never tried and died on December 6, 1889.
Both the North and South had other names for the Civil War. What is NOT one of them?
The Civil War went by many other names among the North and South, as they both had different ideas of what the war was really about and what the focus should be. In later years, in order to not offend anyone, it was heard being called The Late Unpleasantness.
What was used for the first time in the Civil War?
The Civil War had so many firsts and the use of quinine to treat typhoid fever was one of them. The drug was originally used to treat malaria when it was discovered in the 17th century.
At which battle did General Thomas Jonathan Jackson earn his nickname, "Stonewall"?
He was given the nickname because of his defensive efforts at the battle. He became one of the most well-known Confederate generals, after Robert E. Lee, and also had another nickname, Old Blue Light.
Did the Emancipation Proclamation actually ban slavery?
Contrary to popular belief, the Emancipation Proclamation signed by President Lincoln did not ban slavery. The proclamation only applied to slaves who had escaped into Union territory. The aim of the proclamation was to punish the Confederate States, not make slavery illegal.
While payment was offered, why did the African American's refuse payment for over a year?
The African American people who fought in the Civil War were offered wages, but wages lower than their white counterparts. Because of this, they refused payments for 18 months in protest of those lower wages. Not to mention, they were charged for their uniforms, while others were not.
The Confederate States' gold was moved once the North started invading. Where did it end up?
The treasury of the Confederate States was located in New Orleans, but as the North got closer, it had to be moved to Columbus, Georgia. It was ordered moved once more, but it vanished. The Treasurer of the Confederate States of America was arrested and accused of stealing it, but it was never found.
Were there pictures taken of the war?
While cameras were new, they were used during the Civil War. In fact, the Civil War was one of the first wars with journalists and photographers following the troops and using photos along with written stories of the war.
How many words was Lincoln's Gettysburg Address?
It started with the famous "Four score and seven years ago," and went on for 266 more words. The speech was given at the Dedication Ceremony of the National Cemetery of Gettysburg and on the site of the Battle of Gettysburg.
Was there a minimum age in which to join the Union?
While the technical minimum age to join the Union was 18, there were many, many men/boys fighting who were well under that age. Maybe that's why the Civil War has been nicknamed "The Boys' War."
Nurses and medical staff were in high demand during the war. Who was the most famous medical worker of the Civil War?
Clara Barton was given the nickname "Angel of the Battlefields" because she was that good of a nurse. She would later go on to create the very well-known American Red Cross. She was entirely self-taught.
There were other restrictions on who could fight in the war besides age. Were women allowed to join?
Much like the age minimum, even though women weren't technically allowed to join either the Union or the Confederate armies, they did so anyway. They would disguise themselves as men and fight anyway. There were some 250 to 400 of those brave women.
Which state was the first one to secede from the Union?
Abraham Lincoln's election is what spurred the secession convention. On December 20, 1860, South Carolina became the first state to secede from the Union. They decided to secede because Lincoln promised to end slavery if he was elected president.
When did the Civil War actually end?
While many believe that the war ended when Robert E. Lee surrendered, there were still plenty of little battles fought after that. It wasn't until President Andrew Johnson signed the proclamation ending the war on August 20, 1866.
A war like this has many surrenders. Who was the last Confederate general to surrender?
General Watie surrendered on June 23, 1865, which was a little more than a month after the last official battle of the Civil War. At the time of the war, Watie was in exile from his tribe for surrendering Cherokee land.
Are there places that still recognize important Confederate dates?
Mississippi and Alabama, while controversial, close state office for a day known as Confederate Memorial Day. Other states observe this holiday as well, but on different days. Virginia celebrates Confederate leaders on the Friday before Martin Luther King Day.
The term "Juneteenth" has great meaning to people. Why is that?
Even though the Emancipation Proclamation was signed two years prior, the slaves in Texas didn't find out until June 19, 1865. There are seemingly the last slaves to be freed, since they did not know about the proclamation.
How many terms in office did Jefferson Davis serve?
Despite being elected to many offices such as the House of Representatives, the Senate on two different occasions, and the President of the Confederate States, he did not serve a full term of any of those positions.
The Civil War saw the advances of medicine and technology, but what other fun thing came out of the war?
Where would you store things without the hip pocket? Thanks to the Civil War, you'll never have to know. The hip pocket was invented by the U.S. Army during the war. Maybe they used the pockets to house pocket watches, which were also invented during the Civil War.
Was there a draft for the Civil War?
The Enrollment Act was also know as the Civil War Military Draft Act. It was passed during the Civil War in order to replenish Union troops. Even if people were drafted, they were allowed to choose substitutes to go to war on their behalf.
Where is the National Civil War Museum located?
The museum cost 32 million dollars to build and was built at the behest of former Harrisburg Mayor Steve Reed, who was also a Civil War enthusiast. The museum aims to tell the story of the Civil War "without bias."
Of all of the artifacts at the National Civil War Museum, do they have anything from Lincoln's assassination?
Among the artifacts and exhibits are items from Lincoln's assassination. These items include a lock of Lincoln's hair, the original telegram ordering the arrest of John Wilkes Booth, a ticket to the show at Ford's Theater that the President was attending, and more.
How much do you know about dinosaurs? What is an octane rating? And how do you use a proper noun? Lucky for you, HowStuffWorks Play is here to help. Our award-winning website offers reliable, easy-to-understand explanations about how the world works. From fun quizzes that bring joy to your day, to compelling photography and fascinating lists, HowStuffWorks Play offers something for everyone. Sometimes we explain how stuff works, other times, we ask you, but we’re always exploring in the name of fun! Because learning is fun, so stick with us!
Get smarter every day! Subscribe & get 1 quiz every week.
Playing quizzes is free! We send trivia questions and personality tests every week to your inbox. By clicking "Sign Up" you are agreeing to our
and confirming that you are 13 years old or over. | 2,686 | ENGLISH | 1 |
1. Discuss your understanding of historic and contemporary colonization, how it continues to affect First Nations, Metis, and or Inuit peoples today and how it may be reflected in your proposed specific area of social work practice.
To begin with, colonization began when first contact was made between Indigenous peoples of Canada and Europeans. At first the settlers were humble to Indigenous peoples and learnt how to survive the diverse land of what is known as Canada. As settlers began getting established in Canada, the land began getting taken over by Europeans. The signing of treaties was a mechanism used to divide and conquer the lands from Indigenous peoples. Indian reserves were created to separate different tribes and land was claimed for natives to live on. According to ….. the land given was not very healthy and did not accommodate the way first nation peoples lived. Next, the Indian Act was established in hopes to absorb “ indianess” and in hopes would expire therefore eliminating the existence of “indianess”.
In addition to the Indian Act came another mechanism called residential schools. According to Frideres (2011) residential schools were an educational institution established by the Canadian government and the Roman Catholic missionaries for the purpose of forcing native people to abandon their culture and adopt “a more superior” way of living. The first residential school was established in 1874, after which the number of these schools rapidly spread all | <urn:uuid:dbf7c125-243b-4ace-9be6-aa3339018fb5> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.bartleby.com/essay/Effects-of-Coloniztionon-First-Nations-PKPVT24JDB6S | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594209.12/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119035851-20200119063851-00365.warc.gz | en | 0.980414 | 281 | 3.421875 | 3 | [
-0.14711149036884308,
0.28613072633743286,
0.6402013301849365,
-0.10258541256189346,
-0.4735943377017975,
-0.4195983111858368,
0.09291411936283112,
0.09133748710155487,
-0.1436081975698471,
0.28602883219718933,
0.24224960803985596,
-0.3263248801231384,
-0.07939980179071426,
0.2745776176452... | 1 | 1. Discuss your understanding of historic and contemporary colonization, how it continues to affect First Nations, Metis, and or Inuit peoples today and how it may be reflected in your proposed specific area of social work practice.
To begin with, colonization began when first contact was made between Indigenous peoples of Canada and Europeans. At first the settlers were humble to Indigenous peoples and learnt how to survive the diverse land of what is known as Canada. As settlers began getting established in Canada, the land began getting taken over by Europeans. The signing of treaties was a mechanism used to divide and conquer the lands from Indigenous peoples. Indian reserves were created to separate different tribes and land was claimed for natives to live on. According to ….. the land given was not very healthy and did not accommodate the way first nation peoples lived. Next, the Indian Act was established in hopes to absorb “ indianess” and in hopes would expire therefore eliminating the existence of “indianess”.
In addition to the Indian Act came another mechanism called residential schools. According to Frideres (2011) residential schools were an educational institution established by the Canadian government and the Roman Catholic missionaries for the purpose of forcing native people to abandon their culture and adopt “a more superior” way of living. The first residential school was established in 1874, after which the number of these schools rapidly spread all | 278 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Rock crystal is synonymous with clear and colorless quartz. These days, it is most used in ornamental carvings, and best known as the substance out of which crystal balls are made. Although rock crystal is common, it's difficult to find it of the size and clarity needed to make something as large as a crystal ball. (Source: Rock Crystal entry in the Amethyst Galleries)
Eyeglasses were first made in the mid-13th century, out of rock crystal, although lenses had been used to help improve eyesight since at least a few hundred years earlier. While there is evidence for lenses from Greek, Roman, and Babylonian sources (the last being archaeological evidence), the only known use for them was filtering light or for burning holes into things, or cauterizing wounds. The University of Tennesee hosts a decent summary of the history of spectacles, although there are many, many others available online in addition to this one.
According to the OED, the first known use of the phrase "rock crystal" in English was in the 1666 Transactions of the Royal Philosophical Society (I.362), wherein a writer grumbled that "Rock-Crystal is not fit for Optick-Glasses." Although glass, replacing rock crystal, did indeed become the cheap and widespread material from which lenses were ground, certainly by the mid-15th century, it was not until the end of the 18th century that glass was made especially for the making of glasses. Up until that point, the glass ground into lenses was taken from byproducts of other parts of the glass-making industry. | <urn:uuid:139da9d4-e996-45dd-84cc-9c6057259fc6> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://owlfish.livejournal.com/118448.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250601628.36/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121074002-20200121103002-00470.warc.gz | en | 0.98195 | 329 | 3.53125 | 4 | [
-0.10759460180997849,
-0.15492810308933258,
0.1422407478094101,
-0.10985708236694336,
-0.4641539454460144,
0.24617648124694824,
0.2927287817001343,
0.10785151273012161,
-0.5794163942337036,
0.11188782751560211,
-0.02271980606019497,
-0.4010184407234192,
0.2782510817050934,
0.68173867464065... | 4 | Rock crystal is synonymous with clear and colorless quartz. These days, it is most used in ornamental carvings, and best known as the substance out of which crystal balls are made. Although rock crystal is common, it's difficult to find it of the size and clarity needed to make something as large as a crystal ball. (Source: Rock Crystal entry in the Amethyst Galleries)
Eyeglasses were first made in the mid-13th century, out of rock crystal, although lenses had been used to help improve eyesight since at least a few hundred years earlier. While there is evidence for lenses from Greek, Roman, and Babylonian sources (the last being archaeological evidence), the only known use for them was filtering light or for burning holes into things, or cauterizing wounds. The University of Tennesee hosts a decent summary of the history of spectacles, although there are many, many others available online in addition to this one.
According to the OED, the first known use of the phrase "rock crystal" in English was in the 1666 Transactions of the Royal Philosophical Society (I.362), wherein a writer grumbled that "Rock-Crystal is not fit for Optick-Glasses." Although glass, replacing rock crystal, did indeed become the cheap and widespread material from which lenses were ground, certainly by the mid-15th century, it was not until the end of the 18th century that glass was made especially for the making of glasses. Up until that point, the glass ground into lenses was taken from byproducts of other parts of the glass-making industry. | 335 | ENGLISH | 1 |
As part of our work on the Anglo Saxons this term, Year 5 visited West Stow near Bury St.Edmund’s on Wednesday the 25th of May. The children spent the day visiting the replica huts to learn about the culture, the construction of the buildings and their various uses. The people at West Stow had built many replicas of the various buildings, such as the Great Hall which was used for meetings and feasts, the workshop, the sunken house and various family dwellings. The huts were built based on the archaeologist evidence found on the site, which meant that the children were actually stepping in the same footsteps as the Anglo Saxons were over 1500 years ago! Some children took the time to sketch some of the huts in preparation for their work next half term when they will be constructing their own model of an Anglo Saxon hut. Throughout their time exploring the village, they were dressed up in traditional clothing from that period.
They also had the opportunity to visit the Anglo Saxon Museum which displayed some amazing artefacts found on this site and other local sites. They ranged from items of jewellery and cooking ware to clothing items and weaponry. They were allowed to explore at their leisure whilst learning about the various finds and their uses.
The highlight for some of the children was getting to see the chickens and pigs which were kept next to the village! There was also an opportunity to visit the shop to purchase a small memento of the day.
Despite the long journey and cold weather for the time of year, the children really enjoyed their day and learned so much from the experience. | <urn:uuid:5b44c793-df06-438c-916e-8f623eba90e9> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.westleighjunior.co.uk/single-post/2016/05/26/Year-5-visit-Anglo-Saxons-village-1 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250601241.42/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121014531-20200121043531-00517.warc.gz | en | 0.989059 | 331 | 3.515625 | 4 | [
0.17792941629886627,
0.16084794700145721,
0.43920427560806274,
0.264398455619812,
0.03976813331246376,
-0.015109900385141373,
-0.2883124053478241,
-0.20303981006145477,
-0.3747055232524872,
-0.3626134991645813,
-0.18394917249679565,
-0.5545384287834167,
0.40112605690956116,
0.4708501696586... | 2 | As part of our work on the Anglo Saxons this term, Year 5 visited West Stow near Bury St.Edmund’s on Wednesday the 25th of May. The children spent the day visiting the replica huts to learn about the culture, the construction of the buildings and their various uses. The people at West Stow had built many replicas of the various buildings, such as the Great Hall which was used for meetings and feasts, the workshop, the sunken house and various family dwellings. The huts were built based on the archaeologist evidence found on the site, which meant that the children were actually stepping in the same footsteps as the Anglo Saxons were over 1500 years ago! Some children took the time to sketch some of the huts in preparation for their work next half term when they will be constructing their own model of an Anglo Saxon hut. Throughout their time exploring the village, they were dressed up in traditional clothing from that period.
They also had the opportunity to visit the Anglo Saxon Museum which displayed some amazing artefacts found on this site and other local sites. They ranged from items of jewellery and cooking ware to clothing items and weaponry. They were allowed to explore at their leisure whilst learning about the various finds and their uses.
The highlight for some of the children was getting to see the chickens and pigs which were kept next to the village! There was also an opportunity to visit the shop to purchase a small memento of the day.
Despite the long journey and cold weather for the time of year, the children really enjoyed their day and learned so much from the experience. | 330 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Brooklyn Bridge is one of most famous bridges in the world. Spanning over the East River, it connects Manhattan with Brooklyn. The bridge was completed in 1883, becoming the first steel-wire suspension bridge ever built, and for several years, it held the record for being the longest suspension bridge in the world. With the length of 5,899 ft and the maximum height of 276.5 ft over the water, it was described as one of the seven wonders of the industrial world.
More than 20 men died during the construction of the bridge. The main designer of the bridge, John Roebling, was the first victim, followed by more workers. One week after the opening ceremony of the bridge, more than 20,000 people were on it, when a rumor that the bridge might collapse was spread among the crowd. As the panic began, 12 people lost their lives; they were crushed in the massive human stampede.
However, none of this compares to the number of people that have committed suicide by jumping off of Brooklyn Bridge. Unofficially, more than 1,300 suicides had occurred by 2003. There is speculation that every 15 days, a person dies from a fall in the East River. There were ideas of creating a suicide barrier, but the idea wasn’t realized because of engineering obstacles.
The first person ever to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge was Robert Emmet Odlum. Robert had no intention of committing suicide; he simply wanted to show that a person does not die from falling through the air.
He did this to encourage other people to jump into nets when trapped in a burning building. Besides this, he desired fame and money, which served as additional motivations for his deed. Unfortunately, he did not survive the jump.
Robert Odlum was a swimming instructor. He was born on 31 August 1851, in Ogdensburg, New York, and became a skilled swimmer at an early age. The Odlum family traveled a lot, looking for Robert’s older brother, David, who was lost in the American Civil War. Robert changed many places of residence and many professions. In 1878, he moved to Washington, where he opened a swimming school named Natatorium. The school was a huge success, and soon the children of many prominent residents of Washington became students of Odlum’s.
Odlum, who gained the nickname Professor, had among his pupils, the sons of the US President James A. Garfield, the daughter of General William Sherman, and the children of the President Rutherford Birchard Hayes. Robert had become a Washington celebrity, thanks to his many stunts, such as swimming and diving into the Potomac river, diving into the Occoquan Falls and as well, swimming from Washington to Marshall Hall, Maryland with his friend Paul Boyton, another water exhibitionist and daredevil, known as the Fearless Frogman.
In 1881, the Natatorium began losing money, so Robert decided to close the school down. He found a job as a swimming instructor at Fort Monroe at the Hygeia Hotel Hampton, Virginia, but still had the desire for fame and money.
Robert was eager to perform a jump from the newly built Brooklyn Bridge, so in 1882, he sneaked to an unfinished part of the bridge. Before he could perform the stunt, the police caught him and sent him back to Washington. Three years later, he finally succeeded in his plan.
On 19 May 1885, Robert went back to New York well prepared. The NYPD was well aware of his plans, as the story of Robert’s intentions had spread throughout the city in the weeks leading up to the event. They tightened the security on the bridge, but Odlum managed to create a distraction. He sent his friend James Haggart to the bridge in a cab while he was hiding in another car. James served as a decoy for the police, pretending that he was the jumper. While the policemen were busy with the fake jumper, Robert stepped out of the car he was hiding in. Already in his swimsuit, he jumped off the bridge at 5:35 pm, before the eyes of a witnessing crowd watching from a boat.
Robert fell in the freezing water at a speed of approximately 60 miles per hour. He hit the river surface at an angle, hitting it with his feet and hip. The disastrous outcome of the jump was caused by the strong wind blowing at the time. The lifeguard, who had been hired by Odlum himself, failed to act, so Paul Boyton jumped into the water and took Robert’s body out. After he was taken to the boat, Robert regained consciousness for a short time, asked if the jump was good, and became unconscious again. Blood started flowing from his mouth, and he died at 6:18 pm from internal hemorrhaging. The ambulance summoned by his friend did not arrive in time to save his life. The coroner stated that Robert’s liver, kidneys, and spleen were ruptured and 3 of his ribs were broken. It was concluded that concussion was the official cause of death. Robert was buried at Mount Olivet Cemetery in Washington, D.C.
After his deadly leap, Robert’s mother accused Paul Boyton of his death, claiming that he persuaded Robert to go for the jump. The Fearless Frogman denied all accountability and wrote an open letter to Mrs. Catherine Odlum which was also published in The New York Times.
In 1885, Catherine Odlum published a biographic book for her son, named “The Life and Adventures of Prof. Robert Emmet Odlum, Containing an Account of his Splendid Natatorium at the National Capital”.
One year after Robert’s death, Steve Brodie claimed to be the first man to jump off Brooklyn Bridge and survive the fall. There were no witnesses, and Brodie was accused of faking the jump by throwing a dummy from the bridge.
This alleged jump happened on 23 July 1886. One month later, Larry Donovan made the plunge into the waters of the East River, becoming the first confirmed survivor of the Brooklyn Bridge leap. | <urn:uuid:d8717e20-dd15-4f87-993b-971cf252f96c> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.thevintagenews.com/2018/04/04/brooklyn-bridge/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250608295.52/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123041345-20200123070345-00140.warc.gz | en | 0.988008 | 1,267 | 3.359375 | 3 | [
0.1032530665397644,
-0.005095013417303562,
0.44210225343704224,
-0.14710569381713867,
-0.274086058139801,
0.09774163365364075,
0.2661091983318329,
0.24488960206508636,
0.06493330746889114,
-0.36211249232292175,
0.3438285291194916,
0.1593373417854309,
-0.333871066570282,
0.43722841143608093... | 13 | Brooklyn Bridge is one of most famous bridges in the world. Spanning over the East River, it connects Manhattan with Brooklyn. The bridge was completed in 1883, becoming the first steel-wire suspension bridge ever built, and for several years, it held the record for being the longest suspension bridge in the world. With the length of 5,899 ft and the maximum height of 276.5 ft over the water, it was described as one of the seven wonders of the industrial world.
More than 20 men died during the construction of the bridge. The main designer of the bridge, John Roebling, was the first victim, followed by more workers. One week after the opening ceremony of the bridge, more than 20,000 people were on it, when a rumor that the bridge might collapse was spread among the crowd. As the panic began, 12 people lost their lives; they were crushed in the massive human stampede.
However, none of this compares to the number of people that have committed suicide by jumping off of Brooklyn Bridge. Unofficially, more than 1,300 suicides had occurred by 2003. There is speculation that every 15 days, a person dies from a fall in the East River. There were ideas of creating a suicide barrier, but the idea wasn’t realized because of engineering obstacles.
The first person ever to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge was Robert Emmet Odlum. Robert had no intention of committing suicide; he simply wanted to show that a person does not die from falling through the air.
He did this to encourage other people to jump into nets when trapped in a burning building. Besides this, he desired fame and money, which served as additional motivations for his deed. Unfortunately, he did not survive the jump.
Robert Odlum was a swimming instructor. He was born on 31 August 1851, in Ogdensburg, New York, and became a skilled swimmer at an early age. The Odlum family traveled a lot, looking for Robert’s older brother, David, who was lost in the American Civil War. Robert changed many places of residence and many professions. In 1878, he moved to Washington, where he opened a swimming school named Natatorium. The school was a huge success, and soon the children of many prominent residents of Washington became students of Odlum’s.
Odlum, who gained the nickname Professor, had among his pupils, the sons of the US President James A. Garfield, the daughter of General William Sherman, and the children of the President Rutherford Birchard Hayes. Robert had become a Washington celebrity, thanks to his many stunts, such as swimming and diving into the Potomac river, diving into the Occoquan Falls and as well, swimming from Washington to Marshall Hall, Maryland with his friend Paul Boyton, another water exhibitionist and daredevil, known as the Fearless Frogman.
In 1881, the Natatorium began losing money, so Robert decided to close the school down. He found a job as a swimming instructor at Fort Monroe at the Hygeia Hotel Hampton, Virginia, but still had the desire for fame and money.
Robert was eager to perform a jump from the newly built Brooklyn Bridge, so in 1882, he sneaked to an unfinished part of the bridge. Before he could perform the stunt, the police caught him and sent him back to Washington. Three years later, he finally succeeded in his plan.
On 19 May 1885, Robert went back to New York well prepared. The NYPD was well aware of his plans, as the story of Robert’s intentions had spread throughout the city in the weeks leading up to the event. They tightened the security on the bridge, but Odlum managed to create a distraction. He sent his friend James Haggart to the bridge in a cab while he was hiding in another car. James served as a decoy for the police, pretending that he was the jumper. While the policemen were busy with the fake jumper, Robert stepped out of the car he was hiding in. Already in his swimsuit, he jumped off the bridge at 5:35 pm, before the eyes of a witnessing crowd watching from a boat.
Robert fell in the freezing water at a speed of approximately 60 miles per hour. He hit the river surface at an angle, hitting it with his feet and hip. The disastrous outcome of the jump was caused by the strong wind blowing at the time. The lifeguard, who had been hired by Odlum himself, failed to act, so Paul Boyton jumped into the water and took Robert’s body out. After he was taken to the boat, Robert regained consciousness for a short time, asked if the jump was good, and became unconscious again. Blood started flowing from his mouth, and he died at 6:18 pm from internal hemorrhaging. The ambulance summoned by his friend did not arrive in time to save his life. The coroner stated that Robert’s liver, kidneys, and spleen were ruptured and 3 of his ribs were broken. It was concluded that concussion was the official cause of death. Robert was buried at Mount Olivet Cemetery in Washington, D.C.
After his deadly leap, Robert’s mother accused Paul Boyton of his death, claiming that he persuaded Robert to go for the jump. The Fearless Frogman denied all accountability and wrote an open letter to Mrs. Catherine Odlum which was also published in The New York Times.
In 1885, Catherine Odlum published a biographic book for her son, named “The Life and Adventures of Prof. Robert Emmet Odlum, Containing an Account of his Splendid Natatorium at the National Capital”.
One year after Robert’s death, Steve Brodie claimed to be the first man to jump off Brooklyn Bridge and survive the fall. There were no witnesses, and Brodie was accused of faking the jump by throwing a dummy from the bridge.
This alleged jump happened on 23 July 1886. One month later, Larry Donovan made the plunge into the waters of the East River, becoming the first confirmed survivor of the Brooklyn Bridge leap. | 1,296 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Paper type: Essay Pages: 2 (494 words)
Mauryan/Gupta India from 320 B.C.E. to 550 C.E. had similar as well as different methods of political control with that of Han China from 206 B.C.E. to 220 C.E. in the sense that both used culture to justify social inequality supported with the idea of rising in social status and the use of religion to help with political control. The differences were more seen by the twos’ organization in political control as well as the language role in the midst of the civilizations.
The differences between the Han and Gupta/Mauryan had been largely attributed to the main sense of political organization when keeping a civilization running. Han China was more organized due to a solid bureaucracy as a solid political system where all people would be told what’s what so there wouldn’t be confusion as to where ideas and laws were going. India on the other hand had regionalism which could go differently for each political system that would be developed.
This political method appeared to be the best option for India since the Geography would not permit them a more central and organized political system such as the one that Han China had created.
Another political difference involves the use of a language. Han China had the standard language of Mandarin which kept the civilization more together and unified as a whole. India did not have a standard language at all. They did have the use for Sanskrit but this was mainly reserved for the elite only. Again this political method kept India more apart than Han China.
Both Han China and Mauryan/Gupta had the idea of a social hierarchy and the achievement of a status on that hierarchy. However the Han had less of a religious route than India in this sense. Han China had a course of study for all students known as the civil service exam. The passing of this exam would ensure and/or determine a student’s position in the government. India would have a religiously political setup where there would be a change in social status through reincarnation.
At another point both Han China and India used religion in a way to help their political control. Han china’s political method underwent Confucianism which would allow everyone to have a good picture in their heads of a world that can be unified so as long as they follow their duties and follow an individual sort of role all the while. India had Hinduism as a form of political control. As it became popular under the Guptas, Hinduism was made the main religion which in itself unifies the people under one single religion.
Han China was overall stronger when it came to that of political organization and the use of a standard language to keep the people unified. India still kept up similar characteristics with regionalism and Sanskrit but was not as strong. Both still had evened ideas to do with rising in social status and ensuring political control through religion.
Cite this page
A Comparison of Han China and India. (2017, Jan 01). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/a-comparison-of-han-china-and-india-essay | <urn:uuid:b60c72c2-3b30-413f-8a7a-c90c1481fe02> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://studymoose.com/a-comparison-of-han-china-and-india-essay | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250611127.53/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123160903-20200123185903-00031.warc.gz | en | 0.980035 | 649 | 3.40625 | 3 | [
-0.1432502269744873,
0.16700907051563263,
-0.11847785115242004,
-0.3896646797657013,
-0.20244519412517548,
0.45445510745048523,
0.2785481810569763,
0.14602474868297577,
-0.12562672793865204,
-0.0622461773455143,
0.18519367277622223,
0.09237456321716309,
0.15758702158927917,
0.1862437427043... | 1 | Paper type: Essay Pages: 2 (494 words)
Mauryan/Gupta India from 320 B.C.E. to 550 C.E. had similar as well as different methods of political control with that of Han China from 206 B.C.E. to 220 C.E. in the sense that both used culture to justify social inequality supported with the idea of rising in social status and the use of religion to help with political control. The differences were more seen by the twos’ organization in political control as well as the language role in the midst of the civilizations.
The differences between the Han and Gupta/Mauryan had been largely attributed to the main sense of political organization when keeping a civilization running. Han China was more organized due to a solid bureaucracy as a solid political system where all people would be told what’s what so there wouldn’t be confusion as to where ideas and laws were going. India on the other hand had regionalism which could go differently for each political system that would be developed.
This political method appeared to be the best option for India since the Geography would not permit them a more central and organized political system such as the one that Han China had created.
Another political difference involves the use of a language. Han China had the standard language of Mandarin which kept the civilization more together and unified as a whole. India did not have a standard language at all. They did have the use for Sanskrit but this was mainly reserved for the elite only. Again this political method kept India more apart than Han China.
Both Han China and Mauryan/Gupta had the idea of a social hierarchy and the achievement of a status on that hierarchy. However the Han had less of a religious route than India in this sense. Han China had a course of study for all students known as the civil service exam. The passing of this exam would ensure and/or determine a student’s position in the government. India would have a religiously political setup where there would be a change in social status through reincarnation.
At another point both Han China and India used religion in a way to help their political control. Han china’s political method underwent Confucianism which would allow everyone to have a good picture in their heads of a world that can be unified so as long as they follow their duties and follow an individual sort of role all the while. India had Hinduism as a form of political control. As it became popular under the Guptas, Hinduism was made the main religion which in itself unifies the people under one single religion.
Han China was overall stronger when it came to that of political organization and the use of a standard language to keep the people unified. India still kept up similar characteristics with regionalism and Sanskrit but was not as strong. Both still had evened ideas to do with rising in social status and ensuring political control through religion.
Cite this page
A Comparison of Han China and India. (2017, Jan 01). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/a-comparison-of-han-china-and-india-essay | 635 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Focus on mental health
December 16, 2019
At the start of the 2019-2020 school year, administrators, counselors, and teachers commit to understanding the mental health of the student body. Plans are in place to build relationships and lessen the stigma of talking about mental health.
Eliminating mental health stigma
It all starts when you oversleep. You wake up fifty minutes past your alarm because you stayed up late to complete your homework. By the time you manage to get dressed, brush your teeth, leave the house and arrive at school, it’s two minutes until first period. You try your best to get to your locker and down the hall to your classroom, but to no avail. The bell rings just as you close your locker. Most of your classmates would just move their feet to get to class as quickly as possible without missing too much, but you can’t even fathom that. Your stomach starts to ache. Your heart races. Your feet are rooted into the ground. You can’t focus on anything. Just the idea of having the class’s eyes on you as you walk in is too difficult to handle. What if they hate me? So, instead of heading to class and facing the potential judgement, you just walk away.
This is the reality of anxiety presented by teens in the independent film, “Angst,” shown to the student body on November 6th. Mia Ridenour, a junior, has struggled with her own mental health over the years. In the fifth grade, she dealt with intense anxiety. She even had to see a chiropractor often due to how high she held her shoulders. If she forgot to do an assignment, she would lie to her teachers saying she left it somewhere, because in her mind that made her more “virtuous”. Moving from private to public school in the sixth grade made her relax a bit, but that wouldn’t be the last time she dealt with her mental health.
“When I was thirteen, I saw my grandma pass away in front of me, by myself, due to an accident,” Ridenour says. “I got PTSD, not in the form that they talk about on TV with the whole, you think you’re there and you feel it intensely. It’s more like…it just sort of magnified my anxiety and I would draw ties from what I was doing back to that.”
Through her many years of dealing with anxiety and other disorders, Ridenour noticed a trend.
“My anxiety manifests more in school than out,” Ridenour says. “Just…a constant feeling of I’m wrong and second guessing.”
Anxiety is a disorder many people are familiar with. According to the Child Mind Institute, one in three adolescents will meet the criteria for at least one anxiety disorder before they turn 18. This has more than doubled since the 1980s, when most of today’s adolescent’s parents were in school. With the increase in mental health concerns among those under the age of 18, schools are feeling more and more pressure to support their students who are struggling with various issues.
In order to combat the increased impact of anxiety in the classroom, the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) released a new strategic plan in 2017. The plan, “Each Child, Our Future,” ensures that students are challenged, prepared and empowered for their future. The plan includes four domains: foundational knowledge and skills, well-rounded content, leadership and reasoning, and social-emotional learning.
Guidance counselor Erika Volker believes the administration is taking the right steps to fulfill ODE’s strategic plan.
“We’re lucky to work in a school district where mental health has come to the forefront of the things that we really want to do to help our students,” Volker says. “There’s a lot of students who are aware of what mental health is, and are starting to be aware of what we offer to help support mental health awareness for other students and for themselves.”
One of the initiatives the school has taken includes the creation of a social emotional coordinator. Kim Sellers, who took the position, has a whole stack of responsibilities on her plate. She looks at the multi-tier structure support plans to meet the emotional needs of students, works on culture competency, sits in on IEPs when asked, attends to expulsion hearings when mental health is concerned, and meets with students individually, just to name a few. Guidance counselor, Heidi Murray, says that Sellers has been a great resource to her and the district.
“She just has this wealth of knowledge about what the biggest concerns are and how to address them. She’s been a great resource to me, in kind of thinking about what we have in place and what our priorities need to be and what we need to help kids gain,” Murray says.
Sellers feels that mental health has become a crisis.
“For example, the rates in Ohio alone. Suicide is now the first leading cause of death between ages 10-14 and it’s the second leading cause of death with ages 15-34. From 2007 to 2018, our suicide rate has doubled,” Sellers says. “A lot of the pressure that I think today’s adolescents have, it’s a lot greater than I think it ever has been.”
In December 2018, it was announced that Kings was partnering with the Greater Cincinnati Grant Us Hope Organization to bring the Hope Squad to the school district. This peer-to-peer group was created by Dr. Greg Hudnall in Utah back in 2005. Hudnall was working at a school that was seeing one to two suicides a year. It was New Years Day, and he got a phone call from the police asking him to come identify the body of a teenager who took his life in a park next to the school. After Hudnall was able to name the victim, he went to his car and cried for half an hour. That’s when he knew he couldn’t let the students and the administration continue like that. With help from other principals, superintendents, and mental health organizations, he created what was called Circles of Hope. However, something was still missing. What they found was that almost every student they had lost to suicide had told someone, but then swore them to secrecy. Not wanting to betray their friends, the person didn’t tell. Hudnall realized that you could have the best programs in the world, but if you don’t know who to help, it will never be effective. By bringing the students into the equation, the school could teach them to recognize the signs of suicide and depressions and report it to an adult that can help. Thus, the Hope Squad was born. That school district went from experiencing one to two suicides a year, to not having one in over a decade.
The implementation of a program like Hope Squad is something that high school teacher and Hope Squad leader Margie Coleman believes was a long time coming.
“We have talked for years that we need to do better teaching our kids coping skills. We have heard of suicides, not as many from current students, but then we would get stories from kids who recently graduated. We were just always searching for that way to help kids find hope,” Coleman says. “Rates of suicide amongst young people are increasing nationwide, in general, so we just want to try to get the help to kids as soon as we can.”
Although Kings does not see a suicide rate as high as the school where Dr. Hudnall worked, Hope Squad leader Lisa DeBord hopes that Hope Squad can prevent the deterioration of students’ mental health.
“The worry we have as administrators, teachers, parents, is that that’s going to become detrimental,” DeBord says. “Why wait until we have problems to be proactive about these problems?”
DeBord had her own fair share of mental health struggles in high school, namely depression, following the passing of her father. At her school, however, she neither received support, nor did she have any conversations with her teachers or her counselors. The whole plan with Hope Squad, and other measures the school is taking, is to make a more welcoming space for students to talk about those topics that at one point, people chose to be silent about.
“We really want to make sure that students, adults, realize you have have those conversations and its important to because we all need help and that’s okay there’s nothing wrong with that. We’re trying to release that stigma that it’s not okay to talk to someone if you’re struggling,” DeBord says. “We’re teaching these to Hope Squad members, but then our hope is that Hope Squad members are teaching these to their peers and to their peers. It’s just that trickle effect. The more people that have that knowledge, the more people that are learning, the more people can help everyone.”
Now that Hope Squad has been brought to the district, members like sophomore Meredith Viox are looking forward to helping their peers.
“I’m glad that I can help my peers and I think it’s going to do a lot of good,” Viox says. “I want to be able to put myself in their shoes and walk with them and have empathy for them.”
Ridenour believes that Hope Squad is a good step in the right direction. She is worried, however, about its effectiveness.
“If we’re truly going to invest in the Hope Squad […] we need people to feel like they can come forward,” Ridenour says.
The next step the school took was the introduction of advisory, a thirty minute period that occurs every other Friday, starting at the beginning of the school year. The idea was to give kids a break where they can discuss a topic that won’t be on the state report card, but that principal Doug Leist finds just as important.
“It’s focusing on the whole child,” Leist says. “I think we do a much better job of having an open mind to what education is about. I love the fact that we can provide help and services to students, especially in the area of mental health.”
When it comes to deciding the topics that are discussed each time in advisory, Leist turns to the counselors and teachers to learn what they have heard from students, either in conversations or through surveys. Next semester, student organizations such as the Culture Club, RAISE team, as well as Hope Squad, willing be giving presentations.
Next, Kings joined the many schools in the region with showing the film, “Angst.” This movie used the classroom example provided earlier as a way to show how common anxiety can be.
“I had a conference call with the producer, twice, before we showed this,” Sellers says. “Her son had anxiety so bad he had to be hospitalized for it. It almost took his life. She then, because she was in this industry, wanted to create something around this for awareness.”
After the viewing of the film, some of the feedback that the counselors received was great, but other students like Ridenour found it to be too simple and narrow-minded.
“That movie, yeah, it scratched the surface, but that movie also implied you have to have panic attacks in order to have anxiety. It also implied you have to run away from your problems if you have anxiety,” Ridenour says. “Personally, I would hate [arriving late to class], but I’m going to walk in front of that class and I’m going to sit my butt down in my seat because my fear of failing at school outweighs my anxiety that Karen in seventh bell’s gonna hate me.”
When asked for her take on Ridenour’s statement, Murray says she agrees, but she also believes that in order to reach the most amount of students in the most effective way, it has to be surface level information.
“Everybody is very different. So how do you go in depth without missing a large group of people who don’t experience anxiety that way,” Murray says. “We do the best we can.”
To help students cope with their anxiety, depression, or any other mental health issue, Sellers has a few suggestions for simple things students can do. She suggests brain breaks and cell phone breaks, as well as another seemingly simple action: sleep. She even refers to it as the “most underutilized coping and health resource” that is available to us.
On an everyday basis, there are multiple options offered in the guidance office to help students through rough patches. One of which is mindfulness cards, which asks different questions such as “what holds you back from living at your highest potential” or “what inspired you today?” Their purpose is for students to forget whatever may be bothering them for a few minutes.
Ridenour has her own routine that she goes through when she’s stressed. “I’m a strong believer in you need to relax every so often,” Ridenour says. “Being able to tell myself, ‘does it really matter in this moment? Is it gonna matter next week?’ Most of the times, the answer is no, it’s not, and I’m able to pull myself out of that headspace.”
Rising up from worry
Her mind starts racing. Her heart starts pounding and she begins to overthink. Her panic arises. Reality becomes a haze behind her genuine fear. Emotions begin to take over. Minutes begin to feel like days. All of her motivation is gone and is replaced with dullness. Her mind traps you in an endless cycle of what if’s. Anxiety hits, hope seems lost. She begins to wonder, will this ever go away?
Senior Yun Yi Thomas is no stranger to the intense feelings of anxiety. Thomas has experienced panic attacks, anxiety attacks, and certain situations provoke her anxiety.
“I start to have severe anxiety when there are loud noises I am not used to and intense lighting. When I have a panic or anxiety attack it makes me very uncomfortable and I want to get out of the place I am in. I overthink the situation I am in and can start to cry at times,” Thomas says.
During her junior year, Thomas’s anxiety increased due to conflict with friends. During that time, she had support from her best friend Grace Nishimori.
“I have known Yun Yi since freshman year. As we got closer, I started noticing signs of anxiety. She had a panic attack at school and I knew she was at her breaking point,” Nishimori says.
Since Nishimori found out about Thomas’s struggles, Nishimori has been a strong support system for Yun Yi.
“I tell Grace everything, she listens very well. She always cheers me up and gives great advice and doesn’t judge me,” says Thomas.
Thomas’s friends and family are some of the biggest supporters for her when she is struggling. Another way she copes is by taking her mind off of the situation.
“I usually distract myself from the situation, especially when it is out of my control. I will hang out with friends. Eventually, the feelings go away,” says Thomas.
Another way Thomas copes is going to her (former) guided intervention specialist Lorraine Hartkey for support and advice. Hartkey noticed some of her anxiety in the classroom.
“Based on my interactions with her, she would become very unsure of herself and in her work. She would want affirmation on her understanding or request to see me more often. Her grades were never an indicator of her anxiety, and her behaviors; needing affirmation, talking through academic work, talking through her plans for her future and her goals, needing a more private place to converse one on one,” says Hartke.
Since figuring out Thomas’s struggles, Hartke wanted to find a solution for Thomas.
“We always discussed what was her concern, and then built a plan around moving forward. She responded to writing things down and having a plan. She would share her concerns about not having access at home for some of her academic concerns, so she and I communicated in the evenings and before school hours with the Remind app, which seemed to be an approach that allowed Yun Yi to gain confidence in knowing that there was a person that she could confide in and communicate with outside of school hours,” Hartkey says.
Thomas was always able to communicate with teachers when she felt unsure or anxious in school.
“She was always very honest when asked about how she could be supported and she would always be very open about what she needed to help her,” says Hartke.
With the support of her friends and teachers, Thomas was able to thrive.
This year, Thomas started a club called Students Demand Action. SDA is a nationally led student group advocating for gun control. Creating the club has helped Thomas focus on her passion.
“Starting the club has helped my mental health so much. I know I am making a difference and get to meet new people how are passionate as well,” says Thomas.
Nishimori admires her for starting this club. Thomas’s passion has even influenced Nishimori.
“She has such strong opinions and sticks to what she believes in. She is so passionate about it and now I am too,” Nishimori says.
Since her junior year, Thomas’s mental health has improved. Hartke has seen a lot of positive growth in Thomas.
“Yun Yi’s confidence has been the most notable area of growth. Through time and providing strategies to her to help Yun Yi become independent in the management of her day, she has been incredibly successful and driven to achieve her goals. I’m so incredibly proud of Yun Yi and her dedication to wanting to achieve her dreams, but also recognizing that when she needed support, not being scared to ask for that support,” Hartke says.
“The end of junior year was rough, I am doing very well now,” says Thomas. | <urn:uuid:773e4831-cc00-4c99-8e69-828e5b7b8472> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://khsknighttimes.com/10287/features/focus-on-mental-health/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250598726.39/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120110422-20200120134422-00204.warc.gz | en | 0.981116 | 3,901 | 3.390625 | 3 | [
0.11155782639980316,
0.15968795120716095,
0.647716224193573,
-0.10287496447563171,
-0.11634326726198196,
0.5045878887176514,
0.37589046359062195,
0.06020701304078102,
0.1285412311553955,
-0.5450693368911743,
0.153387188911438,
-0.08055576682090759,
0.0675344169139862,
0.3591233491897583,
... | 3 | Focus on mental health
December 16, 2019
At the start of the 2019-2020 school year, administrators, counselors, and teachers commit to understanding the mental health of the student body. Plans are in place to build relationships and lessen the stigma of talking about mental health.
Eliminating mental health stigma
It all starts when you oversleep. You wake up fifty minutes past your alarm because you stayed up late to complete your homework. By the time you manage to get dressed, brush your teeth, leave the house and arrive at school, it’s two minutes until first period. You try your best to get to your locker and down the hall to your classroom, but to no avail. The bell rings just as you close your locker. Most of your classmates would just move their feet to get to class as quickly as possible without missing too much, but you can’t even fathom that. Your stomach starts to ache. Your heart races. Your feet are rooted into the ground. You can’t focus on anything. Just the idea of having the class’s eyes on you as you walk in is too difficult to handle. What if they hate me? So, instead of heading to class and facing the potential judgement, you just walk away.
This is the reality of anxiety presented by teens in the independent film, “Angst,” shown to the student body on November 6th. Mia Ridenour, a junior, has struggled with her own mental health over the years. In the fifth grade, she dealt with intense anxiety. She even had to see a chiropractor often due to how high she held her shoulders. If she forgot to do an assignment, she would lie to her teachers saying she left it somewhere, because in her mind that made her more “virtuous”. Moving from private to public school in the sixth grade made her relax a bit, but that wouldn’t be the last time she dealt with her mental health.
“When I was thirteen, I saw my grandma pass away in front of me, by myself, due to an accident,” Ridenour says. “I got PTSD, not in the form that they talk about on TV with the whole, you think you’re there and you feel it intensely. It’s more like…it just sort of magnified my anxiety and I would draw ties from what I was doing back to that.”
Through her many years of dealing with anxiety and other disorders, Ridenour noticed a trend.
“My anxiety manifests more in school than out,” Ridenour says. “Just…a constant feeling of I’m wrong and second guessing.”
Anxiety is a disorder many people are familiar with. According to the Child Mind Institute, one in three adolescents will meet the criteria for at least one anxiety disorder before they turn 18. This has more than doubled since the 1980s, when most of today’s adolescent’s parents were in school. With the increase in mental health concerns among those under the age of 18, schools are feeling more and more pressure to support their students who are struggling with various issues.
In order to combat the increased impact of anxiety in the classroom, the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) released a new strategic plan in 2017. The plan, “Each Child, Our Future,” ensures that students are challenged, prepared and empowered for their future. The plan includes four domains: foundational knowledge and skills, well-rounded content, leadership and reasoning, and social-emotional learning.
Guidance counselor Erika Volker believes the administration is taking the right steps to fulfill ODE’s strategic plan.
“We’re lucky to work in a school district where mental health has come to the forefront of the things that we really want to do to help our students,” Volker says. “There’s a lot of students who are aware of what mental health is, and are starting to be aware of what we offer to help support mental health awareness for other students and for themselves.”
One of the initiatives the school has taken includes the creation of a social emotional coordinator. Kim Sellers, who took the position, has a whole stack of responsibilities on her plate. She looks at the multi-tier structure support plans to meet the emotional needs of students, works on culture competency, sits in on IEPs when asked, attends to expulsion hearings when mental health is concerned, and meets with students individually, just to name a few. Guidance counselor, Heidi Murray, says that Sellers has been a great resource to her and the district.
“She just has this wealth of knowledge about what the biggest concerns are and how to address them. She’s been a great resource to me, in kind of thinking about what we have in place and what our priorities need to be and what we need to help kids gain,” Murray says.
Sellers feels that mental health has become a crisis.
“For example, the rates in Ohio alone. Suicide is now the first leading cause of death between ages 10-14 and it’s the second leading cause of death with ages 15-34. From 2007 to 2018, our suicide rate has doubled,” Sellers says. “A lot of the pressure that I think today’s adolescents have, it’s a lot greater than I think it ever has been.”
In December 2018, it was announced that Kings was partnering with the Greater Cincinnati Grant Us Hope Organization to bring the Hope Squad to the school district. This peer-to-peer group was created by Dr. Greg Hudnall in Utah back in 2005. Hudnall was working at a school that was seeing one to two suicides a year. It was New Years Day, and he got a phone call from the police asking him to come identify the body of a teenager who took his life in a park next to the school. After Hudnall was able to name the victim, he went to his car and cried for half an hour. That’s when he knew he couldn’t let the students and the administration continue like that. With help from other principals, superintendents, and mental health organizations, he created what was called Circles of Hope. However, something was still missing. What they found was that almost every student they had lost to suicide had told someone, but then swore them to secrecy. Not wanting to betray their friends, the person didn’t tell. Hudnall realized that you could have the best programs in the world, but if you don’t know who to help, it will never be effective. By bringing the students into the equation, the school could teach them to recognize the signs of suicide and depressions and report it to an adult that can help. Thus, the Hope Squad was born. That school district went from experiencing one to two suicides a year, to not having one in over a decade.
The implementation of a program like Hope Squad is something that high school teacher and Hope Squad leader Margie Coleman believes was a long time coming.
“We have talked for years that we need to do better teaching our kids coping skills. We have heard of suicides, not as many from current students, but then we would get stories from kids who recently graduated. We were just always searching for that way to help kids find hope,” Coleman says. “Rates of suicide amongst young people are increasing nationwide, in general, so we just want to try to get the help to kids as soon as we can.”
Although Kings does not see a suicide rate as high as the school where Dr. Hudnall worked, Hope Squad leader Lisa DeBord hopes that Hope Squad can prevent the deterioration of students’ mental health.
“The worry we have as administrators, teachers, parents, is that that’s going to become detrimental,” DeBord says. “Why wait until we have problems to be proactive about these problems?”
DeBord had her own fair share of mental health struggles in high school, namely depression, following the passing of her father. At her school, however, she neither received support, nor did she have any conversations with her teachers or her counselors. The whole plan with Hope Squad, and other measures the school is taking, is to make a more welcoming space for students to talk about those topics that at one point, people chose to be silent about.
“We really want to make sure that students, adults, realize you have have those conversations and its important to because we all need help and that’s okay there’s nothing wrong with that. We’re trying to release that stigma that it’s not okay to talk to someone if you’re struggling,” DeBord says. “We’re teaching these to Hope Squad members, but then our hope is that Hope Squad members are teaching these to their peers and to their peers. It’s just that trickle effect. The more people that have that knowledge, the more people that are learning, the more people can help everyone.”
Now that Hope Squad has been brought to the district, members like sophomore Meredith Viox are looking forward to helping their peers.
“I’m glad that I can help my peers and I think it’s going to do a lot of good,” Viox says. “I want to be able to put myself in their shoes and walk with them and have empathy for them.”
Ridenour believes that Hope Squad is a good step in the right direction. She is worried, however, about its effectiveness.
“If we’re truly going to invest in the Hope Squad […] we need people to feel like they can come forward,” Ridenour says.
The next step the school took was the introduction of advisory, a thirty minute period that occurs every other Friday, starting at the beginning of the school year. The idea was to give kids a break where they can discuss a topic that won’t be on the state report card, but that principal Doug Leist finds just as important.
“It’s focusing on the whole child,” Leist says. “I think we do a much better job of having an open mind to what education is about. I love the fact that we can provide help and services to students, especially in the area of mental health.”
When it comes to deciding the topics that are discussed each time in advisory, Leist turns to the counselors and teachers to learn what they have heard from students, either in conversations or through surveys. Next semester, student organizations such as the Culture Club, RAISE team, as well as Hope Squad, willing be giving presentations.
Next, Kings joined the many schools in the region with showing the film, “Angst.” This movie used the classroom example provided earlier as a way to show how common anxiety can be.
“I had a conference call with the producer, twice, before we showed this,” Sellers says. “Her son had anxiety so bad he had to be hospitalized for it. It almost took his life. She then, because she was in this industry, wanted to create something around this for awareness.”
After the viewing of the film, some of the feedback that the counselors received was great, but other students like Ridenour found it to be too simple and narrow-minded.
“That movie, yeah, it scratched the surface, but that movie also implied you have to have panic attacks in order to have anxiety. It also implied you have to run away from your problems if you have anxiety,” Ridenour says. “Personally, I would hate [arriving late to class], but I’m going to walk in front of that class and I’m going to sit my butt down in my seat because my fear of failing at school outweighs my anxiety that Karen in seventh bell’s gonna hate me.”
When asked for her take on Ridenour’s statement, Murray says she agrees, but she also believes that in order to reach the most amount of students in the most effective way, it has to be surface level information.
“Everybody is very different. So how do you go in depth without missing a large group of people who don’t experience anxiety that way,” Murray says. “We do the best we can.”
To help students cope with their anxiety, depression, or any other mental health issue, Sellers has a few suggestions for simple things students can do. She suggests brain breaks and cell phone breaks, as well as another seemingly simple action: sleep. She even refers to it as the “most underutilized coping and health resource” that is available to us.
On an everyday basis, there are multiple options offered in the guidance office to help students through rough patches. One of which is mindfulness cards, which asks different questions such as “what holds you back from living at your highest potential” or “what inspired you today?” Their purpose is for students to forget whatever may be bothering them for a few minutes.
Ridenour has her own routine that she goes through when she’s stressed. “I’m a strong believer in you need to relax every so often,” Ridenour says. “Being able to tell myself, ‘does it really matter in this moment? Is it gonna matter next week?’ Most of the times, the answer is no, it’s not, and I’m able to pull myself out of that headspace.”
Rising up from worry
Her mind starts racing. Her heart starts pounding and she begins to overthink. Her panic arises. Reality becomes a haze behind her genuine fear. Emotions begin to take over. Minutes begin to feel like days. All of her motivation is gone and is replaced with dullness. Her mind traps you in an endless cycle of what if’s. Anxiety hits, hope seems lost. She begins to wonder, will this ever go away?
Senior Yun Yi Thomas is no stranger to the intense feelings of anxiety. Thomas has experienced panic attacks, anxiety attacks, and certain situations provoke her anxiety.
“I start to have severe anxiety when there are loud noises I am not used to and intense lighting. When I have a panic or anxiety attack it makes me very uncomfortable and I want to get out of the place I am in. I overthink the situation I am in and can start to cry at times,” Thomas says.
During her junior year, Thomas’s anxiety increased due to conflict with friends. During that time, she had support from her best friend Grace Nishimori.
“I have known Yun Yi since freshman year. As we got closer, I started noticing signs of anxiety. She had a panic attack at school and I knew she was at her breaking point,” Nishimori says.
Since Nishimori found out about Thomas’s struggles, Nishimori has been a strong support system for Yun Yi.
“I tell Grace everything, she listens very well. She always cheers me up and gives great advice and doesn’t judge me,” says Thomas.
Thomas’s friends and family are some of the biggest supporters for her when she is struggling. Another way she copes is by taking her mind off of the situation.
“I usually distract myself from the situation, especially when it is out of my control. I will hang out with friends. Eventually, the feelings go away,” says Thomas.
Another way Thomas copes is going to her (former) guided intervention specialist Lorraine Hartkey for support and advice. Hartkey noticed some of her anxiety in the classroom.
“Based on my interactions with her, she would become very unsure of herself and in her work. She would want affirmation on her understanding or request to see me more often. Her grades were never an indicator of her anxiety, and her behaviors; needing affirmation, talking through academic work, talking through her plans for her future and her goals, needing a more private place to converse one on one,” says Hartke.
Since figuring out Thomas’s struggles, Hartke wanted to find a solution for Thomas.
“We always discussed what was her concern, and then built a plan around moving forward. She responded to writing things down and having a plan. She would share her concerns about not having access at home for some of her academic concerns, so she and I communicated in the evenings and before school hours with the Remind app, which seemed to be an approach that allowed Yun Yi to gain confidence in knowing that there was a person that she could confide in and communicate with outside of school hours,” Hartkey says.
Thomas was always able to communicate with teachers when she felt unsure or anxious in school.
“She was always very honest when asked about how she could be supported and she would always be very open about what she needed to help her,” says Hartke.
With the support of her friends and teachers, Thomas was able to thrive.
This year, Thomas started a club called Students Demand Action. SDA is a nationally led student group advocating for gun control. Creating the club has helped Thomas focus on her passion.
“Starting the club has helped my mental health so much. I know I am making a difference and get to meet new people how are passionate as well,” says Thomas.
Nishimori admires her for starting this club. Thomas’s passion has even influenced Nishimori.
“She has such strong opinions and sticks to what she believes in. She is so passionate about it and now I am too,” Nishimori says.
Since her junior year, Thomas’s mental health has improved. Hartke has seen a lot of positive growth in Thomas.
“Yun Yi’s confidence has been the most notable area of growth. Through time and providing strategies to her to help Yun Yi become independent in the management of her day, she has been incredibly successful and driven to achieve her goals. I’m so incredibly proud of Yun Yi and her dedication to wanting to achieve her dreams, but also recognizing that when she needed support, not being scared to ask for that support,” Hartke says.
“The end of junior year was rough, I am doing very well now,” says Thomas. | 3,610 | ENGLISH | 1 |
- Medieval Duchy
- Contemporary Region in southeastern Italy.
It lies mainly east of the Apennines and extends from the spur of Italy round the heel to the instep.
Apulia was one of the regions formed in the reign of Augustus and did not then include the heel of Italy (which was then called Calabria, a name later transferred to the toe). When provinces were formed in Italy in the late 3rd century the two regions were joined together to form Apulia et Calabria.
The Byzantines recovered the region from the Ostrogoths for the Empire in the 6th century, but the Lombards later encroached and much of Apulia became part of the Duchy of Benevento. Arabs raided during the 9th century. During its third quarter, they settled along much of the Apulian coast, but Byzantine power revived and Apulia was reoccupied later in the century. The Byzantine authorities allowed Lombard law to continue, and called the region Longobardia.
The disputes and intrigues that arose from the fragmentation of southern Italy gave opportunities for adventurers, who were ready to hire themselves out as fighting-men, and in the 11th century many Normans, landless or poor or finding settled life tame, were ready to seize the main-chance in Italy. One such knight, known as William Iron-Arm, was elected Count of the Normans in Apulia in 1042. He came from a family in Hauteville in Normandy, and was followed as Count by two brothers, and then by a half-brother, Robert, called the Guiscard, the Trickster. In 1059 the Pope, who reckoned himself to be overlord of southern Italy, made Guiscard Duke of Apulia, Calabria, and Sicily. By 1071 the Byzantines had been driven out of Italy; in the 1070s the Lombard Duchies disappeared, and when Robert died in 1085, he controlled much of southern Italy.
In 1127 his nephew, Roger II, who had been Count of Sicily since childhood, succeeded Guiscard’s grandson as Duke of Apulia, and in 1130 became King of Sicily. In the 1130s he added the hitherto independent territories, Naples and Capua, to his Kingdom. While the Normans ruled, the title of Duke of Apulia was used by the heir to the Kingdom of Sicily. Apulia remained part of the southern Kingdom – whether called Sicily, Naples, or the Two Sicilies – until Italian unification in 1860.
After World War II, but made effective only in the 1970s, Puglia became one of the autonomous regions of Republican Italy. It is comprised of the provinces of Foggia, Bari, Taranto, Brindisi, and Lecce. | <urn:uuid:ad9cbf8f-5e09-4d15-bab8-8c3ba55912c4> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://davidseurope.wordpress.com/2013/04/20/2344/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250599718.13/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120165335-20200120194335-00313.warc.gz | en | 0.98339 | 578 | 3.484375 | 3 | [
-0.41968441009521484,
0.3074663281440735,
0.30757367610931396,
0.05369328707456589,
-0.5973605513572693,
-0.5382100343704224,
-0.2511080801486969,
0.09939949214458466,
0.07089439034461975,
-0.1333228498697281,
-0.17438320815563202,
-0.4010927081108093,
0.2314329743385315,
0.198224142193794... | 2 | - Medieval Duchy
- Contemporary Region in southeastern Italy.
It lies mainly east of the Apennines and extends from the spur of Italy round the heel to the instep.
Apulia was one of the regions formed in the reign of Augustus and did not then include the heel of Italy (which was then called Calabria, a name later transferred to the toe). When provinces were formed in Italy in the late 3rd century the two regions were joined together to form Apulia et Calabria.
The Byzantines recovered the region from the Ostrogoths for the Empire in the 6th century, but the Lombards later encroached and much of Apulia became part of the Duchy of Benevento. Arabs raided during the 9th century. During its third quarter, they settled along much of the Apulian coast, but Byzantine power revived and Apulia was reoccupied later in the century. The Byzantine authorities allowed Lombard law to continue, and called the region Longobardia.
The disputes and intrigues that arose from the fragmentation of southern Italy gave opportunities for adventurers, who were ready to hire themselves out as fighting-men, and in the 11th century many Normans, landless or poor or finding settled life tame, were ready to seize the main-chance in Italy. One such knight, known as William Iron-Arm, was elected Count of the Normans in Apulia in 1042. He came from a family in Hauteville in Normandy, and was followed as Count by two brothers, and then by a half-brother, Robert, called the Guiscard, the Trickster. In 1059 the Pope, who reckoned himself to be overlord of southern Italy, made Guiscard Duke of Apulia, Calabria, and Sicily. By 1071 the Byzantines had been driven out of Italy; in the 1070s the Lombard Duchies disappeared, and when Robert died in 1085, he controlled much of southern Italy.
In 1127 his nephew, Roger II, who had been Count of Sicily since childhood, succeeded Guiscard’s grandson as Duke of Apulia, and in 1130 became King of Sicily. In the 1130s he added the hitherto independent territories, Naples and Capua, to his Kingdom. While the Normans ruled, the title of Duke of Apulia was used by the heir to the Kingdom of Sicily. Apulia remained part of the southern Kingdom – whether called Sicily, Naples, or the Two Sicilies – until Italian unification in 1860.
After World War II, but made effective only in the 1970s, Puglia became one of the autonomous regions of Republican Italy. It is comprised of the provinces of Foggia, Bari, Taranto, Brindisi, and Lecce. | 618 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Faith is Goodman Browns wife. One of the earliest uses of symbolism is Faith and her pink ribbons. Brown returns to his village believing he has rejected the devil, but he has in fact embraced him.
There is intentionally not a great deal of subtlety in these symbols, as Hawthorne clearly wants them to be obvious to even the least attentive reader. As the story by Nathaniel Hawthorne progresses, in a clearing, there is a large fire and what appears to be a Satanic or demonic ritual taking place and Goodman Brown thinks he sees his dead father.
Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the question of whether Hawthorne is implying that man is inherently evil. Nathaniel Hawthorne was descended from one John Hawthorne, a judge who had presided over the infamous witch trials there.
What is certain is that he lives and dies in pain because his belief in his righteousness isolates him from his community. | <urn:uuid:453fdfa3-3261-47df-a426-c4f1b8b4573e> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://qediwiraxemy.dellrichards.com/an-analysis-of-the-symbolism-in-nathaniel-hawthornes-young-goodman-brown299389010eu.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250624328.55/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124161014-20200124190014-00273.warc.gz | en | 0.98746 | 185 | 3.5 | 4 | [
-0.245708629488945,
-0.002210078062489629,
-0.20523515343666077,
-0.16313306987285614,
0.005723448935896158,
0.08929134905338287,
0.4749271273612976,
-0.1993824690580368,
-0.05205033719539642,
-0.25652387738227844,
0.059710901230573654,
-0.22270864248275757,
-0.34568989276885986,
0.0125867... | 1 | Faith is Goodman Browns wife. One of the earliest uses of symbolism is Faith and her pink ribbons. Brown returns to his village believing he has rejected the devil, but he has in fact embraced him.
There is intentionally not a great deal of subtlety in these symbols, as Hawthorne clearly wants them to be obvious to even the least attentive reader. As the story by Nathaniel Hawthorne progresses, in a clearing, there is a large fire and what appears to be a Satanic or demonic ritual taking place and Goodman Brown thinks he sees his dead father.
Where this agreement usually ends, however, is on the question of whether Hawthorne is implying that man is inherently evil. Nathaniel Hawthorne was descended from one John Hawthorne, a judge who had presided over the infamous witch trials there.
What is certain is that he lives and dies in pain because his belief in his righteousness isolates him from his community. | 188 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Great Wall of China is still one of the most famous and the most fascinating structures, which was built for centuries.
First fortifications were built to defend against attacks as early as in the fifth century BC, and construction continued until the 17th century. The most famous parts of the wall were built between the 15th and 17th century, during the Ming Dynasty, when the wall got a distinctive shape that is most often seen on the photos. The whole wall, connected, stretched to a total of 8,851 kilometers, with an average height of 15 meters, and width of seven meters. UNESCO included it on the World Heritage list.
There are many legends and myths regarding the building of the Great Wall. From generation to generation people liked to retell the story of the noble and brave girl Meng Jiang Nu, who fell in love and married a Fan Xiliang. Although she wanted to hide her groom from the Chinese government that sought work force for the construction of the wall, Fan Xiliang was found and captured. Meng Jiangnü waited for her husband for more than a year, heard no news, so she decided to visit him. On the long journey that took two years she came across many natural obstacles, but finally came to the part of the wall that he was working on. Unfortunately, she found out that the Fan had died of exhaustion. Having heard this, Meng was unable to withold her grief. Meng Jiangnü stayed by the wall and wept for 3 days and nights. The legend says that her tears demolished a part of the wall.
The legend of Meng and Fanu wanted to point out how many people paid with their lives while working in difficult and impossible conditions on building the wall. Some historians claim that the wall was built by nearly two million workers, and that many ended up with fatal consequences due to malnutrition, fatigue or an accident. There are gruesome stories that all the bodies were walled into the Wall of China, and that has become an integral part of the tourist attraction that is visited by millions of tourists every year. | <urn:uuid:0e6fddb2-fe4e-46af-9917-0cfc2335d883> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://magazine.travelshelper.com/legends-building-great-wall-china/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251684146.65/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126013015-20200126043015-00360.warc.gz | en | 0.987868 | 420 | 3.328125 | 3 | [
0.03982480615377426,
0.4748542606830597,
0.5132710337638855,
0.099172443151474,
0.07499347627162933,
0.11818266659975052,
0.2671082019805908,
-0.3297317624092102,
0.032051682472229004,
-0.07362084090709686,
0.16762755811214447,
-0.3678615391254425,
0.10603217035531998,
0.13275741040706635,... | 8 | Great Wall of China is still one of the most famous and the most fascinating structures, which was built for centuries.
First fortifications were built to defend against attacks as early as in the fifth century BC, and construction continued until the 17th century. The most famous parts of the wall were built between the 15th and 17th century, during the Ming Dynasty, when the wall got a distinctive shape that is most often seen on the photos. The whole wall, connected, stretched to a total of 8,851 kilometers, with an average height of 15 meters, and width of seven meters. UNESCO included it on the World Heritage list.
There are many legends and myths regarding the building of the Great Wall. From generation to generation people liked to retell the story of the noble and brave girl Meng Jiang Nu, who fell in love and married a Fan Xiliang. Although she wanted to hide her groom from the Chinese government that sought work force for the construction of the wall, Fan Xiliang was found and captured. Meng Jiangnü waited for her husband for more than a year, heard no news, so she decided to visit him. On the long journey that took two years she came across many natural obstacles, but finally came to the part of the wall that he was working on. Unfortunately, she found out that the Fan had died of exhaustion. Having heard this, Meng was unable to withold her grief. Meng Jiangnü stayed by the wall and wept for 3 days and nights. The legend says that her tears demolished a part of the wall.
The legend of Meng and Fanu wanted to point out how many people paid with their lives while working in difficult and impossible conditions on building the wall. Some historians claim that the wall was built by nearly two million workers, and that many ended up with fatal consequences due to malnutrition, fatigue or an accident. There are gruesome stories that all the bodies were walled into the Wall of China, and that has become an integral part of the tourist attraction that is visited by millions of tourists every year. | 427 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Though slavery in America has long since been illegal in the United States, the ramifications of the African slave trade that almost broke the new nation are still felt throughout American society, politics, and culture today.
While the rest of the world had long engaged in the forced servitude of people throughout history, America was introduced to the first African slaves by Dutch merchants in 1619, which spiraled into more than two hundred years of economic reliability on slaves.
However, the enslavement of Africans in the New World was just one faction of slavery in America, with the forced servitude of Native Americans throughout the American Southwest and California also being present, and resulting in the genocide of many Native Americans throughout the territories.
Many people may incorrectly believe that the enslavement of Africans was America’s only abuse of slavery, but the first use of slavery in the Americas came with the Spanish conquerors when they settled in Mexico, California, and what is today known as the American Southwest, and was also used frequently throughout the American Southeast as well. As early as 1542, when Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo, a Spanish explorer, claimed the California territories for Spain, the forced servitude of Native Americans resulted as many of the soldiers used native free labor to help build battlements, forts, and Catholic missions.
Throughout the 17th and 18th centuries, missions throughout Mexico and the Southwestern United States would capture the Native Californians, baptize them as Catholics, and then force them to work in different missions around Spain’s extended empire. While many missions stated they would release the Natives, who worked as planters, masons, cattle herders, carpenters, and more, after a decade of servitude, but often this never happened.
The Southern colonies of the United States were equally responsible, with their large plantations require massive amounts of labor. Paired with the poor treatment of the slaves, there was always need for more hands and bodies to do the backbreaking work. In many cases, the colonies in the Southeast had more Native American slaves than African slaves prior to the years of the American Revolution due to the fact they were cheaper and easy to get than African slaves, which had to be shipped from Africa and were often more expensive once they reached the Americas.
READ MORE: Colonial America
In fact, the trade of slaves with Native Americans was very popular in the Southeastern colonies, with colonists trading labor for goods and weapons in return for other natives that had been captured during battle or sieges. Some Native Americans were then traded to the Caribbean, where they were less likely to run away.
However, the Native Americans proved to be less reliable, and physically able, to live with the harsh working conditions of slavery, which, in conjunction with the profitable economy for cotton, tobacco, and other agricultural trades in the South, led to the increase of the African slave trade.
The ship carrying the first Africans to Jamestown, the first colony in America, in 1619 was made up of 20 Africans, and they were not immediately made slaves. The early American colonists didn’t particularly have a problem with slavery, but they were deeply religious, and as the first 20, and the next thousand Africans who would follow, were baptized as Christians, the colonists considered them exempt from slavery.
Many Africans, some even of mixed race with Spanish and Portuguese, lived as indentured servants, exactly the same as the Europeans bartering passage in exchange for years of labor, and were later freed and able to own land and slaves of their own (which some did).
The slave trade in America as we know it today was not an immediate institution, but one that evolved as the economies and social constructs changed with the times. Massachusetts became the first colony to legalize slavery, in 1641, but it wasn’t until 1654 that a black indentured servant was legally bound to his “master” for life, rather than a designated time that could be finished.
Since the colonies were dictated by English law, and loosely by European law, there was little understanding of how to deal with African or black citizens, as they were generally considered foreigners and outside of the English common law, which was the reigning governing law of the time. Unlike America, Britain had no procedure in place for accepting immigrants, and it wasn’t until 1662 that Virginia adopted a law to address the subject of immigrant or natural-born Americans of non-white parentage.
Known as the principle of partus sequitur ventrem, English law stated that any generations born into the colony were forced to take the social position of the mother, thereby claiming that any children born of slave mother was born a slave, whether a Christian or not, and subject to enslavement for life.
What was peculiar about this law was its objection to English common law, in that children born are required to take the status of the father, and it created many problems for slave women for more than a century. With white men not needing to take responsibility of their children, decades of abuse between owner and slave resulted in mixed-race children and infinite scandals.
In 1705, Virginia enacted their slave codes, a set of rules that further defined the position of slaves under the law in the colonies. In Virginia, slaves were people that were imported from non-Christian countries, however, the colonists still considered Native Americans slaves due to the fact that they were not Christian.
Thirty years later, Georgia prohibited slavery throughout the colony, the only one out of the 13, and continued to prohibit it until 1750, when the colony authorized slavery stating that it was unable to meet production demands on the numbers of indentured servants alone.
Louisiana, which was not an English colony but a French one, was under the rule of the French Code Noir, which already regulated the institution of slavery throughout France’s other conquests, including the Caribbean and New France. The regulations, however, were somewhat different than those of the English.
Under French law, slaves were allowed to marry, were considered inseparable after a union was made, and children were not allowed to be separated from their mothers. Though punishment of slaves in certain circumstances was systematically harsh, there were far more free people of color throughout the Louisiana colony than in any other in the Americas.
They were often business owners, and were educated, or even held their own slaves, but under the law, which still differentiated between black and white, people of mixed race were still considered black. After the Louisiana purchase, the slaves in Louisiana lost their “freedom” and denied the rights they had under French Rule. While slavery in the North did exist, it was less agriculturally oriented and more domestic; many slaves in the Northern colonies were maids, butlers, cooks, and other household roles.
Though the number can’t be exactly placed, historians believe that as many as 7 million Africans were transported from their native home to the United States throughout the 1700s, despite many colonists feeling strongly against slavery, and if not strongly against slavery, they were at least in favor of emancipation due to the fear of slave revolts.
In 1775, one year prior to America’s independence, the governor of Virginia proposed freeing the slaves of the colony in return that they fight for the British. Some 1500 slaves, which were owned by American Patriots, left their masters to fight for the British, and 300 are said to have made it to freedom back in England.
Under the proclamation however, the slaves owned by loyalists were not freed, and remained in servitude. Many more slaves used the general disruption of the war to escape, running to the North, or to the West, to escape from their capturers while battles raged on around them. For those who fought for the British, around 20,000 freed slaves were taken to freedom in Canada, the Caribbean, and England.
Many more Africans, however, fought against the British during the Revolutionary War, winning the respect of the European-Americans, who came to regard the African slaves as being as oppressed by slaveholders as they were by the British. George Washington personally promised that any slaves who fought for the Patriots would be freedmen, and throughout the Revolutionary War, the American army was up to a one-fourth black, which included both freemen and former slaves.
Latest US History Articles
While the war raged in the colonies, Britain became the dominate international slave trader, and the American government forbade the importation of more foreign slaves, although later, after the turn of the century, due to the economic reliance on slaves on plantations such as tobacco, rice, and indigo, the trade was once again opened in Georgia and South Carolina.
Though the North was well on it’s way to industrialization, the South was a robust agricultural economy, one that made the thought of slavery as an illegal practice in the new country a pipe dream, for there was one plant in particular that would change the slave trade in America forever: cotton.
Those who say that America was built on the back of slaves harvesting cotton are a lot closer to the truth than they think; after the fields of the 13th colonies were picked dry of nutrients for growing tobacco, and the English textile industries picked up, the huge demand for American cotton meant a huge demand for slaves. Prior to 1793, the process of separating cotton from its seed was a tiresome, and time consuming task done by hand by slaves.
Cotton was profitable, but not as much as it could be. After Eli Whitney, a young school teacher from the North invented the cotton gin, a machine that separated the see from the cotton ball, the lives of Americans changed almost overnight. No longer were slaves required to sort the cotton, but the demand for more and more crop and the work of a cotton gin, increased the country’s dependency on slaves, so instead of cutting down on the slave trade, it more than doubled the need for slavery.
After the Revolutionary War was won by the Patriots, the Constitution of the United States set to heal with the subject of slavery while the country was not uniform in its decision to legalize slavery, it did provide provisions to protect the slave trade and slaveholders. among those provisions included laws that would allow dates to require the return of escaped slaves to their proper homes.
As previously set down by the British, A state population was determined by the rate of 3/5 per slave, in relation to a whole vote from freed citizens. Prior to the Revolution and continuing after the war, the Northern state abolished slavery throughout their region, with New Jersey being the last to adopt the practice in 1804.
Freed status however did not mean a lack discrimination; most freedmen still were subject to racial segregation. And while the Southern economy is somewhat vilified in history as the sole protector of slavery, much of the wealth generated by the North during the 18th century was as a result of landowning and wealth aggregates that originated in the South. However with the large slave populations, the South continued to gain power in Congress due to the three-fifths agreement, and all of the wealth generated by the slave labor, ultimately resulted in a South that was too powerful to give up slavery; or so it thought.
As America moved into the 19th century, abolitionism took reins of the North. A movement designed to end slavery, the support above the Mason-Dixon line was overwhelming and thoroughly angelical. Considered “a peculiar institution” among contemporaries, though, slavery was seen as a necessary evil to keep up with the demands of the international cotton trade, at least from a ruling perspective.
No one wanted to upset the fragile balance of the new democracy, or wreak the thriving economy that was building out of it. Not only did the drive for more cotton increase the domestic slave trade in the U.S., but it also incurred a second side effect: migration of slaves out West. Dubbed the “Second Middle Passage,” it was a defining moment of the 19th century, and the resounding event between the American Revolution and the Civil War.
During this time, many slaves lost their families, ethnicity, and historical identity as communities were broken up, traded across slaves, and moved out west. Whipping, hangings, mutilation, torture, beating, burning, and branding were just a few of the punishments and cruelty shown to slaves by their slave holders. While conditions varied throughout the South, the harsh conditions were fueled by the fear of rebellion, and the slave codes, based on colonial era law, defined the relationships between slave and master, with the master hardly ever being prosecuted for wrongdoing.
The slave rebellions that plantation and slave owners feared were not a false fear–there were several rebellions after 1776 that are worth mentioning, including Gabriel’s conspiracy (1800), Igbo Landing slave escape (1803), Chatham Manor Rebellion (1805), 1811 German Coast Uprising (1811), George Boxley Rebellion (1815), Denmark Vesey’s conspiracy (1822), Nat Turner’s slave rebellion (1831), Black Seminole Slave Rebellion (1835-1838), Amistad seizure (1839), Creole case (1841), and the 1842 Slave Revolt in the Cherokee Nation.
Of those, perhaps the most famous is Nat Turner’s slave rebellion, also known as the Southampton Insurrection, where Nat Turner, an educated slave who claimed to have divine visions, organized a group of slaves and then murdered 60 white people in Southampton, Virginia. The lasting effects of this rebellion were tragic–the North Carolina militia retaliated by killing some 100 slaves, not just those suspected, free people of color lost their vote, and other slave states began to severely restrict the movements of both slaves and free people of color. Among these laws included anti-literacy rules, which levied strong penalties on anyone who was suspected of educating slaves.
Led by free backs such as Frederick Douglass, a free black man, and white abolitionists like Harriet Beecher Stowe, writer of Uncle Tom’s Cabin, their activism grew between the 1830s and 1860s. Not only were abolitionists actively petitioning in the North, but they were also moving to help fugitive slaves escape from the South through a collection of safe houses.
Figures such as Harriet Tubman, and the Underground Railroad, became a defining characteristic of Pre-Civil War America, estimating that anywhere between fifty thousand and a hundred thousand slaves successfully escaped to freedom. But with Western Expansion continuing the fragile balance of pro-slave and anti-slave states, much of the many tensions between the North and the South accelerated. The Missouri Compromise, which allowed Maine admittance as a free state, Missouri as a slave state, and all western lands south of Missouri’s Southern line to be free, the balance was maintained.
But in 1854, after the Mexican war and more land was added to the American territories, the Kansas-Nebraska Act reopened the question of slavery in the new lands, and the new state of Kansas, which was admitted into the union and allowed to choose it’s slave status, created a bloodbath of civil unrest known as Bleeding Kansas. Just 6 years later, when Abraham Lincoln was elected president, seven states seceded from the United States of America, with four more to come, and named themselves the Confederate States of America.
While Lincoln’s abolitionist personal views were well known, it was with the idea of reuniting the American Union that caused him to move to war. On January 1, 1863, Lincoln read an initial emancipation proclamation that named “slaves within any State, or designated part of a State…in rebellion…shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free.” With that, and around 3 million newly freed black slaves in the southern rebellion states, the Emancipation Proclamation took the economic advantage out from under the Southern economy and the war ended in 1865, with a new country emerging from the bloodiest battle in America’s history.
Explore More US History Articles
Though abolished in 1865, the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery, did not spell out an easy assimilation into American society for the recently freed blacks, and the equal protection and right to vote that followed would not make their progress any easier either. In the wake of black freedom, many racist organizations, including the KKK, and the rise of white supremacy, continues to plague American society even today, more than a century later. The Civil Rights movement, during the mid-20th century, would be the next great gain for American blacks towards freedom in America. | <urn:uuid:f456a646-5f79-4e43-92cc-48b5d3d687c9> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://historycooperative.org/black-mark-americas-history-slavery/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250591763.20/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118023429-20200118051429-00338.warc.gz | en | 0.981847 | 3,423 | 4.125 | 4 | [
-0.09794732928276062,
0.3415701985359192,
0.17981365323066711,
-0.09756100177764893,
-0.07431697845458984,
-0.1665012389421463,
-0.3609886169433594,
-0.33099907636642456,
-0.005636989139020443,
0.06244086101651192,
0.3849068880081177,
0.0914909690618515,
-0.5153008699417114,
0.209791347384... | 13 | Though slavery in America has long since been illegal in the United States, the ramifications of the African slave trade that almost broke the new nation are still felt throughout American society, politics, and culture today.
While the rest of the world had long engaged in the forced servitude of people throughout history, America was introduced to the first African slaves by Dutch merchants in 1619, which spiraled into more than two hundred years of economic reliability on slaves.
However, the enslavement of Africans in the New World was just one faction of slavery in America, with the forced servitude of Native Americans throughout the American Southwest and California also being present, and resulting in the genocide of many Native Americans throughout the territories.
Many people may incorrectly believe that the enslavement of Africans was America’s only abuse of slavery, but the first use of slavery in the Americas came with the Spanish conquerors when they settled in Mexico, California, and what is today known as the American Southwest, and was also used frequently throughout the American Southeast as well. As early as 1542, when Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo, a Spanish explorer, claimed the California territories for Spain, the forced servitude of Native Americans resulted as many of the soldiers used native free labor to help build battlements, forts, and Catholic missions.
Throughout the 17th and 18th centuries, missions throughout Mexico and the Southwestern United States would capture the Native Californians, baptize them as Catholics, and then force them to work in different missions around Spain’s extended empire. While many missions stated they would release the Natives, who worked as planters, masons, cattle herders, carpenters, and more, after a decade of servitude, but often this never happened.
The Southern colonies of the United States were equally responsible, with their large plantations require massive amounts of labor. Paired with the poor treatment of the slaves, there was always need for more hands and bodies to do the backbreaking work. In many cases, the colonies in the Southeast had more Native American slaves than African slaves prior to the years of the American Revolution due to the fact they were cheaper and easy to get than African slaves, which had to be shipped from Africa and were often more expensive once they reached the Americas.
READ MORE: Colonial America
In fact, the trade of slaves with Native Americans was very popular in the Southeastern colonies, with colonists trading labor for goods and weapons in return for other natives that had been captured during battle or sieges. Some Native Americans were then traded to the Caribbean, where they were less likely to run away.
However, the Native Americans proved to be less reliable, and physically able, to live with the harsh working conditions of slavery, which, in conjunction with the profitable economy for cotton, tobacco, and other agricultural trades in the South, led to the increase of the African slave trade.
The ship carrying the first Africans to Jamestown, the first colony in America, in 1619 was made up of 20 Africans, and they were not immediately made slaves. The early American colonists didn’t particularly have a problem with slavery, but they were deeply religious, and as the first 20, and the next thousand Africans who would follow, were baptized as Christians, the colonists considered them exempt from slavery.
Many Africans, some even of mixed race with Spanish and Portuguese, lived as indentured servants, exactly the same as the Europeans bartering passage in exchange for years of labor, and were later freed and able to own land and slaves of their own (which some did).
The slave trade in America as we know it today was not an immediate institution, but one that evolved as the economies and social constructs changed with the times. Massachusetts became the first colony to legalize slavery, in 1641, but it wasn’t until 1654 that a black indentured servant was legally bound to his “master” for life, rather than a designated time that could be finished.
Since the colonies were dictated by English law, and loosely by European law, there was little understanding of how to deal with African or black citizens, as they were generally considered foreigners and outside of the English common law, which was the reigning governing law of the time. Unlike America, Britain had no procedure in place for accepting immigrants, and it wasn’t until 1662 that Virginia adopted a law to address the subject of immigrant or natural-born Americans of non-white parentage.
Known as the principle of partus sequitur ventrem, English law stated that any generations born into the colony were forced to take the social position of the mother, thereby claiming that any children born of slave mother was born a slave, whether a Christian or not, and subject to enslavement for life.
What was peculiar about this law was its objection to English common law, in that children born are required to take the status of the father, and it created many problems for slave women for more than a century. With white men not needing to take responsibility of their children, decades of abuse between owner and slave resulted in mixed-race children and infinite scandals.
In 1705, Virginia enacted their slave codes, a set of rules that further defined the position of slaves under the law in the colonies. In Virginia, slaves were people that were imported from non-Christian countries, however, the colonists still considered Native Americans slaves due to the fact that they were not Christian.
Thirty years later, Georgia prohibited slavery throughout the colony, the only one out of the 13, and continued to prohibit it until 1750, when the colony authorized slavery stating that it was unable to meet production demands on the numbers of indentured servants alone.
Louisiana, which was not an English colony but a French one, was under the rule of the French Code Noir, which already regulated the institution of slavery throughout France’s other conquests, including the Caribbean and New France. The regulations, however, were somewhat different than those of the English.
Under French law, slaves were allowed to marry, were considered inseparable after a union was made, and children were not allowed to be separated from their mothers. Though punishment of slaves in certain circumstances was systematically harsh, there were far more free people of color throughout the Louisiana colony than in any other in the Americas.
They were often business owners, and were educated, or even held their own slaves, but under the law, which still differentiated between black and white, people of mixed race were still considered black. After the Louisiana purchase, the slaves in Louisiana lost their “freedom” and denied the rights they had under French Rule. While slavery in the North did exist, it was less agriculturally oriented and more domestic; many slaves in the Northern colonies were maids, butlers, cooks, and other household roles.
Though the number can’t be exactly placed, historians believe that as many as 7 million Africans were transported from their native home to the United States throughout the 1700s, despite many colonists feeling strongly against slavery, and if not strongly against slavery, they were at least in favor of emancipation due to the fear of slave revolts.
In 1775, one year prior to America’s independence, the governor of Virginia proposed freeing the slaves of the colony in return that they fight for the British. Some 1500 slaves, which were owned by American Patriots, left their masters to fight for the British, and 300 are said to have made it to freedom back in England.
Under the proclamation however, the slaves owned by loyalists were not freed, and remained in servitude. Many more slaves used the general disruption of the war to escape, running to the North, or to the West, to escape from their capturers while battles raged on around them. For those who fought for the British, around 20,000 freed slaves were taken to freedom in Canada, the Caribbean, and England.
Many more Africans, however, fought against the British during the Revolutionary War, winning the respect of the European-Americans, who came to regard the African slaves as being as oppressed by slaveholders as they were by the British. George Washington personally promised that any slaves who fought for the Patriots would be freedmen, and throughout the Revolutionary War, the American army was up to a one-fourth black, which included both freemen and former slaves.
Latest US History Articles
While the war raged in the colonies, Britain became the dominate international slave trader, and the American government forbade the importation of more foreign slaves, although later, after the turn of the century, due to the economic reliance on slaves on plantations such as tobacco, rice, and indigo, the trade was once again opened in Georgia and South Carolina.
Though the North was well on it’s way to industrialization, the South was a robust agricultural economy, one that made the thought of slavery as an illegal practice in the new country a pipe dream, for there was one plant in particular that would change the slave trade in America forever: cotton.
Those who say that America was built on the back of slaves harvesting cotton are a lot closer to the truth than they think; after the fields of the 13th colonies were picked dry of nutrients for growing tobacco, and the English textile industries picked up, the huge demand for American cotton meant a huge demand for slaves. Prior to 1793, the process of separating cotton from its seed was a tiresome, and time consuming task done by hand by slaves.
Cotton was profitable, but not as much as it could be. After Eli Whitney, a young school teacher from the North invented the cotton gin, a machine that separated the see from the cotton ball, the lives of Americans changed almost overnight. No longer were slaves required to sort the cotton, but the demand for more and more crop and the work of a cotton gin, increased the country’s dependency on slaves, so instead of cutting down on the slave trade, it more than doubled the need for slavery.
After the Revolutionary War was won by the Patriots, the Constitution of the United States set to heal with the subject of slavery while the country was not uniform in its decision to legalize slavery, it did provide provisions to protect the slave trade and slaveholders. among those provisions included laws that would allow dates to require the return of escaped slaves to their proper homes.
As previously set down by the British, A state population was determined by the rate of 3/5 per slave, in relation to a whole vote from freed citizens. Prior to the Revolution and continuing after the war, the Northern state abolished slavery throughout their region, with New Jersey being the last to adopt the practice in 1804.
Freed status however did not mean a lack discrimination; most freedmen still were subject to racial segregation. And while the Southern economy is somewhat vilified in history as the sole protector of slavery, much of the wealth generated by the North during the 18th century was as a result of landowning and wealth aggregates that originated in the South. However with the large slave populations, the South continued to gain power in Congress due to the three-fifths agreement, and all of the wealth generated by the slave labor, ultimately resulted in a South that was too powerful to give up slavery; or so it thought.
As America moved into the 19th century, abolitionism took reins of the North. A movement designed to end slavery, the support above the Mason-Dixon line was overwhelming and thoroughly angelical. Considered “a peculiar institution” among contemporaries, though, slavery was seen as a necessary evil to keep up with the demands of the international cotton trade, at least from a ruling perspective.
No one wanted to upset the fragile balance of the new democracy, or wreak the thriving economy that was building out of it. Not only did the drive for more cotton increase the domestic slave trade in the U.S., but it also incurred a second side effect: migration of slaves out West. Dubbed the “Second Middle Passage,” it was a defining moment of the 19th century, and the resounding event between the American Revolution and the Civil War.
During this time, many slaves lost their families, ethnicity, and historical identity as communities were broken up, traded across slaves, and moved out west. Whipping, hangings, mutilation, torture, beating, burning, and branding were just a few of the punishments and cruelty shown to slaves by their slave holders. While conditions varied throughout the South, the harsh conditions were fueled by the fear of rebellion, and the slave codes, based on colonial era law, defined the relationships between slave and master, with the master hardly ever being prosecuted for wrongdoing.
The slave rebellions that plantation and slave owners feared were not a false fear–there were several rebellions after 1776 that are worth mentioning, including Gabriel’s conspiracy (1800), Igbo Landing slave escape (1803), Chatham Manor Rebellion (1805), 1811 German Coast Uprising (1811), George Boxley Rebellion (1815), Denmark Vesey’s conspiracy (1822), Nat Turner’s slave rebellion (1831), Black Seminole Slave Rebellion (1835-1838), Amistad seizure (1839), Creole case (1841), and the 1842 Slave Revolt in the Cherokee Nation.
Of those, perhaps the most famous is Nat Turner’s slave rebellion, also known as the Southampton Insurrection, where Nat Turner, an educated slave who claimed to have divine visions, organized a group of slaves and then murdered 60 white people in Southampton, Virginia. The lasting effects of this rebellion were tragic–the North Carolina militia retaliated by killing some 100 slaves, not just those suspected, free people of color lost their vote, and other slave states began to severely restrict the movements of both slaves and free people of color. Among these laws included anti-literacy rules, which levied strong penalties on anyone who was suspected of educating slaves.
Led by free backs such as Frederick Douglass, a free black man, and white abolitionists like Harriet Beecher Stowe, writer of Uncle Tom’s Cabin, their activism grew between the 1830s and 1860s. Not only were abolitionists actively petitioning in the North, but they were also moving to help fugitive slaves escape from the South through a collection of safe houses.
Figures such as Harriet Tubman, and the Underground Railroad, became a defining characteristic of Pre-Civil War America, estimating that anywhere between fifty thousand and a hundred thousand slaves successfully escaped to freedom. But with Western Expansion continuing the fragile balance of pro-slave and anti-slave states, much of the many tensions between the North and the South accelerated. The Missouri Compromise, which allowed Maine admittance as a free state, Missouri as a slave state, and all western lands south of Missouri’s Southern line to be free, the balance was maintained.
But in 1854, after the Mexican war and more land was added to the American territories, the Kansas-Nebraska Act reopened the question of slavery in the new lands, and the new state of Kansas, which was admitted into the union and allowed to choose it’s slave status, created a bloodbath of civil unrest known as Bleeding Kansas. Just 6 years later, when Abraham Lincoln was elected president, seven states seceded from the United States of America, with four more to come, and named themselves the Confederate States of America.
While Lincoln’s abolitionist personal views were well known, it was with the idea of reuniting the American Union that caused him to move to war. On January 1, 1863, Lincoln read an initial emancipation proclamation that named “slaves within any State, or designated part of a State…in rebellion…shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free.” With that, and around 3 million newly freed black slaves in the southern rebellion states, the Emancipation Proclamation took the economic advantage out from under the Southern economy and the war ended in 1865, with a new country emerging from the bloodiest battle in America’s history.
Explore More US History Articles
Though abolished in 1865, the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery, did not spell out an easy assimilation into American society for the recently freed blacks, and the equal protection and right to vote that followed would not make their progress any easier either. In the wake of black freedom, many racist organizations, including the KKK, and the rise of white supremacy, continues to plague American society even today, more than a century later. The Civil Rights movement, during the mid-20th century, would be the next great gain for American blacks towards freedom in America. | 3,475 | ENGLISH | 1 |
PSY 420 Week 4 DRO Contingency Worksheet updated
Complete the DRO Contingency Worksheet.
Click the Assignment Files tab to submit your assignment.
DRO Contingency Worksheet
Decide which of the following concepts are most applicable to each scenario: differential reinforcement of other behavior, avoidance contingency, punishment by prevention of reinforcer, punishment by loss of reinforcer, or avoidance of loss.
Defend your answer in 2–3 sentences each, using citations as needed.
Sally, a 13-year-old teenager, is tired of having her mom nag her about her bedroom. Her mom nags about the clothes on the floor, the bed being unmade, and the trashcan spilling over in her bathroom. Sally comes home from school in a bad mood and the last thing she wants to hear is her mom’s nagging voice. To get around the expected response from her mom, she cleans her room, makes her bed, and empties her trashcan.
Sally makes the 7th-grade track team by finishing before another girl by less than 0.05 seconds in her event—the 400 meter relay. Sally is proud of making the team but needs to work harder in the practices that follow. The first track meet does not go well. Out of the four girls on the relay team, she has the slowest time, so her track coach removes her from the team, and makes her sit as an alternate.
In the weeks that follow being pulled from the track team, Sally listens to her coach’s direction and works hard to qualify for the next meet. Running her fastest time ever, Sally is excited when she qualifies to run the relay for the third track meet. Now that she has earned her spot on the team, she continues to work hard every week to keep her place.
Chad is a 45-year-old man going back to school while working full time. A self-proclaimed procrastinator, his job as a computer programmer can handle his laid back style and ever-changing deadlines. In school, however, he is having difficulty turning his homework in on time. The teacher has told him that success is impossible if he does not turn his papers in on time, yet he fails to do so week after week.
Chad continues to stay in school and is a B-minus student due to the procrastination aspect of his work ethic. He has been complaining lately about school and thinking about withdrawing. His comments about the teacher, the class, the work and his grades are starting to get annoying so his mom decides to only reinforce his verbal behavior every 5 minutes he talks to her without making a negative comment about school. | <urn:uuid:230eb443-bc16-490c-937c-db7b51ad6dd2> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://blog.homeworkrank.com/category/psy-420-updated/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250625097.75/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124191133-20200124220133-00402.warc.gz | en | 0.984025 | 554 | 3.265625 | 3 | [
-0.6561542749404907,
0.183095321059227,
0.1928713619709015,
-0.3266064524650574,
-0.4298073947429657,
0.15955130755901337,
0.01830553635954857,
0.11128594726324081,
-0.07812818884849548,
-0.21141961216926575,
-0.1241610199213028,
-0.0792834609746933,
0.20471930503845215,
0.2823898792266845... | 2 | PSY 420 Week 4 DRO Contingency Worksheet updated
Complete the DRO Contingency Worksheet.
Click the Assignment Files tab to submit your assignment.
DRO Contingency Worksheet
Decide which of the following concepts are most applicable to each scenario: differential reinforcement of other behavior, avoidance contingency, punishment by prevention of reinforcer, punishment by loss of reinforcer, or avoidance of loss.
Defend your answer in 2–3 sentences each, using citations as needed.
Sally, a 13-year-old teenager, is tired of having her mom nag her about her bedroom. Her mom nags about the clothes on the floor, the bed being unmade, and the trashcan spilling over in her bathroom. Sally comes home from school in a bad mood and the last thing she wants to hear is her mom’s nagging voice. To get around the expected response from her mom, she cleans her room, makes her bed, and empties her trashcan.
Sally makes the 7th-grade track team by finishing before another girl by less than 0.05 seconds in her event—the 400 meter relay. Sally is proud of making the team but needs to work harder in the practices that follow. The first track meet does not go well. Out of the four girls on the relay team, she has the slowest time, so her track coach removes her from the team, and makes her sit as an alternate.
In the weeks that follow being pulled from the track team, Sally listens to her coach’s direction and works hard to qualify for the next meet. Running her fastest time ever, Sally is excited when she qualifies to run the relay for the third track meet. Now that she has earned her spot on the team, she continues to work hard every week to keep her place.
Chad is a 45-year-old man going back to school while working full time. A self-proclaimed procrastinator, his job as a computer programmer can handle his laid back style and ever-changing deadlines. In school, however, he is having difficulty turning his homework in on time. The teacher has told him that success is impossible if he does not turn his papers in on time, yet he fails to do so week after week.
Chad continues to stay in school and is a B-minus student due to the procrastination aspect of his work ethic. He has been complaining lately about school and thinking about withdrawing. His comments about the teacher, the class, the work and his grades are starting to get annoying so his mom decides to only reinforce his verbal behavior every 5 minutes he talks to her without making a negative comment about school. | 545 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Whenever Vivian Davis feels like doing something, she does it. So when she felt like joining the Peace Corps, she did - at age 78.
The world lost one of its most courageous and righteous leaders yesterday with the passing of Nelson Mandela. Mandela, who was imprisoned for fighting against Apartheid in South Africa only to later become that country's first elected president once Apartheid ended, dedicated his life to fighting for social justice and economic equality.
Nelson Mandela, who died Dec. 5 at age 95 in Johannesburg, South Africa, was one of the most remarkable heroes of the 20th century. He organized and led armed resistance against South Africa's apartheid regime, which had disenfranchised 23 million black citizens and forced them to live in abysmal poverty, and endured decades of brutal imprisonment as a result. But after his release in 1990, he worked to negotiate a peaceful end to institutionalized racism - an achievement that earned him a share of the 1993 Nobel Peace Prize - and eventually became his nation's first black president from 1994 to 1999.
Search AARP Blogs | <urn:uuid:7ab85fe5-1cdb-4890-bc12-69287006a1bc> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://blog.aarp.org/tag/south-africa | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250590107.3/warc/CC-MAIN-20200117180950-20200117204950-00382.warc.gz | en | 0.981292 | 218 | 3.40625 | 3 | [
-0.4997676610946655,
0.9077292084693909,
-0.08454077690839767,
-0.2591252028942108,
-0.3149556815624237,
0.20099735260009766,
0.39924290776252747,
-0.15559516847133636,
0.03550991043448448,
0.23630572855472565,
0.7127543091773987,
-0.22282451391220093,
0.4785621762275696,
0.506591081619262... | 1 | Whenever Vivian Davis feels like doing something, she does it. So when she felt like joining the Peace Corps, she did - at age 78.
The world lost one of its most courageous and righteous leaders yesterday with the passing of Nelson Mandela. Mandela, who was imprisoned for fighting against Apartheid in South Africa only to later become that country's first elected president once Apartheid ended, dedicated his life to fighting for social justice and economic equality.
Nelson Mandela, who died Dec. 5 at age 95 in Johannesburg, South Africa, was one of the most remarkable heroes of the 20th century. He organized and led armed resistance against South Africa's apartheid regime, which had disenfranchised 23 million black citizens and forced them to live in abysmal poverty, and endured decades of brutal imprisonment as a result. But after his release in 1990, he worked to negotiate a peaceful end to institutionalized racism - an achievement that earned him a share of the 1993 Nobel Peace Prize - and eventually became his nation's first black president from 1994 to 1999.
Search AARP Blogs | 242 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Russian history, the great Nation from 9th Century to Present Time!
Russian regions are few of the oldest settlements of human being on the world. The study of Russian history shows that this nation was established with the contribution of many rules and migrants from various countries of the world.
The ancient Russia came into existence by the combination of many civilizations, urban and rural states into one single empire. Here, we have gathered the contributions of most prominent and esteemed names from history of Russia.
Ancient time in Russian History
In the beginning of ninth century, the Scandinavian people who were recognized as the Varangian resided in Eastern Europe. The commander of the Varangian was Rurik.
In 862 Rurik came to the city of Novgorod along the Volkhov-River. Rurik further extended his empire by occupying more areas. In 882 he got the charge of Slavic city, Kiev. In this way he laid the foundation of the first organized and unified state in Russian history. Between Scandinavia and Constantinople Kiev became a sound means of trade.
Later in 989, Vladimir I became the ruler of the state who occupied new areas across black sea, the Caucasus mountains and Volga river.
Vladimir believed in many faiths and personally was against Islam.Greek orthodoxy was the religion of the state.
Yaroslav defeated Kievan, flourished art, merged with other states and made new laws. Finally he handed over the kingdom to his own children who did not manage properly.
After the death of Yaroslav, the Kievan Rus was distributed in to regional power centers.
Mongols in Russian History (1237 to 1613)
The Kievan Rus was badly ruined by the arrival of Mongols. In 1237 the grandson of Jenghiz Khan, Batu Khan, entered in to Kievan Rus on the Volga.
In 1240 Swedes and in 1242 Livonian brothers of sword attacked on Russia. Both were defeated by a very brave prince of Novgorod Alexander Nevsky.
Gradually the southwest and north-eastern cities of Russia struggled to get power from Tatars. In 1380, a Muscovite prince Dmitri Donskoy dared to attack Tatars. He successfully defeated Tatars at Kulikov field. Tatar once again got their control in the next two years.
Ivan the Great was another strong ruler of Moscow in Russian history. He brought independence to the city. Later during the period of his grandson Russia became a unified state. At the very young age of 3 Ivan succeeded his father. The young grand duke achieved the title of tsar and ready army to fight against the Tatars. He had victory in 1552 and kept on occupying more and more areas in the coming years of Russian history.
Siberia was also merged in Russia afterwards. At his old age, Ivan turned to a very harsh and the most terrible ruler in Russian history. He led a campaign against the Boyers, even murdering or exiling them.
Ivan the Great
After Ivan's death in 1584, his son Fyodor got the control who handed over most of the kingdom to his brother-in-law, Boris Godunov.
In 1591 Boris killed the younger brother of Fyodor. When Fyodor died in 1598, Godunov became Tsar but his rule was not appreciated in Russian history. After sometime a pretender appeared in Poland who claimed to be Dmitri and entered Russia in 1604.
The genuine and the fake Dmitri stroked together for throne. In 1613, the Michael Romanov, elected as tsar. The Romanov ruled over Russia for nearly 3 centuries. The Romanovs just focused on centralizing power, where they contributed a little for the progress and prosperity of Russia.
Era of Peter the Great in History of Russia
Peter the Great
Peter the Great! one of the most spoken rulers of Russia. Peter was the youngest son of the Tsar Alexis. After the death of Alexis Peter's brother Feodor got the power but he could not survive for long time. Peter and his brother had a joint tsar ship under the administration of Ivan's elder sister Sophia.
Peter attained the complete charge when Ivan died. He visited Europe for two years. Where he not only had meetings with various rulers but also traveled across Holland. He learned many industrial techniques and state managements. He was very passionate to bring a revolutionary change in Russian state.
In 1698, during Peter's stay in Europe, a rebellion from the Kremlin Guard started. Peter came back and defeated all the rebels. He started to act upon his plan to modernize the Russia in the Western Europe image. Peter made many social and well-known economic reforms in Russian history. Peter changed the conventional dress by military conscription, organized technical schools, changed Calendar and made a number of other betterment.
During the next nine years of Peter's rule, St. Petersburg was established. Despite of all services and the great participation of Peter he was reminded as a controversial figures ion Russian history. After the death of Peter, Russia was ruled by many rulers.
Era of Catherine the Great in Russia
Catherine the Great in Russian History
Catherine was a German princess who was born in a small German state. She fully adopted Russian culture by learning the Russian language and doing a lot of reading.
Catherine became the ruler of Russia in 1762 when her husband Emperor Peter III was killed. Catherine implemented the strategies of Peter the Great and got the control in major provinces.
She had a great aesthetic sense and encouraged the art and craft in region. She constructed many museum, libraries, commission buildings in Russia.
During the French revolution Catherine faced intense criticism because of her policies. She made many alterations in her liberal reforms. The grandson of Catherine Alexander I became the head of the state afterwards.
Era of Napoleon In Russia
Napoleon started his terrific Russian campaign in 1812. In fact Napoleon had the control of all the European continents and intended to force Alexander I to accept the agreement, which was presented by Napoleon before 4 years.
The Portrait of Napolean
Napoleon attacked Russia with force of half a million army. Despite of fighting, Russia played tricks to defeat French soldiers. After all French army started to become the victim of hunger, raids and depression.
Finally the two forces faced each other in the field of Borodino. Thousands of soldiers were killed but the two forces could not overcome each other.
Napoleon realized that their stay in Russia was the wastage of time. So he decided to go back. The French troops were resisted by Kutuzov's forces. The frustrated French were frightened of the upcoming frosting cold. Napoleon was defeated and Russia emerged as a stable and powerful state.
Revolution in Russia (1825 to 1920)
Almost all the rulers of Russia tried to impose their personal power either by crushing their opponents or by giving them decreased authority. Ivan the Great was the founder of serfdom.
This rule was further implemented by many Russian rulers. Nineteenth century was the era of revolution in history of Russia. Young and enthusiastic army officers struggled against the legal monarchy in Russia.
Unfortunately they failed and Nicholas succeeded. Although Russia was progressing but internal political tensions and problems were arousing day by day. The lower classes were motivated to have more independence from rulers.
As the state of Russia expanded its borders were connected with Afghanistan and China. The Siberian railway attached eastern regions with European Russia. Nicholas II ruled Russia in 1894. He could not well manage the political matters.
In the meanwhile Japan attacked Russia and captured many areas. When the war with Japan ceased, Nicholas once again tried to maintain his government but his condition was worse than before. Social democrats distributed in two main camps, the radical Bolsheviks and the moderate Menshiviks.
The First World War affected the western part of Russia. This was the period of intense crisis and depression such as lack of food and economic downfall in Russian history. In 1917, certain riots emerged in St.Petersburg.
Nicholas was proved to be unable to manage the government and was replaced by his brother Michael.A provisional government was also maintained by Duma. He made efforts for the security of the workers' rights.
Provisional government under the control of Prince Lvov was failed to manage properly. Bolsheviks had the strong support of soviets. First they had a sound position in St.Petersburg and Moscow after civil war they were dominated over the Russia.
The Soviet Era in Russian History (1920 to 1991)
Many rapid social and cultural changes took place during the Soviet rule. Lenin introduced a new economic party NEP. This resulted in a tremendous economical rise in Russian history.
After the Lenin's death the party members quarreled with each other to have the power. Joseph Stalin, the next ruler made some changes in the system. The areas of agriculture were and huge states were into farms. Industrial products, art and craft were also flourished. Religious churches were badly ruined or used for other purposes.
Soviet Union was not ready for Second World War. The industrial production was decreased because of the military expenses. There was another unexpected attack by the Hitler on Soviet territory, St Petersburg and some area of Moscow.
Soon Germans captured the rail center of Stalingrad and Caucasus oil fields. The Russian army bravely resisted Germans and finally got rid of the attackers and Germans went back to Poland.
The strength of Soviet Union was increased after II world war. Even it became as stronger as United States. Due to large military budge a heavy amount was spent on army industrial and agricultural progress was decreased and the life standard was affected. Many policies presented by Stalin were rejected. Nikita Khrushchev was opposed and forced to resign.
In 1964 Leonid Brezhnev became the Soviet leader. Due to economic decline there was need of some reforms to improve the condition of country.
Yuri Andropov was yet another prominent name in Russian history. He joined Communist Party in 1939 and transferred to Moscow in 1951. He played a main role in Soviet invasion of Hungry as its ambassador. He then became the head of KGB. He is known for its suppressing political dissidents.
Andropov was selected by the Communist Party Central Committee after his resignation from KGB. He then succeeded Leonid Brezhnev, as the president on June 16, 1983.
Konstantin Chernenko was the next chief political leader of the Soviet Union (1984 -1985). He was among the most trustful person of Leonid Brezhnev. However, could not rule more than 1 year due to his declining health
Mikhail Gorbachev became the next general secretary after Chernenko. He welcomed new strategies and decreased some restrictions on economy. Glasnost became unpopular because of the nuclear explosion that caused radioactive emission. The issue like poverty, unemployment, corruption and depression were publicly discussed by the first time in Russian history.
Boris Yeltsin and Andrei Sakharov presented their ideas. In 1989, Soviet forces were thrown out of Afghanistan. Voters were allowed to choose more than one candidate. Once again the problem about economy, shortage of food and corruption became severe. The radical reform movement defeated government.And media heavily criticized the Gorbachev.
Yeltsin won the June elections and became Russian president. At last Soviet Union was replaced by a commonwealth of independent states CIS.
Post Communism to Present Time
Russia experienced unexpectedly great revolutions in the period of the 1990s. Russia transformed from communist tyranny into a common democracy. Now it has become a place where bureaucrats are selected in regular elections. And the federal system governs the country.
The centrally strategic economy of Russia was remodeled into an industrial order. Today it is centered on markets and secluded possessions.
The economy has translated into a market of mostly secluded businesses, manufacturing goods and services to gratify customers instead of personal digital assistants. The economy has developed at a remarkable pace making Russia as the 8th largest economy of the World!
For more details, contact our experts here! | <urn:uuid:94e30416-6b04-4030-bc78-084a79f5bbf6> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://russia.ribttes.com/russian-history | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251773463.72/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128030221-20200128060221-00084.warc.gz | en | 0.982051 | 2,499 | 3.359375 | 3 | [
-0.03682113438844681,
0.051609817892313004,
0.1494128704071045,
0.027179324999451637,
-0.27829232811927795,
-0.3211171329021454,
0.01508069597184658,
0.30967700481414795,
-0.2228197455406189,
-0.08109860122203827,
-0.022539842873811722,
-0.141905277967453,
0.17610877752304077,
0.3521196842... | 9 | Russian history, the great Nation from 9th Century to Present Time!
Russian regions are few of the oldest settlements of human being on the world. The study of Russian history shows that this nation was established with the contribution of many rules and migrants from various countries of the world.
The ancient Russia came into existence by the combination of many civilizations, urban and rural states into one single empire. Here, we have gathered the contributions of most prominent and esteemed names from history of Russia.
Ancient time in Russian History
In the beginning of ninth century, the Scandinavian people who were recognized as the Varangian resided in Eastern Europe. The commander of the Varangian was Rurik.
In 862 Rurik came to the city of Novgorod along the Volkhov-River. Rurik further extended his empire by occupying more areas. In 882 he got the charge of Slavic city, Kiev. In this way he laid the foundation of the first organized and unified state in Russian history. Between Scandinavia and Constantinople Kiev became a sound means of trade.
Later in 989, Vladimir I became the ruler of the state who occupied new areas across black sea, the Caucasus mountains and Volga river.
Vladimir believed in many faiths and personally was against Islam.Greek orthodoxy was the religion of the state.
Yaroslav defeated Kievan, flourished art, merged with other states and made new laws. Finally he handed over the kingdom to his own children who did not manage properly.
After the death of Yaroslav, the Kievan Rus was distributed in to regional power centers.
Mongols in Russian History (1237 to 1613)
The Kievan Rus was badly ruined by the arrival of Mongols. In 1237 the grandson of Jenghiz Khan, Batu Khan, entered in to Kievan Rus on the Volga.
In 1240 Swedes and in 1242 Livonian brothers of sword attacked on Russia. Both were defeated by a very brave prince of Novgorod Alexander Nevsky.
Gradually the southwest and north-eastern cities of Russia struggled to get power from Tatars. In 1380, a Muscovite prince Dmitri Donskoy dared to attack Tatars. He successfully defeated Tatars at Kulikov field. Tatar once again got their control in the next two years.
Ivan the Great was another strong ruler of Moscow in Russian history. He brought independence to the city. Later during the period of his grandson Russia became a unified state. At the very young age of 3 Ivan succeeded his father. The young grand duke achieved the title of tsar and ready army to fight against the Tatars. He had victory in 1552 and kept on occupying more and more areas in the coming years of Russian history.
Siberia was also merged in Russia afterwards. At his old age, Ivan turned to a very harsh and the most terrible ruler in Russian history. He led a campaign against the Boyers, even murdering or exiling them.
Ivan the Great
After Ivan's death in 1584, his son Fyodor got the control who handed over most of the kingdom to his brother-in-law, Boris Godunov.
In 1591 Boris killed the younger brother of Fyodor. When Fyodor died in 1598, Godunov became Tsar but his rule was not appreciated in Russian history. After sometime a pretender appeared in Poland who claimed to be Dmitri and entered Russia in 1604.
The genuine and the fake Dmitri stroked together for throne. In 1613, the Michael Romanov, elected as tsar. The Romanov ruled over Russia for nearly 3 centuries. The Romanovs just focused on centralizing power, where they contributed a little for the progress and prosperity of Russia.
Era of Peter the Great in History of Russia
Peter the Great
Peter the Great! one of the most spoken rulers of Russia. Peter was the youngest son of the Tsar Alexis. After the death of Alexis Peter's brother Feodor got the power but he could not survive for long time. Peter and his brother had a joint tsar ship under the administration of Ivan's elder sister Sophia.
Peter attained the complete charge when Ivan died. He visited Europe for two years. Where he not only had meetings with various rulers but also traveled across Holland. He learned many industrial techniques and state managements. He was very passionate to bring a revolutionary change in Russian state.
In 1698, during Peter's stay in Europe, a rebellion from the Kremlin Guard started. Peter came back and defeated all the rebels. He started to act upon his plan to modernize the Russia in the Western Europe image. Peter made many social and well-known economic reforms in Russian history. Peter changed the conventional dress by military conscription, organized technical schools, changed Calendar and made a number of other betterment.
During the next nine years of Peter's rule, St. Petersburg was established. Despite of all services and the great participation of Peter he was reminded as a controversial figures ion Russian history. After the death of Peter, Russia was ruled by many rulers.
Era of Catherine the Great in Russia
Catherine the Great in Russian History
Catherine was a German princess who was born in a small German state. She fully adopted Russian culture by learning the Russian language and doing a lot of reading.
Catherine became the ruler of Russia in 1762 when her husband Emperor Peter III was killed. Catherine implemented the strategies of Peter the Great and got the control in major provinces.
She had a great aesthetic sense and encouraged the art and craft in region. She constructed many museum, libraries, commission buildings in Russia.
During the French revolution Catherine faced intense criticism because of her policies. She made many alterations in her liberal reforms. The grandson of Catherine Alexander I became the head of the state afterwards.
Era of Napoleon In Russia
Napoleon started his terrific Russian campaign in 1812. In fact Napoleon had the control of all the European continents and intended to force Alexander I to accept the agreement, which was presented by Napoleon before 4 years.
The Portrait of Napolean
Napoleon attacked Russia with force of half a million army. Despite of fighting, Russia played tricks to defeat French soldiers. After all French army started to become the victim of hunger, raids and depression.
Finally the two forces faced each other in the field of Borodino. Thousands of soldiers were killed but the two forces could not overcome each other.
Napoleon realized that their stay in Russia was the wastage of time. So he decided to go back. The French troops were resisted by Kutuzov's forces. The frustrated French were frightened of the upcoming frosting cold. Napoleon was defeated and Russia emerged as a stable and powerful state.
Revolution in Russia (1825 to 1920)
Almost all the rulers of Russia tried to impose their personal power either by crushing their opponents or by giving them decreased authority. Ivan the Great was the founder of serfdom.
This rule was further implemented by many Russian rulers. Nineteenth century was the era of revolution in history of Russia. Young and enthusiastic army officers struggled against the legal monarchy in Russia.
Unfortunately they failed and Nicholas succeeded. Although Russia was progressing but internal political tensions and problems were arousing day by day. The lower classes were motivated to have more independence from rulers.
As the state of Russia expanded its borders were connected with Afghanistan and China. The Siberian railway attached eastern regions with European Russia. Nicholas II ruled Russia in 1894. He could not well manage the political matters.
In the meanwhile Japan attacked Russia and captured many areas. When the war with Japan ceased, Nicholas once again tried to maintain his government but his condition was worse than before. Social democrats distributed in two main camps, the radical Bolsheviks and the moderate Menshiviks.
The First World War affected the western part of Russia. This was the period of intense crisis and depression such as lack of food and economic downfall in Russian history. In 1917, certain riots emerged in St.Petersburg.
Nicholas was proved to be unable to manage the government and was replaced by his brother Michael.A provisional government was also maintained by Duma. He made efforts for the security of the workers' rights.
Provisional government under the control of Prince Lvov was failed to manage properly. Bolsheviks had the strong support of soviets. First they had a sound position in St.Petersburg and Moscow after civil war they were dominated over the Russia.
The Soviet Era in Russian History (1920 to 1991)
Many rapid social and cultural changes took place during the Soviet rule. Lenin introduced a new economic party NEP. This resulted in a tremendous economical rise in Russian history.
After the Lenin's death the party members quarreled with each other to have the power. Joseph Stalin, the next ruler made some changes in the system. The areas of agriculture were and huge states were into farms. Industrial products, art and craft were also flourished. Religious churches were badly ruined or used for other purposes.
Soviet Union was not ready for Second World War. The industrial production was decreased because of the military expenses. There was another unexpected attack by the Hitler on Soviet territory, St Petersburg and some area of Moscow.
Soon Germans captured the rail center of Stalingrad and Caucasus oil fields. The Russian army bravely resisted Germans and finally got rid of the attackers and Germans went back to Poland.
The strength of Soviet Union was increased after II world war. Even it became as stronger as United States. Due to large military budge a heavy amount was spent on army industrial and agricultural progress was decreased and the life standard was affected. Many policies presented by Stalin were rejected. Nikita Khrushchev was opposed and forced to resign.
In 1964 Leonid Brezhnev became the Soviet leader. Due to economic decline there was need of some reforms to improve the condition of country.
Yuri Andropov was yet another prominent name in Russian history. He joined Communist Party in 1939 and transferred to Moscow in 1951. He played a main role in Soviet invasion of Hungry as its ambassador. He then became the head of KGB. He is known for its suppressing political dissidents.
Andropov was selected by the Communist Party Central Committee after his resignation from KGB. He then succeeded Leonid Brezhnev, as the president on June 16, 1983.
Konstantin Chernenko was the next chief political leader of the Soviet Union (1984 -1985). He was among the most trustful person of Leonid Brezhnev. However, could not rule more than 1 year due to his declining health
Mikhail Gorbachev became the next general secretary after Chernenko. He welcomed new strategies and decreased some restrictions on economy. Glasnost became unpopular because of the nuclear explosion that caused radioactive emission. The issue like poverty, unemployment, corruption and depression were publicly discussed by the first time in Russian history.
Boris Yeltsin and Andrei Sakharov presented their ideas. In 1989, Soviet forces were thrown out of Afghanistan. Voters were allowed to choose more than one candidate. Once again the problem about economy, shortage of food and corruption became severe. The radical reform movement defeated government.And media heavily criticized the Gorbachev.
Yeltsin won the June elections and became Russian president. At last Soviet Union was replaced by a commonwealth of independent states CIS.
Post Communism to Present Time
Russia experienced unexpectedly great revolutions in the period of the 1990s. Russia transformed from communist tyranny into a common democracy. Now it has become a place where bureaucrats are selected in regular elections. And the federal system governs the country.
The centrally strategic economy of Russia was remodeled into an industrial order. Today it is centered on markets and secluded possessions.
The economy has translated into a market of mostly secluded businesses, manufacturing goods and services to gratify customers instead of personal digital assistants. The economy has developed at a remarkable pace making Russia as the 8th largest economy of the World!
For more details, contact our experts here! | 2,565 | ENGLISH | 1 |
“The First World War was eventually resolved not by any discovery or application of
new military technique by the high commands but by the relentless attrition of
manpower by industrial output. The fact that it was Germany which went down to
defeat in this Materialschlacht [“battle of resources”] was almost fortuitous; it might
as [equally] well have been any of her enemies.” (John Keegan, The First World
War). Is this an accurate and adequate explanation of the outcome of the war?
Provide at least six specific examples to support your answer.
The First World war was a battle of attrition which provided much source for aggravation amongst nations for no real or apparent reason. First of all, nether nation which participated was actually prepared for war, neither were they prepared for the mass slaughter which characterized the whole campaign. Initially the war was rather quiet and calm with lots of small skirmishes but after a few months the scale of the battles grew to such an extent that the death and casualty rate rose to almost unbelievable levels.
Generals and leaders were actually totally unprepared for the scale of the war and this obviously showed in the results which they managed to get which amounted to nothing less than total confusion in every department. The French and English quarreled between them on the specifics of the conflict whilst the Germans were also confounded by the scale of territory which they had to cover. Although Germany appeared to be rather more ready than her counterparts for war, she was still primarily a peasant society with little industrialized might and this was obviously a hampering question in the conducting of the struggle. Let us now analyze each nation one by one and their particular strengths and weaknesses in this regard.
The United Kingdom came to war totally unprepared to fight primarily due to the fact that it had just been shrinking its armies and fresh from various conflicts including the Boer War and the administration of its colonies, it was feeling out of sorts to take on another global conflict. The British expeditionary Force was primarily made up of young inexperienced soldiers who were volunteering simply for adventure or to escape unemployment but they actually did not know what they were letting themselves in for. This was further excarberated by their incompetent commanders such as Haigh and Kitchener who had absolutely no regard for the lives of their men but were only interested in promoting their image as warlords. Britain was also not the industrialized nation which it pretended to be and it was very slow in applying technology to the battlefield although the Lee Enfield rifle and Lewis sub machine gun initially afforded it great success. Still, mass disorganization and bad planning led the war to be far more dragged out than was actually necessary.
France was also hampered by weak governance and an army which was ill equipped, badly fed and generally mutinous. Although it had a formidable system of fortifications, the whole campaign was conducted extremely badly and wastage was immediately apparent in every department. The appalling rate of slaughter continued unabated and changes in command were so regular and unannounced that hardly had one appointment been made, than another one came through resulting in derision and ridicule amongst the ordinary troops. France also suffered from a chronic lack of indecision and poor industrial production with the result that most of its armies were completely clueless on how the war should be conducted.
Italy hardly knew why it was in the war in the first place but due to the proximity of Serbia, it obviously had to get involved at some point. However, a country which had been unified just around 40 years before was still trying to come to terms with its identity and this obviously put pressure on its organizational capabilities which were actually next to nothing. It tried to establish itself in the Balkans and in other mountainous regions but suffered heavy losses while attempting to do so against the Austrians who were technically much better equipped. Its contribution to the war has to be seen as minimal.
Russia looked to be the basket case of all the nations who were fighting out the First World War. It was faced with huge problems from a Tsarist regime which was actually in its death throes and its armies had little experience of warfare with several commanders and crack troops having perished in the Russo-Japanese War of 1905 and little having been replaced since then. This led the Russians to lose considerable numbers of their manpower throughout the conflict and eventually the revolution of 1917 put paid to any of the country’s ambitions to strut it out on the world stage. Russia was certainly one of the peripheral players in the war and could not really be considered as one which could have had the spoils of victory in its grasp.
Austria Hungary and Turkey
Although both countries were co-belligerents, it would be good to analyze what they contributed to the conflict. Austria Hungary aided Germany in its forward thrusts but was severely hampered by lack of manpower and other issues. Turkey was also passing through a period of independence procedures and nationalism but it acquitted itself extremely well especially against the British in the Dardanelles campaign where it fought back savagely and inflicted heavy losses. However both nations did not really have any territorial ambitions and did not really gain anything out of the conflict.
The First World War was a conflict where no real nation was the victor but Germany was certainly the loser in terms of territory. However it is ironic to note that the Germans were actually much closer to victory than they thought they were during the great Spring Offensive in 1918. The other British and French armies were technically in disarray and if it was not without the help of the United States, they would certainly have foundered. The British had been technically bled white and could take no further losses while the French had also suffered severely in manpower terms also. Still it was apparent that the Germans who had made considerable territorial gains could easily hold their own accordingly and they were not really in any danger of losing the war at this very late stage.
Great Britian was in a disastrous state in 1918 with most of its best officers and troops gone and with little strategy on what it was going to do in the future. It could easily have lost the war itself if it had known the actual strength of the German forces opposing it but decided to fight on. Technical and mechanical innovations were also quite retarded in those days and these certainly did not have any effect or bearing on the outcome of all proceedings. Several strategic decisions were also disastrous such as Ludendorff’s decision to do battle when his forces were not yet well prepared enough. If he had managed to gain a strategic victory in that battle then the outcome might perhaps have been considerably different than what actually happened. Foch’s masterstroke was perhaps one of the finest decisions of the war and the element of tactical surprise which it caused could have said to be the final real great turning point of the war. However no one of the allies really knew how close they were to defeat at the very end and it was only the intervention of the United States which really saved everything.
Conclusion – everyone could have lost the war
As already observed, Germany was in a much better state than it professed before the war ended and it lost everything including a large chunk of its territory. The other nations were certainly in a comparable state when the war ended and one wrong decision could easily have gone either way with the result that the map of Europe would have been shaped substantially differently at the final curtain. Definitely the war was not won due to any technological invention or through some sort of strategic brilliance or coup with the end result being a Germany which ended its days in disgrace and with a seething and festering hatred which eventually culminated in the rise of Adolf Hitler.
Ashworth, Tony (2000) , Trench warfare, 1914–18 : the live and let live system, London: Pan,ISBN 0330480685, OCLC 247360122
Bade, Klaus J; Brown, Allison (tr.) (2003), Migration in European History, The making of Europe, Oxford: Blackwell, ISBN 0631189394, OCLC 52695573 (translated from the German)
Baker, Kevin (June 2006), “Stabbed in the Back! The past and future of a right-wing myth”, Harper’s Magazine
Balakian, Peter (2003), The Burning Tigris: The Armenian Genocide and America’s Response, New York: HarperCollins, ISBN 9780060198404, OCLC 56822108
Ball, Alan M (1996), And Now My Soul Is Hardened: Abandoned Children in Soviet Russia, 1918–1930, Berkeley: University of California Press, ISBN 9780520206946, reviewed in Hegarty, Thomas J (March–June 1998), “And Now My Soul Is Hardened: Abandoned Children in Soviet Russia, 1918–1930”, Canadian Slavonic Papers
Bass, Gary Jonathan (2002), Stay the Hand of Vengeance: The Politics of War Crimes Tribunals, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, pp. 424pp, ISBN 0691092788,OCLC 248021790 | <urn:uuid:20480848-6d72-4bde-b1bf-b21e5ab11061> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.wowessays.com/free-samples/essay-on-the-first-world-war/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250595282.35/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119205448-20200119233448-00352.warc.gz | en | 0.985739 | 1,859 | 3.296875 | 3 | [
-0.26587802171707153,
0.7262993454933167,
0.24304774403572083,
-0.1865794062614441,
0.20230647921562195,
-0.030928509309887886,
-0.019743172451853752,
0.31258058547973633,
0.032896459102630615,
-0.34779807925224304,
0.26508697867393494,
-0.3447543680667877,
0.13644742965698242,
0.328135728... | 1 | “The First World War was eventually resolved not by any discovery or application of
new military technique by the high commands but by the relentless attrition of
manpower by industrial output. The fact that it was Germany which went down to
defeat in this Materialschlacht [“battle of resources”] was almost fortuitous; it might
as [equally] well have been any of her enemies.” (John Keegan, The First World
War). Is this an accurate and adequate explanation of the outcome of the war?
Provide at least six specific examples to support your answer.
The First World war was a battle of attrition which provided much source for aggravation amongst nations for no real or apparent reason. First of all, nether nation which participated was actually prepared for war, neither were they prepared for the mass slaughter which characterized the whole campaign. Initially the war was rather quiet and calm with lots of small skirmishes but after a few months the scale of the battles grew to such an extent that the death and casualty rate rose to almost unbelievable levels.
Generals and leaders were actually totally unprepared for the scale of the war and this obviously showed in the results which they managed to get which amounted to nothing less than total confusion in every department. The French and English quarreled between them on the specifics of the conflict whilst the Germans were also confounded by the scale of territory which they had to cover. Although Germany appeared to be rather more ready than her counterparts for war, she was still primarily a peasant society with little industrialized might and this was obviously a hampering question in the conducting of the struggle. Let us now analyze each nation one by one and their particular strengths and weaknesses in this regard.
The United Kingdom came to war totally unprepared to fight primarily due to the fact that it had just been shrinking its armies and fresh from various conflicts including the Boer War and the administration of its colonies, it was feeling out of sorts to take on another global conflict. The British expeditionary Force was primarily made up of young inexperienced soldiers who were volunteering simply for adventure or to escape unemployment but they actually did not know what they were letting themselves in for. This was further excarberated by their incompetent commanders such as Haigh and Kitchener who had absolutely no regard for the lives of their men but were only interested in promoting their image as warlords. Britain was also not the industrialized nation which it pretended to be and it was very slow in applying technology to the battlefield although the Lee Enfield rifle and Lewis sub machine gun initially afforded it great success. Still, mass disorganization and bad planning led the war to be far more dragged out than was actually necessary.
France was also hampered by weak governance and an army which was ill equipped, badly fed and generally mutinous. Although it had a formidable system of fortifications, the whole campaign was conducted extremely badly and wastage was immediately apparent in every department. The appalling rate of slaughter continued unabated and changes in command were so regular and unannounced that hardly had one appointment been made, than another one came through resulting in derision and ridicule amongst the ordinary troops. France also suffered from a chronic lack of indecision and poor industrial production with the result that most of its armies were completely clueless on how the war should be conducted.
Italy hardly knew why it was in the war in the first place but due to the proximity of Serbia, it obviously had to get involved at some point. However, a country which had been unified just around 40 years before was still trying to come to terms with its identity and this obviously put pressure on its organizational capabilities which were actually next to nothing. It tried to establish itself in the Balkans and in other mountainous regions but suffered heavy losses while attempting to do so against the Austrians who were technically much better equipped. Its contribution to the war has to be seen as minimal.
Russia looked to be the basket case of all the nations who were fighting out the First World War. It was faced with huge problems from a Tsarist regime which was actually in its death throes and its armies had little experience of warfare with several commanders and crack troops having perished in the Russo-Japanese War of 1905 and little having been replaced since then. This led the Russians to lose considerable numbers of their manpower throughout the conflict and eventually the revolution of 1917 put paid to any of the country’s ambitions to strut it out on the world stage. Russia was certainly one of the peripheral players in the war and could not really be considered as one which could have had the spoils of victory in its grasp.
Austria Hungary and Turkey
Although both countries were co-belligerents, it would be good to analyze what they contributed to the conflict. Austria Hungary aided Germany in its forward thrusts but was severely hampered by lack of manpower and other issues. Turkey was also passing through a period of independence procedures and nationalism but it acquitted itself extremely well especially against the British in the Dardanelles campaign where it fought back savagely and inflicted heavy losses. However both nations did not really have any territorial ambitions and did not really gain anything out of the conflict.
The First World War was a conflict where no real nation was the victor but Germany was certainly the loser in terms of territory. However it is ironic to note that the Germans were actually much closer to victory than they thought they were during the great Spring Offensive in 1918. The other British and French armies were technically in disarray and if it was not without the help of the United States, they would certainly have foundered. The British had been technically bled white and could take no further losses while the French had also suffered severely in manpower terms also. Still it was apparent that the Germans who had made considerable territorial gains could easily hold their own accordingly and they were not really in any danger of losing the war at this very late stage.
Great Britian was in a disastrous state in 1918 with most of its best officers and troops gone and with little strategy on what it was going to do in the future. It could easily have lost the war itself if it had known the actual strength of the German forces opposing it but decided to fight on. Technical and mechanical innovations were also quite retarded in those days and these certainly did not have any effect or bearing on the outcome of all proceedings. Several strategic decisions were also disastrous such as Ludendorff’s decision to do battle when his forces were not yet well prepared enough. If he had managed to gain a strategic victory in that battle then the outcome might perhaps have been considerably different than what actually happened. Foch’s masterstroke was perhaps one of the finest decisions of the war and the element of tactical surprise which it caused could have said to be the final real great turning point of the war. However no one of the allies really knew how close they were to defeat at the very end and it was only the intervention of the United States which really saved everything.
Conclusion – everyone could have lost the war
As already observed, Germany was in a much better state than it professed before the war ended and it lost everything including a large chunk of its territory. The other nations were certainly in a comparable state when the war ended and one wrong decision could easily have gone either way with the result that the map of Europe would have been shaped substantially differently at the final curtain. Definitely the war was not won due to any technological invention or through some sort of strategic brilliance or coup with the end result being a Germany which ended its days in disgrace and with a seething and festering hatred which eventually culminated in the rise of Adolf Hitler.
Ashworth, Tony (2000) , Trench warfare, 1914–18 : the live and let live system, London: Pan,ISBN 0330480685, OCLC 247360122
Bade, Klaus J; Brown, Allison (tr.) (2003), Migration in European History, The making of Europe, Oxford: Blackwell, ISBN 0631189394, OCLC 52695573 (translated from the German)
Baker, Kevin (June 2006), “Stabbed in the Back! The past and future of a right-wing myth”, Harper’s Magazine
Balakian, Peter (2003), The Burning Tigris: The Armenian Genocide and America’s Response, New York: HarperCollins, ISBN 9780060198404, OCLC 56822108
Ball, Alan M (1996), And Now My Soul Is Hardened: Abandoned Children in Soviet Russia, 1918–1930, Berkeley: University of California Press, ISBN 9780520206946, reviewed in Hegarty, Thomas J (March–June 1998), “And Now My Soul Is Hardened: Abandoned Children in Soviet Russia, 1918–1930”, Canadian Slavonic Papers
Bass, Gary Jonathan (2002), Stay the Hand of Vengeance: The Politics of War Crimes Tribunals, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, pp. 424pp, ISBN 0691092788,OCLC 248021790 | 1,958 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Tuesday Art ATTACK- Godfrey Kneller "Portrait of John Locke"
Posted on March 14 2017
By Christian Franzen
Sir Godfrey Kneller was born in Lubeck located in the Holy Roman Empire in the year 1646. His father, Zacharias, was an established portrait painter and began to teach his son how to paint at a young age. Kneller began to show promise as a young portrait painter and in his later teens was taken by Rembrandt van Rijn as an apprentice. After the conclusion of his apprenticeship, Kneller and his brother took a grand tour of Europe. They studied the old master throughout Italy and eventually settled in England in 1676.
In England, Kneller became the main portrait painter for the Duke of Monmouth. While working for the Duke, Kneller met and painted a portrait of King Charles II. Kneller was swiftly appointed to Principal Painter to the King. Kneller spent his days painting portraits of the King and the members of his court. During this time he also painted many prominent philosophers including both John Locke and Isaac Newton.
The need for Kneller to produce numerous portraits at the same time in a speedy manor lead to the founding of his own portrait studio. In the studio several different artists worked on the same portrait from sketches they had done of the subject. Kneller and his assistants relied heavily on formulaic models of the human figure so that they did not require the subject to sit for the duration of the portrait. Kneller’s portraits were in high demand by the royal courts of Great Britain until his death in 1723. | <urn:uuid:69b32f60-3898-4f44-85ba-0a30d7d93d7c> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.mowglisurf.com/blogs/mowgli-surf/tuesday-art-attack-godfrey-kneller-portrait-of-john-locke | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250606872.19/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122071919-20200122100919-00349.warc.gz | en | 0.989068 | 329 | 3.421875 | 3 | [
0.032749809324741364,
0.21736039221286774,
0.4769616425037384,
0.04075878486037254,
-0.2496839165687561,
-0.14822158217430115,
0.3507300615310669,
0.26059144735336304,
-0.29919901490211487,
-0.11945664137601852,
0.04847263917326927,
-0.24259252846240997,
0.17394322156906128,
0.479621797800... | 10 | Tuesday Art ATTACK- Godfrey Kneller "Portrait of John Locke"
Posted on March 14 2017
By Christian Franzen
Sir Godfrey Kneller was born in Lubeck located in the Holy Roman Empire in the year 1646. His father, Zacharias, was an established portrait painter and began to teach his son how to paint at a young age. Kneller began to show promise as a young portrait painter and in his later teens was taken by Rembrandt van Rijn as an apprentice. After the conclusion of his apprenticeship, Kneller and his brother took a grand tour of Europe. They studied the old master throughout Italy and eventually settled in England in 1676.
In England, Kneller became the main portrait painter for the Duke of Monmouth. While working for the Duke, Kneller met and painted a portrait of King Charles II. Kneller was swiftly appointed to Principal Painter to the King. Kneller spent his days painting portraits of the King and the members of his court. During this time he also painted many prominent philosophers including both John Locke and Isaac Newton.
The need for Kneller to produce numerous portraits at the same time in a speedy manor lead to the founding of his own portrait studio. In the studio several different artists worked on the same portrait from sketches they had done of the subject. Kneller and his assistants relied heavily on formulaic models of the human figure so that they did not require the subject to sit for the duration of the portrait. Kneller’s portraits were in high demand by the royal courts of Great Britain until his death in 1723. | 336 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Constance Lake First Nation
This Ojibway Reserve is located in northern Ontario. These Ojibway's are a part of an Ojibway District known as Albany River. It's by way of Kenogami River which flows south from Albany River. Kenogami means Fish Lake in Ojibway. It flows further south to Fox River near Mammamattawa or Ma-ma-ma-da-wa. Near Mammattawa is a fascinating place. Ke-no-ga-mi or Ken-o-ga-mi River, Nagagami River, Squirrel River and Fox River are located a mile or less from each other. It was well guarded by Ojibway Soldiers, from Albany River and Kenogami Rivers confluence, to Lake Kabinakagami. Going down Kenogami River to where it merges with Albany River, English and Eskimo invaders built their first inland fort. In those times or 1743 when Henvey House or fort was built (a year later a third French and Indian War commenced which is also known as King George's War), Kenogami River was called English River by English invaders. Ojibway Soldiers guarded that region. War intensified during late 1740's and 1750's. It's location was very diverse. Some forested areas yet much of it was swamp land or wetlands. Thus, why them English invaders and their Eskimo allies, built their fort where Kenogami River merges with Albany River. Moose River was another important location. It leads to Michipicoten at Lake Superior. They are not signatories to Treaty 9.
These Ojibway People of Constance Lake First Nation, are considered as being from Albany Band of Fort Albany and Ka-shech-e-wan at James Bay according to Treaty 9. Their territory extended from English River or Kenogami River, to Fort Albany at James Bay. They were forced to relocate several times as a result of white greed. Pagwa was considered a location but white leaders were not cooperative. They were finally relocated to Constance Lake where a community was established in 1945. They also have English River Reserve which has yet to be colonized by them. Their language is North Ojibwe or Severn Ojibwe. According to a 2016 census, Constance Lake First Nation has an on-Reserve population of 590. Their population is decreasing. They have 214 dwellings with 191 lived in. Average household size is 3.1 persons per household. Around 105 speak either Corrupted Ojibway Language (80) which is what Lewis and Clark called Cree Language and Ojibway Language (25) at Constance Lake First Nation. They have year round road access to white communities. Their population will continue to decrease. | <urn:uuid:ca194871-be3e-4c55-9041-05e95dcc0cfe> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://www.anishinabe-history.com/first-nation/constance-lake.shtml | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250606696.26/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122042145-20200122071145-00102.warc.gz | en | 0.982385 | 573 | 3.4375 | 3 | [
-0.17350172996520996,
-0.22631752490997314,
0.2800179719924927,
0.09582580626010895,
-0.021411828696727753,
-0.2075062096118927,
0.36909371614456177,
0.11655808240175247,
-0.3252805471420288,
-0.15173713862895966,
0.056134939193725586,
-0.8527759313583374,
-0.04446166381239891,
0.377855956... | 3 | Constance Lake First Nation
This Ojibway Reserve is located in northern Ontario. These Ojibway's are a part of an Ojibway District known as Albany River. It's by way of Kenogami River which flows south from Albany River. Kenogami means Fish Lake in Ojibway. It flows further south to Fox River near Mammamattawa or Ma-ma-ma-da-wa. Near Mammattawa is a fascinating place. Ke-no-ga-mi or Ken-o-ga-mi River, Nagagami River, Squirrel River and Fox River are located a mile or less from each other. It was well guarded by Ojibway Soldiers, from Albany River and Kenogami Rivers confluence, to Lake Kabinakagami. Going down Kenogami River to where it merges with Albany River, English and Eskimo invaders built their first inland fort. In those times or 1743 when Henvey House or fort was built (a year later a third French and Indian War commenced which is also known as King George's War), Kenogami River was called English River by English invaders. Ojibway Soldiers guarded that region. War intensified during late 1740's and 1750's. It's location was very diverse. Some forested areas yet much of it was swamp land or wetlands. Thus, why them English invaders and their Eskimo allies, built their fort where Kenogami River merges with Albany River. Moose River was another important location. It leads to Michipicoten at Lake Superior. They are not signatories to Treaty 9.
These Ojibway People of Constance Lake First Nation, are considered as being from Albany Band of Fort Albany and Ka-shech-e-wan at James Bay according to Treaty 9. Their territory extended from English River or Kenogami River, to Fort Albany at James Bay. They were forced to relocate several times as a result of white greed. Pagwa was considered a location but white leaders were not cooperative. They were finally relocated to Constance Lake where a community was established in 1945. They also have English River Reserve which has yet to be colonized by them. Their language is North Ojibwe or Severn Ojibwe. According to a 2016 census, Constance Lake First Nation has an on-Reserve population of 590. Their population is decreasing. They have 214 dwellings with 191 lived in. Average household size is 3.1 persons per household. Around 105 speak either Corrupted Ojibway Language (80) which is what Lewis and Clark called Cree Language and Ojibway Language (25) at Constance Lake First Nation. They have year round road access to white communities. Their population will continue to decrease. | 603 | ENGLISH | 1 |
America’s first meats
By Ken Zurski
In Jill Lepore’s bold new 900-plus page tome titled “These Truths: A History of the United States,” the essayist and historian begins the incredible journey in the obvious year of 1492 and the discovery of a new land by a man named Christopher Columbus, an Italian-born Portuguese sailor, who was sent by the Spanish king and queen to sail across the Atlantic and spread Christianity, along with more financially rewarding reasons as well.
The name of this new land, Lepore points out was actually given by a German cartographer whose map of the world in four parts included a word, made up, to describe the fourth and newest part: America. But like most historians, Columbus gets credit for finding this new world, soon to be dubbed New Spain, a place where a place was not supposed to be.
Columbus found this new territory well inhabited by natives and resourceful to cultivating. Upon his return back to the homeland, he told the Spanish born Pope who in turn used only his divine powers to grant the land to Spain as if “he were the god of Genesis,” Lepore writes.
Not everyone agreed, but it didn’t matter. Columbus was already planning another trip to conquer and domesticate this New Spain. So in 1493 he led an armada of seventeen ships and 1200 men back to America. This time on board the ships were an abundance of livestock and seeds, enough to start a small farm. It would not be long before the cattle, pigs, sheep and goats multiplied. There was an abundant food supply on this fertile land and no natural predators. “They reproduced in numbers unfathomable in Europe,” reports Leprore. “Cattle population doubled every fifteen months.”
Even more productive, the pigs who were notorious foragers and reproducers quickly outnumbered the cattle. “Within a few years,” Lepore expounds, ” the eight pigs he [Columbus] brought with him had descendants numbering in the thousands.”
Columbus also brought with him seeds of “wheat, chickpeas, melons, onions, radishes, greens, grapevines, and sugar cane.” He also brought diseases, which the European people were mostly immune, but carried unseen. This would wipe out most of the native population who had never been exposed to and therefore had no defense against malaria, influenza, small pox , whopping cough and yellow fever, among others. They died by the “tens of millions,” and those left were usually rounded up and sold as slaves.
And while this conquer, pillage and plunder method by the Spaniards is fiercely debated, and is often roundly criticized, the legacy of Columbus and his men can also be found in many of the plants which dot the country’s landscape. For aboard the transport ships, hidden among the folds of “animal skins, blankets and clods of mud” came a seed, which Lepore points out were “the seeds of plants Europeans considered to be weeds.”
These wild plant seeds were inadvertently distributed in the soil and thanks to the constant moving of dirt by cattle, horses, and human digging and tilling, they spread across the ground like diseases did between the natives.
Bluegrass, daises, and ferns were among them. Thistles and nettles also stayed and thrived.
And one – the mighty dandelion – just never seems to go away. | <urn:uuid:f5574831-47be-417f-9774-497ce045dd83> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://unrememberedhistory.com/tag/americas-first-meats/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250595282.35/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119205448-20200119233448-00074.warc.gz | en | 0.981651 | 738 | 3.34375 | 3 | [
-0.14231956005096436,
0.14887996017932892,
0.13007311522960663,
0.12605047225952148,
0.03495702147483826,
-0.3532009720802307,
-0.12141170352697372,
0.08766644448041916,
0.3355664610862732,
-0.039232272654771805,
0.04852284491062164,
-0.4209240674972534,
-0.4883084297180176,
0.421603888273... | 2 | America’s first meats
By Ken Zurski
In Jill Lepore’s bold new 900-plus page tome titled “These Truths: A History of the United States,” the essayist and historian begins the incredible journey in the obvious year of 1492 and the discovery of a new land by a man named Christopher Columbus, an Italian-born Portuguese sailor, who was sent by the Spanish king and queen to sail across the Atlantic and spread Christianity, along with more financially rewarding reasons as well.
The name of this new land, Lepore points out was actually given by a German cartographer whose map of the world in four parts included a word, made up, to describe the fourth and newest part: America. But like most historians, Columbus gets credit for finding this new world, soon to be dubbed New Spain, a place where a place was not supposed to be.
Columbus found this new territory well inhabited by natives and resourceful to cultivating. Upon his return back to the homeland, he told the Spanish born Pope who in turn used only his divine powers to grant the land to Spain as if “he were the god of Genesis,” Lepore writes.
Not everyone agreed, but it didn’t matter. Columbus was already planning another trip to conquer and domesticate this New Spain. So in 1493 he led an armada of seventeen ships and 1200 men back to America. This time on board the ships were an abundance of livestock and seeds, enough to start a small farm. It would not be long before the cattle, pigs, sheep and goats multiplied. There was an abundant food supply on this fertile land and no natural predators. “They reproduced in numbers unfathomable in Europe,” reports Leprore. “Cattle population doubled every fifteen months.”
Even more productive, the pigs who were notorious foragers and reproducers quickly outnumbered the cattle. “Within a few years,” Lepore expounds, ” the eight pigs he [Columbus] brought with him had descendants numbering in the thousands.”
Columbus also brought with him seeds of “wheat, chickpeas, melons, onions, radishes, greens, grapevines, and sugar cane.” He also brought diseases, which the European people were mostly immune, but carried unseen. This would wipe out most of the native population who had never been exposed to and therefore had no defense against malaria, influenza, small pox , whopping cough and yellow fever, among others. They died by the “tens of millions,” and those left were usually rounded up and sold as slaves.
And while this conquer, pillage and plunder method by the Spaniards is fiercely debated, and is often roundly criticized, the legacy of Columbus and his men can also be found in many of the plants which dot the country’s landscape. For aboard the transport ships, hidden among the folds of “animal skins, blankets and clods of mud” came a seed, which Lepore points out were “the seeds of plants Europeans considered to be weeds.”
These wild plant seeds were inadvertently distributed in the soil and thanks to the constant moving of dirt by cattle, horses, and human digging and tilling, they spread across the ground like diseases did between the natives.
Bluegrass, daises, and ferns were among them. Thistles and nettles also stayed and thrived.
And one – the mighty dandelion – just never seems to go away. | 709 | ENGLISH | 1 |
This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. (August 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
|Badshah of the Mughal Empire|
|2nd Mughal Emperor|
|1st Reign||26 December 1530 - 17 May 1540|
|Coronation||29 December 1530, Agra|
|Successor||Sher Shah Suri (as Sur Emperor)|
|2nd Reign||22 February 1555 - 27 January 1556|
|Predecessor||Sikandar Shah Suri (as Sur Emperor)|
6 March 1508
Kabul (present-day Afghanistan)
|Died||27 January 1556 (aged 47)|
Delhi, Mughal Empire (present-day India)
|Religion||Sunni Islam (later Shia Islam)|
Nasir-ud-Din Mu?ammad (Persian: ?, romanized: Nas?r-ad-D?n Muhammad; 6 March 1508 - 27 January 1556), better known by his regnal name, Humayun (Persian: , romanized: Hum?y?n), was the second emperor of the Mughal Empire, who ruled over territory in what is now Afghanistan, Pakistan, Northern India, and Bangladesh from 1530-1540 and again from 1555-1556. Like his father, Babur, he lost his kingdom early but regained it with the aid of the Safavid dynasty of Persia, with additional territory. At the time of his death in 1556, the Mughal Empire spanned almost one million square kilometres.
In December 1530, Humayun succeeded his father to the throne of Delhi as ruler of the Mughal territories in the Indian subcontinent. Humayun was an inexperienced ruler when he came to power, at the age of 22. His half-brother Kamran Mirza inherited Kabul and Kandahar, the northernmost parts of their father's empire. Kamran was to become a bitter rival of Humayun.
Humayun lost Mughal territories to Sher Shah Suri, but regained them 15 years later with Safavid aid. Humayun's return from Persia was accompanied by a large retinue of Persian noblemen and signalled an important change in Mughal court culture. The Central Asian origins of the dynasty were largely overshadowed by the influences of Persian art, architecture, language, and literature. There are many stone carvings and thousands of Persian manuscripts in India dating from the time of Humayun.
Subsequently, Humayun further expanded the Empire in a very short time, leaving a substantial legacy for his son, Akbar.
The decision of Babur to divide the territories of his empire between two of his sons was unusual in India, although it had been a common Central Asian practice since the time of Genghis Khan. Unlike most monarchies, which practised primogeniture, the Timurids followed the example of Genghis and did not leave an entire kingdom to the eldest son. Although under that system only a Chingissid could claim sovereignty and khanal authority, any male Chinggisid within a given sub-branch had an equal right to the throne (though the Timurids were not Chinggisid in their paternal ancestry). While Genghis Khan's Empire had been peacefully divided between his sons upon his death, almost every Chinggisid succession since had resulted in fratricide.[page needed]
Timur himself had divided his territories among Pir Muhammad, Miran Shah, Khalil Sultan and Shah Rukh, which resulted in inter-family warfare.[full ][non-primary source needed] Upon Babur's death, Humayun's territories were the least secure. He had ruled only four years, and not all umarah (nobles) viewed Humayun as the rightful ruler. Indeed, earlier, when Babur had become ill, some of the nobles had tried to install his Brother-in-law, Mahdi Khwaja, as ruler. Although this attempt failed, it was a sign of problems to come.[full ][non-primary source needed]
When Humayun came to the throne of the Mughal Empire, several of his brothers revolted against him. Another brother Khalil Mirza (1509-1530) supported Humayun but was assassinated. The Emperor commenced construction of a tomb for his brother in 1538, but this was not yet finished when Humayun was forced to flee to Persia. Sher Shah destroyed the structure and no further work was done on it after Humayun's restoration.
Humayun had two major rivals for his lands: Sultan Bahadur of Gujarat to the southwest and Sher Shah Suri (Sher Khan) settled along the river Ganges in Bihar to the east. Humayun's first campaign was to confront Sher Shah Suri. Halfway through this offensive Humayun had to abandon it and concentrate on Gujarat, where a threat from Ahmed Shah had to be met. Humayun was victorious annexing Gujarat, Malwa, Champaner and the great fort of Mandu.
During the first five years of Humayun's reign, Bahadur and Sher Khan extended their rule, although Sultan Bahadur faced pressure in the east from sporadic conflicts with the Portuguese. While the Mughals had obtained firearms via the Ottoman Empire, Bahadur's Gujarat had acquired them through a series of contracts drawn up with the Portuguese, allowing the Portuguese to establish a strategic foothold in north western India.
In 1535 Humayun was made aware that the Sultan of Gujarat was planning an assault on the Mughal territories with Portuguese aid. Humayun gathered an army and marched on Bahadur. Within a month he had captured the forts of Mandu and Champaner. However, instead of pressing his attack, Humayun ceased the campaign and consolidated his newly conquered territory. Sultan Bahadur, meanwhile escaped and took up refuge with the Portuguese.
Shortly after Humayun had marched on Gujarat, Sher Shah Suri saw an opportunity to wrest control of Agra from the Mughals. He began to gather his army together hoping for a rapid and decisive siege of the Mughal capital. Upon hearing this alarming news, Humayun quickly marched his troops back to Agra allowing Bahadur to easily regain control of the territories Humayun had recently taken. In February 1537, however, Bahadur was killed when a botched plan to kidnap the Portuguese viceroy ended in a fire-fight that the Sultan lost.
Whilst Humayun succeeded in protecting Agra from Sher Shah, the second city of the Empire, Gaur the capital of the vilayat of Bengal, was sacked. Humayun's troops had been delayed while trying to take Chunar, a fort occupied by Sher Shah's son, in order to protect his troops from an attack from the rear. The stores of grain at Gauri, the largest in the empire, were emptied, and Humayun arrived to see corpses littering the roads. The vast wealth of Bengal was depleted and brought East, giving Sher Shah a substantial war chest.
Sher Shah withdrew to the east, but Humayun did not follow: instead he "shut himself up for a considerable time in his Harem, and indulged himself in every kind of luxury".[full ][non-primary source needed] Hindal, Humayun's 19-year-old brother, had agreed to aid him in this battle and protect the rear from attack, but he abandoned his position and withdrew to Agra, where he decreed himself acting emperor. When Humayun sent the grand Mufti, Sheikh Buhlul, to reason with him; the Sheikh was killed. Further provoking the rebellion, Hindal ordered that the Khutba, or sermon, in the main mosque surrounded.
Humayun's other brother, Kamran Mirza, marched from his territories in the Punjab, ostensibly to aid Humayun. However, his return home had treacherous motives as he intended to stake a claim for Humayun's apparently collapsing empire. He brokered a deal with Hindal providing that his brother would cease all acts of disloyalty in return for a share in the new empire, which Kamran would create once Humayun was deposed.
In June 1539 Sher Shah met Humayun in the Battle of Chausa on the banks of the Ganges, near Buxar. This was to become an entrenched battle in which both sides spent a lot of time digging themselves into positions. The major part of the Mughal army, the artillery, was now immobile, and Humayun decided to engage in some diplomacy using Muhammad Aziz as ambassador. Humayun agreed to allow Sher Shah to rule over Bengal and Bihar, but only as provinces granted to him by his Emperor, Humayun, falling short of outright sovereignty. The two rulers also struck a bargain in order to save face: Humayun's troops would charge those of Sher Shah whose forces then retreat in feigned fear. Thus honour would, supposedly, be satisfied.[non-primary source needed]
Once the Army of Humayun had made its charge and Sher Shah's troops made their agreed-upon retreat, the Mughal troops relaxed their defensive preparations and returned to their entrenchments without posting a proper guard. Observing the Mughals' vulnerability, Sher Shah reneged on his earlier agreement. That very night, his army approached the Mughal camp and finding the Mughal troops unprepared with a majority asleep, they advanced and killed most of them. The Emperor survived by swimming across the Ganges using an air-filled "water skin", and quietly returned to Agra. Humayun was assisted across the Ganges by Shams al-Din Muhammad.
When Humayun returned to Agra, he found that all three of his brothers were present. Humayun once again not only pardoned his brothers for plotting against him, but even forgave Hindal for his outright betrayal. With his armies travelling at a leisurely pace, Sher Shah was gradually drawing closer and closer to Agra. This was a serious threat to the entire family, but Humayun and Kamran squabbled over how to proceed. Kamran withdrew after Humayun refused to make a quick attack on the approaching enemy, instead opting to build a larger army under his own name.
When Kamran returned to Lahore, Humayun, with his other brothers Askari and Hindal, marched to meet Sher Shah 200 kilometres (120 mi) east of Agra at the battle of Kannauj on 17 May 1540. Humayun was soundly defeated. He retreated to Agra, pursued by Sher Shah, and thence through Delhi to Lahore. Sher Shah's founding of the short-lived Sur Empire, with its capital at Delhi, resulted in Humayun's exile for 15 years in the court of Shah Tahmasp I.
The four brothers were united in Lahore, but every day they were informed that Sher Shah was getting closer and closer. When he reached Sirhind, Humayun sent an ambassador carrying the message "I have left you the whole of Hindustan [i.e. the lands to the East of Punjab, comprising most of the Ganges Valley]. Leave Lahore alone, and let Sirhind be a boundary between you and me." Sher Shah, however, replied "I have left you Kabul. You should go there." Kabul was the capital of the empire of Humayun's brother Kamran, who was far from willing to hand over any of his territories to his brother. Instead, Kamran approached Sher Shah and proposed that he actually revolt against his brother and side with Sher Shah in return for most of the Punjab. Sher Shah dismissed his help, believing it not to be required, though word soon spread to Lahore about the treacherous proposal, and Humayun was urged to make an example of Kamran and kill him. Humayun refused, citing the last words of his father, Babur, "Do nothing against your brothers, even though they may deserve it."[non-primary source needed]
Humayun decided it would be wise to withdraw still further. He and his army rode out through and across the Thar Desert, when the Hindu ruler Rao Maldeo Rathore allied with Sher Shah Suri against the Mughal Empire. In many accounts Humayun mentions how he and his pregnant wife had to trace their steps through the desert at the hottest time of year. Their rations were low, and they had little to eat; even drinking water was a major problem in the desert. When Hamida Bano's horse died, no one would lend the Queen (who was now eight months pregnant) a horse, so Humayun did so himself, resulting in him riding a camel for six kilometres (four miles), although Khaled Beg then offered him his mount. Humayun was later to describe this incident as the lowest point in his life. Humayun asked that his brothers join him as he fell back into Sindh. While the previously rebellious Hindal Mirza remained loyal and was ordered to join his brothers in Kandahar. Kamran Mirza and Askari Mirza instead decided to head to the relative peace of Kabul. This was to be a definitive schism in the family. Humayun headed for Sindh because he expected aid from the Emir of Sindh, Hussein Umrani, whom he had appointed and who owed him his allegiance. Also, his wife Hamida hailed from Sindh; she was the daughter of a prestigious pir family (a pir is an Islamic religious guide) of Persian heritage long settled in Sindh. En route to the Emir's court, Humayun had to break journey because his pregnant wife Hamida was unable to travel further. Humayun sought refuge with the Hindu ruler of the oasis town of Amarkot (now part of Sindh province).
Rana Prasad Rao of Amarkot duly welcomed Humayun into his home and sheltered the refugees for several months. Here, in the household of a Hindu Rajput nobleman, Humayun's wife Hamida Bano, daughter of a Sindhi family, gave birth to the future Emperor Akbar on 15 October 1542. The date of birth is well established because Humayun consulted his astronomer to utilise the astrolabe and check the location of the planets. The infant was the long-awaited heir-apparent to the 34-year-old Humayun and the answer of many prayers. Shortly after the birth, Humayun and his party left Amarkot for Sindh, leaving Akbar behind, who was not ready for the grueling journey ahead in his infancy. He was later adopted by Askari Mirza.
For a change, Humayun was not deceived in the character of the man on whom he has pinned his hopes. Emir Hussein Umrani, ruler of Sindh, welcomed Humayun's presence and was loyal to Humayun just as he had been loyal to Babur against the renegade Arghuns. While in Sindh, Humayun alongside Emir Hussein Umrani, gathered horses and weapons and formed new alliances that helped regain lost territories. Until finally Humayun had gathered hundreds of Sindhi and Baloch tribesmen alongside his Mughals and then marched towards Kandahar and later Kabul, thousands more gathered by his side as Humayun continually declared himself the rightful Timurid heir of the first Mughal Emperor, Babur.
After Humayun set out from his expedition in Sindh, along with 300 camels (mostly wild) and 2000 loads of grain, he set off to join his brothers in Kandahar after crossing the Indus River on 11 July 1543 along with the ambition to regain the Mughal Empire and overthrow the Suri dynasty. Among the tribes that had sworn allegiance to Humayun were the Magsi, Rind and many others.
In Kamran Mirza's territory, Hindal Mirza had been placed under house arrest in Kabul after refusing to have the Khutba recited in Kamran Mirza's name. His other brother Askari Mirza was now ordered to gather an army and march on Humayun. When Humayun received word of the approaching hostile army he decided against facing them, and instead sought refuge elsewhere. Akbar was left behind in camp close to Kandahar for, as it was December it would have been too cold and dangerous to include the 14-month-old toddler in the forthcoming march through the dangerous and snowy mountains of the Hindu Kush. Askari Mirza found Akbar in the camp, and embraced him, and allowed his own wife to parent him, she apparently started treating him as her own.
Humayun fled to the refuge of the Safavid Empire in Persia, marching with 40 men, his wife Bega Begum, and her companion through mountains and valleys. Among other trials the Imperial party were forced to live on horse meat boiled in the soldiers' helmets. These indignities continued during the month it took them to reach Herat, however after their arrival they were reintroduced to the finer things in life. Upon entering the city his army was greeted with an armed escort, and they were treated to lavish food and clothing. They were given fine accommodations and the roads were cleared and cleaned before them. Shah Tahmasp, unlike Humayun's own family, actually welcomed the Mughal, and treated him as a royal visitor. Here Humayun went sightseeing and was amazed at the Persian artwork and architecture he saw: much of this was the work of the Timurid Sultan Husayn Bayqarah and his ancestor, princess Gauhar Shad, thus he was able to admire the work of his relatives and ancestors at first hand.
He was introduced to the work of the Persian miniaturists, and Kamaleddin Behzad had two of his pupils join Humayun in his court. Humayun was amazed at their work and asked if they would work for him if he were to regain the sovereignty of Hindustan: they agreed. With so much going on Humayun did not even meet the Shah until July, some six months after his arrival in Persia. After a lengthy journey from Herat the two met in Qazvin where a large feast and parties were held for the event. The meeting of the two monarchs is depicted in a famous wall-painting in the Chehel Sotoun (Forty Columns) palace in Esfahan.
The Shah urged that Humayun convert from Sunni to Shia Islam, and Humayun eventually accepted, in order to keep himself and several hundred followers alive. Although the Mughals initially disagreed to their conversion they knew that with this outward acceptance of Shi'ism, Shah Tahmasp was eventually prepared to offer Humayun more substantial support. When Humayun's brother, Kamran Mirza, offered to cede Kandahar to the Persians in exchange for Humayun, dead or alive, Shah Tahmasp refused. Instead the Shah staged a celebration for Humayun, with 300 tents, an imperial Persian carpet, 12 musical bands and "meat of all kinds". Here the Shah announced that all this, and 12,000 elite cavalry were his to lead an attack on his brother Kamran. All that Shah Tahmasp asked for was that, if Humayun's forces were victorious, Kandahar would be his.
This section does not cite any sources. (May 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
With this Persian Safavid aid Humayun took Kandahar from Askari Mirza after a two-week siege. He noted how the nobles who had served Askari Mirza quickly flocked to serve him, "in very truth the greater part of the inhabitants of the world are like a flock of sheep, wherever one goes the others immediately follow". Kandahar was, as agreed, given to the Shah of Persia who sent his infant son, Murad, as the Viceroy. However, the baby soon died and Humayun thought himself strong enough to assume power.
Humayun now prepared to take Kabul, ruled by his brother Kamran Mirza. In the end, there was no actual siege. Kamran Mirza was detested as a leader and as Humayun's Persian army approached the city hundreds of Kamran Mirza's troops changed sides, flocking to join Humayun and swelling his ranks. Kamran Mirza absconded and began building an army outside the city. In November 1545, Hamida and Humayun were reunited with their son Akbar, and held a huge feast. They also held another, larger, feast in the child's honour when he was circumcised.
However, while Humayun had a larger army than his brother and had the upper hand, on two occasions his poor military judgement allowed Kamran Mirza to retake Kabul and Kandahar, forcing Humayun to mount further campaigns for their recapture. He may have been aided in this by his reputation for leniency towards the troops who had defended the cities against him, as opposed to Kamran Mirza, whose brief periods of possession were marked by atrocities against the inhabitants who, he supposed, had helped his brother.
His youngest brother, Hindal Mirza, formerly the most disloyal of his siblings, died fighting on his behalf. His brother Askari Mirza was shackled in chains at the behest of his nobles and aides. He was allowed go on Hajj, and died en route in the desert outside Damascus.
Humayun's other brother, Kamran Mirza, had repeatedly sought to have Humayun killed. In 1552 Kamran Mirza attempted to make a pact with Islam Shah, Sher Shah's successor, but was apprehended by a Gakhar. The Gakhars were one of the minority of tribal groups who had consistently remained loyal to their oath to the Mughals. Sultan Adam of the Gakhars handed Kamran Mirza over to Humayun. Humayun was inclined to forgive his brother. However he was warned that allowing Kamran Mirza's repeated acts of treachery to go unpunished could foment rebellion amongst his own supporters. So, instead of killing his brother, Humayun had Kamran Mirza blinded which would end any claim by the latter to the throne. Humayun sent Kamran Mirza on Hajj, as he hoped to see his brother thereby absolved of his offences. However Kamran Mirza died close to Mecca in the Arabian Peninsula in 1557.
This section does not cite any sources. (May 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Sher Shah Suri had died in 1545; his son and successor Islam Shah died in 1554. These two deaths left the dynasty reeling and disintegrating. Three rivals for the throne all marched on Delhi, while in many cities leaders tried to stake a claim for independence. This was a perfect opportunity for the Mughals to march back to India.
The Mughal Emperor Humayun gathered a vast army and attempted the challenging task of retaking the throne in Delhi. Humayun placed the army under the leadership of Bairam Khan, a wise move given Humayun's own record of military ineptitude, and it turned out to be prescient as Bairam proved himself a great tactician. At the Battle of Sirhind on 22 June 1555, the armies of Sikandar Shah Suri were decisively defeated and the Mughal Empire was re-established in India.
The Gazetteer of Ulwur states:
Soon after Babur's death, his successor, Humayun, was in AD 1540 supplanted by the Pathan Sher Shah, who, in AD 1545, was followed by Islam Shah. During the reign of the latter a battle was fought and lost by the Emperor's troops at Firozpur Jhirka, in Mewat, on which, however, Islam Shah did not loose his hold. Adil Shah, the third of the Pathan interlopers, who succeeded in AD 1552, had to contend for the Empire with the returned Humayun.
In these struggles for the restoration of Babar's dynasty Khanzadas apparently do not figure at all. Humayun seems to have conciliated them by marrying the elder daughter of Jamal Khan, nephew of Babar's opponent, Hasan Khan and, by causing his great minister, Bairam Khan, to marry a younger daughter of the same Mewatti.
Bairam Khan led the army through the Punjab virtually unopposed. The fort of Rohtas, which was built in 1541-1543 by Sher Shah Suri to crush the Gakhars who were loyal to Humayun, was surrendered without a shot by a treacherous commander. The walls of the Rohtas Fort measure up to 12.5 meters in thickness and up to 18.28 meters in height. They extend for 4 km and feature 68 semi-circular bastions. Its sandstone gates, both massive and ornate, are thought to have exerted a profound influence on Mughal military architecture.
The only major battle faced by Humayun's armies was against Sikander Suri in Sirhind, where Bairam Khan employed a tactic whereby he engaged his enemy in open battle, but then retreated quickly in apparent fear. When the enemy followed after them they were surprised by entrenched defensive positions and were easily annihilated.
After Sirhind, most towns and villages chose to welcome the invading army as it made its way to the capital. On 23 July 1555, Humayun once again sat on Babur's throne in Delhi.
With all of Humayun's brothers now dead, there was no fear of another usurping his throne during his military campaigns. He was also now an established leader and could trust his generals. With this new-found strength Humayun embarked on a series of military campaigns aimed at extending his reign over areas in the east and west of the subcontinent. His sojourn in exile seems to have reduced his reliance on astrology, and his military leadership came to imitate the more effective methods that he had observed in Persia.
Edward S. Holden writes; "He was uniformly kind and considerate to his dependents, devotedly attached to his son Akbar, to his friends, and to his turbulent brothers. The misfortunes of his reign arose in great, from his failure to treat them with rigor." He further writes: "The very defects of his character, which render him less admirable as a successful ruler of nations, make us more fond of him as a man. His renown has suffered in that his reign came between the brilliant conquests of Babur and the beneficent statesmanship of Akbar; but he was not unworthy to be the son of the one and the father of the other."Stanley Lane-Poole writes in his book Medieval India: "His name meant the winner (Lucky/Conqueror), there is no kind in the history to be named as wrong as Humayun", he was of a forgiving nature. He further writes, "He was in fact unfortunate ... Scarcely had he enjoyed his throne for six months in Delhi when he slipped down from the polished steps of his palace and died in his forty-ninth year (Jan. 24, 1556). If there was a possibility of falling, Humayun was not the man to miss it. He tumbled through his life and tumbled out of it."
On 24 January 1556, Humayun, with his arms full of books, was descending the staircase from his library when the muezzin announced the Azaan (the call to prayer). It was his habit, wherever and whenever he heard the summons, to bow his knee in holy reverence. Trying to kneel, he caught his foot in his robe, tumbled down several steps and hit his temple on a rugged stone edge. He died three days later. His body was laid to rest in Purana Quila initially, but, because of an attack by Hemu on Delhi and the capture of Purana Qila, Humayun's body was exhumed by the fleeing army and transferred to Kalanaur in Punjab where Akbar was crowned. His tomb, which was commissioned by his favourite and devoted chief wife, Bega Begum, stands in Delhi, where he was later buried in a grand way.
His full title as Emperor of the Mughal Empire was Al-Sultan al-'Azam wal Khaqan al-Mukarram, Jam-i-Sultanat-i-haqiqi wa Majazi, Sayyid al-Salatin, Abu'l Muzaffar Nasir ud-din Muhammad Humayun Padshah Ghazi, Zillu'llah.
|Ancestors of Humayun|
Babar established good relations with them [the Ghakhars] and hereafter they always sided with the Mughals. Sher Shah Suri therefore determined to crush the Ghakhars and built a fort at Rohtas;
Kamran withdrew from Agra to Lahore. ... In the Battle of Kanauj (17 May 1540) ... Humayun was defeated. His two younger brothers, Askari and Hindal, also ... Humayun fled to Agra but was pursued by the Afghans, who drove him first to Delhi and then to Lahore. ... Finally ... he took shelter at the court of the Iranian king, Shah Tahmasp. Thus began a weary exile which lasted for nearly 15 years.
He ... turned toward Qandahar where his brother Kamran was in power, but he received no help and had to seek refuge with the Shah of Persia.
The tomb was built by Humayun's widow, Haji Begum, who shared his long exile at the court of the Safavids. | <urn:uuid:9e9c57aa-9b0d-4bfc-8002-932e1341376e> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://popflock.com/learn?s=Humayun | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251690379.95/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126195918-20200126225918-00081.warc.gz | en | 0.985901 | 6,268 | 3.28125 | 3 | [
-0.4283798336982727,
0.45690077543258667,
0.283310204744339,
-0.15497902035713196,
-0.36244380474090576,
-0.4217575192451477,
0.07782241702079773,
-0.27711331844329834,
0.17331622540950775,
-0.38524097204208374,
0.16620615124702454,
-0.384369820356369,
0.4365958571434021,
0.180802643299102... | 1 | This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. (August 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
|Badshah of the Mughal Empire|
|2nd Mughal Emperor|
|1st Reign||26 December 1530 - 17 May 1540|
|Coronation||29 December 1530, Agra|
|Successor||Sher Shah Suri (as Sur Emperor)|
|2nd Reign||22 February 1555 - 27 January 1556|
|Predecessor||Sikandar Shah Suri (as Sur Emperor)|
6 March 1508
Kabul (present-day Afghanistan)
|Died||27 January 1556 (aged 47)|
Delhi, Mughal Empire (present-day India)
|Religion||Sunni Islam (later Shia Islam)|
Nasir-ud-Din Mu?ammad (Persian: ?, romanized: Nas?r-ad-D?n Muhammad; 6 March 1508 - 27 January 1556), better known by his regnal name, Humayun (Persian: , romanized: Hum?y?n), was the second emperor of the Mughal Empire, who ruled over territory in what is now Afghanistan, Pakistan, Northern India, and Bangladesh from 1530-1540 and again from 1555-1556. Like his father, Babur, he lost his kingdom early but regained it with the aid of the Safavid dynasty of Persia, with additional territory. At the time of his death in 1556, the Mughal Empire spanned almost one million square kilometres.
In December 1530, Humayun succeeded his father to the throne of Delhi as ruler of the Mughal territories in the Indian subcontinent. Humayun was an inexperienced ruler when he came to power, at the age of 22. His half-brother Kamran Mirza inherited Kabul and Kandahar, the northernmost parts of their father's empire. Kamran was to become a bitter rival of Humayun.
Humayun lost Mughal territories to Sher Shah Suri, but regained them 15 years later with Safavid aid. Humayun's return from Persia was accompanied by a large retinue of Persian noblemen and signalled an important change in Mughal court culture. The Central Asian origins of the dynasty were largely overshadowed by the influences of Persian art, architecture, language, and literature. There are many stone carvings and thousands of Persian manuscripts in India dating from the time of Humayun.
Subsequently, Humayun further expanded the Empire in a very short time, leaving a substantial legacy for his son, Akbar.
The decision of Babur to divide the territories of his empire between two of his sons was unusual in India, although it had been a common Central Asian practice since the time of Genghis Khan. Unlike most monarchies, which practised primogeniture, the Timurids followed the example of Genghis and did not leave an entire kingdom to the eldest son. Although under that system only a Chingissid could claim sovereignty and khanal authority, any male Chinggisid within a given sub-branch had an equal right to the throne (though the Timurids were not Chinggisid in their paternal ancestry). While Genghis Khan's Empire had been peacefully divided between his sons upon his death, almost every Chinggisid succession since had resulted in fratricide.[page needed]
Timur himself had divided his territories among Pir Muhammad, Miran Shah, Khalil Sultan and Shah Rukh, which resulted in inter-family warfare.[full ][non-primary source needed] Upon Babur's death, Humayun's territories were the least secure. He had ruled only four years, and not all umarah (nobles) viewed Humayun as the rightful ruler. Indeed, earlier, when Babur had become ill, some of the nobles had tried to install his Brother-in-law, Mahdi Khwaja, as ruler. Although this attempt failed, it was a sign of problems to come.[full ][non-primary source needed]
When Humayun came to the throne of the Mughal Empire, several of his brothers revolted against him. Another brother Khalil Mirza (1509-1530) supported Humayun but was assassinated. The Emperor commenced construction of a tomb for his brother in 1538, but this was not yet finished when Humayun was forced to flee to Persia. Sher Shah destroyed the structure and no further work was done on it after Humayun's restoration.
Humayun had two major rivals for his lands: Sultan Bahadur of Gujarat to the southwest and Sher Shah Suri (Sher Khan) settled along the river Ganges in Bihar to the east. Humayun's first campaign was to confront Sher Shah Suri. Halfway through this offensive Humayun had to abandon it and concentrate on Gujarat, where a threat from Ahmed Shah had to be met. Humayun was victorious annexing Gujarat, Malwa, Champaner and the great fort of Mandu.
During the first five years of Humayun's reign, Bahadur and Sher Khan extended their rule, although Sultan Bahadur faced pressure in the east from sporadic conflicts with the Portuguese. While the Mughals had obtained firearms via the Ottoman Empire, Bahadur's Gujarat had acquired them through a series of contracts drawn up with the Portuguese, allowing the Portuguese to establish a strategic foothold in north western India.
In 1535 Humayun was made aware that the Sultan of Gujarat was planning an assault on the Mughal territories with Portuguese aid. Humayun gathered an army and marched on Bahadur. Within a month he had captured the forts of Mandu and Champaner. However, instead of pressing his attack, Humayun ceased the campaign and consolidated his newly conquered territory. Sultan Bahadur, meanwhile escaped and took up refuge with the Portuguese.
Shortly after Humayun had marched on Gujarat, Sher Shah Suri saw an opportunity to wrest control of Agra from the Mughals. He began to gather his army together hoping for a rapid and decisive siege of the Mughal capital. Upon hearing this alarming news, Humayun quickly marched his troops back to Agra allowing Bahadur to easily regain control of the territories Humayun had recently taken. In February 1537, however, Bahadur was killed when a botched plan to kidnap the Portuguese viceroy ended in a fire-fight that the Sultan lost.
Whilst Humayun succeeded in protecting Agra from Sher Shah, the second city of the Empire, Gaur the capital of the vilayat of Bengal, was sacked. Humayun's troops had been delayed while trying to take Chunar, a fort occupied by Sher Shah's son, in order to protect his troops from an attack from the rear. The stores of grain at Gauri, the largest in the empire, were emptied, and Humayun arrived to see corpses littering the roads. The vast wealth of Bengal was depleted and brought East, giving Sher Shah a substantial war chest.
Sher Shah withdrew to the east, but Humayun did not follow: instead he "shut himself up for a considerable time in his Harem, and indulged himself in every kind of luxury".[full ][non-primary source needed] Hindal, Humayun's 19-year-old brother, had agreed to aid him in this battle and protect the rear from attack, but he abandoned his position and withdrew to Agra, where he decreed himself acting emperor. When Humayun sent the grand Mufti, Sheikh Buhlul, to reason with him; the Sheikh was killed. Further provoking the rebellion, Hindal ordered that the Khutba, or sermon, in the main mosque surrounded.
Humayun's other brother, Kamran Mirza, marched from his territories in the Punjab, ostensibly to aid Humayun. However, his return home had treacherous motives as he intended to stake a claim for Humayun's apparently collapsing empire. He brokered a deal with Hindal providing that his brother would cease all acts of disloyalty in return for a share in the new empire, which Kamran would create once Humayun was deposed.
In June 1539 Sher Shah met Humayun in the Battle of Chausa on the banks of the Ganges, near Buxar. This was to become an entrenched battle in which both sides spent a lot of time digging themselves into positions. The major part of the Mughal army, the artillery, was now immobile, and Humayun decided to engage in some diplomacy using Muhammad Aziz as ambassador. Humayun agreed to allow Sher Shah to rule over Bengal and Bihar, but only as provinces granted to him by his Emperor, Humayun, falling short of outright sovereignty. The two rulers also struck a bargain in order to save face: Humayun's troops would charge those of Sher Shah whose forces then retreat in feigned fear. Thus honour would, supposedly, be satisfied.[non-primary source needed]
Once the Army of Humayun had made its charge and Sher Shah's troops made their agreed-upon retreat, the Mughal troops relaxed their defensive preparations and returned to their entrenchments without posting a proper guard. Observing the Mughals' vulnerability, Sher Shah reneged on his earlier agreement. That very night, his army approached the Mughal camp and finding the Mughal troops unprepared with a majority asleep, they advanced and killed most of them. The Emperor survived by swimming across the Ganges using an air-filled "water skin", and quietly returned to Agra. Humayun was assisted across the Ganges by Shams al-Din Muhammad.
When Humayun returned to Agra, he found that all three of his brothers were present. Humayun once again not only pardoned his brothers for plotting against him, but even forgave Hindal for his outright betrayal. With his armies travelling at a leisurely pace, Sher Shah was gradually drawing closer and closer to Agra. This was a serious threat to the entire family, but Humayun and Kamran squabbled over how to proceed. Kamran withdrew after Humayun refused to make a quick attack on the approaching enemy, instead opting to build a larger army under his own name.
When Kamran returned to Lahore, Humayun, with his other brothers Askari and Hindal, marched to meet Sher Shah 200 kilometres (120 mi) east of Agra at the battle of Kannauj on 17 May 1540. Humayun was soundly defeated. He retreated to Agra, pursued by Sher Shah, and thence through Delhi to Lahore. Sher Shah's founding of the short-lived Sur Empire, with its capital at Delhi, resulted in Humayun's exile for 15 years in the court of Shah Tahmasp I.
The four brothers were united in Lahore, but every day they were informed that Sher Shah was getting closer and closer. When he reached Sirhind, Humayun sent an ambassador carrying the message "I have left you the whole of Hindustan [i.e. the lands to the East of Punjab, comprising most of the Ganges Valley]. Leave Lahore alone, and let Sirhind be a boundary between you and me." Sher Shah, however, replied "I have left you Kabul. You should go there." Kabul was the capital of the empire of Humayun's brother Kamran, who was far from willing to hand over any of his territories to his brother. Instead, Kamran approached Sher Shah and proposed that he actually revolt against his brother and side with Sher Shah in return for most of the Punjab. Sher Shah dismissed his help, believing it not to be required, though word soon spread to Lahore about the treacherous proposal, and Humayun was urged to make an example of Kamran and kill him. Humayun refused, citing the last words of his father, Babur, "Do nothing against your brothers, even though they may deserve it."[non-primary source needed]
Humayun decided it would be wise to withdraw still further. He and his army rode out through and across the Thar Desert, when the Hindu ruler Rao Maldeo Rathore allied with Sher Shah Suri against the Mughal Empire. In many accounts Humayun mentions how he and his pregnant wife had to trace their steps through the desert at the hottest time of year. Their rations were low, and they had little to eat; even drinking water was a major problem in the desert. When Hamida Bano's horse died, no one would lend the Queen (who was now eight months pregnant) a horse, so Humayun did so himself, resulting in him riding a camel for six kilometres (four miles), although Khaled Beg then offered him his mount. Humayun was later to describe this incident as the lowest point in his life. Humayun asked that his brothers join him as he fell back into Sindh. While the previously rebellious Hindal Mirza remained loyal and was ordered to join his brothers in Kandahar. Kamran Mirza and Askari Mirza instead decided to head to the relative peace of Kabul. This was to be a definitive schism in the family. Humayun headed for Sindh because he expected aid from the Emir of Sindh, Hussein Umrani, whom he had appointed and who owed him his allegiance. Also, his wife Hamida hailed from Sindh; she was the daughter of a prestigious pir family (a pir is an Islamic religious guide) of Persian heritage long settled in Sindh. En route to the Emir's court, Humayun had to break journey because his pregnant wife Hamida was unable to travel further. Humayun sought refuge with the Hindu ruler of the oasis town of Amarkot (now part of Sindh province).
Rana Prasad Rao of Amarkot duly welcomed Humayun into his home and sheltered the refugees for several months. Here, in the household of a Hindu Rajput nobleman, Humayun's wife Hamida Bano, daughter of a Sindhi family, gave birth to the future Emperor Akbar on 15 October 1542. The date of birth is well established because Humayun consulted his astronomer to utilise the astrolabe and check the location of the planets. The infant was the long-awaited heir-apparent to the 34-year-old Humayun and the answer of many prayers. Shortly after the birth, Humayun and his party left Amarkot for Sindh, leaving Akbar behind, who was not ready for the grueling journey ahead in his infancy. He was later adopted by Askari Mirza.
For a change, Humayun was not deceived in the character of the man on whom he has pinned his hopes. Emir Hussein Umrani, ruler of Sindh, welcomed Humayun's presence and was loyal to Humayun just as he had been loyal to Babur against the renegade Arghuns. While in Sindh, Humayun alongside Emir Hussein Umrani, gathered horses and weapons and formed new alliances that helped regain lost territories. Until finally Humayun had gathered hundreds of Sindhi and Baloch tribesmen alongside his Mughals and then marched towards Kandahar and later Kabul, thousands more gathered by his side as Humayun continually declared himself the rightful Timurid heir of the first Mughal Emperor, Babur.
After Humayun set out from his expedition in Sindh, along with 300 camels (mostly wild) and 2000 loads of grain, he set off to join his brothers in Kandahar after crossing the Indus River on 11 July 1543 along with the ambition to regain the Mughal Empire and overthrow the Suri dynasty. Among the tribes that had sworn allegiance to Humayun were the Magsi, Rind and many others.
In Kamran Mirza's territory, Hindal Mirza had been placed under house arrest in Kabul after refusing to have the Khutba recited in Kamran Mirza's name. His other brother Askari Mirza was now ordered to gather an army and march on Humayun. When Humayun received word of the approaching hostile army he decided against facing them, and instead sought refuge elsewhere. Akbar was left behind in camp close to Kandahar for, as it was December it would have been too cold and dangerous to include the 14-month-old toddler in the forthcoming march through the dangerous and snowy mountains of the Hindu Kush. Askari Mirza found Akbar in the camp, and embraced him, and allowed his own wife to parent him, she apparently started treating him as her own.
Humayun fled to the refuge of the Safavid Empire in Persia, marching with 40 men, his wife Bega Begum, and her companion through mountains and valleys. Among other trials the Imperial party were forced to live on horse meat boiled in the soldiers' helmets. These indignities continued during the month it took them to reach Herat, however after their arrival they were reintroduced to the finer things in life. Upon entering the city his army was greeted with an armed escort, and they were treated to lavish food and clothing. They were given fine accommodations and the roads were cleared and cleaned before them. Shah Tahmasp, unlike Humayun's own family, actually welcomed the Mughal, and treated him as a royal visitor. Here Humayun went sightseeing and was amazed at the Persian artwork and architecture he saw: much of this was the work of the Timurid Sultan Husayn Bayqarah and his ancestor, princess Gauhar Shad, thus he was able to admire the work of his relatives and ancestors at first hand.
He was introduced to the work of the Persian miniaturists, and Kamaleddin Behzad had two of his pupils join Humayun in his court. Humayun was amazed at their work and asked if they would work for him if he were to regain the sovereignty of Hindustan: they agreed. With so much going on Humayun did not even meet the Shah until July, some six months after his arrival in Persia. After a lengthy journey from Herat the two met in Qazvin where a large feast and parties were held for the event. The meeting of the two monarchs is depicted in a famous wall-painting in the Chehel Sotoun (Forty Columns) palace in Esfahan.
The Shah urged that Humayun convert from Sunni to Shia Islam, and Humayun eventually accepted, in order to keep himself and several hundred followers alive. Although the Mughals initially disagreed to their conversion they knew that with this outward acceptance of Shi'ism, Shah Tahmasp was eventually prepared to offer Humayun more substantial support. When Humayun's brother, Kamran Mirza, offered to cede Kandahar to the Persians in exchange for Humayun, dead or alive, Shah Tahmasp refused. Instead the Shah staged a celebration for Humayun, with 300 tents, an imperial Persian carpet, 12 musical bands and "meat of all kinds". Here the Shah announced that all this, and 12,000 elite cavalry were his to lead an attack on his brother Kamran. All that Shah Tahmasp asked for was that, if Humayun's forces were victorious, Kandahar would be his.
This section does not cite any sources. (May 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
With this Persian Safavid aid Humayun took Kandahar from Askari Mirza after a two-week siege. He noted how the nobles who had served Askari Mirza quickly flocked to serve him, "in very truth the greater part of the inhabitants of the world are like a flock of sheep, wherever one goes the others immediately follow". Kandahar was, as agreed, given to the Shah of Persia who sent his infant son, Murad, as the Viceroy. However, the baby soon died and Humayun thought himself strong enough to assume power.
Humayun now prepared to take Kabul, ruled by his brother Kamran Mirza. In the end, there was no actual siege. Kamran Mirza was detested as a leader and as Humayun's Persian army approached the city hundreds of Kamran Mirza's troops changed sides, flocking to join Humayun and swelling his ranks. Kamran Mirza absconded and began building an army outside the city. In November 1545, Hamida and Humayun were reunited with their son Akbar, and held a huge feast. They also held another, larger, feast in the child's honour when he was circumcised.
However, while Humayun had a larger army than his brother and had the upper hand, on two occasions his poor military judgement allowed Kamran Mirza to retake Kabul and Kandahar, forcing Humayun to mount further campaigns for their recapture. He may have been aided in this by his reputation for leniency towards the troops who had defended the cities against him, as opposed to Kamran Mirza, whose brief periods of possession were marked by atrocities against the inhabitants who, he supposed, had helped his brother.
His youngest brother, Hindal Mirza, formerly the most disloyal of his siblings, died fighting on his behalf. His brother Askari Mirza was shackled in chains at the behest of his nobles and aides. He was allowed go on Hajj, and died en route in the desert outside Damascus.
Humayun's other brother, Kamran Mirza, had repeatedly sought to have Humayun killed. In 1552 Kamran Mirza attempted to make a pact with Islam Shah, Sher Shah's successor, but was apprehended by a Gakhar. The Gakhars were one of the minority of tribal groups who had consistently remained loyal to their oath to the Mughals. Sultan Adam of the Gakhars handed Kamran Mirza over to Humayun. Humayun was inclined to forgive his brother. However he was warned that allowing Kamran Mirza's repeated acts of treachery to go unpunished could foment rebellion amongst his own supporters. So, instead of killing his brother, Humayun had Kamran Mirza blinded which would end any claim by the latter to the throne. Humayun sent Kamran Mirza on Hajj, as he hoped to see his brother thereby absolved of his offences. However Kamran Mirza died close to Mecca in the Arabian Peninsula in 1557.
This section does not cite any sources. (May 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Sher Shah Suri had died in 1545; his son and successor Islam Shah died in 1554. These two deaths left the dynasty reeling and disintegrating. Three rivals for the throne all marched on Delhi, while in many cities leaders tried to stake a claim for independence. This was a perfect opportunity for the Mughals to march back to India.
The Mughal Emperor Humayun gathered a vast army and attempted the challenging task of retaking the throne in Delhi. Humayun placed the army under the leadership of Bairam Khan, a wise move given Humayun's own record of military ineptitude, and it turned out to be prescient as Bairam proved himself a great tactician. At the Battle of Sirhind on 22 June 1555, the armies of Sikandar Shah Suri were decisively defeated and the Mughal Empire was re-established in India.
The Gazetteer of Ulwur states:
Soon after Babur's death, his successor, Humayun, was in AD 1540 supplanted by the Pathan Sher Shah, who, in AD 1545, was followed by Islam Shah. During the reign of the latter a battle was fought and lost by the Emperor's troops at Firozpur Jhirka, in Mewat, on which, however, Islam Shah did not loose his hold. Adil Shah, the third of the Pathan interlopers, who succeeded in AD 1552, had to contend for the Empire with the returned Humayun.
In these struggles for the restoration of Babar's dynasty Khanzadas apparently do not figure at all. Humayun seems to have conciliated them by marrying the elder daughter of Jamal Khan, nephew of Babar's opponent, Hasan Khan and, by causing his great minister, Bairam Khan, to marry a younger daughter of the same Mewatti.
Bairam Khan led the army through the Punjab virtually unopposed. The fort of Rohtas, which was built in 1541-1543 by Sher Shah Suri to crush the Gakhars who were loyal to Humayun, was surrendered without a shot by a treacherous commander. The walls of the Rohtas Fort measure up to 12.5 meters in thickness and up to 18.28 meters in height. They extend for 4 km and feature 68 semi-circular bastions. Its sandstone gates, both massive and ornate, are thought to have exerted a profound influence on Mughal military architecture.
The only major battle faced by Humayun's armies was against Sikander Suri in Sirhind, where Bairam Khan employed a tactic whereby he engaged his enemy in open battle, but then retreated quickly in apparent fear. When the enemy followed after them they were surprised by entrenched defensive positions and were easily annihilated.
After Sirhind, most towns and villages chose to welcome the invading army as it made its way to the capital. On 23 July 1555, Humayun once again sat on Babur's throne in Delhi.
With all of Humayun's brothers now dead, there was no fear of another usurping his throne during his military campaigns. He was also now an established leader and could trust his generals. With this new-found strength Humayun embarked on a series of military campaigns aimed at extending his reign over areas in the east and west of the subcontinent. His sojourn in exile seems to have reduced his reliance on astrology, and his military leadership came to imitate the more effective methods that he had observed in Persia.
Edward S. Holden writes; "He was uniformly kind and considerate to his dependents, devotedly attached to his son Akbar, to his friends, and to his turbulent brothers. The misfortunes of his reign arose in great, from his failure to treat them with rigor." He further writes: "The very defects of his character, which render him less admirable as a successful ruler of nations, make us more fond of him as a man. His renown has suffered in that his reign came between the brilliant conquests of Babur and the beneficent statesmanship of Akbar; but he was not unworthy to be the son of the one and the father of the other."Stanley Lane-Poole writes in his book Medieval India: "His name meant the winner (Lucky/Conqueror), there is no kind in the history to be named as wrong as Humayun", he was of a forgiving nature. He further writes, "He was in fact unfortunate ... Scarcely had he enjoyed his throne for six months in Delhi when he slipped down from the polished steps of his palace and died in his forty-ninth year (Jan. 24, 1556). If there was a possibility of falling, Humayun was not the man to miss it. He tumbled through his life and tumbled out of it."
On 24 January 1556, Humayun, with his arms full of books, was descending the staircase from his library when the muezzin announced the Azaan (the call to prayer). It was his habit, wherever and whenever he heard the summons, to bow his knee in holy reverence. Trying to kneel, he caught his foot in his robe, tumbled down several steps and hit his temple on a rugged stone edge. He died three days later. His body was laid to rest in Purana Quila initially, but, because of an attack by Hemu on Delhi and the capture of Purana Qila, Humayun's body was exhumed by the fleeing army and transferred to Kalanaur in Punjab where Akbar was crowned. His tomb, which was commissioned by his favourite and devoted chief wife, Bega Begum, stands in Delhi, where he was later buried in a grand way.
His full title as Emperor of the Mughal Empire was Al-Sultan al-'Azam wal Khaqan al-Mukarram, Jam-i-Sultanat-i-haqiqi wa Majazi, Sayyid al-Salatin, Abu'l Muzaffar Nasir ud-din Muhammad Humayun Padshah Ghazi, Zillu'llah.
|Ancestors of Humayun|
Babar established good relations with them [the Ghakhars] and hereafter they always sided with the Mughals. Sher Shah Suri therefore determined to crush the Ghakhars and built a fort at Rohtas;
Kamran withdrew from Agra to Lahore. ... In the Battle of Kanauj (17 May 1540) ... Humayun was defeated. His two younger brothers, Askari and Hindal, also ... Humayun fled to Agra but was pursued by the Afghans, who drove him first to Delhi and then to Lahore. ... Finally ... he took shelter at the court of the Iranian king, Shah Tahmasp. Thus began a weary exile which lasted for nearly 15 years.
He ... turned toward Qandahar where his brother Kamran was in power, but he received no help and had to seek refuge with the Shah of Persia.
The tomb was built by Humayun's widow, Haji Begum, who shared his long exile at the court of the Safavids. | 6,408 | ENGLISH | 1 |
This breakneck consumption of clothes is possible because of “fast fashion,” a system in which clothing is made quickly, sold cheaply, and considered disposable, for the most part. And according to Dana Thomas, author of Fashionopolis: The Price of Fast Fashion and the Future of Clothes, this system has consequences for both the workers who make the garments and the planet as a whole.
Of course, clothes were not always so cheap and easily replaceable. Thomas explained that garments cost nearly the same amount today as they cost during the Great Depression, and that is without taking inflation into account. In 2019, for example, an business-attire dress from H&M costs around $25, much like a “secretary special” back in 1935. Except, with inflation, the 1935 outfit would be about $350 in today’s dollars. Essentially, clothes used to be expensive.
A Bureau of Labor Statistics report found that, in 1900, clothing accounted for 14% of an average household’s budget in 1900, 12% in 1950 and only 4% in 2003. In the not-too-distant past, if you were not rich, people had to sew and mend their garments to make them last. That was the status quo until the late 1980s.
So what happened?
According to Thomas: technology and globalization. Ross Perot might have been slightly hyperbolic when he said that NAFTA would create “a giant sucking sound” with all the American jobs going to Mexico, but his basic point turned out to be accurate. It was much cheaper to produce clothes in countries such as Mexico or China or Bangladesh than in the US, where there was unionized labor and workplace protections. Consequently, manufacturing moved away from America.
Companies such as Inditex, which owns Zara and H&M, also started to change their designs faster. They release new clothes every few weeks, instead of unveiling collections twice per year. And fast fashion became increasingly able to “borrow” ideas from high fashion. Clothes, patterns, and ideas, can now debut on runways in Paris or Milan and be Instagrammed, scanned and put into production by fast fashion brands within just a couple of days. Consumers can buy trendy designers for cheap prices which, along with the fact that there is more fashion available, leads them to buy lots of low-priced clothes. Hence, Americans’ haul of 70 items of clothing per year.
So what are the consequences of fast fashion?
To start, when companies moved garment production to Asia, they left behind a lot of American workers. The clothing industry has not historically been a haven for good jobs or safe workspaces, free from exploitation and child labor, but by the middle of the 20th century, American garment workers had unions, workplace protections, and relatively decent salaries. Thomas also points out that the garment industry was an integral part of many towns and cities.
In Blue Ridge, Georgia, Levi’s once employed much of the town.
“They also donated books to the library, paid for the lights on the football field - they bought the jaws of life for the fire department, they sponsored the little league teams,” she said. After 40 years, Levi’s moved its plant overseas, and that way of life vanished.
Garment workers in places like Vietnam and Bangladesh, who replaced their American counterparts, were not treated well. They were paid a fraction of what American workers would have been paid, which allowed companies to sell clothes cheaply and make massive profits.
Thomas recalled that, when she was doing research, “the second richest person in the world, after Bill Gates, was the owner of Zara [Amancio Ortega]. And he was worth $68 billion.”
At the same time, she met garment workers in Bangladesh who were paid $68 a month.
Ortega “was the second-richest man in the world, and he had made his fortune on the fingers of these people who were being paid $68 a month, and couldn’t afford to house and feed and clothe their families,” she said.
The safety conditions that the workers experience are often terrible, as evidenced by the tragic Dhaka garment factory collapse in 2013, in which over 1,000 people were killed. And according to UNICEF, exploitative child labor remains a big part of the fashion supply chain.
There are also significant environmental concerns. Clothing production accounts for an estimated 8% of global greenhouse gas emissions, and rivers can be destroyed by chemical runoff caused by garment manufacturing.
“I saw [a river] in Ho Chi Minh that was next to a former jeans processing plant,” Thomas said. “The river was dead. It was thick and black like tar because all this synthetic indigo had been dumped in there… and it killed the river. It was nasty and it smelled horrible. I thought I was going to be ill on the spot. And that was not uncommon in Asia,” she added.
Is there another way to buy clothes? Thomas thinks there is.
“I do believe that when you find out why that t-shirt costs $12... what that means, that the $10 t-shirt means the person who made it was paid 10 cents. That they can’t even afford to house, clothe, or feed their families. That it’s probably been dyed with toxic chemicals," she said. "Once you know that, you go, ‘Oh my God, I had no idea. Maybe I won’t keep investing in this.’”
Thomas thinks consumers should advocate for “slow fashion,” which includes clothes that are ethically and sustainably made. Though garments might have a higher price point, they will also be much higher quality.
“Yes, that t-shirt may cost $50,” Thomas said, “but it’s going to last more than five times longer than the one you just bought that’s just a crummy white t-shirt for $10. And it’ll feel so much softer and better.”
This post was originally featured on Innovation Hub. | <urn:uuid:c203462d-4474-431a-ba60-32459c543970> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.pri.org/stories/2019-12-10/why-fast-fashion-might-need-slow-down | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250607596.34/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122221541-20200123010541-00056.warc.gz | en | 0.982801 | 1,294 | 3.359375 | 3 | [
-0.3945228159427643,
0.15317070484161377,
0.0020477869547903538,
0.20714929699897766,
0.346088707447052,
-0.10343954712152481,
-0.144654780626297,
0.09085790067911148,
-0.2409132421016693,
-0.1226765364408493,
0.23049628734588623,
0.4837819039821625,
0.03746781870722771,
0.1972373723983764... | 6 | This breakneck consumption of clothes is possible because of “fast fashion,” a system in which clothing is made quickly, sold cheaply, and considered disposable, for the most part. And according to Dana Thomas, author of Fashionopolis: The Price of Fast Fashion and the Future of Clothes, this system has consequences for both the workers who make the garments and the planet as a whole.
Of course, clothes were not always so cheap and easily replaceable. Thomas explained that garments cost nearly the same amount today as they cost during the Great Depression, and that is without taking inflation into account. In 2019, for example, an business-attire dress from H&M costs around $25, much like a “secretary special” back in 1935. Except, with inflation, the 1935 outfit would be about $350 in today’s dollars. Essentially, clothes used to be expensive.
A Bureau of Labor Statistics report found that, in 1900, clothing accounted for 14% of an average household’s budget in 1900, 12% in 1950 and only 4% in 2003. In the not-too-distant past, if you were not rich, people had to sew and mend their garments to make them last. That was the status quo until the late 1980s.
So what happened?
According to Thomas: technology and globalization. Ross Perot might have been slightly hyperbolic when he said that NAFTA would create “a giant sucking sound” with all the American jobs going to Mexico, but his basic point turned out to be accurate. It was much cheaper to produce clothes in countries such as Mexico or China or Bangladesh than in the US, where there was unionized labor and workplace protections. Consequently, manufacturing moved away from America.
Companies such as Inditex, which owns Zara and H&M, also started to change their designs faster. They release new clothes every few weeks, instead of unveiling collections twice per year. And fast fashion became increasingly able to “borrow” ideas from high fashion. Clothes, patterns, and ideas, can now debut on runways in Paris or Milan and be Instagrammed, scanned and put into production by fast fashion brands within just a couple of days. Consumers can buy trendy designers for cheap prices which, along with the fact that there is more fashion available, leads them to buy lots of low-priced clothes. Hence, Americans’ haul of 70 items of clothing per year.
So what are the consequences of fast fashion?
To start, when companies moved garment production to Asia, they left behind a lot of American workers. The clothing industry has not historically been a haven for good jobs or safe workspaces, free from exploitation and child labor, but by the middle of the 20th century, American garment workers had unions, workplace protections, and relatively decent salaries. Thomas also points out that the garment industry was an integral part of many towns and cities.
In Blue Ridge, Georgia, Levi’s once employed much of the town.
“They also donated books to the library, paid for the lights on the football field - they bought the jaws of life for the fire department, they sponsored the little league teams,” she said. After 40 years, Levi’s moved its plant overseas, and that way of life vanished.
Garment workers in places like Vietnam and Bangladesh, who replaced their American counterparts, were not treated well. They were paid a fraction of what American workers would have been paid, which allowed companies to sell clothes cheaply and make massive profits.
Thomas recalled that, when she was doing research, “the second richest person in the world, after Bill Gates, was the owner of Zara [Amancio Ortega]. And he was worth $68 billion.”
At the same time, she met garment workers in Bangladesh who were paid $68 a month.
Ortega “was the second-richest man in the world, and he had made his fortune on the fingers of these people who were being paid $68 a month, and couldn’t afford to house and feed and clothe their families,” she said.
The safety conditions that the workers experience are often terrible, as evidenced by the tragic Dhaka garment factory collapse in 2013, in which over 1,000 people were killed. And according to UNICEF, exploitative child labor remains a big part of the fashion supply chain.
There are also significant environmental concerns. Clothing production accounts for an estimated 8% of global greenhouse gas emissions, and rivers can be destroyed by chemical runoff caused by garment manufacturing.
“I saw [a river] in Ho Chi Minh that was next to a former jeans processing plant,” Thomas said. “The river was dead. It was thick and black like tar because all this synthetic indigo had been dumped in there… and it killed the river. It was nasty and it smelled horrible. I thought I was going to be ill on the spot. And that was not uncommon in Asia,” she added.
Is there another way to buy clothes? Thomas thinks there is.
“I do believe that when you find out why that t-shirt costs $12... what that means, that the $10 t-shirt means the person who made it was paid 10 cents. That they can’t even afford to house, clothe, or feed their families. That it’s probably been dyed with toxic chemicals," she said. "Once you know that, you go, ‘Oh my God, I had no idea. Maybe I won’t keep investing in this.’”
Thomas thinks consumers should advocate for “slow fashion,” which includes clothes that are ethically and sustainably made. Though garments might have a higher price point, they will also be much higher quality.
“Yes, that t-shirt may cost $50,” Thomas said, “but it’s going to last more than five times longer than the one you just bought that’s just a crummy white t-shirt for $10. And it’ll feel so much softer and better.”
This post was originally featured on Innovation Hub. | 1,259 | ENGLISH | 1 |
15 Facts About Feudalism
Feudalism was a land based economic system that combined certain social and legal customs in Europe during the Middle Ages.
Feudal society was split into strict hierarchies with each group having obligations and expectations from the groups above and below them.
At a basic level, the local lord and manor of a local community owned all the land and everything in it. He would provide his peasants with safety in return for their service.
The lord of the land, in return, was obliged to provide the king with soldiers or taxes when requested.
Below are 15 facts about Feudalism.
15 Feudalism Facts
- Feudalism began in the 9th century in Western and Central Europe.
- It began in England with the Norman invasion in 1066.
- Feudal economies are based on land ownership. The legal system revolves around a strict social order.
- Your position in society, be it serf, peasant, baron, lord, or royalty was fixed for life.
- The leader of a feudal society was the king, who split up the control of his territories between barons.
- Men could be "called to arms" at times of war by the king and were expected to be available to fight for forty day.
- Medieval Kings believed that their right to rule came from God.
- The Catholic Church was very wealthy and politically powerful in Medieval Europe.
- Barons ruled large areas of land known as fiefs. They split local control of land among lords who ran individual manors.
- Knights were given land by lords and they guarded the lord and his family. In times of war, knights fought for the king.
- Lords owned everything in their manor, the peasants, crops, and buildings, as well as the land.
- Most people who lived in feudal societies were peasants or serfs, they lived tough lives and usually died young.
- Some European feudal peasants had their own businesses and worked as carpenters, bakers, and blacksmiths.
- The feudal system had pretty much disappeared from Western Europe by the year 1500 AD, but it continued for much longer in Eastern Europe.
- There are three main reasons why the feudal system ended: the Black Death, the replacement of a land-based economy with a money based one, and the establishment of a centralized government.
I will explain each fact in more detail below.
1. The Feudal period began in the 9th century in Western and Central Europe and then spread to other parts of the continent. It ended in the 15th century in Western Europe, but elements of feudalism continued for longer in Eastern Europe.
2. Feudalism arrived in England in 1066 after the Anglo-Saxon King Harold was defeated by William the Conqueror from Normandy at the battle of Hastings. It led to a full scale invasion, with England being ruled by William and his barons, and a feudal system being imposed upon the country.
3. Feudalism brought with it a land-based economy, and a judicial system with lots of rights for barons and lords, but far less rights for serfs and peasants.
4. The system had a very strict hierarchy where everyone knew their place. You were born into your social position, whether you were royalty, a baron, lord, knight, serf, or peasant, and you kept that position until you died.
5. At the top of the pyramid in the feudal social hierarchy was the king. The king could not control all his land by himself in practice, however, so the territories were split between barons, who pledged allegiance to the king. When the king died, his firstborn son would inherit the throne.
With the advance of feudalism came the growth of iron armor, until, at last, a fighting-man resembled an armadillo.— John Boyle O'Reilly
6. At times of war, when the king needed an army, there would be a "call to arms" and troops were raised by the Feudal Levy. Men were generally expected to fight for 40 days (although under certain circumstances this could be extended to 90 days). The limited time period was meant to make sure that the land would not be neglected for too long.
7. Medieval kings believed that their right to rule was divine, that's to say, given to them by God.
8. The Catholic Church was very powerful in the majority of Medieval Europe and the only real rival to the power of the king. The representatives of the church were the bishops, who each managed an area called a diocese. As well as having political power, the church also received a ten percent tithe from everyone, making some bishops incredibly rich.
9. The barons ruled large areas of land known as fiefs and had a lot of power. They split local control of land among lords who ran individual manors. The barons were usually expected to maintain an army that the king could use when required. If they did not have an army, often they would instead pay the king a tax known as shield money.
10. Knights were allotted land by lords on the understanding that they would undertake military service when requested by the king. They also had a duty to guard the lord and his family, plus the manor, from attack. The knights used as much of the land as they wanted for themselves and gave the rest to serfs. Knights were the lowest level of the feudal elite, they were not as wealthy as lords, but still relatively rich.
11. Under feudalism, the local manors were run by lords. Lords could be called up for war by their controlling baron. The lords owned everything in their manor, including the peasants, crops, and buildings, as well as the actual land.
12. Most people who lived under the feudal system were peasants or serfs. They owned nothing and worked hard, six days a week, often struggling to get enough food to feed their families. Many died before the age of thirty.
Some people use the term "feudalism" to describe the social system of Japan from the medieval period up until the late 19th century.
At the top of the system in Japan were the Daimyo, the large landowners.
Underneath them were the Samurai. In times of conflict, they formed the warrior class, in peacetime most Samurai served as bureaucrats.
Many historians think that the term feudalism should not be used for Japan, however, as there are too many differences from the European version.
13. Some European feudal peasants ran their own businesses and were considered free, such as carpenters, bakers, and blacksmiths. Others were essentially slaves. All had to pledge themselves to the local lord.
14. By the year 1500, feudalism had pretty much disappeared in most of Western Europe, but it continued in parts of Eastern Europe right up into the middle of the 19th century with Russia not abolishing serfdom until 1861.
The First World War, and especially the latest one, largely swept away what was left in Europe of feudalism and of feudal landlords, especially in Poland, Hungary, and the South East generally.— Emily Greene Balch
15. Feudalism declined for a number of reasons. In England, for instance, the causes included the devastation and upheaval caused by the Black Death, the evolution from a land-based economy to a money based one, and the establishment of a centralized government.
Questions & Answers
© 2015 Paul Goodman | <urn:uuid:66b92d4c-9bc5-418e-9481-8ffb5a71db78> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://owlcation.com/humanities/Facts-About-Feudalism | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250601040.47/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120224950-20200121013950-00266.warc.gz | en | 0.984885 | 1,563 | 3.796875 | 4 | [
-0.15300598740577698,
0.15940995514392853,
0.1787017583847046,
-0.2379664033651352,
0.18041305243968964,
-0.30544281005859375,
0.14680364727973938,
-0.09748895466327667,
0.45504918694496155,
0.43932902812957764,
-0.07846034318208694,
-0.2646394371986389,
0.2028389424085617,
0.3431215286254... | 2 | 15 Facts About Feudalism
Feudalism was a land based economic system that combined certain social and legal customs in Europe during the Middle Ages.
Feudal society was split into strict hierarchies with each group having obligations and expectations from the groups above and below them.
At a basic level, the local lord and manor of a local community owned all the land and everything in it. He would provide his peasants with safety in return for their service.
The lord of the land, in return, was obliged to provide the king with soldiers or taxes when requested.
Below are 15 facts about Feudalism.
15 Feudalism Facts
- Feudalism began in the 9th century in Western and Central Europe.
- It began in England with the Norman invasion in 1066.
- Feudal economies are based on land ownership. The legal system revolves around a strict social order.
- Your position in society, be it serf, peasant, baron, lord, or royalty was fixed for life.
- The leader of a feudal society was the king, who split up the control of his territories between barons.
- Men could be "called to arms" at times of war by the king and were expected to be available to fight for forty day.
- Medieval Kings believed that their right to rule came from God.
- The Catholic Church was very wealthy and politically powerful in Medieval Europe.
- Barons ruled large areas of land known as fiefs. They split local control of land among lords who ran individual manors.
- Knights were given land by lords and they guarded the lord and his family. In times of war, knights fought for the king.
- Lords owned everything in their manor, the peasants, crops, and buildings, as well as the land.
- Most people who lived in feudal societies were peasants or serfs, they lived tough lives and usually died young.
- Some European feudal peasants had their own businesses and worked as carpenters, bakers, and blacksmiths.
- The feudal system had pretty much disappeared from Western Europe by the year 1500 AD, but it continued for much longer in Eastern Europe.
- There are three main reasons why the feudal system ended: the Black Death, the replacement of a land-based economy with a money based one, and the establishment of a centralized government.
I will explain each fact in more detail below.
1. The Feudal period began in the 9th century in Western and Central Europe and then spread to other parts of the continent. It ended in the 15th century in Western Europe, but elements of feudalism continued for longer in Eastern Europe.
2. Feudalism arrived in England in 1066 after the Anglo-Saxon King Harold was defeated by William the Conqueror from Normandy at the battle of Hastings. It led to a full scale invasion, with England being ruled by William and his barons, and a feudal system being imposed upon the country.
3. Feudalism brought with it a land-based economy, and a judicial system with lots of rights for barons and lords, but far less rights for serfs and peasants.
4. The system had a very strict hierarchy where everyone knew their place. You were born into your social position, whether you were royalty, a baron, lord, knight, serf, or peasant, and you kept that position until you died.
5. At the top of the pyramid in the feudal social hierarchy was the king. The king could not control all his land by himself in practice, however, so the territories were split between barons, who pledged allegiance to the king. When the king died, his firstborn son would inherit the throne.
With the advance of feudalism came the growth of iron armor, until, at last, a fighting-man resembled an armadillo.— John Boyle O'Reilly
6. At times of war, when the king needed an army, there would be a "call to arms" and troops were raised by the Feudal Levy. Men were generally expected to fight for 40 days (although under certain circumstances this could be extended to 90 days). The limited time period was meant to make sure that the land would not be neglected for too long.
7. Medieval kings believed that their right to rule was divine, that's to say, given to them by God.
8. The Catholic Church was very powerful in the majority of Medieval Europe and the only real rival to the power of the king. The representatives of the church were the bishops, who each managed an area called a diocese. As well as having political power, the church also received a ten percent tithe from everyone, making some bishops incredibly rich.
9. The barons ruled large areas of land known as fiefs and had a lot of power. They split local control of land among lords who ran individual manors. The barons were usually expected to maintain an army that the king could use when required. If they did not have an army, often they would instead pay the king a tax known as shield money.
10. Knights were allotted land by lords on the understanding that they would undertake military service when requested by the king. They also had a duty to guard the lord and his family, plus the manor, from attack. The knights used as much of the land as they wanted for themselves and gave the rest to serfs. Knights were the lowest level of the feudal elite, they were not as wealthy as lords, but still relatively rich.
11. Under feudalism, the local manors were run by lords. Lords could be called up for war by their controlling baron. The lords owned everything in their manor, including the peasants, crops, and buildings, as well as the actual land.
12. Most people who lived under the feudal system were peasants or serfs. They owned nothing and worked hard, six days a week, often struggling to get enough food to feed their families. Many died before the age of thirty.
Some people use the term "feudalism" to describe the social system of Japan from the medieval period up until the late 19th century.
At the top of the system in Japan were the Daimyo, the large landowners.
Underneath them were the Samurai. In times of conflict, they formed the warrior class, in peacetime most Samurai served as bureaucrats.
Many historians think that the term feudalism should not be used for Japan, however, as there are too many differences from the European version.
13. Some European feudal peasants ran their own businesses and were considered free, such as carpenters, bakers, and blacksmiths. Others were essentially slaves. All had to pledge themselves to the local lord.
14. By the year 1500, feudalism had pretty much disappeared in most of Western Europe, but it continued in parts of Eastern Europe right up into the middle of the 19th century with Russia not abolishing serfdom until 1861.
The First World War, and especially the latest one, largely swept away what was left in Europe of feudalism and of feudal landlords, especially in Poland, Hungary, and the South East generally.— Emily Greene Balch
15. Feudalism declined for a number of reasons. In England, for instance, the causes included the devastation and upheaval caused by the Black Death, the evolution from a land-based economy to a money based one, and the establishment of a centralized government.
Questions & Answers
© 2015 Paul Goodman | 1,566 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Vienna, Austria German composer German composer Ludwig van Beethoven is considered one of the most important figures in the history of music. He continued to compose even while losing his hearing and created some of his greatest works after becoming totally deaf. He was the eldest of three children of Johann and Maria Magdalena van Beethoven. His father, a musician who liked to drink, taught him to play piano and violin.
Click here to buy Beethoven: The Biography on Amazon. He was baptized on December 17th at Bonn. His family originated from Brabant, in Belgium. His father was a musician at the court of Bonn, with a definite weakness for alcohol. His mother was always described as a gentle, retiring woman, with a warm heart.
Without a doubt, the child was gifted and his father Johann envisioned creating a new Mozart, a child prodigy. His father announced that he was 6 years-old. Because of this Beethoven always thought that he was younger than he actually was.
Even much later, when he received a copy of his baptism certificate, he thought it belonged to his brother Ludwig Maria, who was born two years before him and died as a child.
The musical and teaching talents of Johann were limited.
Soon Ludwig learned music, notably the organ and composition by renowned musicians such as Gottlob Neefe. Neefe recognized how extraordinarily talented Beethoven was and not only did Neefe teach him music, but he made the works of philosophersancient and modern, known to Beethoven as well.
The following year, inNeefe wrote in the Magazine of Music, about his student. Beethoven was 14 years old.
This post enabled him to frequent new social circles, other than those of his father and family. Here he met people who were to remain his friends for the rest of his life: At home, little by little, Ludwig replaced his father. First of all financially, because Johann, who was often under the influence of alcohol, was less and less capable of keeping up his role at the court.
The young Beethoven felt responsible for his two younger brothers, an idea he kept for the rest of his life, sometimes to the extent of being excessive. Ludwig van Beethoven Music Prince Maximillian Franz was also aware of Beethoven's music and so he sent Beethoven to Vienna, into meet Mozart and further his musical education.
Vienna was, after all, the capital city in terms of culture and music. There exist only texts of disputable authenticity on the subject of this meeting between Mozart and Beethoven. The only person in his family with whom he had developed a strong and loving relationship with, passed away on July 17th Five years later, inLudwig Van Beethoven went back to Vienna, benefiting from another grant, for two years, by the Prince Elector, again to pursue his musical education.
He never went back to the town of his birth.Wikimedia Commons has media related to Ludwig van Beethoven. Wikiquote has quotations related to: Ludwig van Beethoven Wikisource has the text of the . Ludwig van Beethoven was born in Bonn, Germany, on December 16, He was the eldest of three children of Johann and Maria Magdalena van Beethoven.
His father, a musician who liked to drink, taught him to play piano and monstermanfilm.com: Mar 26, The Heiligenstadt Testament is a prophecy of the greatness to come of Ludwig van Beethoven. At a time in his life where he had exhausted the musical possibilities of the Viennese high-Classic tradition and where his growing deafness foreshadowed a diminishing career, Beethoven .
Ludwig van Beethoven Music Prince Maximillian Franz was also aware of Beethoven's music and so he sent Beethoven to Vienna, in , to meet Mozart and further his musical education. Vienna was, after all, the capital city in terms of culture and music. Beethoven's father, Johann van Beethoven, a tenor singer, is forced to retire from the electoral choir, after his increased drinking ruined his voice.
On one occasion, after becoming drunk in public, he was arrested - only to be released after Ludwig had pleaded with the police. Ludwig van Beethoven is considered one of the greatest classical composers who has ever lived. It is not known exactly when Beethoven was born, but he is baptized on December 17, in Bonn, Germany. | <urn:uuid:1b737e6b-7fe0-464d-b95d-360e22402fd2> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://lusaqojapeji.monstermanfilm.com/the-story-of-the-life-of-ludwig-van-beethoven-41641ve.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251672440.80/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125101544-20200125130544-00159.warc.gz | en | 0.988982 | 939 | 3.546875 | 4 | [
0.21272799372673035,
0.40742018818855286,
0.04702005535364151,
-0.34058934450149536,
-0.5813666582107544,
0.11152695119380951,
-0.015193738974630833,
-0.0006109043024480343,
0.2091735303401947,
-0.3261868357658386,
0.1723821759223938,
-0.1983921378850937,
-0.30963510274887085,
0.0063462713... | 1 | Vienna, Austria German composer German composer Ludwig van Beethoven is considered one of the most important figures in the history of music. He continued to compose even while losing his hearing and created some of his greatest works after becoming totally deaf. He was the eldest of three children of Johann and Maria Magdalena van Beethoven. His father, a musician who liked to drink, taught him to play piano and violin.
Click here to buy Beethoven: The Biography on Amazon. He was baptized on December 17th at Bonn. His family originated from Brabant, in Belgium. His father was a musician at the court of Bonn, with a definite weakness for alcohol. His mother was always described as a gentle, retiring woman, with a warm heart.
Without a doubt, the child was gifted and his father Johann envisioned creating a new Mozart, a child prodigy. His father announced that he was 6 years-old. Because of this Beethoven always thought that he was younger than he actually was.
Even much later, when he received a copy of his baptism certificate, he thought it belonged to his brother Ludwig Maria, who was born two years before him and died as a child.
The musical and teaching talents of Johann were limited.
Soon Ludwig learned music, notably the organ and composition by renowned musicians such as Gottlob Neefe. Neefe recognized how extraordinarily talented Beethoven was and not only did Neefe teach him music, but he made the works of philosophersancient and modern, known to Beethoven as well.
The following year, inNeefe wrote in the Magazine of Music, about his student. Beethoven was 14 years old.
This post enabled him to frequent new social circles, other than those of his father and family. Here he met people who were to remain his friends for the rest of his life: At home, little by little, Ludwig replaced his father. First of all financially, because Johann, who was often under the influence of alcohol, was less and less capable of keeping up his role at the court.
The young Beethoven felt responsible for his two younger brothers, an idea he kept for the rest of his life, sometimes to the extent of being excessive. Ludwig van Beethoven Music Prince Maximillian Franz was also aware of Beethoven's music and so he sent Beethoven to Vienna, into meet Mozart and further his musical education.
Vienna was, after all, the capital city in terms of culture and music. There exist only texts of disputable authenticity on the subject of this meeting between Mozart and Beethoven. The only person in his family with whom he had developed a strong and loving relationship with, passed away on July 17th Five years later, inLudwig Van Beethoven went back to Vienna, benefiting from another grant, for two years, by the Prince Elector, again to pursue his musical education.
He never went back to the town of his birth.Wikimedia Commons has media related to Ludwig van Beethoven. Wikiquote has quotations related to: Ludwig van Beethoven Wikisource has the text of the . Ludwig van Beethoven was born in Bonn, Germany, on December 16, He was the eldest of three children of Johann and Maria Magdalena van Beethoven.
His father, a musician who liked to drink, taught him to play piano and monstermanfilm.com: Mar 26, The Heiligenstadt Testament is a prophecy of the greatness to come of Ludwig van Beethoven. At a time in his life where he had exhausted the musical possibilities of the Viennese high-Classic tradition and where his growing deafness foreshadowed a diminishing career, Beethoven .
Ludwig van Beethoven Music Prince Maximillian Franz was also aware of Beethoven's music and so he sent Beethoven to Vienna, in , to meet Mozart and further his musical education. Vienna was, after all, the capital city in terms of culture and music. Beethoven's father, Johann van Beethoven, a tenor singer, is forced to retire from the electoral choir, after his increased drinking ruined his voice.
On one occasion, after becoming drunk in public, he was arrested - only to be released after Ludwig had pleaded with the police. Ludwig van Beethoven is considered one of the greatest classical composers who has ever lived. It is not known exactly when Beethoven was born, but he is baptized on December 17, in Bonn, Germany. | 903 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Condensed Version of The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History by Thomas E. Woods, Jr. Regnery Publishing, Inc. 270 p.
Compiled and Edited by
Dr. Jimmy T. (Gunny) LaBaume
Chapter 9: World War I
To this day, historians continue to debate which country bore the greatest responsibility for this terrifying and brutal conflict. Whatever the answer, it didn’t make a whit of difference to Americans at the time. No American interest was at stake nor was its security threatened. Woodrow Wilson urged Americans to be neutral yet, at heart, he was pro-British.
Germany’s supposed violation of Belgian neutrality (German troops passed through on their way to France), became a symbol of barbarity and militarism for the Allies. The fact is, however, that Belgium was not neutral. It had agreements with both France and Britain. The German troops simply wanted safe passage and agreed to compensate for any damage or victuals consumed on the way through.
Propaganda in wartime? It can’t be!
The Allies won a public relations victory with propaganda about widespread atrocities committed by the Germans. After the war, it was well established that the atrocities were largely fabricated but the damage was done. Many Americans absorbed the message that Germany was evil incarnate and needed to be crushed.
Starving civilians is against the law
The real atrocity was Brittan’s deliberate attempt to starve the Germans with a naval blockade—a blatant violation of the generally accepted norms of international law.
Only Britain considered food intended for civilians was not contraband. In that spirit, Germany expected their submarine policy to be accepted as well.
The Germans strike back
Germany announced on February 4, 1915 that it would retaliate against the illegal British blockade.
The British decorated their ships with the flags of neutral countries and had the crews don civilian clothing to lure the German submarines to the surface, where they would be destroyed. Thus, both the British and the Germans (in retaliation) were guilty of violating the rights of neutral nations.
Wilson’s response to German submarine warfare
Woodrow Wilson refused to draw any connection between German submarine warfare and the British hunger blockade. The German government would be held strictly liable for American losses on the high seas.
According to British propaganda, its ship Falaba was sunk by a German U-boat without warning. But, the fact is that the German captain had given three warnings and had fired only after a British warship had appeared. Plus, the Falaba was carrying 13 tons of ammunition. Nevertheless, Wilson sent a note to the Germans spelling out his policy to protect American citizens sailing on ships flying belligerent flags.
Wilson’s double standard
The double standard in Wilson’s treatment of the British and the Germans contributed to uS involvement in the war. The crux was Wilson’s refusal to see that there was a relation between the British irregularities and German submarine warfare.
Obviously, bringing the united States into the war was a British aim. And Churchill later wrote that his policy was intended to subject the U-boat to a greater risk of mistaking neutral for British ships and of drowning neutral crews.
The sinking of the Lusitania
The German government had published warnings in major newspapers not to book passage on the Lusitania Then, on the morning it was to set sail, they issued an alert cautioning that travelers were sailing at their own risk. Passengers ignored the warnings.
A submarine attack was scarcely considered by the Royal Navy or the ship line. Further, the assumption was that, if it were indeed hit, there would be ample time for evacuation. But, the torpedo that hit the ship did an unexpected amount of damage and she went down quickly. Some have attributed this to the ammunition that was on board.
After firing the first shot, the German submarine captain held back from firing a second. He was likely waiting for the ship to be abandoned before firing again. But, within 15 minutes he could see that the ship was in serious trouble. He could not bear to fire the second torpedo and turned away.
It would be senseless to whitewash the attack. But, by the same token, it is difficult not to convict the British of extreme recklessness.
The American reaction was intense. But, hardly any newspaper editorials actually advised war. Wilson drafted a stern note to Berlin, the consequences of which frightened Secretary of State, William Jennings Bryan. Bryan reminded Wilson that over 5,000 cases of ammunition had been on board. He also noted that an agreement to end submarine warfare in exchange for an ending of the starvation blockade had been accepted by Germany but rejected by Britain.
But Bryan’s efforts were to no avail. Wilson sent another note to Berlin declaring that Americans “now had the right to expect immunity from attack as they traveled aboard the armed ships of a nation at war.” No other neutral power had ever proclaimed such a doctrine. Convinced that he was part of an administration bent on war, Bryan resigned. Robert Lansing replaced Bryan and was far more sympathetic to Wilson’s pro-British stance.
Britain continued to tighten the blockade. All American protests to Britain were submerged in verbiage with deliberate purpose—to insure that controversy continued and to leave questions unanswered. All this was necessary to leave the country free to act (even illegally) when it entered the war.
American officials to Wilson: the right to travel through a war zone on belligerent ships isn’t worth dying for
Wilson kept up the diplomatic pressure to a degree that alarmed congressmen and other prominent Americans.
A comparison of Wilson’s policy toward travel in Mexico and travel to Europe is instructive. With regard to Mexico, Americans were warned that they “traveled at their own risk.”
The Sussex pledge
The Sussex did not have the usual markings of a passenger ship. It looked like a warship. The German captain suspected it was a mine layer and fired. It was a mistake and the Germans would have made reparation. However, Wilson demanded that they abandon submarine warfare completely. In the resulting pledge (in 1916) Germany made a major concession. They would not sink merchant ships, armed or unarmed, without warning and without saving the people aboard. This, in effect, gave the enemy merchant ships the opportunity to shoot first.
But the pledge was conditional. Germany expected Wilson to pressure the British to abandon their hunger blockade. Wilson accepted the concession and refused the condition. In other words, his policy of “neutrality” was to hold one belligerent accountable but do next to nothing about the other.
British merchant ships were armed. It was absurd to demand that a submarine give warning and expose itself before attacking. International law recognized armed ships not as peaceful vessels but as ships of war that could be destroyed. On all counts, it was ridiculous to insist that submarines give notice before attacking an armed ship.
By early 1916, it was clear that the British would not agree to disarm their merchant ships. Lansing and Wilson went on record that the British could legitimately arm their merchant ships with “defensive” weapons and insisted that such ships be treated as peaceful vessels entitled to notice from a submarine before it fired.
Congressmen: Americans travel on belligerent ships at their own risk. Wilson: No way—they have a right!
A nonbinding resolution was introduced into Congress calling for the president to warn Americans not to travel aboard armed ships. The contention that they do so at their own risk was a sensible and popular position. Wilson used all the influence and threats at his disposal to defeat the resolution.
He appealed to the interests of “humanity” in opposition to German submarine warfare. On the other hand, Britain’s starvation policy was “absolutely not inhuman.”
The Germans make one last push
By January 1917, the starvation blockade had taken a terrible toll on German civilians. The military persuaded German leadership that unrestricted submarine warfare was necessary. Their belief was that they could sink enough enemy shipping to win the war before America could send an expeditionary force.
It is difficult for historians who try to claim that Wilson was a peace lover who tried to keep America out of the war to explain what Wilson did next. In a complete break with tradition, he called for arming merchant ships with uS Navy guns and manning them with Navy crews with instructions to fire on any submarine.
Why did Wilson favor war?
A nation participating in the war would have a seat at the peace table. European powers, left to themselves, would produce a vindictive and unworkable peace. This ignored the historical fact that the Congress of Vienna of 1814-1815 worked out exclusively by European powers had produced a peace that lasted for a full century.
Wilson goes to war
In his speech calling for war, Wilson argued that the uS would be fighting for great moral principles against autocracy. He (erroneously) believed that democracies were less warlike. He also spoke of submarine warfare as “a war against all mankind.” This claim was not confirmed by later wars. In WWII, no one from either side would call the practice a “war against mankind.”
He also promised that America’s treatment of its ethnic Germans would prove that the uS had no quarrel with the German people—only its government.
Unfortunately, it didn’t work out that way. German-Americans were harassed and demonized.
The peace conference: The disaster Wilson pretended not to notice
Wilson issued his Fourteen Points in January 1918. He believed that the outlined principles should inform the peace settlement and spoke of a “peace without victory”—i.e. the victors would seek no unjust aggrandizement. Further, his League of Nations would put an end to war once and for all.
But diplomatic wrangling at the peace conference took away all hope for a “peace without victory.” Wilson was so wedded to the idea of a League of Nations that all the British and French had to do in order to get him to abandon all of his other points was threaten not to join.
Ignorance, inconsistency, absurdity
Wilson ‘s principle of national self-determination, intended to give national minorities nations of their own, wound up creating more minorities. For example, Czechoslovakia contained three million Germans. This would later be exploited by Adolf Hitler who appealed to self-determination to justify annexing Czechoslovakia’s Sudenten region.
Wilson was far from consistent in applying the principle of national Self-determination. Portions of German-speaking Europe were parceled out to Poland, Italy and France.
Other aspects of the treaty enraged the Germans. Instead of general disarmament, the treaty sought only to disarm Germany. The amount of reparations was not spelled out and would not be settled until years later. The bill would take decades, even centuries, to repay. German honor was impugned by the war guild clause, which suggested that Germany alone was responsible for the outbreak of the war. Germany could not accept that she alone was guilty—pointing to the hunger blockade.
Opponents say we can’t police the world!
Wilson had to persuade the…Senate to ratify the treaty. He insisted that the American people were in favor of it but the reality was different. Huge crowds rallied against it.
The primary source of contention was the League of Nations —in particular Article 10, which obliged members to preserve the territorial integrity of other member states. This requirement eroded American sovereignty. Opponents of the treaty were not necessarily “isolationists,” as supporters of neutrality are often misleadingly described. They simply argued for written guarantees that Americans would have the right to decide when and where they would take action. But Wilson remained convinced that any watering down of Article 10 would be fatal to the League.
“Bizarre” and “wild-eyed”: The Wilsonian program
Wilson accused his opponents of ignorance or malice, even when all they wanted was to ensure the integrity of American sovereignty. His mental instability was perhaps reflected in his increasingly grandiose portrayals of a treaty that amounted to a repudiation of so many of his own principles. For example, he said: “The Treaty of Versailles is an unparalleled achievement of thoughtful civilization.”
Wilson refused to accept the treaty as revised by the Senate, urging his supporters to vote against it. They did and it went down to defeat.
Setting the stage for World War II
Wilson persuaded himself that the Kaiser was the epitome of evil and that abolishing constitutional monarchy would lead to a more peaceful world.
As it turned out, the punitive Treaty of Versailles was a major contributing factor to World War II. The German people detested the treaty which enabled Hitler to appeal to their patriotism and honor. | <urn:uuid:b1d78218-3bf2-465d-90e3-84827c9f7623> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://flyoverpress.wordpress.com/2020/01/13/the-essence-of-liberty-volume-i-liberty-and-history-chapter-9/?shared=email&msg=fail | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250601628.36/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121074002-20200121103002-00265.warc.gz | en | 0.980195 | 2,662 | 3.59375 | 4 | [
-0.15150152146816254,
0.33953097462654114,
0.14001604914665222,
-0.13841909170150757,
0.29742252826690674,
0.08209790289402008,
-0.09050910174846649,
0.19303439557552338,
-0.0966300517320633,
0.12744179368019104,
0.07321557402610779,
-0.3936728239059448,
0.1507619023323059,
0.4085035026073... | 2 | Condensed Version of The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History by Thomas E. Woods, Jr. Regnery Publishing, Inc. 270 p.
Compiled and Edited by
Dr. Jimmy T. (Gunny) LaBaume
Chapter 9: World War I
To this day, historians continue to debate which country bore the greatest responsibility for this terrifying and brutal conflict. Whatever the answer, it didn’t make a whit of difference to Americans at the time. No American interest was at stake nor was its security threatened. Woodrow Wilson urged Americans to be neutral yet, at heart, he was pro-British.
Germany’s supposed violation of Belgian neutrality (German troops passed through on their way to France), became a symbol of barbarity and militarism for the Allies. The fact is, however, that Belgium was not neutral. It had agreements with both France and Britain. The German troops simply wanted safe passage and agreed to compensate for any damage or victuals consumed on the way through.
Propaganda in wartime? It can’t be!
The Allies won a public relations victory with propaganda about widespread atrocities committed by the Germans. After the war, it was well established that the atrocities were largely fabricated but the damage was done. Many Americans absorbed the message that Germany was evil incarnate and needed to be crushed.
Starving civilians is against the law
The real atrocity was Brittan’s deliberate attempt to starve the Germans with a naval blockade—a blatant violation of the generally accepted norms of international law.
Only Britain considered food intended for civilians was not contraband. In that spirit, Germany expected their submarine policy to be accepted as well.
The Germans strike back
Germany announced on February 4, 1915 that it would retaliate against the illegal British blockade.
The British decorated their ships with the flags of neutral countries and had the crews don civilian clothing to lure the German submarines to the surface, where they would be destroyed. Thus, both the British and the Germans (in retaliation) were guilty of violating the rights of neutral nations.
Wilson’s response to German submarine warfare
Woodrow Wilson refused to draw any connection between German submarine warfare and the British hunger blockade. The German government would be held strictly liable for American losses on the high seas.
According to British propaganda, its ship Falaba was sunk by a German U-boat without warning. But, the fact is that the German captain had given three warnings and had fired only after a British warship had appeared. Plus, the Falaba was carrying 13 tons of ammunition. Nevertheless, Wilson sent a note to the Germans spelling out his policy to protect American citizens sailing on ships flying belligerent flags.
Wilson’s double standard
The double standard in Wilson’s treatment of the British and the Germans contributed to uS involvement in the war. The crux was Wilson’s refusal to see that there was a relation between the British irregularities and German submarine warfare.
Obviously, bringing the united States into the war was a British aim. And Churchill later wrote that his policy was intended to subject the U-boat to a greater risk of mistaking neutral for British ships and of drowning neutral crews.
The sinking of the Lusitania
The German government had published warnings in major newspapers not to book passage on the Lusitania Then, on the morning it was to set sail, they issued an alert cautioning that travelers were sailing at their own risk. Passengers ignored the warnings.
A submarine attack was scarcely considered by the Royal Navy or the ship line. Further, the assumption was that, if it were indeed hit, there would be ample time for evacuation. But, the torpedo that hit the ship did an unexpected amount of damage and she went down quickly. Some have attributed this to the ammunition that was on board.
After firing the first shot, the German submarine captain held back from firing a second. He was likely waiting for the ship to be abandoned before firing again. But, within 15 minutes he could see that the ship was in serious trouble. He could not bear to fire the second torpedo and turned away.
It would be senseless to whitewash the attack. But, by the same token, it is difficult not to convict the British of extreme recklessness.
The American reaction was intense. But, hardly any newspaper editorials actually advised war. Wilson drafted a stern note to Berlin, the consequences of which frightened Secretary of State, William Jennings Bryan. Bryan reminded Wilson that over 5,000 cases of ammunition had been on board. He also noted that an agreement to end submarine warfare in exchange for an ending of the starvation blockade had been accepted by Germany but rejected by Britain.
But Bryan’s efforts were to no avail. Wilson sent another note to Berlin declaring that Americans “now had the right to expect immunity from attack as they traveled aboard the armed ships of a nation at war.” No other neutral power had ever proclaimed such a doctrine. Convinced that he was part of an administration bent on war, Bryan resigned. Robert Lansing replaced Bryan and was far more sympathetic to Wilson’s pro-British stance.
Britain continued to tighten the blockade. All American protests to Britain were submerged in verbiage with deliberate purpose—to insure that controversy continued and to leave questions unanswered. All this was necessary to leave the country free to act (even illegally) when it entered the war.
American officials to Wilson: the right to travel through a war zone on belligerent ships isn’t worth dying for
Wilson kept up the diplomatic pressure to a degree that alarmed congressmen and other prominent Americans.
A comparison of Wilson’s policy toward travel in Mexico and travel to Europe is instructive. With regard to Mexico, Americans were warned that they “traveled at their own risk.”
The Sussex pledge
The Sussex did not have the usual markings of a passenger ship. It looked like a warship. The German captain suspected it was a mine layer and fired. It was a mistake and the Germans would have made reparation. However, Wilson demanded that they abandon submarine warfare completely. In the resulting pledge (in 1916) Germany made a major concession. They would not sink merchant ships, armed or unarmed, without warning and without saving the people aboard. This, in effect, gave the enemy merchant ships the opportunity to shoot first.
But the pledge was conditional. Germany expected Wilson to pressure the British to abandon their hunger blockade. Wilson accepted the concession and refused the condition. In other words, his policy of “neutrality” was to hold one belligerent accountable but do next to nothing about the other.
British merchant ships were armed. It was absurd to demand that a submarine give warning and expose itself before attacking. International law recognized armed ships not as peaceful vessels but as ships of war that could be destroyed. On all counts, it was ridiculous to insist that submarines give notice before attacking an armed ship.
By early 1916, it was clear that the British would not agree to disarm their merchant ships. Lansing and Wilson went on record that the British could legitimately arm their merchant ships with “defensive” weapons and insisted that such ships be treated as peaceful vessels entitled to notice from a submarine before it fired.
Congressmen: Americans travel on belligerent ships at their own risk. Wilson: No way—they have a right!
A nonbinding resolution was introduced into Congress calling for the president to warn Americans not to travel aboard armed ships. The contention that they do so at their own risk was a sensible and popular position. Wilson used all the influence and threats at his disposal to defeat the resolution.
He appealed to the interests of “humanity” in opposition to German submarine warfare. On the other hand, Britain’s starvation policy was “absolutely not inhuman.”
The Germans make one last push
By January 1917, the starvation blockade had taken a terrible toll on German civilians. The military persuaded German leadership that unrestricted submarine warfare was necessary. Their belief was that they could sink enough enemy shipping to win the war before America could send an expeditionary force.
It is difficult for historians who try to claim that Wilson was a peace lover who tried to keep America out of the war to explain what Wilson did next. In a complete break with tradition, he called for arming merchant ships with uS Navy guns and manning them with Navy crews with instructions to fire on any submarine.
Why did Wilson favor war?
A nation participating in the war would have a seat at the peace table. European powers, left to themselves, would produce a vindictive and unworkable peace. This ignored the historical fact that the Congress of Vienna of 1814-1815 worked out exclusively by European powers had produced a peace that lasted for a full century.
Wilson goes to war
In his speech calling for war, Wilson argued that the uS would be fighting for great moral principles against autocracy. He (erroneously) believed that democracies were less warlike. He also spoke of submarine warfare as “a war against all mankind.” This claim was not confirmed by later wars. In WWII, no one from either side would call the practice a “war against mankind.”
He also promised that America’s treatment of its ethnic Germans would prove that the uS had no quarrel with the German people—only its government.
Unfortunately, it didn’t work out that way. German-Americans were harassed and demonized.
The peace conference: The disaster Wilson pretended not to notice
Wilson issued his Fourteen Points in January 1918. He believed that the outlined principles should inform the peace settlement and spoke of a “peace without victory”—i.e. the victors would seek no unjust aggrandizement. Further, his League of Nations would put an end to war once and for all.
But diplomatic wrangling at the peace conference took away all hope for a “peace without victory.” Wilson was so wedded to the idea of a League of Nations that all the British and French had to do in order to get him to abandon all of his other points was threaten not to join.
Ignorance, inconsistency, absurdity
Wilson ‘s principle of national self-determination, intended to give national minorities nations of their own, wound up creating more minorities. For example, Czechoslovakia contained three million Germans. This would later be exploited by Adolf Hitler who appealed to self-determination to justify annexing Czechoslovakia’s Sudenten region.
Wilson was far from consistent in applying the principle of national Self-determination. Portions of German-speaking Europe were parceled out to Poland, Italy and France.
Other aspects of the treaty enraged the Germans. Instead of general disarmament, the treaty sought only to disarm Germany. The amount of reparations was not spelled out and would not be settled until years later. The bill would take decades, even centuries, to repay. German honor was impugned by the war guild clause, which suggested that Germany alone was responsible for the outbreak of the war. Germany could not accept that she alone was guilty—pointing to the hunger blockade.
Opponents say we can’t police the world!
Wilson had to persuade the…Senate to ratify the treaty. He insisted that the American people were in favor of it but the reality was different. Huge crowds rallied against it.
The primary source of contention was the League of Nations —in particular Article 10, which obliged members to preserve the territorial integrity of other member states. This requirement eroded American sovereignty. Opponents of the treaty were not necessarily “isolationists,” as supporters of neutrality are often misleadingly described. They simply argued for written guarantees that Americans would have the right to decide when and where they would take action. But Wilson remained convinced that any watering down of Article 10 would be fatal to the League.
“Bizarre” and “wild-eyed”: The Wilsonian program
Wilson accused his opponents of ignorance or malice, even when all they wanted was to ensure the integrity of American sovereignty. His mental instability was perhaps reflected in his increasingly grandiose portrayals of a treaty that amounted to a repudiation of so many of his own principles. For example, he said: “The Treaty of Versailles is an unparalleled achievement of thoughtful civilization.”
Wilson refused to accept the treaty as revised by the Senate, urging his supporters to vote against it. They did and it went down to defeat.
Setting the stage for World War II
Wilson persuaded himself that the Kaiser was the epitome of evil and that abolishing constitutional monarchy would lead to a more peaceful world.
As it turned out, the punitive Treaty of Versailles was a major contributing factor to World War II. The German people detested the treaty which enabled Hitler to appeal to their patriotism and honor. | 2,601 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Some wolf puppies are unexpectedly willing to play fetch, according to scientists who saw young wolves retrieve a ball thrown by a stranger and bring it back at that person's urging.
This behavior wouldn't be surprising in a dog. But wolves are thought to be less responsive to human cues because they haven't gone through thousands of years of domestication.
Exactly how dogs emerged from a now-extinct population of ancient wolves is a mystery. Wolves are large, dangerous carnivores, and yet they were the first animals that humans tamed. More than 15,000 years ago, when humans were still hunter gatherers, this large predator somehow began cozying up to people, eventually becoming their "best friend."
To try to get clues about how that happened, scientists such as Christina Hansen Wheat of Stockholm University in Sweden have been studying the differences between dogs and modern wolves. As part of her work, she raised litters of wolf puppies, feeding them and acclimating them to her presence but not playing with them or training them.
At the age of 8 weeks, the wolf pups were put through a series of standard behavior tests that were administered by a person the wolves had never met.
This set of tests is normally used by dog breeders, says Hansen Wheat, to assess how their puppies act in social situations. "The fetching test just happened to be part of this test battery. It wasn't something we were targeting at all," she says.
The person conducting the test threw a tennis ball and urged the wolf puppy to bring it back. Two litters of puppies utterly failed to do this, surprising the scientists not at all.
"There's some hypotheses out there that the ability to understand human social cues is a unique dog trait, a trait that arose after domestication had been initiated," Hansen Wheat explains, so fetching on command is not a behavior expected in wolves.
But then a third litter went through the tests. And as she watched through a window, one of the wolf puppies went for the ball and returned it to the tester, according to a report in the journal iScience.
"When I saw the first puppy fetch — I still get goosebumps when I talk about this — it was such a surprise," Hansen Wheat says. "It wasn't just one puppy, it was actually three of them. That was very exciting."
Because three of the 13 tested wolf puppies spontaneously did this, a willingness to fetch might not be a dog trait, she says. Instead, it might be a wolf trait that existed in the ancestral wolf populations.
"It might have been something that we have tried to select upon during early domestication," Hansen Wheat says. "Wolf puppies doing this during early stages of domestication might have had a selective advantage, if they managed to establish a connection to our forefathers."
She notes that researchers who work with wolves typically have few animals to test. That means scientists simply might not have enough wolves to detect rare traits, making it hard to see variations as they attempt to compare wolves with dogs.
"I think it will surprise dog owners as much as it surprised me that wolves actually can fetch a ball, or retrieve a ball for a person," she says.
Evan MacLean, who studies dog cognition at the University of Arizona, says this is an interesting observation that no one has made before.
"To my knowledge, this is actually the first test ever to look at whether wolves do something like this," he says.
Watching the video, MacLean sees two discrete behaviors: first, chasing the ball and biting it, and then later coming back to the person while carrying the ball. To him, it doesn't appear to be exactly the same kind of goal-oriented game of "fetch" that a dog would play with its owner.
"But I think it's an intriguing observation," he says. "I think it opens up a series of interesting questions and other studies you could do to try to look at this in a more controlled and systematic way."
Would the wolves behave this way if there were distractions in the room, for example, or if the ball were thrown by a machine instead of a person?
There's no agreement on how dog domestication happened — whether some brave wolves started hanging around human camps to get scraps or whether humans actively kidnapped wolf puppies to raise them.
In recent times, MacLean notes, wolves have been extensively hunted by humans, so today's wolves might be more skittish around people than past wolf populations were. "It's possible that the modern populations are quite different than the population that actually gave rise to dogs," he says.
Dogs do seem to be sensitive to human gestures, such as pointing, in ways that other species are not, including our closest relatives, chimpanzees.
"Dogs have become special in that regard," MacLean says, "and some people, myself included, have made claims that maybe this is something really unusual about dogs, and something that changed during dog domestication." | <urn:uuid:26df40d0-0bca-4799-be7e-55aedb0ea7fa> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.kccu.org/post/fetching-wolves-what-it-means-wolf-puppy-will-retrieve-ball | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250595787.7/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119234426-20200120022426-00386.warc.gz | en | 0.981619 | 1,030 | 3.890625 | 4 | [
-0.31294938921928406,
-0.07528847455978394,
0.031178204342722893,
0.1995488405227661,
0.18259787559509277,
0.0953434407711029,
0.2720218598842621,
0.11805930733680725,
-0.05438500642776489,
-0.08299911767244339,
0.3773386776447296,
-0.31014513969421387,
-0.13274812698364258,
-0.03220409527... | 2 | Some wolf puppies are unexpectedly willing to play fetch, according to scientists who saw young wolves retrieve a ball thrown by a stranger and bring it back at that person's urging.
This behavior wouldn't be surprising in a dog. But wolves are thought to be less responsive to human cues because they haven't gone through thousands of years of domestication.
Exactly how dogs emerged from a now-extinct population of ancient wolves is a mystery. Wolves are large, dangerous carnivores, and yet they were the first animals that humans tamed. More than 15,000 years ago, when humans were still hunter gatherers, this large predator somehow began cozying up to people, eventually becoming their "best friend."
To try to get clues about how that happened, scientists such as Christina Hansen Wheat of Stockholm University in Sweden have been studying the differences between dogs and modern wolves. As part of her work, she raised litters of wolf puppies, feeding them and acclimating them to her presence but not playing with them or training them.
At the age of 8 weeks, the wolf pups were put through a series of standard behavior tests that were administered by a person the wolves had never met.
This set of tests is normally used by dog breeders, says Hansen Wheat, to assess how their puppies act in social situations. "The fetching test just happened to be part of this test battery. It wasn't something we were targeting at all," she says.
The person conducting the test threw a tennis ball and urged the wolf puppy to bring it back. Two litters of puppies utterly failed to do this, surprising the scientists not at all.
"There's some hypotheses out there that the ability to understand human social cues is a unique dog trait, a trait that arose after domestication had been initiated," Hansen Wheat explains, so fetching on command is not a behavior expected in wolves.
But then a third litter went through the tests. And as she watched through a window, one of the wolf puppies went for the ball and returned it to the tester, according to a report in the journal iScience.
"When I saw the first puppy fetch — I still get goosebumps when I talk about this — it was such a surprise," Hansen Wheat says. "It wasn't just one puppy, it was actually three of them. That was very exciting."
Because three of the 13 tested wolf puppies spontaneously did this, a willingness to fetch might not be a dog trait, she says. Instead, it might be a wolf trait that existed in the ancestral wolf populations.
"It might have been something that we have tried to select upon during early domestication," Hansen Wheat says. "Wolf puppies doing this during early stages of domestication might have had a selective advantage, if they managed to establish a connection to our forefathers."
She notes that researchers who work with wolves typically have few animals to test. That means scientists simply might not have enough wolves to detect rare traits, making it hard to see variations as they attempt to compare wolves with dogs.
"I think it will surprise dog owners as much as it surprised me that wolves actually can fetch a ball, or retrieve a ball for a person," she says.
Evan MacLean, who studies dog cognition at the University of Arizona, says this is an interesting observation that no one has made before.
"To my knowledge, this is actually the first test ever to look at whether wolves do something like this," he says.
Watching the video, MacLean sees two discrete behaviors: first, chasing the ball and biting it, and then later coming back to the person while carrying the ball. To him, it doesn't appear to be exactly the same kind of goal-oriented game of "fetch" that a dog would play with its owner.
"But I think it's an intriguing observation," he says. "I think it opens up a series of interesting questions and other studies you could do to try to look at this in a more controlled and systematic way."
Would the wolves behave this way if there were distractions in the room, for example, or if the ball were thrown by a machine instead of a person?
There's no agreement on how dog domestication happened — whether some brave wolves started hanging around human camps to get scraps or whether humans actively kidnapped wolf puppies to raise them.
In recent times, MacLean notes, wolves have been extensively hunted by humans, so today's wolves might be more skittish around people than past wolf populations were. "It's possible that the modern populations are quite different than the population that actually gave rise to dogs," he says.
Dogs do seem to be sensitive to human gestures, such as pointing, in ways that other species are not, including our closest relatives, chimpanzees.
"Dogs have become special in that regard," MacLean says, "and some people, myself included, have made claims that maybe this is something really unusual about dogs, and something that changed during dog domestication." | 999 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The Source of the Original Gospels
Theologians have also observed for many decades that two of the synoptic gospels (Matthew and Luke) have many points of similarity. In fact, the writings have many dozens of phrases and sentences that are identical. This observation led to the theory that both gospels were based largely on an earlier document called "Q" meaning "Quelle," which is German for "source," and is comprised of three distinct documents:
Q1 described Jesus as a Jewish philosopher-teacher, written circa 50 CE.
Q2 viewed Jesus as a Jewish apocalyptic prophet, written circa 60 CE.
Q3 described Jesus as a near-deity who converses directly with God and Satan, written circa 70 CE during a time of great turmoil in Palestine.
The authors of the Gospels of Matthew (circa 80 CE) and Luke (circa 90 CE) wrote their books using text from Q, Mark and their own unique traditions. The author of the Gospel of Thomas also used portions of Q1 and Q2 in his writing, but seems to have been unaware of Q3. This gospel was widely circulated within the early Christian movement but did not make it into the Christian Scriptures.
What is remarkable about Q1 is that the original Christians appeared to be centered totally on concerns about their relationships with God and with other people, and their preparation for the Kingdom of God on earth. Totally absent from their spiritual life are almost all of the factors that we associate with Christianity today. There is absolutely no mention of (in alphabetic order):
continued at: [link to www.messiahtruth.com | <urn:uuid:30f33324-3c0d-427a-8d6c-a0ddb0512645> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1422823/reply23440723/copyright | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250592565.2/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118110141-20200118134141-00412.warc.gz | en | 0.983746 | 337 | 3.3125 | 3 | [
-0.21968227624893188,
0.2016461342573166,
-0.1741732954978943,
-0.0586799792945385,
0.0642104223370552,
-0.13505364954471588,
-0.44171473383903503,
0.09858716279268265,
0.2724605202674866,
0.21914170682430267,
0.11020693928003311,
-0.037094417959451675,
-0.07445050030946732,
-0.00377063895... | 3 | The Source of the Original Gospels
Theologians have also observed for many decades that two of the synoptic gospels (Matthew and Luke) have many points of similarity. In fact, the writings have many dozens of phrases and sentences that are identical. This observation led to the theory that both gospels were based largely on an earlier document called "Q" meaning "Quelle," which is German for "source," and is comprised of three distinct documents:
Q1 described Jesus as a Jewish philosopher-teacher, written circa 50 CE.
Q2 viewed Jesus as a Jewish apocalyptic prophet, written circa 60 CE.
Q3 described Jesus as a near-deity who converses directly with God and Satan, written circa 70 CE during a time of great turmoil in Palestine.
The authors of the Gospels of Matthew (circa 80 CE) and Luke (circa 90 CE) wrote their books using text from Q, Mark and their own unique traditions. The author of the Gospel of Thomas also used portions of Q1 and Q2 in his writing, but seems to have been unaware of Q3. This gospel was widely circulated within the early Christian movement but did not make it into the Christian Scriptures.
What is remarkable about Q1 is that the original Christians appeared to be centered totally on concerns about their relationships with God and with other people, and their preparation for the Kingdom of God on earth. Totally absent from their spiritual life are almost all of the factors that we associate with Christianity today. There is absolutely no mention of (in alphabetic order):
continued at: [link to www.messiahtruth.com | 335 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Did you know that a baby born at a low birthweight can lead to serious health risks that last for the baby’s entire life? On average in the United States, one out of every twelve babies is born at a low birthweight, or under 5 pounds, 8 ounces. The health consequences of being born underweight are staggering. Babies born at a low birthweight are more likely to develop diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, and become obese later in life. These babies are also at a greater risk of having what is known as metabolic syndrome which occurs when you are afflicted with high blood pressure, diabetes, and heart disease. Studies have shown that babies born at a low birthweight are also more likely to be blind, deaf, have cerebral palsy and developmental delay.
Ways to avoid delivering an underweight baby include staying away from alcohol, drugs, and tobacco products during pregnancy. Infections during pregnancy are another major cause of having a baby with a low birthweight so regular doctor visits will enhance the health of your child. Maintaining a healthy diet and weight during pregnancy will also help ensure that you deliver a healthy baby. Taking these measures can have massive benefits for your baby since the consequences of being born at a low birthweight may lead to health problems that last a lifetime. Learn more about how to minimize your risk of delivering a baby with a low birthweight here. | <urn:uuid:b6636dc0-7492-4570-aee3-f175863e963f> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://getreadyforbabywo.com/2018/02/25/low-birthweight-babies-health-risks-and-how-to-avoid-them/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250614086.44/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123221108-20200124010108-00322.warc.gz | en | 0.981505 | 284 | 3.5 | 4 | [
0.05663749948143959,
-0.16713938117027283,
0.08907338231801987,
0.2653340995311737,
-0.026068054139614105,
0.38723284006118774,
0.17555278539657593,
0.09921281784772873,
-0.053496103733778,
-0.026802178472280502,
0.10584191977977753,
-0.1867685765028,
0.01615486852824688,
0.297061026096344... | 7 | Did you know that a baby born at a low birthweight can lead to serious health risks that last for the baby’s entire life? On average in the United States, one out of every twelve babies is born at a low birthweight, or under 5 pounds, 8 ounces. The health consequences of being born underweight are staggering. Babies born at a low birthweight are more likely to develop diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, and become obese later in life. These babies are also at a greater risk of having what is known as metabolic syndrome which occurs when you are afflicted with high blood pressure, diabetes, and heart disease. Studies have shown that babies born at a low birthweight are also more likely to be blind, deaf, have cerebral palsy and developmental delay.
Ways to avoid delivering an underweight baby include staying away from alcohol, drugs, and tobacco products during pregnancy. Infections during pregnancy are another major cause of having a baby with a low birthweight so regular doctor visits will enhance the health of your child. Maintaining a healthy diet and weight during pregnancy will also help ensure that you deliver a healthy baby. Taking these measures can have massive benefits for your baby since the consequences of being born at a low birthweight may lead to health problems that last a lifetime. Learn more about how to minimize your risk of delivering a baby with a low birthweight here. | 281 | ENGLISH | 1 |
A political figure and environmental activist, Al Gore is a notable figure in energy dynamics for his campaign to raise awareness about global warming. He was born in Washington, DC, in 1948. The son of a U.S. senator, Gore spent his childhood between Washington, DC, and a farm in Tennessee. He obtained a bachelor of art's degree in government in 1969 and enlisted in the army during the Vietnam War. He was granted an honorable discharge in 1971. Gore began his political career when he became a U.S. representative from the state of Tennessee in 1976. He held that office until 1984, when he was elected to the U.S. Senate. In 1993, Gore became vice president under President William Clinton. In 2000, he campaigned for the presidency of the United States, and although he won the nation's popular vote, he failed to win enough votes in the Electoral College and conceded the election after a contentious challenge. Gore is an important figure in global energy dynamics for his efforts to raise awareness and combat global warming. Throughout his service in Congress, Gore worked to promote sustainable energy programs and enact environmental education programs. He supported the enactment of the Kyoto Protocol by the U.S. Senate and cosponsored hearings on global warming. After his defeat in the 2000 election, Gore has devoted his time to global warming outreach and education. His efforts are documented in the film An Inconvenient Truth (2006).
Was this article helpful? | <urn:uuid:b2f492f1-1fa6-4cd5-ba47-fd3171b95e21> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.briangwilliams.us/energy-use-worldwide/albert-arnold-gore-present.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250610004.56/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123101110-20200123130110-00128.warc.gz | en | 0.98302 | 292 | 3.28125 | 3 | [
-0.216822549700737,
0.7468522787094116,
0.3793695271015167,
0.24988262355327606,
0.11019295454025269,
0.39521417021751404,
0.09580285847187042,
-0.10520998388528824,
-0.15402358770370483,
0.4475724399089813,
0.1850387454032898,
-0.024179251864552498,
0.30783000588417053,
0.6972916126251221... | 1 | A political figure and environmental activist, Al Gore is a notable figure in energy dynamics for his campaign to raise awareness about global warming. He was born in Washington, DC, in 1948. The son of a U.S. senator, Gore spent his childhood between Washington, DC, and a farm in Tennessee. He obtained a bachelor of art's degree in government in 1969 and enlisted in the army during the Vietnam War. He was granted an honorable discharge in 1971. Gore began his political career when he became a U.S. representative from the state of Tennessee in 1976. He held that office until 1984, when he was elected to the U.S. Senate. In 1993, Gore became vice president under President William Clinton. In 2000, he campaigned for the presidency of the United States, and although he won the nation's popular vote, he failed to win enough votes in the Electoral College and conceded the election after a contentious challenge. Gore is an important figure in global energy dynamics for his efforts to raise awareness and combat global warming. Throughout his service in Congress, Gore worked to promote sustainable energy programs and enact environmental education programs. He supported the enactment of the Kyoto Protocol by the U.S. Senate and cosponsored hearings on global warming. After his defeat in the 2000 election, Gore has devoted his time to global warming outreach and education. His efforts are documented in the film An Inconvenient Truth (2006).
Was this article helpful? | 321 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Some material in this page may contain graphically explicit material; this may upset certain viewers.
If you are 18 years or older or are comfortable with graphic material, you are free to view this page. Otherwise, you should close this page and view another page.
A concentration camp is a generally brutal type of camp that has inmates that are generally persecuted. Most are either because of race, ethnicity, or sexuality. Just as many will be put in a concentration camp due to not following a government rule or being a prisoner of war (POW). Sometimes they are also known as labor camps or prison camps.
Use of concentration camps is considered to be a violation of international law and a crime against humanity.
Historical uses of concentration camps
- The most infamous example of historical concentration camps are those that the Nazi Party established during World War II as part of the Holocaust. Jews and other Nazi "undesirables" were interred at these camps and often died from starvation or overwork, if they weren't killed outright or tortured. The Nazi camps were overseen by Heinrich Himmler and staffed by the Schutzstaffel.
- North Korea operates a number of concentration camps, mainly for political enemies. Political prisoners are also subjected to the family responsibility principle, which means that the immediate family members of a convicted political criminal are also regarded as political criminals and interned. The living conditions in the North Korean camps are notoriously brutal; prisoners are forced to work extremely hard labor with very little food given to them, so many prisoners die from either being worked too hard or starvation. Torture is also used frequently on prisoners who don't work hard enough. The most notorious and brutal of these camps was Camp 22 (which is now closed down), where among the most egregious human rights violations in all of North Korea were allegedly committed.
- Augusto Pinochet operated concentration camps during his tenure as the military dictator of Chile from 1973 to 1990. There were at least eighty in all, and most of them were converted soccer stadiums, hotels, or office buildings. Those that were primarily targeted included Communists, Leftists, homosexuals, indigenous peoples, and Catholics. The camps were run by DINA, Pinochet's secret police who were renowned for their cruelty; torture and sexual violence was very prevalent and included things such as electrocution, correctional rape, forced bestiality, forced cannibalism, and being burned alive via flamethrower, among other things.
- Concentration camps were used by the Khmer Rouge regime during their rule of Cambodia from 1975 to 1979, with 196 in all being known. As a part of Pol Pot's campaign of genocide against Cambodia's ethnic minorities, whole cities were evacuated and sent to these camps. Those who weren't killed outright or died from starvation were forced to do hard manual labor, usually until they died from overwork. The most well-known of these camps was Tuol Sleng, a converted secondary school that was known for its brutal methods of torture, which included electrocution, various forms of mutilation, and waterboarding, among other things. The chief overseer of Tuol Sleng was Kang Kek Iew, the head of the Khmer Rouge's internal security, who was convicted of war crimes and crimes against humanity in 2010 by the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia and sentenced to life in prison.
- Modern-day Chechnya has reportedly established a number of concentration camps specifically targeting homosexual or bisexual men; they are allegedly being used for the extrajudicial detention and torture of men who are suspected of being gay or bisexual, and are reportedly overseen directly by President Ramzan Kadyrov.
- The United States interred Japanese-Americans in concentration camps during the latter half of World War II, as per an executive order issued by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in response to Imperial Japan's bombing of Pearl Harbor. Of 127,000 Japanese Americans living in the continental United States at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack, 112,000 resided on the West Coast. Roosevelt's executive order declared that all people of Japanese ancestry were excluded from the West Coast, including all of California and parts of Oregon, Washington, and Arizona, except for those in government camps. Approximately 5,000 Japanese Americans relocated outside the exclusion zone before March 1942, while some 5,500 community leaders had been arrested immediately after the Pearl Harbour attack and thus were already in custody. The majority of nearly 130,000 Japanese Americans living in the U.S. mainland were forcibly relocated from their West Coast homes during the spring of 1942. This is considered to be an act of ethnic cleansing. They also operated concentration camps in the Philippines during William McKinley's tenure as president.
- During the Bosnian War, concentration camps were used by all of the respective belligerents. Croatian and Bosniak forces were the first to set up concentration camps. Serbs who suffered great casualties by locals, Croats and Muslims (concentration camps and massacres) during the previous wars (WWI and WWII) reacted furiously, especially in the places that were on the side of the Nazis of the World War II (Prijedor, Podrinje.) In a UN report, 381 out of 677 alleged camps have been corroborated and verified, involving all warring factions. War crimes and human rights violations were rampant at almost all of the camps.
- Concentration camps were established by Fidel Castro's government during the first few years of his tenure as the leader of Cuba. They were known as Military Units to Aid Production, or UMAPs. The UMAP camps served as a form of alternative civilian service for Cubans who could not serve in the military due to being, conscientious objectors, Christians and other religious people, homosexuals, or political enemies of Castro or his communist revolution.
- During his rule in Yugoslavia, Tito sent his political opponents to Goli Otok, an island in Adriatic Sea which served as a big concentration camp.
- Since 2014, the Communist Party of China has been imprisoning Uyghur Muslims in the Xinjiang province in what they describe as "re-education camps". These camps are reportedly operated outside of the legal system; many Uyghurs have been interned without trial and no charges have been levied against them. Local authorities are reportedly holding hundreds of thousands of Uyghurs and Muslims from other ethnic minorities in these camps, for the stated purpose of countering extremism and terrorism.
- During the rule of the National Reorganization Process military junta in Argentina during the Cold War, there were over 300 places throughout the country that served as secret detention centers, where people were interrogated, tortured, and killed. Prisoners were often forced to hand and sign over property, in acts of individual, rather than official and systematic, corruption. Small children who were taken with their relatives, and babies born to female prisoners later killed, were frequently given for adoption to politically acceptable, often military, families. There was a total of 340 secret detention centers all over the country's territory.
- Lothar von Trotha interred the Herero and Nama peoples in concentration camps during the German Empire's colonial rule of South West Africa from 1904 to 1908.
- Fascist Italy, under Benito Mussolini's rule, operated concentration camps during and after the Pacification of Libya. The forced migration of more than 100,000 people ended in concentration camps in Suluq- ALa byer and Al Agheila where tens of thousands died in squalid conditions. It is estimated (by Arab historians) that the number of Libyans who died – killed either through combat or mainly through starvation, execution and disease – is at a minimum of 80,000 or even up to one third of the Cyrenaican population.
- In Francoist Spain between 1936 and 1947, concentration camps were created and coordinated by the Servicio de Colonias Penitenciarias Militarizadas. Inmates of these concentration camps were republican ex-combatants of the Spanish Republican Army, Spanish Republican Air Force or the Spanish Republican Navy, as well as political dissidents, homosexuals, and regular convicts.
- Concentration Camps were operated by the Young Turks during the Armenian Genocide to eliminate Armenians who survived death marches through deserts. | <urn:uuid:e71e013e-0b7d-455a-af16-3ab3780f48f5> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://real-life-villains.fandom.com/wiki/Concentration_Camp | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250614086.44/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123221108-20200124010108-00305.warc.gz | en | 0.981157 | 1,691 | 3.515625 | 4 | [
0.12444934993982315,
0.5658420920372009,
0.2678796052932739,
0.05386194586753845,
0.2509128451347351,
0.31937479972839355,
0.3006044626235962,
-0.08788387477397919,
-0.09450624883174896,
-0.18513229489326477,
0.359193354845047,
-0.013926741667091846,
0.1370515674352646,
0.6806381940841675,... | 3 | Some material in this page may contain graphically explicit material; this may upset certain viewers.
If you are 18 years or older or are comfortable with graphic material, you are free to view this page. Otherwise, you should close this page and view another page.
A concentration camp is a generally brutal type of camp that has inmates that are generally persecuted. Most are either because of race, ethnicity, or sexuality. Just as many will be put in a concentration camp due to not following a government rule or being a prisoner of war (POW). Sometimes they are also known as labor camps or prison camps.
Use of concentration camps is considered to be a violation of international law and a crime against humanity.
Historical uses of concentration camps
- The most infamous example of historical concentration camps are those that the Nazi Party established during World War II as part of the Holocaust. Jews and other Nazi "undesirables" were interred at these camps and often died from starvation or overwork, if they weren't killed outright or tortured. The Nazi camps were overseen by Heinrich Himmler and staffed by the Schutzstaffel.
- North Korea operates a number of concentration camps, mainly for political enemies. Political prisoners are also subjected to the family responsibility principle, which means that the immediate family members of a convicted political criminal are also regarded as political criminals and interned. The living conditions in the North Korean camps are notoriously brutal; prisoners are forced to work extremely hard labor with very little food given to them, so many prisoners die from either being worked too hard or starvation. Torture is also used frequently on prisoners who don't work hard enough. The most notorious and brutal of these camps was Camp 22 (which is now closed down), where among the most egregious human rights violations in all of North Korea were allegedly committed.
- Augusto Pinochet operated concentration camps during his tenure as the military dictator of Chile from 1973 to 1990. There were at least eighty in all, and most of them were converted soccer stadiums, hotels, or office buildings. Those that were primarily targeted included Communists, Leftists, homosexuals, indigenous peoples, and Catholics. The camps were run by DINA, Pinochet's secret police who were renowned for their cruelty; torture and sexual violence was very prevalent and included things such as electrocution, correctional rape, forced bestiality, forced cannibalism, and being burned alive via flamethrower, among other things.
- Concentration camps were used by the Khmer Rouge regime during their rule of Cambodia from 1975 to 1979, with 196 in all being known. As a part of Pol Pot's campaign of genocide against Cambodia's ethnic minorities, whole cities were evacuated and sent to these camps. Those who weren't killed outright or died from starvation were forced to do hard manual labor, usually until they died from overwork. The most well-known of these camps was Tuol Sleng, a converted secondary school that was known for its brutal methods of torture, which included electrocution, various forms of mutilation, and waterboarding, among other things. The chief overseer of Tuol Sleng was Kang Kek Iew, the head of the Khmer Rouge's internal security, who was convicted of war crimes and crimes against humanity in 2010 by the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia and sentenced to life in prison.
- Modern-day Chechnya has reportedly established a number of concentration camps specifically targeting homosexual or bisexual men; they are allegedly being used for the extrajudicial detention and torture of men who are suspected of being gay or bisexual, and are reportedly overseen directly by President Ramzan Kadyrov.
- The United States interred Japanese-Americans in concentration camps during the latter half of World War II, as per an executive order issued by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in response to Imperial Japan's bombing of Pearl Harbor. Of 127,000 Japanese Americans living in the continental United States at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack, 112,000 resided on the West Coast. Roosevelt's executive order declared that all people of Japanese ancestry were excluded from the West Coast, including all of California and parts of Oregon, Washington, and Arizona, except for those in government camps. Approximately 5,000 Japanese Americans relocated outside the exclusion zone before March 1942, while some 5,500 community leaders had been arrested immediately after the Pearl Harbour attack and thus were already in custody. The majority of nearly 130,000 Japanese Americans living in the U.S. mainland were forcibly relocated from their West Coast homes during the spring of 1942. This is considered to be an act of ethnic cleansing. They also operated concentration camps in the Philippines during William McKinley's tenure as president.
- During the Bosnian War, concentration camps were used by all of the respective belligerents. Croatian and Bosniak forces were the first to set up concentration camps. Serbs who suffered great casualties by locals, Croats and Muslims (concentration camps and massacres) during the previous wars (WWI and WWII) reacted furiously, especially in the places that were on the side of the Nazis of the World War II (Prijedor, Podrinje.) In a UN report, 381 out of 677 alleged camps have been corroborated and verified, involving all warring factions. War crimes and human rights violations were rampant at almost all of the camps.
- Concentration camps were established by Fidel Castro's government during the first few years of his tenure as the leader of Cuba. They were known as Military Units to Aid Production, or UMAPs. The UMAP camps served as a form of alternative civilian service for Cubans who could not serve in the military due to being, conscientious objectors, Christians and other religious people, homosexuals, or political enemies of Castro or his communist revolution.
- During his rule in Yugoslavia, Tito sent his political opponents to Goli Otok, an island in Adriatic Sea which served as a big concentration camp.
- Since 2014, the Communist Party of China has been imprisoning Uyghur Muslims in the Xinjiang province in what they describe as "re-education camps". These camps are reportedly operated outside of the legal system; many Uyghurs have been interned without trial and no charges have been levied against them. Local authorities are reportedly holding hundreds of thousands of Uyghurs and Muslims from other ethnic minorities in these camps, for the stated purpose of countering extremism and terrorism.
- During the rule of the National Reorganization Process military junta in Argentina during the Cold War, there were over 300 places throughout the country that served as secret detention centers, where people were interrogated, tortured, and killed. Prisoners were often forced to hand and sign over property, in acts of individual, rather than official and systematic, corruption. Small children who were taken with their relatives, and babies born to female prisoners later killed, were frequently given for adoption to politically acceptable, often military, families. There was a total of 340 secret detention centers all over the country's territory.
- Lothar von Trotha interred the Herero and Nama peoples in concentration camps during the German Empire's colonial rule of South West Africa from 1904 to 1908.
- Fascist Italy, under Benito Mussolini's rule, operated concentration camps during and after the Pacification of Libya. The forced migration of more than 100,000 people ended in concentration camps in Suluq- ALa byer and Al Agheila where tens of thousands died in squalid conditions. It is estimated (by Arab historians) that the number of Libyans who died – killed either through combat or mainly through starvation, execution and disease – is at a minimum of 80,000 or even up to one third of the Cyrenaican population.
- In Francoist Spain between 1936 and 1947, concentration camps were created and coordinated by the Servicio de Colonias Penitenciarias Militarizadas. Inmates of these concentration camps were republican ex-combatants of the Spanish Republican Army, Spanish Republican Air Force or the Spanish Republican Navy, as well as political dissidents, homosexuals, and regular convicts.
- Concentration Camps were operated by the Young Turks during the Armenian Genocide to eliminate Armenians who survived death marches through deserts. | 1,781 | ENGLISH | 1 |
We know gladiator battles took place in the Colosseum, but who were the gladiators, and what were their lives like? We delve a little deeper into the fight-filled hard-knock life of these men and their work.
Gladiators as commodities
Contrary to popular belief, gladiators didn’t always fight to the death. In fact, estimates suggest that only 1 in 8 gladiator fights ended with a slain combatant. Still, 1 in 8 aren’t great odds. And considering each day’s entertainment had a number of different events (including executions) more than a few of the ‘entertainers’ heading into the Colosseum on any given day would not be walking out again.
However, gladiating was a business. And the men who purchased and managed the gladiators (Lanistae) would not part with their investments unless absolutely necessary; gladiators were likely trained to wound rather than kill.
Besides, the gladiators all lived and worked together. They even organized unions called collegia to pay for burials and look after the families of fallen comrades. It’s unlikely that they were keen to seriously harm their brothers-in-arms, no matter what the crowds in the Colosseum were telling them to do.
Even so, the life of a gladiator was far from easy.
Fighting for your life, embracing death
Although it was largely populated by slaves and criminals, free men – including some upper-class patricians – voluntarily entered gladiator schools. Gladiators fought just a few times a year, and spent the rest of their time training.
When they signed up, would-be gladiators swore a sacred oath (called the sacramentum gladiatorium) obliging them to die with honor (or else be beaten, burned, and stabbed). So it was not something to be taken lightly.
But on the upside: gladiators earned money each time they fought and, if they survived their 3-5 years, they were set free – criminals and slaves included. But the threat of death still hung over every battle.
It’s believed that the first gladiatorial duels were held in the 3rd century BC, as part of the funeral rites of warriors and wealthy nobles. Slaves or condemned prisoners would fight to the death as a tribute to the fallen patrician. It’s thought that this display of bravery and fighting spirit were intended to reflect virtues the person had demonstrated in life.
The Colosseum: where it all went down
If you’re looking for evidence of this sport’s popularity, just take a look at the Colosseum. The largest amphitheater ever built, this famous structure (also known as the Flavian Amphitheater) could fit up to 80,000 spectators. Clad in marble and as tall as a modern 12-story building, it was located right in the center of the capital of the mighty Roman Empire – caput mundi.
There were many arenas and gladiator schools dotted throughout the empire, but the Colosseum was the ‘main event’. Construction began in 72 AD by Emperor Vespasian (of the Flavian dynasty), and in 80 AD it was completed by his son and heir Titus. The Colosseum was entirely clad in shimmering marble, had three stories of arches, and was as tall as a modern 12-story building.
Like modern sports stadiums, the Colosseum had box seats for the wealthy and powerful. The higher levels (‘nosebleeds’) were reserved for the commoners, with the seats closer to the action reserved for those of the upper classes.
If you thought it was hard for the men, think of the animals
A sophisticated system of trapdoors and slave-operated pulleys were manipulated to raise men, scenery and wild animals into the Colosseum. Further below, there was a warren of winding hallways and rooms and cages where men, beasts, and weapons waited to perform.
Emperor Titus had the Colosseum inaugurated with more than 100 straight days of games, during which 9,000 animals were killed. If that sounds like a lot of animals, it was – the hippopotamus was completely eradicated from the Nilea as a result.
And this trend of animals marching to their deaths and collective extinctions continued. Several species of lion, bear, and tiger all went extinct, either directly or indirectly due to their participation in the venationes in the Colosseum. It’s a matter of record that on one particular day, Emperor Commodus (Joaquin Phoenix in Gladiator) killed more than 100 bears singlehandedly.
A day in the Colosseum
Gladiatorial games were organized only a few times a year, and the sponsors (often the Emperor, but this could also be a wealthy patrician, or high-ranking magistrate in the provinces) were sure to make the most of it.
Colosseum gladiator events followed a set pattern. The morning would begin with an elaborate procession to the arena to showcase that day’s participants. Naturally, the sponsor would act as the parade marshal, leading the way.
Once the crowd was assembled it was game(s) on!
These all-day affairs usually began with animal entertainments. First were the animal hunts (venationes). Special subsets of gladiators, called Venatores and Bestiarii would do battle with beasts often sourced from the far reaches of the empire. These specialized combatants were trained in wrangling with all types of creatures, including ostriches, bears, crocodiles, elephants, and tigers.
Late mornings were reserved for the popular damnatio ad bestias, when criminals and deserters would be crushed by elephants, mauled by wolves, or otherwise slaughtered by wild animals in creative and horrifying ways.
These activities, as enjoyable as they were, were really just warm-up for the afternoon’s main events: gladiatorial combat. Watching men go head-to-head (and in some cases, in Battle Royale-style winner-takes-all matches) were the most popular events, and featured a variety of gladiatorial styles.
Different gladiator styles
Each type of gladiator received specialized training according to their armor, weapons and fighting techniques. The Thrax was armed with a curved dagger and a round shield, and the Samnis had a short sword and shield. The Myrmillo had helmets with a fish crest, a rounded shield, and a sword. These fish-themed mermen often squared off against the Retiarius – fishermen who fought with a net and trident or dagger.
In addition to these common types, there were other rarer gladiators. The Amazones and Gladiatrices were female gladiators, while the Paegniarius, fought animals armed only with a whip. Some gladiators, known as Andabatae, fought blindfolded.
The winners of the battles would receive a palm frond and a cash prize. For especially outstanding performances a laurel crown was awarded (though the biggest prize was presumably not being dead).
The ultimate prize was permanent discharge from the obligation to fight in the arena, most certainly in recognition of an outstanding career than from just one performance (a sort of ‘Lifetime Achievement Award’). As a symbol of this award the gladiator would be given a wooden sword, perhaps to suggest that he no longer had to risk his life fighting with real weapons.
If the patron of the games spared his life, the loser was sent back to lick his wounds, and train again. He would live to fight another day. | <urn:uuid:1a729ab5-2557-449a-959c-461fec77eda4> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.tiqets.com/blog/gladiators-and-the-colosseum/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250604849.31/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121162615-20200121191615-00436.warc.gz | en | 0.982364 | 1,624 | 4 | 4 | [
-0.7168287634849548,
0.19763660430908203,
0.023097297176718712,
0.05242662504315376,
-0.22997578978538513,
-0.01104353740811348,
0.26079457998275757,
0.19062013924121857,
0.35149627923965454,
-0.25013038516044617,
-0.332375705242157,
-0.11755817383527756,
0.16334624588489532,
0.23919761180... | 1 | We know gladiator battles took place in the Colosseum, but who were the gladiators, and what were their lives like? We delve a little deeper into the fight-filled hard-knock life of these men and their work.
Gladiators as commodities
Contrary to popular belief, gladiators didn’t always fight to the death. In fact, estimates suggest that only 1 in 8 gladiator fights ended with a slain combatant. Still, 1 in 8 aren’t great odds. And considering each day’s entertainment had a number of different events (including executions) more than a few of the ‘entertainers’ heading into the Colosseum on any given day would not be walking out again.
However, gladiating was a business. And the men who purchased and managed the gladiators (Lanistae) would not part with their investments unless absolutely necessary; gladiators were likely trained to wound rather than kill.
Besides, the gladiators all lived and worked together. They even organized unions called collegia to pay for burials and look after the families of fallen comrades. It’s unlikely that they were keen to seriously harm their brothers-in-arms, no matter what the crowds in the Colosseum were telling them to do.
Even so, the life of a gladiator was far from easy.
Fighting for your life, embracing death
Although it was largely populated by slaves and criminals, free men – including some upper-class patricians – voluntarily entered gladiator schools. Gladiators fought just a few times a year, and spent the rest of their time training.
When they signed up, would-be gladiators swore a sacred oath (called the sacramentum gladiatorium) obliging them to die with honor (or else be beaten, burned, and stabbed). So it was not something to be taken lightly.
But on the upside: gladiators earned money each time they fought and, if they survived their 3-5 years, they were set free – criminals and slaves included. But the threat of death still hung over every battle.
It’s believed that the first gladiatorial duels were held in the 3rd century BC, as part of the funeral rites of warriors and wealthy nobles. Slaves or condemned prisoners would fight to the death as a tribute to the fallen patrician. It’s thought that this display of bravery and fighting spirit were intended to reflect virtues the person had demonstrated in life.
The Colosseum: where it all went down
If you’re looking for evidence of this sport’s popularity, just take a look at the Colosseum. The largest amphitheater ever built, this famous structure (also known as the Flavian Amphitheater) could fit up to 80,000 spectators. Clad in marble and as tall as a modern 12-story building, it was located right in the center of the capital of the mighty Roman Empire – caput mundi.
There were many arenas and gladiator schools dotted throughout the empire, but the Colosseum was the ‘main event’. Construction began in 72 AD by Emperor Vespasian (of the Flavian dynasty), and in 80 AD it was completed by his son and heir Titus. The Colosseum was entirely clad in shimmering marble, had three stories of arches, and was as tall as a modern 12-story building.
Like modern sports stadiums, the Colosseum had box seats for the wealthy and powerful. The higher levels (‘nosebleeds’) were reserved for the commoners, with the seats closer to the action reserved for those of the upper classes.
If you thought it was hard for the men, think of the animals
A sophisticated system of trapdoors and slave-operated pulleys were manipulated to raise men, scenery and wild animals into the Colosseum. Further below, there was a warren of winding hallways and rooms and cages where men, beasts, and weapons waited to perform.
Emperor Titus had the Colosseum inaugurated with more than 100 straight days of games, during which 9,000 animals were killed. If that sounds like a lot of animals, it was – the hippopotamus was completely eradicated from the Nilea as a result.
And this trend of animals marching to their deaths and collective extinctions continued. Several species of lion, bear, and tiger all went extinct, either directly or indirectly due to their participation in the venationes in the Colosseum. It’s a matter of record that on one particular day, Emperor Commodus (Joaquin Phoenix in Gladiator) killed more than 100 bears singlehandedly.
A day in the Colosseum
Gladiatorial games were organized only a few times a year, and the sponsors (often the Emperor, but this could also be a wealthy patrician, or high-ranking magistrate in the provinces) were sure to make the most of it.
Colosseum gladiator events followed a set pattern. The morning would begin with an elaborate procession to the arena to showcase that day’s participants. Naturally, the sponsor would act as the parade marshal, leading the way.
Once the crowd was assembled it was game(s) on!
These all-day affairs usually began with animal entertainments. First were the animal hunts (venationes). Special subsets of gladiators, called Venatores and Bestiarii would do battle with beasts often sourced from the far reaches of the empire. These specialized combatants were trained in wrangling with all types of creatures, including ostriches, bears, crocodiles, elephants, and tigers.
Late mornings were reserved for the popular damnatio ad bestias, when criminals and deserters would be crushed by elephants, mauled by wolves, or otherwise slaughtered by wild animals in creative and horrifying ways.
These activities, as enjoyable as they were, were really just warm-up for the afternoon’s main events: gladiatorial combat. Watching men go head-to-head (and in some cases, in Battle Royale-style winner-takes-all matches) were the most popular events, and featured a variety of gladiatorial styles.
Different gladiator styles
Each type of gladiator received specialized training according to their armor, weapons and fighting techniques. The Thrax was armed with a curved dagger and a round shield, and the Samnis had a short sword and shield. The Myrmillo had helmets with a fish crest, a rounded shield, and a sword. These fish-themed mermen often squared off against the Retiarius – fishermen who fought with a net and trident or dagger.
In addition to these common types, there were other rarer gladiators. The Amazones and Gladiatrices were female gladiators, while the Paegniarius, fought animals armed only with a whip. Some gladiators, known as Andabatae, fought blindfolded.
The winners of the battles would receive a palm frond and a cash prize. For especially outstanding performances a laurel crown was awarded (though the biggest prize was presumably not being dead).
The ultimate prize was permanent discharge from the obligation to fight in the arena, most certainly in recognition of an outstanding career than from just one performance (a sort of ‘Lifetime Achievement Award’). As a symbol of this award the gladiator would be given a wooden sword, perhaps to suggest that he no longer had to risk his life fighting with real weapons.
If the patron of the games spared his life, the loser was sent back to lick his wounds, and train again. He would live to fight another day. | 1,583 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Based on radiocarbon dating of cremated bones up to 5,000 years old, researchers with the Stonehenge Riverside Project said they are convinced the area was built and then grew as a "domain of the ancestors."
"It's now clear that burials were a major component of Stonehenge in all its main stages," said Mike Parker Pearson, an archaeology professor at the University of Sheffield in England and head of the project. "Stonehenge was a place of burial from its beginning to its zenith in the mid-third millennium B.C."
The finding marks a significant rethinking of Stonehenge. In the past it was believed that some burials took place there for a century but that the site's significance lay in its ceremonial and religious functions, including serving as a center for healing.
A combination of the radiocarbon dating, excavations nearby that have revealed a once-thriving village and the fact that the number of cremated remains appeared to grow over a 500-year period convinced researchers that the site was used for a long time and most likely was a burial ground for one ruling family.
Parker Pearson said the discovery of a mace head -- the enlarged end of a clubbing weapon -- supports the theory that it was the province of a ruling family since it was long a symbol of authority in England and still serves that function in the House of Commons.
He said family members for as many as 30 to 40 generations were buried there, with the number of individuals increasing with each generation.
The team also excavated homes nearby at Durrington Walls, which they said were especially well preserved and appeared to be seasonal dwellings related to Stonehenge.
"It's a quite extraordinary settlement. We've never seen anything like it before," Parker Pearson said. The village had at least 300 and as many as 1,000 homes, which apparently were occupied in the midwinter and midsummer. Broad avenues leading from Stonehenge to the River Avon, as well as another leading to the river from a circle of wooden pillars close to the village, were oriented to the winter and summer solstices.
"All in all, we're finding that Stonehenge was a sophisticated society with great achievements," he said. The site fell into disuse around 1500 B.C., and over the centuries some of its stones were hauled off and broken... | <urn:uuid:9f6bdde8-0faa-4349-84d0-23796e4f6eb9> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://2005-09.newenglishreview.org/blog_comment.cfm?blog_id=15100 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251687725.76/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126043644-20200126073644-00237.warc.gz | en | 0.987191 | 489 | 3.546875 | 4 | [
-0.18424434959888458,
0.6761726140975952,
0.33192506432533264,
-0.03921464830636978,
-0.004123182501643896,
-0.21180430054664612,
-0.23553362488746643,
0.004792541731148958,
-0.43532270193099976,
-0.27722805738449097,
0.28979048132896423,
-0.2843942940235138,
-0.1163594126701355,
0.6379092... | 3 | Based on radiocarbon dating of cremated bones up to 5,000 years old, researchers with the Stonehenge Riverside Project said they are convinced the area was built and then grew as a "domain of the ancestors."
"It's now clear that burials were a major component of Stonehenge in all its main stages," said Mike Parker Pearson, an archaeology professor at the University of Sheffield in England and head of the project. "Stonehenge was a place of burial from its beginning to its zenith in the mid-third millennium B.C."
The finding marks a significant rethinking of Stonehenge. In the past it was believed that some burials took place there for a century but that the site's significance lay in its ceremonial and religious functions, including serving as a center for healing.
A combination of the radiocarbon dating, excavations nearby that have revealed a once-thriving village and the fact that the number of cremated remains appeared to grow over a 500-year period convinced researchers that the site was used for a long time and most likely was a burial ground for one ruling family.
Parker Pearson said the discovery of a mace head -- the enlarged end of a clubbing weapon -- supports the theory that it was the province of a ruling family since it was long a symbol of authority in England and still serves that function in the House of Commons.
He said family members for as many as 30 to 40 generations were buried there, with the number of individuals increasing with each generation.
The team also excavated homes nearby at Durrington Walls, which they said were especially well preserved and appeared to be seasonal dwellings related to Stonehenge.
"It's a quite extraordinary settlement. We've never seen anything like it before," Parker Pearson said. The village had at least 300 and as many as 1,000 homes, which apparently were occupied in the midwinter and midsummer. Broad avenues leading from Stonehenge to the River Avon, as well as another leading to the river from a circle of wooden pillars close to the village, were oriented to the winter and summer solstices.
"All in all, we're finding that Stonehenge was a sophisticated society with great achievements," he said. The site fell into disuse around 1500 B.C., and over the centuries some of its stones were hauled off and broken... | 494 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Have you ever wondered about the trees around you? What are their names? What makes them each unique? What resources do they provide? How do they benefit our lives?
Our blog was created to help you "Meet A Tree", learn about how every tree is as unique and individual as you and I!
Monday, March 23, 2015
Meet The "Alder" Tree
Alder trees are a very small group of trees and shrub, made up of only 30 varieties most of which are native to the Northern temperate areas. Ten of which are native specifically to North America half of these can be grown as either shrubs or trees. As a whole, Alders rarely grown to over 70 feet tall. They are relatively fast growers and are short lived not recorded to live very often beyond 100 years.Alders are considered part of the larger Birch family since they are very similar in habit and appearance, however there are two things that set them apart from Birch trees. The first is the fruit of the Alder not only resembles a small cone, but when ripe it becomes hard and woody very much like a cone. The second is that the roots of the Alder grow nodules that house nitrifying bacteria which enables these trees to grow well in bare or poor soils that lack the nitrates the plants need to survive. When the leaves of the trees fall each year and decay they enrich the soil, this enables other tree species to eventually grow in these once uninhabitable areas as well.. Red and Gray Alders are commonly planted along the edges of newly constructed roads and in quarry spoils for this very reason. In its native growth range, the Alder is commonly seen as one of the first signs of new growth in previously burned or logged forests. They are also usefully grown along the banks of rivers and ponds as their root systems will extend down into the water creating a stronger bank and helping with erosion control.
The Alders wood is durable in water, it is hard and dense in quality. The wood is also used to make charcoal for gunpowder. It has been used for both bank and canal construction. It is recorded in Welsch Mythology that the Alder fought in the great "Battle of Trees" against the dark spirits of the underworld. When cut the wood of the Alder turns from white to red which is said to signify the tree is bleeding.
Native Americans not only made tools and utensils from the Alders wood but they also extracted and used the red dye from it's wood as well. Twigs, leaf buds, leaves and catkins (both male and female) all have medicinal purposes. | <urn:uuid:44b4c7f2-ed00-4019-9cc9-f12d9e61cd6c> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://arundeltreeservice.meetatree.com/2015/03/meet-alder-tree.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251773463.72/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128030221-20200128060221-00153.warc.gz | en | 0.981901 | 539 | 3.375 | 3 | [
0.05361190438270569,
0.007916957139968872,
0.0734277218580246,
-0.09213760495185852,
0.3636321425437927,
-0.2957584261894226,
-0.007498252671211958,
-0.28967875242233276,
-0.05600858852267265,
0.31854212284088135,
0.49671298265457153,
-0.47706323862075806,
-0.08983400464057922,
0.129909843... | 1 | Have you ever wondered about the trees around you? What are their names? What makes them each unique? What resources do they provide? How do they benefit our lives?
Our blog was created to help you "Meet A Tree", learn about how every tree is as unique and individual as you and I!
Monday, March 23, 2015
Meet The "Alder" Tree
Alder trees are a very small group of trees and shrub, made up of only 30 varieties most of which are native to the Northern temperate areas. Ten of which are native specifically to North America half of these can be grown as either shrubs or trees. As a whole, Alders rarely grown to over 70 feet tall. They are relatively fast growers and are short lived not recorded to live very often beyond 100 years.Alders are considered part of the larger Birch family since they are very similar in habit and appearance, however there are two things that set them apart from Birch trees. The first is the fruit of the Alder not only resembles a small cone, but when ripe it becomes hard and woody very much like a cone. The second is that the roots of the Alder grow nodules that house nitrifying bacteria which enables these trees to grow well in bare or poor soils that lack the nitrates the plants need to survive. When the leaves of the trees fall each year and decay they enrich the soil, this enables other tree species to eventually grow in these once uninhabitable areas as well.. Red and Gray Alders are commonly planted along the edges of newly constructed roads and in quarry spoils for this very reason. In its native growth range, the Alder is commonly seen as one of the first signs of new growth in previously burned or logged forests. They are also usefully grown along the banks of rivers and ponds as their root systems will extend down into the water creating a stronger bank and helping with erosion control.
The Alders wood is durable in water, it is hard and dense in quality. The wood is also used to make charcoal for gunpowder. It has been used for both bank and canal construction. It is recorded in Welsch Mythology that the Alder fought in the great "Battle of Trees" against the dark spirits of the underworld. When cut the wood of the Alder turns from white to red which is said to signify the tree is bleeding.
Native Americans not only made tools and utensils from the Alders wood but they also extracted and used the red dye from it's wood as well. Twigs, leaf buds, leaves and catkins (both male and female) all have medicinal purposes. | 548 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Remembering the Montgomery Bus Boycott
Today is an important date in civil rights history. Eighty-nine African-Americans, including Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa Parks, voluntarily turned themselves in to authorities in Montgomery, Alabama, on Feb. 22, 1956, after being indicted under a 1921 law “prohibiting conspiracies that interfered with lawful business.”
The statute, designed to break trade union action, outlawed boycotts against businesses without “just cause.” UAW President Walter Reuther was an avid supporter of civil rights at a time when people didn’t always speak out in support. Reuther was later a friend of Martin Luther King, Jr. and the UAW supported the movement in many ways, including paying bail and court costs for those arrested for the cause.
Authorities charged Martin Luther King, Jr. with organizing the black community to boycott the buses in Montgomery, which was already in its third month.
The boycott was needed because the town’s segregation laws allowed separate areas on buses for black and white passengers and required black passengers to give up their seats for whites if seats were needed.
In addition, the segregation line within the bus would change intermittently so that if more white passengers boarded, the bus driver would move the signs. Black passengers sitting inside of this new boundary would have to move again.
Black passengers were often not permitted to offend and pass by the white section of the bus, which required them to pay their fare for the ride in the front door by the bus driver, but then leave the bus and re-enter in the black section in the back of the bus. Sometimes, though, bus drivers would take their money and drive away before they had a chance to re-board the bus through the back doors.
Black leaders in the South knew a call to action needed to take place, so they asked Montgomery chapter of the NAACP secretary Rosa Parks to help start the action. Although other women before her refused to give up their seats on buses, Parks was ultimately chosen to lead this crusade. On December 1, she paid her fare and sat down in the black section of the bus just behind the white section. As the bus made its way through its usual stops, it began filling up, and when it was time for more white passengers to board, the bus driver moved the “colored” section sign from in front of Parks to behind her. But she only moved one seat over toward the window and not to a seat in the black section. Police were called and she was arrested.
Later, she said, “As I was being arrested … it was the very last time that I would ever ride in humiliation of this kind…”
On Dec. 4, 1955, plans for the boycott circulated within the black community through churches in the area and on the front page of a black newspaper. The next day, Rosa Parks was tried on charges of disorderly conduct and violation of a local ordinance. Her trial would last only 30 minutes and, after being found guilty, she was fined $10 plus $4 in court costs.
Later that day, 35,000 leaflets were send out urging everybody in the black community to stay off the buses until segregation was eliminated on the buses. Since 75 percent of the city’s bus passengers were African-Americans, the boycott would definitely make an impression on the buses and in the city.
For the next few months, Martin Luther King, Jr. helped the community stay mobilized and motivated as the black community began walking, carpooling, hitchhiking, riding horses, and riding bikes regardless of weather conditions. The movement also bought station wagons and used many volunteer vehicles and drivers to transport the boycotters.
Rosa Parks served as dispatcher answering phones and connecting riders with vehicles.
This second arrest of Rosa Parks is significant to our memories of the civil rights movement because most Americans have attributed these arrest photos to her first arrest on Dec. 1, 1955, for civil disobedience for refusing to move her seat on the bus. These photos, however, were taken after turning herself in for conspiracy charges based on her participation in the Montgomery Bus Boycott.
After 381 days of sacrifice, collaboration and determination, the Montgomery Bus Boycott ended successfully after Alabama bus companies were forced to recognize a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that segregation on public transport was illegal. | <urn:uuid:f91ab178-902c-4576-bb90-a44db241c8c1> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://uaw.org/remembering-the-montgomery-bus-boycott/amp/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251690095.81/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126165718-20200126195718-00011.warc.gz | en | 0.980204 | 893 | 4.15625 | 4 | [
-0.21676407754421234,
-0.05608689785003662,
0.27096283435821533,
0.05942191183567047,
-0.24107244610786438,
0.31053897738456726,
0.4767317771911621,
-0.051528848707675934,
-0.14121878147125244,
0.20454810559749603,
-0.046870701014995575,
0.3217713236808777,
-0.026910074055194855,
0.1516623... | 8 | Remembering the Montgomery Bus Boycott
Today is an important date in civil rights history. Eighty-nine African-Americans, including Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa Parks, voluntarily turned themselves in to authorities in Montgomery, Alabama, on Feb. 22, 1956, after being indicted under a 1921 law “prohibiting conspiracies that interfered with lawful business.”
The statute, designed to break trade union action, outlawed boycotts against businesses without “just cause.” UAW President Walter Reuther was an avid supporter of civil rights at a time when people didn’t always speak out in support. Reuther was later a friend of Martin Luther King, Jr. and the UAW supported the movement in many ways, including paying bail and court costs for those arrested for the cause.
Authorities charged Martin Luther King, Jr. with organizing the black community to boycott the buses in Montgomery, which was already in its third month.
The boycott was needed because the town’s segregation laws allowed separate areas on buses for black and white passengers and required black passengers to give up their seats for whites if seats were needed.
In addition, the segregation line within the bus would change intermittently so that if more white passengers boarded, the bus driver would move the signs. Black passengers sitting inside of this new boundary would have to move again.
Black passengers were often not permitted to offend and pass by the white section of the bus, which required them to pay their fare for the ride in the front door by the bus driver, but then leave the bus and re-enter in the black section in the back of the bus. Sometimes, though, bus drivers would take their money and drive away before they had a chance to re-board the bus through the back doors.
Black leaders in the South knew a call to action needed to take place, so they asked Montgomery chapter of the NAACP secretary Rosa Parks to help start the action. Although other women before her refused to give up their seats on buses, Parks was ultimately chosen to lead this crusade. On December 1, she paid her fare and sat down in the black section of the bus just behind the white section. As the bus made its way through its usual stops, it began filling up, and when it was time for more white passengers to board, the bus driver moved the “colored” section sign from in front of Parks to behind her. But she only moved one seat over toward the window and not to a seat in the black section. Police were called and she was arrested.
Later, she said, “As I was being arrested … it was the very last time that I would ever ride in humiliation of this kind…”
On Dec. 4, 1955, plans for the boycott circulated within the black community through churches in the area and on the front page of a black newspaper. The next day, Rosa Parks was tried on charges of disorderly conduct and violation of a local ordinance. Her trial would last only 30 minutes and, after being found guilty, she was fined $10 plus $4 in court costs.
Later that day, 35,000 leaflets were send out urging everybody in the black community to stay off the buses until segregation was eliminated on the buses. Since 75 percent of the city’s bus passengers were African-Americans, the boycott would definitely make an impression on the buses and in the city.
For the next few months, Martin Luther King, Jr. helped the community stay mobilized and motivated as the black community began walking, carpooling, hitchhiking, riding horses, and riding bikes regardless of weather conditions. The movement also bought station wagons and used many volunteer vehicles and drivers to transport the boycotters.
Rosa Parks served as dispatcher answering phones and connecting riders with vehicles.
This second arrest of Rosa Parks is significant to our memories of the civil rights movement because most Americans have attributed these arrest photos to her first arrest on Dec. 1, 1955, for civil disobedience for refusing to move her seat on the bus. These photos, however, were taken after turning herself in for conspiracy charges based on her participation in the Montgomery Bus Boycott.
After 381 days of sacrifice, collaboration and determination, the Montgomery Bus Boycott ended successfully after Alabama bus companies were forced to recognize a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that segregation on public transport was illegal. | 899 | ENGLISH | 1 |
U PON McKinley's death Theodore Roosevelt, The Vice-President, became President. He was the youngest of all the Presidents, being only forty-two when he came into office.
Mr. Roosevelt was in the mountains with his wife and children when the news that the President was dying was brought to him. At nine o'clock at night he started off on a long drive of thirty-five miles to the railway station. The road was narrow, and steep, and full of mudholes, and the drive through the darkness was one of danger.
A little after five in the morning the station was reached. Here a special train was waiting which carried the Vice-President to Buffalo as fast as might be. But he was too late to see his President in life. For while he was still on his wild drive through the night, President McKinley had passed peacefully to his last rest.
Mr. Roosevelt was the youngest of all presidents, and he brought to the White House a youthful energy and "hustle" such as no President had before. He had strong opinions to which he never hesitated to give voice, and perhaps since Lincoln no President had been so much a dictator.
Perhaps the most interesting thing in Roosevelt's presidency was the beginning of the Panama Canal.
You remember that when Columbus set forth upon the Sea of Darkness his idea was to reach the east by sailing west. And to this day of his death he imagined that he had reached India by sailing westward. But soon men found out the mistake, and then began the search for the North-West Passages by which they might sail past the great Continent, and so reach India.
The North-West Passage, however, proved a delusion. The men turned their attention to the narrow isthmus by which the two vast continents of North and South America are joined. And soon the idea of cutting a canal through this narrow barrier began to be talked of.
But time went on and the Spaniards who held sway over the isthmus did no more than talk. Then an adventurous Scotsman was seized with the idea of founding a colony at Darien. He meant to build a great harbour where all the ships of the world would come. Merchandise was to be carried across the isthmus by camels, and soon his colony would be the key of all the commerce of the world.
Such was his golden dream, but it ended in utter failure.
Still the idea grew. Men of many nations began to discuss the possibility of building the canal. And at length the French got leave from the Government of Colombia and work on the canal was begun. But after working for many years the French gave up the undertaking, which was far more difficult, and had cost far more money than they had expected.
Meanwhile the Americans had become much interested in the scheme, and they had begun to think of cutting a canal through the isthmus at Nicaragua. Then when the French company went bankrupt they offered to sell all their rights to the canal to the United States. There was a good deal of discussion over the matter. For some people thought that the Nicaragua route would be better. But in the end it was agreed to take over the canal already begun, and go with it.
Everything was arranged when the Colombian Senate refused to sign the treaty. By this treaty they were to receive ten million dollars, besides a yearly rent for the land through which the canal ran. But that sum seemed to them now too small, and they refused to sign the treaty unless the money to be paid down should be increased to twenty-five million dollars.
This the United States was unwilling to do. Everything came down to a standstill, and it seemed as if the Panama scheme would have to be given up, when suddenly a new turn was given to affairs. For the people of Panama rose in rebellion against Colombia, and declared themselves a republic.
The United States at once recognised the new republic, and before a month had passed a treaty between the United States and the Republic of Panama was drawn up and signed, and the work on the great canal was begun.
A good many people, however, were not very pleased at the manner in which the struggle had been ended. They thought that the United States ought not to have taken the part of rebels in such haste. But the President was quite satisfied that he had done the right thing, and that it would have been base not to help the new republic.
In 1902 Mr. Roosevelt had become president "by accident." If it had not been for the tragedy of President McKinley's death he would not have come into power, and the thought grieved him somewhat. So when he was again elected President he was quite pleased. For now he felt that he held his great office because the people wanted him, and not because they could not help having him.
Few Presidents have grown so much in popularity after coming into office as Mr. Roosevelt. People felt he was a jolly good fellow, and throughout the length and breadth of the land he was known as "Teddy."
"Who is the head of the Government?" a little girl was asked.
"Mr. Roosevelt," was the reply.
"Yes, but what is his official title?"
"Teddy," answered the little one.
During this presidency Oklahoma was admitted to the Union as the forty-sixth state. Oklahoma is an Indian word meaning Redman. It was part of the Louisiana Purchase, and had been set aside as an Indian reservation. All the land, however, was not occupied and as some of it was exceedingly fertile the white people began to agitate to have it opened to them. So at length the Indians gave up their claim to part of this territory in return for a sum of money.
This was in 1889 and President Harrison proclaimed that at twelve o'clock noon on the 22nd of April the land would be opened for settlement. Long before the day people set out in all directions to the borders of Oklahoma. On the morning of the 22nd of April at least twenty thousand people had gathered on the borders. And as soon as the blowing of a bugle announced that the hour of noon had struck there was a wild rush over the border.
Before darkness fell whole towns were staked out. Yet there was not enough land for all and many had to return home disappointed. The population of Oklahoma went up with a bound but it was not until eighteen years later, in September, 1907, that it was admitted to the Union as a state.
In 1909 William H. Taft became president. Mr. Taft had been Governor of the Philippines, and had shown great tact and firmness in that post. He and President Roosevelt were friends, and Roosevelt did all he could to further his election.
During Mr. Taft's presidency the last two states were admitted to the Union. Ever since the Civil War New Mexico had been seeking admission as a state, and at one time it was proposed to call this state Lincoln. That suggestion, however, came to nothing, and some years later it was proposed to admit New Mexico and Arizona as one state. To this Arizona objected, and at length they were admitted as separate states, New Mexico on the 6th of January and Arizona on the 11th of February, 1912. Both these states were made out of the Mexican Concession and the Gadsden Purchase. | <urn:uuid:d9bbc9dc-216f-463e-af42-301cfde6292f> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://www.gatewaytotheclassics.com/browse/displayitem.php?item=books/marshall/country/taft | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251694071.63/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126230255-20200127020255-00138.warc.gz | en | 0.993804 | 1,509 | 3.5625 | 4 | [
-0.09381899237632751,
0.22887659072875977,
0.4638443887233734,
-0.19851639866828918,
0.16507406532764435,
0.21984361112117767,
0.18009209632873535,
0.10164281725883484,
0.3814556896686554,
-0.24487556517124176,
0.4472498297691345,
-0.045689746737480164,
0.44620445370674133,
0.6097540259361... | 1 | U PON McKinley's death Theodore Roosevelt, The Vice-President, became President. He was the youngest of all the Presidents, being only forty-two when he came into office.
Mr. Roosevelt was in the mountains with his wife and children when the news that the President was dying was brought to him. At nine o'clock at night he started off on a long drive of thirty-five miles to the railway station. The road was narrow, and steep, and full of mudholes, and the drive through the darkness was one of danger.
A little after five in the morning the station was reached. Here a special train was waiting which carried the Vice-President to Buffalo as fast as might be. But he was too late to see his President in life. For while he was still on his wild drive through the night, President McKinley had passed peacefully to his last rest.
Mr. Roosevelt was the youngest of all presidents, and he brought to the White House a youthful energy and "hustle" such as no President had before. He had strong opinions to which he never hesitated to give voice, and perhaps since Lincoln no President had been so much a dictator.
Perhaps the most interesting thing in Roosevelt's presidency was the beginning of the Panama Canal.
You remember that when Columbus set forth upon the Sea of Darkness his idea was to reach the east by sailing west. And to this day of his death he imagined that he had reached India by sailing westward. But soon men found out the mistake, and then began the search for the North-West Passages by which they might sail past the great Continent, and so reach India.
The North-West Passage, however, proved a delusion. The men turned their attention to the narrow isthmus by which the two vast continents of North and South America are joined. And soon the idea of cutting a canal through this narrow barrier began to be talked of.
But time went on and the Spaniards who held sway over the isthmus did no more than talk. Then an adventurous Scotsman was seized with the idea of founding a colony at Darien. He meant to build a great harbour where all the ships of the world would come. Merchandise was to be carried across the isthmus by camels, and soon his colony would be the key of all the commerce of the world.
Such was his golden dream, but it ended in utter failure.
Still the idea grew. Men of many nations began to discuss the possibility of building the canal. And at length the French got leave from the Government of Colombia and work on the canal was begun. But after working for many years the French gave up the undertaking, which was far more difficult, and had cost far more money than they had expected.
Meanwhile the Americans had become much interested in the scheme, and they had begun to think of cutting a canal through the isthmus at Nicaragua. Then when the French company went bankrupt they offered to sell all their rights to the canal to the United States. There was a good deal of discussion over the matter. For some people thought that the Nicaragua route would be better. But in the end it was agreed to take over the canal already begun, and go with it.
Everything was arranged when the Colombian Senate refused to sign the treaty. By this treaty they were to receive ten million dollars, besides a yearly rent for the land through which the canal ran. But that sum seemed to them now too small, and they refused to sign the treaty unless the money to be paid down should be increased to twenty-five million dollars.
This the United States was unwilling to do. Everything came down to a standstill, and it seemed as if the Panama scheme would have to be given up, when suddenly a new turn was given to affairs. For the people of Panama rose in rebellion against Colombia, and declared themselves a republic.
The United States at once recognised the new republic, and before a month had passed a treaty between the United States and the Republic of Panama was drawn up and signed, and the work on the great canal was begun.
A good many people, however, were not very pleased at the manner in which the struggle had been ended. They thought that the United States ought not to have taken the part of rebels in such haste. But the President was quite satisfied that he had done the right thing, and that it would have been base not to help the new republic.
In 1902 Mr. Roosevelt had become president "by accident." If it had not been for the tragedy of President McKinley's death he would not have come into power, and the thought grieved him somewhat. So when he was again elected President he was quite pleased. For now he felt that he held his great office because the people wanted him, and not because they could not help having him.
Few Presidents have grown so much in popularity after coming into office as Mr. Roosevelt. People felt he was a jolly good fellow, and throughout the length and breadth of the land he was known as "Teddy."
"Who is the head of the Government?" a little girl was asked.
"Mr. Roosevelt," was the reply.
"Yes, but what is his official title?"
"Teddy," answered the little one.
During this presidency Oklahoma was admitted to the Union as the forty-sixth state. Oklahoma is an Indian word meaning Redman. It was part of the Louisiana Purchase, and had been set aside as an Indian reservation. All the land, however, was not occupied and as some of it was exceedingly fertile the white people began to agitate to have it opened to them. So at length the Indians gave up their claim to part of this territory in return for a sum of money.
This was in 1889 and President Harrison proclaimed that at twelve o'clock noon on the 22nd of April the land would be opened for settlement. Long before the day people set out in all directions to the borders of Oklahoma. On the morning of the 22nd of April at least twenty thousand people had gathered on the borders. And as soon as the blowing of a bugle announced that the hour of noon had struck there was a wild rush over the border.
Before darkness fell whole towns were staked out. Yet there was not enough land for all and many had to return home disappointed. The population of Oklahoma went up with a bound but it was not until eighteen years later, in September, 1907, that it was admitted to the Union as a state.
In 1909 William H. Taft became president. Mr. Taft had been Governor of the Philippines, and had shown great tact and firmness in that post. He and President Roosevelt were friends, and Roosevelt did all he could to further his election.
During Mr. Taft's presidency the last two states were admitted to the Union. Ever since the Civil War New Mexico had been seeking admission as a state, and at one time it was proposed to call this state Lincoln. That suggestion, however, came to nothing, and some years later it was proposed to admit New Mexico and Arizona as one state. To this Arizona objected, and at length they were admitted as separate states, New Mexico on the 6th of January and Arizona on the 11th of February, 1912. Both these states were made out of the Mexican Concession and the Gadsden Purchase. | 1,503 | ENGLISH | 1 |
On October 1066, the English army under King Harold II was defeated by the Norman-French army of Duke William II of Normandy during the Battle of Hastings. The Normans then established the feudal system in England. All the land which was claimed by William the Conqueror was distributed amongst his fellow Normans as he rewarded them for fighting for him.
His proclamation of England was ruthless as he ordered ruthless killing of all English nobles except two, who turned traitor and helped him. The estates of lands given to his Norman allies were termed as Manors. The lord of each manor in the Middle Ages owed allegiance to the King and he was also answerable to the immediate superior of the King.
Thus, a medieval manor was a district under the control of a lord who had exclusive rights to exercise specific rights and privileges over the territory of his manor. Each of the manors was typically of a size of around 1200-1800 acres of land. The lord used to keep a certain portion of land directly under his control to support himself and his retinue and this land was used to be called as “demense.”
The rest of the land was often allotted to peasants and serfs who were required to pay rent for that land as they were the tenants of the manor. Usually, a manor included a manor house, farming land, forests, common pasture land, a mill, a village for serfs and peasants, and a church. The manor and his family used to live at the manor house away from the villagers.
Lord of the manor
Every lord of a manor had specific privileges over his manor but he had certain duties towards the king. He had to take the Oath of Fealty and was expected to follow it to his immediate superior and to the king. Every lord was expected to possess trained soldiers and he was expected to fight and to provide soldiers for the King or his immediate superior. On the other hand, the whole system of law and justice was under the control of the Lord of the manor. He had a right to allow people to live in his manor and to excommunicate them.
He also used to collect taxes and rent by the peasants and serfs for using the land of his manor. Everyone living on a manor was expected to pay rent to the lord of the manor or to provide certain services, such as, working for any chores required in the manor, working as a trained soldier for the lord of the manor so that he could help the king when it is required, or to provide clothes, arms and food for the soldiers.
A big portion of the land of England was distributed to lords of the manors who used to pay allegiance to the king either through rendering military services or through providing cash in lieu to the king or their immediate superior. Still, around 17% of all manors were preserved by the king for himself. On the other hand, around 25% of all manors were offered to bishoprics and monasteries. These specific manors, which were under the control of the bishoprics and monasteries, were known as ecclesiastic manors. They were significantly greater in size. A manor of middle ages was also known by the name Fief.
Lady of the Manor
During the medieval period, women had a very harsh life. Medieval laws gave complete rights for a husband over his wife, irrespective of her being a noble woman or a serf. A wife was effectively considered as the property of husband. The role of a wife was subservient and her responsibilities were to perform duties of a housewife. However, the Lady of a manor certainly held a different position. The lady of the manor often used to be the most honest and trustworthy companion of the lord of the manor and the lord often used to trust her and offer her the rights to rule and run the manor in his absence. She was considered as an authoritative figure of a manor in middle ages.
The lord of a manor was often expected to remain absent from the manor as he had the duties to pay his allegiance to his immediate successor and the King. In such situations or his absence, the lady of the manor officially held power to rule the manor. The lady of a manor was used to live with the lord in the manor house and she along with the lord of manor used to enjoy specific privileges over the manor which included hunting and judicial rights.
During the medieval period, education was too costly and rare. However, the lords and other members of nobility were expected to learn and get educated. Even the girls of nobility were offered the chance to get educated as they were expected to fulfill the duties of the lady of a manor in future. However, the education course of girls and women was very limited. They were basically taught the duties of a noble lady. Often this education was provided by the great ladies of noble households. Nunneries were also used to teach basic education for noble girls and ladies of manors.
Peasants of a manor
The lord of a manor used to allot land for peasants. A peasant used to have allotted land in small strips where he could till and grow crops. Each peasant was required to pay rents for that land; however, each peasant also had certain rights over the non-arable land of the manor.
As for example, he could cut a limited amount of hay from the waste land, and he could also cut wood from the forest of the manor to use it for fuel or building purposes. The peasants also had right to have a limited number of farm animals on the waste land. However, hunting rights were specifically meant for the lord of the manor and hunting was prohibited for serfs and peasants. | <urn:uuid:4c895762-5098-4118-8b85-b9229a8c46a4> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.thefinertimes.com/Middle-Ages/manors-in-the-middle-ages.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250619323.41/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124100832-20200124125832-00177.warc.gz | en | 0.992771 | 1,190 | 4.25 | 4 | [
-0.4583238959312439,
0.5548747777938843,
-0.046863194555044174,
-0.28932198882102966,
-0.07254092395305634,
-0.29539430141448975,
0.327107310295105,
-0.14960776269435883,
0.1481216698884964,
0.1354389488697052,
-0.11301548779010773,
-0.5057272911071777,
0.5467357039451599,
0.18265345692634... | 1 | On October 1066, the English army under King Harold II was defeated by the Norman-French army of Duke William II of Normandy during the Battle of Hastings. The Normans then established the feudal system in England. All the land which was claimed by William the Conqueror was distributed amongst his fellow Normans as he rewarded them for fighting for him.
His proclamation of England was ruthless as he ordered ruthless killing of all English nobles except two, who turned traitor and helped him. The estates of lands given to his Norman allies were termed as Manors. The lord of each manor in the Middle Ages owed allegiance to the King and he was also answerable to the immediate superior of the King.
Thus, a medieval manor was a district under the control of a lord who had exclusive rights to exercise specific rights and privileges over the territory of his manor. Each of the manors was typically of a size of around 1200-1800 acres of land. The lord used to keep a certain portion of land directly under his control to support himself and his retinue and this land was used to be called as “demense.”
The rest of the land was often allotted to peasants and serfs who were required to pay rent for that land as they were the tenants of the manor. Usually, a manor included a manor house, farming land, forests, common pasture land, a mill, a village for serfs and peasants, and a church. The manor and his family used to live at the manor house away from the villagers.
Lord of the manor
Every lord of a manor had specific privileges over his manor but he had certain duties towards the king. He had to take the Oath of Fealty and was expected to follow it to his immediate superior and to the king. Every lord was expected to possess trained soldiers and he was expected to fight and to provide soldiers for the King or his immediate superior. On the other hand, the whole system of law and justice was under the control of the Lord of the manor. He had a right to allow people to live in his manor and to excommunicate them.
He also used to collect taxes and rent by the peasants and serfs for using the land of his manor. Everyone living on a manor was expected to pay rent to the lord of the manor or to provide certain services, such as, working for any chores required in the manor, working as a trained soldier for the lord of the manor so that he could help the king when it is required, or to provide clothes, arms and food for the soldiers.
A big portion of the land of England was distributed to lords of the manors who used to pay allegiance to the king either through rendering military services or through providing cash in lieu to the king or their immediate superior. Still, around 17% of all manors were preserved by the king for himself. On the other hand, around 25% of all manors were offered to bishoprics and monasteries. These specific manors, which were under the control of the bishoprics and monasteries, were known as ecclesiastic manors. They were significantly greater in size. A manor of middle ages was also known by the name Fief.
Lady of the Manor
During the medieval period, women had a very harsh life. Medieval laws gave complete rights for a husband over his wife, irrespective of her being a noble woman or a serf. A wife was effectively considered as the property of husband. The role of a wife was subservient and her responsibilities were to perform duties of a housewife. However, the Lady of a manor certainly held a different position. The lady of the manor often used to be the most honest and trustworthy companion of the lord of the manor and the lord often used to trust her and offer her the rights to rule and run the manor in his absence. She was considered as an authoritative figure of a manor in middle ages.
The lord of a manor was often expected to remain absent from the manor as he had the duties to pay his allegiance to his immediate successor and the King. In such situations or his absence, the lady of the manor officially held power to rule the manor. The lady of a manor was used to live with the lord in the manor house and she along with the lord of manor used to enjoy specific privileges over the manor which included hunting and judicial rights.
During the medieval period, education was too costly and rare. However, the lords and other members of nobility were expected to learn and get educated. Even the girls of nobility were offered the chance to get educated as they were expected to fulfill the duties of the lady of a manor in future. However, the education course of girls and women was very limited. They were basically taught the duties of a noble lady. Often this education was provided by the great ladies of noble households. Nunneries were also used to teach basic education for noble girls and ladies of manors.
Peasants of a manor
The lord of a manor used to allot land for peasants. A peasant used to have allotted land in small strips where he could till and grow crops. Each peasant was required to pay rents for that land; however, each peasant also had certain rights over the non-arable land of the manor.
As for example, he could cut a limited amount of hay from the waste land, and he could also cut wood from the forest of the manor to use it for fuel or building purposes. The peasants also had right to have a limited number of farm animals on the waste land. However, hunting rights were specifically meant for the lord of the manor and hunting was prohibited for serfs and peasants. | 1,194 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Essential to the Conduct of the War
The horse was essential during the Civil War era. It not only carried thousands of men into battle but pulled artillery pieces throughout the war. Countless wagons full of supplies were pulled by horses as well.
It is reported that the Union army alone used over 850,000 horses during the conflict. This figure does not include the animals confiscated from farmers. The cost to the Union is said to be in the neighborhood of $124,000,000. No Union cavalryman had to supply his own mount.
Complete records for the Confederacy are not available. But it is reliably reported that a Confederate trooper had to supply his own horse. Should a rebel cavalryman lose his mount, he became an infantryman.
Artillery use was the worst duty assigned horses on either side. Each gun was pulled by six horses. Each gun also had three ammunition chests pulled by another six horses. Twelve horses were assigned each gun and its crew.
During any battle, horses remained in harness some thirty or forty feet behind their cannon. Horses were regular targets whenever they came within musket range of the enemy. When a horse was killed, it was necessary for the men to remove all the harnesses and transfer them to a living horse. Sometimes, the horses were wounded or killed faster than the harnesses could be switched.
Our most common image is that of a horse ridden my an individual. Such a trooper and his mount could cover about 35 miles a day without seriously taxing the horse or his rider. Normally, the pair could travel four miles an hour at a walk and sixteen miles an hour at a gallop. During marches the trooper would ride for an hour at a walk and then walk alongside his mount for fifteen minutes or so.
On a raid, however, both the horse and its rider were severely taxed. They would normally travel as fast as possible without a stop. Thus, many horses were lost to exhaustion, dehydration and hunger. In such circumstances, horses were not given time to recover their strength. Instead, once exhausted, they were shot on the spot rather than be left and thereafter used by the enemy.
The most common disability suffered by the military horse was lameness. These were usually hoof problems. Such a problem could be caused by stone bruise, hoof rot, grease-heel or an infected hoof. A trooper’s lack of daily attention to his mount was the most common cause of lameness. Sore back was another common problem. Once again, poor care by a trooper was the cause. In combat zones, rather than wait for the horse to recover from such ailments or wounds, it was shot.
War in the West: The Opening Attack
The second target in the Grant/Foote attack plan was Fort Donelson. As you can see from the map, this fort was a short march to the East from Fort Henry for Grant’s force of about 15,000 men. Captain Foote moved his fleet from the Tennessee to the Cumberland River in order to play his part in the attack.
This time, however his fleet would not command the battle. The guns of Fort Donelson did serious damage to his flotilla. The capture of this fort would therefore be a job for the army. Grant was not able to head his force in that direction until Feb. 12, 1862. By this time his army had grown to 25,000 men. Besides strength of numbers, Grant had another advantage. The Confederate defenders were led by two political appointees of CSA President Davis: Generals Pillow and Floyd. Neither man had any military experience.
Even with this weak leadership, Fort Donelson would be more difficult to capture than Fort Henry. It had a strong position on the Cumberland River, extensive armament and almost 15,000 defenders. Never-the-less, Grant intended to move against the fort as soon as all his troops were in position.
On February 14th, Captain Foote sailed his fleet of ironclads and timber clad vessels withing 350 yards of the fort. Moving on swift water and well below the plunging fire of its guns, Foote’s ships suffered such serious damage that all of them had to be withdrawn. In fact, Foote’s ship the St. Louis was hit so badly that it had to be withdrawn from the fight and seek repairs.
Meanwhile, Grant’s force began to dig in, surrounding the fort.
Before he could complete his arrangements, however, CSA General Floyd ordered an attack against the weakest part of Grant’s position. This attack was designed to forge an escape route away from Donelson and a path toward Nashville for the surrounded army. After what has been described as fierce fighting, the Confederates were successful. But instead of taking advantage of the opening, thus saving the Confederate army, CSA General Pillow suddenly, and without explanation, ordered a withdrawal to the safety of the fort instead.
Grant moved quickly to close the opening in his lines and ordered a general attack of his own. As a result, the original lines were re-established. Generals Floyd and Pillow then decided to flee and to surrender their army and the fort to Grant. They left General Buckner in charge with orders to stay and handle the surrender. Col. Nathan Bedford Forrest refused to surrender and escaped to Nashville with is cavalry.
When General Buckner asked for terms, Grand replied, “No terms except unconditional and immediate surrender can be accepted. I propose to move immediately upon your works.” Buckner had no choice, he agreed to surrender his command and the fort to Grant. So, on February 16th, 1862 the two men met at the Dover Hotel to formalize the surrender.
The cost of the surrender and the effect it had on the Confederacy was profound:
- An entire army of almost 15,000 soldiers was taken prisoner and sent to Federal prisons in the North. (This was the largest number of prisoners taken up to that point in the war.)
- Both the Tennessee and the Cumberland Rivers came under Union control and were therefore open to Northern traffic once again.
- Nashville, the capital of Tennessee, a vital manufacturing and rail center had to be abandoned by Confederate forces on February 23 rd and was occupied by Federal troops on February 24th.
- Columbus, KY and the Confederate fort there dominating the Mississippi River had to be abandoned.
- By capturing Forts Henry and Donelson, Confederate General Albert Sidney Johnston had to move his forces out of Kentucky, abandon Nashville and move his defensive line south to Corinth, Mississippi. Thus Grant’s victory had forced the Confederates to give up all hope of controlling Kentucky as well as virtually all of Middle and Western Tennessee.
Confederate General Albert Sidney Johnston said the loss was, ‘disastrous and almost without remedy.”
The Northern press hailed this first Northern victory of the war and dubbed Grant, “Unconditional Surrender Grant.” He became an overnight hero in the North.
The Road to Pittsburg Landing, Tennessee (Shiloh)
Following the smashing Union victory at Fort Donelson, Grant had several daunting tasks before him.
- After accepting the surrender of an entire Confederate army, Grant had to accommodate almost 15,000 prisoners.
- Grant and his staff also had to re-organize his victorious army and prepare it to move further South.
- Grant was ordered to return 5,000 troops he had been ‘loaned’ from Buell’s army for the Donelson campaign.
- Grant had to move his 25,000 man army to Pittsburg Landing as ordered. And, once there, await the arrival of General Buell’s army coming from Nashville, Tennessee.
Once at Pittsburg Landing, did Grant and his commanders properly protect his army from attack? The Union camp was established between two bodies of water. Thousands of white Sibly tents were set up on the dry strip of land between them.
Had a defensive line been ordered at the southern end of that land, that position would have been nearly impregnable. Using ditches, embrasures, artillery batteries, abates with cleared fields of fire an attack from that direction would have been foolish. But none of that defensive work was ordered.
When asked, after the attack Grant and Sherman said that they decided to use the time for drill instead of constructing a defensive position. Even the overall commander General Halleck had suggested that constructing defensive positions might send a message of fear to the Union troops.
To make matters worse, when reports of suspicious enemy activity from the South was given to Sherman and his staff, he castigated the officers reporting. When such reports continued to be made, he threatened to arrest those giving the reports.
Meanwhile, General Grant was residing down river a few miles at the Cherry mansion. On the Sunday morning of April 6th, he had just sat down to breakfast when the sound of Confederate artillery was heard. He put his coffee cup down and left immediately for his command ship, the Tigress for the two hour trip upstream for Pittsburg Landing.
Subsequent to the battle, a Northern news report claimed that he was drunk when the battle began. This was a claim that he and members of his staff denied. But, his commander, General Halleck believed the news report.
Years later, Mrs. Cherry, mistress of the Cherry Mansion and a Confederate sympathizer, who was present at breakfast with Grant the morning of April 6, 1862 replied to a question on this subject. She wrote,
You letter of inquiry concerning ‘Gen. Grant’s physical condition on the morning of the battle of Shiloh began, is received. You will please accept my assurance, gladly given, that on the date mentioned I believe Gen. Grant was thoroughly sober. He was at my breakfast table when he heard the report from a cannon. Holding, untasted, a cup of coffee, he paused in conversation to listen a moment at the report of another cannon. He hastily arose, saying to his staff officer, “Gentlemen, the ball is in motion, let’s be off.”
The lack of defensive preparations and the discounting of enemy activity reports made it possible for Confederate forces to surprise the Union forces at Pittsburg Landing. The element of surprise only added to the effectiveness of the surprise attack that inflicted horrendous causalities during the initial few hours of the battle.
Next: The Shiloh Battle
CONSEQUENCES OF THE LOSS
After the fall of Forts Henry and Donelson, everything changed in the Western Theater.
As you follow the white line on the map below, you can see that Confederate General Albert Sidney Johnston felt it necessary to withdraw all his troops from Kentucky. In effect, that state was lost to the Confederacy and the Ohio River would never again be the Northern border of the Confederacy.
In addition, General Johnston felt it necessary to continue his withdrawal further South. By doing so, he had to also abandon Nashville, Tennessee. This was not only the capital of that state but was also an major industrial and railroad center.
With this withdrawal, the Confederacy also lost Fort Columbus dominating the Northern reaches of the Mississippi River, all of western Tennessee in addition to losing control of both the Tennessee and the Cumberland Rivers.
In effect, Johnston had to establish a new northern border for the Confederacy. By doing so, he also established a new line of defense that stretched from Chattanooga, TE in the East to Corinth, Mississippi in the West. A massive amount of land and resources were thus lost to the Confederacy with the fall of Fort Donelson.
PREPARATIONS FOR RECOVERY
Then Johnston moved his forces to the rail center at Corinth, Mississippi. He and his second in command General Beauregard, gathered men and equipment there from as far away as New Orleans. This was in preparation for an assault on Grant’s army forming twenty some miles away at Pittsburgh Landing, TE. General Johnston was determined to regain the initiative and the lost territory.
Johnston believed he could attack and destroy Grant’s 25,000 man army gathering there. To accomplish that, he had to attack Grant before Union General Buell’s 25,000 man army from the East could join him. So, in March, General Johnston gathered a force equal to Grants at Corinth. (see the map I sent you earlier for an overview of the area)
As plans for his attack were being determined, General Beauregard suggested postponing the attack until the size of their force could be increased. Johnston refused to wait and replied,
“I would attack them even if they were a million.”
All was not well on the Union side either. Not all of Grant’s superior’s were pleased with all the accolades he was receiving after the victory at Fort Donelson. President Lincoln, on the other hand, was happy that he had at last found a general who was willing and able to fight. But Grant’s immediate superior, General Halleck was irritated with Grant’s notoriety and found fault with Grant’s paperwork. He wrote to his superior in Washington City, General McClellan and accused Grant of ‘neglect and inefficiency’. He also accused Grant of returning to his old habit of heavy drinking.
Grant further irritated his superiors by suggesting that he be allowed to send troops to occupy Nashville, TE recently abandoned by the Confederates. His request was denied by General Halleck. Instead, he was ordered to return the 5,000 troops he had been ‘loaned’ from General Buell’s force for the attack on Fort Donelson.
When he received that order, he was on his command ship, the Tigress. Grand considered his options with his staff. He dismissed the notion of disobeying his superior’s order and moving on Nashville himself. He also had to obey the direct order to return the ‘borrowed’ 5,000 men to General Buell.
Grant decided to return the ‘borrowed’ forces to General Buell by sending that force to Nashville to await Buell’s arrival. Thus, Grant obeyed his superior’s order and captured Nashville for the Union without firing a shot. The Northern press loved it, and so did Lincoln. Neither Buell or Halleck liked Grant’s slight of hand move.
Lincoln Steps In
Halleck complained to his superior again about Grant and was reminded that he could always relieve Grant of command or court martial him. Halleck chose to remove Grant from command. Lincoln got wind of it and ordered Halleck to either bring charges against Grant or restore him to command. It seems that Lincoln knew of the jealousy behind the affair and did not want to lose the only successful fighting general he had in either the East or the West.
“I can’t spare that man,” Lincoln was heard to comment at the time. “He fights.”
So, on March 13, 1862 General Grant was returned to his command. He now found himself at Pittsburg Landing, Tennessee (Shiloh) in charge of organizing the largest army the war had yet seen.
The stage was being set for the bloodiest battle of the Civil War up to that time.
General Grant and Cigar Smoking
It is generally known that General U.S. Grant smoked cigars. During the Civil War period, cigars, pipes and chew were the popular forms of using tobacco. When the war began, Grant enjoyed an occasional cigar.
And when he led the Union forces to victory at Fort Donelson in February 1862, he became a much-publicized hero in the Northern press. At that time, he was pictured in the press during the fighting clenching a cigar in his teeth. So, it was natural that people thought he liked to smoke cigars.
“I had been a light smoker before the attack on Fort Donelson.” He said to an aide. “(But) in the accounts published in the papers, I was represented as smoking a cigar in the midst of the conflict; and many persons, thinking, no doubt, that tobacco was my chief solace, sent me boxes of the choicest brands… As many as ten thousand were soon received. I have away all I could get ride of, but having such a quantity on hand, I naturally smoked more than I would have done under ordinary circumstances, and I have continued ever since.”
His popularity grew when it was reported that General Ulysses S. Grant demanded of the Confederate commander at Ft. Donelson, unconditional surrender of the fort and his 15,000 man army Thereafter, Grant was called ‘Unconditional Surrender Grant.’
The flood of cigars continued. So did his smoking.
He is said to have continued chain smoking cigars while he was President of the United States. Shortly after leaving office, he was diagnosed as having cancer of the mouth/tongue. He died a few days after finishing his hand written memoirs.
Instant Foods During the War
In response to wartime problems of transportation and food preservation, enterprising inventors responded to meet this twin wartime emergency.
The first of these problems involved coffee. Union soldiers loved their cup of coffee. But transporting the bulky coffee beans and sugar was a problem. It took too much space in the transportation system used at the time. So, early in the war Secretary of War Cameron sent out a call for a solution. Three proposals to solve the problem are described below.
The most expensive proposal was a process invented by a Professor W. L. Tilden called, Extract of Coffee. His process cost $3.11 per gallon. Another proposal was offered by the American Desicating Company at #3.00 per gallon. The Bordon Company offered a third solution at $2.66 per gallon. All three included sugar. Bordon included it’s milk concentrate as well.
The advantage of all three products was that it used only 45% of the shipping space taken by green coffee beans/sugar The concentrate also weighed only half as much as the raw beans. Thus, the individual soldier found these products much easier to carry.
All three products were tested in the field with soldiers. Tilden’s extract was greeted with enthusiasm in the volunteer regiment where it was tested. It was said that his product,
“…ensured the soldier, on the march or in camp, a supply of coffee as good as could be procured at a first rate hotel.”
Despite its higher cost, Tilden’s proposal was adopted for widespread use by the Union’s military. I was not able to find any mention of what might have gone on behind the scene in the selection process. It is known, however that Secretary of War Cameron was removed from office by President Lincoln after charges of graft surfaced early in the war.
The second problem was that of the need for fresh vegetables. Given the seasonal nature of most vegetables and the additional difficulty of trainspotting them, Union soldiers lacked vegetables in their diets.
Military around the world had always had a problem providing fresh vegetables for their troops. Vegetables spoiled quickly and were heavy and hard to transport when available. So, as early as the Crimean War , a product called desiccated vegetables was developed and issued to the troops involved in that conflict.
The Union adopted its use in Utah before the Civil War began. The product was a mixture of potatoes, cabbage, turnips, carrots, parsnips, beets, tomatoes, onions, peas, beans, lentils and celery. These raw vegetables were cleaned, shredded and mixed. The mixture was put under pressure in a massive press to compress the mix thus moving the juices. The compressed blocks were then dried in large ovens. The resulting blocks were ‘hard as a rock’ but were expected to soften when boiled. It was claimed that a cubic yard of desiccated vegetables would contain 16,000 servings.
But the troops were not impressed with the products, however. One soldier wrote home that:
“We have boiled, fried, stewed, pickled, sweetened, salted and tried this stuff in puddings, cakes and pies. But it sets all modes of cooking in defiance so the boys break it up and smoke it in their pipes.”
Others were said to have called the concoction, ‘desecrated vegetables’.
Civil War Christmas
The Civil War did not stop for Christmas. However, as was customary in 1861, major military activity usually had stopped for the winter months. (note: fighting did not stop in the East after Grant took over.)
Soldiers on both sides of the conflict did not receive special rations to celebrate Christmas. Many charitable groups sent holiday rations to their troops, though. Officers on both sides sometimes provided treats like foul, holiday fixings and even alcohol for their men.
Christmas trees found their way into tents. Such trees were often decorated with makeshift ornaments by soldiers. Church services were provided in camps to celebrate the birth of Jesus.
Nevertheless, hundreds of thousands of families on both sides were separated during the Christmas season. And, most every family had at least one empty chair at their Christmas dinner.
Military bands played Christmas music and soldiers sang traditional songs. The favorites were, “Deck the Halls, Oh Come All Ye Faithful, Hark the Herald angels, Jingle Bells, It came Upon a Midnight Clear, and We Three Kings.”
Sometimes, men would receive a package from home. usually these were shared with others in their unit. Southern children were told that Santa would not come for Christmas because of the Yankee blockade.
General Sherman sent President Lincoln a greeting in December of 1864 announcing the capture of the Southern city of Savannah, Georgia. He said it was his Christmas present to the President.
Once General Halleck approved the Gen Grant & naval Capt. Foote joint operation to attack Fort Henry on the Tennessee River and Fort Donelson on the Cumberland River, he gave the project all his support. He even transferred 5,000 men to Grants land force from General Buell’s army.
The stakes were high. At stake for the Confederates was their entire position in Kentucky, control of Nashville, Tennessee and the two major rivers commanded by the forts under attack, the fortified position on the Mississippi at Columbus, KY, control of the Memphis – Charleston railroad in the West and potentially a large area of land extending East to Chattanooga, Tennessee and south to the Cotton States.
Grant had difficulty finding adequate transport for his approximate 15,000 man force. Divided into two divisions, he could only move one at a time into position for his move on Fort Henry. that and bad roads ans streams swollen by spring flooding showed him down. So, naval Capt. Andrew Foote began the attack on Feb. 6th, 1862 against Fort Henry without infantry support.
His ironclads led the attack firing directly into the fort. The timber- clads under his command followed in line to lob mortar shells into Fort Henry. In short order the fort’s building and tents were ablaze and only four of it’s eleven guns remained in operation. But, the Confederates gave as good as they got, damaging several of the Federal boats. Facing the arrival of Grands force though, the Confederate commander General Tilghman ordered the white flag of surrender raised and directed his soldiers who remained fit for duty to leave for Fort Donelson twelve miles away.
Several of Capt Foote’s boats had been damaged seriously enough during the fight to be withdrawn and repaired. They would not be available for the attack on Fort Donelson located on the Cumberland River. So, while the victory at Fort Henry had been a naval victory, the infantry under Gen. Grant would have to lead the assault on Fort Donelson.
Just to let you know, I just mailed out eight books from the seven book Civil War series, the Drieborg Chronicles. all of them were purchased from the web site www.civilwarnovels.com and Pay Pal. Amazon notified me that another seventeen books from this series were purchased and shipped by them to buyers.
Check out purchases from this series for Christmas. If you are getting one or more of these books as a first time gift, start with the novel 1860, then Duty and Honor, Duty Accomplished, Honor Restored, The Lincoln Assassination, The Way West and finally Civil War Prisons.
The River War 1861 – 1862
General Winfield Scott’s plan to defeat the Confederate States needed a river navy to succeed in the West and an ocean navy to succeed in the East. In the last blog, I outlined the creation of the Brown River Navy with the building of the Pook boats under the direction of an engineer named Eads. Before those boats were delivered at the end of 1861, steam driven river paddle boats were refitted to carry troops & supplies with others armed with mortars and artillery to support military activity on the Western rivers.
The first of such military activity was on September 3rd, 1861 at Columbus, KY when CSA General Polk occupied the eastern bluffs at this site to dominate the Mississippi River just south of Cairo, IL
Then, on September 6th, under orders from General Fremont, General Grant took a force up the Ohio River and occupied Paducah, KY. Located on the Ohio River. The fort at Paducah gave the Union control of the exits of the Ohio, Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers. Grant’s force occupied the city and it’s dominating fort without firing a shot. His move preceded a Confederate force that was just sixteen miles East, moving to take the river city for the CSA.
Subsequently, General Fremont was replace by General Halleck. Not a Grant supporter, Halleck non-the-less ordered Grant to attack Confederate forces at Belmont, MO south of Cairo, Ill. It was on the West side of the 800 yard wide Mississippi River across from the Confederate stronghold of Columbus, KY.
So, Grant loaded his troops on converted river boats and moved his force South from Cairo, IL.. They unloaded north of Belmont early in the morning and surprised the Confederate force there. Grant’s force was later repulsed, retreating to the river where they left the area on their river transports under the protective fire of Union gunboats.
Back in Washington City, President Lincoln was pressing for more action in the Western theater. General Halleck, much like his superior General-in-Chief McClellan hesitated to attack Confederate positions in his theater of operations. General Grant proposed an attack on Forts Henry and Donelson.
See the map I sent you earlier.
Capturing these two positions for the Union would be catastrophic for the CSA’s war strategy in the West. Never-the-less, Halleck denied Grant permission to proceed. We will cover this issue in a future blog. | <urn:uuid:8715f95a-1102-4805-a0da-c06b9862442a> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://civilwarnovels.com/news-and-reviews/page/2/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251789055.93/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129071944-20200129101944-00120.warc.gz | en | 0.982201 | 5,617 | 3.9375 | 4 | [
-0.5013858079910278,
0.04876093566417694,
0.6335090398788452,
0.24716980755329132,
-0.2677178978919983,
0.03155670315027237,
0.16459408402442932,
0.4714452922344208,
-0.00031307153403759,
0.20885638892650604,
0.01284004095941782,
-0.021813899278640747,
0.44867944717407227,
0.53756237030029... | 2 | Essential to the Conduct of the War
The horse was essential during the Civil War era. It not only carried thousands of men into battle but pulled artillery pieces throughout the war. Countless wagons full of supplies were pulled by horses as well.
It is reported that the Union army alone used over 850,000 horses during the conflict. This figure does not include the animals confiscated from farmers. The cost to the Union is said to be in the neighborhood of $124,000,000. No Union cavalryman had to supply his own mount.
Complete records for the Confederacy are not available. But it is reliably reported that a Confederate trooper had to supply his own horse. Should a rebel cavalryman lose his mount, he became an infantryman.
Artillery use was the worst duty assigned horses on either side. Each gun was pulled by six horses. Each gun also had three ammunition chests pulled by another six horses. Twelve horses were assigned each gun and its crew.
During any battle, horses remained in harness some thirty or forty feet behind their cannon. Horses were regular targets whenever they came within musket range of the enemy. When a horse was killed, it was necessary for the men to remove all the harnesses and transfer them to a living horse. Sometimes, the horses were wounded or killed faster than the harnesses could be switched.
Our most common image is that of a horse ridden my an individual. Such a trooper and his mount could cover about 35 miles a day without seriously taxing the horse or his rider. Normally, the pair could travel four miles an hour at a walk and sixteen miles an hour at a gallop. During marches the trooper would ride for an hour at a walk and then walk alongside his mount for fifteen minutes or so.
On a raid, however, both the horse and its rider were severely taxed. They would normally travel as fast as possible without a stop. Thus, many horses were lost to exhaustion, dehydration and hunger. In such circumstances, horses were not given time to recover their strength. Instead, once exhausted, they were shot on the spot rather than be left and thereafter used by the enemy.
The most common disability suffered by the military horse was lameness. These were usually hoof problems. Such a problem could be caused by stone bruise, hoof rot, grease-heel or an infected hoof. A trooper’s lack of daily attention to his mount was the most common cause of lameness. Sore back was another common problem. Once again, poor care by a trooper was the cause. In combat zones, rather than wait for the horse to recover from such ailments or wounds, it was shot.
War in the West: The Opening Attack
The second target in the Grant/Foote attack plan was Fort Donelson. As you can see from the map, this fort was a short march to the East from Fort Henry for Grant’s force of about 15,000 men. Captain Foote moved his fleet from the Tennessee to the Cumberland River in order to play his part in the attack.
This time, however his fleet would not command the battle. The guns of Fort Donelson did serious damage to his flotilla. The capture of this fort would therefore be a job for the army. Grant was not able to head his force in that direction until Feb. 12, 1862. By this time his army had grown to 25,000 men. Besides strength of numbers, Grant had another advantage. The Confederate defenders were led by two political appointees of CSA President Davis: Generals Pillow and Floyd. Neither man had any military experience.
Even with this weak leadership, Fort Donelson would be more difficult to capture than Fort Henry. It had a strong position on the Cumberland River, extensive armament and almost 15,000 defenders. Never-the-less, Grant intended to move against the fort as soon as all his troops were in position.
On February 14th, Captain Foote sailed his fleet of ironclads and timber clad vessels withing 350 yards of the fort. Moving on swift water and well below the plunging fire of its guns, Foote’s ships suffered such serious damage that all of them had to be withdrawn. In fact, Foote’s ship the St. Louis was hit so badly that it had to be withdrawn from the fight and seek repairs.
Meanwhile, Grant’s force began to dig in, surrounding the fort.
Before he could complete his arrangements, however, CSA General Floyd ordered an attack against the weakest part of Grant’s position. This attack was designed to forge an escape route away from Donelson and a path toward Nashville for the surrounded army. After what has been described as fierce fighting, the Confederates were successful. But instead of taking advantage of the opening, thus saving the Confederate army, CSA General Pillow suddenly, and without explanation, ordered a withdrawal to the safety of the fort instead.
Grant moved quickly to close the opening in his lines and ordered a general attack of his own. As a result, the original lines were re-established. Generals Floyd and Pillow then decided to flee and to surrender their army and the fort to Grant. They left General Buckner in charge with orders to stay and handle the surrender. Col. Nathan Bedford Forrest refused to surrender and escaped to Nashville with is cavalry.
When General Buckner asked for terms, Grand replied, “No terms except unconditional and immediate surrender can be accepted. I propose to move immediately upon your works.” Buckner had no choice, he agreed to surrender his command and the fort to Grant. So, on February 16th, 1862 the two men met at the Dover Hotel to formalize the surrender.
The cost of the surrender and the effect it had on the Confederacy was profound:
- An entire army of almost 15,000 soldiers was taken prisoner and sent to Federal prisons in the North. (This was the largest number of prisoners taken up to that point in the war.)
- Both the Tennessee and the Cumberland Rivers came under Union control and were therefore open to Northern traffic once again.
- Nashville, the capital of Tennessee, a vital manufacturing and rail center had to be abandoned by Confederate forces on February 23 rd and was occupied by Federal troops on February 24th.
- Columbus, KY and the Confederate fort there dominating the Mississippi River had to be abandoned.
- By capturing Forts Henry and Donelson, Confederate General Albert Sidney Johnston had to move his forces out of Kentucky, abandon Nashville and move his defensive line south to Corinth, Mississippi. Thus Grant’s victory had forced the Confederates to give up all hope of controlling Kentucky as well as virtually all of Middle and Western Tennessee.
Confederate General Albert Sidney Johnston said the loss was, ‘disastrous and almost without remedy.”
The Northern press hailed this first Northern victory of the war and dubbed Grant, “Unconditional Surrender Grant.” He became an overnight hero in the North.
The Road to Pittsburg Landing, Tennessee (Shiloh)
Following the smashing Union victory at Fort Donelson, Grant had several daunting tasks before him.
- After accepting the surrender of an entire Confederate army, Grant had to accommodate almost 15,000 prisoners.
- Grant and his staff also had to re-organize his victorious army and prepare it to move further South.
- Grant was ordered to return 5,000 troops he had been ‘loaned’ from Buell’s army for the Donelson campaign.
- Grant had to move his 25,000 man army to Pittsburg Landing as ordered. And, once there, await the arrival of General Buell’s army coming from Nashville, Tennessee.
Once at Pittsburg Landing, did Grant and his commanders properly protect his army from attack? The Union camp was established between two bodies of water. Thousands of white Sibly tents were set up on the dry strip of land between them.
Had a defensive line been ordered at the southern end of that land, that position would have been nearly impregnable. Using ditches, embrasures, artillery batteries, abates with cleared fields of fire an attack from that direction would have been foolish. But none of that defensive work was ordered.
When asked, after the attack Grant and Sherman said that they decided to use the time for drill instead of constructing a defensive position. Even the overall commander General Halleck had suggested that constructing defensive positions might send a message of fear to the Union troops.
To make matters worse, when reports of suspicious enemy activity from the South was given to Sherman and his staff, he castigated the officers reporting. When such reports continued to be made, he threatened to arrest those giving the reports.
Meanwhile, General Grant was residing down river a few miles at the Cherry mansion. On the Sunday morning of April 6th, he had just sat down to breakfast when the sound of Confederate artillery was heard. He put his coffee cup down and left immediately for his command ship, the Tigress for the two hour trip upstream for Pittsburg Landing.
Subsequent to the battle, a Northern news report claimed that he was drunk when the battle began. This was a claim that he and members of his staff denied. But, his commander, General Halleck believed the news report.
Years later, Mrs. Cherry, mistress of the Cherry Mansion and a Confederate sympathizer, who was present at breakfast with Grant the morning of April 6, 1862 replied to a question on this subject. She wrote,
You letter of inquiry concerning ‘Gen. Grant’s physical condition on the morning of the battle of Shiloh began, is received. You will please accept my assurance, gladly given, that on the date mentioned I believe Gen. Grant was thoroughly sober. He was at my breakfast table when he heard the report from a cannon. Holding, untasted, a cup of coffee, he paused in conversation to listen a moment at the report of another cannon. He hastily arose, saying to his staff officer, “Gentlemen, the ball is in motion, let’s be off.”
The lack of defensive preparations and the discounting of enemy activity reports made it possible for Confederate forces to surprise the Union forces at Pittsburg Landing. The element of surprise only added to the effectiveness of the surprise attack that inflicted horrendous causalities during the initial few hours of the battle.
Next: The Shiloh Battle
CONSEQUENCES OF THE LOSS
After the fall of Forts Henry and Donelson, everything changed in the Western Theater.
As you follow the white line on the map below, you can see that Confederate General Albert Sidney Johnston felt it necessary to withdraw all his troops from Kentucky. In effect, that state was lost to the Confederacy and the Ohio River would never again be the Northern border of the Confederacy.
In addition, General Johnston felt it necessary to continue his withdrawal further South. By doing so, he had to also abandon Nashville, Tennessee. This was not only the capital of that state but was also an major industrial and railroad center.
With this withdrawal, the Confederacy also lost Fort Columbus dominating the Northern reaches of the Mississippi River, all of western Tennessee in addition to losing control of both the Tennessee and the Cumberland Rivers.
In effect, Johnston had to establish a new northern border for the Confederacy. By doing so, he also established a new line of defense that stretched from Chattanooga, TE in the East to Corinth, Mississippi in the West. A massive amount of land and resources were thus lost to the Confederacy with the fall of Fort Donelson.
PREPARATIONS FOR RECOVERY
Then Johnston moved his forces to the rail center at Corinth, Mississippi. He and his second in command General Beauregard, gathered men and equipment there from as far away as New Orleans. This was in preparation for an assault on Grant’s army forming twenty some miles away at Pittsburgh Landing, TE. General Johnston was determined to regain the initiative and the lost territory.
Johnston believed he could attack and destroy Grant’s 25,000 man army gathering there. To accomplish that, he had to attack Grant before Union General Buell’s 25,000 man army from the East could join him. So, in March, General Johnston gathered a force equal to Grants at Corinth. (see the map I sent you earlier for an overview of the area)
As plans for his attack were being determined, General Beauregard suggested postponing the attack until the size of their force could be increased. Johnston refused to wait and replied,
“I would attack them even if they were a million.”
All was not well on the Union side either. Not all of Grant’s superior’s were pleased with all the accolades he was receiving after the victory at Fort Donelson. President Lincoln, on the other hand, was happy that he had at last found a general who was willing and able to fight. But Grant’s immediate superior, General Halleck was irritated with Grant’s notoriety and found fault with Grant’s paperwork. He wrote to his superior in Washington City, General McClellan and accused Grant of ‘neglect and inefficiency’. He also accused Grant of returning to his old habit of heavy drinking.
Grant further irritated his superiors by suggesting that he be allowed to send troops to occupy Nashville, TE recently abandoned by the Confederates. His request was denied by General Halleck. Instead, he was ordered to return the 5,000 troops he had been ‘loaned’ from General Buell’s force for the attack on Fort Donelson.
When he received that order, he was on his command ship, the Tigress. Grand considered his options with his staff. He dismissed the notion of disobeying his superior’s order and moving on Nashville himself. He also had to obey the direct order to return the ‘borrowed’ 5,000 men to General Buell.
Grant decided to return the ‘borrowed’ forces to General Buell by sending that force to Nashville to await Buell’s arrival. Thus, Grant obeyed his superior’s order and captured Nashville for the Union without firing a shot. The Northern press loved it, and so did Lincoln. Neither Buell or Halleck liked Grant’s slight of hand move.
Lincoln Steps In
Halleck complained to his superior again about Grant and was reminded that he could always relieve Grant of command or court martial him. Halleck chose to remove Grant from command. Lincoln got wind of it and ordered Halleck to either bring charges against Grant or restore him to command. It seems that Lincoln knew of the jealousy behind the affair and did not want to lose the only successful fighting general he had in either the East or the West.
“I can’t spare that man,” Lincoln was heard to comment at the time. “He fights.”
So, on March 13, 1862 General Grant was returned to his command. He now found himself at Pittsburg Landing, Tennessee (Shiloh) in charge of organizing the largest army the war had yet seen.
The stage was being set for the bloodiest battle of the Civil War up to that time.
General Grant and Cigar Smoking
It is generally known that General U.S. Grant smoked cigars. During the Civil War period, cigars, pipes and chew were the popular forms of using tobacco. When the war began, Grant enjoyed an occasional cigar.
And when he led the Union forces to victory at Fort Donelson in February 1862, he became a much-publicized hero in the Northern press. At that time, he was pictured in the press during the fighting clenching a cigar in his teeth. So, it was natural that people thought he liked to smoke cigars.
“I had been a light smoker before the attack on Fort Donelson.” He said to an aide. “(But) in the accounts published in the papers, I was represented as smoking a cigar in the midst of the conflict; and many persons, thinking, no doubt, that tobacco was my chief solace, sent me boxes of the choicest brands… As many as ten thousand were soon received. I have away all I could get ride of, but having such a quantity on hand, I naturally smoked more than I would have done under ordinary circumstances, and I have continued ever since.”
His popularity grew when it was reported that General Ulysses S. Grant demanded of the Confederate commander at Ft. Donelson, unconditional surrender of the fort and his 15,000 man army Thereafter, Grant was called ‘Unconditional Surrender Grant.’
The flood of cigars continued. So did his smoking.
He is said to have continued chain smoking cigars while he was President of the United States. Shortly after leaving office, he was diagnosed as having cancer of the mouth/tongue. He died a few days after finishing his hand written memoirs.
Instant Foods During the War
In response to wartime problems of transportation and food preservation, enterprising inventors responded to meet this twin wartime emergency.
The first of these problems involved coffee. Union soldiers loved their cup of coffee. But transporting the bulky coffee beans and sugar was a problem. It took too much space in the transportation system used at the time. So, early in the war Secretary of War Cameron sent out a call for a solution. Three proposals to solve the problem are described below.
The most expensive proposal was a process invented by a Professor W. L. Tilden called, Extract of Coffee. His process cost $3.11 per gallon. Another proposal was offered by the American Desicating Company at #3.00 per gallon. The Bordon Company offered a third solution at $2.66 per gallon. All three included sugar. Bordon included it’s milk concentrate as well.
The advantage of all three products was that it used only 45% of the shipping space taken by green coffee beans/sugar The concentrate also weighed only half as much as the raw beans. Thus, the individual soldier found these products much easier to carry.
All three products were tested in the field with soldiers. Tilden’s extract was greeted with enthusiasm in the volunteer regiment where it was tested. It was said that his product,
“…ensured the soldier, on the march or in camp, a supply of coffee as good as could be procured at a first rate hotel.”
Despite its higher cost, Tilden’s proposal was adopted for widespread use by the Union’s military. I was not able to find any mention of what might have gone on behind the scene in the selection process. It is known, however that Secretary of War Cameron was removed from office by President Lincoln after charges of graft surfaced early in the war.
The second problem was that of the need for fresh vegetables. Given the seasonal nature of most vegetables and the additional difficulty of trainspotting them, Union soldiers lacked vegetables in their diets.
Military around the world had always had a problem providing fresh vegetables for their troops. Vegetables spoiled quickly and were heavy and hard to transport when available. So, as early as the Crimean War , a product called desiccated vegetables was developed and issued to the troops involved in that conflict.
The Union adopted its use in Utah before the Civil War began. The product was a mixture of potatoes, cabbage, turnips, carrots, parsnips, beets, tomatoes, onions, peas, beans, lentils and celery. These raw vegetables were cleaned, shredded and mixed. The mixture was put under pressure in a massive press to compress the mix thus moving the juices. The compressed blocks were then dried in large ovens. The resulting blocks were ‘hard as a rock’ but were expected to soften when boiled. It was claimed that a cubic yard of desiccated vegetables would contain 16,000 servings.
But the troops were not impressed with the products, however. One soldier wrote home that:
“We have boiled, fried, stewed, pickled, sweetened, salted and tried this stuff in puddings, cakes and pies. But it sets all modes of cooking in defiance so the boys break it up and smoke it in their pipes.”
Others were said to have called the concoction, ‘desecrated vegetables’.
Civil War Christmas
The Civil War did not stop for Christmas. However, as was customary in 1861, major military activity usually had stopped for the winter months. (note: fighting did not stop in the East after Grant took over.)
Soldiers on both sides of the conflict did not receive special rations to celebrate Christmas. Many charitable groups sent holiday rations to their troops, though. Officers on both sides sometimes provided treats like foul, holiday fixings and even alcohol for their men.
Christmas trees found their way into tents. Such trees were often decorated with makeshift ornaments by soldiers. Church services were provided in camps to celebrate the birth of Jesus.
Nevertheless, hundreds of thousands of families on both sides were separated during the Christmas season. And, most every family had at least one empty chair at their Christmas dinner.
Military bands played Christmas music and soldiers sang traditional songs. The favorites were, “Deck the Halls, Oh Come All Ye Faithful, Hark the Herald angels, Jingle Bells, It came Upon a Midnight Clear, and We Three Kings.”
Sometimes, men would receive a package from home. usually these were shared with others in their unit. Southern children were told that Santa would not come for Christmas because of the Yankee blockade.
General Sherman sent President Lincoln a greeting in December of 1864 announcing the capture of the Southern city of Savannah, Georgia. He said it was his Christmas present to the President.
Once General Halleck approved the Gen Grant & naval Capt. Foote joint operation to attack Fort Henry on the Tennessee River and Fort Donelson on the Cumberland River, he gave the project all his support. He even transferred 5,000 men to Grants land force from General Buell’s army.
The stakes were high. At stake for the Confederates was their entire position in Kentucky, control of Nashville, Tennessee and the two major rivers commanded by the forts under attack, the fortified position on the Mississippi at Columbus, KY, control of the Memphis – Charleston railroad in the West and potentially a large area of land extending East to Chattanooga, Tennessee and south to the Cotton States.
Grant had difficulty finding adequate transport for his approximate 15,000 man force. Divided into two divisions, he could only move one at a time into position for his move on Fort Henry. that and bad roads ans streams swollen by spring flooding showed him down. So, naval Capt. Andrew Foote began the attack on Feb. 6th, 1862 against Fort Henry without infantry support.
His ironclads led the attack firing directly into the fort. The timber- clads under his command followed in line to lob mortar shells into Fort Henry. In short order the fort’s building and tents were ablaze and only four of it’s eleven guns remained in operation. But, the Confederates gave as good as they got, damaging several of the Federal boats. Facing the arrival of Grands force though, the Confederate commander General Tilghman ordered the white flag of surrender raised and directed his soldiers who remained fit for duty to leave for Fort Donelson twelve miles away.
Several of Capt Foote’s boats had been damaged seriously enough during the fight to be withdrawn and repaired. They would not be available for the attack on Fort Donelson located on the Cumberland River. So, while the victory at Fort Henry had been a naval victory, the infantry under Gen. Grant would have to lead the assault on Fort Donelson.
Just to let you know, I just mailed out eight books from the seven book Civil War series, the Drieborg Chronicles. all of them were purchased from the web site www.civilwarnovels.com and Pay Pal. Amazon notified me that another seventeen books from this series were purchased and shipped by them to buyers.
Check out purchases from this series for Christmas. If you are getting one or more of these books as a first time gift, start with the novel 1860, then Duty and Honor, Duty Accomplished, Honor Restored, The Lincoln Assassination, The Way West and finally Civil War Prisons.
The River War 1861 – 1862
General Winfield Scott’s plan to defeat the Confederate States needed a river navy to succeed in the West and an ocean navy to succeed in the East. In the last blog, I outlined the creation of the Brown River Navy with the building of the Pook boats under the direction of an engineer named Eads. Before those boats were delivered at the end of 1861, steam driven river paddle boats were refitted to carry troops & supplies with others armed with mortars and artillery to support military activity on the Western rivers.
The first of such military activity was on September 3rd, 1861 at Columbus, KY when CSA General Polk occupied the eastern bluffs at this site to dominate the Mississippi River just south of Cairo, IL
Then, on September 6th, under orders from General Fremont, General Grant took a force up the Ohio River and occupied Paducah, KY. Located on the Ohio River. The fort at Paducah gave the Union control of the exits of the Ohio, Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers. Grant’s force occupied the city and it’s dominating fort without firing a shot. His move preceded a Confederate force that was just sixteen miles East, moving to take the river city for the CSA.
Subsequently, General Fremont was replace by General Halleck. Not a Grant supporter, Halleck non-the-less ordered Grant to attack Confederate forces at Belmont, MO south of Cairo, Ill. It was on the West side of the 800 yard wide Mississippi River across from the Confederate stronghold of Columbus, KY.
So, Grant loaded his troops on converted river boats and moved his force South from Cairo, IL.. They unloaded north of Belmont early in the morning and surprised the Confederate force there. Grant’s force was later repulsed, retreating to the river where they left the area on their river transports under the protective fire of Union gunboats.
Back in Washington City, President Lincoln was pressing for more action in the Western theater. General Halleck, much like his superior General-in-Chief McClellan hesitated to attack Confederate positions in his theater of operations. General Grant proposed an attack on Forts Henry and Donelson.
See the map I sent you earlier.
Capturing these two positions for the Union would be catastrophic for the CSA’s war strategy in the West. Never-the-less, Halleck denied Grant permission to proceed. We will cover this issue in a future blog. | 5,500 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The dome of the United States Capitol, seen from the southwest side of the building, around 1902. Image courtesy of the Library of Congress, Detroit Publishing Company Collection.
The scene in 2018:
The history of the United States Capitol dates back to 1793, when George Washington laid the cornerstone of the building. It was first used by Congress in 1800, when the south wing was completed, and the north wing followed in 1807. However, the Capitol was burned by British forces during the invasion of Washington in 1814, and it would not ultimately be completed until 1826. At the time, though, the building looked very different from its current appearance. As shown in this earlier post, it consisted of only rotunda, topped by a low dome, and a small wing on either side of it.
It was not until the 1850s that the Capitol began to take on its current exterior appearance. As the nation grew, so did the size of Congress, and this required the construction of new legislative chambers here in the Capitol. This led to new, larger wings next to the old chambers, along with a larger dome to better suit the scale of the expanded building. The new House and Senate chambers were completed in 1857 and 1859, respectively, but the dome would take longer. As discussed in another previous post, it was still very much unfinished at the outbreak of the Civil War, but it was ultimately completed in 1866.
This dome would become the most distinctive part of the Capitol, serving as a symbol for both Congress and the federal government as a whole. Unlike the rest of the building, the dome is made of cast iron, and at 288 feet it is the tallest cast iron dome in the world. It was the work of architect Thomas U. Walter, who based his design on notable European domes, such as those of the Pantheon and St. Paul’s Cathedral. At the top of the dome is the Statue of Freedom, a 19.5-foot, 15,000-pound bronze statue that was designed by sculptor Thomas Crawford and installed in 1863.
By the time the first photo was taken at the turn of the 20th century, the Capitol had largely assumed its modern-day appearance. Aside from a late 1950s expansion of the east front, on the opposite side of the building, nearly all of the work done to the building since then has involved conservation and restoration. Today, more than 115 years after the first photo was taken, this particular scene has remained virtually unchanged. However, perhaps the only difference is the level of security at the Capitol. The first photo shows a group of five people descending the steps, but today these steps are closed, and the only public access to the Capitol is through the Capitol Visitor Center, located on the opposite side of the building. | <urn:uuid:84f47902-4b7b-4a9a-80e5-3b59ed83a73f> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://lostnewengland.com/2019/10/us-capitol-washington-dc/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250604397.40/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121132900-20200121161900-00080.warc.gz | en | 0.983374 | 572 | 4.25 | 4 | [
-0.15097251534461975,
0.248416006565094,
0.6412155032157898,
-0.005608450621366501,
-0.25272196531295776,
0.45976683497428894,
-0.23673170804977417,
0.20450052618980408,
-0.0012452476657927036,
-0.058697398751974106,
0.3882621228694916,
0.1429874300956726,
0.16358187794685364,
0.1697374582... | 15 | The dome of the United States Capitol, seen from the southwest side of the building, around 1902. Image courtesy of the Library of Congress, Detroit Publishing Company Collection.
The scene in 2018:
The history of the United States Capitol dates back to 1793, when George Washington laid the cornerstone of the building. It was first used by Congress in 1800, when the south wing was completed, and the north wing followed in 1807. However, the Capitol was burned by British forces during the invasion of Washington in 1814, and it would not ultimately be completed until 1826. At the time, though, the building looked very different from its current appearance. As shown in this earlier post, it consisted of only rotunda, topped by a low dome, and a small wing on either side of it.
It was not until the 1850s that the Capitol began to take on its current exterior appearance. As the nation grew, so did the size of Congress, and this required the construction of new legislative chambers here in the Capitol. This led to new, larger wings next to the old chambers, along with a larger dome to better suit the scale of the expanded building. The new House and Senate chambers were completed in 1857 and 1859, respectively, but the dome would take longer. As discussed in another previous post, it was still very much unfinished at the outbreak of the Civil War, but it was ultimately completed in 1866.
This dome would become the most distinctive part of the Capitol, serving as a symbol for both Congress and the federal government as a whole. Unlike the rest of the building, the dome is made of cast iron, and at 288 feet it is the tallest cast iron dome in the world. It was the work of architect Thomas U. Walter, who based his design on notable European domes, such as those of the Pantheon and St. Paul’s Cathedral. At the top of the dome is the Statue of Freedom, a 19.5-foot, 15,000-pound bronze statue that was designed by sculptor Thomas Crawford and installed in 1863.
By the time the first photo was taken at the turn of the 20th century, the Capitol had largely assumed its modern-day appearance. Aside from a late 1950s expansion of the east front, on the opposite side of the building, nearly all of the work done to the building since then has involved conservation and restoration. Today, more than 115 years after the first photo was taken, this particular scene has remained virtually unchanged. However, perhaps the only difference is the level of security at the Capitol. The first photo shows a group of five people descending the steps, but today these steps are closed, and the only public access to the Capitol is through the Capitol Visitor Center, located on the opposite side of the building. | 620 | ENGLISH | 1 |
In many cultures, gourds have been used to create utensils, containers, musical instruments and religious objects.
Masks have also been created from gourds and have been traced back through the centuries from records and drawings that were kept. Masks have been used in special ceremonies by primitive cultures worldwide.
The gourd masks were usually part of an elaborate costume used to invoke or impersonate the spirits. Thus the mask became a symbol of control when worn by a powerful member of a tribe, such as a shaman. Gourds were used as the foundation of the mask face or as an element such as a beak, mouth, nose, ears or horns. The shaman would usually create the mask to be worn at a special ceremony.
But in a few tribes the mask would be created by a mask maker who would interpret the Shamans dream. The mask maker was held in high regard for his artistic talent and being able to transform the mask into the meaning of the dream.
Gourds were also used as medicine rattles and in ceremonies. This lead to the gourd becoming a link between the visible and invisible worlds. The gourd was considered a valuable part of culture and beliefs.
Gourds are believed to have originated in Africa. They are thought to have floated along ocean currents and that spread their use to other parts of the world.
In African Mythology, it was said that good spirits were transported to earth within gourds and that evil spirits could be captured within the same vessel.
In West Africa, the Yoruba people of Nigeria would add beads and shells to netting and drape this over the gourd. This popular musical rattle instrument was called the Shekerie. When the gourd is slapped or shaken the beads strike the gourd shell, which makes a pleasing, rhythmic sound. The shekerie’s popularity as a musical instrument spread to many countries around the world and is still used.
Large gourds were also used as cradles and baby baths in Africa.
There is evidence of seeds and gourd fragments found in Peru date that back to 23,000 B.C. The first gourd seeds were unearthed in Aacucho, Peru that date from 10,000 to 7,000 B.C.
In Peru, the Huiro is a rhythm instrument, which contains dried beans that rattle when it is shaken. There is also a row of grooves on one side. These grooves are scraped with a polished eucalyptus wood stick, which creates a unique sound.
In Feng Shui the Wu Lou or gourd could be placed beside the bedside as a symbolic cure, to improve general health as well as hasten recovery
It is considered Good Luck by many Chinese people to have a gourd in your home. The gourd was also believed to have supernatural powers and served to interpret the wishes of the gods.
It’s amazing how a plant that produces a fruit or vegetable has played such an important part in culture and history. | <urn:uuid:9368da74-1d5a-4772-8126-221a37fa0159> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://thegardenersrake.com/gourd-history-and-trivia-through-the-ages | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251776516.99/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128060946-20200128090946-00194.warc.gz | en | 0.9812 | 639 | 3.546875 | 4 | [
0.44401419162750244,
0.17033058404922485,
0.6042674779891968,
-0.09149868786334991,
-0.30942776799201965,
0.0719204694032669,
0.42080259323120117,
-0.02206648886203766,
-0.3442906141281128,
0.021517667919397354,
0.11083199083805084,
-0.4317728877067566,
-0.023045847192406654,
-0.0760775581... | 7 | In many cultures, gourds have been used to create utensils, containers, musical instruments and religious objects.
Masks have also been created from gourds and have been traced back through the centuries from records and drawings that were kept. Masks have been used in special ceremonies by primitive cultures worldwide.
The gourd masks were usually part of an elaborate costume used to invoke or impersonate the spirits. Thus the mask became a symbol of control when worn by a powerful member of a tribe, such as a shaman. Gourds were used as the foundation of the mask face or as an element such as a beak, mouth, nose, ears or horns. The shaman would usually create the mask to be worn at a special ceremony.
But in a few tribes the mask would be created by a mask maker who would interpret the Shamans dream. The mask maker was held in high regard for his artistic talent and being able to transform the mask into the meaning of the dream.
Gourds were also used as medicine rattles and in ceremonies. This lead to the gourd becoming a link between the visible and invisible worlds. The gourd was considered a valuable part of culture and beliefs.
Gourds are believed to have originated in Africa. They are thought to have floated along ocean currents and that spread their use to other parts of the world.
In African Mythology, it was said that good spirits were transported to earth within gourds and that evil spirits could be captured within the same vessel.
In West Africa, the Yoruba people of Nigeria would add beads and shells to netting and drape this over the gourd. This popular musical rattle instrument was called the Shekerie. When the gourd is slapped or shaken the beads strike the gourd shell, which makes a pleasing, rhythmic sound. The shekerie’s popularity as a musical instrument spread to many countries around the world and is still used.
Large gourds were also used as cradles and baby baths in Africa.
There is evidence of seeds and gourd fragments found in Peru date that back to 23,000 B.C. The first gourd seeds were unearthed in Aacucho, Peru that date from 10,000 to 7,000 B.C.
In Peru, the Huiro is a rhythm instrument, which contains dried beans that rattle when it is shaken. There is also a row of grooves on one side. These grooves are scraped with a polished eucalyptus wood stick, which creates a unique sound.
In Feng Shui the Wu Lou or gourd could be placed beside the bedside as a symbolic cure, to improve general health as well as hasten recovery
It is considered Good Luck by many Chinese people to have a gourd in your home. The gourd was also believed to have supernatural powers and served to interpret the wishes of the gods.
It’s amazing how a plant that produces a fruit or vegetable has played such an important part in culture and history. | 622 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Read Nehemiah 13:23-25. What happened here, and how do we explain Nehemiah’s reaction to the situation?
Since the children didn’t speak Aramaic (the language used during the Exile) or Hebrew, they couldn’t understand the teachings from Scripture. This was a real problem, because the knowledge of God’s revelation could thus be distorted or even disappear. The scribes and priests expounded on the Torah mostly in Aramaic in order to make the preaching clear to the people.
However, since the mothers were from Ammon, Ashdod, and Moab and were generally the primary caregivers for the children, it is not surprising that the children didn’t speak the language of the fathers as well. The language we speak informs the way we think about concepts, because we use the vocabulary of that culture. Loss of the biblical language would have meant losing their special identity. Thus, for Nehemiah, it was unthinkable that families were losing touch with the Word of God and consequently their connection with the living God, the Lord of the Hebrews.
Biblical scholars point out that the actions of Nehemiah were most likely a public shaming of the people as part of prescribed punishments at that time. When it says that Nehemiah rebuked them and cursed them, we shouldn’t think of Nehemiah using foul language and expletives, but rather that he was speaking over them the curses of the Covenant. Deuteronomy 28 outlines the curses that would happen to those who broke the covenant. It is very possible that Nehemiah chose the words of the Bible to bring them to the realization of their wrong action and the consequences of their poor choices.
Moreover, when the text says that Nehemiah “beat some of the men and pulled out their hair” (Neh. 13:25, NIV), instead of seeing Nehemiah in a rage and reacting with fury, we should note that a beating was a prescribed form of public punishment. This kind of behavior was applied only to “some” of them, meaning to the leaders who caused or promoted this wrong behavior. These acts were to serve as methods of public shaming. Nehemiah wanted to ensure that the people understood the gravity of their choices and the results that would ensue from them.
|How should we react when we see what we believe is wrong-doing in the church?| | <urn:uuid:733e8280-d4d3-4d73-8157-cb7dad474015> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://en.intercer.net/adventist-sermons/sunday-nehemiahs-reaction.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250598726.39/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120110422-20200120134422-00236.warc.gz | en | 0.983848 | 504 | 3.453125 | 3 | [
-0.4029594659805298,
0.46489304304122925,
0.04534747824072838,
-0.18550212681293488,
-0.11919233947992325,
-0.19796966016292572,
0.3456110954284668,
0.44475364685058594,
-0.036342229694128036,
0.3180004358291626,
0.21862637996673584,
-0.0950552374124527,
0.0232850331813097,
0.1999703198671... | 9 | Read Nehemiah 13:23-25. What happened here, and how do we explain Nehemiah’s reaction to the situation?
Since the children didn’t speak Aramaic (the language used during the Exile) or Hebrew, they couldn’t understand the teachings from Scripture. This was a real problem, because the knowledge of God’s revelation could thus be distorted or even disappear. The scribes and priests expounded on the Torah mostly in Aramaic in order to make the preaching clear to the people.
However, since the mothers were from Ammon, Ashdod, and Moab and were generally the primary caregivers for the children, it is not surprising that the children didn’t speak the language of the fathers as well. The language we speak informs the way we think about concepts, because we use the vocabulary of that culture. Loss of the biblical language would have meant losing their special identity. Thus, for Nehemiah, it was unthinkable that families were losing touch with the Word of God and consequently their connection with the living God, the Lord of the Hebrews.
Biblical scholars point out that the actions of Nehemiah were most likely a public shaming of the people as part of prescribed punishments at that time. When it says that Nehemiah rebuked them and cursed them, we shouldn’t think of Nehemiah using foul language and expletives, but rather that he was speaking over them the curses of the Covenant. Deuteronomy 28 outlines the curses that would happen to those who broke the covenant. It is very possible that Nehemiah chose the words of the Bible to bring them to the realization of their wrong action and the consequences of their poor choices.
Moreover, when the text says that Nehemiah “beat some of the men and pulled out their hair” (Neh. 13:25, NIV), instead of seeing Nehemiah in a rage and reacting with fury, we should note that a beating was a prescribed form of public punishment. This kind of behavior was applied only to “some” of them, meaning to the leaders who caused or promoted this wrong behavior. These acts were to serve as methods of public shaming. Nehemiah wanted to ensure that the people understood the gravity of their choices and the results that would ensue from them.
|How should we react when we see what we believe is wrong-doing in the church?| | 489 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Post 518 by Gautam Shah
A moat is a ditch or trench around a castle, fort or settlement. Moats were created by reforming the existing terrain features, or dug as a new one. Fortified structures, like castles were once sited over difficult terrains, where some natural features offer some protection, such as hills, elevated lands or rocky landscapes. Moats were additional defence provisions, formed at vulnerable spots. The difficult terrains, however, make it very difficult to dig a new trench, or reform the existing terrain. Digging a moat was not only labourious, but the management of the excavated material equally difficult. The excavated stuff was used to back support the fort walls, or raise and level the internal grounds. Moats were formed along with construction of fort walls.
A water-filled moat was an ideal condition (or rather romantic) that was supposed to make the fort invincible. But in absence of required quantity of water supply, many moats remained dry ditches. To fill up a moat several other additional facilities would be needed such as natural or artificial reservoir, ducts, pipes, sluices and water evacuation channels. Dry ditches became drainage pits for the castle or buildings inside. Wet moats were a great health hazard. In many stories and mythical tales, moats are supposed to have alligators or crocodiles. Some moats, though, were filled with fish for food.
Moats as a dry channel or filled with water, made it difficult for the enemy to cross it, or delay the siege of the fort or castle. A moat like rough depression was difficult for cavalry to ride through, or carry a wood log to batter the doors or walls. The early age moats were conceived as defence structures, and never as an architectural or decorative landscaped feature. The edges or banks were intentionally left unfinished, or rough. The new retaining masonry walls were steep with very acute face to make it difficult to negotiate. The fort wall base at the moat was devoid of any foothold or landing space.
Water-filled moat with wide and deep water body was very assuring. Castles were planned near water reservoirs like rivers, stream, tanks, lakes, or new dams were constructed for it. Such locations were on flatter terrains. The idea of a water-filled moat, reflecting the walls and towers of the castles, or bastions and crenelated parapets of the fort, was so romantic and picturesque that In later periods such structures became mere decorative pieces. The moats needed bridges to connect to the castle or fort. Flatter ground fortifications had wider and deeper water bodies. These were used for fishing and boating. During the medieval periods a large articulated water body was as important as the form of the castle and fortification.
Form and uses of castles and forts have continuously changed. Such structures were once of very small base and could accommodate only few but provided refuge during the invasions. The form changed with style of warfare and the scale of the invaders. Early defence structures were designed for projectiles like arrows, stones etc. With the arrival of artillery, some new styles of structures were required. The depth and width of the moats, design of its banks, and layout in conjunction with ramparts, bastions, etc. were important. But moats continued to provide social isolation to the ruling class for a long time.
A Moat is deep, wide defensive Ditch, normally filled with water, surrounding a fortified habitation. Moat derives from Middle English or Old French word Motte. It stands for a mound, embankment, hillock, lump, clod, turf. Medieval Latin mota stands for ‘a mound or hillock on which a castle is built’. There are many regional variations like mot, motta (mud, peat, bog, turf), mutô, mudraz, muþraz (dirt, filth, mud, swamp), (s)mut- (dark, dirty). mot (dust, fine sand, grit, litter, humus), muta (to drizzle) and mot (speck, particle). | <urn:uuid:9721dccc-28fa-4cf8-aba1-cde0cddb2fdd> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://interiordesignassist.wordpress.com/2015/09/19/moats-water-bodies-as-fortifications/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251776516.99/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128060946-20200128090946-00536.warc.gz | en | 0.982093 | 860 | 4.03125 | 4 | [
0.0043892222456634045,
0.08585032820701599,
0.4402526617050171,
0.45384663343429565,
-0.4072544574737549,
-0.3386310338973999,
0.2998649477958679,
-0.08712141215801239,
0.011190018616616726,
-0.09923282265663147,
-0.29174017906188965,
-0.6081966161727905,
0.3156254291534424,
0.021989617496... | 7 | Post 518 by Gautam Shah
A moat is a ditch or trench around a castle, fort or settlement. Moats were created by reforming the existing terrain features, or dug as a new one. Fortified structures, like castles were once sited over difficult terrains, where some natural features offer some protection, such as hills, elevated lands or rocky landscapes. Moats were additional defence provisions, formed at vulnerable spots. The difficult terrains, however, make it very difficult to dig a new trench, or reform the existing terrain. Digging a moat was not only labourious, but the management of the excavated material equally difficult. The excavated stuff was used to back support the fort walls, or raise and level the internal grounds. Moats were formed along with construction of fort walls.
A water-filled moat was an ideal condition (or rather romantic) that was supposed to make the fort invincible. But in absence of required quantity of water supply, many moats remained dry ditches. To fill up a moat several other additional facilities would be needed such as natural or artificial reservoir, ducts, pipes, sluices and water evacuation channels. Dry ditches became drainage pits for the castle or buildings inside. Wet moats were a great health hazard. In many stories and mythical tales, moats are supposed to have alligators or crocodiles. Some moats, though, were filled with fish for food.
Moats as a dry channel or filled with water, made it difficult for the enemy to cross it, or delay the siege of the fort or castle. A moat like rough depression was difficult for cavalry to ride through, or carry a wood log to batter the doors or walls. The early age moats were conceived as defence structures, and never as an architectural or decorative landscaped feature. The edges or banks were intentionally left unfinished, or rough. The new retaining masonry walls were steep with very acute face to make it difficult to negotiate. The fort wall base at the moat was devoid of any foothold or landing space.
Water-filled moat with wide and deep water body was very assuring. Castles were planned near water reservoirs like rivers, stream, tanks, lakes, or new dams were constructed for it. Such locations were on flatter terrains. The idea of a water-filled moat, reflecting the walls and towers of the castles, or bastions and crenelated parapets of the fort, was so romantic and picturesque that In later periods such structures became mere decorative pieces. The moats needed bridges to connect to the castle or fort. Flatter ground fortifications had wider and deeper water bodies. These were used for fishing and boating. During the medieval periods a large articulated water body was as important as the form of the castle and fortification.
Form and uses of castles and forts have continuously changed. Such structures were once of very small base and could accommodate only few but provided refuge during the invasions. The form changed with style of warfare and the scale of the invaders. Early defence structures were designed for projectiles like arrows, stones etc. With the arrival of artillery, some new styles of structures were required. The depth and width of the moats, design of its banks, and layout in conjunction with ramparts, bastions, etc. were important. But moats continued to provide social isolation to the ruling class for a long time.
A Moat is deep, wide defensive Ditch, normally filled with water, surrounding a fortified habitation. Moat derives from Middle English or Old French word Motte. It stands for a mound, embankment, hillock, lump, clod, turf. Medieval Latin mota stands for ‘a mound or hillock on which a castle is built’. There are many regional variations like mot, motta (mud, peat, bog, turf), mutô, mudraz, muþraz (dirt, filth, mud, swamp), (s)mut- (dark, dirty). mot (dust, fine sand, grit, litter, humus), muta (to drizzle) and mot (speck, particle). | 856 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The Battle of Austerlitz was one of the most decisive military engagements of the Napoleonic Wars. Fought nearby the modern day town of Brno in the Czech Republic, the fight saw a Austro-Russian army commanded by two emperors pitted against the Grande Armée of Napoleon Bonaparte, the French Emperor.
By the time the sun set on 2 December 1805 Napoleon had achieved a stunning victory, a victory so decisive that it would set the course of European history for a decade.
Here is how Napoleon saw through his tactical masterpiece.
Falling into Napoleon’s trap
As the sun rose on 2 December 1805, the Allied (Austro-Russian) situation was pretty chaotic.
Their plan to attack Napoleon’s ‘retreating’ forces nearby the town of Austerlitz had only been thrashed out by their leaders in the early hours of the morning.
Orders had to be translated and delivered to units; some officers had stolen away to sleep in warm billets in nearby villages and the dense fog on that cold December morning had only led to further confusion. It was not a good start.
Napoleon had left his southern flank ostentatiously weak. He planned to lure the Allies into a bold move to the south, then in turn launch a massive attack at his enemy’s centre on the plateau, and destroy them.
The Allies fell for it and the battle began in the south with an Allied attack against Napoleon’s right flank.
An Allied force advanced, towards the villages that were dominated by Sokolnitz Castle. The French stationed within these settlements were outnumbered nearly two to one; they had torn off doors and anything they could burn to stay warm. Now this was to become a bloody battlefield.
Groups of men advanced in and out of banks of fog. Fighting was house to house; amid the chaos the French were pushed back. Fortunately for them, help was at hand: reinforcements, who had marched virtually non-stop for days, arrived in the nick of time and stabilised the line.
The fighting was intense, but the French held their own. His right flank holding, now Napoleon could strike in the north.
Seizing the Pratzen Heights
At about 8am the sun burned through the fog and the top of the Pratzen Heights, the plateau where the Allied centre was situated became clear.
Napoleon had watched on as his enemy launched their attack on the south, weakening their centre. Meanwhile his main strike force, 16,000 men, lay in wait down in the low ground below the hill – land still shrouded in fog and wood smoke. At 9am Napoleon ordered them to advance.
He turned to Marhsal Soult, who would command the assault, and said,
One sharp blow and the war is over.
The French attacked up the slope: skirmishers out in front to snipe at the enemy and break down their cohesion, followed by massed ranks of infantry, with gunners marching at the rear with their cannon.
The infantry crashed into inexperienced Russian troops, triggering a rout that not even the Tsar was able to stop.
One Russian general, Kamensky, attempted to hold the line. He redirected crack troops to hold off the French and what followed was two horrific hours of battle. Musket balls tore through the ranks, cannon fired at close range. Both side ran low on ammunition.
A giant bayonet charge by the French eventually decided the fight, with cannon hastily brought up in support. Kamensky was captured; many of his men were bayoneted as they fled or lay on the ground wounded. The Heights were Napoleon’s.
Cavalry clash in the north
As the French seized the all important Heights in the centre of the battlefield, a savage battle was also raging to the north.
In the south it was house to house fighting, in the centre it was lines of infantrymen firing at each other at point-blank range. But in the north the battle was marked by a cavalry duel.
Charge after charge saw French and Russian men and horses thundering towards each other. They locked together, a swirling, thrusting mass, lances stabbing, sabres cleaving, pistols punching through breast plates, before separating, reorganising and charging again.
Once again, however, the French prevailed – working more effectively with their infantry and artillery than their counterparts.
Napoleon was in a dominant position, but the Allies had one final blow that they would land on the central plateau which the French had seized earlier in the day.
Grand Duke Constantine, the Tsar’s brother, personally led 17 squadrons of the Russian Imperial Guard against the advancing French. These were the elite, sworn to protect the Tsar till death if necessary.
As the Russian horsemen charged the French formed squares; men faced in all directions to protect from cavalry attack. They managed to beat off one squadron with a mighty musket volley but another crashed into the infantrymen, causing one square to disintegrate.
In a savage melee a French imperial standard, an eagle, was captured – torn from the hands of a French sergeant, who fell beneath a hail of blows. It was a Russian triumph. But it would be the only one that day.
Napoleon responded fast to this new threat. He rushed up infantry and cavalry. The French imperial guard now charged their Russian counterparts and these two elite forces merged into a chaotic mass of men and horses.
Both sides fed in the very last of their reserves.
Slowly the French gained the upper hand. The Russians retreated, leaving the ground a churned up morass of mud, blood and the shattered bodies of men and horses.
The final throes of battle
The Allies were driven back in the north, annihilated in the centre. Napoleon now turned his attention south to turn a victory into a rout.
In the south there had been a savage stalemate since first light. The villages around Sokolnitz Castle were heaped high with dead. Now Allied commanders looked up to the heights and saw French troops streaming down to surround them. they were staring at defeat.
At 4pm an icy rain fell and the skies darkened. Napoleon urged on his troops to complete the rout of the Allied army but brave standby individual cavalry units gave groups of infantry the breathing space to escape.
The shattered remnant of the Austro-Russian army melted away into the dusk. The field of Austerlitz was indescribable.
Up to 20,000 men were killed or wounded. The Austrian and Russian armies had been humbled. The Tsar fled the battlefield in tears. | <urn:uuid:cd574f23-bea6-4178-b693-ecef1fb781b5> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.historyhit.com/how-significant-was-the-battle-of-austerlitz/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250605075.24/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121192553-20200121221553-00460.warc.gz | en | 0.98025 | 1,371 | 3.3125 | 3 | [
-0.2704086899757385,
0.6822538375854492,
-0.1962927281856537,
0.0415828675031662,
-0.2779739797115326,
-0.17598900198936462,
-0.09260815382003784,
0.5288645029067993,
-0.15388953685760498,
0.027207771316170692,
0.29906654357910156,
-0.5198284387588501,
0.3775632381439209,
0.523102700710296... | 6 | The Battle of Austerlitz was one of the most decisive military engagements of the Napoleonic Wars. Fought nearby the modern day town of Brno in the Czech Republic, the fight saw a Austro-Russian army commanded by two emperors pitted against the Grande Armée of Napoleon Bonaparte, the French Emperor.
By the time the sun set on 2 December 1805 Napoleon had achieved a stunning victory, a victory so decisive that it would set the course of European history for a decade.
Here is how Napoleon saw through his tactical masterpiece.
Falling into Napoleon’s trap
As the sun rose on 2 December 1805, the Allied (Austro-Russian) situation was pretty chaotic.
Their plan to attack Napoleon’s ‘retreating’ forces nearby the town of Austerlitz had only been thrashed out by their leaders in the early hours of the morning.
Orders had to be translated and delivered to units; some officers had stolen away to sleep in warm billets in nearby villages and the dense fog on that cold December morning had only led to further confusion. It was not a good start.
Napoleon had left his southern flank ostentatiously weak. He planned to lure the Allies into a bold move to the south, then in turn launch a massive attack at his enemy’s centre on the plateau, and destroy them.
The Allies fell for it and the battle began in the south with an Allied attack against Napoleon’s right flank.
An Allied force advanced, towards the villages that were dominated by Sokolnitz Castle. The French stationed within these settlements were outnumbered nearly two to one; they had torn off doors and anything they could burn to stay warm. Now this was to become a bloody battlefield.
Groups of men advanced in and out of banks of fog. Fighting was house to house; amid the chaos the French were pushed back. Fortunately for them, help was at hand: reinforcements, who had marched virtually non-stop for days, arrived in the nick of time and stabilised the line.
The fighting was intense, but the French held their own. His right flank holding, now Napoleon could strike in the north.
Seizing the Pratzen Heights
At about 8am the sun burned through the fog and the top of the Pratzen Heights, the plateau where the Allied centre was situated became clear.
Napoleon had watched on as his enemy launched their attack on the south, weakening their centre. Meanwhile his main strike force, 16,000 men, lay in wait down in the low ground below the hill – land still shrouded in fog and wood smoke. At 9am Napoleon ordered them to advance.
He turned to Marhsal Soult, who would command the assault, and said,
One sharp blow and the war is over.
The French attacked up the slope: skirmishers out in front to snipe at the enemy and break down their cohesion, followed by massed ranks of infantry, with gunners marching at the rear with their cannon.
The infantry crashed into inexperienced Russian troops, triggering a rout that not even the Tsar was able to stop.
One Russian general, Kamensky, attempted to hold the line. He redirected crack troops to hold off the French and what followed was two horrific hours of battle. Musket balls tore through the ranks, cannon fired at close range. Both side ran low on ammunition.
A giant bayonet charge by the French eventually decided the fight, with cannon hastily brought up in support. Kamensky was captured; many of his men were bayoneted as they fled or lay on the ground wounded. The Heights were Napoleon’s.
Cavalry clash in the north
As the French seized the all important Heights in the centre of the battlefield, a savage battle was also raging to the north.
In the south it was house to house fighting, in the centre it was lines of infantrymen firing at each other at point-blank range. But in the north the battle was marked by a cavalry duel.
Charge after charge saw French and Russian men and horses thundering towards each other. They locked together, a swirling, thrusting mass, lances stabbing, sabres cleaving, pistols punching through breast plates, before separating, reorganising and charging again.
Once again, however, the French prevailed – working more effectively with their infantry and artillery than their counterparts.
Napoleon was in a dominant position, but the Allies had one final blow that they would land on the central plateau which the French had seized earlier in the day.
Grand Duke Constantine, the Tsar’s brother, personally led 17 squadrons of the Russian Imperial Guard against the advancing French. These were the elite, sworn to protect the Tsar till death if necessary.
As the Russian horsemen charged the French formed squares; men faced in all directions to protect from cavalry attack. They managed to beat off one squadron with a mighty musket volley but another crashed into the infantrymen, causing one square to disintegrate.
In a savage melee a French imperial standard, an eagle, was captured – torn from the hands of a French sergeant, who fell beneath a hail of blows. It was a Russian triumph. But it would be the only one that day.
Napoleon responded fast to this new threat. He rushed up infantry and cavalry. The French imperial guard now charged their Russian counterparts and these two elite forces merged into a chaotic mass of men and horses.
Both sides fed in the very last of their reserves.
Slowly the French gained the upper hand. The Russians retreated, leaving the ground a churned up morass of mud, blood and the shattered bodies of men and horses.
The final throes of battle
The Allies were driven back in the north, annihilated in the centre. Napoleon now turned his attention south to turn a victory into a rout.
In the south there had been a savage stalemate since first light. The villages around Sokolnitz Castle were heaped high with dead. Now Allied commanders looked up to the heights and saw French troops streaming down to surround them. they were staring at defeat.
At 4pm an icy rain fell and the skies darkened. Napoleon urged on his troops to complete the rout of the Allied army but brave standby individual cavalry units gave groups of infantry the breathing space to escape.
The shattered remnant of the Austro-Russian army melted away into the dusk. The field of Austerlitz was indescribable.
Up to 20,000 men were killed or wounded. The Austrian and Russian armies had been humbled. The Tsar fled the battlefield in tears. | 1,356 | ENGLISH | 1 |
CHAPTER I DR. BILL E. LAWSON, Philosophy Scholar Bill E. Lawson is distinguished professor of philosophy at the University of Memphis. He received his PhD from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and his professional appointments include Spelman College, West Virginia University, and the University of Delaware. My general sense of Booker T. Washington is that he was committed to the betterment of black people in the United States and that he was very forward-looking and insightful. I think people often fail to appreciate his insights, particularly with regard to race relations. People need to view Washington as a pragmatist in the John Dewey sense of pragmatism, where you're really working to solve a significant problem. Washington's problem was: How do you resolve or improve race relations between black people and white people in the South, given the history of race and racism in the United States at that particular point in history? He thought that the best way to do that was for the races to work together, and in order to accomplish that, black people had to be able to bring something to the table. That's what building Tuskegee Institute was about: bringing something to the table. Some people think that his position demeaned black people, but while Washington did acknowledge that there were blacks that deserved respect because of their accomplishments, those were not the blacks he was trying to reach. Washington never denied the humanity of black people. I am defending Booker T. Washington because many black intellectuals seem to be against him without any knowledge of his writings or life. During the 1960s, when black nationalism became the rage, people read certain select things. Subsequently, most people know or have read only three things about Booker T. Washington at best: Up from Slavery, the Atlanta Exposition speech, and "Of Mr. Booker T. Washington and Others," the essay by W. E. B. Du Bois. Sometimes they know the Dudley Randall poem "Booker T. and W. E. B." If you read Up from Slavery in isolation from Washington's other works, then I do think that you will get a skewed view of who and what he was. But when you read Working with the Hands, My Larger Education, The Man Farthest Down, the biography he wrote of Frederick Douglass, or his letters and read what he wrote about his projects, you come away with a completely different view of what Washington was trying to do. For example, Washington never said, as many have claimed, that black people should get only an industrial education. He never said that black people shouldn't participate in the political process. What he did say was, blacks should be able to secure education consistent with their ability, and if there are going to be voting requirements made for black people, the same requirements should be made for white people. He also said that the electorate should be literate; people should be able to read and write if they're going to participate in the political process. But we should consider the historical moment; it was a time when many white people were predisposed to dislike black people. Washington understood that black people had to overcome the strong dislike of some whites, while simultaneously working with the white people who were concerned with the advancement of black people. Did most white people want to have the kind of social interaction with black people that we take for granted now? No! It's not really a matter of whether black people wanted to have social interaction with white people. If you are a leader, you have a vision of how these things should play out and what programs will work best for the group you're serving. Washington's was not a consensus program. It was a program rooted in what he took to be the needs of the black southern masses at that moment in history. I also believe that Washington's leaderCarroll, Rebecca is the author of 'Uncle Tom or New Negro? African Americans Reflect on Booker T. Washington And Up from Slavery One Hundred Years Later', published 2006 under ISBN 9780767919555 and ISBN 0767919556. | <urn:uuid:1d87234a-42aa-4e6c-93a9-a4864537b5a3> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.valorebooks.com/textbooks/uncle-tom-or-new-negro-african-americans-reflect-on-booker-t-washington-and-up-from-slavery-one-hundred-years-later/9780767919555 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250599718.13/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120165335-20200120194335-00510.warc.gz | en | 0.983395 | 826 | 3.40625 | 3 | [
-0.48469656705856323,
0.2660616338253021,
0.08850228041410446,
0.10900671780109406,
-0.3376593589782715,
-0.02893758937716484,
0.3336465060710907,
0.23448042571544647,
-0.29861822724342346,
0.002801868598908186,
0.30755814909935,
-0.09045969694852829,
-0.03652475029230118,
0.16277733445167... | 2 | CHAPTER I DR. BILL E. LAWSON, Philosophy Scholar Bill E. Lawson is distinguished professor of philosophy at the University of Memphis. He received his PhD from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and his professional appointments include Spelman College, West Virginia University, and the University of Delaware. My general sense of Booker T. Washington is that he was committed to the betterment of black people in the United States and that he was very forward-looking and insightful. I think people often fail to appreciate his insights, particularly with regard to race relations. People need to view Washington as a pragmatist in the John Dewey sense of pragmatism, where you're really working to solve a significant problem. Washington's problem was: How do you resolve or improve race relations between black people and white people in the South, given the history of race and racism in the United States at that particular point in history? He thought that the best way to do that was for the races to work together, and in order to accomplish that, black people had to be able to bring something to the table. That's what building Tuskegee Institute was about: bringing something to the table. Some people think that his position demeaned black people, but while Washington did acknowledge that there were blacks that deserved respect because of their accomplishments, those were not the blacks he was trying to reach. Washington never denied the humanity of black people. I am defending Booker T. Washington because many black intellectuals seem to be against him without any knowledge of his writings or life. During the 1960s, when black nationalism became the rage, people read certain select things. Subsequently, most people know or have read only three things about Booker T. Washington at best: Up from Slavery, the Atlanta Exposition speech, and "Of Mr. Booker T. Washington and Others," the essay by W. E. B. Du Bois. Sometimes they know the Dudley Randall poem "Booker T. and W. E. B." If you read Up from Slavery in isolation from Washington's other works, then I do think that you will get a skewed view of who and what he was. But when you read Working with the Hands, My Larger Education, The Man Farthest Down, the biography he wrote of Frederick Douglass, or his letters and read what he wrote about his projects, you come away with a completely different view of what Washington was trying to do. For example, Washington never said, as many have claimed, that black people should get only an industrial education. He never said that black people shouldn't participate in the political process. What he did say was, blacks should be able to secure education consistent with their ability, and if there are going to be voting requirements made for black people, the same requirements should be made for white people. He also said that the electorate should be literate; people should be able to read and write if they're going to participate in the political process. But we should consider the historical moment; it was a time when many white people were predisposed to dislike black people. Washington understood that black people had to overcome the strong dislike of some whites, while simultaneously working with the white people who were concerned with the advancement of black people. Did most white people want to have the kind of social interaction with black people that we take for granted now? No! It's not really a matter of whether black people wanted to have social interaction with white people. If you are a leader, you have a vision of how these things should play out and what programs will work best for the group you're serving. Washington's was not a consensus program. It was a program rooted in what he took to be the needs of the black southern masses at that moment in history. I also believe that Washington's leaderCarroll, Rebecca is the author of 'Uncle Tom or New Negro? African Americans Reflect on Booker T. Washington And Up from Slavery One Hundred Years Later', published 2006 under ISBN 9780767919555 and ISBN 0767919556. | 843 | ENGLISH | 1 |
CONSTITUTION CORNER - Article 26
George Washington - Braddock’s Defeat- Part V
By Judy Leithe
By the mid-1700s, France had significant influence over the French colonists, as well as good trading relationships with many indigenous tribes, in Canada and North America. The British had authority over the thirteen colonies on the east coast, and had established ties with the Iroquois Confederacy, which controlled most of upstate New York and parts of the Ohio Valley.
When the French refused to dismantle their forts along the Ohio River, the British Parliament sent Brigadier General Edward Braddock to Virginia with orders to, “Take command of the French in North America!” Washington had been following events in the Ohio Valley, and the potential for British conflict with the French. He loved his farm life at Mount Vernon, however, at twenty-two, he was considering a possible career in the British Army, as well. So, when he learned that Braddock had arrived with the British army, he sent a letter to the general congratulating him on his mission. After learning about Washington’s knowledge of the wilderness country, Braddock offered him a position as his aide-de-camp. This was not the position Washington sought, but having had no real military training, he joined Braddock with the belief that this would be the first time he would be in a campaign led by an experienced, professional officer – or so he thought.
General Braddock was sixty years old. He was short, stout, and bad-tempered. He had little experience in battle, and no knowledge of the kind of wilderness tactics that were in store for him. As his aide, Washington was dismayed by Braddock’s rude behavior. Neither did his arrogance sit well with the colonials or the Iroquois; the very people Braddock needed most in his upcoming combat with the French and their Canadian allies.
In sharp contrast to Braddock, the portrait of Washington, shown here, appears to closely match the description of the twenty-six-year-old Colonel Washington written by a fellow officer during the French and Indian War. It reads, “He had an impressive bearing and was an excellent horseman. He stood 6’ 2 1/2” tall and weighed 175 pounds; he was broad shouldered and muscular; his hands were large and well formed, and he wore size 13 boots; he had reddish-brown hair and had a fair complexion; his demeanor was calm and controlled; he focused his clear blue-grey eyes on those with whom he spoke, and was a good listener.”
As General Braddock’s army of 1,500 brightly-clad “redcoats” forged through the forests of the Ohio Valley, with colonial troops following, there was a surprise attack by about nine-hundred French-led troops. The first assault came from Canadian warriors who descended on them with blood-curdling war whoops catching the shocked British troops in a well-planned crossfire offensive. As they tried to escape the mayhem, French troops blocked their paths. In a panic, the redcoats began firing their rifles indiscriminately, hitting some of their own troops.
During the blistering attack, Washington had horses shot out from underneath him, but he quickly mounted available horses and continued directing as many of his fellow officers and soldiers to safety as possible. It was also noted that throughout the battle, Washington was ill with a high fever. General Braddock was shot in the chest, possibly by one of his own men, and died on July 13, 1755. Prior to dying, he gave Washington his leopard skin saddle blanket, which can be seen in a portrait of Washington, appearing in a later essay.
During the massacre of Braddock and his troops, nearly a thousand men were either killed or wounded. Word quickly spread, that although he performed heroically, Washington had been killed. However, after the battle, Washington rode on to the British Fort Cumberland, in Maryland, to recuperate from his illness. While there, he wrote a letter to his brother John, dated July 18, 1755, in which he exhibits a wry sense of humor in his telling of the events of the recent battle with the French forces:“Dear Brother,
"As I have heard, since my arrival at this place (Fort Cumberland, Maryland), a circumstantial account of my death and dying speech; I take this early opportunity of contradicting the first, and of assuring you that I have not, as yet, composed the latter. But, by the all-powerful Dispensation of Providence, I have been protected beyond all human probability and expectation; for I had four Bullets through my Coat, and two Horses shot under me; yet escaped unhurt, although Death was leveling my companions on every side of me!”
The French and Indian War began in the Ohio Valley, in 1754-55, but remained at a stalemate for several more years. The open hostilities between Britain and France continued and spread to Europe, marking the beginning of a larger imperial war known as, The Seven Years’ War; some call it the first world war. Spain sided with France and also declared war against Britain. Despite facing this formidable alliance, the British naval strength ultimately succeeded in seizing the French Caribbean Islands, Spanish Cuba, and the Philippines. After Spain’s failed invasion of Britain’s ally, Portugal, diplomats from the French and Spanish governments began seeking peace with Britain. This costly war finally ended with The Treaty of Paris in 1763. The treaty secured significant British territorial gains in North America, including all of the French territory east of the Mississippi River, as well as the Spanish territory of Florida. While preparing for the campaign against the French, General Braddock offered the colonials parcels of the Ohio frontier in exchange for their combat services. Washington was intent on seeing to it that the British kept their promise to these veterans as well as to the families of fallen soldiers. Fifteen years later, in 1770, Washington was permitted to notify all claimants that surveying of approved lands would proceed, and once completed, the lands would be parceled out to the rightful recipients. Washington led the four-man surveying party which consisted of William Crawford, who was a fellow veteran and surveyor, Joseph Nicholson, scout and interpreter, and Dr. James Craik. Craik was a lifelong friend of Washington’s, and attended him in the final hours before his death, on December 14, 1799.The party set out from Fort Pitt to explore possible bounty sites, and to stake out the “Soldier’s Land,” as well. At their campsite off the Ohio and Kanawha Rivers, Washington’s group was approached by a small party of native braves, and their Chief, who had been tracking the colonial party because their Chief had long wanted to meet Washington. A council fire was kindled, Nicholson served as interpreter, and Craik took notes of what was later known as, The Indian Prophesy. Turning his full attention on Washington, the Chief proceeded by saying:“I am a Chief and ruler of many tribes. My influence extends to the waters of the Great Lakes, and to the far Blue Mountains. I have traveled a long and weary path that I might see the young warrior of the great battle. It was on the day when the white man’s blood mixed with the streams of our forest that I first beheld this chief (Washington). I called to my young men and said, mark you tall and daring warrior? He is not of the red-coat tribe – he hath an Indian’s wisdom and his warriors fight as we do – himself alone exposed. Quick, let your aim be certain, and he dies. Our rifles were leveled, rifles which, but for you, did not miss – ‘twas all in vain; a power mightier far than we, shielded him from harm. He did not die in battle. I am old, and soon shall be gathering to the great council fire by my fathers, in the land of shades, but ere I go, there is something bids me speak in the voice of Prophesy. Listen! The Great Spirit protects that man, and guides his Destinies; he will become the chief of many nations, and a people yet unborn will hail him as the founder of a mighty empire. I am come to pay homage to the man who is the particular favorite of Heaven, and who can never die in battle.” | <urn:uuid:0d80f969-ae21-4250-856a-23a07f8b75b5> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://womenofwa.com/information/constitution-corner/constitution-corner-article-26.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251687958.71/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126074227-20200126104227-00144.warc.gz | en | 0.985186 | 1,769 | 3.84375 | 4 | [
-0.2929052710533142,
0.6019599437713623,
0.3137321472167969,
-0.13009992241859436,
-0.3654797077178955,
0.24774810671806335,
0.4358280897140503,
0.35517776012420654,
-0.2637132406234741,
0.25744882225990295,
0.0716661810874939,
-0.11831196397542953,
0.46046197414398193,
0.24101106822490692... | 2 | CONSTITUTION CORNER - Article 26
George Washington - Braddock’s Defeat- Part V
By Judy Leithe
By the mid-1700s, France had significant influence over the French colonists, as well as good trading relationships with many indigenous tribes, in Canada and North America. The British had authority over the thirteen colonies on the east coast, and had established ties with the Iroquois Confederacy, which controlled most of upstate New York and parts of the Ohio Valley.
When the French refused to dismantle their forts along the Ohio River, the British Parliament sent Brigadier General Edward Braddock to Virginia with orders to, “Take command of the French in North America!” Washington had been following events in the Ohio Valley, and the potential for British conflict with the French. He loved his farm life at Mount Vernon, however, at twenty-two, he was considering a possible career in the British Army, as well. So, when he learned that Braddock had arrived with the British army, he sent a letter to the general congratulating him on his mission. After learning about Washington’s knowledge of the wilderness country, Braddock offered him a position as his aide-de-camp. This was not the position Washington sought, but having had no real military training, he joined Braddock with the belief that this would be the first time he would be in a campaign led by an experienced, professional officer – or so he thought.
General Braddock was sixty years old. He was short, stout, and bad-tempered. He had little experience in battle, and no knowledge of the kind of wilderness tactics that were in store for him. As his aide, Washington was dismayed by Braddock’s rude behavior. Neither did his arrogance sit well with the colonials or the Iroquois; the very people Braddock needed most in his upcoming combat with the French and their Canadian allies.
In sharp contrast to Braddock, the portrait of Washington, shown here, appears to closely match the description of the twenty-six-year-old Colonel Washington written by a fellow officer during the French and Indian War. It reads, “He had an impressive bearing and was an excellent horseman. He stood 6’ 2 1/2” tall and weighed 175 pounds; he was broad shouldered and muscular; his hands were large and well formed, and he wore size 13 boots; he had reddish-brown hair and had a fair complexion; his demeanor was calm and controlled; he focused his clear blue-grey eyes on those with whom he spoke, and was a good listener.”
As General Braddock’s army of 1,500 brightly-clad “redcoats” forged through the forests of the Ohio Valley, with colonial troops following, there was a surprise attack by about nine-hundred French-led troops. The first assault came from Canadian warriors who descended on them with blood-curdling war whoops catching the shocked British troops in a well-planned crossfire offensive. As they tried to escape the mayhem, French troops blocked their paths. In a panic, the redcoats began firing their rifles indiscriminately, hitting some of their own troops.
During the blistering attack, Washington had horses shot out from underneath him, but he quickly mounted available horses and continued directing as many of his fellow officers and soldiers to safety as possible. It was also noted that throughout the battle, Washington was ill with a high fever. General Braddock was shot in the chest, possibly by one of his own men, and died on July 13, 1755. Prior to dying, he gave Washington his leopard skin saddle blanket, which can be seen in a portrait of Washington, appearing in a later essay.
During the massacre of Braddock and his troops, nearly a thousand men were either killed or wounded. Word quickly spread, that although he performed heroically, Washington had been killed. However, after the battle, Washington rode on to the British Fort Cumberland, in Maryland, to recuperate from his illness. While there, he wrote a letter to his brother John, dated July 18, 1755, in which he exhibits a wry sense of humor in his telling of the events of the recent battle with the French forces:“Dear Brother,
"As I have heard, since my arrival at this place (Fort Cumberland, Maryland), a circumstantial account of my death and dying speech; I take this early opportunity of contradicting the first, and of assuring you that I have not, as yet, composed the latter. But, by the all-powerful Dispensation of Providence, I have been protected beyond all human probability and expectation; for I had four Bullets through my Coat, and two Horses shot under me; yet escaped unhurt, although Death was leveling my companions on every side of me!”
The French and Indian War began in the Ohio Valley, in 1754-55, but remained at a stalemate for several more years. The open hostilities between Britain and France continued and spread to Europe, marking the beginning of a larger imperial war known as, The Seven Years’ War; some call it the first world war. Spain sided with France and also declared war against Britain. Despite facing this formidable alliance, the British naval strength ultimately succeeded in seizing the French Caribbean Islands, Spanish Cuba, and the Philippines. After Spain’s failed invasion of Britain’s ally, Portugal, diplomats from the French and Spanish governments began seeking peace with Britain. This costly war finally ended with The Treaty of Paris in 1763. The treaty secured significant British territorial gains in North America, including all of the French territory east of the Mississippi River, as well as the Spanish territory of Florida. While preparing for the campaign against the French, General Braddock offered the colonials parcels of the Ohio frontier in exchange for their combat services. Washington was intent on seeing to it that the British kept their promise to these veterans as well as to the families of fallen soldiers. Fifteen years later, in 1770, Washington was permitted to notify all claimants that surveying of approved lands would proceed, and once completed, the lands would be parceled out to the rightful recipients. Washington led the four-man surveying party which consisted of William Crawford, who was a fellow veteran and surveyor, Joseph Nicholson, scout and interpreter, and Dr. James Craik. Craik was a lifelong friend of Washington’s, and attended him in the final hours before his death, on December 14, 1799.The party set out from Fort Pitt to explore possible bounty sites, and to stake out the “Soldier’s Land,” as well. At their campsite off the Ohio and Kanawha Rivers, Washington’s group was approached by a small party of native braves, and their Chief, who had been tracking the colonial party because their Chief had long wanted to meet Washington. A council fire was kindled, Nicholson served as interpreter, and Craik took notes of what was later known as, The Indian Prophesy. Turning his full attention on Washington, the Chief proceeded by saying:“I am a Chief and ruler of many tribes. My influence extends to the waters of the Great Lakes, and to the far Blue Mountains. I have traveled a long and weary path that I might see the young warrior of the great battle. It was on the day when the white man’s blood mixed with the streams of our forest that I first beheld this chief (Washington). I called to my young men and said, mark you tall and daring warrior? He is not of the red-coat tribe – he hath an Indian’s wisdom and his warriors fight as we do – himself alone exposed. Quick, let your aim be certain, and he dies. Our rifles were leveled, rifles which, but for you, did not miss – ‘twas all in vain; a power mightier far than we, shielded him from harm. He did not die in battle. I am old, and soon shall be gathering to the great council fire by my fathers, in the land of shades, but ere I go, there is something bids me speak in the voice of Prophesy. Listen! The Great Spirit protects that man, and guides his Destinies; he will become the chief of many nations, and a people yet unborn will hail him as the founder of a mighty empire. I am come to pay homage to the man who is the particular favorite of Heaven, and who can never die in battle.” | 1,750 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Printable Student View
- How did living in the colonies change the way Americans thought about government?
- There was little diversity in the colonies and everyone had similar ideas about government.
- The colonist were generally left alone by England and they took part in running there own government.
- The colonists knew they would always be protected by England and there was no need for their own government.
- The colonists felt that the founding fathers were best able to run the government.
- A social contract
- Defines how people should interact with each other
- Defines a relationship between a people and their government
- Defines how a people with interact with foreign countries
- Defines relationships between the state government and the federal government
- What freedoms did American colonists begin to take for granted as they moved toward independence? Explain why this happened.
- Based on the American experience, what do you think were the important principles that were followed by the founding fathers?
December 31, 2019 10:54am | <urn:uuid:e0f4f028-7d3d-49b2-a174-e643c3f3ed63> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.education.ne.gov/socialstudies/cssap/modules/supporting-the-bill-of-rights/activity-1/formative-assessment/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250589560.16/warc/CC-MAIN-20200117123339-20200117151339-00460.warc.gz | en | 0.982226 | 206 | 3.984375 | 4 | [
0.04113030061125755,
0.11873240023851395,
0.5182682275772095,
-0.5915996432304382,
-0.0828336775302887,
0.10734764486551285,
0.2843932807445526,
0.20003989338874817,
-0.078016497194767,
0.2355024665594101,
0.21372561156749725,
0.31151747703552246,
-0.19400794804096222,
0.2185165286064148,
... | 12 | Printable Student View
- How did living in the colonies change the way Americans thought about government?
- There was little diversity in the colonies and everyone had similar ideas about government.
- The colonist were generally left alone by England and they took part in running there own government.
- The colonists knew they would always be protected by England and there was no need for their own government.
- The colonists felt that the founding fathers were best able to run the government.
- A social contract
- Defines how people should interact with each other
- Defines a relationship between a people and their government
- Defines how a people with interact with foreign countries
- Defines relationships between the state government and the federal government
- What freedoms did American colonists begin to take for granted as they moved toward independence? Explain why this happened.
- Based on the American experience, what do you think were the important principles that were followed by the founding fathers?
December 31, 2019 10:54am | 207 | ENGLISH | 1 |
File photo shows a U.S. Flying Tigers pilot posing in front a shark-mouth fighter plane at Wujiaba Airport in Kunming, China, during World War II. (Sino-American Aviation Heritage Foundation/Handout via Xinhua)
Cynthia Chennault, daughter of the legendary late U.S. General Claire Lee Chennault, still remembered how her beloved father described his feeling on the victory over Japan during World War II (WWII).
"He was confident that with adequate support, the Allies would drive out the Japanese invaders," the professor emerita with the University of Florida, told Xinhua on Wednesday.
"He worked hard for this goal," said the 69-year-old, who traveled frequently between the United States and China, dedicated to cultural and people-to-people exchanges, an effort she deemed vital for the friendship long forged by the two nations.
In 1941, General Chennault, commander of the U.S. 14th Air Fleet, recruited the American Volunteer Group, which was later known as the "Flying Tigers."
During WWII, the U.S. general trained, organized and inspired both American and Chinese pilots to overcome language and cultural barriers. The "Flying Tigers" helped transport arms and other materials to support China's fight against the Japanese invaders.
Calling the "Flying Tigers" history "a great success story of mutual friendship, respect and collaboration," Chennault said the experience means more to her father.
"It completely changed his life," she said. "He had never been to China before, and within a very short few months, he developed profound respect for Chinese people, and their bravery and perseverance in such difficult circumstances."
"It was an opportunity for him to prove his aviation theory and his fighter pilot theory. So it's a dream come true for him," she said.
When her father died in 1958, Chennault was only eight years old. She made her first trip to the Chinese mainland in 1981 during which she explored more about her father.
"When talking to people on streets, some had memories of that time and said my family helped to build the runway," she said, while recounting that visit.
She was even surprised that there were many more "Flying Tigers"-themed museums set for the past years, which she thought was "very positive" as the joint efforts have been widely recognized and remembered.
The expert in Chinese culture, who attributed her career choice largely to her father, said she expects a new chapter could be written based on the U.S.-China WWII friendship.
Chennault has been echoed widely by other "Flying Tigers" families on the significance of shared golden memories and the joint efforts to continue the friendship.
"I know that the Chinese people called the Flying Tigers hero. But my father always said that the Chinese people are the heroes, because they saved his life," Edward Beneda, son of U.S. Flying Tigers veteran Glen Beneda, told Xinhua.
Beneda's father was assigned to China as a fighter pilot in the U.S. 14th Air Force in 1943 at the age of 19.
The sacrifices Chinese and Americans made side by side in the war are our common heritage which should be cherished by our two countries, said Beneda, vice chairman of the Sino-American Aviation Heritage Foundation (SAAHF).
"We disagree from time to time, but the important thing is remembering the history, remembering the investment that we have in the lives of the Chinese and the Americans," he added.
Beneda said his father regarded the China experience a valuable lesson, namely to be good to others and to serve.
"We consider the Chinese people as part of our family. I'm not talking about just the ones that saved my father's life, but we have a very profound and strong relationship with all the Chinese people," Beneda said emotionally.
To fulfill his father's wish and educate younger generations, Beneda committed himself to documenting and publicizing the U.S.-China relationship in the war that brought the two countries close together as friends and allies.
For 63-year-old James Bryant, son of Flying Tiger veteran James E. Bryant, who joined the army in the early 1940s and went to China after receiving pilot training in 1944, it was the shared dream by peoples of the United States and China that created miracle in the wartime history.
Bryant told Xinhua that he honored all of the American and Chinese veterans during the wartime for their bravery and sacrifice. "The world that I grew up in would have been a lot different if America and China had lost the war," he said.
"Friendship never happens accidentally. They're the consequence of shared dreams and common experiences during the Flying Tiger times. So, that's exactly what evolved between the Flying Tigers and the people of China," Bryant emphasized.
Bryant's first trip to China was in 1992, and he spends quite a lot of time in China each year.
He visited places where his father had battled against Japanese troops and visited Flying Tigers museums, where he learnt more about what his father and other veterans did during the war.
Bryant believed that his father's great impact on him is his vision of globalization, so he linked his business with global cultural exchanges.
"Flying Tiger is a symbol of China-U.S. friendship and cooperation, and I expect it can last long," Bryant said.
Jeffrey Greene, chairman of SAAHF and expert on Flying Tiger history, said, in the past 24 years, his foundation has arranged China visits for hundreds of Flying Tiger veterans and held related forums and activities in a number of U.S. cities, promoting further understanding and friendship between of the peoples of the two countries.
"It is important to remember the U.S.-China friendship that was established during WWII and it's a proved victory," Greene said. Enditem | <urn:uuid:74c3cbe6-76dc-4094-a299-fc85e79603db> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://www.ecns.cn/news/2019-08-15/detail-ifznccet2921925.shtml | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251687958.71/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126074227-20200126104227-00012.warc.gz | en | 0.985141 | 1,221 | 3.28125 | 3 | [
-0.14607498049736023,
0.4573363661766052,
0.43469464778900146,
-0.29741066694259644,
-0.22415073215961456,
0.55879145860672,
0.26200956106185913,
0.2578796148300171,
-0.08011220395565033,
-0.11917123198509216,
0.2969091534614563,
-0.13999637961387634,
0.11380445957183838,
0.427648454904556... | 1 | File photo shows a U.S. Flying Tigers pilot posing in front a shark-mouth fighter plane at Wujiaba Airport in Kunming, China, during World War II. (Sino-American Aviation Heritage Foundation/Handout via Xinhua)
Cynthia Chennault, daughter of the legendary late U.S. General Claire Lee Chennault, still remembered how her beloved father described his feeling on the victory over Japan during World War II (WWII).
"He was confident that with adequate support, the Allies would drive out the Japanese invaders," the professor emerita with the University of Florida, told Xinhua on Wednesday.
"He worked hard for this goal," said the 69-year-old, who traveled frequently between the United States and China, dedicated to cultural and people-to-people exchanges, an effort she deemed vital for the friendship long forged by the two nations.
In 1941, General Chennault, commander of the U.S. 14th Air Fleet, recruited the American Volunteer Group, which was later known as the "Flying Tigers."
During WWII, the U.S. general trained, organized and inspired both American and Chinese pilots to overcome language and cultural barriers. The "Flying Tigers" helped transport arms and other materials to support China's fight against the Japanese invaders.
Calling the "Flying Tigers" history "a great success story of mutual friendship, respect and collaboration," Chennault said the experience means more to her father.
"It completely changed his life," she said. "He had never been to China before, and within a very short few months, he developed profound respect for Chinese people, and their bravery and perseverance in such difficult circumstances."
"It was an opportunity for him to prove his aviation theory and his fighter pilot theory. So it's a dream come true for him," she said.
When her father died in 1958, Chennault was only eight years old. She made her first trip to the Chinese mainland in 1981 during which she explored more about her father.
"When talking to people on streets, some had memories of that time and said my family helped to build the runway," she said, while recounting that visit.
She was even surprised that there were many more "Flying Tigers"-themed museums set for the past years, which she thought was "very positive" as the joint efforts have been widely recognized and remembered.
The expert in Chinese culture, who attributed her career choice largely to her father, said she expects a new chapter could be written based on the U.S.-China WWII friendship.
Chennault has been echoed widely by other "Flying Tigers" families on the significance of shared golden memories and the joint efforts to continue the friendship.
"I know that the Chinese people called the Flying Tigers hero. But my father always said that the Chinese people are the heroes, because they saved his life," Edward Beneda, son of U.S. Flying Tigers veteran Glen Beneda, told Xinhua.
Beneda's father was assigned to China as a fighter pilot in the U.S. 14th Air Force in 1943 at the age of 19.
The sacrifices Chinese and Americans made side by side in the war are our common heritage which should be cherished by our two countries, said Beneda, vice chairman of the Sino-American Aviation Heritage Foundation (SAAHF).
"We disagree from time to time, but the important thing is remembering the history, remembering the investment that we have in the lives of the Chinese and the Americans," he added.
Beneda said his father regarded the China experience a valuable lesson, namely to be good to others and to serve.
"We consider the Chinese people as part of our family. I'm not talking about just the ones that saved my father's life, but we have a very profound and strong relationship with all the Chinese people," Beneda said emotionally.
To fulfill his father's wish and educate younger generations, Beneda committed himself to documenting and publicizing the U.S.-China relationship in the war that brought the two countries close together as friends and allies.
For 63-year-old James Bryant, son of Flying Tiger veteran James E. Bryant, who joined the army in the early 1940s and went to China after receiving pilot training in 1944, it was the shared dream by peoples of the United States and China that created miracle in the wartime history.
Bryant told Xinhua that he honored all of the American and Chinese veterans during the wartime for their bravery and sacrifice. "The world that I grew up in would have been a lot different if America and China had lost the war," he said.
"Friendship never happens accidentally. They're the consequence of shared dreams and common experiences during the Flying Tiger times. So, that's exactly what evolved between the Flying Tigers and the people of China," Bryant emphasized.
Bryant's first trip to China was in 1992, and he spends quite a lot of time in China each year.
He visited places where his father had battled against Japanese troops and visited Flying Tigers museums, where he learnt more about what his father and other veterans did during the war.
Bryant believed that his father's great impact on him is his vision of globalization, so he linked his business with global cultural exchanges.
"Flying Tiger is a symbol of China-U.S. friendship and cooperation, and I expect it can last long," Bryant said.
Jeffrey Greene, chairman of SAAHF and expert on Flying Tiger history, said, in the past 24 years, his foundation has arranged China visits for hundreds of Flying Tiger veterans and held related forums and activities in a number of U.S. cities, promoting further understanding and friendship between of the peoples of the two countries.
"It is important to remember the U.S.-China friendship that was established during WWII and it's a proved victory," Greene said. Enditem | 1,206 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Women in Colonial or Slave Times Were Treated Worse Than Men Essay
Slavery is an abhorred term in modern society, associated with the brutality, horror and mistreatment that many faced in past era. To many American people, slavery is perceived to be an African thing- something that only occurred in Africa. However, many are the stories we hear of the treatment that our very own American people faced in colonial times. Thus, slavery did not just happen in Africa, but also occurred in America, and its origin in America dates back to 1619 with the introduction of the first captured Africans by the Dutch. These Africans were brought to America to provide labor that was very much needed in the production of lucrative crops such as tobacco. Slavery became a common practice in the American colonies in the colonial periods, and the African-American slaves aided in the building of the economic foundations of the nation. Unfortunately, slavery came with its own evil, and these colonial times saw the degradation, brutality, lack of freedom and mistreatment that the slaves faced at the hands of their masters. Slavery did not know gender, as both men and women alike were subjected to the same treatment. Both were subjected to grueling labor, were mercilessly whipped, denied their basic human rights, and in general were viewed as property by their masters. Despite these common factors, women received the harshest form of treatment, as they were raped, subjected to sexual abuse, and in general faced even more physical and mental degradation. This paper will look into how these women were treated worse in the colonial periods.
Rape and sexual abuse became rampant in the colonial period, and thus it became more of a norm, an occurrence that the female slaves became used. Women were objectified, and were seen as objects to satisfy the sexual needs of their masters. In the opinion of the white men, the white women were seen as pure and modest to certain degrees of prudishness, and thus the black women were perceived to be hypersexual, becoming the objects of the white men’s fantasy. As a result, the women became the objects of the white men’s sexual pursuits in which case some led to rape. In contrast to black men who were punished with castration when accused of rape, white men walked about in freedom, for they had no fear of punishment for raping the women.
The sexual abuse of the female slaves had partial roots in the patriarchal southern culture, in which women, black or white were treated as property. Though there were some white slaves who were also raped, racial discrimination was rampant, and majority of those who were raped were black women. Children, mostly young girls were not spared, and were continually subjected to rampant sexual abuse by the masters, and masters’ children. Their lack of control in whatever they did or wherever they went only fuelled the abuse, for many could be manipulated into risky situations. For instance, some were forced into dark plantations, or forced to sleep in the masters’ bedrooms to be available for service. Thus, their bodies were perceived to belong to their owners, to be used against their free will to the satisfaction of the owners. Unfortunately, they had to suffer in silence for they could not defend themselves as defense meant punishment from the master, and they would face the wrath of the masters’ wives. Additionally, the objectification of women was rampant as the masters engaged in sexual relations with them to ensure they would breed more slaves. Thus, to enhance their wealth, the masters got the female slaves pregnant to ensure continuity of slavery hence more labor in the farms. As a result, they saw this as a form of reducing costs in purchase of human labor, and these women’s children took their mother’s status, and born into slavery.
Women were also not exempted from the hard labor that was meted on the men. An overwhelming majority of the enslaved women usually labored at tasks that were typically a reserve of the men. Thus, it was uncommon to see women cutting trees, building canals, as well as planting and harvesting in the fields. Unlike men who were restricted to more male-dominated roles, the women were also subjected to working in the masters’ households, and thus many faced double amounts of work compared to men. Many worked as servants in their masters’ houses, where they served as cooks, gardeners, as well as taking care of the masters’ children. The working conditions were always harsh, and many would toil from morning to night with little rest, if any. Thus, their treatment was harsher as they were subjected to more roles, given the society’s stereotype that women are supposed to be “in the kitchen” and do duties pertaining to cooking, washing, and other household chores.
The treatment women received especially black women was not from the male masters entirely. In many cases, they received even worse treatment from the wives of the masters, who blamed them for their husbands’ irresponsible sexual encounters with the slaves. Thus, to mete out their revenge for their husbands’ actions and for even having children with these African slaves, many white women beat the female slaves with brutality. Mary Prince, a former slave in the colonial period, gave an example of this form of treatment in her narrative. In her narrative of her experience, she states that her master was a fearful woman who rained blows on her face. From her experience, she got to know the difference between the smart of a rope and the cow-skin, which were applied to her body in beating. She describes her mistress as a savage to the slaves, who treated the slaves with brutality. Harriet Jacobs also tells of her tale in Incidents of a Slave Girl, where she recounts of the brutal treatment that the slave owners’ wives meted on the enslaved women as retaliation for their husbands’ sexual interactions with the enslaved women. She states that her mistress was untouched by the beatings that the slaves received, and she would sit and watch as the slaves were mercilessly beaten with blood trickling from the strokes of the lashes that were used. She also recounts how her mistress would spit on the utensils used for cooking so that the cook and her children would not scrap on the remains of the food.
Punishment formed an important part of slavery. Just like men, the enslaved women also received the most severe forms of punishment from their masters in the plantations. To many masters, the use of force was seen as appropriate to motivate the enslaved to work even harder, to establish discipline and order. Being whipped, mutilated or being subjected to solitary confinement thus, would punish the women. Pregnant women were no exception, and to mete out their punishment, the slave masters would dig holes big enough for the women’s stomachs to lie in and then proceed with the lashings. Thus, they faced even more humiliation, and this form of punishment only added to the degradation that the women were subjected.
Childbirth was a challenge to all women in the colonial period, but even more so for the enslaved women. Unlike the white women, the enslaved black women did not receive any form of prenatal care, and in fact, many continued to engage in hard labor until they gave birth. As a result, hard labor many succumbed to death after the child’s birth, and cases of stillbirths and abortions were on the rise. For those who were lucky enough to give birth, they were still expected to resume their duties without any rest period. Education of the girl-child was also unheard of in the colonial period. The fact that they were slaves added to the fact that they were seen as objects who did not need any form of education, but rather were to perform the duties mandated. Many were subjected to household chores and their children were meant to bear the same fate.
The colonial period indeed saw the mistreatment of women to levels higher than those that were subjected to men. From the lack of freedom to the sexual abuse that they were constantly faced with, women were a minority in society, and viewed as objects that could be traded and abused at the will of their masters. The hard labor that they endured in the harsh conditions only added to their plight, and their voice was stifled by the male-dominated society. Their husbands, who were fellow slaves, could not come to their defense as they too were subjected to inhumane treatment that left many dead. Thus, the slavery in the colonial period saw a darkness that cannot be measured, and though it was abolished, the memory of the mistreatments that many endured still remained etched in their lives. Some women like Harriet Jacobs and Mary Prince lived to tell their stories, and their tales saw the rise of women fighting for their rights in society. Even in modern day, women, more so women of color, continue to campaign for their rights, and try to abolish the stereotype that society holds in regards to women of color and racism in general. Stories have been told of the treatment that the slaves faced in colonial times, but many did not highlight the treatment that women in particular faced, given the fact that we live in a chauvinistic society. However, future generations should be more aware of the suffering that these women went through, and should not disregard the inhumanity that they also faced. Though slavery was abolished, modern society continues to see the degradation of women in various areas of the world, where women are still subjected to and sold to prostitution. Society should strive to stop this, and the treatment that women faced in colonial period should serve as a basis from which society should work on changing this form of treatment. Women should not be seen as objects, but rather should be afforded equal rights, and in general, slavery in whichever form it may take, should come to a complete end. | <urn:uuid:a0e7462d-2b2e-4acf-b753-9bc5010bc9f3> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://writingscentre.com/essays/essays-samples/women-in-colonial-or-slave-times | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251705142.94/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127174507-20200127204507-00435.warc.gz | en | 0.992335 | 1,989 | 3.328125 | 3 | [
0.14739742875099182,
0.6785984635353088,
0.36753225326538086,
0.3277161121368408,
-0.03054811619222164,
0.16140562295913696,
0.03644091635942459,
-0.16846111416816711,
0.0734359622001648,
0.18663263320922852,
0.2398434728384018,
-0.11107875406742096,
-0.196218803524971,
0.38941049575805664... | 14 | Women in Colonial or Slave Times Were Treated Worse Than Men Essay
Slavery is an abhorred term in modern society, associated with the brutality, horror and mistreatment that many faced in past era. To many American people, slavery is perceived to be an African thing- something that only occurred in Africa. However, many are the stories we hear of the treatment that our very own American people faced in colonial times. Thus, slavery did not just happen in Africa, but also occurred in America, and its origin in America dates back to 1619 with the introduction of the first captured Africans by the Dutch. These Africans were brought to America to provide labor that was very much needed in the production of lucrative crops such as tobacco. Slavery became a common practice in the American colonies in the colonial periods, and the African-American slaves aided in the building of the economic foundations of the nation. Unfortunately, slavery came with its own evil, and these colonial times saw the degradation, brutality, lack of freedom and mistreatment that the slaves faced at the hands of their masters. Slavery did not know gender, as both men and women alike were subjected to the same treatment. Both were subjected to grueling labor, were mercilessly whipped, denied their basic human rights, and in general were viewed as property by their masters. Despite these common factors, women received the harshest form of treatment, as they were raped, subjected to sexual abuse, and in general faced even more physical and mental degradation. This paper will look into how these women were treated worse in the colonial periods.
Rape and sexual abuse became rampant in the colonial period, and thus it became more of a norm, an occurrence that the female slaves became used. Women were objectified, and were seen as objects to satisfy the sexual needs of their masters. In the opinion of the white men, the white women were seen as pure and modest to certain degrees of prudishness, and thus the black women were perceived to be hypersexual, becoming the objects of the white men’s fantasy. As a result, the women became the objects of the white men’s sexual pursuits in which case some led to rape. In contrast to black men who were punished with castration when accused of rape, white men walked about in freedom, for they had no fear of punishment for raping the women.
The sexual abuse of the female slaves had partial roots in the patriarchal southern culture, in which women, black or white were treated as property. Though there were some white slaves who were also raped, racial discrimination was rampant, and majority of those who were raped were black women. Children, mostly young girls were not spared, and were continually subjected to rampant sexual abuse by the masters, and masters’ children. Their lack of control in whatever they did or wherever they went only fuelled the abuse, for many could be manipulated into risky situations. For instance, some were forced into dark plantations, or forced to sleep in the masters’ bedrooms to be available for service. Thus, their bodies were perceived to belong to their owners, to be used against their free will to the satisfaction of the owners. Unfortunately, they had to suffer in silence for they could not defend themselves as defense meant punishment from the master, and they would face the wrath of the masters’ wives. Additionally, the objectification of women was rampant as the masters engaged in sexual relations with them to ensure they would breed more slaves. Thus, to enhance their wealth, the masters got the female slaves pregnant to ensure continuity of slavery hence more labor in the farms. As a result, they saw this as a form of reducing costs in purchase of human labor, and these women’s children took their mother’s status, and born into slavery.
Women were also not exempted from the hard labor that was meted on the men. An overwhelming majority of the enslaved women usually labored at tasks that were typically a reserve of the men. Thus, it was uncommon to see women cutting trees, building canals, as well as planting and harvesting in the fields. Unlike men who were restricted to more male-dominated roles, the women were also subjected to working in the masters’ households, and thus many faced double amounts of work compared to men. Many worked as servants in their masters’ houses, where they served as cooks, gardeners, as well as taking care of the masters’ children. The working conditions were always harsh, and many would toil from morning to night with little rest, if any. Thus, their treatment was harsher as they were subjected to more roles, given the society’s stereotype that women are supposed to be “in the kitchen” and do duties pertaining to cooking, washing, and other household chores.
The treatment women received especially black women was not from the male masters entirely. In many cases, they received even worse treatment from the wives of the masters, who blamed them for their husbands’ irresponsible sexual encounters with the slaves. Thus, to mete out their revenge for their husbands’ actions and for even having children with these African slaves, many white women beat the female slaves with brutality. Mary Prince, a former slave in the colonial period, gave an example of this form of treatment in her narrative. In her narrative of her experience, she states that her master was a fearful woman who rained blows on her face. From her experience, she got to know the difference between the smart of a rope and the cow-skin, which were applied to her body in beating. She describes her mistress as a savage to the slaves, who treated the slaves with brutality. Harriet Jacobs also tells of her tale in Incidents of a Slave Girl, where she recounts of the brutal treatment that the slave owners’ wives meted on the enslaved women as retaliation for their husbands’ sexual interactions with the enslaved women. She states that her mistress was untouched by the beatings that the slaves received, and she would sit and watch as the slaves were mercilessly beaten with blood trickling from the strokes of the lashes that were used. She also recounts how her mistress would spit on the utensils used for cooking so that the cook and her children would not scrap on the remains of the food.
Punishment formed an important part of slavery. Just like men, the enslaved women also received the most severe forms of punishment from their masters in the plantations. To many masters, the use of force was seen as appropriate to motivate the enslaved to work even harder, to establish discipline and order. Being whipped, mutilated or being subjected to solitary confinement thus, would punish the women. Pregnant women were no exception, and to mete out their punishment, the slave masters would dig holes big enough for the women’s stomachs to lie in and then proceed with the lashings. Thus, they faced even more humiliation, and this form of punishment only added to the degradation that the women were subjected.
Childbirth was a challenge to all women in the colonial period, but even more so for the enslaved women. Unlike the white women, the enslaved black women did not receive any form of prenatal care, and in fact, many continued to engage in hard labor until they gave birth. As a result, hard labor many succumbed to death after the child’s birth, and cases of stillbirths and abortions were on the rise. For those who were lucky enough to give birth, they were still expected to resume their duties without any rest period. Education of the girl-child was also unheard of in the colonial period. The fact that they were slaves added to the fact that they were seen as objects who did not need any form of education, but rather were to perform the duties mandated. Many were subjected to household chores and their children were meant to bear the same fate.
The colonial period indeed saw the mistreatment of women to levels higher than those that were subjected to men. From the lack of freedom to the sexual abuse that they were constantly faced with, women were a minority in society, and viewed as objects that could be traded and abused at the will of their masters. The hard labor that they endured in the harsh conditions only added to their plight, and their voice was stifled by the male-dominated society. Their husbands, who were fellow slaves, could not come to their defense as they too were subjected to inhumane treatment that left many dead. Thus, the slavery in the colonial period saw a darkness that cannot be measured, and though it was abolished, the memory of the mistreatments that many endured still remained etched in their lives. Some women like Harriet Jacobs and Mary Prince lived to tell their stories, and their tales saw the rise of women fighting for their rights in society. Even in modern day, women, more so women of color, continue to campaign for their rights, and try to abolish the stereotype that society holds in regards to women of color and racism in general. Stories have been told of the treatment that the slaves faced in colonial times, but many did not highlight the treatment that women in particular faced, given the fact that we live in a chauvinistic society. However, future generations should be more aware of the suffering that these women went through, and should not disregard the inhumanity that they also faced. Though slavery was abolished, modern society continues to see the degradation of women in various areas of the world, where women are still subjected to and sold to prostitution. Society should strive to stop this, and the treatment that women faced in colonial period should serve as a basis from which society should work on changing this form of treatment. Women should not be seen as objects, but rather should be afforded equal rights, and in general, slavery in whichever form it may take, should come to a complete end. | 1,969 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Chartered in 1830,it never achieved its intended goal of connecting its namesake villages. A ground breaking ceremony was held in 1831,but construction did not begin in earnest until 1836 when the route was surveyed by George H. Cook.By the end of construction a total of 26¼ miles of track had been laid.
The track consisted of wooden rails topped with strap iron.The track generally followed Catskill Creek, and the communities served included Cairo and Leeds. The first trains, consisting of cars hauled by horses, ran in 1839.The line's only locomotive, Mountaineer, began operation in 1840. It was never very satisfactory. The C&C carried both passengers and freight.[Commodities carried included iron, brick, wood, various agricultural products, and household goods including such items as candles, tea, salt, snuff and raisins.
Following the bridge collapse, the line collapsed financially and was sold and scrapped in 1842.
The only known depiction of the railroad is Thomas Cole's River in the Catskills at the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston. | <urn:uuid:58ae21ef-6f39-4e34-95a9-026e19e134d7> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://catskillcollectibles.blogspot.com/2016/09/the-canajoharie-and-catskill-rail-road.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250613416.54/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123191130-20200123220130-00090.warc.gz | en | 0.980209 | 224 | 3.75 | 4 | [
0.0520092137157917,
0.16989819705486298,
0.45900341868400574,
0.17844794690608978,
-0.3839469254016876,
-0.20457889139652252,
-0.18653519451618195,
-0.06709816306829453,
-0.3156137466430664,
-0.5316231846809387,
0.18920694291591644,
-0.5430418252944946,
0.09839516133069992,
0.2818938493728... | 7 | Chartered in 1830,it never achieved its intended goal of connecting its namesake villages. A ground breaking ceremony was held in 1831,but construction did not begin in earnest until 1836 when the route was surveyed by George H. Cook.By the end of construction a total of 26¼ miles of track had been laid.
The track consisted of wooden rails topped with strap iron.The track generally followed Catskill Creek, and the communities served included Cairo and Leeds. The first trains, consisting of cars hauled by horses, ran in 1839.The line's only locomotive, Mountaineer, began operation in 1840. It was never very satisfactory. The C&C carried both passengers and freight.[Commodities carried included iron, brick, wood, various agricultural products, and household goods including such items as candles, tea, salt, snuff and raisins.
Following the bridge collapse, the line collapsed financially and was sold and scrapped in 1842.
The only known depiction of the railroad is Thomas Cole's River in the Catskills at the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston. | 236 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Among one of the fascinating civilizations of the earth is the Mayan civilization. The Mayan civilization consisted of people from Central American and Mexico who were generally known as the Mayan People.
Looking at the Mayan civilization timeline, the culture began at the 2600 BC and ended in the 19th century. We can see that the society of the Mayans got covered in controversy and mystery. But, their name came from the ancient city of Mayapan called the Yucatan.
However, there are specific facts about the Mayan civilization and its people. Here are some of them.
The Mayan people and the Mayan civilization became the victim of catastrophic collapses, which were fatal in their history. There were large Mayan cities in the 10th and the 2nd century.
In particular, Mayan historians were settling on three main factors that might have led to the collapse of the Maya: war between the city-states, overpopulation, and drought.
During the time, they were not able to identify the reason why they got left. However, these reasons alone are not responsible for marking the end of the Mayan civilization.
The Mayan Civilizations had some beauty standards set. Unlike other cultures, the beauty of the Mayan people did not come from their natural bodies.
They had set the rules according to their hard work in which they had to perform certain body modifications. Out of all the beauty practices, they flattened their forehead. Hence, this practice required a lot of hard effort.
As the Mayan people had different explanations for beauty, they also had a belief that anyone with the crosses-eye was a sign of favor from their god known as Kinich Ahau, who had a cross-eye.
So, they thought that cross-eye is a blessing that came from the god and was very valuable. This was not enough! The children of the Mayan spent hours playing with the objects that would cross their eyes forever.
According to the Mayan religion, the Mayan people loved to tattoo their bodies. Both men and women of this civilization loved to get attached. But, they waited for their marriage.
After their formal marriage ceremony, they get a tattoo in their arms, faces, backs, and legs, which is a part of the Mayan religion. However, the tattoo of the women looks smaller than men.
The Mayan Religion had a ritual of human sacrifice. As per their religion, the people considered sacrifice as a vital part and an honor. So, they cut their ribs and would remove the beating heart.
Hence, the Mayan civilization is very tough to understand. The people from this civilization had a strong belief that the people who made sacrificed would get into heaven.
As we all know, the Mayan civilization had awkward buildings. They would expand the cities both inward and outward in a haphazard way.
At times, they would build one building on top of the other existing buildings too. So, it was clear that the Mayan people had no proper planning on building their cities.
Looking at the buildings of the Mayan civilization, we can see pyramids and palaces. But. As most of the buildings had ball courts to perform ceremonies, they would align the structure with the stars.
The Mayan people had blind faith in the god. They would give importance to the sun and the moon. Also, they had a view that the heavenly bodies had a direct impact and significance in their life. So, they would consider that these celestial bodies helped them to communicate with the god.
Apart from the gods of the Mayan people, know the modern-day gods.
Mayans wrote books for the first time in history. The people that belonged to the Mayan civilization timeline had a great love for the writing and screen-folded their writing, just like the magazines of today. They used the bark of wild fig trees to make pages. In history, they have written over 10,000 books.
Like the people of this civilization believed in astronomy, they had a firm belief in abstract math too. They have the base 2o system for mathematics, known as the vigesimal math system.
With the help of it, they would create architectural wonders. Also, it helped the Mayan people to make their great calendars and manage their economy. | <urn:uuid:e65a9e17-a90f-4a51-bbb2-f9d5848efc12> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.wikye.com/everything-about-mayan-people-and-their-civilization-facts/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251684146.65/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126013015-20200126043015-00004.warc.gz | en | 0.988823 | 883 | 3.5 | 4 | [
-0.07236643880605698,
0.7613901495933533,
0.5521457195281982,
0.5285658836364746,
0.12931783497333527,
0.0007693729130551219,
0.4906960129737854,
0.011439184658229351,
-0.25563108921051025,
-0.007609561551362276,
0.1489989310503006,
-0.36705517768859863,
-0.007513643242418766,
-0.042619787... | 2 | Among one of the fascinating civilizations of the earth is the Mayan civilization. The Mayan civilization consisted of people from Central American and Mexico who were generally known as the Mayan People.
Looking at the Mayan civilization timeline, the culture began at the 2600 BC and ended in the 19th century. We can see that the society of the Mayans got covered in controversy and mystery. But, their name came from the ancient city of Mayapan called the Yucatan.
However, there are specific facts about the Mayan civilization and its people. Here are some of them.
The Mayan people and the Mayan civilization became the victim of catastrophic collapses, which were fatal in their history. There were large Mayan cities in the 10th and the 2nd century.
In particular, Mayan historians were settling on three main factors that might have led to the collapse of the Maya: war between the city-states, overpopulation, and drought.
During the time, they were not able to identify the reason why they got left. However, these reasons alone are not responsible for marking the end of the Mayan civilization.
The Mayan Civilizations had some beauty standards set. Unlike other cultures, the beauty of the Mayan people did not come from their natural bodies.
They had set the rules according to their hard work in which they had to perform certain body modifications. Out of all the beauty practices, they flattened their forehead. Hence, this practice required a lot of hard effort.
As the Mayan people had different explanations for beauty, they also had a belief that anyone with the crosses-eye was a sign of favor from their god known as Kinich Ahau, who had a cross-eye.
So, they thought that cross-eye is a blessing that came from the god and was very valuable. This was not enough! The children of the Mayan spent hours playing with the objects that would cross their eyes forever.
According to the Mayan religion, the Mayan people loved to tattoo their bodies. Both men and women of this civilization loved to get attached. But, they waited for their marriage.
After their formal marriage ceremony, they get a tattoo in their arms, faces, backs, and legs, which is a part of the Mayan religion. However, the tattoo of the women looks smaller than men.
The Mayan Religion had a ritual of human sacrifice. As per their religion, the people considered sacrifice as a vital part and an honor. So, they cut their ribs and would remove the beating heart.
Hence, the Mayan civilization is very tough to understand. The people from this civilization had a strong belief that the people who made sacrificed would get into heaven.
As we all know, the Mayan civilization had awkward buildings. They would expand the cities both inward and outward in a haphazard way.
At times, they would build one building on top of the other existing buildings too. So, it was clear that the Mayan people had no proper planning on building their cities.
Looking at the buildings of the Mayan civilization, we can see pyramids and palaces. But. As most of the buildings had ball courts to perform ceremonies, they would align the structure with the stars.
The Mayan people had blind faith in the god. They would give importance to the sun and the moon. Also, they had a view that the heavenly bodies had a direct impact and significance in their life. So, they would consider that these celestial bodies helped them to communicate with the god.
Apart from the gods of the Mayan people, know the modern-day gods.
Mayans wrote books for the first time in history. The people that belonged to the Mayan civilization timeline had a great love for the writing and screen-folded their writing, just like the magazines of today. They used the bark of wild fig trees to make pages. In history, they have written over 10,000 books.
Like the people of this civilization believed in astronomy, they had a firm belief in abstract math too. They have the base 2o system for mathematics, known as the vigesimal math system.
With the help of it, they would create architectural wonders. Also, it helped the Mayan people to make their great calendars and manage their economy. | 869 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Many parents want their children to embrace racial diversity and multiculturalism. Research shows that people who grow up in diverse neighborhoods and attend diverse schools express less racial prejudice and are more supportive of multiculturalism. However, neighborhood segregation means that many U.S. families live in racially homogenous neighborhoods and many children go to school mostly with same-race kids. In this session we discuss the importance of being color-conscious (rather than "not seeing color") and offer some ideas about how to foster inclusive attitudes in children - of all colors - who live and attend school in these homogenous environments.
In this hour-long conversation, first, Professor Vittrup presented what she’s learned and discussed the implications for raising kids. Next, EmbraceRace Co-founders, Andrew Grant-Thomas and Melissa Giraud, facilitated the Q & A with the community. Watch the video and find the tipsheet (linked above), read the transcript (below).
EmbraceRace: Brigitte Vittrup is an associate professor of child development at Texas Women's University where she teaches courses in child development, research methods, and statistics. She holds a PhD in children's developmental psychology from the University of Texas at Austin and her research focuses on children's racial attitudes, parents’ racial socialization practices, and media influences on children. Bridget identifies as white.
I will turn it over to you, Brigitte. Brigitte will present for 20 minutes or so and then we'll turn it over to questions.
Professor Vittrup: Thank you for inviting me.
Professor Vittrup: I did need a picture of my family on the front page just so you know some context also for who I am and who my family is. This is a topic that's very relevant to me and has been for a long time. I want to start by talking about what inspires cultural competence and awareness in children. So certainly experience. When children have positive interactions with people who are racially and culturally different from them then that does have a positive impact on them. And then also diverse surroundings because what we do find is that children that grow up in diverse neighborhoods and attend diverse schools express less racial prejudice and also seem to be more culturally sensitive. Experience is important.
Professor Vittrup: But obviously, we're doing this particular presentation because there are a lot of people around the United States who live in very homogeneous neighborhoods and because of the way that the school system works then that means that the schools are somewhat homogeneous as well. But there is also education. And parents are big educators in their children's lives. Teachers and child care workers as well. And then various educational resources. And so I will be talking about that and some of the opportunities that we have as parents and as teachers, educators for our children.
Professor Vittrup: If we look at the reality, U.S. neighborhoods are very segregated. People who study this use something called the dissimilarity index and it's looking at how dissimilar are people in the neighborhood essentially how much diversity there is or is missing. And so zero would be perfect integration.
And what we find is that in large metropolitan areas, dissimilarity index is about 50 to 70 and especially find that blacks and Hispanics tend to be hyper-segregated in these areas. And so just to show you what it looks like, here's a map of New York City. So you can clearly see its color coded. The blue dots represent where black people live. Orange is Hispanic. Red is Asian. Green is white. And so we can already see the clusters that are appearing there.
Professor Vittrup: Another example is from Los Angeles where people tend to be more spread out but it's still somewhat segregated.
Professor Vittrup: And then one example that really shows it is Detroit where the middle line is Eight Mile Road. And you see that we have stark segregation between black and white here. And then little bitty Asian community and a little bubble down towards the end.
Professor Vittrup: So certain areas are more or less segregated but overall in the United States we find segregation and some measures are showing that actually both schools and neighborhoods are more segregated now than they were in the 60s and 70s. So we haven't really moved towards more integration which is certainly what was the hope after Brown v. Board of Education.
Professor Vittrup: Schools are also pretty segregated. Sixty percent of black and Hispanic children attend schools that have 75 percent or more of minority enrollment, whereas only 5 percent of white children attend schools that have very much diversity to have any kind of minority involvement. Here is a map that shows this as a share of the percentage of black children that are attending majority non white schools. So these are the schools where the majority of the enrollment are minority students. And certainly across the south and up on the east and west coast, we see very high concentration of segregated schools.
Percentage of of Black children attending majority-nonwhite schools
Professor Vittrup: This map shows the share of white students attend majority white schools. And certainly across the whole North and Midwest many of these schools are just majority white schools.
Percentage of White children attending majority-white schools
Professor Vittrup: So what happens is that that gives children limited opportunities for interactions with people who look different from them - people who are racially and culturally different. And also the information that they do get about other groups of people, other families different from their own, is second-hand. And it's often either incorrect or incomplete or distorted. You see a lot of stereotypes represented for example in the media which oftentimes is a major source for these children that live in very homogeneous environments.
If we look at what influences children's beliefs about others and about the world certainly parents and other family members, teachers and child care workers, these are socializing agents in the children's lives.
But as children get older and they spend more time away from their families, they start to become more influenced by their peers as well. Certainly, kids are heavily involved with media. But one thing I'm gonna talk about, too, in this presentation is just other people's behaviors, their comments, their reactions to things are going to have an influence in combination with just how visible social division and structural inequality is in this country.
Professor Vittrup: We have the structural inequality that's in place, we have the social divisions. These are some things that we as parents can't immediately do anything about. Media to a certain extent when children are young we can regulate that but certainly not as much when they get older, and children have a lot of private access to media, iPads, smart phones, TVs in their rooms. Even though we can restrict and mediate some of that, there's still a lot of influence that we can't prevent. And so then you see also teachers and peers are starting to have this influence.
And what I put in the circle in the middle is this buffer zone. This is the opportunity for parents to serve as buffers for these external influences on children. Influences regarding inequality and various messages about race and race relations in this country. And the two bubbles in the middle that contain essentially the words and actions of the parents. Comments that they make - positive or negative - that influence the child. Direct conversations that they may or may not have, any kind of silence about the issues, and then also the actions, the behaviors, the reactions and the interactions that they themselves are engaged in. And so depending on how strong these are and how much involvement, how much the parents are talking, how much they are doing, is going to influence how strong this buffer zone is to these external influences.
Professor Vittrup: If we look at some of the messages that children hear and see on a regular basis, with today's 24/7 news coverage, it is hard to completely shield children, even young children, from some of the media messages. And so they see black men being taken down by white police officers. They see white nationalists protesting. They see signs about, you know, "Make America White again." And so they having to try to figure out what all of this means. And then meanwhile they see the white principal and the black and Hispanic service workers. So over time, especially when there are no counter examples or not a lot of counter examples, and if there are not a lot of conversations going on, this essentially colors children's viewpoints of what the world looks like and what the world should look like.
Part of my research has been looking at how do we intercept some of these messages? What can parents do, and what are parents doing? So it's important to have intentional conversations where we're not just waiting until children ask us questions or make comments that we actually make an effort and plan to have conversations about these issues with children. The conversations look a little bit different. Whether or not you are an all white family or an all black family, or an all hispanic or asian family, or if you are an interracial family. But no matter what your family looks like, these conversations are important. And then also exposing children to counterexamples. And I do have some suggestions on how to do that.
Professor Vittrup: If we look at reality and what parents are actually doing, usually parents say nothing. Some parents say more than others. But what I really found in my research, and this is both research with with parents and teachers, is that they are quite uncomfortable about it. Silence about race and about race-related matters is very common, especially among white people, but in many families of color as well.
I've asked a lot of parents whether they talk about race, what they talk about and, if they don't, why do they choose not to. And over and over again, the messages that I'm getting is that they want children to grow up and be "colorblind." This ideology of colorblindness has been around in the United States for quite a while. For decades, that has been what many consider the right thing to do. Let's just not see race and let's treat everybody the same. It's well-intended. Many parents decide not to talk about race because they don't want children to notice what they think they haven't noticed already. They really think their kids are "colorblind." Almost all parents that I have surveyed believe their children have either no biases at all or barely any biases. In fact, the research on children's racial attitudes shows us that children show a fair amount of bias.
Many have also expressed that they're uncomfortable with the topic. I just don't know what to say. I'm afraid I'm gonna say the wrong thing and then I'll get in trouble. And so these are really the major reasons why we're finding that so many adults don't talk about race and race related matters. The problem with this colorblind approach is that, first of all society is not colorblind. We see these social divisions based on race. We see the structural inequalities and these are obvious to children as well. And we have issues with prejudice and discrimination that's certainly no secret. And children are not colorblind as much as we might think that they are because they might not be saying a lot. Research does show that children as young as preschool are forming ideas about race and cultural differences even before they have the labels for it. But they are starting to make judgments already that early.
Professor Vittrup: Children are noticing even if we think they're not. And then "colorblindness" really does nothing to move us forward towards more equality and integration. Instead, it preserves the status quo. If we say we're not going to talk about race and will just treat everybody the same, we're fooling ourselves. In reality, we're not treating everyone the same if we're not fighting to erase some of these issues of inequality.
And really most importantly, silence is a message. Silence sends a huge message to children. When children ask questions or make a comment and they're told, "no don't say that" or "we shouldn't be talking about that," it sends the message that either these people who look different from us, we shouldn't talk about them, they are not important. Kids wonder, maybe there's something wrong with these people because they don't see their parents really interacting with a lot of people that look different. They look around their neighborhoods and their schools. They see that most people look the same and nobody's talking. And so it must be because we shouldn't be interacting with these people.
Professor Vittrup: They also pick up quite early on that this is a taboo or dangerous topic and stop asking questions. So when parents are thinking: "Well, my child never mentions anything. Certainly we'll talk about it if he brings it up!" But most likely he's not going to bring it up because he has already internalized that this is something we don't really talk about. Unfortunately, it can send a message that, well, inequality is just the way it is, these social divisions, that's just how it is. Some people just deserve more than others. And that's certainly not the intended message but oftentimes is the message that it ends up sending.
Professor Vittrup: It's really important also to note the fact that when we are silent about race and race related issues we are trivializing the voices of marginalized people and it can lead minority children to feel devalued and feel that they don't have a voice, because, again, nobody is talking about it.
And then another consequence. What I have found in some of my research is that children are not very good at predicting their parents' racial attitudes. The parents often assume that, "Well, I'm unbiased," (which in reality, none of us are unbiased, we're all products of our environments). But they feel [about themselves], "Well, I treat everybody the same. I interact with people the same. I don't discriminate against people. Certainly my children will pick up on that." However children often don't see their parents interacting with others that look different. And there's no conversation about it.
Professor Vittrup: So what we find is that there's a very low correlation between children's and parents' racial attitudes. But there is a very high correlation between children's racial attitudes and their perceptions of their parents attitudes. And the reason is, they don't see their parents interact with people that are different. Even when parents are saying, "I have friends that are of a different race." Often times they are referring to colleagues or people that they might have gone to school with and they don't live nearby anymore and so children really don't see them interacting very much.
Another reason is that then when parents don't talk about it, again, the children are having to figure it out on their own. And so they often think that their parents are a lot more biased than their parents are. And often to the dismay of parents. And then that influences the children's attitudes, what they think they're parents are thinking. So the question is, what can we do about this?
I showed you a graph earlier that showed that parents really do have the opportunity to serve as buffers. And so first of all, we can have conversations. And essentially what I usually tell people and tell parents just say something, don't say nothing. And you won't always get it right and that's OK. Because as you have more conversations you'll get more comfortable with it. And I have suggestions for conversation starters. You can really use books, videos, news stories as springboards for conversation, because you will have a starting point for something to talk about.
Professor Vittrup: As far as books, find books that include topics of diversity. There are a lot of books out there. The EmbraceRace website has links to good books that include diversity.
What's important is to engage the child in conversations because even the books that have messages of diversity and have diverse character, oftentimes they're not quite as explicit as we need them to be in order for children to really pick up the messages.
So ask the children about the characters in the book, about the experiences of the characters, you can imagine the child part of the story, being friends with one of the kids.
And don't be so afraid to mention race. Especially if you're talking about the characters and noticing that they look different, and they're friends and isn't that great. And you know, what would you say to this friend that looked different than you and what would you have in common? Then talk about things like fairness and inequality and bias. You can ask the child, what do you think? What would you think if this happens? What would you do? And certainly the conversations differ based on whether or not you're talking to a 4-year-old or a 14-year-old because they have different things that they can understand and also you can read more complex stories with the older kids.
Professor Vittrup: Another suggestion is for videos, movies, TV programs. It's important to select those that are culturally diverse so look for those that have a diverse cast that are showing positive interracial interactions. And for TV programs can be difficult at times. Children's TV is a lot more diverse than adult programming but we're still seeing it still barely 30 percent of children's TV is considered truly diverse. Certainly screen these videos or movies first just to avoid the ones that show a lot of stereotypes. Ask children about the characters, about the experiences. Ask them to imagine being friends with the characters and have conversations about what happens, about interracial friendships and cooperation.
Professor Vittrup: And if there are stereotypes and biased portrayals that occur, because it happens even in diverse programming, be sure to discuss those, to bring it up and say, "They're portraying these people in a certain way. It is a stereotype that doesn't mean that everybody is like that." And over time, that will also help the children build media literacy skills to where they can start picking up on some of those things.
Professor Vittrup: And then news stories. There are plenty to pick from. This tends to be better for older children because there is, obviously, content that younger children are less able to really understand or that can make them scared.
You can watch the news together, and you can select the stories you want to talk about, and then really engage the child in conversation about the content - about what is right, what is wrong, even about the way that the story was told the way that people were portrayed in these stories.
Because oftentimes in news stories there's a certain slant to it. And then you can ask the child why do you think this is happening? Why did this happen? What would you do? What do you think about this? And these are ways that you can really start using these as a springboard for conversations.
Professor Vittrup: So the first thing to do, with prompts from books, videos, life, is to have these conversations.
The second part is, try to create opportunities for interracial and intercultural experiences. Because what we know is that children that have these experiences show less prejudice and are more culturally sensitive. So you could attend events in other areas or neighborhoods. If your own neighborhood or city is very homogeneous, seek out another city, that either is very diverse or even if it's a homogeneous environment it's an environment that is different from yours, where people look very different from your family.
Professor Vittrup: You can set up film networks or use social media connections to connect with culturally diverse networks. And so in terms of attending events outside your neighborhood, try to look for diverse areas. Try to look for whatever events or activities are going on in these areas. It could be a playground. It could be a public pool, an event at the library, festivals, holiday celebrations, sporting events. Don't just pick these cultural events because they don't have to be. What's important is the environment and visual exposure that children will get to others that look different. And the children may develop new friendships. If this is a place that you start going on a regular basis, they might pick up new friends. Even if they don't develop lifelong friends from this, just the one hour that they are playing with other kids on the playground or at the pool or whatever area you've chosen, they get this visual exposure and they get used to interacting with people that look different.
Professor Vittrup: So it's important to remember children of all ages - even when they are teenagers and even young adults - they look to adults for guidance and parents are very important providers of this guidance. It's important to be honest and factual. Sometimes you might have to look up information because you just don't know. And that's okay. It's okay to say, you know what, I don't know that but let's go look it up.
Professor Vittrup: It's another way to teach children that we should educate ourselves about the lives of others, about the experiences of others, and then teach them how to find reputable sources for this information. Present information in an age-appropriate manner. Again, conversations you have with a 4 year old versus a 14 year old, they are going to be very different. But young children understand the concept of fairness and being nice. If you've ever tried to have two children share a cookie and break a cookie in half, you know that they know what's fair and what's not fair. They want everybody to get the same amount. And so it takes some of these messages of social justice and equality and really just boil it down to fairness and being nice and have these conversations. Older children are going to have a more complex understanding about these concepts related to stereotypes and prejudice and discrimination.
And ask children what they're thinking. I always say don't wait for children to bring it up because then the conversation may never happen, especially because so many of them have been raised in households with this colorblind ideology and there are no conversations. So they are likely to just try to figure it out on their own and then that information becomes distorted. But certainly have these conversations. They might be uncomfortable when you first start, but eventually as you get used to it, as you start having more of these conversations, they will become more natural to you. So with that we can open it up for questions.
EmbraceRace: Brigitte, thank you very much. We have a lot of good questions. So we're just going to jump right into them. You made a point of saying, and we talked beforehand about how this issue is relevant to all racial demographic groups in all places and so on. I want to start with a couple of questions that really underline that point.
So one question is this: "My daughter is the only black girl in her preschool class." Can you make suggestions for raising children of color who are racially isolated in their schools, neighborhoods?" Sometimes even in their families, in the case of some transracial adoptees. What what kind of suggestions do you have for them?
Professor Vittrup: Yeah I think that's a really good question. First of all, it's certainly important to make efforts to develop this child's self-esteem and identity and feel good about being who you are even though you look different from others. And really, regardless of the color of their skin and whether or not they are isolated or not, it's important to have these conversations with children about how there are all kinds of people that look very different. We have to embrace these differences. But when teaching a preschooler, you have to be careful not to put too much on them when they're little. But you can still start talking about how, yes, you look different from the others, and then make sure to create opportunities to further the conversation and learning from there.
If would also say that if you are raising your black daughter in a neighborhood that's mostly white, or the child is attending a school that's mostly white, do take her to other areas because it is really important for children to see others that look like them in order for them to develop a positive racial identity. Certainly having some of these conversations, reading books where they can see people that look like them, taking them to areas where they can see people who look like them. But still having these conversations about how people look different, sometimes people are treated differently because they look different. And as the child gets older, that's when you have to have more of those conversations about, what do you do if somebody calls you a name because of the color of your skin? What you do when somebody says x y z? Try to expose the child to as many environments as possible so that she can see people that look like her.
EmbraceRace: Thank you, Brigitte. And let me ask a question from Amy which could be relevant to a child in a similar circumstance. "Do you have any suggestions on how to support non-white children who experience discomfort from interacting with their white peers? Kids notice racial and cultural differences early on and many are not nuanced in avoiding comments that ultimately are micro-aggressions.
Professor Vittrup: And so again it depends on the age of the child. But the more exposure that the children get, taking them to other environments where they can practice interacting with others, and then talking to them. Just give them a couple of pointers. If somebody says this to you, here's the response. Why did you call me that? That's not really nice? If it's younger children it's that's not really being nice. Or find look for common ground. That's what we tell adults who are uncomfortable interacting with others. What do you have in common? What can we talk about or what can we play that we all like to play? But certainly have these tougher conversations, too, you know, sometimes people just say mean things and it's not OK.
EmbraceRace: That's a great answer. Here's another great question. How do you present positive counter examples to racist stereotypes while avoiding the racist "one-of-the-good-ones" trope?
Professor Vittrup: It's both/and. So we can show counter examples - positive role models of, for example, a black principal or a Hispanic community leader, where kids can see examples of people in leadership positions. Especially for minority children so they don't just see examples of people in, for example, blue collar jobs and then they see the leaders as the white people. That affects their career aspirations. We see that too. That doesn't mean that you're showing negative examples of others. You can still show positive examples of all of them, but really exposing kids to the counter examples. And sometimes that means going outside of your area or finding videos, finding books, talking about it.
EmbraceRace: So here's another question. I work in a school where the only Hispanic staff member works for the cleaning company. The teachers, the administration, with one exception, are all white. How do I talk about this with the kids in my class, which is fairly diverse?
Professor Vittrup: This is interesting because this has come up in some of my research with teachers, too. Many teachers are afraid to start talking about this. But I think you do have to point it out. You have to have these conversations. That doesn't mean that you start pointing out the custodian at your school who's the only Hispanic staff member. You can start by selecting a book or selecting a topic to talk about and then bring it into the conversation. And ask the kids, what do you think about that? We have to remember, that just because you're Hispanic doesn't mean that you have to be a custodian. There are lots of Hispanic people who have different careers. And also, there's really nothing wrong with being a custodian. You just have to just get down to it and talk about it.
EmbraceRace: So here's another one, a hard question. Is it better for a child of color to be in a majority white school that is in their neighborhood and part of their immediate community or to be in a school out of district that may be more diverse and integrated but not in their neighborhood? Tough choices.
Professor Vittrup: We do see that the more integrated and the more culturally diverse the environments are, children are reaping the benefits of that. And not just where there are more people that look like me, whatever color you are. But just that there is a variety, so that they can see that and have those interactions. I do know people that have specifically asked for transfers in order for their children just to be in a less homogeneous school and people that move to raise kids in a more diverse neighborhood. It obviously has to be practical for the family, but certainly there's a lot of benefits to that.
EmbraceRace: So a well-grounded assumption of much of what you've said, Brigitte, is that we need to be together, right. It's very beneficial to have diversity in the immediate environment and it's more difficult to raise inclusive kids when we don't have it. You're giving advice on what to do if that's not the case. But the presumption is that if that is the case, that is a condition that can be very beneficial to the development of inclusive attitudes and so on. And we also know that that's not necessarily enough. You think about familiarity breeding contempt. We have a couple of questions that really get at that.
One person uses the term gentrification. The other notes that there's a lot of overlap between racial identity and class status. And in both cases the concern is that overlap. So poor and low-income people in diverse settings, certainly in urban settings, are more likely to be people of color. And relatively well-to-do people are more likely to be white. And that juxtaposition can breed stereotypes. They're asking, in those diverse but not necessarily integrated settings, how do they support their children in warding off the stereotypes and being inclusive?
Professor Vittrup: You bring up a good point and we can look at history to explain some of that. We can also look at current zoning issues that separate people in terms of race and in terms of class. Even though those are related, we still have to look at both aspects. There is that perception, and I see it among a lot of whites who say this is not a race issue, it's a class issue. But a lot of times it's both or either.
You have to educate children about that as well because there's a lot of stereotypes about low-income people. And I think it's just as important for children to have exposure to those environments. Unfortunately, in the poorer neighborhoods, the schools don't get as much money because of the way that we do school funding, and so then people don't want to move to those areas because the schools are less desirable. And so it's a really hard issue to tackle. I think there's a lot of education that needs to happen because, yes, we can sit here and say you why don't you move and let's all integrate and mix it all up. And in reality, that's not going to happen. So it's important that we educate children and give them those exposures and help them think about it.
EmbraceRace: Another question. How can I help my white children to do the right things with their friends who are people of color? How can I encourage friendships without causing harm to children of color?
Professor Vittrup: Certainly, you don't want to tell white kids, "Go be friends with these black kids because they're black and you need some black friends." Friendships have to happen organically. But the more exposures they have, and you can teach them to look for commonalities. And it's really important because I think white people often don't have enough conversations because race is less salient to us. And so we're not constantly being forced to talk about it and to think about how we're being judged based on our race. And so I think it's important, especially among white families, to help these conversations, to help them understand what other people are experiencing.
You can have, for example, a black family that's very well to do, and so money is not the issue. That doesn't mean that they're not facing those biases and the psychological stress of always having to wonder, how am I being judged by others. It's important to educate children about that and to really encourage them to seek out a wide variety of friends, diverse friends, and help them see the benefit and the value in getting to know people who are different, not just racially. It could be ability, it could be immigration status, it could be anything that makes somebody different, or the parents have a unique job, or whatever it might be that they really learn to value that. Here's somebody who is different. I want to get to know this person.
EmbraceRace: Brigitte, we have a couple questions that get to frequency of contact. You gave a number of suggestions in your presentation some of which, if you live an hour away from the closest place that offers some meaningful diversity and the kind of events you're suggesting families go to, then presumably that's not going to happen on a daily basis and may not happen on a weekly basis. Which raises the question of, well, how do I think about that? How often? For example, a white woman with white children who has extended family that is multiracial. So once, twice, three times a year they might get together. And there are close cross-racial friendships among children and so on, but it only happens one or two three times a year. What work does that do? Is that not nearly enough? How do we think about that?
Professor Vittrup: Given that these are family members and actual friendships, when the children are actually creating friends, that's very powerful. It's a very powerful influence. But in the long term, it's not going to keep all of those other messages out and all those external influences but certainly it helps. And in the meantime, you can also have these conversations about social justice, you can set them up with a pen pal. Certainly for people that live very rural areas where they would have to drive that far, it's not something you're going to do every weekend. But certainly there are those opportunities. Over time, coupled with the conversations, they are going to help.
I grew up in Denmark. And so it was probably about 98 percent white when I was living there. I'd been living in the U.S. for a while before I was ever made aware of, Oh yeah, I'm white. It was never something I had to really think about. So I was somewhat naive about race relations in the United States. But there were always these very strong messages from my family about social justice and equality. I have a cousin who is Korean, but that was really the only diversity I was exposed to for many years. But then we talked about immigration and things going on in other countries. And so those messages still got through. So there are still opportunities even if it's not close, actual physical interaction on a frequent basis.
EmbraceRace: Brigitte, our time is almost up but we want to get to a few more questions. This one in particular I fine hugely important. Many of us talk a fair bit about the educational and open social benefits of diversity. And yet I suspect that a lot of people simply don't believe it, a lot of people of all stripes, and frankly, especially white middle-class and affluent parents. And we know this from polling. 70 percent of people will say, yes, diversity is a value but it's clearly a low priority value. It comes in sixth and seventh behind all these other things. So if all things are equal, they would choose the more diverse school. But all things are never equal. And so, in effect, diversity is rarely a thing that moves people. So this person asks, I appreciate the point made about children reaping the benefits of attending a more diverse school environment. Can you speak more to what some of those benefits are because, unfortunately, in my experience, the schools that are more diverse have less financial resources and less academic rigor when compared to schools that are mostly white.
Professor Vittrup: I really think that we have to remember that it's not just the actions. It's not just the experiences. It's not just the words. It's all of it together. You have to have certain experiences and then you have to talk about it. And so we have to acknowledge that white people like me have the privilege of not having to really see race or consider it or be concerned with diversity, unfortunately, and I think that's why you see that it ends up being a lower priority. But ultimately we all benefit from it. And I think that in terms of the schools that's an important conversation you have, too. It leads into these social justice conversations about why do these schools not have as many resources. What is going on and what can we do? It's not something that any one individual or one family can solve. But the people that speak up against inequitable schools and get involved with organizations like EmbraceRace, the more progress we can make over time. We have to bring awareness of these issues and our children need to be aware as well.
EmbraceRace: And you know Brigitte, I just wanted to add one quick note to that. The public school population, right now, is a majority kid of color population. As you get younger and younger, you get more and more brown, as they say. So all children 5 and younger in the United States are majority kids of color. And that will continue to be true, this is not primarily about immigration for example, so it doesn't matter what we do to our borders. It's mostly about the youngest populations being immigrant populations or those one step removed from immigrant parents, immigrants themselves. So the well-being of that population is absolutely central to the well-being of the United States and the relationships among us all is critical as I said at the outset to whether or not we thrive as a multiracial democracy, there's no way around that.
Closing out, Brigitte, you talked about your Danish background. There's so much discomfort among people in the U.S., and especially white people, in talking about race. So I'm wondering if being Danish was kind of a superpower for you. Whether you were able to observe people's responses that you hadn't necessarily learned?
Professor Vittrup: To a certain extent I think yes. In school [in Denmark] in my social science classes, we learned about the Civil Rights Movement, we learned about Jim Crow laws. But it was taught as if, that was then but it's all better now, and everything is great. I learned that but then when I moved to the U.S. I saw, wait, it's still bad.
But I still had this privilege of not having to constantly consider my race. It was one time that I was in school doing my undergrad and I was working at the student union and and I was doing an event for this black sorority. I was a cashier there and at one point I overheard a girl say, "Oh no you don't pay me, pay this white girl down at the end." And it was a revelation to me, that all of a sudden I had become aware of my race. And so that opened my eyes to some of these things. And I started studying race in graduate school because I became more interested in it. Now that I'm married to a black man and have biracial children, it's become even more salient and relevant to me. But, yes, when I moved from Denmark to the U.S. it was obvious that, unlike what my textbooks taught, the Civil Rights Movement hadn't solved this country's race problem.
EmbraceRace: We're at the end. Thank you all of you who joined for participating, for the great chat and fantastic questions. Bridget thanks especially to you for sharing so much that you've been learning and experiencing in your work and life.
Professor Vittrup: You're welcome. I enjoyed it.
EmbraceRace: Take care everyone! See you again soon! | <urn:uuid:3f6e77bc-e107-4b56-a1d0-a087bd9d0e9e> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.embracerace.org/resources/can-we-really-raise-inclusive-kids-in-segregated-neighborhoods | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251669967.70/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125041318-20200125070318-00129.warc.gz | en | 0.980285 | 8,366 | 3.34375 | 3 | [
0.32941707968711853,
0.029541514813899994,
0.08955810219049454,
-0.3258263170719147,
-0.14390362799167633,
0.5535368919372559,
-0.2242339700460434,
0.11428370326757431,
-0.09638722240924835,
0.00015940284356474876,
0.31180262565612793,
-0.1274421662092209,
0.09800755977630615,
0.0546652264... | 6 | Many parents want their children to embrace racial diversity and multiculturalism. Research shows that people who grow up in diverse neighborhoods and attend diverse schools express less racial prejudice and are more supportive of multiculturalism. However, neighborhood segregation means that many U.S. families live in racially homogenous neighborhoods and many children go to school mostly with same-race kids. In this session we discuss the importance of being color-conscious (rather than "not seeing color") and offer some ideas about how to foster inclusive attitudes in children - of all colors - who live and attend school in these homogenous environments.
In this hour-long conversation, first, Professor Vittrup presented what she’s learned and discussed the implications for raising kids. Next, EmbraceRace Co-founders, Andrew Grant-Thomas and Melissa Giraud, facilitated the Q & A with the community. Watch the video and find the tipsheet (linked above), read the transcript (below).
EmbraceRace: Brigitte Vittrup is an associate professor of child development at Texas Women's University where she teaches courses in child development, research methods, and statistics. She holds a PhD in children's developmental psychology from the University of Texas at Austin and her research focuses on children's racial attitudes, parents’ racial socialization practices, and media influences on children. Bridget identifies as white.
I will turn it over to you, Brigitte. Brigitte will present for 20 minutes or so and then we'll turn it over to questions.
Professor Vittrup: Thank you for inviting me.
Professor Vittrup: I did need a picture of my family on the front page just so you know some context also for who I am and who my family is. This is a topic that's very relevant to me and has been for a long time. I want to start by talking about what inspires cultural competence and awareness in children. So certainly experience. When children have positive interactions with people who are racially and culturally different from them then that does have a positive impact on them. And then also diverse surroundings because what we do find is that children that grow up in diverse neighborhoods and attend diverse schools express less racial prejudice and also seem to be more culturally sensitive. Experience is important.
Professor Vittrup: But obviously, we're doing this particular presentation because there are a lot of people around the United States who live in very homogeneous neighborhoods and because of the way that the school system works then that means that the schools are somewhat homogeneous as well. But there is also education. And parents are big educators in their children's lives. Teachers and child care workers as well. And then various educational resources. And so I will be talking about that and some of the opportunities that we have as parents and as teachers, educators for our children.
Professor Vittrup: If we look at the reality, U.S. neighborhoods are very segregated. People who study this use something called the dissimilarity index and it's looking at how dissimilar are people in the neighborhood essentially how much diversity there is or is missing. And so zero would be perfect integration.
And what we find is that in large metropolitan areas, dissimilarity index is about 50 to 70 and especially find that blacks and Hispanics tend to be hyper-segregated in these areas. And so just to show you what it looks like, here's a map of New York City. So you can clearly see its color coded. The blue dots represent where black people live. Orange is Hispanic. Red is Asian. Green is white. And so we can already see the clusters that are appearing there.
Professor Vittrup: Another example is from Los Angeles where people tend to be more spread out but it's still somewhat segregated.
Professor Vittrup: And then one example that really shows it is Detroit where the middle line is Eight Mile Road. And you see that we have stark segregation between black and white here. And then little bitty Asian community and a little bubble down towards the end.
Professor Vittrup: So certain areas are more or less segregated but overall in the United States we find segregation and some measures are showing that actually both schools and neighborhoods are more segregated now than they were in the 60s and 70s. So we haven't really moved towards more integration which is certainly what was the hope after Brown v. Board of Education.
Professor Vittrup: Schools are also pretty segregated. Sixty percent of black and Hispanic children attend schools that have 75 percent or more of minority enrollment, whereas only 5 percent of white children attend schools that have very much diversity to have any kind of minority involvement. Here is a map that shows this as a share of the percentage of black children that are attending majority non white schools. So these are the schools where the majority of the enrollment are minority students. And certainly across the south and up on the east and west coast, we see very high concentration of segregated schools.
Percentage of of Black children attending majority-nonwhite schools
Professor Vittrup: This map shows the share of white students attend majority white schools. And certainly across the whole North and Midwest many of these schools are just majority white schools.
Percentage of White children attending majority-white schools
Professor Vittrup: So what happens is that that gives children limited opportunities for interactions with people who look different from them - people who are racially and culturally different. And also the information that they do get about other groups of people, other families different from their own, is second-hand. And it's often either incorrect or incomplete or distorted. You see a lot of stereotypes represented for example in the media which oftentimes is a major source for these children that live in very homogeneous environments.
If we look at what influences children's beliefs about others and about the world certainly parents and other family members, teachers and child care workers, these are socializing agents in the children's lives.
But as children get older and they spend more time away from their families, they start to become more influenced by their peers as well. Certainly, kids are heavily involved with media. But one thing I'm gonna talk about, too, in this presentation is just other people's behaviors, their comments, their reactions to things are going to have an influence in combination with just how visible social division and structural inequality is in this country.
Professor Vittrup: We have the structural inequality that's in place, we have the social divisions. These are some things that we as parents can't immediately do anything about. Media to a certain extent when children are young we can regulate that but certainly not as much when they get older, and children have a lot of private access to media, iPads, smart phones, TVs in their rooms. Even though we can restrict and mediate some of that, there's still a lot of influence that we can't prevent. And so then you see also teachers and peers are starting to have this influence.
And what I put in the circle in the middle is this buffer zone. This is the opportunity for parents to serve as buffers for these external influences on children. Influences regarding inequality and various messages about race and race relations in this country. And the two bubbles in the middle that contain essentially the words and actions of the parents. Comments that they make - positive or negative - that influence the child. Direct conversations that they may or may not have, any kind of silence about the issues, and then also the actions, the behaviors, the reactions and the interactions that they themselves are engaged in. And so depending on how strong these are and how much involvement, how much the parents are talking, how much they are doing, is going to influence how strong this buffer zone is to these external influences.
Professor Vittrup: If we look at some of the messages that children hear and see on a regular basis, with today's 24/7 news coverage, it is hard to completely shield children, even young children, from some of the media messages. And so they see black men being taken down by white police officers. They see white nationalists protesting. They see signs about, you know, "Make America White again." And so they having to try to figure out what all of this means. And then meanwhile they see the white principal and the black and Hispanic service workers. So over time, especially when there are no counter examples or not a lot of counter examples, and if there are not a lot of conversations going on, this essentially colors children's viewpoints of what the world looks like and what the world should look like.
Part of my research has been looking at how do we intercept some of these messages? What can parents do, and what are parents doing? So it's important to have intentional conversations where we're not just waiting until children ask us questions or make comments that we actually make an effort and plan to have conversations about these issues with children. The conversations look a little bit different. Whether or not you are an all white family or an all black family, or an all hispanic or asian family, or if you are an interracial family. But no matter what your family looks like, these conversations are important. And then also exposing children to counterexamples. And I do have some suggestions on how to do that.
Professor Vittrup: If we look at reality and what parents are actually doing, usually parents say nothing. Some parents say more than others. But what I really found in my research, and this is both research with with parents and teachers, is that they are quite uncomfortable about it. Silence about race and about race-related matters is very common, especially among white people, but in many families of color as well.
I've asked a lot of parents whether they talk about race, what they talk about and, if they don't, why do they choose not to. And over and over again, the messages that I'm getting is that they want children to grow up and be "colorblind." This ideology of colorblindness has been around in the United States for quite a while. For decades, that has been what many consider the right thing to do. Let's just not see race and let's treat everybody the same. It's well-intended. Many parents decide not to talk about race because they don't want children to notice what they think they haven't noticed already. They really think their kids are "colorblind." Almost all parents that I have surveyed believe their children have either no biases at all or barely any biases. In fact, the research on children's racial attitudes shows us that children show a fair amount of bias.
Many have also expressed that they're uncomfortable with the topic. I just don't know what to say. I'm afraid I'm gonna say the wrong thing and then I'll get in trouble. And so these are really the major reasons why we're finding that so many adults don't talk about race and race related matters. The problem with this colorblind approach is that, first of all society is not colorblind. We see these social divisions based on race. We see the structural inequalities and these are obvious to children as well. And we have issues with prejudice and discrimination that's certainly no secret. And children are not colorblind as much as we might think that they are because they might not be saying a lot. Research does show that children as young as preschool are forming ideas about race and cultural differences even before they have the labels for it. But they are starting to make judgments already that early.
Professor Vittrup: Children are noticing even if we think they're not. And then "colorblindness" really does nothing to move us forward towards more equality and integration. Instead, it preserves the status quo. If we say we're not going to talk about race and will just treat everybody the same, we're fooling ourselves. In reality, we're not treating everyone the same if we're not fighting to erase some of these issues of inequality.
And really most importantly, silence is a message. Silence sends a huge message to children. When children ask questions or make a comment and they're told, "no don't say that" or "we shouldn't be talking about that," it sends the message that either these people who look different from us, we shouldn't talk about them, they are not important. Kids wonder, maybe there's something wrong with these people because they don't see their parents really interacting with a lot of people that look different. They look around their neighborhoods and their schools. They see that most people look the same and nobody's talking. And so it must be because we shouldn't be interacting with these people.
Professor Vittrup: They also pick up quite early on that this is a taboo or dangerous topic and stop asking questions. So when parents are thinking: "Well, my child never mentions anything. Certainly we'll talk about it if he brings it up!" But most likely he's not going to bring it up because he has already internalized that this is something we don't really talk about. Unfortunately, it can send a message that, well, inequality is just the way it is, these social divisions, that's just how it is. Some people just deserve more than others. And that's certainly not the intended message but oftentimes is the message that it ends up sending.
Professor Vittrup: It's really important also to note the fact that when we are silent about race and race related issues we are trivializing the voices of marginalized people and it can lead minority children to feel devalued and feel that they don't have a voice, because, again, nobody is talking about it.
And then another consequence. What I have found in some of my research is that children are not very good at predicting their parents' racial attitudes. The parents often assume that, "Well, I'm unbiased," (which in reality, none of us are unbiased, we're all products of our environments). But they feel [about themselves], "Well, I treat everybody the same. I interact with people the same. I don't discriminate against people. Certainly my children will pick up on that." However children often don't see their parents interacting with others that look different. And there's no conversation about it.
Professor Vittrup: So what we find is that there's a very low correlation between children's and parents' racial attitudes. But there is a very high correlation between children's racial attitudes and their perceptions of their parents attitudes. And the reason is, they don't see their parents interact with people that are different. Even when parents are saying, "I have friends that are of a different race." Often times they are referring to colleagues or people that they might have gone to school with and they don't live nearby anymore and so children really don't see them interacting very much.
Another reason is that then when parents don't talk about it, again, the children are having to figure it out on their own. And so they often think that their parents are a lot more biased than their parents are. And often to the dismay of parents. And then that influences the children's attitudes, what they think they're parents are thinking. So the question is, what can we do about this?
I showed you a graph earlier that showed that parents really do have the opportunity to serve as buffers. And so first of all, we can have conversations. And essentially what I usually tell people and tell parents just say something, don't say nothing. And you won't always get it right and that's OK. Because as you have more conversations you'll get more comfortable with it. And I have suggestions for conversation starters. You can really use books, videos, news stories as springboards for conversation, because you will have a starting point for something to talk about.
Professor Vittrup: As far as books, find books that include topics of diversity. There are a lot of books out there. The EmbraceRace website has links to good books that include diversity.
What's important is to engage the child in conversations because even the books that have messages of diversity and have diverse character, oftentimes they're not quite as explicit as we need them to be in order for children to really pick up the messages.
So ask the children about the characters in the book, about the experiences of the characters, you can imagine the child part of the story, being friends with one of the kids.
And don't be so afraid to mention race. Especially if you're talking about the characters and noticing that they look different, and they're friends and isn't that great. And you know, what would you say to this friend that looked different than you and what would you have in common? Then talk about things like fairness and inequality and bias. You can ask the child, what do you think? What would you think if this happens? What would you do? And certainly the conversations differ based on whether or not you're talking to a 4-year-old or a 14-year-old because they have different things that they can understand and also you can read more complex stories with the older kids.
Professor Vittrup: Another suggestion is for videos, movies, TV programs. It's important to select those that are culturally diverse so look for those that have a diverse cast that are showing positive interracial interactions. And for TV programs can be difficult at times. Children's TV is a lot more diverse than adult programming but we're still seeing it still barely 30 percent of children's TV is considered truly diverse. Certainly screen these videos or movies first just to avoid the ones that show a lot of stereotypes. Ask children about the characters, about the experiences. Ask them to imagine being friends with the characters and have conversations about what happens, about interracial friendships and cooperation.
Professor Vittrup: And if there are stereotypes and biased portrayals that occur, because it happens even in diverse programming, be sure to discuss those, to bring it up and say, "They're portraying these people in a certain way. It is a stereotype that doesn't mean that everybody is like that." And over time, that will also help the children build media literacy skills to where they can start picking up on some of those things.
Professor Vittrup: And then news stories. There are plenty to pick from. This tends to be better for older children because there is, obviously, content that younger children are less able to really understand or that can make them scared.
You can watch the news together, and you can select the stories you want to talk about, and then really engage the child in conversation about the content - about what is right, what is wrong, even about the way that the story was told the way that people were portrayed in these stories.
Because oftentimes in news stories there's a certain slant to it. And then you can ask the child why do you think this is happening? Why did this happen? What would you do? What do you think about this? And these are ways that you can really start using these as a springboard for conversations.
Professor Vittrup: So the first thing to do, with prompts from books, videos, life, is to have these conversations.
The second part is, try to create opportunities for interracial and intercultural experiences. Because what we know is that children that have these experiences show less prejudice and are more culturally sensitive. So you could attend events in other areas or neighborhoods. If your own neighborhood or city is very homogeneous, seek out another city, that either is very diverse or even if it's a homogeneous environment it's an environment that is different from yours, where people look very different from your family.
Professor Vittrup: You can set up film networks or use social media connections to connect with culturally diverse networks. And so in terms of attending events outside your neighborhood, try to look for diverse areas. Try to look for whatever events or activities are going on in these areas. It could be a playground. It could be a public pool, an event at the library, festivals, holiday celebrations, sporting events. Don't just pick these cultural events because they don't have to be. What's important is the environment and visual exposure that children will get to others that look different. And the children may develop new friendships. If this is a place that you start going on a regular basis, they might pick up new friends. Even if they don't develop lifelong friends from this, just the one hour that they are playing with other kids on the playground or at the pool or whatever area you've chosen, they get this visual exposure and they get used to interacting with people that look different.
Professor Vittrup: So it's important to remember children of all ages - even when they are teenagers and even young adults - they look to adults for guidance and parents are very important providers of this guidance. It's important to be honest and factual. Sometimes you might have to look up information because you just don't know. And that's okay. It's okay to say, you know what, I don't know that but let's go look it up.
Professor Vittrup: It's another way to teach children that we should educate ourselves about the lives of others, about the experiences of others, and then teach them how to find reputable sources for this information. Present information in an age-appropriate manner. Again, conversations you have with a 4 year old versus a 14 year old, they are going to be very different. But young children understand the concept of fairness and being nice. If you've ever tried to have two children share a cookie and break a cookie in half, you know that they know what's fair and what's not fair. They want everybody to get the same amount. And so it takes some of these messages of social justice and equality and really just boil it down to fairness and being nice and have these conversations. Older children are going to have a more complex understanding about these concepts related to stereotypes and prejudice and discrimination.
And ask children what they're thinking. I always say don't wait for children to bring it up because then the conversation may never happen, especially because so many of them have been raised in households with this colorblind ideology and there are no conversations. So they are likely to just try to figure it out on their own and then that information becomes distorted. But certainly have these conversations. They might be uncomfortable when you first start, but eventually as you get used to it, as you start having more of these conversations, they will become more natural to you. So with that we can open it up for questions.
EmbraceRace: Brigitte, thank you very much. We have a lot of good questions. So we're just going to jump right into them. You made a point of saying, and we talked beforehand about how this issue is relevant to all racial demographic groups in all places and so on. I want to start with a couple of questions that really underline that point.
So one question is this: "My daughter is the only black girl in her preschool class." Can you make suggestions for raising children of color who are racially isolated in their schools, neighborhoods?" Sometimes even in their families, in the case of some transracial adoptees. What what kind of suggestions do you have for them?
Professor Vittrup: Yeah I think that's a really good question. First of all, it's certainly important to make efforts to develop this child's self-esteem and identity and feel good about being who you are even though you look different from others. And really, regardless of the color of their skin and whether or not they are isolated or not, it's important to have these conversations with children about how there are all kinds of people that look very different. We have to embrace these differences. But when teaching a preschooler, you have to be careful not to put too much on them when they're little. But you can still start talking about how, yes, you look different from the others, and then make sure to create opportunities to further the conversation and learning from there.
If would also say that if you are raising your black daughter in a neighborhood that's mostly white, or the child is attending a school that's mostly white, do take her to other areas because it is really important for children to see others that look like them in order for them to develop a positive racial identity. Certainly having some of these conversations, reading books where they can see people that look like them, taking them to areas where they can see people who look like them. But still having these conversations about how people look different, sometimes people are treated differently because they look different. And as the child gets older, that's when you have to have more of those conversations about, what do you do if somebody calls you a name because of the color of your skin? What you do when somebody says x y z? Try to expose the child to as many environments as possible so that she can see people that look like her.
EmbraceRace: Thank you, Brigitte. And let me ask a question from Amy which could be relevant to a child in a similar circumstance. "Do you have any suggestions on how to support non-white children who experience discomfort from interacting with their white peers? Kids notice racial and cultural differences early on and many are not nuanced in avoiding comments that ultimately are micro-aggressions.
Professor Vittrup: And so again it depends on the age of the child. But the more exposure that the children get, taking them to other environments where they can practice interacting with others, and then talking to them. Just give them a couple of pointers. If somebody says this to you, here's the response. Why did you call me that? That's not really nice? If it's younger children it's that's not really being nice. Or find look for common ground. That's what we tell adults who are uncomfortable interacting with others. What do you have in common? What can we talk about or what can we play that we all like to play? But certainly have these tougher conversations, too, you know, sometimes people just say mean things and it's not OK.
EmbraceRace: That's a great answer. Here's another great question. How do you present positive counter examples to racist stereotypes while avoiding the racist "one-of-the-good-ones" trope?
Professor Vittrup: It's both/and. So we can show counter examples - positive role models of, for example, a black principal or a Hispanic community leader, where kids can see examples of people in leadership positions. Especially for minority children so they don't just see examples of people in, for example, blue collar jobs and then they see the leaders as the white people. That affects their career aspirations. We see that too. That doesn't mean that you're showing negative examples of others. You can still show positive examples of all of them, but really exposing kids to the counter examples. And sometimes that means going outside of your area or finding videos, finding books, talking about it.
EmbraceRace: So here's another question. I work in a school where the only Hispanic staff member works for the cleaning company. The teachers, the administration, with one exception, are all white. How do I talk about this with the kids in my class, which is fairly diverse?
Professor Vittrup: This is interesting because this has come up in some of my research with teachers, too. Many teachers are afraid to start talking about this. But I think you do have to point it out. You have to have these conversations. That doesn't mean that you start pointing out the custodian at your school who's the only Hispanic staff member. You can start by selecting a book or selecting a topic to talk about and then bring it into the conversation. And ask the kids, what do you think about that? We have to remember, that just because you're Hispanic doesn't mean that you have to be a custodian. There are lots of Hispanic people who have different careers. And also, there's really nothing wrong with being a custodian. You just have to just get down to it and talk about it.
EmbraceRace: So here's another one, a hard question. Is it better for a child of color to be in a majority white school that is in their neighborhood and part of their immediate community or to be in a school out of district that may be more diverse and integrated but not in their neighborhood? Tough choices.
Professor Vittrup: We do see that the more integrated and the more culturally diverse the environments are, children are reaping the benefits of that. And not just where there are more people that look like me, whatever color you are. But just that there is a variety, so that they can see that and have those interactions. I do know people that have specifically asked for transfers in order for their children just to be in a less homogeneous school and people that move to raise kids in a more diverse neighborhood. It obviously has to be practical for the family, but certainly there's a lot of benefits to that.
EmbraceRace: So a well-grounded assumption of much of what you've said, Brigitte, is that we need to be together, right. It's very beneficial to have diversity in the immediate environment and it's more difficult to raise inclusive kids when we don't have it. You're giving advice on what to do if that's not the case. But the presumption is that if that is the case, that is a condition that can be very beneficial to the development of inclusive attitudes and so on. And we also know that that's not necessarily enough. You think about familiarity breeding contempt. We have a couple of questions that really get at that.
One person uses the term gentrification. The other notes that there's a lot of overlap between racial identity and class status. And in both cases the concern is that overlap. So poor and low-income people in diverse settings, certainly in urban settings, are more likely to be people of color. And relatively well-to-do people are more likely to be white. And that juxtaposition can breed stereotypes. They're asking, in those diverse but not necessarily integrated settings, how do they support their children in warding off the stereotypes and being inclusive?
Professor Vittrup: You bring up a good point and we can look at history to explain some of that. We can also look at current zoning issues that separate people in terms of race and in terms of class. Even though those are related, we still have to look at both aspects. There is that perception, and I see it among a lot of whites who say this is not a race issue, it's a class issue. But a lot of times it's both or either.
You have to educate children about that as well because there's a lot of stereotypes about low-income people. And I think it's just as important for children to have exposure to those environments. Unfortunately, in the poorer neighborhoods, the schools don't get as much money because of the way that we do school funding, and so then people don't want to move to those areas because the schools are less desirable. And so it's a really hard issue to tackle. I think there's a lot of education that needs to happen because, yes, we can sit here and say you why don't you move and let's all integrate and mix it all up. And in reality, that's not going to happen. So it's important that we educate children and give them those exposures and help them think about it.
EmbraceRace: Another question. How can I help my white children to do the right things with their friends who are people of color? How can I encourage friendships without causing harm to children of color?
Professor Vittrup: Certainly, you don't want to tell white kids, "Go be friends with these black kids because they're black and you need some black friends." Friendships have to happen organically. But the more exposures they have, and you can teach them to look for commonalities. And it's really important because I think white people often don't have enough conversations because race is less salient to us. And so we're not constantly being forced to talk about it and to think about how we're being judged based on our race. And so I think it's important, especially among white families, to help these conversations, to help them understand what other people are experiencing.
You can have, for example, a black family that's very well to do, and so money is not the issue. That doesn't mean that they're not facing those biases and the psychological stress of always having to wonder, how am I being judged by others. It's important to educate children about that and to really encourage them to seek out a wide variety of friends, diverse friends, and help them see the benefit and the value in getting to know people who are different, not just racially. It could be ability, it could be immigration status, it could be anything that makes somebody different, or the parents have a unique job, or whatever it might be that they really learn to value that. Here's somebody who is different. I want to get to know this person.
EmbraceRace: Brigitte, we have a couple questions that get to frequency of contact. You gave a number of suggestions in your presentation some of which, if you live an hour away from the closest place that offers some meaningful diversity and the kind of events you're suggesting families go to, then presumably that's not going to happen on a daily basis and may not happen on a weekly basis. Which raises the question of, well, how do I think about that? How often? For example, a white woman with white children who has extended family that is multiracial. So once, twice, three times a year they might get together. And there are close cross-racial friendships among children and so on, but it only happens one or two three times a year. What work does that do? Is that not nearly enough? How do we think about that?
Professor Vittrup: Given that these are family members and actual friendships, when the children are actually creating friends, that's very powerful. It's a very powerful influence. But in the long term, it's not going to keep all of those other messages out and all those external influences but certainly it helps. And in the meantime, you can also have these conversations about social justice, you can set them up with a pen pal. Certainly for people that live very rural areas where they would have to drive that far, it's not something you're going to do every weekend. But certainly there are those opportunities. Over time, coupled with the conversations, they are going to help.
I grew up in Denmark. And so it was probably about 98 percent white when I was living there. I'd been living in the U.S. for a while before I was ever made aware of, Oh yeah, I'm white. It was never something I had to really think about. So I was somewhat naive about race relations in the United States. But there were always these very strong messages from my family about social justice and equality. I have a cousin who is Korean, but that was really the only diversity I was exposed to for many years. But then we talked about immigration and things going on in other countries. And so those messages still got through. So there are still opportunities even if it's not close, actual physical interaction on a frequent basis.
EmbraceRace: Brigitte, our time is almost up but we want to get to a few more questions. This one in particular I fine hugely important. Many of us talk a fair bit about the educational and open social benefits of diversity. And yet I suspect that a lot of people simply don't believe it, a lot of people of all stripes, and frankly, especially white middle-class and affluent parents. And we know this from polling. 70 percent of people will say, yes, diversity is a value but it's clearly a low priority value. It comes in sixth and seventh behind all these other things. So if all things are equal, they would choose the more diverse school. But all things are never equal. And so, in effect, diversity is rarely a thing that moves people. So this person asks, I appreciate the point made about children reaping the benefits of attending a more diverse school environment. Can you speak more to what some of those benefits are because, unfortunately, in my experience, the schools that are more diverse have less financial resources and less academic rigor when compared to schools that are mostly white.
Professor Vittrup: I really think that we have to remember that it's not just the actions. It's not just the experiences. It's not just the words. It's all of it together. You have to have certain experiences and then you have to talk about it. And so we have to acknowledge that white people like me have the privilege of not having to really see race or consider it or be concerned with diversity, unfortunately, and I think that's why you see that it ends up being a lower priority. But ultimately we all benefit from it. And I think that in terms of the schools that's an important conversation you have, too. It leads into these social justice conversations about why do these schools not have as many resources. What is going on and what can we do? It's not something that any one individual or one family can solve. But the people that speak up against inequitable schools and get involved with organizations like EmbraceRace, the more progress we can make over time. We have to bring awareness of these issues and our children need to be aware as well.
EmbraceRace: And you know Brigitte, I just wanted to add one quick note to that. The public school population, right now, is a majority kid of color population. As you get younger and younger, you get more and more brown, as they say. So all children 5 and younger in the United States are majority kids of color. And that will continue to be true, this is not primarily about immigration for example, so it doesn't matter what we do to our borders. It's mostly about the youngest populations being immigrant populations or those one step removed from immigrant parents, immigrants themselves. So the well-being of that population is absolutely central to the well-being of the United States and the relationships among us all is critical as I said at the outset to whether or not we thrive as a multiracial democracy, there's no way around that.
Closing out, Brigitte, you talked about your Danish background. There's so much discomfort among people in the U.S., and especially white people, in talking about race. So I'm wondering if being Danish was kind of a superpower for you. Whether you were able to observe people's responses that you hadn't necessarily learned?
Professor Vittrup: To a certain extent I think yes. In school [in Denmark] in my social science classes, we learned about the Civil Rights Movement, we learned about Jim Crow laws. But it was taught as if, that was then but it's all better now, and everything is great. I learned that but then when I moved to the U.S. I saw, wait, it's still bad.
But I still had this privilege of not having to constantly consider my race. It was one time that I was in school doing my undergrad and I was working at the student union and and I was doing an event for this black sorority. I was a cashier there and at one point I overheard a girl say, "Oh no you don't pay me, pay this white girl down at the end." And it was a revelation to me, that all of a sudden I had become aware of my race. And so that opened my eyes to some of these things. And I started studying race in graduate school because I became more interested in it. Now that I'm married to a black man and have biracial children, it's become even more salient and relevant to me. But, yes, when I moved from Denmark to the U.S. it was obvious that, unlike what my textbooks taught, the Civil Rights Movement hadn't solved this country's race problem.
EmbraceRace: We're at the end. Thank you all of you who joined for participating, for the great chat and fantastic questions. Bridget thanks especially to you for sharing so much that you've been learning and experiencing in your work and life.
Professor Vittrup: You're welcome. I enjoyed it.
EmbraceRace: Take care everyone! See you again soon! | 8,281 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Women’s responsibilities are child care, cooking, cleaning, washing clothes ,and dishes. Most of us have heard this kind of sentences before. Do you think women are really this? Definitely not. Then, who are women? What do they do? Are they just maids, or people who are independent like everyone in the world? Women are the significant parts of our society. It is impossible to live in a world where there is no women. Unfortunately, women are doing what people expect from them to do nowadays. However, from day to day, women realized that they had not wanted to be the people who they were. Women begin taking roles in more areas of life. Thus, they are changing their identities that are people’s eyes, and becoming independent. In other words, the role of women has changed in recent years in family ,and economy in Turkey.Initially, the first change in women’s roles has happened in family. In the past, women had just two roles: Being mother, and being wife. From morning to night, they were busy with them. In spite of the fact that women were working hard, they could not deserve their husbands’ respect. On the contrary, lots of women in Turkey were exposuring to physical ,and psychological violence, and pressure. They were regularly forbidden by their families, or husbands to do what they wanted to do. To illustrate, women could not go out, or spend time with their friends. From past to today, the role of women in Turkey has changed. Women are much more than being just a mother, or a wife. In other words, women are totally different, since they are more independent. There are no more prohibitions, or pressure for women. Women do not have a communication gap with their husbands. Hence, they can solve their problems without violence. In addition, household chores are not only women’s business as men help their wives to do them. Consequently, the women’s position in Turkey is equal to men’s. Women do not let the others to restrict their independence saying what women should do. In that way, women have a real role apart from being wife, and mother. Being women.Secondly, the other effect on the role of women in Turkey of the contemporary society has occurred in economy. Formerly, men were working, and bringing money to home. Family economy depended on the men of the house. All over business life, there were male domination in economy. Women took roles in low paying jobs much more than men. For instance, in manufacture of readymade clothes as an employee, in clothing stores as a sale lady, in hospitals as a nurse, in hairdressers as a worker in Turkey. The fact that women work in well paid positions was not approved by Turkish society. Women were not found qualified enough to work in higher positions since people think that women were untalented. Nevertheless, in today’s world, people encourage that women are the parts of the business world. They cannot imagine a company without women. Hence, women have opportunities to be in lots of occupations. For example, there are countless teacher, engineer, architect, manager women around us. Men-women equality in economy is being provided. As a consequence, women are becoming the indispensable parts of the economy. In conclusion, women have a great place in the world. They have gained value in the society, and they keep doing. We encounter them in more areas of daily life. Women’s identity in the Turkish society’s perception is not the same as what it used to be. It is worth bearing in mind that women are valuable, and deserve respect. Therefore, we should give women what they deserve. | <urn:uuid:dfd58364-e03c-42af-b764-a374edcc9c5e> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://relatewithkatypark.com/womens-husbands-to-do-what-they-wanted-to/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250591431.4/warc/CC-MAIN-20200117234621-20200118022621-00263.warc.gz | en | 0.990063 | 760 | 3.28125 | 3 | [
0.05779841169714928,
-0.057845599949359894,
0.10571028292179108,
-0.30121272802352905,
-0.04946828633546829,
0.12313611060380936,
0.48536980152130127,
-0.11242521554231644,
0.061219409108161926,
-0.10996353626251221,
-0.15099629759788513,
-0.07372434437274933,
-0.05487978458404541,
0.05160... | 1 | Women’s responsibilities are child care, cooking, cleaning, washing clothes ,and dishes. Most of us have heard this kind of sentences before. Do you think women are really this? Definitely not. Then, who are women? What do they do? Are they just maids, or people who are independent like everyone in the world? Women are the significant parts of our society. It is impossible to live in a world where there is no women. Unfortunately, women are doing what people expect from them to do nowadays. However, from day to day, women realized that they had not wanted to be the people who they were. Women begin taking roles in more areas of life. Thus, they are changing their identities that are people’s eyes, and becoming independent. In other words, the role of women has changed in recent years in family ,and economy in Turkey.Initially, the first change in women’s roles has happened in family. In the past, women had just two roles: Being mother, and being wife. From morning to night, they were busy with them. In spite of the fact that women were working hard, they could not deserve their husbands’ respect. On the contrary, lots of women in Turkey were exposuring to physical ,and psychological violence, and pressure. They were regularly forbidden by their families, or husbands to do what they wanted to do. To illustrate, women could not go out, or spend time with their friends. From past to today, the role of women in Turkey has changed. Women are much more than being just a mother, or a wife. In other words, women are totally different, since they are more independent. There are no more prohibitions, or pressure for women. Women do not have a communication gap with their husbands. Hence, they can solve their problems without violence. In addition, household chores are not only women’s business as men help their wives to do them. Consequently, the women’s position in Turkey is equal to men’s. Women do not let the others to restrict their independence saying what women should do. In that way, women have a real role apart from being wife, and mother. Being women.Secondly, the other effect on the role of women in Turkey of the contemporary society has occurred in economy. Formerly, men were working, and bringing money to home. Family economy depended on the men of the house. All over business life, there were male domination in economy. Women took roles in low paying jobs much more than men. For instance, in manufacture of readymade clothes as an employee, in clothing stores as a sale lady, in hospitals as a nurse, in hairdressers as a worker in Turkey. The fact that women work in well paid positions was not approved by Turkish society. Women were not found qualified enough to work in higher positions since people think that women were untalented. Nevertheless, in today’s world, people encourage that women are the parts of the business world. They cannot imagine a company without women. Hence, women have opportunities to be in lots of occupations. For example, there are countless teacher, engineer, architect, manager women around us. Men-women equality in economy is being provided. As a consequence, women are becoming the indispensable parts of the economy. In conclusion, women have a great place in the world. They have gained value in the society, and they keep doing. We encounter them in more areas of daily life. Women’s identity in the Turkish society’s perception is not the same as what it used to be. It is worth bearing in mind that women are valuable, and deserve respect. Therefore, we should give women what they deserve. | 741 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.Join Britannica's Publishing Partner Program and our community of experts to gain a global audience for your work!
Battle of Passchendaele
Battle of Passchendaele, also called Third Battle of Ypres, (July 31–November 6, 1917), World War I battle that served as a vivid symbol of the mud, madness, and senseless slaughter of the Western Front. The third and longest battle to take place at the Belgian city of Ypres, Passchendaele was ostensibly an Allied victory, but it was achieved at enormous cost for a piece of ground that would be vacated the following year.
Preparation and the Battle of Messines
By the spring of 1917, Germany had resumed the practice of unrestricted submarine warfare, sinking merchant ships in international waters. At about the same time, legions of weary French soldiers began to mutiny following the failure of a large French offensive on the Western Front. Because some French armies were temporarily unwilling or unable to fight, the commander of the British armies in Europe, Gen. Douglas Haig, decided that Britain must begin a new offensive of its own. Haig wanted to attack German forces in the Ypres salient, a long-held bulge in the Allied front lines in the Flanders region of Belgium. The salient had been an active battlefield since 1914.
Haig’s plan called for a preliminary attack on the Messines Ridge (north of Armentières) in order to straighten out the Ypres salient on its southern flank and to attract German reserves. This was executed on June 7, 1917, by the Second Army, under Gen. Sir Herbert Plumer. A strictly limited attack, made with true siege-war methods and based on preparations begun a year before, it proved an almost complete success within its limits. It owed much to the surprise effect of 19 huge mines that were simultaneously fired.
The success of the Battle of Messines had the unfortunate effect of inspiring the British high command with too much confidence in the greater effort that was to follow, wherein the methods would be essentially different. Haig discussed with the two army commanders, Plumer and Sir Hubert de la Poer Gough, what objective they should fix for the first day of the forthcoming offensive. Gough, like Haig’s own operations staff, favoured the idea of a step-by-step approach to the attack, but Plumer urged that they should “go all out.” Haig agreed with him, counting on an early breakthrough, if not at the first thrust. He told his army commanders that “opportunities for the employment of cavalry in masses are likely to offer.”
There was cause to doubt this, as well as the possibility of a rapid advance even by the infantry. British General Headquarters (GHQ) had information which indicated that the Ypres area, being reclaimed marshland, was bound to revert to swamp if the drainage system were to be destroyed by prolonged bombardment. In addition, according to the head of Haig’s intelligence staff, “Careful investigation of the records of more than eighty years showed that in Flanders the weather broke early each August with the regularity of the Indian monsoon: once the autumn rains set in the difficulties would be greatly enhanced.” None of these facts was disclosed by Haig to the war cabinet when he went to London late in June to secure its approval of his plans. He began by dwelling on the “exhaustion” of the German army and its declining morale. British Prime Minister David Lloyd George expressed anxiety over whether so great an operation would cause heavy casualties, which would be difficult to replace given the present state of manpower. Haig replied that he thought there were no grounds for such fears.
The war cabinet still hesitated, but Adm. John Jellicoe made a powerful intervention in favour of Haig’s plan, saying that unless the army could capture the submarine bases on the Belgian coast, he considered it “improbable that we could go on with the war next year for lack of shipping.” On his return to France, Haig told his intelligence chief, Gen. John Charteris, of the struggle and of the decisive effect of Jellicoe’s declaration. GHQ regarded this as “a rather amazing view” while appreciating the fact that it had “sufficient weight to make the Cabinet agree to our attack going on.” Charteris, however, was dismayed to learn that Haig had gone beyond the general figures furnished by his own intelligence staff and had given “the definite opinion that if the fighting was kept up at its present intensity for six months Germany would be at the end of her available man-power.” Preparations were now pressed forward on both sides of the battlefront. German commanders agreed that a British offensive at Ypres was “certain,” and its exact pattern was judged “with perfect accuracy.”
By July 6, Crown Prince Rupert of Bavaria, the German army group commander, was satisfied that he now had ample troops and ammunition to meet the expected attack. For an early breakthrough such as Haig intended, surprise would be of vital importance, but, as he chose to attack in the bare Flanders plain, all of Haig’s immense preparations were displayed to the eyes of the German observers. A fortnight’s bombardment gave them further warning.
The Third Battle of Ypres
The offensive from the Ypres salient was launched on July 31, 1917, after more than 3,000 guns had poured 4.5 million shells on the German defenses. They did not suffice to silence the hostile machine guns, many of which were ensconced in concrete pillboxes. British troops, supported by dozens of tanks and assisted by a French contingent, assaulted German trenches. Only on the left was the full objective reached with the capture of Bixschoote (Bikschote), Pilckem Ridge, and Saint-Julien; on the crucial right wing the attack was a failure. Yet Haig, in his report to the War Office on the first day’s fighting, stated that the results were “most satisfactory.” The explosion of millions of shells, accompanied by torrential rain, had turned the battlefield into an apocalyptic expanse—a swampy pulverized mire dotted with water-filled craters deep enough to drown a man, all made worse by the churned-up graves of soldiers killed in earlier fighting. On August 4 Charteris noted in his diary, “Every brook is swollen and the ground is a quagmire. If it were not that all the records of previous years had given us fair warning, it would seem as if Providence had declared against us.”
Hundreds of thousands of soldiers on opposing sides attacked and counterattacked across sodden, porridgelike mud, in an open gray landscape almost empty of buildings or natural cover, all under the relentless harrowing rain of exploding shells, flying shrapnel, and machine-gun fire. Few gains were made. The next major effort had to be postponed until August 16 and then proved a failure. Gough suggested that “the attack should be abandoned,” but Haig remained confident. On August 21 he told the British government that the end of the German reserves was in sight, though the struggle might still be severe “for some weeks.” By this point, nearly 70,000 men from some of Britain’s best assault divisions had been killed or wounded.
Sir William Robert Robertson, chief of the British Imperial General Staff, now began to feel increasing doubts, but he did not disclose them to the war cabinet, despite his role as the official military adviser to the government. A month later, telling Haig that he had “knocked out” alternative plans and was still backing Haig’s, he added, “I confess I stick to it more because…my instinct prompts me to stick to it, than because of any good argument by which I can support it.” After repeated local attacks by Gough’s troops had achieved practically nothing except loss to themselves, Haig agreed that Plumer’s army should take an enlarged role. The method of attack had come to be questioned even at GHQ itself: a paper on the question led Gen. Henry Rawlinson to submit an appreciation in which he pointed out that “the British command had never yet attempted to conduct a wearing-down battle with planned, logical methods, but had relied too much on its belief that a breakdown of the German Army’s morale was within sight.” Haig was not impressed by these views, but his decision to extend Plumer’s role fulfilled them indirectly. The preparations took several weeks and gave the troops some respite from vain sacrifice.
The ANZAC and Canadian Corps at Passchendaele
As the offensive ground to a halt, Haig ordered the 100,000-man Canadian Corps to launch a diversionary attack on the Germans occupying the French city of Lens, in the hopes that this would draw German resources away from the main battle in the Ypres salient. After surveying the German defenses, the Canadian commander, Lieut. Gen. Arthur Currie, opted instead to seize the high ground north of Lens at Hill 70. Currie’s operation was an unqualified success, and, although the Canadian Corps suffered some 9,000 casualties, the unit inflicted nearly three times that number on the Germans.
By early September, Haig had come under political pressure from London to halt the offensive, but he pressed on. That month, Australian and New Zealand (ANZAC) divisions were thrown into the fight alongside the worn-out British forces, but the result was the same: the Allies would bombard, assault, and occupy a section of enemy ground only to be thrown back by the counterattacking Germans.
Lions led by donkeys
In late September there was an improvement both in the weather and in the British situation. On September 20, on September 26, and again on October 4, successful strokes of a strictly limited nature were delivered. The farthest objective was less than 1 mile (1.6 km) deep on September 20 and was reduced still more on the subsequent strokes. An effective creeping artillery barrage won the ground; the infantry merely occupied it. Plumer had one gun to every 5 yards (4.6 metres) of front, and this huge concentration of fire crushed the enemy’s counterattacks. The result, together with the better organization of the attack, helped to revive the spirits of the attacking troops.
The effect, however, proved too intoxicating behind the front. At a conference on September 28, Haig expressed his belief that the enemy was on the point of collapse and that tanks and cavalry could be pushed through. Ten days later he told the government that the breakdown of the enemy’s resistance might come “at any moment.” He had already told them that the German losses exceeded the British “not improbably by a hundred per cent.” They were actually much less than the British. Haig’s assistants, both executive and advisory, became more and more dubious of his optimistic assurances as the weather deteriorated and the mud became worse, but, with military loyalty, they tried to make their thoughts become the children of his wishes. On October 5 Charteris admitted in a note, “Unless we get fine weather for all this month, there is no chance of clearing the coast….Most of those at the conference would welcome a stop.”
A fresh attack was nevertheless ordered for October 12 with still deeper objectives. Gough tried to secure a postponement, but without avail. This attack ended with the assaulting troops, save those who had perished in the mud, back on their starting line. Another futile attack was launched on October 22 with the same outcome. Haig, determined to carry on despite the depletion of his armies, now turned to the Canadians. In early October Haig had ordered Currie to bring his four divisions to Belgium to relieve the decimated ANZAC troops and take up the fight around Passchendaele. Currie objected to what he considered a reckless attack, arguing that it would cost about 16,000 Canadian casualties for no great strategic gain. Ultimately, however, Currie had little choice. After lodging his protest, he made careful plans for the Canadians’ assault. Over the next two weeks Currie ordered the building and repair of roads and tramlines to help in the movement of men and armaments and other supplies on the battlefield. Gun emplacements were improved, and troops and officers were allowed time to prepare for the attack, which opened on October 26, 1917.
For the next two weeks all four divisions of the Canadian Corps took turns assaulting the Passchendaele ridge, making only meagre gains with heavy losses. Conditions for the soldiers were horrifying. Under almost continuous rain and shellfire, troops huddled in waterlogged shell holes or became lost on the blasted mudscape, unable to locate the front line that separated Canadian positions from German ones. The mud gummed up rifle barrels and breeches, making them difficult to fire. It swallowed up soldiers as they slept. It slowed stretcher-bearers to a literal crawl as they tried to carry the wounded away from the fighting through waist-deep muck. Ironically, the mud also saved lives, cushioning many of the shells that landed and preventing their explosion.
Victory and loss
Very little progress was made. On November 6, however, Canadian troops advanced the few hundred yards necessary to occupy the site of what had been the village of Passchendaele (northeast of Ypres, about 5 miles [8 km] from the nearest front on the salient when the offensive had begun on July 31). A final assault, which secured the remaining areas of high ground east of the Ypres salient, was carried out on November 10. Haig at last called a halt, his honour satisfied. He was, in a practical sense, no nearer reaching the ports that formed his goal than when the Third Battle of Ypres started. His dream of a decisive victory had faded. Some 61 Victoria Crosses, the British Empire’s highest decoration for military valour, were awarded after the fighting. More Victoria Crosses—14 in total—were awarded for actions on the opening day of the Battle of Passchendaele than for actions on any other single day of combat in World War I.
The armies under British command suffered some 275,000 casualties at Passchendaele, a figure that makes a mockery of Haig’s pledge that he would not commit the country to "heavy losses.” Among these were 38,000 Australians, 5,300 New Zealanders, and more than 15,600 Canadians; this final figure was almost exactly the total that had been predicted by Currie ahead of the battle. The Germans suffered 220,000 killed or wounded. At the end, the point of it all was unclear. In 1918 all the ground that had been gained there by the Allies was evacuated in the face of a looming German assault. Passchendaele would be remembered as a symbol of the worst horrors of the First World War, the sheer futility of much of the fighting, and the reckless disregard by some of the war’s senior leaders for the lives of the men under their command.R.H. RoyRichard FootThe Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica
The original version of this entry was published byThe Canadian Encyclopedia.
Learn More in these related Britannica articles:
World War I: The Western Front, June–December 1917Thus, when the Third Battle of Ypres was begun, on July 31, only the left wing’s objectives were achieved: on the crucial right wing the attack was a failure. Four days later, the ground was already swampy. When the attack was resumed on August 16, very little more was…
David Lloyd George: Prime minister…July 31, 1917, the ill-fated Passchendaele offensive began. Although it may have forestalled a possible German attack on the French, Passchendaele, with enormous loss of life, achieved none of its main objectives. Lloyd George was now convinced of the incompetence of the British high command.…
Douglas Haig, 1st Earl HaigIn the resulting Third Battle of Ypres (July–November 1917), also called the Passchendaele Campaign, the number of casualties shocked the British public, as the Somme death toll had done. But, although he failed to reach his objective—the Belgian coast—he did weaken the Germans and helped prepare the way… | <urn:uuid:a6502b11-7408-4313-9188-01c6552062cf> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://www.mountviews.com/event/Battle-of-Passchendaele | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250624328.55/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124161014-20200124190014-00045.warc.gz | en | 0.980251 | 3,482 | 3.8125 | 4 | [
-0.12908463180065155,
0.2874787449836731,
0.30540192127227783,
0.08271806687116623,
0.1262621432542801,
0.0278017520904541,
-0.3371524214744568,
0.38245266675949097,
-0.40629157423973083,
-0.07749298959970474,
-0.17317810654640198,
-0.8063536882400513,
0.11110113561153412,
-0.0532047152519... | 5 | Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.Join Britannica's Publishing Partner Program and our community of experts to gain a global audience for your work!
Battle of Passchendaele
Battle of Passchendaele, also called Third Battle of Ypres, (July 31–November 6, 1917), World War I battle that served as a vivid symbol of the mud, madness, and senseless slaughter of the Western Front. The third and longest battle to take place at the Belgian city of Ypres, Passchendaele was ostensibly an Allied victory, but it was achieved at enormous cost for a piece of ground that would be vacated the following year.
Preparation and the Battle of Messines
By the spring of 1917, Germany had resumed the practice of unrestricted submarine warfare, sinking merchant ships in international waters. At about the same time, legions of weary French soldiers began to mutiny following the failure of a large French offensive on the Western Front. Because some French armies were temporarily unwilling or unable to fight, the commander of the British armies in Europe, Gen. Douglas Haig, decided that Britain must begin a new offensive of its own. Haig wanted to attack German forces in the Ypres salient, a long-held bulge in the Allied front lines in the Flanders region of Belgium. The salient had been an active battlefield since 1914.
Haig’s plan called for a preliminary attack on the Messines Ridge (north of Armentières) in order to straighten out the Ypres salient on its southern flank and to attract German reserves. This was executed on June 7, 1917, by the Second Army, under Gen. Sir Herbert Plumer. A strictly limited attack, made with true siege-war methods and based on preparations begun a year before, it proved an almost complete success within its limits. It owed much to the surprise effect of 19 huge mines that were simultaneously fired.
The success of the Battle of Messines had the unfortunate effect of inspiring the British high command with too much confidence in the greater effort that was to follow, wherein the methods would be essentially different. Haig discussed with the two army commanders, Plumer and Sir Hubert de la Poer Gough, what objective they should fix for the first day of the forthcoming offensive. Gough, like Haig’s own operations staff, favoured the idea of a step-by-step approach to the attack, but Plumer urged that they should “go all out.” Haig agreed with him, counting on an early breakthrough, if not at the first thrust. He told his army commanders that “opportunities for the employment of cavalry in masses are likely to offer.”
There was cause to doubt this, as well as the possibility of a rapid advance even by the infantry. British General Headquarters (GHQ) had information which indicated that the Ypres area, being reclaimed marshland, was bound to revert to swamp if the drainage system were to be destroyed by prolonged bombardment. In addition, according to the head of Haig’s intelligence staff, “Careful investigation of the records of more than eighty years showed that in Flanders the weather broke early each August with the regularity of the Indian monsoon: once the autumn rains set in the difficulties would be greatly enhanced.” None of these facts was disclosed by Haig to the war cabinet when he went to London late in June to secure its approval of his plans. He began by dwelling on the “exhaustion” of the German army and its declining morale. British Prime Minister David Lloyd George expressed anxiety over whether so great an operation would cause heavy casualties, which would be difficult to replace given the present state of manpower. Haig replied that he thought there were no grounds for such fears.
The war cabinet still hesitated, but Adm. John Jellicoe made a powerful intervention in favour of Haig’s plan, saying that unless the army could capture the submarine bases on the Belgian coast, he considered it “improbable that we could go on with the war next year for lack of shipping.” On his return to France, Haig told his intelligence chief, Gen. John Charteris, of the struggle and of the decisive effect of Jellicoe’s declaration. GHQ regarded this as “a rather amazing view” while appreciating the fact that it had “sufficient weight to make the Cabinet agree to our attack going on.” Charteris, however, was dismayed to learn that Haig had gone beyond the general figures furnished by his own intelligence staff and had given “the definite opinion that if the fighting was kept up at its present intensity for six months Germany would be at the end of her available man-power.” Preparations were now pressed forward on both sides of the battlefront. German commanders agreed that a British offensive at Ypres was “certain,” and its exact pattern was judged “with perfect accuracy.”
By July 6, Crown Prince Rupert of Bavaria, the German army group commander, was satisfied that he now had ample troops and ammunition to meet the expected attack. For an early breakthrough such as Haig intended, surprise would be of vital importance, but, as he chose to attack in the bare Flanders plain, all of Haig’s immense preparations were displayed to the eyes of the German observers. A fortnight’s bombardment gave them further warning.
The Third Battle of Ypres
The offensive from the Ypres salient was launched on July 31, 1917, after more than 3,000 guns had poured 4.5 million shells on the German defenses. They did not suffice to silence the hostile machine guns, many of which were ensconced in concrete pillboxes. British troops, supported by dozens of tanks and assisted by a French contingent, assaulted German trenches. Only on the left was the full objective reached with the capture of Bixschoote (Bikschote), Pilckem Ridge, and Saint-Julien; on the crucial right wing the attack was a failure. Yet Haig, in his report to the War Office on the first day’s fighting, stated that the results were “most satisfactory.” The explosion of millions of shells, accompanied by torrential rain, had turned the battlefield into an apocalyptic expanse—a swampy pulverized mire dotted with water-filled craters deep enough to drown a man, all made worse by the churned-up graves of soldiers killed in earlier fighting. On August 4 Charteris noted in his diary, “Every brook is swollen and the ground is a quagmire. If it were not that all the records of previous years had given us fair warning, it would seem as if Providence had declared against us.”
Hundreds of thousands of soldiers on opposing sides attacked and counterattacked across sodden, porridgelike mud, in an open gray landscape almost empty of buildings or natural cover, all under the relentless harrowing rain of exploding shells, flying shrapnel, and machine-gun fire. Few gains were made. The next major effort had to be postponed until August 16 and then proved a failure. Gough suggested that “the attack should be abandoned,” but Haig remained confident. On August 21 he told the British government that the end of the German reserves was in sight, though the struggle might still be severe “for some weeks.” By this point, nearly 70,000 men from some of Britain’s best assault divisions had been killed or wounded.
Sir William Robert Robertson, chief of the British Imperial General Staff, now began to feel increasing doubts, but he did not disclose them to the war cabinet, despite his role as the official military adviser to the government. A month later, telling Haig that he had “knocked out” alternative plans and was still backing Haig’s, he added, “I confess I stick to it more because…my instinct prompts me to stick to it, than because of any good argument by which I can support it.” After repeated local attacks by Gough’s troops had achieved practically nothing except loss to themselves, Haig agreed that Plumer’s army should take an enlarged role. The method of attack had come to be questioned even at GHQ itself: a paper on the question led Gen. Henry Rawlinson to submit an appreciation in which he pointed out that “the British command had never yet attempted to conduct a wearing-down battle with planned, logical methods, but had relied too much on its belief that a breakdown of the German Army’s morale was within sight.” Haig was not impressed by these views, but his decision to extend Plumer’s role fulfilled them indirectly. The preparations took several weeks and gave the troops some respite from vain sacrifice.
The ANZAC and Canadian Corps at Passchendaele
As the offensive ground to a halt, Haig ordered the 100,000-man Canadian Corps to launch a diversionary attack on the Germans occupying the French city of Lens, in the hopes that this would draw German resources away from the main battle in the Ypres salient. After surveying the German defenses, the Canadian commander, Lieut. Gen. Arthur Currie, opted instead to seize the high ground north of Lens at Hill 70. Currie’s operation was an unqualified success, and, although the Canadian Corps suffered some 9,000 casualties, the unit inflicted nearly three times that number on the Germans.
By early September, Haig had come under political pressure from London to halt the offensive, but he pressed on. That month, Australian and New Zealand (ANZAC) divisions were thrown into the fight alongside the worn-out British forces, but the result was the same: the Allies would bombard, assault, and occupy a section of enemy ground only to be thrown back by the counterattacking Germans.
Lions led by donkeys
In late September there was an improvement both in the weather and in the British situation. On September 20, on September 26, and again on October 4, successful strokes of a strictly limited nature were delivered. The farthest objective was less than 1 mile (1.6 km) deep on September 20 and was reduced still more on the subsequent strokes. An effective creeping artillery barrage won the ground; the infantry merely occupied it. Plumer had one gun to every 5 yards (4.6 metres) of front, and this huge concentration of fire crushed the enemy’s counterattacks. The result, together with the better organization of the attack, helped to revive the spirits of the attacking troops.
The effect, however, proved too intoxicating behind the front. At a conference on September 28, Haig expressed his belief that the enemy was on the point of collapse and that tanks and cavalry could be pushed through. Ten days later he told the government that the breakdown of the enemy’s resistance might come “at any moment.” He had already told them that the German losses exceeded the British “not improbably by a hundred per cent.” They were actually much less than the British. Haig’s assistants, both executive and advisory, became more and more dubious of his optimistic assurances as the weather deteriorated and the mud became worse, but, with military loyalty, they tried to make their thoughts become the children of his wishes. On October 5 Charteris admitted in a note, “Unless we get fine weather for all this month, there is no chance of clearing the coast….Most of those at the conference would welcome a stop.”
A fresh attack was nevertheless ordered for October 12 with still deeper objectives. Gough tried to secure a postponement, but without avail. This attack ended with the assaulting troops, save those who had perished in the mud, back on their starting line. Another futile attack was launched on October 22 with the same outcome. Haig, determined to carry on despite the depletion of his armies, now turned to the Canadians. In early October Haig had ordered Currie to bring his four divisions to Belgium to relieve the decimated ANZAC troops and take up the fight around Passchendaele. Currie objected to what he considered a reckless attack, arguing that it would cost about 16,000 Canadian casualties for no great strategic gain. Ultimately, however, Currie had little choice. After lodging his protest, he made careful plans for the Canadians’ assault. Over the next two weeks Currie ordered the building and repair of roads and tramlines to help in the movement of men and armaments and other supplies on the battlefield. Gun emplacements were improved, and troops and officers were allowed time to prepare for the attack, which opened on October 26, 1917.
For the next two weeks all four divisions of the Canadian Corps took turns assaulting the Passchendaele ridge, making only meagre gains with heavy losses. Conditions for the soldiers were horrifying. Under almost continuous rain and shellfire, troops huddled in waterlogged shell holes or became lost on the blasted mudscape, unable to locate the front line that separated Canadian positions from German ones. The mud gummed up rifle barrels and breeches, making them difficult to fire. It swallowed up soldiers as they slept. It slowed stretcher-bearers to a literal crawl as they tried to carry the wounded away from the fighting through waist-deep muck. Ironically, the mud also saved lives, cushioning many of the shells that landed and preventing their explosion.
Victory and loss
Very little progress was made. On November 6, however, Canadian troops advanced the few hundred yards necessary to occupy the site of what had been the village of Passchendaele (northeast of Ypres, about 5 miles [8 km] from the nearest front on the salient when the offensive had begun on July 31). A final assault, which secured the remaining areas of high ground east of the Ypres salient, was carried out on November 10. Haig at last called a halt, his honour satisfied. He was, in a practical sense, no nearer reaching the ports that formed his goal than when the Third Battle of Ypres started. His dream of a decisive victory had faded. Some 61 Victoria Crosses, the British Empire’s highest decoration for military valour, were awarded after the fighting. More Victoria Crosses—14 in total—were awarded for actions on the opening day of the Battle of Passchendaele than for actions on any other single day of combat in World War I.
The armies under British command suffered some 275,000 casualties at Passchendaele, a figure that makes a mockery of Haig’s pledge that he would not commit the country to "heavy losses.” Among these were 38,000 Australians, 5,300 New Zealanders, and more than 15,600 Canadians; this final figure was almost exactly the total that had been predicted by Currie ahead of the battle. The Germans suffered 220,000 killed or wounded. At the end, the point of it all was unclear. In 1918 all the ground that had been gained there by the Allies was evacuated in the face of a looming German assault. Passchendaele would be remembered as a symbol of the worst horrors of the First World War, the sheer futility of much of the fighting, and the reckless disregard by some of the war’s senior leaders for the lives of the men under their command.R.H. RoyRichard FootThe Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica
The original version of this entry was published byThe Canadian Encyclopedia.
Learn More in these related Britannica articles:
World War I: The Western Front, June–December 1917Thus, when the Third Battle of Ypres was begun, on July 31, only the left wing’s objectives were achieved: on the crucial right wing the attack was a failure. Four days later, the ground was already swampy. When the attack was resumed on August 16, very little more was…
David Lloyd George: Prime minister…July 31, 1917, the ill-fated Passchendaele offensive began. Although it may have forestalled a possible German attack on the French, Passchendaele, with enormous loss of life, achieved none of its main objectives. Lloyd George was now convinced of the incompetence of the British high command.…
Douglas Haig, 1st Earl HaigIn the resulting Third Battle of Ypres (July–November 1917), also called the Passchendaele Campaign, the number of casualties shocked the British public, as the Somme death toll had done. But, although he failed to reach his objective—the Belgian coast—he did weaken the Germans and helped prepare the way… | 3,482 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Question by BillieT: oscar wilde “imporance of being earnest” historical influences?
What three historical events would have either consiously or subconsioucly been reflected in “The Importance of Being Earnest”? What was happening around Oscar Wilde in a broad historical sense that would have been incorporated into this play?
Answer by Ari
Wilde began writing The Importance of Being Earnest in August 1894, and it premiered six months later on St. Valentine’s Day, as Wilde was facing increasingly angry verbal attacks from his lover’s father, the Marquess of Queensbury. (Had it not been for Wilde and the public accusations of sodomy made against him, the Marquess would be known today solely for his standardization of boxing rules.) Two weeks later, Wilde unwisely pressed criminal libel charges against the Marquess. Improbably, Wilde actually attended the March 7 performance of The Importance of Being Earnest with his lover (Lord Alfred Douglas) and his wife together. (Wilde’s biographer, Richard Ellmann, reports that Wilde’s wife “had tears in her eyes.”)
On April 5, after the libel charges were dismissed (on the grounds that Queensbury’s accusations were true), Wilde was arrested and charged with committing sodomy and indecent acts, the evidence for which had been brought out by Queenbury’s legal defense. A month later, Wilde was found guilty of all charges but one, and he was sentenced to the maximum two years of hard labor. He died three years after his release, an exile in Paris, at the age of forty-six.
That The Importance of Being Earnest’s effortless composition and critically acclaimed premiere coincided with Wilde’s public downfall is striking, to say the least, and it’s hard not to note at least in passing the ironically polarized parallels between Wilde’s life and the play. According to Wilde, the play’s philosophy was “That we should treat all trivial things very seriously, and all the serious things of life with sincere and studied triviality.” Wilde’s well-being would doubtless have been better served by taking the play’s philosophy to heart: tear up Queensbury’s offending notes, shrug off his slurs and spend a little time abroad while the scandal died down. But under Douglas’s influence, Wilde pressed on with the charges, and it wasn’t until the case had advanced too far to turn back that he realized how serious the repercussions against him might be, given how easily the Marquess’s claims could be proven true.
Flight, though it was adamantly suggested (and arranged) by many friends, seems never to have been a real consideration for Wilde once he faced his own criminal trials, and at least some of his contemporaries admired him for it. “He was an unfinished sketch of a great man,” Yeats said of him, “and showed great courage and manhood amid the collapse of his fortunes.” Courageous as his unflinching stance may have been once he faced criminal charges, the notion that he was unfinished seems particularly apt for describing Wilde’s inability to understand the seemingly obvious drawbacks to his pressing the initial libel suit. It was a singularly damning failing that suggests an intriguing mix of hubris and naivete. While The Importance of Being Earnest’s Jack and Algernon eventually learn to play cunning political games in the adult world to fulfill their hedonistic desires, Wilde himself failed utterly to learn the lesson.
Ironically, the prospect of imprisonment arises in an early draft of The Importance of Being Earnest. In an act that Wilde eventually cut (and which found its way in abbreviated form into this year’s film adaptation), Algernon is threatened with arrest for unpaid restaurant bills. Unlike Wilde, Algernon is able to scoff at the prospect of imprisonment—and avoid it. “I am not going to be imprisoned in the suburbs for dining in the West End,” he says. “It is ridiculous.”
An odd thread connects Wilde to Anthony Asquith, the director of the 1952 film adaptation of The Importance of Being Earnest. Asquith’s father, a progressive who served as Britain’s prime minister from 1909 to 1916, had known Wilde socially, but as Home Secretary, he was involved in the prosecution’s criminal case against Wilde. (He was actually one of the officials who signed Wilde’s arrest warrant.) Anthony himself shrugged off his aristocratic background with an eccentric austerity (he wore his WWII British Home Guard uniform on his film sets for thirty years), but growing up as a member of Wilde’s privileged class clearly helped his celluloid presentation of Wilde’s satirical subjects.
What do you think? Answer below! | <urn:uuid:d703aac0-5d17-43b6-98fc-8b0b5b0d59c5> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://majickalgarden.com/2011/06/13/qa-oscar-wilde-imporance-of-being-earnest-historical-influences/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250610919.33/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123131001-20200123160001-00395.warc.gz | en | 0.982 | 1,026 | 3.859375 | 4 | [
0.03163948655128479,
0.3808111548423767,
0.4285372197628021,
-0.24463219940662384,
0.12616781890392303,
0.15851455926895142,
0.3195726275444031,
0.020615339279174805,
0.1710967719554901,
-0.11100193858146667,
-0.0984359085559845,
-0.0017467373982071877,
0.18727591633796692,
0.0151679050177... | 1 | Question by BillieT: oscar wilde “imporance of being earnest” historical influences?
What three historical events would have either consiously or subconsioucly been reflected in “The Importance of Being Earnest”? What was happening around Oscar Wilde in a broad historical sense that would have been incorporated into this play?
Answer by Ari
Wilde began writing The Importance of Being Earnest in August 1894, and it premiered six months later on St. Valentine’s Day, as Wilde was facing increasingly angry verbal attacks from his lover’s father, the Marquess of Queensbury. (Had it not been for Wilde and the public accusations of sodomy made against him, the Marquess would be known today solely for his standardization of boxing rules.) Two weeks later, Wilde unwisely pressed criminal libel charges against the Marquess. Improbably, Wilde actually attended the March 7 performance of The Importance of Being Earnest with his lover (Lord Alfred Douglas) and his wife together. (Wilde’s biographer, Richard Ellmann, reports that Wilde’s wife “had tears in her eyes.”)
On April 5, after the libel charges were dismissed (on the grounds that Queensbury’s accusations were true), Wilde was arrested and charged with committing sodomy and indecent acts, the evidence for which had been brought out by Queenbury’s legal defense. A month later, Wilde was found guilty of all charges but one, and he was sentenced to the maximum two years of hard labor. He died three years after his release, an exile in Paris, at the age of forty-six.
That The Importance of Being Earnest’s effortless composition and critically acclaimed premiere coincided with Wilde’s public downfall is striking, to say the least, and it’s hard not to note at least in passing the ironically polarized parallels between Wilde’s life and the play. According to Wilde, the play’s philosophy was “That we should treat all trivial things very seriously, and all the serious things of life with sincere and studied triviality.” Wilde’s well-being would doubtless have been better served by taking the play’s philosophy to heart: tear up Queensbury’s offending notes, shrug off his slurs and spend a little time abroad while the scandal died down. But under Douglas’s influence, Wilde pressed on with the charges, and it wasn’t until the case had advanced too far to turn back that he realized how serious the repercussions against him might be, given how easily the Marquess’s claims could be proven true.
Flight, though it was adamantly suggested (and arranged) by many friends, seems never to have been a real consideration for Wilde once he faced his own criminal trials, and at least some of his contemporaries admired him for it. “He was an unfinished sketch of a great man,” Yeats said of him, “and showed great courage and manhood amid the collapse of his fortunes.” Courageous as his unflinching stance may have been once he faced criminal charges, the notion that he was unfinished seems particularly apt for describing Wilde’s inability to understand the seemingly obvious drawbacks to his pressing the initial libel suit. It was a singularly damning failing that suggests an intriguing mix of hubris and naivete. While The Importance of Being Earnest’s Jack and Algernon eventually learn to play cunning political games in the adult world to fulfill their hedonistic desires, Wilde himself failed utterly to learn the lesson.
Ironically, the prospect of imprisonment arises in an early draft of The Importance of Being Earnest. In an act that Wilde eventually cut (and which found its way in abbreviated form into this year’s film adaptation), Algernon is threatened with arrest for unpaid restaurant bills. Unlike Wilde, Algernon is able to scoff at the prospect of imprisonment—and avoid it. “I am not going to be imprisoned in the suburbs for dining in the West End,” he says. “It is ridiculous.”
An odd thread connects Wilde to Anthony Asquith, the director of the 1952 film adaptation of The Importance of Being Earnest. Asquith’s father, a progressive who served as Britain’s prime minister from 1909 to 1916, had known Wilde socially, but as Home Secretary, he was involved in the prosecution’s criminal case against Wilde. (He was actually one of the officials who signed Wilde’s arrest warrant.) Anthony himself shrugged off his aristocratic background with an eccentric austerity (he wore his WWII British Home Guard uniform on his film sets for thirty years), but growing up as a member of Wilde’s privileged class clearly helped his celluloid presentation of Wilde’s satirical subjects.
What do you think? Answer below! | 961 | ENGLISH | 1 |
In 1909, Chicago publisher William D. Boyce lost his way in a dense London fog. A boy came to his aid and, after guiding the man, refused a tip, explaining that as a Scout he would not take a tip for doing a Good Turn. This gesture by an unknown Scout inspired a meeting with Robert Baden-Powell, the British founder of the Boy Scouts. As a result, William Boyce incorporated the Boy Scouts of America on February 8, 1910. He also created the Lone Scouts, which merged with the Boy Scouts of America in 1924.
During World War One, Boyce traveled to Europe on the British luxury liner Lusitania, three months before the Germans supposedly torpedoed it, subsequently pushing the U.S. to enter the war. He also traveled to Africa twice and spent a year in South America, all part of his many journeys throughout the world. He wrote about many of those journeys, which were published by Rand McNally & Company.3
It is believed that Boyce was worth $20 million in 1916 (more than $440 million in 2016). He died in 1929 prior to the stock market crash. As a result, his fortunes were not able to be sustained by his heirs, which may also be why his historical popularity did not rise to the levels of entrepreneurs such as Rockefeller and Guggenheim. Nonetheless, his legacy as one of the leaders of the Boy Scouts lives on, notably through the Boyce Building in Chicago and plaques that adorns its outside walls. | <urn:uuid:c2f646fe-5e95-4ad0-8330-597f2a0e3fa3> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.theclio.com/entry/26733 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251778168.77/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128091916-20200128121916-00483.warc.gz | en | 0.986298 | 310 | 3.828125 | 4 | [
0.0951342061161995,
0.03713884949684143,
0.19797784090042114,
-0.3336839973926544,
-0.23574942350387573,
0.15117773413658142,
0.26389023661613464,
0.14325720071792603,
-0.1588338315486908,
-0.11154235899448395,
0.22134800255298615,
0.09213986247777939,
0.064629465341568,
0.1962343007326126... | 1 | In 1909, Chicago publisher William D. Boyce lost his way in a dense London fog. A boy came to his aid and, after guiding the man, refused a tip, explaining that as a Scout he would not take a tip for doing a Good Turn. This gesture by an unknown Scout inspired a meeting with Robert Baden-Powell, the British founder of the Boy Scouts. As a result, William Boyce incorporated the Boy Scouts of America on February 8, 1910. He also created the Lone Scouts, which merged with the Boy Scouts of America in 1924.
During World War One, Boyce traveled to Europe on the British luxury liner Lusitania, three months before the Germans supposedly torpedoed it, subsequently pushing the U.S. to enter the war. He also traveled to Africa twice and spent a year in South America, all part of his many journeys throughout the world. He wrote about many of those journeys, which were published by Rand McNally & Company.3
It is believed that Boyce was worth $20 million in 1916 (more than $440 million in 2016). He died in 1929 prior to the stock market crash. As a result, his fortunes were not able to be sustained by his heirs, which may also be why his historical popularity did not rise to the levels of entrepreneurs such as Rockefeller and Guggenheim. Nonetheless, his legacy as one of the leaders of the Boy Scouts lives on, notably through the Boyce Building in Chicago and plaques that adorns its outside walls. | 334 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Battle of Cowpens
Battle of Cowpens: Miracle of the Three Rivers
Do you believe in Miracles? The Battle of Cowpens. In March of 1781, General Washington wrote to William Gordon: “We have…abundant reasons to thank Providence for its many favorable interposition’s in our behalf. It has at times been my only dependence, for all other resources seemed to have failed us.”
Painted by William Ranney in 1845, this depiction of the Battle of Cowpens shows an unnamed black soldier (left) firing his pistol and saving the life of Colonel William Washington (on white horse in center).
The Battle of Cowpens (January 17, 1781) was a decisive victory by Continental Army forces under Brigadier General Daniel Morgan in South Carolina over the British Army led by Colonel Banastre Tarleton, during the Southern campaign of the American Revolutionary War. It was a turning point in the rebel reconquest of South Carolina from British control. It took place in northwestern Cherokee County, South Carolina, north of the town of Cowpens.
On October 14, 1780, George Washington chose Nathanael Greene to be commander of the Southern Department of the Continental forces. Greene’s task was not an easy one. The Carolinas had been the scene of a long string of disasters for the Continental Army in 1780, the worst being the capture of one American army at the Siege of Charleston and the destruction of another at the Battle of Camden. A victory of Patriot militia over their Loyalist counterparts at the Battle of Kings Mountain in October had bought time, but most of South Carolina was still occupied by the British. When Greene took command, the southern army numbered only 2307 men (on paper, 1482 present), of whom just 949 were Continental regulars.
On December 3, Brigadier General Daniel Morgan reported for duty to Greene’s headquarters at Charlotte, North Carolina. At the start of the Revolution, Morgan, whose military experience dated to the French and Indian War, had served at the Siege of Boston. Later he participated in the 1775 invasion of Canada and its climactic battle, the Battle of Quebec. That battle, on December 31, 1775, ended in defeat and Morgan’s capture by the British.
Morgan was exchanged in January 1777 and placed by George Washington in command of a picked force of 500 trained riflemen, known as Morgan’s Riflemen. Morgan and his men played a key role in the victory at Saratoga, which proved to be a turning point of the entire war. Bitter after being passed over for promotion and plagued by severe attacks of sciatica, Morgan left the army in 1779. A year later he was promoted to Brigadier General and returned to service in the Southern Department.
Greene decided that his weak army was unable to meet the British in a standup fight. He made the unconventional decision to divide his army, sending a detachment west of the Catawba River to raise the morale of the locals and find supplies beyond the limited amounts available around Charlotte. Greene gave Morgan command of this wing and instructed him to join with the militia west of the Big Catawba and take command of them. Morgan headed west on December 21, charged with taking position between the Broad and Pacolet Rivers, and protecting the civilians in that area. He had 600 men, some 400 of which were Continentals, the rest being Virginia militia with experience as Continentals. By Christmas Day Morgan had reached the Pacolet River. He was joined by 60 South Carolina militia led by the experienced partisan Andrew Pickens. Other militia from Georgia and the Carolinas joined Morgan’s camp.
Meanwhile, Lord Cornwallis was planning to return to North Carolina and conduct the invasion that he had postponed after the defeat at Kings Mountain. Morgan’s force represented a threat to his left. Additionally, Cornwallis received incorrect intelligence claiming that Morgan was going to attack the important British fort at Ninety Six, in western South Carolina. Seeking to save the fort and defeat Morgan’s command, Cornwallis on January 2 ordered Lt. Col. Banastre Tarleton to the west.
Tarleton was 26 years old and had enjoyed a spectacular career in his service with the British in the colonies. In December 1776, he and a small party surprised and captured Patriot Gen. Charles Lee in New Jersey. He served with distinction at the Siege of Charleston and the Battle of Camden. Commanding the British Legion, a mixed infantry/cavalry force composed of American Loyalists who constituted some of the best British troops in the Carolinas, Tarleton won decisive victories at Monck’s Corner and Fishing Creek. He became infamous among Patriots after his victory at the Battle of Waxhaws. His men had killed American soldiers after they had surrendered. In Tarleton’s account published in 1781, he stated that his horse had been shot from under him during the initial charge and his men, thinking him dead, engaged in “a vindictive asperity not easily restrained.”
Tarleton and the Legion marched to Ninety Six, learning Morgan was not there, but Tarleton decided to pursue his forces. Tarleton asked for reinforcements of British regulars, which Cornwallis sent. Tarleton set out with his enlarged command to drive Morgan across the Broad River. On January 12 he received accurate news of Morgan’s location and continued with hard marching, building boats to cross rivers that were flooding with winter rains. Receiving word that Tarleton was in hot pursuit, Morgan retreated north, to avoid being trapped between Tarleton and Cornwallis.
By the afternoon of the 16th, Morgan was approaching the Broad River, which was high with flood waters and reported difficult to cross. He knew Tarleton was close behind. By nightfall he had reached a place called the Cowpens, a well-known grazing area for local cattle. Pickens, who had been patrolling, arrived that night with a large body of militia. Morgan decided to stand and fight rather than continue to retreat and risk being caught by Tarleton while fording the Broad River. Learning of Morgan’s location, Tarleton pushed his troops, marching at 3 a.m. instead of camping for the night. | <urn:uuid:ffa80e73-e866-464e-912f-2630d29d752f> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://purehistory.org/battle-of-cowpens/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250591431.4/warc/CC-MAIN-20200117234621-20200118022621-00345.warc.gz | en | 0.981858 | 1,293 | 3.296875 | 3 | [
-0.2480010837316513,
0.25250524282455444,
0.07367855310440063,
0.46025630831718445,
-0.25298604369163513,
-0.22913505136966705,
0.3517705798149109,
0.14148953557014465,
-0.2528167963027954,
0.4120599031448364,
-0.011212136596441269,
-0.09413498640060425,
0.09540067613124847,
0.113123580813... | 4 | Battle of Cowpens
Battle of Cowpens: Miracle of the Three Rivers
Do you believe in Miracles? The Battle of Cowpens. In March of 1781, General Washington wrote to William Gordon: “We have…abundant reasons to thank Providence for its many favorable interposition’s in our behalf. It has at times been my only dependence, for all other resources seemed to have failed us.”
Painted by William Ranney in 1845, this depiction of the Battle of Cowpens shows an unnamed black soldier (left) firing his pistol and saving the life of Colonel William Washington (on white horse in center).
The Battle of Cowpens (January 17, 1781) was a decisive victory by Continental Army forces under Brigadier General Daniel Morgan in South Carolina over the British Army led by Colonel Banastre Tarleton, during the Southern campaign of the American Revolutionary War. It was a turning point in the rebel reconquest of South Carolina from British control. It took place in northwestern Cherokee County, South Carolina, north of the town of Cowpens.
On October 14, 1780, George Washington chose Nathanael Greene to be commander of the Southern Department of the Continental forces. Greene’s task was not an easy one. The Carolinas had been the scene of a long string of disasters for the Continental Army in 1780, the worst being the capture of one American army at the Siege of Charleston and the destruction of another at the Battle of Camden. A victory of Patriot militia over their Loyalist counterparts at the Battle of Kings Mountain in October had bought time, but most of South Carolina was still occupied by the British. When Greene took command, the southern army numbered only 2307 men (on paper, 1482 present), of whom just 949 were Continental regulars.
On December 3, Brigadier General Daniel Morgan reported for duty to Greene’s headquarters at Charlotte, North Carolina. At the start of the Revolution, Morgan, whose military experience dated to the French and Indian War, had served at the Siege of Boston. Later he participated in the 1775 invasion of Canada and its climactic battle, the Battle of Quebec. That battle, on December 31, 1775, ended in defeat and Morgan’s capture by the British.
Morgan was exchanged in January 1777 and placed by George Washington in command of a picked force of 500 trained riflemen, known as Morgan’s Riflemen. Morgan and his men played a key role in the victory at Saratoga, which proved to be a turning point of the entire war. Bitter after being passed over for promotion and plagued by severe attacks of sciatica, Morgan left the army in 1779. A year later he was promoted to Brigadier General and returned to service in the Southern Department.
Greene decided that his weak army was unable to meet the British in a standup fight. He made the unconventional decision to divide his army, sending a detachment west of the Catawba River to raise the morale of the locals and find supplies beyond the limited amounts available around Charlotte. Greene gave Morgan command of this wing and instructed him to join with the militia west of the Big Catawba and take command of them. Morgan headed west on December 21, charged with taking position between the Broad and Pacolet Rivers, and protecting the civilians in that area. He had 600 men, some 400 of which were Continentals, the rest being Virginia militia with experience as Continentals. By Christmas Day Morgan had reached the Pacolet River. He was joined by 60 South Carolina militia led by the experienced partisan Andrew Pickens. Other militia from Georgia and the Carolinas joined Morgan’s camp.
Meanwhile, Lord Cornwallis was planning to return to North Carolina and conduct the invasion that he had postponed after the defeat at Kings Mountain. Morgan’s force represented a threat to his left. Additionally, Cornwallis received incorrect intelligence claiming that Morgan was going to attack the important British fort at Ninety Six, in western South Carolina. Seeking to save the fort and defeat Morgan’s command, Cornwallis on January 2 ordered Lt. Col. Banastre Tarleton to the west.
Tarleton was 26 years old and had enjoyed a spectacular career in his service with the British in the colonies. In December 1776, he and a small party surprised and captured Patriot Gen. Charles Lee in New Jersey. He served with distinction at the Siege of Charleston and the Battle of Camden. Commanding the British Legion, a mixed infantry/cavalry force composed of American Loyalists who constituted some of the best British troops in the Carolinas, Tarleton won decisive victories at Monck’s Corner and Fishing Creek. He became infamous among Patriots after his victory at the Battle of Waxhaws. His men had killed American soldiers after they had surrendered. In Tarleton’s account published in 1781, he stated that his horse had been shot from under him during the initial charge and his men, thinking him dead, engaged in “a vindictive asperity not easily restrained.”
Tarleton and the Legion marched to Ninety Six, learning Morgan was not there, but Tarleton decided to pursue his forces. Tarleton asked for reinforcements of British regulars, which Cornwallis sent. Tarleton set out with his enlarged command to drive Morgan across the Broad River. On January 12 he received accurate news of Morgan’s location and continued with hard marching, building boats to cross rivers that were flooding with winter rains. Receiving word that Tarleton was in hot pursuit, Morgan retreated north, to avoid being trapped between Tarleton and Cornwallis.
By the afternoon of the 16th, Morgan was approaching the Broad River, which was high with flood waters and reported difficult to cross. He knew Tarleton was close behind. By nightfall he had reached a place called the Cowpens, a well-known grazing area for local cattle. Pickens, who had been patrolling, arrived that night with a large body of militia. Morgan decided to stand and fight rather than continue to retreat and risk being caught by Tarleton while fording the Broad River. Learning of Morgan’s location, Tarleton pushed his troops, marching at 3 a.m. instead of camping for the night. | 1,326 | ENGLISH | 1 |
African American Literature
29 January 2015
African American religion during the colonial period “When there is no vision, there is no hope.”- George Carver. African Americans embraced religion during the colonial period. Most African Americans were converted to Christianity through slavery. But religion for African Americas gave them a reason to live everyday through harsh enslavement. Blacks would hold secret church meetings at night while the master was sleeping. The first slaves struggled to keep their old beliefs and old religion. As slave rebellions became more often, slave owners became more concern so African religious and languages were replaced by their masters. Most slaves accepted Christianity, but still respected the religion that they came to America with. Slave masters took their drums but slaves still used their feet and their hands to embrace their religion. African American religion was dealt with in many various ways like Christianization, making no time for religion, and many slave rebellions.
To begin with, many African Americans were Christianization through slavery. African Americans played a major role in their own conversion to Christianity. By the new generation of slavery, slaves were born Christian. In the Southern colonies, where most American slaves lived, Anglican missionaries led the way. Their efforts were directed at both white and black populations, as preachers tried to bring all Americans to Christ. Slavery was an important feature of this religious task (Encyclopedia). They believed doing this would help the slaves become more American like. Before the American Revolution, fewer slaves were Christian. Shockley, some masters didn’t want their slaves to convert to Christianity because they feared it might give them a sense of equality and freedom. A famous African American poet named Phillis Wheatley talked about god in her famous poem “On Being Brought from Africa to America” by saying “Taught my benighted soul to understand, that there’s a god, that there’s a savior too” (Wheatley19). Wheatly talks about Christ in her poem and how it will save her. On the other hand, slave masters didn’t want their slaves to have time to preach any religion. Slaves were forbidden from doing African rituals. Drums were banned because overseers were afraid they use it to send messages. They were mainly concern about a slave uprising. Slaves faced severe punishment if caught attending secrete private prayer services. Many slaveholders granted their slaves permission to attend church, and some openly encouraged religious meetings among the slaves. Baptisms, marriages, and funerals were allowed to slaves on some plantations with whites observing and occasionally participating. Annual revival meetings were social occasions for blacks as well as for whites. Masters were known to enjoy the singing, praying, and preaching of their slaves. Nevertheless, at the core… | <urn:uuid:0a9499f7-be8e-4625-9faa-9dc80b9306a0> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.majortests.com/essay/Af-Eassy-617679.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251789055.93/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129071944-20200129101944-00468.warc.gz | en | 0.985037 | 561 | 3.484375 | 3 | [
-0.04434303194284439,
0.6991443037986755,
-0.1474037766456604,
0.22712744772434235,
-0.45022618770599365,
-0.0168367438018322,
-0.42368531227111816,
-0.0564403161406517,
-0.005002520978450775,
0.43836677074432373,
0.06909158080816269,
0.11110438406467438,
-0.6269806623458862,
0.29634878039... | 1 | African American Literature
29 January 2015
African American religion during the colonial period “When there is no vision, there is no hope.”- George Carver. African Americans embraced religion during the colonial period. Most African Americans were converted to Christianity through slavery. But religion for African Americas gave them a reason to live everyday through harsh enslavement. Blacks would hold secret church meetings at night while the master was sleeping. The first slaves struggled to keep their old beliefs and old religion. As slave rebellions became more often, slave owners became more concern so African religious and languages were replaced by their masters. Most slaves accepted Christianity, but still respected the religion that they came to America with. Slave masters took their drums but slaves still used their feet and their hands to embrace their religion. African American religion was dealt with in many various ways like Christianization, making no time for religion, and many slave rebellions.
To begin with, many African Americans were Christianization through slavery. African Americans played a major role in their own conversion to Christianity. By the new generation of slavery, slaves were born Christian. In the Southern colonies, where most American slaves lived, Anglican missionaries led the way. Their efforts were directed at both white and black populations, as preachers tried to bring all Americans to Christ. Slavery was an important feature of this religious task (Encyclopedia). They believed doing this would help the slaves become more American like. Before the American Revolution, fewer slaves were Christian. Shockley, some masters didn’t want their slaves to convert to Christianity because they feared it might give them a sense of equality and freedom. A famous African American poet named Phillis Wheatley talked about god in her famous poem “On Being Brought from Africa to America” by saying “Taught my benighted soul to understand, that there’s a god, that there’s a savior too” (Wheatley19). Wheatly talks about Christ in her poem and how it will save her. On the other hand, slave masters didn’t want their slaves to have time to preach any religion. Slaves were forbidden from doing African rituals. Drums were banned because overseers were afraid they use it to send messages. They were mainly concern about a slave uprising. Slaves faced severe punishment if caught attending secrete private prayer services. Many slaveholders granted their slaves permission to attend church, and some openly encouraged religious meetings among the slaves. Baptisms, marriages, and funerals were allowed to slaves on some plantations with whites observing and occasionally participating. Annual revival meetings were social occasions for blacks as well as for whites. Masters were known to enjoy the singing, praying, and preaching of their slaves. Nevertheless, at the core… | 555 | ENGLISH | 1 |
HAPPY ADA LOVELACE DAY. Perhaps you weren't even aware, but today is the day that we mark the impact of women in technology in tribute to the first computer programmer.
Augusta Ada King, Countess of Lovelace, daughter of Lord Byron and friend of Charles Babbage, was responsible for papers showing examples of programming for Babbage's Analytical Engine, the successor to the Difference Engine. You can see a reconstruction of the Difference Engine at London's Science Museum completed in a way that Babbage's never was.
The Analytical Engine, meanwhile, has never been completed, but the blueprints and concepts behind it were clear enough that Lovelace could see its potential and began to work on it, despite the apathy of the science establishment at the time.
Her notes include the first example of an algorithm designed to be carried out by a computer, and it's this, arguably the first computer program, that she is more remembered for. But there was so much more. She got things wrong, and in doing so created the first bug, and fixed it making her the first debugger and software tester.
But even as a child she had a fascination with science, of a kind. She wanted to be a fairy, and designed steam-augmented wings in the hope that one day she would fly. She even wrote a book, Flyology, about her experiments.
She talked of the connection between Babbage's work and human biology, expressing her desire to map the algorithm of the human thought process, while at the same time dismissing the idea of artificial intelligence so forcefully that Alan Turing actually wrote a rebuttal in a paper 90 years later.
Ever since Ada Lovelace Day started in 2009, it has been a chance to shine the spotlight on the thousands of women who, like Lovelace, have expertise in maths and science that puts a lot of men higher up the career ladder to shame, something that even today, 150 years later, puts them in a minority for no apparent reason save for a glass ceiling.
Lovelace was highly educated, wealthy and very well connected. She'd probably find the continuing inequities in the 'jobs for the boys' ethos that still seems to permeate the industry all terribly horrifying, but amusing.
Still, it comes down to groups of misogynists at the top of their game and in a position to immediately put to one side a CV with a female name on it, but say they are pro-women in science because they've admired one of Rachel Riley's outfits on Countdown.
Ironically, Lovelace's interest in science and mathematics stems from her mother's desire to make her as little like her errant father as possible. She saw science as a way to separate her mentally from the 'insanity' of the womanising lord. It's a bizarre twist of fate that the vocation that was chosen to make her as 'unblokeish' as possible is now dominated by blokes.
But Lovelace took to it, and the rest as history. In the end she kept her fascination with her father, and is buried beside him, and throughout her life she was dogged with rumours concerning inappropriate relationships with men who were not her husband.
And yet today, computing is still dominated by men who look at women, not as their colleagues but as juniors. Even those who have made it to the top have done so kicking and screaming at the inequities they've seen along the way.
Ada Lovelace died of cancer at the age of just 36, but her impact is beyond that of most people twice her age. She set the wheels of computing in motion. µ
Firm's first high-end speaker gets the thumbs up from us
Yes. Yes you can
A fantastic ultraportable that's almost devoid of innovation
Screen if you want to go faster | <urn:uuid:5961fdb7-187a-4f34-b931-c2b959982271> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2430267/ada-lovelace-day | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250608295.52/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123041345-20200123070345-00309.warc.gz | en | 0.981193 | 794 | 3.359375 | 3 | [
-0.5577691793441772,
0.022211255505681038,
0.09889274090528488,
-0.048157595098018646,
-0.3243747055530548,
-0.07717250287532806,
-0.07569247484207153,
0.42199575901031494,
-0.02306618168950081,
-0.21344977617263794,
0.09081585705280304,
0.21004167199134827,
0.14584626257419586,
0.14720225... | 1 | HAPPY ADA LOVELACE DAY. Perhaps you weren't even aware, but today is the day that we mark the impact of women in technology in tribute to the first computer programmer.
Augusta Ada King, Countess of Lovelace, daughter of Lord Byron and friend of Charles Babbage, was responsible for papers showing examples of programming for Babbage's Analytical Engine, the successor to the Difference Engine. You can see a reconstruction of the Difference Engine at London's Science Museum completed in a way that Babbage's never was.
The Analytical Engine, meanwhile, has never been completed, but the blueprints and concepts behind it were clear enough that Lovelace could see its potential and began to work on it, despite the apathy of the science establishment at the time.
Her notes include the first example of an algorithm designed to be carried out by a computer, and it's this, arguably the first computer program, that she is more remembered for. But there was so much more. She got things wrong, and in doing so created the first bug, and fixed it making her the first debugger and software tester.
But even as a child she had a fascination with science, of a kind. She wanted to be a fairy, and designed steam-augmented wings in the hope that one day she would fly. She even wrote a book, Flyology, about her experiments.
She talked of the connection between Babbage's work and human biology, expressing her desire to map the algorithm of the human thought process, while at the same time dismissing the idea of artificial intelligence so forcefully that Alan Turing actually wrote a rebuttal in a paper 90 years later.
Ever since Ada Lovelace Day started in 2009, it has been a chance to shine the spotlight on the thousands of women who, like Lovelace, have expertise in maths and science that puts a lot of men higher up the career ladder to shame, something that even today, 150 years later, puts them in a minority for no apparent reason save for a glass ceiling.
Lovelace was highly educated, wealthy and very well connected. She'd probably find the continuing inequities in the 'jobs for the boys' ethos that still seems to permeate the industry all terribly horrifying, but amusing.
Still, it comes down to groups of misogynists at the top of their game and in a position to immediately put to one side a CV with a female name on it, but say they are pro-women in science because they've admired one of Rachel Riley's outfits on Countdown.
Ironically, Lovelace's interest in science and mathematics stems from her mother's desire to make her as little like her errant father as possible. She saw science as a way to separate her mentally from the 'insanity' of the womanising lord. It's a bizarre twist of fate that the vocation that was chosen to make her as 'unblokeish' as possible is now dominated by blokes.
But Lovelace took to it, and the rest as history. In the end she kept her fascination with her father, and is buried beside him, and throughout her life she was dogged with rumours concerning inappropriate relationships with men who were not her husband.
And yet today, computing is still dominated by men who look at women, not as their colleagues but as juniors. Even those who have made it to the top have done so kicking and screaming at the inequities they've seen along the way.
Ada Lovelace died of cancer at the age of just 36, but her impact is beyond that of most people twice her age. She set the wheels of computing in motion. µ
Firm's first high-end speaker gets the thumbs up from us
Yes. Yes you can
A fantastic ultraportable that's almost devoid of innovation
Screen if you want to go faster | 793 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The lifetime accomplishments of Leonardo daVinci are not only astonishing but truly inspiring. Leonardo made his mark as an Italian painter, sculptor, architect, musician, engineer, and scientist. The versatility and creative power of Leonardo mark him as a supreme example of renaissance genius. He depicted in his drawings, with scientific precision and consummate artistry, subjects ranging from flying machines to caricatures. He also executed intricate anatomical studies of people, animals, and plants. The richness and originality of intellect expressed in his notebooks reveal one of the greatest minds of all time.
It was the period of the renaissance when Leonardo da Vinci was born on the 15th of April in 1452. He was born in
…show more content…
This drawing reflects the ingenious mind of Leonardo. It is drawn with aerial perspective by allowing the color of the paper to dominate and less details as the depth increases. This effect is later called "the perspective of disappearance". In 1475 Leonardo assisted his master Verrocchio on the painting "Baptism of Christ", which was commissioned by the monks of San Salvi near Florence. The angel kneeling at the far left, parts of the landscape and the body of Christ are considered to be painted by Leonardo. It was reported about this painting that the work of Leonardo far surpassed that of his master. This was the reason that Verrochio would never touch paints again, he was so ashamed that a boy understood their use better than he did. This was Verrochio's last known painting. It is believed that Leonardo had his own workshop between 1476 and 1478. During this time he received at least two orders for his work. Leonardo continued to create memorable works of art throughout his lifetime but none were as famous as the "Mona Lisa".
King Francis I. Invited Leonardo da Vinci to spend the last span of his life in Amboise at the court of France. In autumn 1516 Leonardo arrived in Amboise. In his baggage was the famous painting "Mona Lisa". The portrait full of mystery and secrets is painted on a 77x53 cm large poplar-wood. It is the most famous work of Leonardo da Vinci. Originally the painting was | <urn:uuid:aeddad12-0b8c-465d-9c9c-ea0a0c93b95e> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.cram.com/essay/the-genius-of-leonardo-da-vinci/PKQ6AENAJ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250606226.29/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121222429-20200122011429-00422.warc.gz | en | 0.986764 | 449 | 3.484375 | 3 | [
-0.22117659449577332,
0.46669602394104004,
0.441403329372406,
-0.273835152387619,
-0.6723371744155884,
0.25600528717041016,
0.4695994555950165,
0.2113770693540573,
0.3182038962841034,
-0.015615805052220821,
0.06511545181274414,
-0.37359127402305603,
0.07211676985025406,
0.382320374250412,
... | 1 | The lifetime accomplishments of Leonardo daVinci are not only astonishing but truly inspiring. Leonardo made his mark as an Italian painter, sculptor, architect, musician, engineer, and scientist. The versatility and creative power of Leonardo mark him as a supreme example of renaissance genius. He depicted in his drawings, with scientific precision and consummate artistry, subjects ranging from flying machines to caricatures. He also executed intricate anatomical studies of people, animals, and plants. The richness and originality of intellect expressed in his notebooks reveal one of the greatest minds of all time.
It was the period of the renaissance when Leonardo da Vinci was born on the 15th of April in 1452. He was born in
…show more content…
This drawing reflects the ingenious mind of Leonardo. It is drawn with aerial perspective by allowing the color of the paper to dominate and less details as the depth increases. This effect is later called "the perspective of disappearance". In 1475 Leonardo assisted his master Verrocchio on the painting "Baptism of Christ", which was commissioned by the monks of San Salvi near Florence. The angel kneeling at the far left, parts of the landscape and the body of Christ are considered to be painted by Leonardo. It was reported about this painting that the work of Leonardo far surpassed that of his master. This was the reason that Verrochio would never touch paints again, he was so ashamed that a boy understood their use better than he did. This was Verrochio's last known painting. It is believed that Leonardo had his own workshop between 1476 and 1478. During this time he received at least two orders for his work. Leonardo continued to create memorable works of art throughout his lifetime but none were as famous as the "Mona Lisa".
King Francis I. Invited Leonardo da Vinci to spend the last span of his life in Amboise at the court of France. In autumn 1516 Leonardo arrived in Amboise. In his baggage was the famous painting "Mona Lisa". The portrait full of mystery and secrets is painted on a 77x53 cm large poplar-wood. It is the most famous work of Leonardo da Vinci. Originally the painting was | 465 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Published by Calkins Creek
Summary: When Lizzie Jennings was denied admission onto a New York City “Whites Only” streetcar in 1854, she stood her ground, refusing to leave until she was forcibly thrown off by the driver and conductor. Lizzie was a teacher whose parents were abolitionists. When she told the people of her church what had happened, they hired a lawyer and formed a committee to make sure she had plenty of support. Her case became Elizabeth Jennings v. The Third Avenue Railroad Company, and she was represented by Chester A. Arthur, who went on to become President of the United States. Lizzie won her case, and the “Colored People Allowed on This Car” came off the Third Avenue streetcars. Others were inspired by her courage, and continued the fight against segregated public transportation, including, a century later, Rosa Parks. Includes a lengthy author’s note with additional information and photos; and an extensive bibliography. 32 pages; grades 1-5.
Pros: A fascinating and little-known story about an ordinary person whose courageous deeds led to real change. Caldecott honoree E. B. Lewis’s colorful paintings complement the story perfectly.
Cons: It would have been nice to tie this to the more familiar story of Rosa Parks, either through the text or the illustrations. | <urn:uuid:8b6c38e8-9dcb-4728-ab91-d4d0d992e53c> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://kidsbookaday.com/category/novel-in-verse/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251737572.61/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127235617-20200128025617-00235.warc.gz | en | 0.984439 | 282 | 3.59375 | 4 | [
-0.15821579098701477,
-0.2863638401031494,
0.41936638951301575,
0.34267106652259827,
-0.35248517990112305,
0.050668440759181976,
0.06430388987064362,
0.121188685297966,
-0.12597253918647766,
0.024598801508545876,
0.03415447473526001,
0.23400679230690002,
-0.059690531343221664,
-0.114322572... | 13 | Published by Calkins Creek
Summary: When Lizzie Jennings was denied admission onto a New York City “Whites Only” streetcar in 1854, she stood her ground, refusing to leave until she was forcibly thrown off by the driver and conductor. Lizzie was a teacher whose parents were abolitionists. When she told the people of her church what had happened, they hired a lawyer and formed a committee to make sure she had plenty of support. Her case became Elizabeth Jennings v. The Third Avenue Railroad Company, and she was represented by Chester A. Arthur, who went on to become President of the United States. Lizzie won her case, and the “Colored People Allowed on This Car” came off the Third Avenue streetcars. Others were inspired by her courage, and continued the fight against segregated public transportation, including, a century later, Rosa Parks. Includes a lengthy author’s note with additional information and photos; and an extensive bibliography. 32 pages; grades 1-5.
Pros: A fascinating and little-known story about an ordinary person whose courageous deeds led to real change. Caldecott honoree E. B. Lewis’s colorful paintings complement the story perfectly.
Cons: It would have been nice to tie this to the more familiar story of Rosa Parks, either through the text or the illustrations. | 273 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The Birth and History of Hanumān
As told to Rāma by Agastya Ṛṣi
There lived on Mount Sumeru a powerful Vanara leader named Keshari. His wife, Anjana, was beautiful beyond compare. One day Vāyu, the wind god, saw her standing alone and he desired union with her. After uniting with her in his mystical yoga form, she conceived a child who was named Hanumān. He cried out in hunger and Anjana placed him down amid some reeds while she went to collect forest fruits. Hanumān looked up from where he lay and saw the sun. Thinking it to be a large fruit he sprang upwards with outstretched hands. Gifted with the power of his divine father, he soared through the heavens toward the sun. Vāyu went with him, covering him with a cool breeze so that he would not be burned by the sun. The sun-god also withheld his blazing rays as he understood that Hanumān was a great servant of Viṣṇu who would later assist Him on earth.
As Hanumān went swiftly upwards through the skies, a demon named Rāhu was also approaching the sun with a view to envelop him. It was the day ordained for that demon to swallow the fiery sun-god, thus creating an eclipse, but Hanumān saw him and pushed him aside. Afraid of the mighty Vanara, Rāhu sped away toward Indra’s abode in the heavens. Going before the deity he said, “O king of the gods, having allotted to me the sun and moon as my regular food, how is it that you have now given over my share to another? See how another Rāhu has appeared in the sky, intent on consuming the sun.”
Indra immediately left his seat and, mounting his celestial elephant, Airāvata, he rose up into the heavens. He approached Hanumān, who was streaking through the sky like a blazing meteor. When the Vanara saw the effulgent god nearby, he considered him to be another fruit and he turned toward him. Indra then released his thunderbolt, which struck Hanumān and caused him to drop back down to earth.
The Vanara fell onto a mountain top and lay there apparently dead. Seeing this Vāyu became angry and he caused all creatures to begin to suffocate. Interrupting the flow of the vital life airs in all beings, Vāyu created a great disturbance in the universe.
Indra and all the other gods quickly approached Vāyu, who stood by the fallen Hanumān, and prayed to him to desist from causing so much suffering. Brahmā also appeared there and asked Vāyu what was the cause of his actions. Vāyu replied, “It is on account of my son being slain. See now how that innocent child lays here motionless, struck down by Indra’s terrible thunderbolt.”
Brahmā then reached out and ran his hand over Hanumān. The Vanara immediately sat up and looked around. The relieved Vāyu again began to move in the bodies of living creatures, and Brahmā said, “Listen, O gods, as I tell you about this Vanara. He will accomplish your purpose on earth and become a famous servant of Viṣṇu. You should therefore all grant him boons.”
Pleased to hear Brahmā’s words, Indra took off his garland and placed it around Hanumān’s neck, saying, “From this day on he shall be invulnerable to my thunderbolt.”
The sun-god then said, “I shall bestow upon him a hundredth part of my brilliance. Also, when he begins to study the scriptures I shall enable him to quickly learn all aspects of knowledge. None shall exceed him in scriptural understanding.”
Yamarāja granted him invulnerability to his rod and freedom from ailment. Kuvera also blessed him that he would remain unwearied in battle. Śiva said, “He shall be immune to my weapons and from death at my hands.” Viśvakarmā added, “This Vanara shall be invulnerable to all celestial weapons forged by me and he shall be long-lived.”
Finally, Brahmā said, “O wind-god, your son shall be invincible in battle. He will prove the terror of his foes and the shelter of his friends. This jewel among monkeys shall be able to change his form at will and go wherever he pleases at any speed he likes. No Brahmin’s curse will be able to kill him. His movements shall be unimpeded and he will become glorious. In war he will accomplish tremendous feats which make one’s hair stand on end, thus causing the destruction of Rāvaṇa and the pleasure of Rāma.”
After this the gods departed and Vāyu took Hanumān back to his mother. He began to grow up like a god. Overflowing with the exultation of his own power, and being possessed of the mischievous nature of monkeys, he started creating trouble for the ṛṣis in the forest, knowing that they could not harm him. He would playfully throw about and break their sacrificial ladles and vessels, and tear to shreds the piles of soft bark they kept for making garments. Despite the efforts of his mother and father to check him, Hanumān continued with his pranks and went on harassing the ascetics.
Eventually the ṛṣis, not wanting to harm the playful young Vanara, found a way to stop him. Touching sacred water, their leader uttered an imprecation. “As this one makes trouble for us depending upon his celestial strength, he shall forget his own power. Only when someone reminds him again by reciting his glories will he recall his strength.”
Bewildered by that curse, Hanumān forgot about his might and began acting like an ordinary Vanara. He formed a strong friendship with Sugrīva, going with him into exile when he was banished by Vāli. He finally again remembered his power when Jambavan reminded him at the time of searching for Sītā. | <urn:uuid:cff0fd9f-bf8f-4561-96c6-a166e758e9a8> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://vedabase.io/en/library/rkd/appendix-3-birth-and-history-of-hanuman/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250615407.46/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124040939-20200124065939-00390.warc.gz | en | 0.983462 | 1,352 | 3.3125 | 3 | [
-0.34184885025024414,
0.7325558662414551,
-0.3769274055957794,
0.3417294919490814,
-0.32948213815689087,
0.36336398124694824,
0.5129332542419434,
-0.10944896936416626,
0.1254274845123291,
-0.024398699402809143,
-0.07399534434080124,
-0.5008888244628906,
0.5429863929748535,
0.46514910459518... | 1 | The Birth and History of Hanumān
As told to Rāma by Agastya Ṛṣi
There lived on Mount Sumeru a powerful Vanara leader named Keshari. His wife, Anjana, was beautiful beyond compare. One day Vāyu, the wind god, saw her standing alone and he desired union with her. After uniting with her in his mystical yoga form, she conceived a child who was named Hanumān. He cried out in hunger and Anjana placed him down amid some reeds while she went to collect forest fruits. Hanumān looked up from where he lay and saw the sun. Thinking it to be a large fruit he sprang upwards with outstretched hands. Gifted with the power of his divine father, he soared through the heavens toward the sun. Vāyu went with him, covering him with a cool breeze so that he would not be burned by the sun. The sun-god also withheld his blazing rays as he understood that Hanumān was a great servant of Viṣṇu who would later assist Him on earth.
As Hanumān went swiftly upwards through the skies, a demon named Rāhu was also approaching the sun with a view to envelop him. It was the day ordained for that demon to swallow the fiery sun-god, thus creating an eclipse, but Hanumān saw him and pushed him aside. Afraid of the mighty Vanara, Rāhu sped away toward Indra’s abode in the heavens. Going before the deity he said, “O king of the gods, having allotted to me the sun and moon as my regular food, how is it that you have now given over my share to another? See how another Rāhu has appeared in the sky, intent on consuming the sun.”
Indra immediately left his seat and, mounting his celestial elephant, Airāvata, he rose up into the heavens. He approached Hanumān, who was streaking through the sky like a blazing meteor. When the Vanara saw the effulgent god nearby, he considered him to be another fruit and he turned toward him. Indra then released his thunderbolt, which struck Hanumān and caused him to drop back down to earth.
The Vanara fell onto a mountain top and lay there apparently dead. Seeing this Vāyu became angry and he caused all creatures to begin to suffocate. Interrupting the flow of the vital life airs in all beings, Vāyu created a great disturbance in the universe.
Indra and all the other gods quickly approached Vāyu, who stood by the fallen Hanumān, and prayed to him to desist from causing so much suffering. Brahmā also appeared there and asked Vāyu what was the cause of his actions. Vāyu replied, “It is on account of my son being slain. See now how that innocent child lays here motionless, struck down by Indra’s terrible thunderbolt.”
Brahmā then reached out and ran his hand over Hanumān. The Vanara immediately sat up and looked around. The relieved Vāyu again began to move in the bodies of living creatures, and Brahmā said, “Listen, O gods, as I tell you about this Vanara. He will accomplish your purpose on earth and become a famous servant of Viṣṇu. You should therefore all grant him boons.”
Pleased to hear Brahmā’s words, Indra took off his garland and placed it around Hanumān’s neck, saying, “From this day on he shall be invulnerable to my thunderbolt.”
The sun-god then said, “I shall bestow upon him a hundredth part of my brilliance. Also, when he begins to study the scriptures I shall enable him to quickly learn all aspects of knowledge. None shall exceed him in scriptural understanding.”
Yamarāja granted him invulnerability to his rod and freedom from ailment. Kuvera also blessed him that he would remain unwearied in battle. Śiva said, “He shall be immune to my weapons and from death at my hands.” Viśvakarmā added, “This Vanara shall be invulnerable to all celestial weapons forged by me and he shall be long-lived.”
Finally, Brahmā said, “O wind-god, your son shall be invincible in battle. He will prove the terror of his foes and the shelter of his friends. This jewel among monkeys shall be able to change his form at will and go wherever he pleases at any speed he likes. No Brahmin’s curse will be able to kill him. His movements shall be unimpeded and he will become glorious. In war he will accomplish tremendous feats which make one’s hair stand on end, thus causing the destruction of Rāvaṇa and the pleasure of Rāma.”
After this the gods departed and Vāyu took Hanumān back to his mother. He began to grow up like a god. Overflowing with the exultation of his own power, and being possessed of the mischievous nature of monkeys, he started creating trouble for the ṛṣis in the forest, knowing that they could not harm him. He would playfully throw about and break their sacrificial ladles and vessels, and tear to shreds the piles of soft bark they kept for making garments. Despite the efforts of his mother and father to check him, Hanumān continued with his pranks and went on harassing the ascetics.
Eventually the ṛṣis, not wanting to harm the playful young Vanara, found a way to stop him. Touching sacred water, their leader uttered an imprecation. “As this one makes trouble for us depending upon his celestial strength, he shall forget his own power. Only when someone reminds him again by reciting his glories will he recall his strength.”
Bewildered by that curse, Hanumān forgot about his might and began acting like an ordinary Vanara. He formed a strong friendship with Sugrīva, going with him into exile when he was banished by Vāli. He finally again remembered his power when Jambavan reminded him at the time of searching for Sītā. | 1,295 | ENGLISH | 1 |
CONGRESS OF THE REPUBLIC OF TEXAS
CONGRESS OF THE REPUBLIC OF TEXAS. The Constitution of the Republic of Texas provided for a two-house Congress. The House of Representatives was to be made up of "not less than twenty-four nor more than forty members," until such time as the population of the republic should exceed 100,000. When the population exceeded this number the house was to be made up of "not less than forty nor more than one hundred members provided that each county was entitled to at least one representative." Members of the House served one-year terms. A member had to be twenty-five or older, a citizen of the republic, and a resident of his district for six months. The House chose its speaker and had sole power of impeachment. The Senate was to have a membership numbering "not less than one-third nor more than one-half that of the House." The Senate was also chosen by districts that were as nearly equal as possible to the population of free men. Each district was entitled to no more than one member. A senator had to be thirty or older, a citizen of the republic, and a resident of his district for one year. Senators served three-year overlapping terms, with one-third of the members being elected each year. The Senate chose its own officers and president pro tem and had sole responsibility to try impeachments. Each house was to judge election and qualification of its own members. A quorum in either house was two-thirds of its membership. Members were to receive pay as fixed by law, but no change could be made in salary in the session in which the change was made.
The first Congress, which convened at Columbia on October 3, 1836, was made up of thirty representatives and fourteen senators. Lorenzo de Zavala, as vice president, was president of the Senate until October 22, when Mirabeau B. Lamar was inaugurated. Ira Ingram was elected speaker of the House, and Richard Ellis was elected president pro tem of the Senate. Since members of the House were elected for one-year terms, each Congress lasted only one year. In its short history, the Republic of Texas had nine congresses.
Image Use Disclaimer
All copyrighted materials included within the Handbook of Texas Online are in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 related to Copyright and “Fair Use” for Non-Profit educational institutions, which permits the Texas State Historical Association (TSHA), to utilize copyrighted materials to further scholarship, education, and inform the public. The TSHA makes every effort to conform to the principles of fair use and to comply with copyright law.
For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
The following, adapted from the Chicago Manual of Style, 15th edition, is the preferred citation for this article.Handbook of Texas Online, Ralph W. Steen, "CONGRESS OF THE REPUBLIC OF TEXAS," accessed January 21, 2020, http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/mkc01.
Uploaded on June 12, 2010. Published by the Texas State Historical Association. | <urn:uuid:bcc56cf4-20d6-4796-86d0-a77ab1bb7420> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/mkc01 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250605075.24/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121192553-20200121221553-00151.warc.gz | en | 0.984114 | 702 | 3.5625 | 4 | [
-0.2869103252887726,
-0.1400446593761444,
0.5869107842445374,
-0.25852644443511963,
-0.20442283153533936,
0.2579704523086548,
-0.1402183473110199,
-0.0024325712583959103,
-0.06740544736385345,
0.13232195377349854,
0.45904403924942017,
0.18298876285552979,
0.2804984152317047,
0.072450667619... | 1 | CONGRESS OF THE REPUBLIC OF TEXAS
CONGRESS OF THE REPUBLIC OF TEXAS. The Constitution of the Republic of Texas provided for a two-house Congress. The House of Representatives was to be made up of "not less than twenty-four nor more than forty members," until such time as the population of the republic should exceed 100,000. When the population exceeded this number the house was to be made up of "not less than forty nor more than one hundred members provided that each county was entitled to at least one representative." Members of the House served one-year terms. A member had to be twenty-five or older, a citizen of the republic, and a resident of his district for six months. The House chose its speaker and had sole power of impeachment. The Senate was to have a membership numbering "not less than one-third nor more than one-half that of the House." The Senate was also chosen by districts that were as nearly equal as possible to the population of free men. Each district was entitled to no more than one member. A senator had to be thirty or older, a citizen of the republic, and a resident of his district for one year. Senators served three-year overlapping terms, with one-third of the members being elected each year. The Senate chose its own officers and president pro tem and had sole responsibility to try impeachments. Each house was to judge election and qualification of its own members. A quorum in either house was two-thirds of its membership. Members were to receive pay as fixed by law, but no change could be made in salary in the session in which the change was made.
The first Congress, which convened at Columbia on October 3, 1836, was made up of thirty representatives and fourteen senators. Lorenzo de Zavala, as vice president, was president of the Senate until October 22, when Mirabeau B. Lamar was inaugurated. Ira Ingram was elected speaker of the House, and Richard Ellis was elected president pro tem of the Senate. Since members of the House were elected for one-year terms, each Congress lasted only one year. In its short history, the Republic of Texas had nine congresses.
Image Use Disclaimer
All copyrighted materials included within the Handbook of Texas Online are in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 related to Copyright and “Fair Use” for Non-Profit educational institutions, which permits the Texas State Historical Association (TSHA), to utilize copyrighted materials to further scholarship, education, and inform the public. The TSHA makes every effort to conform to the principles of fair use and to comply with copyright law.
For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
The following, adapted from the Chicago Manual of Style, 15th edition, is the preferred citation for this article.Handbook of Texas Online, Ralph W. Steen, "CONGRESS OF THE REPUBLIC OF TEXAS," accessed January 21, 2020, http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/mkc01.
Uploaded on June 12, 2010. Published by the Texas State Historical Association. | 696 | ENGLISH | 1 |
|First Cattle Drive through Iowa. Consider this: Just 9 years after Lewis and Clark returned home, Lord Selkirk, who resided in Scotland, ordered cattle from someone in New York, who sub-contracted with residents of St. Louis, MO to drive cattle to the Red River settlement of the Hudson Bay Company. There were no roads, no bridges, no maps, nor anyone who could know the way. It was almost totally through Indian Territory. The only thing they had was an accurate latitude and longitude, similar to what sailors used, and that the settlement was on the Red River way up north. The shortest route today is 1000 miles by road. They were on foot or horseback, no wagon would make it, and all but one made it home safely! In the spring of 1816, the Northwest Fur Company orchestrated the massacre of settlement, killing the governor and 30 others and imprisoning the rest, which explains why Pembina has no record of the drive. As it turns out, in 1820, Pembina was declared USA territory instead of British Canadian by virtue of the 1818 treaty of Ghent with Canada. Due to the violent competition of Hudson Bay and Northwest Fur Companies, the British government forced them to merge in 1821 and a second drive was made. In comparison, The famous Texas cattle drives to Abilene, KS were after 1860 and covered about 700 miles over the established Chisholm Trail.
|From West Point Sales:
“The principal event of our story occurred in 1815, just at the close of the last British war; but even previous to that date, Lord Selkirk, a Scottish nobleman, had planted his colony on the Red River of the North. The latitude and longitude had been taken intolerably accurate. Now, if the reader wishes to thoroughly understand the situation, he can take a map and look along the northern border of Minnesota, look up Pembina, ND (a locality just now somewhat interesting.) take a careful survey of the locality, note the rivers and lakes intervening between and that point and the mouth of the Missouri River, and he may begin to comprehend the situation.Lord Selkirk’s colonists, as yet, had not cattle; he made a contract with some citizens of New York (as well as I can remember, for several circumstances and names have been by me forgotten) to deliver to his agent at his colony, five hundred head of cattle. A check or bill of exchanges, drawn by Lord Selkirk himself made payable to the original contractor, was to be delivered by the agent on the delivery of the cattle. Around St. Charles, Missouri, was the nearest point at which cattle could be procured. The original contractor came to Missouri and himself contracted with old Doc Carr and big Lewis Musick to deliver to Selkirk’s agent so many hundred head of milch cows and a certain number of bulls. So far all was correct.Carr and Musick were energetic men; had some money of their own, paid a part down for cattle – the sellers trusting them for the balance until they should receive their pay for the cattle.The winter had been mild, spring opened early, and they had made a start up the Mississippi bottoms in February. Giles Sullivan hired to assist them as far as the Des Moines – he was then a young man. The whole drove crossed the Des Moines just about where the ferry is now kept, the first day of March 1815, and the feed was tolerably plenty – a fact unknown since that time. Those cattle were grazed on that beautiful scope of prairie where Vincennes – a station on the D. V. Railroad – is now situated. Sullivan here left them. He and one other man then wended their way about one hundred and twenty miles, to the settlements near St. Charles.After resting some few days, they took up their line of march up the divide thro’ String Prairie, towards Big Mound. The first time I ever crossed that prairie, when near where Absalom Anderson now lives, Sullivan said that Carr and Musick must have passed about the same place with a large drove of cattle more than nineteen years before, but no trace was left, nor was there any sign of human beings, save ourselves.The drove kept on the prairie, between the dividing waters of the Skunk and the Des Moines rivers, and I may as well here observe that at that time the Iowa Indians held possession of this section of country. It was not until 1818 that the Sac and Fox Indians fought, whipped and drove them from their village, where Iowaville now stands.The drove moved on, keeping on the divide without any serious difficulty, until they reached the country of the Chippewa’s. Here straggling members of that tribe began to hang around, and follow them from day to day. The Indians were mounted on small ponies. Lewis Musick told his men to ride over on every convent opportunity, himself setting the example. The Chippewa’s kept on increasing in numbers daily, until one day more than a hundred painted warriors were seen approaching. The Indians evidently expected a small fight. Musick told his men to keep driving the cattle ahead; to pay no attention to the Indians; to ride right over them if they got in their way. Big Lewis Musick was almost a giant, of herculean force, and rode a remarkably large horse; and made it his business to ride over the most conspicuous braves, occasionally taking one of them by the shoulder and hauling him from his pony.This tribe was at that time at peace with the United States, and did not wish to shed the first blood. They however managed to stampede a few cattle and slaughter them. This delayed the Indians that afternoon.The drovers kept on all that night, and by the next day were in the country of the Sioux, where the Chippewa’s did not dare to follow.In this latitude the large white wolves began to appear in considerable numbers.They were something new to the Missourian drovers. They seemed to follow on from day to day, just out of idle curiosity, and did not seem disposed to attack either men or cattle, and when the drove would halt at night or noon, the wolves would get on some conspicuous place, form in line, set on their haunches, and view the strange cavalcade.At last, to the great joy of both drovers and colonists, the settlement was reached. The drovers had finished their arduous task. The agent was well pleased with the cattle. Then the colonists had milk for the first time in several years. The cattle were counted and the check delivered. So far all right.The next thing for the drovers was to go home. They started and followed the trail of the cattle into what is now the southern portion of Minnesota; and here in a vast expanse of prairie some of the men differed about the course to be pursued. Most of the men followed Carr and Musick, who had a compass to direct them, and all of them reached the Mississippi at some point below St. Paul, and most of them came home in Indian canoes. The two men that left the main party and took a course more to the right, struck the head waters of the Des Moines and followed down that stream, thus being compelled to cross all the tributaries. The weather becoming wet, the streams were all swollen. The men had to swim, and in swimming one stream, probably above Des Moines, one of those men got his rifle tangled in some vines, and in trying to save his gun, got tangled himself and was drowned or at least the survivor so reported to the settlement. I have frequently heard their names, but have forgotten both of them long ago. The next thing for Carr and Musick was to get their check or exchange cashed. Sullivan could not give all the names of the men connected in this transaction; consequently this portion of the narrative must be incomplete. But, as Carr and Musick were only sub-contractors, the check had to pass through the hands of the original contractor, and by some “Hocus Pocus” Old Dick Carr and Big Lewis Musick were cheated out of every dollar of their hard earned money. The result was that they could not pay all the balance on the cattle that they had bought of those early settlers about St. Charles, Missouri. But the grievous loss must be borne, and was, borne by some cheerfully, by others despondently. All survived the loss, except Lewis Musick.Big Lewis Musick was an enterprising, proud spirited man. He paid as far as he could, and that was all he could do. He could not bear to look a man in the face to whom he honestly owed money. He became despondent, seemed to sink under his misfortunes and soon died. Thus ended the career of one of nature’s noblemen. He died bankrupt, not for the want of energy or honesty, but because one villainous Yankee cheated him, for all reports that I ever heard concurred in saying that Lord Selkirk and his agent both acted honorably throughout the whole transactions.As for Old Dick Carr, he did not despair. He had some friends in St. Louis that offered to furnish the goods and teams for the first expedition that ever went from Missouri to Santa Fe. This was several years before Thomas H. Benton got an appropriation from Congress to make a road to that place.That expedition made their own road across the plains and over mountains, and were eminently successful. The profits were amicably divided, and Old Dick Carr was enabled to pay all his debts and have a competence left. He spent a few years of his old age quietly, and then he, too, took the journey to that bourne from whence no traveler returns.”Daily Gate City – Oct. 19, 1870 | <urn:uuid:ba9e5dfc-37c5-40aa-a14a-bc80dcef6507> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://midwestfrontierstories.com/cattle_drive/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251696046.73/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127081933-20200127111933-00496.warc.gz | en | 0.987048 | 2,048 | 3.34375 | 3 | [
-0.1474216878414154,
-0.10396581888198853,
0.5767024159431458,
0.15824556350708008,
0.022412292659282684,
-0.5105243921279907,
0.17286258935928345,
0.0843125581741333,
-0.06560932099819183,
0.03134695440530777,
0.09691423177719116,
-0.4969979226589203,
0.00022595771588385105,
0.13170680403... | 5 | |First Cattle Drive through Iowa. Consider this: Just 9 years after Lewis and Clark returned home, Lord Selkirk, who resided in Scotland, ordered cattle from someone in New York, who sub-contracted with residents of St. Louis, MO to drive cattle to the Red River settlement of the Hudson Bay Company. There were no roads, no bridges, no maps, nor anyone who could know the way. It was almost totally through Indian Territory. The only thing they had was an accurate latitude and longitude, similar to what sailors used, and that the settlement was on the Red River way up north. The shortest route today is 1000 miles by road. They were on foot or horseback, no wagon would make it, and all but one made it home safely! In the spring of 1816, the Northwest Fur Company orchestrated the massacre of settlement, killing the governor and 30 others and imprisoning the rest, which explains why Pembina has no record of the drive. As it turns out, in 1820, Pembina was declared USA territory instead of British Canadian by virtue of the 1818 treaty of Ghent with Canada. Due to the violent competition of Hudson Bay and Northwest Fur Companies, the British government forced them to merge in 1821 and a second drive was made. In comparison, The famous Texas cattle drives to Abilene, KS were after 1860 and covered about 700 miles over the established Chisholm Trail.
|From West Point Sales:
“The principal event of our story occurred in 1815, just at the close of the last British war; but even previous to that date, Lord Selkirk, a Scottish nobleman, had planted his colony on the Red River of the North. The latitude and longitude had been taken intolerably accurate. Now, if the reader wishes to thoroughly understand the situation, he can take a map and look along the northern border of Minnesota, look up Pembina, ND (a locality just now somewhat interesting.) take a careful survey of the locality, note the rivers and lakes intervening between and that point and the mouth of the Missouri River, and he may begin to comprehend the situation.Lord Selkirk’s colonists, as yet, had not cattle; he made a contract with some citizens of New York (as well as I can remember, for several circumstances and names have been by me forgotten) to deliver to his agent at his colony, five hundred head of cattle. A check or bill of exchanges, drawn by Lord Selkirk himself made payable to the original contractor, was to be delivered by the agent on the delivery of the cattle. Around St. Charles, Missouri, was the nearest point at which cattle could be procured. The original contractor came to Missouri and himself contracted with old Doc Carr and big Lewis Musick to deliver to Selkirk’s agent so many hundred head of milch cows and a certain number of bulls. So far all was correct.Carr and Musick were energetic men; had some money of their own, paid a part down for cattle – the sellers trusting them for the balance until they should receive their pay for the cattle.The winter had been mild, spring opened early, and they had made a start up the Mississippi bottoms in February. Giles Sullivan hired to assist them as far as the Des Moines – he was then a young man. The whole drove crossed the Des Moines just about where the ferry is now kept, the first day of March 1815, and the feed was tolerably plenty – a fact unknown since that time. Those cattle were grazed on that beautiful scope of prairie where Vincennes – a station on the D. V. Railroad – is now situated. Sullivan here left them. He and one other man then wended their way about one hundred and twenty miles, to the settlements near St. Charles.After resting some few days, they took up their line of march up the divide thro’ String Prairie, towards Big Mound. The first time I ever crossed that prairie, when near where Absalom Anderson now lives, Sullivan said that Carr and Musick must have passed about the same place with a large drove of cattle more than nineteen years before, but no trace was left, nor was there any sign of human beings, save ourselves.The drove kept on the prairie, between the dividing waters of the Skunk and the Des Moines rivers, and I may as well here observe that at that time the Iowa Indians held possession of this section of country. It was not until 1818 that the Sac and Fox Indians fought, whipped and drove them from their village, where Iowaville now stands.The drove moved on, keeping on the divide without any serious difficulty, until they reached the country of the Chippewa’s. Here straggling members of that tribe began to hang around, and follow them from day to day. The Indians were mounted on small ponies. Lewis Musick told his men to ride over on every convent opportunity, himself setting the example. The Chippewa’s kept on increasing in numbers daily, until one day more than a hundred painted warriors were seen approaching. The Indians evidently expected a small fight. Musick told his men to keep driving the cattle ahead; to pay no attention to the Indians; to ride right over them if they got in their way. Big Lewis Musick was almost a giant, of herculean force, and rode a remarkably large horse; and made it his business to ride over the most conspicuous braves, occasionally taking one of them by the shoulder and hauling him from his pony.This tribe was at that time at peace with the United States, and did not wish to shed the first blood. They however managed to stampede a few cattle and slaughter them. This delayed the Indians that afternoon.The drovers kept on all that night, and by the next day were in the country of the Sioux, where the Chippewa’s did not dare to follow.In this latitude the large white wolves began to appear in considerable numbers.They were something new to the Missourian drovers. They seemed to follow on from day to day, just out of idle curiosity, and did not seem disposed to attack either men or cattle, and when the drove would halt at night or noon, the wolves would get on some conspicuous place, form in line, set on their haunches, and view the strange cavalcade.At last, to the great joy of both drovers and colonists, the settlement was reached. The drovers had finished their arduous task. The agent was well pleased with the cattle. Then the colonists had milk for the first time in several years. The cattle were counted and the check delivered. So far all right.The next thing for the drovers was to go home. They started and followed the trail of the cattle into what is now the southern portion of Minnesota; and here in a vast expanse of prairie some of the men differed about the course to be pursued. Most of the men followed Carr and Musick, who had a compass to direct them, and all of them reached the Mississippi at some point below St. Paul, and most of them came home in Indian canoes. The two men that left the main party and took a course more to the right, struck the head waters of the Des Moines and followed down that stream, thus being compelled to cross all the tributaries. The weather becoming wet, the streams were all swollen. The men had to swim, and in swimming one stream, probably above Des Moines, one of those men got his rifle tangled in some vines, and in trying to save his gun, got tangled himself and was drowned or at least the survivor so reported to the settlement. I have frequently heard their names, but have forgotten both of them long ago. The next thing for Carr and Musick was to get their check or exchange cashed. Sullivan could not give all the names of the men connected in this transaction; consequently this portion of the narrative must be incomplete. But, as Carr and Musick were only sub-contractors, the check had to pass through the hands of the original contractor, and by some “Hocus Pocus” Old Dick Carr and Big Lewis Musick were cheated out of every dollar of their hard earned money. The result was that they could not pay all the balance on the cattle that they had bought of those early settlers about St. Charles, Missouri. But the grievous loss must be borne, and was, borne by some cheerfully, by others despondently. All survived the loss, except Lewis Musick.Big Lewis Musick was an enterprising, proud spirited man. He paid as far as he could, and that was all he could do. He could not bear to look a man in the face to whom he honestly owed money. He became despondent, seemed to sink under his misfortunes and soon died. Thus ended the career of one of nature’s noblemen. He died bankrupt, not for the want of energy or honesty, but because one villainous Yankee cheated him, for all reports that I ever heard concurred in saying that Lord Selkirk and his agent both acted honorably throughout the whole transactions.As for Old Dick Carr, he did not despair. He had some friends in St. Louis that offered to furnish the goods and teams for the first expedition that ever went from Missouri to Santa Fe. This was several years before Thomas H. Benton got an appropriation from Congress to make a road to that place.That expedition made their own road across the plains and over mountains, and were eminently successful. The profits were amicably divided, and Old Dick Carr was enabled to pay all his debts and have a competence left. He spent a few years of his old age quietly, and then he, too, took the journey to that bourne from whence no traveler returns.”Daily Gate City – Oct. 19, 1870 | 2,054 | ENGLISH | 1 |
A credible speaker is someone the audience believes they can trust. Cite “1” thing that the speaker said that helped to establish his credibility. He mentioned what happened 4 scores ago and the significance of where he was delivering his speech REPETITION: There is a particular “theme” that runs throughout this speech. Cite “1” example of this repeated theme. MILK has hope & dreams for what the world could be and that we could one day be one.
He says “l have a dream” Audience-centered: Your speech must always be about your audience. Cite “1” thing Dry. King said that made his message audience-centered. He understood what the audience went through he said “l am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of your trials and tribulations” he knew that his audience had struggles and so did he so he related them. Context refers to the environment or situation in which the speech occurs. Why is the location of the speech significant to the message? It’s the same place that Abraham Lincoln gave the Emancipation Proclamation.
Its significant because that’s where slaves were freed. A memorable closing helps the audience to remember the speech. What was the “memorable” closing and how do we know that it motivated the audience to respond? Think about the history of our country when you answer this question. Milk’s closing was memorable because he included a lot history by putting various cultures of America and it was easy to relate. He said “let freedom ring” and that’s what was memorable because en TA on, not Just slavery and discrimination to blacks. De about all the injustices going | <urn:uuid:2685d4b3-6411-4cdd-88fd-892c03476630> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://clikngo.com/i-have-a-dream/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250593994.14/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118221909-20200119005909-00248.warc.gz | en | 0.981077 | 362 | 3.640625 | 4 | [
0.0383017435669899,
0.18144522607326508,
0.07447782903909683,
-0.26881155371665955,
-0.2107446938753128,
0.09071071445941925,
0.3720746636390686,
0.4807654917240143,
-0.3132622539997101,
-0.07727857679128647,
-0.28241559863090515,
0.027088429778814316,
-0.012187863700091839,
0.021237527951... | 2 | A credible speaker is someone the audience believes they can trust. Cite “1” thing that the speaker said that helped to establish his credibility. He mentioned what happened 4 scores ago and the significance of where he was delivering his speech REPETITION: There is a particular “theme” that runs throughout this speech. Cite “1” example of this repeated theme. MILK has hope & dreams for what the world could be and that we could one day be one.
He says “l have a dream” Audience-centered: Your speech must always be about your audience. Cite “1” thing Dry. King said that made his message audience-centered. He understood what the audience went through he said “l am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of your trials and tribulations” he knew that his audience had struggles and so did he so he related them. Context refers to the environment or situation in which the speech occurs. Why is the location of the speech significant to the message? It’s the same place that Abraham Lincoln gave the Emancipation Proclamation.
Its significant because that’s where slaves were freed. A memorable closing helps the audience to remember the speech. What was the “memorable” closing and how do we know that it motivated the audience to respond? Think about the history of our country when you answer this question. Milk’s closing was memorable because he included a lot history by putting various cultures of America and it was easy to relate. He said “let freedom ring” and that’s what was memorable because en TA on, not Just slavery and discrimination to blacks. De about all the injustices going | 333 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Attracted by the fertile farmland of the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, George Washington and his brothers began buying land in present Jefferson County, West Virginia (then Virginia) in 1750. Samuel served as colonel and eventually County Lieutenant in command of the militia of Frederick County and also as County Magistrate. Samuel became one of the leaders of the newly formed Berkeley County in 1772. He was appointed Justice of the peace and later Sheriff of Berkeley. Not only was he a political and military leader, he also served as a vestryman of Northborne Parish, later known as St. Geoge's Chapel. Samuel relinquished many duties due to battling Tuberculosis. This disease seemed to be common for four of his five wives died as well as three of his four sons.
Harewood is well known for its connection to George Washington yet, he was not the only notable figure to visit Harewood. James Madison got married to Dolly Todd at Harewood, who was the sister of Samuel's son George S. Washington's wife. Other notable visitors of Harewood include Louis Philipe who would later become the king of France as well as his two brothers Duke de Montpensier and the Count de Beaujolais. Later, Harewood would also witness the Battle of Cameron's Depot. The battlefield spread across the neighboring estates of Richwood Hall and Locust Hill occupied by Union General Sheridan.
When Samuel Washington died in 1781, he was buried in the family plot at Harewood, and his son George inherited the property. At the time of his death, he was in possession of 4,000 acres of land across Jefferson County. Today, Harewood still remains in the Washington family. | <urn:uuid:4fa43387-9d67-4c3f-9f72-252dcd56400c> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.theclio.com/entry/14140 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251773463.72/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128030221-20200128060221-00042.warc.gz | en | 0.989857 | 347 | 3.5 | 4 | [
-0.10836949944496155,
0.33112046122550964,
0.2689875662326813,
-0.05669859051704407,
0.1585153490304947,
0.06492992490530014,
0.026558710262179375,
-0.09786716103553772,
-0.20109988749027252,
0.09003768116235733,
0.1454439014196396,
-0.3325478732585907,
-0.005148629192262888,
0.23277014493... | 2 | Attracted by the fertile farmland of the Shenandoah Valley of Virginia, George Washington and his brothers began buying land in present Jefferson County, West Virginia (then Virginia) in 1750. Samuel served as colonel and eventually County Lieutenant in command of the militia of Frederick County and also as County Magistrate. Samuel became one of the leaders of the newly formed Berkeley County in 1772. He was appointed Justice of the peace and later Sheriff of Berkeley. Not only was he a political and military leader, he also served as a vestryman of Northborne Parish, later known as St. Geoge's Chapel. Samuel relinquished many duties due to battling Tuberculosis. This disease seemed to be common for four of his five wives died as well as three of his four sons.
Harewood is well known for its connection to George Washington yet, he was not the only notable figure to visit Harewood. James Madison got married to Dolly Todd at Harewood, who was the sister of Samuel's son George S. Washington's wife. Other notable visitors of Harewood include Louis Philipe who would later become the king of France as well as his two brothers Duke de Montpensier and the Count de Beaujolais. Later, Harewood would also witness the Battle of Cameron's Depot. The battlefield spread across the neighboring estates of Richwood Hall and Locust Hill occupied by Union General Sheridan.
When Samuel Washington died in 1781, he was buried in the family plot at Harewood, and his son George inherited the property. At the time of his death, he was in possession of 4,000 acres of land across Jefferson County. Today, Harewood still remains in the Washington family. | 363 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Crispus Attucks was thought to be the first person of African-American descent to be killed in the American Revolution. He died on March 5, 1770, during the Boston Massacre.
Crispus Attucks was born sometime in 1723 in or near Framingham, Massachusetts. His cultural heritage is the subject of much debate. Some historians believe Attucks was of African and Native American descent. Although his mother was a slave, it is not clear whether Attucks was considered a free black man, or, was a runaway slave himself. Although details of his life are largely unknown, Attucks spent many years as a sailor and working the docks of various colonial ports. Historians who claim he was a runaway slave believe he used the name “Michael Johnson” to elude capture.
Following the 1768 issuance of the Townshend Act, and the subsequent unrest in Boston, British soldiers patrolled Boston’s streets, leading to resentment and bitterness among the citizens. On the night of March 5, 1770, tensions finally boiled over when a British soldier assaulted a Boston man who was harassing him. Tensions quickly escalated as a mob of Bostonians gathered with ice chunks, bottles, and other objects. Several British soldiers were cornered. When someone within the mob hurled a club at a soldier, gunshots rang out. When the mob finally dispersed, five Bostonians were left dead including Crispus Attucks, who was thought to be the first killed.
While Attucks and the other dead were hailed as heroes in Boston, future president John Adams thought otherwise. Adams blamed Attucks for trying to be the “hero of the night” and by helping to fan the flames of the riot with his “mad behavior.” Adams defended the British soldiers in the ensuing trial and most were acquitted of wrongdoing, having acted in self-defense. Attucks was buried with the four others who died during the Boston Massacre in the Granary Burying Ground, where many other Boston heroes such as Samuel Adams and John Hancock are buried.
Long after his death, Crispus Attucks remains a hero and symbol of freedom. Schools, parks, roads, and theaters across America bear his name. | <urn:uuid:67f239b9-3230-4425-ad35-c4a97e559368> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://mrnussbaum.com/crispus-attucks-biography | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251671078.88/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125071430-20200125100430-00140.warc.gz | en | 0.985782 | 453 | 4.03125 | 4 | [
-0.05695607513189316,
0.378578245639801,
0.34473666548728943,
-0.00981899630278349,
-0.4600125849246979,
-0.2255968302488327,
0.4958162009716034,
0.18507571518421173,
-0.0861704871058464,
-0.10697829723358154,
-0.1336357295513153,
-0.40268364548683167,
-0.36936160922050476,
0.0574575029313... | 1 | Crispus Attucks was thought to be the first person of African-American descent to be killed in the American Revolution. He died on March 5, 1770, during the Boston Massacre.
Crispus Attucks was born sometime in 1723 in or near Framingham, Massachusetts. His cultural heritage is the subject of much debate. Some historians believe Attucks was of African and Native American descent. Although his mother was a slave, it is not clear whether Attucks was considered a free black man, or, was a runaway slave himself. Although details of his life are largely unknown, Attucks spent many years as a sailor and working the docks of various colonial ports. Historians who claim he was a runaway slave believe he used the name “Michael Johnson” to elude capture.
Following the 1768 issuance of the Townshend Act, and the subsequent unrest in Boston, British soldiers patrolled Boston’s streets, leading to resentment and bitterness among the citizens. On the night of March 5, 1770, tensions finally boiled over when a British soldier assaulted a Boston man who was harassing him. Tensions quickly escalated as a mob of Bostonians gathered with ice chunks, bottles, and other objects. Several British soldiers were cornered. When someone within the mob hurled a club at a soldier, gunshots rang out. When the mob finally dispersed, five Bostonians were left dead including Crispus Attucks, who was thought to be the first killed.
While Attucks and the other dead were hailed as heroes in Boston, future president John Adams thought otherwise. Adams blamed Attucks for trying to be the “hero of the night” and by helping to fan the flames of the riot with his “mad behavior.” Adams defended the British soldiers in the ensuing trial and most were acquitted of wrongdoing, having acted in self-defense. Attucks was buried with the four others who died during the Boston Massacre in the Granary Burying Ground, where many other Boston heroes such as Samuel Adams and John Hancock are buried.
Long after his death, Crispus Attucks remains a hero and symbol of freedom. Schools, parks, roads, and theaters across America bear his name. | 455 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Australia’s cane toad (Bufo marinus) is probably the invasive species to rule them all. In 1935, Australia’s Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations (now called Sugar Research Australia), brought 102 toads from Hawaii — these were originally shipped across from South America. They were reinforcements in the fight against grey-backed cane beetles (Lepidiota frenchi) whose larvae were laying waste to sugar cane crops.
If we are to point the finger at someone for Australia’s ensuing cane toad nightmare it would be Reginald Mungomery, the organiser of the imports. The idea was that the toads would be a less environmentally destructive method of killing the cane beetle, than say DDT. His, and his colleagues', theory may have been sound, but in practice it was proven disastrously wrong (to be fair to poor Reg, the toads were said to have helped out with a similar problem in Hawaii).
Initially, the toads were released in northern Queensland, in Eastern Australia where they were heralded as a saviour. But it soon became apparent they had absolutely no interest in the cane beetles, nor their larvae for that matter. They just wanted to mate and explore their new home. They did that all too well. (It’s important to point out that even if the toads were interested in the beetles, the offending larvae lived high up on cane stalks, out of the reach of the toads. Apparently this small detail was overlooked.)
Up until the 1960’s the cane toads advanced west at about 10kms per year, but after that they accelerated to 40 to 60kms. Not only did they accelerate, but they began to evolve too. By 1978, the toads “front” had passed through most of Queensland and into New South Wales. Toads started appearing everywhere. Their merciless advance across northern Australia made them public enemy number one.
Cane toad open season was declared. Toads were gassed, shot, stabbed, run over and generally just killed by any means possible. Vigilante community groups such as the Kimberly Toad Busters popped up to keep the toads from advancing. But despite lengthy nets and all the might of the Australian public, the cane toad kept on hopping along.
In February 2009, the toads reached a landmark as they crossed the Western Australia Border with the Northern Territory. That’s a pretty incredible 2800km from where they started out and to this day they are still out there, marching on. They are said to number somewhere around 1.5 billion, but nobody is really sure.
Heralded like the arrival of a mass murderer whenever they approach, cane toads quickly became (and remain) public enemy number one. Cane toads spread so rapidly in Oz because few things eat them, and the creatures try are met with a sticky end as the toad is venomous. It secretes a pus-like cardiotoxin from glands behind its ears. Wherever the toads appeared, a spate of domestic animal deaths would occur. Native wildlife such as crocodiles and endangered quolls also suffered from eating the toads. Some entrepreneurial people who tried eating them also ended up suffering tremendously for their trouble.
Meanwhile, back in Queensland during the time that the cane toad frontier moved further and further across northern Australia, the cane beetles went about their business, totally oblivious to the alien invasion that was destined to slaughter them. They had a brief disappearance after a pesticide was introduced but after it was discovered that this was carcinogenic its use was stopped and the cane beetle came back to eat sugar cane, happy as ever.
Thus goes perhaps the most spectacularly flubbed introduction of an non-native species in history.
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Back from the dead: Should we pursue de-extinction?
August 27, 2016
Video series aims to help indigenous groups defend against land grabbing | <urn:uuid:53fb2e9e-7526-45c5-ae43-8583731d4a46> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.greenllamablog.com/single-post/2017/02/21/Australias-cane-toad-invasion | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251700675.78/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127112805-20200127142805-00179.warc.gz | en | 0.986333 | 814 | 3.28125 | 3 | [
-0.16596874594688416,
-0.16175897419452667,
0.007501204498112202,
-0.030204113572835922,
0.1487860530614853,
-0.10604503750801086,
-0.08004210889339447,
0.24682138860225677,
-0.3221138119697571,
0.5163888931274414,
0.050438761711120605,
-0.4200541079044342,
0.04913415014743805,
0.105062015... | 3 | Australia’s cane toad (Bufo marinus) is probably the invasive species to rule them all. In 1935, Australia’s Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations (now called Sugar Research Australia), brought 102 toads from Hawaii — these were originally shipped across from South America. They were reinforcements in the fight against grey-backed cane beetles (Lepidiota frenchi) whose larvae were laying waste to sugar cane crops.
If we are to point the finger at someone for Australia’s ensuing cane toad nightmare it would be Reginald Mungomery, the organiser of the imports. The idea was that the toads would be a less environmentally destructive method of killing the cane beetle, than say DDT. His, and his colleagues', theory may have been sound, but in practice it was proven disastrously wrong (to be fair to poor Reg, the toads were said to have helped out with a similar problem in Hawaii).
Initially, the toads were released in northern Queensland, in Eastern Australia where they were heralded as a saviour. But it soon became apparent they had absolutely no interest in the cane beetles, nor their larvae for that matter. They just wanted to mate and explore their new home. They did that all too well. (It’s important to point out that even if the toads were interested in the beetles, the offending larvae lived high up on cane stalks, out of the reach of the toads. Apparently this small detail was overlooked.)
Up until the 1960’s the cane toads advanced west at about 10kms per year, but after that they accelerated to 40 to 60kms. Not only did they accelerate, but they began to evolve too. By 1978, the toads “front” had passed through most of Queensland and into New South Wales. Toads started appearing everywhere. Their merciless advance across northern Australia made them public enemy number one.
Cane toad open season was declared. Toads were gassed, shot, stabbed, run over and generally just killed by any means possible. Vigilante community groups such as the Kimberly Toad Busters popped up to keep the toads from advancing. But despite lengthy nets and all the might of the Australian public, the cane toad kept on hopping along.
In February 2009, the toads reached a landmark as they crossed the Western Australia Border with the Northern Territory. That’s a pretty incredible 2800km from where they started out and to this day they are still out there, marching on. They are said to number somewhere around 1.5 billion, but nobody is really sure.
Heralded like the arrival of a mass murderer whenever they approach, cane toads quickly became (and remain) public enemy number one. Cane toads spread so rapidly in Oz because few things eat them, and the creatures try are met with a sticky end as the toad is venomous. It secretes a pus-like cardiotoxin from glands behind its ears. Wherever the toads appeared, a spate of domestic animal deaths would occur. Native wildlife such as crocodiles and endangered quolls also suffered from eating the toads. Some entrepreneurial people who tried eating them also ended up suffering tremendously for their trouble.
Meanwhile, back in Queensland during the time that the cane toad frontier moved further and further across northern Australia, the cane beetles went about their business, totally oblivious to the alien invasion that was destined to slaughter them. They had a brief disappearance after a pesticide was introduced but after it was discovered that this was carcinogenic its use was stopped and the cane beetle came back to eat sugar cane, happy as ever.
Thus goes perhaps the most spectacularly flubbed introduction of an non-native species in history.
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Back from the dead: Should we pursue de-extinction?
August 27, 2016
Video series aims to help indigenous groups defend against land grabbing | 827 | ENGLISH | 1 |
|Publius Sulpicius Rufus|
Born: c. 124 BC
Died: 88 BC
Location of death: Lavinium, Latium
Cause of death: Execution
Race or Ethnicity: White
Nationality: Ancient Rome
Executive summary: Roman orator and politician
Roman orator and statesman, legate in 89 to Gnaeus Pompeius Strabo in the Social War, and in 88 tribune of the plebs. Soon afterwards Sulpicius, hitherto an aristocrat, declared in favor of Gaius Marius and the popular party. He was deeply in debt, and it seems that Marius had promised him financial assistance in the event of his being appointed to the command in the Mithradatic War. To secure the appointment for Marius, Sulpicius brought in a franchise bill by which the newly enfranchised Italian allies and freedmen would have swamped the old electors. The majority of the senate were strongly opposed to the proposals; a justitium (cessation of public business) was proclaimed by the consuls, but Marius and Sulpicius got up a riot, and the consuls, in fear of their lives, withdrew the justitium. The proposals of Sulpicius became law, and, with the assistance of the new voters, the command was bestowed upon Marius, then a mere privatus. Sulla, who was then at Nola, immediately marched upon Rome. Marius and Sulpicius, unable to resist him, fled from the city. Marius managed to escape to Africa, but Sulpicius was discovered in a villa at Laurentum and put to death; his head was sent to Sulla and exposed in the forum. Sulpicius appears to have been originally a moderate reformer, who by force of circumstances became one of the leaders of a democratic revolt. Although he had impeached the turbulent tribune C. Norbanus, and resisted the proposal to repeal judicial sentences by popular decree, he did not hesitate to incur the displeasure of the Julian family by opposing the candidature for the consulship of Julius Caesar (Strabo Vopiscus), who had never been praetor and was consequently ineligible. His franchise proposals, as far as the Italians were concerned, were a necessary measure of justice; but they had been carried by violence. Of Sulpicius as an orator, Cicero says (Brutus, 55): "He was by far the most dignified of all the orators I have heard, and, so to speak, the most tragic; his voice was loud, but at the same time sweet and clear; his gestures were full of grace; his language was rapid and voluble, but not redundant or diffuse; he tried to imitate Crassus, but lacked his charm." Sulpicius left no written speeches, those that bore his name being written by a crtain P. Canutius (or Cannutius). He is one of the interlocutors in Cicero's De oratore.
Do you know something we don't?
Submit a correction or make a comment about this profile
Copyright ©2019 Soylent Communications | <urn:uuid:9f695371-54e2-451b-b37d-cba1e2f6ceb3> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://nndb.com/people/303/000098009/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594101.10/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119010920-20200119034920-00240.warc.gz | en | 0.980772 | 655 | 3.578125 | 4 | [
-0.5009724497795105,
0.03224984183907509,
0.25369030237197876,
-0.2751730978488922,
-0.2839009463787079,
-0.26019859313964844,
0.15884149074554443,
0.32524120807647705,
-0.01688561961054802,
0.02069971337914467,
-0.1513673961162567,
-0.49315208196640015,
-0.008211614564061165,
0.3791546225... | 5 | |Publius Sulpicius Rufus|
Born: c. 124 BC
Died: 88 BC
Location of death: Lavinium, Latium
Cause of death: Execution
Race or Ethnicity: White
Nationality: Ancient Rome
Executive summary: Roman orator and politician
Roman orator and statesman, legate in 89 to Gnaeus Pompeius Strabo in the Social War, and in 88 tribune of the plebs. Soon afterwards Sulpicius, hitherto an aristocrat, declared in favor of Gaius Marius and the popular party. He was deeply in debt, and it seems that Marius had promised him financial assistance in the event of his being appointed to the command in the Mithradatic War. To secure the appointment for Marius, Sulpicius brought in a franchise bill by which the newly enfranchised Italian allies and freedmen would have swamped the old electors. The majority of the senate were strongly opposed to the proposals; a justitium (cessation of public business) was proclaimed by the consuls, but Marius and Sulpicius got up a riot, and the consuls, in fear of their lives, withdrew the justitium. The proposals of Sulpicius became law, and, with the assistance of the new voters, the command was bestowed upon Marius, then a mere privatus. Sulla, who was then at Nola, immediately marched upon Rome. Marius and Sulpicius, unable to resist him, fled from the city. Marius managed to escape to Africa, but Sulpicius was discovered in a villa at Laurentum and put to death; his head was sent to Sulla and exposed in the forum. Sulpicius appears to have been originally a moderate reformer, who by force of circumstances became one of the leaders of a democratic revolt. Although he had impeached the turbulent tribune C. Norbanus, and resisted the proposal to repeal judicial sentences by popular decree, he did not hesitate to incur the displeasure of the Julian family by opposing the candidature for the consulship of Julius Caesar (Strabo Vopiscus), who had never been praetor and was consequently ineligible. His franchise proposals, as far as the Italians were concerned, were a necessary measure of justice; but they had been carried by violence. Of Sulpicius as an orator, Cicero says (Brutus, 55): "He was by far the most dignified of all the orators I have heard, and, so to speak, the most tragic; his voice was loud, but at the same time sweet and clear; his gestures were full of grace; his language was rapid and voluble, but not redundant or diffuse; he tried to imitate Crassus, but lacked his charm." Sulpicius left no written speeches, those that bore his name being written by a crtain P. Canutius (or Cannutius). He is one of the interlocutors in Cicero's De oratore.
Do you know something we don't?
Submit a correction or make a comment about this profile
Copyright ©2019 Soylent Communications | 676 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Gun money was an issue of coins made by the forces of James II during the Williamite War in Ireland between 1689 and 1691. They were minted in base metal (copper, brass or pewter), and were designed to be redeemed for silver coins following a victory by James II and consequently bore the date in months to allow a gradual replacement. As James lost the war, that replacement never took place, although the coins were allowed to circulate at much reduced values before the copper coinage was resumed. They were mostly withdrawn from circulation in the early 18th century.
The name "gun money" stems from the idea that they were minted from melted down guns. However, many other brass objects, such as church bells, were also used.
There were two issues. The first "large" issue consisted of sixpences, shillings and half crowns (2½ shillings). The second, "small" issue consisted of shillings, halfcrowns and crowns (5 shillings). Some of the second issue were overstruck on large issue pieces, with shillings struck over sixpences, half crowns on shillings and crowns on half crowns. The most notable feature of the coins is the date, because the month of striking was also included. This was so that after the war (in the event of James' victory), soldiers would be able to claim interest on their wages, which had been withheld from proper payment for so long.
Specimen strikings were produced in silver and gold for most months, and these tend to be extremely rare.
Pewter money is a rarer type of gun money, manufactured out of Pewter, an alloy containing mostly tin, and smaller amounts of copper, antimony, bismuth and lead. Some of the coins had also a brass plug. Halfcrowns and Crowns were issued in 1690 with the same dies as other gun money coins. Both these coins are extremely rare, along with a Groat struck in 1689 which is probably a pattern. Halfpennies and Pennies were also produced in 1689 and 1690, and less rare, although the 1689 penny is virtually unknown. | <urn:uuid:af4cb80d-b092-442c-b088-40e2f654d64c> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://www.popflock.com/learn?s=Gun_money | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250614880.58/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124011048-20200124040048-00456.warc.gz | en | 0.991571 | 458 | 3.390625 | 3 | [
-0.3905748128890991,
0.007752012927085161,
0.25416675209999084,
-0.1448214054107666,
-0.07930859178304672,
-0.280133455991745,
-0.0038746907375752926,
-0.5265125036239624,
-0.3908078968524933,
0.10262202471494675,
-0.16382935643196106,
-0.0019410348031669855,
0.3217485249042511,
0.28911867... | 1 | Gun money was an issue of coins made by the forces of James II during the Williamite War in Ireland between 1689 and 1691. They were minted in base metal (copper, brass or pewter), and were designed to be redeemed for silver coins following a victory by James II and consequently bore the date in months to allow a gradual replacement. As James lost the war, that replacement never took place, although the coins were allowed to circulate at much reduced values before the copper coinage was resumed. They were mostly withdrawn from circulation in the early 18th century.
The name "gun money" stems from the idea that they were minted from melted down guns. However, many other brass objects, such as church bells, were also used.
There were two issues. The first "large" issue consisted of sixpences, shillings and half crowns (2½ shillings). The second, "small" issue consisted of shillings, halfcrowns and crowns (5 shillings). Some of the second issue were overstruck on large issue pieces, with shillings struck over sixpences, half crowns on shillings and crowns on half crowns. The most notable feature of the coins is the date, because the month of striking was also included. This was so that after the war (in the event of James' victory), soldiers would be able to claim interest on their wages, which had been withheld from proper payment for so long.
Specimen strikings were produced in silver and gold for most months, and these tend to be extremely rare.
Pewter money is a rarer type of gun money, manufactured out of Pewter, an alloy containing mostly tin, and smaller amounts of copper, antimony, bismuth and lead. Some of the coins had also a brass plug. Halfcrowns and Crowns were issued in 1690 with the same dies as other gun money coins. Both these coins are extremely rare, along with a Groat struck in 1689 which is probably a pattern. Halfpennies and Pennies were also produced in 1689 and 1690, and less rare, although the 1689 penny is virtually unknown. | 475 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Participants in the debate noted that, for reasonsnot understood, suction pumps in mines could not raise water more than eighteen bracci about 30 feet or 9 m regardless of their size or power. Torricelli remained in Rome while Castelli was on his travels and gave his lectures in his place.
We do not know where Torricelli lived during this period but, as Ciampoli served as governor of a number of cities in Umbria and the Marches, it is likely that he lived for periods in Montalto, Norcia, San Severino and Fabriano.
Castelli was so impressed that he wrote to Galileo himself, at this time living in his home in Arcetri near Florence, watched over by officers from the Inquisition. With these tools he was able to show that rotating the unlimited area of a rectangular hyperbola between the y-axis and a fixed point on the curve, resulted in a finite volume when rotated round A biography of evangelista torricelli y-axis.
Left fatherless at an early age, he was educated under the care of his uncle, a Camaldolese monk, who in sent him to Rome to study science under the Benedictine Benedetto Castelliprofessor of mathematics at the Collegio di Sapienza.
Although Galileo promptly invited Torricelli to visit, he did not accept until just three months before Galileo's death. This theory allowed Cavalieri to find, in a simple and rapid way, the area and volume of various geometric figures. This letter was answered by Torricelli instead since Castelli was away from Rome at that time.
One of the biggest and most controversial debates in those days was about the existence of vacuums, a possibility that had been refuted by earlier scientists such as Aristotle.
Castelli was so impressed that he wrote to Galileo himself, at this time living in his home in Arcetri near Florence, watched over by officers from the Inquisition.
From this idea, it was proposed to study the parabolic trajectories followed by the projectiles when being fired and reached two conclusions: We referred above to the argument between Torricelli and Roberval concerning the cycloid, and in Torricelli began gathering together the correspondence which had passed between the two on the topic.
I claim that the force which keeps the mercury from falling is external and that the force comes from outside the tube.
In fact he used a combination of the new and old methods, using the method of indivisibles to discover his results, but often giving a classical geometrical proof of them. No Ratings Yet Loading The debate was a very old one.
However, he soon became convinced that these powerful methods were correct and began to develop them further himself. Though not as great a scientist ashis older contemporary, Galileo, Torricelli continued the tradition of Italian scientific pioneering. Under Career I will add: He had also read almost everything that the contemporary mathematicians BraheKepler and Longomontanus had written and, he told Galileohe was convinced by the theory of Copernicus that the Earth revolved round the sun.
Sapienza was the name of the building which the University of Rome occupied at this time and it gave its name to the University.Evangelista Torricelli: Evangelista Torricelli, Italian physicist and mathematician who invented the barometer and whose work in geometry aided in the eventual development of integral calculus.
Inspired by Galileo’s writings, he wrote a treatise on mechanics, De Motu (“Concerning Movement”), which impressed Galileo.
In. Evangelista Torricelli was first educated in Jesuit schools in his native Faenza, near Ravenna. His abilities as a physicist and mathematician were so great that he was sent to Rome for further education under the direction of Benedetto Castelli (), a student of.
Through Castelli. Evangelista Torricelli is credited as physicist and mathematician, inventor of the barometer, Torricelli's Law. Evangelista Torricelli (October 15, – October 25, ) was an Italian physicist and mathematician, best known for.
Evangelista Torricelli was a famous Italian mathematician and physicist who invented the barometer and laid the foundation of integral calculus.
Born to parents of moderate means, Evangelista was sent to his uncle, a Camaldolese bistroriviere.com Of Birth: Faenza.
The Italian mathematician and physicist Evangelista Torricelli () invented the mercury barometer and made important contributions to calculus and the theories of hydraulics and dynamics. Evangelista Torricelli was born in Faenza on Oct. 15, Left fatherless early in life, he was.
Evangelista Torricelli was first educated in Jesuit schools in his native Faenza, near Ravenna. His abilities as a physicist and mathematician were so great that he was sent to Rome for further education under the direction of Benedetto Castelli (), a student of.Download | <urn:uuid:9b9f64d3-256d-4841-853d-27eec879bf1e> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://pypamob.bistroriviere.com/a-biography-of-evangelista-torricelli-16159sd.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251783621.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129010251-20200129040251-00257.warc.gz | en | 0.981966 | 1,026 | 3.328125 | 3 | [
-0.43181926012039185,
0.3579598069190979,
-0.0006263130344450474,
0.10963994264602661,
-0.2310657501220703,
-0.06146075576543808,
0.012500984594225883,
0.4667298197746277,
-0.1780136674642563,
-0.10506820678710938,
-0.1551985740661621,
-0.4302154779434204,
0.29745665192604065,
0.2527275681... | 1 | Participants in the debate noted that, for reasonsnot understood, suction pumps in mines could not raise water more than eighteen bracci about 30 feet or 9 m regardless of their size or power. Torricelli remained in Rome while Castelli was on his travels and gave his lectures in his place.
We do not know where Torricelli lived during this period but, as Ciampoli served as governor of a number of cities in Umbria and the Marches, it is likely that he lived for periods in Montalto, Norcia, San Severino and Fabriano.
Castelli was so impressed that he wrote to Galileo himself, at this time living in his home in Arcetri near Florence, watched over by officers from the Inquisition. With these tools he was able to show that rotating the unlimited area of a rectangular hyperbola between the y-axis and a fixed point on the curve, resulted in a finite volume when rotated round A biography of evangelista torricelli y-axis.
Left fatherless at an early age, he was educated under the care of his uncle, a Camaldolese monk, who in sent him to Rome to study science under the Benedictine Benedetto Castelliprofessor of mathematics at the Collegio di Sapienza.
Although Galileo promptly invited Torricelli to visit, he did not accept until just three months before Galileo's death. This theory allowed Cavalieri to find, in a simple and rapid way, the area and volume of various geometric figures. This letter was answered by Torricelli instead since Castelli was away from Rome at that time.
One of the biggest and most controversial debates in those days was about the existence of vacuums, a possibility that had been refuted by earlier scientists such as Aristotle.
Castelli was so impressed that he wrote to Galileo himself, at this time living in his home in Arcetri near Florence, watched over by officers from the Inquisition.
From this idea, it was proposed to study the parabolic trajectories followed by the projectiles when being fired and reached two conclusions: We referred above to the argument between Torricelli and Roberval concerning the cycloid, and in Torricelli began gathering together the correspondence which had passed between the two on the topic.
I claim that the force which keeps the mercury from falling is external and that the force comes from outside the tube.
In fact he used a combination of the new and old methods, using the method of indivisibles to discover his results, but often giving a classical geometrical proof of them. No Ratings Yet Loading The debate was a very old one.
However, he soon became convinced that these powerful methods were correct and began to develop them further himself. Though not as great a scientist ashis older contemporary, Galileo, Torricelli continued the tradition of Italian scientific pioneering. Under Career I will add: He had also read almost everything that the contemporary mathematicians BraheKepler and Longomontanus had written and, he told Galileohe was convinced by the theory of Copernicus that the Earth revolved round the sun.
Sapienza was the name of the building which the University of Rome occupied at this time and it gave its name to the University.Evangelista Torricelli: Evangelista Torricelli, Italian physicist and mathematician who invented the barometer and whose work in geometry aided in the eventual development of integral calculus.
Inspired by Galileo’s writings, he wrote a treatise on mechanics, De Motu (“Concerning Movement”), which impressed Galileo.
In. Evangelista Torricelli was first educated in Jesuit schools in his native Faenza, near Ravenna. His abilities as a physicist and mathematician were so great that he was sent to Rome for further education under the direction of Benedetto Castelli (), a student of.
Through Castelli. Evangelista Torricelli is credited as physicist and mathematician, inventor of the barometer, Torricelli's Law. Evangelista Torricelli (October 15, – October 25, ) was an Italian physicist and mathematician, best known for.
Evangelista Torricelli was a famous Italian mathematician and physicist who invented the barometer and laid the foundation of integral calculus.
Born to parents of moderate means, Evangelista was sent to his uncle, a Camaldolese bistroriviere.com Of Birth: Faenza.
The Italian mathematician and physicist Evangelista Torricelli () invented the mercury barometer and made important contributions to calculus and the theories of hydraulics and dynamics. Evangelista Torricelli was born in Faenza on Oct. 15, Left fatherless early in life, he was.
Evangelista Torricelli was first educated in Jesuit schools in his native Faenza, near Ravenna. His abilities as a physicist and mathematician were so great that he was sent to Rome for further education under the direction of Benedetto Castelli (), a student of.Download | 1,014 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The romantic era in literature was characterized by many different authors, male and female. Jane Austen was only one of many authors in that era, and one of the longest lasting; through her many novels, she shows various views on love and marriage. In Jane Austen’s critically acclaimed novel, Pride and Prejudice, Austen spares no character, male or female, in her criticism of the understood custom that the only route to happiness was marriage.
Jane Austen never married which influenced her portrayal of marriage throughout many of her novels. Every character exposes different marital standards expected in the time period. In a biography about Jane Austen, edited by Jack Lynch, Rosemary Reisman explains that while neither Jane Austen nor her sister, Cassandra never married, both were engaged at one point. Jane’s engagement was not long lived, in fact it only lasted one night, and she rejected the suitor in the morning (8). Austen’s marital status and limited interaction outside her family led her to develop a keen sense of human interactions. Through her experiences “grieving and rejoicing with family members and friends, mothering nieces and nephews, worrying about the effects of her unstable times on those she loved” she is able to portray the time through her characters (9).
During the Romantic Era, very few occupations were open to women, as most were expected to run their husbands house. For the women who remained unmarried (whether by choice or by circumstance), their opportunities to earn money were very limited. One of the most common choices available for a young maid unmarried is to be a governess. Though this was never a first choice, it was one of the most readily available jobs for women and included a lack of respect, bad pay, and bad working conditions. In one of Jane Austen’s letters to Cassandra, she talked about the pity she feels for her Brother’s governess, and the hope she has of her “staying a whole twelvemonth […] I pity her though, they are my nieces” (Austen). Even if a woman found a job as a governess, unless she was a live-in, women were expected to live with their parents or approved relatives until they were married. Austen played on that fear, with her character Charlotte Lucas.
Charlotte Lucas is Elizabeth Bennet’s best friend and confidant, and the wife of Mr. Collins. Charlotte, together with characters, portrays different martial circumstances in Pride and Prejudice. With her portrayal of the character, Charlotte Lucas, Austen makes a social criticism of the societal belief that women need to be married to gain true happiness. One of the universal dreams for women was to be the head of their own house. Until a woman was married, she was expected to live with relatives who protected and provided for her as she lives out her life as an old maid. Austen portrayed Charlotte Lucas as a woman who never thought “highly of men or matrimony”, to her, “marriage has always been her object; it was the only provision... | <urn:uuid:83b92bf3-12e6-4148-9d34-b9506558e528> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://brightkite.com/essay-on/in-want-of-a-wife-jane-austen-s-reaction-to-wedding | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250613416.54/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123191130-20200123220130-00176.warc.gz | en | 0.983498 | 641 | 3.734375 | 4 | [
0.08808451890945435,
0.44751662015914917,
0.1589169204235077,
-0.08978015184402466,
-0.14791199564933777,
0.16953939199447632,
-0.0057745035737752914,
-0.03497450053691864,
0.35563671588897705,
-0.31463271379470825,
0.39257749915122986,
0.23103469610214233,
0.4355444014072418,
0.2230418026... | 1 | The romantic era in literature was characterized by many different authors, male and female. Jane Austen was only one of many authors in that era, and one of the longest lasting; through her many novels, she shows various views on love and marriage. In Jane Austen’s critically acclaimed novel, Pride and Prejudice, Austen spares no character, male or female, in her criticism of the understood custom that the only route to happiness was marriage.
Jane Austen never married which influenced her portrayal of marriage throughout many of her novels. Every character exposes different marital standards expected in the time period. In a biography about Jane Austen, edited by Jack Lynch, Rosemary Reisman explains that while neither Jane Austen nor her sister, Cassandra never married, both were engaged at one point. Jane’s engagement was not long lived, in fact it only lasted one night, and she rejected the suitor in the morning (8). Austen’s marital status and limited interaction outside her family led her to develop a keen sense of human interactions. Through her experiences “grieving and rejoicing with family members and friends, mothering nieces and nephews, worrying about the effects of her unstable times on those she loved” she is able to portray the time through her characters (9).
During the Romantic Era, very few occupations were open to women, as most were expected to run their husbands house. For the women who remained unmarried (whether by choice or by circumstance), their opportunities to earn money were very limited. One of the most common choices available for a young maid unmarried is to be a governess. Though this was never a first choice, it was one of the most readily available jobs for women and included a lack of respect, bad pay, and bad working conditions. In one of Jane Austen’s letters to Cassandra, she talked about the pity she feels for her Brother’s governess, and the hope she has of her “staying a whole twelvemonth […] I pity her though, they are my nieces” (Austen). Even if a woman found a job as a governess, unless she was a live-in, women were expected to live with their parents or approved relatives until they were married. Austen played on that fear, with her character Charlotte Lucas.
Charlotte Lucas is Elizabeth Bennet’s best friend and confidant, and the wife of Mr. Collins. Charlotte, together with characters, portrays different martial circumstances in Pride and Prejudice. With her portrayal of the character, Charlotte Lucas, Austen makes a social criticism of the societal belief that women need to be married to gain true happiness. One of the universal dreams for women was to be the head of their own house. Until a woman was married, she was expected to live with relatives who protected and provided for her as she lives out her life as an old maid. Austen portrayed Charlotte Lucas as a woman who never thought “highly of men or matrimony”, to her, “marriage has always been her object; it was the only provision... | 621 | ENGLISH | 1 |
THE NAME THAT HAS GRACED STREET SIGNS, PARKS, MUSEUMS, AND SCHOLARSHIP FUNDS- DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING JR.
He is known as one of the widely recognized men in history. He is known as one of the most important figures in African American history. This month, we celebrate his birthday and his legacy.
He is Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Despite being a recognized historical figure, King is largely an enigma beyond his documented accomplishments. Beyond his education and heritage, there are interesting facts that are largely ignored or overlooked.
Starting with the origin of his name.
The name that has graced street signs, parks, museums, and scholarship funds, was not his original birth name. Born Michael King Jr. on January 15th, 1929, the slain 39-year-old activist had his name changed at the age of 5.
Huffington Post writer Antonia Blumberg writes in her 2017 article “How Martin Luther King Jr. Got His Name”, that the origin of King’s name change goes back to his father Rev Martin Luther King Sr., then known as Michael King Sr., taking a trip to Europe. Referencing author Taylor Branch’s book Parting the Waters: America in the King Years 1954-63, Blumberg writes, “King Sr. joined a group of Baptist ministers on a tour of the Holy Land with stops in Europe. The trip culminated in a weeklong Baptist World Alliance conference in Berlin, during which the reverend visited many of the historical religious sites in the same land where Martin Luther defied the Catholic Church centuries earlier”.
Martin Luther was a German Catholic priest in the 16th century that went as far as to challenge the Catholic church with his “Disputation of Martin Luther on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences”, later known as the “Ninety-Five Theses”. This action made Martin Luther something of a pariah and began what many theologians has argued as the “Reformation”. Luther’s teachings ushered in a new teaching of faith called Lutheranism. Martin Luther eventually died while still being excommunicated from the church.
King Sr. returned to the United States inspired that he decided to change he and his son’s names to honor Martin Luther. What was it about Luther’s legacy that made King Sr. want to bestow this name on him and his son?
The correlation between Martin Luther and King Jr’s eventual legacy as a reformist himself speaks to the notion that those who play by the rules rarely make history. King during his time believed that people of different colors could live together and thrive together and went as far as going to jail, march on ‘Bloody Sunday’, and eventually die for his beliefs. | <urn:uuid:602858e7-c5ac-48cf-a5fb-f93618932d12> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://www.saobserver.com/single-post/2020/01/14/MLK-2020--Our-Friend-Martin | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250601615.66/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121044233-20200121073233-00549.warc.gz | en | 0.983265 | 600 | 3.65625 | 4 | [
-0.07846388220787048,
0.3841977119445801,
0.5765631794929504,
0.0769147053360939,
-0.32744646072387695,
0.22074255347251892,
0.27810028195381165,
-0.12651126086711884,
-0.03895639628171921,
0.2850813865661621,
0.20780691504478455,
0.21260268986225128,
-0.04069036990404129,
-0.3444844186306... | 3 | THE NAME THAT HAS GRACED STREET SIGNS, PARKS, MUSEUMS, AND SCHOLARSHIP FUNDS- DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING JR.
He is known as one of the widely recognized men in history. He is known as one of the most important figures in African American history. This month, we celebrate his birthday and his legacy.
He is Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Despite being a recognized historical figure, King is largely an enigma beyond his documented accomplishments. Beyond his education and heritage, there are interesting facts that are largely ignored or overlooked.
Starting with the origin of his name.
The name that has graced street signs, parks, museums, and scholarship funds, was not his original birth name. Born Michael King Jr. on January 15th, 1929, the slain 39-year-old activist had his name changed at the age of 5.
Huffington Post writer Antonia Blumberg writes in her 2017 article “How Martin Luther King Jr. Got His Name”, that the origin of King’s name change goes back to his father Rev Martin Luther King Sr., then known as Michael King Sr., taking a trip to Europe. Referencing author Taylor Branch’s book Parting the Waters: America in the King Years 1954-63, Blumberg writes, “King Sr. joined a group of Baptist ministers on a tour of the Holy Land with stops in Europe. The trip culminated in a weeklong Baptist World Alliance conference in Berlin, during which the reverend visited many of the historical religious sites in the same land where Martin Luther defied the Catholic Church centuries earlier”.
Martin Luther was a German Catholic priest in the 16th century that went as far as to challenge the Catholic church with his “Disputation of Martin Luther on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences”, later known as the “Ninety-Five Theses”. This action made Martin Luther something of a pariah and began what many theologians has argued as the “Reformation”. Luther’s teachings ushered in a new teaching of faith called Lutheranism. Martin Luther eventually died while still being excommunicated from the church.
King Sr. returned to the United States inspired that he decided to change he and his son’s names to honor Martin Luther. What was it about Luther’s legacy that made King Sr. want to bestow this name on him and his son?
The correlation between Martin Luther and King Jr’s eventual legacy as a reformist himself speaks to the notion that those who play by the rules rarely make history. King during his time believed that people of different colors could live together and thrive together and went as far as going to jail, march on ‘Bloody Sunday’, and eventually die for his beliefs. | 578 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Until the mid-nineteenth century, swimming was an activity almost entirely limited to men. While men and women were segregated at baths and beaches, men were free to practice swimming unencumbered by clothes. As mixed bathing became more popular, however, they were forced to find a suitable costume, and by the 1850s men generally wore one-piece knit suits very similar to contemporary one-piece underwear (called union suits), but usually with short sleeves and legs cut off at the knees. Later in the century, there was also a two-piece version available, consisting of a short-sleeved or sleeve less tunic over knee-length drawers. To avoid any hint of impropriety caused by appearing in garments so similar to underwear, men's bathing suits were usually dark in color, sometimes with contrasting bands at the edges; striped suits were also popular, especially in France. This practical knit costume remained basically unchanged until the 1930s.
Women who wished to swim, however, found it much more difficult to find a suitable costume. Beginning in the 1860s, women were encouraged to take up swimming for exercise, and by the 1870s many women were learning to swim at pools and bathhouses, which had separate times designated for male and female bathers. In these sex-segregated situations, and for swimming competitions and demonstrations, female swimmers adopted simple "princess-style" one-piece suits, knitted garments similar to men's suits, or suits with long tights similar to those worn by circus performers. However, these garments were still not acceptable in mixed company, or for public wear out of the water, until the early twentieth century. The Australian swimmer Annette Kellerman became famous early in the century for her long-distance swimming feats and exhibitions of fancy diving, for which she wore sleeveless, form-fitting one-piece suits of black wool knit, sometimes with full-length stockings attached. She was an outspoken advocate for practical swimwear for women, and when she was arrested for indecent exposure for wearing a one-piece suit to a public beach in Boston in 1907, the resulting trial and publicity helped to change public attitudes on the subject. In 1912, the Olympic Games in Stockholm were the first to include women's swimming events, and by the beginning of World War I, one-piece knit suits had gained wide acceptance. In many places, however, local authorities passed strict bathing suit regulations, and the battle over the alleged indecency of abbreviated suits, particularly when worn without stockings, continued in many places into the 1920s.
Was this article helpful? | <urn:uuid:9077e2e0-8a60-4298-9dcb-c1b46adc8f0c> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.martelnyc.com/seventeenth-century/swimming-suits.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251687725.76/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126043644-20200126073644-00030.warc.gz | en | 0.987613 | 532 | 3.625 | 4 | [
-0.1205478087067604,
0.3423214554786682,
0.14114384353160858,
0.19952364265918732,
-0.1759190857410431,
0.4435243308544159,
0.31113848090171814,
-0.057162631303071976,
-0.14945414662361145,
-0.17821991443634033,
-0.08164305239915848,
-0.49421125650405884,
-0.054497718811035156,
0.463441669... | 2 | Until the mid-nineteenth century, swimming was an activity almost entirely limited to men. While men and women were segregated at baths and beaches, men were free to practice swimming unencumbered by clothes. As mixed bathing became more popular, however, they were forced to find a suitable costume, and by the 1850s men generally wore one-piece knit suits very similar to contemporary one-piece underwear (called union suits), but usually with short sleeves and legs cut off at the knees. Later in the century, there was also a two-piece version available, consisting of a short-sleeved or sleeve less tunic over knee-length drawers. To avoid any hint of impropriety caused by appearing in garments so similar to underwear, men's bathing suits were usually dark in color, sometimes with contrasting bands at the edges; striped suits were also popular, especially in France. This practical knit costume remained basically unchanged until the 1930s.
Women who wished to swim, however, found it much more difficult to find a suitable costume. Beginning in the 1860s, women were encouraged to take up swimming for exercise, and by the 1870s many women were learning to swim at pools and bathhouses, which had separate times designated for male and female bathers. In these sex-segregated situations, and for swimming competitions and demonstrations, female swimmers adopted simple "princess-style" one-piece suits, knitted garments similar to men's suits, or suits with long tights similar to those worn by circus performers. However, these garments were still not acceptable in mixed company, or for public wear out of the water, until the early twentieth century. The Australian swimmer Annette Kellerman became famous early in the century for her long-distance swimming feats and exhibitions of fancy diving, for which she wore sleeveless, form-fitting one-piece suits of black wool knit, sometimes with full-length stockings attached. She was an outspoken advocate for practical swimwear for women, and when she was arrested for indecent exposure for wearing a one-piece suit to a public beach in Boston in 1907, the resulting trial and publicity helped to change public attitudes on the subject. In 1912, the Olympic Games in Stockholm were the first to include women's swimming events, and by the beginning of World War I, one-piece knit suits had gained wide acceptance. In many places, however, local authorities passed strict bathing suit regulations, and the battle over the alleged indecency of abbreviated suits, particularly when worn without stockings, continued in many places into the 1920s.
Was this article helpful? | 542 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Charles Robert Darwin was born on February 12, 1809, at the family home The Mount in the town of Shrewsbury, Shropshire County, England. Darwin was the fifth of six children born to Dr. Robert Waring Darwin and Susannah Wedgwood. Young Darwin was destined to follow in the footsteps of his paternal grandfather, physician Erasmus Darwin, who wrote on evolutionary principles in “Zoonomia.” Early on, Darwin discovered his love of nature and began to avidly collect minerals, shells, and bird eggs–a hobby that served him well later on in life. When Darwin was only 8 years old, his mother died. In the same year, he entered the Unitarian day school, operated by Rev. G. Case. After spending a year, he moved on to attend Dr. Samuel Butler’s boarding school in Shrewsbury, where he studied the works of Homer, Euclid, Virgil, Horace, William Shakespeare, Lord George Gordon Bryon, John Milton and Sir Walter Scott. He attended the boarding school until 1825, and while he did not excel in his studies during his tenure, he enjoyed chemistry and conducting experiments. After leaving boarding school, in 1825, Darwin’s father sent him to Edinburgh University in Scotland to pursue an education in medicine. Darwin enjoyed the practical side of medicine, attending to the sick under the tutelage of his father, however, he expresses in his Autobiography that the prospect of being left an inheritance from his father to allow him a comfortable living was enough to disinterest him in studying medicine.
Darwin’s father soon realised that his son was not destined to become a physician, especially as his love for nature continued to dominate his life. His father proposed the idea of him entering the clergy instead. This requiring a solid foundation in the classics, Darwin worked with a tutor and studied Greek texts in preparation for entrance to Cambridge University, which he started in 1828, and graduated from in 1831 with a BA. It was while attending Cambridge University that Darwin became acquainted with professor of Botany John Stevens Henslow, who later became a dear friends and mentor; he also recommended him as the expedition’s botanist for the HMS Beagle.
On December 27, the Beagle left Plymouth, county Devon, England sailing under Captain Robert Fitzroy. Darwin was immersed in the world he loved throughout the duration of their five year circumnavigation of the globe. He collected and classified geological animal specimens and sent many home to Henslow to be further studied. Darwin became a disciple of uniformitarianism and its founding principle, “The present is the key to the past.” Darwin kept a journal religiously and his keen observations were later published in “The Voyage of The Beagle” in 1939. He also went on to be part of the collaborated effort to produce and edit the five volume “Zoology of the Voyage of H.MS. Beagle,” which includes extensive illustrations and diagrams, published between 1838 and 1834. When Darwin returned to England in October 1836, he was greeted with much esteem by the scientific community. He was elected secretary to the Geological Society of London where he also read several papers. He had papers published in the Linnean Society’s Journal and continued his studies on the transmutation of species, geology, barnacles, seeds, and oversaw the editing of several studies and reports based on his specimens.
Darwin married his cousin, Emma Wedgwood on January 29, 1839, and together they had ten children. The Darwin family settled at their home Down House in the village of Downe in Kent County, England. Darwin died at home on April 19, 1882, at the age of seventy-three. At the request of then President of the Royal Society of London, William Spottiswoode, he was given a state funeral and buried in Westminster Abbey in London, England, resting among other notable figures in scientific history. | <urn:uuid:f4dc21df-4b42-4a78-8079-ed4cc9bad033> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.biographyarchive.com/biography-of-charles-darwin.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250604397.40/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121132900-20200121161900-00403.warc.gz | en | 0.98777 | 832 | 3.3125 | 3 | [
0.12420900166034698,
0.48579028248786926,
0.4952755570411682,
-0.006159245502203703,
0.06512714922428131,
-0.33814871311187744,
0.4864499568939209,
0.1545337736606598,
-0.38870102167129517,
-0.3339545726776123,
-0.05152632296085358,
-0.46690523624420166,
0.534387469291687,
0.26259174942970... | 13 | Charles Robert Darwin was born on February 12, 1809, at the family home The Mount in the town of Shrewsbury, Shropshire County, England. Darwin was the fifth of six children born to Dr. Robert Waring Darwin and Susannah Wedgwood. Young Darwin was destined to follow in the footsteps of his paternal grandfather, physician Erasmus Darwin, who wrote on evolutionary principles in “Zoonomia.” Early on, Darwin discovered his love of nature and began to avidly collect minerals, shells, and bird eggs–a hobby that served him well later on in life. When Darwin was only 8 years old, his mother died. In the same year, he entered the Unitarian day school, operated by Rev. G. Case. After spending a year, he moved on to attend Dr. Samuel Butler’s boarding school in Shrewsbury, where he studied the works of Homer, Euclid, Virgil, Horace, William Shakespeare, Lord George Gordon Bryon, John Milton and Sir Walter Scott. He attended the boarding school until 1825, and while he did not excel in his studies during his tenure, he enjoyed chemistry and conducting experiments. After leaving boarding school, in 1825, Darwin’s father sent him to Edinburgh University in Scotland to pursue an education in medicine. Darwin enjoyed the practical side of medicine, attending to the sick under the tutelage of his father, however, he expresses in his Autobiography that the prospect of being left an inheritance from his father to allow him a comfortable living was enough to disinterest him in studying medicine.
Darwin’s father soon realised that his son was not destined to become a physician, especially as his love for nature continued to dominate his life. His father proposed the idea of him entering the clergy instead. This requiring a solid foundation in the classics, Darwin worked with a tutor and studied Greek texts in preparation for entrance to Cambridge University, which he started in 1828, and graduated from in 1831 with a BA. It was while attending Cambridge University that Darwin became acquainted with professor of Botany John Stevens Henslow, who later became a dear friends and mentor; he also recommended him as the expedition’s botanist for the HMS Beagle.
On December 27, the Beagle left Plymouth, county Devon, England sailing under Captain Robert Fitzroy. Darwin was immersed in the world he loved throughout the duration of their five year circumnavigation of the globe. He collected and classified geological animal specimens and sent many home to Henslow to be further studied. Darwin became a disciple of uniformitarianism and its founding principle, “The present is the key to the past.” Darwin kept a journal religiously and his keen observations were later published in “The Voyage of The Beagle” in 1939. He also went on to be part of the collaborated effort to produce and edit the five volume “Zoology of the Voyage of H.MS. Beagle,” which includes extensive illustrations and diagrams, published between 1838 and 1834. When Darwin returned to England in October 1836, he was greeted with much esteem by the scientific community. He was elected secretary to the Geological Society of London where he also read several papers. He had papers published in the Linnean Society’s Journal and continued his studies on the transmutation of species, geology, barnacles, seeds, and oversaw the editing of several studies and reports based on his specimens.
Darwin married his cousin, Emma Wedgwood on January 29, 1839, and together they had ten children. The Darwin family settled at their home Down House in the village of Downe in Kent County, England. Darwin died at home on April 19, 1882, at the age of seventy-three. At the request of then President of the Royal Society of London, William Spottiswoode, he was given a state funeral and buried in Westminster Abbey in London, England, resting among other notable figures in scientific history. | 845 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The Powhatans hunted deer, beaver, opossum, otters, squirrels, quails, ducks, geese, and turkeys. They also took large quantities of fish, oysters, and scallops and planted corn, beans, and squash. In addition, fruits, roots, grains, and nuts were collected.
Powhatan villages were normally positioned near a water source. Houses (called yehakins) were made from saplings, bent and tied and covered with bark or woven mats. Although the houses featured rounded roofs, they were elongated like Iroquois longhouses, rather than traditional wigwams.
The Powhatans were united under a governmental system that vested complete power in their leaders. Leaders included the tribal chief, priests, and healers. Chiefs inherited their power through their female lineage. The supreme tribal leader was named Powhatan (Wahusonacock). Powhatan ruled over 10,000 subjects and dozens of villages and was said to have at least 100 children, the most famous of which being Pocahontas. Before being united as the Powhatan Confederacy, the various tribes in the Tidewater region of Virginia would often battle each other.
Powhatan men typically did the hunting, fishing, gathering, and defending, while the women farmed, cooked, made clothing, pottery, and baskets. Powhatan women were well-known for their intricate beadwork and basketry. Powhatan mothers carried their babies in cradleboards - boards positioned on the mother's back in which the baby was tied to. Children learned their roles by watching their parents. Young Powhatans would marry between the ages of 13 and 15.
The Powhatans were an aggressive people and would battle other tribes for territory, revenge, or to kidnap women and children. Powhatan men could gain great prestige from wartime heroics. Young Powhatan boys, who were handpicked to be future leaders, would endure a nine-month rite of passage in which they were isolated from the rest of the tribe, forced into physical labor, and deprived of food.
Modern Powhatan history began in 1607 when the first permanent English settlement was established in Jamestown. Relations between the Powhatans and the settlers were strained from the start, as the settlers took over the most productive lands in the Powhatan empire. John Smith, an English settler, was the first to initiate trade between the two groups, likely enabling the troubled settlement to survive amidst the climate, disease, and poor work ethic. The settlers, however, soon wore out their welcome, and the Powhatans kidnapped John Smith. According to legend, Powhatan's own daughter, Pocahontas, ensured his survival by throwing herslef atop him at the moment he was to be executed.
After an accident forced John Smith back to England, the Powhatans stopped trading with the settlers which resulted in "The Starving Time". Desparate for food, English raids on Indian villages turned violent. In revenge, the Powhatans killed any settler they found wandering outside the village of Jamestown. A five-year peace was established, however, after the settlers kidnapped Pocahontas. While at Jamestown, Pocahontas was converted to Christianity and soon married the wealthy tobacco-planter John Rolfe. The marriage brought about a peace that would eventually be shattered during Openchancanough's Wars.
The Abduction of Pocahontas
As Tobacco quickly became the cash crop in Jamestown, more and more settlers began crowding the land. Tobacco depleted the soil and spread out throughout the Powhatan empire, ruining Powhatan hunting grounds and chasing away their game. On March 22, 1622, led by the Powhatan chief Openchancanough's, hundreds of warriors attacked Jamestown, killing 347 men, women, and children. In response, the settlers formed a brutal militia and burned down entire villages and fields of crops. For ten years such violent raids continued until the Powhatans were completely driven from their
Today, several Powhatan villages remain on Virginia reservations. Other Powhatan descendents live in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. | <urn:uuid:2d8a20e3-0a17-4998-9851-9a5c1c1a9b3a> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://mrnussbaum.com/powhatan-nation-profile | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250591431.4/warc/CC-MAIN-20200117234621-20200118022621-00007.warc.gz | en | 0.980654 | 873 | 4.25 | 4 | [
-0.06395810842514038,
0.6465375423431396,
0.47744283080101013,
-0.04146301746368408,
-0.2528895139694214,
0.07234092056751251,
0.2416321337223053,
0.15250954031944275,
-0.22704041004180908,
-0.196152925491333,
0.21352264285087585,
-0.5000587701797485,
0.21059629321098328,
0.100451134145259... | 1 | The Powhatans hunted deer, beaver, opossum, otters, squirrels, quails, ducks, geese, and turkeys. They also took large quantities of fish, oysters, and scallops and planted corn, beans, and squash. In addition, fruits, roots, grains, and nuts were collected.
Powhatan villages were normally positioned near a water source. Houses (called yehakins) were made from saplings, bent and tied and covered with bark or woven mats. Although the houses featured rounded roofs, they were elongated like Iroquois longhouses, rather than traditional wigwams.
The Powhatans were united under a governmental system that vested complete power in their leaders. Leaders included the tribal chief, priests, and healers. Chiefs inherited their power through their female lineage. The supreme tribal leader was named Powhatan (Wahusonacock). Powhatan ruled over 10,000 subjects and dozens of villages and was said to have at least 100 children, the most famous of which being Pocahontas. Before being united as the Powhatan Confederacy, the various tribes in the Tidewater region of Virginia would often battle each other.
Powhatan men typically did the hunting, fishing, gathering, and defending, while the women farmed, cooked, made clothing, pottery, and baskets. Powhatan women were well-known for their intricate beadwork and basketry. Powhatan mothers carried their babies in cradleboards - boards positioned on the mother's back in which the baby was tied to. Children learned their roles by watching their parents. Young Powhatans would marry between the ages of 13 and 15.
The Powhatans were an aggressive people and would battle other tribes for territory, revenge, or to kidnap women and children. Powhatan men could gain great prestige from wartime heroics. Young Powhatan boys, who were handpicked to be future leaders, would endure a nine-month rite of passage in which they were isolated from the rest of the tribe, forced into physical labor, and deprived of food.
Modern Powhatan history began in 1607 when the first permanent English settlement was established in Jamestown. Relations between the Powhatans and the settlers were strained from the start, as the settlers took over the most productive lands in the Powhatan empire. John Smith, an English settler, was the first to initiate trade between the two groups, likely enabling the troubled settlement to survive amidst the climate, disease, and poor work ethic. The settlers, however, soon wore out their welcome, and the Powhatans kidnapped John Smith. According to legend, Powhatan's own daughter, Pocahontas, ensured his survival by throwing herslef atop him at the moment he was to be executed.
After an accident forced John Smith back to England, the Powhatans stopped trading with the settlers which resulted in "The Starving Time". Desparate for food, English raids on Indian villages turned violent. In revenge, the Powhatans killed any settler they found wandering outside the village of Jamestown. A five-year peace was established, however, after the settlers kidnapped Pocahontas. While at Jamestown, Pocahontas was converted to Christianity and soon married the wealthy tobacco-planter John Rolfe. The marriage brought about a peace that would eventually be shattered during Openchancanough's Wars.
The Abduction of Pocahontas
As Tobacco quickly became the cash crop in Jamestown, more and more settlers began crowding the land. Tobacco depleted the soil and spread out throughout the Powhatan empire, ruining Powhatan hunting grounds and chasing away their game. On March 22, 1622, led by the Powhatan chief Openchancanough's, hundreds of warriors attacked Jamestown, killing 347 men, women, and children. In response, the settlers formed a brutal militia and burned down entire villages and fields of crops. For ten years such violent raids continued until the Powhatans were completely driven from their
Today, several Powhatan villages remain on Virginia reservations. Other Powhatan descendents live in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. | 882 | ENGLISH | 1 |
|Date(s):||March 26, 1857|
|Location(s):||Sumter County, South Carolina|
|Tag(s):||Economic Inequality, Free Blacks, Racism, Slavery|
|Course:||“Human Trafficking: Yesterday and Today,” University of Richmond|
|Rating:||3.88 (17 votes)|
On March 26, 1857, William Ellison wrote to his son Henry Ellison about the family business. Life was going well and Ellison wanted to update his son on how things were going at home. John, one of Ellison’s 53 slaves had just been to the river to collect payment from a number of white slaveowners for the cotton gins they had purchased from Mr. Ellison. He came back with no money at the end of the day though. Ellison’s customers had either made excuses such as wanting to consult their overseer before paying or had not been where they said they would be. There was no frustration in Ellison’s tone as though this is something that he has had to deal with before. He then gave instructions to his son to purchase a number of farming tools that would inevitably be used in the fields by his slaves. He gave a brief farewell and ended the letter.
This same type of letter may have been sent a thousand times from a slaveholding father to his slaveholding son in mid nineteenth century American South. But William Ellison and his son, Henry Ellison, were different. William Ellison was African American, born into slavery in April of 1790 with the name April Ellison to a slave mother and white slavemaster father, Mr. William Ellison. As a young man he was apprenticed to a cotton gin maker rather than working in the fields and allowed to keep a portion of the wages he earned for his master and father, money that he later used to purchase his freedom. At the same time, he changed his name to William Ellison, after his father, to fit in with higher society. After purchasing his family, he moved to Sumter County, South Carolina and hired out other free African Americans to work in his cotton gin shop. While working, he discovered a common problem among freed slaves in the South. The expense of wages left him with a profit that would never compete with what slaveowners were earning. Wanting to move up in society, he purchased his first slaves in 1820.
By 1850, Ellison had 37 slaves while his sons owned another 16. He was one of about 180 black slave masters in South Carolina at the time, most of whom were former slaves themselves. Like Ellison, they realized that the only way to get out of the lower middle class that so many freed blacks were stuck in, was slave labor. With nearly 9,000 free blacks in South Carolina, that 180 made up a tiny percentage who were willing to do anything to compete with the upper class white slaveowners at the time. Just because they owned slaves though did not mean they were treated equally among slaveowners. As Ellison subtly hints in his letter, white slave owners would avoid interacting with African Americans as much as possible. Ellison provided many whites in the area with what were the best cotton gins available which meant that if they wanted to produce the most cotton, they would have to do business with them. They would often try to avoid paying him though. Despite the discrimination, blacks owning blacks continued all the way up to the Civil War, with many African American slave owners, including Ellison, contributing and supporting the Confederate side. Stories like Ellison’s and other black slave owners showed the economic power of slavery in Southern America in the nineteenth century. The easiest way to achieve financial and social success was to own slaves and the allure of southern wealth was enough that it convinced a few of slavery’s former victims to switch to the other side. | <urn:uuid:61569798-c5fb-438e-87c7-ab6fbd168d4c> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://historyengine.richmond.edu/episodes/view/6699 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594705.17/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119180644-20200119204644-00093.warc.gz | en | 0.990354 | 783 | 3.59375 | 4 | [
-0.10749104619026184,
0.2707828879356384,
0.1516249179840088,
-0.11354826390743256,
-0.21623267233371735,
-0.5035582184791565,
0.3874565064907074,
-0.3699585199356079,
-0.4713549017906189,
0.39338821172714233,
0.4568603038787842,
0.19734759628772736,
0.005109348800033331,
0.052402555942535... | 1 | |Date(s):||March 26, 1857|
|Location(s):||Sumter County, South Carolina|
|Tag(s):||Economic Inequality, Free Blacks, Racism, Slavery|
|Course:||“Human Trafficking: Yesterday and Today,” University of Richmond|
|Rating:||3.88 (17 votes)|
On March 26, 1857, William Ellison wrote to his son Henry Ellison about the family business. Life was going well and Ellison wanted to update his son on how things were going at home. John, one of Ellison’s 53 slaves had just been to the river to collect payment from a number of white slaveowners for the cotton gins they had purchased from Mr. Ellison. He came back with no money at the end of the day though. Ellison’s customers had either made excuses such as wanting to consult their overseer before paying or had not been where they said they would be. There was no frustration in Ellison’s tone as though this is something that he has had to deal with before. He then gave instructions to his son to purchase a number of farming tools that would inevitably be used in the fields by his slaves. He gave a brief farewell and ended the letter.
This same type of letter may have been sent a thousand times from a slaveholding father to his slaveholding son in mid nineteenth century American South. But William Ellison and his son, Henry Ellison, were different. William Ellison was African American, born into slavery in April of 1790 with the name April Ellison to a slave mother and white slavemaster father, Mr. William Ellison. As a young man he was apprenticed to a cotton gin maker rather than working in the fields and allowed to keep a portion of the wages he earned for his master and father, money that he later used to purchase his freedom. At the same time, he changed his name to William Ellison, after his father, to fit in with higher society. After purchasing his family, he moved to Sumter County, South Carolina and hired out other free African Americans to work in his cotton gin shop. While working, he discovered a common problem among freed slaves in the South. The expense of wages left him with a profit that would never compete with what slaveowners were earning. Wanting to move up in society, he purchased his first slaves in 1820.
By 1850, Ellison had 37 slaves while his sons owned another 16. He was one of about 180 black slave masters in South Carolina at the time, most of whom were former slaves themselves. Like Ellison, they realized that the only way to get out of the lower middle class that so many freed blacks were stuck in, was slave labor. With nearly 9,000 free blacks in South Carolina, that 180 made up a tiny percentage who were willing to do anything to compete with the upper class white slaveowners at the time. Just because they owned slaves though did not mean they were treated equally among slaveowners. As Ellison subtly hints in his letter, white slave owners would avoid interacting with African Americans as much as possible. Ellison provided many whites in the area with what were the best cotton gins available which meant that if they wanted to produce the most cotton, they would have to do business with them. They would often try to avoid paying him though. Despite the discrimination, blacks owning blacks continued all the way up to the Civil War, with many African American slave owners, including Ellison, contributing and supporting the Confederate side. Stories like Ellison’s and other black slave owners showed the economic power of slavery in Southern America in the nineteenth century. The easiest way to achieve financial and social success was to own slaves and the allure of southern wealth was enough that it convinced a few of slavery’s former victims to switch to the other side. | 799 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Most researchers have considered the Star of Bethlehem as the indicator of Jesus’ birth. Such “stars” included the Saturn/Jupiter conjunction – a conjunction that was and is astrologically renowned for changes in political structures, and on a personal level, it is renowned for teaching and wisdom.
Another contender for the Star of Bethlehem was the Jupiter/Venus conjunction in 2 BC. These 2 planets were so close they would have shone as one.
Both the above examples are the unification of 2 planets and would also have been recognized as 2 planets, as they came together and separated. They would have undoubtedly been taken as signs but there was no need to call them a star.
Supernova and comets are also in the running; though comets were considered evil and supernovae would not come and go over months.
Below are the astronomical/astrological events which would have been seen and considered as signs. Note 8 BC refers to the year -7 and so on.
24th May 8 BC a lunar eclipse at 9am. Normally a very worrying indicator of the loss of life to the ruler but in this case would have been deemed safe as Jupiter was also above the horizon and visible on the western horizon.
27th May 7 BC the 1st time Jupiter and Saturn conjunct in Pisces; a sign of government changes. (Herod murdered 2 of his sons this year on the charge of treason.)
6th October 7 BC the 2nd Jupiter/Saturn conjunction. Now the astrologers of the time know this is one of the Greatest Conjunctions, as Saturn and Jupiter go back and forth to meet each other a predictable three times.
23rd October 7 BC total solar eclipse at 9am. Jupiter (and Saturn) is below the horizon. The New Moon predicts a birth as well. These signs would have been visible for the many kings in the region, so all the governments would have been on tenterhooks. The astrologers in the East would have realized the place to look was in Bethlehem, as this was written in Micah 5:2. The Romans probably did not know of the prophecy as the prophecy was written in the Jewish bible. The Roman King Herod presided over the once independent Jewish state of Judaea so the Jews were cautious of him even though Herod rebuilt their temple.
The bible tells us a few snippets: Jesus was born under the rule of Herod the Great, which ended in 4BC. Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Wise men from the east saw a star, which Herod had not seen. This in itself is significant, as Herod would also have astrologers/astronomers in his court, so thinking Herod’s advisers were asleep at dawn seems unlikely. What we do know astronomically is that the triple-conjunction of Saturn/Jupiter would have been a sign of change in the government. Yet it would have been the total eclipse in the midst of these that would have actively threatened Herod; and all the astrologers, from the East to the West of Herod would have known about the eclipse. They would have also seen that the eclipse happened during the day when Jupiter was not in the sky. The usual way of averting destruction to the ruler would be to kill a pseudo king and thereby save the real king. https://theconversation.com/how-eclipses-were-regarded-as-omens-in-the-ancient-world-81248
(When Haley’s Comet appeared for 70 days in 6 BC, Herod could have then decided to kill all the male children under 2 years old – to be on the safe side.)
Maybe the wise men were Jewish, and maybe they were from the Eastern land the Romans had not conquered. If Herod knew Jesus was going to be a messiah Herod would want to kill Jesus and it would be good to go and find Jesus themselves. It is unlikely they would want to go to Herod first but traipsing all over Judaea with camels and gifts could be a call for war. So they would have gone to Herod with peace on their tongues and a play of innocence. The magi said, “Did you see the Star in the East?” They gave Herod the story about the birth of a great rabbi. They didn’t tell Herod their messiah would unite the Jewish nations and overthrow their enemies. They planned to warn Mary and Joseph to leave; but ultimately it took a dream for the new parents to listen to the magi.
Neither could the new parents go all the way back over the land, with the wise men to escape. Egypt was just a boat ride away. Maybe Herod got wind of the full prophecy a few years later, thus killing all boys under 2 in his jurisdiction. By then Jesus was safe in Egypt, as although under Roman rule it wasn’t under Herod’s rule.
So there were clear signs for the magi who were waiting for the prophecy to unfold. The Star of Bethlehem could have been something the magi made up to make Herod think there were things afoot he couldn’t just crush or fight because he needed to know more about them. He would consult his own astrologers who might have dismissed it as rubbish to make them look good. It isn’t clear at all what the Star of Bethlehem was, or who the wise men were. So instead of looking for a star in astronomical records it makes more sense to use astrological knowledge. As an astrologer I would expect certain signs in the birth horoscope of Jesus, based on what we know of him.
Given the signs which prompted the wise men to protect Jesus, there is a window of time in which to look for the real birth date. Within Jesus’s horoscope I will look for obvious character traits such as these:
He sacrificed his life.
He did outrageous things such as ransacking temple.
He spoke out against wrong–doings.
He taught love and compassion.
He recognized the equality of all.
He had profound mystical knowledge.
He had authority in his knowledge, wisdom and self.
He was exceptionally charismatic.
He was passionate.
He was independent and self-motivated.
He was very, very kind.
I then considered what astrological signs I would expect to see in a person of this nature. The top most important sign would be Mars conjunct Neptune in Scorpio in 10th House. This combination would explain charisma, mysticism, spiritual passion, sacrifice and martyrdom. My aim was to find this combination first. I was surprised to find Neptune entered Scorpio in 9BC and although stayed for nearly 15 years, Herod died in 4BC so this combination could only be between 9 – 4 BC and also, only alternate years – as Mars takes 2 years to cycle the horoscope, and only for 2 months within those alternate years.
The other astrological signs would be the Sun unchallenged by anything and Mars aspecting Uranus and Mercury in a non-challenging way. Because although most of us get to deal and work through our challenges, they often come from the hand me down behaviours of our parents. I think Joseph and Mary must have been great parents who allowed Jesus full expression and no hang ups. Jesus had a full solar expression; spontaneous, confident and energized. He couldn’t have any Moon or Saturn squares or he would have doubted himself. With aspects between Mercury and Mars and Uranus he would have the energy to speak up, speak out and the daring nature to say and do surprising things that were part of his integrity; but without anger. The difficult aspects between these planets can cause us to feel guilty and make our anger personal or blow up too much, or act inappropriately to prove a point.
I found all the above indicators were in the sky on Sunday 16th August 7BC at 4pm. Only Mars and Moon were in opposition and this would have added to his passion and determination and Mercury was in opposition to Uranus which can be a sign of genius and brilliance if harnessed. I expect this aspect was harnessed and why indeed Jesus excelled in his knowledge of the Jewish scriptures. (Pluto was also in opposition to Uranus but this was a sign of the times and not a personal challenge.) All the Planets were otherwise unchallenged, on this date.
In fact, I found more than I had hoped for. Sun is in Leo in 8th House, Moon is conjunct North Node in Taurus, Mercury sextile Mars and opposition Uranus, Venus in Libra, Mars conjunct Neptune in 10th, Jupiter conjunct Saturn in Pisces. Mars/Neptune is conjunct South Node, Moon conjunct North Node (without a doubt this native is passionate and charismatic). Mars is trine Uranus and Uranus is sextile Moon; the native would be daring and disruptive in their passion to be understood. And what is more, Moon is exalted in Taurus, Sun rules Leo, Venus rules Libra, Mars rules Scorpio and Jupiter rules Pisces. These Planets would have been ‘strengthened’ in their influence. Overall this native would have the mystical inclination and the inner strength to stand up to be heard, despite opposition. Their passion and charisma would be high and their sense of belonging for their time and benefitting humanity would also be strong with the Moon conjunct North Node. They would have an ability to teach and unite people in compassion.
Another indicator of the correct horoscope is looking at the Passover date when Jesus was 12 and his parents accidentally left him at the synagogue. During his time at the synagogue he impressed the priests with his knowledge. I would expect to see Saturn transiting his Sun or Moon and also a transit of Jupiter close to his own Jupiter Saturn. On 1st April 6 AD Saturn transits Jesus’ Sun, Mars is coming up to Jesus’ Saturn and Moon is on his MC then travels to Mars/Neptune. An ordinary boy may have felt abandoned but Saturn transiting Sun natal would have made Jesus accept the responsibility of himself. Saturn would have made him ‘grow up’ – he would have accepted the burden of his own life in an ultimately mature way. Saturn gives us the sobriety to accept the situation and make the best of it through hard work and commitment. Jesus also had his own 8th House Sun so would have loved being in the synagogue with the priests and the unspoken secrets and rituals.
After looking at the Passover to verify Jesus’ birth I would check this for the death of Jesus. Death charts are rarely spectacular, as, I believe; the native knows they will be dying at least weeks before. If the death is spectacular then Outer Planets are present showing energy is coming into the native’s life, which they will either transform their lives with or not. It is not unusual for the benign Planets to also be present (transiting the native’s birth chart) around the time of death. There are two viable dates for the crucifixion being on a Friday at Passover. 7th April 30 AD and 3rd April 33 AD. Neither of these look significant enough; but then f I am looking for significance would I go back to 27 AD when Saturn and Mars conjunct his Moon/North Node and he had a Mars return, while the previous month Saturn conjunct his IC? These transits could depict the Passion and the intended humiliation but equally this time could have been a time of spurring on in the spiritual discoveries and determination to be heard. I am aware this may be too early but it helped loosen my mind after reading many articles about the last supper that could have been on a Wednesday or a Thursday even. This is the simplest discussion on which day Passover could be in the year Jesus died. https://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/friday-crucifixion-faq.htm However I cannot conclude with a crucifixion date though March/April 30 AD brought Uranus transit to square Mars/Neptune and Moon and the subsequent nodes in Jesus’ horoscope. This could certainly have incited him to ransack the temple. Also at this time was a new Moon at 0° Aries (20th March) with Jupiter moving to conjunct natal Saturn/Jupiter inspiring an overstepping of normal restraints. He would have been ultra-confident in himself and his knowledge at this time. If 13th April 30 AD was the date of Jesus’ death then Mercury would be conjunct his North Node and Moon and fit the symbol of his last words being passed down through the future for our benefit. The Sun was on his IC and could fit the symbol of his resurrection. Jupiter return could be symbolic of extending and furthering his teachings. But where is the anger and injustice I feel, we all must feel, at someone – anyone – crucified and killed in this way? 4 years (34 AD) later Uranus conjuncts his Sun at Nissan and Mars opposes his Sun. These energies would have played back and forth the previous month and could also have incited the native to ransack a temple and appear blasphemous to those looking for a wrong doing. And I prefer this date as it is more symbolic of my anger and shock at the way Jesus was treated.
In summary; a birth horoscope can tell us a lot more about a person and their character, passions and potentials whereas a death horoscope cannot tell us about one person’s death. And although this is all conjecture I am sure whomever was born 16th August 7 BC, in Bethlehem and at 4pm would have had these character traits and if they had the karma to come into this existence as a man to teach the world about love and compassion and finding God within themselves, then such a horoscope would certainly give them the freedom of mind to do so, from an early age. | <urn:uuid:f98dd2ca-af33-48b4-b057-a34722786788> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://www.fishtailastrology.com/jesus-horoscope-details/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250591431.4/warc/CC-MAIN-20200117234621-20200118022621-00409.warc.gz | en | 0.984269 | 2,886 | 3.65625 | 4 | [
-0.04386444389820099,
0.13335417211055756,
-0.2862079441547394,
-0.19782951474189758,
-0.06377379596233368,
-0.01069907657802105,
0.06530565768480301,
0.4492766261100769,
0.1551937758922577,
-0.03873676061630249,
-0.08405330777168274,
-0.07048299908638,
0.06424210965633392,
0.2735709547996... | 2 | Most researchers have considered the Star of Bethlehem as the indicator of Jesus’ birth. Such “stars” included the Saturn/Jupiter conjunction – a conjunction that was and is astrologically renowned for changes in political structures, and on a personal level, it is renowned for teaching and wisdom.
Another contender for the Star of Bethlehem was the Jupiter/Venus conjunction in 2 BC. These 2 planets were so close they would have shone as one.
Both the above examples are the unification of 2 planets and would also have been recognized as 2 planets, as they came together and separated. They would have undoubtedly been taken as signs but there was no need to call them a star.
Supernova and comets are also in the running; though comets were considered evil and supernovae would not come and go over months.
Below are the astronomical/astrological events which would have been seen and considered as signs. Note 8 BC refers to the year -7 and so on.
24th May 8 BC a lunar eclipse at 9am. Normally a very worrying indicator of the loss of life to the ruler but in this case would have been deemed safe as Jupiter was also above the horizon and visible on the western horizon.
27th May 7 BC the 1st time Jupiter and Saturn conjunct in Pisces; a sign of government changes. (Herod murdered 2 of his sons this year on the charge of treason.)
6th October 7 BC the 2nd Jupiter/Saturn conjunction. Now the astrologers of the time know this is one of the Greatest Conjunctions, as Saturn and Jupiter go back and forth to meet each other a predictable three times.
23rd October 7 BC total solar eclipse at 9am. Jupiter (and Saturn) is below the horizon. The New Moon predicts a birth as well. These signs would have been visible for the many kings in the region, so all the governments would have been on tenterhooks. The astrologers in the East would have realized the place to look was in Bethlehem, as this was written in Micah 5:2. The Romans probably did not know of the prophecy as the prophecy was written in the Jewish bible. The Roman King Herod presided over the once independent Jewish state of Judaea so the Jews were cautious of him even though Herod rebuilt their temple.
The bible tells us a few snippets: Jesus was born under the rule of Herod the Great, which ended in 4BC. Jesus was born in Bethlehem. Wise men from the east saw a star, which Herod had not seen. This in itself is significant, as Herod would also have astrologers/astronomers in his court, so thinking Herod’s advisers were asleep at dawn seems unlikely. What we do know astronomically is that the triple-conjunction of Saturn/Jupiter would have been a sign of change in the government. Yet it would have been the total eclipse in the midst of these that would have actively threatened Herod; and all the astrologers, from the East to the West of Herod would have known about the eclipse. They would have also seen that the eclipse happened during the day when Jupiter was not in the sky. The usual way of averting destruction to the ruler would be to kill a pseudo king and thereby save the real king. https://theconversation.com/how-eclipses-were-regarded-as-omens-in-the-ancient-world-81248
(When Haley’s Comet appeared for 70 days in 6 BC, Herod could have then decided to kill all the male children under 2 years old – to be on the safe side.)
Maybe the wise men were Jewish, and maybe they were from the Eastern land the Romans had not conquered. If Herod knew Jesus was going to be a messiah Herod would want to kill Jesus and it would be good to go and find Jesus themselves. It is unlikely they would want to go to Herod first but traipsing all over Judaea with camels and gifts could be a call for war. So they would have gone to Herod with peace on their tongues and a play of innocence. The magi said, “Did you see the Star in the East?” They gave Herod the story about the birth of a great rabbi. They didn’t tell Herod their messiah would unite the Jewish nations and overthrow their enemies. They planned to warn Mary and Joseph to leave; but ultimately it took a dream for the new parents to listen to the magi.
Neither could the new parents go all the way back over the land, with the wise men to escape. Egypt was just a boat ride away. Maybe Herod got wind of the full prophecy a few years later, thus killing all boys under 2 in his jurisdiction. By then Jesus was safe in Egypt, as although under Roman rule it wasn’t under Herod’s rule.
So there were clear signs for the magi who were waiting for the prophecy to unfold. The Star of Bethlehem could have been something the magi made up to make Herod think there were things afoot he couldn’t just crush or fight because he needed to know more about them. He would consult his own astrologers who might have dismissed it as rubbish to make them look good. It isn’t clear at all what the Star of Bethlehem was, or who the wise men were. So instead of looking for a star in astronomical records it makes more sense to use astrological knowledge. As an astrologer I would expect certain signs in the birth horoscope of Jesus, based on what we know of him.
Given the signs which prompted the wise men to protect Jesus, there is a window of time in which to look for the real birth date. Within Jesus’s horoscope I will look for obvious character traits such as these:
He sacrificed his life.
He did outrageous things such as ransacking temple.
He spoke out against wrong–doings.
He taught love and compassion.
He recognized the equality of all.
He had profound mystical knowledge.
He had authority in his knowledge, wisdom and self.
He was exceptionally charismatic.
He was passionate.
He was independent and self-motivated.
He was very, very kind.
I then considered what astrological signs I would expect to see in a person of this nature. The top most important sign would be Mars conjunct Neptune in Scorpio in 10th House. This combination would explain charisma, mysticism, spiritual passion, sacrifice and martyrdom. My aim was to find this combination first. I was surprised to find Neptune entered Scorpio in 9BC and although stayed for nearly 15 years, Herod died in 4BC so this combination could only be between 9 – 4 BC and also, only alternate years – as Mars takes 2 years to cycle the horoscope, and only for 2 months within those alternate years.
The other astrological signs would be the Sun unchallenged by anything and Mars aspecting Uranus and Mercury in a non-challenging way. Because although most of us get to deal and work through our challenges, they often come from the hand me down behaviours of our parents. I think Joseph and Mary must have been great parents who allowed Jesus full expression and no hang ups. Jesus had a full solar expression; spontaneous, confident and energized. He couldn’t have any Moon or Saturn squares or he would have doubted himself. With aspects between Mercury and Mars and Uranus he would have the energy to speak up, speak out and the daring nature to say and do surprising things that were part of his integrity; but without anger. The difficult aspects between these planets can cause us to feel guilty and make our anger personal or blow up too much, or act inappropriately to prove a point.
I found all the above indicators were in the sky on Sunday 16th August 7BC at 4pm. Only Mars and Moon were in opposition and this would have added to his passion and determination and Mercury was in opposition to Uranus which can be a sign of genius and brilliance if harnessed. I expect this aspect was harnessed and why indeed Jesus excelled in his knowledge of the Jewish scriptures. (Pluto was also in opposition to Uranus but this was a sign of the times and not a personal challenge.) All the Planets were otherwise unchallenged, on this date.
In fact, I found more than I had hoped for. Sun is in Leo in 8th House, Moon is conjunct North Node in Taurus, Mercury sextile Mars and opposition Uranus, Venus in Libra, Mars conjunct Neptune in 10th, Jupiter conjunct Saturn in Pisces. Mars/Neptune is conjunct South Node, Moon conjunct North Node (without a doubt this native is passionate and charismatic). Mars is trine Uranus and Uranus is sextile Moon; the native would be daring and disruptive in their passion to be understood. And what is more, Moon is exalted in Taurus, Sun rules Leo, Venus rules Libra, Mars rules Scorpio and Jupiter rules Pisces. These Planets would have been ‘strengthened’ in their influence. Overall this native would have the mystical inclination and the inner strength to stand up to be heard, despite opposition. Their passion and charisma would be high and their sense of belonging for their time and benefitting humanity would also be strong with the Moon conjunct North Node. They would have an ability to teach and unite people in compassion.
Another indicator of the correct horoscope is looking at the Passover date when Jesus was 12 and his parents accidentally left him at the synagogue. During his time at the synagogue he impressed the priests with his knowledge. I would expect to see Saturn transiting his Sun or Moon and also a transit of Jupiter close to his own Jupiter Saturn. On 1st April 6 AD Saturn transits Jesus’ Sun, Mars is coming up to Jesus’ Saturn and Moon is on his MC then travels to Mars/Neptune. An ordinary boy may have felt abandoned but Saturn transiting Sun natal would have made Jesus accept the responsibility of himself. Saturn would have made him ‘grow up’ – he would have accepted the burden of his own life in an ultimately mature way. Saturn gives us the sobriety to accept the situation and make the best of it through hard work and commitment. Jesus also had his own 8th House Sun so would have loved being in the synagogue with the priests and the unspoken secrets and rituals.
After looking at the Passover to verify Jesus’ birth I would check this for the death of Jesus. Death charts are rarely spectacular, as, I believe; the native knows they will be dying at least weeks before. If the death is spectacular then Outer Planets are present showing energy is coming into the native’s life, which they will either transform their lives with or not. It is not unusual for the benign Planets to also be present (transiting the native’s birth chart) around the time of death. There are two viable dates for the crucifixion being on a Friday at Passover. 7th April 30 AD and 3rd April 33 AD. Neither of these look significant enough; but then f I am looking for significance would I go back to 27 AD when Saturn and Mars conjunct his Moon/North Node and he had a Mars return, while the previous month Saturn conjunct his IC? These transits could depict the Passion and the intended humiliation but equally this time could have been a time of spurring on in the spiritual discoveries and determination to be heard. I am aware this may be too early but it helped loosen my mind after reading many articles about the last supper that could have been on a Wednesday or a Thursday even. This is the simplest discussion on which day Passover could be in the year Jesus died. https://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/friday-crucifixion-faq.htm However I cannot conclude with a crucifixion date though March/April 30 AD brought Uranus transit to square Mars/Neptune and Moon and the subsequent nodes in Jesus’ horoscope. This could certainly have incited him to ransack the temple. Also at this time was a new Moon at 0° Aries (20th March) with Jupiter moving to conjunct natal Saturn/Jupiter inspiring an overstepping of normal restraints. He would have been ultra-confident in himself and his knowledge at this time. If 13th April 30 AD was the date of Jesus’ death then Mercury would be conjunct his North Node and Moon and fit the symbol of his last words being passed down through the future for our benefit. The Sun was on his IC and could fit the symbol of his resurrection. Jupiter return could be symbolic of extending and furthering his teachings. But where is the anger and injustice I feel, we all must feel, at someone – anyone – crucified and killed in this way? 4 years (34 AD) later Uranus conjuncts his Sun at Nissan and Mars opposes his Sun. These energies would have played back and forth the previous month and could also have incited the native to ransack a temple and appear blasphemous to those looking for a wrong doing. And I prefer this date as it is more symbolic of my anger and shock at the way Jesus was treated.
In summary; a birth horoscope can tell us a lot more about a person and their character, passions and potentials whereas a death horoscope cannot tell us about one person’s death. And although this is all conjecture I am sure whomever was born 16th August 7 BC, in Bethlehem and at 4pm would have had these character traits and if they had the karma to come into this existence as a man to teach the world about love and compassion and finding God within themselves, then such a horoscope would certainly give them the freedom of mind to do so, from an early age. | 2,885 | ENGLISH | 1 |
George II.—The Story of How Canada Was Won
W HILE these things were happening in India, the French and British were fighting in America also.
The French colonies there were called Canada and Louisiana. Canada lay north of the British colonies, beyond the St. Lawrence river. Louisiana lay west of the British colonies, beyond the Mississippi river. If you look on the map, you will see that in this way the British colonies were quite shut in by the sea and by the French on all sides.
This did not please the British. They wanted to be able to enlarge their colonies and to stretch out to the west, to the great forests and unknown land beyond Louisiana. The French, on the other hand, hoped to drive the British away from America altogether, and they built forts along the rivers and lakes to keep them as far as possible from the west. There were many quarrels, which grew more and more bitter, till at last war broke out.
At first the British were not successful. But just as Walpole had been a great peace minister, so William Pitt, who was now in power, was a great war minister. He was quick to see what needed to be done, and just as quick in choosing the best men to do it. He did not ask whether a man was rich or powerful, or whether he had great relations. He asked, "Is this the best man I can find to do this piece of work?" So it came about that at this time the British all over the world were successful.
Among the men whom Pitt sent to fight in America was a young man called James Wolfe. Wolfe was sent from England with eight thousand soldiers, and was told that he must take Quebec, the capital of Canada. He reached Canada and sailed up the St. Lawrence, greatly to the surprise of the French, for it was a very difficult passage, full of rocks and banks of sand. Yet Wolfe took his great war-ships where the French would have feared to venture with their little trading vessels. He anchored opposite Quebec, and landed his soldiers on the island of Orleans.
Quebec was a very strong town. It was built upon rocks high above the river, and was defended by the great French general, Montcalm.
For a long time Wolfe tried in vain to take the town. Montcalm was too clever and watchful. Day by day passed, and Wolfe grew ill with care and weariness. Many of his soldiers were killed, and the fresh troops which he expected did not arrive. At last he decided upon a bold and daring plan.
There was one place which the French did not guard very strongly, because they thought it was quite impossible for the British to attack them there. This was a steep cliff. But Wolfe noticed that there was a narrow pathway up this cliff, and he decided to take his soldiers by that path. He felt so doubtful of success, however, that he wrote a sad letter home before he made the attempt. "I have done little for my country," he said, "I have little hope of doing anything, but I have done my best."
One dark night the British soldiers were rowed over the river. No one spoke, every one moved as quietly as possible. The oars even were muffled, so that the sound of rowing might not be heard by the French. Only Wolfe, as his boat went silently down the river, repeated a poem to his officers in a low voice. The poem was called "An Elegy in a Country Churchyard" and it had been written a few years before by an English poet called Gray.
That is how the poem begins. It is a long poem, and very beautiful, and, when Wolfe had finished repeating it, he turned to his officers and said, "Now, gentlemen, I would rather be the author of that poem than take Quebec."
The boat reached the Quebec side of the river, and Wolfe was among the first to spring ashore. Silently, quickly, with beating hearts and held breath, the men followed. Then as silently and quickly the boats put off again, for there had been room in them only for half the soldiers, and they returned to bring the rest.
The climb up the narrow pathway began. It was so narrow in places that only one could go at a time. But every man was full of courage and hope. They struggled up as best they could, clinging on to bushes, rocks, roots of trees, anything that would give them the least grip for hand or rest for foot. A regiment of Highlanders were among the first to lead the way, for they were used to scrambling and climbing among the rocks of their homeland.
Nearer and nearer to the top they came, unseen and unheard by the French sentinels above. But at last the rustling among the bushes and leaves down the slope caught their ear. "What was that?" they asked, and fired at random down into the darkness. But it was too late, the first soldiers had reached the height, others followed after them and, terrified at the sudden appearance of men where they had thought no men could be, the French sentinels ran away.
As soon as the British reached the top, they fell into fighting order, and when day broke, the sun shone on their red coats as they stood drawn up in line upon the heights of Abraham, as the place was called.
At first the French leader, Montcalm, could hardly believe that he saw aright. Then he said quietly, "I see them where they ought not to be. We must fight them, and I am going to crush them."
A fierce battle followed. Wolfe was struck in the wrist, but he tied his handkerchief round it and went on fighting and giving orders, as if nothing had happened. A second time he was hit. Still he went on. A third shot struck him in the breast. Then he sank to the ground with a groan.
Wolfe was quickly carried out of the fight, but nothing could be done for him. He was dying. His officers stood sadly round him, when suddenly one of them cried, "See, they run, they run."
"Who run?" asked Wolfe, opening his eyes and trying to raise himself.
"The enemy, sir," replied the officer, "they are running everywhere."
"Thank God," said Wolfe, "I die happy." Then he fell back and never spoke again.
The brave French leader, Montcalm, was also killed in this battle. "So much the better," he said, when he was told that he was dying. "I shall not live to see Quebec surrender."
Quebec did surrender, and Canada was won, and ever since
then it has belonged to Britain, and
A few days after Wolfe's sad letter reached home, another both sad and joyful followed. It told of the taking of Quebec; it told, too, of the death of the brave young leader. | <urn:uuid:4acb6101-56dd-4b54-b488-6405f49019ed> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://www.gatewaytotheclassics.com/browse/display.php?author=marshall&book=island&story=canada | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594662.6/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119151736-20200119175736-00176.warc.gz | en | 0.993574 | 1,433 | 3.59375 | 4 | [
-0.07324913144111633,
0.4875059425830841,
0.43167775869369507,
-0.4115455448627472,
-0.3778112828731537,
-0.26501601934432983,
0.04620736092329025,
0.258148729801178,
-0.06248457357287407,
0.3931656777858734,
0.1551980823278427,
-0.16455326974391937,
0.08283735066652298,
0.2647636532783508... | 1 | George II.—The Story of How Canada Was Won
W HILE these things were happening in India, the French and British were fighting in America also.
The French colonies there were called Canada and Louisiana. Canada lay north of the British colonies, beyond the St. Lawrence river. Louisiana lay west of the British colonies, beyond the Mississippi river. If you look on the map, you will see that in this way the British colonies were quite shut in by the sea and by the French on all sides.
This did not please the British. They wanted to be able to enlarge their colonies and to stretch out to the west, to the great forests and unknown land beyond Louisiana. The French, on the other hand, hoped to drive the British away from America altogether, and they built forts along the rivers and lakes to keep them as far as possible from the west. There were many quarrels, which grew more and more bitter, till at last war broke out.
At first the British were not successful. But just as Walpole had been a great peace minister, so William Pitt, who was now in power, was a great war minister. He was quick to see what needed to be done, and just as quick in choosing the best men to do it. He did not ask whether a man was rich or powerful, or whether he had great relations. He asked, "Is this the best man I can find to do this piece of work?" So it came about that at this time the British all over the world were successful.
Among the men whom Pitt sent to fight in America was a young man called James Wolfe. Wolfe was sent from England with eight thousand soldiers, and was told that he must take Quebec, the capital of Canada. He reached Canada and sailed up the St. Lawrence, greatly to the surprise of the French, for it was a very difficult passage, full of rocks and banks of sand. Yet Wolfe took his great war-ships where the French would have feared to venture with their little trading vessels. He anchored opposite Quebec, and landed his soldiers on the island of Orleans.
Quebec was a very strong town. It was built upon rocks high above the river, and was defended by the great French general, Montcalm.
For a long time Wolfe tried in vain to take the town. Montcalm was too clever and watchful. Day by day passed, and Wolfe grew ill with care and weariness. Many of his soldiers were killed, and the fresh troops which he expected did not arrive. At last he decided upon a bold and daring plan.
There was one place which the French did not guard very strongly, because they thought it was quite impossible for the British to attack them there. This was a steep cliff. But Wolfe noticed that there was a narrow pathway up this cliff, and he decided to take his soldiers by that path. He felt so doubtful of success, however, that he wrote a sad letter home before he made the attempt. "I have done little for my country," he said, "I have little hope of doing anything, but I have done my best."
One dark night the British soldiers were rowed over the river. No one spoke, every one moved as quietly as possible. The oars even were muffled, so that the sound of rowing might not be heard by the French. Only Wolfe, as his boat went silently down the river, repeated a poem to his officers in a low voice. The poem was called "An Elegy in a Country Churchyard" and it had been written a few years before by an English poet called Gray.
That is how the poem begins. It is a long poem, and very beautiful, and, when Wolfe had finished repeating it, he turned to his officers and said, "Now, gentlemen, I would rather be the author of that poem than take Quebec."
The boat reached the Quebec side of the river, and Wolfe was among the first to spring ashore. Silently, quickly, with beating hearts and held breath, the men followed. Then as silently and quickly the boats put off again, for there had been room in them only for half the soldiers, and they returned to bring the rest.
The climb up the narrow pathway began. It was so narrow in places that only one could go at a time. But every man was full of courage and hope. They struggled up as best they could, clinging on to bushes, rocks, roots of trees, anything that would give them the least grip for hand or rest for foot. A regiment of Highlanders were among the first to lead the way, for they were used to scrambling and climbing among the rocks of their homeland.
Nearer and nearer to the top they came, unseen and unheard by the French sentinels above. But at last the rustling among the bushes and leaves down the slope caught their ear. "What was that?" they asked, and fired at random down into the darkness. But it was too late, the first soldiers had reached the height, others followed after them and, terrified at the sudden appearance of men where they had thought no men could be, the French sentinels ran away.
As soon as the British reached the top, they fell into fighting order, and when day broke, the sun shone on their red coats as they stood drawn up in line upon the heights of Abraham, as the place was called.
At first the French leader, Montcalm, could hardly believe that he saw aright. Then he said quietly, "I see them where they ought not to be. We must fight them, and I am going to crush them."
A fierce battle followed. Wolfe was struck in the wrist, but he tied his handkerchief round it and went on fighting and giving orders, as if nothing had happened. A second time he was hit. Still he went on. A third shot struck him in the breast. Then he sank to the ground with a groan.
Wolfe was quickly carried out of the fight, but nothing could be done for him. He was dying. His officers stood sadly round him, when suddenly one of them cried, "See, they run, they run."
"Who run?" asked Wolfe, opening his eyes and trying to raise himself.
"The enemy, sir," replied the officer, "they are running everywhere."
"Thank God," said Wolfe, "I die happy." Then he fell back and never spoke again.
The brave French leader, Montcalm, was also killed in this battle. "So much the better," he said, when he was told that he was dying. "I shall not live to see Quebec surrender."
Quebec did surrender, and Canada was won, and ever since
then it has belonged to Britain, and
A few days after Wolfe's sad letter reached home, another both sad and joyful followed. It told of the taking of Quebec; it told, too, of the death of the brave young leader. | 1,414 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Fort Negley was a stronghold worked by Union troops after the catch of Nashville, Tennessee amid the American Civil War, found roughly 2 miles south of the downtown area. It was the biggest inland fortress worked in the United States amid the war. Once Confederate powers were directed in February, 1862, from Forts Henry and Donelson , Confederate leaders chose that any further exertion in the barrier of Nashville would be inconsequential, and they surrendered any endeavor to keep Nashville behind their lines. It was very quickly possessed by Union powers, who quickly started arrangements for its guard. The biggest of the strongholds raised was Fort Negley, a star-formed limestone piece structure on St. Cloud Hill, south of the city. The development of the fortress was managed by Captain James St. Clair Morton. | <urn:uuid:c8c19c58-a9ed-4e80-8060-1730daffcf0c> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.hellotravel.com/united-states-of-america/fort-negley | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250589861.0/warc/CC-MAIN-20200117152059-20200117180059-00099.warc.gz | en | 0.983653 | 159 | 3.625 | 4 | [
-0.2478068470954895,
0.1679498702287674,
0.472206711769104,
0.15107858180999756,
0.20097140967845917,
0.034031517803668976,
0.1060386374592781,
0.10274039953947067,
-0.6221831440925598,
0.05221870541572571,
0.24155963957309723,
0.03227291628718376,
0.2465863823890686,
0.2837556302547455,
... | 2 | Fort Negley was a stronghold worked by Union troops after the catch of Nashville, Tennessee amid the American Civil War, found roughly 2 miles south of the downtown area. It was the biggest inland fortress worked in the United States amid the war. Once Confederate powers were directed in February, 1862, from Forts Henry and Donelson , Confederate leaders chose that any further exertion in the barrier of Nashville would be inconsequential, and they surrendered any endeavor to keep Nashville behind their lines. It was very quickly possessed by Union powers, who quickly started arrangements for its guard. The biggest of the strongholds raised was Fort Negley, a star-formed limestone piece structure on St. Cloud Hill, south of the city. The development of the fortress was managed by Captain James St. Clair Morton. | 162 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Pages that link here:
Events that occurred during the last day of Blackbeard's life. These are some facts about one of the biggest sea battles in Caribbean history.
Edward Teach was born around the year 1680 in Bristol, England. Although not much is known about the early life of Edward Teach, that part of his life played an important role in shaping him into Blackbeard, the most feared pirate on the Caribbean seas.
Blackbeard is without the doubt one of the most popular pirates of all time, and because of that his life and exploits were put under largest spotlight throughout the history. Here you can find many interesting facts about Blackbeard.
The age of pirates is today remembered by the romanticized pirate battles, their gear and almost always by the ominous black flags they proudly showcased during their pirate raids. Here is the full history of the Jolly Roger flag. | <urn:uuid:eeced603-1e5c-4fcc-9c0e-090d307bc5d3> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://www.thewayofthepirates.com/picture/picture-of-blackbeard-edward-teach/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250591763.20/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118023429-20200118051429-00528.warc.gz | en | 0.983195 | 176 | 3.328125 | 3 | [
-0.19205342233181,
0.1749940663576126,
0.29910075664520264,
-0.3042701780796051,
0.13133880496025085,
-0.14628206193447113,
0.24559222161769867,
-0.0938112810254097,
-0.028783174231648445,
-0.027505220845341682,
0.26569315791130066,
-0.3193352520465851,
-0.35704493522644043,
0.387841820716... | 1 | Pages that link here:
Events that occurred during the last day of Blackbeard's life. These are some facts about one of the biggest sea battles in Caribbean history.
Edward Teach was born around the year 1680 in Bristol, England. Although not much is known about the early life of Edward Teach, that part of his life played an important role in shaping him into Blackbeard, the most feared pirate on the Caribbean seas.
Blackbeard is without the doubt one of the most popular pirates of all time, and because of that his life and exploits were put under largest spotlight throughout the history. Here you can find many interesting facts about Blackbeard.
The age of pirates is today remembered by the romanticized pirate battles, their gear and almost always by the ominous black flags they proudly showcased during their pirate raids. Here is the full history of the Jolly Roger flag. | 180 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Othello and Much Ado About Nothing
Kianna Marichal March 4th Period 1 “Othello” and “Much Ado about Nothing” Many of Shakespeare’s plays revolve around the common source of love and hatred. In “Othello” and “Much Ado about Nothing” there is an obvious love story between Othello and Desdemona and Claudio and Hero. In both plays, women have put shame on their families. Desdemona betrays her father by marrying a Moor and Hero was accused of cheating on her wedding day. In “Othello” women are degraded and are looked down upon, as inferior. Iago has the mind-set that women are only good for one thing, having the pleasure to pleasure men.
Iago and Don John are your typical “villains” filled with jealousy and hatred towards the people who have what they want. They, both, had a plan to destroy the one they hated. The difference was that Iago followed through with his plan all the way till the end and got what he wanted, Othello dead. Unfortunately for Don John his planned failed and when it did, he ran away. Another difference is that Iago never showed Othello physical proof that Desdemona was having an affair with Cassio as where Don John showed what looked like Hero with someone else. Manipulation is a huge part of both plays because that’s how the conflict starts to unfold.
The manipulation of Iago is so that people could do the dirty work for him and Don John had his friend say Hero when he was fornicating with Margret. Both “villains” attack the “damsels in distress” and make them seem as if they are seductresses and cannot be trusted to be faithful to their loved ones. Shakespeare has a variety of plays and you can see the difference in his writing by comparing these two plays. “Othello” is a tragedy and throughout the whole book there is devastation from the audience knowing that Desdemona is innocent but in the end Othello kills her. Usually, tragedies end when he main character(s) dies, henceforth, Desdemona, Emilia, and Othello being killed. Shakespeare’s comedies have conflict but there is always a resolution. Most comedies end with a wedding; Claudio finds out Hero isn’t dead and they get married. Shakespeare was an incredible writer that can express emotion through the thin pages we must turn until we finish. Most of his plays include the things we like to read about; jealousy, hatred, envy, revenge, and of course, love. He wrote two completely different plays but then you realize that they are so similar to each other. | <urn:uuid:88293467-6521-47a5-a707-f0f087380a7c> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://freebooksummary.com/othello-and-much-ado-about-nothing-76222 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251690095.81/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126165718-20200126195718-00051.warc.gz | en | 0.980522 | 584 | 3.359375 | 3 | [
-0.12891478836536407,
0.07665601372718811,
0.34456750750541687,
-0.0602712482213974,
-0.43250977993011475,
-0.025865159928798676,
0.46581605076789856,
0.24745091795921326,
-0.05841734632849693,
-0.46575993299484253,
0.23185086250305176,
-0.09141853451728821,
0.0635269284248352,
0.334482669... | 1 | Othello and Much Ado About Nothing
Kianna Marichal March 4th Period 1 “Othello” and “Much Ado about Nothing” Many of Shakespeare’s plays revolve around the common source of love and hatred. In “Othello” and “Much Ado about Nothing” there is an obvious love story between Othello and Desdemona and Claudio and Hero. In both plays, women have put shame on their families. Desdemona betrays her father by marrying a Moor and Hero was accused of cheating on her wedding day. In “Othello” women are degraded and are looked down upon, as inferior. Iago has the mind-set that women are only good for one thing, having the pleasure to pleasure men.
Iago and Don John are your typical “villains” filled with jealousy and hatred towards the people who have what they want. They, both, had a plan to destroy the one they hated. The difference was that Iago followed through with his plan all the way till the end and got what he wanted, Othello dead. Unfortunately for Don John his planned failed and when it did, he ran away. Another difference is that Iago never showed Othello physical proof that Desdemona was having an affair with Cassio as where Don John showed what looked like Hero with someone else. Manipulation is a huge part of both plays because that’s how the conflict starts to unfold.
The manipulation of Iago is so that people could do the dirty work for him and Don John had his friend say Hero when he was fornicating with Margret. Both “villains” attack the “damsels in distress” and make them seem as if they are seductresses and cannot be trusted to be faithful to their loved ones. Shakespeare has a variety of plays and you can see the difference in his writing by comparing these two plays. “Othello” is a tragedy and throughout the whole book there is devastation from the audience knowing that Desdemona is innocent but in the end Othello kills her. Usually, tragedies end when he main character(s) dies, henceforth, Desdemona, Emilia, and Othello being killed. Shakespeare’s comedies have conflict but there is always a resolution. Most comedies end with a wedding; Claudio finds out Hero isn’t dead and they get married. Shakespeare was an incredible writer that can express emotion through the thin pages we must turn until we finish. Most of his plays include the things we like to read about; jealousy, hatred, envy, revenge, and of course, love. He wrote two completely different plays but then you realize that they are so similar to each other. | 558 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Thomas Alva Edison (February 11, 1847 - October 18, 1931) was an American inventor, scientist and businessman who developed many devices that greatly influenced life around the world, including the phonograph, the motion picture camera, and a long-lasting, practical electric light bulb. Dubbed "The Wizard of Menlo Park" (now Edison, New Jersey) by a newspaper reporter, he was one of the first inventors to apply the principles of mass production and large teamwork to the process of invention, and therefore is often credited with the creation of the first industrial research laboratory.
Edison is considered one of the most prolific inventors in history, holding 1,093 U.S. patents in his name, as well as many patents in the United Kingdom, France and Germany. He is credited with numerous inventions that contributed to mass communication and, in particular, telecommunications. His advanced work in these fields was an outgrowth of his early career as a telegraph operator. Edison originated the concept and implementation of electric-power generation and distribution to homes, businesses, and factories - a crucial development in the modern industrialized world. His first power station was on Manhattan Island, New York.
Thomas Edison was born in Milan, Ohio, and grew up in Port Huron, Michigan. He was the seventh and last child of Samuel "The Iron Shovel" Edison, Jr. (1804-1896) (born in Marshalltown, Nova Scotia, Canada) and Nancy Matthews Elliott (1810-1871). He considered himself to be of Dutch ancestry. In school, the young Edison's mind often wandered, and his teacher, the Reverend Engle, was overheard calling him "addled". This ended Edison's three months of official schooling. Edison recalled later, "My mother was the making of me. She was so true, so sure of me; and I felt I had something to live for, someone I must not disappoint." His mother homeschooled him. Much of his education came from reading R.G. Parker's School of Natural Philosophy and The Cooper Union. Edison developed hearing problems at an early age. The cause of his deafness has been attributed to a bout of scarlet fever during childhood and recurring untreated middle ear infections. Around the middle of his career Edison attributed the hearing impairment to being struck on the ears by a train conductor when his chemical laboratory in a boxcar caught fire and he was thrown off the train in Smiths Creek, Michigan, along with his apparatus and chemicals. In his later years he modified the story to say the injury occurred when the conductor, in helping him onto a moving train, lifted him by the ears.Edison's family was forced to move to Port Huron, Michigan, when the railroad bypassed Milan in 1854, but his life there was bittersweet. He sold candy and newspapers on trains running from Port Huron to Detroit, and he sold vegetables to supplement his income. This began Edison's long streak of entrepreneurial ventures as he discovered his talents as a businessman. These talents eventually led him to found 14 companies, including General Electric, which is still in existence and is one of the largest publicly traded companies in the world.
Edison became a telegraph operator after he saved three-year-old Jimmie MacKenzie from being struck by a runaway train. Jimmie's father, station agent J.U. MacKenzie of Mount Clemens, Michigan, was so grateful that he trained Edison as a telegraph operator. Edison's first telegraphy job away from Port Huron was at Stratford Junction, Ontario, on the Grand Trunk Railway.In 1866, at the age of 19, Thomas Edison moved to Louisville, Kentucky, where, as an employee of Western Union, he worked the Associated Press bureau news wire. Edison requested the night shift, which allowed him plenty of time to spend at his two favorite pastimes-reading and experimenting. Eventually, the latter pre-occupation cost him his job. One night in 1867, he was working with a lead-acid battery when he spilled sulfuric acid onto the floor. It ran between the floorboards and onto his boss's desk below. The next morning Edison was fired.
One of his mentors during those early years was a fellow telegrapher and inventor named Franklin Leonard Pope, who allowed the impoverished youth to live and work in the basement of his Elizabeth, New Jersey home. Some of Edison's earliest inventions were related to telegraphy, including a stock ticker. His first patent was for the electric vote recorder, (U. S. Patent 90,646), which was granted on June 1, 1869.
ouff yaa yaa . arkiler kankalara siz bide beni düşünün yaa . proje bu cumaya yetşmesi lazım yaa . daha sınavlar var çarşamba sınav var daha çalışmadım bile yaa şimdi cuma da fen + mat sınavı var onlarada çalışmadım artı bide eksikleemi var sizede kolay gesin bu arada yaa
D: : dSF:Çİböhkıfp jmmoığ | <urn:uuid:b07ee98b-96eb-47e9-bceb-19384ca97aa9> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.delinetciler.net/showthread.php?t=86054 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250606226.29/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121222429-20200122011429-00559.warc.gz | en | 0.981945 | 1,098 | 3.296875 | 3 | [
0.030040821060538292,
0.4723988473415375,
0.23112697899341583,
-0.1762857437133789,
-0.6508449912071228,
0.09143120795488358,
0.49911999702453613,
0.3059029281139374,
-0.3558341860771179,
-0.2131582796573639,
0.026822518557310104,
0.15861159563064575,
0.1566895842552185,
0.2514845132827759... | 3 | Thomas Alva Edison (February 11, 1847 - October 18, 1931) was an American inventor, scientist and businessman who developed many devices that greatly influenced life around the world, including the phonograph, the motion picture camera, and a long-lasting, practical electric light bulb. Dubbed "The Wizard of Menlo Park" (now Edison, New Jersey) by a newspaper reporter, he was one of the first inventors to apply the principles of mass production and large teamwork to the process of invention, and therefore is often credited with the creation of the first industrial research laboratory.
Edison is considered one of the most prolific inventors in history, holding 1,093 U.S. patents in his name, as well as many patents in the United Kingdom, France and Germany. He is credited with numerous inventions that contributed to mass communication and, in particular, telecommunications. His advanced work in these fields was an outgrowth of his early career as a telegraph operator. Edison originated the concept and implementation of electric-power generation and distribution to homes, businesses, and factories - a crucial development in the modern industrialized world. His first power station was on Manhattan Island, New York.
Thomas Edison was born in Milan, Ohio, and grew up in Port Huron, Michigan. He was the seventh and last child of Samuel "The Iron Shovel" Edison, Jr. (1804-1896) (born in Marshalltown, Nova Scotia, Canada) and Nancy Matthews Elliott (1810-1871). He considered himself to be of Dutch ancestry. In school, the young Edison's mind often wandered, and his teacher, the Reverend Engle, was overheard calling him "addled". This ended Edison's three months of official schooling. Edison recalled later, "My mother was the making of me. She was so true, so sure of me; and I felt I had something to live for, someone I must not disappoint." His mother homeschooled him. Much of his education came from reading R.G. Parker's School of Natural Philosophy and The Cooper Union. Edison developed hearing problems at an early age. The cause of his deafness has been attributed to a bout of scarlet fever during childhood and recurring untreated middle ear infections. Around the middle of his career Edison attributed the hearing impairment to being struck on the ears by a train conductor when his chemical laboratory in a boxcar caught fire and he was thrown off the train in Smiths Creek, Michigan, along with his apparatus and chemicals. In his later years he modified the story to say the injury occurred when the conductor, in helping him onto a moving train, lifted him by the ears.Edison's family was forced to move to Port Huron, Michigan, when the railroad bypassed Milan in 1854, but his life there was bittersweet. He sold candy and newspapers on trains running from Port Huron to Detroit, and he sold vegetables to supplement his income. This began Edison's long streak of entrepreneurial ventures as he discovered his talents as a businessman. These talents eventually led him to found 14 companies, including General Electric, which is still in existence and is one of the largest publicly traded companies in the world.
Edison became a telegraph operator after he saved three-year-old Jimmie MacKenzie from being struck by a runaway train. Jimmie's father, station agent J.U. MacKenzie of Mount Clemens, Michigan, was so grateful that he trained Edison as a telegraph operator. Edison's first telegraphy job away from Port Huron was at Stratford Junction, Ontario, on the Grand Trunk Railway.In 1866, at the age of 19, Thomas Edison moved to Louisville, Kentucky, where, as an employee of Western Union, he worked the Associated Press bureau news wire. Edison requested the night shift, which allowed him plenty of time to spend at his two favorite pastimes-reading and experimenting. Eventually, the latter pre-occupation cost him his job. One night in 1867, he was working with a lead-acid battery when he spilled sulfuric acid onto the floor. It ran between the floorboards and onto his boss's desk below. The next morning Edison was fired.
One of his mentors during those early years was a fellow telegrapher and inventor named Franklin Leonard Pope, who allowed the impoverished youth to live and work in the basement of his Elizabeth, New Jersey home. Some of Edison's earliest inventions were related to telegraphy, including a stock ticker. His first patent was for the electric vote recorder, (U. S. Patent 90,646), which was granted on June 1, 1869.
ouff yaa yaa . arkiler kankalara siz bide beni düşünün yaa . proje bu cumaya yetşmesi lazım yaa . daha sınavlar var çarşamba sınav var daha çalışmadım bile yaa şimdi cuma da fen + mat sınavı var onlarada çalışmadım artı bide eksikleemi var sizede kolay gesin bu arada yaa
D: : dSF:Çİböhkıfp jmmoığ | 1,085 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.Join Britannica's Publishing Partner Program and our community of experts to gain a global audience for your work!
John Stuart Mill
John Stuart Mill, (born May 20, 1806, London, England—died May 8, 1873, Avignon, France), English philosopher, economist, and exponent of Utilitarianism. He was prominent as a publicist in the reforming age of the 19th century, and remains of lasting interest as a logician and an ethical theorist.
What is John Stuart Mill known for?
What were John Stuart Mill’s most notable works?
Where was John Stuart Mill born?
Early life and career
The eldest son of the British historian, economist, and philosopher James Mill, he was born in his father’s house in Pentonville, London. He was educated exclusively by his father, who was a strict disciplinarian. By his eighth year he had read in the original Greek Aesop’s Fables, Xenophon’s Anabasis, and the whole of the historian Herodotus. He was acquainted with the satirist Lucian, the historian of philosophy Diogenes Laërtius, the Athenian writer and educational theorist Isocrates, and six dialogues of Plato. He had also read a great deal of history in English. At the age of eight he started Latin, the geometry of Euclid, and algebra and began to teach the younger children of the family. His main reading was still history, but he went through all the Latin and Greek authors commonly read in the schools and universities and, by the age of 10 could read Plato and the Athenian statesman Demosthenes with ease. About the age of 12, he began a thorough study of Scholastic logic, at the same time reading Aristotle’s logical treatises in the original. In the following year he was introduced to political economy and studied the work of the Scottish political economist and philosopher Adam Smith and that of the English economist David Ricardo.
While the training the younger Mill received has aroused amazement and criticism, its most important aspect was the close association it fostered with the strenuous character and vigorous intellect of his father. From his earliest days he spent much time in his father’s study and habitually accompanied him on his walks. He thus inevitably acquired many of his father’s speculative opinions and his father’s way of defending them. But he did not receive the impress passively and mechanically. The duty of collecting and weighing evidence for himself was at every turn impressed upon the boy. His childhood was not unhappy, but it was a strain on his constitution and he suffered from the lack of natural, unforced development.
From May 1820 until July 1821, Mill was in France with the family of Sir Samuel Bentham, brother of Jeremy Bentham, the English Utilitarian philosopher, economist, and theoretical jurist. Copious extracts from a diary kept at this time show how methodically he read and wrote, studied chemistry and botany, tackled advanced mathematical problems, and made notes on the scenery and the people and customs of the country. He also gained a thorough acquaintance with the French language. On his return in 1821 he added to his work the study of psychology and of Roman law, which he read with John Austin, his father having half decided on the bar as the best profession open to him. This intention, however, was abandoned, and in 1823, when he had just completed his 17th year, he entered the examiner’s office of the India House. After a short probation he was promoted in 1828 to assistant examiner. For 20 years, from 1836 (when his father died) to 1856, Mill had charge of the British East India Company’s relations with the Indian states, and in 1856 he became chief of the examiner’s office.
In 1822 Mill had read P.-E.-L. Dumont’s exposition of Bentham’s doctrines in the Traités de Législation, which made a lasting impression upon him. The impression was confirmed by the study of the English psychologists and also of two 18th-century French philosophers—Étienne Bonnot de Condillac, who was also a psychologist, and Claude-Adrien Helvétius, who was noted for his emphasis on physical sensations. Soon after, in 1822–23, Mill established among a few friends the Utilitarian Society, taking the word, as he tells us, from Annals of the Parish, a novel of Scottish country life by John Galt.
Two newspapers welcomed his contributions—The Traveller, edited by a friend of Bentham’s, and The Morning Chronicle, edited by his father’s friend John Black. One of his first efforts was a solid argument for freedom of discussion in a series of letters to the Chronicle on the prosecution of Richard Carlile, a 19th-century English radical and freethinker. Mill seized every chance for exposing departures from sound principle in Parliament and courts of justice. Another outlet was opened up for him (April 1824) with the founding of the Westminster Review, which was the organ of the philosophical radicals. In 1825 he began work on an edition of Bentham’s Rationale of Judicial Evidence (5 vol., 1827). He took part eagerly in discussions with the many men of distinction who came to his father’s house and engaged in set discussions at a reading society formed at the home of English historian George Grote in 1825 and in debates at the London Debating Society, formed in the same year. | <urn:uuid:b7ca49e1-3d9a-4e93-96c3-ec166ca717d3> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-Stuart-Mill | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250589560.16/warc/CC-MAIN-20200117123339-20200117151339-00328.warc.gz | en | 0.984925 | 1,175 | 3.28125 | 3 | [
-0.13438928127288818,
0.417259156703949,
-0.11745242774486542,
0.12249043583869934,
0.039619505405426025,
0.1606130301952362,
-0.2490648627281189,
0.530521035194397,
-0.3054726719856262,
-0.2145220935344696,
-0.6146169900894165,
0.1388350874185562,
0.24155457317829132,
-0.01656140945851802... | 2 | Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.Join Britannica's Publishing Partner Program and our community of experts to gain a global audience for your work!
John Stuart Mill
John Stuart Mill, (born May 20, 1806, London, England—died May 8, 1873, Avignon, France), English philosopher, economist, and exponent of Utilitarianism. He was prominent as a publicist in the reforming age of the 19th century, and remains of lasting interest as a logician and an ethical theorist.
What is John Stuart Mill known for?
What were John Stuart Mill’s most notable works?
Where was John Stuart Mill born?
Early life and career
The eldest son of the British historian, economist, and philosopher James Mill, he was born in his father’s house in Pentonville, London. He was educated exclusively by his father, who was a strict disciplinarian. By his eighth year he had read in the original Greek Aesop’s Fables, Xenophon’s Anabasis, and the whole of the historian Herodotus. He was acquainted with the satirist Lucian, the historian of philosophy Diogenes Laërtius, the Athenian writer and educational theorist Isocrates, and six dialogues of Plato. He had also read a great deal of history in English. At the age of eight he started Latin, the geometry of Euclid, and algebra and began to teach the younger children of the family. His main reading was still history, but he went through all the Latin and Greek authors commonly read in the schools and universities and, by the age of 10 could read Plato and the Athenian statesman Demosthenes with ease. About the age of 12, he began a thorough study of Scholastic logic, at the same time reading Aristotle’s logical treatises in the original. In the following year he was introduced to political economy and studied the work of the Scottish political economist and philosopher Adam Smith and that of the English economist David Ricardo.
While the training the younger Mill received has aroused amazement and criticism, its most important aspect was the close association it fostered with the strenuous character and vigorous intellect of his father. From his earliest days he spent much time in his father’s study and habitually accompanied him on his walks. He thus inevitably acquired many of his father’s speculative opinions and his father’s way of defending them. But he did not receive the impress passively and mechanically. The duty of collecting and weighing evidence for himself was at every turn impressed upon the boy. His childhood was not unhappy, but it was a strain on his constitution and he suffered from the lack of natural, unforced development.
From May 1820 until July 1821, Mill was in France with the family of Sir Samuel Bentham, brother of Jeremy Bentham, the English Utilitarian philosopher, economist, and theoretical jurist. Copious extracts from a diary kept at this time show how methodically he read and wrote, studied chemistry and botany, tackled advanced mathematical problems, and made notes on the scenery and the people and customs of the country. He also gained a thorough acquaintance with the French language. On his return in 1821 he added to his work the study of psychology and of Roman law, which he read with John Austin, his father having half decided on the bar as the best profession open to him. This intention, however, was abandoned, and in 1823, when he had just completed his 17th year, he entered the examiner’s office of the India House. After a short probation he was promoted in 1828 to assistant examiner. For 20 years, from 1836 (when his father died) to 1856, Mill had charge of the British East India Company’s relations with the Indian states, and in 1856 he became chief of the examiner’s office.
In 1822 Mill had read P.-E.-L. Dumont’s exposition of Bentham’s doctrines in the Traités de Législation, which made a lasting impression upon him. The impression was confirmed by the study of the English psychologists and also of two 18th-century French philosophers—Étienne Bonnot de Condillac, who was also a psychologist, and Claude-Adrien Helvétius, who was noted for his emphasis on physical sensations. Soon after, in 1822–23, Mill established among a few friends the Utilitarian Society, taking the word, as he tells us, from Annals of the Parish, a novel of Scottish country life by John Galt.
Two newspapers welcomed his contributions—The Traveller, edited by a friend of Bentham’s, and The Morning Chronicle, edited by his father’s friend John Black. One of his first efforts was a solid argument for freedom of discussion in a series of letters to the Chronicle on the prosecution of Richard Carlile, a 19th-century English radical and freethinker. Mill seized every chance for exposing departures from sound principle in Parliament and courts of justice. Another outlet was opened up for him (April 1824) with the founding of the Westminster Review, which was the organ of the philosophical radicals. In 1825 he began work on an edition of Bentham’s Rationale of Judicial Evidence (5 vol., 1827). He took part eagerly in discussions with the many men of distinction who came to his father’s house and engaged in set discussions at a reading society formed at the home of English historian George Grote in 1825 and in debates at the London Debating Society, formed in the same year. | 1,197 | ENGLISH | 1 |
26 May 2015
In the poem “Still I Rise”, the author Maya Angelou transforms writing through her cheeky self-assertiveness. This poem is a clear message to the white oppressors from the blacks; it focuses on a young woman’s thoughts on what she is forced to go through. It shows that no matter what this young woman goes through from a political or social standpoint that nothing will be able to bring her down. Her ancestors helped pave a path for the foundation of her confidence in herself and her heritage and she will not let them down.
The oppressors of this young woman try to tear her down with many things including slandering words. They use their words to try to bring and break her down so that she will submit to their thoughts, but she is determined to prevail and pushes through. They also try to use her as their doormat by pushing her into submission in hopes she will fall and never get back up. They will always be pushing her in the opposite direction of themselves, trying to keep her from achieving happiness and her goals.
Even with all these challenges blocking her path, this woman is determined to pick herself back up and not only push through the hardships but excel and prove them all wrong. She is confident in the way her skin color makes her sexy. She knows she can achieve anything she puts her mind, heart, and soul into. She is strong, independent, and courageous to do what is necessary for her and others like her to succeed.
Her ancestors helped pave a path and foundation for her to grow and build upon. She is proud of her heritage and who she is no matter what her oppressors may tell her otherwise. Before she was able to dust off the oppressors, her ancestors had to. Her ancestors fought a hard battle to prove themselves and rise above and she means to continue that same legacy – she will not bow, fail, or disappoint.
As Angelou portrays her characters tribulations she utilizes several literary devices to not only drive her point home but also make the work more relatable and easier to follow. We are able to see: similes, repetition, imagery, and rhyme scheme throughout her writing. Upon a… | <urn:uuid:5f14a7d6-a9ff-4200-90a7-284508404fd8> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.majortests.com/essay/Maya-Angelou-And-Literary-Devices-597128.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251690379.95/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126195918-20200126225918-00250.warc.gz | en | 0.982815 | 449 | 3.875 | 4 | [
-0.9750213623046875,
0.2580421566963196,
0.15963387489318848,
0.7345874309539795,
-0.054402388632297516,
0.05116984248161316,
0.02902364544570446,
-0.0794207975268364,
-0.1775808334350586,
-0.21259541809558868,
-0.16826125979423523,
-0.2569534480571747,
-0.2192806601524353,
-0.058358289301... | 1 | 26 May 2015
In the poem “Still I Rise”, the author Maya Angelou transforms writing through her cheeky self-assertiveness. This poem is a clear message to the white oppressors from the blacks; it focuses on a young woman’s thoughts on what she is forced to go through. It shows that no matter what this young woman goes through from a political or social standpoint that nothing will be able to bring her down. Her ancestors helped pave a path for the foundation of her confidence in herself and her heritage and she will not let them down.
The oppressors of this young woman try to tear her down with many things including slandering words. They use their words to try to bring and break her down so that she will submit to their thoughts, but she is determined to prevail and pushes through. They also try to use her as their doormat by pushing her into submission in hopes she will fall and never get back up. They will always be pushing her in the opposite direction of themselves, trying to keep her from achieving happiness and her goals.
Even with all these challenges blocking her path, this woman is determined to pick herself back up and not only push through the hardships but excel and prove them all wrong. She is confident in the way her skin color makes her sexy. She knows she can achieve anything she puts her mind, heart, and soul into. She is strong, independent, and courageous to do what is necessary for her and others like her to succeed.
Her ancestors helped pave a path and foundation for her to grow and build upon. She is proud of her heritage and who she is no matter what her oppressors may tell her otherwise. Before she was able to dust off the oppressors, her ancestors had to. Her ancestors fought a hard battle to prove themselves and rise above and she means to continue that same legacy – she will not bow, fail, or disappoint.
As Angelou portrays her characters tribulations she utilizes several literary devices to not only drive her point home but also make the work more relatable and easier to follow. We are able to see: similes, repetition, imagery, and rhyme scheme throughout her writing. Upon a… | 444 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Charles de Montesquieu
Article abstract: Montesquieu’s most lasting contribution was his defense and development of the theory behind separation of powers in government. His work in this area significantly influenced the framers of the United States Constitution. Philosophically, he is best known for positing history as the basis for normative judgment. Before Montesquieu, normative judgment had always been based on nature.
Montesquieu’s youth was a strange mixture of luxury and scarcity. His family was of noble heritage, yet his parents wanted him to be sensitive to the needs of the poor. His godfather was a beggar, and his first three years were spent nursing with a peasant family. His mother died when he was seven, which contributed to his shy and withdrawn manner.
At age eleven, Montesquieu was sent to school at Tuilly, where he spent the next five years. The school, which was maintained by the Congregation of the Oratory, provided him with a solid classical education. He was a good student who took a special interest in language. Drawn especially to Latin, Montesquieu acquired a special interest in Stoic philosophy. In 1705, Montesquieu, fulfilling the wish of his uncle, began to study law. Three years later, he received his license and became a legal apprentice in Paris. In 1713, he returned to Bordeaux, in the same year his father died, which forced him to settle down and assume the responsibilities of head of the family.
In 1716, when his uncle died, Montesquieu inherited wealth, land, and office. The office was the presidency of the Parliament of Bordeaux, a chief judgeship in the local court. He worked hard at his legal duties but did not enjoy them. After ten years, he sold his position to pursue his true interests in science, literature, and the more theoretical aspects of law.
Once he was freed from his judicial responsibilities, Montesquieu moved back to Paris to enjoy the literary fame acquired by publication of his Lettres Persanes (1721; Persian Letters, 1722). The Persian Letters were initially published anonymously and were a fictitious account of two Persians touring Europe. The book focused on the corruption of humanity. The accounts cited in the letters were critical of both French and Parisian society. For this reason, they proved to be a mixed blessing when Montesquieu was identified as the author. The instant fame he received was accompanied by the French court’s displeasure. While Montesquieu considered his comments a reflection on European society at large, the court blocked his initial proposal to the French Academy.
Montesquieu spent the years from 1728 to 1731 traveling in Europe. The last two years of his travels were spent in England; this period greatly influenced his later works. His admiration for the English government made him a favorite at the court of Queen Caroline, which led to his election to the Royal Society. It is believed that this is where he first recognized the virtues of separation of powers. Many commentators on his work note the curiosity of his basing so much on a misreading of the British system of government.
When Montesquieu returned to France, he spent considerably more time at his family estate in La Brède. At this point in his life, he settled into more scholarly pursuits. His next major work was his Considérations sur les causes de la grandeur des Romains et de leur décadence (Reflections on the Causes of the Grandeur and Declension of the Romans, 1734). Published in 1734, this work developed his notion of historical causation. This book also set the groundwork for his more famous political writing, De l’éspirit des loix: Ou, Du rapport que les loix doivent avoir avec la constitution de chaque gouvernement, les mouers, le climat, la religion, le commerce, . . . (1748; The Spirit of the Laws , 1750). Montesquieu’s examination of the history of Rome led him to conclude that the strength of the Roman republic could not be sustained by the larger and more authoritarian Roman...
(The entire section is 1,986 words.) | <urn:uuid:7701859e-8b04-4062-a189-c94837ff08a1> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.enotes.com/topics/montesquieu/reference | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250606269.37/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122012204-20200122041204-00281.warc.gz | en | 0.982369 | 882 | 3.78125 | 4 | [
-0.02381630428135395,
0.8359329700469971,
0.10514883697032928,
-0.37471672892570496,
-0.39079803228378296,
-0.16025005280971527,
0.24967066943645477,
0.20855847001075745,
0.4242606461048126,
0.18464511632919312,
-0.10317650437355042,
-0.1325150430202484,
-0.04721710458397865,
0.41119375824... | 2 | Charles de Montesquieu
Article abstract: Montesquieu’s most lasting contribution was his defense and development of the theory behind separation of powers in government. His work in this area significantly influenced the framers of the United States Constitution. Philosophically, he is best known for positing history as the basis for normative judgment. Before Montesquieu, normative judgment had always been based on nature.
Montesquieu’s youth was a strange mixture of luxury and scarcity. His family was of noble heritage, yet his parents wanted him to be sensitive to the needs of the poor. His godfather was a beggar, and his first three years were spent nursing with a peasant family. His mother died when he was seven, which contributed to his shy and withdrawn manner.
At age eleven, Montesquieu was sent to school at Tuilly, where he spent the next five years. The school, which was maintained by the Congregation of the Oratory, provided him with a solid classical education. He was a good student who took a special interest in language. Drawn especially to Latin, Montesquieu acquired a special interest in Stoic philosophy. In 1705, Montesquieu, fulfilling the wish of his uncle, began to study law. Three years later, he received his license and became a legal apprentice in Paris. In 1713, he returned to Bordeaux, in the same year his father died, which forced him to settle down and assume the responsibilities of head of the family.
In 1716, when his uncle died, Montesquieu inherited wealth, land, and office. The office was the presidency of the Parliament of Bordeaux, a chief judgeship in the local court. He worked hard at his legal duties but did not enjoy them. After ten years, he sold his position to pursue his true interests in science, literature, and the more theoretical aspects of law.
Once he was freed from his judicial responsibilities, Montesquieu moved back to Paris to enjoy the literary fame acquired by publication of his Lettres Persanes (1721; Persian Letters, 1722). The Persian Letters were initially published anonymously and were a fictitious account of two Persians touring Europe. The book focused on the corruption of humanity. The accounts cited in the letters were critical of both French and Parisian society. For this reason, they proved to be a mixed blessing when Montesquieu was identified as the author. The instant fame he received was accompanied by the French court’s displeasure. While Montesquieu considered his comments a reflection on European society at large, the court blocked his initial proposal to the French Academy.
Montesquieu spent the years from 1728 to 1731 traveling in Europe. The last two years of his travels were spent in England; this period greatly influenced his later works. His admiration for the English government made him a favorite at the court of Queen Caroline, which led to his election to the Royal Society. It is believed that this is where he first recognized the virtues of separation of powers. Many commentators on his work note the curiosity of his basing so much on a misreading of the British system of government.
When Montesquieu returned to France, he spent considerably more time at his family estate in La Brède. At this point in his life, he settled into more scholarly pursuits. His next major work was his Considérations sur les causes de la grandeur des Romains et de leur décadence (Reflections on the Causes of the Grandeur and Declension of the Romans, 1734). Published in 1734, this work developed his notion of historical causation. This book also set the groundwork for his more famous political writing, De l’éspirit des loix: Ou, Du rapport que les loix doivent avoir avec la constitution de chaque gouvernement, les mouers, le climat, la religion, le commerce, . . . (1748; The Spirit of the Laws , 1750). Montesquieu’s examination of the history of Rome led him to conclude that the strength of the Roman republic could not be sustained by the larger and more authoritarian Roman...
(The entire section is 1,986 words.) | 889 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Heated shot or hot shot is round shot that is heated before firing from muzzle-loading cannons, for the purpose of setting fire to enemy warships, buildings, or equipment. The use of hot shot dates back centuries and only ceased when vessels armored with iron replaced wooden warships in the world's navies. It was a powerful weapon against wooden warships, where fire was always a hazard. Its use was mainly confined to shore batteries and forts, due to the need for a special furnace to heat the shot, and their use from a ship was in fact against Royal Navy regulations because they were so dangerous, although the American ship USS Constitution had a shot furnace installed for hot shot to be fired from her carronades. The French Romaine-class frigates originally also featured the device, but they proved impractical, dangerous to the ships themselves, and were later discarded.
The idea of setting fire to enemy warships can be traced back to the ancient world, where fire arrows and incendiary materials such as Greek fire were used. In 54 BC, heated clay balls were used by the Britons to attack Roman encampments, while in medieval siege warfare, catapults were used to hurl fire balls and other incendiaries into besieged castles and settlements.
The original method of heating round shot was to cover them in the coals of a large wood fire, or heat them on metal grates placed over a fire pit. These time-consuming methods were improved by the French, who used specially-constructed furnaces to heat shot in their artillery batteries at the mouth of the Rhône River in 1794. The United States incorporated hot-shot furnaces into the design of coastal fortifications during the construction of the Second System of seacoast defenses just prior to the War of 1812. Colonel Jonathan Williams left his post as Commandant at the US Military Academy to build hot-shot furnace fortifications such as Castle Clinton and Castle Williams in New York Harbor during this period. When French engineer General Simon Bernard came to the US in 1816 to head the Board of Fortifications, for the construction of permanent forts to defend the US coastline, he introduced the idea of hot shot furnaces of the French pattern. The chain of US seacoast forts built between 1817 and the American Civil War, such as Fort Macon, subsequently had one or more hot shot furnaces included as part of their standard defenses.
A hot shot furnace was typically a free-standing brick structure with special iron racks and grates, varying in size according to the number of round shot they were to heat and the number of cannon they served - a large furnace might hold 60 or more round shot. They were commonly 6 to 8 feet (1.8 to 2.4 m) wide, and anything from 8 to 30 feet (2.4 to 9.1 m) in length. A brick chimney was situated at one end with a firebox located in the front or side of the opposite end. The interior of the furnace was lined with fire brick and had sloping iron rails sized to hold round shot. Cold round shots were placed in the furnace and allowed to roll down the inclined rails in rows. The first shots halted over the firebox at the low end and were heated "cherry red", approximately between 800 and 900 °C (1,470 and 1,650 °F). When they were removed, the next shots rolled down to take their place and be similarly heated. Care had to be taken not to overheat the shot, as any that were hotter than "cherry red" were likely to become misshapen, and jam in the bore of the gun.
Three men were required to manage a furnace. One maintained the fire and added cold shot, a second man removed heated shot from the furnace, and the third man cleaned them. Special tools were required to handle heated shot. An iron fork was used to remove heated shot from the furnace, then the shot was placed on a stand and cleaned by rubbing off loose surface scale with a rasp. A pair of tongs with circular jaws were used to handle the shot at the furnace. To carry the shot to the cannons, hot shot ladles were used. The ladles had an iron cup for the shot with one or three handles. Round shot less than 24 lb (11 kg) weight size could be carried by one man with a single-handle ladle, while larger shot needed a three-handle ladle, carried between two men like a stretcher.
Great care had to be taken loading heated shot into a cannon to ensure that the red-hot shot did not prematurely ignite the cannon's charge of gunpowder.
A cartridge bag of gunpowder was loaded first. A double bag was used with heated shot to prevent leakage of grains of gunpowder as the bag was rammed down the cannon. Once the bag was in place, a wad of moistened clay or cloth was rammed down against the bag to shield it from the heated shot, which was loaded next. If the cannon was to be fired at a downward angle, another wet wad was rammed against the ball to prevent it from rolling out.
A common practice with heated shot was to fire it with a reduced charge of gunpowder. This would cause the shot to lodge in the wood of the target ship rather than penetrating it, and also cause greater splitting and splintering of the wood.
In 1860, the Martin molten iron shell was introduced to Royal Navy service. These shells were filled with iron melted in a cupola furnace and were intended to break up on impact, splashing molten iron on the target and setting fire to any combustible material present. The shells were named after their designer, an employee of the Royal Laboratory at the Royal Arsenal, the interior was lined with mixture of horse-hair and loam for insulation.
The furnace installation, known as Anderson's Cupola. burned coke and used a steam-powered fan to produce a forced draft. From the time of lighting, around an hour was required to bring 7 hundredweight (320 kg) of pig iron to its melting point of 1,150 to 1,200 °C (2,100 to 2,190 °F) - this amount could fill thirty 8-inch shells. After filling, the shells were left for a few minutes before firing, which allowed the metal in the filling hole to solidify and seal the hole. The shells remained effective even if an hour elapsed between filling and firing as, by this time, the filling would have solidified and the shell casing heated, making them equivalent to conventional heated shot. This included shells that had failed to break up on impact and had remained embedded in the timbers of the target.
Various sizes of shells were tested, but it was found that only the largest shells had a useful incendiary effect. Experiments were carried out in 1859 using the aged, redundant frigate HMS Undaunted as a target. The first three shells were ineffectual, but after the fourth and fifth more had been fired, a fire had been started on Undaunted's lower deck that could not be put out with her fire fighting equipment. The ship was finally sunk with conventional shells.
Molten-iron shells were easier to handle and somewhat more effective than the red-hot shot they replaced. A cupola furnace for melting iron was installed on HMS Warrior. The system was declared obsolete in 1869. | <urn:uuid:dad98ed4-8c54-48ac-ba67-cc3cde43e447> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://www.popflock.com/learn?s=Heated_shot | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250591431.4/warc/CC-MAIN-20200117234621-20200118022621-00193.warc.gz | en | 0.984968 | 1,514 | 3.34375 | 3 | [
-0.06317825615406036,
0.4209030270576477,
0.2749777138233185,
-0.2829245328903198,
0.543951690196991,
-0.192865252494812,
0.4091089367866516,
0.05207423120737076,
-0.3306758999824524,
-0.4242199659347534,
-0.024928364902734756,
-0.4075174927711487,
-0.05130121111869812,
0.34844958782196045... | 1 | Heated shot or hot shot is round shot that is heated before firing from muzzle-loading cannons, for the purpose of setting fire to enemy warships, buildings, or equipment. The use of hot shot dates back centuries and only ceased when vessels armored with iron replaced wooden warships in the world's navies. It was a powerful weapon against wooden warships, where fire was always a hazard. Its use was mainly confined to shore batteries and forts, due to the need for a special furnace to heat the shot, and their use from a ship was in fact against Royal Navy regulations because they were so dangerous, although the American ship USS Constitution had a shot furnace installed for hot shot to be fired from her carronades. The French Romaine-class frigates originally also featured the device, but they proved impractical, dangerous to the ships themselves, and were later discarded.
The idea of setting fire to enemy warships can be traced back to the ancient world, where fire arrows and incendiary materials such as Greek fire were used. In 54 BC, heated clay balls were used by the Britons to attack Roman encampments, while in medieval siege warfare, catapults were used to hurl fire balls and other incendiaries into besieged castles and settlements.
The original method of heating round shot was to cover them in the coals of a large wood fire, or heat them on metal grates placed over a fire pit. These time-consuming methods were improved by the French, who used specially-constructed furnaces to heat shot in their artillery batteries at the mouth of the Rhône River in 1794. The United States incorporated hot-shot furnaces into the design of coastal fortifications during the construction of the Second System of seacoast defenses just prior to the War of 1812. Colonel Jonathan Williams left his post as Commandant at the US Military Academy to build hot-shot furnace fortifications such as Castle Clinton and Castle Williams in New York Harbor during this period. When French engineer General Simon Bernard came to the US in 1816 to head the Board of Fortifications, for the construction of permanent forts to defend the US coastline, he introduced the idea of hot shot furnaces of the French pattern. The chain of US seacoast forts built between 1817 and the American Civil War, such as Fort Macon, subsequently had one or more hot shot furnaces included as part of their standard defenses.
A hot shot furnace was typically a free-standing brick structure with special iron racks and grates, varying in size according to the number of round shot they were to heat and the number of cannon they served - a large furnace might hold 60 or more round shot. They were commonly 6 to 8 feet (1.8 to 2.4 m) wide, and anything from 8 to 30 feet (2.4 to 9.1 m) in length. A brick chimney was situated at one end with a firebox located in the front or side of the opposite end. The interior of the furnace was lined with fire brick and had sloping iron rails sized to hold round shot. Cold round shots were placed in the furnace and allowed to roll down the inclined rails in rows. The first shots halted over the firebox at the low end and were heated "cherry red", approximately between 800 and 900 °C (1,470 and 1,650 °F). When they were removed, the next shots rolled down to take their place and be similarly heated. Care had to be taken not to overheat the shot, as any that were hotter than "cherry red" were likely to become misshapen, and jam in the bore of the gun.
Three men were required to manage a furnace. One maintained the fire and added cold shot, a second man removed heated shot from the furnace, and the third man cleaned them. Special tools were required to handle heated shot. An iron fork was used to remove heated shot from the furnace, then the shot was placed on a stand and cleaned by rubbing off loose surface scale with a rasp. A pair of tongs with circular jaws were used to handle the shot at the furnace. To carry the shot to the cannons, hot shot ladles were used. The ladles had an iron cup for the shot with one or three handles. Round shot less than 24 lb (11 kg) weight size could be carried by one man with a single-handle ladle, while larger shot needed a three-handle ladle, carried between two men like a stretcher.
Great care had to be taken loading heated shot into a cannon to ensure that the red-hot shot did not prematurely ignite the cannon's charge of gunpowder.
A cartridge bag of gunpowder was loaded first. A double bag was used with heated shot to prevent leakage of grains of gunpowder as the bag was rammed down the cannon. Once the bag was in place, a wad of moistened clay or cloth was rammed down against the bag to shield it from the heated shot, which was loaded next. If the cannon was to be fired at a downward angle, another wet wad was rammed against the ball to prevent it from rolling out.
A common practice with heated shot was to fire it with a reduced charge of gunpowder. This would cause the shot to lodge in the wood of the target ship rather than penetrating it, and also cause greater splitting and splintering of the wood.
In 1860, the Martin molten iron shell was introduced to Royal Navy service. These shells were filled with iron melted in a cupola furnace and were intended to break up on impact, splashing molten iron on the target and setting fire to any combustible material present. The shells were named after their designer, an employee of the Royal Laboratory at the Royal Arsenal, the interior was lined with mixture of horse-hair and loam for insulation.
The furnace installation, known as Anderson's Cupola. burned coke and used a steam-powered fan to produce a forced draft. From the time of lighting, around an hour was required to bring 7 hundredweight (320 kg) of pig iron to its melting point of 1,150 to 1,200 °C (2,100 to 2,190 °F) - this amount could fill thirty 8-inch shells. After filling, the shells were left for a few minutes before firing, which allowed the metal in the filling hole to solidify and seal the hole. The shells remained effective even if an hour elapsed between filling and firing as, by this time, the filling would have solidified and the shell casing heated, making them equivalent to conventional heated shot. This included shells that had failed to break up on impact and had remained embedded in the timbers of the target.
Various sizes of shells were tested, but it was found that only the largest shells had a useful incendiary effect. Experiments were carried out in 1859 using the aged, redundant frigate HMS Undaunted as a target. The first three shells were ineffectual, but after the fourth and fifth more had been fired, a fire had been started on Undaunted's lower deck that could not be put out with her fire fighting equipment. The ship was finally sunk with conventional shells.
Molten-iron shells were easier to handle and somewhat more effective than the red-hot shot they replaced. A cupola furnace for melting iron was installed on HMS Warrior. The system was declared obsolete in 1869. | 1,568 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru (; Hindi: [ˈdʒəʋaːɦərˈlaːl ˈneːɦru] (listen); 14 November 1889 – 27 May 1964) was an Indian independence activist, and subsequently, the first Prime Minister of India and a central figure in Indian politics before and after independence. He emerged as an eminent leader of the Indian independence movement and served India as Prime Minister from its establishment as an independent nation in 1947 until his death in 1964. He has been described by the Amar Chitra Katha as the architect of India. He was also known as Pandit Nehru due to his roots with the Kashmiri Pandit community while Indian children knew him as Chacha Nehru (Hindi, lit., “Uncle Nehru”).The son of Motilal Nehru, a prominent lawyer and nationalist statesman and Swaroop Rani, Nehru was a graduate of Trinity College, Cambridge and the Inner Temple, where he trained to be a barrister. Upon his return to India, he enrolled at the Allahabad High Court and took an interest in national politics, which eventually replaced his legal practice. A committed nationalist since his teenage years, he became a rising figure in Indian politics during the upheavals of the 1910s. He became the prominent leader of the left-wing factions of the Indian National Congress during the 1920s, and eventually of the entire Congress, with the tacit approval of his mentor, Gandhi. As Congress President in 1929, Nehru called for complete independence from the British Raj and instigated the Congress’s decisive shift towards the left.
Nehru and the Congress dominated Indian politics during the 1930s as the country moved towards independence. His idea of a secular nation-state was seemingly validated when the Congress swept the 1937 provincial elections and formed the government in several provinces; on the other hand, the separatist Muslim League fared much poorer. But these achievements were severely compromised in the aftermath of the Quit India Movement in 1942, which saw the British effectively crush the Congress as a political organisation. Nehru, who had reluctantly heeded Gandhi’s call for immediate independence, for he had desired to support the Allied war effort during World War II, came out of a lengthy prison term to a much altered political landscape. The Muslim League under his old Congress colleague and now opponent, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, had come to dominate Muslim politics in India. Negotiations between Congress and Muslim League for power sharing failed and gave way to the independence and bloody partition of India in 1947.
Nehru was elected by the Congress to assume office as independent India’s first Prime Minister, although the question of leadership had been settled as far back as 1941, when Gandhi acknowledged Nehru as his political heir and successor. As Prime Minister, he set out to realise his vision of India. The Constitution of India was enacted in 1950, after which he embarked on an ambitious program of economic, social and political reforms. Chiefly, he oversaw India’s transition from a colony to a republic, while nurturing a plural, multi-party system. In foreign policy, he took a leading role in the Non-Aligned Movement while projecting India as a regional hegemon in South Asia.
Under Nehru’s leadership, the Congress emerged as a catch-all party, dominating national and state-level politics and winning consecutive elections in 1951, 1957, and 1962. He remained popular with the people of India in spite of political troubles in his final years and failure of leadership during the 1962 Sino-Indian War. In India, his birthday is celebrated as Bal Diwas (Children’s Day). | <urn:uuid:cfb27a2d-ac76-4053-8c67-4a494c7e27e7> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://goodquotes.me/authors/jawaharlal-nehru/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251737572.61/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127235617-20200128025617-00181.warc.gz | en | 0.981869 | 766 | 3.90625 | 4 | [
0.004710603971034288,
0.31287306547164917,
-0.12452515959739685,
-0.19467459619045258,
-0.5633721351623535,
0.1988208293914795,
0.4537874162197113,
-0.0026596381794661283,
0.19053331017494202,
-0.28360551595687866,
0.2873280346393585,
-0.02692931517958641,
0.16199208796024323,
0.3483044803... | 2 | Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru (; Hindi: [ˈdʒəʋaːɦərˈlaːl ˈneːɦru] (listen); 14 November 1889 – 27 May 1964) was an Indian independence activist, and subsequently, the first Prime Minister of India and a central figure in Indian politics before and after independence. He emerged as an eminent leader of the Indian independence movement and served India as Prime Minister from its establishment as an independent nation in 1947 until his death in 1964. He has been described by the Amar Chitra Katha as the architect of India. He was also known as Pandit Nehru due to his roots with the Kashmiri Pandit community while Indian children knew him as Chacha Nehru (Hindi, lit., “Uncle Nehru”).The son of Motilal Nehru, a prominent lawyer and nationalist statesman and Swaroop Rani, Nehru was a graduate of Trinity College, Cambridge and the Inner Temple, where he trained to be a barrister. Upon his return to India, he enrolled at the Allahabad High Court and took an interest in national politics, which eventually replaced his legal practice. A committed nationalist since his teenage years, he became a rising figure in Indian politics during the upheavals of the 1910s. He became the prominent leader of the left-wing factions of the Indian National Congress during the 1920s, and eventually of the entire Congress, with the tacit approval of his mentor, Gandhi. As Congress President in 1929, Nehru called for complete independence from the British Raj and instigated the Congress’s decisive shift towards the left.
Nehru and the Congress dominated Indian politics during the 1930s as the country moved towards independence. His idea of a secular nation-state was seemingly validated when the Congress swept the 1937 provincial elections and formed the government in several provinces; on the other hand, the separatist Muslim League fared much poorer. But these achievements were severely compromised in the aftermath of the Quit India Movement in 1942, which saw the British effectively crush the Congress as a political organisation. Nehru, who had reluctantly heeded Gandhi’s call for immediate independence, for he had desired to support the Allied war effort during World War II, came out of a lengthy prison term to a much altered political landscape. The Muslim League under his old Congress colleague and now opponent, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, had come to dominate Muslim politics in India. Negotiations between Congress and Muslim League for power sharing failed and gave way to the independence and bloody partition of India in 1947.
Nehru was elected by the Congress to assume office as independent India’s first Prime Minister, although the question of leadership had been settled as far back as 1941, when Gandhi acknowledged Nehru as his political heir and successor. As Prime Minister, he set out to realise his vision of India. The Constitution of India was enacted in 1950, after which he embarked on an ambitious program of economic, social and political reforms. Chiefly, he oversaw India’s transition from a colony to a republic, while nurturing a plural, multi-party system. In foreign policy, he took a leading role in the Non-Aligned Movement while projecting India as a regional hegemon in South Asia.
Under Nehru’s leadership, the Congress emerged as a catch-all party, dominating national and state-level politics and winning consecutive elections in 1951, 1957, and 1962. He remained popular with the people of India in spite of political troubles in his final years and failure of leadership during the 1962 Sino-Indian War. In India, his birthday is celebrated as Bal Diwas (Children’s Day). | 805 | ENGLISH | 1 |
What Were the Causes of the Initial World Battle?
The Initial World Conflict broke in 1914, at first involving The united kingdom, France, Australia, Austria-Hungary and Russia. There are many reasons for what reason the war started; a lot of were long-term causes related to the stress between the countries of The european countries, such as the issues between Great britain and Indonesia and Russia and Austria-Hungary. However there was one temporary cause which in turn invoked all of the existing stress to break out in war, the assassination from the Archduke and Prince of Austria, Franz Ferdinand.
There were five Wonderful Powers in Europe in 1914, Britain, France, Russian federation, Germany and Austria-Hungary. There are many existing conflicts and tensions between these countries. Britain, for starters, was becoming increasingly powerful and Germany was determined to catch up with her power because they build more industrial facilities and creating a bigger navy and was also trying to have a worldwide empire. The two countries were competing to control the Western european sea-trade. Furthermore, Germany was not only scared of Britain's gain in electrical power but that she was becoming encircled by opponent alliances, such as France, Britain and Spain. France experienced recently dropped a conflict against Indonesia, resulting in burning off some terrain to the Germans. France needed her area back as well as revenge although she had been afraid that she would reduce another conflict if your woman didn't have strong enough allies. To resolve this challenge, France united with The ussr, both countries agreeing to assist each other by their moments of need. This is beneficial for The ussr too, since Russia was at conflict with Austria-Hungary over who manipulated the Balkans and additionally desired to have a greater influence more than South-East Europe. Austria-Hungary wished to stop Russian federation from gaining control over South-East Europe and the Balkans, and was evenly anxious that their significant empire would break up in to smaller countries.
The Balkans was a area residing involving the Mediterranean and Black Oceans, consisting of many small countries; Serbia, Bosnia,...
Phase I The Problems and its Backdrop Introduction National Marketing campaign to Prevent Teen .. | <urn:uuid:e746b405-63d3-40bc-9a26-61012d60e8be> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://lifesavingschool.org/what-were-the-causes-of-the/73038-what-were-the-causes-of-the.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250614086.44/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123221108-20200124010108-00285.warc.gz | en | 0.980441 | 443 | 3.265625 | 3 | [
-0.4623188078403473,
0.2784656584262848,
0.34400826692581177,
-0.14525538682937622,
-0.04773620516061783,
-0.05892308056354523,
0.13724464178085327,
0.5063906908035278,
0.3148961365222931,
-0.15416841208934784,
0.27727946639060974,
-0.43882274627685547,
-0.004243090748786926,
0.62834274768... | 1 | What Were the Causes of the Initial World Battle?
The Initial World Conflict broke in 1914, at first involving The united kingdom, France, Australia, Austria-Hungary and Russia. There are many reasons for what reason the war started; a lot of were long-term causes related to the stress between the countries of The european countries, such as the issues between Great britain and Indonesia and Russia and Austria-Hungary. However there was one temporary cause which in turn invoked all of the existing stress to break out in war, the assassination from the Archduke and Prince of Austria, Franz Ferdinand.
There were five Wonderful Powers in Europe in 1914, Britain, France, Russian federation, Germany and Austria-Hungary. There are many existing conflicts and tensions between these countries. Britain, for starters, was becoming increasingly powerful and Germany was determined to catch up with her power because they build more industrial facilities and creating a bigger navy and was also trying to have a worldwide empire. The two countries were competing to control the Western european sea-trade. Furthermore, Germany was not only scared of Britain's gain in electrical power but that she was becoming encircled by opponent alliances, such as France, Britain and Spain. France experienced recently dropped a conflict against Indonesia, resulting in burning off some terrain to the Germans. France needed her area back as well as revenge although she had been afraid that she would reduce another conflict if your woman didn't have strong enough allies. To resolve this challenge, France united with The ussr, both countries agreeing to assist each other by their moments of need. This is beneficial for The ussr too, since Russia was at conflict with Austria-Hungary over who manipulated the Balkans and additionally desired to have a greater influence more than South-East Europe. Austria-Hungary wished to stop Russian federation from gaining control over South-East Europe and the Balkans, and was evenly anxious that their significant empire would break up in to smaller countries.
The Balkans was a area residing involving the Mediterranean and Black Oceans, consisting of many small countries; Serbia, Bosnia,...
Phase I The Problems and its Backdrop Introduction National Marketing campaign to Prevent Teen .. | 441 | ENGLISH | 1 |
On the departure of Pyrrhus from Sicily (275 BC) the Syracusan army and citizens appointed him commander of the troops. He materially strengthened his position by marrying the daughter of Leptines, the leading citizen. In the meantime, the Mamertines, a body of Campanian mercenaries who had been employed by Agathocles, had seized the stronghold of Messana, whence they harassed the Syracusans. They were finally defeated in a pitched battle near Mylae by Hiero, who was only prevented from capturing Messana by Carthaginian interference. His grateful countrymen then made him tyrant (270).
In 264 BC he again returned to the attack, and the Mamertines called in the aid of Rome. Hiero at once joined the Punic leader Hanno, who had recently landed in Sicily; but being defeated by the consul Appius Claudius Caudex, he withdrew to Syracuse. Pressed by the Roman forces, in 263 he was compelled to conclude a treaty with Rome, by which he was to rule over the south-east of Sicily and the eastern coast as far as Tauromenium (Polybius i. 8-16; Zonaras Viii. 9).
From this time till his death in 215 BC he remained loyal to the Romans, and frequently assisted them with men and provisions during the Punic wars (Livy xxi. 49-51, xxii. 37, xxiii. 21). He kept up a powerful fleet for defensive purposes, and employed his famous kinsman Archimedes in the construction of those engines that, at a later date, played so important a part during the siege of Syracuse by the Romans.
This entry was originally from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. | <urn:uuid:8beb914b-e479-4c0f-918e-f8f86d15516a> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://www.fact-index.com/h/hi/hiero_ii_of_syracuse.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250606872.19/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122071919-20200122100919-00277.warc.gz | en | 0.987723 | 362 | 3.34375 | 3 | [
-0.43901392817497253,
1.0579049587249756,
0.49199482798576355,
-0.258770227432251,
-0.4741356074810028,
-0.3222639262676239,
0.19577324390411377,
0.35997506976127625,
-0.05422341823577881,
-0.16989010572433472,
-0.17128273844718933,
-0.6672424674034119,
0.05297694727778435,
0.4900483787059... | 4 | On the departure of Pyrrhus from Sicily (275 BC) the Syracusan army and citizens appointed him commander of the troops. He materially strengthened his position by marrying the daughter of Leptines, the leading citizen. In the meantime, the Mamertines, a body of Campanian mercenaries who had been employed by Agathocles, had seized the stronghold of Messana, whence they harassed the Syracusans. They were finally defeated in a pitched battle near Mylae by Hiero, who was only prevented from capturing Messana by Carthaginian interference. His grateful countrymen then made him tyrant (270).
In 264 BC he again returned to the attack, and the Mamertines called in the aid of Rome. Hiero at once joined the Punic leader Hanno, who had recently landed in Sicily; but being defeated by the consul Appius Claudius Caudex, he withdrew to Syracuse. Pressed by the Roman forces, in 263 he was compelled to conclude a treaty with Rome, by which he was to rule over the south-east of Sicily and the eastern coast as far as Tauromenium (Polybius i. 8-16; Zonaras Viii. 9).
From this time till his death in 215 BC he remained loyal to the Romans, and frequently assisted them with men and provisions during the Punic wars (Livy xxi. 49-51, xxii. 37, xxiii. 21). He kept up a powerful fleet for defensive purposes, and employed his famous kinsman Archimedes in the construction of those engines that, at a later date, played so important a part during the siege of Syracuse by the Romans.
This entry was originally from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. | 388 | ENGLISH | 1 |
During our second week of summer, we conducted a workshop on the benefit of sourcing as well as exposing our students to primary documents from the 1920s to help them understand the societal contrasts that existed during the Roaring Twenties. This class that we conducted is an example of how no matter how much you plan, you can never really know how a class is going to go or how the students will respond to a lesson. In order to engage all of our students, we created a Semantics Feature Analysis by which they agreed or disagreed with a simple plus or minus in regards to the documents (see document 3). We also scaffolded the sourcing with leading questions on the back of the analysis graph. Although many of the students filled this out exactly as we had hoped, there were a few that either thought the questions were optional, or answered one word responses, never delvign deep into the source as we had hoped. I learned the importance of clear and basic instructions to instruct our classroom and to also have the instructions displayed on the PowerPoint or the board throughout the activity.
A second aspect of planning that I learned through this lesson is that you don't always need to stick to everything on the lesson plan, no matter how much time was spent creating it. We made a Timeline activity which we hoped to use to contextualize all that we had done for our students, however because with the sourcing activity and carousel taking longer than expected, we made the executive decision to pass on the Timeline activity until another day. Although this lesson didn't go exactly as planned, I learned an immense amount about the importance of flexibility, and ensuring that each lesson is adapted to best benefit the students.
To see the full lesson plan for this day, please select the following link: 792013.docx | <urn:uuid:0ffed1ec-7ac7-49c9-b32c-7c47ff213c2e> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://brown.digication.com/sally_patton/Artifact_Lesson_Plan_July_9th_2013 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251687725.76/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126043644-20200126073644-00429.warc.gz | en | 0.982194 | 360 | 3.46875 | 3 | [
-0.4759824573993683,
0.07025948911905289,
0.18484565615653992,
-0.3724749684333801,
-0.08497707545757294,
0.1543465107679367,
-0.21396993100643158,
0.41277775168418884,
-0.14042675495147705,
-0.3009922504425049,
0.15024814009666443,
0.11915314942598343,
0.17996591329574585,
0.2109880298376... | 3 | During our second week of summer, we conducted a workshop on the benefit of sourcing as well as exposing our students to primary documents from the 1920s to help them understand the societal contrasts that existed during the Roaring Twenties. This class that we conducted is an example of how no matter how much you plan, you can never really know how a class is going to go or how the students will respond to a lesson. In order to engage all of our students, we created a Semantics Feature Analysis by which they agreed or disagreed with a simple plus or minus in regards to the documents (see document 3). We also scaffolded the sourcing with leading questions on the back of the analysis graph. Although many of the students filled this out exactly as we had hoped, there were a few that either thought the questions were optional, or answered one word responses, never delvign deep into the source as we had hoped. I learned the importance of clear and basic instructions to instruct our classroom and to also have the instructions displayed on the PowerPoint or the board throughout the activity.
A second aspect of planning that I learned through this lesson is that you don't always need to stick to everything on the lesson plan, no matter how much time was spent creating it. We made a Timeline activity which we hoped to use to contextualize all that we had done for our students, however because with the sourcing activity and carousel taking longer than expected, we made the executive decision to pass on the Timeline activity until another day. Although this lesson didn't go exactly as planned, I learned an immense amount about the importance of flexibility, and ensuring that each lesson is adapted to best benefit the students.
To see the full lesson plan for this day, please select the following link: 792013.docx | 365 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Antigone is a tragedy that deals with conflict and despair at the end of the story. Creon who is the King, creates a law that states no one is to bury the body of Polyneices because Polyneices was the brother who started the fight between him and Eteocles in Thebes. Eteocles was the only brother who received a proper burial. When Polyneices and Eteocles sister, Antigone arrives at Thebes and hears the news decides to give her brother the proper burial he deserved.
As Antigone proceeds with the burial, she is caught and thrown in jail for disobeying the new law Creon had established. In a short amount of time, Antigone commits suicide. In the document Tyranny and blood: Rethinking Creon by Nancy J. Holland her main argument is that Creon isnt as bad as he is set out to be portrayed. I believe that out of her arguments on why Creon is not a bad person are that Creon and Oedipus have the same actions but only Creon is seen as evil, the second argument is that people seem to forget about the back story of the play Antigone and what Polyneices did, and lastly that he deserved his punishment. I firmly agree with Nancy J. Holland and her idea of Creon being a better person than he is set out to be.
Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Creon the Good Guy" essay for youCreate order
One of the first statements that were made in this document is that He was not even the same person in Sophocles three Theban plays (Jean Anouilh). Another statement is that in which the comparison of two different plays that have to do with each other come into play. The two plays that are being compared are Antigone and Oedipus Tyrannus, and the two kings compared were Creon and Oedipus. In both plays the kings make a law and punish the person who breaks the law. In the both plays there is a bad ending but Creon out of both kings is the one who comes to his senses even though it was too late but Oedipus does not, and he carries on with his punishment. The law destroys both families in both plays but only Creon and not Oedipus is seen as evil at the end of the plays. Double Standards are essentially the first argument for why Creon isnt as bad as her’s portrayed.
I also dont think itr’s fair toward Creonr’s character that he gets to be frowned upon because of what he did when Oedipus has practically the same actions as Creon, but instead of them both being seen as evil only Creonr’s character is. I believe the double standards in the way they characters are seen is unjust and they should both be seen as one thing or the other, either both of them can be seen as evil for their actions are as good characters. In the text Creon creates a law that ends up destroying both families but so does Oedipus in the previous play. It is now a crime for Thebans to bury him or mourn him. This was the law that Creon put into place that caused everything to fall apart resulting in his bad image. The fact that Oedipus does the same in the play Oedipus Tyrannus and isnt seen as evil is not fair to Creon. Just as readers seem to find that Polyneices not getting a burial isnt fair when his brother did, it should be the same way towards Creon. There should not be double standards when it comes to Creon and Oedipus but not with Eteocles and Polyneices.
Another argument that is brought up in this document is that people seem to forget the backstory of the play Antigone. Polyneices led an attack against the city after he disagreed to share the throne with his brother Eteocles. The argument is that if Polyneices was buried he would have been honored, because thatr’s what a proper burial meant to them. Why honor Polyneices even if itr’s just with a burial if he just launched an attack against his very own city. To allow his killer to escape punishment would risk conveying the message that the city was less important to Creon, suddenly and unexpectedly king once again, than his personal relationship with the nephew who led the attack against it(Nancy J. Holland). According to this statement Creon cared more for his nephew who attacked their own city than for the city itself. Men we have just survived some rough weather.
Monstrous waves have battered our city, but now the gods have steadied the waters(Sophocles, 193-195). In this quote Creon is addressing the civil war that had broken out between the two brothers who were to share the throne, Eteocles and Polyneices, which Polyneices himself attacked the city. The two quotes from the text He had circled our houses, threatening all seven gates, his spearpoints out for blood, but he was thrown back before his jaws could swell with our gore(Sophocles,137-140). As well as I mean Polyneices, who returned from exile utterly determined to burn down his own city, incinerate the gods we worship, revel in kinsmens blood, enslave everyone left alive(Sopholes,231-235). These show how Polyneices was going against his own city and wanted to draw blood. These quotes also come to prove that Polyneices was the bad guy rather than Creon himself.
My interpretation of this argument is that Creon had a valid reason for what he did. Polyneices attacked his own city in a fight against his brother to see who would get the throne, which was a selfish move from his part. I agree with Creonr’s thinking and decision to make it a law to forbid the burial of his body. Nancy J Holland uses this as one of her arguments to prove why Creon is a good character and I believe it emphasizes her reasoning behind her statement on Creon.
In the document it is also argued that because the burial is a sort of rule of law they had so Creon is seen as evil for prohibiting someone to receive that form of honor and respect but nobody seems to remember he led the attack against his own city, so he deserved his punishment, but he is still seen as if he is evil. And I will never give a bad man more respect than a good one (Sophocles,240). This quote shows how Creon believed the punishment as fair because Eteocles was honorable since he was defending his country therefore he got a proper burial but Polyneices was the bad man in this scenario since he attacked the city therefore he didnt get the same treatment as Eteocles who was the good man.
I believe Creon wasnt evil because he was just punishing somebody who committed treason against his own city. Not allowing for his burial to occur is the most severe punishment that the state couldve given him. Ill never think our country enemy can be my friend. Keep this in mind our country is the ship that must keep us safe. Its only on board her, among the men who sail her upright, that we make true friends(Sophocles, 221-224). This quote shows Creon decided to give more importance to reuniting the city after the civil war, that Polyneices brought among the city, rather than on his burial. This shows that Creon was a really good King and that he wasnt so bad because he was looking out for the best interest for the city not his own family, and if he can put the cityr’s best interest over his familyr’s than he is definitely not an evil person.
Also according to Holland if you look at other stories rather than just that of Antigone you can see that Creon insisted in the story of Oedipus Tyrannus that he had no intentions of being king but at the same time he had the cityr’s best interests at heart. This is another argument in favor of Creon being better than he is portrayed to be. Holland says Once we leave aside the image of Creon as a tyrant, a proto-Nazi, it becomes easier to see him instead as a man, like Oedipus, who places the welfare of his city above the well-being of his family, who makes laws that apply “first of all” to his kin, and who suffers horribly for that choice. Unlike Oedipus, however, one could argue that the primary victim of Creon’s actions-of his intransigence-is not Creon but Antigone(Holland). Her argument is that once you look behind the scenes and clear your image of him he is better than he is set out to be.
I believe that it is just unfortunate for Creon because the person who suffered the most because of his actions was Antigone; therefore he is seen as the bad guy. These were all arguments and statements that Holland used to promote her belief of Creon being a pretty good person behind the scenes and not a cruel evil king that everyone thinks of him to be.
As I mentioned earlier in my thesis the author of Tyranny and Blood: Rethinking Creon proves her argument of Creon not being a bad person as he was portrayed by her first argument of Creon and Oedipus having the same actions but only Creon being seen as evil. They both created a law that ended up having negative results and also they both punished the person who broke the law. For both of the characters to do the same thing and only one Creon being seen as evil isnt fair. Holland also proves her argument by incorporating the back story of the play Antigone. The back story of the whole situation in the play of Antigone was that Polyneices launched an attack against the city to try and gain the thrown versus his brother Eteocles but they both ended up dying, and only Eteocles received the proper burial because he defended the city. Lastly she defended her argument by stating hoe Polyneices deserved his punishment. The way she did so was by also using examples of what he did in the text.
We will send an essay sample to you in 2 Hours. If you need help faster you can always use our custom writing service.Get help with my paper | <urn:uuid:be84e1ad-57de-492f-a49c-ea60cba5a4ac> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://studydriver.com/creon-the-good-guy/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251783000.84/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128184745-20200128214745-00101.warc.gz | en | 0.986062 | 2,190 | 3.4375 | 3 | [
-0.2860511243343353,
0.11680351197719574,
0.11936722695827484,
-0.23907756805419922,
0.10738255083560944,
-0.03934098780155182,
0.4987937808036804,
0.20126685500144958,
-0.09619058668613434,
0.121059849858284,
-0.007128437981009483,
-0.26412859559059143,
0.19860641658306122,
0.168757468461... | 1 | Antigone is a tragedy that deals with conflict and despair at the end of the story. Creon who is the King, creates a law that states no one is to bury the body of Polyneices because Polyneices was the brother who started the fight between him and Eteocles in Thebes. Eteocles was the only brother who received a proper burial. When Polyneices and Eteocles sister, Antigone arrives at Thebes and hears the news decides to give her brother the proper burial he deserved.
As Antigone proceeds with the burial, she is caught and thrown in jail for disobeying the new law Creon had established. In a short amount of time, Antigone commits suicide. In the document Tyranny and blood: Rethinking Creon by Nancy J. Holland her main argument is that Creon isnt as bad as he is set out to be portrayed. I believe that out of her arguments on why Creon is not a bad person are that Creon and Oedipus have the same actions but only Creon is seen as evil, the second argument is that people seem to forget about the back story of the play Antigone and what Polyneices did, and lastly that he deserved his punishment. I firmly agree with Nancy J. Holland and her idea of Creon being a better person than he is set out to be.
Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Creon the Good Guy" essay for youCreate order
One of the first statements that were made in this document is that He was not even the same person in Sophocles three Theban plays (Jean Anouilh). Another statement is that in which the comparison of two different plays that have to do with each other come into play. The two plays that are being compared are Antigone and Oedipus Tyrannus, and the two kings compared were Creon and Oedipus. In both plays the kings make a law and punish the person who breaks the law. In the both plays there is a bad ending but Creon out of both kings is the one who comes to his senses even though it was too late but Oedipus does not, and he carries on with his punishment. The law destroys both families in both plays but only Creon and not Oedipus is seen as evil at the end of the plays. Double Standards are essentially the first argument for why Creon isnt as bad as her’s portrayed.
I also dont think itr’s fair toward Creonr’s character that he gets to be frowned upon because of what he did when Oedipus has practically the same actions as Creon, but instead of them both being seen as evil only Creonr’s character is. I believe the double standards in the way they characters are seen is unjust and they should both be seen as one thing or the other, either both of them can be seen as evil for their actions are as good characters. In the text Creon creates a law that ends up destroying both families but so does Oedipus in the previous play. It is now a crime for Thebans to bury him or mourn him. This was the law that Creon put into place that caused everything to fall apart resulting in his bad image. The fact that Oedipus does the same in the play Oedipus Tyrannus and isnt seen as evil is not fair to Creon. Just as readers seem to find that Polyneices not getting a burial isnt fair when his brother did, it should be the same way towards Creon. There should not be double standards when it comes to Creon and Oedipus but not with Eteocles and Polyneices.
Another argument that is brought up in this document is that people seem to forget the backstory of the play Antigone. Polyneices led an attack against the city after he disagreed to share the throne with his brother Eteocles. The argument is that if Polyneices was buried he would have been honored, because thatr’s what a proper burial meant to them. Why honor Polyneices even if itr’s just with a burial if he just launched an attack against his very own city. To allow his killer to escape punishment would risk conveying the message that the city was less important to Creon, suddenly and unexpectedly king once again, than his personal relationship with the nephew who led the attack against it(Nancy J. Holland). According to this statement Creon cared more for his nephew who attacked their own city than for the city itself. Men we have just survived some rough weather.
Monstrous waves have battered our city, but now the gods have steadied the waters(Sophocles, 193-195). In this quote Creon is addressing the civil war that had broken out between the two brothers who were to share the throne, Eteocles and Polyneices, which Polyneices himself attacked the city. The two quotes from the text He had circled our houses, threatening all seven gates, his spearpoints out for blood, but he was thrown back before his jaws could swell with our gore(Sophocles,137-140). As well as I mean Polyneices, who returned from exile utterly determined to burn down his own city, incinerate the gods we worship, revel in kinsmens blood, enslave everyone left alive(Sopholes,231-235). These show how Polyneices was going against his own city and wanted to draw blood. These quotes also come to prove that Polyneices was the bad guy rather than Creon himself.
My interpretation of this argument is that Creon had a valid reason for what he did. Polyneices attacked his own city in a fight against his brother to see who would get the throne, which was a selfish move from his part. I agree with Creonr’s thinking and decision to make it a law to forbid the burial of his body. Nancy J Holland uses this as one of her arguments to prove why Creon is a good character and I believe it emphasizes her reasoning behind her statement on Creon.
In the document it is also argued that because the burial is a sort of rule of law they had so Creon is seen as evil for prohibiting someone to receive that form of honor and respect but nobody seems to remember he led the attack against his own city, so he deserved his punishment, but he is still seen as if he is evil. And I will never give a bad man more respect than a good one (Sophocles,240). This quote shows how Creon believed the punishment as fair because Eteocles was honorable since he was defending his country therefore he got a proper burial but Polyneices was the bad man in this scenario since he attacked the city therefore he didnt get the same treatment as Eteocles who was the good man.
I believe Creon wasnt evil because he was just punishing somebody who committed treason against his own city. Not allowing for his burial to occur is the most severe punishment that the state couldve given him. Ill never think our country enemy can be my friend. Keep this in mind our country is the ship that must keep us safe. Its only on board her, among the men who sail her upright, that we make true friends(Sophocles, 221-224). This quote shows Creon decided to give more importance to reuniting the city after the civil war, that Polyneices brought among the city, rather than on his burial. This shows that Creon was a really good King and that he wasnt so bad because he was looking out for the best interest for the city not his own family, and if he can put the cityr’s best interest over his familyr’s than he is definitely not an evil person.
Also according to Holland if you look at other stories rather than just that of Antigone you can see that Creon insisted in the story of Oedipus Tyrannus that he had no intentions of being king but at the same time he had the cityr’s best interests at heart. This is another argument in favor of Creon being better than he is portrayed to be. Holland says Once we leave aside the image of Creon as a tyrant, a proto-Nazi, it becomes easier to see him instead as a man, like Oedipus, who places the welfare of his city above the well-being of his family, who makes laws that apply “first of all” to his kin, and who suffers horribly for that choice. Unlike Oedipus, however, one could argue that the primary victim of Creon’s actions-of his intransigence-is not Creon but Antigone(Holland). Her argument is that once you look behind the scenes and clear your image of him he is better than he is set out to be.
I believe that it is just unfortunate for Creon because the person who suffered the most because of his actions was Antigone; therefore he is seen as the bad guy. These were all arguments and statements that Holland used to promote her belief of Creon being a pretty good person behind the scenes and not a cruel evil king that everyone thinks of him to be.
As I mentioned earlier in my thesis the author of Tyranny and Blood: Rethinking Creon proves her argument of Creon not being a bad person as he was portrayed by her first argument of Creon and Oedipus having the same actions but only Creon being seen as evil. They both created a law that ended up having negative results and also they both punished the person who broke the law. For both of the characters to do the same thing and only one Creon being seen as evil isnt fair. Holland also proves her argument by incorporating the back story of the play Antigone. The back story of the whole situation in the play of Antigone was that Polyneices launched an attack against the city to try and gain the thrown versus his brother Eteocles but they both ended up dying, and only Eteocles received the proper burial because he defended the city. Lastly she defended her argument by stating hoe Polyneices deserved his punishment. The way she did so was by also using examples of what he did in the text.
We will send an essay sample to you in 2 Hours. If you need help faster you can always use our custom writing service.Get help with my paper | 2,160 | ENGLISH | 1 |
There are various presidents in US history who were not as famous as Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy. Within their short and sometimes long tenure as President they left one or two important historical marks which should be noted. Here are the top 10 forgotten but yet important US presidents.
1. John Hanson:
Many believe George Washington was the first President of the United States. They are wrong in this fact as Washington was the first president of the independent country. The title belongs to John Hanson, whom many US History books forget to mention. He was elected as the first Presiding Officer to the Continental Congress during the revolutionary wars in 1781. He was also the one to order all foreign flags to be banned from US property.
2. William Henry Harrison:
He was the 9th President of the United States and the first President to die in office 32 days after his inauguration. Wearing no overcoat and no hat on a wet and cold day, Harrison spoke the longest speech in US history which was timed at 2 hours. This caused Harrison to catch pneumonia and septicaemia, which began to affect Harrison 3 weeks after. He made history with his precedent to elect the Vice-President as President when the current elected President cannot do his job. The 25th commandment was finally enacted after the Kennedy Assassination.
3. John Tyler:
Not many would know a John Tyler or would ever think he was President of the United States once. His term was short and brief as he replaced President Harrison after the latter’s death. He took office during a constitutional crisis which discussed the succession to Presidency by the Vice-President. He also was the President who annexed Texas into the United States. He however caused and stimulated the Mexican American war.
4. William Taft:
This 300lb President was the 27th to be elected. He was the fattest and tallest President to take office. He is most famous for his 16th Amendment which allowed the Congress to Levy Taxes. He was also famous for being the only handpicked President of the United States. Theodore Roosevelt appointed him Secretary of States in the hopes of making him a President one day.
5. Warren G. Harding:
This president did everything in his power to undo the dreams and peacekeeping and making work his predecessor Woodrow Wilson achieved. With disdain, he rejected the idea of League of Nations which held peace around the world for 21 years. Although quoted as being sensitive to minorities and women by Carl S. Anthony, 1998 polls rate him as the worst president. The unemployment rate staggered during his presidency.
6. Herbert Hoover:
When the name Hoover comes to mind, many people think of J. Edgar Hoover from the Cold War and the Hoover dam. Many do not realize that Hoover was a President of the United States when the Great Depression hit. He is the President who refused to provide aid to people who had no home, no money and no food. Many associate the Great Depression with FDR and the New Deal but fail to look at the initial causes and responses.
7. Chester Arthur:
This 21st President is also forgotten by many American citizens. He took office after James Garfield was shot and killed in office. He was one of not many Presidents to give his oath twice. He was also the only President to refuse to move into the White House. He remodelled his home to his liking before deciding to move in. Although an anti-bigamist, he refused to uphold the 15th commandment. He also refused to take action against states that enforced the Jim Crow laws.
8. Zachary Taylor:
Although President for just 1.5 years, he was still able to leave a tremendous mark. He supported liberal revolutions in England. He argued with France and Portugal over reparation payments. He also was the President who proposed and initiated the Compromise of 1850. He however died before he could negotiate it. Many thus do not give credit to Taylor or try to understand his policies. He was in power for just 1.5 years.
9. James Polk:
Although the high school named after him was made popularized in the show Married with Children, no one ever knew who he was or what he did. He led the United States into a victorious war with Mexico over the annexation of Texas. Furthermore, he continued the Western expansion policies of past Presidents, which doubled Presidents’ potentials. He planned to serve only one term in office, without any possible re-elections.
10. Millard Fillmore:
This President is also forgotten. When studying the Compromise of 1850, Fillmore’s name mostly never comes up. Many textbooks rarely and seldom mention his name when examining the event. During his presidency, he tried to appease the South with the advocacy of slavery in newly annexed Mexican territories. | <urn:uuid:bf234dd1-0a79-4b57-8663-1a6d7382c021> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://top-10-list.org/2011/07/12/top-10-forgotten-us-presidents/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251681412.74/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125191854-20200125221854-00148.warc.gz | en | 0.98901 | 989 | 3.53125 | 4 | [
-0.08176914602518082,
0.40982887148857117,
0.4903497099876404,
-0.21337170898914337,
-0.18862488865852356,
0.5175603628158569,
0.1473385989665985,
-0.04178578406572342,
0.3738672137260437,
0.125156432390213,
0.3442688584327698,
0.436044842004776,
0.2545567750930786,
0.522411048412323,
-0... | 11 | There are various presidents in US history who were not as famous as Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy. Within their short and sometimes long tenure as President they left one or two important historical marks which should be noted. Here are the top 10 forgotten but yet important US presidents.
1. John Hanson:
Many believe George Washington was the first President of the United States. They are wrong in this fact as Washington was the first president of the independent country. The title belongs to John Hanson, whom many US History books forget to mention. He was elected as the first Presiding Officer to the Continental Congress during the revolutionary wars in 1781. He was also the one to order all foreign flags to be banned from US property.
2. William Henry Harrison:
He was the 9th President of the United States and the first President to die in office 32 days after his inauguration. Wearing no overcoat and no hat on a wet and cold day, Harrison spoke the longest speech in US history which was timed at 2 hours. This caused Harrison to catch pneumonia and septicaemia, which began to affect Harrison 3 weeks after. He made history with his precedent to elect the Vice-President as President when the current elected President cannot do his job. The 25th commandment was finally enacted after the Kennedy Assassination.
3. John Tyler:
Not many would know a John Tyler or would ever think he was President of the United States once. His term was short and brief as he replaced President Harrison after the latter’s death. He took office during a constitutional crisis which discussed the succession to Presidency by the Vice-President. He also was the President who annexed Texas into the United States. He however caused and stimulated the Mexican American war.
4. William Taft:
This 300lb President was the 27th to be elected. He was the fattest and tallest President to take office. He is most famous for his 16th Amendment which allowed the Congress to Levy Taxes. He was also famous for being the only handpicked President of the United States. Theodore Roosevelt appointed him Secretary of States in the hopes of making him a President one day.
5. Warren G. Harding:
This president did everything in his power to undo the dreams and peacekeeping and making work his predecessor Woodrow Wilson achieved. With disdain, he rejected the idea of League of Nations which held peace around the world for 21 years. Although quoted as being sensitive to minorities and women by Carl S. Anthony, 1998 polls rate him as the worst president. The unemployment rate staggered during his presidency.
6. Herbert Hoover:
When the name Hoover comes to mind, many people think of J. Edgar Hoover from the Cold War and the Hoover dam. Many do not realize that Hoover was a President of the United States when the Great Depression hit. He is the President who refused to provide aid to people who had no home, no money and no food. Many associate the Great Depression with FDR and the New Deal but fail to look at the initial causes and responses.
7. Chester Arthur:
This 21st President is also forgotten by many American citizens. He took office after James Garfield was shot and killed in office. He was one of not many Presidents to give his oath twice. He was also the only President to refuse to move into the White House. He remodelled his home to his liking before deciding to move in. Although an anti-bigamist, he refused to uphold the 15th commandment. He also refused to take action against states that enforced the Jim Crow laws.
8. Zachary Taylor:
Although President for just 1.5 years, he was still able to leave a tremendous mark. He supported liberal revolutions in England. He argued with France and Portugal over reparation payments. He also was the President who proposed and initiated the Compromise of 1850. He however died before he could negotiate it. Many thus do not give credit to Taylor or try to understand his policies. He was in power for just 1.5 years.
9. James Polk:
Although the high school named after him was made popularized in the show Married with Children, no one ever knew who he was or what he did. He led the United States into a victorious war with Mexico over the annexation of Texas. Furthermore, he continued the Western expansion policies of past Presidents, which doubled Presidents’ potentials. He planned to serve only one term in office, without any possible re-elections.
10. Millard Fillmore:
This President is also forgotten. When studying the Compromise of 1850, Fillmore’s name mostly never comes up. Many textbooks rarely and seldom mention his name when examining the event. During his presidency, he tried to appease the South with the advocacy of slavery in newly annexed Mexican territories. | 1,003 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Saint Nicholas Day has been celebrated on December 6 of every year. It is the feast day of Saint Nicholas celebrated as a Christian festival. It is, of course, a day for the children who have waited for the whole year to receive gifts. Christmas wouldn’t begin without the start of this feast. Saint Nicholas is known for his reputation as a bringer of gifts, and the attendance of Mass or worship services. He is the true Santa Claus and Father Christmas. The feast falls early in the Advent season. The saint is well-known across many countries in different names like Belsnickle, Niglo, Pelznickel, and others. Saint Nicholas Day is celebrated all over the world as to symbolizes the act of gift giving for many.
“The giver of every good and perfect gift has called upon us to mimic. His giving, by grace, through faith, and this is not of ourselves.” – St. Nicholas of Myra
History of Saint Nicholas Day
The first observance of Saint Nicholas Day is unknown. It is observed in the Western Christian countries on December 5. It is the feast day of Saint Nicholas who was also called as the Nikolaos of Myra. Saint Nicholas was a historic Christian saint born at Patara, Lycia in Asia Minor. He lived during the 4th century and was also a Greek Bishop of Myra, in Asia Minor. The history states that he had sold all his possessions for the sake of helping the poor people with money. He was grown to be a devout Christian, and he had dedicated his whole life serving the sick and suffering. During his lifetime he had developed a tradition of gift-giving by putting the coins in the shoes of other people. Even this form of culture accounts for many of the Christmas traditions till today. People have begun to leave the gifts in shoes or boots.
Saint Nicholas was raised by wealthy parents who died due to epidemic while he was young. On obeying the words of Jesus, “sell what you own and give the money to the poor,” Nicholas made his whole wealth to assist the needy, the sick, and the suffering. He had dedicated his life serving God and was made as the Bishop of Myra while he was still a young man. He was greatly known throughout the land for his kindness and generosity. He had involved himself in helping for those in need, his love for children, and he cared for sailors and ships. He had died on December 6, AD 343 in Myra. The death anniversary of St. Nicholas was made as a day of celebration, St. Nicholas Day.
There are so many legendary stories that revolve about St. Nicholas from around the world. All of them had later became a part of the inspiration for the modern day Santa Claus. It is widely believed that St. Nicholas visits each child to present them with gifts. So the kids would leave the carrots or hay in their shoes overnight which will be eaten by St. Nicholas donkey. St. Nicholas will take the hay and carrots for his donkey, and returns them with small gifts and treats for the children in the morning. The Day traditions include leaving the gifts in shoes or the exchange of small gifts. Traditionally, the celebration Day treats are left for those good boys and girls, and a twig or chunk of coal left for the naughty ones.
One another famous story goes that there was a poor man who had three daughters. He wasn’t able to get them married as he hadn’t had enough money for a dowry. On finding this, Nicholas had secretly dropped a bag of gold down the chimney one night. It had fallen into a stocking that had been left by the fire to dry. It made the eldest daughter to get married. Now the father decided to find out who had given him the money. Eventually, he caught Nicholas who again dropped in another bag of gold. Although Nicholas didn’t want to draw attention to himself, word got out, which made anyone who got a secret gift later to suspect that it was from him.
Other Celebrations on December 6
December 6 is also celebrated as
- Put on Your Own Shoes Day
- Mitten Tree Day
- National Miner’s Day
- National Microwave Day
- National Pawnbrokers Day
How to Celebrate Saint Nicholas Day
The best way to celebrate Saint Nicholas Day is by giving a surprise gift for the person you love. Take this celebration Day as an opportunity to know more in detail about Saint Nicholas. You can provide gifts and presents to people around you and make their Day a little more special. Educate your children about the importance of helping people who are in need. As there were so many magical and lesson teaching stories exists about Saint Nicholas, you can even tell them as their bedtime stories with the events of St. Nicholas. Arrange for a party and gather your friends and family, give them surprise gifts by camouflaging as Santa. Share your views and Saint Nicholas Day celebration photos on the social media using the hashtag #SaintNicholasDay. | <urn:uuid:f788b9fb-203c-43fd-a5ef-4f1d512229ef> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://happydays365.org/saint-nicholas-day/saint-nicholas-day-december-6/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251783000.84/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128184745-20200128214745-00469.warc.gz | en | 0.987432 | 1,038 | 3.296875 | 3 | [
0.5317152738571167,
0.27866896986961365,
0.5081850290298462,
-0.31412094831466675,
-0.02828150987625122,
-0.6272505521774292,
0.12184552848339081,
0.2464328110218048,
0.00346109876409173,
0.1400974690914154,
0.012528220191597939,
0.5077854990959167,
0.10158009827136993,
0.30054834485054016... | 5 | Saint Nicholas Day has been celebrated on December 6 of every year. It is the feast day of Saint Nicholas celebrated as a Christian festival. It is, of course, a day for the children who have waited for the whole year to receive gifts. Christmas wouldn’t begin without the start of this feast. Saint Nicholas is known for his reputation as a bringer of gifts, and the attendance of Mass or worship services. He is the true Santa Claus and Father Christmas. The feast falls early in the Advent season. The saint is well-known across many countries in different names like Belsnickle, Niglo, Pelznickel, and others. Saint Nicholas Day is celebrated all over the world as to symbolizes the act of gift giving for many.
“The giver of every good and perfect gift has called upon us to mimic. His giving, by grace, through faith, and this is not of ourselves.” – St. Nicholas of Myra
History of Saint Nicholas Day
The first observance of Saint Nicholas Day is unknown. It is observed in the Western Christian countries on December 5. It is the feast day of Saint Nicholas who was also called as the Nikolaos of Myra. Saint Nicholas was a historic Christian saint born at Patara, Lycia in Asia Minor. He lived during the 4th century and was also a Greek Bishop of Myra, in Asia Minor. The history states that he had sold all his possessions for the sake of helping the poor people with money. He was grown to be a devout Christian, and he had dedicated his whole life serving the sick and suffering. During his lifetime he had developed a tradition of gift-giving by putting the coins in the shoes of other people. Even this form of culture accounts for many of the Christmas traditions till today. People have begun to leave the gifts in shoes or boots.
Saint Nicholas was raised by wealthy parents who died due to epidemic while he was young. On obeying the words of Jesus, “sell what you own and give the money to the poor,” Nicholas made his whole wealth to assist the needy, the sick, and the suffering. He had dedicated his life serving God and was made as the Bishop of Myra while he was still a young man. He was greatly known throughout the land for his kindness and generosity. He had involved himself in helping for those in need, his love for children, and he cared for sailors and ships. He had died on December 6, AD 343 in Myra. The death anniversary of St. Nicholas was made as a day of celebration, St. Nicholas Day.
There are so many legendary stories that revolve about St. Nicholas from around the world. All of them had later became a part of the inspiration for the modern day Santa Claus. It is widely believed that St. Nicholas visits each child to present them with gifts. So the kids would leave the carrots or hay in their shoes overnight which will be eaten by St. Nicholas donkey. St. Nicholas will take the hay and carrots for his donkey, and returns them with small gifts and treats for the children in the morning. The Day traditions include leaving the gifts in shoes or the exchange of small gifts. Traditionally, the celebration Day treats are left for those good boys and girls, and a twig or chunk of coal left for the naughty ones.
One another famous story goes that there was a poor man who had three daughters. He wasn’t able to get them married as he hadn’t had enough money for a dowry. On finding this, Nicholas had secretly dropped a bag of gold down the chimney one night. It had fallen into a stocking that had been left by the fire to dry. It made the eldest daughter to get married. Now the father decided to find out who had given him the money. Eventually, he caught Nicholas who again dropped in another bag of gold. Although Nicholas didn’t want to draw attention to himself, word got out, which made anyone who got a secret gift later to suspect that it was from him.
Other Celebrations on December 6
December 6 is also celebrated as
- Put on Your Own Shoes Day
- Mitten Tree Day
- National Miner’s Day
- National Microwave Day
- National Pawnbrokers Day
How to Celebrate Saint Nicholas Day
The best way to celebrate Saint Nicholas Day is by giving a surprise gift for the person you love. Take this celebration Day as an opportunity to know more in detail about Saint Nicholas. You can provide gifts and presents to people around you and make their Day a little more special. Educate your children about the importance of helping people who are in need. As there were so many magical and lesson teaching stories exists about Saint Nicholas, you can even tell them as their bedtime stories with the events of St. Nicholas. Arrange for a party and gather your friends and family, give them surprise gifts by camouflaging as Santa. Share your views and Saint Nicholas Day celebration photos on the social media using the hashtag #SaintNicholasDay. | 1,021 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The death of Joseph Smith created a rift in the leadership of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that some have termed the succession crisis. However, the succession process that was achieved through prayer, revelation, and common consent could be called a succession of continuity.
The Death of Joseph Smith
Months before his death, Joseph Smith began preparing the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles for the possibility of his death. He also bestowed priesthood keys upon them. When Joseph was martyred on June 27, 1844, the Twelve were scattered primarily throughout the eastern United States serving missions. Because no clear procedure for succession to the office of the president of the Church existed at the time of the Prophet’s death, differing views were expressed. Some of the confusion was based upon statements Joseph had made since 1834, possibly designating his sons, Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, as successors to the office of president. In 1844, Joseph had stipulated that “in the event something happened to him, the Twelve were responsible for carrying on the work he had begun.” Brigham Young, as president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles firmly believed that the Twelve should lead the Church after the death of the Prophet. This was based on revelation Joseph had received in 1831 (published in 1835 as Doctrine and Covenants 107), and the Twelve had grown into that role over the years since.
Differing Views on Succession
Some believed in a lineal succession, which would have made the Prophet’s brother Samuel next in line. However, he died suddenly a month after the martyrdom. Next in line was the Joseph’s brother William, but at the time he did not claim the right to succeed. As for the descendants of Joseph and Emma, their eldest son, Joseph Smith III, was only 11 years old at the time of Joseph’s death. (See Community of Christ).
Sidney Rigdon, who had moved to another state as was legally required for him to be Joseph Smith’s running mate in the presidential campaign, considered himself the rightful successor. He returned to Nauvoo on August 3, confident that “his position in the First Presidency entitled him to lead the church.” He claimed that he had received revelation that he was to serve as a guardian of the church.
The issue was further complicated by Emma Smith, who was pushing for the appointment of William Marks, the Nauvoo stake president, as trustee-in-trust for the Church. “Joseph had made extensive legal efforts to separate his family’s property from what belonged to the church, but he had still left behind considerable debts and no will. Unless the church quickly appointed a trustee-in-trust to replace Joseph as manager of the church’s property, Emma feared her family would be left destitute.”
Bishop Newel K. Whitney “strongly opposed the choice, however, because William [Marks] had rejected plural marriage and cared little for the ordinances of the temple. . . . Knowing the church was much more than a corporation with financial holdings and legal obligations, Newel believed the new trustee-in-trust ought to be someone who fully supported what the Lord had revealed to Joseph.” Willard Richards and William Phelps wanted the decision postponed until the Twelve Apostles were able to return from their respective missions.
Of the Twelve Apostles, John Taylor was recovering from his wounds and Willard Richards had been unharmed while both were in the Carthage Jail with the Prophet and Hyrum. Parley P. Pratt and George A. Smith had returned from their respective missions.
After his arrival, “Sidney insisted on assembling the Saints in two days to select a new leader and appoint a trustee-in-trust. Alarmed, Willard and the other apostles called for more time to review Sidney’s claims and await the return of the rest of their quorum.
William Marks compromised and scheduled the meeting for August 8, four days away.” On August 6, Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Orson Pratt, Wilford Woodruff, and Lyman Wight arrived in Nauvoo by steamboat.
After a meeting with the Twelve who were in Nauvoo, Sidney Rigdon, and other councils of the Church on the afternoon of the August 7, Sidney said he wanted a prayer meeting held with the Saints and wanted to postpone a decision about church leadership. But he also continued to insist on his right to lead the Church, saying, “It was shown to me that this church must be built up to Joseph,” he told the councils, “and that all the blessings we receive must come through him.”
“After Sidney finished speaking, Brigham arose and testified that Joseph had conferred all the keys and powers of the apostleship on the Twelve. ‘I do not care who leads the church,’ he said, ‘but one thing I must know, and that is what God says about it.’
The next morning, August 8, instead of Sidney’s prayer meeting in a grove with the Saints, he offered himself as guardian of the Church. He spoke for an hour and expressed the wish that the congregation not vote at that time on the matter. Brigham Young asked the group to gather again that afternoon and they would sustain a new leader of the Church by vote.
- Around two o’clock, the priesthood quorums and councils took their seats together on and around the stand. Brigham Young then stood to address the Saints.42 “There has been much said about President Rigdon being president of the church,” he said, “but I say unto you that the Quorum of the Twelve have the keys of the kingdom of God in all the world.”
Brigham told the Saints they could select Sidney Rigdon or anyone else to lead them but affirmed that Joseph had committed into the “hands of Twelve the keys of the kingdom in this last dispensation, for all the world.” When Brigham Young spoke, “his voice and appearance bore a striking resemblance to those of Joseph Smith. Wilford Woodruff, one who was present, later said that if ‘I had not seen him with my own eyes, there is no one that could have convinced me that it was not Joseph Smith.’” Dozens of Saints later added their witness “describing how they saw Joseph’s prophetic mantle fall on Brigham that day.”
When called on to vote, the Saints unanimously sustained the Twelve Apostles as the leaders of the Church.
Although the worst of the crisis was over, some men attempted to divide the Church. Sidney founded the Church of Jesus Christ (also known as the Rigdonites and later the Bickertonites). James Strang claimed to have a letter from Joseph appointing him to be his true successor. Some Saints later followed the idea of lineal succession and followed William Smith (he was excommunicated in October 1845). Some left their association with the Church by staying behind in Nauvoo (including Emma Smith) when the body of the Saints emigrated West with Brigham Young in 1847. Other break-off movements also splintered the Saints.
A Pattern for Leadership
“For the next three years [from 1844 to 1847] the Church was governed by the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles with Brigham Young as president of the quorum. In December 1847, following the pioneer journey to the Rocky Mountains, the First Presidency was reorganized and Brigham Young was named President of the Church.” After Brigham Young died in 1877, other short periods existed between the death of the president of the Church and the formation of a new First Presidency until Wilford Woodruff instructed Lorenzo Snow that it was “the will of the Lord that the First Presidency should be organized without delay upon the death of the president.” Therefore, Lorenzo Snow “was named President of the Church in a new First Presidency eleven days after President Woodruff's death [in 1898], a precedent of reorganizing the presidency without delay that has since been followed.” | <urn:uuid:2a9654e1-2d41-4267-b4bd-13689bb5466f> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.mormonwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Succession_Crisis&direction=next&oldid=51456 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594209.12/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119035851-20200119063851-00304.warc.gz | en | 0.983051 | 1,690 | 3.46875 | 3 | [
-0.3644867241382599,
0.3961792588233948,
0.16439080238342285,
-0.3063403069972992,
-0.37829169631004333,
0.4176321029663086,
0.21660810708999634,
0.2630269527435303,
0.15995889902114868,
-0.09375673532485962,
-0.08327552676200867,
0.39080744981765747,
0.6000949144363403,
-0.027104679495096... | 3 | The death of Joseph Smith created a rift in the leadership of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints that some have termed the succession crisis. However, the succession process that was achieved through prayer, revelation, and common consent could be called a succession of continuity.
The Death of Joseph Smith
Months before his death, Joseph Smith began preparing the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles for the possibility of his death. He also bestowed priesthood keys upon them. When Joseph was martyred on June 27, 1844, the Twelve were scattered primarily throughout the eastern United States serving missions. Because no clear procedure for succession to the office of the president of the Church existed at the time of the Prophet’s death, differing views were expressed. Some of the confusion was based upon statements Joseph had made since 1834, possibly designating his sons, Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, as successors to the office of president. In 1844, Joseph had stipulated that “in the event something happened to him, the Twelve were responsible for carrying on the work he had begun.” Brigham Young, as president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles firmly believed that the Twelve should lead the Church after the death of the Prophet. This was based on revelation Joseph had received in 1831 (published in 1835 as Doctrine and Covenants 107), and the Twelve had grown into that role over the years since.
Differing Views on Succession
Some believed in a lineal succession, which would have made the Prophet’s brother Samuel next in line. However, he died suddenly a month after the martyrdom. Next in line was the Joseph’s brother William, but at the time he did not claim the right to succeed. As for the descendants of Joseph and Emma, their eldest son, Joseph Smith III, was only 11 years old at the time of Joseph’s death. (See Community of Christ).
Sidney Rigdon, who had moved to another state as was legally required for him to be Joseph Smith’s running mate in the presidential campaign, considered himself the rightful successor. He returned to Nauvoo on August 3, confident that “his position in the First Presidency entitled him to lead the church.” He claimed that he had received revelation that he was to serve as a guardian of the church.
The issue was further complicated by Emma Smith, who was pushing for the appointment of William Marks, the Nauvoo stake president, as trustee-in-trust for the Church. “Joseph had made extensive legal efforts to separate his family’s property from what belonged to the church, but he had still left behind considerable debts and no will. Unless the church quickly appointed a trustee-in-trust to replace Joseph as manager of the church’s property, Emma feared her family would be left destitute.”
Bishop Newel K. Whitney “strongly opposed the choice, however, because William [Marks] had rejected plural marriage and cared little for the ordinances of the temple. . . . Knowing the church was much more than a corporation with financial holdings and legal obligations, Newel believed the new trustee-in-trust ought to be someone who fully supported what the Lord had revealed to Joseph.” Willard Richards and William Phelps wanted the decision postponed until the Twelve Apostles were able to return from their respective missions.
Of the Twelve Apostles, John Taylor was recovering from his wounds and Willard Richards had been unharmed while both were in the Carthage Jail with the Prophet and Hyrum. Parley P. Pratt and George A. Smith had returned from their respective missions.
After his arrival, “Sidney insisted on assembling the Saints in two days to select a new leader and appoint a trustee-in-trust. Alarmed, Willard and the other apostles called for more time to review Sidney’s claims and await the return of the rest of their quorum.
William Marks compromised and scheduled the meeting for August 8, four days away.” On August 6, Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Orson Pratt, Wilford Woodruff, and Lyman Wight arrived in Nauvoo by steamboat.
After a meeting with the Twelve who were in Nauvoo, Sidney Rigdon, and other councils of the Church on the afternoon of the August 7, Sidney said he wanted a prayer meeting held with the Saints and wanted to postpone a decision about church leadership. But he also continued to insist on his right to lead the Church, saying, “It was shown to me that this church must be built up to Joseph,” he told the councils, “and that all the blessings we receive must come through him.”
“After Sidney finished speaking, Brigham arose and testified that Joseph had conferred all the keys and powers of the apostleship on the Twelve. ‘I do not care who leads the church,’ he said, ‘but one thing I must know, and that is what God says about it.’
The next morning, August 8, instead of Sidney’s prayer meeting in a grove with the Saints, he offered himself as guardian of the Church. He spoke for an hour and expressed the wish that the congregation not vote at that time on the matter. Brigham Young asked the group to gather again that afternoon and they would sustain a new leader of the Church by vote.
- Around two o’clock, the priesthood quorums and councils took their seats together on and around the stand. Brigham Young then stood to address the Saints.42 “There has been much said about President Rigdon being president of the church,” he said, “but I say unto you that the Quorum of the Twelve have the keys of the kingdom of God in all the world.”
Brigham told the Saints they could select Sidney Rigdon or anyone else to lead them but affirmed that Joseph had committed into the “hands of Twelve the keys of the kingdom in this last dispensation, for all the world.” When Brigham Young spoke, “his voice and appearance bore a striking resemblance to those of Joseph Smith. Wilford Woodruff, one who was present, later said that if ‘I had not seen him with my own eyes, there is no one that could have convinced me that it was not Joseph Smith.’” Dozens of Saints later added their witness “describing how they saw Joseph’s prophetic mantle fall on Brigham that day.”
When called on to vote, the Saints unanimously sustained the Twelve Apostles as the leaders of the Church.
Although the worst of the crisis was over, some men attempted to divide the Church. Sidney founded the Church of Jesus Christ (also known as the Rigdonites and later the Bickertonites). James Strang claimed to have a letter from Joseph appointing him to be his true successor. Some Saints later followed the idea of lineal succession and followed William Smith (he was excommunicated in October 1845). Some left their association with the Church by staying behind in Nauvoo (including Emma Smith) when the body of the Saints emigrated West with Brigham Young in 1847. Other break-off movements also splintered the Saints.
A Pattern for Leadership
“For the next three years [from 1844 to 1847] the Church was governed by the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles with Brigham Young as president of the quorum. In December 1847, following the pioneer journey to the Rocky Mountains, the First Presidency was reorganized and Brigham Young was named President of the Church.” After Brigham Young died in 1877, other short periods existed between the death of the president of the Church and the formation of a new First Presidency until Wilford Woodruff instructed Lorenzo Snow that it was “the will of the Lord that the First Presidency should be organized without delay upon the death of the president.” Therefore, Lorenzo Snow “was named President of the Church in a new First Presidency eleven days after President Woodruff's death [in 1898], a precedent of reorganizing the presidency without delay that has since been followed.” | 1,662 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.