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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
10. Siege of Leningrad, 1941-1944 (1.12 million casualties)
The Siege of Leningrad marks one of the darkest periods of World War II, as German and Finnish armed forces sieged the city of Leningrad in the Soviet Union, leading to 1.12 million casualties over a period of around 872 days. The siege began on September 8, 1941 and continued until January 27, 1944. Though Leningrad put up its own defenses in retaliation to the approaching German and Finnish forces, by November of 194 the city had been almost completely encircled by the enemy troops. Vital supplies to the city were cut off, and the inhabitants suffered terribly, with 650,000 Leningraders dying in 1942 alone. Starvation, disease, and shelling activities by the enemy forces were all partially responsible for the massive death tolls seen during the Siege of Leningrad. Only sparse supplies that were obtained across Lake Ladoga kept the city’s surviving population alive (even if barely) during this period. In 1943, Soviet troops managed to rupture the German encirclement, allowing more supplies to reach the city. Finally, in January of 1944, the Soviet Army drove out the Germans and pushed them westward, ending the siege of the city.
9. The Somme, 1916 (1.12 million casualties)
The Somme Offensive, or the Battle of the Somme, was an epic World War I battle fought in Somme, France, by the British and French forces against those of the Germans. It occurred between July 1st, 1916 and November 18th, 1916. The battle claimed the lives of nearly 1.12 million civilians and military men. The first day of the Somme battle was one of the worst days in the history of the British Army, as around 57,470 British soldiers lost their lives. This day also marked the defeat for the German Second Army, who were driven out of their positions by the French Sixth Army. The battle was known for its focus on air power and, towards the end, the Allied forces managed to penetrate 6 miles into German-occupied territories.
8. Stalingrad, 1942-1943 (1.25 million casualties)
The Battle of Stalingrad marked a significant turning point in World War II, as the German forces suffered a massive attack and defeat in Russia. The battle ensued when Hitler ordered his troops, who were advancing towards the Caucasus, to move back and attack the Russian city of Stalingrad. Probably his extreme hatred for the Russian dictator Joseph Stalin triggered his decision to attack the city. The Russian forces were also not ready to give up and, as the city was named after Stalin, the battle turned into an egotistic one between the two nations' respective leaders. The consequences were deadly, as the rival forces fought fiercely, often engaging in hand to hand combat as they tried to capture and recapture individual streets. The battle ended with a severe defeat suffered by the German troops, who were then forced into a full retreat from the area. 1.25 million precious lives were lost in the Battle of Stalingrad.
7. Ichi-Go, 1944 (1.3 million casualties)
The Operation Ichi-Go, which resulted in almost 1.3 million casualties, was launched by the Japanese forces on April 19, 1944. The objectives of this operation were to take control of the railroad between Beiping and Hong Kong, as well as of the Allied airfields in southern China, from where US forces were launching the planes that were bombing the Japanese homeland and its shipping ports. The other objective was the destruction of food supplies and crops in order to worsen the already bad food crisis in China. The success of the Japanese forces at the end of the operation was, however, marginal, as the US forces still remained able to bomb Japan from Saipan and other Pacific bases.
6. Taking of Berlin, 1945 (1.3 million casualties)
This was the culmination in the final series of events leading to the downfall of Hitler and the Nazi Germans. It began on April 16, 1945, when 20 army troop regiments, 8,500 aircrafts, and 6,300 tanks were unleashed by the Russian dictator Josef Stalin. They were sent with the ultimate goal of crushing the defending German forces and capturing Berlin. Though the already depleted German forces put up stiff resistance, they were no match for the determined Russian forces who had surrounded the city of Berlin by April 24th. Street-to-street and house-by-house battles brewed up, resulting in a massive bloodbath that claimed almost 1.3 million lives by the time all was said and done. Finally, the Russian troops emerged victorious, and the 'Fuhrer', knowing his last days were near, married his long time ,mistress in his underground bunker after which time both ended their lives by committing suicide. The Russians' arrival and taking of Berlin before the Americans could arrive would have a huge geopolitical impact in the US-USSR Cold War in the decades to follow.
5. Operation Barbarossa, 1941 (1.4 million casualties)
One of the largest military operations in the history of mankind, the Operation Barbarossa was launched by Hitler on June 22, 1941 against the Soviet Union. Over 3 million Axis troops and 3,500 tanks were directed into the Soviet Union, with the aim to capture the Baltic states and Leningrad in the North and Moscow in the center, as well as the economic resources of the Soviet Union that lay to the southern extents of the campaign. Germany’s major victory over France had encouraged the Axis Forces to plan the Barbarossa operation. Though the strong German forces were able to subdue the unprepared Soviet troops at the beginning, leading to heavy losses in terms of Russian life, territory, and fighting supplies, the Soviets were not ready to give up. Thus, towards the end of Operation Barbarossa, the German forces were met with heavy retaliation from the Soviet troops, this time leading to heavy losses on the German side of the front lines. Nearly 1.4 million fatal casualties occurred during this death-dealing operation.
4. German Spring offensive, 1918 (1.55 milion casualties)
During the final parts of World War I, the Germans launched a series of attacks, referred to as the Spring Offensive, on the Western Front, starting on March 21st, 1918. There were four German offensive spearheads participating in this operation. 'Michael' was the most significant offensive of the four, and was intended to outflank the British troops that defended the Somme, while the other offensives were meant to divert the Allied forces away from the primary target of the Somme. However, retaliation by a powerful Allied army, the inability to move German supplies and reinforcements, and heavy casualties on the German side, led to the retreat of the German troops by late April of 1918. Around 1.55 million lives were lost in this battle.
3. Dnieper, 1943 (1.58 million casualties)
In 1943, the Battle of the Dnieper, one of the largest of all World War II operations, was launched, involving as many as 4,000,000 troops on both sides, and stretching across 1,400 kilometers of the Eastern Front. During this war, the Red Army managed to recover the eastern bank of the Dnieper River from the German forces (pictured crossing the Dnieper above). The fatal casualties of the battle were as high as 1.58 million, proving this to be one of the costliest battles during World War II
2. Brusilov, 1916 (1.6 million casualties)
The Brusilov Offensive, which took place between June and August of 1916, was a major success for the Russians, who had until then mostly suffered large defeats at the hands of the German forces and their Central Power allies. When, in February of 1916, the French city of Verdun was sieged by the German forces, other Allied forces joined hands to divert the Germans towards other areas, allowing Verdun to recover. While the British set up their own offensive along the Somme River, the Russians proved extremely quick in action, and attacked the German forces at Lake Narocz. However, the Russians were highly unsuccessful in this attempt, which resulted in mass slaughtering of the Russian troops by the German forces. A subsequent offensive was planned near Vilna and, while this was put into action, General Alexei Brusilov, an experienced cavalryman and an efficient commander of the Southwestern Army, attempted to convince his superiors to let his forces launch an attack on the Germans. His wish was granted, and thusly Brusilov led his offensive attacks on the Austro-Hungarian 4th Army, defeating them completely. The attack was so severe with about 1.6 million casualties, that the German forces were forced to withdraw their own plans for future attacks, and instead had to rush to help their newly made Central Powers ally, the Austro-Hungarians. Finally, with Russian resources beginning to run out, the Brusilov Offensive came to a close on September 20th, 1916. When it was all said and done, it became the costliest battle in terms of human lives in modern history.
1. Mongol Sacking of Baghdad, 1258 (~2 million casualties)
Though the previous nine deadly battles all belonged to the World War I and World War II eras, the most treacherous recorded battle in the history of the world in terms of death tolls was waged a much longer time back. It occurred in 1258, when the Mongol forces sacked the city of Baghdad. The event took place during a short period between January 29 and February 10, 1258, but was violent enough to result in around 2 million casualties, military and civilian alike. The Siege of Baghdad was carried out by Hulagu Khan, the brother of Khagan (emperor) Möngke Khan. The initial orders dispatched from Möngke Khan were not directed at overthrowing the Abbasid Caliphate in Baghdad, but rather to convince the then-Caliph Al-Musta’sim to quietly surrender to the Mongol forces. However, the Caliph refused to do so, leading to the siege of the city, and the subsequent complete ransacking of Baghdad by the conquering Mongols. The blood-bathed city was forced to surrender to the destructive Mongols within only 12 days of the initial Mongol attacks. This battle also brought an inglorious end to the Islamic Golden Age and its many impressive cultural, scientific, and architectural achievements.
What Was the Deadliest Battle in Human History?
The deadliest battle in the history of the recorded world occur in 1258 when Mongol forces attacked the city of Baghdad. It is estimated to have resulted in around 2 million casualties between January 29 and February 10, 1258.
About the Author
Oishimaya is an Indian native, currently residing in Kolkata. She has earned her Ph.D. degree and is presently engaged in full-time freelance writing and editing. She is an avid reader and travel enthusiast and is sensitively aware of her surroundings, both locally and globally. She loves mingling with people of eclectic cultures and also participates in activities concerning wildlife conservation.
Your MLA Citation
Your APA Citation
Your Chicago Citation
Your Harvard CitationRemember to italicize the title of this article in your Harvard citation. | <urn:uuid:a7973628-f60f-4ae5-baef-6c1fde1a7912> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/deadliest-battles-in-human-history.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250628549.43/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125011232-20200125040232-00349.warc.gz | en | 0.981799 | 2,341 | 3.671875 | 4 | [
-0.38207197189331055,
-0.08389061689376831,
0.01122388057410717,
-0.30844956636428833,
-0.15813803672790527,
0.20846334099769592,
-0.19464558362960815,
0.3009738028049469,
0.07880274206399918,
-0.07242931425571442,
0.05648314207792282,
-0.27956676483154297,
0.28328320384025574,
0.605512022... | 2 | 10. Siege of Leningrad, 1941-1944 (1.12 million casualties)
The Siege of Leningrad marks one of the darkest periods of World War II, as German and Finnish armed forces sieged the city of Leningrad in the Soviet Union, leading to 1.12 million casualties over a period of around 872 days. The siege began on September 8, 1941 and continued until January 27, 1944. Though Leningrad put up its own defenses in retaliation to the approaching German and Finnish forces, by November of 194 the city had been almost completely encircled by the enemy troops. Vital supplies to the city were cut off, and the inhabitants suffered terribly, with 650,000 Leningraders dying in 1942 alone. Starvation, disease, and shelling activities by the enemy forces were all partially responsible for the massive death tolls seen during the Siege of Leningrad. Only sparse supplies that were obtained across Lake Ladoga kept the city’s surviving population alive (even if barely) during this period. In 1943, Soviet troops managed to rupture the German encirclement, allowing more supplies to reach the city. Finally, in January of 1944, the Soviet Army drove out the Germans and pushed them westward, ending the siege of the city.
9. The Somme, 1916 (1.12 million casualties)
The Somme Offensive, or the Battle of the Somme, was an epic World War I battle fought in Somme, France, by the British and French forces against those of the Germans. It occurred between July 1st, 1916 and November 18th, 1916. The battle claimed the lives of nearly 1.12 million civilians and military men. The first day of the Somme battle was one of the worst days in the history of the British Army, as around 57,470 British soldiers lost their lives. This day also marked the defeat for the German Second Army, who were driven out of their positions by the French Sixth Army. The battle was known for its focus on air power and, towards the end, the Allied forces managed to penetrate 6 miles into German-occupied territories.
8. Stalingrad, 1942-1943 (1.25 million casualties)
The Battle of Stalingrad marked a significant turning point in World War II, as the German forces suffered a massive attack and defeat in Russia. The battle ensued when Hitler ordered his troops, who were advancing towards the Caucasus, to move back and attack the Russian city of Stalingrad. Probably his extreme hatred for the Russian dictator Joseph Stalin triggered his decision to attack the city. The Russian forces were also not ready to give up and, as the city was named after Stalin, the battle turned into an egotistic one between the two nations' respective leaders. The consequences were deadly, as the rival forces fought fiercely, often engaging in hand to hand combat as they tried to capture and recapture individual streets. The battle ended with a severe defeat suffered by the German troops, who were then forced into a full retreat from the area. 1.25 million precious lives were lost in the Battle of Stalingrad.
7. Ichi-Go, 1944 (1.3 million casualties)
The Operation Ichi-Go, which resulted in almost 1.3 million casualties, was launched by the Japanese forces on April 19, 1944. The objectives of this operation were to take control of the railroad between Beiping and Hong Kong, as well as of the Allied airfields in southern China, from where US forces were launching the planes that were bombing the Japanese homeland and its shipping ports. The other objective was the destruction of food supplies and crops in order to worsen the already bad food crisis in China. The success of the Japanese forces at the end of the operation was, however, marginal, as the US forces still remained able to bomb Japan from Saipan and other Pacific bases.
6. Taking of Berlin, 1945 (1.3 million casualties)
This was the culmination in the final series of events leading to the downfall of Hitler and the Nazi Germans. It began on April 16, 1945, when 20 army troop regiments, 8,500 aircrafts, and 6,300 tanks were unleashed by the Russian dictator Josef Stalin. They were sent with the ultimate goal of crushing the defending German forces and capturing Berlin. Though the already depleted German forces put up stiff resistance, they were no match for the determined Russian forces who had surrounded the city of Berlin by April 24th. Street-to-street and house-by-house battles brewed up, resulting in a massive bloodbath that claimed almost 1.3 million lives by the time all was said and done. Finally, the Russian troops emerged victorious, and the 'Fuhrer', knowing his last days were near, married his long time ,mistress in his underground bunker after which time both ended their lives by committing suicide. The Russians' arrival and taking of Berlin before the Americans could arrive would have a huge geopolitical impact in the US-USSR Cold War in the decades to follow.
5. Operation Barbarossa, 1941 (1.4 million casualties)
One of the largest military operations in the history of mankind, the Operation Barbarossa was launched by Hitler on June 22, 1941 against the Soviet Union. Over 3 million Axis troops and 3,500 tanks were directed into the Soviet Union, with the aim to capture the Baltic states and Leningrad in the North and Moscow in the center, as well as the economic resources of the Soviet Union that lay to the southern extents of the campaign. Germany’s major victory over France had encouraged the Axis Forces to plan the Barbarossa operation. Though the strong German forces were able to subdue the unprepared Soviet troops at the beginning, leading to heavy losses in terms of Russian life, territory, and fighting supplies, the Soviets were not ready to give up. Thus, towards the end of Operation Barbarossa, the German forces were met with heavy retaliation from the Soviet troops, this time leading to heavy losses on the German side of the front lines. Nearly 1.4 million fatal casualties occurred during this death-dealing operation.
4. German Spring offensive, 1918 (1.55 milion casualties)
During the final parts of World War I, the Germans launched a series of attacks, referred to as the Spring Offensive, on the Western Front, starting on March 21st, 1918. There were four German offensive spearheads participating in this operation. 'Michael' was the most significant offensive of the four, and was intended to outflank the British troops that defended the Somme, while the other offensives were meant to divert the Allied forces away from the primary target of the Somme. However, retaliation by a powerful Allied army, the inability to move German supplies and reinforcements, and heavy casualties on the German side, led to the retreat of the German troops by late April of 1918. Around 1.55 million lives were lost in this battle.
3. Dnieper, 1943 (1.58 million casualties)
In 1943, the Battle of the Dnieper, one of the largest of all World War II operations, was launched, involving as many as 4,000,000 troops on both sides, and stretching across 1,400 kilometers of the Eastern Front. During this war, the Red Army managed to recover the eastern bank of the Dnieper River from the German forces (pictured crossing the Dnieper above). The fatal casualties of the battle were as high as 1.58 million, proving this to be one of the costliest battles during World War II
2. Brusilov, 1916 (1.6 million casualties)
The Brusilov Offensive, which took place between June and August of 1916, was a major success for the Russians, who had until then mostly suffered large defeats at the hands of the German forces and their Central Power allies. When, in February of 1916, the French city of Verdun was sieged by the German forces, other Allied forces joined hands to divert the Germans towards other areas, allowing Verdun to recover. While the British set up their own offensive along the Somme River, the Russians proved extremely quick in action, and attacked the German forces at Lake Narocz. However, the Russians were highly unsuccessful in this attempt, which resulted in mass slaughtering of the Russian troops by the German forces. A subsequent offensive was planned near Vilna and, while this was put into action, General Alexei Brusilov, an experienced cavalryman and an efficient commander of the Southwestern Army, attempted to convince his superiors to let his forces launch an attack on the Germans. His wish was granted, and thusly Brusilov led his offensive attacks on the Austro-Hungarian 4th Army, defeating them completely. The attack was so severe with about 1.6 million casualties, that the German forces were forced to withdraw their own plans for future attacks, and instead had to rush to help their newly made Central Powers ally, the Austro-Hungarians. Finally, with Russian resources beginning to run out, the Brusilov Offensive came to a close on September 20th, 1916. When it was all said and done, it became the costliest battle in terms of human lives in modern history.
1. Mongol Sacking of Baghdad, 1258 (~2 million casualties)
Though the previous nine deadly battles all belonged to the World War I and World War II eras, the most treacherous recorded battle in the history of the world in terms of death tolls was waged a much longer time back. It occurred in 1258, when the Mongol forces sacked the city of Baghdad. The event took place during a short period between January 29 and February 10, 1258, but was violent enough to result in around 2 million casualties, military and civilian alike. The Siege of Baghdad was carried out by Hulagu Khan, the brother of Khagan (emperor) Möngke Khan. The initial orders dispatched from Möngke Khan were not directed at overthrowing the Abbasid Caliphate in Baghdad, but rather to convince the then-Caliph Al-Musta’sim to quietly surrender to the Mongol forces. However, the Caliph refused to do so, leading to the siege of the city, and the subsequent complete ransacking of Baghdad by the conquering Mongols. The blood-bathed city was forced to surrender to the destructive Mongols within only 12 days of the initial Mongol attacks. This battle also brought an inglorious end to the Islamic Golden Age and its many impressive cultural, scientific, and architectural achievements.
What Was the Deadliest Battle in Human History?
The deadliest battle in the history of the recorded world occur in 1258 when Mongol forces attacked the city of Baghdad. It is estimated to have resulted in around 2 million casualties between January 29 and February 10, 1258.
About the Author
Oishimaya is an Indian native, currently residing in Kolkata. She has earned her Ph.D. degree and is presently engaged in full-time freelance writing and editing. She is an avid reader and travel enthusiast and is sensitively aware of her surroundings, both locally and globally. She loves mingling with people of eclectic cultures and also participates in activities concerning wildlife conservation.
Your MLA Citation
Your APA Citation
Your Chicago Citation
Your Harvard CitationRemember to italicize the title of this article in your Harvard citation. | 2,517 | ENGLISH | 1 |
November is National Aviation History month!
90 years ago on this day in 1929, Richard Byrd and his 3-man crew made the first flight to the South Pole. They had difficulty gaining enough altitude, and had to dump empty gas tanks, as well as their emergency supplies, in order to achieve the altitude of the Polar Plateau, but they were ultimately successful. The flight took 18 hours and 41 minutes roundtrip.
Fun fact: In the early 1920s, NYC wealthy hotelier Raymond Orteig offered $25,000 to anyone who could make the first non-stop transatlantic flight between New York City and Paris. In early 1927, Richard Byrd was the popular favorite in the USA – until Charles Lindbergh showed up, and the rest is history. | <urn:uuid:623c5412-0285-4efc-8502-93b5ce6eff75> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://www.kelchmuseum.org/richard-byrd/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251681412.74/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125191854-20200125221854-00232.warc.gz | en | 0.985268 | 156 | 3.265625 | 3 | [
-0.28485730290412903,
0.31712639331817627,
0.1297697275876999,
-0.1618652045726776,
-0.47864222526550293,
0.5886824727058411,
0.1503024846315384,
0.22075119614601135,
-0.11007697880268097,
0.14254039525985718,
0.19078105688095093,
0.1981325000524521,
-0.07890316843986511,
0.511722862720489... | 7 | November is National Aviation History month!
90 years ago on this day in 1929, Richard Byrd and his 3-man crew made the first flight to the South Pole. They had difficulty gaining enough altitude, and had to dump empty gas tanks, as well as their emergency supplies, in order to achieve the altitude of the Polar Plateau, but they were ultimately successful. The flight took 18 hours and 41 minutes roundtrip.
Fun fact: In the early 1920s, NYC wealthy hotelier Raymond Orteig offered $25,000 to anyone who could make the first non-stop transatlantic flight between New York City and Paris. In early 1927, Richard Byrd was the popular favorite in the USA – until Charles Lindbergh showed up, and the rest is history. | 176 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Despite heavy reinforcement, the 1st and 2nd German Armies at the Somme continued to suffer from a shortage of artillery and munitions throughout the 1916 battle. Consequently, with limited artillery support, German infantry at the Somme was often left to its own devices for defense. Hand grenades, once a specialist weapon, were used extensively to aid in defense, as were a growing range of small-caliber mortars. Both types of weapons gave the infantry some much-needed close support.
However, it was the machine gun that really provided the fire support so required by the defending infantry. "Lessons-learned" reports recognized the centrality of the machine gun to the success of the defense on the Somme. The 1st Battalion, Reserve Infantry Regiment 28 wrote: “The infantry battle was always supported by our machine guns. As long as the machine guns and their crews were intact, every English attack was bound to be beaten back.”
As machine guns became more and more important, German units quickly found that they could never have enough of these. Most regiments had an establishment of 15 machine guns at the beginning of the battle. The 1st Army was successful in finding enough guns to bring this up to 25 or 30 over the course of the battle.
Prior to the battle, German defensive doctrine maintained that machine guns should be employed in the forward-most trench. However, the battle showed that guns deployed forward would quickly be destroyed. Instead, units deployed their machine guns in depth in shell holes with instructions to fire only at the last minute to avoid being spotted by enemy aircraft. The 183rd Infantry Division wrote:“Single machine guns deployed outside of trenches proved themselves to be especially worthwhile in the battle, since they were not discovered by enemy artillery, which concentrated mainly on the trenches. Repeatedly, enemy breakthrough attempts were brought to a halt by machine guns deployed like this.”
The battle showed once again the importance of flanking gunfire, which had a great moral effect on the enemy and helped keep guns hidden. Indeed, some units even took to using a barrage of fire from machine guns firing over the heads of the frontline infantry. Of course, the importance of machine guns was also recognized by the Entente, and every effort was made to put them out of service. Consequently, gun crews suffered high casualties. Based on previous experience, the machine gun company of Infantry Regiment 65 went into the line with more crews than needed and asked for additional infantrymen to be assigned as the battle wore on.
This company also recommended that once a gun fired, it should change position, as the enemy focused his artillery on German machine guns. Reports after report stressed the need for more men to be trained to use machine guns, both German and enemy, to take the place of the gun teams when they were wounded or killed. Consequently, one of the key recommendations to come out of the battle was that training on machine guns be extended to ordinary infantry men as well.
Indeed, the battle of the Somme proved once and for all that the days of a uniformly armed infantry were well and truly over. From this point on, infantry units would be armed with a wide array of weapons, from rifles to hand grenades to small mortars and to ever increasing numbers of machine guns.
Source: "Learning War’s Lessons: The German Army and the Battle of the Somme 1916," Robert T. Foley, University of Liverpool | <urn:uuid:42588b8e-ea5c-4248-9bed-959a9395a30a> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://roadstothegreatwar-ww1.blogspot.com/2019/12/machine-gun-lessons-from-somme.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250610004.56/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123101110-20200123130110-00252.warc.gz | en | 0.985736 | 698 | 3.515625 | 4 | [
-0.3954640030860901,
0.40743470191955566,
0.060130730271339417,
-0.15567579865455627,
0.20639446377754211,
0.03115585818886757,
-0.2186889797449112,
0.38077542185783386,
-0.301665335893631,
-0.41591882705688477,
-0.022219941020011902,
-0.40352365374565125,
0.03659307211637497,
-0.020446296... | 2 | Despite heavy reinforcement, the 1st and 2nd German Armies at the Somme continued to suffer from a shortage of artillery and munitions throughout the 1916 battle. Consequently, with limited artillery support, German infantry at the Somme was often left to its own devices for defense. Hand grenades, once a specialist weapon, were used extensively to aid in defense, as were a growing range of small-caliber mortars. Both types of weapons gave the infantry some much-needed close support.
However, it was the machine gun that really provided the fire support so required by the defending infantry. "Lessons-learned" reports recognized the centrality of the machine gun to the success of the defense on the Somme. The 1st Battalion, Reserve Infantry Regiment 28 wrote: “The infantry battle was always supported by our machine guns. As long as the machine guns and their crews were intact, every English attack was bound to be beaten back.”
As machine guns became more and more important, German units quickly found that they could never have enough of these. Most regiments had an establishment of 15 machine guns at the beginning of the battle. The 1st Army was successful in finding enough guns to bring this up to 25 or 30 over the course of the battle.
Prior to the battle, German defensive doctrine maintained that machine guns should be employed in the forward-most trench. However, the battle showed that guns deployed forward would quickly be destroyed. Instead, units deployed their machine guns in depth in shell holes with instructions to fire only at the last minute to avoid being spotted by enemy aircraft. The 183rd Infantry Division wrote:“Single machine guns deployed outside of trenches proved themselves to be especially worthwhile in the battle, since they were not discovered by enemy artillery, which concentrated mainly on the trenches. Repeatedly, enemy breakthrough attempts were brought to a halt by machine guns deployed like this.”
The battle showed once again the importance of flanking gunfire, which had a great moral effect on the enemy and helped keep guns hidden. Indeed, some units even took to using a barrage of fire from machine guns firing over the heads of the frontline infantry. Of course, the importance of machine guns was also recognized by the Entente, and every effort was made to put them out of service. Consequently, gun crews suffered high casualties. Based on previous experience, the machine gun company of Infantry Regiment 65 went into the line with more crews than needed and asked for additional infantrymen to be assigned as the battle wore on.
This company also recommended that once a gun fired, it should change position, as the enemy focused his artillery on German machine guns. Reports after report stressed the need for more men to be trained to use machine guns, both German and enemy, to take the place of the gun teams when they were wounded or killed. Consequently, one of the key recommendations to come out of the battle was that training on machine guns be extended to ordinary infantry men as well.
Indeed, the battle of the Somme proved once and for all that the days of a uniformly armed infantry were well and truly over. From this point on, infantry units would be armed with a wide array of weapons, from rifles to hand grenades to small mortars and to ever increasing numbers of machine guns.
Source: "Learning War’s Lessons: The German Army and the Battle of the Somme 1916," Robert T. Foley, University of Liverpool | 707 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Why is Frank Lloyd Wright Famous?
Frank Lloyd Wright was the most well-known architect in American history, designing some of the 20th century’s most iconic buildings and playing a substantial role in the development of American modernist and “midcentury” aesthetics.
When did Frank Lloyd Wright Live?
Frank Lloyd Wright was born June 8, 1867, in Richland Center, Wisconsin. He died of old age on April 9, 1959 at age 91 in Phoenix, Arizona.
What did Frank Lloyd Wright do?
The son of British immigrants, Frank Lloyd Wright was largely raised by his kind and supportive mother, who helped foster her son’s interest in architecture from childhood. As a young man, he worked for a local building company and studied architecture at the University of Wisconsin before dropping out to move to Chicago, where he worked for some of the city’s top architectural firms. Impressing his bosses and clients with his skill and vision, he began working independently at age 26. His first substantial solo work was Oak Park (1889), a combination house and studio he designed for himself in Oak Park, Illinois.
Wright would proceed to become one of America’s most-sought architects for the next six decades, commissioned to design everything from private homes and apartment buildings to museums and churches. Rebelling strongly against the ornate and fussy traditions of Victorian design, Wright’s buildings embraced the simple beauty of sharp geometric shapes and clean, undecorated surfaces of wood, stone, and brick. Rather than lots of walls and doors, his interiors favored large open rooms that flowed into one another — a kitchen spreading directly into the dining room, for instance — illuminated by plenty of natural light from large plate glass windows. Wright’s Prairie and Usonian homes rejected standard “boxy” designs in favor of more horizontal layouts, while his theory of “organic architecture,” which held buildings should fully embrace the natural environment in which they are built, inspired his two most famous works, the mansion Fallingwater (1936), built atop a waterfall in rural Pennsylvania and the sprawling Taliesin campus (1911) in Spring Green, Wisconsin where he and his employees lived and worked.
Though Wright’s clients were usually wealthy, his elegant, spacious designs proved popular with Americans of all walks of life, and had tremendous influence in helping change tastes and expectations of how a beautiful building should look. He died six months before the opening of his last major work, New York City’s massive Guggenheim Museum (1959), having overseen the construction of over 750 unique buildings in 36 states, many of which now serve as museums to Wright’s creative genius.
What was Frank Lloyd Wright like?
Frank Lloyd Wright was an enormously cocky, vain man whose gigantic ego often threatened to overshadow his architectural accomplishments. He bragged and lied constantly about himself, and his deep belief in his own brilliance and the revolutionary importance of his buildings made him a nightmare for clients. A lack of faith in others meant he hated negotiating and instead insisting upon designing buildings for others entirely on his own terms — up to and including what furniture and art should go inside. Most dangerously, his habit of ignoring the advice of engineers and construction workers lead to serious structural flaws in some of his buildings, causing them to leak, crack, or even collapse, problems for which Wright (of course) never accepted responsibility.
Wright’s personal life was deeply chaotic, and a source of constant tabloid gossip and public outrage. Married three times, his first two marriages ended in adulterous affairs and long, messy divorces, while the relationship he had in between — with the mistress he cheated on his first wife with — ended with her brutal murder by a Taliesin cook, who also burned down much of the campus. He was a cold and disinterested father to his seven children, once quipping that he only truly felt like a parent to his buildings.
Interested in art from a young age, Wright strove to be a cultured gentleman and enjoyed museums, fine dining, and theater. Having spent several years in Japan during the construction of his Imperial Hotel (1923), he was particularly in love with Japanese woodcut prints, which he collected in vast amounts. Wright was notoriously bad at managing his money, however, and his expensive tastes repeatedly brought him to the brink of bankruptcy. His constant desire for fame and attention made him fond of parties and socializing, and despite his arrogance he could be an enthralling, hilarious speaker thanks to his witty, savage criticisms of just about everything. | <urn:uuid:c7a61339-8f0c-4f85-9b86-684416c6fe31> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://americansthatmatter.com/frank-lloyd-wright/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251779833.86/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128153713-20200128183713-00443.warc.gz | en | 0.983015 | 946 | 3.90625 | 4 | [
-0.03562895953655243,
0.20282737910747528,
0.36003339290618896,
0.030477959662675858,
-0.24872253835201263,
0.5643298625946045,
0.37498223781585693,
0.12305305153131485,
0.08678685128688812,
-0.05796312913298607,
-0.08580821752548218,
-0.028034089133143425,
-0.2939680814743042,
0.380750775... | 8 | Why is Frank Lloyd Wright Famous?
Frank Lloyd Wright was the most well-known architect in American history, designing some of the 20th century’s most iconic buildings and playing a substantial role in the development of American modernist and “midcentury” aesthetics.
When did Frank Lloyd Wright Live?
Frank Lloyd Wright was born June 8, 1867, in Richland Center, Wisconsin. He died of old age on April 9, 1959 at age 91 in Phoenix, Arizona.
What did Frank Lloyd Wright do?
The son of British immigrants, Frank Lloyd Wright was largely raised by his kind and supportive mother, who helped foster her son’s interest in architecture from childhood. As a young man, he worked for a local building company and studied architecture at the University of Wisconsin before dropping out to move to Chicago, where he worked for some of the city’s top architectural firms. Impressing his bosses and clients with his skill and vision, he began working independently at age 26. His first substantial solo work was Oak Park (1889), a combination house and studio he designed for himself in Oak Park, Illinois.
Wright would proceed to become one of America’s most-sought architects for the next six decades, commissioned to design everything from private homes and apartment buildings to museums and churches. Rebelling strongly against the ornate and fussy traditions of Victorian design, Wright’s buildings embraced the simple beauty of sharp geometric shapes and clean, undecorated surfaces of wood, stone, and brick. Rather than lots of walls and doors, his interiors favored large open rooms that flowed into one another — a kitchen spreading directly into the dining room, for instance — illuminated by plenty of natural light from large plate glass windows. Wright’s Prairie and Usonian homes rejected standard “boxy” designs in favor of more horizontal layouts, while his theory of “organic architecture,” which held buildings should fully embrace the natural environment in which they are built, inspired his two most famous works, the mansion Fallingwater (1936), built atop a waterfall in rural Pennsylvania and the sprawling Taliesin campus (1911) in Spring Green, Wisconsin where he and his employees lived and worked.
Though Wright’s clients were usually wealthy, his elegant, spacious designs proved popular with Americans of all walks of life, and had tremendous influence in helping change tastes and expectations of how a beautiful building should look. He died six months before the opening of his last major work, New York City’s massive Guggenheim Museum (1959), having overseen the construction of over 750 unique buildings in 36 states, many of which now serve as museums to Wright’s creative genius.
What was Frank Lloyd Wright like?
Frank Lloyd Wright was an enormously cocky, vain man whose gigantic ego often threatened to overshadow his architectural accomplishments. He bragged and lied constantly about himself, and his deep belief in his own brilliance and the revolutionary importance of his buildings made him a nightmare for clients. A lack of faith in others meant he hated negotiating and instead insisting upon designing buildings for others entirely on his own terms — up to and including what furniture and art should go inside. Most dangerously, his habit of ignoring the advice of engineers and construction workers lead to serious structural flaws in some of his buildings, causing them to leak, crack, or even collapse, problems for which Wright (of course) never accepted responsibility.
Wright’s personal life was deeply chaotic, and a source of constant tabloid gossip and public outrage. Married three times, his first two marriages ended in adulterous affairs and long, messy divorces, while the relationship he had in between — with the mistress he cheated on his first wife with — ended with her brutal murder by a Taliesin cook, who also burned down much of the campus. He was a cold and disinterested father to his seven children, once quipping that he only truly felt like a parent to his buildings.
Interested in art from a young age, Wright strove to be a cultured gentleman and enjoyed museums, fine dining, and theater. Having spent several years in Japan during the construction of his Imperial Hotel (1923), he was particularly in love with Japanese woodcut prints, which he collected in vast amounts. Wright was notoriously bad at managing his money, however, and his expensive tastes repeatedly brought him to the brink of bankruptcy. His constant desire for fame and attention made him fond of parties and socializing, and despite his arrogance he could be an enthralling, hilarious speaker thanks to his witty, savage criticisms of just about everything. | 937 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Are you a big fan of The Game of Thrones? The Game of Thrones is perhaps the most talked about TV show in recent times and it captures the brutality of life in the medieval era, when people could be killed or tortured at the drop of a hat.
Those were a harsh time indeed. Have you wondered about the castles of the medieval era and how they were secured? Clearly, people in the medieval era, especially the landed aristocracy of that period, must have spent much of their time worrying about security. It was a matter of life and death for them.
So, how were castles secured in medieval times? Yeah, you remember the scene from The Lord of the Rings – The Two Towers, when Lord Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli help the people of Rohan fight off an entire army of orcs trying to take over the castle. They do everything possible to secure the premises, such as firing arrows, pouring boiling oil from the top, and more to keep the orcs off.
Fortunately, the castle was strong and our heroes were able to somehow hold off the siege from the Orc army, thanks to the strong front gate of the castle and the powerful locking system that held it in place, despite the battering it received from the Orcs.
Castles of those days had several layers of defense. The most important was the front gate. The front gate was the main entrance to the castle, which remained open during peace time, but was closed whenever the castle came under attack.
The front gate was actually a glaring security loophole. It was very difficult for the defenders to hold it in place when the attackers used all sorts of mechanisms such as battering rams to beat it down.
So the architects that designed the castles built a moat around the structure, a drawbridge and a portcullis. Most castles had two portcullises which were meant to trap attackers from both sides, as arrows were fired through the slits in the floor, called as murder holes.
The curtain wall was another mechanism used in those days to ward off attackers. It was a large stone wall built outside the castle, which covered everything behind it. These walls were about 2 meters thick and about 10 feet tall. They were strong, powerful and capable of taking any punishment.
The moats around the castle were important as well. They let off a real stink and filled up with all the waste water that came from the castle; they were disgusting to say the least. Some of the moats even had sharpened stake underneath the water. Imagine the plight of the attacker who fell into them! The moats were constructed around the curtain walls and they kept the attacker off, while giving enough time for the defenders to regroup.
It was during the medieval era that locksmiths really came to the fore. They were taken as serious professionals and put to work to secure the castles and homes of those times. Locksmiths of those days were expert lock makers. All locks were handcrafted by skilled locksmiths. Hiring a good locksmith literally made the difference between life and death for folks back in those days. | <urn:uuid:2a9f055f-b25d-4aa3-bd47-0ad3936db971> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://sandiegocitylocksmith.com/how-castles-were-secured-in-medieval-times/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250598217.23/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120081337-20200120105337-00539.warc.gz | en | 0.990481 | 638 | 3.34375 | 3 | [
-0.23142044246196747,
0.4649566411972046,
0.3578662872314453,
-0.23321248590946198,
0.10084313154220581,
-0.24265190958976746,
0.3556731343269348,
-0.17703846096992493,
0.19242507219314575,
-0.20284417271614075,
-0.34451669454574585,
-0.05712035670876503,
0.2667415738105774,
-0.06532406806... | 10 | Are you a big fan of The Game of Thrones? The Game of Thrones is perhaps the most talked about TV show in recent times and it captures the brutality of life in the medieval era, when people could be killed or tortured at the drop of a hat.
Those were a harsh time indeed. Have you wondered about the castles of the medieval era and how they were secured? Clearly, people in the medieval era, especially the landed aristocracy of that period, must have spent much of their time worrying about security. It was a matter of life and death for them.
So, how were castles secured in medieval times? Yeah, you remember the scene from The Lord of the Rings – The Two Towers, when Lord Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli help the people of Rohan fight off an entire army of orcs trying to take over the castle. They do everything possible to secure the premises, such as firing arrows, pouring boiling oil from the top, and more to keep the orcs off.
Fortunately, the castle was strong and our heroes were able to somehow hold off the siege from the Orc army, thanks to the strong front gate of the castle and the powerful locking system that held it in place, despite the battering it received from the Orcs.
Castles of those days had several layers of defense. The most important was the front gate. The front gate was the main entrance to the castle, which remained open during peace time, but was closed whenever the castle came under attack.
The front gate was actually a glaring security loophole. It was very difficult for the defenders to hold it in place when the attackers used all sorts of mechanisms such as battering rams to beat it down.
So the architects that designed the castles built a moat around the structure, a drawbridge and a portcullis. Most castles had two portcullises which were meant to trap attackers from both sides, as arrows were fired through the slits in the floor, called as murder holes.
The curtain wall was another mechanism used in those days to ward off attackers. It was a large stone wall built outside the castle, which covered everything behind it. These walls were about 2 meters thick and about 10 feet tall. They were strong, powerful and capable of taking any punishment.
The moats around the castle were important as well. They let off a real stink and filled up with all the waste water that came from the castle; they were disgusting to say the least. Some of the moats even had sharpened stake underneath the water. Imagine the plight of the attacker who fell into them! The moats were constructed around the curtain walls and they kept the attacker off, while giving enough time for the defenders to regroup.
It was during the medieval era that locksmiths really came to the fore. They were taken as serious professionals and put to work to secure the castles and homes of those times. Locksmiths of those days were expert lock makers. All locks were handcrafted by skilled locksmiths. Hiring a good locksmith literally made the difference between life and death for folks back in those days. | 636 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Dominican Republic Reflection
by Rayonna Booth
To understand life in the Dominican Republic, one must first understand the history to better configure how its inhabitants operate and receive education. It all started with the Spaniards infecting those on the island and coming back after they would die. Then, the French brought many African slaves to do hard labor for them, bringing in a darker skin tone to the island. The island began to separate into what is today, Haiti and the Dominican Republic. After many leaders and years passed, the U.S. came to set up a dictatorship in the Dominican Republic. They put in power a man who was inhumane and rudely cruel; his name was Rafael Trujillo. Trujillo enforced the boarder of Haiti and the Dominican Republic, killing thousands of Haitians because of their darker skin color. Trujillo himself had a grandmother who was Haitian, but he hated Haitians. He even changed his skin color to become more “white” because that is what he saw as being accepted in the country of the Dominican Republic. He banned Haitians of any rights in the Dominican Republic, which left the country to still have hatred towards Haitians today.
The past reflects the society today in major ways. Today in the Dominican Republic people struggle with their identity because of the past. The government considers citizens mixed, black, white or west Asian. Dominicans are really people of color because of their Spanish heritage, which are Latino/as and also when the French sent African culture and heritage to the island; but a “person of color” has a negative connotation on one's life. Being a person of color means that you are at the bottom of the bottom, lower than a person who is “white.” This seems to me that it is a systematic trend; it is put into the mindset to not like those of color, which is similar to what we see in the United States. In the DR, antihaitianismo still exists in their society today that is someone thinking their ethnicity is superior to others. In this country, they practice colorism, trying to make it seem as if they don't have African ancestry and roots. Although, many Dominicans practice this, I don't believe they are responsible for why it exists, but I do believe they are responsible for changing their mindset on colorism.
Colorism is something that I believe has a negative effect on those who can receive an education. While visualizing different levels of their educational institutions, I rarely saw what Dominicans would consider “people of color,” and more students with a “whiter” skin tone. This interested me because while touring the Dominican Republic, I have seen many children and young adults that would be considered as “people of color” but rarely people who look like them in the educational institutions. There is a large population of youth who are not employed nor go to school, and child labor still exists in that large population of youth that does not have the proper resources. To be able to go to school, one must first have a birth certificate and proof of identity, which many youths may not have.
The same issues and problems we have here in the United States are similar to those in the Dominican Republic. What makes the U.S. or other countries different from Dominican Republic? It's not the population, it's not the amount of jobs, it's not the money, it's the education. Education is the key to success in the Dominican Republic. Education is very essential in the Dominican Republic; it seems to me without an education of some sort you will not get very far in life. Many are limited to the resources and tools they need to receive an education, but from the high schools I have visited, they are doing the best they can to prepare students for the real world early. Overall, this study abroad has taught me a lot, but most importantly to not take my education for granted because there are many people in the world who are not able to receive “quality” education. | <urn:uuid:ed200b5d-a1a0-46f5-af39-894b2c166264> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://odi.osu.edu/dominican-republic-reflections-rayonna-booth | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250599789.45/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120195035-20200120224035-00158.warc.gz | en | 0.982515 | 830 | 3.265625 | 3 | [
0.16484896838665009,
0.031019221991300583,
0.1632312536239624,
0.1967732012271881,
0.1044536828994751,
0.3039284348487854,
0.2142137587070465,
0.23122811317443848,
-0.06735401600599289,
0.11741101741790771,
0.4746401906013489,
0.00964941456913948,
-0.26484113931655884,
0.7420064210891724,
... | 2 | Dominican Republic Reflection
by Rayonna Booth
To understand life in the Dominican Republic, one must first understand the history to better configure how its inhabitants operate and receive education. It all started with the Spaniards infecting those on the island and coming back after they would die. Then, the French brought many African slaves to do hard labor for them, bringing in a darker skin tone to the island. The island began to separate into what is today, Haiti and the Dominican Republic. After many leaders and years passed, the U.S. came to set up a dictatorship in the Dominican Republic. They put in power a man who was inhumane and rudely cruel; his name was Rafael Trujillo. Trujillo enforced the boarder of Haiti and the Dominican Republic, killing thousands of Haitians because of their darker skin color. Trujillo himself had a grandmother who was Haitian, but he hated Haitians. He even changed his skin color to become more “white” because that is what he saw as being accepted in the country of the Dominican Republic. He banned Haitians of any rights in the Dominican Republic, which left the country to still have hatred towards Haitians today.
The past reflects the society today in major ways. Today in the Dominican Republic people struggle with their identity because of the past. The government considers citizens mixed, black, white or west Asian. Dominicans are really people of color because of their Spanish heritage, which are Latino/as and also when the French sent African culture and heritage to the island; but a “person of color” has a negative connotation on one's life. Being a person of color means that you are at the bottom of the bottom, lower than a person who is “white.” This seems to me that it is a systematic trend; it is put into the mindset to not like those of color, which is similar to what we see in the United States. In the DR, antihaitianismo still exists in their society today that is someone thinking their ethnicity is superior to others. In this country, they practice colorism, trying to make it seem as if they don't have African ancestry and roots. Although, many Dominicans practice this, I don't believe they are responsible for why it exists, but I do believe they are responsible for changing their mindset on colorism.
Colorism is something that I believe has a negative effect on those who can receive an education. While visualizing different levels of their educational institutions, I rarely saw what Dominicans would consider “people of color,” and more students with a “whiter” skin tone. This interested me because while touring the Dominican Republic, I have seen many children and young adults that would be considered as “people of color” but rarely people who look like them in the educational institutions. There is a large population of youth who are not employed nor go to school, and child labor still exists in that large population of youth that does not have the proper resources. To be able to go to school, one must first have a birth certificate and proof of identity, which many youths may not have.
The same issues and problems we have here in the United States are similar to those in the Dominican Republic. What makes the U.S. or other countries different from Dominican Republic? It's not the population, it's not the amount of jobs, it's not the money, it's the education. Education is the key to success in the Dominican Republic. Education is very essential in the Dominican Republic; it seems to me without an education of some sort you will not get very far in life. Many are limited to the resources and tools they need to receive an education, but from the high schools I have visited, they are doing the best they can to prepare students for the real world early. Overall, this study abroad has taught me a lot, but most importantly to not take my education for granted because there are many people in the world who are not able to receive “quality” education. | 809 | ENGLISH | 1 |
In this paper it will tell and describe almost everything about Celtic warriors. This paper will have the different weapons and armor that the Celtics used in combat. Also, there will be information about the different fighting tactics that they used on the battle field. And you cannot know these things without knowing the origin of the Celtic cross and how it came about. In conclusion this is what this essay will be teaching.
The Celts were much feared warriors. There were various people who were afraid of them such as Romans, Greeks, and other Mediterranean people. They were so feared because of their hand on combat and one on one fighting. Another thing that made them so feared was that they were usually a head taller than their opponents. Their bodies were very muscular, ripped, and the Celts were very athletic. ( Allen) They also surprised their opponents with their quickness. No one expected them to be fast because of how big they were but the Celts were surprisingly quick. The Celts had different ways of fighting in each area in which they lived. In the French region the Celts also referred to as “Gauls” as they were called spiked their hair with lime. Some wore helmets with horns and wings on them to show how large they were. In Spain they were master swordsman that preferred short swords. This is because they were great at close up combat. In Southern Gaul they made great armor and preferred long swords. Mainly because they weren’t afraid of their opponent’s swords penetrating the armor. Nothing really changed in Britain because they fought with chariots. The Asia Minor and Ireland they remained the same and were definitely someone to be feared. One of the many things the Celts did was cut the heads off of their opponents as a trophy. After they did this they either hung them on their horses, or wore them on their belts which struck fear into their opponents as well. (“Celtic Warriors”)
Those who fought in chariots stuck to the old way of fighting. They used spears and swords in combat. Most warriors fought in an arena in front of a crowd. They were chosen by the king and some people were sentenced to death and had to fight by chariot. “They say if you survived you walk away and get away with it and if you lost well you know what happened then.” They used these battles as a type of TV for back then. Instead of watching a picture they watched people attack and kill each other. Usually two people rode in the chariot. The charioteer sat in front of the chariot and drove. While the warrior stood behind the charioteer and threw his spears from the chariot before getting off and fighting on foot. The driver drove nearby to retrieve his warrior if he was to be injured or killed in the battle. (“Karl”)
The Celtic Warriors used a wide range of weapons on the battle field. For distance they used combat weapons such as javelins, harpoons, bows and slings. The stones they used for the slings were taken out of the river because the current from... | <urn:uuid:b59714c2-d91c-47b0-9c1a-0995cb13b178> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://brightkite.com/essay-on/celtic-warriors | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250606269.37/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122012204-20200122041204-00285.warc.gz | en | 0.991966 | 638 | 3.453125 | 3 | [
-0.3904910087585449,
0.4362189769744873,
-0.08125938475131989,
0.30212968587875366,
-0.4419761300086975,
-0.27591389417648315,
0.5053145289421082,
0.29907238483428955,
0.3117201030254364,
-0.035021454095840454,
-0.24832040071487427,
-0.25731730461120605,
-0.059283845126628876,
0.2623799741... | 1 | In this paper it will tell and describe almost everything about Celtic warriors. This paper will have the different weapons and armor that the Celtics used in combat. Also, there will be information about the different fighting tactics that they used on the battle field. And you cannot know these things without knowing the origin of the Celtic cross and how it came about. In conclusion this is what this essay will be teaching.
The Celts were much feared warriors. There were various people who were afraid of them such as Romans, Greeks, and other Mediterranean people. They were so feared because of their hand on combat and one on one fighting. Another thing that made them so feared was that they were usually a head taller than their opponents. Their bodies were very muscular, ripped, and the Celts were very athletic. ( Allen) They also surprised their opponents with their quickness. No one expected them to be fast because of how big they were but the Celts were surprisingly quick. The Celts had different ways of fighting in each area in which they lived. In the French region the Celts also referred to as “Gauls” as they were called spiked their hair with lime. Some wore helmets with horns and wings on them to show how large they were. In Spain they were master swordsman that preferred short swords. This is because they were great at close up combat. In Southern Gaul they made great armor and preferred long swords. Mainly because they weren’t afraid of their opponent’s swords penetrating the armor. Nothing really changed in Britain because they fought with chariots. The Asia Minor and Ireland they remained the same and were definitely someone to be feared. One of the many things the Celts did was cut the heads off of their opponents as a trophy. After they did this they either hung them on their horses, or wore them on their belts which struck fear into their opponents as well. (“Celtic Warriors”)
Those who fought in chariots stuck to the old way of fighting. They used spears and swords in combat. Most warriors fought in an arena in front of a crowd. They were chosen by the king and some people were sentenced to death and had to fight by chariot. “They say if you survived you walk away and get away with it and if you lost well you know what happened then.” They used these battles as a type of TV for back then. Instead of watching a picture they watched people attack and kill each other. Usually two people rode in the chariot. The charioteer sat in front of the chariot and drove. While the warrior stood behind the charioteer and threw his spears from the chariot before getting off and fighting on foot. The driver drove nearby to retrieve his warrior if he was to be injured or killed in the battle. (“Karl”)
The Celtic Warriors used a wide range of weapons on the battle field. For distance they used combat weapons such as javelins, harpoons, bows and slings. The stones they used for the slings were taken out of the river because the current from... | 625 | ENGLISH | 1 |
And we're finished! The Declaration of Independence is finished!
Principle 1: All men are created equal
Principle 2: All people have basic rights that cannot be taken away
On July 4th, 1776 the Declaration of Independence was approved.
Principle 3: the government gets its power to make decisions and protect rights from the people
I will protect everyone and make decisions to protect you.
This principle is important because if we did not have this principle, men would be treated differently and it wouldn't be fair.
Principle 4: When the government gets Its power to make decisions from the people.
I vote to abolish the government
This right is important because people have the right to say whats on their mind without people stopping them.
Today, Principle 2 is best upheld.
this is important because if we didn't have this principle the people wouldn't be protected and the government would make dissension to protect us also.
this principle is important because if we didn't have this principle, and the government made a dissension we didn't like we would get rid of him and get a new one.
I chose principle two because in principle two people have rights like saying whats n their mind without people taking that away from you. i also think this is important because if we didn't have this right, people would have their right taken away from you. | <urn:uuid:f82d5dbd-381e-4148-a55a-0e0df98c0f8f> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.storyboardthat.com/storyboards/126ae746/deceleration-of-independence-marlene-tawadros | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251776516.99/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128060946-20200128090946-00252.warc.gz | en | 0.98448 | 282 | 3.265625 | 3 | [
-0.32036393880844116,
0.04249761998653412,
-0.08876319229602814,
-0.5129064917564392,
-0.35858654975891113,
0.43946313858032227,
0.5902776718139648,
0.3172219395637512,
0.03745391219854355,
0.19366882741451263,
0.02625189535319805,
-0.09571002423763275,
0.10853224247694016,
0.1019978970289... | 1 | And we're finished! The Declaration of Independence is finished!
Principle 1: All men are created equal
Principle 2: All people have basic rights that cannot be taken away
On July 4th, 1776 the Declaration of Independence was approved.
Principle 3: the government gets its power to make decisions and protect rights from the people
I will protect everyone and make decisions to protect you.
This principle is important because if we did not have this principle, men would be treated differently and it wouldn't be fair.
Principle 4: When the government gets Its power to make decisions from the people.
I vote to abolish the government
This right is important because people have the right to say whats on their mind without people stopping them.
Today, Principle 2 is best upheld.
this is important because if we didn't have this principle the people wouldn't be protected and the government would make dissension to protect us also.
this principle is important because if we didn't have this principle, and the government made a dissension we didn't like we would get rid of him and get a new one.
I chose principle two because in principle two people have rights like saying whats n their mind without people taking that away from you. i also think this is important because if we didn't have this right, people would have their right taken away from you. | 282 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The Pieta refers to a statue depicting the Virgin Mary holding the dead body of Christ after his crucifixion. The Pieta created by German artist Kathe Kollwitz is not like other Pieta statues. The Virgin Mary is holding his dead son from behind, covering her mouth with one hand and touching the hand of his dead son with the other hand. The solemn face of the mother, who seems to be lost in thought at the pain of grief and loss, makes those who watch it feel sad.
This piece of work is based on the artist’s own experience of losing his son in a war. Born to a middle-class family in Preussen, Kollwitz got married to doctor Karl Kollwitz at the age of 24 and started to experience the life of poor ordinary people. Her husband built a charity hospital outside Berlin and dedicated his life to helping poor and marginalized people. The artist herself lived with those poor patients and put their lives in painting. After earning her reputation from her prints “The Weavers’ Revolt,” she drew and printed works based on labor, poverty, sickness, death, and anti-war, becoming the symbol of resistance against unjust authority. She went through a terrifying ordeal after the outbreak of World War I, where her second son Peter died in a war. Her grandson Peter also died in World War II.
After losing her son, she became a fighter. She denounced the horrors of war through her works. The Nazi regime banned her from exhibiting her works but she created Pieta in order to send an anti-war message to the world and represent the voices of mothers who lost their sons in a war. She could have lived a life as an intellectual born to a middle-class family but instead chose to stand by the weak and the vulnerable. She died on April 22, 1945, just 16 days before the war ended.
When the German government reopened “Neue Wache” in Berlin in 1993 to commemorate the victims of the war, it created a bigger replica of Kollwitz’s Pieta to exhibit it at the memorial permanently. On the floor in front of the statue is the inscription, “To the Victims of War and Tyranny.” | <urn:uuid:74585bad-445a-43ec-8a6d-ba1728e42d2d> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://www.donga.com/en/article/all/20190425/1711192/1/The-victims-of-war-and-tyranny | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251678287.60/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125161753-20200125190753-00199.warc.gz | en | 0.982216 | 457 | 3.671875 | 4 | [
0.05869006738066673,
0.6057115793228149,
0.2953653037548065,
0.27994921803474426,
-0.4096863865852356,
0.4535124897956848,
0.2236642986536026,
0.19521793723106384,
0.4446502923965454,
0.1068347692489624,
0.03223652392625809,
-0.22157350182533264,
0.23924921452999115,
0.45783671736717224,
... | 2 | The Pieta refers to a statue depicting the Virgin Mary holding the dead body of Christ after his crucifixion. The Pieta created by German artist Kathe Kollwitz is not like other Pieta statues. The Virgin Mary is holding his dead son from behind, covering her mouth with one hand and touching the hand of his dead son with the other hand. The solemn face of the mother, who seems to be lost in thought at the pain of grief and loss, makes those who watch it feel sad.
This piece of work is based on the artist’s own experience of losing his son in a war. Born to a middle-class family in Preussen, Kollwitz got married to doctor Karl Kollwitz at the age of 24 and started to experience the life of poor ordinary people. Her husband built a charity hospital outside Berlin and dedicated his life to helping poor and marginalized people. The artist herself lived with those poor patients and put their lives in painting. After earning her reputation from her prints “The Weavers’ Revolt,” she drew and printed works based on labor, poverty, sickness, death, and anti-war, becoming the symbol of resistance against unjust authority. She went through a terrifying ordeal after the outbreak of World War I, where her second son Peter died in a war. Her grandson Peter also died in World War II.
After losing her son, she became a fighter. She denounced the horrors of war through her works. The Nazi regime banned her from exhibiting her works but she created Pieta in order to send an anti-war message to the world and represent the voices of mothers who lost their sons in a war. She could have lived a life as an intellectual born to a middle-class family but instead chose to stand by the weak and the vulnerable. She died on April 22, 1945, just 16 days before the war ended.
When the German government reopened “Neue Wache” in Berlin in 1993 to commemorate the victims of the war, it created a bigger replica of Kollwitz’s Pieta to exhibit it at the memorial permanently. On the floor in front of the statue is the inscription, “To the Victims of War and Tyranny.” | 456 | ENGLISH | 1 |
People - Ancient Near East: Saul Ancient Near East
Saul in Wikipedia
aul (Hebrew: שָׁאוּל, Modern Sha'ul Tiberian Šāʼűl ; "asked for"; Arabic: طالوت, Ṭālūt; Greek: Σαούλ Saoul; Latin: Saul) (1079 - 1007 BC) was the first king of the united Kingdom of Israel (reigned 1047 - 1007 BC) according to the Hebrew Bible. He was anointed by the prophet Samuel and reigned from Gibeah. He was killed in battle against Philistines at Mount Gilboa, during which three of his sons were also killed. The succession to his throne was contested by Ish-bosheth, his only surviving son, and David, who eventually prevailed.
The main account of Saul's life and reign is found in the Books of Samuel.
The Biblical account
House of Saul
According to the Tanakh, Saul was the son of Kish, of the family of the Matrites, and a member of the tribe of Benjamin, one of the twelve Tribes of Israel. (1 Samuel 9:1-2; 10:21; 14:51; Acts 13:21) It appears that he came from Gibeah.
David and Saul (1885) by Julius Kronberg.
Saul married Ahinoam, daughter of Ahimaaz. They had four sons and two daughters. The sons were Jonathan, Abinadab, Malchishua and Ish-bosheth. Their daughters were named Merab and Michal.
Saul also had a concubine named Rizpah, daughter of Aiah, who bore him two sons, Armoni and Mephibosheth. (2 Samuel 21:8)
Saul offered Merab to David as a wife after his victory over Goliath, but David does not seem to have been interested in the arrangement. (1 Samuel 18:17-19) Saul then gave his other daughter Michal in marriage to David, (1 Samuel 18:20-27) but when David became Saul's rival to the kingship, Saul gave Michal in marriage to Palti, son of Laish. (1 Samuel 25:44)
Saul was slain at the Battle of Mount Gilboa (1 Samuel 31:3-6; 1 Chronicles 10:3-6), and was buried in Zelah, in the region of Benjamin in modern-day Israel. (2 Samuel 21:14) When Saul first became king, he followed Samuel's bidding. Eventually, as Saul disobeyed God, God told Samuel to anoint a new king.
Three of Saul's sons – Jonathan, and Abinadab, and Malchishua – died with him at Mount Gilboa (1 Samuel 31:2; 1 Chronicles 10:2). Ish-bosheth became king of Israel, at the age of forty. (2 Samuel 2:10) Michal was returned as wife to David.
Ish-bosheth reigned for two years and was killed by two of his own captains. (2 Samuel 4:5) The only male descendant of Saul to survive was Mephibosheth, Jonathan's son, (2 Samuel 4:4) who had been five when his father and grandfather Saul had died in battle. In time, he came under the protection of David. (2 Samuel 9:7-13) Mephibosheth had a young son, Micah, (2 Samuel 9:12) of whom nothing more heard.
Armoni and Mephibosheth (Saul's sons with his concubine, Rizpah) were given by David along with the five sons of Merab (Saul's daughter) to the Gibeonites, who killed them. (2 Samuel 21:8-9) Michal was childless. (2 Samuel 6:23
Anointed as king
"Death of King Saul", 1848 by Elie Marcuse (Germany and France, 1817-1902)
Samuel, the Judge, had sons who were dishonest and not trustworthy of the faith. The leaders of the Israelites feared that it would be disastrous if his sons were to be judge over them and requested that Samuel give them a king. God warns that if he appoints a king over them, they will suffer from the dealings of the king. Saul, a young Israelite, was commanded by his father, Kish, to go and locate their lost donkeys. Saul obeys and Samuel sees him walking toward him. God reveals to Samuel that Saul will be the one to be anointed as the "first" King of Israel. Peter J. Leithart observes:
Saul, the first king, begins as an ideal choice to lead and judge Israel ..... Saul cares for his father's animals (as did Joseph and Moses, and as David will), and he is a dutiful son ..... Saul is a handsome man and a head taller than any Israelite (1 Samuel 9:2)
In the Books of Samuel, Saul is not referred to as a king (melech), but rather as a "leader" or "commander" (nagid) (1 Samuel 9:16; 1 Samuel 10:1). However (possibly representing an opposing literary strain), Saul is said to be made a "king" (melech) at Gilgal (1 Samuel 11:15). Even David, before he was anointed king, was referred to only as a future nagid, or military commander (1 Samuel 13:14).
The people generally used the term "king," because their desire was to be like the other nations (1 Samuel 8:5; 10:19). This may be indicative of the difference between what a certain faction of the people wanted, and a definite reluctance of certain leaders (e.g., the prophet Samuel) to break from the old tribal order: viz., an attempt to satisfy everyone without creating a riot. But Saul was finally crowned as "king" (melech) in Gilgal. (1 Samuel 11:14-12:2)
The Books of Samuel give three events in Saul's rise to the throne:
* (1 Samuel 9:1-10:16) Saul was sent with a servant to look for his father's donkeys, who had strayed; leaving his home at Gibeah, they eventually wander to the district of Zuph, at which point Saul suggests abandoning their search. Saul's servant however, remarks that they happened to be near the town of Ramah, where a famous seer was located, and suggested that they should consult him first. The seer (later identified by the text as Samuel), having previously had a vision instructing him to do so, offers hospitality to Saul when he enters Ramah, and later anoints him in private.
* (1 Samuel 10:17-24 and 12:1-5) Desiring to be like other nations, there was a popular movement to establish a centralised monarchy. Samuel therefore assembled the people at Mizpah in Benjamin, and despite having strong reservations, which he made no attempt to hide, allows the appointment of a king. Samuel uses cleromancy to determine who it was that God desired to be the king, whittling the assembly down into ever smaller groups until Saul is finally identified. Saul, hiding in baggage, is then publicly affirmed.
* (1 Samuel 11:1-11 and 11:15) The Ammonites, led by Nahash, lay siege to Jabesh-Gilead, who are forced to surrender. Under the terms of surrender, the occupants of the city would be forced into slavery, and have their right eyes removed as a sign of this. The city's occupants send out word of this to the other tribes of Israel, and the tribes west of the Jordan assemble an army under the leadership of Saul. Saul leads the army to victory against the Ammonites, and, in both gratitude and appreciation of military skill, the people congregate at Gilgal, and acclaim Saul as king.
Saul and the Witch of Endor by Gustave Dore.
According to 1 Samuel 10:8, Samuel had told Saul to wait for seven days after which they would meet; Samuel giving Saul further instructions. But as Samuel did not arrive after 7 days (1 Samuel 13:8) and with the Israelites growing restless, Saul started preparing for battle by offering sacrifices. Samuel arrived just as Saul finished offering his sacrifices and reprimanded Saul for not obeying his instructions. As a result of not keeping God's instructions, God took away Saul's kingship (1 Samuel 13:14).
After the battle with the Philistines was over, the text describes Samuel as having instructed Saul to kill all the Amalekites, which was in accordance with the mitzvah to do so. Having forewarned the Kenites who were living among the Amalekites to leave, Saul went to war and defeated the Amalekites. Saul killed all the babies, women, children, poor quality livestock and men, and left alive the king and best livestock.
When Samuel found out that Saul had not killed them all, he became angry and launched into a long and bitter diatribe about how God regretted making Saul king, because Saul was disobedient. When Samuel turned away, Saul grabbed Samuel by his clothes and tore a small piece off them, which Samuel states is a prophecy about what will happen to Saul's kingdom. Samuel then commands that the Amalekite king (who, like all other Amalekite kings in the Hebrew Bible, is named Agag) should be brought forth. Samuel proceeds to kill the Amalekite himself and makes a final departure.
Saul and David
Assyrian warriors armed with slings from the palace of Sennacherib, 7th century BC
It is at this point that David, a son of Jesse, from the tribe of Judah, enters the story. According to the narrative:
* (1 Samuel 16:1-13) Samuel is surreptitiously sent by God to Jesse. While offering a sacrifice in the vicinity, Samuel includes Jesse among the invited guests. Dining together, Jesse's sons are brought one by one to Samuel, each time being rejected by him, speaking for God; running out of sons, Jesse sends for David, the youngest, who was tending sheep. When brought to Samuel, David is anointed by him in front of his other brothers.
* (1 Samuel 16:14-23) Saul is troubled by an evil spirit sent by God (some translations euphemistically just describe God not preventing an evil spirit from troubling Saul). Saul requests soothing music, and a servant recommends David the son of Jesse, who is renowned as a skillful harpist and soldier. When word of Saul's needs reach Jesse, he sends David, who had been looking after a flock, and David is appointed as Saul's armor bearer. David remains at court playing the harp as needed by Saul to calm his moods.
* (1 Samuel 17:1-18:5) The Philistines return with an army to attack Israel, but, having amassed on a hillside opposite to the Israelite forces, suggest that to save effort and lives on both sides, it would be better to have a proxy combat between their champion, a Rephaim from Gath named Goliath, and someone of Saul's choosing. David, a young shepherd boy, happens to be delivering food to his three eldest brothers, who are in the Israelite army, at the time that the challenge is made. David, who is faithful of God's power to defeat his enemies, talks to the nearby soldiers mocking the Philistines, but is reprimanded by his brothers for doing so. David's speech is overheard and reported to Saul, who summons David and on hearing David's views decides to fit him out with his (Saul's) own armour. Saul then appoints David as his champion, and David defeats Goliath with a single shot from a sling, which hits him in between the eyes. Goliath falls forward and David uses his sword to decapitate Goliath.
Saul's love of glory
"Saul Throws Spear at David" by George Tinworth
In the text, Saul's son, Jonathan, and David become close friends and eventually David becomes Jonathan's brother-in-law by Michal. Jonathan recognises David as the rightful king, and 1 Samuel 18 states "Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul." Jonathan even gives David his military clothes, symbolizing David's position as successor to Saul.
God makes David successful wherever Saul sends him. Therefore Saul sets David in charge of the army. After David returns from battle, the women heap praise upon him and refer to him as a greater military hero than Saul, driving Saul to jealousy, fearing that David constituted a rival to the throne. And said that he loved him very much...
Another day, while David is playing the harp, Saul, possessed by an evil spirit, throws a spear at him but misses on two occasions. Saul resolves to remove David from the court and appoints him an officer, but David becomes increasingly successful, making Saul more resentful of him. In return for being his champion, Saul offers to marry his daughter, Merob, to David, but David turns the offer down claiming to be too humble, and Merob is married to another man instead. Another daughter, Michal, falls in love with David, so Saul repeats the offer to David with Michal, but again David turns it down claiming to be too poor; Saul persuades David that the bride price would only be 100 foreskins from the Philistines, hoping that David would be killed trying to achieve this. David obtains 200 foreskins and is consequently married to Michal.
The narrative continues as Saul plots against David, but Jonathan dissuades Saul from this course of action, and tells David of it. Saul then tries to have David killed during the night, but Michal helps him escape and tricks his pursuers by using a household idol to make it seem that David is still in bed. David flees to Jonathan, who wasn't living near Saul. Jonathan agrees to return to Saul and discover his ultimate intent. While dining with Saul, Jonathan pretends that David has been called away to his brothers, but Saul sees through this and castigates Jonathan for being the companion of David, and it becomes clear that Saul wants David dead. The next day, Jonathan meets with David and tells him Saul's intent, and the two friends say their goodbyes, as David flees into the country. Saul later marries Michal to another man instead of David.
Saul is later informed by his head shepherd, an Edomite named Doeg, that Ahimelech assisted David. A henchman is sought to kill Ahimelech and the other priests of Nob. None of Saul's henchmen are willing to do this, so Doeg offers to do it instead, killing 85 priests. Saul also kills every man, woman and child living in Nob.
David had already left Nob by this point and had amassed about 400 disaffected men including a group of outlaws. With these men David launches an attack on the Philistines at Keilahhe. Saul realises he could trap David and his men inside the city and besiege it. However, David hears about this, and having received divine counsel (via the Ephod), finds that the citizens of Keilah would betray him to Saul. He decides to leave and flees to Ziph. Saul discovers this and pursues David on two occasions:
* Some of the inhabitants of Ziph betray David's location to Saul, but David hears about it and flees with his men to Maon. Saul follows David, but while Saul travels along one side of the gorge, David travels along the other, and Saul is forced to break off pursuit when the Philistines invade. This is supposedly how the place became known as the gorge of divisions. David hides in the caves at Engedi and after fighting the Philistines, Saul returns to Engedi to attack him. Saul eventually enters the cave in which David had been hiding, but as David is in the darkest recesses Saul doesn't spot him. David swipes at Saul and cuts off part of his garment, but restrains himself and his associates from going further due to a taboo against killing an anointed king. David then leaves the cave, revealing himself to Saul, and gives a speech that persuades Saul to reconcile.
* On the second occasion Saul returns to Ziph with his men. When David hears of this he sneaks into Saul's camp by night, and thrusts his spear into the ground near where Saul is sleeping. David prevents his associates from killing Saul because of a taboo against killing an anointed king, and merely steals Saul's spear and water jug. The next day, David stands at the top of a slope opposite to Saul's camp, and shouts that he had been in Saul's camp the previous night (using the spear and jug as proof). David then gives a speech that persuades Saul to reconcile with David, and the two make an oath not to harm one another.
Saul is among the prophets
The phrase Saul is among the prophets, is mentioned by the text in a way that suggests it was a proverb in later Israelite culture. Two accounts of its origin are given:
* (1 Samuel 10:11 etc.) Having been anointed by Samuel, Saul is told of signs he will receive to know that he has been divinely appointed. The last of these signs is that Saul will be met by an ecstatic group of prophets leaving a high place and playing music on lyre, tambourine, and flutes. The signs come true (though the text skips the first two, suggesting that a portion of the text has been lost, or edited out for some reason), and Saul joins the ecstatic prophets, hence the phrase.
* (1 Samuel 19:24 etc.) Saul sends men to pursue David, but when they meet a group of ecstatic prophets playing music on lyre, tambourine, and flute, they become possessed by a prophetic state and join in. Saul sends more men, but they too join the prophets. Eventually Saul himself goes, and also joins the prophets, hence the phrase.
Battle of Gilboa and the death of Saul
The Battle of Gilboa, by Jean Fouquet, the protagonists depicted anachronistically with 15th Century armour
Despite the oath(s) of reconciliation, the biblical text states that David felt insecure, and so made an alliance with the Philistines, becoming their vassal. Emboldened by this, the Philistines prepared to attack Israel, and Saul led out his army to face them at Mount Gilboa, but before the battle decided to secretly consult the witch of Endor for advice. The witch, unaware of who he is, reminds Saul that the king (i.e. Saul himself) had made witchery a capital offence, but after being assured that Saul wouldn't harm her, the witch conjures up the ghost of Samuel. Samuel's ghost tells Saul that he would lose the battle and his life.
Broken in spirit, Saul returns to face the enemy, and the Israelites are duly defeated. To escape the ignominy of capture, Saul asks his armour bearer to kill him, but is forced to commit suicide by falling on his sword when the armour bearer refuses. An Amalekite then claims to have killed Saul, and the Amalekite tells David. Infuriated, David orders the Amalekite to be put to death as punishment for killing the God's anointed, despite Saul's earlier assassination attempt against him. (2 Samuel 1:1-16) The body of Saul, with those of his sons, were fastened to the wall of Beth-shan, and his armor was hung up in the house of Ashtaroth (an Ascalonian temple of the Canaanites). The inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead (the scene of Saul's first victory) rescue the bodies and take them to Jabesh-gilead, where they burn their flesh and bury the bones (Sam.I 31,13).
Classical Rabbinical views
Two opposing views of Saul are found in classical rabbinical literature. One is based on the reverse logic that punishment is a proof of guilt, and therefore seeks to rob Saul of any halo which might surround him; typically this view is similar to the republican source. The passage referring to Saul as a choice young man, and goodly (1 Samuel 9:2) is in this view interpreted as meaning that Saul was not good in every respect, but goodly only with respect to his personal appearance (Num. Rashi 9:28). According to this view, Saul is only a weak branch (Gen. Rashi 25:3), owing his kingship not to his own merits, but rather to his grandfather, who had been accustomed to light the streets for those who went to the bet ha-midrash, and had received as his reward the promise that one of his grandsons should sit upon the throne (Lev. Rashi 9:2).
The second view of Saul makes him appear in the most favourable light as man, as hero, and as king. This view is similar to that of the monarchical source. In this view it was on account of his modesty that he did not reveal the fact that he had been anointed king (1 Samuel 10:16; Meg. 13b); and he was extraordinarily upright as well as perfectly just. Nor was there any one more pious than he (M. Q. 16b; Ex. Rashi 30:12); for when he ascended the throne he was as pure as a child, and had never committed sin (Yoma 22b). He was marvelously handsome; and the maidens who told him concerning Samuel (cf 1 Samuel 9:11-13) talked so long with him that they might observe his beauty the more (Ber. 48b). In war he was able to march 120 miles without rest. When he received the command to smite Amalek (1 Samuel 15:3), Saul said: For one found slain the Torah requires a sin offering [Deuteronomy 21:1-9]; and here so many shall be slain. If the old have sinned, why should the young suffer; and if men have been guilty, why should the cattle be destroyed? It was this mildness that cost him his crown. And while Saul was merciful to his enemies, he was strict with his own people; when he found out that Avimelech, a kohen, had assisted David with finding food, Saul, in retaliation, killed the rest of the 85 kohanim of the family of Avimelech and the rest of his hometown, Nov. (Yoma 22b; Num. Rashi 1:10) The fact that he was merciful even to his enemies, being indulgent to rebels themselves, and frequently waiving the homage due to him, was incredible as well as deceiving. But if his mercy toward a foe was a sin, it was his only one; and it was his misfortune that it was reckoned against him, while David, although he had committed much iniquity, was so favored that it was not remembered to his injury (Yoma 22b; M. Q. 16b, and Rashi ad loc.). In some respects Saul was superior to David, e.g., in having only one concubine, while David had many. Saul expended his own substance for the war, and although he knew that he and his sons would fall in battle, he nevertheless went forward, while David heeded the wish of his soldiers not to go to war in person (2 Samuel 21:17; Lev. Rashi 26:7; Yalq., Sam. 138).
According to the Rabbis, Saul ate his food with due regard for the rules of ceremonial purity prescribed for the sacrifice (Yalq., l.c.), and taught the people how they should slay cattle (cf 1 Samuel 14:34). As a reward for this, God himself gave Saul a sword on the day of battle, since no other sword suitable for him was found (ibid 13:22). Saul's attitude toward David finds its excuse in the fact that his courtiers were all tale-bearers, and slandered David to him (Deut. Rashi 5:10); and in like manner he was incited by Doeg against the priests of Nob (1 Samuel 22:16-19; Yalq., Sam. 131) - this act was forgiven him, however, and a heavenly voice (bat qol) was heard, proclaiming: Saul is the chosen one of God (Ber. 12b). His anger at the Gibeonites (2 Samuel 21:2) was not personal hatred, but was induced by zeal for the welfare of Israel (Num. Rashi 8:4). The fact that he made his daughter remarry (1 Samuel 25:44), finds its explanation in his (Saul's) view that her betrothal to David had been gained by false pretenses, and was therefore invalid (Sanhedrin 19b). During the lifetime of Saul there was no idolatry in Israel. The famine in the reign of David (cf 2 Samuel 21:1) was to punish the people, because they had not accorded Saul the proper honours at his burial (Num. Rashi 8:4). In Sheol, Samuel reveals to Saul that in the next world, Saul would dwell with Samuel, which is a proof that all has been forgiven him by god('Er. 53ba]
Saul's name and Samuel's birth-narrative
The birth-narrative of the prophet Samuel is found at 1 Samuel 1-28. It describes how Samuel's mother Hannah requests a son from Yahweh, and dedicates the child to God at the shrine of Shiloh. The passage makes extensive play with the root-elements of Saul's name, and ends with the phrase hu sa'ul le-Yahweh, "he is dedicated to Yahweh." Hannah names the resulting son Samuel, giving as her explanation, "because from God I requested him." Samuel's name, however, means "name of God," and the etymology and multiple references to the root of the name seems to fit Saul instead. The majority explanation for the discrepancy is that the narrative originally described the birth of Saul, and was given to Samuel in order to enhance the position of David and Samuel at the former king's expense. | <urn:uuid:81cd8a45-b815-4554-941d-632efb518830> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.bible-history.com/links.php?cat=31&sub=3079&cat_name=People+-+Ancient+Near+East&subcat_name=Saul | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251700988.64/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127143516-20200127173516-00341.warc.gz | en | 0.98196 | 5,599 | 3.515625 | 4 | [
-0.3946598768234253,
0.5590699911117554,
0.17582376301288605,
-0.23880738019943237,
-0.3627650737762451,
-0.2786864936351776,
-0.08118849247694016,
0.16482672095298767,
-0.0622900053858757,
0.008745069615542889,
0.19507905840873718,
-0.46524566411972046,
0.20974192023277283,
0.045219555497... | 1 | People - Ancient Near East: Saul Ancient Near East
Saul in Wikipedia
aul (Hebrew: שָׁאוּל, Modern Sha'ul Tiberian Šāʼűl ; "asked for"; Arabic: طالوت, Ṭālūt; Greek: Σαούλ Saoul; Latin: Saul) (1079 - 1007 BC) was the first king of the united Kingdom of Israel (reigned 1047 - 1007 BC) according to the Hebrew Bible. He was anointed by the prophet Samuel and reigned from Gibeah. He was killed in battle against Philistines at Mount Gilboa, during which three of his sons were also killed. The succession to his throne was contested by Ish-bosheth, his only surviving son, and David, who eventually prevailed.
The main account of Saul's life and reign is found in the Books of Samuel.
The Biblical account
House of Saul
According to the Tanakh, Saul was the son of Kish, of the family of the Matrites, and a member of the tribe of Benjamin, one of the twelve Tribes of Israel. (1 Samuel 9:1-2; 10:21; 14:51; Acts 13:21) It appears that he came from Gibeah.
David and Saul (1885) by Julius Kronberg.
Saul married Ahinoam, daughter of Ahimaaz. They had four sons and two daughters. The sons were Jonathan, Abinadab, Malchishua and Ish-bosheth. Their daughters were named Merab and Michal.
Saul also had a concubine named Rizpah, daughter of Aiah, who bore him two sons, Armoni and Mephibosheth. (2 Samuel 21:8)
Saul offered Merab to David as a wife after his victory over Goliath, but David does not seem to have been interested in the arrangement. (1 Samuel 18:17-19) Saul then gave his other daughter Michal in marriage to David, (1 Samuel 18:20-27) but when David became Saul's rival to the kingship, Saul gave Michal in marriage to Palti, son of Laish. (1 Samuel 25:44)
Saul was slain at the Battle of Mount Gilboa (1 Samuel 31:3-6; 1 Chronicles 10:3-6), and was buried in Zelah, in the region of Benjamin in modern-day Israel. (2 Samuel 21:14) When Saul first became king, he followed Samuel's bidding. Eventually, as Saul disobeyed God, God told Samuel to anoint a new king.
Three of Saul's sons – Jonathan, and Abinadab, and Malchishua – died with him at Mount Gilboa (1 Samuel 31:2; 1 Chronicles 10:2). Ish-bosheth became king of Israel, at the age of forty. (2 Samuel 2:10) Michal was returned as wife to David.
Ish-bosheth reigned for two years and was killed by two of his own captains. (2 Samuel 4:5) The only male descendant of Saul to survive was Mephibosheth, Jonathan's son, (2 Samuel 4:4) who had been five when his father and grandfather Saul had died in battle. In time, he came under the protection of David. (2 Samuel 9:7-13) Mephibosheth had a young son, Micah, (2 Samuel 9:12) of whom nothing more heard.
Armoni and Mephibosheth (Saul's sons with his concubine, Rizpah) were given by David along with the five sons of Merab (Saul's daughter) to the Gibeonites, who killed them. (2 Samuel 21:8-9) Michal was childless. (2 Samuel 6:23
Anointed as king
"Death of King Saul", 1848 by Elie Marcuse (Germany and France, 1817-1902)
Samuel, the Judge, had sons who were dishonest and not trustworthy of the faith. The leaders of the Israelites feared that it would be disastrous if his sons were to be judge over them and requested that Samuel give them a king. God warns that if he appoints a king over them, they will suffer from the dealings of the king. Saul, a young Israelite, was commanded by his father, Kish, to go and locate their lost donkeys. Saul obeys and Samuel sees him walking toward him. God reveals to Samuel that Saul will be the one to be anointed as the "first" King of Israel. Peter J. Leithart observes:
Saul, the first king, begins as an ideal choice to lead and judge Israel ..... Saul cares for his father's animals (as did Joseph and Moses, and as David will), and he is a dutiful son ..... Saul is a handsome man and a head taller than any Israelite (1 Samuel 9:2)
In the Books of Samuel, Saul is not referred to as a king (melech), but rather as a "leader" or "commander" (nagid) (1 Samuel 9:16; 1 Samuel 10:1). However (possibly representing an opposing literary strain), Saul is said to be made a "king" (melech) at Gilgal (1 Samuel 11:15). Even David, before he was anointed king, was referred to only as a future nagid, or military commander (1 Samuel 13:14).
The people generally used the term "king," because their desire was to be like the other nations (1 Samuel 8:5; 10:19). This may be indicative of the difference between what a certain faction of the people wanted, and a definite reluctance of certain leaders (e.g., the prophet Samuel) to break from the old tribal order: viz., an attempt to satisfy everyone without creating a riot. But Saul was finally crowned as "king" (melech) in Gilgal. (1 Samuel 11:14-12:2)
The Books of Samuel give three events in Saul's rise to the throne:
* (1 Samuel 9:1-10:16) Saul was sent with a servant to look for his father's donkeys, who had strayed; leaving his home at Gibeah, they eventually wander to the district of Zuph, at which point Saul suggests abandoning their search. Saul's servant however, remarks that they happened to be near the town of Ramah, where a famous seer was located, and suggested that they should consult him first. The seer (later identified by the text as Samuel), having previously had a vision instructing him to do so, offers hospitality to Saul when he enters Ramah, and later anoints him in private.
* (1 Samuel 10:17-24 and 12:1-5) Desiring to be like other nations, there was a popular movement to establish a centralised monarchy. Samuel therefore assembled the people at Mizpah in Benjamin, and despite having strong reservations, which he made no attempt to hide, allows the appointment of a king. Samuel uses cleromancy to determine who it was that God desired to be the king, whittling the assembly down into ever smaller groups until Saul is finally identified. Saul, hiding in baggage, is then publicly affirmed.
* (1 Samuel 11:1-11 and 11:15) The Ammonites, led by Nahash, lay siege to Jabesh-Gilead, who are forced to surrender. Under the terms of surrender, the occupants of the city would be forced into slavery, and have their right eyes removed as a sign of this. The city's occupants send out word of this to the other tribes of Israel, and the tribes west of the Jordan assemble an army under the leadership of Saul. Saul leads the army to victory against the Ammonites, and, in both gratitude and appreciation of military skill, the people congregate at Gilgal, and acclaim Saul as king.
Saul and the Witch of Endor by Gustave Dore.
According to 1 Samuel 10:8, Samuel had told Saul to wait for seven days after which they would meet; Samuel giving Saul further instructions. But as Samuel did not arrive after 7 days (1 Samuel 13:8) and with the Israelites growing restless, Saul started preparing for battle by offering sacrifices. Samuel arrived just as Saul finished offering his sacrifices and reprimanded Saul for not obeying his instructions. As a result of not keeping God's instructions, God took away Saul's kingship (1 Samuel 13:14).
After the battle with the Philistines was over, the text describes Samuel as having instructed Saul to kill all the Amalekites, which was in accordance with the mitzvah to do so. Having forewarned the Kenites who were living among the Amalekites to leave, Saul went to war and defeated the Amalekites. Saul killed all the babies, women, children, poor quality livestock and men, and left alive the king and best livestock.
When Samuel found out that Saul had not killed them all, he became angry and launched into a long and bitter diatribe about how God regretted making Saul king, because Saul was disobedient. When Samuel turned away, Saul grabbed Samuel by his clothes and tore a small piece off them, which Samuel states is a prophecy about what will happen to Saul's kingdom. Samuel then commands that the Amalekite king (who, like all other Amalekite kings in the Hebrew Bible, is named Agag) should be brought forth. Samuel proceeds to kill the Amalekite himself and makes a final departure.
Saul and David
Assyrian warriors armed with slings from the palace of Sennacherib, 7th century BC
It is at this point that David, a son of Jesse, from the tribe of Judah, enters the story. According to the narrative:
* (1 Samuel 16:1-13) Samuel is surreptitiously sent by God to Jesse. While offering a sacrifice in the vicinity, Samuel includes Jesse among the invited guests. Dining together, Jesse's sons are brought one by one to Samuel, each time being rejected by him, speaking for God; running out of sons, Jesse sends for David, the youngest, who was tending sheep. When brought to Samuel, David is anointed by him in front of his other brothers.
* (1 Samuel 16:14-23) Saul is troubled by an evil spirit sent by God (some translations euphemistically just describe God not preventing an evil spirit from troubling Saul). Saul requests soothing music, and a servant recommends David the son of Jesse, who is renowned as a skillful harpist and soldier. When word of Saul's needs reach Jesse, he sends David, who had been looking after a flock, and David is appointed as Saul's armor bearer. David remains at court playing the harp as needed by Saul to calm his moods.
* (1 Samuel 17:1-18:5) The Philistines return with an army to attack Israel, but, having amassed on a hillside opposite to the Israelite forces, suggest that to save effort and lives on both sides, it would be better to have a proxy combat between their champion, a Rephaim from Gath named Goliath, and someone of Saul's choosing. David, a young shepherd boy, happens to be delivering food to his three eldest brothers, who are in the Israelite army, at the time that the challenge is made. David, who is faithful of God's power to defeat his enemies, talks to the nearby soldiers mocking the Philistines, but is reprimanded by his brothers for doing so. David's speech is overheard and reported to Saul, who summons David and on hearing David's views decides to fit him out with his (Saul's) own armour. Saul then appoints David as his champion, and David defeats Goliath with a single shot from a sling, which hits him in between the eyes. Goliath falls forward and David uses his sword to decapitate Goliath.
Saul's love of glory
"Saul Throws Spear at David" by George Tinworth
In the text, Saul's son, Jonathan, and David become close friends and eventually David becomes Jonathan's brother-in-law by Michal. Jonathan recognises David as the rightful king, and 1 Samuel 18 states "Jonathan made a covenant with David, because he loved him as his own soul." Jonathan even gives David his military clothes, symbolizing David's position as successor to Saul.
God makes David successful wherever Saul sends him. Therefore Saul sets David in charge of the army. After David returns from battle, the women heap praise upon him and refer to him as a greater military hero than Saul, driving Saul to jealousy, fearing that David constituted a rival to the throne. And said that he loved him very much...
Another day, while David is playing the harp, Saul, possessed by an evil spirit, throws a spear at him but misses on two occasions. Saul resolves to remove David from the court and appoints him an officer, but David becomes increasingly successful, making Saul more resentful of him. In return for being his champion, Saul offers to marry his daughter, Merob, to David, but David turns the offer down claiming to be too humble, and Merob is married to another man instead. Another daughter, Michal, falls in love with David, so Saul repeats the offer to David with Michal, but again David turns it down claiming to be too poor; Saul persuades David that the bride price would only be 100 foreskins from the Philistines, hoping that David would be killed trying to achieve this. David obtains 200 foreskins and is consequently married to Michal.
The narrative continues as Saul plots against David, but Jonathan dissuades Saul from this course of action, and tells David of it. Saul then tries to have David killed during the night, but Michal helps him escape and tricks his pursuers by using a household idol to make it seem that David is still in bed. David flees to Jonathan, who wasn't living near Saul. Jonathan agrees to return to Saul and discover his ultimate intent. While dining with Saul, Jonathan pretends that David has been called away to his brothers, but Saul sees through this and castigates Jonathan for being the companion of David, and it becomes clear that Saul wants David dead. The next day, Jonathan meets with David and tells him Saul's intent, and the two friends say their goodbyes, as David flees into the country. Saul later marries Michal to another man instead of David.
Saul is later informed by his head shepherd, an Edomite named Doeg, that Ahimelech assisted David. A henchman is sought to kill Ahimelech and the other priests of Nob. None of Saul's henchmen are willing to do this, so Doeg offers to do it instead, killing 85 priests. Saul also kills every man, woman and child living in Nob.
David had already left Nob by this point and had amassed about 400 disaffected men including a group of outlaws. With these men David launches an attack on the Philistines at Keilahhe. Saul realises he could trap David and his men inside the city and besiege it. However, David hears about this, and having received divine counsel (via the Ephod), finds that the citizens of Keilah would betray him to Saul. He decides to leave and flees to Ziph. Saul discovers this and pursues David on two occasions:
* Some of the inhabitants of Ziph betray David's location to Saul, but David hears about it and flees with his men to Maon. Saul follows David, but while Saul travels along one side of the gorge, David travels along the other, and Saul is forced to break off pursuit when the Philistines invade. This is supposedly how the place became known as the gorge of divisions. David hides in the caves at Engedi and after fighting the Philistines, Saul returns to Engedi to attack him. Saul eventually enters the cave in which David had been hiding, but as David is in the darkest recesses Saul doesn't spot him. David swipes at Saul and cuts off part of his garment, but restrains himself and his associates from going further due to a taboo against killing an anointed king. David then leaves the cave, revealing himself to Saul, and gives a speech that persuades Saul to reconcile.
* On the second occasion Saul returns to Ziph with his men. When David hears of this he sneaks into Saul's camp by night, and thrusts his spear into the ground near where Saul is sleeping. David prevents his associates from killing Saul because of a taboo against killing an anointed king, and merely steals Saul's spear and water jug. The next day, David stands at the top of a slope opposite to Saul's camp, and shouts that he had been in Saul's camp the previous night (using the spear and jug as proof). David then gives a speech that persuades Saul to reconcile with David, and the two make an oath not to harm one another.
Saul is among the prophets
The phrase Saul is among the prophets, is mentioned by the text in a way that suggests it was a proverb in later Israelite culture. Two accounts of its origin are given:
* (1 Samuel 10:11 etc.) Having been anointed by Samuel, Saul is told of signs he will receive to know that he has been divinely appointed. The last of these signs is that Saul will be met by an ecstatic group of prophets leaving a high place and playing music on lyre, tambourine, and flutes. The signs come true (though the text skips the first two, suggesting that a portion of the text has been lost, or edited out for some reason), and Saul joins the ecstatic prophets, hence the phrase.
* (1 Samuel 19:24 etc.) Saul sends men to pursue David, but when they meet a group of ecstatic prophets playing music on lyre, tambourine, and flute, they become possessed by a prophetic state and join in. Saul sends more men, but they too join the prophets. Eventually Saul himself goes, and also joins the prophets, hence the phrase.
Battle of Gilboa and the death of Saul
The Battle of Gilboa, by Jean Fouquet, the protagonists depicted anachronistically with 15th Century armour
Despite the oath(s) of reconciliation, the biblical text states that David felt insecure, and so made an alliance with the Philistines, becoming their vassal. Emboldened by this, the Philistines prepared to attack Israel, and Saul led out his army to face them at Mount Gilboa, but before the battle decided to secretly consult the witch of Endor for advice. The witch, unaware of who he is, reminds Saul that the king (i.e. Saul himself) had made witchery a capital offence, but after being assured that Saul wouldn't harm her, the witch conjures up the ghost of Samuel. Samuel's ghost tells Saul that he would lose the battle and his life.
Broken in spirit, Saul returns to face the enemy, and the Israelites are duly defeated. To escape the ignominy of capture, Saul asks his armour bearer to kill him, but is forced to commit suicide by falling on his sword when the armour bearer refuses. An Amalekite then claims to have killed Saul, and the Amalekite tells David. Infuriated, David orders the Amalekite to be put to death as punishment for killing the God's anointed, despite Saul's earlier assassination attempt against him. (2 Samuel 1:1-16) The body of Saul, with those of his sons, were fastened to the wall of Beth-shan, and his armor was hung up in the house of Ashtaroth (an Ascalonian temple of the Canaanites). The inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead (the scene of Saul's first victory) rescue the bodies and take them to Jabesh-gilead, where they burn their flesh and bury the bones (Sam.I 31,13).
Classical Rabbinical views
Two opposing views of Saul are found in classical rabbinical literature. One is based on the reverse logic that punishment is a proof of guilt, and therefore seeks to rob Saul of any halo which might surround him; typically this view is similar to the republican source. The passage referring to Saul as a choice young man, and goodly (1 Samuel 9:2) is in this view interpreted as meaning that Saul was not good in every respect, but goodly only with respect to his personal appearance (Num. Rashi 9:28). According to this view, Saul is only a weak branch (Gen. Rashi 25:3), owing his kingship not to his own merits, but rather to his grandfather, who had been accustomed to light the streets for those who went to the bet ha-midrash, and had received as his reward the promise that one of his grandsons should sit upon the throne (Lev. Rashi 9:2).
The second view of Saul makes him appear in the most favourable light as man, as hero, and as king. This view is similar to that of the monarchical source. In this view it was on account of his modesty that he did not reveal the fact that he had been anointed king (1 Samuel 10:16; Meg. 13b); and he was extraordinarily upright as well as perfectly just. Nor was there any one more pious than he (M. Q. 16b; Ex. Rashi 30:12); for when he ascended the throne he was as pure as a child, and had never committed sin (Yoma 22b). He was marvelously handsome; and the maidens who told him concerning Samuel (cf 1 Samuel 9:11-13) talked so long with him that they might observe his beauty the more (Ber. 48b). In war he was able to march 120 miles without rest. When he received the command to smite Amalek (1 Samuel 15:3), Saul said: For one found slain the Torah requires a sin offering [Deuteronomy 21:1-9]; and here so many shall be slain. If the old have sinned, why should the young suffer; and if men have been guilty, why should the cattle be destroyed? It was this mildness that cost him his crown. And while Saul was merciful to his enemies, he was strict with his own people; when he found out that Avimelech, a kohen, had assisted David with finding food, Saul, in retaliation, killed the rest of the 85 kohanim of the family of Avimelech and the rest of his hometown, Nov. (Yoma 22b; Num. Rashi 1:10) The fact that he was merciful even to his enemies, being indulgent to rebels themselves, and frequently waiving the homage due to him, was incredible as well as deceiving. But if his mercy toward a foe was a sin, it was his only one; and it was his misfortune that it was reckoned against him, while David, although he had committed much iniquity, was so favored that it was not remembered to his injury (Yoma 22b; M. Q. 16b, and Rashi ad loc.). In some respects Saul was superior to David, e.g., in having only one concubine, while David had many. Saul expended his own substance for the war, and although he knew that he and his sons would fall in battle, he nevertheless went forward, while David heeded the wish of his soldiers not to go to war in person (2 Samuel 21:17; Lev. Rashi 26:7; Yalq., Sam. 138).
According to the Rabbis, Saul ate his food with due regard for the rules of ceremonial purity prescribed for the sacrifice (Yalq., l.c.), and taught the people how they should slay cattle (cf 1 Samuel 14:34). As a reward for this, God himself gave Saul a sword on the day of battle, since no other sword suitable for him was found (ibid 13:22). Saul's attitude toward David finds its excuse in the fact that his courtiers were all tale-bearers, and slandered David to him (Deut. Rashi 5:10); and in like manner he was incited by Doeg against the priests of Nob (1 Samuel 22:16-19; Yalq., Sam. 131) - this act was forgiven him, however, and a heavenly voice (bat qol) was heard, proclaiming: Saul is the chosen one of God (Ber. 12b). His anger at the Gibeonites (2 Samuel 21:2) was not personal hatred, but was induced by zeal for the welfare of Israel (Num. Rashi 8:4). The fact that he made his daughter remarry (1 Samuel 25:44), finds its explanation in his (Saul's) view that her betrothal to David had been gained by false pretenses, and was therefore invalid (Sanhedrin 19b). During the lifetime of Saul there was no idolatry in Israel. The famine in the reign of David (cf 2 Samuel 21:1) was to punish the people, because they had not accorded Saul the proper honours at his burial (Num. Rashi 8:4). In Sheol, Samuel reveals to Saul that in the next world, Saul would dwell with Samuel, which is a proof that all has been forgiven him by god('Er. 53ba]
Saul's name and Samuel's birth-narrative
The birth-narrative of the prophet Samuel is found at 1 Samuel 1-28. It describes how Samuel's mother Hannah requests a son from Yahweh, and dedicates the child to God at the shrine of Shiloh. The passage makes extensive play with the root-elements of Saul's name, and ends with the phrase hu sa'ul le-Yahweh, "he is dedicated to Yahweh." Hannah names the resulting son Samuel, giving as her explanation, "because from God I requested him." Samuel's name, however, means "name of God," and the etymology and multiple references to the root of the name seems to fit Saul instead. The majority explanation for the discrepancy is that the narrative originally described the birth of Saul, and was given to Samuel in order to enhance the position of David and Samuel at the former king's expense. | 5,765 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The culprits—probably Norwegians who sailed directly across the North Sea—did not destroy the monastery completely, but the attack shook the European religious world to its core. Unlike other groups, these strange new invaders had no respect for religious institutions such as the monasteries, which were often left unguarded and vulnerable near the shore. Two years later, Viking raids struck the undefended island monasteries of Skye and Iona in the Hebrides as well as Rathlin off the northeast coast of Ireland.
Acknowledgement I would like to thank Mr Barris for introducing me to this assignment from which I have learnt a lot and enjoyed doing.
Their mighty warriors disrupted many peaceful European countries. However, Europe also benefited through the impact of the Vikings as a result of the new technology they spread around Europe while trading and settling.
The Vikings were also great explorers and established many settlements throughout Europe. The first recorded Viking raid according to the Anglo-Saxon chronicle was in about when three Norwegian ships attacked Portland, which is located in the British Isles.
In the Vikings raided a monastery in Lindisfarne. They murdered many monks, destroyed churches and took its treasures. The British were shocked and outraged by these raids. Most of these raids were targeted at monasteries, which held important literatures.
The monasteries were also places of learning and the raids disrupted education in many parts of Europe. Furthermore, the Vikings broke up the existing power structure in England and Scotland strengthening the Scots.
During the 9th century the Vikings expanded their raids to France. France was in the Carolingian empire, which had internal problems. The Vikings took advantage of this and started raiding France.
The Viking raids in France created the Duchy of Normandy. As well as this they fastened the collapse of the Carolingian empire.
Through these raids, the Vikings changed the existing hierarchy, which had a significant impact on Europe in the Middle Ages. The Vikings were not only raiders, they were great explorers and established settlements in many of the countries they invaded.
In about the Vikings discovered Iceland. The Vikings also discovered and established settlements in Greenland. Evenmore, the Vikings settled in many parts of the countries they raided.
They rebuilt many of the towns they invaded. Thus, making up for the damage caused by the raids. However, two towns in England, Quentovic and Dorestad, were destroyed due to the raids.
As well as this, they established settlements in many unpopulated areas of England. They also introduced new farming methods and other techniques throughout Europe.The Vikings undertook extensive trade and built a trade network that eventually covered all of modern Europe, Russia, the Middle East, Northern India, and even China.
They were the first to pioneer trade routes down the Volga and the Dnepr; they opened the routes to Constantinople and the Byzantine Empire; they traded with the Franks and .
The era known as the Viking age lasted for more than years, from the late 8th century to the late 11th century. The history of the Vikings is closely linked to their role as masters of the sea.
Start studying AMH final exam. Learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools. What did Dr.
Jon Parmenter explain about the role that Pocahontas had actually played? and Native Americans including the trans-Atlantic slave trade, the Great Awakening, and the Enlightenment?
The Atlantic World. How . The Vikings undertook extensive trade and built a trade network that eventually covered all of modern Europe, Russia, the Middle East, Northern India, and even China.
They were the first to pioneer trade routes down the Volga and the Dnepr; they opened the routes to Constantinople and the Byzantine Empire; they traded with the Franks and the Baltic; and they even opened up the routes to the far east.
The Vikings played a major role in Northern Europe during the Middle Ages, especially during the Viking Age which was from CE to CE. Viking Raids The . The Viking settlements introduced many new, effective innovations, which in turn helped develop Europe in the Middle Ages.
Moreover, trade played a major role in the Viking expansion as many trades ended up as raids. However, the Vikings established many trade . | <urn:uuid:c9ac8282-07a5-4d5a-a063-de2d3031b480> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://tyharix.vetconnexx.com/the-significance-and-the-role-the-vikings-played-in-the-awakening-europe-49114ve.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250593994.14/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118221909-20200119005909-00244.warc.gz | en | 0.981482 | 883 | 3.9375 | 4 | [
0.1174151599407196,
0.2559291124343872,
-0.04025813564658165,
-0.39203333854675293,
0.34502238035202026,
-0.2507593631744385,
-0.5168549418449402,
0.15926337242126465,
0.1905249059200287,
-0.005211795214563608,
0.06711550056934357,
-0.2961611747741699,
0.07103163748979568,
0.09084769338369... | 1 | The culprits—probably Norwegians who sailed directly across the North Sea—did not destroy the monastery completely, but the attack shook the European religious world to its core. Unlike other groups, these strange new invaders had no respect for religious institutions such as the monasteries, which were often left unguarded and vulnerable near the shore. Two years later, Viking raids struck the undefended island monasteries of Skye and Iona in the Hebrides as well as Rathlin off the northeast coast of Ireland.
Acknowledgement I would like to thank Mr Barris for introducing me to this assignment from which I have learnt a lot and enjoyed doing.
Their mighty warriors disrupted many peaceful European countries. However, Europe also benefited through the impact of the Vikings as a result of the new technology they spread around Europe while trading and settling.
The Vikings were also great explorers and established many settlements throughout Europe. The first recorded Viking raid according to the Anglo-Saxon chronicle was in about when three Norwegian ships attacked Portland, which is located in the British Isles.
In the Vikings raided a monastery in Lindisfarne. They murdered many monks, destroyed churches and took its treasures. The British were shocked and outraged by these raids. Most of these raids were targeted at monasteries, which held important literatures.
The monasteries were also places of learning and the raids disrupted education in many parts of Europe. Furthermore, the Vikings broke up the existing power structure in England and Scotland strengthening the Scots.
During the 9th century the Vikings expanded their raids to France. France was in the Carolingian empire, which had internal problems. The Vikings took advantage of this and started raiding France.
The Viking raids in France created the Duchy of Normandy. As well as this they fastened the collapse of the Carolingian empire.
Through these raids, the Vikings changed the existing hierarchy, which had a significant impact on Europe in the Middle Ages. The Vikings were not only raiders, they were great explorers and established settlements in many of the countries they invaded.
In about the Vikings discovered Iceland. The Vikings also discovered and established settlements in Greenland. Evenmore, the Vikings settled in many parts of the countries they raided.
They rebuilt many of the towns they invaded. Thus, making up for the damage caused by the raids. However, two towns in England, Quentovic and Dorestad, were destroyed due to the raids.
As well as this, they established settlements in many unpopulated areas of England. They also introduced new farming methods and other techniques throughout Europe.The Vikings undertook extensive trade and built a trade network that eventually covered all of modern Europe, Russia, the Middle East, Northern India, and even China.
They were the first to pioneer trade routes down the Volga and the Dnepr; they opened the routes to Constantinople and the Byzantine Empire; they traded with the Franks and .
The era known as the Viking age lasted for more than years, from the late 8th century to the late 11th century. The history of the Vikings is closely linked to their role as masters of the sea.
Start studying AMH final exam. Learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools. What did Dr.
Jon Parmenter explain about the role that Pocahontas had actually played? and Native Americans including the trans-Atlantic slave trade, the Great Awakening, and the Enlightenment?
The Atlantic World. How . The Vikings undertook extensive trade and built a trade network that eventually covered all of modern Europe, Russia, the Middle East, Northern India, and even China.
They were the first to pioneer trade routes down the Volga and the Dnepr; they opened the routes to Constantinople and the Byzantine Empire; they traded with the Franks and the Baltic; and they even opened up the routes to the far east.
The Vikings played a major role in Northern Europe during the Middle Ages, especially during the Viking Age which was from CE to CE. Viking Raids The . The Viking settlements introduced many new, effective innovations, which in turn helped develop Europe in the Middle Ages.
Moreover, trade played a major role in the Viking expansion as many trades ended up as raids. However, the Vikings established many trade . | 875 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Saturn or Saturnus is the ancient Roman God of agriculture, the sowing of seeds, wealth, the seasons, cycles of decay and renewal and the passage of time.
Saturn is a very ancient God who was honored in the region before Rome was built, Capitoline Hill was previously known as mons Saturnius and his temple resided at the base of the hill and held the state treasury. Later, he was equated with the Greek God Cronus and by the 3rd century BCE, Cronus’s myths and family tree had been applied to Saturn, yet Saturn maintained His own complex personality; though it can be difficult to separate the real Saturn from the Hellenized Cronus-Saturn composite.
Saturn had two consorts. The earliest was the Goddess Lua to whom the weapons of defeated enemies was offered and later he was paired with Ops, the Goddess of Agriculture. He is the father of Jupiter.
Ovid describes an Golden Age of man under the rule of Saturn, similar to that of Cronus described by Hesiod. During this time, humans had all they needed without the need to work hard for it and lived together as equals. There is a tradition that this period coincided with the rule of a mortal King Saturn who later became a God or that King Saturn was the God, come to Earth after being driven out by Jupiter, who taught the people how to grow grapes and other agricultural crops. Perhaps that is the time that is remembered with the Saturnalia in December, on the anniversary of the dedication of the temple of Saturn at Capitoline Hill.
Saturn is often shown veiled and carrying a sickle. According to Plutarch, he is veiled because he is the father of truth. Sometimes he is shown crippled and leaning on a cane or crutches. The feet of the statue at the temple were bound except during Saturnalia, the crippled Saturn and the bound feet may be related in some way. | <urn:uuid:d684349f-5430-4d5f-a888-ad7f6634dd07> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://witchipedia.com/deity/saturn-2/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251802249.87/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129194333-20200129223333-00214.warc.gz | en | 0.986843 | 395 | 3.53125 | 4 | [
0.17242039740085602,
0.37397143244743347,
0.3391960859298706,
0.11587878316640854,
-0.5989165306091309,
-0.010507346130907536,
0.21420890092849731,
0.2848953604698181,
-0.08744478225708008,
-0.2805478274822235,
-0.3475588262081146,
-0.2699541449546814,
0.09521397948265076,
0.58872067928314... | 10 | Saturn or Saturnus is the ancient Roman God of agriculture, the sowing of seeds, wealth, the seasons, cycles of decay and renewal and the passage of time.
Saturn is a very ancient God who was honored in the region before Rome was built, Capitoline Hill was previously known as mons Saturnius and his temple resided at the base of the hill and held the state treasury. Later, he was equated with the Greek God Cronus and by the 3rd century BCE, Cronus’s myths and family tree had been applied to Saturn, yet Saturn maintained His own complex personality; though it can be difficult to separate the real Saturn from the Hellenized Cronus-Saturn composite.
Saturn had two consorts. The earliest was the Goddess Lua to whom the weapons of defeated enemies was offered and later he was paired with Ops, the Goddess of Agriculture. He is the father of Jupiter.
Ovid describes an Golden Age of man under the rule of Saturn, similar to that of Cronus described by Hesiod. During this time, humans had all they needed without the need to work hard for it and lived together as equals. There is a tradition that this period coincided with the rule of a mortal King Saturn who later became a God or that King Saturn was the God, come to Earth after being driven out by Jupiter, who taught the people how to grow grapes and other agricultural crops. Perhaps that is the time that is remembered with the Saturnalia in December, on the anniversary of the dedication of the temple of Saturn at Capitoline Hill.
Saturn is often shown veiled and carrying a sickle. According to Plutarch, he is veiled because he is the father of truth. Sometimes he is shown crippled and leaning on a cane or crutches. The feet of the statue at the temple were bound except during Saturnalia, the crippled Saturn and the bound feet may be related in some way. | 396 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Tackling Child Marriage and Early Childbearing in India
The Government of India has made combatting child marriage and early childbearing a priority. This brief uses data collected from 1,000 19-year-olds in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana to help inform policy and programming efforts. In our survey, 28% of girls and just 1% of boys married before the age of 18. By the age of 19, a majority (59%) of married young women had already given birth.
Young Lives has been following the lives of these young people and their families since 2002. The information they have shared with us over that time allows us to understand which girls are most likely to marry and have their first child at a young age. Girls who married before the age of 18 were more likely to have left school before 15, and to come from a poorer background. Their parents and caregivers were less likely to be well-educated or to have high aspirations for their daughters. These findings highlight the importance of safe, accessible and high-quality secondary education for girls, and the need for effective social protection and investment in livelihoods and opportunities for young women and men so that families feel confident that they can delay their daughters’ marriage and invest in their education and future. Young couples need access to sexual and reproductive health services and information to enable them to delay their first pregnancy and to space their children, although the pressure to have children soon after marriage can be intense. | <urn:uuid:90523fce-0344-4ece-a93c-62e08cd68cb2> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://younglives-india.org/node/1047 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594333.5/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119064802-20200119092802-00063.warc.gz | en | 0.980072 | 294 | 3.28125 | 3 | [
0.025236554443836212,
0.3336828351020813,
-0.1390567421913147,
-0.5634856820106506,
0.07961256057024002,
0.7031168937683105,
-0.41846632957458496,
-0.029658576473593712,
0.2697985768318176,
0.014056304469704628,
0.18789684772491455,
0.1288473755121231,
0.41019028425216675,
0.37455266714096... | 2 | Tackling Child Marriage and Early Childbearing in India
The Government of India has made combatting child marriage and early childbearing a priority. This brief uses data collected from 1,000 19-year-olds in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana to help inform policy and programming efforts. In our survey, 28% of girls and just 1% of boys married before the age of 18. By the age of 19, a majority (59%) of married young women had already given birth.
Young Lives has been following the lives of these young people and their families since 2002. The information they have shared with us over that time allows us to understand which girls are most likely to marry and have their first child at a young age. Girls who married before the age of 18 were more likely to have left school before 15, and to come from a poorer background. Their parents and caregivers were less likely to be well-educated or to have high aspirations for their daughters. These findings highlight the importance of safe, accessible and high-quality secondary education for girls, and the need for effective social protection and investment in livelihoods and opportunities for young women and men so that families feel confident that they can delay their daughters’ marriage and invest in their education and future. Young couples need access to sexual and reproductive health services and information to enable them to delay their first pregnancy and to space their children, although the pressure to have children soon after marriage can be intense. | 309 | ENGLISH | 1 |
This term the children have been learning about the Stone Age. In art we investigated what it would be like creating cave art. We had to get under the desks and try drawing upside down, imagining that we were drawing on the roof of a cave and we also had to draw on the bumpy surface of the playground. We discovered that this was much trickier than we expected as our drawings on the playground didn’t look like what we thought they would look like and our necks ached drawing upside down!
We then had to create our own Stone Age art. We looked at pictures of Stone Age paintings and talked about the types of colours that were used and why. We made old looking paper by screwing up paper repeatedly until it felt really flimsy and old. After that we painted it using a wash and added cracks using pastels. At the end we were given a choice of which resources we wanted to use for our animals - paint, charcoal, pastel or pencil. Some of us even had a go at adding a sense of movement to our work.
We have been learning about the Romans this term.
In art we looked at some Roman mosaics and thought about some questions that we would like to ask the Roman artists about their artwork. We then looked at the work of Antoni Gaudi and compared his work to the mosaics back in the Roman times. After that we had to design our own mosaics/collages using chickpeas, green lentils, red lentils, pearl barley and different types of pasta. We created them in CD cases.
Once we'd finished making them, we photographed each one and each person was given a copy of all of the photos so we could play around with different compositions. Some of us liked spreading the colours out and some of us preferred putting all the colours together in groups.
At the end we evaluated our work and some of us made improvements if there were little gaps between the pieces which needed filling in. | <urn:uuid:8bf577ac-ff9a-4d84-9844-0e4760587921> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://senacre-wood.kent.sch.uk/our-learning/art/year-3/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250607314.32/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122161553-20200122190553-00378.warc.gz | en | 0.984131 | 402 | 3.953125 | 4 | [
-0.2474818229675293,
-0.2360782027244568,
0.34268733859062195,
0.28049710392951965,
-0.6691577434539795,
0.37848106026649475,
-0.2823423445224762,
0.0370870865881443,
-0.343581885099411,
0.19870007038116455,
0.2902913987636566,
-0.35638463497161865,
0.06987187266349792,
0.6562545895576477,... | 1 | This term the children have been learning about the Stone Age. In art we investigated what it would be like creating cave art. We had to get under the desks and try drawing upside down, imagining that we were drawing on the roof of a cave and we also had to draw on the bumpy surface of the playground. We discovered that this was much trickier than we expected as our drawings on the playground didn’t look like what we thought they would look like and our necks ached drawing upside down!
We then had to create our own Stone Age art. We looked at pictures of Stone Age paintings and talked about the types of colours that were used and why. We made old looking paper by screwing up paper repeatedly until it felt really flimsy and old. After that we painted it using a wash and added cracks using pastels. At the end we were given a choice of which resources we wanted to use for our animals - paint, charcoal, pastel or pencil. Some of us even had a go at adding a sense of movement to our work.
We have been learning about the Romans this term.
In art we looked at some Roman mosaics and thought about some questions that we would like to ask the Roman artists about their artwork. We then looked at the work of Antoni Gaudi and compared his work to the mosaics back in the Roman times. After that we had to design our own mosaics/collages using chickpeas, green lentils, red lentils, pearl barley and different types of pasta. We created them in CD cases.
Once we'd finished making them, we photographed each one and each person was given a copy of all of the photos so we could play around with different compositions. Some of us liked spreading the colours out and some of us preferred putting all the colours together in groups.
At the end we evaluated our work and some of us made improvements if there were little gaps between the pieces which needed filling in. | 400 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Saint Maudez (Mawes, Maudetus)
(Sixth Century A.D.)
Maudez (Mawes, Maudetus) may be related to an Old French or Old German name that means “Mighty in Battle.”
Sometimes we know very little about someone’s life, but we do know what they left behind. What is left behind is called our legacy. Saint Maudez, also called Saint Mawes and Saint Maudetus, left a wonderful and holy legacy, even though we know very little about his life.
Saint Maudez was born sometime in the sixth century. This was five hundred years after Jesus died. People lived without any modern conveniences and experienced many troubles from diseases, poor weather, bad crops, and warring tribes.
Maudez seems to have been born in Ireland or Wales, but he sailed to Brittany, which was part of northwestern France. At that time in the early 500’s, King Childebert I was ruling. Maudez was not so intrigued by war and power, as kings were. Maudez was interested in peace and faith in Christ.
At some point, Maudez devoted his life to God by becoming a monk. Other men recognized his holiness and wanted to learn from him so they lived and journeyed with him as his disciples. Wanting to be alone to pray, they settled on a small island off the coast of southern France.
Maudez burned all the grass on this island to clear it of snakes, rats, mice, and insects. People believe that earth from this island is useful today in ridding one’s property of similar pests.
However, Maudez did not remain on the island. He and his disciples would travel about Amorica, a peninsula of France in Brittany, to tell the people about Jesus, to encourage converts, and to build churches. Maudez made good use of open space and was known for teaching in the open air.
We don’t know much more than this about Saint Maudez. However, we do know of many villages and chapels named after him. These prove that the people highly respected and loved Maudez and wanted to honor and remember him.
Saint Maudez left behind a legacy of love and faith. After we die, we leave a legacy, too, of memories, projects, and activities. What legacy would you like to leave behind? Ask God to let you know so that you can begin to work now for Him and for His Kingdom.
Saint Maudez en la chapelle St-Guénolé d'Ergué-Gabéric | <urn:uuid:ddae71c5-5962-4da1-a36b-579b6a6d187e> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.patronsaintstories.com/blank-1 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251690379.95/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126195918-20200126225918-00035.warc.gz | en | 0.982597 | 556 | 3.5625 | 4 | [
-0.1410175859928131,
0.44588279724121094,
-0.1205327957868576,
-0.18058869242668152,
0.2198091745376587,
-0.23177461326122284,
0.06578832864761353,
0.33361679315567017,
-0.011830667033791542,
-0.2697754502296448,
-0.2607530951499939,
-0.042148374021053314,
-0.30822086334228516,
0.139263078... | 15 | Saint Maudez (Mawes, Maudetus)
(Sixth Century A.D.)
Maudez (Mawes, Maudetus) may be related to an Old French or Old German name that means “Mighty in Battle.”
Sometimes we know very little about someone’s life, but we do know what they left behind. What is left behind is called our legacy. Saint Maudez, also called Saint Mawes and Saint Maudetus, left a wonderful and holy legacy, even though we know very little about his life.
Saint Maudez was born sometime in the sixth century. This was five hundred years after Jesus died. People lived without any modern conveniences and experienced many troubles from diseases, poor weather, bad crops, and warring tribes.
Maudez seems to have been born in Ireland or Wales, but he sailed to Brittany, which was part of northwestern France. At that time in the early 500’s, King Childebert I was ruling. Maudez was not so intrigued by war and power, as kings were. Maudez was interested in peace and faith in Christ.
At some point, Maudez devoted his life to God by becoming a monk. Other men recognized his holiness and wanted to learn from him so they lived and journeyed with him as his disciples. Wanting to be alone to pray, they settled on a small island off the coast of southern France.
Maudez burned all the grass on this island to clear it of snakes, rats, mice, and insects. People believe that earth from this island is useful today in ridding one’s property of similar pests.
However, Maudez did not remain on the island. He and his disciples would travel about Amorica, a peninsula of France in Brittany, to tell the people about Jesus, to encourage converts, and to build churches. Maudez made good use of open space and was known for teaching in the open air.
We don’t know much more than this about Saint Maudez. However, we do know of many villages and chapels named after him. These prove that the people highly respected and loved Maudez and wanted to honor and remember him.
Saint Maudez left behind a legacy of love and faith. After we die, we leave a legacy, too, of memories, projects, and activities. What legacy would you like to leave behind? Ask God to let you know so that you can begin to work now for Him and for His Kingdom.
Saint Maudez en la chapelle St-Guénolé d'Ergué-Gabéric | 537 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Mrs. Burt & Mrs. Clanton
Our girls came back from Spring Break ready for Spring. They wanted warm weather immediately, which has taken a while. We began to talk about signs of Spring and all the plants, trees and flowers that begin to bloom. The girls wanted to plant flowers on our playground so we could see them when we were outside. We read Lois Ehlert's book Planting a Rainbow. Our farmer, Mrs. Riddle invited us to her classroom to plant zinnia seeds in the colors of the rainbow. The girls enjoyed getting their fingers in the dirt and planting the seed. On our way to lunch this week we went to check on the seeds and we were so surprised that they had sprouted and were out of the dirt about an inch. We plan to watch them grow each week until Mrs. Riddle tells us they are ready to go into the ground outside. Here is a slide show of our activities while planting and watering our seeds.
These are the centers that have enhanced our studies of plants and flowers. The skills developed are: cutting, creative expression, observation and small motor with paint and coloring. New vocabulary words are roots, stem, leaves and petals. | <urn:uuid:bf53572b-ccfc-4875-9ee9-cf555f5040c7> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://hutchisonpk.weebly.com/burtclanton1/spring-is-here | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250597230.18/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120023523-20200120051523-00532.warc.gz | en | 0.981407 | 246 | 3.6875 | 4 | [
-0.13278523087501526,
-0.1865391731262207,
0.20724420249462128,
-0.29415225982666016,
0.24798500537872314,
0.36982929706573486,
0.10510089993476868,
0.041847970336675644,
-0.1055314838886261,
0.33357155323028564,
0.30822691321372986,
-0.20053023099899292,
0.33159396052360535,
0.36351525783... | 1 | Mrs. Burt & Mrs. Clanton
Our girls came back from Spring Break ready for Spring. They wanted warm weather immediately, which has taken a while. We began to talk about signs of Spring and all the plants, trees and flowers that begin to bloom. The girls wanted to plant flowers on our playground so we could see them when we were outside. We read Lois Ehlert's book Planting a Rainbow. Our farmer, Mrs. Riddle invited us to her classroom to plant zinnia seeds in the colors of the rainbow. The girls enjoyed getting their fingers in the dirt and planting the seed. On our way to lunch this week we went to check on the seeds and we were so surprised that they had sprouted and were out of the dirt about an inch. We plan to watch them grow each week until Mrs. Riddle tells us they are ready to go into the ground outside. Here is a slide show of our activities while planting and watering our seeds.
These are the centers that have enhanced our studies of plants and flowers. The skills developed are: cutting, creative expression, observation and small motor with paint and coloring. New vocabulary words are roots, stem, leaves and petals. | 244 | ENGLISH | 1 |
February 28 is celebrated in India as the National Science Day (NSD). The date itself pays tribute to the discovery of Raman Effect which brought a Nobel Prize to C.V. Raman. Apart from speeches and films highlighting the role of science and its importance to the common citizen, various programmes on National Science Day highlight the scientific temper — the scientific temper owes its origin to the way science proceeds to expand its role in understanding nature, it is an attitude of mind which we should all cultivate that aims at being rational in our action and overall behaviour.
But scientific temper has a wider role to play, which takes it well beyond the highways and byways of science. Science progressed over the years by admitting new facts and ideas to its fold by demanding their critical appraisal. Do not accept a statement as factual until you have evidence to support it…even if it comes from a distinguished or important personage. So says the scientific temper.
Jawaharlal Nehru had greatly supported the scientific temper and had written about its importance for India which he saw as bound up in many
superstitions. Writing in his Discovery of India he had expressed the hope that after the country gains independence its citizens would learn to adopt the scientific temper.
Of the many age-old beliefs they would learn to discard those which have ceased to be relevant and retain only those which have stood the test of time. Unfortunately this has not happened. The majority of our countrymen still continue to have superstitions.
The NSD therefore has a role to play. On this day there are talks and presentations debunking superstitions of various kind, as well as programmes presenting highlights of science so as to make people appreciate science and be science-friendly. In particular, children are an ideal target group for NSD.
Arvind Gupta, a science populariser has created a niche for himself through his science toys. Made mostly out of discarded material with minimal additions of equipment bought outside, these toys are very cheap to make but are remarkable in what they do. To a superficial observer they look magical until their secrets are explained. The secret of each toy is based on some law of science, the same law that appeared in the school textbook. But whereas the textbook version was presented in the class in a dry and uninteresting form, the toy version is of great interest to the student since it is manifest through the law in action.
Indeed, Gupta’s creations show that practical demonstration is the best way of learning science. Of course, there are many ways of demonstrating to the uninitiated, how science works. The important thing is that the demonstration is in some action-oriented mode.
Famous scientist Michael Faraday had realised this and stressed the importance of practicals in teaching science. He had set up the Royal Institution of Great Britain back in the 19th century. Even today, this venerable organisation has been following Faraday’s practice of presenting basic science to the layperson through lecture demonstrations.
And the response of the general public has been overwhelming. It is said that the crowds caused such traffic jams that the Albemarle Street where the Institute is located had to be declared a one-way street. It is in fact the first one-way street in the world!
It is said that when he carried out a demonstration of electric motor in front of Queen Victoria, she asked as to what was the use of that exercise. Faraday is believed to have replied: “Your Majesty, you do not ask what is the use of a new born baby!” In short, when studying basic sciences one should enjoy them as additions to human understanding. They may turn out to have practical applications but that issue is secondary.
The Royal Institution has had distinguished scientists heading it. But despite their work at very advanced level of science, they have all shown great interest in bringing science to the masses. Here is an anecdote about Sir Lawrence Bragg, Nobel Laureate head of the Royal Institution, showing how seriously he took that activity.
Bragg had been making a film for use in a lecture demonstration to schoolchildren. When the film was complete and was seen by Bragg and the film director, the latter was not too happy with some parts of the film. Two portions needed to be re-shot. Somewhat hesitantly he brought the matter to Bragg’s attention, being afraid that Bragg may be too busy to spend more time on the film. But Bragg readily agreed to redo the portions. The film director asked him to wear the same suit that he had worn in the film.
However, when Bragg looked for the suit he could not find it. The suit was getting old so his wife gave it to their maid servant to sell it at the charity auction in her village. Bragg realised that unless that suit was found he would have to re-shoot the whole film.
“Let us find that suit!” he said and decided to trace it in the village of the servant. So the Bragg couple drove to that village and called on the organiser of the auction. That lady recalled who had bought the suit and directed the Braggs to that buyer’s house in the village. That person confirmed his participation in the auction but said that he had only bid for the jacket: the trousers were sold in another lot.
So borrowing the jacket for the shooting, the Braggs tried to trace the buyer of the trousers. Alas, that could not be done as the buyer was not locally known. So the Braggs returned to London with the jacket only. And Bragg asked the filmmaker to shoot the revised shots such that only the jacket should be visible. This the filmmaker could do and thus the problem was resolved. This example illustrates the importance attached to teaching science to schoolchildren by a distinguished scientist.... | <urn:uuid:9191d99a-59e6-4204-adc6-67b50a00dc7c> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.deccanchronicle.com/opinion/op-ed/240418/the-many-joys-of-learning-science.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250608062.57/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123011418-20200123040418-00025.warc.gz | en | 0.981281 | 1,191 | 3.328125 | 3 | [
0.09182961285114288,
0.6445972323417664,
0.17300283908843994,
-0.4759094715118408,
-0.0836821049451828,
0.24207083880901337,
0.5445760488510132,
0.1357894390821457,
-0.36248189210891724,
-0.13046950101852417,
0.22021248936653137,
-0.30726689100265503,
0.7655407190322876,
0.3688338994979858... | 2 | February 28 is celebrated in India as the National Science Day (NSD). The date itself pays tribute to the discovery of Raman Effect which brought a Nobel Prize to C.V. Raman. Apart from speeches and films highlighting the role of science and its importance to the common citizen, various programmes on National Science Day highlight the scientific temper — the scientific temper owes its origin to the way science proceeds to expand its role in understanding nature, it is an attitude of mind which we should all cultivate that aims at being rational in our action and overall behaviour.
But scientific temper has a wider role to play, which takes it well beyond the highways and byways of science. Science progressed over the years by admitting new facts and ideas to its fold by demanding their critical appraisal. Do not accept a statement as factual until you have evidence to support it…even if it comes from a distinguished or important personage. So says the scientific temper.
Jawaharlal Nehru had greatly supported the scientific temper and had written about its importance for India which he saw as bound up in many
superstitions. Writing in his Discovery of India he had expressed the hope that after the country gains independence its citizens would learn to adopt the scientific temper.
Of the many age-old beliefs they would learn to discard those which have ceased to be relevant and retain only those which have stood the test of time. Unfortunately this has not happened. The majority of our countrymen still continue to have superstitions.
The NSD therefore has a role to play. On this day there are talks and presentations debunking superstitions of various kind, as well as programmes presenting highlights of science so as to make people appreciate science and be science-friendly. In particular, children are an ideal target group for NSD.
Arvind Gupta, a science populariser has created a niche for himself through his science toys. Made mostly out of discarded material with minimal additions of equipment bought outside, these toys are very cheap to make but are remarkable in what they do. To a superficial observer they look magical until their secrets are explained. The secret of each toy is based on some law of science, the same law that appeared in the school textbook. But whereas the textbook version was presented in the class in a dry and uninteresting form, the toy version is of great interest to the student since it is manifest through the law in action.
Indeed, Gupta’s creations show that practical demonstration is the best way of learning science. Of course, there are many ways of demonstrating to the uninitiated, how science works. The important thing is that the demonstration is in some action-oriented mode.
Famous scientist Michael Faraday had realised this and stressed the importance of practicals in teaching science. He had set up the Royal Institution of Great Britain back in the 19th century. Even today, this venerable organisation has been following Faraday’s practice of presenting basic science to the layperson through lecture demonstrations.
And the response of the general public has been overwhelming. It is said that the crowds caused such traffic jams that the Albemarle Street where the Institute is located had to be declared a one-way street. It is in fact the first one-way street in the world!
It is said that when he carried out a demonstration of electric motor in front of Queen Victoria, she asked as to what was the use of that exercise. Faraday is believed to have replied: “Your Majesty, you do not ask what is the use of a new born baby!” In short, when studying basic sciences one should enjoy them as additions to human understanding. They may turn out to have practical applications but that issue is secondary.
The Royal Institution has had distinguished scientists heading it. But despite their work at very advanced level of science, they have all shown great interest in bringing science to the masses. Here is an anecdote about Sir Lawrence Bragg, Nobel Laureate head of the Royal Institution, showing how seriously he took that activity.
Bragg had been making a film for use in a lecture demonstration to schoolchildren. When the film was complete and was seen by Bragg and the film director, the latter was not too happy with some parts of the film. Two portions needed to be re-shot. Somewhat hesitantly he brought the matter to Bragg’s attention, being afraid that Bragg may be too busy to spend more time on the film. But Bragg readily agreed to redo the portions. The film director asked him to wear the same suit that he had worn in the film.
However, when Bragg looked for the suit he could not find it. The suit was getting old so his wife gave it to their maid servant to sell it at the charity auction in her village. Bragg realised that unless that suit was found he would have to re-shoot the whole film.
“Let us find that suit!” he said and decided to trace it in the village of the servant. So the Bragg couple drove to that village and called on the organiser of the auction. That lady recalled who had bought the suit and directed the Braggs to that buyer’s house in the village. That person confirmed his participation in the auction but said that he had only bid for the jacket: the trousers were sold in another lot.
So borrowing the jacket for the shooting, the Braggs tried to trace the buyer of the trousers. Alas, that could not be done as the buyer was not locally known. So the Braggs returned to London with the jacket only. And Bragg asked the filmmaker to shoot the revised shots such that only the jacket should be visible. This the filmmaker could do and thus the problem was resolved. This example illustrates the importance attached to teaching science to schoolchildren by a distinguished scientist.... | 1,163 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The bridge at Attock is one of the most important transportation junctions in Pakistan and connects the provinces of Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (the former Northwest Frontier Province). Its significance dates to ancient times. Because the Indus river banks on both sides are so close here, it was a suitable location for boat bridges going back to Alexander the Great's conquest of Punjab, for later Mughal invasions and during the British period until 1883 when this heavily fortified bridge was constructed.
The famous Indian mathematician Panini is said to have been born near Attock around 500 BCE. It is likely that this postcard was made from a photograph taken during the Indus flood of 1909, as H.A. Mirza seems to have offered a number of views of the flood at Attock. | <urn:uuid:d2a90521-cd72-42e3-ac65-f13bcc621264> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.paperjewels.org/postcard/indus-flood-attak-bridge-bridge-attack | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251796127.92/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129102701-20200129132701-00468.warc.gz | en | 0.984794 | 164 | 3.34375 | 3 | [
-0.15066592395305634,
0.2562456727027893,
0.3088839054107666,
0.22572502493858337,
-0.518071174621582,
-0.42354416847229004,
0.21678806841373444,
0.24175620079040527,
-0.2647995948791504,
-0.2758258283138275,
0.11713886260986328,
-0.8269627094268799,
0.15171046555042267,
0.0891341790556907... | 7 | The bridge at Attock is one of the most important transportation junctions in Pakistan and connects the provinces of Punjab and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (the former Northwest Frontier Province). Its significance dates to ancient times. Because the Indus river banks on both sides are so close here, it was a suitable location for boat bridges going back to Alexander the Great's conquest of Punjab, for later Mughal invasions and during the British period until 1883 when this heavily fortified bridge was constructed.
The famous Indian mathematician Panini is said to have been born near Attock around 500 BCE. It is likely that this postcard was made from a photograph taken during the Indus flood of 1909, as H.A. Mirza seems to have offered a number of views of the flood at Attock. | 176 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Development of Medieval England
Before the 1500s, many European states did not exist. Before the period, people did not live as a nation. People lived in small settlements and the rulers at that period did not have much control of their areas or subjects. People operated on different laws and regulations within a specific country. However, the period starting 1000 saw a dramatic change in the political, social, and economic structures of many European countries. An example of a country that experienced such a change was England. The following research paper expounds on the development of the medieval state of England. The research paper will concentrate on the various aspects that changed to form the state of England. An analysis will show that the development of Medieval England was a process that started when the Romans ceased their rule in England and new Kings took over.
End of Roman Rule
The fifth century signaled the end of the Roman rule in England. After the Romans’ withdrawal, the Anglo-Saxons invaded England and came up with kingdoms. The kingdoms had rivalries against each other, but as time went by, a system of leadership sufficed in England. Various rulers came to power and by the 9th century, the most powerful king was Alfred the Great. He ruled between 871 and 899 and had the responsibility of protecting England from all invaders. During his rule, significant developments were made regarding the making of the England state. He initiated the development of a military system in which the new organization saw the development of militia ready to battle. The military system was supported by infrastructure such as ships for defense purposes. During King Alfred’s rule, the state was started having an aspect of organization.
After Alfred’s rule, the successors were mainly focused on unifying England. The successors created a united England monarchy that made the initial small kingdoms united. As a result of the unification, the differences that existed between the small kingdoms diminished by factors such as intermarriages. Despite the progress, England still had weaknesses, especially in repelling external attacks. The period after 1016 saw the country ruled by external leaders. After 1016, the country was ruled by King Canute. The king ruled both Norway and Denmark. Despite the invasion, the new king was accepted by the subject mainly because his administration respected the rights of the English people. After Canute’s death, Edward the Confessor took up the power. However, his reign did not propel England to significant developments. After his death, the most notable ruler that had significant development in England was William the Conqueror mainly because of his defense strategies. Initially he ruled the western side of Germany. His strong army of 5,000 personnel led to him conquering England in 1066. His rule in England signaled the start of an organized government in England that made it a strong European force.
King William’s Rule
After William’s rule was affirmed, the new ruler introduced the concept of feudalism in England. He retained large tracks of land as the leader and shared it with royal vassals, who went by the name tenants in chief. The tenants included royal individuals such as bishops. The vassals rewarded the gift of land to the king by providing him with an army for England’s defense. The king was keen for the vassals and the subjects to remain loyal and faithful to the King. After the organization of an organized army, the King also developed a revenue system for the state. The system was referred to as the Domesday Survey, and it initially used to buy off the Danes in the English territory. William also initiated the proper recording of property owned in England to ensure that there was an efficient revenue collection system.
William also aimed at ensuring that he had the control of the government and he developed the Great Council, mainly composed of the tenants in chief. They acted as the advisory body for the king. Apart from dominating England, William also ruled over the church. He retained the power to appoint bishops and other church rulers. He required the churches in England to consult him while making vital decisions. In 1087, William II succeeded his father but his rule was not as effective as his father’s. In 1110, Henry I came to power, and he restored some leadership traits of King William. During Henry’s reign, specialized government departments came up, an example being the exchequer. The institution had the responsibility of collecting revenues, thus leading to the strengthening of the economy.
Judicial System and Magna Carta
After Henry’s death, there was 19 years of civil war that followed due to succession disputes. The violence was mainly because many Matilda, Henry’s child, was prevented from claiming the throne. However, order resumed in England in 1154 when Henry II came to power. The new king was Matilda’s son. The new king was strong military wise and he regained the lost glory of Henry 1 and started rebuilding the country. The major achievements of Henry II was the establishment of permanent royal courts that in turn created the country’s judicial system. The jury system had the responsibility of interpreting the law and also settling private feuds. The judicial reforms by the Judiciary led to the creation of common law in England. The common law is attributed as a pillar to making the English people come together to form a nation. Other successors of King Henry were not keen in developing an organized government system with an exception being King John. John affixed his seal to the Magna Carta, which imposed new rules to the king. According to the document, the king had to observe all human rights. People view the Magna Carta as the source of the modern political Freedom in England.
The empowering of the parliament happened from 1265 with the membership of the Great Council significantly changing. The change entailed enlarging the constitution of the council to ensure that it represented the whole nation. The changes in the constitution of the council happened in the reign of Henry III who ruled between 1216 and 1272. However, the realization and the functionality of the parliament came in the period between 1272 and 1307 when Edward I was the ruler. The king summoned the representatives of all regions in England to meet in the Great Council. The meetings used to be advisory sessions for the government. In the early periods of the fourteenth century, the representatives of the knights and other citizens started having separate meetings different from those representing the lords and temporal. As a result, two houses arose, and the division of the houses exists even in the modern England. The houses included the lower house and that of the Lords. The lower house often controlled some of the king’s decisions because they controlled the government revenue. As a result, it influenced the laws made by the king. As time went by, the House of Commons wielded the power to make laws. The development of the houses manifests itself in the modern England, whose laws are made by the two houses, namely, the House of Lords and the House of Commons.
In conclusion, the development of Medieval England was a process that started when the Romans ceased their rule in England and new Kings took over. The first Kings to initiate the development of the traditional England was King Alfred and Canute. However, the ruler that made significant steps to an organized England was King William. The king initiated new structures of military and advisory body for the kingship by the name the Great Council. Despite the developments, the successors of King William had mixed results, with some of them such as not keen on developing organized structures for England. One of the lost significant developments was the Magna Carta, a document that allowed freedoms for the English citizens. Other kings developed advanced revenue systems and a more representative body that advised the king. As a result, by the 14th century, England had a functioning parliament that entailed the House of Commons and the House of Lords. | <urn:uuid:bf399c26-b0f8-4a06-9906-1d78fdf97896> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://original-essays.org/essays/history/development-of-medieval-england | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251671078.88/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125071430-20200125100430-00284.warc.gz | en | 0.981349 | 1,604 | 3.9375 | 4 | [
-0.3532137870788574,
0.2392110675573349,
0.626460075378418,
-0.13473543524742126,
-0.23229433596134186,
-0.18084552884101868,
-0.41559186577796936,
0.029883695766329765,
0.029618553817272186,
0.13789089024066925,
-0.04239187762141228,
-0.13970224559307098,
0.2279338538646698,
-0.0956978499... | 8 | Development of Medieval England
Before the 1500s, many European states did not exist. Before the period, people did not live as a nation. People lived in small settlements and the rulers at that period did not have much control of their areas or subjects. People operated on different laws and regulations within a specific country. However, the period starting 1000 saw a dramatic change in the political, social, and economic structures of many European countries. An example of a country that experienced such a change was England. The following research paper expounds on the development of the medieval state of England. The research paper will concentrate on the various aspects that changed to form the state of England. An analysis will show that the development of Medieval England was a process that started when the Romans ceased their rule in England and new Kings took over.
End of Roman Rule
The fifth century signaled the end of the Roman rule in England. After the Romans’ withdrawal, the Anglo-Saxons invaded England and came up with kingdoms. The kingdoms had rivalries against each other, but as time went by, a system of leadership sufficed in England. Various rulers came to power and by the 9th century, the most powerful king was Alfred the Great. He ruled between 871 and 899 and had the responsibility of protecting England from all invaders. During his rule, significant developments were made regarding the making of the England state. He initiated the development of a military system in which the new organization saw the development of militia ready to battle. The military system was supported by infrastructure such as ships for defense purposes. During King Alfred’s rule, the state was started having an aspect of organization.
After Alfred’s rule, the successors were mainly focused on unifying England. The successors created a united England monarchy that made the initial small kingdoms united. As a result of the unification, the differences that existed between the small kingdoms diminished by factors such as intermarriages. Despite the progress, England still had weaknesses, especially in repelling external attacks. The period after 1016 saw the country ruled by external leaders. After 1016, the country was ruled by King Canute. The king ruled both Norway and Denmark. Despite the invasion, the new king was accepted by the subject mainly because his administration respected the rights of the English people. After Canute’s death, Edward the Confessor took up the power. However, his reign did not propel England to significant developments. After his death, the most notable ruler that had significant development in England was William the Conqueror mainly because of his defense strategies. Initially he ruled the western side of Germany. His strong army of 5,000 personnel led to him conquering England in 1066. His rule in England signaled the start of an organized government in England that made it a strong European force.
King William’s Rule
After William’s rule was affirmed, the new ruler introduced the concept of feudalism in England. He retained large tracks of land as the leader and shared it with royal vassals, who went by the name tenants in chief. The tenants included royal individuals such as bishops. The vassals rewarded the gift of land to the king by providing him with an army for England’s defense. The king was keen for the vassals and the subjects to remain loyal and faithful to the King. After the organization of an organized army, the King also developed a revenue system for the state. The system was referred to as the Domesday Survey, and it initially used to buy off the Danes in the English territory. William also initiated the proper recording of property owned in England to ensure that there was an efficient revenue collection system.
William also aimed at ensuring that he had the control of the government and he developed the Great Council, mainly composed of the tenants in chief. They acted as the advisory body for the king. Apart from dominating England, William also ruled over the church. He retained the power to appoint bishops and other church rulers. He required the churches in England to consult him while making vital decisions. In 1087, William II succeeded his father but his rule was not as effective as his father’s. In 1110, Henry I came to power, and he restored some leadership traits of King William. During Henry’s reign, specialized government departments came up, an example being the exchequer. The institution had the responsibility of collecting revenues, thus leading to the strengthening of the economy.
Judicial System and Magna Carta
After Henry’s death, there was 19 years of civil war that followed due to succession disputes. The violence was mainly because many Matilda, Henry’s child, was prevented from claiming the throne. However, order resumed in England in 1154 when Henry II came to power. The new king was Matilda’s son. The new king was strong military wise and he regained the lost glory of Henry 1 and started rebuilding the country. The major achievements of Henry II was the establishment of permanent royal courts that in turn created the country’s judicial system. The jury system had the responsibility of interpreting the law and also settling private feuds. The judicial reforms by the Judiciary led to the creation of common law in England. The common law is attributed as a pillar to making the English people come together to form a nation. Other successors of King Henry were not keen in developing an organized government system with an exception being King John. John affixed his seal to the Magna Carta, which imposed new rules to the king. According to the document, the king had to observe all human rights. People view the Magna Carta as the source of the modern political Freedom in England.
The empowering of the parliament happened from 1265 with the membership of the Great Council significantly changing. The change entailed enlarging the constitution of the council to ensure that it represented the whole nation. The changes in the constitution of the council happened in the reign of Henry III who ruled between 1216 and 1272. However, the realization and the functionality of the parliament came in the period between 1272 and 1307 when Edward I was the ruler. The king summoned the representatives of all regions in England to meet in the Great Council. The meetings used to be advisory sessions for the government. In the early periods of the fourteenth century, the representatives of the knights and other citizens started having separate meetings different from those representing the lords and temporal. As a result, two houses arose, and the division of the houses exists even in the modern England. The houses included the lower house and that of the Lords. The lower house often controlled some of the king’s decisions because they controlled the government revenue. As a result, it influenced the laws made by the king. As time went by, the House of Commons wielded the power to make laws. The development of the houses manifests itself in the modern England, whose laws are made by the two houses, namely, the House of Lords and the House of Commons.
In conclusion, the development of Medieval England was a process that started when the Romans ceased their rule in England and new Kings took over. The first Kings to initiate the development of the traditional England was King Alfred and Canute. However, the ruler that made significant steps to an organized England was King William. The king initiated new structures of military and advisory body for the kingship by the name the Great Council. Despite the developments, the successors of King William had mixed results, with some of them such as not keen on developing organized structures for England. One of the lost significant developments was the Magna Carta, a document that allowed freedoms for the English citizens. Other kings developed advanced revenue systems and a more representative body that advised the king. As a result, by the 14th century, England had a functioning parliament that entailed the House of Commons and the House of Lords. | 1,627 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Over 100 years ago on the 1st of December 1913, the car company Ford, under the direction of Henry Ford, introduced the single greatest manufacturing invention that the automobile industry had ever seen: the first moving assembly line. Previous to his creation of the assembly line it had always been Henry Ford’s self-proclaimed mission to build motorcars for the masses. He stated, “When I’m through, about everyone will have one”.
The ‘Ford Model N’ car came before the invention of the moving assembly line and it was created by arranging the various car parts on the floor of the factory and dragging them down the line as the manufacturing staff worked. This process meant that it took over 12 hours to build a single automobile.
Next came the ‘Ford Model T’ the assembly of which Henry Ford broke down into 84 granular steps. He trained each of his factory workers to do just one of these steps in order to make the process more efficient. Determined to streamline the process, Ford even hired a motion-study expert named Frederick Taylor to help him decipher how to make each of these singular jobs more methodical. Even still, Ford was unsatisfied and convinced he could create a more productive process.
Inspired by the continuous-flow methods used for production in breweries, bakeries and flour mills, Ford added assembly lines to his factory at first powered by simple rope and pulley mechanisms. Next, he added motion driven conveyor belts and a few months later added a motor to his assembly line which allowed it to move at a speed of 6 feet (1.8m) per minute. This reduced the amount of time it took to build a car from over 12 hours to less than 2 and a half hours, completely revolutionising the automobile industry as well as the entire concept of mass production.
“One hundred years ago, my great-grandfather had a vision to build safe and efficient transportation for everyone. I am proud he was able to bring the freedom of mobility to millions by making cars affordable to families and that his vision of serving people still drives everything we do today.”
Bill Ford, Executive Chairman of Ford
The fact that Ford had reduced the production time by over 80% meant that he could reduce the cost of his cars and still make a decent profit. Ford was referred to as a traitor by peers in his profession and industry, but rather than conform, Ford went one step further by increasing the wages of his workers. He had the idea that well paid and well-treated staff would become loyal to his company and also become valued customers. In 1914, he raised their pay to $5 per day, which was considered to be a fantastic wage at the time and Ford’s philosophy proved to be correct because soon the majority of his staff had their own Ford Model T’s. Ford didn’t just shape the future of car manufacturing with his invention of the moving assembly line, he shaped the way an entire nation worked.
At Prime, we are inspired every day by the ways in which innovation in engineering has influenced history and how it continues to mould and transform the society we live in. If you require engineering services or have a technical issue, get in touch with us today to find out how we can help! | <urn:uuid:c6680174-3814-4390-b812-ec68d9057dd2> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.primeengineering.com.au/how-henry-fords-moving-assembly-line-shaped-a-nation/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250608062.57/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123011418-20200123040418-00433.warc.gz | en | 0.98438 | 673 | 3.609375 | 4 | [
-0.31079572439193726,
0.2844972014427185,
0.4182888865470886,
0.11609724909067154,
-0.5973131656646729,
0.17492885887622833,
-0.009077436290681362,
0.4963325262069702,
-0.16394154727458954,
-0.08762353658676147,
0.01661616750061512,
0.21645234525203705,
-0.2315131276845932,
0.2248175591230... | 4 | Over 100 years ago on the 1st of December 1913, the car company Ford, under the direction of Henry Ford, introduced the single greatest manufacturing invention that the automobile industry had ever seen: the first moving assembly line. Previous to his creation of the assembly line it had always been Henry Ford’s self-proclaimed mission to build motorcars for the masses. He stated, “When I’m through, about everyone will have one”.
The ‘Ford Model N’ car came before the invention of the moving assembly line and it was created by arranging the various car parts on the floor of the factory and dragging them down the line as the manufacturing staff worked. This process meant that it took over 12 hours to build a single automobile.
Next came the ‘Ford Model T’ the assembly of which Henry Ford broke down into 84 granular steps. He trained each of his factory workers to do just one of these steps in order to make the process more efficient. Determined to streamline the process, Ford even hired a motion-study expert named Frederick Taylor to help him decipher how to make each of these singular jobs more methodical. Even still, Ford was unsatisfied and convinced he could create a more productive process.
Inspired by the continuous-flow methods used for production in breweries, bakeries and flour mills, Ford added assembly lines to his factory at first powered by simple rope and pulley mechanisms. Next, he added motion driven conveyor belts and a few months later added a motor to his assembly line which allowed it to move at a speed of 6 feet (1.8m) per minute. This reduced the amount of time it took to build a car from over 12 hours to less than 2 and a half hours, completely revolutionising the automobile industry as well as the entire concept of mass production.
“One hundred years ago, my great-grandfather had a vision to build safe and efficient transportation for everyone. I am proud he was able to bring the freedom of mobility to millions by making cars affordable to families and that his vision of serving people still drives everything we do today.”
Bill Ford, Executive Chairman of Ford
The fact that Ford had reduced the production time by over 80% meant that he could reduce the cost of his cars and still make a decent profit. Ford was referred to as a traitor by peers in his profession and industry, but rather than conform, Ford went one step further by increasing the wages of his workers. He had the idea that well paid and well-treated staff would become loyal to his company and also become valued customers. In 1914, he raised their pay to $5 per day, which was considered to be a fantastic wage at the time and Ford’s philosophy proved to be correct because soon the majority of his staff had their own Ford Model T’s. Ford didn’t just shape the future of car manufacturing with his invention of the moving assembly line, he shaped the way an entire nation worked.
At Prime, we are inspired every day by the ways in which innovation in engineering has influenced history and how it continues to mould and transform the society we live in. If you require engineering services or have a technical issue, get in touch with us today to find out how we can help! | 665 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The Goddess Hera in Greek Mythology
There is a popular phrase which states that “behind every great man, there is a great woman.” This sentiment can even be found in Greek mythology. For, whilst Zeus might have been the supreme ruler of the Olympian gods, his wife, the goddess Hera, was by his side.
Hera was Queen of Mount Olympus and would take up a matriarchal role, becoming the Greek goddess of women and marriage.
The mythology of Hera would fill several books, and although ancient writers would often write contradictory things about the goddess, some basic stories of Hera can be established.
Statue of Hera at the Louvre
The Story of Hera's Birth
Hera was the daughter of the Titans Cronus and Rhea, and was therefore an older sister of Zeus. Cronus was at the time, the supreme ruler of the cosmos, but was fearful of his position, as a prophecy had proclaimed that one of his own children would overthrow him.
To circumvent the prophecy, when Rhea gave birth to a child, Cronus would take the child and swallow it whole, imprisoning it within his stomach. Hera was therefore imprisoned, alongside Hestia, Demeter, Hades and Poseidon. Zeus would have suffered the same fate, but Rhea substituted a stone for her son, and so Zeus was secreted away to Crete to grow up.
Hera, and her other siblings, would eventually be released by Zeus, when Cronus was tricked into drinking a potion, which caused the Titan to regurgitate them.
The three brothers were then said to have taken up arms against the Titans, but Hera was said to have been passed into the care of Oceanus and Thetys, and there she was said to have grown into maturity.
The Role of Hera in Greek Mythology
In popular Greek mythology, Hera is seen as the Queen of Mount Olympus, a role that she assumed after the Titans had been deposed, and upon her marriage to Zeus. Hera would be Zeus’ third wife, with the supreme god transforming himself into a cuckoo to seduce her.
As a wedding present, Gaia would present Hera with a garden in which grew the Golden Apples.
Hera would act as counsel to Zeus, offering advice and guiding him on occasion; although she was less powerful than him so could not overstep certain boundaries. On one occasion Hera, Athena and Poseidon sought to imprison Zeus, although the plot was prevented when Thetis called forth the Hecatonchire Briaros to act as the god’s bodyguard.
Hera would then be worshipped as a goddess of women, birth and marriage; and a story is told of Hera having a virginity restored each year, when she bathed in the Canathus well or spring.
Temple of Hera at Paestum
The Worship of Hera in Ancient Greece
The worship of Hera was certainly widespread throughout Ancient Greece, with notable temples present at Corinth, Delos, Olympia, Paestum, Perachora, Sparta and Tiryns. There was also a temple at Samos, the Heraion, which was one of the largest Greek temples ever constructed.
Many towns in Ancient Greece, including Argos and Mycenae, would worship Hera as their town’s goddess; and Heraia, public celebrations of the goddess would also occur.
As well as widespread, the worship of Hera was also older than the worship of Zeus, and the oldest places of worship in Greece were all dedicated to the goddess. The coming of the Hellenes people though saw a male dominated pantheon replace many of the former important female deities.
The Children of Hera
Despite being the matriarchal figure, Hera was not actually spoken of as parent to many children, unlike her husband. A general consensus from ancient sources sees Hera as mother to three children by Zeus; Ares (God of War), Eileithyia (Goddess of Childbirth) and Hebe (Goddess of Youth).
More famously, Hera also gave birth to Hephaestus, although this time, Zeus was not involved. Hera was said to have been angry about Zeus bringing forth Athena. In retribution Hera slapped her hand on the ground, and so the goddess gave birth to a son, Hephaestus.
Hephaestus though, was born a cripple, and aghast at his ugliness, Hera threw him from Mount Olympus. Hephaestus would have his revenge, for he designed, and made, a magical throne, which ensnared Hera; and Hephaestus only deigned to release his mother when Aphrodite was given to the metalworking god as a wife.
Hera and Heracles
The Vengeance of Hera
Today, Hera is often perceived as a vindictive woman, dealing harshly with the lovers and illegitimate offspring of her husband; although this of course does make her a wronged woman as well.
The most famous instance of this has Hera persecuting Heracles for his entire life. When Hera learned that Alcmene was pregnant with her husband’s child, she attempted to prevent the pregnancy by tying Alcmene’s legs together.
Even though Heracles was named in the goddess’ honour, Heracles meaning “Hera-famous”, Hera tried to kill the hero on many occasions. The first occasion being when Heracles was still an infant, and two serpents were sent to kill him; the infant Heracles of course, throttled the two snakes. It was also Hera who sent Heracles mad, and initiated the 12 Labours, in the hope of killing her husband’s son.
Semele and Dionysus
Hera’s persecution of Dionysus was similar to that of Heracles; although in the case of Dionysus, the goddess managed to get revenge on Dionysus’ mother, Semele. Hera managed to trick the Theban princess Semele, into asking Zeus to reveal himself in his true form. No mortal good gaze on the true form of an Olympian god, and so Semele died, but Zeus completed the gestation period of Dionysus by sowing him into his own thigh.
Hera would also try to kill the newborn Dionysus, sending Titans to rip the baby apart, although of course Dionysus survived, but Hera would keep on trying to kill him.
Hera Discovering Zeus with Io
Hera and the Lovers of Zeus
Hera faced a constant battle trying to keep up with Zeus’ lovers, but when she did she tried to punish them and those who aided them.
Hera learned that the nymph Echo had been employed by Zeus to keep her distracted, whilst he was having extra-martial affairs. When the goddess discovered the ruse, Hera cursed Echo, so that the nymph would only be able to repeat the words of others.
Io was another mistress of Zeus, and Zeus had transformed Io into a heifer to disguise her from Hera. Hera was not so easily fooled, and when presented with the heifer, Hera left the cow in the charge of the hundred eyed giant Argus; meaning that Zeus could no longer get close to Io. Hermes would eventually kill Argus, and so Hera sent a gadfly to sting Io as the heifer wandered the earth, whilst the eyes of Argus, were placed by the goddess, onto the plumage of the peacock.
Hera also sent the Python to harass Leto, when the goddess discovered Leto was pregnant with Apollo and Artemis. Hera also forbade any part of the land to offer refuge to Leto. Leto eventually found sanctuary on the floating island of Delos, where she was able to give birth to Artemis, and then Apollo. Once born, Hera could not further persecute these children of Zeus, as they were made fellow Olympians by their father.
Zeus might not have been scared of his wife but he was certainly wary of her powers, but the story goes that Zeus did occasionally tie his wife up, with anvils tied to her feet, to keep her in line.
The Judgement of Paris
Hera Appears in Famous Tales
Hera is present in many of the most famous stories from Ancient Greece, and of course she is central to the story of the 12 Labours of Heracles, but the goddess was also prominent in other famous tales.
Hera was involved in the starting point of the Trojan War, as she was one of the three goddesses, alongside Athena and Aphrodite, who claimed the Golden Apple with the “fairest” written on it. The Judgement of Paris would eventually decide who was the most beautiful of all goddesses, and whilst Hera offered Paris, wealth, power and kingship, the Trojan prince would eventually choose Aphrodite.
The decision of Paris would of course anger Hera, and the goddess would be an enemy to Troy thereafter, and would side with the Achaean heroes and forces in the Trojan War.
In the generation before she helped the Achaean heroes, Hera had also assisted the Greek hero Jason in his quest for the Golden Fleece. Hera would offer guidance to Jason and the Argonauts on their way to Colchis, and would also plot for Medea to fall in love with the hero, allowing Jason to complete his quest.
Hera is mostly famous for her vendettas but the goddess was also kind to those who gave her the proper respect. Cydippe was a priestess of Hera, who was devoted to the goddess. One day when there was a problem with the oxen required to pull the cart of Cydippe, her two sons, Biton and Cleobis, placed themselves in the yoke of the cart, and pulled it 8km so their mother could attend a festival for Hera.
Cydippe asked Hera for a reward for her sons, and Hera taken by the respect of the sons to their mother, and also for Cydippe’s devotion to the goddess, gave them the highest reward she could think of. The two brothers were allowed to die in their sleep at the festival where Hera was being worshipped, so that they would be remembered, alongside Hera, for all time.
Questions & Answers
What is the Greek Goddess Hera's personality?
Hera is often depicted is a vengeful goddess (although Olympian deities, aside from Hestia, were quick to anger). Hera is often shown seeking revenge upon her husband's illegitimate children (Heracles and Dionysus especially)
Hera though could be a beneficial goddess, helping the likes of Jason, but ultimately she was using Jason for her own ends.Helpful 5 | <urn:uuid:1000ec73-7b33-45cf-9480-08b2284d8a02> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://owlcation.com/humanities/The-Goddess-Hera-in-Greek-Mythology | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251678287.60/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125161753-20200125190753-00058.warc.gz | en | 0.987771 | 2,235 | 3.296875 | 3 | [
-0.0781698226928711,
0.1781456470489502,
0.14123573899269104,
0.04088280349969864,
-0.6963897347450256,
-0.2042158842086792,
0.3629646897315979,
0.43365639448165894,
0.07787461578845978,
0.0681595653295517,
-0.4323754608631134,
-0.33050402998924255,
-0.004208045080304146,
0.147037997841835... | 1 | The Goddess Hera in Greek Mythology
There is a popular phrase which states that “behind every great man, there is a great woman.” This sentiment can even be found in Greek mythology. For, whilst Zeus might have been the supreme ruler of the Olympian gods, his wife, the goddess Hera, was by his side.
Hera was Queen of Mount Olympus and would take up a matriarchal role, becoming the Greek goddess of women and marriage.
The mythology of Hera would fill several books, and although ancient writers would often write contradictory things about the goddess, some basic stories of Hera can be established.
Statue of Hera at the Louvre
The Story of Hera's Birth
Hera was the daughter of the Titans Cronus and Rhea, and was therefore an older sister of Zeus. Cronus was at the time, the supreme ruler of the cosmos, but was fearful of his position, as a prophecy had proclaimed that one of his own children would overthrow him.
To circumvent the prophecy, when Rhea gave birth to a child, Cronus would take the child and swallow it whole, imprisoning it within his stomach. Hera was therefore imprisoned, alongside Hestia, Demeter, Hades and Poseidon. Zeus would have suffered the same fate, but Rhea substituted a stone for her son, and so Zeus was secreted away to Crete to grow up.
Hera, and her other siblings, would eventually be released by Zeus, when Cronus was tricked into drinking a potion, which caused the Titan to regurgitate them.
The three brothers were then said to have taken up arms against the Titans, but Hera was said to have been passed into the care of Oceanus and Thetys, and there she was said to have grown into maturity.
The Role of Hera in Greek Mythology
In popular Greek mythology, Hera is seen as the Queen of Mount Olympus, a role that she assumed after the Titans had been deposed, and upon her marriage to Zeus. Hera would be Zeus’ third wife, with the supreme god transforming himself into a cuckoo to seduce her.
As a wedding present, Gaia would present Hera with a garden in which grew the Golden Apples.
Hera would act as counsel to Zeus, offering advice and guiding him on occasion; although she was less powerful than him so could not overstep certain boundaries. On one occasion Hera, Athena and Poseidon sought to imprison Zeus, although the plot was prevented when Thetis called forth the Hecatonchire Briaros to act as the god’s bodyguard.
Hera would then be worshipped as a goddess of women, birth and marriage; and a story is told of Hera having a virginity restored each year, when she bathed in the Canathus well or spring.
Temple of Hera at Paestum
The Worship of Hera in Ancient Greece
The worship of Hera was certainly widespread throughout Ancient Greece, with notable temples present at Corinth, Delos, Olympia, Paestum, Perachora, Sparta and Tiryns. There was also a temple at Samos, the Heraion, which was one of the largest Greek temples ever constructed.
Many towns in Ancient Greece, including Argos and Mycenae, would worship Hera as their town’s goddess; and Heraia, public celebrations of the goddess would also occur.
As well as widespread, the worship of Hera was also older than the worship of Zeus, and the oldest places of worship in Greece were all dedicated to the goddess. The coming of the Hellenes people though saw a male dominated pantheon replace many of the former important female deities.
The Children of Hera
Despite being the matriarchal figure, Hera was not actually spoken of as parent to many children, unlike her husband. A general consensus from ancient sources sees Hera as mother to three children by Zeus; Ares (God of War), Eileithyia (Goddess of Childbirth) and Hebe (Goddess of Youth).
More famously, Hera also gave birth to Hephaestus, although this time, Zeus was not involved. Hera was said to have been angry about Zeus bringing forth Athena. In retribution Hera slapped her hand on the ground, and so the goddess gave birth to a son, Hephaestus.
Hephaestus though, was born a cripple, and aghast at his ugliness, Hera threw him from Mount Olympus. Hephaestus would have his revenge, for he designed, and made, a magical throne, which ensnared Hera; and Hephaestus only deigned to release his mother when Aphrodite was given to the metalworking god as a wife.
Hera and Heracles
The Vengeance of Hera
Today, Hera is often perceived as a vindictive woman, dealing harshly with the lovers and illegitimate offspring of her husband; although this of course does make her a wronged woman as well.
The most famous instance of this has Hera persecuting Heracles for his entire life. When Hera learned that Alcmene was pregnant with her husband’s child, she attempted to prevent the pregnancy by tying Alcmene’s legs together.
Even though Heracles was named in the goddess’ honour, Heracles meaning “Hera-famous”, Hera tried to kill the hero on many occasions. The first occasion being when Heracles was still an infant, and two serpents were sent to kill him; the infant Heracles of course, throttled the two snakes. It was also Hera who sent Heracles mad, and initiated the 12 Labours, in the hope of killing her husband’s son.
Semele and Dionysus
Hera’s persecution of Dionysus was similar to that of Heracles; although in the case of Dionysus, the goddess managed to get revenge on Dionysus’ mother, Semele. Hera managed to trick the Theban princess Semele, into asking Zeus to reveal himself in his true form. No mortal good gaze on the true form of an Olympian god, and so Semele died, but Zeus completed the gestation period of Dionysus by sowing him into his own thigh.
Hera would also try to kill the newborn Dionysus, sending Titans to rip the baby apart, although of course Dionysus survived, but Hera would keep on trying to kill him.
Hera Discovering Zeus with Io
Hera and the Lovers of Zeus
Hera faced a constant battle trying to keep up with Zeus’ lovers, but when she did she tried to punish them and those who aided them.
Hera learned that the nymph Echo had been employed by Zeus to keep her distracted, whilst he was having extra-martial affairs. When the goddess discovered the ruse, Hera cursed Echo, so that the nymph would only be able to repeat the words of others.
Io was another mistress of Zeus, and Zeus had transformed Io into a heifer to disguise her from Hera. Hera was not so easily fooled, and when presented with the heifer, Hera left the cow in the charge of the hundred eyed giant Argus; meaning that Zeus could no longer get close to Io. Hermes would eventually kill Argus, and so Hera sent a gadfly to sting Io as the heifer wandered the earth, whilst the eyes of Argus, were placed by the goddess, onto the plumage of the peacock.
Hera also sent the Python to harass Leto, when the goddess discovered Leto was pregnant with Apollo and Artemis. Hera also forbade any part of the land to offer refuge to Leto. Leto eventually found sanctuary on the floating island of Delos, where she was able to give birth to Artemis, and then Apollo. Once born, Hera could not further persecute these children of Zeus, as they were made fellow Olympians by their father.
Zeus might not have been scared of his wife but he was certainly wary of her powers, but the story goes that Zeus did occasionally tie his wife up, with anvils tied to her feet, to keep her in line.
The Judgement of Paris
Hera Appears in Famous Tales
Hera is present in many of the most famous stories from Ancient Greece, and of course she is central to the story of the 12 Labours of Heracles, but the goddess was also prominent in other famous tales.
Hera was involved in the starting point of the Trojan War, as she was one of the three goddesses, alongside Athena and Aphrodite, who claimed the Golden Apple with the “fairest” written on it. The Judgement of Paris would eventually decide who was the most beautiful of all goddesses, and whilst Hera offered Paris, wealth, power and kingship, the Trojan prince would eventually choose Aphrodite.
The decision of Paris would of course anger Hera, and the goddess would be an enemy to Troy thereafter, and would side with the Achaean heroes and forces in the Trojan War.
In the generation before she helped the Achaean heroes, Hera had also assisted the Greek hero Jason in his quest for the Golden Fleece. Hera would offer guidance to Jason and the Argonauts on their way to Colchis, and would also plot for Medea to fall in love with the hero, allowing Jason to complete his quest.
Hera is mostly famous for her vendettas but the goddess was also kind to those who gave her the proper respect. Cydippe was a priestess of Hera, who was devoted to the goddess. One day when there was a problem with the oxen required to pull the cart of Cydippe, her two sons, Biton and Cleobis, placed themselves in the yoke of the cart, and pulled it 8km so their mother could attend a festival for Hera.
Cydippe asked Hera for a reward for her sons, and Hera taken by the respect of the sons to their mother, and also for Cydippe’s devotion to the goddess, gave them the highest reward she could think of. The two brothers were allowed to die in their sleep at the festival where Hera was being worshipped, so that they would be remembered, alongside Hera, for all time.
Questions & Answers
What is the Greek Goddess Hera's personality?
Hera is often depicted is a vengeful goddess (although Olympian deities, aside from Hestia, were quick to anger). Hera is often shown seeking revenge upon her husband's illegitimate children (Heracles and Dionysus especially)
Hera though could be a beneficial goddess, helping the likes of Jason, but ultimately she was using Jason for her own ends.Helpful 5 | 2,196 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The San José rescue was called a miracle by many, though in earthly terms saving the miners came down to human perseverance and technology thrust into overdrive.
While all but one of the men who stuck it out underground were Chilean, extracting them called on expertise from several countries.
A US company was called on to handle one of three simultaneous drilling efforts, with the T130 drill. Key equipment came from an Irish-based company. A Canadian firm did back-up drilling.
Cable and winding gear were brought from Germany. The space agency NASA dived in with expertise on people in confined places.
NASA engineers also suggested features for the rescue capsule. These ideas included using friction-easing Teflon, alignment in the shaft, a protective airflow mesh roof and a harness in case of fainting.
The food and communication delivery system dubbed “la paloma” (the dove) was designed by a Chilean expert in mining rescue.
With NASA pointers, the Chilean navy delivered the Phoenix escape capsule (‘Fénix’ in Spanish). Test models were bashed around as refinements were made. The ultimate lifter was painted the red, white and blue of Chile’s flag, and worked faithfully to pull the 33 men the 700 metres to the surface. At last the Chileans were up, up and away. | <urn:uuid:19c4cb10-6cdf-461b-a916-74ec3451dadd> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.euronews.com/2010/10/14/chile-rescue-thanks-to-multi-national-ingenuity | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250606696.26/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122042145-20200122071145-00540.warc.gz | en | 0.984391 | 277 | 3.328125 | 3 | [
-0.363080769777298,
0.31012147665023804,
-0.13613568246364594,
0.09656252712011337,
0.17928990721702576,
-0.06694746017456055,
0.005758863873779774,
0.4471008777618408,
-0.10914827883243561,
0.2627112865447998,
0.24486693739891052,
-0.4116500914096832,
0.16197025775909424,
0.17488899827003... | 1 | The San José rescue was called a miracle by many, though in earthly terms saving the miners came down to human perseverance and technology thrust into overdrive.
While all but one of the men who stuck it out underground were Chilean, extracting them called on expertise from several countries.
A US company was called on to handle one of three simultaneous drilling efforts, with the T130 drill. Key equipment came from an Irish-based company. A Canadian firm did back-up drilling.
Cable and winding gear were brought from Germany. The space agency NASA dived in with expertise on people in confined places.
NASA engineers also suggested features for the rescue capsule. These ideas included using friction-easing Teflon, alignment in the shaft, a protective airflow mesh roof and a harness in case of fainting.
The food and communication delivery system dubbed “la paloma” (the dove) was designed by a Chilean expert in mining rescue.
With NASA pointers, the Chilean navy delivered the Phoenix escape capsule (‘Fénix’ in Spanish). Test models were bashed around as refinements were made. The ultimate lifter was painted the red, white and blue of Chile’s flag, and worked faithfully to pull the 33 men the 700 metres to the surface. At last the Chileans were up, up and away. | 270 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Subhas Chandra Bose was one of the greatest patriots and freedom fighter of India. Born in the affluent Hindu Kayastha family in the Indian city of Cuttack in Orissa on 23rd January 1897. His father, Janakinath was a renowned lawyer by profession and his mother Prabhavati Devi was a devout lady. He was one of the 14 children his parents had. He was an extremely brilliant student and ranked first in the merit of matriculation exams. He completed his education from University of Calcutta in the year 1918. He further moved to England to pursue higher studies in the year 1919 and passed the examination of Indian Civil services by scoring 4th rank. He adored Swami Vivekananda’s lessons and took him as his spiritual mentor.
His contribution to freedom struggle
He was nothing less than a superhero at the time of India’s freedom struggle as he was very thwarted by the conditions of his countrymen. He was really upset with the behavior of British and therefore decided to take revenge. This urge was so strong that he even left his Indian Civil Service job and came back to join the freedom struggle in India. He was very much influenced by Deshbandhu Chittaranjan Das who was an active member of Indian National Congress. Subhash Chandra Bose always regarded Das as his political mentor. He joined Indian National Congress and eventually became the president as well but then due to the difference of opinion between him and Mahatma Gandhi he left the congress party and formed his own party with the name of Forward Bloc.
Difference of opinion
There was a major difference of views between him and Mahatma Gandhi. He always believed that only non-violence is not sufficient to drive the British out of India so he chose the method of violence movement. He made his own army with the name of Indian National Army which was also called as Azad Hind Fauj. For which he went to other countries such as Germany and Japan. The people in his army also included the Indian residents of these countries as well as the Indian Prisoners of war. He and his army fought for the freedom of their country. His slogans “Dilli Chalo” and “Jai Hind” were given to his army. His slogan “Give me blood and I will give you freedom” was an inspiration to his army men. These great words gave motivation to them to fight and make their motherland free from the treacherous rule of the British.
After he got disappointed from Adolf Hitler in Germany, he gave the slogan Dilli Chalo which was followed by a violent strike between his Indian National Army and Anglo-American Forces. It was very unfortunate that they were then forced to surrender. Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose then left for Tokya and his plane got crashed in the year 1945. Though his body was not recovered and people are hopeful that he is still alive. But reports suggest that his body got third-degree burned. People remember him for his deeds and he still inspired the Indian youth to be brave for the country. His contributions in the Indian History will never be forgotten. | <urn:uuid:01774c0f-be37-48db-821b-60a688076c9b> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.india2019-20.in/netaji-subhas-chandra-bose/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251799918.97/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129133601-20200129163601-00474.warc.gz | en | 0.993163 | 642 | 3.3125 | 3 | [
0.17761994898319244,
0.34976357221603394,
-0.009918036870658398,
-0.17958173155784607,
-0.44692906737327576,
0.08045238256454468,
0.8060039281845093,
-0.12490874528884888,
-0.15009886026382446,
-0.012137841433286667,
0.020268168300390244,
-0.2294415831565857,
0.2502610981464386,
0.35048994... | 2 | Subhas Chandra Bose was one of the greatest patriots and freedom fighter of India. Born in the affluent Hindu Kayastha family in the Indian city of Cuttack in Orissa on 23rd January 1897. His father, Janakinath was a renowned lawyer by profession and his mother Prabhavati Devi was a devout lady. He was one of the 14 children his parents had. He was an extremely brilliant student and ranked first in the merit of matriculation exams. He completed his education from University of Calcutta in the year 1918. He further moved to England to pursue higher studies in the year 1919 and passed the examination of Indian Civil services by scoring 4th rank. He adored Swami Vivekananda’s lessons and took him as his spiritual mentor.
His contribution to freedom struggle
He was nothing less than a superhero at the time of India’s freedom struggle as he was very thwarted by the conditions of his countrymen. He was really upset with the behavior of British and therefore decided to take revenge. This urge was so strong that he even left his Indian Civil Service job and came back to join the freedom struggle in India. He was very much influenced by Deshbandhu Chittaranjan Das who was an active member of Indian National Congress. Subhash Chandra Bose always regarded Das as his political mentor. He joined Indian National Congress and eventually became the president as well but then due to the difference of opinion between him and Mahatma Gandhi he left the congress party and formed his own party with the name of Forward Bloc.
Difference of opinion
There was a major difference of views between him and Mahatma Gandhi. He always believed that only non-violence is not sufficient to drive the British out of India so he chose the method of violence movement. He made his own army with the name of Indian National Army which was also called as Azad Hind Fauj. For which he went to other countries such as Germany and Japan. The people in his army also included the Indian residents of these countries as well as the Indian Prisoners of war. He and his army fought for the freedom of their country. His slogans “Dilli Chalo” and “Jai Hind” were given to his army. His slogan “Give me blood and I will give you freedom” was an inspiration to his army men. These great words gave motivation to them to fight and make their motherland free from the treacherous rule of the British.
After he got disappointed from Adolf Hitler in Germany, he gave the slogan Dilli Chalo which was followed by a violent strike between his Indian National Army and Anglo-American Forces. It was very unfortunate that they were then forced to surrender. Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose then left for Tokya and his plane got crashed in the year 1945. Though his body was not recovered and people are hopeful that he is still alive. But reports suggest that his body got third-degree burned. People remember him for his deeds and he still inspired the Indian youth to be brave for the country. His contributions in the Indian History will never be forgotten. | 649 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Educators are always trying to add more learning time in the school day; they even tried to take away nap time from preschoolers! Scientists Rebecca Spencer and Tracey Riggins say that children who go without naps could make it harder to remember what they had learned. Rebecca Spencer and Tracey Riggins are scientists who study how thinking and memory develop in children. These two women have been studying how nap time affects a child’s way of learning. Their goal is to find out what happens when a child stops having nap time at a young age. Griffiths student Efrain Torres says “I was always tired from school and nap time was a nice break.”
In 2015, a major study found that the results of a child not having nap time is unpredictable. Spencer says “The need to nap does not just suddenly disappear at a certain age, rather it can come and go as a child develops.” As children get older they start to need less sleep. At age 4, nearly 60 percent of children still nap at least once a day. By age 5, fewer than one in three children are still daily nappers, and by age 6, only a little more than one in 10 are. Riggins and Spencer held an experiment where they asked children at six preschools to play a memory game before their normally scheduled. After some children were encouraged to fall asleep, some were not. The next morning they found that students who were kept awake during a normal nap time forgot 12 percent to 15 percent more than students who had napped. Stephanie Rico, who is a Griffiths student, said “I always felt refreshed after nap time.” Needless to say, it has been proven that children in preschools need nap time. | <urn:uuid:f63b764c-3c3f-4858-8e46-eab42fcd7bcd> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://mschatmon.edublogs.org/2019/02/06/study-show-kids-brains-work-better-with-more-naps/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251671078.88/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125071430-20200125100430-00051.warc.gz | en | 0.985224 | 357 | 3.359375 | 3 | [
-0.3199518620967865,
0.07569752633571625,
0.11490236222743988,
-0.08594754338264465,
-0.2101486325263977,
0.45709744095802307,
-0.2696351408958435,
0.11761121451854706,
0.1833140254020691,
0.06673185527324677,
0.17633026838302612,
0.24866273999214172,
0.24951818585395813,
0.704139292240142... | 5 | Educators are always trying to add more learning time in the school day; they even tried to take away nap time from preschoolers! Scientists Rebecca Spencer and Tracey Riggins say that children who go without naps could make it harder to remember what they had learned. Rebecca Spencer and Tracey Riggins are scientists who study how thinking and memory develop in children. These two women have been studying how nap time affects a child’s way of learning. Their goal is to find out what happens when a child stops having nap time at a young age. Griffiths student Efrain Torres says “I was always tired from school and nap time was a nice break.”
In 2015, a major study found that the results of a child not having nap time is unpredictable. Spencer says “The need to nap does not just suddenly disappear at a certain age, rather it can come and go as a child develops.” As children get older they start to need less sleep. At age 4, nearly 60 percent of children still nap at least once a day. By age 5, fewer than one in three children are still daily nappers, and by age 6, only a little more than one in 10 are. Riggins and Spencer held an experiment where they asked children at six preschools to play a memory game before their normally scheduled. After some children were encouraged to fall asleep, some were not. The next morning they found that students who were kept awake during a normal nap time forgot 12 percent to 15 percent more than students who had napped. Stephanie Rico, who is a Griffiths student, said “I always felt refreshed after nap time.” Needless to say, it has been proven that children in preschools need nap time. | 360 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The Canadian Citizenship Act, S.C. 1946, c. 15, is an Act of the Parliament of Canada which separated Canadian citizenship from British nationality.
The status of "Canadian citizen" was originally created under the Immigration Act, 1910, to designate those British subjects who were born, naturalized or domiciled in Canada. All other British subjects required permission to land. "Domicile" was defined as having been resident in Canada for three years, excluding any time spent in prisons or mental institutions.
A separate status of "Canadian national" was created under the Canadian Nationals Act, 1921, which was defined as being a Canadian citizen as defined above, their wives, and any children (fathered by such citizens) that had not yet landed in Canada.
However, these concepts were merely subsets of the status of "British subject", which was regulated by the Imperial British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914, which was adopted in Canada by the Naturalization Act, 1914.
Canadian citizenship, as a status separate from British nationality, was created by the Canadian Citizenship Act, 1946, which came into effect on 1 January 1947.
Canadian citizenship was generally conferred immediately on the following persons:a British subject who was born in Canada (and had not become an alien before 1947)
a person other than a natural-born Canadian citizen:
who was granted, or whose name was included in, a certificate of naturalization under any act of the Parliament of Canada and had not become an alien at the commencement of the Act, or
who was a British subject who had acquired Canadian domicile (i.e., five years' residence in Canada as a landed immigrant) before 1947
a British subject who lived in Canada for 20 years immediately before 1947 and was not, on 1 January 1947, under order of deportation
women who were married to a Canadian before 1947 and who entered Canada as a landed immigrant before 1947
children born outside Canada to a Canadian father (or mother, if born out of wedlock) before 1947
In the latter two cases, a "Canadian" was a British subject who would have been considered a Canadian citizen if the 1947 Act had come into force immediately before the marriage or birth (as the case may be).
Where the child born outside Canada was not a minor (i.e., was not under 21 years in age) at the time the Act came into force, proof of landed immigrant status was required to confirm Canadian citizenship.
In addition to those people who became Canadian citizens upon the coming into force of the Act (popularly known as the "1947 Act" due to the year it came into force), citizenship afterwards was generally acquired as follows:birth in Canada (except where either parent is a representative of a foreign government, their employee, or anyone granted diplomatic privileges or immunities AND neither parent is a citizen or permanent resident)
naturalization in Canada after five years' residence as a landed immigrant
grant of citizenship to a foreign woman married to a Canadian man after one year's residence as a landed immigrant
grant of citizenship to women who lost British subject status prior to 1947 upon marriage to a foreign man or his subsequent naturalization
registration of a child born outside Canada to a Canadian "responsible parent" (being the father, if the child was born in wedlock, or the mother, if the child was born out of wedlock and was residing with the mother, if the father was deceased or if custody of the child had been awarded to the mother by court order)
Loss of Canadian citizenship generally occurred in the following cases:naturalization outside Canada
in the case of a minor, naturalization of a parent
service in foreign armed forces
naturalized Canadians who lived outside Canada for 10 years and did not file a declaration of retention
where a Canadian had acquired that status by descent from a Canadian parent, and who was either not lawfully admitted to Canada for permanent residence on the commencement of the Act or was born outside Canada afterwards, loss of citizenship could occur on the person's 22nd birthday unless the person had filed a declaration of retention between their 21st and 22nd birthday and renounced any previous nationality they possessed.
Although Canada restricted dual citizenship between 1947 and 1977, there were some situations where Canadians could nevertheless legally possess another citizenship. For example, migrants becoming Canadian citizens were not asked to formally prove that they had ceased to hold the nationality of their former country. Similarly children born in Canada to non-Canadian parents were not under any obligation to renounce a foreign citizenship they had acquired by descent. Holding a foreign passport did not in itself cause loss of Canadian citizenship.
A notable exception to the 1947 act is the annexation of Newfoundland to Canada in 1949, whereby all native or naturalized Newfoundlanders were granted Canadian citizenship under the laws stated in the citizenship act, upon the date of union on April 1, 1949.
The Act was replaced on 15 February 1977 by the Canadian Citizenship Act, 1976, now known as the Citizenship Act. | <urn:uuid:15862c5e-6ac7-45e5-a243-b3073b3060b6> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://alchetron.com/Canadian-Citizenship-Act-1946 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251796127.92/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129102701-20200129132701-00414.warc.gz | en | 0.988978 | 1,018 | 3.78125 | 4 | [
-0.23773090541362762,
0.3707200884819031,
0.39671722054481506,
-0.4338589310646057,
-0.3429979383945465,
0.14710384607315063,
0.3632360100746155,
0.09323818236589432,
0.13659724593162537,
0.6084145307540894,
0.40252089500427246,
-0.2732100486755371,
0.053183961659669876,
0.0743801146745681... | 1 | The Canadian Citizenship Act, S.C. 1946, c. 15, is an Act of the Parliament of Canada which separated Canadian citizenship from British nationality.
The status of "Canadian citizen" was originally created under the Immigration Act, 1910, to designate those British subjects who were born, naturalized or domiciled in Canada. All other British subjects required permission to land. "Domicile" was defined as having been resident in Canada for three years, excluding any time spent in prisons or mental institutions.
A separate status of "Canadian national" was created under the Canadian Nationals Act, 1921, which was defined as being a Canadian citizen as defined above, their wives, and any children (fathered by such citizens) that had not yet landed in Canada.
However, these concepts were merely subsets of the status of "British subject", which was regulated by the Imperial British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914, which was adopted in Canada by the Naturalization Act, 1914.
Canadian citizenship, as a status separate from British nationality, was created by the Canadian Citizenship Act, 1946, which came into effect on 1 January 1947.
Canadian citizenship was generally conferred immediately on the following persons:a British subject who was born in Canada (and had not become an alien before 1947)
a person other than a natural-born Canadian citizen:
who was granted, or whose name was included in, a certificate of naturalization under any act of the Parliament of Canada and had not become an alien at the commencement of the Act, or
who was a British subject who had acquired Canadian domicile (i.e., five years' residence in Canada as a landed immigrant) before 1947
a British subject who lived in Canada for 20 years immediately before 1947 and was not, on 1 January 1947, under order of deportation
women who were married to a Canadian before 1947 and who entered Canada as a landed immigrant before 1947
children born outside Canada to a Canadian father (or mother, if born out of wedlock) before 1947
In the latter two cases, a "Canadian" was a British subject who would have been considered a Canadian citizen if the 1947 Act had come into force immediately before the marriage or birth (as the case may be).
Where the child born outside Canada was not a minor (i.e., was not under 21 years in age) at the time the Act came into force, proof of landed immigrant status was required to confirm Canadian citizenship.
In addition to those people who became Canadian citizens upon the coming into force of the Act (popularly known as the "1947 Act" due to the year it came into force), citizenship afterwards was generally acquired as follows:birth in Canada (except where either parent is a representative of a foreign government, their employee, or anyone granted diplomatic privileges or immunities AND neither parent is a citizen or permanent resident)
naturalization in Canada after five years' residence as a landed immigrant
grant of citizenship to a foreign woman married to a Canadian man after one year's residence as a landed immigrant
grant of citizenship to women who lost British subject status prior to 1947 upon marriage to a foreign man or his subsequent naturalization
registration of a child born outside Canada to a Canadian "responsible parent" (being the father, if the child was born in wedlock, or the mother, if the child was born out of wedlock and was residing with the mother, if the father was deceased or if custody of the child had been awarded to the mother by court order)
Loss of Canadian citizenship generally occurred in the following cases:naturalization outside Canada
in the case of a minor, naturalization of a parent
service in foreign armed forces
naturalized Canadians who lived outside Canada for 10 years and did not file a declaration of retention
where a Canadian had acquired that status by descent from a Canadian parent, and who was either not lawfully admitted to Canada for permanent residence on the commencement of the Act or was born outside Canada afterwards, loss of citizenship could occur on the person's 22nd birthday unless the person had filed a declaration of retention between their 21st and 22nd birthday and renounced any previous nationality they possessed.
Although Canada restricted dual citizenship between 1947 and 1977, there were some situations where Canadians could nevertheless legally possess another citizenship. For example, migrants becoming Canadian citizens were not asked to formally prove that they had ceased to hold the nationality of their former country. Similarly children born in Canada to non-Canadian parents were not under any obligation to renounce a foreign citizenship they had acquired by descent. Holding a foreign passport did not in itself cause loss of Canadian citizenship.
A notable exception to the 1947 act is the annexation of Newfoundland to Canada in 1949, whereby all native or naturalized Newfoundlanders were granted Canadian citizenship under the laws stated in the citizenship act, upon the date of union on April 1, 1949.
The Act was replaced on 15 February 1977 by the Canadian Citizenship Act, 1976, now known as the Citizenship Act. | 1,107 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Few writers were as shaped by their childhood and hometown as Harper Lee. Nelle Harper Lee was born in Monroeville, Alabama in 1926. Her father was an attorney and editor of the local newspaper. The Lees’ neighbors were relatives of Truman Capote’s. During Capote’s extended visits to Monroeville, he and Lee developed a lifelong friendship.
In 1960, Lee published To Kill a Mockingbird. Set in a small Alabama town of the 1930s, “Mockingbird” won the Pulitzer Prize for fiction in 1961. It would become a literary classic, and Harper Lee became a literary giant. She wrote and published several short works and lived largely out of the public eye. In 2015, she published the novel Go Set a Watchman. The work was reportedly the early draft of To Kill a Mockingbird, which Lee had revised at the recommendation of her publisher. Its release created a firestorm in literary circles and the media.
Harper Lee lived only a year after the novel’s release, dying in Monroeville in 2016. Monroeville is known as “The Literary Capital of Alabama” for its ties to Lee and Capote. Visitors to today’s Monroeville enjoy a range of sites, from the courtroom of the Monroe County Courthouse, which was recreated for the film version of To Kill a Mockingbird, to the courthouse’s enthralling museum. | <urn:uuid:2a7c8eb4-87f9-4a45-9b8f-cad183e38a3f> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.southernliterarytrail.org/writers/harper-lee | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251802249.87/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129194333-20200129223333-00068.warc.gz | en | 0.981868 | 306 | 3.453125 | 3 | [
-0.4449773132801056,
0.2289939820766449,
0.12655849754810333,
0.18892431259155273,
0.22612059116363525,
0.5182635188102722,
0.18919266760349274,
0.13324391841888428,
-0.5924810767173767,
-0.25249597430229187,
0.3550806939601898,
0.5486124157905579,
0.40603330731391907,
-0.04771951958537102... | 9 | Few writers were as shaped by their childhood and hometown as Harper Lee. Nelle Harper Lee was born in Monroeville, Alabama in 1926. Her father was an attorney and editor of the local newspaper. The Lees’ neighbors were relatives of Truman Capote’s. During Capote’s extended visits to Monroeville, he and Lee developed a lifelong friendship.
In 1960, Lee published To Kill a Mockingbird. Set in a small Alabama town of the 1930s, “Mockingbird” won the Pulitzer Prize for fiction in 1961. It would become a literary classic, and Harper Lee became a literary giant. She wrote and published several short works and lived largely out of the public eye. In 2015, she published the novel Go Set a Watchman. The work was reportedly the early draft of To Kill a Mockingbird, which Lee had revised at the recommendation of her publisher. Its release created a firestorm in literary circles and the media.
Harper Lee lived only a year after the novel’s release, dying in Monroeville in 2016. Monroeville is known as “The Literary Capital of Alabama” for its ties to Lee and Capote. Visitors to today’s Monroeville enjoy a range of sites, from the courtroom of the Monroe County Courthouse, which was recreated for the film version of To Kill a Mockingbird, to the courthouse’s enthralling museum. | 312 | ENGLISH | 1 |
History of shoes. A shoe is an item of footwear intended to protect and comfort the human foot. Shoes are also used as an item of decoration and fashion. The design of shoes has varied enormously through time and from culture to culture, with appearance originally being tied to function. Additionally, fashion has often dictated many design elements, such as whether shoes have very high heels or flat ones.
Many of French fashion media (like Marie Claire for example) think that until 1830, there was no right or left shoe, and both shoes were identical, and it is again French noticed that fits are actually different and required adapted forms of shoes. In fact not only French but also ancient Egyptians, and then Spartans and Romans, and actually all Europeans in Middle ages noticed this fact that left and right foot are actually different, and footwear should be adapted. That is why almost from the very beginning right and left shoe were produced like mirror images.
Another interesting fact: regulations on heel height were introduced in 1910 to ensure the decency of the dress style. If there was more than 8 cm of heels, then the outfit was considered very “risky”, and women’s dignity could be questioned.
The earliest known shoes are sagebrush bark sandals dating from approximately 7000 or 8000 before Christ, found in the Fort Rock Cave in the US state of Oregon. The world’s oldest leather shoe, made from a single piece of cowhide laced with a leather cord along seams at the front and back, was found in Armenia and is believed to date to 3500 before Christ. The Jotunheimen leather shoe was made between 1800 and 1100 before Christ, making it the oldest article of clothing discovered in Scandinavia.
These earliest designs were very simple in design, often mere “foot bags” of leather to protect the feet from rocks, debris, and cold. Although Many early natives in North America wore a similar type of footwear, known as the moccasin. Many moccasins were also decorated with various beads and other adornments. And that is how shoes style started.
As civilizations began to develop, thong sandals were worn. This practice dates back to pictures of them in ancient Egyptian murals from 4000 before Christ. One pair found in Europe was made of papyrus leaves and dated to be approximately 1,500 years old. The Egyptians and Hindus made some use of ornamental footwear, such as sandals known as a “Cleopatra”, which became another stylish accessory used in the palace.
As civilizations began to develop, the Spartans paid attention to the shoes for the army. Roman clothing was seen as a sign of power, and footwear was seen as a necessity of living in a civilized world. There are references to shoes being worn in the Bible.
A common casual shoe in the Pyrenees during the Middle Ages was the espadrille. This is a sandal with braided jute soles and a fabric upper portion, and often includes fabric laces that tie around the ankle. The term is French and comes from the esparto grass. The shoe originated in the Catalonian region of Spain as early as the XIIIth century, and was commonly worn by peasants in the farming communities in the area.
Many medieval shoes were made using the turnshoe method of construction, in which the upper was turned flesh side out, and was lasted onto the sole and joined to the edge by a seam. The shoe was then turned inside-out so that the grain was outside. Some shoes were developed with toggled flaps or drawstrings to tighten the leather around the foot for a better fit. Surviving medieval turnshoes often fit the foot closely, with the right and left shoe being mirror images.
By the XVth century, patters became popular by both men and women in Europe. These are commonly seen as the predecessor of the modern high heel shoe, while the poor and lower classes in Europe, as well as slaves in the New World, were barefoot. During the XVIth century, royalty, such as Catherine de Medici or Mary I of England, started wearing high-heeled shoes to make them look taller or larger than life. By 1580, even men wore them, and a person with authority or wealth was often referred to as, “well-heeled”.
Eventually the modern shoe, with a sewn-on sole, was devised. Since the XVIIth century, most leather shoes have used a sewn-on sole. This remains the standard for finer-quality dress shoes today. Shoemaking became more commercialized in the middle of XVIIIth century, as it expanded as a cottage industry. Large warehouses began to stock footwear, made by many small manufacturers from the area.
Until the XIXth century, shoemaking was a traditional handicraft, but by the century’s end, the process had been almost completely mechanized, with production occurring in large factories. Despite the obvious economic gains of mass-production, the factory system produced shoes without the individual differentiation that the traditional shoemaker was able to provide.
The first steps towards mechanization were taken during the Napoleonic Wars by the engineer, Marc Brunel. He developed machinery for the mass-production of boots for the soldiers of the British Army. In 1812, he devised a scheme for making nailed-boot-making machinery that automatically fastened soles to uppers by means of metallic pins or nails. With the support of the Duke of York, the shoes were manufactured, and, due to their strength, cheapness, and durability, were introduced for the use of the army.
A shoemaker in Leicester, Tomas Crick, patented the design for a riveting machine in 1853. His machine used an iron plate to push iron rivets into the sole. The process greatly increased the speed and efficiency of production. The sewing machine was introduced in 1846, and provided an alternative method for the mechanization of shoemaking. By the late 1850s, the industry was beginning to shift towards the modern factory, mainly in the US and areas of England. A shoe stitching machine was invented by the American Lyman Blake in 1856 and perfected by 1864. Entering into partnership with McKay, his device became known as the McKay stitching machine and was quickly adopted by manufacturers throughout New England. As bottlenecks opened up in the production line due to these innovations, more and more of the manufacturing stages, such as pegging and finishing, became automated. By the 1890s, the process of mechanization was largely complete. On January 24, 1899, Humphrey O’Sullivan of Lowell, Massachusetts, was awarded a patent for a rubber heel for boots and shoes.
Symbols of femininity and glamour, the stiletto heels revolutionized the world of footwear in the 1950s. This creation, which is attributed in turn to two great French shoes, has continued to embellish the silhouette of women and make men fantasize. The invention of high heels is sometimes credited to the French designer Charles Jourdan . This great name of the luxury shoe decided in 1951 to thin the heel of the classic shoe and hoist it to 8 cm height. It was a resolution and great dare for women.
This new profiled heel was an immediate success, which has never wavered in 50 years.
For other historians, the father of stilettos is the famous boot maker Roger Vivier, who designed the shoes of Christian Dior’s collections from 1953 to 1957. In 1954 he made the stiletto heel on the catwalks for ” finish the silhouette with a pencil stroke. This tapered heel is just one of the many creations of Roger Vivier, which has left its mark in the world of footwear.
Indeed, he owes the invention of the heel “mini”, “arched” or “comma”.
Since the middle of XXth century, advances in rubber, plastics, synthetic cloth, and industrial adhesives have allowed manufacturers to create shoes that stray considerably from traditional crafting techniques. Leather, which had been the primary material in earlier styles, has remained standard in expensive dress shoes, but athletic shoes often have little or no real leather. Soles, which were once laboriously hand-stitched on, are now more often machine stitched or simply glued on. Many of these newer materials, such as rubber and plastics, have made shoes less biodegradable. It is estimated that most mass-produced shoes require 1000 years to degrade in a landfill. In the late 2000s, some shoemakers picked up on the issue and began to produce shoes made entirely from degradable materials. | <urn:uuid:a8f243db-d054-4746-8c21-709fc22cee1c> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://runwaymagazines.com/history-of-shoes/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250601628.36/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121074002-20200121103002-00275.warc.gz | en | 0.981438 | 1,793 | 3.40625 | 3 | [
-0.2118070423603058,
0.43035459518432617,
0.3489983081817627,
-0.09662002325057983,
-0.03102950006723404,
0.026227517053484917,
-0.09458886086940765,
0.2711981534957886,
-0.08799757063388824,
-0.08852699398994446,
0.03625008463859558,
-0.11012101918458939,
-0.27676206827163696,
0.378846079... | 11 | History of shoes. A shoe is an item of footwear intended to protect and comfort the human foot. Shoes are also used as an item of decoration and fashion. The design of shoes has varied enormously through time and from culture to culture, with appearance originally being tied to function. Additionally, fashion has often dictated many design elements, such as whether shoes have very high heels or flat ones.
Many of French fashion media (like Marie Claire for example) think that until 1830, there was no right or left shoe, and both shoes were identical, and it is again French noticed that fits are actually different and required adapted forms of shoes. In fact not only French but also ancient Egyptians, and then Spartans and Romans, and actually all Europeans in Middle ages noticed this fact that left and right foot are actually different, and footwear should be adapted. That is why almost from the very beginning right and left shoe were produced like mirror images.
Another interesting fact: regulations on heel height were introduced in 1910 to ensure the decency of the dress style. If there was more than 8 cm of heels, then the outfit was considered very “risky”, and women’s dignity could be questioned.
The earliest known shoes are sagebrush bark sandals dating from approximately 7000 or 8000 before Christ, found in the Fort Rock Cave in the US state of Oregon. The world’s oldest leather shoe, made from a single piece of cowhide laced with a leather cord along seams at the front and back, was found in Armenia and is believed to date to 3500 before Christ. The Jotunheimen leather shoe was made between 1800 and 1100 before Christ, making it the oldest article of clothing discovered in Scandinavia.
These earliest designs were very simple in design, often mere “foot bags” of leather to protect the feet from rocks, debris, and cold. Although Many early natives in North America wore a similar type of footwear, known as the moccasin. Many moccasins were also decorated with various beads and other adornments. And that is how shoes style started.
As civilizations began to develop, thong sandals were worn. This practice dates back to pictures of them in ancient Egyptian murals from 4000 before Christ. One pair found in Europe was made of papyrus leaves and dated to be approximately 1,500 years old. The Egyptians and Hindus made some use of ornamental footwear, such as sandals known as a “Cleopatra”, which became another stylish accessory used in the palace.
As civilizations began to develop, the Spartans paid attention to the shoes for the army. Roman clothing was seen as a sign of power, and footwear was seen as a necessity of living in a civilized world. There are references to shoes being worn in the Bible.
A common casual shoe in the Pyrenees during the Middle Ages was the espadrille. This is a sandal with braided jute soles and a fabric upper portion, and often includes fabric laces that tie around the ankle. The term is French and comes from the esparto grass. The shoe originated in the Catalonian region of Spain as early as the XIIIth century, and was commonly worn by peasants in the farming communities in the area.
Many medieval shoes were made using the turnshoe method of construction, in which the upper was turned flesh side out, and was lasted onto the sole and joined to the edge by a seam. The shoe was then turned inside-out so that the grain was outside. Some shoes were developed with toggled flaps or drawstrings to tighten the leather around the foot for a better fit. Surviving medieval turnshoes often fit the foot closely, with the right and left shoe being mirror images.
By the XVth century, patters became popular by both men and women in Europe. These are commonly seen as the predecessor of the modern high heel shoe, while the poor and lower classes in Europe, as well as slaves in the New World, were barefoot. During the XVIth century, royalty, such as Catherine de Medici or Mary I of England, started wearing high-heeled shoes to make them look taller or larger than life. By 1580, even men wore them, and a person with authority or wealth was often referred to as, “well-heeled”.
Eventually the modern shoe, with a sewn-on sole, was devised. Since the XVIIth century, most leather shoes have used a sewn-on sole. This remains the standard for finer-quality dress shoes today. Shoemaking became more commercialized in the middle of XVIIIth century, as it expanded as a cottage industry. Large warehouses began to stock footwear, made by many small manufacturers from the area.
Until the XIXth century, shoemaking was a traditional handicraft, but by the century’s end, the process had been almost completely mechanized, with production occurring in large factories. Despite the obvious economic gains of mass-production, the factory system produced shoes without the individual differentiation that the traditional shoemaker was able to provide.
The first steps towards mechanization were taken during the Napoleonic Wars by the engineer, Marc Brunel. He developed machinery for the mass-production of boots for the soldiers of the British Army. In 1812, he devised a scheme for making nailed-boot-making machinery that automatically fastened soles to uppers by means of metallic pins or nails. With the support of the Duke of York, the shoes were manufactured, and, due to their strength, cheapness, and durability, were introduced for the use of the army.
A shoemaker in Leicester, Tomas Crick, patented the design for a riveting machine in 1853. His machine used an iron plate to push iron rivets into the sole. The process greatly increased the speed and efficiency of production. The sewing machine was introduced in 1846, and provided an alternative method for the mechanization of shoemaking. By the late 1850s, the industry was beginning to shift towards the modern factory, mainly in the US and areas of England. A shoe stitching machine was invented by the American Lyman Blake in 1856 and perfected by 1864. Entering into partnership with McKay, his device became known as the McKay stitching machine and was quickly adopted by manufacturers throughout New England. As bottlenecks opened up in the production line due to these innovations, more and more of the manufacturing stages, such as pegging and finishing, became automated. By the 1890s, the process of mechanization was largely complete. On January 24, 1899, Humphrey O’Sullivan of Lowell, Massachusetts, was awarded a patent for a rubber heel for boots and shoes.
Symbols of femininity and glamour, the stiletto heels revolutionized the world of footwear in the 1950s. This creation, which is attributed in turn to two great French shoes, has continued to embellish the silhouette of women and make men fantasize. The invention of high heels is sometimes credited to the French designer Charles Jourdan . This great name of the luxury shoe decided in 1951 to thin the heel of the classic shoe and hoist it to 8 cm height. It was a resolution and great dare for women.
This new profiled heel was an immediate success, which has never wavered in 50 years.
For other historians, the father of stilettos is the famous boot maker Roger Vivier, who designed the shoes of Christian Dior’s collections from 1953 to 1957. In 1954 he made the stiletto heel on the catwalks for ” finish the silhouette with a pencil stroke. This tapered heel is just one of the many creations of Roger Vivier, which has left its mark in the world of footwear.
Indeed, he owes the invention of the heel “mini”, “arched” or “comma”.
Since the middle of XXth century, advances in rubber, plastics, synthetic cloth, and industrial adhesives have allowed manufacturers to create shoes that stray considerably from traditional crafting techniques. Leather, which had been the primary material in earlier styles, has remained standard in expensive dress shoes, but athletic shoes often have little or no real leather. Soles, which were once laboriously hand-stitched on, are now more often machine stitched or simply glued on. Many of these newer materials, such as rubber and plastics, have made shoes less biodegradable. It is estimated that most mass-produced shoes require 1000 years to degrade in a landfill. In the late 2000s, some shoemakers picked up on the issue and began to produce shoes made entirely from degradable materials. | 1,826 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The rise of science produced a major change in attitude.In the pre-scientific world view the issue of the age of the Earth was a theological question.
The account in Genesis is replete with miracles that do not stand up under rational analysis.
This did not matter; the theological perspective did not require physical rationalization.
The great debate was won by the uniformitarians, so much so that the degree of gradualism was overstated and the importance of catastrophes was unduly minimized.
The modern period has been marked by an enormous expansion of the detailed knowledge of the geological history of the Earth and the processes that have acted during that history.
The selections and comments here are not a complete exposition of the works of the authors mentioned; rather they were chosen to illustrate and exemplify changing perspectives over time.
In Europe the issue of the age of the Earth was not a serious one prior to the rise of science; the history of the Earth was assumed to be accounted for in Genesis.It was not ruled out, per se, but it was not necessary. In the new science, however, rational explanation was desirable. In 1640 Ussher produced his famous calculation that the Earth was created in 4004 BC.In 1637 Descartes produced a cosmogony that was highly influential for more than a century. It was not in their estimates of the age of the Earth - Descartes retained the biblical date.Notable observations included: ran from about 1780-1850.By the end of the 18'th century it was clear that the Earth had a long and varied history. The major debate was between the catastrophists, e.g., Cuvier, who held that the history of Earth was dominated by major catastrophic revolutions and the uniformitarians, e.g.Descartes, however, attempted to discern a physical history of the Earth. | <urn:uuid:8a97d5e0-16f6-4125-b8b5-7c4e08cc33fb> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://mavu.z-dar.ru/who+is+ti+daughter+dating-985/radiometric-dating-technique.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250606696.26/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122042145-20200122071145-00169.warc.gz | en | 0.981904 | 385 | 3.609375 | 4 | [
-0.26318326592445374,
0.3901095390319824,
0.18594560027122498,
-0.058534130454063416,
0.16365735232830048,
-0.0025820170994848013,
-0.36505159735679626,
0.4523105323314667,
-0.031516481190919876,
0.30315372347831726,
0.040378108620643616,
-0.32418787479400635,
0.16656315326690674,
0.195185... | 2 | The rise of science produced a major change in attitude.In the pre-scientific world view the issue of the age of the Earth was a theological question.
The account in Genesis is replete with miracles that do not stand up under rational analysis.
This did not matter; the theological perspective did not require physical rationalization.
The great debate was won by the uniformitarians, so much so that the degree of gradualism was overstated and the importance of catastrophes was unduly minimized.
The modern period has been marked by an enormous expansion of the detailed knowledge of the geological history of the Earth and the processes that have acted during that history.
The selections and comments here are not a complete exposition of the works of the authors mentioned; rather they were chosen to illustrate and exemplify changing perspectives over time.
In Europe the issue of the age of the Earth was not a serious one prior to the rise of science; the history of the Earth was assumed to be accounted for in Genesis.It was not ruled out, per se, but it was not necessary. In the new science, however, rational explanation was desirable. In 1640 Ussher produced his famous calculation that the Earth was created in 4004 BC.In 1637 Descartes produced a cosmogony that was highly influential for more than a century. It was not in their estimates of the age of the Earth - Descartes retained the biblical date.Notable observations included: ran from about 1780-1850.By the end of the 18'th century it was clear that the Earth had a long and varied history. The major debate was between the catastrophists, e.g., Cuvier, who held that the history of Earth was dominated by major catastrophic revolutions and the uniformitarians, e.g.Descartes, however, attempted to discern a physical history of the Earth. | 389 | ENGLISH | 1 |
King Philip’s War: the Unavoidable Conflict
War between the Indians and the Colonists was unavoidable from the very moment the Pilgrims first set foot on what was to eventually become Massachusetts in 1620.As more and more settlers began arriving over the years, tension between the two began to steadily rise.The settler’s insatiable hunger for land and their increasing mistreatment of the Indians began to break down an already somewhat fragile alliance between the two.
The Indians were quickly losing land and their way of life as well to these new settlers and some of them believed the only way to stop this was to go on the offensive and push back them back.
The result of this was a short fought war known as King Philip’s War. Though it only lasted a little over a year, it was an exceptionally brutal war that took a huge toll life wise and had a lasting impact on both the English and the Indians for many years to come. After landing in what is now known as Plymouth, some of the first Indians that the Pilgrims encountered were the Wampanoag’s. They were led by their chief Massasoit and eventually the Indians and Pilgrims formed an alliance.
As a result of this alliance, both parties promised not to attack or harm one or another, and if something did happen, then the offender would be turned over to the ones harmed. Also, they would give assistance to each other if they should find themselves under attack (Rich 1-8). From the beginning, this alliance was somewhat uneasy, and it was obvious that politics on both sides was the main factor for forging it and played a major role leading up to and during the actual war. For the Pilgrim’s, they absolutely needed the help of the Indians.
They were on their own, over three thousand miles from the nearest help, and struggling to survive in this new land. The Indians on the other hand needed the Pilgrim’s to increase their security. Because of disease that dwindled their numbers, they were always under the threat of attack from other warring tribes and needed the Pilgrim’s and their weapons to defeat them. For almost forty years, the Wampanoag and the Colonists maintained this increasingly uneasy peace until Massasoit’s death sometime around 1660 (Schultz and Tougais 14).
During this time Massasoit sold a lot of land to the English. It would seem he did so to maintain the peace and also because he probably didn’t want the Wampanoag’s to go the way of the Pequot’s. Around 1634 a tribe known as the Pequot’s went to war with the colonist’s in Connecticut over trade disputes and were almost completely wiped out (Drake 27-29). With the deaths of most of the original Plymouth colonists and the passing of Massasoit, the alliance which had maintained peace between the two very different groups was gone forever.
After the death of Massasoit, his two sons Wamsutta and his younger brother Metacom went to Plymouth and asked that the Pilgrims give them Christian names. Wamsutta was named Alexander and Metacom became Philip. Since Wamsutta was the first born he became chief of the Wampanoag following his father’s death. Wamsutta was soon accused of making war plans against the colonist’s and also of selling land to the settlers cast out of Plymouth and living in Rhode Island. In 1662 the colonists demanded he appear before them and sent an armed party to fetch him.
During this time, Wamsutta suddenly fell ill and died shortly thereafter. Many Wampanoag strongly believed that he had been poisoned by the colonists and they wanted to retaliate but were talked out of it by their new chief, Metacom. Metacom certainly believed that Wamsutta had been killed at the hands of the colonists but probably felt that now wasn’t the time to push the issue (Schultz and Tougais 22-24). As the colonies grew larger they began to band together which in turn weakened the Indians influence on them. The Indians were no longer needed for their aid nor their goods and all they had to offer was their land.
Metacom continued to sell land to the colonists as his father did before him, but found he and his people were slowly being forced closer together by the ever growing population of settlers. This close contact led to many minor disputes on both sides and raised suspicions about what the other side was doing. Metacom was constantly accused of trying to raise the other tribes to his cause and attack the colonists which eventually led to him signing a treaty with them that required them to pay an annual tribute and turn over their firearms to Plymouth officials.
Not all of his people gave up their rifles and this was seen as a threat which resulted in another treaty that in 1671 brought the Wampanoag under the laws of the Plymouth colony. Because of this, the Plymouth Colony made it unlawful for the Wampanoag to sell land to any other colony. This created friction not only with the Indians but with the other colonies such as Connecticut and Rhode Island (Bourne 100-102). It was about this time that Metacom became known as “King Philip” by the English (Lepore xvi). He was a king only by name, as he held power only over the Wampanoag.
He was onstantly bickering with rival tribes and because of this, could never really get the backing he needed to go to war with the colonists. The colonists were always suspicious of Metacom and felt he was quietly conspiring to attack them but could never prove it. In January of 1675 an Indian known as John Sassamon, who was a translator, believed that Metacom was plotting to overthrow them and tried to warn Plymouth Governor Josiah Winslow, but wasn’t taken seriously. They found his body a few days later. A witness said he saw three of Metacom’s people kill him and hide his body.
The three were arrested and after an very quick trial, were found guilty and on June 8, 1675, two of them were executed (Philbrick 220-223). The mysterious death of Wamsutta years earlier, the taking of the land and mistreatment by the colonists, and now the execution of two of their own were the last straw for Metacom and the Wampanoag. He told his people to prepare for war and sent the women and children to safety. For a little while it appeared that war could be averted as the Governors of Rhode Island and Plymouth tried to negotiate a peaceful settlement.
Unfortunately it was a little too late for negotiations because the Wampanoag’s were out for revenge. On June 24, 1675, King Philip’s War began when the Wampanoag struck the first blow by attacking the settlement at Swansea in the western part of the Plymouth Colony (Drake 57). Since there was no real coordination between the Wampanoag and their allies such as the Nipmucks, Pocumtucks, and the Abenaki; the war dissolved into a series of ruthless Indian raids on frontier settlements from Connecticut to Massachusetts and eventually into New Hampshire and Maine.
This was followed by brutal retaliation by the colonists on the Indians. Some of the brutality by the Indians was documented by Mary Rowlandson, who was captured in Lancaster and held for 11 weeks before being ransomed for twenty pounds. She wrote about her captivity in A Narrative of the Captivity and Restoration of Mrs. Mary Rowlandson. In it she wrote “There were five persons taken in one house; the father, and the mother and a sucking child, they knocked on the head, …
There were two others… one was knocked on the head, the other escaped; another there was who running along was shot and wounded, and fell down; he begged of them his life, promising them money (as they told me) but they would not hearken to him but knocked him in head, and stripped him naked, and split open his bowels” (Rowlandson 118-119). She also wrote ” Some in our house were fighting for their lives, and the bloody heathen ready to knock us on the head, if we stirred out …
But out we must go, the fire increasing, and coming along behind us, roaring, and the Indians gaping before us with their guns, spears, and hatchets to devour us … my brother-in-law … fell down dead, whereat the Indians scornfully shouted, and hallowed, and were presently upon him, stripping off his clothes … William, had then his leg broken, which the Indians perceiving, they knocked him on [his] head. Thus were we butchered by those merciless heathen” (Rowlandson 119). The brutality wasn’t limited to the Indians.
The colonists launched a pre-emptive strike against the Narragansett tribe even though they weren’t actively involved in the war. The colonists believed that they were sheltering the families of the warring Wampanoag and on December 16, 1675 they attacked the settlement in Rhode Island in what is now known as the Great Swamp Massacre. The settlement was burned and many of the Indians were killed, including women and children, and most of the food stored for winter was destroyed, effectively impairing the Narragansett’s ability to fight (Drake 119-120).
Figure 1 (http://iron. lcc. gatech. edu/~ntrivedi6/blog/? p=272) In the beginning the war went very badly for the colonists. They were surprised and wholly unprepared for war with the Indians. The Indians launched many successful raids on most of the major settlements in New England and by the beginning of 1676 they even attacked Plymouth itself. They had effectively driven the colonists out of the smaller settlements and forced them into the larger towns. Unfortunately they were beginning to run out of supplies and failed to get any help from other tribes.
It was the beginning of the end for Metacom and his allies as not all Indians were on his side. Other Indians ,like the Mohegan’s, joined with the colonists and helped turned the tide of war. All support for Metacom and his war was falling apart. His allies were deserting him and surrendering to the colonists. On August 12, 1676 he was cornered at Mt. Hope, Rhode Island and killed. He was beheaded and his head was placed on a stake in Plymouth, where the gruesome reminder of the war remained for 25 years (Schultz and Tougais 290).
Some eight hundred colonists and three thousand Indians lost their lives during King Philip’s War. This might seem small in comparison to other wars in history , but you have to keep in mind that there were only fifty-two thousand English settlers and twenty thousand Indians in New England at the time (Schultz and Tougais 5). Even though the colonists were victorious in the war, the cost was tremendous. Half of the estimated ninety settlements were attacked and burned and it would take many years before the colonists returned and rebuilt them.
What happened to the colonists pales in comparison to what happened to the Indians. Fifteen percent of the Indian population was wiped out because of the war and several hundred of the Indian captives were put on trial and were either executed or were sold into slavery. Metacom’s family was sold as slaves and shipped to either Bermuda or the West Indies (Schultz and Tougais 128). As a result of all this, the Indians of New England never again got in the way of the colonists expansion. King Philip’s War ended a forty year period of relative peace.
The colonists and the Indians coexisted because in the beginning they needed each other economically and politically. One couldn’t really survive without the other. But as the number of settlers grew, the need for the Indians went away. The only thing the Indians had left was the land and that was being taken up by the colonists very quickly. Knowing this, the war between the two was unavoidable. You can’t expand a country without someone else being displaced. This was repeated time and time again throughout American history as we pushed ever westward. | <urn:uuid:0e0e36b2-0cbf-49e3-9d44-f275aee70845> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://phdessay.com/king-philips-war-the-unavoidable-conflict/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250601241.42/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121014531-20200121043531-00382.warc.gz | en | 0.989456 | 2,579 | 4.4375 | 4 | [
-0.06090041249990463,
0.38231295347213745,
0.35847073793411255,
0.00843282975256443,
-0.46328648924827576,
-0.41025590896606445,
-0.1150665283203125,
0.23759031295776367,
-0.1838129460811615,
0.38516873121261597,
0.10914966464042664,
-0.23659975826740265,
-0.04103003069758415,
0.4868600964... | 1 | King Philip’s War: the Unavoidable Conflict
War between the Indians and the Colonists was unavoidable from the very moment the Pilgrims first set foot on what was to eventually become Massachusetts in 1620.As more and more settlers began arriving over the years, tension between the two began to steadily rise.The settler’s insatiable hunger for land and their increasing mistreatment of the Indians began to break down an already somewhat fragile alliance between the two.
The Indians were quickly losing land and their way of life as well to these new settlers and some of them believed the only way to stop this was to go on the offensive and push back them back.
The result of this was a short fought war known as King Philip’s War. Though it only lasted a little over a year, it was an exceptionally brutal war that took a huge toll life wise and had a lasting impact on both the English and the Indians for many years to come. After landing in what is now known as Plymouth, some of the first Indians that the Pilgrims encountered were the Wampanoag’s. They were led by their chief Massasoit and eventually the Indians and Pilgrims formed an alliance.
As a result of this alliance, both parties promised not to attack or harm one or another, and if something did happen, then the offender would be turned over to the ones harmed. Also, they would give assistance to each other if they should find themselves under attack (Rich 1-8). From the beginning, this alliance was somewhat uneasy, and it was obvious that politics on both sides was the main factor for forging it and played a major role leading up to and during the actual war. For the Pilgrim’s, they absolutely needed the help of the Indians.
They were on their own, over three thousand miles from the nearest help, and struggling to survive in this new land. The Indians on the other hand needed the Pilgrim’s to increase their security. Because of disease that dwindled their numbers, they were always under the threat of attack from other warring tribes and needed the Pilgrim’s and their weapons to defeat them. For almost forty years, the Wampanoag and the Colonists maintained this increasingly uneasy peace until Massasoit’s death sometime around 1660 (Schultz and Tougais 14).
During this time Massasoit sold a lot of land to the English. It would seem he did so to maintain the peace and also because he probably didn’t want the Wampanoag’s to go the way of the Pequot’s. Around 1634 a tribe known as the Pequot’s went to war with the colonist’s in Connecticut over trade disputes and were almost completely wiped out (Drake 27-29). With the deaths of most of the original Plymouth colonists and the passing of Massasoit, the alliance which had maintained peace between the two very different groups was gone forever.
After the death of Massasoit, his two sons Wamsutta and his younger brother Metacom went to Plymouth and asked that the Pilgrims give them Christian names. Wamsutta was named Alexander and Metacom became Philip. Since Wamsutta was the first born he became chief of the Wampanoag following his father’s death. Wamsutta was soon accused of making war plans against the colonist’s and also of selling land to the settlers cast out of Plymouth and living in Rhode Island. In 1662 the colonists demanded he appear before them and sent an armed party to fetch him.
During this time, Wamsutta suddenly fell ill and died shortly thereafter. Many Wampanoag strongly believed that he had been poisoned by the colonists and they wanted to retaliate but were talked out of it by their new chief, Metacom. Metacom certainly believed that Wamsutta had been killed at the hands of the colonists but probably felt that now wasn’t the time to push the issue (Schultz and Tougais 22-24). As the colonies grew larger they began to band together which in turn weakened the Indians influence on them. The Indians were no longer needed for their aid nor their goods and all they had to offer was their land.
Metacom continued to sell land to the colonists as his father did before him, but found he and his people were slowly being forced closer together by the ever growing population of settlers. This close contact led to many minor disputes on both sides and raised suspicions about what the other side was doing. Metacom was constantly accused of trying to raise the other tribes to his cause and attack the colonists which eventually led to him signing a treaty with them that required them to pay an annual tribute and turn over their firearms to Plymouth officials.
Not all of his people gave up their rifles and this was seen as a threat which resulted in another treaty that in 1671 brought the Wampanoag under the laws of the Plymouth colony. Because of this, the Plymouth Colony made it unlawful for the Wampanoag to sell land to any other colony. This created friction not only with the Indians but with the other colonies such as Connecticut and Rhode Island (Bourne 100-102). It was about this time that Metacom became known as “King Philip” by the English (Lepore xvi). He was a king only by name, as he held power only over the Wampanoag.
He was onstantly bickering with rival tribes and because of this, could never really get the backing he needed to go to war with the colonists. The colonists were always suspicious of Metacom and felt he was quietly conspiring to attack them but could never prove it. In January of 1675 an Indian known as John Sassamon, who was a translator, believed that Metacom was plotting to overthrow them and tried to warn Plymouth Governor Josiah Winslow, but wasn’t taken seriously. They found his body a few days later. A witness said he saw three of Metacom’s people kill him and hide his body.
The three were arrested and after an very quick trial, were found guilty and on June 8, 1675, two of them were executed (Philbrick 220-223). The mysterious death of Wamsutta years earlier, the taking of the land and mistreatment by the colonists, and now the execution of two of their own were the last straw for Metacom and the Wampanoag. He told his people to prepare for war and sent the women and children to safety. For a little while it appeared that war could be averted as the Governors of Rhode Island and Plymouth tried to negotiate a peaceful settlement.
Unfortunately it was a little too late for negotiations because the Wampanoag’s were out for revenge. On June 24, 1675, King Philip’s War began when the Wampanoag struck the first blow by attacking the settlement at Swansea in the western part of the Plymouth Colony (Drake 57). Since there was no real coordination between the Wampanoag and their allies such as the Nipmucks, Pocumtucks, and the Abenaki; the war dissolved into a series of ruthless Indian raids on frontier settlements from Connecticut to Massachusetts and eventually into New Hampshire and Maine.
This was followed by brutal retaliation by the colonists on the Indians. Some of the brutality by the Indians was documented by Mary Rowlandson, who was captured in Lancaster and held for 11 weeks before being ransomed for twenty pounds. She wrote about her captivity in A Narrative of the Captivity and Restoration of Mrs. Mary Rowlandson. In it she wrote “There were five persons taken in one house; the father, and the mother and a sucking child, they knocked on the head, …
There were two others… one was knocked on the head, the other escaped; another there was who running along was shot and wounded, and fell down; he begged of them his life, promising them money (as they told me) but they would not hearken to him but knocked him in head, and stripped him naked, and split open his bowels” (Rowlandson 118-119). She also wrote ” Some in our house were fighting for their lives, and the bloody heathen ready to knock us on the head, if we stirred out …
But out we must go, the fire increasing, and coming along behind us, roaring, and the Indians gaping before us with their guns, spears, and hatchets to devour us … my brother-in-law … fell down dead, whereat the Indians scornfully shouted, and hallowed, and were presently upon him, stripping off his clothes … William, had then his leg broken, which the Indians perceiving, they knocked him on [his] head. Thus were we butchered by those merciless heathen” (Rowlandson 119). The brutality wasn’t limited to the Indians.
The colonists launched a pre-emptive strike against the Narragansett tribe even though they weren’t actively involved in the war. The colonists believed that they were sheltering the families of the warring Wampanoag and on December 16, 1675 they attacked the settlement in Rhode Island in what is now known as the Great Swamp Massacre. The settlement was burned and many of the Indians were killed, including women and children, and most of the food stored for winter was destroyed, effectively impairing the Narragansett’s ability to fight (Drake 119-120).
Figure 1 (http://iron. lcc. gatech. edu/~ntrivedi6/blog/? p=272) In the beginning the war went very badly for the colonists. They were surprised and wholly unprepared for war with the Indians. The Indians launched many successful raids on most of the major settlements in New England and by the beginning of 1676 they even attacked Plymouth itself. They had effectively driven the colonists out of the smaller settlements and forced them into the larger towns. Unfortunately they were beginning to run out of supplies and failed to get any help from other tribes.
It was the beginning of the end for Metacom and his allies as not all Indians were on his side. Other Indians ,like the Mohegan’s, joined with the colonists and helped turned the tide of war. All support for Metacom and his war was falling apart. His allies were deserting him and surrendering to the colonists. On August 12, 1676 he was cornered at Mt. Hope, Rhode Island and killed. He was beheaded and his head was placed on a stake in Plymouth, where the gruesome reminder of the war remained for 25 years (Schultz and Tougais 290).
Some eight hundred colonists and three thousand Indians lost their lives during King Philip’s War. This might seem small in comparison to other wars in history , but you have to keep in mind that there were only fifty-two thousand English settlers and twenty thousand Indians in New England at the time (Schultz and Tougais 5). Even though the colonists were victorious in the war, the cost was tremendous. Half of the estimated ninety settlements were attacked and burned and it would take many years before the colonists returned and rebuilt them.
What happened to the colonists pales in comparison to what happened to the Indians. Fifteen percent of the Indian population was wiped out because of the war and several hundred of the Indian captives were put on trial and were either executed or were sold into slavery. Metacom’s family was sold as slaves and shipped to either Bermuda or the West Indies (Schultz and Tougais 128). As a result of all this, the Indians of New England never again got in the way of the colonists expansion. King Philip’s War ended a forty year period of relative peace.
The colonists and the Indians coexisted because in the beginning they needed each other economically and politically. One couldn’t really survive without the other. But as the number of settlers grew, the need for the Indians went away. The only thing the Indians had left was the land and that was being taken up by the colonists very quickly. Knowing this, the war between the two was unavoidable. You can’t expand a country without someone else being displaced. This was repeated time and time again throughout American history as we pushed ever westward. | 2,597 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The Confederate States Army (CSA) was organized in February 1861 to defend the newly formed Confederate States of America during the American Civil War. Somewhere between 750,000 and 1.2 million soldiers served the Confederacy in one form or another. The exact numbers are not known because of incomplete and destroyed records. Although it won a large number of battles the Confederate Army was not able to win the war. It could not overcome the Union army's larger numbers and better resources. On April 9, 1865, General Robert E. Lee surrendered what was left of the Army of Northern Virginia to General Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Court House, Virginia. While his army was only a part of the total Confederate army, his surrender marked the end of the Confederacy. On June 23, 1865, Georgia's Stand Watie became the last Confederate general to surrender.
Much of the design of the Confederate States Army was based on the structure and customs of the U.S. Army. Both armies consisted mainly of infantry, cavalry and artillery units. While the structure of the two armies was almost the same, the sizes of the units within the army varied. Many Confederate officers were graduates of West Point just like Union officers. Regiments were usually numbered and named for the state where they were first organized and where most of the soldiers came from. Brigades were usually named after their commanders (past or present). For example, the Stonewall Brigade was named for its commanding general, Stonewall Jackson.
The Confederate Army was made up of three parts; the Army of the Confederate States of America (ACSA, smallest but intended to be the permanent, regular army), the Provisional Army of the Confederate States (PACS, or "volunteer" Army, to be disbanded after the war), and the various Southern state militias. The Confederate Constitution called for the President, Jefferson Davis to be Commander-in-Chief of the army and navy. It did not call for a commanding general of the army but several generals serves as advisors to President Davis.
- A regiment was the basic unit in battle. At the start of the war, a regiment was 1,000 men and was led by a colonel. Regiments were usually recruited from the same area so most soldiers and officers knew each other. Disease, desertion, and combat reduced the numbers considerably. Usually, instead of adding new recruits to a decimated regiment, a new regiment would be raised in its place.
- A brigade was from two to five regiments. Led by a brigadier general a brigade was usually from one branch of the army (infantry, cavalry or artillery).
- A division was two or more brigades. In the Confederate army, divisions could be as many as five or six brigades (Union army divisions were usually smaller). Divisions were commanded by a major general.
- A corps was two or more divisions. A corps usually included infantry, cavalry and artillery. That way a corps was independent and could conduct operations on its own.
- An army was two or more corps. A Corps or an army was usually led by the most senior major general or a general picked by Jefferson Davis.
The Confederate States Army included the following armies:
- The Army of Northern Virginia was one of the main forces of the Confederate Army in the east.
- The Confederate Army of the Shenandoah, after the First Battle of Bull Run it became part of the Confederate Army of the Potomac.
- The Army of the Peninsula was established May 26, 1861. On April 12, 1862, it was merged into the Army of Northern Virginia.
- The Confederate Army of the Northwest was an army early in the war. It was disbanded February 9, 1862.
- The Army of Central Kentucky. Was created in 1861. In March 1862 it was merged into the Army of Mississippi, which then became the Army of Tennessee
- The Army of New Mexico was a smaller army that operated in the New Mexico Territory in 1861 and 1862.
- The Army of the West was largely made up of the Missouri State Guard.
Before the Civil War, many Confederate officers had served in the United States Army. When war broke out, 313 army officers resigned and became officers in the Confederate army. Lee was one of those who found it difficult to leave. Abraham Lincoln had offered him the position of commander-in-chief of the Union Army. But he could not fight against his native state of Virginia. He became a Major general of the Virginia militia and when Virginia Seceded, it became part of the regular army. Many militias elected their officers including field officers. When these units joined the Confederate army, their officers were commissioned. There were also a number of professional officers who came from Germany or Britain (just as there were in the Union army). But at the start of the war, few Southern officers had any real experience. Wealthy planters who owned 20 or more slaves were not required to serve in the army and many stayed home during the war. Some served in the Enlisted rank but many found it objectionable to serve under officers so poor they could not afford a single slave. Many Confederate officers kept a slave as a personal servant throughout the war.
Confederate officers in general did not maintain discipline among their men. Many of their soldiers were illiterate and some did not know which was their left foot and which was their right. At the Battle of Gettysburg in 1863, even Lee complained about the lack of discipline in his army. Visiting foreign officials were shocked at lack of discipline and were amazed they could fight.
Confederate soldiers came from a few ethnic backgrounds. Most of their ancestors came from Scotland, England, Ireland and Wales. Some had ancestors from France and Southern Europe. In regiments such as the 33rd Texas Cavalry, many had Spanish ancestry. Some could even trace their roots back to Spanish Conquistadors. In the Deep South, the Cherokee Nation sent several regiments who fought as equals alongside other Confederate units.
The average Confederate soldier was in his early 20s. He was usually gaunt, unkempt and beards were common. His wool uniform was often torn and in rags. It often did not fit, especially if taken off a dead soldier. Most wore a white shirt under their wool jacket. Replacement uniforms were hard to get. They would often stain homespun (clothing made at home) with a dye made from walnuts. This gave their uniforms a yellowish-brown appearance they called "butternut". Many did not have shoes or shoes that fit. Those who did nailed horseshoes to the bottom to keep them from wearing through the sole. At first he carried a musket or flintlock rifle. Later in the war many carried the better Enfield rifles taken from dead Union soldiers. What the Rebel soldier lacked in supplies and equipment, he made up for in fighting spirit. Any boots, uniforms or supplies Union soldiers left behind or were captured were used by the Confederate soldiers. In camp, most of the tents were marked "U.S." Most of the Southern Artillery was also captured Union cannons.
Images for kids
Confederate States Army Facts for Kids. Kiddle Encyclopedia. | <urn:uuid:5dfb0776-0806-4702-beb7-cfd8f7b8e6cd> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://kids.kiddle.co/Confederate_Army | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250604397.40/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121132900-20200121161900-00343.warc.gz | en | 0.989867 | 1,473 | 4 | 4 | [
-0.22334875166416168,
0.020480751991271973,
0.4137188792228699,
0.17600663006305695,
-0.09744492918252945,
0.09026338160037994,
-0.12636324763298035,
-0.35729649662971497,
-0.05438512563705444,
0.07453836500644684,
0.37088075280189514,
-0.10890857875347137,
0.4417478144168854,
0.3128554522... | 2 | The Confederate States Army (CSA) was organized in February 1861 to defend the newly formed Confederate States of America during the American Civil War. Somewhere between 750,000 and 1.2 million soldiers served the Confederacy in one form or another. The exact numbers are not known because of incomplete and destroyed records. Although it won a large number of battles the Confederate Army was not able to win the war. It could not overcome the Union army's larger numbers and better resources. On April 9, 1865, General Robert E. Lee surrendered what was left of the Army of Northern Virginia to General Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Court House, Virginia. While his army was only a part of the total Confederate army, his surrender marked the end of the Confederacy. On June 23, 1865, Georgia's Stand Watie became the last Confederate general to surrender.
Much of the design of the Confederate States Army was based on the structure and customs of the U.S. Army. Both armies consisted mainly of infantry, cavalry and artillery units. While the structure of the two armies was almost the same, the sizes of the units within the army varied. Many Confederate officers were graduates of West Point just like Union officers. Regiments were usually numbered and named for the state where they were first organized and where most of the soldiers came from. Brigades were usually named after their commanders (past or present). For example, the Stonewall Brigade was named for its commanding general, Stonewall Jackson.
The Confederate Army was made up of three parts; the Army of the Confederate States of America (ACSA, smallest but intended to be the permanent, regular army), the Provisional Army of the Confederate States (PACS, or "volunteer" Army, to be disbanded after the war), and the various Southern state militias. The Confederate Constitution called for the President, Jefferson Davis to be Commander-in-Chief of the army and navy. It did not call for a commanding general of the army but several generals serves as advisors to President Davis.
- A regiment was the basic unit in battle. At the start of the war, a regiment was 1,000 men and was led by a colonel. Regiments were usually recruited from the same area so most soldiers and officers knew each other. Disease, desertion, and combat reduced the numbers considerably. Usually, instead of adding new recruits to a decimated regiment, a new regiment would be raised in its place.
- A brigade was from two to five regiments. Led by a brigadier general a brigade was usually from one branch of the army (infantry, cavalry or artillery).
- A division was two or more brigades. In the Confederate army, divisions could be as many as five or six brigades (Union army divisions were usually smaller). Divisions were commanded by a major general.
- A corps was two or more divisions. A corps usually included infantry, cavalry and artillery. That way a corps was independent and could conduct operations on its own.
- An army was two or more corps. A Corps or an army was usually led by the most senior major general or a general picked by Jefferson Davis.
The Confederate States Army included the following armies:
- The Army of Northern Virginia was one of the main forces of the Confederate Army in the east.
- The Confederate Army of the Shenandoah, after the First Battle of Bull Run it became part of the Confederate Army of the Potomac.
- The Army of the Peninsula was established May 26, 1861. On April 12, 1862, it was merged into the Army of Northern Virginia.
- The Confederate Army of the Northwest was an army early in the war. It was disbanded February 9, 1862.
- The Army of Central Kentucky. Was created in 1861. In March 1862 it was merged into the Army of Mississippi, which then became the Army of Tennessee
- The Army of New Mexico was a smaller army that operated in the New Mexico Territory in 1861 and 1862.
- The Army of the West was largely made up of the Missouri State Guard.
Before the Civil War, many Confederate officers had served in the United States Army. When war broke out, 313 army officers resigned and became officers in the Confederate army. Lee was one of those who found it difficult to leave. Abraham Lincoln had offered him the position of commander-in-chief of the Union Army. But he could not fight against his native state of Virginia. He became a Major general of the Virginia militia and when Virginia Seceded, it became part of the regular army. Many militias elected their officers including field officers. When these units joined the Confederate army, their officers were commissioned. There were also a number of professional officers who came from Germany or Britain (just as there were in the Union army). But at the start of the war, few Southern officers had any real experience. Wealthy planters who owned 20 or more slaves were not required to serve in the army and many stayed home during the war. Some served in the Enlisted rank but many found it objectionable to serve under officers so poor they could not afford a single slave. Many Confederate officers kept a slave as a personal servant throughout the war.
Confederate officers in general did not maintain discipline among their men. Many of their soldiers were illiterate and some did not know which was their left foot and which was their right. At the Battle of Gettysburg in 1863, even Lee complained about the lack of discipline in his army. Visiting foreign officials were shocked at lack of discipline and were amazed they could fight.
Confederate soldiers came from a few ethnic backgrounds. Most of their ancestors came from Scotland, England, Ireland and Wales. Some had ancestors from France and Southern Europe. In regiments such as the 33rd Texas Cavalry, many had Spanish ancestry. Some could even trace their roots back to Spanish Conquistadors. In the Deep South, the Cherokee Nation sent several regiments who fought as equals alongside other Confederate units.
The average Confederate soldier was in his early 20s. He was usually gaunt, unkempt and beards were common. His wool uniform was often torn and in rags. It often did not fit, especially if taken off a dead soldier. Most wore a white shirt under their wool jacket. Replacement uniforms were hard to get. They would often stain homespun (clothing made at home) with a dye made from walnuts. This gave their uniforms a yellowish-brown appearance they called "butternut". Many did not have shoes or shoes that fit. Those who did nailed horseshoes to the bottom to keep them from wearing through the sole. At first he carried a musket or flintlock rifle. Later in the war many carried the better Enfield rifles taken from dead Union soldiers. What the Rebel soldier lacked in supplies and equipment, he made up for in fighting spirit. Any boots, uniforms or supplies Union soldiers left behind or were captured were used by the Confederate soldiers. In camp, most of the tents were marked "U.S." Most of the Southern Artillery was also captured Union cannons.
Images for kids
Confederate States Army Facts for Kids. Kiddle Encyclopedia. | 1,525 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Christmas carols were first sung in Europe thousands of years ago, but these were not Christmas carols. They were pagan songs, sung at winter solstice celebrations while people danced in stone circles.
The winter solstice is the shortest day of the year, and usually takes place around December 22. The word Carol really means dance or a song of praise and joy! Christmas carols used to be written and sung during the four seasons, but only the tradition of singing them at Christmas has really survived.
The first Christians took charge of the pagan solstice celebrations at Christmas and gave people Christian songs to sing instead of pagans. In 129, a Roman bishop said that a song called “Angel’s Anthem” was to be sung at a Christmas service in Rome. Another famous early Christmas hymn was written in 760, by Comas of Jerusalem, for the Greek Orthodox Church. Soon after, many composers from all over Europe began to write “Christmas carols”. However, many people did not like them because they were written and sung in Latin, a language that normal people could not understand. By the time of the Middle Ages (the 1200s), most people had lost interest in celebrating Christmas completely.
San Francisco de Asis changed this situation when, in 1223, he began his Nativity in Italy. The people in the plays sang songs or “chants” that told the story during the plays. Sometimes the choirs of these new carols were in Latin; But normally they were all in a language that the people who saw the work could understand and participate! The new Christmas carols were extended to France, Spain, Germany and other European countries.
The first carol, like this one, was written in 1410.
Unfortunately, there is only a very small fragment of it. The carol was about Mary and Jesus meeting different people in Bethlehem. Most of the carols of this period and the Elizabethan period are false stories, based very loosely on the history of Christmas, on the sacred family and were considered more entertaining than religious songs. In general, they were sung in homes instead of in churches! Traveling singers or jugglers began to sing these carols and the words were changed for local people wherever they traveled. A carol that changed like that is ‘I Saw Three Ships’.
When Oliver Cromwell and the Puritans came to power in England in 1647, the celebration of Christmas and Christmas carols was halted.
However, the carols survived while the people sang them in secret. The carols remained, mostly, unknown until the Victorian era, when two men named William Sandys and Davis Gilbert collected a lot of old Christmas music from the villages of England.
Before the singing of carols in public became popular, sometimes there were singers of official Christmas carols called ‘Waits’. These were bands of people led by important local leaders (such as council leaders) who had the sole power in cities and towns to take money from the public (if others did, they were sometimes accused of beggars!). They were called ‘Waits’ because they only sang on Christmas Eve (this was sometimes known as ‘nightnight’ or ‘waitnight’ because the shepherds watched their sheep when the angels appeared to them), when the Christmas celebrations began.
In addition, at this time, many orchestras and choirs were being established in the cities of England and people wanted to sing Christmas songs, so the Christmas carols became popular again. Many new carols, such as ‘Good King Wenceslas’, were also written in the Victorian period.
New carol services were created and became popular, as was the custom of singing Christmas carols in the streets. These two customs are still popular today! One of the most popular types of carol services is Candlelight carol services. In this service, the church is only illuminated by the light of the candles and it feels very Christmas. Carol by Candlelight services are carried out in countries around the world. | <urn:uuid:8d75c7b2-8ab2-472f-a2a5-0c5a1ef03fac> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.what333.com/the-history-of-christmas-carols/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250589861.0/warc/CC-MAIN-20200117152059-20200117180059-00549.warc.gz | en | 0.987092 | 839 | 3.890625 | 4 | [
0.040099918842315674,
0.07581976056098938,
0.35118821263313293,
-0.20940068364143372,
-0.1334100365638733,
0.0010618458036333323,
-0.3930753469467163,
0.18721190094947815,
0.5606850385665894,
-0.1284300535917282,
-0.009345734491944313,
0.4639248847961426,
0.06928651034832001,
0.06829342246... | 1 | Christmas carols were first sung in Europe thousands of years ago, but these were not Christmas carols. They were pagan songs, sung at winter solstice celebrations while people danced in stone circles.
The winter solstice is the shortest day of the year, and usually takes place around December 22. The word Carol really means dance or a song of praise and joy! Christmas carols used to be written and sung during the four seasons, but only the tradition of singing them at Christmas has really survived.
The first Christians took charge of the pagan solstice celebrations at Christmas and gave people Christian songs to sing instead of pagans. In 129, a Roman bishop said that a song called “Angel’s Anthem” was to be sung at a Christmas service in Rome. Another famous early Christmas hymn was written in 760, by Comas of Jerusalem, for the Greek Orthodox Church. Soon after, many composers from all over Europe began to write “Christmas carols”. However, many people did not like them because they were written and sung in Latin, a language that normal people could not understand. By the time of the Middle Ages (the 1200s), most people had lost interest in celebrating Christmas completely.
San Francisco de Asis changed this situation when, in 1223, he began his Nativity in Italy. The people in the plays sang songs or “chants” that told the story during the plays. Sometimes the choirs of these new carols were in Latin; But normally they were all in a language that the people who saw the work could understand and participate! The new Christmas carols were extended to France, Spain, Germany and other European countries.
The first carol, like this one, was written in 1410.
Unfortunately, there is only a very small fragment of it. The carol was about Mary and Jesus meeting different people in Bethlehem. Most of the carols of this period and the Elizabethan period are false stories, based very loosely on the history of Christmas, on the sacred family and were considered more entertaining than religious songs. In general, they were sung in homes instead of in churches! Traveling singers or jugglers began to sing these carols and the words were changed for local people wherever they traveled. A carol that changed like that is ‘I Saw Three Ships’.
When Oliver Cromwell and the Puritans came to power in England in 1647, the celebration of Christmas and Christmas carols was halted.
However, the carols survived while the people sang them in secret. The carols remained, mostly, unknown until the Victorian era, when two men named William Sandys and Davis Gilbert collected a lot of old Christmas music from the villages of England.
Before the singing of carols in public became popular, sometimes there were singers of official Christmas carols called ‘Waits’. These were bands of people led by important local leaders (such as council leaders) who had the sole power in cities and towns to take money from the public (if others did, they were sometimes accused of beggars!). They were called ‘Waits’ because they only sang on Christmas Eve (this was sometimes known as ‘nightnight’ or ‘waitnight’ because the shepherds watched their sheep when the angels appeared to them), when the Christmas celebrations began.
In addition, at this time, many orchestras and choirs were being established in the cities of England and people wanted to sing Christmas songs, so the Christmas carols became popular again. Many new carols, such as ‘Good King Wenceslas’, were also written in the Victorian period.
New carol services were created and became popular, as was the custom of singing Christmas carols in the streets. These two customs are still popular today! One of the most popular types of carol services is Candlelight carol services. In this service, the church is only illuminated by the light of the candles and it feels very Christmas. Carol by Candlelight services are carried out in countries around the world. | 826 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Sefer Shemot, literally, “book of names”, seems to be a misnomer for our Parsha. (Rabbinic writings often refer to it as “book of redemption".) While the Torah lists the names of the 12 sons of Jacob who came to Egypt with their families, the Jewish people quickly became a nameless and faceless people; something that, in all likelihood, contributed to their eventual slavery. While numerous, there were apparently no outstanding leaders worthy of mention. Jews were busy "filling the land" and the glorious past of Jewish contribution to Egypt was quickly forgotten by Jew and Gentile alike.
When a "new king arose in Egypt who did not know Joseph" (1:8), he, too, is not named (not even with the title of Pharaoh), leading to much scholarly debate as to which Pharaoh is the one of the Exodus. The name of this tyrant is not really important, as he was just the first in a long line of anti-Semitic political leaders. Persecution of the Jewish people is not limited to any name or place—while the names of the persecutors may change, the constant of history has been anti-Semitism directed against any and all Jews, in an attempt to wipe out our names.
Yet the heroes of the Exodus story, those who laid the foundation for the eventual redemption of the Jewish people, are often themselves not mentioned by name; and when they are named, they are still shrouded in mystery. Who exactly were Shifra and Puah, the midwives who risked their lives in defiance of the decree of the king of Egypt to kill Jewish babies? Were they non- Jews? After all, why would Pharaoh command Jews to kill their own? Were they Jews rescuing their own, or were they possibly just titles given to the head midwives, as we refer to the head nurse today? The commentaries debate these possibilities only because the text is unclear.
In any event, save for these few crucial verses, Shifra and Puah are never heard from again. They fulfilled their historic mission and departed the scene. This phenomenon of people who are named, fulfill their mission, and are not heard from again is very common as the Torah describes the emergence of the Jewish nation.
The parents of Moshe are referred to as "a man from the house of Levi and a daughter of Levi" (2:1). While we soon learn that they are Amram and Yocheved, the fact that the Torah initially hides their identity is most instructive. The greatest of people often emerge from "ordinary" families.
With the birth of their unnamed son—a sharp departure from the Torah's usual practice of naming the child's at birth—the "Levi" family sent their son down the Nile, hoping that he might somehow be saved. Surely they were aware that even if he were to survive, they were unlikely to ever see him again. (Interestingly, while Moshe's relationships with his siblings and father-in-law are described in detail, there is no mention in the Torah of any interaction between Moshe and his parents.)
The floating baby was rescued by "bat-Pharaoh", the unnamed daughter of Pharaoh, as "his sister"—that is how the unnamed Miriam is described—watched from a distance. This baby's sister ran off to get an unnamed woman to nurse the baby. The baby grew up and was finally identified by his name, Moshe. Moshe then encountered an unnamed Egyptian hitting an unnamed Jew, followed by two unnamed Jews fighting. When he fled, Moshe met the seven daughters of Reuel, and it is only because he married one of them that we find out her name, Tziporah.
Even our initial descent to Egypt was facilitated by an anonymous bystander. "And a certain man found him (Joseph)... and the man said ‘I heard them (the brothers) saying, let's go to Dotan’" (Breisheet 37:15-16).
Maaseh avot siman lebanim: Biblical events foreshadow the Jewish historical experience. Persecution, courage, heroism, and eventual redemption are our response to our enemies. Great heroes do not seek recognition, preferring to remain anonymous as they fulfill their holy mission. And once that mission is fulfilled, they often depart as quickly and anonymously as they appeared. The most simple of people, Jew or non-Jew, from the humblest of backgrounds can stand up, fight evil, and make a difference.
People may be brought into this world to carry out a specific function quickly and quietly, possibly without even being aware of their historic contribution. How can one know that by giving directions to someone, the course of Jewish history would be forever changed? Each and every day, we have many an opportunity to help others in small and quiet ways. These ways may—and often do—have an impact far greater than we could have ever imagined. Such is the power of human activity. | <urn:uuid:d5361c1b-250f-4035-b735-9850881fe257> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.torahinmotion.org/discussions-and-blogs/shemot-no-names | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251696046.73/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127081933-20200127111933-00330.warc.gz | en | 0.98283 | 1,024 | 3.265625 | 3 | [
-0.1386062651872635,
0.48006752133369446,
-0.12890931963920593,
0.15000906586647034,
-0.5381684899330139,
-0.01910208910703659,
0.38645386695861816,
-0.12043850123882294,
0.09697514027357101,
0.5061168074607849,
0.08029283583164215,
-0.1425865888595581,
-0.006241410039365292,
-0.0339305400... | 4 | Sefer Shemot, literally, “book of names”, seems to be a misnomer for our Parsha. (Rabbinic writings often refer to it as “book of redemption".) While the Torah lists the names of the 12 sons of Jacob who came to Egypt with their families, the Jewish people quickly became a nameless and faceless people; something that, in all likelihood, contributed to their eventual slavery. While numerous, there were apparently no outstanding leaders worthy of mention. Jews were busy "filling the land" and the glorious past of Jewish contribution to Egypt was quickly forgotten by Jew and Gentile alike.
When a "new king arose in Egypt who did not know Joseph" (1:8), he, too, is not named (not even with the title of Pharaoh), leading to much scholarly debate as to which Pharaoh is the one of the Exodus. The name of this tyrant is not really important, as he was just the first in a long line of anti-Semitic political leaders. Persecution of the Jewish people is not limited to any name or place—while the names of the persecutors may change, the constant of history has been anti-Semitism directed against any and all Jews, in an attempt to wipe out our names.
Yet the heroes of the Exodus story, those who laid the foundation for the eventual redemption of the Jewish people, are often themselves not mentioned by name; and when they are named, they are still shrouded in mystery. Who exactly were Shifra and Puah, the midwives who risked their lives in defiance of the decree of the king of Egypt to kill Jewish babies? Were they non- Jews? After all, why would Pharaoh command Jews to kill their own? Were they Jews rescuing their own, or were they possibly just titles given to the head midwives, as we refer to the head nurse today? The commentaries debate these possibilities only because the text is unclear.
In any event, save for these few crucial verses, Shifra and Puah are never heard from again. They fulfilled their historic mission and departed the scene. This phenomenon of people who are named, fulfill their mission, and are not heard from again is very common as the Torah describes the emergence of the Jewish nation.
The parents of Moshe are referred to as "a man from the house of Levi and a daughter of Levi" (2:1). While we soon learn that they are Amram and Yocheved, the fact that the Torah initially hides their identity is most instructive. The greatest of people often emerge from "ordinary" families.
With the birth of their unnamed son—a sharp departure from the Torah's usual practice of naming the child's at birth—the "Levi" family sent their son down the Nile, hoping that he might somehow be saved. Surely they were aware that even if he were to survive, they were unlikely to ever see him again. (Interestingly, while Moshe's relationships with his siblings and father-in-law are described in detail, there is no mention in the Torah of any interaction between Moshe and his parents.)
The floating baby was rescued by "bat-Pharaoh", the unnamed daughter of Pharaoh, as "his sister"—that is how the unnamed Miriam is described—watched from a distance. This baby's sister ran off to get an unnamed woman to nurse the baby. The baby grew up and was finally identified by his name, Moshe. Moshe then encountered an unnamed Egyptian hitting an unnamed Jew, followed by two unnamed Jews fighting. When he fled, Moshe met the seven daughters of Reuel, and it is only because he married one of them that we find out her name, Tziporah.
Even our initial descent to Egypt was facilitated by an anonymous bystander. "And a certain man found him (Joseph)... and the man said ‘I heard them (the brothers) saying, let's go to Dotan’" (Breisheet 37:15-16).
Maaseh avot siman lebanim: Biblical events foreshadow the Jewish historical experience. Persecution, courage, heroism, and eventual redemption are our response to our enemies. Great heroes do not seek recognition, preferring to remain anonymous as they fulfill their holy mission. And once that mission is fulfilled, they often depart as quickly and anonymously as they appeared. The most simple of people, Jew or non-Jew, from the humblest of backgrounds can stand up, fight evil, and make a difference.
People may be brought into this world to carry out a specific function quickly and quietly, possibly without even being aware of their historic contribution. How can one know that by giving directions to someone, the course of Jewish history would be forever changed? Each and every day, we have many an opportunity to help others in small and quiet ways. These ways may—and often do—have an impact far greater than we could have ever imagined. Such is the power of human activity. | 1,023 | ENGLISH | 1 |
A Charterhouse was the English term for a Carthusian priory or abbey.
It’s a corruption of Chartreuse, the location in France where the first house of the order was founded by St Bruno in 1084. The Carthusians put a great deal of emphasis on individual prayer, work and contemplation, and much of their time was spent living as virtual hermits in cells within their abbeys.
A good example of an English Carthusian priory is Mount Grace in North Yorkshire, where one of the cells – in reality a small two-storey house with its own garden – has been reconstructed. A specially-designed hatch enabled food to be delivered to the occupant without the need for him to speak to, or even see the person who brought it.
The Carthusians were one of the few orders to put up much of a fight against Henry VIII’s dissolution of the monasteries, and a number were executed as a result. In 1611, Thomas Sutton used the old site of a ‘Charterhouse’ near Smithfield for a new school he had founded. In 1872 the school moved to new buildings just outside Godalming but continued to be called Charterhouse and its students are still known as Carthusians. | <urn:uuid:966cd97d-b984-4e32-b993-0a5af9fe4577> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.historyextra.com/period/medieval/what-was-a-charterhouse/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250615407.46/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124040939-20200124065939-00514.warc.gz | en | 0.983042 | 264 | 3.4375 | 3 | [
0.3562172055244446,
-0.21685977280139923,
0.2443242073059082,
-0.10348004102706909,
-0.23391465842723846,
-0.4695238471031189,
-0.030570480972528458,
0.10531865060329437,
0.10978342592716217,
-0.10924334079027176,
-0.013927049934864044,
-0.5509697198867798,
0.09863872826099396,
0.315390497... | 7 | A Charterhouse was the English term for a Carthusian priory or abbey.
It’s a corruption of Chartreuse, the location in France where the first house of the order was founded by St Bruno in 1084. The Carthusians put a great deal of emphasis on individual prayer, work and contemplation, and much of their time was spent living as virtual hermits in cells within their abbeys.
A good example of an English Carthusian priory is Mount Grace in North Yorkshire, where one of the cells – in reality a small two-storey house with its own garden – has been reconstructed. A specially-designed hatch enabled food to be delivered to the occupant without the need for him to speak to, or even see the person who brought it.
The Carthusians were one of the few orders to put up much of a fight against Henry VIII’s dissolution of the monasteries, and a number were executed as a result. In 1611, Thomas Sutton used the old site of a ‘Charterhouse’ near Smithfield for a new school he had founded. In 1872 the school moved to new buildings just outside Godalming but continued to be called Charterhouse and its students are still known as Carthusians. | 263 | ENGLISH | 1 |
- Grade 3
Would you like to upload a supporting PDF?:
Our Grade 1 and 3 classes joined forces to BRIGHTEN UP our school grounds! Through read alouds and nature walks, we started to discuss the importance of bees and what they do for our environment. The first half of our project was to create a safe landing place where bees could have a drink of water without drowning. Our class used marbles and worked together to design a “Bee’s Water Break” platform so that bees would have a higher chance of surviving along their journey.
The second part of our BRIGHTEN UP project was planting a design of 600 bulbs in our school gardens. Each student learned what kind of flowers they were as there were 4 different ones. They dug the whole, planted it and filled it. They have been watching the growth pattern since November and are starting to spurt now. Students have also created a book for drawings and predictions. | <urn:uuid:d957d50f-1d51-4fb6-ad5c-800247e3a60a> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://bcgreengames.ca/project/brighten2781 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250592565.2/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118110141-20200118134141-00057.warc.gz | en | 0.981202 | 193 | 3.90625 | 4 | [
-0.04909011721611023,
-0.414346843957901,
0.2771684229373932,
-0.44833770394325256,
0.26121342182159424,
0.06934063881635666,
-0.4030279815196991,
0.15446063876152039,
-0.21327729523181915,
0.39415907859802246,
-0.15293481945991516,
-0.42406612634658813,
-0.0768151581287384,
-0.07497370988... | 2 | - Grade 3
Would you like to upload a supporting PDF?:
Our Grade 1 and 3 classes joined forces to BRIGHTEN UP our school grounds! Through read alouds and nature walks, we started to discuss the importance of bees and what they do for our environment. The first half of our project was to create a safe landing place where bees could have a drink of water without drowning. Our class used marbles and worked together to design a “Bee’s Water Break” platform so that bees would have a higher chance of surviving along their journey.
The second part of our BRIGHTEN UP project was planting a design of 600 bulbs in our school gardens. Each student learned what kind of flowers they were as there were 4 different ones. They dug the whole, planted it and filled it. They have been watching the growth pattern since November and are starting to spurt now. Students have also created a book for drawings and predictions. | 196 | ENGLISH | 1 |
World War one started in 1914 and ended in 1918, and World War two started in 1939 and ended in 1945. In both wars, Germany and its allies had major parts in the beginning of the conflicts. World war one was fought between the Triple Entente & Italy versus Germany and Austria-Hungary & the Ottoman Empire. The results for both wars were almost the same. In World War one, no army lost; however, Germany politically lost everything, or most, of what she had. While in World war two, Germany surrendered after Hitler’s suicide. World War one took place in Europe, Middle East, and China, while world War two Europe, Asia, Africa and Australia. Both World Wars were fought in different ways. World War One was fought in a defensive manner from the
…show more content…
They also had to give the Alsace Lorraine which hindered their ability to pay the money. The debt that Germany has to pay made them poorer than they were after the war. Hitler used the damaged Germans to give him power to fight world war two to bring the old strong Germany. However punishing Germany didn’t mean they are not going to fight again, it all ended up the opposite and these punishments were from world war two’s causes.
Part of starting these two wars was the country’s political systems. Germany, Italy, and Austria-Hungary were all dictatorships while France and Britain were democracies. Most of the allies were democracies because in a dictatorship only one person decides to go to war or not, while in a democracy for a country to go to war you must get permission from the government. So, with these constraints the democracies couldn’t go to a war for ridiculous reasons they only went to help their allies in war. The alliances were one of the long-term effects of world war one. All alliances started secretly before world war one but what made it significant is when it was clear after Austria declared war on Serbia, Russia declared war on Germany and Austria and the domino effect started, which in the end led to world war one. However, all these alliances in world war one were intended for | <urn:uuid:a10734a7-d6fb-4fbb-bdad-3e15b9199cc9> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.cram.com/essay/Compare-and-Contrast-Ww1-and-Ww2/F3C5V7BY4CNY | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250608062.57/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123011418-20200123040418-00337.warc.gz | en | 0.9842 | 440 | 3.78125 | 4 | [
-0.3512856662273407,
0.41909316182136536,
-0.01470288634300232,
-0.2231127917766571,
-0.360409677028656,
0.1854403018951416,
-0.039506856352090836,
0.15206752717494965,
0.22631175816059113,
-0.2781544625759125,
0.40694817900657654,
-0.2013411521911621,
0.21870625019073486,
0.58744144439697... | 1 | World War one started in 1914 and ended in 1918, and World War two started in 1939 and ended in 1945. In both wars, Germany and its allies had major parts in the beginning of the conflicts. World war one was fought between the Triple Entente & Italy versus Germany and Austria-Hungary & the Ottoman Empire. The results for both wars were almost the same. In World War one, no army lost; however, Germany politically lost everything, or most, of what she had. While in World war two, Germany surrendered after Hitler’s suicide. World War one took place in Europe, Middle East, and China, while world War two Europe, Asia, Africa and Australia. Both World Wars were fought in different ways. World War One was fought in a defensive manner from the
…show more content…
They also had to give the Alsace Lorraine which hindered their ability to pay the money. The debt that Germany has to pay made them poorer than they were after the war. Hitler used the damaged Germans to give him power to fight world war two to bring the old strong Germany. However punishing Germany didn’t mean they are not going to fight again, it all ended up the opposite and these punishments were from world war two’s causes.
Part of starting these two wars was the country’s political systems. Germany, Italy, and Austria-Hungary were all dictatorships while France and Britain were democracies. Most of the allies were democracies because in a dictatorship only one person decides to go to war or not, while in a democracy for a country to go to war you must get permission from the government. So, with these constraints the democracies couldn’t go to a war for ridiculous reasons they only went to help their allies in war. The alliances were one of the long-term effects of world war one. All alliances started secretly before world war one but what made it significant is when it was clear after Austria declared war on Serbia, Russia declared war on Germany and Austria and the domino effect started, which in the end led to world war one. However, all these alliances in world war one were intended for | 446 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The duties and activities of a military surgeon were very broad. Primarily, surgeons cared for and treated wounded men, often from both armies. This encompassed doing first aid, surgical procedures, amputations, and organizing the transportation of the wounded to general hospitals. Though Civil War surgeons often have a reputation for performing unnecessary amputations, this was most likely not the case. Although surgeons did perform operations practically all day after a major battle, Dr. Jonathan Letterman of the Army of the Potomac stated that he actually believed the “knife [was] not used enough,” and that surgeons were too conservative.5 An explanation for the large numbers of amputations can be found in examining the weapons used to fight the war. Rifled muskets were a new technology employed in the Civil War. The wounds from these muskets shattered bones, so the best option for the recovery of the soldier was often amputation of the limb.6
Surgeons also had other miscellaneous duties apart from caring for the wounded. Surgeons were in charge of organizing, equipping, and supplying hospitals. They maintained vast systems of records. Surgeons determined the best locations for their hospitals and first aid stations, and directed their subordinates in creating these. In addition to all of these, they inspected each man before they joined the military service, determined the number of nurses that would work in each hospital, established the water quality at a campsite, practiced embalming, and even tattooed army deserters.
Surgeons did enjoy special privileges for being medical staff. They were not permitted to be prisoners of war for the majority of the Civil War. This law meant that surgeons were free to care for the wounded without disruption and without the fear of being captured. Surgeons were also generally deeply respected, and their opinions were highly valued, even on non-medical matters.
The duties of the Confederate surgeons were extremely similar to those of Union surgeons. If anything, Southern surgeons had to take on more responsibility, since they did not have a Sanitary Commission to assist them. Since the majority of Confederate medical and official records were destroyed during the burning of Richmond near the close of the war, much less is known about Confederate surgeons than is known about Union surgeons and their duties.6 | <urn:uuid:077de6d8-6bb8-422e-9916-2d6f94705897> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://cw-butchers.leadr.msu.edu/a-surgeons-duties/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251789055.93/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129071944-20200129101944-00502.warc.gz | en | 0.986873 | 460 | 3.703125 | 4 | [
-0.1345701962709427,
0.1883070170879364,
0.7190995812416077,
-0.19778497517108917,
0.0023773484863340855,
-0.16368243098258972,
0.458271324634552,
0.4067023694515228,
-0.5315074920654297,
0.13583724200725555,
0.2864796817302704,
0.09197568893432617,
0.02996703051030636,
0.3856538236141205,... | 3 | The duties and activities of a military surgeon were very broad. Primarily, surgeons cared for and treated wounded men, often from both armies. This encompassed doing first aid, surgical procedures, amputations, and organizing the transportation of the wounded to general hospitals. Though Civil War surgeons often have a reputation for performing unnecessary amputations, this was most likely not the case. Although surgeons did perform operations practically all day after a major battle, Dr. Jonathan Letterman of the Army of the Potomac stated that he actually believed the “knife [was] not used enough,” and that surgeons were too conservative.5 An explanation for the large numbers of amputations can be found in examining the weapons used to fight the war. Rifled muskets were a new technology employed in the Civil War. The wounds from these muskets shattered bones, so the best option for the recovery of the soldier was often amputation of the limb.6
Surgeons also had other miscellaneous duties apart from caring for the wounded. Surgeons were in charge of organizing, equipping, and supplying hospitals. They maintained vast systems of records. Surgeons determined the best locations for their hospitals and first aid stations, and directed their subordinates in creating these. In addition to all of these, they inspected each man before they joined the military service, determined the number of nurses that would work in each hospital, established the water quality at a campsite, practiced embalming, and even tattooed army deserters.
Surgeons did enjoy special privileges for being medical staff. They were not permitted to be prisoners of war for the majority of the Civil War. This law meant that surgeons were free to care for the wounded without disruption and without the fear of being captured. Surgeons were also generally deeply respected, and their opinions were highly valued, even on non-medical matters.
The duties of the Confederate surgeons were extremely similar to those of Union surgeons. If anything, Southern surgeons had to take on more responsibility, since they did not have a Sanitary Commission to assist them. Since the majority of Confederate medical and official records were destroyed during the burning of Richmond near the close of the war, much less is known about Confederate surgeons than is known about Union surgeons and their duties.6 | 459 | ENGLISH | 1 |
FEAST DAY: DEC. 6
Jolly Old St. Nicholas evokes a cheerful image of an elderly, bearded man, kindly handing out gifts to children. This St. Nick, or Santa Claus, is a model of generosity for those who see the celebration of our Savior’s birth at Christmas as a time for performing acts of charity and goodwill. While the original St. Nicholas was known and honored for his concern for the poor, the Church also remembers him as a fierce defender of the faith against the Arian heresy at the first Church council in Nicaea.
Historically, little is known of Nicholas. Born in the third century, Nicholas became the Bishop of Myra, a small town in present-day Turkey. He was imprisoned and tortured for his refusal to denounce Christianity during the “Great Persecution,” by Diocletian. When Constantine ascended to the throne, Nicholas was released and responded to the emperor’s call in 325 to attend the first Church council. He joined St. Athanasius and others in successfully arguing that Jesus was true God, and was one of the bishops to sign the Nicene Creed.
Stories and legends of Nicholas’ generosity and concern for the poor grew throughout Europe and by the Middle Ages, thousands of churches were named for him. In one popular story, Nicholas, a bishop at the time, saved three young girls from a life of destitution when he secretly delivered three bags of gold to their father for their dowries. This secret and charitable gift-giving is the origin of the St. Nicholas tradition still observed in some countries today.
Beloved by so many, Nicholas is a popular figure in religious artwork. Nicholas was more than a kind gentleman who loved children. He loved the Lord, defended him and served him in the poor and lowly. He remains an example for Christians committed to bringing Christ to life in our world today. | <urn:uuid:c2552d69-f6e2-4fea-9541-ba852f554cf6> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://thecentralminnesotacatholic.org/st-nicholas/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251690379.95/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126195918-20200126225918-00119.warc.gz | en | 0.982982 | 389 | 3.546875 | 4 | [
0.30476969480514526,
0.30674463510513306,
0.5794593691825867,
-0.3745456039905548,
-0.08937928080558777,
-0.42798852920532227,
-0.09884069114923477,
0.3870154619216919,
-0.15976865589618683,
-0.12409539520740509,
-0.1249641478061676,
0.2663854956626892,
0.004551831632852554,
0.229291200637... | 3 | FEAST DAY: DEC. 6
Jolly Old St. Nicholas evokes a cheerful image of an elderly, bearded man, kindly handing out gifts to children. This St. Nick, or Santa Claus, is a model of generosity for those who see the celebration of our Savior’s birth at Christmas as a time for performing acts of charity and goodwill. While the original St. Nicholas was known and honored for his concern for the poor, the Church also remembers him as a fierce defender of the faith against the Arian heresy at the first Church council in Nicaea.
Historically, little is known of Nicholas. Born in the third century, Nicholas became the Bishop of Myra, a small town in present-day Turkey. He was imprisoned and tortured for his refusal to denounce Christianity during the “Great Persecution,” by Diocletian. When Constantine ascended to the throne, Nicholas was released and responded to the emperor’s call in 325 to attend the first Church council. He joined St. Athanasius and others in successfully arguing that Jesus was true God, and was one of the bishops to sign the Nicene Creed.
Stories and legends of Nicholas’ generosity and concern for the poor grew throughout Europe and by the Middle Ages, thousands of churches were named for him. In one popular story, Nicholas, a bishop at the time, saved three young girls from a life of destitution when he secretly delivered three bags of gold to their father for their dowries. This secret and charitable gift-giving is the origin of the St. Nicholas tradition still observed in some countries today.
Beloved by so many, Nicholas is a popular figure in religious artwork. Nicholas was more than a kind gentleman who loved children. He loved the Lord, defended him and served him in the poor and lowly. He remains an example for Christians committed to bringing Christ to life in our world today. | 388 | ENGLISH | 1 |
This hand-powered pumper ranks as one of the oldest pieces of fire-fighting apparatus in the United States. It was built in England in 1795 for the city of Philadelphia, where it was used for almost forty years by the fire department founded originally by Benjamin Franklin.
On September 23, 1836 it was purchased from Philadelphia for $75 and shipped here at a cost of $50. The funds were raised by public subscription from the citizens of Beaver to equip their newly-formed volunteer fire department. It is one of just seven pumpers of its type known to be preserved in the United States, and may be the only one to be still listed on the active equipment roster of any fire department.
The pumper is drawn by hand and is operated by two opposing hand cranks, which are detachable for transport. The metal-lined reservoir is supplied by water delivered by a bucket brigade. With sufficient energy applied to the hand pump, the slender nozzle will send a stream of water seventy feet into the air.
From 1836 it did duty for many years under the supervision of Daniel Reisinger who was often assisted in drawing it to the scene of action by his daughter.
The hand pumper was the featured display piece at the Beaver Area Heritage Foundation Museum’s exhibit on the History of Fire fighting in 2004. | <urn:uuid:e9936af5-8265-4891-8acf-70b0ab1ece18> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.beavervfd.org/arrow-hand-pumper-cu2c | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250608062.57/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123011418-20200123040418-00338.warc.gz | en | 0.980149 | 270 | 3.421875 | 3 | [
-0.3235793709754944,
0.33559316396713257,
0.35315030813217163,
-0.2750917673110962,
-0.07551310211420059,
-0.1772100180387497,
0.28737446665763855,
0.4474234879016876,
-0.5889759659767151,
0.09857385605573654,
0.07213396579027176,
-0.2253766655921936,
-0.3139810562133789,
0.127645924687385... | 10 | This hand-powered pumper ranks as one of the oldest pieces of fire-fighting apparatus in the United States. It was built in England in 1795 for the city of Philadelphia, where it was used for almost forty years by the fire department founded originally by Benjamin Franklin.
On September 23, 1836 it was purchased from Philadelphia for $75 and shipped here at a cost of $50. The funds were raised by public subscription from the citizens of Beaver to equip their newly-formed volunteer fire department. It is one of just seven pumpers of its type known to be preserved in the United States, and may be the only one to be still listed on the active equipment roster of any fire department.
The pumper is drawn by hand and is operated by two opposing hand cranks, which are detachable for transport. The metal-lined reservoir is supplied by water delivered by a bucket brigade. With sufficient energy applied to the hand pump, the slender nozzle will send a stream of water seventy feet into the air.
From 1836 it did duty for many years under the supervision of Daniel Reisinger who was often assisted in drawing it to the scene of action by his daughter.
The hand pumper was the featured display piece at the Beaver Area Heritage Foundation Museum’s exhibit on the History of Fire fighting in 2004. | 278 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Born on 9th of December 1608
Died in Chalfont St Giles, Buckinghamshire
Died on 8th of November 1674
Quotes from John Milton
'Who overcomes by force, hath o'... More
Author of the epic poem Paradise Lost, John Milton is acknowledged as one of the greatest English poets. His rounded view of Satan led Blake to write Milton was: "a true Poet, and of the Devil's party without knowing it."
John Milton was born on Cheapside, London, December 9 1608. Aged 17 Milton entered Christ College, Cambridge where he studied and wrote in Latin, Greek, French and Italian while also assiduously acquiring an “insight into all seemly and generous arts and affairs.” By the end of his university education Milton had abandoned his intention to become a priest and had begun writing seriously, culminating in his first published poem - a sonnet on William Shakespeare (1632).
During the late 1630s Milton reputedly met Galileo while travelling through France and Italy and his conversation with the great scientist is recorded in Areopagitica (1644). A Puritan and supporter of Oliver Cromwell, Milton was appointed his Secretary for Foreign Languages in 1649. After the restoration of the monarchy in 1660 Milton’s republican sympathies went against him and he was arrested and although released was much impoverished.
Milton’s blindness from 1651 did not to diminish his literary powers and may well have stimulated his cosmic vision expressed in Paradise Lost. The fact that Milton composed the verses in his head and then dictated them from memory makes his achievement even more impressive. Paradise Lost was finally published to great acclaim in 1667, followed by Paradise Regained and Samson Agonistes in 1671.
Married three times during his life John Milton died of gout November 8, 1674. There is a monument to him in Poet’s Corner, Westminster Abbey.
Married for the second time here
Paradise Lost was printed here
internal link Miltons Cottage
More famous Britons here
Contributors: Do you have a site related to John Milton?
Supply some content for this page and we will gladly add a link to your site. Email here.
7840 views since 1st February 2007
On this day: | <urn:uuid:dc1f8c95-64e9-4059-8771-a042faccc1d3> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://information-britain.co.uk/famousbrits.php?id=361 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250593994.14/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118221909-20200119005909-00464.warc.gz | en | 0.982469 | 483 | 3.28125 | 3 | [
0.09142717719078064,
0.16190895438194275,
0.16948473453521729,
0.0700087696313858,
-0.19565287232398987,
0.2649233639240265,
0.11103454977273941,
0.044894784688949585,
0.06546574085950851,
-0.030032280832529068,
-0.6656987071037292,
-0.14397893846035004,
0.25440514087677,
0.124267682433128... | 1 | Born on 9th of December 1608
Died in Chalfont St Giles, Buckinghamshire
Died on 8th of November 1674
Quotes from John Milton
'Who overcomes by force, hath o'... More
Author of the epic poem Paradise Lost, John Milton is acknowledged as one of the greatest English poets. His rounded view of Satan led Blake to write Milton was: "a true Poet, and of the Devil's party without knowing it."
John Milton was born on Cheapside, London, December 9 1608. Aged 17 Milton entered Christ College, Cambridge where he studied and wrote in Latin, Greek, French and Italian while also assiduously acquiring an “insight into all seemly and generous arts and affairs.” By the end of his university education Milton had abandoned his intention to become a priest and had begun writing seriously, culminating in his first published poem - a sonnet on William Shakespeare (1632).
During the late 1630s Milton reputedly met Galileo while travelling through France and Italy and his conversation with the great scientist is recorded in Areopagitica (1644). A Puritan and supporter of Oliver Cromwell, Milton was appointed his Secretary for Foreign Languages in 1649. After the restoration of the monarchy in 1660 Milton’s republican sympathies went against him and he was arrested and although released was much impoverished.
Milton’s blindness from 1651 did not to diminish his literary powers and may well have stimulated his cosmic vision expressed in Paradise Lost. The fact that Milton composed the verses in his head and then dictated them from memory makes his achievement even more impressive. Paradise Lost was finally published to great acclaim in 1667, followed by Paradise Regained and Samson Agonistes in 1671.
Married three times during his life John Milton died of gout November 8, 1674. There is a monument to him in Poet’s Corner, Westminster Abbey.
Married for the second time here
Paradise Lost was printed here
internal link Miltons Cottage
More famous Britons here
Contributors: Do you have a site related to John Milton?
Supply some content for this page and we will gladly add a link to your site. Email here.
7840 views since 1st February 2007
On this day: | 513 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Key point: This Civil War-era American invention would become infamous all over the world.
Richard Gatling was born in Hertford County, NC, on December 12, 1818. His father was a prosperous farmer and inventor, and the son was destined to inherit the “invention bug.”
After three of his sisters died at a young age from disease, Richard Gatling decided to study medicine, and graduated from the Ohio Medical College in Cincinnati in 1850. He moved to Indianapolis the same year, and in 1854 married the daughter of a prominent local physician. There is no evidence that Richard Gatling ever practiced medicine after leaving medical school, but he was always referred to as “doctor.”
Gatling was a born inventor. Between 1857 and 1860 he patented a steam plow, a rotary plow, a seed planter, a lath-making machine, a hemp rake, and a rubber washer for tightening gears. One day in 1861, with the Civil War only a few months old, Dr. Gatling’s inventive fervor suffered a shock that would turn his mind from machines of peace to machines of war. From his Indianapolis office window, Gatling watched in horror as wounded and maimed soldiers were unloaded from a train—casualties from the southern killing fields.
The doctor was aware that the conflict was being waged in Napoleonic fashion. Men faced each other in solid ranks—aimed, fired, reloaded—and, on command, charged headlong into the blazing guns of the enemy. For several nights Richard Gatling could not sleep. A single idea occupied his thoughts. What if a few soldiers could duplicate the firepower of a hundred men? Troops would no longer be able to stand still and shoot at each other. And the running charge would be impossible, because the attacking force would be mowed down like tall grass.
Gatling reasoned that if he were able to invent a machine that could plant seeds swiftly, accurately, and in precise rows, he should be able to devise a mechanical gun that would spray bullets like water from a garden hose.
Invention of the Gatling Gun
Within a few weeks, the doctor had completed the drawings for his innovative weapon, the “Gatling gun,” and took the sketches to a machinist to manufacture.
The first Gatling gun consisted of a cluster of six rifle barrels, without stocks, arranged around a center rod. Each barrel had its own bolt, and the entire cluster could be made to revolve by turning a crank. The bolts were covered by a brass case at the breech. Cartridges were fed into a hopper, and as the cluster revolved, each barrel was fired at its lowest point, and then reloaded when the revolution was completed.
The gun was mounted upon a wheeled carriage. Two men were required to operate the weapon—one to sight the target and turn the crank, the other to load the ammunition.
A working model was completed within six months, and a public demonstration was held across Graveyard Pond in Indianapolis. The abrupt, rapid noise of gunfire could be heard for five miles and, at 200 rounds per minute, the bullets cut a 10-inch tree in half in less than 30 seconds.
Dr. Gatling patented his gun on November 4, 1862, but he had a difficult time selling it to the Army. General James Wolfe Ripley, chief of ordnance, was not impressed with the weapon and remarked: “You can kill a man just as dead with a cap-n’-ball smooth-bore.”
Gatling was unperturbed, however, and took his diagrams to a manufacturing company in Cincinnati. Twelve of the Gatling guns were built, and a few of them were sold to General Benjamin Butler for $1,000 each. Butler later used the Gatlings to hold a bridgehead against Confederate cavalry at the James River.
In early trials of the Gatling gun, it was regarded by the military as a supplement to artillery. The tests that were conducted compared the range and accuracy of the machine gun with the range and accuracy of grapeshot fired by artillery pieces.
Richard Gatling continued to modify and improve the weapon, and in 1865 patented a model that was capable of firing 350 rounds per minute. A demonstration was held at Fortress Monroe. This time the ordnance department was impressed and ordered a hundred guns. The Gatling gun was officially adopted by the U.S. Army on August 24, 1866. It was first manufactured by Cooper Arms in Philadelphia, and later by the Colt Arms Company of Hartford, Conn.
Europe and Abroad
Dr. Gatling traveled throughout Europe selling his weapon, and new models were continually being designed. A short-barrel variety was purchased by the British and mounted on camels. This so-called “camel gun” was also used by the U.S. Army and Navy.
As settlers moved west after the Civil War, Army garrisons in forts along the frontier housed Gatling guns. Gatlings were also attached to cavalry expeditions. A Gatling detachment under Lieutenant James W. Pope accompanied General Nelson A. Miles’s campaign into west Texas. On August 30, as an advance party of Army scouts entered a trail that led between two high bluffs, about three hundred Indians charged down the cliffs. At the sound of gunfire, Pope quickly brought up his Gatling guns. The rapid, withering fire scattered the attacking warriors, and they fled in confusion.
During the same year, a battalion of 8th Cavalry, commanded by Major William R. Price, was ordered out to suppress an uprising by several Indian tribes, including Arapaho, Cheyenne, Comanche, and Kiowa. Price was able to successfully fight off several surprise attacks by hostile bands with two Gatling guns.
But in the most famous battle of the Indian Wars, the Gatling was strangely absent. On June 22, 1876, Maj. Gen. George Armstrong Custer and his 7th Cavalry rode out from their Powder River camp and headed for the Little Big Horn River. Custer had been offered three Gatling guns but refused them. He felt that the Gatlings—mounted on horse-drawn carriages—would slow his cavalry troop down in rough country. Custer also believed that the use of such a devastating weapon would cause him to “lose face” with the Indians. Whether or not the Gatlings could have saved Custer and his 200 men is questionable. Some accounts report the column of Indians that retreated after the battle as being three miles long and a half-mile wide.
During the next few years, the Gatling gun participated in a number of battles, including those with the Nez Perce. The warriors under Chief Joseph fought 13 engagements against the U.S. Army, many of which were standoffs. Finally, on September 30, 1877, in the Bear Paw Mountains of Montana, General Nelson Miles, with 600 men and a Gatling gun, attacked Chief Joseph’s camp. After four days of bitter fighting, Chief Joseph could hold out no longer. As he surrendered his rifle to Miles, the valiant Indian leader said, “My heart is sick and sad. From where the sun now stands, I will fight no more forever.”
The Gatling Gun In Africa
During the latter part of the 19th century, Gatling guns became more and more popular, and were used in the many wars that flared during the 1880s and 1890s. The 1879 war between England and the African Zulu tribes was the first major land action in which the Gatling gun proved to be a deciding factor. A small British army, commanded by Lord Chelmsford, defeated a much larger Zulu force under King Cetywayo. In one encounter, a single Gatling mowed down more than 400 tribesmen in only a few minutes.
After his victorious campaign, Lord Chelmsford wrote: “They [Gatling guns] should be considered essentially as infantry weapons. They can be used effectively, not only in defense, but also in covering the last stage of an infantry attack upon a position—where the soldiers must cease firing and charge with the bayonet.”
By the time Dr. Gatling died in 1903, the automatic machine gun had arrived on the scene. It was powered by the discharging gases of its fired cartridges, and was simpler and more economical to use than the manually operated guns. In 1911, the U.S. Army declared the Gatling gun obsolete.
But Richard Gatling’s legacy did not die with him. In September 1956, the General Electric Company unveiled its 6-barrel aerial cannon called the Vulcan. For several years, General Electric had made a detailed study of every rapid-fire gun, and its engineers had found that Dr. Gatling’s original patents offered the most promise for the development of firepower necessary for fast jet fighter aircraft. The Vulcan was also put to use on attack helicopters and gunships.
This article by A.B. Feuer originally appeared on Warfare History Network.
Image: Wikimedia Commons | <urn:uuid:51bbfa2f-677a-4814-999d-1a9fba69afaa> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/mark-your-history-book-weapon-changed-warfare-forever-94656 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250626449.79/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124221147-20200125010147-00074.warc.gz | en | 0.984529 | 1,898 | 3.5 | 4 | [
-0.17918401956558228,
0.40072235465049744,
0.267353355884552,
-0.13710255920886993,
-0.11519422382116318,
-0.3653145432472229,
0.6882538199424744,
0.13955256342887878,
-0.721368670463562,
-0.29686516523361206,
-0.3713662624359131,
-0.005433383863419294,
0.07607458531856537,
0.2407314181327... | 2 | Key point: This Civil War-era American invention would become infamous all over the world.
Richard Gatling was born in Hertford County, NC, on December 12, 1818. His father was a prosperous farmer and inventor, and the son was destined to inherit the “invention bug.”
After three of his sisters died at a young age from disease, Richard Gatling decided to study medicine, and graduated from the Ohio Medical College in Cincinnati in 1850. He moved to Indianapolis the same year, and in 1854 married the daughter of a prominent local physician. There is no evidence that Richard Gatling ever practiced medicine after leaving medical school, but he was always referred to as “doctor.”
Gatling was a born inventor. Between 1857 and 1860 he patented a steam plow, a rotary plow, a seed planter, a lath-making machine, a hemp rake, and a rubber washer for tightening gears. One day in 1861, with the Civil War only a few months old, Dr. Gatling’s inventive fervor suffered a shock that would turn his mind from machines of peace to machines of war. From his Indianapolis office window, Gatling watched in horror as wounded and maimed soldiers were unloaded from a train—casualties from the southern killing fields.
The doctor was aware that the conflict was being waged in Napoleonic fashion. Men faced each other in solid ranks—aimed, fired, reloaded—and, on command, charged headlong into the blazing guns of the enemy. For several nights Richard Gatling could not sleep. A single idea occupied his thoughts. What if a few soldiers could duplicate the firepower of a hundred men? Troops would no longer be able to stand still and shoot at each other. And the running charge would be impossible, because the attacking force would be mowed down like tall grass.
Gatling reasoned that if he were able to invent a machine that could plant seeds swiftly, accurately, and in precise rows, he should be able to devise a mechanical gun that would spray bullets like water from a garden hose.
Invention of the Gatling Gun
Within a few weeks, the doctor had completed the drawings for his innovative weapon, the “Gatling gun,” and took the sketches to a machinist to manufacture.
The first Gatling gun consisted of a cluster of six rifle barrels, without stocks, arranged around a center rod. Each barrel had its own bolt, and the entire cluster could be made to revolve by turning a crank. The bolts were covered by a brass case at the breech. Cartridges were fed into a hopper, and as the cluster revolved, each barrel was fired at its lowest point, and then reloaded when the revolution was completed.
The gun was mounted upon a wheeled carriage. Two men were required to operate the weapon—one to sight the target and turn the crank, the other to load the ammunition.
A working model was completed within six months, and a public demonstration was held across Graveyard Pond in Indianapolis. The abrupt, rapid noise of gunfire could be heard for five miles and, at 200 rounds per minute, the bullets cut a 10-inch tree in half in less than 30 seconds.
Dr. Gatling patented his gun on November 4, 1862, but he had a difficult time selling it to the Army. General James Wolfe Ripley, chief of ordnance, was not impressed with the weapon and remarked: “You can kill a man just as dead with a cap-n’-ball smooth-bore.”
Gatling was unperturbed, however, and took his diagrams to a manufacturing company in Cincinnati. Twelve of the Gatling guns were built, and a few of them were sold to General Benjamin Butler for $1,000 each. Butler later used the Gatlings to hold a bridgehead against Confederate cavalry at the James River.
In early trials of the Gatling gun, it was regarded by the military as a supplement to artillery. The tests that were conducted compared the range and accuracy of the machine gun with the range and accuracy of grapeshot fired by artillery pieces.
Richard Gatling continued to modify and improve the weapon, and in 1865 patented a model that was capable of firing 350 rounds per minute. A demonstration was held at Fortress Monroe. This time the ordnance department was impressed and ordered a hundred guns. The Gatling gun was officially adopted by the U.S. Army on August 24, 1866. It was first manufactured by Cooper Arms in Philadelphia, and later by the Colt Arms Company of Hartford, Conn.
Europe and Abroad
Dr. Gatling traveled throughout Europe selling his weapon, and new models were continually being designed. A short-barrel variety was purchased by the British and mounted on camels. This so-called “camel gun” was also used by the U.S. Army and Navy.
As settlers moved west after the Civil War, Army garrisons in forts along the frontier housed Gatling guns. Gatlings were also attached to cavalry expeditions. A Gatling detachment under Lieutenant James W. Pope accompanied General Nelson A. Miles’s campaign into west Texas. On August 30, as an advance party of Army scouts entered a trail that led between two high bluffs, about three hundred Indians charged down the cliffs. At the sound of gunfire, Pope quickly brought up his Gatling guns. The rapid, withering fire scattered the attacking warriors, and they fled in confusion.
During the same year, a battalion of 8th Cavalry, commanded by Major William R. Price, was ordered out to suppress an uprising by several Indian tribes, including Arapaho, Cheyenne, Comanche, and Kiowa. Price was able to successfully fight off several surprise attacks by hostile bands with two Gatling guns.
But in the most famous battle of the Indian Wars, the Gatling was strangely absent. On June 22, 1876, Maj. Gen. George Armstrong Custer and his 7th Cavalry rode out from their Powder River camp and headed for the Little Big Horn River. Custer had been offered three Gatling guns but refused them. He felt that the Gatlings—mounted on horse-drawn carriages—would slow his cavalry troop down in rough country. Custer also believed that the use of such a devastating weapon would cause him to “lose face” with the Indians. Whether or not the Gatlings could have saved Custer and his 200 men is questionable. Some accounts report the column of Indians that retreated after the battle as being three miles long and a half-mile wide.
During the next few years, the Gatling gun participated in a number of battles, including those with the Nez Perce. The warriors under Chief Joseph fought 13 engagements against the U.S. Army, many of which were standoffs. Finally, on September 30, 1877, in the Bear Paw Mountains of Montana, General Nelson Miles, with 600 men and a Gatling gun, attacked Chief Joseph’s camp. After four days of bitter fighting, Chief Joseph could hold out no longer. As he surrendered his rifle to Miles, the valiant Indian leader said, “My heart is sick and sad. From where the sun now stands, I will fight no more forever.”
The Gatling Gun In Africa
During the latter part of the 19th century, Gatling guns became more and more popular, and were used in the many wars that flared during the 1880s and 1890s. The 1879 war between England and the African Zulu tribes was the first major land action in which the Gatling gun proved to be a deciding factor. A small British army, commanded by Lord Chelmsford, defeated a much larger Zulu force under King Cetywayo. In one encounter, a single Gatling mowed down more than 400 tribesmen in only a few minutes.
After his victorious campaign, Lord Chelmsford wrote: “They [Gatling guns] should be considered essentially as infantry weapons. They can be used effectively, not only in defense, but also in covering the last stage of an infantry attack upon a position—where the soldiers must cease firing and charge with the bayonet.”
By the time Dr. Gatling died in 1903, the automatic machine gun had arrived on the scene. It was powered by the discharging gases of its fired cartridges, and was simpler and more economical to use than the manually operated guns. In 1911, the U.S. Army declared the Gatling gun obsolete.
But Richard Gatling’s legacy did not die with him. In September 1956, the General Electric Company unveiled its 6-barrel aerial cannon called the Vulcan. For several years, General Electric had made a detailed study of every rapid-fire gun, and its engineers had found that Dr. Gatling’s original patents offered the most promise for the development of firepower necessary for fast jet fighter aircraft. The Vulcan was also put to use on attack helicopters and gunships.
This article by A.B. Feuer originally appeared on Warfare History Network.
Image: Wikimedia Commons | 1,927 | ENGLISH | 1 |
First Zeppelin Air Raids on London
When WWI began, rumours spread about Germany’s ability to send her giant dirigibles across the sea to attack centres of population and industry.
Count von Zeppelin had developed the machines after his experience in the Franco-Prussian War, taking the concept to a practical stage after his retirement from the military. The first flew in 1900, and major investment was put into the programme as both its civil and military potential was realised. The Germans had seven working military airships when war was declared in 1914, six held by the army, the last in the hands of the navy.
For some time in the early stages of the conflict the machines were largely used for naval reconnaissance, highly effective in that role given their speed – in favourable conditions they could exceed 80mpph – and the elevations they could reach, climbing to a height of 13,000 feet or more. The military hierarchy were keen to develop their use further, however, and tests of their offensive capacity were made in bombing raids over Liege and Antwerp in 1914.
Kaiser Wilhelm seems to have been reluctant to allow the use of this new weapon against targets other than military ones, but in 1915 he was persuaded of the need to do so, partly because French bombers had by then attacked German cities. Raids on Paris, though it was closer than London, meant crossing large tracts of enemy territory, allowing the ground and air defences ahead to be prepared. London, reached by crossing mainly occupied land and the seas, was a safer target.
On January 19 1915 Great Yarmouth, Kings Lynn and Sheringham in Norfolk were raided in a test of the idea. Two civilians died, 16 were injured, and the panic in the country was evidence of the propaganda value of the tactic.
Thus on the night of May 31, 1915, Zeppelin LZ-32 flew about 400 miles to reach the English capital. The machine was about 190m long, and able to carry several tonnes of bomb which by this time had been specially adapted for aerial bombardment. For several hours the airship dropped explosive and incendiary devices over the city. Stoke Newington was the first place to suffer the attack.
Five were killed in the raid, another 35 injured. The panic seen after the Norfolk raid was magnified several times over. Talk went round of invasion by Zeppelin, and of plans for mass raids. What was very clear to the people and the government alike was that the almost non-existent air defences needed to be improved, and major effort was directed to this goal, the warning system being upgraded from policemen with whistles to a rather more sophisticated version, and development of fighter planes with the weaponry and ammunition to down the craft was urgently accelerated.
More famous dates here
14587 views since 10th May 2007
On this day: | <urn:uuid:a16c5ac4-42f1-418b-960c-f6516f91f29c> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://www.information-britain.co.uk/famdates.php?id=355 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251783342.96/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128215526-20200129005526-00448.warc.gz | en | 0.988422 | 580 | 3.34375 | 3 | [
-0.11050551384687424,
0.2492920607328415,
0.15639647841453552,
-0.26188594102859497,
0.15038281679153442,
0.39508190751075745,
-0.26534509658813477,
0.120644710958004,
0.06273341923952103,
-0.3655998706817627,
-0.05110834911465645,
-0.03421720117330551,
-0.3190077543258667,
0.5055246353149... | 1 | First Zeppelin Air Raids on London
When WWI began, rumours spread about Germany’s ability to send her giant dirigibles across the sea to attack centres of population and industry.
Count von Zeppelin had developed the machines after his experience in the Franco-Prussian War, taking the concept to a practical stage after his retirement from the military. The first flew in 1900, and major investment was put into the programme as both its civil and military potential was realised. The Germans had seven working military airships when war was declared in 1914, six held by the army, the last in the hands of the navy.
For some time in the early stages of the conflict the machines were largely used for naval reconnaissance, highly effective in that role given their speed – in favourable conditions they could exceed 80mpph – and the elevations they could reach, climbing to a height of 13,000 feet or more. The military hierarchy were keen to develop their use further, however, and tests of their offensive capacity were made in bombing raids over Liege and Antwerp in 1914.
Kaiser Wilhelm seems to have been reluctant to allow the use of this new weapon against targets other than military ones, but in 1915 he was persuaded of the need to do so, partly because French bombers had by then attacked German cities. Raids on Paris, though it was closer than London, meant crossing large tracts of enemy territory, allowing the ground and air defences ahead to be prepared. London, reached by crossing mainly occupied land and the seas, was a safer target.
On January 19 1915 Great Yarmouth, Kings Lynn and Sheringham in Norfolk were raided in a test of the idea. Two civilians died, 16 were injured, and the panic in the country was evidence of the propaganda value of the tactic.
Thus on the night of May 31, 1915, Zeppelin LZ-32 flew about 400 miles to reach the English capital. The machine was about 190m long, and able to carry several tonnes of bomb which by this time had been specially adapted for aerial bombardment. For several hours the airship dropped explosive and incendiary devices over the city. Stoke Newington was the first place to suffer the attack.
Five were killed in the raid, another 35 injured. The panic seen after the Norfolk raid was magnified several times over. Talk went round of invasion by Zeppelin, and of plans for mass raids. What was very clear to the people and the government alike was that the almost non-existent air defences needed to be improved, and major effort was directed to this goal, the warning system being upgraded from policemen with whistles to a rather more sophisticated version, and development of fighter planes with the weaponry and ammunition to down the craft was urgently accelerated.
More famous dates here
14587 views since 10th May 2007
On this day: | 627 | ENGLISH | 1 |
- Created by: Ellsbells98
- Created on: 03-06-15 13:23
Williams wanted to measure children's behaviour before and after television had been introduced to the town and also to compare the children's behaviour with that in other towns that did have TV.
Williams et al carried out a natural experiment. They measured a range of behaviours before and after the town received television:
- Aggression of children in the playground and classroom
- Leisure activities the community were involved in
- Intelligence level (IQ) of children
- Creativity and reading ability of children
To measure aggression, two observers watched children in the school playground and classroom. They only started observing once the children were used to their presence. This was to make sure the children didn't behave differently because of the observers watching them. They measured the number of physical acts of aggression (hitting) and verbal aggression (teasing). They called the town 'Notel' (not its real name) and also studied two neighbouring towns with similar population and economy: Unitel and Multitel.
- Notel - had no television
- Unitel - had one TV channel
- Multitel - had many TV channels
All three towns were studied before TV was introduced in Notel, and for two years after.
Results after the introduction of TV to notel:-
- The most significant finding came from the observations of aggressive behaviour - the children were… | <urn:uuid:e8046e9d-5ffe-4332-aeb0-90bdfa1f6c18> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://getrevising.co.uk/revision-notes/williams_et_al_1981_does_tv_affect_childrens | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251705142.94/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127174507-20200127204507-00322.warc.gz | en | 0.983549 | 296 | 3.6875 | 4 | [
-0.071456678211689,
-0.10826939344406128,
0.15468792617321014,
-0.2779495120048523,
-0.25483834743499756,
0.603507399559021,
-0.031023085117340088,
0.2586718499660492,
0.3247295022010803,
0.20603089034557343,
0.49928760528564453,
-0.45830538868904114,
0.07497049868106842,
0.180364176630973... | 1 | - Created by: Ellsbells98
- Created on: 03-06-15 13:23
Williams wanted to measure children's behaviour before and after television had been introduced to the town and also to compare the children's behaviour with that in other towns that did have TV.
Williams et al carried out a natural experiment. They measured a range of behaviours before and after the town received television:
- Aggression of children in the playground and classroom
- Leisure activities the community were involved in
- Intelligence level (IQ) of children
- Creativity and reading ability of children
To measure aggression, two observers watched children in the school playground and classroom. They only started observing once the children were used to their presence. This was to make sure the children didn't behave differently because of the observers watching them. They measured the number of physical acts of aggression (hitting) and verbal aggression (teasing). They called the town 'Notel' (not its real name) and also studied two neighbouring towns with similar population and economy: Unitel and Multitel.
- Notel - had no television
- Unitel - had one TV channel
- Multitel - had many TV channels
All three towns were studied before TV was introduced in Notel, and for two years after.
Results after the introduction of TV to notel:-
- The most significant finding came from the observations of aggressive behaviour - the children were… | 297 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Sometimes prosthetics are used for aesthetics reasons. Sometimes they’re also functional as it allows its wearer to walk or to hold object, but unfortunately for the most part, they don’t actually allow the wearer to feel like they would with an actual limb. However over at John Hopkins University, that will soon change.
By using DARPA-developed neural technologies, researchers at the university have crafted a mechanical prosthetic hand that can actually allow its wearer to feel. They tested it out with a 28-year old patient who reportedly was left paralyzed due to spinal injuries. In their tests, they blindfolded the patient and he was able to 100% successfully tell which mechanical finger was being touched.
This is taking mind-controlled prosthetics to the next level. As pointed out by Gizmag, previously there were prosthetics that could be controlled by the mind, but it was typically a one-way street. However by allowing the prosthetic to actually “feel”, it comes pretty close to having an actual hand that can touch, feel, grip, and so on.
This is thanks to the built-in sensors that can detect when pressure is applied, which is then converted into electrical signals that are sent to the brain that are interpreted as touch. How long it will take before more prosthetics like this can be offered to amputees remains to be seen, but we like the direction they are headed at.
Filed in Darpa.. Read more about | <urn:uuid:d76de03a-863e-4e9c-8795-9d0c5d441658> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.ubergizmo.com/2015/09/prosthetic-hand-darpa-technology/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250598800.30/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120135447-20200120164447-00492.warc.gz | en | 0.980502 | 304 | 3.390625 | 3 | [
-0.23018983006477356,
0.0878983587026596,
0.35432732105255127,
-0.045351579785346985,
-0.4183107316493988,
0.5116095542907715,
0.9717491865158081,
0.06700713187456131,
-0.08073285222053528,
-0.1424780786037445,
0.07379940897226334,
0.22712700068950653,
-0.34575721621513367,
0.2980120778083... | 10 | Sometimes prosthetics are used for aesthetics reasons. Sometimes they’re also functional as it allows its wearer to walk or to hold object, but unfortunately for the most part, they don’t actually allow the wearer to feel like they would with an actual limb. However over at John Hopkins University, that will soon change.
By using DARPA-developed neural technologies, researchers at the university have crafted a mechanical prosthetic hand that can actually allow its wearer to feel. They tested it out with a 28-year old patient who reportedly was left paralyzed due to spinal injuries. In their tests, they blindfolded the patient and he was able to 100% successfully tell which mechanical finger was being touched.
This is taking mind-controlled prosthetics to the next level. As pointed out by Gizmag, previously there were prosthetics that could be controlled by the mind, but it was typically a one-way street. However by allowing the prosthetic to actually “feel”, it comes pretty close to having an actual hand that can touch, feel, grip, and so on.
This is thanks to the built-in sensors that can detect when pressure is applied, which is then converted into electrical signals that are sent to the brain that are interpreted as touch. How long it will take before more prosthetics like this can be offered to amputees remains to be seen, but we like the direction they are headed at.
Filed in Darpa.. Read more about | 291 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The city of Lodz is located about 75 miles southwest of Warsaw, Poland. The Jews of Lodz formed the second largest Jewish community in pre-war Poland, after Warsaw. German troops occupied Lodz one week after Germany invaded Poland on September 1, 1939. Lodz was annexed to Germany as part of the Warthegau.
Lodz was known as the “Polish Manchester”. It was an industrial, multi-ethnic city of the 19th century. Its smokestacks and factories dotted the entire landscape as its population grew almost 1000% in less than a century. People were drawn here by opportunity to find work and the work opportunities grew and grew.
The history of the Jewish community is very much interrelated with the city’s economic growth. The first Jewish families came to Lodz before 1775 and by 1793 there were 11 Jewish families recorded. By 1820 there were 259 Jewish families and at this time the organisation of a community had begun to take shape. The first Synagogue was established in 1809 at Wolborska Street and a cemetery was built in 1811 and remained ‘open’ until 1892. It was unfortunately destroyed by the Nazis. | <urn:uuid:f5ac5fe8-46fc-448f-bea6-10c04cc1f74a> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.marchoftheliving.org.uk/location/lodz/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594333.5/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119064802-20200119092802-00020.warc.gz | en | 0.991089 | 248 | 3.765625 | 4 | [
-0.29055333137512207,
0.13134737312793732,
0.12470938265323639,
0.4119856357574463,
0.06519869714975357,
-0.09619831293821335,
0.00482911104336381,
0.2871851325035095,
-0.4255654811859131,
-0.544343113899231,
-0.05366408824920654,
-0.2762383222579956,
-0.19781014323234558,
0.25084140896797... | 1 | The city of Lodz is located about 75 miles southwest of Warsaw, Poland. The Jews of Lodz formed the second largest Jewish community in pre-war Poland, after Warsaw. German troops occupied Lodz one week after Germany invaded Poland on September 1, 1939. Lodz was annexed to Germany as part of the Warthegau.
Lodz was known as the “Polish Manchester”. It was an industrial, multi-ethnic city of the 19th century. Its smokestacks and factories dotted the entire landscape as its population grew almost 1000% in less than a century. People were drawn here by opportunity to find work and the work opportunities grew and grew.
The history of the Jewish community is very much interrelated with the city’s economic growth. The first Jewish families came to Lodz before 1775 and by 1793 there were 11 Jewish families recorded. By 1820 there were 259 Jewish families and at this time the organisation of a community had begun to take shape. The first Synagogue was established in 1809 at Wolborska Street and a cemetery was built in 1811 and remained ‘open’ until 1892. It was unfortunately destroyed by the Nazis. | 274 | ENGLISH | 1 |
History Thesis: Reconstruction Era Essay
After the Civil War, America was still amidst great turmoil and economic instability. During this time period, the ultimate goal for Americans was to seize the “American Dream”. This was defined by most as being able to support their family and live a comfortable life. Although some did achieve this, many faced social, political and economic hardships. Beginning with the unjust treatment of African-Americans, then the struggles of immigrants, and followed by the rise of big businesses, the challenges faced during this time of rebuilding varied among the classes.
Of all the groups, African-Americans, had the most treacherous economic ladder to climb. Immediately following the Civil War they had the freedoms necessary to obtain economic success. They were ready to take advantage of their newly found rights as Americans after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. Many African-Americans began to find jobs away from the plantations or even re-negotiate deals with their previous masters. The photograph, “Hampton Institute, 1900”, depicted a painting of blacks working on a stair case.
This is a metaphor to the way the ex-slaves had to start at the bottom and work their way up.
They were complacent with this because they thought if they worked hard, it would be possible for them to seize the “American Dream”. By the turn of the decade, hundreds were elected to office, including two state-lieutenant governors and fifteen into the House of Representatives. However, whites became displeased with the advancement of African-Americans and sought out to limit their ability of being independently successful. Once the reconstruction period ended and the south had control again, the government decided to implement laws that barred African-Americans of exercising their simple rights.
The Grandfather Clause, was one of these laws passed that created new, more extraneous restrictions for voting. It was doctored-in, in order to limit the amount of African-Americans who could vote. Many of them could not pass these simple literacy tests required to register. They also had difficulty paying a poll tax that was just too expensive, while whites were exempted from these laws because their grandfather had previously voted. To further limit their abilities to succeed in America, the Klu Klux Klan was organized to intimidate and kill free blacks This was considerably the worst time in the history of America for African-Americans.
As they realized this the people started to form organizations so they could have formal representation on their behalf. By 1909, a well-educated, Harvard Graduate, W. E. B. Dubois founded the NAACP. The purpose of this organization was to actively seek better civil rights laws pertaining to minorities. Although these new civil rights groups were being formed, African-Americans still had a difficult time becoming successful and would have a long path ahead of them until they could gain full sovereignty. Immigrants, on the other hand, came in huge waves. A diversified group of people, a few became rich, the rest were manipulated by Americans.
The first wave mostly hailed from Northern Europe. These would turn out to be the most prosperous of the immigrants, the big businessmen, which will be touched on in the next topic. The next wave, mixed more with Eastern Europeans and Chinese, who were not quite as buoyant. The supply of laborers flooded the market, which decreased wages dramatically. The high level of competition created difficult times, causing many cut backs on costs in anyway possible. For example, “Tenement Picture 2” depicts seven immigrants crammed in a room who were doing their best to work, ignoring lengthy shifts and dangerous working conditions.
Between 1880 and 1900, more than 35,000 people were killed on the job. Immigrants often offered to work for less than white males because of their needs to work by any means necessary. This instilled the view of white “Nativism” towards immigrants, because many whites lost their jobs. They believed they had a certain rights as America’s first colonists! These “newcomers” did not deserve to come here and steal their jobs. Mike Trudic’s account from his childhood referred to his father’s hunt in America to desperately find work, “At the end of a week he was taken ill and died.
It said he died of a broken heart”(Mike, 188). There were just too many workers and not enough jobs to be filled. Another first hand source provided by Rose Cohen, called Out of the Shadow, depicts the story of a jewish girl in New York and the experiences her family goes through in order to reach a sustainable lifestyle. The struggles included descriptions of harsh working conditions and anti-semitism, which created difficulty for immigrants who were trying to assimilate into the American culture.
The formation of unions helped workers of similar nature band together and demand better wages for their work. Many workers went on-strike, demanding higher wages, but living paycheck to paycheck it was difficult to weather out an entire strike. With the onset of industrialization and the automation of many factory jobs, the amount of jobs available decreased and further dumbed down the jobs, requiring less education to operate effectively, and further increasing the market for competition.
Immigrants just wanted to sustain a good job that can make them enough money to support their family and live comfortably, but had a tough time being affluent in America while working wage-labor shifts in poor working conditions. It seemed like there was no way to break through the glass barrier that seemed to be growing between the social elite and lower-class, which limited immigrants economic success. At the same time these economic struggles are taking place for African-Americans and later immigrants, there were Americans who were financially well-off.
Following the Civil War and Reconstruction, the economy was weak and the market had low barriers-to-entry. This was a result of the governments enforcement of “Laissez-Faire”, meaning “hands-off”, and the lack of government regulations. Few took advantage of this raw economy with few rules, but for those who did it paid off significantly. Through hard work, and fortunate investing, anyone could climb the ladder to success in an unbelievably fast rate. One of the success stories was John Rockefeller, founder of Standard Oil, and a prominent businessman.
Rockefeller revolutionized the way business was conducted in America. His vision was to obtain full horizontal integration by building a monopoly and destroying his competitors. He was cut-throat in his approach to business, sometimes cutting deals with railroads to run people out of business. In a six-week period he remarkably took over 22 of 26 competitors in a six-week period. He proved Horatio Algers claim that, “through hard-work and a little luck, anyone can climb the ladder to success”. Rockefeller maximized the usage of capitalism, and emulated the “American Dream”.
The lack of government regulation led to an unbalanced distribution of wealth across the different social classes. Ruthless business practices limited the affluence to the social-elite, through social darwinism. Social darwinism expanded on the theory that talented individuals will succeed, due to the high competition, and those who are weaker will be left behind. From this perspective, any form of government regulations would slow down progress. Many industrialist argued that monopolies were good for business.
This was because they eliminated the competition and allowed for one corporation to decide the terms of business, typically unfair towards the lower classes. Compared to the easy barriers-to-entry in the marketplace earlier in the century, there was no free market present at the period. Big businessmen seized most of the opportunities and maximized their wealth. A vivid example of corporate power was the picture of John Rockefeller holding the government in his hand saying, “What a funny little government. Most of the wealth belonged to a small group of people at the top, who had great political influence by buying politicians with their hefty bank accounts. Henry George, author of Progress and Poverty, raised the question, “is class inequality inevitable? And if it was America was doomed”. This was an important question that desperately needed to be answered by the American people and government, if America was going to succeed. Otherwise, America would never become what it was meant to be, a land of equality among all peoples.
With this new found wealth big businessmen took it upon themselves to partake in the earliest forms of philanthropy. Andrew Carnegie stated, “The man who dies thus rich dies disgraced”(Andrew), They began to give back to the community that made them their fortunes by investing in medicinal research, education and other ways to create jobs. Along with governments forming regulations on businesses the class stratification grew significantly. Although there were great stories of success, the impediments standing in the way for most Americans hindered their ability to succeed.
This is important issue in American history because it exposed the difficulty of grasping the “American Dream”. With the harsh treatment of African-Americans and the poor working conditions for immigrants it was an overall difficult beginning to a new union and new era in America. The wealth in America was distributed disproportionally, but through progression, the class stratification began to balance. However, there would still prove to be a long journey ahead towards reaching civil equality for all classes
Cite this History Thesis: Reconstruction Era Essay
History Thesis: Reconstruction Era Essay. (2017, Feb 16). Retrieved from https://graduateway.com/history-thesis-reconstruction-era/ | <urn:uuid:4ef9db6c-6207-4d3e-961e-30ab120a60ee> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://graduateway.com/history-thesis-reconstruction-era/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594101.10/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119010920-20200119034920-00308.warc.gz | en | 0.982793 | 1,963 | 4.09375 | 4 | [
-0.5226813554763794,
0.27529841661453247,
0.14433911442756653,
0.13769057393074036,
-0.2592355012893677,
0.3395174741744995,
-0.37652450799942017,
-0.07432548701763153,
-0.3560851812362671,
0.12726207077503204,
0.2824714481830597,
0.33242639899253845,
-0.13673508167266846,
0.12105271220207... | 1 | History Thesis: Reconstruction Era Essay
After the Civil War, America was still amidst great turmoil and economic instability. During this time period, the ultimate goal for Americans was to seize the “American Dream”. This was defined by most as being able to support their family and live a comfortable life. Although some did achieve this, many faced social, political and economic hardships. Beginning with the unjust treatment of African-Americans, then the struggles of immigrants, and followed by the rise of big businesses, the challenges faced during this time of rebuilding varied among the classes.
Of all the groups, African-Americans, had the most treacherous economic ladder to climb. Immediately following the Civil War they had the freedoms necessary to obtain economic success. They were ready to take advantage of their newly found rights as Americans after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. Many African-Americans began to find jobs away from the plantations or even re-negotiate deals with their previous masters. The photograph, “Hampton Institute, 1900”, depicted a painting of blacks working on a stair case.
This is a metaphor to the way the ex-slaves had to start at the bottom and work their way up.
They were complacent with this because they thought if they worked hard, it would be possible for them to seize the “American Dream”. By the turn of the decade, hundreds were elected to office, including two state-lieutenant governors and fifteen into the House of Representatives. However, whites became displeased with the advancement of African-Americans and sought out to limit their ability of being independently successful. Once the reconstruction period ended and the south had control again, the government decided to implement laws that barred African-Americans of exercising their simple rights.
The Grandfather Clause, was one of these laws passed that created new, more extraneous restrictions for voting. It was doctored-in, in order to limit the amount of African-Americans who could vote. Many of them could not pass these simple literacy tests required to register. They also had difficulty paying a poll tax that was just too expensive, while whites were exempted from these laws because their grandfather had previously voted. To further limit their abilities to succeed in America, the Klu Klux Klan was organized to intimidate and kill free blacks This was considerably the worst time in the history of America for African-Americans.
As they realized this the people started to form organizations so they could have formal representation on their behalf. By 1909, a well-educated, Harvard Graduate, W. E. B. Dubois founded the NAACP. The purpose of this organization was to actively seek better civil rights laws pertaining to minorities. Although these new civil rights groups were being formed, African-Americans still had a difficult time becoming successful and would have a long path ahead of them until they could gain full sovereignty. Immigrants, on the other hand, came in huge waves. A diversified group of people, a few became rich, the rest were manipulated by Americans.
The first wave mostly hailed from Northern Europe. These would turn out to be the most prosperous of the immigrants, the big businessmen, which will be touched on in the next topic. The next wave, mixed more with Eastern Europeans and Chinese, who were not quite as buoyant. The supply of laborers flooded the market, which decreased wages dramatically. The high level of competition created difficult times, causing many cut backs on costs in anyway possible. For example, “Tenement Picture 2” depicts seven immigrants crammed in a room who were doing their best to work, ignoring lengthy shifts and dangerous working conditions.
Between 1880 and 1900, more than 35,000 people were killed on the job. Immigrants often offered to work for less than white males because of their needs to work by any means necessary. This instilled the view of white “Nativism” towards immigrants, because many whites lost their jobs. They believed they had a certain rights as America’s first colonists! These “newcomers” did not deserve to come here and steal their jobs. Mike Trudic’s account from his childhood referred to his father’s hunt in America to desperately find work, “At the end of a week he was taken ill and died.
It said he died of a broken heart”(Mike, 188). There were just too many workers and not enough jobs to be filled. Another first hand source provided by Rose Cohen, called Out of the Shadow, depicts the story of a jewish girl in New York and the experiences her family goes through in order to reach a sustainable lifestyle. The struggles included descriptions of harsh working conditions and anti-semitism, which created difficulty for immigrants who were trying to assimilate into the American culture.
The formation of unions helped workers of similar nature band together and demand better wages for their work. Many workers went on-strike, demanding higher wages, but living paycheck to paycheck it was difficult to weather out an entire strike. With the onset of industrialization and the automation of many factory jobs, the amount of jobs available decreased and further dumbed down the jobs, requiring less education to operate effectively, and further increasing the market for competition.
Immigrants just wanted to sustain a good job that can make them enough money to support their family and live comfortably, but had a tough time being affluent in America while working wage-labor shifts in poor working conditions. It seemed like there was no way to break through the glass barrier that seemed to be growing between the social elite and lower-class, which limited immigrants economic success. At the same time these economic struggles are taking place for African-Americans and later immigrants, there were Americans who were financially well-off.
Following the Civil War and Reconstruction, the economy was weak and the market had low barriers-to-entry. This was a result of the governments enforcement of “Laissez-Faire”, meaning “hands-off”, and the lack of government regulations. Few took advantage of this raw economy with few rules, but for those who did it paid off significantly. Through hard work, and fortunate investing, anyone could climb the ladder to success in an unbelievably fast rate. One of the success stories was John Rockefeller, founder of Standard Oil, and a prominent businessman.
Rockefeller revolutionized the way business was conducted in America. His vision was to obtain full horizontal integration by building a monopoly and destroying his competitors. He was cut-throat in his approach to business, sometimes cutting deals with railroads to run people out of business. In a six-week period he remarkably took over 22 of 26 competitors in a six-week period. He proved Horatio Algers claim that, “through hard-work and a little luck, anyone can climb the ladder to success”. Rockefeller maximized the usage of capitalism, and emulated the “American Dream”.
The lack of government regulation led to an unbalanced distribution of wealth across the different social classes. Ruthless business practices limited the affluence to the social-elite, through social darwinism. Social darwinism expanded on the theory that talented individuals will succeed, due to the high competition, and those who are weaker will be left behind. From this perspective, any form of government regulations would slow down progress. Many industrialist argued that monopolies were good for business.
This was because they eliminated the competition and allowed for one corporation to decide the terms of business, typically unfair towards the lower classes. Compared to the easy barriers-to-entry in the marketplace earlier in the century, there was no free market present at the period. Big businessmen seized most of the opportunities and maximized their wealth. A vivid example of corporate power was the picture of John Rockefeller holding the government in his hand saying, “What a funny little government. Most of the wealth belonged to a small group of people at the top, who had great political influence by buying politicians with their hefty bank accounts. Henry George, author of Progress and Poverty, raised the question, “is class inequality inevitable? And if it was America was doomed”. This was an important question that desperately needed to be answered by the American people and government, if America was going to succeed. Otherwise, America would never become what it was meant to be, a land of equality among all peoples.
With this new found wealth big businessmen took it upon themselves to partake in the earliest forms of philanthropy. Andrew Carnegie stated, “The man who dies thus rich dies disgraced”(Andrew), They began to give back to the community that made them their fortunes by investing in medicinal research, education and other ways to create jobs. Along with governments forming regulations on businesses the class stratification grew significantly. Although there were great stories of success, the impediments standing in the way for most Americans hindered their ability to succeed.
This is important issue in American history because it exposed the difficulty of grasping the “American Dream”. With the harsh treatment of African-Americans and the poor working conditions for immigrants it was an overall difficult beginning to a new union and new era in America. The wealth in America was distributed disproportionally, but through progression, the class stratification began to balance. However, there would still prove to be a long journey ahead towards reaching civil equality for all classes
Cite this History Thesis: Reconstruction Era Essay
History Thesis: Reconstruction Era Essay. (2017, Feb 16). Retrieved from https://graduateway.com/history-thesis-reconstruction-era/ | 1,910 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Moving animals around is no easy task. In translocations (a catch-all word which is used in science to mean moving animals around for many different reasons), the animal has to be crated, calmed, and carried away to its destination. Transportation means vary by location. In the first Swedish beaver reintroduction effort in 1922, train, horse cart, sledge, boat, and foot were all involved.
In 1934, a Norwegian beaver bound for her new Swedish home got to fly on a plane. In a previous post I’d written which discusses the flight, I said it was a pair of beavers, but now I see that it was just one female. In fact, for just one beaver being moved, two hydroplanes were taken! The reason was that in addition to the pilot and people involved in the reintroduction, including Eric Festin, a mechanic needed to make the journey in case a plane broke down and there wouldn’t have been enough room for him with just one plane.
But the flying beaver is nothing compared to the parachuting beavers I found in an article in Popular Mechanics from 1949 titled ‘Moving day for the parabeavers‘. Beavers in Idaho that had become nuisances by backing up water into unpopular places needed to be relocated. Although beavers had been nearly extinct in the state at the beginning of the 20th century, a successful conservation program had led to a dramatic recovery. According to the article, the Idaho beaver population by 1949 had rebounded to about 90,000 beavers.
In addition to the standard relocation via truck, the trapper John Rynearson had set up an ingenious translocation scheme: parachuting. A special beaver crate was constructed with a parachute attached and a problem beaver put into it. A plane was flown over an uninhabited suitable habitat area and the crate was dropped out. The crate would parachute to the ground and then the specially-designed crate would open, letting the beaver out to its new home in the middle of nowhere. This ‘cheaper and more reliable’ alternative to ground transportation offered possibilities to relocate the beavers anywhere. As of the writing of the article in 1949, 35 beavers had been successfully dropped from the sky to new homes. It must have been a sight to see beavers drop from the sky. | <urn:uuid:be1c0958-9dd6-4ff8-bb7f-262507ba08cf> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://dolly.jorgensenweb.net/nordicnature/?p=1920 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250595282.35/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119205448-20200119233448-00444.warc.gz | en | 0.98017 | 484 | 3.5625 | 4 | [
-0.0606052428483963,
-0.46297135949134827,
0.2396058738231659,
0.28425657749176025,
-0.10875403136014938,
-0.04187754541635513,
0.23915967345237732,
0.7699400186538696,
0.05569978430867195,
0.5291017889976501,
0.29856303334236145,
-0.3010239005088806,
0.1131558045744896,
0.0008477198425680... | 5 | Moving animals around is no easy task. In translocations (a catch-all word which is used in science to mean moving animals around for many different reasons), the animal has to be crated, calmed, and carried away to its destination. Transportation means vary by location. In the first Swedish beaver reintroduction effort in 1922, train, horse cart, sledge, boat, and foot were all involved.
In 1934, a Norwegian beaver bound for her new Swedish home got to fly on a plane. In a previous post I’d written which discusses the flight, I said it was a pair of beavers, but now I see that it was just one female. In fact, for just one beaver being moved, two hydroplanes were taken! The reason was that in addition to the pilot and people involved in the reintroduction, including Eric Festin, a mechanic needed to make the journey in case a plane broke down and there wouldn’t have been enough room for him with just one plane.
But the flying beaver is nothing compared to the parachuting beavers I found in an article in Popular Mechanics from 1949 titled ‘Moving day for the parabeavers‘. Beavers in Idaho that had become nuisances by backing up water into unpopular places needed to be relocated. Although beavers had been nearly extinct in the state at the beginning of the 20th century, a successful conservation program had led to a dramatic recovery. According to the article, the Idaho beaver population by 1949 had rebounded to about 90,000 beavers.
In addition to the standard relocation via truck, the trapper John Rynearson had set up an ingenious translocation scheme: parachuting. A special beaver crate was constructed with a parachute attached and a problem beaver put into it. A plane was flown over an uninhabited suitable habitat area and the crate was dropped out. The crate would parachute to the ground and then the specially-designed crate would open, letting the beaver out to its new home in the middle of nowhere. This ‘cheaper and more reliable’ alternative to ground transportation offered possibilities to relocate the beavers anywhere. As of the writing of the article in 1949, 35 beavers had been successfully dropped from the sky to new homes. It must have been a sight to see beavers drop from the sky. | 499 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Rene Descartes and David Hume touched upon epistemology on the same question, “where does human knowledge come from? ” They both came to very different conclusions. Descartes claimed that our knowledge came from human reasoning alone and this is an absolute certainty principle. This faculty of reasoning is innate tool that came with human species. He called this tool, “mind,” which is separated from our body. Hume on the other hand, claimed that human learned from observing the empirical world, and connecting ideas using, “cause and effect.
Rene Descartes realized that many of the things that he have accepted as the truth was false opinions, and consequentially the principles that were built upon them. He wanted to start anew by try to find out “the truth”, and then build upon that, because the foundation of science requires absolute certainty. In his attempt to find “the truth,” he started to criticize all of the things he had formally believed: applying the method of doubts, and then remove from the foundation what he found to be doubtable or deducible.
He did this as he believed as his doubt increase, certainty decrease and vice versa. By the end of Meditation I, he was in a state called “Abyss,” where he was skeptical of all things and decided that the empirical world was presented to him by an evil demon He then reasoned that for him to be deceived by the demon, he must exist as something, a mind or a thinking thing After stating that his mind is the sole certain thing, he used wax to illustrate that human cannot achieve knowledge through sense, or imagination alone.
He stated that just from observing a piece of already melted wax, he would not be able to identify it as the same piece of wax he had seen earlier in its former form, if he had not been witnessing the melting process. So, sense alone is not the source of knowledge. If he then removed every qualities that a piece of wax can be without, what remain is “something extended, flexible and movable. ” From this explanation, a piece of wax could take any shapes and volume, which would not help him at all in identifying the nature of this piece of wax.
Thus, imagination alone also could not be the source of human knowledge. He concluded that the nature of a piece wax can only be perceived through the inspection of the mind (pure reason) as the other two, sense and imagination, were ruled out. Thus, knowledge is a priori, and Descartes was a Rationalist. However, how could Descartes deny sense data completely, if he had to acquire the appearance of a piece of wax or the knowledge of its nature through sense data in the first instance (before it was melted).
So he started the wax argument by contradicting himself by explaining to us what he sensed of a piece of wax. His reply was that an ordinary language almost as well led him to an error that he saw the wax (from sense data), but in the reality his faculty of mind interpreted the appearance in front of him to be a wax. Another of my objection to his argument is why creating a new thing, a faculty of mind, instate of combining what he already mentioned and known, which are sense and imagination.
In later Meditation, He also use a circular argument to prove the certainty of his reasoning and mind, as he prove God to assure that his reasoning is not fooled by the demon, but we cannot forget that he used his reason to prove God in the first place. His desperation to prove God, and separation of mind and body might be due to the fact that he wanted to serve both of his passions; science and religion. He might be bias in this sense as he doubted until he found want he wanted to seek. David Hume attempted to prove that human knowledge comes from the empirical data and experience.
He started by clearly distinguished between “impression” and “thought and idea” to illustrate that human applies our creative abilities, such as combine, transpose, enlarge and shrink, on our impression to generate thoughts and ideas. He gave two arguments for this position. The first one is human’s ideas and concepts are always complex mixture of simple ideas which are copies of the human’s sensation of the empirical world. The second argument is if a man hasn’t had any experience with a certain object, he would not have any ideas associate with that object.
He challenged oppositionists to prove him otherwise, by giving him an example of thought and idea that is built upon something that had not been seen or heard of before. However, Hume, himself, gave one example that answered to his challenge which was “a missing shade of blue. ” A man would be able to indentify that a shade of missing color from a color scale, even though he hasn’t seen that shade before. Hume stated this example is so singular, it is not worth considering.
Hume then distinguished between two object of human knowledge; relations of idea, which are thing which if were denied would be a contradiction to itself, and matter of fact which its contradiction would still be possible. Hume’s interest was on the later one as he thought the first one was merely a definition or a logical statement. He claimed that the connection between our ideas is cause and effect. For someone to believe that a person can drown in water (effect), he must had before witnessed a drowning incident or had firsthand experience (cause).
For Hume this connection cannot be known by a priori reasoning but always come from experience. Thus, this is a posteriori. However, he was convinced that cause and effect is merely a product of custom and habit. We experience it so many times that we generalize our future on our past, with no certain ground that it will continue to be like the past. This suggests that human knowledge is contingent. Hume could not come up with more certain explanation or step between cause and effect, but he convinced that it was there. Most Descartes was a rationalist.
His work shows that knowledge can only be derived from pure reasoning through innate ability or the faculty of mind, which is certain and proven in Meditation II. He separated this from the body. This leads to a belief that human is more special, as our mind has an ability to provide superior reasoning with give us knowledge. This was in line with Christian belief that men are created in God’s image, which makes us special. By adopting his view, we as a species can rest assures that we are rational being who separated from the rest.
Hume argued that our knowledge which comprised of matter of fact is based on experience, which human connect it using cause and effect. Cause and effect is merely human’s custom and habit. This makes human no more special than any other species in acquiring knowledge. He also implied that human knowledge apart from the relation of idea is contingent. If one has adopted Hume so strictly, one would abandon any knowledge that is not base on mathematic or experience such as metaphysic. Why believe or study it, if it base on something that is contingent, and cannot be proven in any sense.
Cite this page
Descartes vs Hume. (2016, Nov 15). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/descartes-vs-hume-essay | <urn:uuid:15225ae2-0ec5-462f-9f33-9ce5efce923d> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://studymoose.com/descartes-vs-hume-essay | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594391.21/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119093733-20200119121733-00338.warc.gz | en | 0.983462 | 1,518 | 3.46875 | 3 | [
-0.07949601858854294,
0.07510382682085037,
0.10521288216114044,
-0.03963474929332733,
-0.16035838425159454,
-0.04579329863190651,
0.9919581413269043,
0.12181590497493744,
0.15754613280296326,
0.1763383150100708,
0.4958619773387909,
-0.4290372133255005,
0.054051127284765244,
0.3947833478450... | 1 | Rene Descartes and David Hume touched upon epistemology on the same question, “where does human knowledge come from? ” They both came to very different conclusions. Descartes claimed that our knowledge came from human reasoning alone and this is an absolute certainty principle. This faculty of reasoning is innate tool that came with human species. He called this tool, “mind,” which is separated from our body. Hume on the other hand, claimed that human learned from observing the empirical world, and connecting ideas using, “cause and effect.
Rene Descartes realized that many of the things that he have accepted as the truth was false opinions, and consequentially the principles that were built upon them. He wanted to start anew by try to find out “the truth”, and then build upon that, because the foundation of science requires absolute certainty. In his attempt to find “the truth,” he started to criticize all of the things he had formally believed: applying the method of doubts, and then remove from the foundation what he found to be doubtable or deducible.
He did this as he believed as his doubt increase, certainty decrease and vice versa. By the end of Meditation I, he was in a state called “Abyss,” where he was skeptical of all things and decided that the empirical world was presented to him by an evil demon He then reasoned that for him to be deceived by the demon, he must exist as something, a mind or a thinking thing After stating that his mind is the sole certain thing, he used wax to illustrate that human cannot achieve knowledge through sense, or imagination alone.
He stated that just from observing a piece of already melted wax, he would not be able to identify it as the same piece of wax he had seen earlier in its former form, if he had not been witnessing the melting process. So, sense alone is not the source of knowledge. If he then removed every qualities that a piece of wax can be without, what remain is “something extended, flexible and movable. ” From this explanation, a piece of wax could take any shapes and volume, which would not help him at all in identifying the nature of this piece of wax.
Thus, imagination alone also could not be the source of human knowledge. He concluded that the nature of a piece wax can only be perceived through the inspection of the mind (pure reason) as the other two, sense and imagination, were ruled out. Thus, knowledge is a priori, and Descartes was a Rationalist. However, how could Descartes deny sense data completely, if he had to acquire the appearance of a piece of wax or the knowledge of its nature through sense data in the first instance (before it was melted).
So he started the wax argument by contradicting himself by explaining to us what he sensed of a piece of wax. His reply was that an ordinary language almost as well led him to an error that he saw the wax (from sense data), but in the reality his faculty of mind interpreted the appearance in front of him to be a wax. Another of my objection to his argument is why creating a new thing, a faculty of mind, instate of combining what he already mentioned and known, which are sense and imagination.
In later Meditation, He also use a circular argument to prove the certainty of his reasoning and mind, as he prove God to assure that his reasoning is not fooled by the demon, but we cannot forget that he used his reason to prove God in the first place. His desperation to prove God, and separation of mind and body might be due to the fact that he wanted to serve both of his passions; science and religion. He might be bias in this sense as he doubted until he found want he wanted to seek. David Hume attempted to prove that human knowledge comes from the empirical data and experience.
He started by clearly distinguished between “impression” and “thought and idea” to illustrate that human applies our creative abilities, such as combine, transpose, enlarge and shrink, on our impression to generate thoughts and ideas. He gave two arguments for this position. The first one is human’s ideas and concepts are always complex mixture of simple ideas which are copies of the human’s sensation of the empirical world. The second argument is if a man hasn’t had any experience with a certain object, he would not have any ideas associate with that object.
He challenged oppositionists to prove him otherwise, by giving him an example of thought and idea that is built upon something that had not been seen or heard of before. However, Hume, himself, gave one example that answered to his challenge which was “a missing shade of blue. ” A man would be able to indentify that a shade of missing color from a color scale, even though he hasn’t seen that shade before. Hume stated this example is so singular, it is not worth considering.
Hume then distinguished between two object of human knowledge; relations of idea, which are thing which if were denied would be a contradiction to itself, and matter of fact which its contradiction would still be possible. Hume’s interest was on the later one as he thought the first one was merely a definition or a logical statement. He claimed that the connection between our ideas is cause and effect. For someone to believe that a person can drown in water (effect), he must had before witnessed a drowning incident or had firsthand experience (cause).
For Hume this connection cannot be known by a priori reasoning but always come from experience. Thus, this is a posteriori. However, he was convinced that cause and effect is merely a product of custom and habit. We experience it so many times that we generalize our future on our past, with no certain ground that it will continue to be like the past. This suggests that human knowledge is contingent. Hume could not come up with more certain explanation or step between cause and effect, but he convinced that it was there. Most Descartes was a rationalist.
His work shows that knowledge can only be derived from pure reasoning through innate ability or the faculty of mind, which is certain and proven in Meditation II. He separated this from the body. This leads to a belief that human is more special, as our mind has an ability to provide superior reasoning with give us knowledge. This was in line with Christian belief that men are created in God’s image, which makes us special. By adopting his view, we as a species can rest assures that we are rational being who separated from the rest.
Hume argued that our knowledge which comprised of matter of fact is based on experience, which human connect it using cause and effect. Cause and effect is merely human’s custom and habit. This makes human no more special than any other species in acquiring knowledge. He also implied that human knowledge apart from the relation of idea is contingent. If one has adopted Hume so strictly, one would abandon any knowledge that is not base on mathematic or experience such as metaphysic. Why believe or study it, if it base on something that is contingent, and cannot be proven in any sense.
Cite this page
Descartes vs Hume. (2016, Nov 15). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/descartes-vs-hume-essay | 1,476 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Where Was God? The Story of Esther
The First Wife
The original authors of the Old Testament believed very strongly that God had a hand in all things. That philosophy was showcased throughout the 39 books that make up the Old Testament; save for two, the Songs of Solomon and the Book of Esther. In fact, in Esther, God is more visible from His absence than His presence. He’s not mentioned even once; yet He’s still there, working behind the scenes to save the Jews.
The Book of Esther is a fascinating drama of heroism, revenge, genocide, and justice. Her story has been the subject of many movies and inspired the names of countless girls throughout history. The story opens in the palace of King Xerxes, who ruled over the upper Nile region from India to Cush. The other books of the Bible explain how the Jews were taken by King Nebuchadnezzar and ended up in Babylonian captivity. The books of Ezra and Nehemiah examine their return to their plundered homeland in Jerusalem. However, by the time of Esther, some fifty years later, many people had chosen to remain behind, among them was a man named Mordecai, of the tribe of Benjamin. The Jews who had remained in Babylon weren’t slaves, but neither were they considered equal.
King Xerxes was a dangerously unpredictable man. The ancient historian Herodotus records an incident wherein the Hellespont (the passage between the Aegean Sea and the Sea of Marmara) in the midst of a dangerous storm had swallowed a bridge that Xerxes had built. In retaliation he had ordered the sea itself to be punished with 300 lashes, shackles be thrown into the water, the Hellespont be branded, and the bridge builders beheaded. There’s no word on how his men actually managed to brand water.
Ordering that a body of water be whipped, shackled, and branded are the actions of a man drunk with power. However, according to Herodotus, Xerxes also liked to get drunk with wine. And it is here that our story opens. King Xerxes, in the third year of his reign, gave a large banquet to all the nobles. The affair was meant as a show of his kingdom’s wealth and his own glory and might. For 180 days, as we learn in the first chapter of Esther, Xerxes displayed his riches and majesty to all the nobles and military leaders of Persia and Media. After this six month ego trip, he gave a week long banquet where the wine flowed like a river from personalized goblets of gold. While the king kept the men in good spirits, the lovely Queen Vashti entertained the women of the royal palace and hosted a lavish banquet.
At week’s end, King Xerxes summoned his eunuchs to fetch Queen Vashti. He wanted to exhibit her beauty for all the nobility to see and admire. However, when the eunuchs returned it was with a message that the queen had refused to come. The Bible never explains her refusal, it’s likely the authors themselves are ignorant to the reason. Xerxes himself certainly never asked why, instead he “burned with anger” at the queens insolence. He consulted with his advisors on the legal way to handle his wife, and they recommended that she be made an example. All the nobility and their wives were present, and the king’s men reasoned that if the king didn’t act the women would take that as permission to be disrespectful to their own husbands. Upon their advice, the king issued a decree to be proclaimed throughout the land, that the queen be banished from the palace, never to return.
After Vashti was exiled from the palace, the Bible tells us three years had passed. The authors don’t mention it, but we know from history that Xerxes had mustered a massive army and invaded Greece during that time. He failed in his endeavor and upon his return to Persia and Media he redirected his focus to finding a new queen. He didn’t want just any queen though, he wanted a gorgeous young virgin that would surpass the former queen Vashti. He announced a search for a new queen and commissioned Hegai, who was in charge of the harem, to size up the women, choose the best ones, give them beauty treatments, and special food, and then taken to the king for selection. The whole process took a year; six months treatment with oil and myrrh, and six months treatment with perfume and cosmetics.
According to the law, what must be done to Queen Vashti? She has not obeyed the command of King Xerxes.— Esther 1:15
The New Wife
Once the king’s edict had been announced, many young women were presented to Hegai for inspection. Now here, in the city of Susa, we meet our heroine. Mordecai, mentioned above, had raised his orphaned cousin from childhood. The child, named Esther, had grown into a beautiful young lady so Mordecai put her in the care of Hegai to be considered by the king. Given that the Jews were second class citizens, Mordecai found it prudent to caution Esther to not reveal her ethnicity. She kept her identity a secret and was among those chosen for treatments. Everyday for the next year as she went through her beauty treatment, Mordecai would walk near the courtyard of the harem to find out how Esther was doing and to make sure she was well.
After her year long makeover was finally over, she was presented to Xerxes who became enamored by her looks, grace, and class. He chose her over all the other women and she became queen. To celebrate the occasion, Xerxes invited the nobility over for a massive banquet. He made the day an official holiday throughout all provinces and freely gave away gifts in celebration. However, despite his lavish ceremonies and generosity, the book makes it clear that Esther was at the mercy of his whims. She could only see him when he sought her out, and as the incident with the former queen Vashti made it abundantly clear, she had no choice but to come when summoned.
Though in the royal palace, where one might assume that she would be ‘treated like a queen,’ Mordecai maintained his commitment to his cousin. He continued to go to the palace where he could watch over her. As luck would have it, he was there when he overheard an assassination plot by two of the king’ officers, Bigthana and Teresh. Mordecai warned Esther about the conspiracy and she sent word to the king, making it a point to credit her cousin with the discovery. The two conspirators were hung for their crimes and Mordecai’s actions were recorded in the book of the annals.
There in the palace was a noblemen named Haman, some years after the foiled assassination plot, Xerxes had honored him and placed him second in command. All the officials and nobles and everyone would bow down low and honor him whenever he passed. Everyone, that is, but Mordecai. This angered the egotistical Haman who wanted Mordecai killed for his disobedience. It wasn’t enough that Mordecai be killed though, Haman, in his egomaniacal wrath, wanted every Jew killed for Mordecai’s disrespect. So Haman, who knew a thing or two about egos, decided the best way to handle Mordecai and his people was to appeal to the king’s own ego. Haman went before Xerxes and warned him that the monotheistic Jews would never bow down to the king or respect their laws. The best way to handle them would be to destroy them. Haman assured the king that he himself would pay ten thousand talents of silver to anyone who would carry out the task. Xerxes agreed to Haman’s suggestion and told him to keep his money and that he could “do as he pleased” with the Jews.
If it pleases the king, let a decree be issued to destroy [the Jews], and I will put ten thousand talents of silver into the royal treasury for the men who carry out this business.— Haman, Esther 3:9
The Courage of the Queen
This happened in the twelfth year of Xerxes’ reign, by this time he had been married to Esther for five years and he still remained ignorant of her Hebraic roots. It was during this twelfth year of his reign, on the thirteenth day of the first month, the king’s postmen sent word to all the provinces to “destroy, kill and annihilate all the Jews- young and old, women and little children- on a single day, the thirteenth day of the twelfth month.” (Esther 3:13) The book notes that Xerxes and Haman celebrated the decree with a drink, but that the city of Susa was bewildered. Mordecai, and many others put on sackcloth and publicly mourned the edict, when Esther heard how he was dressed she sent him clothes, but he refused them. So she sent out her eunuch to find out what had troubled her cousin. Only then did she find out about the pending genocide.
Mordecai told her everything and even gave her a copy of the text for the annihilation. He urged her to go to the king and plead on behalf of the Jews. Esther was trapped. Any official who went to the king without being summoned was to be immediately put to death. That was not a matter of annoyance on the part of the king, that was the actual law. Only if he was in a good humor would he extended his golden scepter, thereby sparing the person’s life. To approach him could mean an automatic death sentence, and to wait to be summoned could risk the lives of the Jews. It had already been thirty days since Xerxes last sent for her. Who knows when he would call for her again?
Here we discover how deep ran the faith of Mordecai. He told Esther: “Do not think that because you are in the king’s house you alone of all the Jews will escape. For if you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance for the Jews will arise from another place, but you and your father’s family will perish. And who knows but that you have come to a royal position for such a time as this?” (Esther 4:13-14) Though Esther might have been spared the ethnic cleansing, the king had already proven that he had a violent temper and was often subject to his own fits of rage. He could just as easily turn on Esther as spare her. But as we discovered Mordecai’s faith, we also bear witness to Esther’s courage. She sent word back to Mordecai: “Go, gather together all the Jews who are in Susa, and fast for me. Do not eat or drink for three days, night or day, I and my maids will fast as you do. When this is done, I will go to the king, even though it is against the law. And if I perish, I perish.” (Esther 4:16)
Esther’s bravery is on full display here. As queen to an unpredictable, vicious, and self-centered king, her job was to sit around the courts and look pretty. Xerxes couldn’t even be bothered to tell her he planned to exterminate an entire race of people. He didn’t marry her for her intelligence or out of respect for her, she was an ornament for him to show off. A status symbol in the same manner that a white tiger or lynx would be to the ultra wealthy. He had already disposed of one wife who had displeased him, Esther had no reason to think he wouldn’t do the same to her. Yet she was willing to risk her very life to save her people.
Though Xerxes had married Esther for her beauty, that didn’t mean she was devoid of intelligence. She knew that she couldn’t just walk in, declare she was a Jew, and ask that her people be spared. She knew that she had to flatter the king, soften him, make him want to change his mind. So after the period of fasting she put on her royal robes, and her very life in hand, she entered the forbidden inner court. When the king saw the queen he held out his golden scepter, sparing her life, so she approached. As luck would have it, he was in a good mood. Xerxes asked what she wanted, declaring that even up to half the kingdom would be hers. She told him that she had prepared a feast for he and Haman, and asked that they attend.
When this is done I will go to the king, even though it is against the law. And if I perish, I perish.— Esther, Esther 4:16
God Provides for His People
They ate their meal, and over wine the king again asked what she wanted. She told him that she would prepare another feast for he and Haman the following day, and then she would answer his question. All of this served to make Haman very happy, but as he left the palace he saw Mordecai who had again refused to bow down to him. He went home and called all of his friends together, to them he boasted about all of his wealth, his high position in the kingdom, and his apparent place of honor with the queen. But he finished with the complaint that Mordecai continued to disrespect him, that as long as he saw that Jew sitting at the king’s gate he would never be happy. His wife and friends told him to go ahead and have gallows built, seventy- five feet high, and in the morning he could ask the king to hang Mordecai on them. Afterwards he could go to his dinner with Xerxes and Esther and be happy.
That night, as luck would have it, King Xerxes couldn’t sleep. A man who loved to hear about his own greatness, he ordered was that the book of the annals of his reign be brought to him. The king found the book to be riveting and he stayed up all night reading it. By morning he had gotten to the part where Mordecai had exposed the conspiracy to assassinate him. He asked his officials what honor and recognition he had received for his part in thwarting the plot. The officials informed him that nothing had been done for him. By coincidence, Haman then walked into the court with the intent to ask that Mordecai be hanged on the freshly built gallows. Xerxes saw him and asked “what should be done for the man the king delights to honor?” (Esther 6:6)
Haman and his incredible ego thought to himself, “who would the king rather honor than me?” So he told him to bring the man a royal robe that the king had worn, a horse with a royal crest that the king had ridden, and lead both man and horse through the city streets proclaiming ‘This is what is done for the man the king delights to honor!’” Imagine, if you will, Haman’s surprise when the king told him to go at once and do just as he had suggested for Mordecai the Jew. It was Haman who led Mordecai and the horse through the streets yelling “This is what is done for the man the king delights to honor!” Afterward, Mordecai returned to the king’s gate where he kept watch over his cousin, but Haman returned home to nurse his pride. His wife and friends told him that since Mordecai was Jewish he couldn’t stand against him, that it would be Haman that would be ruined instead. While they were still ‘comforting’ Haman, the king’s men arrived to escort Haman to his banquet.
At the banquet, Xerxes again asked Esther what she had wanted, promising her once again that she would grant her request “even up to half the kingdom.” The Queen answered him “ If I have found favor with you, O King, and if it pleases your majesty, grant me my life-this is my petition. And spare my people, this is my request. For I and my people have been sold for destruction and slaughter and annihilation. If we had merely been sold as male and female slaves, I would have kept quiet, because no such distress would justify disturbing the king.” (Esther 7:3-5) The king asked who had done such a thing as to sell the queen’s people into obliteration. And in a moment of climax, the queen answered “The adversary and enemy is the vile Haman.”
The king got up in a rage, leaving behind his beloved wine, and stormed into the palace garden. Poor Haman knew that his jig was up. He began the day in such high spirits. He was going to have his enemy killed, but instead he had to publicly honor him. He was invited to feast with the king and queen, but now he faced certain death. Everything went wrong for Haman, it was a very bad day. He knew the king well enough to know that his fate was decided. He thought his best bet would be to throw himself at Esther’s mercy. Just as he had thrown himself on the couch where Esther lay reclining, Xerxes walked in. “Will he even molest the queen while she is with me in my house?” He yelled. Harbona, one of the king’s men, turned to Xerxes and told him that some gallows had been built by Haman’s house. In an ironic twist, Haman was hanged on the very gallows that he had built to hang Mordecai.
Esther told Xerxes her relation to Mordecai, so Xerxes honored him and presented him with his signet ring. Haman’s estate went to Esther, we’re not told what became of Haman’s widow, but his ten sons were also executed. And in a happy ending, Xerxes overturned the edict against the Jews. The day that Xerxes granted the Jews their independence was the thirteenth day of the twelfth month of Adar, and to this day, Jews celebrate the fourteenth day of the month as Purim.
The Book of Esther does not mention God even once. Nevertheless, His presence is felt throughout. As luck would have it, Esther was chosen as queen. Mordecai continued to care for her and by coincidence, he overheard a plot to kill Xerxes. Luckily, he was in a position to save the king. By good fortune, the king was in a good mood the day that Esther approached him. By coincidence, the king couldn’t sleep the night that Haman plotted Mordecai’s murder. Coincidentally, Haman had gallows already built. All the coincidences in the book make it seem like an entertaining work of fiction. But archeology has so far found evidence that collaborates the story. And frankly, there aren’t that many coincidences in the world to keep up with the Book of Esther. Though God is not mentioned, His hand is very evident. He’s behind the scenes working through others to ensure the safety of His chosen people. God had put the right people in place at the right time to save the Jews. He does that to this day. God doesn’t stand in a fiery cloud and make a dramatic entrance right at the climax, that’s not His style. He works through us, we’re His stewards of the land and all that’s in it. He puts us where we need to be to help others, it’s up to us whether or not we do it.
Questions & Answers
Wouldn’t you agree there was no luck at all in the story of Esther but the pure sovereignty of God?
Absolutely! I was using the same language as the book, but God was definitely behind it all.
© 2017 Anna Watson | <urn:uuid:ff54255d-89b2-42da-8f65-c38f077e8271> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://owlcation.com/humanities/Where-Was-God-The-Story-of-Esther | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250592565.2/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118110141-20200118134141-00524.warc.gz | en | 0.989633 | 4,241 | 3.328125 | 3 | [
-0.03252303600311279,
0.5572986602783203,
0.11431584507226944,
-0.14559480547904968,
-0.1729118674993515,
-0.07452215254306793,
-0.0407768078148365,
0.1854550838470459,
0.21120217442512512,
0.10275747627019882,
-0.15119612216949463,
0.0346679724752903,
0.07250623404979706,
0.18973088264465... | 2 | Where Was God? The Story of Esther
The First Wife
The original authors of the Old Testament believed very strongly that God had a hand in all things. That philosophy was showcased throughout the 39 books that make up the Old Testament; save for two, the Songs of Solomon and the Book of Esther. In fact, in Esther, God is more visible from His absence than His presence. He’s not mentioned even once; yet He’s still there, working behind the scenes to save the Jews.
The Book of Esther is a fascinating drama of heroism, revenge, genocide, and justice. Her story has been the subject of many movies and inspired the names of countless girls throughout history. The story opens in the palace of King Xerxes, who ruled over the upper Nile region from India to Cush. The other books of the Bible explain how the Jews were taken by King Nebuchadnezzar and ended up in Babylonian captivity. The books of Ezra and Nehemiah examine their return to their plundered homeland in Jerusalem. However, by the time of Esther, some fifty years later, many people had chosen to remain behind, among them was a man named Mordecai, of the tribe of Benjamin. The Jews who had remained in Babylon weren’t slaves, but neither were they considered equal.
King Xerxes was a dangerously unpredictable man. The ancient historian Herodotus records an incident wherein the Hellespont (the passage between the Aegean Sea and the Sea of Marmara) in the midst of a dangerous storm had swallowed a bridge that Xerxes had built. In retaliation he had ordered the sea itself to be punished with 300 lashes, shackles be thrown into the water, the Hellespont be branded, and the bridge builders beheaded. There’s no word on how his men actually managed to brand water.
Ordering that a body of water be whipped, shackled, and branded are the actions of a man drunk with power. However, according to Herodotus, Xerxes also liked to get drunk with wine. And it is here that our story opens. King Xerxes, in the third year of his reign, gave a large banquet to all the nobles. The affair was meant as a show of his kingdom’s wealth and his own glory and might. For 180 days, as we learn in the first chapter of Esther, Xerxes displayed his riches and majesty to all the nobles and military leaders of Persia and Media. After this six month ego trip, he gave a week long banquet where the wine flowed like a river from personalized goblets of gold. While the king kept the men in good spirits, the lovely Queen Vashti entertained the women of the royal palace and hosted a lavish banquet.
At week’s end, King Xerxes summoned his eunuchs to fetch Queen Vashti. He wanted to exhibit her beauty for all the nobility to see and admire. However, when the eunuchs returned it was with a message that the queen had refused to come. The Bible never explains her refusal, it’s likely the authors themselves are ignorant to the reason. Xerxes himself certainly never asked why, instead he “burned with anger” at the queens insolence. He consulted with his advisors on the legal way to handle his wife, and they recommended that she be made an example. All the nobility and their wives were present, and the king’s men reasoned that if the king didn’t act the women would take that as permission to be disrespectful to their own husbands. Upon their advice, the king issued a decree to be proclaimed throughout the land, that the queen be banished from the palace, never to return.
After Vashti was exiled from the palace, the Bible tells us three years had passed. The authors don’t mention it, but we know from history that Xerxes had mustered a massive army and invaded Greece during that time. He failed in his endeavor and upon his return to Persia and Media he redirected his focus to finding a new queen. He didn’t want just any queen though, he wanted a gorgeous young virgin that would surpass the former queen Vashti. He announced a search for a new queen and commissioned Hegai, who was in charge of the harem, to size up the women, choose the best ones, give them beauty treatments, and special food, and then taken to the king for selection. The whole process took a year; six months treatment with oil and myrrh, and six months treatment with perfume and cosmetics.
According to the law, what must be done to Queen Vashti? She has not obeyed the command of King Xerxes.— Esther 1:15
The New Wife
Once the king’s edict had been announced, many young women were presented to Hegai for inspection. Now here, in the city of Susa, we meet our heroine. Mordecai, mentioned above, had raised his orphaned cousin from childhood. The child, named Esther, had grown into a beautiful young lady so Mordecai put her in the care of Hegai to be considered by the king. Given that the Jews were second class citizens, Mordecai found it prudent to caution Esther to not reveal her ethnicity. She kept her identity a secret and was among those chosen for treatments. Everyday for the next year as she went through her beauty treatment, Mordecai would walk near the courtyard of the harem to find out how Esther was doing and to make sure she was well.
After her year long makeover was finally over, she was presented to Xerxes who became enamored by her looks, grace, and class. He chose her over all the other women and she became queen. To celebrate the occasion, Xerxes invited the nobility over for a massive banquet. He made the day an official holiday throughout all provinces and freely gave away gifts in celebration. However, despite his lavish ceremonies and generosity, the book makes it clear that Esther was at the mercy of his whims. She could only see him when he sought her out, and as the incident with the former queen Vashti made it abundantly clear, she had no choice but to come when summoned.
Though in the royal palace, where one might assume that she would be ‘treated like a queen,’ Mordecai maintained his commitment to his cousin. He continued to go to the palace where he could watch over her. As luck would have it, he was there when he overheard an assassination plot by two of the king’ officers, Bigthana and Teresh. Mordecai warned Esther about the conspiracy and she sent word to the king, making it a point to credit her cousin with the discovery. The two conspirators were hung for their crimes and Mordecai’s actions were recorded in the book of the annals.
There in the palace was a noblemen named Haman, some years after the foiled assassination plot, Xerxes had honored him and placed him second in command. All the officials and nobles and everyone would bow down low and honor him whenever he passed. Everyone, that is, but Mordecai. This angered the egotistical Haman who wanted Mordecai killed for his disobedience. It wasn’t enough that Mordecai be killed though, Haman, in his egomaniacal wrath, wanted every Jew killed for Mordecai’s disrespect. So Haman, who knew a thing or two about egos, decided the best way to handle Mordecai and his people was to appeal to the king’s own ego. Haman went before Xerxes and warned him that the monotheistic Jews would never bow down to the king or respect their laws. The best way to handle them would be to destroy them. Haman assured the king that he himself would pay ten thousand talents of silver to anyone who would carry out the task. Xerxes agreed to Haman’s suggestion and told him to keep his money and that he could “do as he pleased” with the Jews.
If it pleases the king, let a decree be issued to destroy [the Jews], and I will put ten thousand talents of silver into the royal treasury for the men who carry out this business.— Haman, Esther 3:9
The Courage of the Queen
This happened in the twelfth year of Xerxes’ reign, by this time he had been married to Esther for five years and he still remained ignorant of her Hebraic roots. It was during this twelfth year of his reign, on the thirteenth day of the first month, the king’s postmen sent word to all the provinces to “destroy, kill and annihilate all the Jews- young and old, women and little children- on a single day, the thirteenth day of the twelfth month.” (Esther 3:13) The book notes that Xerxes and Haman celebrated the decree with a drink, but that the city of Susa was bewildered. Mordecai, and many others put on sackcloth and publicly mourned the edict, when Esther heard how he was dressed she sent him clothes, but he refused them. So she sent out her eunuch to find out what had troubled her cousin. Only then did she find out about the pending genocide.
Mordecai told her everything and even gave her a copy of the text for the annihilation. He urged her to go to the king and plead on behalf of the Jews. Esther was trapped. Any official who went to the king without being summoned was to be immediately put to death. That was not a matter of annoyance on the part of the king, that was the actual law. Only if he was in a good humor would he extended his golden scepter, thereby sparing the person’s life. To approach him could mean an automatic death sentence, and to wait to be summoned could risk the lives of the Jews. It had already been thirty days since Xerxes last sent for her. Who knows when he would call for her again?
Here we discover how deep ran the faith of Mordecai. He told Esther: “Do not think that because you are in the king’s house you alone of all the Jews will escape. For if you remain silent at this time, relief and deliverance for the Jews will arise from another place, but you and your father’s family will perish. And who knows but that you have come to a royal position for such a time as this?” (Esther 4:13-14) Though Esther might have been spared the ethnic cleansing, the king had already proven that he had a violent temper and was often subject to his own fits of rage. He could just as easily turn on Esther as spare her. But as we discovered Mordecai’s faith, we also bear witness to Esther’s courage. She sent word back to Mordecai: “Go, gather together all the Jews who are in Susa, and fast for me. Do not eat or drink for three days, night or day, I and my maids will fast as you do. When this is done, I will go to the king, even though it is against the law. And if I perish, I perish.” (Esther 4:16)
Esther’s bravery is on full display here. As queen to an unpredictable, vicious, and self-centered king, her job was to sit around the courts and look pretty. Xerxes couldn’t even be bothered to tell her he planned to exterminate an entire race of people. He didn’t marry her for her intelligence or out of respect for her, she was an ornament for him to show off. A status symbol in the same manner that a white tiger or lynx would be to the ultra wealthy. He had already disposed of one wife who had displeased him, Esther had no reason to think he wouldn’t do the same to her. Yet she was willing to risk her very life to save her people.
Though Xerxes had married Esther for her beauty, that didn’t mean she was devoid of intelligence. She knew that she couldn’t just walk in, declare she was a Jew, and ask that her people be spared. She knew that she had to flatter the king, soften him, make him want to change his mind. So after the period of fasting she put on her royal robes, and her very life in hand, she entered the forbidden inner court. When the king saw the queen he held out his golden scepter, sparing her life, so she approached. As luck would have it, he was in a good mood. Xerxes asked what she wanted, declaring that even up to half the kingdom would be hers. She told him that she had prepared a feast for he and Haman, and asked that they attend.
When this is done I will go to the king, even though it is against the law. And if I perish, I perish.— Esther, Esther 4:16
God Provides for His People
They ate their meal, and over wine the king again asked what she wanted. She told him that she would prepare another feast for he and Haman the following day, and then she would answer his question. All of this served to make Haman very happy, but as he left the palace he saw Mordecai who had again refused to bow down to him. He went home and called all of his friends together, to them he boasted about all of his wealth, his high position in the kingdom, and his apparent place of honor with the queen. But he finished with the complaint that Mordecai continued to disrespect him, that as long as he saw that Jew sitting at the king’s gate he would never be happy. His wife and friends told him to go ahead and have gallows built, seventy- five feet high, and in the morning he could ask the king to hang Mordecai on them. Afterwards he could go to his dinner with Xerxes and Esther and be happy.
That night, as luck would have it, King Xerxes couldn’t sleep. A man who loved to hear about his own greatness, he ordered was that the book of the annals of his reign be brought to him. The king found the book to be riveting and he stayed up all night reading it. By morning he had gotten to the part where Mordecai had exposed the conspiracy to assassinate him. He asked his officials what honor and recognition he had received for his part in thwarting the plot. The officials informed him that nothing had been done for him. By coincidence, Haman then walked into the court with the intent to ask that Mordecai be hanged on the freshly built gallows. Xerxes saw him and asked “what should be done for the man the king delights to honor?” (Esther 6:6)
Haman and his incredible ego thought to himself, “who would the king rather honor than me?” So he told him to bring the man a royal robe that the king had worn, a horse with a royal crest that the king had ridden, and lead both man and horse through the city streets proclaiming ‘This is what is done for the man the king delights to honor!’” Imagine, if you will, Haman’s surprise when the king told him to go at once and do just as he had suggested for Mordecai the Jew. It was Haman who led Mordecai and the horse through the streets yelling “This is what is done for the man the king delights to honor!” Afterward, Mordecai returned to the king’s gate where he kept watch over his cousin, but Haman returned home to nurse his pride. His wife and friends told him that since Mordecai was Jewish he couldn’t stand against him, that it would be Haman that would be ruined instead. While they were still ‘comforting’ Haman, the king’s men arrived to escort Haman to his banquet.
At the banquet, Xerxes again asked Esther what she had wanted, promising her once again that she would grant her request “even up to half the kingdom.” The Queen answered him “ If I have found favor with you, O King, and if it pleases your majesty, grant me my life-this is my petition. And spare my people, this is my request. For I and my people have been sold for destruction and slaughter and annihilation. If we had merely been sold as male and female slaves, I would have kept quiet, because no such distress would justify disturbing the king.” (Esther 7:3-5) The king asked who had done such a thing as to sell the queen’s people into obliteration. And in a moment of climax, the queen answered “The adversary and enemy is the vile Haman.”
The king got up in a rage, leaving behind his beloved wine, and stormed into the palace garden. Poor Haman knew that his jig was up. He began the day in such high spirits. He was going to have his enemy killed, but instead he had to publicly honor him. He was invited to feast with the king and queen, but now he faced certain death. Everything went wrong for Haman, it was a very bad day. He knew the king well enough to know that his fate was decided. He thought his best bet would be to throw himself at Esther’s mercy. Just as he had thrown himself on the couch where Esther lay reclining, Xerxes walked in. “Will he even molest the queen while she is with me in my house?” He yelled. Harbona, one of the king’s men, turned to Xerxes and told him that some gallows had been built by Haman’s house. In an ironic twist, Haman was hanged on the very gallows that he had built to hang Mordecai.
Esther told Xerxes her relation to Mordecai, so Xerxes honored him and presented him with his signet ring. Haman’s estate went to Esther, we’re not told what became of Haman’s widow, but his ten sons were also executed. And in a happy ending, Xerxes overturned the edict against the Jews. The day that Xerxes granted the Jews their independence was the thirteenth day of the twelfth month of Adar, and to this day, Jews celebrate the fourteenth day of the month as Purim.
The Book of Esther does not mention God even once. Nevertheless, His presence is felt throughout. As luck would have it, Esther was chosen as queen. Mordecai continued to care for her and by coincidence, he overheard a plot to kill Xerxes. Luckily, he was in a position to save the king. By good fortune, the king was in a good mood the day that Esther approached him. By coincidence, the king couldn’t sleep the night that Haman plotted Mordecai’s murder. Coincidentally, Haman had gallows already built. All the coincidences in the book make it seem like an entertaining work of fiction. But archeology has so far found evidence that collaborates the story. And frankly, there aren’t that many coincidences in the world to keep up with the Book of Esther. Though God is not mentioned, His hand is very evident. He’s behind the scenes working through others to ensure the safety of His chosen people. God had put the right people in place at the right time to save the Jews. He does that to this day. God doesn’t stand in a fiery cloud and make a dramatic entrance right at the climax, that’s not His style. He works through us, we’re His stewards of the land and all that’s in it. He puts us where we need to be to help others, it’s up to us whether or not we do it.
Questions & Answers
Wouldn’t you agree there was no luck at all in the story of Esther but the pure sovereignty of God?
Absolutely! I was using the same language as the book, but God was definitely behind it all.
© 2017 Anna Watson | 4,131 | ENGLISH | 1 |
“Before the French Revolution, gradual reform was well under way in Europe” Discuss.
The French Revolution could be considered the culmination of a gradual reform that took place all over Europe. In this essay we will take a look at different aspects in which reform was taken in England, that is a very good example to see how the reform was well under way. We will analyse social, political and cultural changes before the French Revolution.
The Industrial Revolution in Britain and the political and social revolution of 1789 in France, marked the beginning of Europe's modern history. During the years 1789-1815, Europe was dominated by the French Revolution and due to this revolution, loads of reforming movements had place elsewhere, which led to several revolutionary wars and the Napoleonic Wars.
If we take a look at 18th Century British society, we realise that it was the golden ages for aristocracy. The increase of agricultural production gave them the opportunity to expand their invests, and the consequent domination of the government. New areas were created in London, Edinburgh and Dublin. The most important political offices were ruled by the aristocracy.
Other part of British society, gentry, were not happy with this new aristocracy, many holders couldn't afford the taxes imposed by landowners to finance Britain's wars. Although the gentry's status in the local community was secure, merchants soon eclipsed the gentry in wealth and influence on the national level during the 18th century.
Poverty dominated the lower classes of British society, and this was accentuated when the population grew and food prices rose by the middle of the century. Towns were full of homeless families, the sick, and individuals with disabilities. The government and charitable organizations established orphanages and hospitals, as well as workhouses where the unemployed could find temporary work. While women and children were left to live in poverty, the government forced men into military service. London experienced the worst of this situation, poor migrants flooded the city seeking work or charity and most of them died before founding it. But improvements in sanitation, medicine, and food production allowed many poor people to live longer lives, increasing the population of poor people. This increase in wealth, however, did not benefit everyone and as the standard of living rose for some, the quality of life declined for others.
Society in the 18th Century experienced a great change, there was a increasement of middle class families in towns and cities and they started to earn their money by professions such as law or medicine. Emerged a new way of thinking, literacy and education is now valued, this ideas were spread by thinkers of the Age of Enlightenment. Now is taken in to consideration the importance of the senses and the environment in shaping the individual. Literacy and education spread throughout the country and written material was being produced.
The “Age of Enlightenment” is a term used to describe the new way of thinking in Europe and the American colonies during the 18th Century, before the French Revolution. This Phrase was usually used by writers of this Century, they thought they were emerging from darkness and ignorance, and they were creating a new era, they were bringing light to humanity. The most important assumption philosophers and thinkers of the enlightenment was their trust in the power of human reason. The age was impressed by Isaac Newton's discovery of universal gravitation.
More than a set of fixed ideas, the Enlightenment implied an attitude, a method of thought. All the old ideas were questioned and re-examined, and explore new ideas in different directions. During the later 18th Century certain changes in emphasis emerged in Enlightenment thought, philosophers started to include in their critics, political and economic issues. The American Revolution probably encouraged attacks and criticisms against existing European regimes. The Age of Enlightenment is usually said to have ended with the French Revolution of 1789, in fact lot of people see all this changes led to the final French Revolution. Even thou the Revolution embraced many of the ideals of the philosophers, the Revolution in its more violent stages, served to discredit these ideals temporarily in the eyes of many European contemporaries.
The Enlightenment period marked a stage in the decline of the church. It served as the model for political and economic liberalism and for humanitarian reform throughout the 19th Century Western world.
Another aspect that changed in a very significant way, was the industry, industrialization transformed nearly every aspect of British life. Reform of industry was a key point in the 18th Century and a very good way to prove that before the French Revolution, a reform in Europe was well under way. The development of industry in Britain was a long and gradual process. Industrialization took place earlier and more rapidly in Britain than anywhere else because existing conditions were favourable in England. Ireland, failed to industrialize and remained largely agricultural.
In the first phase of industrialization, workers were unprotected by social legislation, and there were only a few safety regulations so this led to the organization of the workers asking for better conditions, but the government attacked them and a lot of people died fighting for their rights. This event was critical in the history of labour organization in Britain.
The agricultural improvement and the different advances in agriculture that took place in England in the 17th Century, contributed to the industrialization process. The first phase of industrialization was centred on the production of cotton clothing, soon England became the world's primary supplier of cotton cloth, thanks to the invention of new machines like the spinning jenny. With the introduction of machinery, factories became the site of organized production of textiles, replacing small scale manufacture in the home. This machines were built with iron, that was a very important factor for the industrialization. The iron was also used in the rails, in building railroads, the railroads were developed as a result of the technological advances made during the Industrial Revolution.
Reforms were taken as well in politics and economy in Britain. During the 18th Century, monarchs still had some indirect power through ministers of the Parliament. European monarchs soon wanted to emulate French absolutism and Tsar Peter the Great, as an example, devoted his energies to transforming Russia into a major military power, he created an army and a navy and so he obtained the success in the Great Northern War, defeating Sweden. At the beginning of the Century, France had the military power in Europe, but at the end of it, England, Austria, Russia, and Prussia became great competitors and a balance of power was establish. Europe was organized as an equilibrated group of great powers.
The economic development of Britain in the 18th Century made possible its military successes and the expansion of its empire. It was a great advance the creation of the Bank of England and the Bank of Scotland so the circulation of money and transactions could now take place. At the end of the century Britain had more than half a million men in the military but due to the different wars during this Century, the national debt rose higher than it had ever been before.
After the union with Scotland, the population of Britain experienced one of its hugest explosions in its history and around 1750, they reached 15.75 million. Agricultural production changed as well gradually over the century and but these changes had an important impact on British society, most of landowners converted small family farms into large commercial enterprises. This maybe occurred thanks to the fact that new techniques were introduced and so, the productivity increased. The meaning of agriculture changed from subsistence to business. By the century's end Britain was the dominant commercial power in the world marketplace. Although most people lived in the country, the 18th Century was notable for the growth of towns and London became one of the most important cities in the world, having the prestigious universities of Cambridge and Oxford.
But due to the great debt, the Parliament established new taxes in sugar, glass, cider, and tea, colonial commodities, and this was not very well accepted by Americans, they were taxed but they had no representation in British government. All this facts will led to the American Revolution, supported by Spain and France. British army will be finally defeated. In London, there were anti-Catholic riots in 1780 that led to new reforms of laws. In Ireland, Protestants formed volunteer military groups during the war, to defend the island from a French invasion.
In 1783 the king turned power over to William Pitt, he had great ideas to reduce the debt, and his strategy might have resulted in financial stability had it not been for developments in France.
The French Revolution was a Radical Stage. In 1789 the French Revolution erupted. The French revolutionaries invited all people of Europe to follow their example and in fact, in Britain, there were early supporters of the cause of revolution. Most British politicians adopted a more conservative philosophy because they were frightened by the introduction of radical social and political changes in France. In 1793 France declared war on Britain that finally ended with the defeat of French navy. The rise of French emperor Napoleon and his powerful armies threatened the international balance of power. The Napoleonic Wars ended up with the Congress of Vienna, that supposed a victory for Britain, and pace was re-establish in Europe.
Reforms and revolutions were not an isolated fact, and that's why almost all countries in Europe were implied in some or another aspect of cultural, social or political developments during this Century and as we had seen, the French Revolution was the culmination of those different reforms that were taken in the 18th Century in all over Europe. | <urn:uuid:77c22104-2f4c-44e0-88bf-bb83e7135928> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://html.rincondelvago.com/french-revolution-and-xix-century.html?url=french-revolution-and-xix-century | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250607596.34/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122221541-20200123010541-00264.warc.gz | en | 0.98181 | 1,919 | 3.859375 | 4 | [
-0.22982017695903778,
-0.0021762107498943806,
0.3767545819282532,
-0.21703705191612244,
0.22032500803470612,
0.36715251207351685,
-0.5531752109527588,
0.33216598629951477,
0.03151112049818039,
-0.020443666726350784,
0.1735037863254547,
-0.0315285325050354,
-0.14469614624977112,
-0.01954223... | 2 | “Before the French Revolution, gradual reform was well under way in Europe” Discuss.
The French Revolution could be considered the culmination of a gradual reform that took place all over Europe. In this essay we will take a look at different aspects in which reform was taken in England, that is a very good example to see how the reform was well under way. We will analyse social, political and cultural changes before the French Revolution.
The Industrial Revolution in Britain and the political and social revolution of 1789 in France, marked the beginning of Europe's modern history. During the years 1789-1815, Europe was dominated by the French Revolution and due to this revolution, loads of reforming movements had place elsewhere, which led to several revolutionary wars and the Napoleonic Wars.
If we take a look at 18th Century British society, we realise that it was the golden ages for aristocracy. The increase of agricultural production gave them the opportunity to expand their invests, and the consequent domination of the government. New areas were created in London, Edinburgh and Dublin. The most important political offices were ruled by the aristocracy.
Other part of British society, gentry, were not happy with this new aristocracy, many holders couldn't afford the taxes imposed by landowners to finance Britain's wars. Although the gentry's status in the local community was secure, merchants soon eclipsed the gentry in wealth and influence on the national level during the 18th century.
Poverty dominated the lower classes of British society, and this was accentuated when the population grew and food prices rose by the middle of the century. Towns were full of homeless families, the sick, and individuals with disabilities. The government and charitable organizations established orphanages and hospitals, as well as workhouses where the unemployed could find temporary work. While women and children were left to live in poverty, the government forced men into military service. London experienced the worst of this situation, poor migrants flooded the city seeking work or charity and most of them died before founding it. But improvements in sanitation, medicine, and food production allowed many poor people to live longer lives, increasing the population of poor people. This increase in wealth, however, did not benefit everyone and as the standard of living rose for some, the quality of life declined for others.
Society in the 18th Century experienced a great change, there was a increasement of middle class families in towns and cities and they started to earn their money by professions such as law or medicine. Emerged a new way of thinking, literacy and education is now valued, this ideas were spread by thinkers of the Age of Enlightenment. Now is taken in to consideration the importance of the senses and the environment in shaping the individual. Literacy and education spread throughout the country and written material was being produced.
The “Age of Enlightenment” is a term used to describe the new way of thinking in Europe and the American colonies during the 18th Century, before the French Revolution. This Phrase was usually used by writers of this Century, they thought they were emerging from darkness and ignorance, and they were creating a new era, they were bringing light to humanity. The most important assumption philosophers and thinkers of the enlightenment was their trust in the power of human reason. The age was impressed by Isaac Newton's discovery of universal gravitation.
More than a set of fixed ideas, the Enlightenment implied an attitude, a method of thought. All the old ideas were questioned and re-examined, and explore new ideas in different directions. During the later 18th Century certain changes in emphasis emerged in Enlightenment thought, philosophers started to include in their critics, political and economic issues. The American Revolution probably encouraged attacks and criticisms against existing European regimes. The Age of Enlightenment is usually said to have ended with the French Revolution of 1789, in fact lot of people see all this changes led to the final French Revolution. Even thou the Revolution embraced many of the ideals of the philosophers, the Revolution in its more violent stages, served to discredit these ideals temporarily in the eyes of many European contemporaries.
The Enlightenment period marked a stage in the decline of the church. It served as the model for political and economic liberalism and for humanitarian reform throughout the 19th Century Western world.
Another aspect that changed in a very significant way, was the industry, industrialization transformed nearly every aspect of British life. Reform of industry was a key point in the 18th Century and a very good way to prove that before the French Revolution, a reform in Europe was well under way. The development of industry in Britain was a long and gradual process. Industrialization took place earlier and more rapidly in Britain than anywhere else because existing conditions were favourable in England. Ireland, failed to industrialize and remained largely agricultural.
In the first phase of industrialization, workers were unprotected by social legislation, and there were only a few safety regulations so this led to the organization of the workers asking for better conditions, but the government attacked them and a lot of people died fighting for their rights. This event was critical in the history of labour organization in Britain.
The agricultural improvement and the different advances in agriculture that took place in England in the 17th Century, contributed to the industrialization process. The first phase of industrialization was centred on the production of cotton clothing, soon England became the world's primary supplier of cotton cloth, thanks to the invention of new machines like the spinning jenny. With the introduction of machinery, factories became the site of organized production of textiles, replacing small scale manufacture in the home. This machines were built with iron, that was a very important factor for the industrialization. The iron was also used in the rails, in building railroads, the railroads were developed as a result of the technological advances made during the Industrial Revolution.
Reforms were taken as well in politics and economy in Britain. During the 18th Century, monarchs still had some indirect power through ministers of the Parliament. European monarchs soon wanted to emulate French absolutism and Tsar Peter the Great, as an example, devoted his energies to transforming Russia into a major military power, he created an army and a navy and so he obtained the success in the Great Northern War, defeating Sweden. At the beginning of the Century, France had the military power in Europe, but at the end of it, England, Austria, Russia, and Prussia became great competitors and a balance of power was establish. Europe was organized as an equilibrated group of great powers.
The economic development of Britain in the 18th Century made possible its military successes and the expansion of its empire. It was a great advance the creation of the Bank of England and the Bank of Scotland so the circulation of money and transactions could now take place. At the end of the century Britain had more than half a million men in the military but due to the different wars during this Century, the national debt rose higher than it had ever been before.
After the union with Scotland, the population of Britain experienced one of its hugest explosions in its history and around 1750, they reached 15.75 million. Agricultural production changed as well gradually over the century and but these changes had an important impact on British society, most of landowners converted small family farms into large commercial enterprises. This maybe occurred thanks to the fact that new techniques were introduced and so, the productivity increased. The meaning of agriculture changed from subsistence to business. By the century's end Britain was the dominant commercial power in the world marketplace. Although most people lived in the country, the 18th Century was notable for the growth of towns and London became one of the most important cities in the world, having the prestigious universities of Cambridge and Oxford.
But due to the great debt, the Parliament established new taxes in sugar, glass, cider, and tea, colonial commodities, and this was not very well accepted by Americans, they were taxed but they had no representation in British government. All this facts will led to the American Revolution, supported by Spain and France. British army will be finally defeated. In London, there were anti-Catholic riots in 1780 that led to new reforms of laws. In Ireland, Protestants formed volunteer military groups during the war, to defend the island from a French invasion.
In 1783 the king turned power over to William Pitt, he had great ideas to reduce the debt, and his strategy might have resulted in financial stability had it not been for developments in France.
The French Revolution was a Radical Stage. In 1789 the French Revolution erupted. The French revolutionaries invited all people of Europe to follow their example and in fact, in Britain, there were early supporters of the cause of revolution. Most British politicians adopted a more conservative philosophy because they were frightened by the introduction of radical social and political changes in France. In 1793 France declared war on Britain that finally ended with the defeat of French navy. The rise of French emperor Napoleon and his powerful armies threatened the international balance of power. The Napoleonic Wars ended up with the Congress of Vienna, that supposed a victory for Britain, and pace was re-establish in Europe.
Reforms and revolutions were not an isolated fact, and that's why almost all countries in Europe were implied in some or another aspect of cultural, social or political developments during this Century and as we had seen, the French Revolution was the culmination of those different reforms that were taken in the 18th Century in all over Europe. | 1,954 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Montana Territory 1883
This map produced by the General Land Office and shows a picture of the Indian lands that were still present within the Montana Territory during 1883. There is a tendency to forget how long it took to settle the west. The east was settled much earlier as it's shores were discovered first. It took about 100 years after the eats was settled for the west to be fully integrated into what we now know as the United States. Before they were states however, they were territories first as shown by this map.
The map itself was taken from a lithos by noted cartographer Julius Bien. This was a common practice as it saved time and made the process more efficient. Markings on the map are used to notate a few things such as the land office, military reservations, county boundaries, and Indian reservations. Other coloring was used to denote rivers, lakes, and the surveyor general's office.
In addition, you can also see the Pacific Railroad as it cuts through a portion of Missoula. Along the way various stops are noted and it is easy to see how this would become one of the primary arteries for trade and travel throughout the region. The railway had been under construction since it was approved by a congressional act in 1864. Due to that act, almost 40 million acres of land grants were given to raise the necessary money needed for construction. In 1870 the railway was constructed and the mainline begin running from the Great Lakes all the way to the Pacific as soon as Ulysses S Grant drove the final golden spike into Western Montana soil on September 8, 1883.
The Pacific Railway would eventually merge with another railway company several years down the line to become the Burlington Northern Railroad Company. However at the time, the Pacific Railway Company was brand-new. This map showcases a unique glimpse into our nation's history at a time when Indian lands and British territories coexisted alongside U.S. territories and worked in concert together. Eventually, all of that would change as the United States continued expanding and would ultimately become known as the land that stretched from sea to shining sea.
All sizes are approximate.
We Also Recommend | <urn:uuid:1a27ce03-cd39-4b9e-91b4-bed987d3b990> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://great-river-arts.myshopify.com/collections/giclees/products/montana-territory-1883-11x14-easy-to-frame-edition | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251687725.76/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126043644-20200126073644-00201.warc.gz | en | 0.99009 | 437 | 3.921875 | 4 | [
-0.09175454080104828,
-0.26349347829818726,
0.6837489604949951,
0.07898126542568207,
-0.21901856362819672,
-0.011690795421600342,
-0.3036450445652008,
0.1250668317079544,
-0.23904375731945038,
0.04173249378800392,
0.03267725184559822,
-0.6916681528091431,
0.21111445128917694,
0.15488806366... | 4 | Montana Territory 1883
This map produced by the General Land Office and shows a picture of the Indian lands that were still present within the Montana Territory during 1883. There is a tendency to forget how long it took to settle the west. The east was settled much earlier as it's shores were discovered first. It took about 100 years after the eats was settled for the west to be fully integrated into what we now know as the United States. Before they were states however, they were territories first as shown by this map.
The map itself was taken from a lithos by noted cartographer Julius Bien. This was a common practice as it saved time and made the process more efficient. Markings on the map are used to notate a few things such as the land office, military reservations, county boundaries, and Indian reservations. Other coloring was used to denote rivers, lakes, and the surveyor general's office.
In addition, you can also see the Pacific Railroad as it cuts through a portion of Missoula. Along the way various stops are noted and it is easy to see how this would become one of the primary arteries for trade and travel throughout the region. The railway had been under construction since it was approved by a congressional act in 1864. Due to that act, almost 40 million acres of land grants were given to raise the necessary money needed for construction. In 1870 the railway was constructed and the mainline begin running from the Great Lakes all the way to the Pacific as soon as Ulysses S Grant drove the final golden spike into Western Montana soil on September 8, 1883.
The Pacific Railway would eventually merge with another railway company several years down the line to become the Burlington Northern Railroad Company. However at the time, the Pacific Railway Company was brand-new. This map showcases a unique glimpse into our nation's history at a time when Indian lands and British territories coexisted alongside U.S. territories and worked in concert together. Eventually, all of that would change as the United States continued expanding and would ultimately become known as the land that stretched from sea to shining sea.
All sizes are approximate.
We Also Recommend | 453 | ENGLISH | 1 |
For this assignment, we had to choose a foundational story and explain how it has been retold and revisioned today. My partner was Kamila, and she chose the foundational story ‘Daedalus and Icarus.’
In her presentation, she gave examples of how the Ancient Greek story had been translated into poems and art, such as ‘Fall of Icarus (1819). It has also been mentioned in multiple books, especially children’s books, such as the Percy Jackson series. The lesson that the Ancient Greek story teaches has also been recognised as a psychological disorder called Icarus Complex where one is found to be fond of fire, heights, and narcissistic.
Kamila also explains what this Greek myth means, and how people use it today. For example, the myth-inspired a well-known idiom, “don’t fly too close to the sun”. Even if you don’t use it in your everyday life, this phrase will still sound familiar. It is also explained how there are themes of pride and punishment. Pride was something that was shunned upon in Ancient Greece because it was seen as a human thinking they can act like a god. The gods didn’t appreciate people like this and often punished them by death. This is also present today because too much pride can be seen as arrogance, and those who are arrogant are quite often shunned by society, simply because arrogance and narcissism are considered unpleasant qualities (unpleasant to be around).
We watched a video called “Ta-Nehisi Coates on words that don’t belong to everyone”. In the video, a woman in the audience explained how her friends used the ‘n’ word regularly, but they are white.
Coates then went on to talk about how words don’t mean anything without context. He gave examples of how his wife calls him ‘honey’ because that is their relationship with each other. He said that if they were walking along the street together and a random stranger called him ‘honey’, it would be very strange. Because that is what his wife and him call each other. For a stranger to call him that would be strange.
He gave more examples of other words that people say to each other, but would not include him. His wife and her friends call each other ‘girlfriend’ because that is their relationship with each other. He said it would be strange for him to start referring to them as ‘girlfriend’ because their name for each other does not include him. He said he has no desire to call them ‘girlfriend’.
He then says how he doesn’t know why white people feel the need to say the ‘n’ word, but he believes it could be because in their country, since the day they are born they are taught that everything belongs to them. They see inequalities everywhere, whether it is in the form of something big or small, and that influences them into believing everything belongs to them. Then when a word is made that only black people are allowed to use, they don’t understand the concept and don’t know how to not use the word. He said that once they accept that they have to refrain from using it and it is not their word to use, then they will be able to see into the life of a black person, and what it’s like to have so many restrictions and so many things they aren’t allowed to do or say because of their skin colour.
I completely agree with this because the word was not made for white people to use. I don’t understand how people can’t accept that and just not use the word. It is only one word out of all of the words in the English language. And people are having trouble NOT using it. It makes no sense. I completely agree with all of his points, and why. The reason why I referred to white people as ‘them’ was because he specifically said ‘white people in this country’, which is America, so to say ‘us’ when I’m not American would imply that he was talking about every white person.
I think we need to learn more about our boundaries and that, if we separated ourselves by our skin colour in the first place, then why is it so hard not to use one word that’s not ours. I would never use the ‘n’ word because I know it’s not my place to use it, and I know it could be extremely offensive to people. I believe that we are all equal, and if we treat other people a certain way, why are we surprised and thinking that it’s not okay when other people suddenly start treating us the same way we have been treating them all along. | <urn:uuid:aacb3b1f-74ee-4cca-af71-971a2782d63e> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://portfolios.uwcsea.edu.sg/weave12818/2018/08/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251694071.63/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126230255-20200127020255-00235.warc.gz | en | 0.987248 | 1,007 | 4 | 4 | [
0.02603587880730629,
0.28860175609588623,
0.006427289918065071,
0.056935928761959076,
-0.2661289870738983,
-0.052923671901226044,
0.43677258491516113,
0.39244693517684937,
0.01923408731818199,
-0.25743746757507324,
-0.03998320549726486,
-0.18012621998786926,
-0.114722341299057,
0.210331976... | 4 | For this assignment, we had to choose a foundational story and explain how it has been retold and revisioned today. My partner was Kamila, and she chose the foundational story ‘Daedalus and Icarus.’
In her presentation, she gave examples of how the Ancient Greek story had been translated into poems and art, such as ‘Fall of Icarus (1819). It has also been mentioned in multiple books, especially children’s books, such as the Percy Jackson series. The lesson that the Ancient Greek story teaches has also been recognised as a psychological disorder called Icarus Complex where one is found to be fond of fire, heights, and narcissistic.
Kamila also explains what this Greek myth means, and how people use it today. For example, the myth-inspired a well-known idiom, “don’t fly too close to the sun”. Even if you don’t use it in your everyday life, this phrase will still sound familiar. It is also explained how there are themes of pride and punishment. Pride was something that was shunned upon in Ancient Greece because it was seen as a human thinking they can act like a god. The gods didn’t appreciate people like this and often punished them by death. This is also present today because too much pride can be seen as arrogance, and those who are arrogant are quite often shunned by society, simply because arrogance and narcissism are considered unpleasant qualities (unpleasant to be around).
We watched a video called “Ta-Nehisi Coates on words that don’t belong to everyone”. In the video, a woman in the audience explained how her friends used the ‘n’ word regularly, but they are white.
Coates then went on to talk about how words don’t mean anything without context. He gave examples of how his wife calls him ‘honey’ because that is their relationship with each other. He said that if they were walking along the street together and a random stranger called him ‘honey’, it would be very strange. Because that is what his wife and him call each other. For a stranger to call him that would be strange.
He gave more examples of other words that people say to each other, but would not include him. His wife and her friends call each other ‘girlfriend’ because that is their relationship with each other. He said it would be strange for him to start referring to them as ‘girlfriend’ because their name for each other does not include him. He said he has no desire to call them ‘girlfriend’.
He then says how he doesn’t know why white people feel the need to say the ‘n’ word, but he believes it could be because in their country, since the day they are born they are taught that everything belongs to them. They see inequalities everywhere, whether it is in the form of something big or small, and that influences them into believing everything belongs to them. Then when a word is made that only black people are allowed to use, they don’t understand the concept and don’t know how to not use the word. He said that once they accept that they have to refrain from using it and it is not their word to use, then they will be able to see into the life of a black person, and what it’s like to have so many restrictions and so many things they aren’t allowed to do or say because of their skin colour.
I completely agree with this because the word was not made for white people to use. I don’t understand how people can’t accept that and just not use the word. It is only one word out of all of the words in the English language. And people are having trouble NOT using it. It makes no sense. I completely agree with all of his points, and why. The reason why I referred to white people as ‘them’ was because he specifically said ‘white people in this country’, which is America, so to say ‘us’ when I’m not American would imply that he was talking about every white person.
I think we need to learn more about our boundaries and that, if we separated ourselves by our skin colour in the first place, then why is it so hard not to use one word that’s not ours. I would never use the ‘n’ word because I know it’s not my place to use it, and I know it could be extremely offensive to people. I believe that we are all equal, and if we treat other people a certain way, why are we surprised and thinking that it’s not okay when other people suddenly start treating us the same way we have been treating them all along. | 938 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Is the name of the Latin version of the Scriptures used by the church of Rome. The Old Testament was a very close translation of the Greek Septuagint, not of the Hebrew. It was made at a very early period by an unknown author. A part of this version was afterwards revised by Jerome, and some of the books retranslated from the Hebrew.
See NEW TESTAMENT .
1. The position of the Latin Vulgate, as a version of the original texts of the Bible, has been dealt with in the two articles on the Text of the OT and the NT. But its interest and importance do not end there. Just as the Septuagint, apart from its importance as evidence for the text of the OT, has a history as an integral part of the Bible of the Eastern Church, so also does the Vulgate deserve consideration as the Bible of the Church in the West. Although the English Bible, to which we have been accustomed for nearly 300 years, is in the main a translation from the original Hebrew and Greek, it must be remembered that for the first thousand years of the English Church the Bible of this country, whether in Latin or in English, was the Vulgate. In Germany the conditions were much the same, with the difference that Luther's Bible was still more indebted to the Vulgate than was our AV; while in France, Italy, and Spain the supremacy of the Vulgate lasts to this day. In considering, therefore, the history of the Vulgate, we are considering the history of the Scriptures in the form in which they have been mainly known in Western Europe.
2. The textual articles above mentioned have shown that, when Jerome's Biblical labours were at an end, about a.d. 404, the Latin Bible as left by him was a very complex structure, the parts of which differed very considerably in their relations to the original Greek and Hebrew texts. The Canonical Books of the OT, except the Psalms, were Jerome's fresh translation from the Massoretic Hebrew. The Psalms were extant in three forms
VULGATE, a very ancient Latin translation of the Bible; and the only one the church of Rome acknowledges to be authentic. The ancient Vulgate of the Old Testament was translated almost word for word, from the Greek of the Septuagint. The author of the version is not known. It was a long time known by the name of the Italic, or old version; as being of very great antiquity in the Latin church. It was the common, or vulgar version, before St. Jerom made a new one from the Hebrew original, with occasional references to the Septuagint; whence it has its name Vulgate. Nobilius, in 1558, and F. Morin, in 1628, gave new editions of it; pretending to have restored and re-collated it from the ancients who had cited it. It has since been retouched from the correction of St. Jerom; and it is this mixture of the ancient Italic version, and some corrections of St. Jerom, that is now called the Vulgate, and which the council of Trent has declared to be authentic. It is this Vulgate alone that is used in the Romish church, excepting some passages of the ancient Vulgate, which were left in the Missal and the Psalms, and which are still sung according to the old Italic version. St. Jerom declares that in his revisal of the Italic version, he used great care and circumspection, never varying from that version but when he thought it misrepresented the sense. But as the Greek copies to which he had access were not so ancient as those from which the Italic version had been made, some learned authors have been of opinion that it would have been much better if he had collected all the copies, and, by comparing them, have restored that translation to its original purity. It is plain that he never completed this work, and that he even left some faults in it, for fear of varying too much from the ancient version, since he renders in his commentaries some words otherwise than he has done in his translation. This version was not introduced into the church but by degrees, for fear of offending weak persons. Rufinus, notwithstanding his enmity to St. Jerom, and his having exclaimed much against this performance, was one of the first to prefer it to the vulgar or Italian. This translation gained at last so great an authority, by the approbation of Pope Gregory I, and his declared preference of it to every other, that it was subsequently brought into public use through all the western churches. Although it was not regarded as authentic, except by the council of Trent, it is certainly of some use, as serving to illustrate several passages both of the Old and New Testament.
The two principal popish editions of the Vulgate are those of Pope Sixtus V and Clement VIII: the former was printed in 1590, after Pope Sixtus had collected the most ancient MSS., and best printed copies, summoned the most learned men out of all the nations of the Christian world, assembled a congregation of cardinals for their assistance and counsel, and presided over the whole himself. This edition was declared to be corrected in the very best manner possible, and published with a tremendous excommunication against every person who should presume ever afterward to alter the least particle of the edition thus authentically promulgated by his holiness, sitting in that chair, in qua Petri vivit potestas, et excellit auctoritas, [in which the power of Peter lived, and his authority excelled.] The other edition was published in 1592, by Pope Clement VIII; which was so different from that of Sixtus, as to contain two thousand variations, some of whole verses, and many others clearly and designedly contradictory in sense; and yet this edition is also, ex cathedra, [from the chair,] pronounced as the only authentic one, and enforced by the same sentence of excommunication with the former. Clement suppressed the edition of his predecessor; so that copies of the Sixtine Vulgate are now very scarce, and have long been reckoned among literary rarities. Our learned countryman, Dr. James, the celebrated correspondent and able coadjutor of Archbishop Usher, relates, with all the ardent of a hard student, the delight which he experienced on unexpectedly obtaining a Sixtine copy; and he used it to good and effective purpose in his very clever book, entitled "Bellum Papale," in which he has pointed out numerous additions, omissions, contradictions, and glaring differences between the Sixtine and Clementine editions. All the popish champions are exceedingly shy about recognizing this irreconcilable conflict between the productions of two such infallible personages; and the boldest of them wish to represent it as a thing of nought. But it is no light matter thus to tamper with the word of God.
The Romanists generally hold the Vulgate of the New Testament preferable to the common Greek text; because it is this alone, and not the Greek text, that the council of Trent has declared authentic: accordingly that church has, as it were, adopted this edition, and the priests read no other at the altar, the preachers quote no other in the pulpit, nor the divines in the schools. Yet some of their best authors, E. Bouhours for instance, own, that among the differences that are found between the common Greek and Vulgate, there are some in which the Greek reading appears more clear and natural than that of the Latin; so that the second might be corrected from the first, if the holy see should think fit. But those differences, taken in general, only consist in a few syllables or words; they rarely concern the sense. Beside, in some of the most considerable, the Vulgate is authorized by several ancient manuscripts. Bouhours spent the last years of his life in giving a French translation of the New Testament according to the Vulgate. It is probable that at the time the ancient Italic or Vulgate version of the New Testament was made, and at the time it was afterward compared with the Greek manuscripts by St. Jerom, as they were then nearer the times of the Apostles, they had more accurate Greek copies, and those better kept, than any of those used when printing was invented.
Highly as the Latin Vulgate is extolled by the church of Rome, says Michaelis, "it was depreciated beyond, measure at the beginning of the sixteenth century by several learned Protestants, whose example has been followed by men of inferior abilities. At the restoration of learning, when the faculty of writing elegant Latin was the highest accomplishment of a scholar, the Vulgate was regarded with contempt, as not written with classical purity. But after the Greek manuscripts were discovered, their readings were preferred to those of the Latin, because the New Testament was written in Greek, and the Latin was only a version; but it was not considered that these Greek manuscripts were modern in comparison of those originals from which the Latin was taken; nor was it known at that time, that the more ancient the Greek manuscripts and the other versions were, the closer was their agreement with the Vulgate. Our ablest writers, such as Mill and Bengal, have been induced by F. Simon's treatise to abandon the opinion of their predecessors, and have ascribed to the Latin Vulgate a value perhaps greater than it deserves." | <urn:uuid:9384fff8-09e5-41c3-ba3e-20e285bea321> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://bible.knowing-jesus.com/references/Vulgate/type/am | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250624328.55/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124161014-20200124190014-00313.warc.gz | en | 0.985061 | 1,956 | 3.734375 | 4 | [
-0.29629600048065186,
-0.05214913561940193,
0.30820414423942566,
0.20764249563217163,
-0.2590966522693634,
-0.2999759912490845,
-0.23301897943019867,
0.008485398255288601,
0.21889519691467285,
-0.1343500018119812,
-0.0023406650871038437,
-0.14174044132232666,
0.0701197013258934,
-0.0251363... | 1 | Is the name of the Latin version of the Scriptures used by the church of Rome. The Old Testament was a very close translation of the Greek Septuagint, not of the Hebrew. It was made at a very early period by an unknown author. A part of this version was afterwards revised by Jerome, and some of the books retranslated from the Hebrew.
See NEW TESTAMENT .
1. The position of the Latin Vulgate, as a version of the original texts of the Bible, has been dealt with in the two articles on the Text of the OT and the NT. But its interest and importance do not end there. Just as the Septuagint, apart from its importance as evidence for the text of the OT, has a history as an integral part of the Bible of the Eastern Church, so also does the Vulgate deserve consideration as the Bible of the Church in the West. Although the English Bible, to which we have been accustomed for nearly 300 years, is in the main a translation from the original Hebrew and Greek, it must be remembered that for the first thousand years of the English Church the Bible of this country, whether in Latin or in English, was the Vulgate. In Germany the conditions were much the same, with the difference that Luther's Bible was still more indebted to the Vulgate than was our AV; while in France, Italy, and Spain the supremacy of the Vulgate lasts to this day. In considering, therefore, the history of the Vulgate, we are considering the history of the Scriptures in the form in which they have been mainly known in Western Europe.
2. The textual articles above mentioned have shown that, when Jerome's Biblical labours were at an end, about a.d. 404, the Latin Bible as left by him was a very complex structure, the parts of which differed very considerably in their relations to the original Greek and Hebrew texts. The Canonical Books of the OT, except the Psalms, were Jerome's fresh translation from the Massoretic Hebrew. The Psalms were extant in three forms
VULGATE, a very ancient Latin translation of the Bible; and the only one the church of Rome acknowledges to be authentic. The ancient Vulgate of the Old Testament was translated almost word for word, from the Greek of the Septuagint. The author of the version is not known. It was a long time known by the name of the Italic, or old version; as being of very great antiquity in the Latin church. It was the common, or vulgar version, before St. Jerom made a new one from the Hebrew original, with occasional references to the Septuagint; whence it has its name Vulgate. Nobilius, in 1558, and F. Morin, in 1628, gave new editions of it; pretending to have restored and re-collated it from the ancients who had cited it. It has since been retouched from the correction of St. Jerom; and it is this mixture of the ancient Italic version, and some corrections of St. Jerom, that is now called the Vulgate, and which the council of Trent has declared to be authentic. It is this Vulgate alone that is used in the Romish church, excepting some passages of the ancient Vulgate, which were left in the Missal and the Psalms, and which are still sung according to the old Italic version. St. Jerom declares that in his revisal of the Italic version, he used great care and circumspection, never varying from that version but when he thought it misrepresented the sense. But as the Greek copies to which he had access were not so ancient as those from which the Italic version had been made, some learned authors have been of opinion that it would have been much better if he had collected all the copies, and, by comparing them, have restored that translation to its original purity. It is plain that he never completed this work, and that he even left some faults in it, for fear of varying too much from the ancient version, since he renders in his commentaries some words otherwise than he has done in his translation. This version was not introduced into the church but by degrees, for fear of offending weak persons. Rufinus, notwithstanding his enmity to St. Jerom, and his having exclaimed much against this performance, was one of the first to prefer it to the vulgar or Italian. This translation gained at last so great an authority, by the approbation of Pope Gregory I, and his declared preference of it to every other, that it was subsequently brought into public use through all the western churches. Although it was not regarded as authentic, except by the council of Trent, it is certainly of some use, as serving to illustrate several passages both of the Old and New Testament.
The two principal popish editions of the Vulgate are those of Pope Sixtus V and Clement VIII: the former was printed in 1590, after Pope Sixtus had collected the most ancient MSS., and best printed copies, summoned the most learned men out of all the nations of the Christian world, assembled a congregation of cardinals for their assistance and counsel, and presided over the whole himself. This edition was declared to be corrected in the very best manner possible, and published with a tremendous excommunication against every person who should presume ever afterward to alter the least particle of the edition thus authentically promulgated by his holiness, sitting in that chair, in qua Petri vivit potestas, et excellit auctoritas, [in which the power of Peter lived, and his authority excelled.] The other edition was published in 1592, by Pope Clement VIII; which was so different from that of Sixtus, as to contain two thousand variations, some of whole verses, and many others clearly and designedly contradictory in sense; and yet this edition is also, ex cathedra, [from the chair,] pronounced as the only authentic one, and enforced by the same sentence of excommunication with the former. Clement suppressed the edition of his predecessor; so that copies of the Sixtine Vulgate are now very scarce, and have long been reckoned among literary rarities. Our learned countryman, Dr. James, the celebrated correspondent and able coadjutor of Archbishop Usher, relates, with all the ardent of a hard student, the delight which he experienced on unexpectedly obtaining a Sixtine copy; and he used it to good and effective purpose in his very clever book, entitled "Bellum Papale," in which he has pointed out numerous additions, omissions, contradictions, and glaring differences between the Sixtine and Clementine editions. All the popish champions are exceedingly shy about recognizing this irreconcilable conflict between the productions of two such infallible personages; and the boldest of them wish to represent it as a thing of nought. But it is no light matter thus to tamper with the word of God.
The Romanists generally hold the Vulgate of the New Testament preferable to the common Greek text; because it is this alone, and not the Greek text, that the council of Trent has declared authentic: accordingly that church has, as it were, adopted this edition, and the priests read no other at the altar, the preachers quote no other in the pulpit, nor the divines in the schools. Yet some of their best authors, E. Bouhours for instance, own, that among the differences that are found between the common Greek and Vulgate, there are some in which the Greek reading appears more clear and natural than that of the Latin; so that the second might be corrected from the first, if the holy see should think fit. But those differences, taken in general, only consist in a few syllables or words; they rarely concern the sense. Beside, in some of the most considerable, the Vulgate is authorized by several ancient manuscripts. Bouhours spent the last years of his life in giving a French translation of the New Testament according to the Vulgate. It is probable that at the time the ancient Italic or Vulgate version of the New Testament was made, and at the time it was afterward compared with the Greek manuscripts by St. Jerom, as they were then nearer the times of the Apostles, they had more accurate Greek copies, and those better kept, than any of those used when printing was invented.
Highly as the Latin Vulgate is extolled by the church of Rome, says Michaelis, "it was depreciated beyond, measure at the beginning of the sixteenth century by several learned Protestants, whose example has been followed by men of inferior abilities. At the restoration of learning, when the faculty of writing elegant Latin was the highest accomplishment of a scholar, the Vulgate was regarded with contempt, as not written with classical purity. But after the Greek manuscripts were discovered, their readings were preferred to those of the Latin, because the New Testament was written in Greek, and the Latin was only a version; but it was not considered that these Greek manuscripts were modern in comparison of those originals from which the Latin was taken; nor was it known at that time, that the more ancient the Greek manuscripts and the other versions were, the closer was their agreement with the Vulgate. Our ablest writers, such as Mill and Bengal, have been induced by F. Simon's treatise to abandon the opinion of their predecessors, and have ascribed to the Latin Vulgate a value perhaps greater than it deserves." | 1,970 | ENGLISH | 1 |
”Remember, remember the 5th of November.” With some friends we gathered at Southwark Park to watch the fireworks in remembrance of the failed Gunpowder Plot of 1605.
Bonfire night celebrates the failed attempt to kill King James I on night of the fifth of November 1605. During her reign Queen Elisabeth had made some laws against the Roman Catholics. Which meant that they had to practice their religion in secret. One could even get a fine for not attending Protestant Mass on Sunday. The Catholics hoped that the successor King James I would undo those laws, after all, he had had a Catholic mother. He didn’t. It even got worse.
A group of thirteen young men, led by Robert Catesby, plotted to blow up the Houses of Parliament. The conspirators bought the house next to the parliament building. They stacked 36 barrels of gunpowder in a cellar that extended underneath the House of Lords. Guy Fawkes was to watch over the barrels as they were going to lit them the next time the Parliament was openend by King James I.
However, the morning of the fifth of November Guy Fawkes was found by soldiers and arrested. He was taken to the Tower of London where he was tortured and questioned. To celebrate his survival King James ordered that the people of England should have a great bonfire on that day. | <urn:uuid:2f28581f-c1b3-40b6-a453-faf76074de00> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://joellewrites.be/7-bonfire-night/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251678287.60/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125161753-20200125190753-00219.warc.gz | en | 0.98712 | 278 | 3.4375 | 3 | [
-0.45409905910491943,
0.4345073401927948,
0.42078453302383423,
-0.03889578953385353,
0.25786036252975464,
0.10946337133646011,
0.22325435280799866,
-0.035217925906181335,
-0.09277302771806717,
-0.1728067249059677,
-0.029337942600250244,
-0.15152212977409363,
-0.10634111613035202,
0.5039016... | 1 | ”Remember, remember the 5th of November.” With some friends we gathered at Southwark Park to watch the fireworks in remembrance of the failed Gunpowder Plot of 1605.
Bonfire night celebrates the failed attempt to kill King James I on night of the fifth of November 1605. During her reign Queen Elisabeth had made some laws against the Roman Catholics. Which meant that they had to practice their religion in secret. One could even get a fine for not attending Protestant Mass on Sunday. The Catholics hoped that the successor King James I would undo those laws, after all, he had had a Catholic mother. He didn’t. It even got worse.
A group of thirteen young men, led by Robert Catesby, plotted to blow up the Houses of Parliament. The conspirators bought the house next to the parliament building. They stacked 36 barrels of gunpowder in a cellar that extended underneath the House of Lords. Guy Fawkes was to watch over the barrels as they were going to lit them the next time the Parliament was openend by King James I.
However, the morning of the fifth of November Guy Fawkes was found by soldiers and arrested. He was taken to the Tower of London where he was tortured and questioned. To celebrate his survival King James ordered that the people of England should have a great bonfire on that day. | 284 | ENGLISH | 1 |
On this day: Arthur Phillip was born
ARTHUR PHILLIP, BORN on 11 October, 1738 at a parish in London, England, came from humble beginnings before eventually succeeding as the first Governor of New South Wales.
The son of a language teacher of modest means, he would apprentice in the mercantile service at the age of 12 and later join the navy. Considered a ‘solid’ sailor, few would suspect that he’d be remembered for settling Australia’s largest city, Sydney.
Before any of this came about, however, Phillip worked for the navy on and off for 30 years or so, running farms in-between. In 1786 Phillip, aged 48, was appointed as Governor of the proposed penal colony of New South Wales. He had, by all accounts, earned himself a sturdy, if not particularly outstanding, reputation in the navy. His experience with farming, the navy and surveying was also seen as an advantage playing into his appointment to this role.
The First Fleet sailed on 13 May 1787, led by Phillip who captained HMS Sirius. The ships were filled with supplies, 772 convicts, and a small group of men to help him run the new colony. They reached Botany Bay in January 1788, but Phillip felt the soil there was too poor to support a colony. The fleet travelled on, finally arriving at Sydney Cove on 26 January 1788.
Once on land, Phillip’s strict discipline and tight rationing laid the foundations for a successful settlement, though he struggled to create a viable colony with only minimal support from the British government. Phillip, however, had the foresight to see that New South Wales needed a system to emancipate convicts, supported by a sound legal system.
Arthur Phillip and Woolarawarre Bennelong
Phillip also opened a dialogue with the Eora Aboriginal people, who lived around Sydney Cove, as per the instructions he had received from King George III. A man called Woollarawarre Bennelong was captured to help teach the settlers more about the local customs, but he escaped after six months. Bennelong renewed his contact with Phillip as a free man, however.
Bennelong organised for Phillip to visit Manly, where a misunderstanding arose and Phillip was speared in the shoulder by a local Eora man. Phillip ordered his men not to retaliate, and a friendship developed between he and Bennelong, who learned to speak English.
In 1790, Phillip built him a hut on an area now known as Bennelong Point, the site of the Sydney Opera House.
The first years of British settlement
In 1790 the Second Fleet with hundreds more convicts, most of them in poor health, which put a great strain on the new colony’s already limited supplies. By the time the Third Fleet began to arrive in 1971, Phillip was forced to send supply ships to Calcutta to bring back food.
By 1792, the colony was well established, with a few trades flourishing, and the convicts whose sentences had expired learning to farm. Phillip, who was in poor health, finally received permission to return to England and set sale on 11 December 1792, taking Bennelong and his Eora friend Yemmerrawanyea along with him. Upon their departure, the population of New South Wales was 4,221 – 3,099 of whom were convicts.
Phillip arrived in London in May 1793 and resigned, never to return to New South Wales. He continued, though, to promote the colony’s interests with the British government. Bennelong remained in England for three years, returning home in 1796 where he would also advise the next governor. Governor Arthur Phillip died in Bath in 1814. | <urn:uuid:2c345efc-3c24-4fc1-b57f-60ec8538f06d> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.australiangeographic.com.au/blogs/on-this-day/2014/10/on-this-day-arthur-phillip-born/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250597230.18/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120023523-20200120051523-00376.warc.gz | en | 0.984224 | 772 | 3.640625 | 4 | [
-0.1561158001422882,
0.5453181266784668,
0.5112280249595642,
-0.15157094597816467,
-0.20630720257759094,
-0.02604568749666214,
0.23970180749893188,
0.31035563349723816,
-0.5898663997650146,
0.08342054486274719,
0.25668179988861084,
-0.5355896353721619,
-0.20398053526878357,
0.4488556385040... | 7 | On this day: Arthur Phillip was born
ARTHUR PHILLIP, BORN on 11 October, 1738 at a parish in London, England, came from humble beginnings before eventually succeeding as the first Governor of New South Wales.
The son of a language teacher of modest means, he would apprentice in the mercantile service at the age of 12 and later join the navy. Considered a ‘solid’ sailor, few would suspect that he’d be remembered for settling Australia’s largest city, Sydney.
Before any of this came about, however, Phillip worked for the navy on and off for 30 years or so, running farms in-between. In 1786 Phillip, aged 48, was appointed as Governor of the proposed penal colony of New South Wales. He had, by all accounts, earned himself a sturdy, if not particularly outstanding, reputation in the navy. His experience with farming, the navy and surveying was also seen as an advantage playing into his appointment to this role.
The First Fleet sailed on 13 May 1787, led by Phillip who captained HMS Sirius. The ships were filled with supplies, 772 convicts, and a small group of men to help him run the new colony. They reached Botany Bay in January 1788, but Phillip felt the soil there was too poor to support a colony. The fleet travelled on, finally arriving at Sydney Cove on 26 January 1788.
Once on land, Phillip’s strict discipline and tight rationing laid the foundations for a successful settlement, though he struggled to create a viable colony with only minimal support from the British government. Phillip, however, had the foresight to see that New South Wales needed a system to emancipate convicts, supported by a sound legal system.
Arthur Phillip and Woolarawarre Bennelong
Phillip also opened a dialogue with the Eora Aboriginal people, who lived around Sydney Cove, as per the instructions he had received from King George III. A man called Woollarawarre Bennelong was captured to help teach the settlers more about the local customs, but he escaped after six months. Bennelong renewed his contact with Phillip as a free man, however.
Bennelong organised for Phillip to visit Manly, where a misunderstanding arose and Phillip was speared in the shoulder by a local Eora man. Phillip ordered his men not to retaliate, and a friendship developed between he and Bennelong, who learned to speak English.
In 1790, Phillip built him a hut on an area now known as Bennelong Point, the site of the Sydney Opera House.
The first years of British settlement
In 1790 the Second Fleet with hundreds more convicts, most of them in poor health, which put a great strain on the new colony’s already limited supplies. By the time the Third Fleet began to arrive in 1971, Phillip was forced to send supply ships to Calcutta to bring back food.
By 1792, the colony was well established, with a few trades flourishing, and the convicts whose sentences had expired learning to farm. Phillip, who was in poor health, finally received permission to return to England and set sale on 11 December 1792, taking Bennelong and his Eora friend Yemmerrawanyea along with him. Upon their departure, the population of New South Wales was 4,221 – 3,099 of whom were convicts.
Phillip arrived in London in May 1793 and resigned, never to return to New South Wales. He continued, though, to promote the colony’s interests with the British government. Bennelong remained in England for three years, returning home in 1796 where he would also advise the next governor. Governor Arthur Phillip died in Bath in 1814. | 812 | ENGLISH | 1 |
How did Darwin come up with these important ideas? As a naturalist, it was his job to observe and collect specimens of plants, animals, rocks, On his voyage, Darwin saw giant marine iguanas and blue-footed boobies. Years later, in his Autobiography, Darwin wrote that he did not think that While the primary purpose of the Beagle voyage, which was sponsored by the . birds that have become known as Darwin's finches, he did observe that distinct forms . Darwin's most important observation on his famous voyage on the HMS Beagle was the amount of difference that existed between animals of the same species.
During his voyage, Darwin made observations of the animal life that lived in He also observed that the finches on each island had beak shapes that were. Charles Darwin and His Voyage Aboard H.M.S. Beagle The ship had an unfortunate episode when its captain sank into a depression, . travel and research focused Darwin's mind and sharpened his powers of observation. He observed unique animal behavior that helped him assemble his theory. When setting off from England in for a five-year voyage, Darwin had little.
On his visit to the Galapagos Islands, Charles Darwin discovered several species of finches that varied from island to island, which helped him to develop his. Darwin made his most famous voyage on the Beagle the specimens collected on the voyage led Darwin to several related theories – namely that evolution did . The journey of young Charles Darwin aboard His Majesty's Ship Beagle, Darwin did assume the role of naturalist, and think of himself that way, as time went on. . the fossils were his intense curiosity, his talent for close observation, and his.
They only had time to meet some natives and observe a few animals before the . of its voyage, Darwin sent his second batch of specimens back to England. However, Darwin did not come up with evolution. of Species, in which he explained in detail his observations and theory of evolution by natural selection. Charles Darwin did not invent anything but he discovered a lot as a scientist and a few years after the voyage, he published his first major work on his findings, entitled Darwin was able to observe many of these natural phenomenons, like .
charles darwin discoveries
Here Darwin had three days to collect species and the second bird to lead him to Isabela was the third island to arrive in his voyage on September 29th, . He would also observe and examine the human populations and how small. Darwin had wholeheartedly accepted this theory, which was bolstered by the biblical I became fascinated by Darwin's life, and especially by his historic voyage around the world. .. One repeatedly sees the truth of Wedgwood's observation. of Evolution. Read Charles Darwin biography facts & FAQs about his life in the Galapagos Islands. Charles Darwin voyage took five years from to Darwin What did Charles Darwin study in the Galapagos Islands? The most. At first glance, Charles Darwin seems an unlikely revolutionary. Beagle, a naval vessel embarking on an exploratory voyage around the world. Darwin took advantage of countless opportunities to observe plant and animal Indeed, he did not publish his now-famous volume, On the Origin of Species. In , Charles Darwin received an astounding invitation: to join the HMS Beagle as to ponder—and the seeds of a theory he would work on for the rest of his life. Article A Ship and its Captain Captain Robert FitzRoy had extremely high. Towards the end of the journey, Darwin collected specimens in the There he saw mockingbirds that looked similar to those he had seen in South America, The observation was Darwin's first hint that species might evolve over time. His search for the Lesser Rhea, an ostrich-like bird he heard could be. His father, Robert, had the largest medical practice outside of London at the time It was during the beginning of the voyage that Darwin read the first volumes of This observation was verified by intensive field research in the last quarter of. What ideas were changing in the scientific community at the time of Darwin's What three kinds of variations among organisms did Darwin observe during the voyage How might this finding have affected his understanding of life's diversity ?. Although Darwin never stopped there – the place did not exist at the time of his journey - Darwin in north Australia was named after Charles. The Wider Earth explores how Darwin stumbled upon his theory of At no other time on the Beagle voyage did Darwin raise the issue, and. | <urn:uuid:1b88c959-4a0e-406a-a181-ef467c996ea3> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://porterpetcares.com/family/what-did-darwin-observe-on-his-voyage.php | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251700675.78/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127112805-20200127142805-00034.warc.gz | en | 0.987613 | 913 | 3.84375 | 4 | [
0.160164937376976,
0.1340629905462265,
0.4182109236717224,
-0.2581440508365631,
0.19902253150939941,
-0.1844746619462967,
0.5696166753768921,
0.39346474409103394,
-0.08428718149662018,
-0.07649083435535431,
0.11176763474941254,
-0.2847521901130676,
0.03593083843588829,
0.22209598124027252,... | 1 | How did Darwin come up with these important ideas? As a naturalist, it was his job to observe and collect specimens of plants, animals, rocks, On his voyage, Darwin saw giant marine iguanas and blue-footed boobies. Years later, in his Autobiography, Darwin wrote that he did not think that While the primary purpose of the Beagle voyage, which was sponsored by the . birds that have become known as Darwin's finches, he did observe that distinct forms . Darwin's most important observation on his famous voyage on the HMS Beagle was the amount of difference that existed between animals of the same species.
During his voyage, Darwin made observations of the animal life that lived in He also observed that the finches on each island had beak shapes that were. Charles Darwin and His Voyage Aboard H.M.S. Beagle The ship had an unfortunate episode when its captain sank into a depression, . travel and research focused Darwin's mind and sharpened his powers of observation. He observed unique animal behavior that helped him assemble his theory. When setting off from England in for a five-year voyage, Darwin had little.
On his visit to the Galapagos Islands, Charles Darwin discovered several species of finches that varied from island to island, which helped him to develop his. Darwin made his most famous voyage on the Beagle the specimens collected on the voyage led Darwin to several related theories – namely that evolution did . The journey of young Charles Darwin aboard His Majesty's Ship Beagle, Darwin did assume the role of naturalist, and think of himself that way, as time went on. . the fossils were his intense curiosity, his talent for close observation, and his.
They only had time to meet some natives and observe a few animals before the . of its voyage, Darwin sent his second batch of specimens back to England. However, Darwin did not come up with evolution. of Species, in which he explained in detail his observations and theory of evolution by natural selection. Charles Darwin did not invent anything but he discovered a lot as a scientist and a few years after the voyage, he published his first major work on his findings, entitled Darwin was able to observe many of these natural phenomenons, like .
charles darwin discoveries
Here Darwin had three days to collect species and the second bird to lead him to Isabela was the third island to arrive in his voyage on September 29th, . He would also observe and examine the human populations and how small. Darwin had wholeheartedly accepted this theory, which was bolstered by the biblical I became fascinated by Darwin's life, and especially by his historic voyage around the world. .. One repeatedly sees the truth of Wedgwood's observation. of Evolution. Read Charles Darwin biography facts & FAQs about his life in the Galapagos Islands. Charles Darwin voyage took five years from to Darwin What did Charles Darwin study in the Galapagos Islands? The most. At first glance, Charles Darwin seems an unlikely revolutionary. Beagle, a naval vessel embarking on an exploratory voyage around the world. Darwin took advantage of countless opportunities to observe plant and animal Indeed, he did not publish his now-famous volume, On the Origin of Species. In , Charles Darwin received an astounding invitation: to join the HMS Beagle as to ponder—and the seeds of a theory he would work on for the rest of his life. Article A Ship and its Captain Captain Robert FitzRoy had extremely high. Towards the end of the journey, Darwin collected specimens in the There he saw mockingbirds that looked similar to those he had seen in South America, The observation was Darwin's first hint that species might evolve over time. His search for the Lesser Rhea, an ostrich-like bird he heard could be. His father, Robert, had the largest medical practice outside of London at the time It was during the beginning of the voyage that Darwin read the first volumes of This observation was verified by intensive field research in the last quarter of. What ideas were changing in the scientific community at the time of Darwin's What three kinds of variations among organisms did Darwin observe during the voyage How might this finding have affected his understanding of life's diversity ?. Although Darwin never stopped there – the place did not exist at the time of his journey - Darwin in north Australia was named after Charles. The Wider Earth explores how Darwin stumbled upon his theory of At no other time on the Beagle voyage did Darwin raise the issue, and. | 902 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Benefit of clergy was the legally enshrined right of any clergyman facing prosecution for a felony in a royal court to have the case heard instead in an ecclesiastical court. As these church courts were usually more lenient in the sentences they passed down, had only limited powers to imprison and could not impose fines or the death penalty, the advantages of such a switch could be significant. Initially the benefit only applied to men, but it was extended by the Benefit of Clergy Act 1691 (3 Will. & Mar. c. 9) to include women as well.
Ecclesiastical courts were first established under the reign of William the Conqueror, and were at the heart of a dispute between St Thomas Becket and King Henry II. Henry claimed that ancient custom demanded that all charges against a member of the clergy should first be brought to a secular court, from where the accused would be transferred to a church court for the case to be heard and guilt or innocence established, but should then be returned to the secular court for sentencing.
There were several ways in which an accused person could satisfy the court that he was a member of the clergy: having a tonsure, wearing clerical garb, or producing a certificate of ordination. But the most common method was proof of literacy, as generally only the clergy were able to read. It was sufficient for the accused to be able read out loud a passage from the Bible, usually Psalm 51. In time the benefit of clergy was extended to anyone who could read, but as the numbers of those able to claim it increased so did the suspicion with which it was viewed. In 1352 King Edward III issued a statute that aimed to place limits on the application of benefit of clergy, a process that was to continue under his successors as they attempted to wrest control of the laws of England from the church.
Several statutes were enacted particularly during the Tudor period to restrict the right of felons to be tried in a church court. The Benefit of Clergy Act 1575The Benefit of Clergy Act, 1575 removed the right of those charged with rape or burglary to claim benefit of clergy, and so to be tried in an ecclesiastical court. , passed in the reign of Queen Elizabeth I for instance, removed the right to benefit of clergy to those charged with rape, burglary, or having sexual relations with a female under the age of ten. By the mid-18th century 160 felonies had been declared by Acts of Parliament to be without benefit of clergy. | <urn:uuid:6bb653f0-ae67-4656-9758-891b2a7be30c> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://engole.info/benefit-of-clergy/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251687725.76/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126043644-20200126073644-00452.warc.gz | en | 0.985869 | 509 | 3.828125 | 4 | [
-0.4476109743118286,
0.3130958080291748,
-0.154417484998703,
-0.13413725793361664,
0.031020544469356537,
-0.07027007639408112,
0.3497522175312042,
-0.10092735290527344,
0.3032864034175873,
-0.05862704664468765,
-0.4223949611186981,
0.18765009939670563,
0.07515402883291245,
-0.0568934567272... | 2 | Benefit of clergy was the legally enshrined right of any clergyman facing prosecution for a felony in a royal court to have the case heard instead in an ecclesiastical court. As these church courts were usually more lenient in the sentences they passed down, had only limited powers to imprison and could not impose fines or the death penalty, the advantages of such a switch could be significant. Initially the benefit only applied to men, but it was extended by the Benefit of Clergy Act 1691 (3 Will. & Mar. c. 9) to include women as well.
Ecclesiastical courts were first established under the reign of William the Conqueror, and were at the heart of a dispute between St Thomas Becket and King Henry II. Henry claimed that ancient custom demanded that all charges against a member of the clergy should first be brought to a secular court, from where the accused would be transferred to a church court for the case to be heard and guilt or innocence established, but should then be returned to the secular court for sentencing.
There were several ways in which an accused person could satisfy the court that he was a member of the clergy: having a tonsure, wearing clerical garb, or producing a certificate of ordination. But the most common method was proof of literacy, as generally only the clergy were able to read. It was sufficient for the accused to be able read out loud a passage from the Bible, usually Psalm 51. In time the benefit of clergy was extended to anyone who could read, but as the numbers of those able to claim it increased so did the suspicion with which it was viewed. In 1352 King Edward III issued a statute that aimed to place limits on the application of benefit of clergy, a process that was to continue under his successors as they attempted to wrest control of the laws of England from the church.
Several statutes were enacted particularly during the Tudor period to restrict the right of felons to be tried in a church court. The Benefit of Clergy Act 1575The Benefit of Clergy Act, 1575 removed the right of those charged with rape or burglary to claim benefit of clergy, and so to be tried in an ecclesiastical court. , passed in the reign of Queen Elizabeth I for instance, removed the right to benefit of clergy to those charged with rape, burglary, or having sexual relations with a female under the age of ten. By the mid-18th century 160 felonies had been declared by Acts of Parliament to be without benefit of clergy. | 532 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Today, when we think about the neighborhood finance company, it usually carries a negative connotation. Storefront lending is now the place you go when the bank won’t touch you, or so many believe.
Personal finance companies played an important part in accelerating the consumption of credit in America. Ironically, that was not their intention.
In the 1920s, if you wanted a small loan, your choice of supplier was usually limited to the “loan shark.” In order to help people avoid such unscrupulous borrowing, small-loan offices appeared. These offices wanted to assist workers with budget advice and affordable loans for emergency situations and were viewed as bastions of social welfare and of charitable purpose.
The intention of finance companies was to provide advice to workers and restore them to the path of financial control, Victorian thrift and self-discipline. The finance companies felt if they could only help people make out a budget and provide some advice, the financial troubles of the applicants would be eased. It did not take very long for the plan to explode in their faces as people came to them to borrow more and more. Finally, finance companies stopped counseling people, consumers just wanted the loans. Some finance companies, having overachieved on their objectives and unsatisfied with their inability to achieve their philanthropic objectives, closed their doors.
Early usury laws did more to hurt workers’ abilities to gain access to borrowed money. A tremendous amount of argument raged in written works of the time both for and against usury laws.
The unintended effect of usury laws was a growing underground of illegal lending. While it is true that throughout the ages some lending could be characterized as unconscionable, when legislatures set a maximum interest rate, it prevented many lenders from extending credit to those who, some might argue, needed it most.
Interest rates are determined by a number of factors: cost of funds, quality of the collateral and risk of return. When the usury rates were determined, they did not account for the ability of lenders to make loans to the more financially challenged members of our society. This unreasonable control of the free market value of funds created an artificial ceiling on available cash and made lending so unprofitable as to cause many lenders to close.
You can see natural market values of interest rates in operation today. While a new vehicle loan may cost 8.75 percent for 36 months, the same lender may charge 9.25 percent for a 72-month loan. And an unsecured personal loan may be at the rate of 16 percent.
Usury laws extend back to Jewish Mosaic laws that prohibited the charging of interest on loans. In modern times, usury laws determine the maximum amount of interest, which can legally be charged. Loans above the maximum legal rate are called usurious.
Finance companies labored under restrictive usury laws and limited the ability of consumers to obtain small loans. While it was popular opinion that there should be controls placed upon interest rates, consider the following facts:
- Finance companies did not have access to cheap funds from depositors like a bank. They either lent their own money or had to borrow.
- Finance companies made riskier loans so a higher return had to be made from those that did repay to compensate for those that did not, in spite of collection efforts.
- Finance company loans were generally for low dollar amounts but required the same administrative costs of origination and administration as loans 10 times the amount.
It is interesting to read about the history of Arthur Ham, a graduate student of Columbia University, who, in the early 1900s, studied small-loan lenders in detail.
Ham first concluded that finance companies of the day were causing a hardship on workers by charging high rates of interest.
However, after he led the campaign to pass usury laws to limit the amount of interest that could be charged, Ham completely reversed his position.
He originally felt, as do many people then and today, that high interest rates were an indication of shameless profit. However, as he became better acquainted with the loan industry, he discovered how interest rates for these loans were determined and why they were necessary.
Since the new lower, “protective” interest rates enacted were too low for small finance companies and philanthropic lenders to take on the risk of low-dollar borrowers, people had no place to turn for these small loans. After realizing what was happening, Ham moderated his views and worked with lender organizations to find a way for small finance companies to exist while eliminating the undesirable “loan shark” element. | <urn:uuid:43924ac6-d562-4267-990a-8c0bc45b1dcd> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://getoutofdebt.org/14396/the-history-of-credit-debt-the-finance-company | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250599718.13/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120165335-20200120194335-00464.warc.gz | en | 0.980953 | 936 | 3.28125 | 3 | [
0.013235637918114662,
-0.4559417963027954,
0.1599695384502411,
0.006413573399186134,
0.3043253421783447,
-0.3407710790634155,
0.13609068095684052,
0.05974820628762245,
-0.0004673609510064125,
0.08518880605697632,
0.4885181188583374,
0.3244198262691498,
-0.02569548599421978,
0.1231814622879... | 4 | Today, when we think about the neighborhood finance company, it usually carries a negative connotation. Storefront lending is now the place you go when the bank won’t touch you, or so many believe.
Personal finance companies played an important part in accelerating the consumption of credit in America. Ironically, that was not their intention.
In the 1920s, if you wanted a small loan, your choice of supplier was usually limited to the “loan shark.” In order to help people avoid such unscrupulous borrowing, small-loan offices appeared. These offices wanted to assist workers with budget advice and affordable loans for emergency situations and were viewed as bastions of social welfare and of charitable purpose.
The intention of finance companies was to provide advice to workers and restore them to the path of financial control, Victorian thrift and self-discipline. The finance companies felt if they could only help people make out a budget and provide some advice, the financial troubles of the applicants would be eased. It did not take very long for the plan to explode in their faces as people came to them to borrow more and more. Finally, finance companies stopped counseling people, consumers just wanted the loans. Some finance companies, having overachieved on their objectives and unsatisfied with their inability to achieve their philanthropic objectives, closed their doors.
Early usury laws did more to hurt workers’ abilities to gain access to borrowed money. A tremendous amount of argument raged in written works of the time both for and against usury laws.
The unintended effect of usury laws was a growing underground of illegal lending. While it is true that throughout the ages some lending could be characterized as unconscionable, when legislatures set a maximum interest rate, it prevented many lenders from extending credit to those who, some might argue, needed it most.
Interest rates are determined by a number of factors: cost of funds, quality of the collateral and risk of return. When the usury rates were determined, they did not account for the ability of lenders to make loans to the more financially challenged members of our society. This unreasonable control of the free market value of funds created an artificial ceiling on available cash and made lending so unprofitable as to cause many lenders to close.
You can see natural market values of interest rates in operation today. While a new vehicle loan may cost 8.75 percent for 36 months, the same lender may charge 9.25 percent for a 72-month loan. And an unsecured personal loan may be at the rate of 16 percent.
Usury laws extend back to Jewish Mosaic laws that prohibited the charging of interest on loans. In modern times, usury laws determine the maximum amount of interest, which can legally be charged. Loans above the maximum legal rate are called usurious.
Finance companies labored under restrictive usury laws and limited the ability of consumers to obtain small loans. While it was popular opinion that there should be controls placed upon interest rates, consider the following facts:
- Finance companies did not have access to cheap funds from depositors like a bank. They either lent their own money or had to borrow.
- Finance companies made riskier loans so a higher return had to be made from those that did repay to compensate for those that did not, in spite of collection efforts.
- Finance company loans were generally for low dollar amounts but required the same administrative costs of origination and administration as loans 10 times the amount.
It is interesting to read about the history of Arthur Ham, a graduate student of Columbia University, who, in the early 1900s, studied small-loan lenders in detail.
Ham first concluded that finance companies of the day were causing a hardship on workers by charging high rates of interest.
However, after he led the campaign to pass usury laws to limit the amount of interest that could be charged, Ham completely reversed his position.
He originally felt, as do many people then and today, that high interest rates were an indication of shameless profit. However, as he became better acquainted with the loan industry, he discovered how interest rates for these loans were determined and why they were necessary.
Since the new lower, “protective” interest rates enacted were too low for small finance companies and philanthropic lenders to take on the risk of low-dollar borrowers, people had no place to turn for these small loans. After realizing what was happening, Ham moderated his views and worked with lender organizations to find a way for small finance companies to exist while eliminating the undesirable “loan shark” element. | 923 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Crazy Horse was one of the most celebrated Native American warriors to have ever lived. In the mid-19th century, he led his tribe ‘Oglala Lakota’ to victory against several attacks by the US federal government. Thus, he earned a highly respectable status among the local tribes and also among his enemies. He participated in several historically significant American Indian wars, mostly on the northern plains of America, such as the ‘Fetterman Massacre’ in a bid to preserve the ‘Lakota’ way of life that was threatened by the immigrants. Although much of his early life has not been documented, he is a part of oral history. It is said that he started leading his army in wars well before he turned 20. He surrendered in 1877, when he was in his mid-30s. His death was highly controversial and its true cause is debated to date. Crazy Horse was never photographed and there is not a single credible photograph of his. In 1982, he was honored by the American government, which featured him on the ‘Great Americans’ series postage stamp.
- Crazy Horse was born “Cha-O-Ha,” meaning “In the Wilderness,” near South Dakota. Although there is no actual record of his date or year of birth, it is almost certain that he was born between 1840 and 1845. His parents were from sub-tribes of the ‘Lakota’ tribe, who were part of the ‘Sioux’ confederacy. His father too was also known as “Crazy Horse” back in his youth. His mother had named him “Curly” or “Light Hair,” owing to his light, curly hair.His father was an esteemed medicine man in the tribe and was respected by all tribe members. Crazy Horse was born to be a warrior and despite his shorter-than-average frame and lighter-than-usual skin, he was hailed as a future warrior by the elders in the tribe. These slightly unusual physical traits somehow made him a little distant from the other tribe members of his age.The ‘Lakota’ was one of the most popular divisions of the ‘Sioux’ confederacy and owned a great mass of land, which stretched from Missouri River to the Bighorn Mountains. They did not interact with the white people much and led a very private and contented life, but when conflicts became inevitable, they had no option but to fight for their lands.Continue Reading BelowThe Beginning of Conflicts
- The ‘Lakota’ people mostly led a peaceful life. The unrest began in the 1850s, as that was the time when the white settlers came to their land, looking for gold. The whites started settling down. Conflicts began when military forces were brought to the plains. The whites brought their own lifestyle along with them, hampering the ‘Lakota’ way of life. The whites even brought diseases with them.The year 1854 marked the beginning of a tragic and brutal warfare. A white migrant’s cow was killed by a native in an accident, which made a little white force, led by Lieutenant John Grattan, enter the ‘Sioux’ camps. The whites took some men prisoners.This was not accepted by the self-respecting chief of the tribe, known as Conquering Bear, and violence ensued. Somehow, the tribe chief was killed by one of Grattan’s soldiers, and this enraged the warriors of the tribe. In a revenge attack, they killed Grattan and all his 30 men. This event is known as the infamous ‘Grattan Massacre.’The ‘Grattan Massacre’ triggered an all-out war between the ‘Lakota’ tribe and US federal government. Crazy Horse was still young at that time, but the incident was enough for him to know that the whites were bad people and needed to be wiped out.All-Out Battle
- By the early 1860s, Crazy Horse had become a powerful young man and had become one of the key allies of his tribe’s chief, Sitting Bull. They fought together in several battles. Soon, Crazy Horse was leading his own forces against the whites.In one of his most successful victories, he led a small army and attacked William J. Fetterman’s troop, which consisted of 80 men. Thus, the ‘Fetterman Massacre’ became an embarrassing incident for the American establishment. The difference between the modern weapons that the whites were equipped with and the old-school fighting skills of the natives proved to be negligible as the natives scored multiple victories over the whites.The government was taken aback by the bravery of the natives and had to come to a compromise. As a result, the ‘Fort Laramie Treaty’ was signed in 1868. The treaty guaranteed that the ‘Lakota’ people would retain all their rights on their most important lands, which also included the highly significant Black Hills territory. However, this was not enough for Crazy Horse. He knew that the integrity of his tribe was in danger and he hated the whites wholeheartedly. This was enough to continue his fight against white supremacy.Crazy was always uncompromising on the battlefield and his tribesmen regarded him as a mystical being, owing to his ability to remain unharmed during the most brutal of attacks on him. He never allowed himself to be photographed and neither did he ever sign any document. All he wanted was to preserve his heritage and all his land for his people.Although the natives tried to initiate a peace agreement, there was very little chance of that happening. The government had discovered ample mines of gold, and they backed white explorers. Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse refused to enter into any agreement that could have harmed their heritage, even a little bit, and they continued with their war efforts.In June 1876, Crazy led a force of 1200 ‘Cheyenne’ and ‘Oglala’ warriors to fight General George Crook, who wanted to destroy Sitting Bull’s encampment near the Little Bighorn River. After a brutal fight, the whites were pushed back and the natives reclaimed their land. This was the greatest victory of the natives over the white Americans.Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse charged together on Lieutenant Colonel George Armstrong Custer and his cavalry, which was one of the most talked about and respected cavalries among the white forces. The natives decimated the whites and secured a great strategic and moral victory.The Downfall
- The US Army gathered all its forces and attacked the ‘Lakota’ people after Custer’s defeat, and this was not a good sign. The natives were severely outnumbered and Sitting Bull decided to dodge the fight and instead, led his tribesmen across the border to Canada. However, Crazy Horse refused to run away and gathered the remaining of his fighters to tackle the US army.It was a long and tiring fight and Crazy Horse’s men were falling short of food supplies. They were tired of fighting without any victory in sight. As a result, they started abandoning him, and once he knew it was all over, Crazy Horse decided to surrender. He went to Fort Robinson in Nebraska and turned himself in. However, his wife fell sick around that time. Crazy Horse wanted to be with her, but he was not allowed to leave the prison.Following a struggle with the officers, he suffered a kidney injury and died on September 5, 1877. His father was by his side at the time of his death.Legacy
- Crazy Horse is a massively respected and honored man. There is a ‘Crazy Horse Memorial’ in South Dakota, and there have been several films based on his life and valor, such as the 1955 film ‘Chief Crazy Horse.’In 1982, the American government issued postage stamps in his name, under the ‘Great Americans’ series.
How To CiteArticle Title- Crazy Horse BiographyAuthor- Editors, TheFamousPeople.comWebsite- TheFamousPeople.comURL- https://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/crazy-horse-30505.phpLast Updated- April 11, 2018
People Also Viewed | <urn:uuid:3ed120f9-9022-48ce-82b4-7f4178905ea0> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/crazy-horse-30505.php | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251737572.61/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127235617-20200128025617-00510.warc.gz | en | 0.991135 | 1,723 | 3.578125 | 4 | [
-0.14200560748577118,
0.46901124715805054,
0.5334489345550537,
0.13776671886444092,
-0.35514354705810547,
-0.09622520208358765,
0.21320724487304688,
0.21652333438396454,
-0.27899545431137085,
0.07118596881628036,
0.09858722984790802,
0.14736202359199524,
-0.05907019227743149,
0.45914232730... | 1 | Crazy Horse was one of the most celebrated Native American warriors to have ever lived. In the mid-19th century, he led his tribe ‘Oglala Lakota’ to victory against several attacks by the US federal government. Thus, he earned a highly respectable status among the local tribes and also among his enemies. He participated in several historically significant American Indian wars, mostly on the northern plains of America, such as the ‘Fetterman Massacre’ in a bid to preserve the ‘Lakota’ way of life that was threatened by the immigrants. Although much of his early life has not been documented, he is a part of oral history. It is said that he started leading his army in wars well before he turned 20. He surrendered in 1877, when he was in his mid-30s. His death was highly controversial and its true cause is debated to date. Crazy Horse was never photographed and there is not a single credible photograph of his. In 1982, he was honored by the American government, which featured him on the ‘Great Americans’ series postage stamp.
- Crazy Horse was born “Cha-O-Ha,” meaning “In the Wilderness,” near South Dakota. Although there is no actual record of his date or year of birth, it is almost certain that he was born between 1840 and 1845. His parents were from sub-tribes of the ‘Lakota’ tribe, who were part of the ‘Sioux’ confederacy. His father too was also known as “Crazy Horse” back in his youth. His mother had named him “Curly” or “Light Hair,” owing to his light, curly hair.His father was an esteemed medicine man in the tribe and was respected by all tribe members. Crazy Horse was born to be a warrior and despite his shorter-than-average frame and lighter-than-usual skin, he was hailed as a future warrior by the elders in the tribe. These slightly unusual physical traits somehow made him a little distant from the other tribe members of his age.The ‘Lakota’ was one of the most popular divisions of the ‘Sioux’ confederacy and owned a great mass of land, which stretched from Missouri River to the Bighorn Mountains. They did not interact with the white people much and led a very private and contented life, but when conflicts became inevitable, they had no option but to fight for their lands.Continue Reading BelowThe Beginning of Conflicts
- The ‘Lakota’ people mostly led a peaceful life. The unrest began in the 1850s, as that was the time when the white settlers came to their land, looking for gold. The whites started settling down. Conflicts began when military forces were brought to the plains. The whites brought their own lifestyle along with them, hampering the ‘Lakota’ way of life. The whites even brought diseases with them.The year 1854 marked the beginning of a tragic and brutal warfare. A white migrant’s cow was killed by a native in an accident, which made a little white force, led by Lieutenant John Grattan, enter the ‘Sioux’ camps. The whites took some men prisoners.This was not accepted by the self-respecting chief of the tribe, known as Conquering Bear, and violence ensued. Somehow, the tribe chief was killed by one of Grattan’s soldiers, and this enraged the warriors of the tribe. In a revenge attack, they killed Grattan and all his 30 men. This event is known as the infamous ‘Grattan Massacre.’The ‘Grattan Massacre’ triggered an all-out war between the ‘Lakota’ tribe and US federal government. Crazy Horse was still young at that time, but the incident was enough for him to know that the whites were bad people and needed to be wiped out.All-Out Battle
- By the early 1860s, Crazy Horse had become a powerful young man and had become one of the key allies of his tribe’s chief, Sitting Bull. They fought together in several battles. Soon, Crazy Horse was leading his own forces against the whites.In one of his most successful victories, he led a small army and attacked William J. Fetterman’s troop, which consisted of 80 men. Thus, the ‘Fetterman Massacre’ became an embarrassing incident for the American establishment. The difference between the modern weapons that the whites were equipped with and the old-school fighting skills of the natives proved to be negligible as the natives scored multiple victories over the whites.The government was taken aback by the bravery of the natives and had to come to a compromise. As a result, the ‘Fort Laramie Treaty’ was signed in 1868. The treaty guaranteed that the ‘Lakota’ people would retain all their rights on their most important lands, which also included the highly significant Black Hills territory. However, this was not enough for Crazy Horse. He knew that the integrity of his tribe was in danger and he hated the whites wholeheartedly. This was enough to continue his fight against white supremacy.Crazy was always uncompromising on the battlefield and his tribesmen regarded him as a mystical being, owing to his ability to remain unharmed during the most brutal of attacks on him. He never allowed himself to be photographed and neither did he ever sign any document. All he wanted was to preserve his heritage and all his land for his people.Although the natives tried to initiate a peace agreement, there was very little chance of that happening. The government had discovered ample mines of gold, and they backed white explorers. Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse refused to enter into any agreement that could have harmed their heritage, even a little bit, and they continued with their war efforts.In June 1876, Crazy led a force of 1200 ‘Cheyenne’ and ‘Oglala’ warriors to fight General George Crook, who wanted to destroy Sitting Bull’s encampment near the Little Bighorn River. After a brutal fight, the whites were pushed back and the natives reclaimed their land. This was the greatest victory of the natives over the white Americans.Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse charged together on Lieutenant Colonel George Armstrong Custer and his cavalry, which was one of the most talked about and respected cavalries among the white forces. The natives decimated the whites and secured a great strategic and moral victory.The Downfall
- The US Army gathered all its forces and attacked the ‘Lakota’ people after Custer’s defeat, and this was not a good sign. The natives were severely outnumbered and Sitting Bull decided to dodge the fight and instead, led his tribesmen across the border to Canada. However, Crazy Horse refused to run away and gathered the remaining of his fighters to tackle the US army.It was a long and tiring fight and Crazy Horse’s men were falling short of food supplies. They were tired of fighting without any victory in sight. As a result, they started abandoning him, and once he knew it was all over, Crazy Horse decided to surrender. He went to Fort Robinson in Nebraska and turned himself in. However, his wife fell sick around that time. Crazy Horse wanted to be with her, but he was not allowed to leave the prison.Following a struggle with the officers, he suffered a kidney injury and died on September 5, 1877. His father was by his side at the time of his death.Legacy
- Crazy Horse is a massively respected and honored man. There is a ‘Crazy Horse Memorial’ in South Dakota, and there have been several films based on his life and valor, such as the 1955 film ‘Chief Crazy Horse.’In 1982, the American government issued postage stamps in his name, under the ‘Great Americans’ series.
How To CiteArticle Title- Crazy Horse BiographyAuthor- Editors, TheFamousPeople.comWebsite- TheFamousPeople.comURL- https://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/crazy-horse-30505.phpLast Updated- April 11, 2018
People Also Viewed | 1,694 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The 1890's was in time for transformation for the English society. After Queen Victoria died the heart of the Victorian culture seemed to fade. England was beginning to experience economic competition from other states and a gradual decline from its former pinnacle of power. Politically, the Parliament experienced some fundamental power shifts after the turn of the century. This essay will address the climate of change in the English culture and its expressions. The changes occurred in two separate and distinct time periods. These time periods are the turn of the century from 1890's to World War II. The second period is WWII to 1970's.
The new century brought about an end to the old and stuffy Victorian life-styles. The social stigmas of women and their behavior was challenged and change by the rise of feminism in 1910. Women began to protest against the system for women 's suffrage. One instance these "violent women" ran around in the city smashing store windows to get notoriety for their cause. Books such as the Odd Women, featured a fictional representation of "professional women". They were classified in two categories, both an attack on the social institution of marriage. The first of these new women were out only for fun. The second was the concept of an asexual being who did not need a man. These women owned their own flats and had various jobs usually secretarial in nature.. The book expressed an uncomfortable period of transformation. Working women were not completely accepted by English society at this time. The book portrayed different lives and how they coped with their situations.1
The male character was also in a state of change. This change brought about the term "new men". These new men were classified by a "sexual anarchy". This movement was predominantly a middle class, liberal expression. Many were young male artisans who were homosexual . The word homosexuality was created by an amendment to criminal law which had declared all acts of sodomy as illegal. Previous to this amendment the act of homosexuality was punishable by hanging. Doctors and scientist had seen homosexuality as a disease, thus the need developed for a "cure". Sexuality became all inclusive.
There was a large aesthetic movement which was also inherent in this "new" culture. This movement classified art as being done for art's sake. Art was now being viewed as separate from society. This meant that art could be a personal expression rather than a group think project. These attributes coined the term the "Decadent Movement".
The England was experiencing tremendous growth in its economy and political change during this time. However, this growth was also shared by to other rival countries, Germany and the United States. England had a fear of the massive economic strength of the United States. England, at the turn of the century, was no longer the international hegemon it was a decade previous. This caused the English look introspectly at itself.
The political change occurred inside of the Parliament. The conservative House of Lords began vetoing new liberal budget proposals. Both the Prime Minister and the House of Commons were liberal in their political affiliation. The vetoing created a deadlock in the government. The Prime Minister and the House of Commons proposed a referendum which would nullify the House of Lords power of veto over the budgetary matters. This was presented to the House of Lords with an ultimatum. If the referendum was not passed the House of Lords would be flooded with liberal Middle class citizens. The referendum was then passed and the deadlock broken. This shift of power was crucial in the infrastructure of the political system of England.
World War I left a tremendous impression of reality on the English. Their confidence was compromised due to the ineffectiveness in combat and their dependence of United States aid for victory. This is the true end of all of the glory held by the British Empire. The English were left with a tremendous national debt totalling at $7 billion dollars. England would never be a hegemon in the international community again.
World War II brought a feeling of unity back to England. "The Battle for Britain" with the inspirational radio speeches of Winston Churchill inspired national pride to the British. The period of decline enhanced by WW I, a large debt and the Great Depression had traumatic effects on the English psyche. The civilian bombing planned by Hitler tried to enhance this feeling of despair. However, it accomplish the exact opposite. The children of England were sent to the country side. These children were predominantly working class children. When the upper class saw the state that these children where in the showed pity and concern. Other factors which brought the populace together was a consolidation of national opinion, full employment and the previous mentioned speeches of Churchill.
Thus, it can be seen that the period of 1890's to the end of World War II marked the end of Victorianism. This end was achieved by both internal and external factors. Internal institutions of Victorianism in cultural and social structures were slowly eroded by sexual identity. The concept of "The New Woman and New Men" challenged traditional values inherent to the Victorian class Structures and morality. The event of the two wars brought the external reality of Britain's role in the international community home. Both English dominance and hegemonic imperialism were curbed and set into perspective during this time period. | <urn:uuid:15a37eac-0f21-4b86-a998-e1029bd8186e> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://ww.novelguide.com/reportessay/history/european-history/rebellion-against-victorianism | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251700988.64/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127143516-20200127173516-00308.warc.gz | en | 0.980071 | 1,057 | 3.5 | 4 | [
0.020766228437423706,
0.14723975956439972,
0.45972830057144165,
0.09153175354003906,
-0.05280086398124695,
0.42553919553756714,
-0.25271427631378174,
0.02508563920855522,
-0.08867593109607697,
0.02650977298617363,
0.15922591090202332,
-0.04453745111823082,
0.27922022342681885,
-0.126826167... | 2 | The 1890's was in time for transformation for the English society. After Queen Victoria died the heart of the Victorian culture seemed to fade. England was beginning to experience economic competition from other states and a gradual decline from its former pinnacle of power. Politically, the Parliament experienced some fundamental power shifts after the turn of the century. This essay will address the climate of change in the English culture and its expressions. The changes occurred in two separate and distinct time periods. These time periods are the turn of the century from 1890's to World War II. The second period is WWII to 1970's.
The new century brought about an end to the old and stuffy Victorian life-styles. The social stigmas of women and their behavior was challenged and change by the rise of feminism in 1910. Women began to protest against the system for women 's suffrage. One instance these "violent women" ran around in the city smashing store windows to get notoriety for their cause. Books such as the Odd Women, featured a fictional representation of "professional women". They were classified in two categories, both an attack on the social institution of marriage. The first of these new women were out only for fun. The second was the concept of an asexual being who did not need a man. These women owned their own flats and had various jobs usually secretarial in nature.. The book expressed an uncomfortable period of transformation. Working women were not completely accepted by English society at this time. The book portrayed different lives and how they coped with their situations.1
The male character was also in a state of change. This change brought about the term "new men". These new men were classified by a "sexual anarchy". This movement was predominantly a middle class, liberal expression. Many were young male artisans who were homosexual . The word homosexuality was created by an amendment to criminal law which had declared all acts of sodomy as illegal. Previous to this amendment the act of homosexuality was punishable by hanging. Doctors and scientist had seen homosexuality as a disease, thus the need developed for a "cure". Sexuality became all inclusive.
There was a large aesthetic movement which was also inherent in this "new" culture. This movement classified art as being done for art's sake. Art was now being viewed as separate from society. This meant that art could be a personal expression rather than a group think project. These attributes coined the term the "Decadent Movement".
The England was experiencing tremendous growth in its economy and political change during this time. However, this growth was also shared by to other rival countries, Germany and the United States. England had a fear of the massive economic strength of the United States. England, at the turn of the century, was no longer the international hegemon it was a decade previous. This caused the English look introspectly at itself.
The political change occurred inside of the Parliament. The conservative House of Lords began vetoing new liberal budget proposals. Both the Prime Minister and the House of Commons were liberal in their political affiliation. The vetoing created a deadlock in the government. The Prime Minister and the House of Commons proposed a referendum which would nullify the House of Lords power of veto over the budgetary matters. This was presented to the House of Lords with an ultimatum. If the referendum was not passed the House of Lords would be flooded with liberal Middle class citizens. The referendum was then passed and the deadlock broken. This shift of power was crucial in the infrastructure of the political system of England.
World War I left a tremendous impression of reality on the English. Their confidence was compromised due to the ineffectiveness in combat and their dependence of United States aid for victory. This is the true end of all of the glory held by the British Empire. The English were left with a tremendous national debt totalling at $7 billion dollars. England would never be a hegemon in the international community again.
World War II brought a feeling of unity back to England. "The Battle for Britain" with the inspirational radio speeches of Winston Churchill inspired national pride to the British. The period of decline enhanced by WW I, a large debt and the Great Depression had traumatic effects on the English psyche. The civilian bombing planned by Hitler tried to enhance this feeling of despair. However, it accomplish the exact opposite. The children of England were sent to the country side. These children were predominantly working class children. When the upper class saw the state that these children where in the showed pity and concern. Other factors which brought the populace together was a consolidation of national opinion, full employment and the previous mentioned speeches of Churchill.
Thus, it can be seen that the period of 1890's to the end of World War II marked the end of Victorianism. This end was achieved by both internal and external factors. Internal institutions of Victorianism in cultural and social structures were slowly eroded by sexual identity. The concept of "The New Woman and New Men" challenged traditional values inherent to the Victorian class Structures and morality. The event of the two wars brought the external reality of Britain's role in the international community home. Both English dominance and hegemonic imperialism were curbed and set into perspective during this time period. | 1,068 | ENGLISH | 1 |
To Kill a Mockingbird – Racism Toward African Americans
To Kill a Mockingbird is based in about 1935, right in the middle of the depression. It is placed in a small town in Alabama called Maycomb. Like most small southern towns, it has a problem with widespread racism toward African Americans. The novel focuses on a family named the Finches. In the family there are three people, Scout, Jem and Atticus. Atticus is a lawyer and is defending a African American man by the name of Tom Robinson in court, something that was not often done in the south due to racism. Many people feel threatened by this and feel very resentful toward Atticus.
Throughout the novel all the members of the Finches and many others display courage in their attempts to stand up for what they believe in. In the beginning of the novel we meet Jean Louise Finch, or Scout for short. Scout is an energetic little six year old. She still has her innocence and has not yet been able to understand the concepts of racial discrimination or hate. Scout is confused by what some of her classmates have been saying about her father, Atticus Finch. Many of her classmates call Atticus a “nigger lover”.
Being only six Scout does not know how to handle such situations so she solves her problems by fighting. On the day that Tom Robinson was moved to the Maycomb jail to await his trial, Atticus left the house to go and sit outside of the jail to watch over Tom to make sure that nothing happens to him. Scout, Jem and Dill followed him there to make sure that nothing happened to him. Suddenly several cars pulled up at the jail. A mob got out of the vehicles and demanded that Atticus step aside so that they could get at Tom. Frightened the children came running to Atticus’ side and asked him if everything was okay.
Atticus told them to go home, but they refused. Suddenly, Scout saw a man that she knew, Mr. Cunningham. She said hi to him, twice before he acknowledged her. She began asking him questions about his entailments and talking about Walter, his son. At first he said nothing, Scout was afraid that she had done something wrong. Then finally he said something, he said that he would tell Walter that she said hey. After that, they all left. By singling out Mr. Cunningham she turned to mob into individuals and thus making them more aware as to what they were doing.
She made Mr. Cunningham realize that Atticus is a man, not a roadblock. Scout showed that even a small girl was able to stop a mob of grown men from doing something that they might regret. Even though Scout was unaware of what she had done she was still the hero of the day and displayed lots of courage by standing up for her father. Scout’s brother Jem also shows courage in the novel. Jem is nine years old and is just beginning to show signs of maturing. Jem shows most of his courage by just believing that what his father was doing was the right thing to do.
Jem continues to believe throughout the novel that Atticus will win because there was very little evidence to go against Tom, only the words of Mayella and Bob Ewell. This trust and somewhat naive belief that even a African American can get released from jail is shattered when Tom is sentenced. Jem does not understand how he could be guilty even when all the evidence was pointing towards Bob Ewell. The courage showed by Jem concerning this matter is very strong, partially due to his slight knowledge with the racism that is going on around him. This courage is based on what he has been told by Atticus.
Atticus displays the most courage by defending Tom Robinson in court. He knew that having a white man defend a black man in court was unacceptable. He knew that people would resent him for it and he also knew that he would most likely lose the case because a black man has never won a court battle against a white. Atticus never lost hope though, he continued to work and protect Tom no matter what. He During the court battle Atticus tried his best to win over the jury, but all that he managed to do was remove every shred of credibility from Mr. Ewell.
Atticus defended Tom because otherwise he would not be able to tell his children what to do any more, and also for moral reasons to. The court battle was not the only place that Atticus showed courage. He showed physical courage when he shot the rabid dog, Tim Johnson. This was the only type of courage that his daughter Scout was able to under stand at the time. The Finches were not the only ones who showed courage during the course of the novel. Tom Robinson showed plenty of courage just by pleading not guilty and attempting to win in a racist court room.
Tom and Atticus paved the way for future Negroes in the same situation as Tom by nearly winning over a racist jury. Tom and Atticus managed to not only remove all of Bob Ewell’s credibility but they also changed the mind of one man on the jury, one who was also part of the mob, Mr. Cunningham. Mr. Cunningham had to be convinced by the other twelve jury members that Tom was guilty. One step forward for the case, one giant leap towards changing the views of people. Finally there is the mystery man, Boo Radley. The children were fascinated by this man. He never came outside ever.
The children tried to catch a glimpse of him for three years but never saw him. Then on the way home from a play that Scout had been in, they were attacked by Mr. Ewell. He wrestled with them for a short time, then another man came in and started to stop Mr. Ewell finally the fight ended and someone grabbed Jem and brought him into the house and Atticus ran over to get Scout (who was dressed as a ham! ). Heck Tate came over to tell them that Mr. Ewell had been killed by his own knife. It turned out to be Boo Radley who saved the children by fighting off Mr.
Ewell. The mystery man whom they had thought ate squirrels and cats raw and killed children, turned out to be just a misunderstood guy who preferred to be inside then to face a cruel world. All over the above characters and possible others, showed lots of courage towards what was happening around them. They all stood up for what they believed to be right and never let up. To Kill A Mockingbird is an excellent example of how the views of a town can be changed by a group of brave individuals who stood up for what they believed in . | <urn:uuid:e08b546b-e52e-420a-b308-f3bfa91c1dbd> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://freebooksummary.com/to-kill-a-mockingbird-racism-toward-african-americans | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250606975.49/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122101729-20200122130729-00322.warc.gz | en | 0.989449 | 1,361 | 3.5625 | 4 | [
0.12496178597211838,
0.29876595735549927,
-0.21527057886123657,
0.2500985860824585,
0.08935651928186417,
-0.025339175015687943,
0.4230567514896393,
0.15969645977020264,
-0.06444023549556732,
-0.193614199757576,
0.2380009889602661,
-0.07323499768972397,
-0.41183987259864807,
0.0085579212754... | 1 | To Kill a Mockingbird – Racism Toward African Americans
To Kill a Mockingbird is based in about 1935, right in the middle of the depression. It is placed in a small town in Alabama called Maycomb. Like most small southern towns, it has a problem with widespread racism toward African Americans. The novel focuses on a family named the Finches. In the family there are three people, Scout, Jem and Atticus. Atticus is a lawyer and is defending a African American man by the name of Tom Robinson in court, something that was not often done in the south due to racism. Many people feel threatened by this and feel very resentful toward Atticus.
Throughout the novel all the members of the Finches and many others display courage in their attempts to stand up for what they believe in. In the beginning of the novel we meet Jean Louise Finch, or Scout for short. Scout is an energetic little six year old. She still has her innocence and has not yet been able to understand the concepts of racial discrimination or hate. Scout is confused by what some of her classmates have been saying about her father, Atticus Finch. Many of her classmates call Atticus a “nigger lover”.
Being only six Scout does not know how to handle such situations so she solves her problems by fighting. On the day that Tom Robinson was moved to the Maycomb jail to await his trial, Atticus left the house to go and sit outside of the jail to watch over Tom to make sure that nothing happens to him. Scout, Jem and Dill followed him there to make sure that nothing happened to him. Suddenly several cars pulled up at the jail. A mob got out of the vehicles and demanded that Atticus step aside so that they could get at Tom. Frightened the children came running to Atticus’ side and asked him if everything was okay.
Atticus told them to go home, but they refused. Suddenly, Scout saw a man that she knew, Mr. Cunningham. She said hi to him, twice before he acknowledged her. She began asking him questions about his entailments and talking about Walter, his son. At first he said nothing, Scout was afraid that she had done something wrong. Then finally he said something, he said that he would tell Walter that she said hey. After that, they all left. By singling out Mr. Cunningham she turned to mob into individuals and thus making them more aware as to what they were doing.
She made Mr. Cunningham realize that Atticus is a man, not a roadblock. Scout showed that even a small girl was able to stop a mob of grown men from doing something that they might regret. Even though Scout was unaware of what she had done she was still the hero of the day and displayed lots of courage by standing up for her father. Scout’s brother Jem also shows courage in the novel. Jem is nine years old and is just beginning to show signs of maturing. Jem shows most of his courage by just believing that what his father was doing was the right thing to do.
Jem continues to believe throughout the novel that Atticus will win because there was very little evidence to go against Tom, only the words of Mayella and Bob Ewell. This trust and somewhat naive belief that even a African American can get released from jail is shattered when Tom is sentenced. Jem does not understand how he could be guilty even when all the evidence was pointing towards Bob Ewell. The courage showed by Jem concerning this matter is very strong, partially due to his slight knowledge with the racism that is going on around him. This courage is based on what he has been told by Atticus.
Atticus displays the most courage by defending Tom Robinson in court. He knew that having a white man defend a black man in court was unacceptable. He knew that people would resent him for it and he also knew that he would most likely lose the case because a black man has never won a court battle against a white. Atticus never lost hope though, he continued to work and protect Tom no matter what. He During the court battle Atticus tried his best to win over the jury, but all that he managed to do was remove every shred of credibility from Mr. Ewell.
Atticus defended Tom because otherwise he would not be able to tell his children what to do any more, and also for moral reasons to. The court battle was not the only place that Atticus showed courage. He showed physical courage when he shot the rabid dog, Tim Johnson. This was the only type of courage that his daughter Scout was able to under stand at the time. The Finches were not the only ones who showed courage during the course of the novel. Tom Robinson showed plenty of courage just by pleading not guilty and attempting to win in a racist court room.
Tom and Atticus paved the way for future Negroes in the same situation as Tom by nearly winning over a racist jury. Tom and Atticus managed to not only remove all of Bob Ewell’s credibility but they also changed the mind of one man on the jury, one who was also part of the mob, Mr. Cunningham. Mr. Cunningham had to be convinced by the other twelve jury members that Tom was guilty. One step forward for the case, one giant leap towards changing the views of people. Finally there is the mystery man, Boo Radley. The children were fascinated by this man. He never came outside ever.
The children tried to catch a glimpse of him for three years but never saw him. Then on the way home from a play that Scout had been in, they were attacked by Mr. Ewell. He wrestled with them for a short time, then another man came in and started to stop Mr. Ewell finally the fight ended and someone grabbed Jem and brought him into the house and Atticus ran over to get Scout (who was dressed as a ham! ). Heck Tate came over to tell them that Mr. Ewell had been killed by his own knife. It turned out to be Boo Radley who saved the children by fighting off Mr.
Ewell. The mystery man whom they had thought ate squirrels and cats raw and killed children, turned out to be just a misunderstood guy who preferred to be inside then to face a cruel world. All over the above characters and possible others, showed lots of courage towards what was happening around them. They all stood up for what they believed to be right and never let up. To Kill A Mockingbird is an excellent example of how the views of a town can be changed by a group of brave individuals who stood up for what they believed in . | 1,358 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Join us in 2020 for an exhibit to celebrate the passage of the 19th Amendment! Opens in February
It was 1920, and women across the entire United States finally were given the right to vote. The American suffrage movement had its roots in the early to mid 19th century when various women's rights and temperance efforts began to pick up speed from their origins in upstate New York. It had been a long and hard battle, and one which resulted in violence and strife as well.
In Michigan, in Oakland County, in the hamlet of Birmingham, women had been enduring their own struggles and making gains in directing their own lives over the decades. Not stopping at suffrage in 1920, Birmingham's women continued to work to make the village and city, and the entire community, a better place to live for all. Many of Birmingham's women influenced later generations and created legacies that extended far beyond Birmingham to include regional and international impact.
2020 gives us a special opportunity to more clearly focus on those overlooked stories of Birmingham's fascinating and unique women who made their mark, from the pioneer women of 1818 to late 19th century reformers to 20th century political activists, architects and writers. Stop by and meet some of the most interesting women you'll ever encounter! | <urn:uuid:019a4c66-c288-476d-bcb3-156fa1a90cc1> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.bhamgov.org/history/museum/current_exhibits.php | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251687958.71/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126074227-20200126104227-00440.warc.gz | en | 0.980923 | 259 | 3.640625 | 4 | [
-0.28935706615448,
-0.11347195506095886,
0.13282443583011627,
0.4671230614185333,
-0.19543656706809998,
0.4770243763923645,
-0.5235724449157715,
0.13386127352714539,
-0.3853468596935272,
-0.07465007156133652,
0.2548235356807709,
0.0856495052576065,
0.052906423807144165,
-0.2775769829750061... | 1 | Join us in 2020 for an exhibit to celebrate the passage of the 19th Amendment! Opens in February
It was 1920, and women across the entire United States finally were given the right to vote. The American suffrage movement had its roots in the early to mid 19th century when various women's rights and temperance efforts began to pick up speed from their origins in upstate New York. It had been a long and hard battle, and one which resulted in violence and strife as well.
In Michigan, in Oakland County, in the hamlet of Birmingham, women had been enduring their own struggles and making gains in directing their own lives over the decades. Not stopping at suffrage in 1920, Birmingham's women continued to work to make the village and city, and the entire community, a better place to live for all. Many of Birmingham's women influenced later generations and created legacies that extended far beyond Birmingham to include regional and international impact.
2020 gives us a special opportunity to more clearly focus on those overlooked stories of Birmingham's fascinating and unique women who made their mark, from the pioneer women of 1818 to late 19th century reformers to 20th century political activists, architects and writers. Stop by and meet some of the most interesting women you'll ever encounter! | 282 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Socialism refers to an ideology and the state of government based on that ideology. Socialists claim to stand for the values of equality, social justice, cooperation, progress, individual freedom, and happiness. They seek to realize these values by the abolition of the private-enterprise economy, also called capitalism, and its replacement by “public ownership,” a system of social or state control over production and distribution. The basis of socialism also lies on the abolition of the conflict of the social classes.
Throughout history, the poor have always been oppressed by the rich, ruling class. Under socialism, the bourgeois, or middle class, would rule while practicing equality of all classes. One of the foremost advocates of socialism in this country is Upton Sinclair. Born Upton Beall Sinclair on September 28, 1878 in Baltimore, Upton witnessed the best and worst of the American social classes. His father, Upton Beall, was an heir of an affluent Southern family, a salesman, and an alcoholic.
Alcoholism caused his fathers death as well as his promotion of Prohibition. Sinclairs 1931 book, The Wet Parade, was his appeal to America for Prohibition. Sinclairs childhood was spent in poverty and moderate wealth. One night, he would sleep in a vermin infested slum while the next he slept in a posh home. This lifestyle gave birth to his quest for social justice with only his writing as a tool.. Uptons understanding of both worlds caused him to realize that it was not fair for some people to be rich while many others are poor.
His first story was a memoir about a pet bird he used to clear a colored boy of arson. Argosy magazine paid him twenty-five dollars for that story. He began writing pulp fiction to establish economic independence from his alcoholic father. He graduated from the College of the City of New York and then became a graduate student at Columbia University. He was drawn to the Romantic poets, such as Shelley. This inspiration moved Upton to write serious literature which used romantic idealism as their central theme.
Sinclair joined the Socialist Party in 1902. He immediately reflected this in his writing. His focus shifted onto the abuses of capitalism and promoted socialism as a cure. He founded Helicon Home Colony, a cooperative socialist colony, in 1906 in Englewood, New Jersey. He joined the Democratic Party, and with his 1934 platform, EPIC (End Poverty in California), he almost won the governorship of California. He also had another unsuccessful attempt to be governor as well as a senator. Upton Sinclairs writing had its problems.
Literary critics called him a “poor writer with artistic limitations” while his contemporary authors thought of him as one of the greatest novelists of all time. He never characterized or developed the characters in his books. He did not focus on complicated, well-structured plots. He spoke to America, primarily the working class but also the wealthy and middle class. He had experienced the entire spectrum of social classes and knew and sympathized with all of them. His writings were on the level of the proletariat, the people for and to he truly wrote.
Here is a list of some of his most notable books and their themes. The Jungle (1906) exposed the poor conditions of the life of a worker in the Chicago stockyards. The Metropolis (1908) described the degradation of morals in capitalistic society. The Profits of Religion (1918) attacked organized religion as an instrument of capitalist exploitation. Jimmie Higgins (1919) urged pacifism. Oil! (1927) probed the oil scandals of the Harding administration. Boston (1928) exposed the injustice of the Sacco and Vanzetti trial.
Dragons Teeth (1942) was the only one out of his more than eighty books that won an award, the Pulitzer Prize. It was the third out of eleven in the Lanny Budd series, which analyzed the nature and problems of Communism, fascism, and capitalistic democracy. One essay written about him likened his writing to the two books of Saint Peter. Sinclairs writing reflects Peters. Peters writing is confusing with poor word choice. Peters writings may not be up to the highest standards, but they contain many truths. Sinclairs writings might lack eloquence, but their value as social justice propaganda makes up for that.
Upton dedicated his life to battling injustices through literature, but to no avail. Even though The Jungle instigated the Pure Food and Drug Act and Meat Inspection Act, Sinclair once noted that it had not helped the workers at all. He was a member of an unpopular political party, the Socialists. He faced the insurmountable obstacles of government and big business to try to help the poor as a muckraker. He exposed corruption and scandals. Even after all that, his works helped few then and only now serve as an inspiration for many. That is his greatest achievement. | <urn:uuid:df535c40-cbe4-4540-b16c-6ad848a6047c> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://mypaynetapps.com/why-should-some-people-be-rich-and-others-be-poor/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250619323.41/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124100832-20200124125832-00031.warc.gz | en | 0.982004 | 1,005 | 3.40625 | 3 | [
-0.18417108058929443,
0.26968738436698914,
-0.2516823410987854,
-0.3451201915740967,
0.26577240228652954,
0.26503539085388184,
-0.01326865516602993,
0.037551604211330414,
-0.15062829852104187,
-0.04127393662929535,
0.1890718787908554,
0.4087955951690674,
0.42807233333587646,
0.058929242193... | 5 | Socialism refers to an ideology and the state of government based on that ideology. Socialists claim to stand for the values of equality, social justice, cooperation, progress, individual freedom, and happiness. They seek to realize these values by the abolition of the private-enterprise economy, also called capitalism, and its replacement by “public ownership,” a system of social or state control over production and distribution. The basis of socialism also lies on the abolition of the conflict of the social classes.
Throughout history, the poor have always been oppressed by the rich, ruling class. Under socialism, the bourgeois, or middle class, would rule while practicing equality of all classes. One of the foremost advocates of socialism in this country is Upton Sinclair. Born Upton Beall Sinclair on September 28, 1878 in Baltimore, Upton witnessed the best and worst of the American social classes. His father, Upton Beall, was an heir of an affluent Southern family, a salesman, and an alcoholic.
Alcoholism caused his fathers death as well as his promotion of Prohibition. Sinclairs 1931 book, The Wet Parade, was his appeal to America for Prohibition. Sinclairs childhood was spent in poverty and moderate wealth. One night, he would sleep in a vermin infested slum while the next he slept in a posh home. This lifestyle gave birth to his quest for social justice with only his writing as a tool.. Uptons understanding of both worlds caused him to realize that it was not fair for some people to be rich while many others are poor.
His first story was a memoir about a pet bird he used to clear a colored boy of arson. Argosy magazine paid him twenty-five dollars for that story. He began writing pulp fiction to establish economic independence from his alcoholic father. He graduated from the College of the City of New York and then became a graduate student at Columbia University. He was drawn to the Romantic poets, such as Shelley. This inspiration moved Upton to write serious literature which used romantic idealism as their central theme.
Sinclair joined the Socialist Party in 1902. He immediately reflected this in his writing. His focus shifted onto the abuses of capitalism and promoted socialism as a cure. He founded Helicon Home Colony, a cooperative socialist colony, in 1906 in Englewood, New Jersey. He joined the Democratic Party, and with his 1934 platform, EPIC (End Poverty in California), he almost won the governorship of California. He also had another unsuccessful attempt to be governor as well as a senator. Upton Sinclairs writing had its problems.
Literary critics called him a “poor writer with artistic limitations” while his contemporary authors thought of him as one of the greatest novelists of all time. He never characterized or developed the characters in his books. He did not focus on complicated, well-structured plots. He spoke to America, primarily the working class but also the wealthy and middle class. He had experienced the entire spectrum of social classes and knew and sympathized with all of them. His writings were on the level of the proletariat, the people for and to he truly wrote.
Here is a list of some of his most notable books and their themes. The Jungle (1906) exposed the poor conditions of the life of a worker in the Chicago stockyards. The Metropolis (1908) described the degradation of morals in capitalistic society. The Profits of Religion (1918) attacked organized religion as an instrument of capitalist exploitation. Jimmie Higgins (1919) urged pacifism. Oil! (1927) probed the oil scandals of the Harding administration. Boston (1928) exposed the injustice of the Sacco and Vanzetti trial.
Dragons Teeth (1942) was the only one out of his more than eighty books that won an award, the Pulitzer Prize. It was the third out of eleven in the Lanny Budd series, which analyzed the nature and problems of Communism, fascism, and capitalistic democracy. One essay written about him likened his writing to the two books of Saint Peter. Sinclairs writing reflects Peters. Peters writing is confusing with poor word choice. Peters writings may not be up to the highest standards, but they contain many truths. Sinclairs writings might lack eloquence, but their value as social justice propaganda makes up for that.
Upton dedicated his life to battling injustices through literature, but to no avail. Even though The Jungle instigated the Pure Food and Drug Act and Meat Inspection Act, Sinclair once noted that it had not helped the workers at all. He was a member of an unpopular political party, the Socialists. He faced the insurmountable obstacles of government and big business to try to help the poor as a muckraker. He exposed corruption and scandals. Even after all that, his works helped few then and only now serve as an inspiration for many. That is his greatest achievement. | 1,036 | ENGLISH | 1 |
“The Iliad” by Homer is a largely referred to epic poem that was originally written in Greek. Over the years, it has been translated into English by different authors. It is based on the traditions of the Greeks and is hugely mythical. It was written during the final weeks of the year of the renowned Trojan War. It mainly talks about the quarrel that existed between King Agamemnon and the renowned warrior, Achilles. The initial version is dated back to the eighth century BC (800 BC). (Homer 1851)
The war was between the Trojans and the Greeks. It begins when Chryses, who is a Trojan priest of Apollo, offers King Agamemnon wealth so that he may get his daughter, Chrysies, in return. The King however, does not agree. This is despite the fact that the army men were for the idea that the priest should get her daughter back. However, the King was their leader and they had to be loyal to him. Henceforth, the disagreements continued as each community was out to proof that they are more powerful than the other. The Trojan people were out to make sure that the Greeks still needed their help while the Greeks were completely sure that they were self sufficient and independent.
Throughout the war, the Trojans defeated the Greeks and vice versa. As the war persisted, the exchanges of unequal gifts made the war to intensify. Eventually, the Trojans were successful and they won the battle. Achilles and his people were driven out with rage and Hector died. The war was also propagated by the constant interference by the gods.
Buy The Iliad essay paper online
According to my understanding of the poem, “The Iliad” more often than not glorifies war. Due to the mythical beliefs of the two societies, Homer constantly uses gods and goddesses to explain their role and importance in the warfare. He uses them to show how they offered their help to the preferred side in the war that was constantly getting larger with the passage of time Since these communities believe so much in the powers of the gods, the use of the concept by the author acts more on telling these communities that the gods would support them in any time of war. There were both the Greek gods and the Trojan gods. Therefore, “The Iliad” as a poem largely glorifies war to the people reading it.
According to “The Iliad”, war was a source of fame and wealth or riches. Throughout the poem, people are being abducted and held hostage and in due course, those who wish to rescue them must pay up in form of wealth. By abducting the hostages, the abducting side had power and control and everything was done in their own terms. For example, when the daughter of the Apollonian priest was held hostage by King Agamemnon, her father offered the King wealth in return of releasing her. Also, when Helen is abducted by Paris, the war is initiated. By abducting her, spiritual oaths are also broken. King Agamemnon leads the war in her defense as she was the brother’s wife.
The display that through having differences among communities there results war and evil deeds eventually begin, is a clear indication that through war there exists some long term benefits which eventually make one superior. The evil deeds that get the conflicting side at the one’s mercy include abduction. As seen above, it is clear that the author in a big way advocates for war as implied by his work. Through war, people can become rich. This was applied by the Greeks as a myth. Considering the fact that these communities highly value their myths, this could easily be misinterpreted by the upcoming generations. The author’s glorification of war could be misleading or largely misunderstood by his dedicated readers.
In the poem characters’ importance is largely based on their bravely and success in war. For example, Paris is despised by both his family and his lover, Helen, because he is completely afraid of fighting. He is afraid as he fears being wounded. Instead he prefers to give as much wealth as it is needed rather than fight. He is considered less of a man because according to them fighting is a priority. Going out to a battle is considered a great achievement. He is continuously mocked by Hector as being so cowardly that he may even be referred to as a woman.
The poet’s glorification of war is also depicted when Hector and Paris enter the battlefield and Athena tries to counter the Trojans to no success. Hector puts his life on the line if he looses all in the name of the fame and honor of being a winner. He puts his life at risk in the war against the Greeks. To him, proving his masculinity is more of a priority than his own life. However, he is confident that he will be successful. Even when the gods abandon Hector during war, he does not chicken out as he is ready and willing to prove how mighty a warrior he is. Above all this, unlike most of the characters that are described Hector has a soft spot for his family and children. He has a heart. He even forgives his brother Paris. This is unlike Achilles who constantly appears to possess hardly any emotions for human kind. However, he combines these two contradictory traits and does what he is meant to do both as a man with the belief of masculinity culture and a father and husband. We however note that in case the two collide, he is highly attached to his duty as a warrior. War is displayed as an achievement and the author glorifies war through his work. The poet therefore achieves his motive of glorifying war because despite the fact that the warriors may have other responsibilities for example families, they still very much hold their responsibility in war with high regard.
According to the author, to go into the battle field to fight brings with it honor and shows one’s integrity. On the other hand, not fighting indicates cowardice and laziness. Throughout his poem, men die every other time during warfare and women are turned into slaves. However, the poet indicates that what is happening as a result of war, whether good or bad, is justifiable. He does not give the readers any indications that warfare is leading to unnecessary loss of life and time. To him, being in war is something that one should be hugely proud of. After all, men believe in the masculinity culture and their wives and children have the solemn duty of helping them uphold this culture. The bad results from war will go into history and the person who withstands all those hard times will forever be remembered.
The characters in the epic poem are willing to anything in war so as to prove that they are not at all cowardly. This is especially seen through Achilles who is largely willing to do anything in war so that his name can be remembered as the hero who was most outstanding during this specific war. He kills fellow warriors and has no mercy and is only moved to return Hector’s body at the end of the poem. He is the greatest warrior of the Achaean army and this is due to his ability to constantly act with integrity. He even challenged the King when they could not agree and even resigned from his army. They later reconciled. His continuous success is constantly driven by his huge thirst for glory and honor in the society. He wishes to live a quiet easy life but he is completely torn between the two. He however chooses war. The poet uses his character to show how important war was in this society and also shows its value. (Homer 1999)
This is a clear illustration of how much war is glorified in the poem and this could be translated into the minds of the readers. Much as the war is largely disastrous, it seems that nothing would stop the ego of the fighters. Despite the fact that lives are continuously being lost, the characters in the poem continue to fight on so as to leave their great fighting legacy behind. To them, winning is a source of pride and identity.
Agamemnon on the other hand, is equally determined to win the war for fame and his pride. He takes very little risk in the battle due to the fact that he is the King. However, he hardly ever gives up and being at the top is his priority. When his younger brother’s wife, Helen, is abducted by Paris, he insists on leading the war yet it does not directly affect him. This shows his hunger for honor and glory. After all, if they come out successful in the war, the fame and glory will all be bestowed on him. His value for war is too great to go unnoticed. He continuously tests the loyalty of his troops. Through his character, it is clear how much victory is valued especially to the leaders. They believe in solving disputes through war. It does not matter what the reason is, whether it directly affects them or not. Of importance is that when they go out to war, they become successful.
During the war, there is so much suffering yet, though the fighters regret, they never give up. For instance, the priest of Apollo prayed to the gods to cast a plague on the Greeks yet they did not give up his daughter till nine days later but the war continued. Each fighting side was out to prove the other side wrong. Even when the women are turned into slaves, the army men are still strong and do not give up the war so as to stop the suffering. They hold on as they do not want to seem cowardly. In case of war, the suffering does not play the largest role but the desire to come out victorious. The glory and honor is what matters to them.
Masculinity strength is defined in terms of ability to participate in war. This is all under the culture they have continuously adapted, the culture of masculinity. A man who does not participate in war is hugely despised in the society. Being a real man is equitable to participation in the battle field. Men in this poem believe in going out there either to hit or to be hit. They should forever be in combat for better or for worse. If one dies in war, they are considered heroes that will forever be remembered in history. However, one who does not go out to fight is considered a coward. War to them is source of glory for a real man. When Paris was afraid of going to war as he might get wounded, Hector mocks him and says that he is not worthy to be considered a man. Due to the fact that he cannot engage in war, he is considered to be hugely of feminine nature; after all, he is referred to as a lover in the poem. As such, he is subject to ridicule and mockery. (Homer 1998)
Women on the other hand, are expected to support the masculine culture despite the risks involved. Even when they can foresee the danger of death that clearly presents itself before their husbands, they can hardly talk them out of going to the battlefield. Much as they may try, deep down they know that their husbands are bound to their duties. For instance, when Hector was going out to the battle field, his wife pleaded with him not to go as they both knew the danger and risk that was awaiting him. Hector on the other hand, did not even see the possibility of him not going to the war. Instead of offering her words of comfort so that she would not be so worried about him and what was awaiting him, he told her that it was his duty and he had to comply. He did not give the impression of even being scared as that would be considered as cowardice. It was only later in the battlefield that he actually died. This is another of the poet’s glorification of war. (Homer 2000)
In the poem, it comes out clearly that women are meant to support the masculine culture in all that they undertake to do especially when it come war. Their decisions to participate in war were unquestionable as it was their source of glory and pride in the society. The author leaves the reader with the impression that war is very important in this society and every part of the society had to appreciate it. The author largely glorifies war.
In the poem, if a fight pursues on and a winner is not determined, another fight must take place as the characters are portrayed as people who hardly ever give up. For example, the fight between Ajax and Hector. Initially during the fight, Ajax appears to be winning as he wounds Hector with a spear and even knocks him down. As the fight proceeds, Hector regains himself and the fight eventually ends as a draw without a winner. Later on they engage themselves in another fight and Hector is destined to burn the ships of the Greeks as revenge. Ajax then throws a rock at Hector that almost kills him. Later, Hector manages to get all the weapons that Ajax is armed with and Ajax finally withdraws saying that the fight is unfair.
This persistent fight between Hector and Ajax is an indication of how much the fighters are willing to hold on so as to come out of the fight eventually as winners with all the glory. They value the victory of war so much that they are wiling to go to any heights so as to come out victorious. The deep description presented by the author creates the impression that war is glorified as we have already seen throughout the entire poem. (Homer 1997)
The gods had a huge role in the wars. They acted depending on who seemed to be their favorite in the war. For instance, when the Apollonian priest prayed for a plague for the Greeks, it befell them and only stopped when he asked the gods to stop it. On other occasions, the gods did not favor any side. The existence of gods to help the characters in war is a form of glorification of war as it was a form of competition ground for the characters. The one favored by the gods most times survived the war and won. The author uses gods to come up with twists in the plot of the entire war. In his work he largely glorifies war using the gods and even creates humor as we see the gods competing.
Generally, it is clear that Homer intentionally glorifies war in his work. This is especially seen through how he uses his characters and their role in war. He also clearly outlines how the characters’ crave for war affected not only those around them, but also anyone who according to them was meant to participate in the war.
Greeks have high value or their traditions and customs as well as the resultant myths. The myths that root from as far as when “The Iliad” was first written. They still keep them and uphold them. He has used war in the poem as his main theme to try and pass his message of how greatly people can stick to what they believe. This is irrespective of what risks come with these beliefs. According to the Trojan War, participating in war meant prosperity, honor and pride. No man could afford to lose his pride. It was an element of masculinity that they held in high regards.
Related Free World Literature Essays
Most popular orders | <urn:uuid:49b63875-ae71-405f-9027-8b45bc4b564d> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://exclusivepapers.com/essays/world-literature/the-iliad.php | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250593994.14/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118221909-20200119005909-00486.warc.gz | en | 0.989295 | 3,085 | 3.84375 | 4 | [
0.2023496925830841,
0.12641862034797668,
0.09107646346092224,
0.11988489329814911,
-0.24341356754302979,
-0.7759868502616882,
-0.10060681402683258,
0.5976122617721558,
0.08367624878883362,
0.058356039226055145,
-0.1030205488204956,
-0.27015531063079834,
-0.3754633069038391,
0.4955067932605... | 1 | “The Iliad” by Homer is a largely referred to epic poem that was originally written in Greek. Over the years, it has been translated into English by different authors. It is based on the traditions of the Greeks and is hugely mythical. It was written during the final weeks of the year of the renowned Trojan War. It mainly talks about the quarrel that existed between King Agamemnon and the renowned warrior, Achilles. The initial version is dated back to the eighth century BC (800 BC). (Homer 1851)
The war was between the Trojans and the Greeks. It begins when Chryses, who is a Trojan priest of Apollo, offers King Agamemnon wealth so that he may get his daughter, Chrysies, in return. The King however, does not agree. This is despite the fact that the army men were for the idea that the priest should get her daughter back. However, the King was their leader and they had to be loyal to him. Henceforth, the disagreements continued as each community was out to proof that they are more powerful than the other. The Trojan people were out to make sure that the Greeks still needed their help while the Greeks were completely sure that they were self sufficient and independent.
Throughout the war, the Trojans defeated the Greeks and vice versa. As the war persisted, the exchanges of unequal gifts made the war to intensify. Eventually, the Trojans were successful and they won the battle. Achilles and his people were driven out with rage and Hector died. The war was also propagated by the constant interference by the gods.
Buy The Iliad essay paper online
According to my understanding of the poem, “The Iliad” more often than not glorifies war. Due to the mythical beliefs of the two societies, Homer constantly uses gods and goddesses to explain their role and importance in the warfare. He uses them to show how they offered their help to the preferred side in the war that was constantly getting larger with the passage of time Since these communities believe so much in the powers of the gods, the use of the concept by the author acts more on telling these communities that the gods would support them in any time of war. There were both the Greek gods and the Trojan gods. Therefore, “The Iliad” as a poem largely glorifies war to the people reading it.
According to “The Iliad”, war was a source of fame and wealth or riches. Throughout the poem, people are being abducted and held hostage and in due course, those who wish to rescue them must pay up in form of wealth. By abducting the hostages, the abducting side had power and control and everything was done in their own terms. For example, when the daughter of the Apollonian priest was held hostage by King Agamemnon, her father offered the King wealth in return of releasing her. Also, when Helen is abducted by Paris, the war is initiated. By abducting her, spiritual oaths are also broken. King Agamemnon leads the war in her defense as she was the brother’s wife.
The display that through having differences among communities there results war and evil deeds eventually begin, is a clear indication that through war there exists some long term benefits which eventually make one superior. The evil deeds that get the conflicting side at the one’s mercy include abduction. As seen above, it is clear that the author in a big way advocates for war as implied by his work. Through war, people can become rich. This was applied by the Greeks as a myth. Considering the fact that these communities highly value their myths, this could easily be misinterpreted by the upcoming generations. The author’s glorification of war could be misleading or largely misunderstood by his dedicated readers.
In the poem characters’ importance is largely based on their bravely and success in war. For example, Paris is despised by both his family and his lover, Helen, because he is completely afraid of fighting. He is afraid as he fears being wounded. Instead he prefers to give as much wealth as it is needed rather than fight. He is considered less of a man because according to them fighting is a priority. Going out to a battle is considered a great achievement. He is continuously mocked by Hector as being so cowardly that he may even be referred to as a woman.
The poet’s glorification of war is also depicted when Hector and Paris enter the battlefield and Athena tries to counter the Trojans to no success. Hector puts his life on the line if he looses all in the name of the fame and honor of being a winner. He puts his life at risk in the war against the Greeks. To him, proving his masculinity is more of a priority than his own life. However, he is confident that he will be successful. Even when the gods abandon Hector during war, he does not chicken out as he is ready and willing to prove how mighty a warrior he is. Above all this, unlike most of the characters that are described Hector has a soft spot for his family and children. He has a heart. He even forgives his brother Paris. This is unlike Achilles who constantly appears to possess hardly any emotions for human kind. However, he combines these two contradictory traits and does what he is meant to do both as a man with the belief of masculinity culture and a father and husband. We however note that in case the two collide, he is highly attached to his duty as a warrior. War is displayed as an achievement and the author glorifies war through his work. The poet therefore achieves his motive of glorifying war because despite the fact that the warriors may have other responsibilities for example families, they still very much hold their responsibility in war with high regard.
According to the author, to go into the battle field to fight brings with it honor and shows one’s integrity. On the other hand, not fighting indicates cowardice and laziness. Throughout his poem, men die every other time during warfare and women are turned into slaves. However, the poet indicates that what is happening as a result of war, whether good or bad, is justifiable. He does not give the readers any indications that warfare is leading to unnecessary loss of life and time. To him, being in war is something that one should be hugely proud of. After all, men believe in the masculinity culture and their wives and children have the solemn duty of helping them uphold this culture. The bad results from war will go into history and the person who withstands all those hard times will forever be remembered.
The characters in the epic poem are willing to anything in war so as to prove that they are not at all cowardly. This is especially seen through Achilles who is largely willing to do anything in war so that his name can be remembered as the hero who was most outstanding during this specific war. He kills fellow warriors and has no mercy and is only moved to return Hector’s body at the end of the poem. He is the greatest warrior of the Achaean army and this is due to his ability to constantly act with integrity. He even challenged the King when they could not agree and even resigned from his army. They later reconciled. His continuous success is constantly driven by his huge thirst for glory and honor in the society. He wishes to live a quiet easy life but he is completely torn between the two. He however chooses war. The poet uses his character to show how important war was in this society and also shows its value. (Homer 1999)
This is a clear illustration of how much war is glorified in the poem and this could be translated into the minds of the readers. Much as the war is largely disastrous, it seems that nothing would stop the ego of the fighters. Despite the fact that lives are continuously being lost, the characters in the poem continue to fight on so as to leave their great fighting legacy behind. To them, winning is a source of pride and identity.
Agamemnon on the other hand, is equally determined to win the war for fame and his pride. He takes very little risk in the battle due to the fact that he is the King. However, he hardly ever gives up and being at the top is his priority. When his younger brother’s wife, Helen, is abducted by Paris, he insists on leading the war yet it does not directly affect him. This shows his hunger for honor and glory. After all, if they come out successful in the war, the fame and glory will all be bestowed on him. His value for war is too great to go unnoticed. He continuously tests the loyalty of his troops. Through his character, it is clear how much victory is valued especially to the leaders. They believe in solving disputes through war. It does not matter what the reason is, whether it directly affects them or not. Of importance is that when they go out to war, they become successful.
During the war, there is so much suffering yet, though the fighters regret, they never give up. For instance, the priest of Apollo prayed to the gods to cast a plague on the Greeks yet they did not give up his daughter till nine days later but the war continued. Each fighting side was out to prove the other side wrong. Even when the women are turned into slaves, the army men are still strong and do not give up the war so as to stop the suffering. They hold on as they do not want to seem cowardly. In case of war, the suffering does not play the largest role but the desire to come out victorious. The glory and honor is what matters to them.
Masculinity strength is defined in terms of ability to participate in war. This is all under the culture they have continuously adapted, the culture of masculinity. A man who does not participate in war is hugely despised in the society. Being a real man is equitable to participation in the battle field. Men in this poem believe in going out there either to hit or to be hit. They should forever be in combat for better or for worse. If one dies in war, they are considered heroes that will forever be remembered in history. However, one who does not go out to fight is considered a coward. War to them is source of glory for a real man. When Paris was afraid of going to war as he might get wounded, Hector mocks him and says that he is not worthy to be considered a man. Due to the fact that he cannot engage in war, he is considered to be hugely of feminine nature; after all, he is referred to as a lover in the poem. As such, he is subject to ridicule and mockery. (Homer 1998)
Women on the other hand, are expected to support the masculine culture despite the risks involved. Even when they can foresee the danger of death that clearly presents itself before their husbands, they can hardly talk them out of going to the battlefield. Much as they may try, deep down they know that their husbands are bound to their duties. For instance, when Hector was going out to the battle field, his wife pleaded with him not to go as they both knew the danger and risk that was awaiting him. Hector on the other hand, did not even see the possibility of him not going to the war. Instead of offering her words of comfort so that she would not be so worried about him and what was awaiting him, he told her that it was his duty and he had to comply. He did not give the impression of even being scared as that would be considered as cowardice. It was only later in the battlefield that he actually died. This is another of the poet’s glorification of war. (Homer 2000)
In the poem, it comes out clearly that women are meant to support the masculine culture in all that they undertake to do especially when it come war. Their decisions to participate in war were unquestionable as it was their source of glory and pride in the society. The author leaves the reader with the impression that war is very important in this society and every part of the society had to appreciate it. The author largely glorifies war.
In the poem, if a fight pursues on and a winner is not determined, another fight must take place as the characters are portrayed as people who hardly ever give up. For example, the fight between Ajax and Hector. Initially during the fight, Ajax appears to be winning as he wounds Hector with a spear and even knocks him down. As the fight proceeds, Hector regains himself and the fight eventually ends as a draw without a winner. Later on they engage themselves in another fight and Hector is destined to burn the ships of the Greeks as revenge. Ajax then throws a rock at Hector that almost kills him. Later, Hector manages to get all the weapons that Ajax is armed with and Ajax finally withdraws saying that the fight is unfair.
This persistent fight between Hector and Ajax is an indication of how much the fighters are willing to hold on so as to come out of the fight eventually as winners with all the glory. They value the victory of war so much that they are wiling to go to any heights so as to come out victorious. The deep description presented by the author creates the impression that war is glorified as we have already seen throughout the entire poem. (Homer 1997)
The gods had a huge role in the wars. They acted depending on who seemed to be their favorite in the war. For instance, when the Apollonian priest prayed for a plague for the Greeks, it befell them and only stopped when he asked the gods to stop it. On other occasions, the gods did not favor any side. The existence of gods to help the characters in war is a form of glorification of war as it was a form of competition ground for the characters. The one favored by the gods most times survived the war and won. The author uses gods to come up with twists in the plot of the entire war. In his work he largely glorifies war using the gods and even creates humor as we see the gods competing.
Generally, it is clear that Homer intentionally glorifies war in his work. This is especially seen through how he uses his characters and their role in war. He also clearly outlines how the characters’ crave for war affected not only those around them, but also anyone who according to them was meant to participate in the war.
Greeks have high value or their traditions and customs as well as the resultant myths. The myths that root from as far as when “The Iliad” was first written. They still keep them and uphold them. He has used war in the poem as his main theme to try and pass his message of how greatly people can stick to what they believe. This is irrespective of what risks come with these beliefs. According to the Trojan War, participating in war meant prosperity, honor and pride. No man could afford to lose his pride. It was an element of masculinity that they held in high regards.
Related Free World Literature Essays
Most popular orders | 3,063 | ENGLISH | 1 |
September 8, 2019
Week 1 Lecture Notes
The Prophet (saw) had a magnetic presence and charisma that drew people close to him. Before his prophethood, he was well-liked and trusted as an honest man among the Quraish of Arabia. Once Muhammad (saw) received revelation many people turned away from him but from his good manners, kindness, concern and gentle personality he drew many people to Islam and eventually amassed a large following of Muslim believers.
Many of these believers are known as the Sahabah or companions of the Prophet. They spent many years in his company and learned directly from the prophetic example of how to practice Islam as a lifestyle. Many of the hadith of the Prophet (saw) come from the Sahabah’s narrations. The Sahabah were put through many trials, they were abused and attacked when they were living in Makkah, they gave up their homes and migrated to Medina a foreign city. They even fought with Muhammad (saw) in battle to uphold the name of Islam and eventually rid Makkah of idols.
Being so close to the Prophet (saw) the Sahaba took on many of his noble qualities such as compassion and service Allah (swt) and to the ummah. Rasulullah (saw) said this about his Sahabah, “My companions are like guiding stars. Whomever you follow, you will be rightly guided.”
Al- Khulafa Ar- Rashidun:
Of these Sahaba, four of them in turn led the ummah after the death of the Prophet (saw) and are collectively known as the Al- Khulafa Ar-Rashidun, the rightly guided caliphs. The four caliphs are Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali who stayed very close to the Prophet (saw) throughout his life. They adopted his ways of worship, helping people, and lived everyday life like him. These four leaders of the ummah are referred to as “rightly guided” because they followed Islamic teachings in every aspect of their lives without any deviations from the Prophet’s (saw) teachings.
The Farewell Pilgrimage:
The final years of the Prophet’s life began upon the victory over Makkah. The Prophetic mission of the holy Prophet (saw) was completely fulfilled, and his religion cemented. Upon receiving Surah Nasr, the final surah, Prophet Muhammad (saw) understood that his time on Earth was coming to an end and declared his intention to perform Hajj, the sacred ritual that every Muslim should perform at least once in their lives. He and many followers, including his Sahabah performed Hajj with him. The Prophet (saw) took his followers through the rites of Hajj and the Sahaba noted every act he performed that would later be the basis for all Muslims to perform Hajj. Upon Mount Arafat, the Prophet (saw) delivered his famous speech known as the Farewell Sermon. It was also on the plains of Arafat, that the verses of Surah Ma’idah were revealed: “Today I have completed your din for you.” The Revelation of Allah was finally completed in the Qur’an. This would be the last time he addressed the ummah in such large numbers. His speech outlines five important principles of Islam.
Islam molds the character of the Muslim on the basis of two fundamental principles:
- Islam is a religion free from the ignorant practices of the past. When Muslims adopt the religion of Islam, they sever all ties with the age of Ignorance such as its idols, practices, societal ills, unsavory financial deals and so forth.
- Muslims should guard against all forms of sin. The effects of sin are even greater than the dangers of war and battle.
The Prophet has also outlined three basic principles on which Islamic society is founded:
- The ties of brotherhood and sisterhood between Muslims are the foundation of our ummah. We should honor these ties and help our Muslim brothers and sisters whenever we can.
- We should support the weak to keep our community strong. The Prophet (saw) emphasized the importance of helping the poor, orphans, and showing kindness to women.
- There should be cooperation between an Islamic government and members of an Islamic society. This cooperation replaces the evil of society with good and benefits all.
Despite being a short speech, the Prophet briefly outlined everything a necessary for a believer to practice Islam and how to create a Muslim society. Rasulullah (saw) entrusted his sahabah with the passing on of his message to future generations and the rest of the world. The Farewell Pilgrimage was a signal to the Sahabah that the Prophet’s time was nearing its end. This greatly saddened the Sahabah who wondered who would lead their ummah and offer them counsel after the Prophet (saw) was gone. But they understood that the Qur’an and the Prophet’s (saw) sunnah would guide them and the rest of the ummah for all time.
The Prophet’s Death:
Shortly after the Farewell Pilgrimage, Rasulullah (saw) fell ill and everyone grew worried. In his sickness the Prophet (saw) instructed his close friend Abu Bakr to lead the prayers. After some days of sickness, the Prophet (saw) passed from this world. Many people were so distraught in hearing the news. And could not believe he had actually passed. Abu Bakr visited Aisha (ra) where the Prophet’s body was and said farewell. He then came and spoke to the people saying,
“Oh people, if anyone worships Muhammad, know that Muhammad is dead; if anyone worships Allah, know that Allah is alive, and He never dies.”
It was with these statements that all Muslims accepted Rasulullah’s (saw) death and mortality but understood that Allah (swt) is eternal. | <urn:uuid:e53c3dd1-694e-4099-89cd-310ea1bcf789> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://amcoislamicstudies.wordpress.com/2019/09/08/lecture-notes-week-1/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250597230.18/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120023523-20200120051523-00556.warc.gz | en | 0.980414 | 1,247 | 3.75 | 4 | [
-0.40322935581207275,
0.31583094596862793,
-0.35790592432022095,
0.02702583372592926,
-0.6236128807067871,
-0.0671161562204361,
0.35027700662612915,
-0.1364777386188507,
-0.15313924849033356,
0.22770655155181885,
0.03159518912434578,
-0.10556551069021225,
0.36063289642333984,
0.28424590826... | 2 | September 8, 2019
Week 1 Lecture Notes
The Prophet (saw) had a magnetic presence and charisma that drew people close to him. Before his prophethood, he was well-liked and trusted as an honest man among the Quraish of Arabia. Once Muhammad (saw) received revelation many people turned away from him but from his good manners, kindness, concern and gentle personality he drew many people to Islam and eventually amassed a large following of Muslim believers.
Many of these believers are known as the Sahabah or companions of the Prophet. They spent many years in his company and learned directly from the prophetic example of how to practice Islam as a lifestyle. Many of the hadith of the Prophet (saw) come from the Sahabah’s narrations. The Sahabah were put through many trials, they were abused and attacked when they were living in Makkah, they gave up their homes and migrated to Medina a foreign city. They even fought with Muhammad (saw) in battle to uphold the name of Islam and eventually rid Makkah of idols.
Being so close to the Prophet (saw) the Sahaba took on many of his noble qualities such as compassion and service Allah (swt) and to the ummah. Rasulullah (saw) said this about his Sahabah, “My companions are like guiding stars. Whomever you follow, you will be rightly guided.”
Al- Khulafa Ar- Rashidun:
Of these Sahaba, four of them in turn led the ummah after the death of the Prophet (saw) and are collectively known as the Al- Khulafa Ar-Rashidun, the rightly guided caliphs. The four caliphs are Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali who stayed very close to the Prophet (saw) throughout his life. They adopted his ways of worship, helping people, and lived everyday life like him. These four leaders of the ummah are referred to as “rightly guided” because they followed Islamic teachings in every aspect of their lives without any deviations from the Prophet’s (saw) teachings.
The Farewell Pilgrimage:
The final years of the Prophet’s life began upon the victory over Makkah. The Prophetic mission of the holy Prophet (saw) was completely fulfilled, and his religion cemented. Upon receiving Surah Nasr, the final surah, Prophet Muhammad (saw) understood that his time on Earth was coming to an end and declared his intention to perform Hajj, the sacred ritual that every Muslim should perform at least once in their lives. He and many followers, including his Sahabah performed Hajj with him. The Prophet (saw) took his followers through the rites of Hajj and the Sahaba noted every act he performed that would later be the basis for all Muslims to perform Hajj. Upon Mount Arafat, the Prophet (saw) delivered his famous speech known as the Farewell Sermon. It was also on the plains of Arafat, that the verses of Surah Ma’idah were revealed: “Today I have completed your din for you.” The Revelation of Allah was finally completed in the Qur’an. This would be the last time he addressed the ummah in such large numbers. His speech outlines five important principles of Islam.
Islam molds the character of the Muslim on the basis of two fundamental principles:
- Islam is a religion free from the ignorant practices of the past. When Muslims adopt the religion of Islam, they sever all ties with the age of Ignorance such as its idols, practices, societal ills, unsavory financial deals and so forth.
- Muslims should guard against all forms of sin. The effects of sin are even greater than the dangers of war and battle.
The Prophet has also outlined three basic principles on which Islamic society is founded:
- The ties of brotherhood and sisterhood between Muslims are the foundation of our ummah. We should honor these ties and help our Muslim brothers and sisters whenever we can.
- We should support the weak to keep our community strong. The Prophet (saw) emphasized the importance of helping the poor, orphans, and showing kindness to women.
- There should be cooperation between an Islamic government and members of an Islamic society. This cooperation replaces the evil of society with good and benefits all.
Despite being a short speech, the Prophet briefly outlined everything a necessary for a believer to practice Islam and how to create a Muslim society. Rasulullah (saw) entrusted his sahabah with the passing on of his message to future generations and the rest of the world. The Farewell Pilgrimage was a signal to the Sahabah that the Prophet’s time was nearing its end. This greatly saddened the Sahabah who wondered who would lead their ummah and offer them counsel after the Prophet (saw) was gone. But they understood that the Qur’an and the Prophet’s (saw) sunnah would guide them and the rest of the ummah for all time.
The Prophet’s Death:
Shortly after the Farewell Pilgrimage, Rasulullah (saw) fell ill and everyone grew worried. In his sickness the Prophet (saw) instructed his close friend Abu Bakr to lead the prayers. After some days of sickness, the Prophet (saw) passed from this world. Many people were so distraught in hearing the news. And could not believe he had actually passed. Abu Bakr visited Aisha (ra) where the Prophet’s body was and said farewell. He then came and spoke to the people saying,
“Oh people, if anyone worships Muhammad, know that Muhammad is dead; if anyone worships Allah, know that Allah is alive, and He never dies.”
It was with these statements that all Muslims accepted Rasulullah’s (saw) death and mortality but understood that Allah (swt) is eternal. | 1,223 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Quetzalcoatl is a Mesoamerican deity, whose name in the local Nahuatl language means ‘feathered serpent’. To the Aztecs he was a creator god and also had a parallel in Mayan culture to whom he was known as Kukulcan or Gucumatz. It is a commonly held belief among Mormons that Quetzalcoatl was Jesus Christ!
Pierre Honoré claimed that these white gods had come from the region of Crete and had brought with them their script. As Linear A & B had both ceased being used by 1400 BC, Honoré surmised that visits of these deities had taken place before that date.
Lewis Spence also claimed an Atlantis connection for Quetzalcoatl.
These ideas are just pure conjecture but are relatively tame compared with the wilder speculations of writers such as Peter Kolosimo, who “claimed that the legends actually describe a race of white men who were born in spaceships and migrated to Atlantis; then, after Atlantis was destroyed, they moved to the Americas to be treated as “white gods” by the “primitive earth-dwellers.”(a) | <urn:uuid:9f84aad7-d8a8-474b-a683-301a0f87a79f> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://atlantipedia.ie/samples/quetzalcoatl-n/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250628549.43/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125011232-20200125040232-00315.warc.gz | en | 0.988394 | 247 | 3.5 | 4 | [
-0.27146148681640625,
0.2807590663433075,
-0.129868745803833,
0.3804020583629608,
-0.003760304069146514,
-0.00021633518917951733,
0.3662368655204773,
0.2891678512096405,
0.019354630261659622,
-0.22100286185741425,
-0.25243881344795227,
-0.434682697057724,
0.22900810837745667,
0.01609483547... | 5 | Quetzalcoatl is a Mesoamerican deity, whose name in the local Nahuatl language means ‘feathered serpent’. To the Aztecs he was a creator god and also had a parallel in Mayan culture to whom he was known as Kukulcan or Gucumatz. It is a commonly held belief among Mormons that Quetzalcoatl was Jesus Christ!
Pierre Honoré claimed that these white gods had come from the region of Crete and had brought with them their script. As Linear A & B had both ceased being used by 1400 BC, Honoré surmised that visits of these deities had taken place before that date.
Lewis Spence also claimed an Atlantis connection for Quetzalcoatl.
These ideas are just pure conjecture but are relatively tame compared with the wilder speculations of writers such as Peter Kolosimo, who “claimed that the legends actually describe a race of white men who were born in spaceships and migrated to Atlantis; then, after Atlantis was destroyed, they moved to the Americas to be treated as “white gods” by the “primitive earth-dwellers.”(a) | 240 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Purchases made through links may earn us a small commission, at no extra cost to you.
The origins of Pompeii may be unfamiliar to most, but the city’s catastrophic demise is a story known around the world.
Pompeii was founded by the Campanian Oscans in the sixth or seventh century BC. The city was built on prehistoric lava from the precariously close Mount Vesuvius. In 80 BC, Pompeii was captured by the Romans and went on to grow to a sophisticated city of 20,000.
Pompeii was still in the process of rebuilding after a devastating earthquake in AD 63, when disaster struck again. On August 24 AD 79, Vesuvius violently erupted, burying Pompeii under a thick layer of volcanic ash and burning stone. About 2,000 people were killed and the city was eventually forgotten.
Pompeii was rediscovered about 1,500 years later in 1599, during the digging of an underground channel. However, nothing came of the discovery. The frescoes that were uncovered by architect Domenico Fontana, were covered over again, perhaps as an act of censorship due to their sexual content.
It wasn’t until 1748 that intentional excavations of Pompeii were begun by Spanish military engineer Rocque Joaquin de Alcubierre. Today, about two-thirds of the city have been excavated.
Pompeii is now one of Italy’s most visited tourist destinations. However, the archaeological site has been plagued with controversy. Overtourism, environmental weathering, vandalism, improper excavation work and underfunding of conservation projects are contributing to the deterioration of the site. | <urn:uuid:f6a32df0-1b2d-4f98-85b7-aadea764d4af> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.travelyesplease.com/photo-of-the-week-pompeii/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250599789.45/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120195035-20200120224035-00314.warc.gz | en | 0.983258 | 345 | 3.75 | 4 | [
-0.2408347874879837,
0.37347254157066345,
0.6035146117210388,
-0.13698668777942657,
-0.3919297754764557,
-0.11904174834489822,
-0.04820764809846878,
0.04391187056899071,
0.16993805766105652,
0.04178120940923691,
0.16113139688968658,
-0.6872239112854004,
0.36100924015045166,
0.5489388108253... | 6 | Purchases made through links may earn us a small commission, at no extra cost to you.
The origins of Pompeii may be unfamiliar to most, but the city’s catastrophic demise is a story known around the world.
Pompeii was founded by the Campanian Oscans in the sixth or seventh century BC. The city was built on prehistoric lava from the precariously close Mount Vesuvius. In 80 BC, Pompeii was captured by the Romans and went on to grow to a sophisticated city of 20,000.
Pompeii was still in the process of rebuilding after a devastating earthquake in AD 63, when disaster struck again. On August 24 AD 79, Vesuvius violently erupted, burying Pompeii under a thick layer of volcanic ash and burning stone. About 2,000 people were killed and the city was eventually forgotten.
Pompeii was rediscovered about 1,500 years later in 1599, during the digging of an underground channel. However, nothing came of the discovery. The frescoes that were uncovered by architect Domenico Fontana, were covered over again, perhaps as an act of censorship due to their sexual content.
It wasn’t until 1748 that intentional excavations of Pompeii were begun by Spanish military engineer Rocque Joaquin de Alcubierre. Today, about two-thirds of the city have been excavated.
Pompeii is now one of Italy’s most visited tourist destinations. However, the archaeological site has been plagued with controversy. Overtourism, environmental weathering, vandalism, improper excavation work and underfunding of conservation projects are contributing to the deterioration of the site. | 361 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Silver kettles first appeared at the end of the 17th century and served to replenish empty teapots, which were small at this time. To keep the water hot, they were supplied with stands fitted with a spirit burner that warmed the underside of the kettle, allowing the silver to act as a heat conductor. The handles were usually made of wicker or wood, or with ivory disk inserts that provided insulation from the boiling water. Due to the weight of a full kettle, they were often positioned next to the tea table on a stand and used with the assistance of a servant. As such large and impressive silver items, kettles became a focal point of the tea ceremony and an obvious expression of wealth.
This kettle was made by the London silversmith, William Grundy who was apprenticed in 1731 and probably died before 1780. Until the 1730s, kettles were usually plain and of simple form, but the influence of Rococo taste transformed them into a vehicle for extravagant ornament. This example has a theatrically shaped handle and is eleborately decorated with delicate chasing and repoussé scrolls and blossoms. Another similar rococco kettle by Grundy is in the collection at the Victoria & Albert Museum. | <urn:uuid:f40d702a-fc75-4b5e-a6e7-efb48da4f0be> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://chitracollection.com/collection/kettle-and-stand-26/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251737572.61/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127235617-20200128025617-00390.warc.gz | en | 0.982601 | 259 | 3.59375 | 4 | [
0.18803009390830994,
0.04544813185930252,
0.6817862391471863,
-0.12755684554576874,
-0.07012522220611572,
-0.1458299309015274,
0.4658748507499695,
-0.4627874195575714,
-0.058503784239292145,
-0.3180418312549591,
-0.17193135619163513,
-0.16234666109085083,
-0.04617558419704437,
-0.103931345... | 11 | Silver kettles first appeared at the end of the 17th century and served to replenish empty teapots, which were small at this time. To keep the water hot, they were supplied with stands fitted with a spirit burner that warmed the underside of the kettle, allowing the silver to act as a heat conductor. The handles were usually made of wicker or wood, or with ivory disk inserts that provided insulation from the boiling water. Due to the weight of a full kettle, they were often positioned next to the tea table on a stand and used with the assistance of a servant. As such large and impressive silver items, kettles became a focal point of the tea ceremony and an obvious expression of wealth.
This kettle was made by the London silversmith, William Grundy who was apprenticed in 1731 and probably died before 1780. Until the 1730s, kettles were usually plain and of simple form, but the influence of Rococo taste transformed them into a vehicle for extravagant ornament. This example has a theatrically shaped handle and is eleborately decorated with delicate chasing and repoussé scrolls and blossoms. Another similar rococco kettle by Grundy is in the collection at the Victoria & Albert Museum. | 263 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The fortress which was built by the Portuguese was captured by the Dutch on March 13th 1640 after a battle. Portuguese writer Parinavo Kerosh has given a detailed description of the Galle Fort and the battle which led to its conquest by the Dutch in his book The Temporal and Spiritual Conquest of Ceylon.
According to him, a Dutch contingent of about 2000 soldiers led by Admiral Wilhelm Jacobs Coster had landed at Unawatuna, a coastal village south of Galle, on 8th March 1640. They had proceeded on foot to Magalle where they got themselves entrenched. When the Portuguese military headquarters in Colombo received this news, they immediately dispatched to Galle a contingent of 323 soldiers, led by Captain Major Francesco de Mendona Manuel, by land, who were joined on the way by a further 1800. Their armoury was a loose collection of canons, guns of various types and even bows. By that time there were only about 110 Portuguese soldiers led by Captain Lorenzo Perera de Britto stationed in Galle Fort and they were in no way equipped to put up any effective resistence to the Dutch.
In the battle which ensued, the Dutch were able to overcome the Portuguese and capture Galle Fort. It is recorded as one of the fiercest battles which the Dutch fought in Sri Lanka.
The conquest of Galle was celebrated in Batavia on 20 th April 1640. The importance the Dutch gave to the capture of Galle is demonstrated by the fact that this event was annually celebrated by them during the one and a half centuries of Dutch rule in Sri Lanka.
The small fortification in Galle which was captured from the Portuguese by the Dutch was considerably expanded and improved by them according to their own distinct architectural style.
The following are the special architectural features of Fortified City of Galle after it was remodeled by the Dutch:-
Although Dutch instituted their power in Galle in 1640 AD, both parties were active in establishing powers earlier. Admiral Joris Fun Spilburcheon took aboard from Netherland in 1601 AD had arrived in Ceylon on 31st May, 1602 AD to convey the blessing of the king of Netherland.
William Jacob Coater who succeeded in completely conjuring Galle fort by 16th March, 1640 AD continued in the Dutch Governorship of Galle until 04th July, 1640 AD. Few months later he is said to have been killed by Natives on his return from a visit to Kandyan king.
Although Portuguese took pains to commence development of Galle fort providing it with their basic requirements, it was Dutch who developed Galle fort as a planned town to the satisfaction of the town dwellers. | <urn:uuid:faefa9f6-d234-417c-89c6-bdfabfd0fbbe> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://www.galleheritage.gov.lk/en/the-dutch-period/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251705142.94/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127174507-20200127204507-00507.warc.gz | en | 0.990487 | 550 | 3.625 | 4 | [
0.22193598747253418,
0.7575951814651489,
0.32183724641799927,
-0.15100456774234772,
0.06670815497636795,
-0.27549678087234497,
0.18466658890247345,
0.01124169398099184,
-0.18038542568683624,
-0.051003776490688324,
-0.24050986766815186,
-0.7012159824371338,
-0.42390304803848267,
0.575254201... | 15 | The fortress which was built by the Portuguese was captured by the Dutch on March 13th 1640 after a battle. Portuguese writer Parinavo Kerosh has given a detailed description of the Galle Fort and the battle which led to its conquest by the Dutch in his book The Temporal and Spiritual Conquest of Ceylon.
According to him, a Dutch contingent of about 2000 soldiers led by Admiral Wilhelm Jacobs Coster had landed at Unawatuna, a coastal village south of Galle, on 8th March 1640. They had proceeded on foot to Magalle where they got themselves entrenched. When the Portuguese military headquarters in Colombo received this news, they immediately dispatched to Galle a contingent of 323 soldiers, led by Captain Major Francesco de Mendona Manuel, by land, who were joined on the way by a further 1800. Their armoury was a loose collection of canons, guns of various types and even bows. By that time there were only about 110 Portuguese soldiers led by Captain Lorenzo Perera de Britto stationed in Galle Fort and they were in no way equipped to put up any effective resistence to the Dutch.
In the battle which ensued, the Dutch were able to overcome the Portuguese and capture Galle Fort. It is recorded as one of the fiercest battles which the Dutch fought in Sri Lanka.
The conquest of Galle was celebrated in Batavia on 20 th April 1640. The importance the Dutch gave to the capture of Galle is demonstrated by the fact that this event was annually celebrated by them during the one and a half centuries of Dutch rule in Sri Lanka.
The small fortification in Galle which was captured from the Portuguese by the Dutch was considerably expanded and improved by them according to their own distinct architectural style.
The following are the special architectural features of Fortified City of Galle after it was remodeled by the Dutch:-
Although Dutch instituted their power in Galle in 1640 AD, both parties were active in establishing powers earlier. Admiral Joris Fun Spilburcheon took aboard from Netherland in 1601 AD had arrived in Ceylon on 31st May, 1602 AD to convey the blessing of the king of Netherland.
William Jacob Coater who succeeded in completely conjuring Galle fort by 16th March, 1640 AD continued in the Dutch Governorship of Galle until 04th July, 1640 AD. Few months later he is said to have been killed by Natives on his return from a visit to Kandyan king.
Although Portuguese took pains to commence development of Galle fort providing it with their basic requirements, it was Dutch who developed Galle fort as a planned town to the satisfaction of the town dwellers. | 597 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Viking Homework Ideas: 8 Points To Consider
Introduction of Vikings in Britain
The age of the Vikings in Britain began about in the 9th Century AD and they lasted for over 200 years. Gangs of raiders started attacking the coasts of Britain by 800 A.D. These raiders came for foods and shelter. They were the Vikings (also called Danes).Just like the Anglo-Saxons who came across the North Sea 400 years ago so did the Vikings in the 9th century.
Slowly like the Anglo-Saxons they started inhabiting the place. They started growing crops and formed shelters. Two distinct groups of invaders cannot stay in the same region thus they drove all the Anglo-Saxons out from that part of the country. King Alfred, Saxon king of Wessex, fought a great and fierce battle against the Vikings, but lastly could not throw them out.
You should go through the main few points of the Vikings so that you can easily do your homework on them.
Delve into the Viking history: 8 tips
- First of all, where did the Vikings come from? The Vikings came from Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Originating from different areas of the then Europe they together crossed the North Sea and inhabited the parts of Britain.
- Second point to consider is, who were they? Vikings were known as Norsemen meaning people from the north. They were actually great sailors and had a nomadic life. They traded then raided and at last, often settled in those areas like they did in Britain.
- Third point should be, when did they invade Britain? In AD 930 they invaded for the first time and in 1066 they invaded for the last time. The raid on the Lindisfarne marked the start the migration of Vikings in Britain.
- Consecutively the fourth point should be on, why they invaded Britain? Vikings had travelled far away from their homeland to invade areas of Britain. Norway was too hilly, Denmark was covered with sandy soils and Sweden was covered in forest. All these reason made them to force their land and search for a better place to live in.
- Fifth point is, what religion did they follow? Vikings had three most important Gods. Odin – the leader of Gods. He was also considered the god of magic, poetry and war. Thor was considered to be the god of thunder. Freyr was considered to be the god of agriculture and fertility.
- The sixth point deals with what their houses looked like? The Viking used to construct their houses with long woods, blocks of stones or turfs. They lived in long rectangular shaped houses. It had upright timbers.
- The seventh point is, Viking clothing. They wore clothes made of linen, wool and fur. They had heretic talents of weaving and thus made their own clothes.
- The last point is about the places they settled in. The areas they settled in were known as Danelaw. The area covered the vast stretch of expansion joining London and Chester.
All this point will be enough to cover the Vikings homework. Go through them thoroughly.
TakeBackYourSchools.com (c) 2012-2020 |
Homework writing help for college students | <urn:uuid:ac0653e9-e544-4600-b1b7-dff7a2849803> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.takebackyourschools.com/a-list-of-great-viking-homework-ideas-things-you-must-know | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251684146.65/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126013015-20200126043015-00060.warc.gz | en | 0.982016 | 658 | 3.671875 | 4 | [
-0.024196257814764977,
0.03582291305065155,
0.11483804881572723,
-0.32383376359939575,
0.07900717854499817,
0.059996820986270905,
-0.2935088276863098,
0.11304199695587158,
0.17400942742824554,
-0.07851620018482208,
0.12466546148061752,
-0.6018661856651306,
-0.13798800110816956,
0.008659243... | 2 | Viking Homework Ideas: 8 Points To Consider
Introduction of Vikings in Britain
The age of the Vikings in Britain began about in the 9th Century AD and they lasted for over 200 years. Gangs of raiders started attacking the coasts of Britain by 800 A.D. These raiders came for foods and shelter. They were the Vikings (also called Danes).Just like the Anglo-Saxons who came across the North Sea 400 years ago so did the Vikings in the 9th century.
Slowly like the Anglo-Saxons they started inhabiting the place. They started growing crops and formed shelters. Two distinct groups of invaders cannot stay in the same region thus they drove all the Anglo-Saxons out from that part of the country. King Alfred, Saxon king of Wessex, fought a great and fierce battle against the Vikings, but lastly could not throw them out.
You should go through the main few points of the Vikings so that you can easily do your homework on them.
Delve into the Viking history: 8 tips
- First of all, where did the Vikings come from? The Vikings came from Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Originating from different areas of the then Europe they together crossed the North Sea and inhabited the parts of Britain.
- Second point to consider is, who were they? Vikings were known as Norsemen meaning people from the north. They were actually great sailors and had a nomadic life. They traded then raided and at last, often settled in those areas like they did in Britain.
- Third point should be, when did they invade Britain? In AD 930 they invaded for the first time and in 1066 they invaded for the last time. The raid on the Lindisfarne marked the start the migration of Vikings in Britain.
- Consecutively the fourth point should be on, why they invaded Britain? Vikings had travelled far away from their homeland to invade areas of Britain. Norway was too hilly, Denmark was covered with sandy soils and Sweden was covered in forest. All these reason made them to force their land and search for a better place to live in.
- Fifth point is, what religion did they follow? Vikings had three most important Gods. Odin – the leader of Gods. He was also considered the god of magic, poetry and war. Thor was considered to be the god of thunder. Freyr was considered to be the god of agriculture and fertility.
- The sixth point deals with what their houses looked like? The Viking used to construct their houses with long woods, blocks of stones or turfs. They lived in long rectangular shaped houses. It had upright timbers.
- The seventh point is, Viking clothing. They wore clothes made of linen, wool and fur. They had heretic talents of weaving and thus made their own clothes.
- The last point is about the places they settled in. The areas they settled in were known as Danelaw. The area covered the vast stretch of expansion joining London and Chester.
All this point will be enough to cover the Vikings homework. Go through them thoroughly.
TakeBackYourSchools.com (c) 2012-2020 |
Homework writing help for college students | 669 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Rudolf Hess – While Adolf Hitler's deputy, he parachuted into Scotland to propose a peace agreement but was arrested
Rudolph the red-nosed reindeer hesitated (Rudolf Hess) before deciding to jump into Scotland.
Rudolf Hess is remembered principally for two things: firstly, as the high-ranking Nazi who, bizarrely, parachuted into Scotland in 1941 to negotiate peace between Germany and Britain; and, secondly, as the sole inmate of Spandau Prison, Berlin, for many years until his death in 1987.
Hess joined the Nazi party in 1920 and quickly became Hitler's confidant. Hitler and Hess were both jailed for their parts in what was known as the Beer Hall Putsch – an attempted coup, or forceful takeover of power, in Munich in 1923. While in Landsberg prison, Hess wrote down and edited much of Hitler's famous book, Mein Kampf (My Struggle).
In 1933 Hess, became deputy leader of the Nazi party and in 1939 -– the year World War II started – Hitler declared him second to Hermann Göring in the Nazi line of succession.
However, Hess's power waned as the war progressed, and he felt he was being undermined by other senior Nazis.
In the spring of 1941, Hess decided to try to bring the war between Germany and Britain to an end and thereby restore his flagging prestige. On May 10 he flew alone from Augsburg, Bavaria, and landed by parachute in Scotland with peace proposals. He demanded a free hand for Germany in Europe and the return of former German colonies as compensation for Germany’s promise to respect the integrity of the British Empire.
Hess’s proposals met with no response. The British government treated him as a prisoner of war and held him for the remainder of World War II.
After the war, Hess was tried at the Nuremberg war crimes trials. He was convicted and given a life sentence.
Hess served his sentence at Spandau prison in Berlin. From 1966 onwards, he was the sole inmate of the prison.
In 1987, Hess, aged 93 and still at Spandau, committed suicide, hanging himself with the extension cord from a lamp. He was buried in Wunsiedel, Bavaria. His grave became a pilgrimage site for neo-Nazis. In 2011 his body was removed and cremated and his ashes were scattered in an unidentified lake.
Interesting fact: While Hess was in British custody, psychiatrists who treated him noted that while he was not insane, he was mentally unstable, with tendencies toward hypochondria and paranoia. | <urn:uuid:510ff64b-323b-4fdc-a408-25ba71f9d21a> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://mammothmemory.net/history/world-war-ii/important-people-of-world-war-ii/rudolf-hess.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250625097.75/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124191133-20200124220133-00175.warc.gz | en | 0.983081 | 538 | 3.453125 | 3 | [
-0.20218828320503235,
0.37118351459503174,
-0.03583015501499176,
-0.02354414388537407,
0.08202982693910599,
0.00881965272128582,
0.3509744703769684,
0.14381837844848633,
-0.08035263419151306,
-0.24024902284145355,
0.3140857219696045,
-0.24996152520179749,
0.37883639335632324,
0.40627637505... | 4 | Rudolf Hess – While Adolf Hitler's deputy, he parachuted into Scotland to propose a peace agreement but was arrested
Rudolph the red-nosed reindeer hesitated (Rudolf Hess) before deciding to jump into Scotland.
Rudolf Hess is remembered principally for two things: firstly, as the high-ranking Nazi who, bizarrely, parachuted into Scotland in 1941 to negotiate peace between Germany and Britain; and, secondly, as the sole inmate of Spandau Prison, Berlin, for many years until his death in 1987.
Hess joined the Nazi party in 1920 and quickly became Hitler's confidant. Hitler and Hess were both jailed for their parts in what was known as the Beer Hall Putsch – an attempted coup, or forceful takeover of power, in Munich in 1923. While in Landsberg prison, Hess wrote down and edited much of Hitler's famous book, Mein Kampf (My Struggle).
In 1933 Hess, became deputy leader of the Nazi party and in 1939 -– the year World War II started – Hitler declared him second to Hermann Göring in the Nazi line of succession.
However, Hess's power waned as the war progressed, and he felt he was being undermined by other senior Nazis.
In the spring of 1941, Hess decided to try to bring the war between Germany and Britain to an end and thereby restore his flagging prestige. On May 10 he flew alone from Augsburg, Bavaria, and landed by parachute in Scotland with peace proposals. He demanded a free hand for Germany in Europe and the return of former German colonies as compensation for Germany’s promise to respect the integrity of the British Empire.
Hess’s proposals met with no response. The British government treated him as a prisoner of war and held him for the remainder of World War II.
After the war, Hess was tried at the Nuremberg war crimes trials. He was convicted and given a life sentence.
Hess served his sentence at Spandau prison in Berlin. From 1966 onwards, he was the sole inmate of the prison.
In 1987, Hess, aged 93 and still at Spandau, committed suicide, hanging himself with the extension cord from a lamp. He was buried in Wunsiedel, Bavaria. His grave became a pilgrimage site for neo-Nazis. In 2011 his body was removed and cremated and his ashes were scattered in an unidentified lake.
Interesting fact: While Hess was in British custody, psychiatrists who treated him noted that while he was not insane, he was mentally unstable, with tendencies toward hypochondria and paranoia. | 570 | ENGLISH | 1 |
AKA Lucius Cornelius Sulla
Born: 138 BC
Died: 78 BC
Location of death: Pozzuoli, Italy
Cause of death: Aneurysm
Race or Ethnicity: White
Sexual orientation: Bisexual
Occupation: Military, Head of State
Nationality: Ancient Rome
Executive summary: Roman General, dictator
Lucius Cornelius Sulla, surnamed Felix, Roman general, politician and dictator, belonged to a minor and impoverished branch of the famous patrician Cornelian gens. He received a careful education, and was a devoted student of literature and art. His political advancement was slow, and he did not obtain the quaestorship until 107, when he served in the Jugurthine war under Gaius Marius in Africa. In this he greatly distinguished himself, and claimed the credit of having terminated the war by capturing Jugurtha himself. In these African campaigns Sulla showed that he knew how to win the confidence of his soldiers, and throughout his career the secret of his success seems to have been the enthusiastic devotion of his troops, whom he continued to hold well in hand, while allowing them to indulge in plundering and all kinds of excess. From 104 to 101 he served again under Marius in the war with the Cimbri and Teutones and fought in the last great battle in the Raudian plains near Verona. It was at this time that Marius's jealousy of his legate laid the foundations of their future rivalry and mutual hatred. When the war was over, Sulla, on his return to Rome, lived quietly for some years and took no part in politics. In 93 he was elected praetor after a lavish squandering of money, and he delighted the populace with an exhibition of a hundred lions from Africa. Next year (92) he went as propraetor of Cilicia with special authority from the senate to make Mithradates VI of Pontus restore Cappadocia to Ariobarzanes, one of Rome's dependants in Asia. Sulla with a small army soon won a victory over the general of Mithradates, and Rome's client-king was restored. An embassy from the Parthians now came to solicit alliance with Rome, and Sulla was the first Roman who held diplomatic intercourse with that remote people. In the year 91, which brought with it the imminent prospect of sweeping political change, with the enfranchisement of the Italian peoples, Sulla returned to Rome, and it was generally felt that he was the man to lead the conservative and aristocratic party.
Meanwhile Mithradates and the East were forgotten in the crisis of the Social or Italic War, which broke out in 91 and threatened Rome's very existence. The services of both Marius and Sulla were given; but Sulla was the more successful, or, at any rate, the more fortunate. Of the Italian peoples Rome's old foes the Samnites were the most formidable; these Sulla vanquished, and took their chief town, Bovianum. In recognition of this and other brilliant services, he was elected consul in 88, and brought the revolt to an end by the capture of Nola in Campania. The question of the command of the army against Mithradates again came to the front. The senate had already chosen Sulla; but the tribune Publius Sulpicius Rufus moved that Marius should have the command. Rioting took place at Rome at the prompting of the popular leaders, Sulla narrowly escaping to his legions in Campania, from where he marched on Rome, being the first Roman who entered the city at the head of a Roman army. Sulpicius was put to death, and Marius fled; and he and his party were crushed for the time.
Sulla, leaving things quiet at Rome, departed Italy in 87, and for the next four years he was winning victory after victory against the armies of Mithradates and accumulating boundless plunder. Athens, the headquarters of the Mithradatic cause, was taken and sacked in 86; and in the same year, at Chaeroneia, the scene of Philip II of Macedon's victory more than two and a half centuries before, and in the year following, at the neighboring Orchomenus, he scattered immense hosts of the enemy with trifling loss to himself. Crossing the Hellespont in 84 into Asia, he was joined by the troops of C. Flavius Fimbria, who soon deserted their general, a man sent out by the Marian party, now again in the ascendant at Rome. The same year peace was concluded with Mithradates on condition that he should be put back to the position he held before the war; but, as he raised objections, he had in the end to content himself with being simply a vassal of Rome.
Sulla returned to Italy in 83, landing at Brundisium, having previously informed the senate of the result of his campaigns in Greece and Asia, and announced his presence on Italian ground. He further complained of the ill-treatment to which his friends and partisans had been subjected during his absence. Marius had died in 86, and the revolutionary party, specially represented by L. Cornelius Cinna, Cn. Papirius Carbo and the younger Marius, had massacred Sulla's supporters wholesale, confiscated his property, and declared him a public enemy. They felt they must resist him to the death, and with the troops scattered throughout Italy, and the newly enfranchised Italians, to whom it was understood that Sulla was bitterly hostile, they counted confidently on success. But on Sulla's advance at the head of tis 40,000 veterans many of them lost heart and deserted their leaders, while the Italians themselves, whom he confirmed in their new privileges, were won over to his side. Only the Samnites, who were as yet without the Roman franchise, remained his enemies, and it seemed as if the old war between Rome and Samnium had to be fought once again. Several Roman nobles, among them Gnaeus Pompeius (Pompey the Great), Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius, Marcus Licinius Crassus, Marcus Licinius Lucullus, joined Sulla, and in the following year (82) he won a decisive victory over the younger Marius near Praeneste (modern Palestrina) and then marched upon Rome, where again, just before his defeat of Marius, there had been a great massacre of his adherents, in which the learned jurist Q. Mucius Scaevola perished. Rome was at the same time in extreme peril from the advance of a Samnite army, and was barely saved by Sulla, who, after a hard-fought battle, routed the enemy under Pontius Telesinus at the Colline gate of Rome. With the death of the younger Marius, who killed himself after the surrender of Praeneste, the civil war was at an end, and Sulla was master of Rome and of the Roman world. Then came the memorable "proscription", when for the first time in Roman history a list of men declared to be outlaws and public enemies was exhibited in the forum, and a reign of terror began throughout Rome and Italy. The title of "dictator" was revived and Sulla was in fact emperor of Rome. After celebrating a splendid triumph for the Mithradatic War, and assuming the surname of "Felix" ("Epaphroditus", "Venus's favorite", he styled himself in addressing Greeks), he carried in 80 and 79 his great political reforms. The main object of these was to invest the senate, which he recruited with a number of his own party, with full control over the state, over every magistrate and every province; and the mainstay of his political system was to be the military colonies which he had established with grants of land throughout every part of Italy, to the ruin of the old Italian freeholders and farmers, who from this time dwindled away, leaving whole districts waste and desolate.
In 79 Sulla resigned his dictatorship and retired to Puteoli, where he died in the following year, probably from the bursting of a blood-vessel. The story that he fell a victim to a disease similar to that which cut off one of the Herods (Acts 12:23) is probably an invention of his enemies. The "half lion, half fox", as his enemies called him, the man who carried out a policy of "blood and iron" with a grim humor, amused himself in his last days with actors and actresses, with dabbling in poetry, and completing the Memoirs (commentarii) of his eventful life. Even then he did not give up his interest in state and local affairs, and his end is said to have been hastened by a fit of passion brought on by a remark of the quaestor Granius, who openly asserted that he would escape payment of a sum of money due to the Romans, since Sulla was on his deathbed. Sulla sent for him and had him strangled in his presence; in his excitement he broke a blood-vessel and died on the following day. He was accorded a magnificent public funeral, his body being removed to Rome and buried in the Campus Martius. His monument bore an inscription written by himself, to the effect that he had always fully repaid the kindnesses of his friends and the wrongs done him by his enemies. His military genius was displayed in the Social War and the campaigns against Mithradates; while his constitutional reforms, although doomed to failure from the lack of successors to carry them out, were a triumph of organization. But he massacred his enemies in cold blood, and exacted vengeance with pitiless and calculated cruelty; he sacrificed everything to his own ambition and the triumph of his party.
Daughter: Cornelia Sulla
Son: Lucius Cornelius Sulla
Wife: Aelia (div.)
Wife: Caecilia Metella Dalmatica
Son: Faustus Cornelius Sulla (twin, b. 87 BC)
Daughter: Fausta Cornelia Sulla (twin, b. 87 BC)
Wife: Valeria Messala (m. 80 BC)
Daughter: Postuma Cornelia Sulla (b. 78 BC)
Boyfriend: Metrobius (actor, long term lover)
Extortion (95 BC), acquitted
Exiled by Marius (87 BC)
Abdication (79 BC)
Do you know something we don't?
Submit a correction or make a comment about this profile
Copyright ©2019 Soylent Communications | <urn:uuid:238ecf68-93ad-4bef-996f-9b3c02c9117b> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://nndb.com/people/285/000097991/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250628549.43/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125011232-20200125040232-00414.warc.gz | en | 0.9847 | 2,224 | 3.421875 | 3 | [
-0.49973511695861816,
0.6954478025436401,
0.617761492729187,
-0.03100849874317646,
-0.765687882900238,
0.01795779913663864,
0.38149815797805786,
0.1319936066865921,
0.212417870759964,
-0.11823258548974991,
0.15485113859176636,
-0.6365760564804077,
0.18059130012989044,
0.3142050504684448,
... | 7 | AKA Lucius Cornelius Sulla
Born: 138 BC
Died: 78 BC
Location of death: Pozzuoli, Italy
Cause of death: Aneurysm
Race or Ethnicity: White
Sexual orientation: Bisexual
Occupation: Military, Head of State
Nationality: Ancient Rome
Executive summary: Roman General, dictator
Lucius Cornelius Sulla, surnamed Felix, Roman general, politician and dictator, belonged to a minor and impoverished branch of the famous patrician Cornelian gens. He received a careful education, and was a devoted student of literature and art. His political advancement was slow, and he did not obtain the quaestorship until 107, when he served in the Jugurthine war under Gaius Marius in Africa. In this he greatly distinguished himself, and claimed the credit of having terminated the war by capturing Jugurtha himself. In these African campaigns Sulla showed that he knew how to win the confidence of his soldiers, and throughout his career the secret of his success seems to have been the enthusiastic devotion of his troops, whom he continued to hold well in hand, while allowing them to indulge in plundering and all kinds of excess. From 104 to 101 he served again under Marius in the war with the Cimbri and Teutones and fought in the last great battle in the Raudian plains near Verona. It was at this time that Marius's jealousy of his legate laid the foundations of their future rivalry and mutual hatred. When the war was over, Sulla, on his return to Rome, lived quietly for some years and took no part in politics. In 93 he was elected praetor after a lavish squandering of money, and he delighted the populace with an exhibition of a hundred lions from Africa. Next year (92) he went as propraetor of Cilicia with special authority from the senate to make Mithradates VI of Pontus restore Cappadocia to Ariobarzanes, one of Rome's dependants in Asia. Sulla with a small army soon won a victory over the general of Mithradates, and Rome's client-king was restored. An embassy from the Parthians now came to solicit alliance with Rome, and Sulla was the first Roman who held diplomatic intercourse with that remote people. In the year 91, which brought with it the imminent prospect of sweeping political change, with the enfranchisement of the Italian peoples, Sulla returned to Rome, and it was generally felt that he was the man to lead the conservative and aristocratic party.
Meanwhile Mithradates and the East were forgotten in the crisis of the Social or Italic War, which broke out in 91 and threatened Rome's very existence. The services of both Marius and Sulla were given; but Sulla was the more successful, or, at any rate, the more fortunate. Of the Italian peoples Rome's old foes the Samnites were the most formidable; these Sulla vanquished, and took their chief town, Bovianum. In recognition of this and other brilliant services, he was elected consul in 88, and brought the revolt to an end by the capture of Nola in Campania. The question of the command of the army against Mithradates again came to the front. The senate had already chosen Sulla; but the tribune Publius Sulpicius Rufus moved that Marius should have the command. Rioting took place at Rome at the prompting of the popular leaders, Sulla narrowly escaping to his legions in Campania, from where he marched on Rome, being the first Roman who entered the city at the head of a Roman army. Sulpicius was put to death, and Marius fled; and he and his party were crushed for the time.
Sulla, leaving things quiet at Rome, departed Italy in 87, and for the next four years he was winning victory after victory against the armies of Mithradates and accumulating boundless plunder. Athens, the headquarters of the Mithradatic cause, was taken and sacked in 86; and in the same year, at Chaeroneia, the scene of Philip II of Macedon's victory more than two and a half centuries before, and in the year following, at the neighboring Orchomenus, he scattered immense hosts of the enemy with trifling loss to himself. Crossing the Hellespont in 84 into Asia, he was joined by the troops of C. Flavius Fimbria, who soon deserted their general, a man sent out by the Marian party, now again in the ascendant at Rome. The same year peace was concluded with Mithradates on condition that he should be put back to the position he held before the war; but, as he raised objections, he had in the end to content himself with being simply a vassal of Rome.
Sulla returned to Italy in 83, landing at Brundisium, having previously informed the senate of the result of his campaigns in Greece and Asia, and announced his presence on Italian ground. He further complained of the ill-treatment to which his friends and partisans had been subjected during his absence. Marius had died in 86, and the revolutionary party, specially represented by L. Cornelius Cinna, Cn. Papirius Carbo and the younger Marius, had massacred Sulla's supporters wholesale, confiscated his property, and declared him a public enemy. They felt they must resist him to the death, and with the troops scattered throughout Italy, and the newly enfranchised Italians, to whom it was understood that Sulla was bitterly hostile, they counted confidently on success. But on Sulla's advance at the head of tis 40,000 veterans many of them lost heart and deserted their leaders, while the Italians themselves, whom he confirmed in their new privileges, were won over to his side. Only the Samnites, who were as yet without the Roman franchise, remained his enemies, and it seemed as if the old war between Rome and Samnium had to be fought once again. Several Roman nobles, among them Gnaeus Pompeius (Pompey the Great), Q. Caecilius Metellus Pius, Marcus Licinius Crassus, Marcus Licinius Lucullus, joined Sulla, and in the following year (82) he won a decisive victory over the younger Marius near Praeneste (modern Palestrina) and then marched upon Rome, where again, just before his defeat of Marius, there had been a great massacre of his adherents, in which the learned jurist Q. Mucius Scaevola perished. Rome was at the same time in extreme peril from the advance of a Samnite army, and was barely saved by Sulla, who, after a hard-fought battle, routed the enemy under Pontius Telesinus at the Colline gate of Rome. With the death of the younger Marius, who killed himself after the surrender of Praeneste, the civil war was at an end, and Sulla was master of Rome and of the Roman world. Then came the memorable "proscription", when for the first time in Roman history a list of men declared to be outlaws and public enemies was exhibited in the forum, and a reign of terror began throughout Rome and Italy. The title of "dictator" was revived and Sulla was in fact emperor of Rome. After celebrating a splendid triumph for the Mithradatic War, and assuming the surname of "Felix" ("Epaphroditus", "Venus's favorite", he styled himself in addressing Greeks), he carried in 80 and 79 his great political reforms. The main object of these was to invest the senate, which he recruited with a number of his own party, with full control over the state, over every magistrate and every province; and the mainstay of his political system was to be the military colonies which he had established with grants of land throughout every part of Italy, to the ruin of the old Italian freeholders and farmers, who from this time dwindled away, leaving whole districts waste and desolate.
In 79 Sulla resigned his dictatorship and retired to Puteoli, where he died in the following year, probably from the bursting of a blood-vessel. The story that he fell a victim to a disease similar to that which cut off one of the Herods (Acts 12:23) is probably an invention of his enemies. The "half lion, half fox", as his enemies called him, the man who carried out a policy of "blood and iron" with a grim humor, amused himself in his last days with actors and actresses, with dabbling in poetry, and completing the Memoirs (commentarii) of his eventful life. Even then he did not give up his interest in state and local affairs, and his end is said to have been hastened by a fit of passion brought on by a remark of the quaestor Granius, who openly asserted that he would escape payment of a sum of money due to the Romans, since Sulla was on his deathbed. Sulla sent for him and had him strangled in his presence; in his excitement he broke a blood-vessel and died on the following day. He was accorded a magnificent public funeral, his body being removed to Rome and buried in the Campus Martius. His monument bore an inscription written by himself, to the effect that he had always fully repaid the kindnesses of his friends and the wrongs done him by his enemies. His military genius was displayed in the Social War and the campaigns against Mithradates; while his constitutional reforms, although doomed to failure from the lack of successors to carry them out, were a triumph of organization. But he massacred his enemies in cold blood, and exacted vengeance with pitiless and calculated cruelty; he sacrificed everything to his own ambition and the triumph of his party.
Daughter: Cornelia Sulla
Son: Lucius Cornelius Sulla
Wife: Aelia (div.)
Wife: Caecilia Metella Dalmatica
Son: Faustus Cornelius Sulla (twin, b. 87 BC)
Daughter: Fausta Cornelia Sulla (twin, b. 87 BC)
Wife: Valeria Messala (m. 80 BC)
Daughter: Postuma Cornelia Sulla (b. 78 BC)
Boyfriend: Metrobius (actor, long term lover)
Extortion (95 BC), acquitted
Exiled by Marius (87 BC)
Abdication (79 BC)
Do you know something we don't?
Submit a correction or make a comment about this profile
Copyright ©2019 Soylent Communications | 2,286 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Benedict Arnold was an American general during the Revolutionary War who ultimately betrayed his cause.
The book “The Notorious Benedict Arnold” by Steve Sheinkin chronicles the tale of Arnold’s life leading up to the betrayal. To explore if his betrayal was justifiable using the information from Sheinkin’s book, I will be sorting his life into three parts: his early life, military life, and lastly, the betrayal.
Benedict Arnold was born in 1741 to his mother, a prosperous widow until she married Arnold’s father, who was a merchant, according to the Sheinkin book. By the age of 13, Arnold’s father had managed their family’s money so poorly, Arnold was forced to drop out of school and apprenticed to an apothecary, which led him to open an apothecary of his own. Arnold then joined the army as a militia captain years later.
When Arnold was in the military, he was seen as a controversial war hero. He was known for being a decisive and brave commander, who led many battles and was a trusted comrade of George Washington. His achievements and attitude made other military leaders jealous, leading to them starting many rumors and lies, tainting Arnold’s name. This caused a lack of recognition from Congress, which was a leading factor in Arnold’s betrayal.
The betrayal of Benedict Arnold was one that shook America to its core, as one of its most strategic leaders backstabbed his own country and gave away valuable information to the British. Arnold planned to give away to the British a fort called West Point, which was the most important point for American forces to protect. West Point was a fortress that defended the Hudson River, which was a river that separated the colonies. If the British were to seize control of the fort, the American Revolution would have ended with the colonies being separated.
Arnold started by weakening the fort. After weakening it, he gave revealing papers to a British officer that was supposed to be delivered to the British leadership, but that officer was caught on his way to a British fort. Upon hearing of the British officer’s capture, Arnold fled to Britain to live the remainder of his life in exile.
After the treatment that Benedict Arnold went through, the abuse and lack of recognition, was it enough to justify his betrayal of his own country?
In the eyes of Arnold, he thought that this was perfectly reasonable, even telling General Washington about it in a message he sent. Even so, his betrayal was not justifiable. Becoming a leading figure of an army for money and fame is a corrupting motivation; instead, dedication to the country you are fighting for should be the main driver for such a leader.
Even though Arnold went through rough treatment and unfairly did not get recognition for his accomplishments, these events do not give him the right to force the country into a weakened state just because of his hurt pride.
Looking back at his early life, military life, and betrayal, Benedict Arnold was a man who backstabbed his own country for money and lost personal glory, instead of staying dedicated to what he was supposed to fight for — the forming of a new country dedicated to freedom and democracy. | <urn:uuid:fddf3d82-96ae-40b0-a723-954d1ae48266> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://highschool.latimes.com/orange-county-school-of-the-arts/opinion-was-benedict-arnolds-betrayal-justified/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250597230.18/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120023523-20200120051523-00342.warc.gz | en | 0.988474 | 671 | 3.75 | 4 | [
-0.022608011960983276,
0.10902858525514603,
-0.2562859058380127,
-0.27448585629463196,
-0.29669493436813354,
-0.07513119280338287,
0.17477786540985107,
-0.07795068621635437,
-0.1126694530248642,
0.2627052068710327,
-0.21224859356880188,
-0.36865848302841187,
0.13716718554496765,
0.55773842... | 9 | Benedict Arnold was an American general during the Revolutionary War who ultimately betrayed his cause.
The book “The Notorious Benedict Arnold” by Steve Sheinkin chronicles the tale of Arnold’s life leading up to the betrayal. To explore if his betrayal was justifiable using the information from Sheinkin’s book, I will be sorting his life into three parts: his early life, military life, and lastly, the betrayal.
Benedict Arnold was born in 1741 to his mother, a prosperous widow until she married Arnold’s father, who was a merchant, according to the Sheinkin book. By the age of 13, Arnold’s father had managed their family’s money so poorly, Arnold was forced to drop out of school and apprenticed to an apothecary, which led him to open an apothecary of his own. Arnold then joined the army as a militia captain years later.
When Arnold was in the military, he was seen as a controversial war hero. He was known for being a decisive and brave commander, who led many battles and was a trusted comrade of George Washington. His achievements and attitude made other military leaders jealous, leading to them starting many rumors and lies, tainting Arnold’s name. This caused a lack of recognition from Congress, which was a leading factor in Arnold’s betrayal.
The betrayal of Benedict Arnold was one that shook America to its core, as one of its most strategic leaders backstabbed his own country and gave away valuable information to the British. Arnold planned to give away to the British a fort called West Point, which was the most important point for American forces to protect. West Point was a fortress that defended the Hudson River, which was a river that separated the colonies. If the British were to seize control of the fort, the American Revolution would have ended with the colonies being separated.
Arnold started by weakening the fort. After weakening it, he gave revealing papers to a British officer that was supposed to be delivered to the British leadership, but that officer was caught on his way to a British fort. Upon hearing of the British officer’s capture, Arnold fled to Britain to live the remainder of his life in exile.
After the treatment that Benedict Arnold went through, the abuse and lack of recognition, was it enough to justify his betrayal of his own country?
In the eyes of Arnold, he thought that this was perfectly reasonable, even telling General Washington about it in a message he sent. Even so, his betrayal was not justifiable. Becoming a leading figure of an army for money and fame is a corrupting motivation; instead, dedication to the country you are fighting for should be the main driver for such a leader.
Even though Arnold went through rough treatment and unfairly did not get recognition for his accomplishments, these events do not give him the right to force the country into a weakened state just because of his hurt pride.
Looking back at his early life, military life, and betrayal, Benedict Arnold was a man who backstabbed his own country for money and lost personal glory, instead of staying dedicated to what he was supposed to fight for — the forming of a new country dedicated to freedom and democracy. | 647 | ENGLISH | 1 |
From 6 July to 11 July 1997 there were mass protests, fierce riots and gun battles in Irish nationalist districts of Northern Ireland. Irish nationalists and republicans, in some cases supported by the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA), attacked the police (Royal Ulster Constabulary - RUC) and British Army. The protests and violence were a reaction to the Drumcree parading dispute. It was sparked by the decision of Mo Mowlam, then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, to allow the Orange Order to march through the nationalist district of Portadown, County Armagh. Nationalists were outraged at the decision and by the RUC's aggressive removal of nationalist protesters who had been blocking the march.
It was the last spell of widespread violence in Northern Ireland before the signing of the Good Friday Agreement in April 1998. The RUC and British Army were forced to withdraw entirely from some nationalist areas of Belfast. The IRA's involvement in the clashes was its last major action during its 27-year campaign. The paramilitary organisation declared its last ceasefire on 19 July.
The Orange Order is a Protestant fraternal organisation with links to unionism. It insists that it should be allowed to march its traditional route to-and-from Drumcree Church each July. It has marched this route since 1807, when the area was sparsely populated. However, today most of this route falls within the town's mainly-Catholic and Irish nationalist quarter, which is densely populated. The residents have sought to re-route the march away from this area, seeing it as "triumphalist" and "supremacist".
There have been intermittent violent clashes during the yearly parade since at least 1873. The dispute was intensified by The Troubles, which began in 1969. In 1987, the Orangemen were banned from marching along Obins Street, after their march caused severe rioting two years in a row. However, the Orangemen would still be allowed to march along the other main road through the nationalist area—the Garvaghy Road—which was less-populated at the time.
Although a few years passed without serious conflict over the Drumcree parades, both sides remained unhappy with the situation. In 1995, nationalist residents formed the Garvaghy Road Residents Coalition (GRRC) to try and divert the march away from Garvaghy Road. The conflict escalated that July when residents blocked Garvaghy Road for two days. Orangemen and their supporters clashed with police until the residents were persuaded to clear the road and the march went ahead. The July 1996 march was banned by the Chief Constable, leading to large-scale protests and rioting between Orangemen, their supporters and the police. As a response to the march being banned, the Loyalist Volunteer Force (LVF) shot dead a Catholic taxi driver and threatened further attacks. As a result, the ban was lifted. Police violently removed the nationalist protesters from Garvaghy Road and forced the march through. This led to rioting in nationalist areas across Northern Ireland; one protester was crushed to death by a British Army vehicle.
July 1997 Drumcree paradeEdit
On 18 June 1997 Alistair Graham warned after the killings of two RUC officers in Lurgan that the IRA was seeking to raise tensions before the march so that a compromise would be impossible. In late June 1997, Secretary of State Mo Mowlam had privately decided to let the march proceed. This was later revealed in a leaked document. However, in the days leading up to the march, she insisted that no decision had been made. She met Taioseach Bertie Ahern, who stressed that any unilateral decision to allow the march would be 'a mistake'. The RUC and the Northern Ireland Office replied that they would make public their decision only two or three days beforehand. Earlier, Mo Mowlam had said that any decision would be released at least six days before the march. As the parade day approached, thousands of people left Northern Ireland for fear of an outbreak violence like that of July 1996.
Meanwhile, the residents coalition applied for a street festival to be held the same day as the march, but this was banned by the RUC. Women from the nationalist district instead set-up a peace camp along the Garvaghy Road. The Loyalist Volunteer Force (LVF) threatened to kill Catholic civilians if the march was not allowed to proceed. The Ulster Unionist Party also threatened to withdraw from the Northern Ireland peace process. On 4 July, 60 families had to be evacuated from their homes on Garvaghy Road after a loyalist bomb threat. On Sunday 6 July at 3:30am, 1500 soldiers and police moved into the nationalist area in 100 armoured vehicles and sealed-off all the roads. This led to clashes with about 300 protesters, who begun a sit-down protest on the road. The last protesters were forcibly removed from the road by 6:33am. From this point onward, all residents were prevented from leaving their housing estates and accessing the main road. As residents were unable to reach the Catholic church, the local priests were forced to hold an open-air mass in front of a line of soldiers and armoured personnel carriers. Some RUC officers claimed that the residents taunted them about the deaths of their two colleges at Lurgan in June while shouting pro-IRA slogans. There are allegations that Rosemary Nelson, the solicitor for the residents coalition, was verbally and physically abused by the RUC. Ronnie Flanagan, then Chief Constable of the RUC, said that the decision to allow the march was taken to avoid loyalist violence. The parade marched along Garvaghy Road at noon that day. After it passed, the security forces began withdrawing from the area. A large-scale riot developed. About 40 plastic bullets were fired at rioters, and about 18 people had to be hospitalized.
Violent reaction in Nationalist areasEdit
Sunday 6 JulyEdit
Violence erupted across Northern Ireland as news from Portadown reached nationalist areas. Unionist politicians accused the IRA of starting the riots. Republican sources admitted that the IRA was openly involved in the unrest; unlike in 1996, when it had restrained itself from retaliation.
The IRA claimed a number of actions in response to the Drumcree crisis. During the weekend alone, the IRA carried out at least nine attacks on British troops. One of the first attacks took place in Coalisland, where the IRA's East Tyrone Brigade launched a gun attack on an RUC armored vehicle besides the local Army/RUC barracks; a female officer from Portadown was badly wounded. Some sources fixed the date of the attack on 5 July.
In Belfast, a lone IRA member with an AK-47 opened-fire on an RUC checkpoint at Lower Ormeau Road. Five rounds hit an APC that was parked on the Ormeau Bridge. The attack was recorded by a BBC television crew. Later that evening, shots were fired at an armored patrol on Newtownards Road, a bomb was thrown at an RUC base in North Belfast, and in South Belfast, an IRA unit prevented a riot squad from entering the Markets area after firing 20 rounds at them. That night, several British Army patrols were harassed by gunfire in North Belfast. An armored vehicle was set on fire at Brompton Park in Ardoyne, according to republican sources. Another one was burnt-out on Antrim Road. Late that evening in the Oldpark area, an RUC landrover became stuck in a barricade made of iron pilings and its crew had to flee when it was attacked with petrol bombs. Rioters using petrol bombs in Short Strand forced the RUC to close an access road to the M3 motorway.
On Sunday evening, a 14-year-old boy and 13-year-old girl were shot by RUC plastic bullets in the Lenadoon area of West Belfast. The boy was struck in the head and spent three days in a coma. The girl was walking along Stewartstown Road with friends when she was struck in the face. According to An Phoblacht, there was no rioting at the time and the RUC had "opened fire on groups of young people returning home from a disco".
On Sunday night, there was violence at the interface on Lanark Way which links the loyalist Shankill Road and the republican Springfield Road. Stones, bricks and bottles were hurled across the peace line. An Phoblacht reported that warning shots were fired from the nationalist side.
On Sunday evening in Derry, thousands of people joined a protest march from the Bogside to the RUC base of Strand Road. Martin McGuinness addressed the crowd, calling on nationalists elsewhere to take to the streets to demand "justice and equality" and "stand up for their rights". Although the protesters returned to the Bogside peacefully, there was violence in the city center.
At Butcher Gate, there were clashes between nationalist youths and the RUC. It is claimed that the RUC fired "upwards of 1,000 plastic bullets", many of them fired "indiscriminately" and aimed "above the waist, in direct contravention of the rules governing the use of such lethal weapons". A 16-year-old boy suffered "a fractured skull, a broken jaw, and shattered facial bones amongst other injuries" after allegedly being beaten by RUC officers. He was on life support for some time afterwards. An eyewitness described seeing one man, allegedly an onlooker, being shot in the face: "The side of his face was completely torn away, and he seemed to just slump to the ground". Several others suffered serious head injuries. Nine were admitted to Altnagelvin Hospital with plastic bullet injuries. At least 30 others sought treatment at first aid houses or at Letterkenny Hospital across the border. Downtown Derry was sealed off by the RUC and the British Army, exception made of the accesses via Shipquay and Ferryquay Gates.
In Newry, 3,000 joined a protest march to the Ardmore RUC base, where a rally was held. People marched behind banners saying "Disband the RUC" and "Dismantle the Orange State".
Besides the shooting of an RUC armoured vehicle in Coalisland, mentioned above, an Orange Order hall was set on fire in Dungannon, while nationalist residents forced their way through the RUC lines to stop an Orangemen parade in Pomeroy.
In Armagh, hundreds attended a protest rally at The Shambles. Later, the RUC and British Army set-up roadblocks on entrances to the town center and nationalist youths hijacked a number of vehicles. There were clashes between nationalists and the RUC on English Street; two youths were injured by plastic bullets. Just before midnight, there was a shootout between two IRA members and the RUC at a roadblock. The same roadblock was later petrol-bombed as violence continued into the night.
Monday 7 JulyEdit
By 7 July, there were over 100 people injured, six of them in serious condition. The RUC stated that there had been 1,600 plastic bullets fired, 550 attacks on the security forces, and 41 people arrested. The fire service had received 500 calls and the ambulance service 150, while the damage to property was estimated at £20 million.
Shortly after midnight, a 25-year-old woman suffered a fractured bone after being shot in the leg by a live round fired from New Barnsley RUC base. At the Larnak Way interface, West Belfast, loyalists tried to enter the nationalist area at 3:00 a.m. and a 14-year-old Protestant boy was shot in the shoulder. One source reported that the teenager was wounded when an IRA unit launched a gun and grenade attack on a military base near the interface. Irish National Liberation Army (INLA) gunmen also opened fire on British soldiers in the Ardoyne area of North Belfast.
In the Dunmurry area of Belfast, a member of the Ulster Defence Association (UDA) was killed when the pipe bomb he was handling exploded prematurely. The incident happened at an arms dump in a remote area. Later that night, members of the UDA and Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) held a joint "show of strength" in North Belfast. Masked men armed with assault rifles and machine guns were filmed patrolling in Woodvale, saying they were there to protect Protestants. Members of the Loyalist Volunteer Force (LVF) held a similar "show of strength" on Tuesday night.
A 39-year-old American citizen, John Hemsworth, was beaten with a baton by an RUC squadron on his way home from the Upper Falls area. He was stopped in Malcomson Street, where he was assaulted and verbally abused by the officers. There were no riots or protests in the area at the time. Hemsworth suffered a broken jaw and other injuries, and was admitted to hospital. He was discharged, but on 27 December he was re-admitted and died from a massive stroke on 1 January 1998. Fourteen years later, an inquest found that he had died as result of the injuries received during the RUC beating.
In the mainly nationalist village of Bellaghy, County Londonderry, residents mounted a peaceful protest against the yearly Orange march. There were scuffles as RUC and British Army moved the protesters away from the parade route. Martin McGuinness was struck in the head with a baton while giving an interview nearby.
Newry was declared "impassable" by the Automobile Association. A shopping center in the town was looted by what republican sources called "a gang responsible for a long series of anti-social activities and intimidation". The IRA reportedly injured two of the gang members in a punishment shooting on 13 July.
Buildings were set on fire in downtown Derry and a number of vehicles were hijacked. An Orange Order hall was set on fire at Newtownhamilton in south County Armagh. Four other halls suffered the same fate in Cookstown, Beragh, Sixmilecross and Ballycastle.
Tuesday 8 JulyEdit
On 8 July, a document was leaked to the press which hinted that Mo Mowlan had decided in June to allow the Drumcree march to proceed. This caused further outrage among nationalists. That day, residents announced that they would block the Orange Order's 12th July parades in Armagh, Newry, Bellaghy, Lower Ormeau Road (Belfast), Derry and Strabane.
An RUC source confirmed that the IRA had carried out more than a dozen gun and grenade attacks since 6 July, while 250 vehicles had been burnt. The Irish National Liberation Army (INLA) threatened to attack Orangemen whom it considered responsible for forcing parades through Nationalist neighborhoods.
The IRA's Belfast Brigade claimed that dozens of its members were involved in operations against the security forces in West and North Belfast since Sunday. On Crumlin Road, there was a shootout between IRA members and an RUC mobile patrol, without casualties from either side. Some time later, a rocket attack took place on Hallidays Road, in the New Lodge area. Also on Crumlin Road, an IRA volunteer fired 15 shots at a British soldier who was engaging protesters with plastic bullets. According to a republican report, this action was recorded by an independent television crew. A single shot was fired at an RUC officer on Alliance Avenue and several minutes later there was another gunfight between the IRA and RUC on Oldpark Road. In the Ardoyne area of North Belfast, the IRA allegedly shot two loyalist men who were throwing petrol bombs at nationalist homes. New Barnsley RUC base in West Belfast was the target of a gun and grenade attack, while an Army base at the end of Lenadoon Avenue suffered a similar assault, with 15 shots fired and an improvised grenade thrown at it. On Falls Road, 20 rounds were fired at a British security checkpoint. Although there was return fire, all the IRA members made good their escape. According to independent sources, IRA members fired at British soldiers and RUC officers who were trying to remove barricades in North Belfast in the early hours of Tuesday, forcing them to retreat. No injuries were reported. Meanwhile, in West Belfast, petrol bombs were thrown at RUC vehicles. A passing 11-year-boy suffered severe burns when he was accidentally hit by one of the bombs. The Protestant estate at Suffolk was attacked from Lenadoon. Several cars were burned. Scattered riots continued throughout the day and the outbound lanes of a highway were blocked by hijacked cars.
During disturbances in Portadown on Tuesday morning, an RUC officer was shot in the arm and leg near Garvaghy Road. In Newry, British government buildings were set on fire and a train was partially burnt-out at the railway station.
On Tuesday evening, protesters held a "white line picket" in The Shambles area of Armagh. A crowd of several hundred surged up English Street and were blocked by a line of RUC landrovers. The picket lasted an hour and was concluded when Sinn Féin councillor Noel Sheridan addressed the crowd, urging them to attend further protests during the week.
Wednesday 9 JulyEdit
On 9 July, the British Government sent in 400 soldiers of the Staffordshire Regiment to reinforce the 30,000 troops and RUC members already deployed in Northern Ireland. A landmine was planted by the IRA near Dungannon, where several vehicles were burnt, while shots were fired in Strabane and a rifle recovered at Short Strand in Belfast. A number of false bomb threats threw traffic into chaos. In Carrickmore, County Tyrone, yet another Orange hall was set on fire. In Lurgan's Kilwilkie estate, RUC and Royal Irish Regiment troops tried to clear residents from their homes after claiming there was a bomb near the railway line. When a man was allegedly assaulted by the troops, about 150 people gathered to confront them. RUC officers threatened to fire plastic bullets at the gathering crowd before the bulk of the forces agreed to leave the area. Residents accused the security forces of verbal abuse. At the same time, two young sisters were hospitalized after allegedly being beaten by RUC officers in the Drumbeg area of Craigavon, County Armagh. The alleged assault happened after the officers spotted one of the girls filming them while they were beating a young boy. Since Tuesday, the RUC recorded 76 people arrested, 900 plastic bullets fired and 265 attacks on the security forces.
In West Belfast, a car bomb exploded outside shops on the Andersonstown Road. The car had been left by three men wearing dark glasses and carrying walkie-talkies. Sinn Féin members helped clear the area and claimed that the RUC took almost an hour to answer a call from a member of the public. Loyalists were believed to be responsible for the blast.
The INLA threatened to shot Protestants if the parade in Belfast was allowed to go ahead, while the LVF vowed to shot people in the Republic if the marches were stopped. The later threat was taken "very seriously" by Gardaí commander Pat Byrne, who put on alert all security checkpoints along the border.
The Orange Order vowed to gather its entire organization at Ormeau Park if the parade there was banned. Converserly, the Bogside Residents Group called for a huge demonstration to stop the 12th July Orange march in Derry.
Thursday 10 JulyEdit
In Belfast, the North of Ireland Rugby & Cricket Club and the Carnmoney Church of Ireland were damaged in arson attacks. There was a security alert at Newry RUC station and the Ulster Unionist Party Headquarters received a hoax letter bomb in the post. In Lisnaskea, five commercial buildings owned by Orangemen were attacked and an Orange hall was petrol-bombed in Waterside, Derry.
Friday 11 JulyEdit
On 11 July in North Belfast, the IRA launched a gun and bomb attack on a checkpoint guarded by a Saxon armoured vehicle. Three British soldiers and two RUC officers were injured. The IRA unit fired 56 shots from two AK-47 assault rifles and also threw a coffee-jar bomb. The soldiers were members of the recently arrived Staffordshire Regiment. In a separate incident on Doon Road, in the Suffolk area of Belfast, an RUC/British Army patrol was the target of a grenade attack. The Independent reported that two teenage Protestants at an Eleventh Night bonfire were shot and wounded by republicans. There were also a number of clashes between nationalists and security forces overnight. An Orange hall was burned in Bond street, Derry.
By 9 July, according to an RUC report, 60 RUC officers and 56 civilians had been injured while 117 people had been arrested. There had been 815 attacks on the security forces, 1,506 petrol bombs thrown and 402 hijackings. The RUC had fired 2,500 plastic bullets. According to other sources, over 100 people are believed to have been injured. The last IRA action took place on 12 July, when an improvised mortar round fell 40 yards short of the RUC/British Army base at Newtownhamilton, south County Armagh. Arsonists attacked an Orange hall in Warrenpoint, County Down and another in Rasharkin, County Antrim. The violence died down on 10 July when the Orange Order decided unilaterally to re-route six parades. The following day, Orangemen and residents agreed to waive another march in Newtownbutler, County Fermanagh. In Pomeroy, County Tyrone, nationalist residents blocked Orangemen's return parade with a counter-demonstration, while the marches in Newry and Lower Ormeau were canceled outright. The Order's gesture was unheard of in its 202-year history. According to Anglican minister and orangeman Bill Hoey "this was an extremely bitter pill to swallow, but the powers that be made it clear to us that to have taken any other decision would have meant civil war." Author Eric Kaufmann claims that the RUC overstated security threats to trick county lodge officials into taking the decision.
This was the last time that the Orange Order was allowed to parade through nationalist areas around Drumcree. In a parallel development, on 9 July the British government assured Sinn Féin that in the event of a new IRA ceasefire, representatives of that party would be allowed to meet with government ministers. A week later, Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness called for a renewal of the IRA 1994 ceasefire. The IRA announced the restoration of the ceasefire on 19 July.
The Last Gunman, a photograph taken by Brendan Murphy of an IRA man firing an AK-47 on Ormeau Road, became an iconic image of the Troubles. | <urn:uuid:8a32044a-cd2b-4941-8f18-eca682946c57> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://military.wikia.org/wiki/1997_nationalist_riots_in_Northern_Ireland | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594662.6/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119151736-20200119175736-00460.warc.gz | en | 0.980423 | 4,679 | 3.4375 | 3 | [
-0.11509393155574799,
-0.09889233112335205,
0.29145875573158264,
0.34163835644721985,
0.14765197038650513,
0.3859987258911133,
-0.1325904130935669,
-0.020288001745939255,
-0.39348888397216797,
-0.13757023215293884,
-0.13234806060791016,
-0.32962438464164734,
-0.13544782996177673,
0.1441547... | 1 | From 6 July to 11 July 1997 there were mass protests, fierce riots and gun battles in Irish nationalist districts of Northern Ireland. Irish nationalists and republicans, in some cases supported by the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA), attacked the police (Royal Ulster Constabulary - RUC) and British Army. The protests and violence were a reaction to the Drumcree parading dispute. It was sparked by the decision of Mo Mowlam, then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, to allow the Orange Order to march through the nationalist district of Portadown, County Armagh. Nationalists were outraged at the decision and by the RUC's aggressive removal of nationalist protesters who had been blocking the march.
It was the last spell of widespread violence in Northern Ireland before the signing of the Good Friday Agreement in April 1998. The RUC and British Army were forced to withdraw entirely from some nationalist areas of Belfast. The IRA's involvement in the clashes was its last major action during its 27-year campaign. The paramilitary organisation declared its last ceasefire on 19 July.
The Orange Order is a Protestant fraternal organisation with links to unionism. It insists that it should be allowed to march its traditional route to-and-from Drumcree Church each July. It has marched this route since 1807, when the area was sparsely populated. However, today most of this route falls within the town's mainly-Catholic and Irish nationalist quarter, which is densely populated. The residents have sought to re-route the march away from this area, seeing it as "triumphalist" and "supremacist".
There have been intermittent violent clashes during the yearly parade since at least 1873. The dispute was intensified by The Troubles, which began in 1969. In 1987, the Orangemen were banned from marching along Obins Street, after their march caused severe rioting two years in a row. However, the Orangemen would still be allowed to march along the other main road through the nationalist area—the Garvaghy Road—which was less-populated at the time.
Although a few years passed without serious conflict over the Drumcree parades, both sides remained unhappy with the situation. In 1995, nationalist residents formed the Garvaghy Road Residents Coalition (GRRC) to try and divert the march away from Garvaghy Road. The conflict escalated that July when residents blocked Garvaghy Road for two days. Orangemen and their supporters clashed with police until the residents were persuaded to clear the road and the march went ahead. The July 1996 march was banned by the Chief Constable, leading to large-scale protests and rioting between Orangemen, their supporters and the police. As a response to the march being banned, the Loyalist Volunteer Force (LVF) shot dead a Catholic taxi driver and threatened further attacks. As a result, the ban was lifted. Police violently removed the nationalist protesters from Garvaghy Road and forced the march through. This led to rioting in nationalist areas across Northern Ireland; one protester was crushed to death by a British Army vehicle.
July 1997 Drumcree paradeEdit
On 18 June 1997 Alistair Graham warned after the killings of two RUC officers in Lurgan that the IRA was seeking to raise tensions before the march so that a compromise would be impossible. In late June 1997, Secretary of State Mo Mowlam had privately decided to let the march proceed. This was later revealed in a leaked document. However, in the days leading up to the march, she insisted that no decision had been made. She met Taioseach Bertie Ahern, who stressed that any unilateral decision to allow the march would be 'a mistake'. The RUC and the Northern Ireland Office replied that they would make public their decision only two or three days beforehand. Earlier, Mo Mowlam had said that any decision would be released at least six days before the march. As the parade day approached, thousands of people left Northern Ireland for fear of an outbreak violence like that of July 1996.
Meanwhile, the residents coalition applied for a street festival to be held the same day as the march, but this was banned by the RUC. Women from the nationalist district instead set-up a peace camp along the Garvaghy Road. The Loyalist Volunteer Force (LVF) threatened to kill Catholic civilians if the march was not allowed to proceed. The Ulster Unionist Party also threatened to withdraw from the Northern Ireland peace process. On 4 July, 60 families had to be evacuated from their homes on Garvaghy Road after a loyalist bomb threat. On Sunday 6 July at 3:30am, 1500 soldiers and police moved into the nationalist area in 100 armoured vehicles and sealed-off all the roads. This led to clashes with about 300 protesters, who begun a sit-down protest on the road. The last protesters were forcibly removed from the road by 6:33am. From this point onward, all residents were prevented from leaving their housing estates and accessing the main road. As residents were unable to reach the Catholic church, the local priests were forced to hold an open-air mass in front of a line of soldiers and armoured personnel carriers. Some RUC officers claimed that the residents taunted them about the deaths of their two colleges at Lurgan in June while shouting pro-IRA slogans. There are allegations that Rosemary Nelson, the solicitor for the residents coalition, was verbally and physically abused by the RUC. Ronnie Flanagan, then Chief Constable of the RUC, said that the decision to allow the march was taken to avoid loyalist violence. The parade marched along Garvaghy Road at noon that day. After it passed, the security forces began withdrawing from the area. A large-scale riot developed. About 40 plastic bullets were fired at rioters, and about 18 people had to be hospitalized.
Violent reaction in Nationalist areasEdit
Sunday 6 JulyEdit
Violence erupted across Northern Ireland as news from Portadown reached nationalist areas. Unionist politicians accused the IRA of starting the riots. Republican sources admitted that the IRA was openly involved in the unrest; unlike in 1996, when it had restrained itself from retaliation.
The IRA claimed a number of actions in response to the Drumcree crisis. During the weekend alone, the IRA carried out at least nine attacks on British troops. One of the first attacks took place in Coalisland, where the IRA's East Tyrone Brigade launched a gun attack on an RUC armored vehicle besides the local Army/RUC barracks; a female officer from Portadown was badly wounded. Some sources fixed the date of the attack on 5 July.
In Belfast, a lone IRA member with an AK-47 opened-fire on an RUC checkpoint at Lower Ormeau Road. Five rounds hit an APC that was parked on the Ormeau Bridge. The attack was recorded by a BBC television crew. Later that evening, shots were fired at an armored patrol on Newtownards Road, a bomb was thrown at an RUC base in North Belfast, and in South Belfast, an IRA unit prevented a riot squad from entering the Markets area after firing 20 rounds at them. That night, several British Army patrols were harassed by gunfire in North Belfast. An armored vehicle was set on fire at Brompton Park in Ardoyne, according to republican sources. Another one was burnt-out on Antrim Road. Late that evening in the Oldpark area, an RUC landrover became stuck in a barricade made of iron pilings and its crew had to flee when it was attacked with petrol bombs. Rioters using petrol bombs in Short Strand forced the RUC to close an access road to the M3 motorway.
On Sunday evening, a 14-year-old boy and 13-year-old girl were shot by RUC plastic bullets in the Lenadoon area of West Belfast. The boy was struck in the head and spent three days in a coma. The girl was walking along Stewartstown Road with friends when she was struck in the face. According to An Phoblacht, there was no rioting at the time and the RUC had "opened fire on groups of young people returning home from a disco".
On Sunday night, there was violence at the interface on Lanark Way which links the loyalist Shankill Road and the republican Springfield Road. Stones, bricks and bottles were hurled across the peace line. An Phoblacht reported that warning shots were fired from the nationalist side.
On Sunday evening in Derry, thousands of people joined a protest march from the Bogside to the RUC base of Strand Road. Martin McGuinness addressed the crowd, calling on nationalists elsewhere to take to the streets to demand "justice and equality" and "stand up for their rights". Although the protesters returned to the Bogside peacefully, there was violence in the city center.
At Butcher Gate, there were clashes between nationalist youths and the RUC. It is claimed that the RUC fired "upwards of 1,000 plastic bullets", many of them fired "indiscriminately" and aimed "above the waist, in direct contravention of the rules governing the use of such lethal weapons". A 16-year-old boy suffered "a fractured skull, a broken jaw, and shattered facial bones amongst other injuries" after allegedly being beaten by RUC officers. He was on life support for some time afterwards. An eyewitness described seeing one man, allegedly an onlooker, being shot in the face: "The side of his face was completely torn away, and he seemed to just slump to the ground". Several others suffered serious head injuries. Nine were admitted to Altnagelvin Hospital with plastic bullet injuries. At least 30 others sought treatment at first aid houses or at Letterkenny Hospital across the border. Downtown Derry was sealed off by the RUC and the British Army, exception made of the accesses via Shipquay and Ferryquay Gates.
In Newry, 3,000 joined a protest march to the Ardmore RUC base, where a rally was held. People marched behind banners saying "Disband the RUC" and "Dismantle the Orange State".
Besides the shooting of an RUC armoured vehicle in Coalisland, mentioned above, an Orange Order hall was set on fire in Dungannon, while nationalist residents forced their way through the RUC lines to stop an Orangemen parade in Pomeroy.
In Armagh, hundreds attended a protest rally at The Shambles. Later, the RUC and British Army set-up roadblocks on entrances to the town center and nationalist youths hijacked a number of vehicles. There were clashes between nationalists and the RUC on English Street; two youths were injured by plastic bullets. Just before midnight, there was a shootout between two IRA members and the RUC at a roadblock. The same roadblock was later petrol-bombed as violence continued into the night.
Monday 7 JulyEdit
By 7 July, there were over 100 people injured, six of them in serious condition. The RUC stated that there had been 1,600 plastic bullets fired, 550 attacks on the security forces, and 41 people arrested. The fire service had received 500 calls and the ambulance service 150, while the damage to property was estimated at £20 million.
Shortly after midnight, a 25-year-old woman suffered a fractured bone after being shot in the leg by a live round fired from New Barnsley RUC base. At the Larnak Way interface, West Belfast, loyalists tried to enter the nationalist area at 3:00 a.m. and a 14-year-old Protestant boy was shot in the shoulder. One source reported that the teenager was wounded when an IRA unit launched a gun and grenade attack on a military base near the interface. Irish National Liberation Army (INLA) gunmen also opened fire on British soldiers in the Ardoyne area of North Belfast.
In the Dunmurry area of Belfast, a member of the Ulster Defence Association (UDA) was killed when the pipe bomb he was handling exploded prematurely. The incident happened at an arms dump in a remote area. Later that night, members of the UDA and Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF) held a joint "show of strength" in North Belfast. Masked men armed with assault rifles and machine guns were filmed patrolling in Woodvale, saying they were there to protect Protestants. Members of the Loyalist Volunteer Force (LVF) held a similar "show of strength" on Tuesday night.
A 39-year-old American citizen, John Hemsworth, was beaten with a baton by an RUC squadron on his way home from the Upper Falls area. He was stopped in Malcomson Street, where he was assaulted and verbally abused by the officers. There were no riots or protests in the area at the time. Hemsworth suffered a broken jaw and other injuries, and was admitted to hospital. He was discharged, but on 27 December he was re-admitted and died from a massive stroke on 1 January 1998. Fourteen years later, an inquest found that he had died as result of the injuries received during the RUC beating.
In the mainly nationalist village of Bellaghy, County Londonderry, residents mounted a peaceful protest against the yearly Orange march. There were scuffles as RUC and British Army moved the protesters away from the parade route. Martin McGuinness was struck in the head with a baton while giving an interview nearby.
Newry was declared "impassable" by the Automobile Association. A shopping center in the town was looted by what republican sources called "a gang responsible for a long series of anti-social activities and intimidation". The IRA reportedly injured two of the gang members in a punishment shooting on 13 July.
Buildings were set on fire in downtown Derry and a number of vehicles were hijacked. An Orange Order hall was set on fire at Newtownhamilton in south County Armagh. Four other halls suffered the same fate in Cookstown, Beragh, Sixmilecross and Ballycastle.
Tuesday 8 JulyEdit
On 8 July, a document was leaked to the press which hinted that Mo Mowlan had decided in June to allow the Drumcree march to proceed. This caused further outrage among nationalists. That day, residents announced that they would block the Orange Order's 12th July parades in Armagh, Newry, Bellaghy, Lower Ormeau Road (Belfast), Derry and Strabane.
An RUC source confirmed that the IRA had carried out more than a dozen gun and grenade attacks since 6 July, while 250 vehicles had been burnt. The Irish National Liberation Army (INLA) threatened to attack Orangemen whom it considered responsible for forcing parades through Nationalist neighborhoods.
The IRA's Belfast Brigade claimed that dozens of its members were involved in operations against the security forces in West and North Belfast since Sunday. On Crumlin Road, there was a shootout between IRA members and an RUC mobile patrol, without casualties from either side. Some time later, a rocket attack took place on Hallidays Road, in the New Lodge area. Also on Crumlin Road, an IRA volunteer fired 15 shots at a British soldier who was engaging protesters with plastic bullets. According to a republican report, this action was recorded by an independent television crew. A single shot was fired at an RUC officer on Alliance Avenue and several minutes later there was another gunfight between the IRA and RUC on Oldpark Road. In the Ardoyne area of North Belfast, the IRA allegedly shot two loyalist men who were throwing petrol bombs at nationalist homes. New Barnsley RUC base in West Belfast was the target of a gun and grenade attack, while an Army base at the end of Lenadoon Avenue suffered a similar assault, with 15 shots fired and an improvised grenade thrown at it. On Falls Road, 20 rounds were fired at a British security checkpoint. Although there was return fire, all the IRA members made good their escape. According to independent sources, IRA members fired at British soldiers and RUC officers who were trying to remove barricades in North Belfast in the early hours of Tuesday, forcing them to retreat. No injuries were reported. Meanwhile, in West Belfast, petrol bombs were thrown at RUC vehicles. A passing 11-year-boy suffered severe burns when he was accidentally hit by one of the bombs. The Protestant estate at Suffolk was attacked from Lenadoon. Several cars were burned. Scattered riots continued throughout the day and the outbound lanes of a highway were blocked by hijacked cars.
During disturbances in Portadown on Tuesday morning, an RUC officer was shot in the arm and leg near Garvaghy Road. In Newry, British government buildings were set on fire and a train was partially burnt-out at the railway station.
On Tuesday evening, protesters held a "white line picket" in The Shambles area of Armagh. A crowd of several hundred surged up English Street and were blocked by a line of RUC landrovers. The picket lasted an hour and was concluded when Sinn Féin councillor Noel Sheridan addressed the crowd, urging them to attend further protests during the week.
Wednesday 9 JulyEdit
On 9 July, the British Government sent in 400 soldiers of the Staffordshire Regiment to reinforce the 30,000 troops and RUC members already deployed in Northern Ireland. A landmine was planted by the IRA near Dungannon, where several vehicles were burnt, while shots were fired in Strabane and a rifle recovered at Short Strand in Belfast. A number of false bomb threats threw traffic into chaos. In Carrickmore, County Tyrone, yet another Orange hall was set on fire. In Lurgan's Kilwilkie estate, RUC and Royal Irish Regiment troops tried to clear residents from their homes after claiming there was a bomb near the railway line. When a man was allegedly assaulted by the troops, about 150 people gathered to confront them. RUC officers threatened to fire plastic bullets at the gathering crowd before the bulk of the forces agreed to leave the area. Residents accused the security forces of verbal abuse. At the same time, two young sisters were hospitalized after allegedly being beaten by RUC officers in the Drumbeg area of Craigavon, County Armagh. The alleged assault happened after the officers spotted one of the girls filming them while they were beating a young boy. Since Tuesday, the RUC recorded 76 people arrested, 900 plastic bullets fired and 265 attacks on the security forces.
In West Belfast, a car bomb exploded outside shops on the Andersonstown Road. The car had been left by three men wearing dark glasses and carrying walkie-talkies. Sinn Féin members helped clear the area and claimed that the RUC took almost an hour to answer a call from a member of the public. Loyalists were believed to be responsible for the blast.
The INLA threatened to shot Protestants if the parade in Belfast was allowed to go ahead, while the LVF vowed to shot people in the Republic if the marches were stopped. The later threat was taken "very seriously" by Gardaí commander Pat Byrne, who put on alert all security checkpoints along the border.
The Orange Order vowed to gather its entire organization at Ormeau Park if the parade there was banned. Converserly, the Bogside Residents Group called for a huge demonstration to stop the 12th July Orange march in Derry.
Thursday 10 JulyEdit
In Belfast, the North of Ireland Rugby & Cricket Club and the Carnmoney Church of Ireland were damaged in arson attacks. There was a security alert at Newry RUC station and the Ulster Unionist Party Headquarters received a hoax letter bomb in the post. In Lisnaskea, five commercial buildings owned by Orangemen were attacked and an Orange hall was petrol-bombed in Waterside, Derry.
Friday 11 JulyEdit
On 11 July in North Belfast, the IRA launched a gun and bomb attack on a checkpoint guarded by a Saxon armoured vehicle. Three British soldiers and two RUC officers were injured. The IRA unit fired 56 shots from two AK-47 assault rifles and also threw a coffee-jar bomb. The soldiers were members of the recently arrived Staffordshire Regiment. In a separate incident on Doon Road, in the Suffolk area of Belfast, an RUC/British Army patrol was the target of a grenade attack. The Independent reported that two teenage Protestants at an Eleventh Night bonfire were shot and wounded by republicans. There were also a number of clashes between nationalists and security forces overnight. An Orange hall was burned in Bond street, Derry.
By 9 July, according to an RUC report, 60 RUC officers and 56 civilians had been injured while 117 people had been arrested. There had been 815 attacks on the security forces, 1,506 petrol bombs thrown and 402 hijackings. The RUC had fired 2,500 plastic bullets. According to other sources, over 100 people are believed to have been injured. The last IRA action took place on 12 July, when an improvised mortar round fell 40 yards short of the RUC/British Army base at Newtownhamilton, south County Armagh. Arsonists attacked an Orange hall in Warrenpoint, County Down and another in Rasharkin, County Antrim. The violence died down on 10 July when the Orange Order decided unilaterally to re-route six parades. The following day, Orangemen and residents agreed to waive another march in Newtownbutler, County Fermanagh. In Pomeroy, County Tyrone, nationalist residents blocked Orangemen's return parade with a counter-demonstration, while the marches in Newry and Lower Ormeau were canceled outright. The Order's gesture was unheard of in its 202-year history. According to Anglican minister and orangeman Bill Hoey "this was an extremely bitter pill to swallow, but the powers that be made it clear to us that to have taken any other decision would have meant civil war." Author Eric Kaufmann claims that the RUC overstated security threats to trick county lodge officials into taking the decision.
This was the last time that the Orange Order was allowed to parade through nationalist areas around Drumcree. In a parallel development, on 9 July the British government assured Sinn Féin that in the event of a new IRA ceasefire, representatives of that party would be allowed to meet with government ministers. A week later, Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness called for a renewal of the IRA 1994 ceasefire. The IRA announced the restoration of the ceasefire on 19 July.
The Last Gunman, a photograph taken by Brendan Murphy of an IRA man firing an AK-47 on Ormeau Road, became an iconic image of the Troubles. | 4,850 | ENGLISH | 1 |
European exploration was driven by a search for extensive grazing lands, for road routes to the West Coast and Canterbury, and for minerals. In 1842 the only suitable grazing land found by assistant surveyor John Cotterell was the Wairau valley – the rest was mountains. The explorers Thomas Brunner and Charles Heaphy made epic journeys in the 1840s, but found no plains.
The road that never was
Parliament allocated money for a road from Collingwood to Karamea on the northern West Coast in 1881, and it was surveyed in 1886. However, it was never completed. The route of the planned road became the Heaphy Track, popular with trampers (hikers).
In the 1840s and 1850s horses were expensive and feet were the universal means of transport. The inland route went to Tophouse then followed the Buller River to the West Coast. The Heaphy and Wangapeka tracks were pack tracks (suitable for packhorses), used as trading routes between Nelson and the West Coast. The bridle track over Tākaka hill was upgraded to a coach road in the mid-1880s, and sealing it began in the 1950s. Its apocryphal 365 corners (one for each day of the year) in 25 kilometres still make for a slow trip. By 1860 packhorses were using the Maungatapu Track from Nelson over the Bryant Range to the Pelorus River valley in Marlborough. In 1885 the road over the Whangamoa Saddle and the Rai Saddle to Rai Valley, then on to Picton, was completed with a bridge over the Pelorus River.
The population was small, so roads boards levying landholders struggled to raise money to build – and then maintain – roads. Most country roads were narrow, muddy, and impassable after heavy rain. Slips and surface erosion were common. Travel was slow, and almost every rural locality along a route had an accommodation house for travellers.
Once is enough
Henry Franklin Solly, nicknamed ‘Tinny’, was a service-car driver for Newmans on the Tākaka–Nelson route for over 20 years. He had a stutter and a quick wit. On Tākaka hill a tourist inquired, ‘Do motor vehicles often go over the bank on this hill?’ Tinny replied, ‘O-o-only o-o-once – u-u-usually.’1
In 1911 the coaching company Newman Brothers (later Newmans) bought their first service car (large car used for passenger transport), and in 1912 this became the first car to drive down the Buller Gorge. Horse-drawn coaches coexisted with service cars until about 1918. In 1930 buses replaced service cars, and trucks taking produce to ports placed more pressure on roads. Relief work for the unemployed improved some roads during the 1930s depression, but the Second World War slowed progress. Earthquake damage in 1929 and 1968 led to large reconstruction efforts on State Highway 6 down the Buller River. In the 1950s most roads were metalled, and it was only in the 1960s and 1970s that many were sealed. Even in the mid-1970s, the road via the Maruia Valley to Lewis Pass was still not fully sealed.
Nelson once had a railway to nowhere – it ran from the city as far as Gowanbridge, 110 km south-west, on roughly the same route as State Highway 6. The line was meant to be part of the Midland railway, linking Canterbury with the West Coast and Nelson. In 1871 Parliament approved a 34-km first stage of the railway from the city to Foxhill. Construction began in 1873, and work continued in fits and starts. By 1912 the line had reached Glenhope – still 90 km from linking up with the Grey Valley line at Īnangahua Junction. Embankments had been cut as far as Gowanbridge by 1929.
From 1905 to 1920 the line was profitable, but construction stopped in 1931. The railway carried 40,000 people in 1929, but fewer than 5,000 in 1953. To appease disgruntled Nelson residents, from 1957 the main road from Nelson to Blenheim (State Highway 6) was treated as if it were a branch line connecting Nelson to the main trunk railway line – passenger fares and freight were subsidised, in 1961 costing the government $4.6 million (in 2019 terms). The amount of rail freight decreased as roads improved. In the 1950s the government decided to close the line, instead of completing it through the steep, unstable and earthquake-prone country alongside the Buller River. | <urn:uuid:a30fcca2-135a-4607-97ec-ee0465bdb57c> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://admin.teara.govt.nz/mi/nelson-region/page-7 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251672440.80/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125101544-20200125130544-00094.warc.gz | en | 0.980664 | 967 | 3.359375 | 3 | [
-0.031767141073942184,
-0.1257115602493286,
0.2971400022506714,
0.3720495104789734,
-0.18837687373161316,
0.03859572857618332,
-0.26087507605552673,
0.17680007219314575,
-0.35366880893707275,
0.16916345059871674,
0.09695422649383545,
-0.8220431208610535,
0.03784341365098953,
0.484404712915... | 20 | European exploration was driven by a search for extensive grazing lands, for road routes to the West Coast and Canterbury, and for minerals. In 1842 the only suitable grazing land found by assistant surveyor John Cotterell was the Wairau valley – the rest was mountains. The explorers Thomas Brunner and Charles Heaphy made epic journeys in the 1840s, but found no plains.
The road that never was
Parliament allocated money for a road from Collingwood to Karamea on the northern West Coast in 1881, and it was surveyed in 1886. However, it was never completed. The route of the planned road became the Heaphy Track, popular with trampers (hikers).
In the 1840s and 1850s horses were expensive and feet were the universal means of transport. The inland route went to Tophouse then followed the Buller River to the West Coast. The Heaphy and Wangapeka tracks were pack tracks (suitable for packhorses), used as trading routes between Nelson and the West Coast. The bridle track over Tākaka hill was upgraded to a coach road in the mid-1880s, and sealing it began in the 1950s. Its apocryphal 365 corners (one for each day of the year) in 25 kilometres still make for a slow trip. By 1860 packhorses were using the Maungatapu Track from Nelson over the Bryant Range to the Pelorus River valley in Marlborough. In 1885 the road over the Whangamoa Saddle and the Rai Saddle to Rai Valley, then on to Picton, was completed with a bridge over the Pelorus River.
The population was small, so roads boards levying landholders struggled to raise money to build – and then maintain – roads. Most country roads were narrow, muddy, and impassable after heavy rain. Slips and surface erosion were common. Travel was slow, and almost every rural locality along a route had an accommodation house for travellers.
Once is enough
Henry Franklin Solly, nicknamed ‘Tinny’, was a service-car driver for Newmans on the Tākaka–Nelson route for over 20 years. He had a stutter and a quick wit. On Tākaka hill a tourist inquired, ‘Do motor vehicles often go over the bank on this hill?’ Tinny replied, ‘O-o-only o-o-once – u-u-usually.’1
In 1911 the coaching company Newman Brothers (later Newmans) bought their first service car (large car used for passenger transport), and in 1912 this became the first car to drive down the Buller Gorge. Horse-drawn coaches coexisted with service cars until about 1918. In 1930 buses replaced service cars, and trucks taking produce to ports placed more pressure on roads. Relief work for the unemployed improved some roads during the 1930s depression, but the Second World War slowed progress. Earthquake damage in 1929 and 1968 led to large reconstruction efforts on State Highway 6 down the Buller River. In the 1950s most roads were metalled, and it was only in the 1960s and 1970s that many were sealed. Even in the mid-1970s, the road via the Maruia Valley to Lewis Pass was still not fully sealed.
Nelson once had a railway to nowhere – it ran from the city as far as Gowanbridge, 110 km south-west, on roughly the same route as State Highway 6. The line was meant to be part of the Midland railway, linking Canterbury with the West Coast and Nelson. In 1871 Parliament approved a 34-km first stage of the railway from the city to Foxhill. Construction began in 1873, and work continued in fits and starts. By 1912 the line had reached Glenhope – still 90 km from linking up with the Grey Valley line at Īnangahua Junction. Embankments had been cut as far as Gowanbridge by 1929.
From 1905 to 1920 the line was profitable, but construction stopped in 1931. The railway carried 40,000 people in 1929, but fewer than 5,000 in 1953. To appease disgruntled Nelson residents, from 1957 the main road from Nelson to Blenheim (State Highway 6) was treated as if it were a branch line connecting Nelson to the main trunk railway line – passenger fares and freight were subsidised, in 1961 costing the government $4.6 million (in 2019 terms). The amount of rail freight decreased as roads improved. In the 1950s the government decided to close the line, instead of completing it through the steep, unstable and earthquake-prone country alongside the Buller River. | 1,101 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Architects and Bridges
In November we read the book Iggy Peck Architect by Andrea Beaty. We became architects who were commissioned to collaborate with our peers and design a bridge for the students in the book. Working in small groups we had to build a bridge over the “river” in our Placentinker space. Kindergarten students used legos and 1st and 2nd grade students used cardboard, string, tape and craft sticks. Our designs were inspired by the empathy we felt for the students in the book based on what we read about them in the story. We learned a lot about collaboration, design, patience and perseverance. Finally we shared our bridge making process with our peers and discussed topics like what worked and didn’t work, what was hard, what mistakes we made and how we might do it differently next time. Designing bridges is no easy task! | <urn:uuid:4e4b09c8-4d44-401d-963a-ca7c76663ad1> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://sites.google.com/holliston.k12.ma.us/placentinkers/2017-2018/architects-and-bridges | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251779833.86/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128153713-20200128183713-00526.warc.gz | en | 0.983921 | 181 | 3.328125 | 3 | [
-0.261923611164093,
-0.12118139117956161,
0.31183844804763794,
0.024770688265562057,
-0.7396566271781921,
0.11633353680372238,
-0.29713866114616394,
0.023542147129774094,
-0.025832245126366615,
-0.02804112248122692,
-0.011165796779096127,
-0.21401706337928772,
-0.0026279434096068144,
-0.01... | 1 | Architects and Bridges
In November we read the book Iggy Peck Architect by Andrea Beaty. We became architects who were commissioned to collaborate with our peers and design a bridge for the students in the book. Working in small groups we had to build a bridge over the “river” in our Placentinker space. Kindergarten students used legos and 1st and 2nd grade students used cardboard, string, tape and craft sticks. Our designs were inspired by the empathy we felt for the students in the book based on what we read about them in the story. We learned a lot about collaboration, design, patience and perseverance. Finally we shared our bridge making process with our peers and discussed topics like what worked and didn’t work, what was hard, what mistakes we made and how we might do it differently next time. Designing bridges is no easy task! | 178 | ENGLISH | 1 |
As Jesus was approaching John the Baptist, John said of Jesus, "Behold, the 'lamb of God' who takes away the sins of the world." But Old Testament prophesies referred to Jesus as "the Lion of the Tribe of Judah." So Jesus is both a lion and a lamb. Some say that Jesus' was as a lamb, but in His "second coming", He will act as a lion. But it seems that Jesus also had some very lion-like qualities when He walked the earth in His first coming. Here are some examples of how Jesus was both a lamb and a lion.
1Understand that Jesus was very much like a lamb before and during His crucifixion. "The high priest stood up and said to Him, 'Do You not answer? What is it that these men are testifying against You?' But Jesus kept silent." (Matthew 26). In Jesus' trials, He remained silent for the most part. He let people falsely accuse Him. He let the soldiers beat Him and whip Him. He let people spit on Him. He let them put the crown of thorns on His head and nail spikes in His hands and feet. Isaiah says about Jesus, "He was oppressed, and He was afflicted, yet He opened not His mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so He opened not His mouth." (Isaiah 53:7). Jesus did nor said anything to stop any of it, when He could have called more than 12,000 angels.
- When the men came to "arrest" Jesus for trial, "One of Jesus’ companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear. 'Put your sword back in its place,' Jesus said to him, 'for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and He will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?'" (from Matthew 26). At any point Jesus could have called more than "twelve legions" of angels to save Him, but He didn't. Jesus went to the cross as a lamb, because He loved us so much and wanted to pay the penalty for our sins.
2Recognize that when dealing with the Pharisees, Jesus was very lion-like. Matthew 23 is full of a list of "woes" that Jesus said against the Pharisees. He was essentially cursing them. Here was one of the "woes," "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness." Those are some very strong words aren't they?
- It could be asked, "Was Jesus loving His enemies in doing this?" Well that would depend on what your definition of love is. There is mushy love and then there is tough love.
- Jesus was trying to warn the Pharisees that they were lost in sin, even though they were so sure that they were saved. They would not listen to plain reason because their hearts were hardened. Therefore, Jesus took more drastic measures to get their attention, such as cursing them and insulting them. Jesus spoke the truth, and love is about speaking the truth. Jesus wasn't afraid to say it like it was.
3Know that when Jesus was looking at the crowds of people, He always looked on them with compassion. Jesus was ironically extremely lion-like when it came to the religious people of His day, the Pharisees, but He was very lamb-like when it came to the common people.
- The Bible says in Mt. 9, "Jesus was going through all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every kind of disease and every kind of sickness. Seeing the people, He felt compassion for them, because they were distressed and dispirited like sheep without a shepherd." The people had leaders, the Pharisees, but they were very mean and controlling leaders. Jesus saw that they needed a shepherd, as in someone to care for them and guide them in a loving way.
- Jesus healed two blind men. Scripture says, "They said to Him, 'Lord, we want our eyes to be opened.' Moved with compassion, Jesus touched their eyes; and immediately they regained their sight and followed Him." (Matthew 30). With everyone that Jesus healed, He was very lamb-like and He had compassion on them, as in He felt concern for their suffering, disability or illness.
4Understand that there are also many accounts where Jesus was a bit feisty. When Jesus' mother asked Him to help at the wedding, where His first miracle was performed, He said to her "Woman, why do you bother me? My time has not yet come." It is interesting that He called her woman instead of mother. Also, He was trying to dismiss her and let her know that He was not ready to openly reveal Himself/His mission and power.
- Also, when Jesus was a child He stayed behind in Jerusalem when His family had gone there. Mary and Joseph were looking for Him "three" days before they found Him. Here is the story found in Luke 2, "After three days they found Him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. Everyone who heard Him was amazed at His understanding and His answers. When His parents saw Him, they were astonished. His mother said to Him, “ ‘Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you.’ “, but then “ 'Why were you searching for me?' He asked. 'Didn’t you know I had to be in my Father’s house?' “ That answer is just classic. He didn't say sorry or anything like that but asked why were they searching for him.
5Also see that Jesus was very confrontational and direct with people. Here is what Jesus said to the Samaritan woman at the well, "You are right when you say you have no husband. The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true." That was matter of fact, and in our modern culture we would say it was a bit rude.
- There is also the classic account of Jesus saying to Peter "get behind me Satan." In Matthew 16 it says, "Jesus began to explain to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that He must be killed and on the third day be raised to life. Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him. 'Never, Lord!' he said. 'This shall never happen to you!' Jesus turned and said to Peter, 'Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.' "
- It was quite silly of Peter to try to rebuke Jesus, but it is also a bit shocking that Jesus called Peter, Satan. What Jesus meant was that Satan was in Peter's mind, trying to get Peter to stop Jesus from accomplishing His goal. But that would be pretty intense, to have Jesus call you Satan.
QuestionWill Jesus forgive me if I’m gay?Community AnswerJesus loves everyone the same. Being gay is not a sin, so it does not need to be forgiven.
- Realizing more about the nature of Jesus can help you know that you have to tell the truth with love, but you don't have to be only a "nice Christian." We are called to live like Jesus did, so you can be confrontational and direct when needed. This can be very freeing to realize.
- In seeing these deeper aspects of Jesus, maintain respect for Him. Just because Jesus got angry on a few occasions does not mean we should lose respect or think He wasn't self-controlled. The scripture says for us to "Be angry, yet do not sin. Do not let the sun set while you are angry, and do not give the devil a foothold." (Ephesian 4:26, 27) as we must not let anger turn to hate. Anger is like a temptation which is not a sin alone. Of course, He was God walking on earth and was perfect, without sin of any kind. | <urn:uuid:63b9fad3-d743-4ae0-b875-1aec0a8b8c66> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://m.wikihow.com/Understand-the-Dual-Nature-of-Jesus | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251783621.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129010251-20200129040251-00547.warc.gz | en | 0.98884 | 1,832 | 3.328125 | 3 | [
-0.3730154037475586,
0.6891870498657227,
-0.00556824030354619,
0.12325233221054077,
-0.26711589097976685,
-0.16010433435440063,
0.08860737085342407,
0.3622632324695587,
0.40535688400268555,
-0.05730660632252693,
0.001570005202665925,
-0.17210353910923004,
0.19536934792995453,
-0.1002129316... | 1 | As Jesus was approaching John the Baptist, John said of Jesus, "Behold, the 'lamb of God' who takes away the sins of the world." But Old Testament prophesies referred to Jesus as "the Lion of the Tribe of Judah." So Jesus is both a lion and a lamb. Some say that Jesus' was as a lamb, but in His "second coming", He will act as a lion. But it seems that Jesus also had some very lion-like qualities when He walked the earth in His first coming. Here are some examples of how Jesus was both a lamb and a lion.
1Understand that Jesus was very much like a lamb before and during His crucifixion. "The high priest stood up and said to Him, 'Do You not answer? What is it that these men are testifying against You?' But Jesus kept silent." (Matthew 26). In Jesus' trials, He remained silent for the most part. He let people falsely accuse Him. He let the soldiers beat Him and whip Him. He let people spit on Him. He let them put the crown of thorns on His head and nail spikes in His hands and feet. Isaiah says about Jesus, "He was oppressed, and He was afflicted, yet He opened not His mouth; like a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and like a sheep that before its shearers is silent, so He opened not His mouth." (Isaiah 53:7). Jesus did nor said anything to stop any of it, when He could have called more than 12,000 angels.
- When the men came to "arrest" Jesus for trial, "One of Jesus’ companions reached for his sword, drew it out and struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his ear. 'Put your sword back in its place,' Jesus said to him, 'for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and He will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels? But how then would the Scriptures be fulfilled that say it must happen in this way?'" (from Matthew 26). At any point Jesus could have called more than "twelve legions" of angels to save Him, but He didn't. Jesus went to the cross as a lamb, because He loved us so much and wanted to pay the penalty for our sins.
2Recognize that when dealing with the Pharisees, Jesus was very lion-like. Matthew 23 is full of a list of "woes" that Jesus said against the Pharisees. He was essentially cursing them. Here was one of the "woes," "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness." Those are some very strong words aren't they?
- It could be asked, "Was Jesus loving His enemies in doing this?" Well that would depend on what your definition of love is. There is mushy love and then there is tough love.
- Jesus was trying to warn the Pharisees that they were lost in sin, even though they were so sure that they were saved. They would not listen to plain reason because their hearts were hardened. Therefore, Jesus took more drastic measures to get their attention, such as cursing them and insulting them. Jesus spoke the truth, and love is about speaking the truth. Jesus wasn't afraid to say it like it was.
3Know that when Jesus was looking at the crowds of people, He always looked on them with compassion. Jesus was ironically extremely lion-like when it came to the religious people of His day, the Pharisees, but He was very lamb-like when it came to the common people.
- The Bible says in Mt. 9, "Jesus was going through all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every kind of disease and every kind of sickness. Seeing the people, He felt compassion for them, because they were distressed and dispirited like sheep without a shepherd." The people had leaders, the Pharisees, but they were very mean and controlling leaders. Jesus saw that they needed a shepherd, as in someone to care for them and guide them in a loving way.
- Jesus healed two blind men. Scripture says, "They said to Him, 'Lord, we want our eyes to be opened.' Moved with compassion, Jesus touched their eyes; and immediately they regained their sight and followed Him." (Matthew 30). With everyone that Jesus healed, He was very lamb-like and He had compassion on them, as in He felt concern for their suffering, disability or illness.
4Understand that there are also many accounts where Jesus was a bit feisty. When Jesus' mother asked Him to help at the wedding, where His first miracle was performed, He said to her "Woman, why do you bother me? My time has not yet come." It is interesting that He called her woman instead of mother. Also, He was trying to dismiss her and let her know that He was not ready to openly reveal Himself/His mission and power.
- Also, when Jesus was a child He stayed behind in Jerusalem when His family had gone there. Mary and Joseph were looking for Him "three" days before they found Him. Here is the story found in Luke 2, "After three days they found Him in the temple courts, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. Everyone who heard Him was amazed at His understanding and His answers. When His parents saw Him, they were astonished. His mother said to Him, “ ‘Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you.’ “, but then “ 'Why were you searching for me?' He asked. 'Didn’t you know I had to be in my Father’s house?' “ That answer is just classic. He didn't say sorry or anything like that but asked why were they searching for him.
5Also see that Jesus was very confrontational and direct with people. Here is what Jesus said to the Samaritan woman at the well, "You are right when you say you have no husband. The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true." That was matter of fact, and in our modern culture we would say it was a bit rude.
- There is also the classic account of Jesus saying to Peter "get behind me Satan." In Matthew 16 it says, "Jesus began to explain to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that He must be killed and on the third day be raised to life. Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him. 'Never, Lord!' he said. 'This shall never happen to you!' Jesus turned and said to Peter, 'Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.' "
- It was quite silly of Peter to try to rebuke Jesus, but it is also a bit shocking that Jesus called Peter, Satan. What Jesus meant was that Satan was in Peter's mind, trying to get Peter to stop Jesus from accomplishing His goal. But that would be pretty intense, to have Jesus call you Satan.
QuestionWill Jesus forgive me if I’m gay?Community AnswerJesus loves everyone the same. Being gay is not a sin, so it does not need to be forgiven.
- Realizing more about the nature of Jesus can help you know that you have to tell the truth with love, but you don't have to be only a "nice Christian." We are called to live like Jesus did, so you can be confrontational and direct when needed. This can be very freeing to realize.
- In seeing these deeper aspects of Jesus, maintain respect for Him. Just because Jesus got angry on a few occasions does not mean we should lose respect or think He wasn't self-controlled. The scripture says for us to "Be angry, yet do not sin. Do not let the sun set while you are angry, and do not give the devil a foothold." (Ephesian 4:26, 27) as we must not let anger turn to hate. Anger is like a temptation which is not a sin alone. Of course, He was God walking on earth and was perfect, without sin of any kind. | 1,829 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Documentation Photography Munich
History of documentary photography
Examples of first reportage photos date back to the nineteenth century. One of the key events for the development of this field of events was the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, which took place on April 14, 1865 at the Ford Theater. Drawers employed by the editors of various magazines created illustrations depicting their subjective idea of the incident. However, the real testimony of the tragedy is the pictures taken by Alexander Gardner during the execution of conspirators. At that time, a series of 7 photographs was created, which, due to the fact that the reproduction technique was not sufficiently developed at that time, were not published in the press. However, they were an announcement of how big a role reportage photos would play in the field of photography. Gardner’s photographs can be viewed at the Library of Congress in Washington, where they are part of the American Memory collection.
Photography as art has several very interesting varieties. And although the general principle of taking pictures is always based on the right selection of parameters, its individual types have specific characteristics. Portraits should be taken differently, sports event photos and reportage photos differently.
The main purpose of reportage photography is to show the situation in the way we found it, not the way we would like to capture it. Its essence, however, is not only to present a given event, but also to express by photographing some truth about life. Reportage is usually a series of photos taken in a given situation. | <urn:uuid:e89ae313-f401-4a26-8e20-f263143e9b52> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://clou-media.de/documentation-photography-munich/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250590107.3/warc/CC-MAIN-20200117180950-20200117204950-00206.warc.gz | en | 0.980819 | 304 | 3.3125 | 3 | [
0.2874971330165863,
0.4285259544849396,
0.08483204245567322,
0.05513027310371399,
0.2952434718608856,
0.4608178734779358,
0.1943683922290802,
0.019316865131258965,
-0.38371822237968445,
0.15529707074165344,
0.0420231893658638,
0.11997131258249283,
-0.21227584779262543,
0.7599424123764038,
... | 3 | Documentation Photography Munich
History of documentary photography
Examples of first reportage photos date back to the nineteenth century. One of the key events for the development of this field of events was the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, which took place on April 14, 1865 at the Ford Theater. Drawers employed by the editors of various magazines created illustrations depicting their subjective idea of the incident. However, the real testimony of the tragedy is the pictures taken by Alexander Gardner during the execution of conspirators. At that time, a series of 7 photographs was created, which, due to the fact that the reproduction technique was not sufficiently developed at that time, were not published in the press. However, they were an announcement of how big a role reportage photos would play in the field of photography. Gardner’s photographs can be viewed at the Library of Congress in Washington, where they are part of the American Memory collection.
Photography as art has several very interesting varieties. And although the general principle of taking pictures is always based on the right selection of parameters, its individual types have specific characteristics. Portraits should be taken differently, sports event photos and reportage photos differently.
The main purpose of reportage photography is to show the situation in the way we found it, not the way we would like to capture it. Its essence, however, is not only to present a given event, but also to express by photographing some truth about life. Reportage is usually a series of photos taken in a given situation. | 306 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Click Here to Listen to the Podcast
Matthew 1 list 40 generations of Jesus’ males descendants, but only names 5 women—Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba, and Mary. Today, we will here the story of Ruth the redeemed refugee.
Ruth is a short book. It only takes 16 minutes to read it. I encourage you to read the whole thing. I'm going to share much of it today and make some comments as we go through the story. However, I encourage you to read the whole book.
In the days when the judges ruled, there was a famine in the land. So a man from Bethlehem in Judah, together with his wife and two sons, went to live for a while in the country of Moab. 2 The man’s name was Elimelek, his wife’s name was Naomi, and the names of his two sons were Mahlon and Kilion. They were Ephrathites from Bethlehem, Judah. And they went to Moab and lived there.
I just want to point out that the famine was so bad in Israel that this family left their homeland in search of food. How bad would life have to be for you to move your family out of America in search of food?
3 Now Elimelek, Naomi’s husband, died, and she was left with her two sons. 4 They married Moabite women, one named Orpah and the other Ruth. After they had lived there about ten years, 5 both Mahlon and Kilion also died, and Naomi was left without her two sons and her husband.
Remember, this is a patriarchal (male dominated) society. Women have no way to make it on their own. With out a husband or sons, Naomi and her daughter’s in law are destitute.
6 When Naomi heard in Moab that the Lord had come to the aid of his people by providing food for them, she and her daughters-in-law prepared to return home from there. 7 With her two daughters-in-law she left the place where she had been living and set out on the road that would take them back to the land of Judah.
8 Then Naomi said to her two daughters-in-law, “Go back, each of you, to your mother’s home. May the Lord show you kindness, as you have shown kindness to your dead husbands and to me. 9 May the Lord grant that each of you will find rest in the home of another husband.”
Then she kissed them goodbye and they wept aloud 10 and said to her, “We will go back with you to your people.”
11 But Naomi said, “Return home, my daughters. Why would you come with me? Am I going to have any more sons, who could become your husbands? 12 Return home, my daughters; I am too old to have another husband. Even if I thought there was still hope for me—even if I had a husband tonight and then gave birth to sons— 13 would you wait until they grew up? Would you remain unmarried for them? No, my daughters. It is more bitter for me than for you, because the Lord’s hand has turned against me!”
Now, that's the way Naomi thinks. She assumes the Lord is against her, but that isn't necessarily true. However, it's easy to fall into this negative thinking when life is hard for a long time.
14 At this they wept aloud again. Then Orpah kissed her mother-in-law goodbye, but Ruth clung to her.
15 “Look,” said Naomi, “your sister-in-law is going back to her people and her gods. Go back with her.”
16 But Ruth replied, “Don’t urge me to leave you or to turn back from you. Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. 17 Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely, if even death separates you and me.” 18 When Naomi realized that Ruth was determined to go with her, she stopped urging her.
What we see here is amazing and I don’t want you to miss it. What we have here is a decision by Ruth to follow God. Both Orpah and Ruth were Moabites. Moabites did not worship the God of the Bible. Moabites worshiped idols and false gods. But Ruth and Orpah both saw something special in Naomi’s family. Naomi’s family worshiped the God of the Bible—the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And Orpah and Ruth must have saw something special in this family. There is always something special about people who worship the One True God of the Bible. And it was so special that both Orpah and Ruth wanted to leave their own people’s ways behind in Moab and convert to Naomi’s people and religion in Israel.
Very often, a person’s decision to follow God is closely linked to the people of God they know. Most people don’t care that much about whether Christians can quote the Bible or explain the theology and doctrines of Christianity. What they do care about is how you live. Does your life embody the Christian faith so that people want to join with you in following God? Is your life a witness for Christ? If Ruth were your daughter-in-law, would she see God in you so strongly she would want to leave behind her former way of life apart from God and follow your people instead?
But Naomi explains how hard it will be to follow her home to Israel… Living as God’s people is not necessarily easy. Jesus even taught that you should count the cost before your decide to follow him. To one man who wanted to follow him, Jesus said, “Foxes have dens and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no where to lay his head.” (Matthew 8:20) I.E. Jesus and his followers often must lead a hard life not even knowing where they will sleep at night.
Orpah decides the cost is too high and decides to go back to Moab. However, Ruth is determined. She has found in Naomi’s family a life that is better than her former life in Moab. She would rather face hardship with God’s people than remain in Moab apart from the One True God.
19 So the two women [Ruth and Naomi] went on until they came to Bethlehem. When they arrived in Bethlehem, the whole town was stirred because of them, and the women exclaimed, “Can this be Naomi?”
20 “Don’t call me Naomi,” she told them. “Call me Mara, because the Almighty has made my life very bitter. 21 I went away full, but the Lord has brought me back empty. Why call me Naomi? The Lord has afflicted me; the Almighty has brought misfortune upon me.”
22 So Naomi returned from Moab accompanied by Ruth the Moabite, her daughter-in-law, arriving in Bethlehem as the barley harvest was beginning.
Now Naomi had a relative on her husband’s side, a man of standing from the clan of Elimelek, whose name was Boaz.
2 And Ruth the Moabite said to Naomi, “Let me go to the fields and pick up the leftover grain behind anyone in whose eyes I find favor.”
Naomi said to her, “Go ahead, my daughter.” 3 So she went out, entered a field and began to glean behind the harvesters. As it turned out, she was working in a field belonging to Boaz, who was from the clan of Elimelek.
The ancient Israelites had a form of social welfare. When farmers harvested their fields, the would leave the corners and edges of the field. Then, the poor, the widows, and orphans could come harvest what was left. It wasn’t much, but it might be enough that they wouldn’t starve. Of course, the poor, widows, and orphans were vulnerable and often mistreated (just like they are today; people often treat them scornfully and they have very little recourse). So Ruth is going to go try and glean enough from the leftover harvest to keep herself and her mother-in-law alive. Can you imagine being in her situation…
4 Just then Boaz arrived from Bethlehem and greeted the harvesters, “The Lord be with you!”
“The Lord bless you!” they answered.
5 Boaz asked the overseer of his harvesters, “Who does that young woman belong to?”
6 The overseer replied, “She is the Moabite who came back from Moab with Naomi. 7 She said, ‘Please let me glean and gather among the sheaves behind the harvesters.’ She came into the field and has remained here from morning till now, except for a short rest in the shelter.”
8 So Boaz said to Ruth, “My daughter, listen to me. Don’t go and glean in another field and don’t go away from here. Stay here with the women who work for me. 9 Watch the field where the men are harvesting, and follow along after the women. I have told the men not to lay a hand on you. And whenever you are thirsty, go and get a drink from the water jars the men have filled.”
10 At this, she bowed down with her face to the ground. She asked him, “Why have I found such favor in your eyes that you notice me—a foreigner?”
11 Boaz replied, “I’ve been told all about what you have done for your mother-in-law since the death of your husband—how you left your father and mother and your homeland and came to live with a people you did not know before. 12 May the Lord repay you for what you have done. May you be richly rewarded by the Lord, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have come to take refuge.”
13 “May I continue to find favor in your eyes, my lord,” she said. “You have put me at ease by speaking kindly to your servant—though I do not have the standing of one of your servants.”
14 At mealtime Boaz said to her, “Come over here. Have some bread and dip it in the wine vinegar.”
When she sat down with the harvesters, he offered her some roasted grain. She ate all she wanted and had some left over. 15 As she got up to glean, Boaz gave orders to his men, “Let her gather among the sheaves and don’t reprimand her. 16 Even pull out some stalks for her from the bundles and leave them for her to pick up, and don’t rebuke her.”
17 So Ruth gleaned in the field until evening. Then she threshed the barley she had gathered, and it amounted to about an ephah. [An ephah is about 30 pounds.] 18 She carried it back to town, and her mother-in-law saw how much she had gathered. Ruth also brought out and gave her what she had left over after she had eaten enough.
19 Her mother-in-law asked her, “Where did you glean today? Where did you work? Blessed be the man who took notice of you!”
Then Ruth told her mother-in-law about the one at whose place she had been working. “The name of the man I worked with today is Boaz,” she said.
20 “The Lord bless him!” Naomi said to her daughter-in-law. “He has not stopped showing his kindness to the living and the dead.” She added, “That man is our close relative; he is one of our guardian-redeemers.”
21 Then Ruth the Moabite said, “He even said to me, ‘Stay with my workers until they finish harvesting all my grain.’”
22 Naomi said to Ruth her daughter-in-law, “It will be good for you, my daughter, to go with the women who work for him, because in someone else’s field you might be harmed.”
23 So Ruth stayed close to the women of Boaz to glean until the barley and wheat harvests were finished. And she lived with her mother-in-law.
One day Ruth’s mother-in-law Naomi said to her, “My daughter, I must find a home for you, where you will be well provided for. 2 Now Boaz, with whose women you have worked, is a relative of ours. Tonight he will be winnowing barley on the threshing floor. 3 Wash, put on perfume, and get dressed in your best clothes. Then go down to the threshing floor, but don’t let him know you are there until he has finished eating and drinking. 4 When he lies down, note the place where he is lying. Then go and uncover his feet and lie down. He will tell you what to do.”
5 “I will do whatever you say,” Ruth answered. 6 So she went down to the threshing floor and did everything her mother-in-law told her to do.
7 When Boaz had finished eating and drinking and was in good spirits, he went over to lie down at the far end of the grain pile. Ruth approached quietly, uncovered his feet and lay down. 8 In the middle of the night something startled the man; he turned—and there was a woman lying at his feet!
9 “Who are you?” he asked.
“I am your servant Ruth,” she said. “Spread the corner of your garment over me, since you are a guardian-redeemer of our family.”
Boaz was Naomi and Ruth's guardian-redeemer (or family redeemer). That meant, it was his responsibility to make sure the family line of Naomi's dead husbands and sons did not perish from the earth. It was his duty to care for. protect, and provide family heirs for his dead kin's surviving family.
Boaz had the power to redeem Ruth and Naomi—to save them from a life of hunger, poverty, shame, and death. He had the power to save their family name. But to do so would be costly. Caring for them meant more mouths to feed, and we've already seen in the story how famine could strike and devastate a community. Furthermore, redeeming Ruth and Naomi would draw resources from his own family.
Jesus Christ is the Great Redeemer of all humanity. He redeems us from spiritual hunger, poverty, shame, and death. His redemption assures our names remain among God’s people. But our redemption comes at great cost to Christ too--much greater than Boaz's. Jesus paid for our redemption with his own blood. He suffered and died on the cross to pay the price for our sins. His redemption brings us back into the family of God, as heirs of eternal life, forgiven of sin, blessed with eternal life. His redemption adds our name to the Book of Life.
13 So Boaz took Ruth and she became his wife. When he made love to her, the Lord enabled her to conceive, and she gave birth to a son. 14 The women said to Naomi: “Praise be to the Lord, who this day has not left you without a guardian-redeemer. May he become famous throughout Israel! 15 He will renew your life and sustain you in your old age. For your daughter-in-law, who loves you and who is better to you than seven sons, has given him birth.”
16 Then Naomi took the child in her arms and cared for him. 17 The women living there said, “Naomi has a son!” And they named him Obed. He was the father of Jesse, the father of David.
Jesus the Redeemer
And David was the great King of Israel—the model for the coming Messiah, The King of kings. And the Messiah is Jesus Christ—the great, great, great, great… grandson of Ruth, the redeemed refugee from a foreign land. Isn’t it good to know our Lord and Savior, our Redeemer was willing to pay the ultimate price to redeem us from our sin? For Jesus Christ laid down his life on the cross of Calvary to pay the price for our sin. If He was willing to do all that, isn’t He willing to redeem whatever other brokenness or shame or misfortune you face.
But do you trust Him? Will you put all your faith in Him? Will you be like Orpah and turn and go back to your false gods and unfaithfulness? Or will you be like Ruth, who counted the costs and said in Ruth 1:16, “Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God.
The choice is yours. | <urn:uuid:c22773d4-b3a0-474f-84a4-cb60546e2674> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.pastorchrismullis.com/2019/12/3-ruth-redeemed-refugee.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250589861.0/warc/CC-MAIN-20200117152059-20200117180059-00030.warc.gz | en | 0.985688 | 3,681 | 3.53125 | 4 | [
0.059956781566143036,
0.47218120098114014,
-0.08066555857658386,
-0.1752547025680542,
-0.08941780030727386,
0.1066606193780899,
-0.3974531590938568,
0.03705044835805893,
-0.1546238660812378,
0.08427196741104126,
0.33930766582489014,
0.027339909225702286,
0.24622243642807007,
-0.07667537778... | 10 | Click Here to Listen to the Podcast
Matthew 1 list 40 generations of Jesus’ males descendants, but only names 5 women—Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheba, and Mary. Today, we will here the story of Ruth the redeemed refugee.
Ruth is a short book. It only takes 16 minutes to read it. I encourage you to read the whole thing. I'm going to share much of it today and make some comments as we go through the story. However, I encourage you to read the whole book.
In the days when the judges ruled, there was a famine in the land. So a man from Bethlehem in Judah, together with his wife and two sons, went to live for a while in the country of Moab. 2 The man’s name was Elimelek, his wife’s name was Naomi, and the names of his two sons were Mahlon and Kilion. They were Ephrathites from Bethlehem, Judah. And they went to Moab and lived there.
I just want to point out that the famine was so bad in Israel that this family left their homeland in search of food. How bad would life have to be for you to move your family out of America in search of food?
3 Now Elimelek, Naomi’s husband, died, and she was left with her two sons. 4 They married Moabite women, one named Orpah and the other Ruth. After they had lived there about ten years, 5 both Mahlon and Kilion also died, and Naomi was left without her two sons and her husband.
Remember, this is a patriarchal (male dominated) society. Women have no way to make it on their own. With out a husband or sons, Naomi and her daughter’s in law are destitute.
6 When Naomi heard in Moab that the Lord had come to the aid of his people by providing food for them, she and her daughters-in-law prepared to return home from there. 7 With her two daughters-in-law she left the place where she had been living and set out on the road that would take them back to the land of Judah.
8 Then Naomi said to her two daughters-in-law, “Go back, each of you, to your mother’s home. May the Lord show you kindness, as you have shown kindness to your dead husbands and to me. 9 May the Lord grant that each of you will find rest in the home of another husband.”
Then she kissed them goodbye and they wept aloud 10 and said to her, “We will go back with you to your people.”
11 But Naomi said, “Return home, my daughters. Why would you come with me? Am I going to have any more sons, who could become your husbands? 12 Return home, my daughters; I am too old to have another husband. Even if I thought there was still hope for me—even if I had a husband tonight and then gave birth to sons— 13 would you wait until they grew up? Would you remain unmarried for them? No, my daughters. It is more bitter for me than for you, because the Lord’s hand has turned against me!”
Now, that's the way Naomi thinks. She assumes the Lord is against her, but that isn't necessarily true. However, it's easy to fall into this negative thinking when life is hard for a long time.
14 At this they wept aloud again. Then Orpah kissed her mother-in-law goodbye, but Ruth clung to her.
15 “Look,” said Naomi, “your sister-in-law is going back to her people and her gods. Go back with her.”
16 But Ruth replied, “Don’t urge me to leave you or to turn back from you. Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. 17 Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely, if even death separates you and me.” 18 When Naomi realized that Ruth was determined to go with her, she stopped urging her.
What we see here is amazing and I don’t want you to miss it. What we have here is a decision by Ruth to follow God. Both Orpah and Ruth were Moabites. Moabites did not worship the God of the Bible. Moabites worshiped idols and false gods. But Ruth and Orpah both saw something special in Naomi’s family. Naomi’s family worshiped the God of the Bible—the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And Orpah and Ruth must have saw something special in this family. There is always something special about people who worship the One True God of the Bible. And it was so special that both Orpah and Ruth wanted to leave their own people’s ways behind in Moab and convert to Naomi’s people and religion in Israel.
Very often, a person’s decision to follow God is closely linked to the people of God they know. Most people don’t care that much about whether Christians can quote the Bible or explain the theology and doctrines of Christianity. What they do care about is how you live. Does your life embody the Christian faith so that people want to join with you in following God? Is your life a witness for Christ? If Ruth were your daughter-in-law, would she see God in you so strongly she would want to leave behind her former way of life apart from God and follow your people instead?
But Naomi explains how hard it will be to follow her home to Israel… Living as God’s people is not necessarily easy. Jesus even taught that you should count the cost before your decide to follow him. To one man who wanted to follow him, Jesus said, “Foxes have dens and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no where to lay his head.” (Matthew 8:20) I.E. Jesus and his followers often must lead a hard life not even knowing where they will sleep at night.
Orpah decides the cost is too high and decides to go back to Moab. However, Ruth is determined. She has found in Naomi’s family a life that is better than her former life in Moab. She would rather face hardship with God’s people than remain in Moab apart from the One True God.
19 So the two women [Ruth and Naomi] went on until they came to Bethlehem. When they arrived in Bethlehem, the whole town was stirred because of them, and the women exclaimed, “Can this be Naomi?”
20 “Don’t call me Naomi,” she told them. “Call me Mara, because the Almighty has made my life very bitter. 21 I went away full, but the Lord has brought me back empty. Why call me Naomi? The Lord has afflicted me; the Almighty has brought misfortune upon me.”
22 So Naomi returned from Moab accompanied by Ruth the Moabite, her daughter-in-law, arriving in Bethlehem as the barley harvest was beginning.
Now Naomi had a relative on her husband’s side, a man of standing from the clan of Elimelek, whose name was Boaz.
2 And Ruth the Moabite said to Naomi, “Let me go to the fields and pick up the leftover grain behind anyone in whose eyes I find favor.”
Naomi said to her, “Go ahead, my daughter.” 3 So she went out, entered a field and began to glean behind the harvesters. As it turned out, she was working in a field belonging to Boaz, who was from the clan of Elimelek.
The ancient Israelites had a form of social welfare. When farmers harvested their fields, the would leave the corners and edges of the field. Then, the poor, the widows, and orphans could come harvest what was left. It wasn’t much, but it might be enough that they wouldn’t starve. Of course, the poor, widows, and orphans were vulnerable and often mistreated (just like they are today; people often treat them scornfully and they have very little recourse). So Ruth is going to go try and glean enough from the leftover harvest to keep herself and her mother-in-law alive. Can you imagine being in her situation…
4 Just then Boaz arrived from Bethlehem and greeted the harvesters, “The Lord be with you!”
“The Lord bless you!” they answered.
5 Boaz asked the overseer of his harvesters, “Who does that young woman belong to?”
6 The overseer replied, “She is the Moabite who came back from Moab with Naomi. 7 She said, ‘Please let me glean and gather among the sheaves behind the harvesters.’ She came into the field and has remained here from morning till now, except for a short rest in the shelter.”
8 So Boaz said to Ruth, “My daughter, listen to me. Don’t go and glean in another field and don’t go away from here. Stay here with the women who work for me. 9 Watch the field where the men are harvesting, and follow along after the women. I have told the men not to lay a hand on you. And whenever you are thirsty, go and get a drink from the water jars the men have filled.”
10 At this, she bowed down with her face to the ground. She asked him, “Why have I found such favor in your eyes that you notice me—a foreigner?”
11 Boaz replied, “I’ve been told all about what you have done for your mother-in-law since the death of your husband—how you left your father and mother and your homeland and came to live with a people you did not know before. 12 May the Lord repay you for what you have done. May you be richly rewarded by the Lord, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have come to take refuge.”
13 “May I continue to find favor in your eyes, my lord,” she said. “You have put me at ease by speaking kindly to your servant—though I do not have the standing of one of your servants.”
14 At mealtime Boaz said to her, “Come over here. Have some bread and dip it in the wine vinegar.”
When she sat down with the harvesters, he offered her some roasted grain. She ate all she wanted and had some left over. 15 As she got up to glean, Boaz gave orders to his men, “Let her gather among the sheaves and don’t reprimand her. 16 Even pull out some stalks for her from the bundles and leave them for her to pick up, and don’t rebuke her.”
17 So Ruth gleaned in the field until evening. Then she threshed the barley she had gathered, and it amounted to about an ephah. [An ephah is about 30 pounds.] 18 She carried it back to town, and her mother-in-law saw how much she had gathered. Ruth also brought out and gave her what she had left over after she had eaten enough.
19 Her mother-in-law asked her, “Where did you glean today? Where did you work? Blessed be the man who took notice of you!”
Then Ruth told her mother-in-law about the one at whose place she had been working. “The name of the man I worked with today is Boaz,” she said.
20 “The Lord bless him!” Naomi said to her daughter-in-law. “He has not stopped showing his kindness to the living and the dead.” She added, “That man is our close relative; he is one of our guardian-redeemers.”
21 Then Ruth the Moabite said, “He even said to me, ‘Stay with my workers until they finish harvesting all my grain.’”
22 Naomi said to Ruth her daughter-in-law, “It will be good for you, my daughter, to go with the women who work for him, because in someone else’s field you might be harmed.”
23 So Ruth stayed close to the women of Boaz to glean until the barley and wheat harvests were finished. And she lived with her mother-in-law.
One day Ruth’s mother-in-law Naomi said to her, “My daughter, I must find a home for you, where you will be well provided for. 2 Now Boaz, with whose women you have worked, is a relative of ours. Tonight he will be winnowing barley on the threshing floor. 3 Wash, put on perfume, and get dressed in your best clothes. Then go down to the threshing floor, but don’t let him know you are there until he has finished eating and drinking. 4 When he lies down, note the place where he is lying. Then go and uncover his feet and lie down. He will tell you what to do.”
5 “I will do whatever you say,” Ruth answered. 6 So she went down to the threshing floor and did everything her mother-in-law told her to do.
7 When Boaz had finished eating and drinking and was in good spirits, he went over to lie down at the far end of the grain pile. Ruth approached quietly, uncovered his feet and lay down. 8 In the middle of the night something startled the man; he turned—and there was a woman lying at his feet!
9 “Who are you?” he asked.
“I am your servant Ruth,” she said. “Spread the corner of your garment over me, since you are a guardian-redeemer of our family.”
Boaz was Naomi and Ruth's guardian-redeemer (or family redeemer). That meant, it was his responsibility to make sure the family line of Naomi's dead husbands and sons did not perish from the earth. It was his duty to care for. protect, and provide family heirs for his dead kin's surviving family.
Boaz had the power to redeem Ruth and Naomi—to save them from a life of hunger, poverty, shame, and death. He had the power to save their family name. But to do so would be costly. Caring for them meant more mouths to feed, and we've already seen in the story how famine could strike and devastate a community. Furthermore, redeeming Ruth and Naomi would draw resources from his own family.
Jesus Christ is the Great Redeemer of all humanity. He redeems us from spiritual hunger, poverty, shame, and death. His redemption assures our names remain among God’s people. But our redemption comes at great cost to Christ too--much greater than Boaz's. Jesus paid for our redemption with his own blood. He suffered and died on the cross to pay the price for our sins. His redemption brings us back into the family of God, as heirs of eternal life, forgiven of sin, blessed with eternal life. His redemption adds our name to the Book of Life.
13 So Boaz took Ruth and she became his wife. When he made love to her, the Lord enabled her to conceive, and she gave birth to a son. 14 The women said to Naomi: “Praise be to the Lord, who this day has not left you without a guardian-redeemer. May he become famous throughout Israel! 15 He will renew your life and sustain you in your old age. For your daughter-in-law, who loves you and who is better to you than seven sons, has given him birth.”
16 Then Naomi took the child in her arms and cared for him. 17 The women living there said, “Naomi has a son!” And they named him Obed. He was the father of Jesse, the father of David.
Jesus the Redeemer
And David was the great King of Israel—the model for the coming Messiah, The King of kings. And the Messiah is Jesus Christ—the great, great, great, great… grandson of Ruth, the redeemed refugee from a foreign land. Isn’t it good to know our Lord and Savior, our Redeemer was willing to pay the ultimate price to redeem us from our sin? For Jesus Christ laid down his life on the cross of Calvary to pay the price for our sin. If He was willing to do all that, isn’t He willing to redeem whatever other brokenness or shame or misfortune you face.
But do you trust Him? Will you put all your faith in Him? Will you be like Orpah and turn and go back to your false gods and unfaithfulness? Or will you be like Ruth, who counted the costs and said in Ruth 1:16, “Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God.
The choice is yours. | 3,466 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The History of Irish/Italian Immigration, and How it's Repeating Itself
In the 19th century, as waves of immigrants from European countries flooded America, many of these groups, such as the Irish and Italians, faced systematic discrimination and rampant stereotypes which remained fully present as late as the mid-20th century. However, they would be considered white today, and came from closer areas geographically to the original colonists. Nevertheless, they were discriminated against, facing violent lynchings, job discrimination, criminalization, and a culture of hostility from all directions in American society. Many of the stereotypes around the Irish came from historical events such as the rise of Fenian factions in America, which caused the initial image Americans had of the Irish as terrorists to form. This image became magnified over the years, into a stereotypical image of the Irish as violent, dangerous, and short-tempered. As for the Italians, the racial discrimination at the time against African Americans caused the Italians to be seen as a grey area: not African American, but darker-skinned and physically distinct enough for others to fail to see past it. What’s more, these immigrants were seen as a threat to the “American way of life.” There was widespread fear that these immigrants would take up low-quality jobs which could otherwise have been taken by “native-born” Americans. Their loyalties to their country was even questioned, most notably in the case of Catholic immigrants. Protestant Americans feared that they would hold loyalties to the pope, allowing Catholic ideas to permeate America.
In the short-term, this resulted in a variety of effects. Job discrimination became rampant, with the rise of No Irish Need Apply signs outside of stores and workplaces. As the view of all immigrants as criminals due to the actions of few spread to encompass more immigrant groups, the Italians faced discrimination in court cases such as the case of Sacco and Vanzetti, as they became viewed by Americans as members of criminal gangs. However, this has grown better over time. As the Irish integrated themselves into American society by means of civil service, Italians used the story of Columbus to solidify themselves in the narrative of early America. But now, these practices of discrimination are repeating themselves with new immigrant populations. Like the Irish and the Fenian factions, American society has formed an image of Muslim immigrants as criminals, due to the actions of a miniscule portion of them: ISIS. Political leaders and pundits commonly question whether Muslim immgrants can truly be loyal to America, a question which comprises an insult by its mere existence. The fear of jobs being taken up by immigrants is not only a fear which we study in the context of Irish and Italian immigration, but one which we hear utilized by the figures on our television screens and read about in our newspapers daily, as this fear is used to justify harsher and harsher immigration policies, particularly against Hispanic immigrants. As we watch history repeat itself, all we can do is fight to ensure that the next wave of immigrants is seen as truly American, unlike the immigrants that came before them; that they are not criminalized as a race for the actions of individuals, that they are not seen as potentially disloyal due to their racial backgrounds, and that they are not subject to this most American of traditions: the tradition of xenophobia.
Can “whiteness” be achieved for today’s immigrants?
The problem that “Native” born citizens had with the Irish and the Italians could be connected to a few different things. First, the irish and Italian came from some of the poorest countries in Europe (especially Ireland). Because of this, when they came to this country they were willing to work harder for less pay and bad conditions, so Americans thought they were “stealing these jobs”. Irish and Italian immigrants were regarded as darker, so they were often tainted with racial slurs that compared them to black people, who were even lower on the social ladder at the time. Finally, and probably the main reason as pointed out by Josh Zeitz, the problem that “natives” had with this group of immigrants were there Catholic routes. Specifically Protestants. They believed the pope would take control of America with this new influx of Catholic immigrants. Short term effects included horrible stereotypes. The Irish were regarded as poor, drunk and very simple minded (also the famous NINA signs). The Italians were greasy, dirty, and violent. They often faced police brutality.
The Italian and Irish experience definitely reflects to today’s immigrants. Now aimed at Hispanics and Muslims. These groups of immigrants are also willing to take very laborious jobs for little pay, but now they are branded as coming to this country and “stealing” jobs. Many Americans fear that Islam will take over and that all Muslims are terrorist, much like how the Irish and Italians were considered criminals and terrorist. Immigrants have often experienced brutality from authority, more specifically ICE.
The treatment of today’s immigrants closely mirrors that to the Irish/Italian immigration. However the Irish and Italian were able to achieve “whiteness” and assimilate their culture into that of America’s. I don’t think this will play out the same for today’s immigrants, seeing as the majority of them today cannot claim “whiteness”.
Originally posted by question on December 03, 2019 19:59
It seems as though the reason that many of the new italian and irish immigrants became an “other” group because they took up lower jobs that were associated with previously established “other” groups like African Americans. Because of that, I think that white Americans at the time came up with reasons to put them down such as saying it was because of the darker skin of Italian immigrants, or the drunken behavior of Irish immigrants. They probably also wanted to be seperated from these immigrants who were being associated with lower jobs and with what they deemed as lower class people. So they started the system of differentiating actual white people who could become citizens. The short term effects, especially for Italian immigrants, was the violence that was spread their way, with the lynching of 11 Italians for the death of a american police officer. As we learned in class, there was a renewed Ku Klux Klan movement that was not only targeting African Americans as it had done in the past, but was also violent against immigrant groups like the Italians and Irish. The Irish were considered a terrorist group at one point because a few irish had done violent acts, and similar to how immigrants are seen today, the acts of a few people made the whole country fear that population of irish immigrants because they thought they were more faithful to Ireland and the Pope than to America. I have heard of many muslim people living in the United States today, that after the attacks of 9/11, were treated differently just because people began to fear them for the acts of a few people. It seems that much of the treatments of immigrants and refugees today comes from a place of fear, which it did at that point too.
I agree fully with you and you listed some great examples. Another example includes the camps set up for immigrants crossing the border today and the treatment of these Hispanics in these camps. It’s very similar to the concentration camps the Italian were put in during WWII.
Originally posted by Saltines on December 04, 2019 06:46
Although now being considered as “white”, and therefore in today’s society treated much better than people of color, in particular immigrants of color, in the 19th century, Irish and Italian immigrants were feared and hated. The Irish were rumored to be a drunken group associated with crime and terrorism. They were also Catholic, a trait very much frowned upon by the protestant Americans already living here. These are the reasons they were considered “other”. America has a large history of xenophobia, something very much embedded in our roots. Because these immigrants were different, in particular the fact that it was rumored that “Catholics could[n’t] be loyal to their adoptive country and to the Pope” (Josh Zeitz, “When America hated Catholics”).
A major role of insinuating that the Irish were terrorists was that some were… A group called the Fenians, or “Satan’s Henchmen” were devoted to bombing he British. The idea that when one group has a bad side, then the whole group is bad is very prevalent today as well. We see this in the media often, referring to Muslims as terrorists because of the group “ISIS”. You can’t place an entire ethnic group in a box because of one stem of the group doing something horrible, yet we did and still do (America has a pattern of not learning from their mistakes…).
The social status of the Irish elevated when they became known as patriots for fighting in the war. There were new groups to be “blamed” for discrepancies in America, thus the focus was led away from them and onto other immigrants.
The major difference in how the Irish immigrants were treated compared to immigrants now is that the Irish/Italians were able to later on check the box that marked “white”. This country is so focused on rooting out differences in any way that they can, and the most easiest to tell is race. Immigrants of color aren’t going to be able to check that box, and therefore America’s racial stereotypes are going to conquer the fact that these are just people looking for a better life, and they have and will continue to suffer the consequences of not being born white.
You bring up a great point here. America’s xenophobia does hinder its ability to see the potential and talent immigrant groups have. It seems as though one thing happens and they completely block their own view with one event. For example, Muslims were truly considered terrorist after 9/11, much like the Italians during WWII, when Italy was with the axis powers
Muslim Ban and the Wall: Today’s Continuation of Immigrant Stereotypes
Even though the Italians immigrating to America were from Europe, other “white” Americans did not see them as the same as themselves. They had a problem joining those recent settlers, “white” people, because “critically, many scientists and social scientists (the Dillingham Commission experts among them) agreed that race was determinative of behavior, intelligence and physical endowment, and that racial groups could be arranged in a hierarchical fashion,” as outlined by Josh Zeitz. We discussed in class how many Italian immigrants were illiterate, so therefore they were seen as having lower intelligence than “white” people, which caused them to be viewed as a different race than “white.” Also, the fact that “Italians who had come to the country as ‘free white persons’ were often marked as black because they accepted ‘black’ jobs in the Louisiana sugar fields or because they chose to live among African-Americans,” often strengthened the idea that the Italian were not white, continuing this problem, (Staples).
Additionally, Irish and Italian immigrants were seen as “others” due to their religion. They were Catholic, which the mostly Protestant “white” population had issues with.
Because of this divide between the new Catholic population and the Protestant population, the Catholic people ended up creating their own schools, which was an immediate and short-term effect of their arrival (although it has continued into today). This enforced the separation between these groups and widened this divided as another short-term effect.
The main way the treatment of today’s immigrants and refugees mirrors the treatment of Italians and Irish who began arriving nearly two centuries ago is the perception of these immigrants (primarily the Irish) as terrorists. This notion persisted until it “diminished as Americans began to see German immigrants as the primary terrorist threat because of their association with anarchism,” (O’Donnell). Clearly, this is a repetitive cycle with immigrants in America. A group is seen as a threat to the country until another comes and replaces it as the new threat. Today, examples of this are the perceptions of Muslims and Central and South Americans held by some. The current administration has endorsed as furthered these views with policies and ideas like the “Muslim Ban” at the beginning of Trump’s time and his continual promises of building the wall along the border with Mexico.
Irish and Italian immigrants to America were initially treated as an other. This derived from something that Americans could classify about the immigrants that was different to the majority, whether it be Catholicism or nationalism in the Irish, or the tanned skin and job choice of the Italians. In the short-term, for the Irish, this led to them being socially ostracized and discrimination in job choices (Irish Need Not Apply). For the Italians, this led to lynchings, and the general characterization of Italians as being on the same social level as black Americans, even going to far as to label them “white n****rs”.
Now, Irish and Italian Americans are considered just as American as anyone else. Stereotypes still remain, but they are largely harmless and do not affect Irish and Italian American communities on a systematic or discriminatory level. However, treatment of many current immigrants sadly mirror the past treatment of Irish and Italians. Just as Italians were forced to take “lesser” jobs (sugar fields) and were seen as lesser for it, so are many Mexican immigrants forced to take “lesser” jobs (housekeeping, janitorial work, etc) and are seen as lesser for it. Additionally, immigrants taking lower paying jobs both then and now has perpetuated the false idea that immigrants are “stealing” jobs from normal Americans. Muslim immigrants and refugees are demonized for their religion being different than the “norm” in America, just as Irish Catholics were demonized for their religion. Despite such technological advancement since the time Italian and Irish immigrants were new, our country’s cultural mindset remains as outdated as ever. | <urn:uuid:0da775ad-7980-4d66-aa69-2496710a1952> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://discussions.learntoquestion.com/topics/34-fear-the-newcomers-they-ll-pollute-the-country/page/3 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250613416.54/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123191130-20200123220130-00268.warc.gz | en | 0.988164 | 2,933 | 3.65625 | 4 | [
-0.07420118153095245,
-0.01866939663887024,
-0.15023273229599,
0.23707059025764465,
-0.12425419688224792,
0.37689918279647827,
0.06761329621076584,
-0.3997352421283722,
0.09425651282072067,
-0.2328903079032898,
0.06172238290309906,
0.19008584320545197,
-0.182795912027359,
0.215409174561500... | 1 | The History of Irish/Italian Immigration, and How it's Repeating Itself
In the 19th century, as waves of immigrants from European countries flooded America, many of these groups, such as the Irish and Italians, faced systematic discrimination and rampant stereotypes which remained fully present as late as the mid-20th century. However, they would be considered white today, and came from closer areas geographically to the original colonists. Nevertheless, they were discriminated against, facing violent lynchings, job discrimination, criminalization, and a culture of hostility from all directions in American society. Many of the stereotypes around the Irish came from historical events such as the rise of Fenian factions in America, which caused the initial image Americans had of the Irish as terrorists to form. This image became magnified over the years, into a stereotypical image of the Irish as violent, dangerous, and short-tempered. As for the Italians, the racial discrimination at the time against African Americans caused the Italians to be seen as a grey area: not African American, but darker-skinned and physically distinct enough for others to fail to see past it. What’s more, these immigrants were seen as a threat to the “American way of life.” There was widespread fear that these immigrants would take up low-quality jobs which could otherwise have been taken by “native-born” Americans. Their loyalties to their country was even questioned, most notably in the case of Catholic immigrants. Protestant Americans feared that they would hold loyalties to the pope, allowing Catholic ideas to permeate America.
In the short-term, this resulted in a variety of effects. Job discrimination became rampant, with the rise of No Irish Need Apply signs outside of stores and workplaces. As the view of all immigrants as criminals due to the actions of few spread to encompass more immigrant groups, the Italians faced discrimination in court cases such as the case of Sacco and Vanzetti, as they became viewed by Americans as members of criminal gangs. However, this has grown better over time. As the Irish integrated themselves into American society by means of civil service, Italians used the story of Columbus to solidify themselves in the narrative of early America. But now, these practices of discrimination are repeating themselves with new immigrant populations. Like the Irish and the Fenian factions, American society has formed an image of Muslim immigrants as criminals, due to the actions of a miniscule portion of them: ISIS. Political leaders and pundits commonly question whether Muslim immgrants can truly be loyal to America, a question which comprises an insult by its mere existence. The fear of jobs being taken up by immigrants is not only a fear which we study in the context of Irish and Italian immigration, but one which we hear utilized by the figures on our television screens and read about in our newspapers daily, as this fear is used to justify harsher and harsher immigration policies, particularly against Hispanic immigrants. As we watch history repeat itself, all we can do is fight to ensure that the next wave of immigrants is seen as truly American, unlike the immigrants that came before them; that they are not criminalized as a race for the actions of individuals, that they are not seen as potentially disloyal due to their racial backgrounds, and that they are not subject to this most American of traditions: the tradition of xenophobia.
Can “whiteness” be achieved for today’s immigrants?
The problem that “Native” born citizens had with the Irish and the Italians could be connected to a few different things. First, the irish and Italian came from some of the poorest countries in Europe (especially Ireland). Because of this, when they came to this country they were willing to work harder for less pay and bad conditions, so Americans thought they were “stealing these jobs”. Irish and Italian immigrants were regarded as darker, so they were often tainted with racial slurs that compared them to black people, who were even lower on the social ladder at the time. Finally, and probably the main reason as pointed out by Josh Zeitz, the problem that “natives” had with this group of immigrants were there Catholic routes. Specifically Protestants. They believed the pope would take control of America with this new influx of Catholic immigrants. Short term effects included horrible stereotypes. The Irish were regarded as poor, drunk and very simple minded (also the famous NINA signs). The Italians were greasy, dirty, and violent. They often faced police brutality.
The Italian and Irish experience definitely reflects to today’s immigrants. Now aimed at Hispanics and Muslims. These groups of immigrants are also willing to take very laborious jobs for little pay, but now they are branded as coming to this country and “stealing” jobs. Many Americans fear that Islam will take over and that all Muslims are terrorist, much like how the Irish and Italians were considered criminals and terrorist. Immigrants have often experienced brutality from authority, more specifically ICE.
The treatment of today’s immigrants closely mirrors that to the Irish/Italian immigration. However the Irish and Italian were able to achieve “whiteness” and assimilate their culture into that of America’s. I don’t think this will play out the same for today’s immigrants, seeing as the majority of them today cannot claim “whiteness”.
Originally posted by question on December 03, 2019 19:59
It seems as though the reason that many of the new italian and irish immigrants became an “other” group because they took up lower jobs that were associated with previously established “other” groups like African Americans. Because of that, I think that white Americans at the time came up with reasons to put them down such as saying it was because of the darker skin of Italian immigrants, or the drunken behavior of Irish immigrants. They probably also wanted to be seperated from these immigrants who were being associated with lower jobs and with what they deemed as lower class people. So they started the system of differentiating actual white people who could become citizens. The short term effects, especially for Italian immigrants, was the violence that was spread their way, with the lynching of 11 Italians for the death of a american police officer. As we learned in class, there was a renewed Ku Klux Klan movement that was not only targeting African Americans as it had done in the past, but was also violent against immigrant groups like the Italians and Irish. The Irish were considered a terrorist group at one point because a few irish had done violent acts, and similar to how immigrants are seen today, the acts of a few people made the whole country fear that population of irish immigrants because they thought they were more faithful to Ireland and the Pope than to America. I have heard of many muslim people living in the United States today, that after the attacks of 9/11, were treated differently just because people began to fear them for the acts of a few people. It seems that much of the treatments of immigrants and refugees today comes from a place of fear, which it did at that point too.
I agree fully with you and you listed some great examples. Another example includes the camps set up for immigrants crossing the border today and the treatment of these Hispanics in these camps. It’s very similar to the concentration camps the Italian were put in during WWII.
Originally posted by Saltines on December 04, 2019 06:46
Although now being considered as “white”, and therefore in today’s society treated much better than people of color, in particular immigrants of color, in the 19th century, Irish and Italian immigrants were feared and hated. The Irish were rumored to be a drunken group associated with crime and terrorism. They were also Catholic, a trait very much frowned upon by the protestant Americans already living here. These are the reasons they were considered “other”. America has a large history of xenophobia, something very much embedded in our roots. Because these immigrants were different, in particular the fact that it was rumored that “Catholics could[n’t] be loyal to their adoptive country and to the Pope” (Josh Zeitz, “When America hated Catholics”).
A major role of insinuating that the Irish were terrorists was that some were… A group called the Fenians, or “Satan’s Henchmen” were devoted to bombing he British. The idea that when one group has a bad side, then the whole group is bad is very prevalent today as well. We see this in the media often, referring to Muslims as terrorists because of the group “ISIS”. You can’t place an entire ethnic group in a box because of one stem of the group doing something horrible, yet we did and still do (America has a pattern of not learning from their mistakes…).
The social status of the Irish elevated when they became known as patriots for fighting in the war. There were new groups to be “blamed” for discrepancies in America, thus the focus was led away from them and onto other immigrants.
The major difference in how the Irish immigrants were treated compared to immigrants now is that the Irish/Italians were able to later on check the box that marked “white”. This country is so focused on rooting out differences in any way that they can, and the most easiest to tell is race. Immigrants of color aren’t going to be able to check that box, and therefore America’s racial stereotypes are going to conquer the fact that these are just people looking for a better life, and they have and will continue to suffer the consequences of not being born white.
You bring up a great point here. America’s xenophobia does hinder its ability to see the potential and talent immigrant groups have. It seems as though one thing happens and they completely block their own view with one event. For example, Muslims were truly considered terrorist after 9/11, much like the Italians during WWII, when Italy was with the axis powers
Muslim Ban and the Wall: Today’s Continuation of Immigrant Stereotypes
Even though the Italians immigrating to America were from Europe, other “white” Americans did not see them as the same as themselves. They had a problem joining those recent settlers, “white” people, because “critically, many scientists and social scientists (the Dillingham Commission experts among them) agreed that race was determinative of behavior, intelligence and physical endowment, and that racial groups could be arranged in a hierarchical fashion,” as outlined by Josh Zeitz. We discussed in class how many Italian immigrants were illiterate, so therefore they were seen as having lower intelligence than “white” people, which caused them to be viewed as a different race than “white.” Also, the fact that “Italians who had come to the country as ‘free white persons’ were often marked as black because they accepted ‘black’ jobs in the Louisiana sugar fields or because they chose to live among African-Americans,” often strengthened the idea that the Italian were not white, continuing this problem, (Staples).
Additionally, Irish and Italian immigrants were seen as “others” due to their religion. They were Catholic, which the mostly Protestant “white” population had issues with.
Because of this divide between the new Catholic population and the Protestant population, the Catholic people ended up creating their own schools, which was an immediate and short-term effect of their arrival (although it has continued into today). This enforced the separation between these groups and widened this divided as another short-term effect.
The main way the treatment of today’s immigrants and refugees mirrors the treatment of Italians and Irish who began arriving nearly two centuries ago is the perception of these immigrants (primarily the Irish) as terrorists. This notion persisted until it “diminished as Americans began to see German immigrants as the primary terrorist threat because of their association with anarchism,” (O’Donnell). Clearly, this is a repetitive cycle with immigrants in America. A group is seen as a threat to the country until another comes and replaces it as the new threat. Today, examples of this are the perceptions of Muslims and Central and South Americans held by some. The current administration has endorsed as furthered these views with policies and ideas like the “Muslim Ban” at the beginning of Trump’s time and his continual promises of building the wall along the border with Mexico.
Irish and Italian immigrants to America were initially treated as an other. This derived from something that Americans could classify about the immigrants that was different to the majority, whether it be Catholicism or nationalism in the Irish, or the tanned skin and job choice of the Italians. In the short-term, for the Irish, this led to them being socially ostracized and discrimination in job choices (Irish Need Not Apply). For the Italians, this led to lynchings, and the general characterization of Italians as being on the same social level as black Americans, even going to far as to label them “white n****rs”.
Now, Irish and Italian Americans are considered just as American as anyone else. Stereotypes still remain, but they are largely harmless and do not affect Irish and Italian American communities on a systematic or discriminatory level. However, treatment of many current immigrants sadly mirror the past treatment of Irish and Italians. Just as Italians were forced to take “lesser” jobs (sugar fields) and were seen as lesser for it, so are many Mexican immigrants forced to take “lesser” jobs (housekeeping, janitorial work, etc) and are seen as lesser for it. Additionally, immigrants taking lower paying jobs both then and now has perpetuated the false idea that immigrants are “stealing” jobs from normal Americans. Muslim immigrants and refugees are demonized for their religion being different than the “norm” in America, just as Irish Catholics were demonized for their religion. Despite such technological advancement since the time Italian and Irish immigrants were new, our country’s cultural mindset remains as outdated as ever. | 2,829 | ENGLISH | 1 |
I was there.
In October 1941, Grete and her mother received the order to report for deportation. They were allowed to take only a suitcase each and bedding. The two women were deported to the Litzmannstadt ghetto, in Łódź, Poland, in the first of five transport trains of one thousand Jewish people each. Grandmother Cäcilia Zweig, already 86 years old at that time, remained in Vienna. Saying goodbye to her grandmother is one of Grete's most painful memories. Cäcilia Zweig died in 1943 in the concentration camp Theresienstadt.
In the Litzmannstadt ghetto, the National Socialists had already forced more than 180,000 Polish Jews to live there under cramped conditions lacking the most basic necessities. With the deportations from the west, another 20,000 people were added. A few days after their arrival, Grete met the Polish Jew Henrik Apt who supported her and her mother as best he could. He helped them to find work, Grete in the ghetto administration, her mother in a slipper factory. Several times, he saved them from deportation to the death camp Chełmno nad Nerem. In late autumn 1942, one year after their arrival in the ghetto, Grete’s mother died of starvation and exhaustion at the age of about 60 years.
Grete Stern, nee Feldsberg (1920), Austria
Grete Stern describes how she arrived with her mother in October 1941 in the Litzmannstadt ghetto in the Polish city of Łódź. Under inhumane conditions, the two were housed in huts with many other deportees from the West.
1) Jakob Ringart came from a Polish-Jewish family from Łódź. Listen to what Jakob tells about the ghetto >>
Listen to Grete as she describes her arrival in the ghetto with her mother. Answer the question.
1a. How did the two women deal with the new situation?
Grete Stern talks about her friendship with the Polish Jew Henrik Apt, who had been forced to move to the ghetto in 1940 with his family. He supported Grete and her mother as much as possible. She is convinced that she would not have survived the ghetto without him.
2) Listen to Grete as she talks of her life-saving friendship with the Polish Jew Henrik Apt. Answer the questions.
2a. How did he help her?
2b. What role does friendship and solidarity play for the persecuted, oppressed or disenfranchised in a regime of violence?
Liquidation of the Ghetto
In August 1944, when the ghetto is liquidated, Grete Feldsberg has to make a difficult decision.
3) Listen to Grete as she speaks of the desperate situation in the ghetto. Answer the questions.
3a. What were her “injections”?
3b. What difficult decision did she have to make when the ghetto was closed? | <urn:uuid:f9d224ac-4f2e-4db8-b81a-2f9efe96d88e> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.eternalechoes.org/gb/testimonies/grete-stern/confined-to-the-ghetto-1941-1944 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251778168.77/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128091916-20200128121916-00041.warc.gz | en | 0.980135 | 628 | 3.625 | 4 | [
-0.011224120855331421,
0.5575075745582581,
0.3075100779533386,
0.029667377471923828,
0.14560434222221375,
-0.03294401988387108,
0.05982367694377899,
0.23297493159770966,
-0.27668488025665283,
-0.4253479242324829,
0.15793386101722717,
-0.26089584827423096,
-0.05659276247024536,
0.3701955080... | 14 | I was there.
In October 1941, Grete and her mother received the order to report for deportation. They were allowed to take only a suitcase each and bedding. The two women were deported to the Litzmannstadt ghetto, in Łódź, Poland, in the first of five transport trains of one thousand Jewish people each. Grandmother Cäcilia Zweig, already 86 years old at that time, remained in Vienna. Saying goodbye to her grandmother is one of Grete's most painful memories. Cäcilia Zweig died in 1943 in the concentration camp Theresienstadt.
In the Litzmannstadt ghetto, the National Socialists had already forced more than 180,000 Polish Jews to live there under cramped conditions lacking the most basic necessities. With the deportations from the west, another 20,000 people were added. A few days after their arrival, Grete met the Polish Jew Henrik Apt who supported her and her mother as best he could. He helped them to find work, Grete in the ghetto administration, her mother in a slipper factory. Several times, he saved them from deportation to the death camp Chełmno nad Nerem. In late autumn 1942, one year after their arrival in the ghetto, Grete’s mother died of starvation and exhaustion at the age of about 60 years.
Grete Stern, nee Feldsberg (1920), Austria
Grete Stern describes how she arrived with her mother in October 1941 in the Litzmannstadt ghetto in the Polish city of Łódź. Under inhumane conditions, the two were housed in huts with many other deportees from the West.
1) Jakob Ringart came from a Polish-Jewish family from Łódź. Listen to what Jakob tells about the ghetto >>
Listen to Grete as she describes her arrival in the ghetto with her mother. Answer the question.
1a. How did the two women deal with the new situation?
Grete Stern talks about her friendship with the Polish Jew Henrik Apt, who had been forced to move to the ghetto in 1940 with his family. He supported Grete and her mother as much as possible. She is convinced that she would not have survived the ghetto without him.
2) Listen to Grete as she talks of her life-saving friendship with the Polish Jew Henrik Apt. Answer the questions.
2a. How did he help her?
2b. What role does friendship and solidarity play for the persecuted, oppressed or disenfranchised in a regime of violence?
Liquidation of the Ghetto
In August 1944, when the ghetto is liquidated, Grete Feldsberg has to make a difficult decision.
3) Listen to Grete as she speaks of the desperate situation in the ghetto. Answer the questions.
3a. What were her “injections”?
3b. What difficult decision did she have to make when the ghetto was closed? | 632 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Women in Ancient Jewish Society
Life could be hard in first-century Israel but if you were a woman, it could be even harder. Women had fewer social freedoms than men, and women had fewer legal rights. Furthermore, many, but certainly not all, women were financially dependent on a male relative. Generally speaking, they were dependent on their father if they were unmarried, or on their husband if they were married, or, if they outlived both their father and husband, which was not an uncommon situation, they were financially dependent on their son. (This made the widow of Nain’s situation particularly pitiful because she had even outlived her only son.) But most women did some kind of work that benefitted the economy of their household. That is, in the ancient world, most able-bodied women, and even children, worked. Only women from the higher classes didn’t work, but these ladies made up a small percentage of the population in Israel.
As well as having a lower profile in society, the average woman had a lower profile in the Jewish religion. Women could be prophets, however. Prophets such as Anna, who is mentioned briefly in Luke’s Gospel, held a respected place in Jewish society. Philip’s four daughters were renowned as prophets. But there was no covenant symbol or ceremony, such as circumcision, that initiated girls or women into the Jewish religion. And women could not become Jewish priests. Women couldn’t even go beyond the court of women in the temple at Jerusalem, whereas Jewish men could have access more closely into the heart of the temple complex. And at that time, as far as we know, women couldn’t become rabbis, Jewish teachers of scripture.
It is true that a few ancient Jewish rabbis have said terrible things about women. Some even discouraged women from being taught the scriptures. But not all Jewish rabbis were anti-women. At least one Jewish rabbi had female disciples. Some of these female disciples even travelled with him and supported his mission from their own money. This rabbi treated women with respect. He taught both his male and female disciples the same theology—he didn’t have one version for men and another version for women—and he equipped them to tell others his message. This rabbi was known as Jesus of Nazareth. Our Jesus.
Jesus of Nazareth
During his earthly ministry, Jesus’ status as a rabbi was not in doubt. Even his opponents acknowledged this and some of them debated scriptural interpretations with him. Unlike the teaching of some other rabbis, however, Jesus’ interpretations and his teaching were not demanding or complicated or “heavy.”
In Matthew 11:28-30 Jesus says,
“Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”
A yoke is a farming implement that joins two animals, such as oxen, together so they can share the workload evenly and become more productive together. Sometimes, an older, more experienced animal is yoked with a younger, less experienced animal, so that the older animal can “train” the younger animal (with its movements) while they work together.
By using the illustration of a yoke, Jesus is asking people to share and be partners with him in his work, in his ministry. He is also saying that he will train them. As well as being an agricultural implement, “yoke” was a technical term used in the context of rabbinic teaching. Every rabbi had their own “yoke”, that is, their own interpretations of Old Testament scriptures which the rabbi would pass on to his students, his disciples.
Being a disciple of a rabbi was like being an apprentice. Disciples usually spent long hours with their rabbi. Some of Jesus’ disciples had spent three years with him, sometimes 24/7, being trained. Others spent less time with him. But for many disciples, the goal of this training was to become a rabbi themselves.
Let’s look at some of the women who spent time with Rabbi Jesus and were taught by him.
Mary of Bethany
Luke 10:38-42 NIV:
As Jesus and his disciples were on their way, he came to a village [Bethany] where a woman named Martha opened her home to him. She had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet listening to what he said. But Martha was distracted by all the preparations that had to be made. She came to him and asked, “Lord, don’t you care that my sister has left me to do the work by myself? Tell her to help me!”
“Martha, Martha,” the Lord answered, “you are worried and upset about many things, but few things are needed—or indeed only one. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her.”
From this passage we can see that Martha was a good woman. Martha welcomed Jesus and his disciples into her home and appears to be preparing food for them. (Note that Martha does not seem to have a father or husband or son, and that she seems to be the one in charge of her own largish home.) Being hospitable and serving a meal to travellers was an almost sacred duty in the culture of that time. Martha was doing a very good thing, the expected thing, but Jesus says that Mary had chosen the better option, the one thing that was necessary. Exactly what was Mary doing that was so important? What could be more important than looking after Jesus and the other weary travellers?
Mary was sitting at Jesus’ feet listening to him speak. She was probably sitting alongside Jesus’ other disciples who included men, or perhaps were all men. Moreover, sitting at someone’s feet was the usual posture of a disciple who was being taught; “sitting at one’s feet” was an idiom. We see the same idiom in Acts 22:3 where Paul describes his own rabbinic education and says, “I am a Jew, born in Tarsus in Cilicia, but brought up in this city [Jerusalem] at the feet of Gamaliel [a famous rabbi], educated strictly according to our ancestral law …” (NRSV).
What Mary was doing was culturally inappropriate, something that was against society’s norms. She was neglecting the physical needs of her guests, ignoring the woman’s role, and sitting with men being taught. Yet according to Jesus, Mary had chosen the one thing that was really necessary: to be with Jesus and learn from him. And he promises that Mary’s choice to be among his disciples and learn will not be taken away from her.
Mary was not just a passive learner. Later, she would choose to do another fine thing when, in a room filled with disapproving onlookers, she lovingly anointed Jesus with her expensive perfume (John 12:1-8; cf. Matt. 26:6-13; Mark 14: 3-9). Did she knowingly anoint Jesus as a prophetic act foretelling his death? (cf. John 12:7). Mary was criticised and misunderstood because of her extravagant act of ministry, but Jesus defended her actions and he told Judas, among others, “Leave her alone” (John 12:7). These are some of my favourite words in the Bible; Jesus did not want the men to harass Mary or hinder ministry.
We know that Mary’s sister Martha also became a disciple of Jesus. One of the strongest affirmations of faith in the Gospels comes from her mouth. In John 11:27, Martha acknowledges that Jesus is more than a rabbi and she tells him, “I believe that you are the Messiah, the Son of God, who was to come into the world.”
More about Mary and Martha here.
The Samaritan Woman
Another woman who knew Jesus’ identity was the Samaritan woman who we can read in chapter four of John’s Gospel. Again, cultural conventions were broken when Jesus struck up a conversation with her. A man speaking to a woman who was not related to him in a public setting was not the done thing. Plus, she was a Samaritan, and there was a centuries-old animosity between the Jews and the Samaritans. But Jesus ignored this long-standing feud. He ignored the rules that said he couldn’t talk with a woman not related to him. Not only that, he asks to drink from her cup. This was truly astonishing and the biblical text points out that Jews do not “associate” with Samaritans. The Greek word for “associate” in this verse commonly means “the sharing of eating utensils and dishes.” And that’s exactly what Jesus wanted to do; he wants to drink from the Samaritan woman’s cup.
Jesus then begins talking with her about theology, a life-giving theology. The woman responds and asks genuine questions that Jesus answers. She is thirsty. The conversation between Jesus and this woman is the longest conversation recorded in the Gospels. As Jesus teaches her, she becomes increasingly aware of his spiritual stature and says, “I know that the Messiah is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us.” Jesus responds with, “That’s me,” or “I am him.” This is one of the few times in the Gospels where Jesus openly shares his true identity with someone.
Jesus had taught her theology. He had revealed who he was. The woman then acts on this knowledge and on the experience she has had with Jesus. When she realised who Jesus was, she left her water jar and ran into the village and told everyone about Jesus. Because of her, many Samaritans came to Jesus and became believers.
More about the Samaritan Woman here.
Galilean Women and Joanna
Most of the women who Jesus taught were not from Bethany (near Jerusalem) like Mary and Martha, or from Samaria; most of Jesus’ female followers were from Galilee a region further north. Luke 8:1-3 mentions that many women from Galilee travelled with Jesus and they provided for him out of their own resources. They used their own money. Here Luke identifies just three of the women—Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Susanna—but adds that there were many other women in this group. Matthew tells us in his Gospel that many women from Galilee travelled all the way to Jerusalem with Jesus and witnessed his crucifixion (Matt. 27:55-56).
I’ve often pictured Jesus roaming around Galilee with just twelve male disciples, but on several occasions, at the very least, there were many women with him also. How many is many? Did the women outnumber the men? We can only speculate as to how many women were among Jesus’ followers (cf. Acts 1:13-14). Note also that there were more than twelve male disciples.
No one can quite figure out how Jesus could have had so many female disciples without causing a scandal, especially considering that they travelled with him. And how can we explain Joanna, who is mentioned in Luke 8:2-3 & 24:9-10? Joanna was used to palace life and was possibly an aristocratic woman. But she chose to travel the dusty streets with Jesus and (perhaps) stay in the homes of strangers in Galilean towns. Can you imagine the gossip this would have caused? And the strain on Joanna’s marriage? But Jesus’ words, his healing power, his love and acceptance, and the purpose he gave to both women and men were powerful and transformative. And both women and men responded.
Mary the Magdalene
One woman who was prominent in this group of female disciples is Mary Magdalene. We don’t know when she became a follower of Jesus, but we hear quite a bit about her in the context of Jesus’ death and resurrection. Mark and John record in their Gospels that Mary Magdalene was the very first person to see Jesus alive after his resurrection (Mark 16:9; John 20:1ff, cf. Luke 24:1ff). A woman is the first witness of the resurrection.
My favourite Bible passage about Mary Magdalene is in John’s Gospel where we get to hear her speak (John 20:2, 11-18). John 20:16 is especially moving when Jesus simply calls her name “Mary,” and she responds with “Rabboni” which is an Aramaic word meaning “my master-teacher.” I am certain there was a strong, mutual affection between the two. But I don’t go as far as what some other people suggest: I don’t think they were married and there is no evidence she was ever a prostitute.
Mary Magdalene is mentioned by name in over a dozen verses in the Gospels and we should not downplay her role as one of Jesus’ foremost disciples. We should be especially careful that we don’t downplay the significance that she was the first person to see Jesus alive at the beginning of a new era, at the dawn of a new covenant, and that she was commissioned by Jesus to announce the message of his resurrection.
Mary indicates that Jesus had been her rabbi, her teacher. Jesus would have taught her theology, but she also had first-hand knowledge of the theology of Jesus’ resurrection. Following Jesus’ instructions, Mary went and told the other disciples the remarkable news, “I have seen the Lord!” (John 20:18).
More about Mary Magdalene here.
Mary the Mother of Jesus
We don’t know whether Mary Magdalene, Joanna, the Samaritan woman or Mary and Martha of Bethany, had children. The fact that the biblical text doesn’t provide this information is interesting as being a mother was considered the primary role of women in the ancient world, including, or especially, in Jewish society.
On one occasion Jesus had the opportunity to affirm the virtue and importance of motherhood. A woman in the crowd cried out and said to him, “Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you” (Luke 11:27). This was meant to be a huge compliment to Jesus and his mother Mary. How did Jesus respond? Did he accept the compliment?
Jesus replied with, “Blessed rather are those who are hearing the word of God and obeying it” (Luke 11:28 NIV). In no way did Jesus indicate that being a mother was necessary, or the only way, women can obey God’s word. I’m very grateful I could be a mother, and I love being a mother and grandmother. But nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus promote motherhood, or fatherhood, for that matter.
Yet Jesus’ mother was blessed. She was not only blessed because of her special role as the mother of the Messiah, she was also blessed because she had faith in the word of God and was willing to put her faith into action and comply with God’s will. The Bible says this about Mary, “Blessed is she who has believed that the Lord would fulfill his promises to her!” (Luke 1:45 NIV). Furthermore, Mary was the mother of Jesus but later she also became his disciple (cf. Acts 1:13-14).
In Luke’s Gospel, in the parable of the wise and foolish builders, Jesus said that a wise person is someone,“. . . who comes to me and hears my words and does them” (Luke 6:47). Jesus wants both women and men, girls and boys, to be continually coming to him in a close relationship; he wants us to be continually hearing his words; he wants us to be continually putting those words into obedient practice. This kind of discipleship is our highest calling!
At a time when women were regarded as odd and inferior by men and were excluded from many aspects of society, Jesus was interested in the lives of women. He came into this world through the body of a woman. He allowed women to touch him and to talk to him. He had sympathy for them. He healed them. He treated them with respect and dignity, even if they were diseased or were outcasts. He engaged them in conversations. He asked them questions and he gave them answers. He called them by name. Moreover, he understood that women were interested in theology and that they needed to know theology for themselves. He accepted them as disciples. And he died so they could be redeemed and fully included in the new covenant community of God’s people, the church.
Jesus ignored social customs and taboos that placed women at a disadvantage. He was undeterred by the religious restrictions Judaism placed on women. And when Jesus extended the invitation, “Take my yoke upon you and learn from me,” many women accepted his invitation.
Jesus had many female disciples, and he entrusted his teaching to them. And after their encounters with him, these women were equipped. They were equipped to talk about theology to others; they were equipped to worship him; they were equipped to serve him and serve others in his name; they were equipped to carry on his mission alongside the male disciples. Jesus is still calling women. He is still equipping women, as well as men, through his Spirit and his Word to be his agents and continue the work he started.
Jesus wants us to come to him and learn from him in a continuing relationship. He will teach us, guide us, and equip us to be effective in life and service, if we allow him. If we come to Jesus and do things his way, if we take on his yoke in partnership with him, he promises that we will find rest for our souls. In the process, we will become more like our rabbi Jesus and this is our highest goal.
From Dorothy Sayer’s essay, Are Women Human?
“Perhaps it is no wonder that the women were first at the Cradle and last at the Cross. They had never known a man like this Man—there never has been such another. A prophet and teacher who never nagged at them, never flattered or coaxed or patronised; who never made arch jokes about them, never treated them either as “The women, God help us!” or “The ladies, God bless them!”; who rebuked without querulousness and praised without condescension; who took their questions and arguments seriously; who never mapped out their sphere for them, never urged them to be feminine or jeered at them for being female; who had no axe to grind and no uneasy male dignity to defend; who took them as he found them and was completely unself-conscious. There is no act, no sermon, no parable in the whole Gospel that borrows its pungency from female perversity; nobody could possibly guess from the words and deeds of Jesus that there was anything “funny” about woman’s nature.”
Martha’s statement is similar to Peter’s statement in Matthew 16:15-17: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Partnering Together Series
3 things disciples can do to build unshakeable houses (Luke 6)
Male-Female Pairs and Parallelism in Luke’s Gospel
“Come to me”: A brief commentary on Matthew 11:28-30
Is motherhood the highest calling for women?
Beauty, Marriage, Motherhood and Ministry
Working Women in the New Testament | <urn:uuid:cf80464a-af34-44ed-84c9-262fd0473a0f> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://margmowczko.com/jesus-and-women/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250592394.9/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118081234-20200118105234-00499.warc.gz | en | 0.989678 | 4,180 | 3.875 | 4 | [
-0.1472519040107727,
0.47710657119750977,
-0.3414589464664459,
0.14366304874420166,
-0.2263232171535492,
0.4645801782608032,
0.11785726994276047,
0.2689531147480011,
0.10710012912750244,
0.0018953382968902588,
-0.16529875993728638,
0.25057917833328247,
0.19578269124031067,
-0.0163883287459... | 2 | Women in Ancient Jewish Society
Life could be hard in first-century Israel but if you were a woman, it could be even harder. Women had fewer social freedoms than men, and women had fewer legal rights. Furthermore, many, but certainly not all, women were financially dependent on a male relative. Generally speaking, they were dependent on their father if they were unmarried, or on their husband if they were married, or, if they outlived both their father and husband, which was not an uncommon situation, they were financially dependent on their son. (This made the widow of Nain’s situation particularly pitiful because she had even outlived her only son.) But most women did some kind of work that benefitted the economy of their household. That is, in the ancient world, most able-bodied women, and even children, worked. Only women from the higher classes didn’t work, but these ladies made up a small percentage of the population in Israel.
As well as having a lower profile in society, the average woman had a lower profile in the Jewish religion. Women could be prophets, however. Prophets such as Anna, who is mentioned briefly in Luke’s Gospel, held a respected place in Jewish society. Philip’s four daughters were renowned as prophets. But there was no covenant symbol or ceremony, such as circumcision, that initiated girls or women into the Jewish religion. And women could not become Jewish priests. Women couldn’t even go beyond the court of women in the temple at Jerusalem, whereas Jewish men could have access more closely into the heart of the temple complex. And at that time, as far as we know, women couldn’t become rabbis, Jewish teachers of scripture.
It is true that a few ancient Jewish rabbis have said terrible things about women. Some even discouraged women from being taught the scriptures. But not all Jewish rabbis were anti-women. At least one Jewish rabbi had female disciples. Some of these female disciples even travelled with him and supported his mission from their own money. This rabbi treated women with respect. He taught both his male and female disciples the same theology—he didn’t have one version for men and another version for women—and he equipped them to tell others his message. This rabbi was known as Jesus of Nazareth. Our Jesus.
Jesus of Nazareth
During his earthly ministry, Jesus’ status as a rabbi was not in doubt. Even his opponents acknowledged this and some of them debated scriptural interpretations with him. Unlike the teaching of some other rabbis, however, Jesus’ interpretations and his teaching were not demanding or complicated or “heavy.”
In Matthew 11:28-30 Jesus says,
“Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.”
A yoke is a farming implement that joins two animals, such as oxen, together so they can share the workload evenly and become more productive together. Sometimes, an older, more experienced animal is yoked with a younger, less experienced animal, so that the older animal can “train” the younger animal (with its movements) while they work together.
By using the illustration of a yoke, Jesus is asking people to share and be partners with him in his work, in his ministry. He is also saying that he will train them. As well as being an agricultural implement, “yoke” was a technical term used in the context of rabbinic teaching. Every rabbi had their own “yoke”, that is, their own interpretations of Old Testament scriptures which the rabbi would pass on to his students, his disciples.
Being a disciple of a rabbi was like being an apprentice. Disciples usually spent long hours with their rabbi. Some of Jesus’ disciples had spent three years with him, sometimes 24/7, being trained. Others spent less time with him. But for many disciples, the goal of this training was to become a rabbi themselves.
Let’s look at some of the women who spent time with Rabbi Jesus and were taught by him.
Mary of Bethany
Luke 10:38-42 NIV:
As Jesus and his disciples were on their way, he came to a village [Bethany] where a woman named Martha opened her home to him. She had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet listening to what he said. But Martha was distracted by all the preparations that had to be made. She came to him and asked, “Lord, don’t you care that my sister has left me to do the work by myself? Tell her to help me!”
“Martha, Martha,” the Lord answered, “you are worried and upset about many things, but few things are needed—or indeed only one. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her.”
From this passage we can see that Martha was a good woman. Martha welcomed Jesus and his disciples into her home and appears to be preparing food for them. (Note that Martha does not seem to have a father or husband or son, and that she seems to be the one in charge of her own largish home.) Being hospitable and serving a meal to travellers was an almost sacred duty in the culture of that time. Martha was doing a very good thing, the expected thing, but Jesus says that Mary had chosen the better option, the one thing that was necessary. Exactly what was Mary doing that was so important? What could be more important than looking after Jesus and the other weary travellers?
Mary was sitting at Jesus’ feet listening to him speak. She was probably sitting alongside Jesus’ other disciples who included men, or perhaps were all men. Moreover, sitting at someone’s feet was the usual posture of a disciple who was being taught; “sitting at one’s feet” was an idiom. We see the same idiom in Acts 22:3 where Paul describes his own rabbinic education and says, “I am a Jew, born in Tarsus in Cilicia, but brought up in this city [Jerusalem] at the feet of Gamaliel [a famous rabbi], educated strictly according to our ancestral law …” (NRSV).
What Mary was doing was culturally inappropriate, something that was against society’s norms. She was neglecting the physical needs of her guests, ignoring the woman’s role, and sitting with men being taught. Yet according to Jesus, Mary had chosen the one thing that was really necessary: to be with Jesus and learn from him. And he promises that Mary’s choice to be among his disciples and learn will not be taken away from her.
Mary was not just a passive learner. Later, she would choose to do another fine thing when, in a room filled with disapproving onlookers, she lovingly anointed Jesus with her expensive perfume (John 12:1-8; cf. Matt. 26:6-13; Mark 14: 3-9). Did she knowingly anoint Jesus as a prophetic act foretelling his death? (cf. John 12:7). Mary was criticised and misunderstood because of her extravagant act of ministry, but Jesus defended her actions and he told Judas, among others, “Leave her alone” (John 12:7). These are some of my favourite words in the Bible; Jesus did not want the men to harass Mary or hinder ministry.
We know that Mary’s sister Martha also became a disciple of Jesus. One of the strongest affirmations of faith in the Gospels comes from her mouth. In John 11:27, Martha acknowledges that Jesus is more than a rabbi and she tells him, “I believe that you are the Messiah, the Son of God, who was to come into the world.”
More about Mary and Martha here.
The Samaritan Woman
Another woman who knew Jesus’ identity was the Samaritan woman who we can read in chapter four of John’s Gospel. Again, cultural conventions were broken when Jesus struck up a conversation with her. A man speaking to a woman who was not related to him in a public setting was not the done thing. Plus, she was a Samaritan, and there was a centuries-old animosity between the Jews and the Samaritans. But Jesus ignored this long-standing feud. He ignored the rules that said he couldn’t talk with a woman not related to him. Not only that, he asks to drink from her cup. This was truly astonishing and the biblical text points out that Jews do not “associate” with Samaritans. The Greek word for “associate” in this verse commonly means “the sharing of eating utensils and dishes.” And that’s exactly what Jesus wanted to do; he wants to drink from the Samaritan woman’s cup.
Jesus then begins talking with her about theology, a life-giving theology. The woman responds and asks genuine questions that Jesus answers. She is thirsty. The conversation between Jesus and this woman is the longest conversation recorded in the Gospels. As Jesus teaches her, she becomes increasingly aware of his spiritual stature and says, “I know that the Messiah is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us.” Jesus responds with, “That’s me,” or “I am him.” This is one of the few times in the Gospels where Jesus openly shares his true identity with someone.
Jesus had taught her theology. He had revealed who he was. The woman then acts on this knowledge and on the experience she has had with Jesus. When she realised who Jesus was, she left her water jar and ran into the village and told everyone about Jesus. Because of her, many Samaritans came to Jesus and became believers.
More about the Samaritan Woman here.
Galilean Women and Joanna
Most of the women who Jesus taught were not from Bethany (near Jerusalem) like Mary and Martha, or from Samaria; most of Jesus’ female followers were from Galilee a region further north. Luke 8:1-3 mentions that many women from Galilee travelled with Jesus and they provided for him out of their own resources. They used their own money. Here Luke identifies just three of the women—Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Susanna—but adds that there were many other women in this group. Matthew tells us in his Gospel that many women from Galilee travelled all the way to Jerusalem with Jesus and witnessed his crucifixion (Matt. 27:55-56).
I’ve often pictured Jesus roaming around Galilee with just twelve male disciples, but on several occasions, at the very least, there were many women with him also. How many is many? Did the women outnumber the men? We can only speculate as to how many women were among Jesus’ followers (cf. Acts 1:13-14). Note also that there were more than twelve male disciples.
No one can quite figure out how Jesus could have had so many female disciples without causing a scandal, especially considering that they travelled with him. And how can we explain Joanna, who is mentioned in Luke 8:2-3 & 24:9-10? Joanna was used to palace life and was possibly an aristocratic woman. But she chose to travel the dusty streets with Jesus and (perhaps) stay in the homes of strangers in Galilean towns. Can you imagine the gossip this would have caused? And the strain on Joanna’s marriage? But Jesus’ words, his healing power, his love and acceptance, and the purpose he gave to both women and men were powerful and transformative. And both women and men responded.
Mary the Magdalene
One woman who was prominent in this group of female disciples is Mary Magdalene. We don’t know when she became a follower of Jesus, but we hear quite a bit about her in the context of Jesus’ death and resurrection. Mark and John record in their Gospels that Mary Magdalene was the very first person to see Jesus alive after his resurrection (Mark 16:9; John 20:1ff, cf. Luke 24:1ff). A woman is the first witness of the resurrection.
My favourite Bible passage about Mary Magdalene is in John’s Gospel where we get to hear her speak (John 20:2, 11-18). John 20:16 is especially moving when Jesus simply calls her name “Mary,” and she responds with “Rabboni” which is an Aramaic word meaning “my master-teacher.” I am certain there was a strong, mutual affection between the two. But I don’t go as far as what some other people suggest: I don’t think they were married and there is no evidence she was ever a prostitute.
Mary Magdalene is mentioned by name in over a dozen verses in the Gospels and we should not downplay her role as one of Jesus’ foremost disciples. We should be especially careful that we don’t downplay the significance that she was the first person to see Jesus alive at the beginning of a new era, at the dawn of a new covenant, and that she was commissioned by Jesus to announce the message of his resurrection.
Mary indicates that Jesus had been her rabbi, her teacher. Jesus would have taught her theology, but she also had first-hand knowledge of the theology of Jesus’ resurrection. Following Jesus’ instructions, Mary went and told the other disciples the remarkable news, “I have seen the Lord!” (John 20:18).
More about Mary Magdalene here.
Mary the Mother of Jesus
We don’t know whether Mary Magdalene, Joanna, the Samaritan woman or Mary and Martha of Bethany, had children. The fact that the biblical text doesn’t provide this information is interesting as being a mother was considered the primary role of women in the ancient world, including, or especially, in Jewish society.
On one occasion Jesus had the opportunity to affirm the virtue and importance of motherhood. A woman in the crowd cried out and said to him, “Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you” (Luke 11:27). This was meant to be a huge compliment to Jesus and his mother Mary. How did Jesus respond? Did he accept the compliment?
Jesus replied with, “Blessed rather are those who are hearing the word of God and obeying it” (Luke 11:28 NIV). In no way did Jesus indicate that being a mother was necessary, or the only way, women can obey God’s word. I’m very grateful I could be a mother, and I love being a mother and grandmother. But nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus promote motherhood, or fatherhood, for that matter.
Yet Jesus’ mother was blessed. She was not only blessed because of her special role as the mother of the Messiah, she was also blessed because she had faith in the word of God and was willing to put her faith into action and comply with God’s will. The Bible says this about Mary, “Blessed is she who has believed that the Lord would fulfill his promises to her!” (Luke 1:45 NIV). Furthermore, Mary was the mother of Jesus but later she also became his disciple (cf. Acts 1:13-14).
In Luke’s Gospel, in the parable of the wise and foolish builders, Jesus said that a wise person is someone,“. . . who comes to me and hears my words and does them” (Luke 6:47). Jesus wants both women and men, girls and boys, to be continually coming to him in a close relationship; he wants us to be continually hearing his words; he wants us to be continually putting those words into obedient practice. This kind of discipleship is our highest calling!
At a time when women were regarded as odd and inferior by men and were excluded from many aspects of society, Jesus was interested in the lives of women. He came into this world through the body of a woman. He allowed women to touch him and to talk to him. He had sympathy for them. He healed them. He treated them with respect and dignity, even if they were diseased or were outcasts. He engaged them in conversations. He asked them questions and he gave them answers. He called them by name. Moreover, he understood that women were interested in theology and that they needed to know theology for themselves. He accepted them as disciples. And he died so they could be redeemed and fully included in the new covenant community of God’s people, the church.
Jesus ignored social customs and taboos that placed women at a disadvantage. He was undeterred by the religious restrictions Judaism placed on women. And when Jesus extended the invitation, “Take my yoke upon you and learn from me,” many women accepted his invitation.
Jesus had many female disciples, and he entrusted his teaching to them. And after their encounters with him, these women were equipped. They were equipped to talk about theology to others; they were equipped to worship him; they were equipped to serve him and serve others in his name; they were equipped to carry on his mission alongside the male disciples. Jesus is still calling women. He is still equipping women, as well as men, through his Spirit and his Word to be his agents and continue the work he started.
Jesus wants us to come to him and learn from him in a continuing relationship. He will teach us, guide us, and equip us to be effective in life and service, if we allow him. If we come to Jesus and do things his way, if we take on his yoke in partnership with him, he promises that we will find rest for our souls. In the process, we will become more like our rabbi Jesus and this is our highest goal.
From Dorothy Sayer’s essay, Are Women Human?
“Perhaps it is no wonder that the women were first at the Cradle and last at the Cross. They had never known a man like this Man—there never has been such another. A prophet and teacher who never nagged at them, never flattered or coaxed or patronised; who never made arch jokes about them, never treated them either as “The women, God help us!” or “The ladies, God bless them!”; who rebuked without querulousness and praised without condescension; who took their questions and arguments seriously; who never mapped out their sphere for them, never urged them to be feminine or jeered at them for being female; who had no axe to grind and no uneasy male dignity to defend; who took them as he found them and was completely unself-conscious. There is no act, no sermon, no parable in the whole Gospel that borrows its pungency from female perversity; nobody could possibly guess from the words and deeds of Jesus that there was anything “funny” about woman’s nature.”
Martha’s statement is similar to Peter’s statement in Matthew 16:15-17: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Partnering Together Series
3 things disciples can do to build unshakeable houses (Luke 6)
Male-Female Pairs and Parallelism in Luke’s Gospel
“Come to me”: A brief commentary on Matthew 11:28-30
Is motherhood the highest calling for women?
Beauty, Marriage, Motherhood and Ministry
Working Women in the New Testament | 4,044 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Our sun is said to be incapable of producing heavier elements, and these are thought to originate from older stars dying and going supernova. If our sun is 4-5 billion years old, and has a lifetime of 10 billion years, how could an earlier sun have lived and died in the short time between the creation of the universe and the birth of our fine solar system?
First, stars evolve at radically different rates. The higher the star's mass, the faster it evolves. The more massive stars had plenty of time to go through multiple generations before the Sun started to coalesce.
It went even faster than it does today, because the collapse of interstellar clouds to form stars is halted mainly by radiation pressure from the new star blowing the rest of its birth cloud away and ending accretion. Since hydrogen and helium are transparent to most of the new star's radiation, the very first stars could grow larger than stars do today. (They were pretty much made of nothing but H and He (with a bit of Li), since very little of the heavy elements had yet formed.) They went through their lifetimes and turned into supernovae and neutron stars very quickly. The largest had lifetimes on the order of just a million years.
So by a very short time after the first stars lit, they were already spewing heavy elements back into space and later stars already had some heavier elements in them at formation. The fraction of heavy elements has increased steadily since then, but the Sun formed many billions of years after heavy elements became common. | <urn:uuid:34c0156e-b930-4570-91c9-9da895fdfe2c> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/26852/how-can-heavy-elements-exist-when-the-universe-is-young-compared-to-the-lifetime | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251779833.86/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128153713-20200128183713-00527.warc.gz | en | 0.984511 | 310 | 3.765625 | 4 | [
-0.6536628007888794,
-0.1283339262008667,
-0.37423956394195557,
-0.35052308440208435,
0.23402421176433563,
0.4310373365879059,
-0.42181703448295593,
-0.00414753332734108,
0.30263736844062805,
0.15812712907791138,
0.23448598384857178,
-0.14362174272537231,
0.12859570980072021,
0.06304650008... | 8 | Our sun is said to be incapable of producing heavier elements, and these are thought to originate from older stars dying and going supernova. If our sun is 4-5 billion years old, and has a lifetime of 10 billion years, how could an earlier sun have lived and died in the short time between the creation of the universe and the birth of our fine solar system?
First, stars evolve at radically different rates. The higher the star's mass, the faster it evolves. The more massive stars had plenty of time to go through multiple generations before the Sun started to coalesce.
It went even faster than it does today, because the collapse of interstellar clouds to form stars is halted mainly by radiation pressure from the new star blowing the rest of its birth cloud away and ending accretion. Since hydrogen and helium are transparent to most of the new star's radiation, the very first stars could grow larger than stars do today. (They were pretty much made of nothing but H and He (with a bit of Li), since very little of the heavy elements had yet formed.) They went through their lifetimes and turned into supernovae and neutron stars very quickly. The largest had lifetimes on the order of just a million years.
So by a very short time after the first stars lit, they were already spewing heavy elements back into space and later stars already had some heavier elements in them at formation. The fraction of heavy elements has increased steadily since then, but the Sun formed many billions of years after heavy elements became common. | 312 | ENGLISH | 1 |
FREE Catholic Classes
A Spanish painter, architect, and sculptor, b. at Granada, 19 March, 1601; d. there 3 or 5 October, 1667. He received his first lessons in art from his father, Miguel Cano, an architect. Later he studied sculpture under Juan Montañés, and painting under Pacheco and Juan del Castillo. In 1625, when Herrera, the sculptor, was his teacher, he attained great fame by producing three coloured statues, now in the church at Lebrija: "The Virgin and Child", "St. Peter", and "St. Paul". They are all superb pieces of statuary, but the first is a masterpiece, conceived and executed in a noble, classical, simple style that rightly earned for Cano the title of the " Michelangelo of Spain ". Besides his single figures in marble, he chiselled many beautiful retables, or monumental altar-pieces.
Cano went to Madrid in 1637, and through the influence of the Duke of Olivarez and of Velasques, but chiefly because of his own merit, was made Master of the Royal Works, Painter to the King, and first in rank among the instructors of Don Balthasar Carlos. In Madrid he contributed plans for several palaces, city gates, and a triumphal arch for the entrance of Maria Anna of Austria, wife of Philip IV. In 1650 he became architect of the cathedral of Toledo. Cano was suspected of having murdered his wife, and was unjustly condemned and ordered to leave Madrid. He took refuge in Valencia, attained marked success there, painted a "Nativity", and a "St. John" for the city's great church, and entered the Carthusian convent, so as to be able to devote himself wholly to painting, which henceforth occupied him to the exclusion of sculpture. Tardy justice was done him when he returned to Madrid. He was restored to royal favour, but Cano felt that his only surety was in the Church ; therefore he took orders and became a resident of Granada. In 1652 Philip IV appointed him a canon in the cathedral of Granada. To the churches of Granada and Malaga he presented many pictures and statues. A councillor of the former city, having ordered a statue of St. Anthony of Padua from Cano, was charged one hundred doubloons, whereat he demurred, saying that the artist was demanding four pistoles per day for twenty-five days' work, which was more than he, Cano's superior, could earn. "It has taken fifty years of study to produce this!" cried Cano, hurling the statue to the pavement. For this indignity to a saint he was suspended by the Chapter of Granada. In 1658 the king restored Cano, and required him to complete a crucifix which the queen had ordered.
Cano was a greater sculptor than painter, but he would have attained fame as a painter even had he never worked in marble. His earlier work in colour was tentative, eclectic, and of little originality, but his later pictures, which fill the churches of Granada and Malaga, are splendid in drawing, brilliant in a colouring that vividly recalls Van Dyck's , full of imagination, and bold in design. His flesh tints are pure, the pose of his figures is statuesque, the lines are sharp, vigorous, and classical, and he had a profound knowledge of chiaroscuro. Cano led an exemplary life, his great fault being his ungovernable temper; he was industrious, studious, and very generous. It is related of him that, often, when he had no money for alms he would make a drawing for the beggar to sell. His abnormal antipathy to Jews was exemplified on his death-bed when he refused the Sacrament from a priest who had given it to converted Jews. Among his works mention may be made of: "St. Agnes" (Berlin); "The Dead Christ" (Madrid); "Virgin and Child" (St. Petersburg); " St. Anthony of Padua " (Munich); "Madonna and Child", sculpture, in the church of Lebrija (the ancient city of Nebrissa).
Copyright 2020 Catholic Online. All materials contained on this site, whether written, audible or visual are the exclusive property of Catholic Online and are protected under U.S. and International copyright laws, © Copyright 2020 Catholic Online. Any unauthorized use, without prior written consent of Catholic Online is strictly forbidden and prohibited.
Catholic Online is a Project of Your Catholic Voice Foundation, a Not-for-Profit Corporation. Your Catholic Voice Foundation has been granted a recognition of tax exemption under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Federal Tax Identification Number: 81-0596847. Your gift is tax-deductible as allowed by law. | <urn:uuid:49a052f9-66c9-44c8-864a-7dd2ff56bc48> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=2479 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250601040.47/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120224950-20200121013950-00540.warc.gz | en | 0.980576 | 1,014 | 3.265625 | 3 | [
0.38837873935699463,
-0.0027421871200203896,
0.2502022683620453,
-0.01022038422524929,
-0.15452858805656433,
-0.11917223781347275,
0.0603974349796772,
0.20315836369991302,
0.45848938822746277,
-0.1095917671918869,
-0.17408761382102966,
0.016339045017957687,
-0.512197732925415,
0.5157500505... | 1 | FREE Catholic Classes
A Spanish painter, architect, and sculptor, b. at Granada, 19 March, 1601; d. there 3 or 5 October, 1667. He received his first lessons in art from his father, Miguel Cano, an architect. Later he studied sculpture under Juan Montañés, and painting under Pacheco and Juan del Castillo. In 1625, when Herrera, the sculptor, was his teacher, he attained great fame by producing three coloured statues, now in the church at Lebrija: "The Virgin and Child", "St. Peter", and "St. Paul". They are all superb pieces of statuary, but the first is a masterpiece, conceived and executed in a noble, classical, simple style that rightly earned for Cano the title of the " Michelangelo of Spain ". Besides his single figures in marble, he chiselled many beautiful retables, or monumental altar-pieces.
Cano went to Madrid in 1637, and through the influence of the Duke of Olivarez and of Velasques, but chiefly because of his own merit, was made Master of the Royal Works, Painter to the King, and first in rank among the instructors of Don Balthasar Carlos. In Madrid he contributed plans for several palaces, city gates, and a triumphal arch for the entrance of Maria Anna of Austria, wife of Philip IV. In 1650 he became architect of the cathedral of Toledo. Cano was suspected of having murdered his wife, and was unjustly condemned and ordered to leave Madrid. He took refuge in Valencia, attained marked success there, painted a "Nativity", and a "St. John" for the city's great church, and entered the Carthusian convent, so as to be able to devote himself wholly to painting, which henceforth occupied him to the exclusion of sculpture. Tardy justice was done him when he returned to Madrid. He was restored to royal favour, but Cano felt that his only surety was in the Church ; therefore he took orders and became a resident of Granada. In 1652 Philip IV appointed him a canon in the cathedral of Granada. To the churches of Granada and Malaga he presented many pictures and statues. A councillor of the former city, having ordered a statue of St. Anthony of Padua from Cano, was charged one hundred doubloons, whereat he demurred, saying that the artist was demanding four pistoles per day for twenty-five days' work, which was more than he, Cano's superior, could earn. "It has taken fifty years of study to produce this!" cried Cano, hurling the statue to the pavement. For this indignity to a saint he was suspended by the Chapter of Granada. In 1658 the king restored Cano, and required him to complete a crucifix which the queen had ordered.
Cano was a greater sculptor than painter, but he would have attained fame as a painter even had he never worked in marble. His earlier work in colour was tentative, eclectic, and of little originality, but his later pictures, which fill the churches of Granada and Malaga, are splendid in drawing, brilliant in a colouring that vividly recalls Van Dyck's , full of imagination, and bold in design. His flesh tints are pure, the pose of his figures is statuesque, the lines are sharp, vigorous, and classical, and he had a profound knowledge of chiaroscuro. Cano led an exemplary life, his great fault being his ungovernable temper; he was industrious, studious, and very generous. It is related of him that, often, when he had no money for alms he would make a drawing for the beggar to sell. His abnormal antipathy to Jews was exemplified on his death-bed when he refused the Sacrament from a priest who had given it to converted Jews. Among his works mention may be made of: "St. Agnes" (Berlin); "The Dead Christ" (Madrid); "Virgin and Child" (St. Petersburg); " St. Anthony of Padua " (Munich); "Madonna and Child", sculpture, in the church of Lebrija (the ancient city of Nebrissa).
Copyright 2020 Catholic Online. All materials contained on this site, whether written, audible or visual are the exclusive property of Catholic Online and are protected under U.S. and International copyright laws, © Copyright 2020 Catholic Online. Any unauthorized use, without prior written consent of Catholic Online is strictly forbidden and prohibited.
Catholic Online is a Project of Your Catholic Voice Foundation, a Not-for-Profit Corporation. Your Catholic Voice Foundation has been granted a recognition of tax exemption under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Federal Tax Identification Number: 81-0596847. Your gift is tax-deductible as allowed by law. | 1,047 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The History of Sciacca
Sciacca was formerly situated in the territory of Selinus, which included the famous “Baths” known since antiquity as the “Thermae Selinuntiae” and “Aquae Selinuntiae”, located about twenty miles east of Selinus. We don’t know with absolute certainty when Sciacca was born, but the most likely hypothesis is that it was a place founded or rather “repopulated” by the inhabitants of “Selinunte” after their city was destroyed by the Carthaginians in 409 BC. Many of those who managed to escape the massacre, says Diodorus [90-27 BC], sought refuge in Agrigento, but when the Carthaginian storm passed, most of them returned to rebuild their town or to find a new place in the surrounding area, creating a new village which was called “Sciacca”. Turning to historical data, we see that the antiquity of Sciacca is attested to by writers such as Pomponius Mela (first century AD), who wrote that “inter Pachynum et Lilybaeum Agragas est et Heraclea et Thermae”, namely that “between Pachino and Lilibeo there were three cities, that is “Agragas”,”Heraclea”and “Thermae” (“Terme=Sciacca”) and by Strabo (58-25 BC) who mentioned the “Thermà Selinoùntia”, (“Baths of Selinunte”). After the destruction of Selinunte many took refuge to “Thermae”, which became more populous. Since it is a border town (see etymology below – the name probably refers to ‘The Separating”), it was for a long times fought over among the Greeks, the Carthaginians, and finally by the Romans, who conquered it after the First Punic War. With the Roman conquest, Sciacca became an important city, a role it held through the centuries, as the main “post office” town in Sicily. The fall of the Roman Empire also marked the end of the prosperity of Sciacca, who suffered destructive invasions by the Vandals and the Goths. Defeated by Justinian, Sicily come under the dominion of the Byzantines. During the Byzantine rule some hermit monks settled in the territory of Sciacca, including San Calogero, who christianized some people in several places of Sicily. He stayed in Sciacca as a hermit in a cave on Mount Kronio, now also known as Mount San Calogero. However it was the Arabs that marked forever the history (other than the name) of Sciacca. Since the 9th century they had began a policy of expansion in the Mediterranean and in 827 conquered Mazara and finally, with a widespread penetration in eastern Sicily, in 840 they also conquered “Thermae”, which became under their rule “As Saqqa” or Sciacca. The Arabs later fortified the city with massive walls and a tower, which were further strengthened under the Normans and Frederick II (1194-1250). Count Roger (1031-1101) built the famous “Old Castle”. Sciacca was dominated by the Normans and their descendants for many years. In particular, it was ruled by the descendants of Giliberto Perrollo, a Burgundian who came to Sicily in the wake of Count Roger, whose daughter he married. From 1208 Sciacca and Sicily was ruled by the powerful figure of Frederick II and then by his descendants, until the advent of Charles of Anjou (1226-1285). Sciacca also participated in the so called “War of the Vespers” against the rule of Anjou. Then the city was ruled by Guglielmo Peralta, who was responsible for the construction of the “New Castle”. Throughout the 16th century Sciacca was the center of the struggles between the powerful local families of Peralta, Perollo and Luna. Between the 17th and much of the 18th and 19th centuries the city was ruled first by the Spanish and then by the Bourbons, until the unification of Italy in 1861. | <urn:uuid:0e22e708-80de-49fa-8418-968f8f181a79> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://www.explorersicily.com/en/tourist-information/the-attractions-of-sciacca-sicily-excursion-tour-activity-turist-information/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250606269.37/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122012204-20200122041204-00388.warc.gz | en | 0.981861 | 925 | 3.453125 | 3 | [
-0.07946120202541351,
0.25219184160232544,
0.4782331585884094,
-0.11837693303823471,
-0.23488548398017883,
-0.022936323657631874,
0.3532387614250183,
0.049982950091362,
0.021197449415922165,
-0.12793086469173431,
0.05237197503447533,
-0.8513743281364441,
-0.25573641061782837,
0.33401921391... | 4 | The History of Sciacca
Sciacca was formerly situated in the territory of Selinus, which included the famous “Baths” known since antiquity as the “Thermae Selinuntiae” and “Aquae Selinuntiae”, located about twenty miles east of Selinus. We don’t know with absolute certainty when Sciacca was born, but the most likely hypothesis is that it was a place founded or rather “repopulated” by the inhabitants of “Selinunte” after their city was destroyed by the Carthaginians in 409 BC. Many of those who managed to escape the massacre, says Diodorus [90-27 BC], sought refuge in Agrigento, but when the Carthaginian storm passed, most of them returned to rebuild their town or to find a new place in the surrounding area, creating a new village which was called “Sciacca”. Turning to historical data, we see that the antiquity of Sciacca is attested to by writers such as Pomponius Mela (first century AD), who wrote that “inter Pachynum et Lilybaeum Agragas est et Heraclea et Thermae”, namely that “between Pachino and Lilibeo there were three cities, that is “Agragas”,”Heraclea”and “Thermae” (“Terme=Sciacca”) and by Strabo (58-25 BC) who mentioned the “Thermà Selinoùntia”, (“Baths of Selinunte”). After the destruction of Selinunte many took refuge to “Thermae”, which became more populous. Since it is a border town (see etymology below – the name probably refers to ‘The Separating”), it was for a long times fought over among the Greeks, the Carthaginians, and finally by the Romans, who conquered it after the First Punic War. With the Roman conquest, Sciacca became an important city, a role it held through the centuries, as the main “post office” town in Sicily. The fall of the Roman Empire also marked the end of the prosperity of Sciacca, who suffered destructive invasions by the Vandals and the Goths. Defeated by Justinian, Sicily come under the dominion of the Byzantines. During the Byzantine rule some hermit monks settled in the territory of Sciacca, including San Calogero, who christianized some people in several places of Sicily. He stayed in Sciacca as a hermit in a cave on Mount Kronio, now also known as Mount San Calogero. However it was the Arabs that marked forever the history (other than the name) of Sciacca. Since the 9th century they had began a policy of expansion in the Mediterranean and in 827 conquered Mazara and finally, with a widespread penetration in eastern Sicily, in 840 they also conquered “Thermae”, which became under their rule “As Saqqa” or Sciacca. The Arabs later fortified the city with massive walls and a tower, which were further strengthened under the Normans and Frederick II (1194-1250). Count Roger (1031-1101) built the famous “Old Castle”. Sciacca was dominated by the Normans and their descendants for many years. In particular, it was ruled by the descendants of Giliberto Perrollo, a Burgundian who came to Sicily in the wake of Count Roger, whose daughter he married. From 1208 Sciacca and Sicily was ruled by the powerful figure of Frederick II and then by his descendants, until the advent of Charles of Anjou (1226-1285). Sciacca also participated in the so called “War of the Vespers” against the rule of Anjou. Then the city was ruled by Guglielmo Peralta, who was responsible for the construction of the “New Castle”. Throughout the 16th century Sciacca was the center of the struggles between the powerful local families of Peralta, Perollo and Luna. Between the 17th and much of the 18th and 19th centuries the city was ruled first by the Spanish and then by the Bourbons, until the unification of Italy in 1861. | 927 | ENGLISH | 1 |
There are no products in your shopping cart.
Are our actions determined by the past or by the future? We often speak of implementing plans, looking to the future, and having goals in mind. Our behavior is said to have purpose and intention, to be pulled toward whatever future events we “have in mind.” Yet, all scientists, including behavior analysts, subscribe to the idea that causes come before effects, not after. If we accept this, then it is not possible to explain our present actions in terms of things that have not yet happened. Explaining behavior by referring to its future consequences is called a teleological explanation, and it really doesn’t explain anything
Our behavior is more reasonably described as being pushed by the past, rather than pulled by the future. A rat presses the lever not “to get food” – that description puts the reason for the rat’s behavior in the future – but rather because it has a history of reinforcement for pressing the lever. We do as we do and are as we are because of our unique experiences, and our shared cultural experiences. These experiences constitute our behavioral histories.
If behavior is pushed as I suggest, how do we account for the common ways of talking about purposes, goals, and intentions? Or for the fact that B. F. Skinner himself (in his book About Behaviorism) once famously observed that “[o]perant behavior is the very field of purpose and intention”?
Our goals, purposes, and intentions are usually in the form of verbal statements: “I will go to the grocery store”; “I’m gonna get me a beer and a smoke”; “I intend to finish school by the time I am 24”; “My goal is to ace this class.” In our past, stating goals or having them stated by others, has resulted in reinforcement. Thus, these verbal statements come to function as discriminative stimuli, stimuli that set the occasion for our behavior to be reinforced. Telling ourselves or others what our goals are can serve as a stimulus that, metaphorically speaking, pushes our behavior in certain directions. It is controlled not by what might be in the future, but by what has been and what is now. Such behavior sometimes is described as being rule governed.
But, what about Dr. Skinner? In light of what I have been saying, shouldn’t he know better than to talk like that? Read his book - he’s making a point. He’s saying that the things that interest him as a behavioral scientist are the very things that people often describe as being determined by their purposes or intentions. It’s just that, on closer examination, as I illustrate above, what we call purposes, intentions, and goals can be turned around so that the behavior leading to them is really more usefully viewed as pushed, rather than pulled.
© Aubrey Daniels International, Inc. All rights reserved. 2020 | <urn:uuid:a86fc33b-8db2-4156-ad32-dda7f717adc8> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.aubreydaniels.com/blog/pushing-or-pulling-behavior | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250593994.14/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118221909-20200119005909-00161.warc.gz | en | 0.980529 | 616 | 3.375 | 3 | [
-0.16579186916351318,
0.20449519157409668,
0.28169870376586914,
-0.25419628620147705,
-0.5486172437667847,
0.027875887230038643,
0.850163459777832,
0.40354153513908386,
0.38877201080322266,
0.00196898658759892,
0.06074843183159828,
-0.12931515276432037,
-0.15012365579605103,
0.121629044413... | 4 | There are no products in your shopping cart.
Are our actions determined by the past or by the future? We often speak of implementing plans, looking to the future, and having goals in mind. Our behavior is said to have purpose and intention, to be pulled toward whatever future events we “have in mind.” Yet, all scientists, including behavior analysts, subscribe to the idea that causes come before effects, not after. If we accept this, then it is not possible to explain our present actions in terms of things that have not yet happened. Explaining behavior by referring to its future consequences is called a teleological explanation, and it really doesn’t explain anything
Our behavior is more reasonably described as being pushed by the past, rather than pulled by the future. A rat presses the lever not “to get food” – that description puts the reason for the rat’s behavior in the future – but rather because it has a history of reinforcement for pressing the lever. We do as we do and are as we are because of our unique experiences, and our shared cultural experiences. These experiences constitute our behavioral histories.
If behavior is pushed as I suggest, how do we account for the common ways of talking about purposes, goals, and intentions? Or for the fact that B. F. Skinner himself (in his book About Behaviorism) once famously observed that “[o]perant behavior is the very field of purpose and intention”?
Our goals, purposes, and intentions are usually in the form of verbal statements: “I will go to the grocery store”; “I’m gonna get me a beer and a smoke”; “I intend to finish school by the time I am 24”; “My goal is to ace this class.” In our past, stating goals or having them stated by others, has resulted in reinforcement. Thus, these verbal statements come to function as discriminative stimuli, stimuli that set the occasion for our behavior to be reinforced. Telling ourselves or others what our goals are can serve as a stimulus that, metaphorically speaking, pushes our behavior in certain directions. It is controlled not by what might be in the future, but by what has been and what is now. Such behavior sometimes is described as being rule governed.
But, what about Dr. Skinner? In light of what I have been saying, shouldn’t he know better than to talk like that? Read his book - he’s making a point. He’s saying that the things that interest him as a behavioral scientist are the very things that people often describe as being determined by their purposes or intentions. It’s just that, on closer examination, as I illustrate above, what we call purposes, intentions, and goals can be turned around so that the behavior leading to them is really more usefully viewed as pushed, rather than pulled.
© Aubrey Daniels International, Inc. All rights reserved. 2020 | 582 | ENGLISH | 1 |
A new study suggests that some homemade soups – made of chicken, beef or vegetables — might help fight malaria.
Jake Baum of the Imperial College London led the research.
He asked children at a London school to bring in homemade clear soups that their families would make to treat a fever.
The children were from many different cultural backgrounds.
The soups were then exposed to the parasite that creates 99.7 percent of malaria cases in Africa, the World Health Organization, WHO, explained.
Of the 56 soups tested, five were more than 50 percent effective in containing the growth of the parasite.
Two were as effective as one drug now used to treat malaria.
And four soups were more than 50 percent effective at preventing parasites from aging to the point that they could infect mosquitoes that spread the disease.
Baum and his team reported their results recently in the publication Archives of Disease in Childhood.
When we started getting soups that worked — in the lab under very restricted conditions— we were really happy and excited, Baum said in an email to Agence France Presse.
Baum also noted that it was unclear which foods made the soups effective against malaria.
If we were serious about going back and finding the...ingredient, like good scientists, we'd have to do it in a very standardized way, he said.
The soups came from families from different ethnic histories, including Europe, North Africa and the Middle East.
They had several main ingredients, including chicken, beef and green vegetables.
Baum said the vegetarian soups showed similar results to the soups with meat.
Baum said his aim was in part to show children that scientific research can turn an herbal cure into a man-made medicine. | <urn:uuid:8ae621a5-3fb7-42f4-998d-cf3c364365a7> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://bronzeagewichita.com/?H0OpIISFH0ONTtZPNt0RNk0SONDVNtZnEyyTKyt.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250619323.41/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124100832-20200124125832-00540.warc.gz | en | 0.985578 | 361 | 3.390625 | 3 | [
-0.2433445155620575,
0.15476685762405396,
0.41751986742019653,
-0.07619812339544296,
0.2915049195289612,
-0.034239161759614944,
0.06094367057085037,
0.23190657794475555,
-0.6917086243629456,
-0.11699624359607697,
-0.14388996362686157,
0.05929093807935715,
0.32064199447631836,
0.03082298673... | 1 | A new study suggests that some homemade soups – made of chicken, beef or vegetables — might help fight malaria.
Jake Baum of the Imperial College London led the research.
He asked children at a London school to bring in homemade clear soups that their families would make to treat a fever.
The children were from many different cultural backgrounds.
The soups were then exposed to the parasite that creates 99.7 percent of malaria cases in Africa, the World Health Organization, WHO, explained.
Of the 56 soups tested, five were more than 50 percent effective in containing the growth of the parasite.
Two were as effective as one drug now used to treat malaria.
And four soups were more than 50 percent effective at preventing parasites from aging to the point that they could infect mosquitoes that spread the disease.
Baum and his team reported their results recently in the publication Archives of Disease in Childhood.
When we started getting soups that worked — in the lab under very restricted conditions— we were really happy and excited, Baum said in an email to Agence France Presse.
Baum also noted that it was unclear which foods made the soups effective against malaria.
If we were serious about going back and finding the...ingredient, like good scientists, we'd have to do it in a very standardized way, he said.
The soups came from families from different ethnic histories, including Europe, North Africa and the Middle East.
They had several main ingredients, including chicken, beef and green vegetables.
Baum said the vegetarian soups showed similar results to the soups with meat.
Baum said his aim was in part to show children that scientific research can turn an herbal cure into a man-made medicine. | 349 | ENGLISH | 1 |
SURNAMES as we know them today were first assumed in Europe from the 11th to the 15th Century. They were not in use in England or in Scotland before the Norman Conquest, and were first found in the Domesday Book. The employment in the use of a second name was a custom that was first introduced from the Normans. They themselves had not long before adopted them. It became, in course of time, a mark of gentler blood, and it was deemed a disgrace for gentlemen to have but one single name, as the meaner sort had. It was not until the reign of Edward II (1307-1327) it became general practice amongst all people. MacINNES was of territorial origin from the barony of the same name in the parish of Urquart, Moray. Part of the barony is formed by two branches of a stream running through it, hence the name from the Gaelic 'Innes' meaning island. This clan is of ancient origin, and is found in Moray in the 12th century. The first of the name on record was a Fleming named Berowald, who obtained from Malcolm IV. a charter of the lands of Innes at Ethercurecard in the province of Elgin. The existence of this Berowald is confirmed by a charter to his grandson, Walter de Ineys, granted in 1226. Alexander, 13th of Innes, had granted large land and received many charters between the years 1493-1533. At first the coat of arms was a practical matter which served a function on the battlefield and in tournaments. With his helmet covering his face, and armour encasing the knight from head to foot, the only means of identification for his followers, was the insignia painted on his shield and embroidered on his surcoat, the flowing and draped garment worn over the armour. Alba, the country which became Scotland, was once shared by four races; the Picts who controlled most of the land north of the Central Belt; the Britons, who had their capital at Dumbarton and held sway over the south west, including modern Cumbria; the Angles, who were Germanic in origin and annexed much of the Eastern Borders in the seventh century, and the Scots. The latter came to Alba from the north of Ireland late in the 5th century to establish a colony in present day Argyll, which they named Dalriada, after their homeland. The Latin name SCOTTI simply means a Gaelic speaker.
Orders over $85 qualify for Free Shipping within the U.S. (Use coupon code: FREESHIP). | <urn:uuid:2b391000-3a12-4405-9fb9-e706adf7457f> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://www.4crests.com/macinnes-coat-of-arms.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250616186.38/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124070934-20200124095934-00073.warc.gz | en | 0.986871 | 541 | 3.390625 | 3 | [
-0.27533555030822754,
0.019893284887075424,
0.08267464488744736,
-0.035457901656627655,
-0.129277765750885,
-0.33742856979370117,
0.46539270877838135,
-0.3713946044445038,
0.3481869697570801,
-0.10463769733905792,
0.0911102294921875,
-0.557519793510437,
0.0919836014509201,
0.06065468490123... | 1 | SURNAMES as we know them today were first assumed in Europe from the 11th to the 15th Century. They were not in use in England or in Scotland before the Norman Conquest, and were first found in the Domesday Book. The employment in the use of a second name was a custom that was first introduced from the Normans. They themselves had not long before adopted them. It became, in course of time, a mark of gentler blood, and it was deemed a disgrace for gentlemen to have but one single name, as the meaner sort had. It was not until the reign of Edward II (1307-1327) it became general practice amongst all people. MacINNES was of territorial origin from the barony of the same name in the parish of Urquart, Moray. Part of the barony is formed by two branches of a stream running through it, hence the name from the Gaelic 'Innes' meaning island. This clan is of ancient origin, and is found in Moray in the 12th century. The first of the name on record was a Fleming named Berowald, who obtained from Malcolm IV. a charter of the lands of Innes at Ethercurecard in the province of Elgin. The existence of this Berowald is confirmed by a charter to his grandson, Walter de Ineys, granted in 1226. Alexander, 13th of Innes, had granted large land and received many charters between the years 1493-1533. At first the coat of arms was a practical matter which served a function on the battlefield and in tournaments. With his helmet covering his face, and armour encasing the knight from head to foot, the only means of identification for his followers, was the insignia painted on his shield and embroidered on his surcoat, the flowing and draped garment worn over the armour. Alba, the country which became Scotland, was once shared by four races; the Picts who controlled most of the land north of the Central Belt; the Britons, who had their capital at Dumbarton and held sway over the south west, including modern Cumbria; the Angles, who were Germanic in origin and annexed much of the Eastern Borders in the seventh century, and the Scots. The latter came to Alba from the north of Ireland late in the 5th century to establish a colony in present day Argyll, which they named Dalriada, after their homeland. The Latin name SCOTTI simply means a Gaelic speaker.
Orders over $85 qualify for Free Shipping within the U.S. (Use coupon code: FREESHIP). | 564 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Learning about Length
We’ve started a new chapter in our ‘Maths – No Problem’ lessons this half term. We’ve began learning all about measuring length.
We began by looking at resources/tools we may use to measure length- rulers, metre sticks or even a tape measure.
The children were then given an investigation in groups- how tall are your team? The children had to work reciprocally in order to measure each member accurately and record their findings in their journals.
The children then looked at the data carefully and answered the following questions:
-Who was the tallest member of your team?
-Who was the smallest member of your team?
-If you added up the height of every member, how tall would you be altogether?
-Can you write your answer in both metres AND centimetres?
A thoroughly enjoyable lesson and the children have really grasped how to measure accurately and record their findings carefully. | <urn:uuid:177a4866-e636-463d-8f6b-00f13a1d12db> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.southill.dorset.sch.uk/news/learning-about-length/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250592394.9/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118081234-20200118105234-00187.warc.gz | en | 0.986958 | 196 | 4.34375 | 4 | [
-0.3203027546405792,
-0.1697150617837906,
0.3849775791168213,
-0.24446368217468262,
-0.41716644167900085,
0.09800942987203598,
0.06566862016916275,
0.39198553562164307,
0.29202672839164734,
0.040146831423044205,
0.4514119327068329,
-0.4940849542617798,
0.2319125235080719,
0.527329683303833... | 3 | Learning about Length
We’ve started a new chapter in our ‘Maths – No Problem’ lessons this half term. We’ve began learning all about measuring length.
We began by looking at resources/tools we may use to measure length- rulers, metre sticks or even a tape measure.
The children were then given an investigation in groups- how tall are your team? The children had to work reciprocally in order to measure each member accurately and record their findings in their journals.
The children then looked at the data carefully and answered the following questions:
-Who was the tallest member of your team?
-Who was the smallest member of your team?
-If you added up the height of every member, how tall would you be altogether?
-Can you write your answer in both metres AND centimetres?
A thoroughly enjoyable lesson and the children have really grasped how to measure accurately and record their findings carefully. | 183 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Archaeologists believe they may have discovered the lost city of Kane, the site of the epic sea battle of Arginusae, which saw Athens crush Sparta in 406 BC. Archaeologists weren’t exactly sure where this island was located, until now.
An international team of archaeologists working with the German Archeological Institute think they may have found Kane in the Aegean Sea, just off the coast of Turkey. The ancient sea battle between the Athenians and Spartans is estimated to have happened towards the end of the 27-year Peloponnesian War.
It was a bittersweet win for the Athenians. Due to a storm the commanders abandoned thousands of their shipwrecked men after the war, something that was considered very dishonorable in the ancient times, as punishment six of them were executed and two were sent into exile on their return to Athens.
The Battle of Arginusae got its name due to its close proximity to the “Arginus” islands, which are now called the Garip islands. Ancient texts always cited the Arginus islands as having three land masses, though they are only two located where the Garip islands are today. What happened to the third island has been a mystery.
Researchers wondered if a nearby peninsula was perhaps the missing island, so they drilled into it and they made an interesting discovery, they found evidence that what is now a peninsula was once an island. | <urn:uuid:73134ab2-2775-45af-bf4f-c54d6fe1b00c> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://greece.greekreporter.com/2015/11/25/lost-ancient-greek-island-has-been-found/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250603761.28/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121103642-20200121132642-00448.warc.gz | en | 0.988522 | 293 | 3.53125 | 4 | [
-0.531736433506012,
0.24356651306152344,
0.039740391075611115,
0.009934600442647934,
-0.3275199234485626,
-0.655588686466217,
0.09355626255273819,
0.16967160999774933,
-0.47058817744255066,
0.2877320349216461,
-0.14112409949302673,
-0.6354318261146545,
-0.147366002202034,
0.770915508270263... | 2 | Archaeologists believe they may have discovered the lost city of Kane, the site of the epic sea battle of Arginusae, which saw Athens crush Sparta in 406 BC. Archaeologists weren’t exactly sure where this island was located, until now.
An international team of archaeologists working with the German Archeological Institute think they may have found Kane in the Aegean Sea, just off the coast of Turkey. The ancient sea battle between the Athenians and Spartans is estimated to have happened towards the end of the 27-year Peloponnesian War.
It was a bittersweet win for the Athenians. Due to a storm the commanders abandoned thousands of their shipwrecked men after the war, something that was considered very dishonorable in the ancient times, as punishment six of them were executed and two were sent into exile on their return to Athens.
The Battle of Arginusae got its name due to its close proximity to the “Arginus” islands, which are now called the Garip islands. Ancient texts always cited the Arginus islands as having three land masses, though they are only two located where the Garip islands are today. What happened to the third island has been a mystery.
Researchers wondered if a nearby peninsula was perhaps the missing island, so they drilled into it and they made an interesting discovery, they found evidence that what is now a peninsula was once an island. | 291 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Cromwell did not only enslave Catholics. Poor white Protestants on the English mainland fared no better. In February, 1656 he ordered his soldiers to find 1,200 poor English women for enslavement and deportation to the colonies. In March he repeated the order but increased the quota to 2,000 young women of England. In the same year, Cromwells Council of State ordered all the homeless poor of Scotland, male and female, transported to Jamaica for enslavement (Eric Williams, p. 101).
Of course, Cromwell and the Puritan ruling class were not the only ones involved in the enslavement of Whites. During the Restoration reign of King Charles II, the monarch with Catholic sympathizers who had been Cromwells arch-enemy, the king enslaved large groups of poor Presbyterians and Scottish Covenanters and deported them to the plantations in turn.
Legislation sponsored by King Charles II in 1686, intended to ensure the enslavement of Protestant rebels in the Caribbean colonies, was so harsh that one observer noted, The condition of these Rebels was by this Act made as bad, if not worse than the Blacks. (Richard Hall, Acts Passed in the Island of Barbados, p. 484).
By far the largest number and certainly the most important group of white indentured servants were the poor Protestants from Europe. (Warren B. Smith, p. 44).
Slaves or Indentured Servants
There has been a lot of whitewashing of the Irish slave trade, partly by not mentioning it, and partly by labeling slaves as indentured servants. There were indeed indentureds, including English, French, Spanish and even a few Irish. But there is a great difference between the two. Indentures bind two or more parties in mutual obligations. Servant indentures were agreements between an individual and a shipper in which the individual agreed to sell his services for a period of time in exchange for passage, and during his service, he would receive proper housing, food, clothing, and usually a piece of land at the end of the term of service.
It is believed that some of the Irish that went to the Amazon settlement after the Battle of Kinsale and up to 1612 were exiled military who went voluntarily, probably as indentureds to Spanish or Portuguese shippers. However, from 1625 onward the Irish were sold, pure and simple as slaves.
There were no indenture agreements, no protection, no choice. They were captured and originally turned over to shippers to be sold for their profit. Because the profits were so great, generally 900 pounds of cotton for a slave, the Irish slave trade became an industry in which everyone involved (except the Irish) had a share of the profits. | <urn:uuid:bb392650-73bf-42ce-b8b5-4ab2975b3aa7> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://www.molonlabemedia.com/2016/04/22/irish-slavery-meme/9/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250626449.79/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124221147-20200125010147-00495.warc.gz | en | 0.982869 | 561 | 4.25 | 4 | [
-0.13932862877845764,
-0.20486652851104736,
0.13065233826637268,
-0.2914315462112427,
-0.09614694118499756,
-0.1671554148197174,
-0.04948757588863373,
-0.31141602993011475,
0.23666518926620483,
0.20275621116161346,
-0.14818984270095825,
-0.4953520894050598,
-0.16378560662269592,
0.19425010... | 2 | Cromwell did not only enslave Catholics. Poor white Protestants on the English mainland fared no better. In February, 1656 he ordered his soldiers to find 1,200 poor English women for enslavement and deportation to the colonies. In March he repeated the order but increased the quota to 2,000 young women of England. In the same year, Cromwells Council of State ordered all the homeless poor of Scotland, male and female, transported to Jamaica for enslavement (Eric Williams, p. 101).
Of course, Cromwell and the Puritan ruling class were not the only ones involved in the enslavement of Whites. During the Restoration reign of King Charles II, the monarch with Catholic sympathizers who had been Cromwells arch-enemy, the king enslaved large groups of poor Presbyterians and Scottish Covenanters and deported them to the plantations in turn.
Legislation sponsored by King Charles II in 1686, intended to ensure the enslavement of Protestant rebels in the Caribbean colonies, was so harsh that one observer noted, The condition of these Rebels was by this Act made as bad, if not worse than the Blacks. (Richard Hall, Acts Passed in the Island of Barbados, p. 484).
By far the largest number and certainly the most important group of white indentured servants were the poor Protestants from Europe. (Warren B. Smith, p. 44).
Slaves or Indentured Servants
There has been a lot of whitewashing of the Irish slave trade, partly by not mentioning it, and partly by labeling slaves as indentured servants. There were indeed indentureds, including English, French, Spanish and even a few Irish. But there is a great difference between the two. Indentures bind two or more parties in mutual obligations. Servant indentures were agreements between an individual and a shipper in which the individual agreed to sell his services for a period of time in exchange for passage, and during his service, he would receive proper housing, food, clothing, and usually a piece of land at the end of the term of service.
It is believed that some of the Irish that went to the Amazon settlement after the Battle of Kinsale and up to 1612 were exiled military who went voluntarily, probably as indentureds to Spanish or Portuguese shippers. However, from 1625 onward the Irish were sold, pure and simple as slaves.
There were no indenture agreements, no protection, no choice. They were captured and originally turned over to shippers to be sold for their profit. Because the profits were so great, generally 900 pounds of cotton for a slave, the Irish slave trade became an industry in which everyone involved (except the Irish) had a share of the profits. | 591 | ENGLISH | 1 |
At various locals in the in the ancient world, trees were associated with different gods, and Egypt was certainly no exception. We know of no trees, or for that matter other vegetation in Egypt that was honored as specific gods as were bulls or rams, for example. Nevertheless, various vegetation was connected to gods and goddess in one way or another, or generally to Egyptian religion and specifically the afterlife.
There were several deities that were associated with trees, a rare commodity in Egypt. Horus was associated with the acacia, while Osiris and Re were tied with the willow and the sycamore, respectively. Osiris was sheltered by a willow after he was killed, and for example, the The Book of the Dead describes two "sycamores of turquoise" growing at the point on the eastern horizon where the sun-god rises each morning. Re was also associated with the ished tree. Also, Wepwawet was paired with the Tamarisk, and the symbol of the god Heh was a palm branch, while not surprisingly, we have both Thoth and Seshat, the two deities associated with writing, inscribing the leaves of either the ished (or persea) tree with the Royal Titulary and the number of years in the pharaoh's reign.
However, none of these mail deities were associated with trees nearly as much as a number of female deities. The sycamore specifically was regarded as a manifestation of the goddesses Nut, Isisand Hathor, who was even given the title, "Lady of the Sycamore". In fact, this title has been interpreted to relate to a specific and particularly old tree that once stood to the south of the Temple of Ptah at Memphis during the Old Kingdom.
The Sycamore tree was of special significance in Egyptian religion. It was the only native tree of useful size and sturdiness in Egypt, and perhaps very significantly, most often grew along the edge of the desert, which would have also placed it near or in the necropolises.
Tree Goddess from the tomb of Pashedu
in the Valley of the Kings
There were also a number of minor tree goddesses who were depicted in a number of ways. There were simply images of trees labeled as goddesses as well as fully anthropomorphic personifications of tree goddesses. Perhaps the most unusual representation is that of the upper body of a goddess rising from the trunk at the center of a tree, or sometimes a tree sprouting out of the head, such as in the case of Nut.
Many representations were made depicting Hathor, Nut or some other goddess reaching out from a tree to offer the deceased food and water. Sometimes only the arms of the goddess were shown providing food or water and in the tomb of Tuthmosis III, the king is shown being nursed at the breast of "his mother Isis" in the form of a sycamore tree. Hathor had an especially important role in the afterlife of the deceased.
In tomb depictions, the deceased, frequently accompanied by his wife, was shown sitting under or near the branches of a tree, with Hathor sprouting from the trunk, enjoying the fruit and drink offered by this goddess. An excellent example of such a representation is in the Theban tomb of Sennedjem.
Scenes and inscriptions clearly show a link between the tree-goddess, the symbol of renewal, and the dead in the form of the avian Ba, for as a bird, the soul of the dead was attracted to, and nourished by the tree.
Notably, the identification of several maternal deities as tree goddesses also meant that burial in a wooden coffin was viewed as a return to the womb of the mother goddess.
Today in Egypt, trees have not altogether died out as religious symbols, for their remains at least several sites where trees have modern religious significance, associated with, for example, the Holy Virgin Mary.
EGYPTIAN GODS INDEX
ANCIENT EGYPT INDEX
ANCIENT CIVILIZATIONS INDEX
CRYSTALINKS HOME PAGE
PSYCHIC READING WITH ELLIE
2012 THE ALCHEMY OF TIME | <urn:uuid:04dd0ce7-cbe7-432b-93d8-63adbe1943d5> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.crystalinks.com/treegoddesses.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251671078.88/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125071430-20200125100430-00412.warc.gz | en | 0.985397 | 867 | 3.375 | 3 | [
0.1532629281282425,
0.4143012464046478,
0.12470657378435135,
-0.029250580817461014,
0.02777276560664177,
-0.16998662054538727,
0.3792283535003662,
-0.17873544991016388,
0.32142412662506104,
0.38977962732315063,
-0.24723447859287262,
-0.8619384765625,
0.10747911036014557,
0.1599151194095611... | 3 | At various locals in the in the ancient world, trees were associated with different gods, and Egypt was certainly no exception. We know of no trees, or for that matter other vegetation in Egypt that was honored as specific gods as were bulls or rams, for example. Nevertheless, various vegetation was connected to gods and goddess in one way or another, or generally to Egyptian religion and specifically the afterlife.
There were several deities that were associated with trees, a rare commodity in Egypt. Horus was associated with the acacia, while Osiris and Re were tied with the willow and the sycamore, respectively. Osiris was sheltered by a willow after he was killed, and for example, the The Book of the Dead describes two "sycamores of turquoise" growing at the point on the eastern horizon where the sun-god rises each morning. Re was also associated with the ished tree. Also, Wepwawet was paired with the Tamarisk, and the symbol of the god Heh was a palm branch, while not surprisingly, we have both Thoth and Seshat, the two deities associated with writing, inscribing the leaves of either the ished (or persea) tree with the Royal Titulary and the number of years in the pharaoh's reign.
However, none of these mail deities were associated with trees nearly as much as a number of female deities. The sycamore specifically was regarded as a manifestation of the goddesses Nut, Isisand Hathor, who was even given the title, "Lady of the Sycamore". In fact, this title has been interpreted to relate to a specific and particularly old tree that once stood to the south of the Temple of Ptah at Memphis during the Old Kingdom.
The Sycamore tree was of special significance in Egyptian religion. It was the only native tree of useful size and sturdiness in Egypt, and perhaps very significantly, most often grew along the edge of the desert, which would have also placed it near or in the necropolises.
Tree Goddess from the tomb of Pashedu
in the Valley of the Kings
There were also a number of minor tree goddesses who were depicted in a number of ways. There were simply images of trees labeled as goddesses as well as fully anthropomorphic personifications of tree goddesses. Perhaps the most unusual representation is that of the upper body of a goddess rising from the trunk at the center of a tree, or sometimes a tree sprouting out of the head, such as in the case of Nut.
Many representations were made depicting Hathor, Nut or some other goddess reaching out from a tree to offer the deceased food and water. Sometimes only the arms of the goddess were shown providing food or water and in the tomb of Tuthmosis III, the king is shown being nursed at the breast of "his mother Isis" in the form of a sycamore tree. Hathor had an especially important role in the afterlife of the deceased.
In tomb depictions, the deceased, frequently accompanied by his wife, was shown sitting under or near the branches of a tree, with Hathor sprouting from the trunk, enjoying the fruit and drink offered by this goddess. An excellent example of such a representation is in the Theban tomb of Sennedjem.
Scenes and inscriptions clearly show a link between the tree-goddess, the symbol of renewal, and the dead in the form of the avian Ba, for as a bird, the soul of the dead was attracted to, and nourished by the tree.
Notably, the identification of several maternal deities as tree goddesses also meant that burial in a wooden coffin was viewed as a return to the womb of the mother goddess.
Today in Egypt, trees have not altogether died out as religious symbols, for their remains at least several sites where trees have modern religious significance, associated with, for example, the Holy Virgin Mary.
EGYPTIAN GODS INDEX
ANCIENT EGYPT INDEX
ANCIENT CIVILIZATIONS INDEX
CRYSTALINKS HOME PAGE
PSYCHIC READING WITH ELLIE
2012 THE ALCHEMY OF TIME | 867 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Eric was born around 1090, to King Eric I of Denmark and an unknown concubine. He was given some Danish isles by his half-brother Canute Lavard, and was jarl of Møn, Lolland, and Falster. When Lavard was murdered in 1131, Eric joined his half-brother Harald Kesja in a rebellion against the responsible king Niels of Denmark. Eric was elected Danish Antiking in Scania in April 1131, which prompted Kesja to support Niels in jealousy.
Eric's army lost several battles against Niels and his son Magnus the Strong, including Jelling in Jutland in 1131 and Værbro on Zealand, and he fled to Scania. His retreat earned him the nickname Harefoot. Eric unsuccessfully tried to convince Lothair III, Holy Roman Emperor to support his bid for kingship, and had no luck asking Magnus IV of Norway for help. He returned to Scania in 1134, where Archbishop Asser of Lund joined his cause, and Lothair eventually supported him as well. In 1134, he defeated king Niels' entire army at the Battle of Fotevik in Scania, with the crucial help of German mounted mercenaries, and Niels died within the year.
Eric was proclaimed king at Scania's landsting assembly at St Liber's Hill, and made Lund his capital city. With the resounding victory at Fotevik, Eric was given the nickname the Memorable to replace Harefoot. Kesja returned to Denmark, and was proclaimed king at Urnehoved landsting in Schleswig. Eric chased him down and killed Kesja and his sons, of whom only Olaf Haraldsen escaped with his life.
He then sought to consolidate and legitimize his rule. He gave titles and privileges to his supporters, and proclaimed Asser's nephew as Bishop Eskil of Roskilde. He initiated the process of getting his half-brother Canute Lavard canonized, and established an abbey at Ringsted to document reports of miracles at Canute's grave. Eric wanted to establish the divine right of kings, and canonizing Canute would support his claim on the throne. Canute was finally canonized in 1170.
Eric was known as a harsh king to his enemies. In the summer of 1136, Eric undertook a crusade against the pagan population on the Baltic island of Rügen and its capital Arkona. He ordered his men to dig a canal between the city and the rest of the island. The canal had the effect of drying up the spring which supplied Arkona with drinking water. Arkona was forced to surrender. But in 1135, before this success in Arkona, Eric defeated in a naval battle near Denmark's coast the Slavs under Duke Ratibor who had sacked Roskilde (the Danish capital), and a year later, after the battle of Konungahela, (now Kungälv in Sweden), sacked this city too. He joined Magnus for an unsuccessful campaign in Norway, where he managed to burn down Oslo. When he learned that Eskil had raised the nobles of Zealand against him, Eric raced north to put down the rebellion which spread rapidly across Funen and Jutland, and fined Eskil heavily.
The death of Eric, as told by Arild Huitfeldt: A harsh and unpopular ruler, Eric died at Urnehoved landsting in 1137. King Eric was struck down by a local nobleman, Sorte Plov. According to legend, Sorte Plov asked permission to approach the king, carrying a spear in his hand with a block of wood protecting the tip. Having deemed that King Eric wore no mail underneath his tunic, Sorte Plov kicked off the protection, and drove his spear right through the king. King Eric's nephew Erik Håkonssøn stepped forward with sword in hand, but the nobleman told him to calm down, seeing as how he – Erik – was next in line for the throne, being the only adult male in the royal family: "Put away thine mace, young Erik. A juicy piece of meat hath fallen in thine bowl!" According to legend, Sorte Plov escaped with his life.
Eric was killed on 18 September 1137. He was buried at Ribe Cathedral. Erik Håkonssøn was then crowned Eric III of Denmark.
Sometime before 1130, Eric married Malmfred of Kiev, the daughter of Grand Duke Mstislav I of Kiev and Christina Ingesdotter of Sweden. Malmfrid was the former wife of King Sigurd I of Norway. With his concubine Thunna, Eric had the illegitimate son Sweyn, who would later become king as Sweyn III of Denmark. | <urn:uuid:eb1cec61-26a6-4c6a-a30d-03d665fc43f4> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://alchetron.com/Eric-II-of-Denmark | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250605075.24/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121192553-20200121221553-00037.warc.gz | en | 0.985146 | 993 | 3.28125 | 3 | [
-0.15379410982131958,
0.6312753558158875,
0.13903751969337463,
-0.05289430543780327,
0.2638516426086426,
0.01550554484128952,
-0.14277110993862152,
0.2540888488292694,
0.0007960742805153131,
0.24898216128349304,
-0.12115682661533356,
-0.28945496678352356,
0.2934850752353668,
-0.08920872211... | 2 | Eric was born around 1090, to King Eric I of Denmark and an unknown concubine. He was given some Danish isles by his half-brother Canute Lavard, and was jarl of Møn, Lolland, and Falster. When Lavard was murdered in 1131, Eric joined his half-brother Harald Kesja in a rebellion against the responsible king Niels of Denmark. Eric was elected Danish Antiking in Scania in April 1131, which prompted Kesja to support Niels in jealousy.
Eric's army lost several battles against Niels and his son Magnus the Strong, including Jelling in Jutland in 1131 and Værbro on Zealand, and he fled to Scania. His retreat earned him the nickname Harefoot. Eric unsuccessfully tried to convince Lothair III, Holy Roman Emperor to support his bid for kingship, and had no luck asking Magnus IV of Norway for help. He returned to Scania in 1134, where Archbishop Asser of Lund joined his cause, and Lothair eventually supported him as well. In 1134, he defeated king Niels' entire army at the Battle of Fotevik in Scania, with the crucial help of German mounted mercenaries, and Niels died within the year.
Eric was proclaimed king at Scania's landsting assembly at St Liber's Hill, and made Lund his capital city. With the resounding victory at Fotevik, Eric was given the nickname the Memorable to replace Harefoot. Kesja returned to Denmark, and was proclaimed king at Urnehoved landsting in Schleswig. Eric chased him down and killed Kesja and his sons, of whom only Olaf Haraldsen escaped with his life.
He then sought to consolidate and legitimize his rule. He gave titles and privileges to his supporters, and proclaimed Asser's nephew as Bishop Eskil of Roskilde. He initiated the process of getting his half-brother Canute Lavard canonized, and established an abbey at Ringsted to document reports of miracles at Canute's grave. Eric wanted to establish the divine right of kings, and canonizing Canute would support his claim on the throne. Canute was finally canonized in 1170.
Eric was known as a harsh king to his enemies. In the summer of 1136, Eric undertook a crusade against the pagan population on the Baltic island of Rügen and its capital Arkona. He ordered his men to dig a canal between the city and the rest of the island. The canal had the effect of drying up the spring which supplied Arkona with drinking water. Arkona was forced to surrender. But in 1135, before this success in Arkona, Eric defeated in a naval battle near Denmark's coast the Slavs under Duke Ratibor who had sacked Roskilde (the Danish capital), and a year later, after the battle of Konungahela, (now Kungälv in Sweden), sacked this city too. He joined Magnus for an unsuccessful campaign in Norway, where he managed to burn down Oslo. When he learned that Eskil had raised the nobles of Zealand against him, Eric raced north to put down the rebellion which spread rapidly across Funen and Jutland, and fined Eskil heavily.
The death of Eric, as told by Arild Huitfeldt: A harsh and unpopular ruler, Eric died at Urnehoved landsting in 1137. King Eric was struck down by a local nobleman, Sorte Plov. According to legend, Sorte Plov asked permission to approach the king, carrying a spear in his hand with a block of wood protecting the tip. Having deemed that King Eric wore no mail underneath his tunic, Sorte Plov kicked off the protection, and drove his spear right through the king. King Eric's nephew Erik Håkonssøn stepped forward with sword in hand, but the nobleman told him to calm down, seeing as how he – Erik – was next in line for the throne, being the only adult male in the royal family: "Put away thine mace, young Erik. A juicy piece of meat hath fallen in thine bowl!" According to legend, Sorte Plov escaped with his life.
Eric was killed on 18 September 1137. He was buried at Ribe Cathedral. Erik Håkonssøn was then crowned Eric III of Denmark.
Sometime before 1130, Eric married Malmfred of Kiev, the daughter of Grand Duke Mstislav I of Kiev and Christina Ingesdotter of Sweden. Malmfrid was the former wife of King Sigurd I of Norway. With his concubine Thunna, Eric had the illegitimate son Sweyn, who would later become king as Sweyn III of Denmark. | 1,028 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Courage and Persecution
The 8th grade Bible students have been learning about the persecution of Christians around the world. In class, they had the privilege of hearing from a missionary to India who had recently experienced persecution because of his faith. Matthew Johnson (pseudonym) and his family started a church in a large city in southern India four years ago. While their church is flourishing, they have experienced resistance and hardship including Matthew being separated from his family, deported to Singapore for 6 weeks and told to cease all ministry activity. The students had thoughtful questions for Mr. Johnson, and were surprised to learn about the persecution Indian Christians face when they decide to follow Jesus, such as physical violence and being disowned by their families. This unit has given the students a glimpse of what it’s like to be a Christian in other parts of the world and has helped them develop a new appreciation of the religious freedoms we often take for granted in the United States. | <urn:uuid:558ddb72-74ea-462d-8c41-23ce623b1406> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://thechristschool.org/courage-and-persecution/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250593937.27/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118193018-20200118221018-00511.warc.gz | en | 0.988198 | 193 | 3.484375 | 3 | [
0.14099091291427612,
0.4488002061843872,
-0.13944277167320251,
-0.426492303609848,
0.21390095353126526,
0.10363244265317917,
0.03465583547949791,
0.15039381384849548,
0.016890058293938637,
-0.10366811603307724,
-0.15357041358947754,
0.2703167200088501,
0.2552356421947479,
-0.18951752781867... | 12 | Courage and Persecution
The 8th grade Bible students have been learning about the persecution of Christians around the world. In class, they had the privilege of hearing from a missionary to India who had recently experienced persecution because of his faith. Matthew Johnson (pseudonym) and his family started a church in a large city in southern India four years ago. While their church is flourishing, they have experienced resistance and hardship including Matthew being separated from his family, deported to Singapore for 6 weeks and told to cease all ministry activity. The students had thoughtful questions for Mr. Johnson, and were surprised to learn about the persecution Indian Christians face when they decide to follow Jesus, such as physical violence and being disowned by their families. This unit has given the students a glimpse of what it’s like to be a Christian in other parts of the world and has helped them develop a new appreciation of the religious freedoms we often take for granted in the United States. | 194 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Gustav Klimt (July 14, 1862 – February 6, 1918) was an Austrian symbolist painter and one of the most prominent members of the Vienna Secession movement. Klimt is noted for his paintings, murals, sketches, and other objets d'art, and in addition to his figurative works, which include allegories and portraits, he painted landscapes.
Among the artists of the Vienna Secession, Klimt was the most influenced by Japanese art and its methods.Early in his artistic career, he was a successful painter of architectural decorations in a conventional manner.
He was however a man ahead of his time, and as he developed a more personal style, his work was the subject of controversy that culminated when the paintings he completed around 1900 for the ceiling of the Great Hall of the University of Vienna. He subsequently accepted no more public commissions, but achieved a new success with the paintings of his "golden phase", many of which include gold leaf. | <urn:uuid:5d70feee-ad05-47d5-88e2-e8e5652083d3> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.melissaknowles.org/single-post/2019/07/29/Gustav-Klimt | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251779833.86/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128153713-20200128183713-00118.warc.gz | en | 0.993398 | 201 | 3.40625 | 3 | [
0.14021115005016327,
0.26457998156547546,
0.40369588136672974,
-0.04145603999495506,
0.26880595088005066,
-0.12587085366249084,
0.0788973718881607,
0.40287014842033386,
-0.059169817715883255,
-0.019154608249664307,
0.28044581413269043,
-0.7552642226219177,
-0.1657135933637619,
0.5062385797... | 3 | Gustav Klimt (July 14, 1862 – February 6, 1918) was an Austrian symbolist painter and one of the most prominent members of the Vienna Secession movement. Klimt is noted for his paintings, murals, sketches, and other objets d'art, and in addition to his figurative works, which include allegories and portraits, he painted landscapes.
Among the artists of the Vienna Secession, Klimt was the most influenced by Japanese art and its methods.Early in his artistic career, he was a successful painter of architectural decorations in a conventional manner.
He was however a man ahead of his time, and as he developed a more personal style, his work was the subject of controversy that culminated when the paintings he completed around 1900 for the ceiling of the Great Hall of the University of Vienna. He subsequently accepted no more public commissions, but achieved a new success with the paintings of his "golden phase", many of which include gold leaf. | 215 | ENGLISH | 1 |
T HE ships in olden times were very different from many of those which you see now. They were not made to go by steam, but only by sails or by oars. As sails were useless unless the wind happened to blow in a favorable direction, the people preferred to use oars, as a rule.
Even large ships were rowed from one place to another by well-trained slaves, who sat on benches along either side of the vessel, and plied their oars slow or fast according to the orders of the rowing master. These vessels with many rowers were called galleys. When the men sat on three tiers of benches, handling oars of different lengths, the boat they manned was known as a trireme.
There were other boats, with five, ten, or even twenty-four banks of oars; but for war the most useful were the triremes, or three-banked ships, and the quinqueremes, or those with five tiers of rowers. For battle, the ships were provided with metal points or beaks, and a vessel thus armed was rowed full force against the side of an enemy's ship to cut it in two.
Of all the people settled on the shores of the Mediterranean Sea, the Carthaginians were now the best sailors. They dwelt at Carthage, in Africa, and, as their city was all the land they owned there at first, they soon turned all their energies to trading.
The Carthaginians thus amassed great wealth, and their city, which was near the present Tunis, and was twenty-three miles around, was one of the finest in the world.
In the course of their journeys, the Carthaginian sailors often visited Sicily, one of the most fertile countries in the world. Little by little they began to establish trading places there, and daily gained ground in the island. The Romans saw the advance of the Carthaginians with great displeasure; for it is but a step from Sicily to the Italian mainland, and they did not want so powerful a people for their neighbors.
The city of Syracuse was at this time the largest and strongest on the island, although the Carthaginians had waged many wars against it. There was also another city that was independent, which was occupied by a band of soldiers called Mamertines. A quarrel between these two cities led to war, and the Mamertines were so badly defeated that they asked the Romans for help.
When Hiero, the King of Syracuse, heard that Rome was planning to help his enemies, he sought aid from Carthage, and began to get ready for the coming war. The Romans, however, boldly crossed over into Sicily, and won such great victories that Hiero soon made peace with them, and he remained friendly to Rome as long as he lived.
The Carthaginians were thus left to carry on the war without the help of Syracuse. Now while the Roman legions were noted for their bravery on land, the Romans soon realized that Carthage would have the advantage, because it had so many ships.
A navy was needed to carry on the war with any hopes of success, and as the Romans had no vessels of war, they began right away to build some. A Carthaginian quinquereme, wrecked on their shores, was used as a model. While the shipbuilders were making the one hundred and twenty galleys which were to compose the fleet, the future captains trained their crews of rowers by daily exercise on shore.
Such was the energy of the Romans that in the short space of two months the fleet was ready. As the Romans were more experienced in hand-to-hand fighting than any other mode of warfare, each ship was furnished with grappling hooks, which would serve to hold the attacked vessel fast, and would permit the Roman soldiers to board it and kill the crew.
The fleet was placed under the command of Duilius Nepos, who met the Carthaginian vessels near Mylæ, on the coast of Sicily, and defeated them completely. Most of the enemy's ships were taken or sunk, and, when Duilius returned to Rome, the senate awarded him the first naval triumph.
In the procession, the conqueror was followed by his sailors, bearing the bronze beaks of the Carthaginian galleys which they had taken. These beaks, called "rostra," were afterwards placed on a column in the Forum, near the orators' stand, which was itself known as the Rostra, because it was already adorned by similar beaks of ships.
Duilius was further honored by an escort of flute players and torchbearers, who accompanied him home from every banquet he attended. As no one else could boast of such an escort, this was considered a great privilege. | <urn:uuid:a0896f9c-f94e-423b-9038-69e25326bff9> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://www.gatewaytotheclassics.com/browse/displayitem.php?item=books/guerber/romans/ships | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250593937.27/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118193018-20200118221018-00452.warc.gz | en | 0.99404 | 988 | 3.578125 | 4 | [
0.10242797434329987,
0.38913217186927795,
0.31029483675956726,
-0.3990326523780823,
-0.31351882219314575,
-0.4577670693397522,
0.2223859280347824,
0.08418188244104385,
-0.18892458081245422,
-0.3205307424068451,
0.17461827397346497,
-0.31354913115501404,
-0.36360031366348267,
0.349377721548... | 5 | T HE ships in olden times were very different from many of those which you see now. They were not made to go by steam, but only by sails or by oars. As sails were useless unless the wind happened to blow in a favorable direction, the people preferred to use oars, as a rule.
Even large ships were rowed from one place to another by well-trained slaves, who sat on benches along either side of the vessel, and plied their oars slow or fast according to the orders of the rowing master. These vessels with many rowers were called galleys. When the men sat on three tiers of benches, handling oars of different lengths, the boat they manned was known as a trireme.
There were other boats, with five, ten, or even twenty-four banks of oars; but for war the most useful were the triremes, or three-banked ships, and the quinqueremes, or those with five tiers of rowers. For battle, the ships were provided with metal points or beaks, and a vessel thus armed was rowed full force against the side of an enemy's ship to cut it in two.
Of all the people settled on the shores of the Mediterranean Sea, the Carthaginians were now the best sailors. They dwelt at Carthage, in Africa, and, as their city was all the land they owned there at first, they soon turned all their energies to trading.
The Carthaginians thus amassed great wealth, and their city, which was near the present Tunis, and was twenty-three miles around, was one of the finest in the world.
In the course of their journeys, the Carthaginian sailors often visited Sicily, one of the most fertile countries in the world. Little by little they began to establish trading places there, and daily gained ground in the island. The Romans saw the advance of the Carthaginians with great displeasure; for it is but a step from Sicily to the Italian mainland, and they did not want so powerful a people for their neighbors.
The city of Syracuse was at this time the largest and strongest on the island, although the Carthaginians had waged many wars against it. There was also another city that was independent, which was occupied by a band of soldiers called Mamertines. A quarrel between these two cities led to war, and the Mamertines were so badly defeated that they asked the Romans for help.
When Hiero, the King of Syracuse, heard that Rome was planning to help his enemies, he sought aid from Carthage, and began to get ready for the coming war. The Romans, however, boldly crossed over into Sicily, and won such great victories that Hiero soon made peace with them, and he remained friendly to Rome as long as he lived.
The Carthaginians were thus left to carry on the war without the help of Syracuse. Now while the Roman legions were noted for their bravery on land, the Romans soon realized that Carthage would have the advantage, because it had so many ships.
A navy was needed to carry on the war with any hopes of success, and as the Romans had no vessels of war, they began right away to build some. A Carthaginian quinquereme, wrecked on their shores, was used as a model. While the shipbuilders were making the one hundred and twenty galleys which were to compose the fleet, the future captains trained their crews of rowers by daily exercise on shore.
Such was the energy of the Romans that in the short space of two months the fleet was ready. As the Romans were more experienced in hand-to-hand fighting than any other mode of warfare, each ship was furnished with grappling hooks, which would serve to hold the attacked vessel fast, and would permit the Roman soldiers to board it and kill the crew.
The fleet was placed under the command of Duilius Nepos, who met the Carthaginian vessels near Mylæ, on the coast of Sicily, and defeated them completely. Most of the enemy's ships were taken or sunk, and, when Duilius returned to Rome, the senate awarded him the first naval triumph.
In the procession, the conqueror was followed by his sailors, bearing the bronze beaks of the Carthaginian galleys which they had taken. These beaks, called "rostra," were afterwards placed on a column in the Forum, near the orators' stand, which was itself known as the Rostra, because it was already adorned by similar beaks of ships.
Duilius was further honored by an escort of flute players and torchbearers, who accompanied him home from every banquet he attended. As no one else could boast of such an escort, this was considered a great privilege. | 988 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Persepolis: A part of Persian culture
The Persian history is also known as the Iranian history has its roots spread in the Iran, Iraq, Turkey, and Damascus, etc. The city of Persepolis is the cultural heritage of the Persian culture because it found its roots in King Darius period. It is an architectural heritage.
History of Persepolis:
Persepolis is among the world’s most acknowledged and renowned architectural sites. It was the capital of the ancient King Achaemenian dynasty and was considered as the gem of the architectural sites of that time.
Name of the city:
Its earliest name was Parsa in the ancient Persian, while the modern name translated in English means the city of Persia.
There is a belief that a mythological figure named as Jamshid built it and it was named at Takht-e- Jamshid on his behalf.
History of the palace:
Its history dates back to 515 BC. A French archeologist has proposed a theory that the place for the construction of the palace was chosen by Cyrus the great, but the palaces and terrace were built originally in the Darius I Era.
He ordered the construction of the town hall and the terrace. A large staircase was later built in the era of Darius I’s son. The staircase opened into a yard and was believed to be the stairway that could be used by the nobles and the dignitaries while they are riding on their horseback.
The material used in the construction along with stone was the gray limestone. The sewage system consisted of tunnels dug deep down with the help of a rock.
The water storage tank was built at the eastern foot of the mountain. There is a belief that they have built three walls for the defense purposes, though there are no remains of these walls now.
Destruction of the palace and terrace:
The destruction of the palace came when it was attacked by Alexander the Great and his army. At the first attack, they were defeated. After 30 days, another attack was done and this time they conquered. Some say that the alternate route of the palace was given by a tribal leader who was under arrest by the Alexandrian forces. The palace was set on fire and its ruins were discovered and identified later by the historians. It is believed that the fire was revenge from Xerxes, I who burned the Athens about 150 years ago before the burning of Persepolis.
Ruin and remains today:
Since the building was under construction at the time of setting the fire, a lot of remains found are unfinished. Fifteen pillars are found and some more were discovered in 1970. The great hall is known as the entrance of the palace and it has a square yard and four pillars. The apadana is the greatest palace that was built on the orders of Xerxes I. It took 30 years to complete and was built to interact with the audiences. It is also a part of the ruins and a statue of Persian mastiff was taken from the palace to the heritage museum of Iran.
Museums containing displays from Persepolis:
The Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge, London contains the remains of the Persepolis Empire and is an attraction for the tourists and the historians as well. Oriental Institute has the gold objects display in the University of Chicago. Louvre also has a set of bull capital from the Persepolis displayed in the museum. | <urn:uuid:41ce5ca2-d68f-410c-b443-c5f9609fd009> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.learnpersianonline.com/blog/persepolis-ancient-city-persia/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251690379.95/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126195918-20200126225918-00386.warc.gz | en | 0.982942 | 703 | 3.734375 | 4 | [
0.06498295813798904,
1.0275063514709473,
0.6225782632827759,
-0.09693647921085358,
-0.43784987926483154,
-0.2951270341873169,
0.17890718579292297,
0.33271101117134094,
-0.1891847550868988,
-0.07033488154411316,
-0.1799946427345276,
-0.11748076230287552,
-0.07173146307468414,
0.485407620668... | 6 | Persepolis: A part of Persian culture
The Persian history is also known as the Iranian history has its roots spread in the Iran, Iraq, Turkey, and Damascus, etc. The city of Persepolis is the cultural heritage of the Persian culture because it found its roots in King Darius period. It is an architectural heritage.
History of Persepolis:
Persepolis is among the world’s most acknowledged and renowned architectural sites. It was the capital of the ancient King Achaemenian dynasty and was considered as the gem of the architectural sites of that time.
Name of the city:
Its earliest name was Parsa in the ancient Persian, while the modern name translated in English means the city of Persia.
There is a belief that a mythological figure named as Jamshid built it and it was named at Takht-e- Jamshid on his behalf.
History of the palace:
Its history dates back to 515 BC. A French archeologist has proposed a theory that the place for the construction of the palace was chosen by Cyrus the great, but the palaces and terrace were built originally in the Darius I Era.
He ordered the construction of the town hall and the terrace. A large staircase was later built in the era of Darius I’s son. The staircase opened into a yard and was believed to be the stairway that could be used by the nobles and the dignitaries while they are riding on their horseback.
The material used in the construction along with stone was the gray limestone. The sewage system consisted of tunnels dug deep down with the help of a rock.
The water storage tank was built at the eastern foot of the mountain. There is a belief that they have built three walls for the defense purposes, though there are no remains of these walls now.
Destruction of the palace and terrace:
The destruction of the palace came when it was attacked by Alexander the Great and his army. At the first attack, they were defeated. After 30 days, another attack was done and this time they conquered. Some say that the alternate route of the palace was given by a tribal leader who was under arrest by the Alexandrian forces. The palace was set on fire and its ruins were discovered and identified later by the historians. It is believed that the fire was revenge from Xerxes, I who burned the Athens about 150 years ago before the burning of Persepolis.
Ruin and remains today:
Since the building was under construction at the time of setting the fire, a lot of remains found are unfinished. Fifteen pillars are found and some more were discovered in 1970. The great hall is known as the entrance of the palace and it has a square yard and four pillars. The apadana is the greatest palace that was built on the orders of Xerxes I. It took 30 years to complete and was built to interact with the audiences. It is also a part of the ruins and a statue of Persian mastiff was taken from the palace to the heritage museum of Iran.
Museums containing displays from Persepolis:
The Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge, London contains the remains of the Persepolis Empire and is an attraction for the tourists and the historians as well. Oriental Institute has the gold objects display in the University of Chicago. Louvre also has a set of bull capital from the Persepolis displayed in the museum. | 706 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Starting from just a few notes that Beethoven had written in a notebook before his death in 1827, researchers plan to use computer software combined with artificial intelligence to complete the rest of the symphony. The machine-learning software has been trained on all of Beethoven’s previous work, and the initiative is being sponsored by Deutsche Telekom, a German telecommunications company.
“The progress has been impressive, even if the computer still has a lot to learn,” Christine Siegert, head of archives at Beethoven House in Bonn, Germany, is quoted as saying by AFP.
Siegert also said that she was “convinced” that Beethoven would approve of the final symphony, since he was regarded as an innovator in his time. The final piece is expected to be performed by an orchestra on April 28 next year in Germany.
"It's completely new territory," said Dirk Kaftan, conductor of the Beethoven Orchestra, which will play the piece next spring.
Barry Cooper, a British composer and musicologist who wrote a potential continuation for the 10th Symphony in 1988, was unsure whether the rendition created by artificial intelligence would be successful.
"I listened to a short excerpt that has been created. It did not sound remotely like a convincing reconstruction of what Beethoven intended," Cooper, who is a professor at the University of Manchester, is quoted as saying by AFP.
"There is, however, scope for improvement with further work,” he added.
Previous attempts at completing works left unfinished by famous composers have not been too successful. A project earlier this year to finish Austrian composer Franz Schubert’s Eighth Symphony sounded more like an American film soundtrack than the composer’s pieces, according to reviewers. | <urn:uuid:bf177efc-ad9a-48a8-8f4c-6d578d5eab80> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://sputniknews.com/science/201912141077571187-artificial-intelligence-to-complete-beethovens-unfinished-10th-symphony/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250603761.28/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121103642-20200121132642-00060.warc.gz | en | 0.984132 | 373 | 3.375 | 3 | [
-0.3799152076244354,
0.20634210109710693,
0.024803852662444115,
-0.15489527583122253,
-0.3894416391849518,
0.20767314732074738,
-0.8894460797309875,
0.22568917274475098,
0.40798383951187134,
-0.4404146373271942,
0.12810085713863373,
0.12210926413536072,
-0.26477739214897156,
-0.18348056077... | 1 | Starting from just a few notes that Beethoven had written in a notebook before his death in 1827, researchers plan to use computer software combined with artificial intelligence to complete the rest of the symphony. The machine-learning software has been trained on all of Beethoven’s previous work, and the initiative is being sponsored by Deutsche Telekom, a German telecommunications company.
“The progress has been impressive, even if the computer still has a lot to learn,” Christine Siegert, head of archives at Beethoven House in Bonn, Germany, is quoted as saying by AFP.
Siegert also said that she was “convinced” that Beethoven would approve of the final symphony, since he was regarded as an innovator in his time. The final piece is expected to be performed by an orchestra on April 28 next year in Germany.
"It's completely new territory," said Dirk Kaftan, conductor of the Beethoven Orchestra, which will play the piece next spring.
Barry Cooper, a British composer and musicologist who wrote a potential continuation for the 10th Symphony in 1988, was unsure whether the rendition created by artificial intelligence would be successful.
"I listened to a short excerpt that has been created. It did not sound remotely like a convincing reconstruction of what Beethoven intended," Cooper, who is a professor at the University of Manchester, is quoted as saying by AFP.
"There is, however, scope for improvement with further work,” he added.
Previous attempts at completing works left unfinished by famous composers have not been too successful. A project earlier this year to finish Austrian composer Franz Schubert’s Eighth Symphony sounded more like an American film soundtrack than the composer’s pieces, according to reviewers. | 352 | ENGLISH | 1 |
source of the tragedy was the biography of Emperor Titus in the book of the Roman historian Gaius Suetonius Tranquill’s The Life of the Twelve Caesars. The emperor Titus wants to marry the Palestinian queen Berenice, but Roman laws forbid marriage with an unmarried woman, and the people may not approve of Caesar’s decision. The action takes place in the palace of Titus.
In Berenice, Antiochus, the king of the Comagen, is in love with Syria, annexed to the Roman Empire, who faithfully serves Titus and retains his royal title. He has long been waiting for an opportunity to talk with Berenice and find out what her decision is: if she is ready to become Titus’ wife, Antiochus will leave Rome. Antiochus, when meeting with her, admits
Berenika talks with her confidant Foinicka, and she suggests that it will be difficult for Titus to circumvent the law. But Berenika believes in Tita and his love and waits for her to greet the “Senate arrogant”.
In the meantime, Titus inquires his confidant Pauline about what they think in Rome about him and Berenice. The Emperor is not interested in the opinion of the servile court and the nobles – they are always ready to tolerate any whim of Caesar, as they endured and approved “all the baseness of Nero.” Tita is interested in the opinion of the people, and Paulin answers him that, although Berenik’s beauty is worthy of a crown, no one in the capital “would not call her empress.” None of Titus’s predecessors violated the law on marriage. And even Julius Caesar, who loved Cleopatra, “could not call his wife the Egyptian.” And the cruel Caligula, and the “abominable” Nero, who “bruised all that people honor from the century”, respected the law and “the marriage of the infamous with them did not see the light.” And the former slave Felix, who became the procurator of Judea, was married to one of Berenice’s sisters, and no one in Rome will like that the throne will be the one whose sister took the husband of yesterday’s slave. Titus admits that he fought for a long time with love for Berenice, and now that his father has died and that his heavy burden of power has fallen on his shoulders, Titus must abandon himself. He is followed by the people, and the emperor can not begin his reign by breaking the law, Titus decides to tell Berenice everything, he is frightened by this conversation.
Berenika worries about her fate – Titus’s mourning for his father is over, but the emperor is silent. She believes that Titus loves her. Titus suffers and does not dare to tell Berenice that she must abandon her. Berenice can not understand what she did wrong. Perhaps he is afraid of breaking the law? But he himself told her that no law could separate them. Maybe Titus found out about her meeting with Antiochus, and jealousy began to speak in him?
Titus learns that Antiochus is going to leave Rome, and is very surprised and annoyed – he needs his old friend with whom they fought together. Titus informs Antiochus that he must part with Berenice: he is Caesar, who decides the fate of the world, but does not have the power to give his heart to the one he loves. Rome will agree to recognize his wife only as a Roman – “any pathetic – but only his blood”, and if the emperor does not say goodbye to the “daughter of the East”, then “before her eyes the enraged people of her exile will demand to come.” Titus asks Antiochus to inform her of his decision. He wants his friend, along with Berenika, to go to the East and remain good neighbors in their realms.
Antioch does not know what to do-cry or laugh. He hopes that on the way to Judea he will be able to persuade Berenice to marry him after she was rejected by Caesar. Arshak, his friend, supports Antiochus – he will be next to Berenice, and Titus is far away.
Antiochus tries to talk with Berenice, but does not dare to say directly what awaits her. Feeling something amiss, Berenice demands frankness, and Antiochus tells her about Titus’s decision. She does not want to believe and wants to know everything from the emperor. Antiochus from now on forbids to approach her.
Titus before the meeting with Berenika thinks about what to do. He is only seven days on the throne after his father’s death, and all his thoughts are not about state affairs, but about love. However, the emperor understands that he does not belong to himself, he is responsible to the people.
Berenika appears and asks him if she was told the truth. Caesar answers that, no matter how difficult for him such a decision, but they will have to part. Berenice reproaches him – he had to say about Roman laws when they only met. It would be easier for her to make a refusal. Titus answers Berenice that he did not know how his fate would turn out, and did not think that he would become emperor. Now he does not live – life is over, now he reigns. Berenice asks what fears Caesar – rebellion in the city, in the country? Titus replies that if “the customs of the father’s insult” cause unrest, then he will have to forcefully approve his choice, “and for the silence of the people pay”, and it is not known what price. Berenice proposes to change the “unrighteous law.” But Titus swore Rome “the law of his watch,” this is his duty, “
The news of the rupture between the Caesar and the Queen is spread throughout the city – “Rome rejoices, every temple is open to the people.” Antiochus in agitation – he sees that Berenice is rushing “in grief boundless” and requires a dagger and poison.
Tit again meets Berenice, and she announces to him that she is leaving. She does not want to listen to people gloating. Titus replies to her that she can not part with her, but can not abandon the throne, abandon the Roman people. If he did this and left with Berenika, then she herself would become ashamed of “a warrior without regiments and a Caesar without a crown”. Power and marriage with the queen are incompatible, but the Emperor’s soul can no longer endure such torment – he is ready for death if Berenice does not give him an oath that he will not lay his hands on himself.
Appears Antiochus – he for a long time hid from Caesar his love for the Queen, but can not hide more. Seeing how they are suffering, he is ready for the sake of Caesar and Berenice to sacrifice their lives to the gods for them to have mercy, Berenice, “shamed by the greatness of the souls of both, seeing this willingness to sacrifice Titus and Antiochus, begs them not to suffer so much, for her, she is unworthy. The queen agrees to live apart and asks Tit to forget about her. Antiochus, she calls to forget about love. The memory of all three will remain in the annals as an example of love most tender, fiery and hopeless. | <urn:uuid:a9570ae2-53ea-4a92-9451-a194f4f9a3d7> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://en.home-task.com/summary-jean-racine-berenice/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251689924.62/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126135207-20200126165207-00299.warc.gz | en | 0.982269 | 1,598 | 3.546875 | 4 | [
-0.4290659427642822,
0.44734683632850647,
0.3619130253791809,
-0.029220588505268097,
-0.3993067741394043,
-0.08785973489284515,
0.34954458475112915,
0.21031245589256287,
0.2766309976577759,
-0.04623071104288101,
-0.05636142939329147,
-0.3755926489830017,
-0.10399776697158813,
0.53140032291... | 1 | source of the tragedy was the biography of Emperor Titus in the book of the Roman historian Gaius Suetonius Tranquill’s The Life of the Twelve Caesars. The emperor Titus wants to marry the Palestinian queen Berenice, but Roman laws forbid marriage with an unmarried woman, and the people may not approve of Caesar’s decision. The action takes place in the palace of Titus.
In Berenice, Antiochus, the king of the Comagen, is in love with Syria, annexed to the Roman Empire, who faithfully serves Titus and retains his royal title. He has long been waiting for an opportunity to talk with Berenice and find out what her decision is: if she is ready to become Titus’ wife, Antiochus will leave Rome. Antiochus, when meeting with her, admits
Berenika talks with her confidant Foinicka, and she suggests that it will be difficult for Titus to circumvent the law. But Berenika believes in Tita and his love and waits for her to greet the “Senate arrogant”.
In the meantime, Titus inquires his confidant Pauline about what they think in Rome about him and Berenice. The Emperor is not interested in the opinion of the servile court and the nobles – they are always ready to tolerate any whim of Caesar, as they endured and approved “all the baseness of Nero.” Tita is interested in the opinion of the people, and Paulin answers him that, although Berenik’s beauty is worthy of a crown, no one in the capital “would not call her empress.” None of Titus’s predecessors violated the law on marriage. And even Julius Caesar, who loved Cleopatra, “could not call his wife the Egyptian.” And the cruel Caligula, and the “abominable” Nero, who “bruised all that people honor from the century”, respected the law and “the marriage of the infamous with them did not see the light.” And the former slave Felix, who became the procurator of Judea, was married to one of Berenice’s sisters, and no one in Rome will like that the throne will be the one whose sister took the husband of yesterday’s slave. Titus admits that he fought for a long time with love for Berenice, and now that his father has died and that his heavy burden of power has fallen on his shoulders, Titus must abandon himself. He is followed by the people, and the emperor can not begin his reign by breaking the law, Titus decides to tell Berenice everything, he is frightened by this conversation.
Berenika worries about her fate – Titus’s mourning for his father is over, but the emperor is silent. She believes that Titus loves her. Titus suffers and does not dare to tell Berenice that she must abandon her. Berenice can not understand what she did wrong. Perhaps he is afraid of breaking the law? But he himself told her that no law could separate them. Maybe Titus found out about her meeting with Antiochus, and jealousy began to speak in him?
Titus learns that Antiochus is going to leave Rome, and is very surprised and annoyed – he needs his old friend with whom they fought together. Titus informs Antiochus that he must part with Berenice: he is Caesar, who decides the fate of the world, but does not have the power to give his heart to the one he loves. Rome will agree to recognize his wife only as a Roman – “any pathetic – but only his blood”, and if the emperor does not say goodbye to the “daughter of the East”, then “before her eyes the enraged people of her exile will demand to come.” Titus asks Antiochus to inform her of his decision. He wants his friend, along with Berenika, to go to the East and remain good neighbors in their realms.
Antioch does not know what to do-cry or laugh. He hopes that on the way to Judea he will be able to persuade Berenice to marry him after she was rejected by Caesar. Arshak, his friend, supports Antiochus – he will be next to Berenice, and Titus is far away.
Antiochus tries to talk with Berenice, but does not dare to say directly what awaits her. Feeling something amiss, Berenice demands frankness, and Antiochus tells her about Titus’s decision. She does not want to believe and wants to know everything from the emperor. Antiochus from now on forbids to approach her.
Titus before the meeting with Berenika thinks about what to do. He is only seven days on the throne after his father’s death, and all his thoughts are not about state affairs, but about love. However, the emperor understands that he does not belong to himself, he is responsible to the people.
Berenika appears and asks him if she was told the truth. Caesar answers that, no matter how difficult for him such a decision, but they will have to part. Berenice reproaches him – he had to say about Roman laws when they only met. It would be easier for her to make a refusal. Titus answers Berenice that he did not know how his fate would turn out, and did not think that he would become emperor. Now he does not live – life is over, now he reigns. Berenice asks what fears Caesar – rebellion in the city, in the country? Titus replies that if “the customs of the father’s insult” cause unrest, then he will have to forcefully approve his choice, “and for the silence of the people pay”, and it is not known what price. Berenice proposes to change the “unrighteous law.” But Titus swore Rome “the law of his watch,” this is his duty, “
The news of the rupture between the Caesar and the Queen is spread throughout the city – “Rome rejoices, every temple is open to the people.” Antiochus in agitation – he sees that Berenice is rushing “in grief boundless” and requires a dagger and poison.
Tit again meets Berenice, and she announces to him that she is leaving. She does not want to listen to people gloating. Titus replies to her that she can not part with her, but can not abandon the throne, abandon the Roman people. If he did this and left with Berenika, then she herself would become ashamed of “a warrior without regiments and a Caesar without a crown”. Power and marriage with the queen are incompatible, but the Emperor’s soul can no longer endure such torment – he is ready for death if Berenice does not give him an oath that he will not lay his hands on himself.
Appears Antiochus – he for a long time hid from Caesar his love for the Queen, but can not hide more. Seeing how they are suffering, he is ready for the sake of Caesar and Berenice to sacrifice their lives to the gods for them to have mercy, Berenice, “shamed by the greatness of the souls of both, seeing this willingness to sacrifice Titus and Antiochus, begs them not to suffer so much, for her, she is unworthy. The queen agrees to live apart and asks Tit to forget about her. Antiochus, she calls to forget about love. The memory of all three will remain in the annals as an example of love most tender, fiery and hopeless. | 1,576 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Saint Nicholas was born into a wealthy Christian family in the third century. The sudden death of his parents following the plague made him the heir to a heavy family property. Due to his intense love for Christ, he decided to donate his wealth to the poor.
He became known for his compassion for the destitute, his passion for children, and his cooperation with workers in various fields. It was a time when the slave trade was rampant. He used all his money to redeem children who would be sold into slavery. Nicholas, who had left everything to himself, accepted God’s call and became one in Christ. He worked hard in his ministry and was exiled and imprisoned during the persecution of Emperor Diocletian.
He was later released from prison but later returned to AD. At the Council of Nicaea in 325, he was struck by a religious missionary, Arius. Historians have noted that this was a great event of late. AD He died at Meera on December 6, 343. He was buried in his own cathedral church. Eventually, he spread many stories about his gift of charity and became one of the most wonderful saints in Europe. St. Nicholas was a man who traveled a lot; Saint Nicholas was also described as “the savior of the seafarers”. The early Europeans arrived in the newly discovered country and joined this saint as their mediator.
Columbus arrived at the port of Haiti on December 6, 1492, on the feast day of the saint, and named it “Port of St. Nicholas.” The town of Florida, now known as “Jacksonville”, was later called “St. Nicholas Cross” by Spanish nationalists.
The Protestant revolutionaries were indifferent to the saints, But St. Nicholas’ celebrations were so widespread that they could not be uprooted. Northern Europeans, especially the Dutch, continued the celebration of a man wearing a long white robe, dressed in red, and riding his horse in the streets. To commemorate the work of Nicholas who redeemed the children who were to be sold into slavery, children’s entertainment, such as nuts, apples, and donuts in their clothes, were frequent.
It is generally believed that it was the Dutch who brought “Nicholas Day” customs to the modern world. But historians do not agree with this; They believe that Nicholas’ feast was brought by the German settlers of Pennsylvania, “Penisil Waniadach.” The ‘Nicholas Celebrations’ arrived in New York via Vania in Peninsula. But it was only after American independence from slavery that the Dutch in New York began celebrating their tradition.
The patriot and the archaeologist John Pinard was the author of St. Nicholas’s The World. Nicholas Centers Website Reveals. In 1804, The New-York Historical Society was founded by John Pinard.
In January 1809, he became a member of the Historical Society of Washington Irving and published the Knickerbocker’s History of New York, the same year. This is a book about humorous Saint Nicholas. According to this historical organization, they see V. Nicholas not as an orthodox bishop from the East, but as a crafty Dutchman with an earthen pipe.
Nicholas is first portrayed in the book St Nick in Dutch New Amsterdam as a smoker leaning over to give gifts to his children. On December 6, 1810, when Nicholas Thirunel celebrated the New York Historical Society for the first time, Pinkard asked Alexander Anderson to paint a portrait of Nicholas. Eleven years later, William b. Gilly has released another book titled ‘Sante Claus the children’s friend’. The book depicts the saint coming from the north with gifts in a swift snowman. It is a beautiful poem, and it adds to the memory of the bishop Nicholas. Two years later, the story of Nicholas comes to an end with the most famous being A Visit from St. Nicholas’ single was released; That is the famous song today called The Night Belone.
By 1920, renowned painters, N.C. Wyatt and JCLendecker made lifelong images of a red-haired, white-bearded man. Following this tradition, Norman Rockwall painted covers for the publication of The Saturday Evening Post in the 1930s.
In 1931, painter Haddon Suntbloem linked Santa to Coca-Cola and created “Coca-Cola Santa”. On countless Christmas Day trips, the face of Santa, who drinks Coca-Cola for thirst, began to appear in the media before he left home and moved into another house.
Consequently, Saint Nicholas’ saintly image has been transformed into that of a world-class vendor. To put it mildly, he would have to be replaced by a magical seller who sells almost anything at the end of the year. Today is a good time to rekindle the true Nicholas Day celebration, as the relationship with Saint Nicholas is completely cut off. Let us bring back St. Nicholas. The arrival of Santa can be remembered as a reminder of Nicholas’ true strength.
Let us come to the coming of Jesus by joining with St. Nicholas, a kind and generous benefactor of faith, a courageous warrior and a helper of the poor.
From the Works of Fr. White Longnecker | <urn:uuid:1a1073e1-5c81-49a1-85ad-6809c6b8db5d> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://catholicfocus.in/how-did-st-nicholas-become-santa-claus-a-journey-through-history/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251776516.99/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128060946-20200128090946-00033.warc.gz | en | 0.984428 | 1,104 | 3.875 | 4 | [
0.4533480703830719,
0.3067970871925354,
0.33195507526397705,
-0.3094630837440491,
0.20370009541511536,
-0.3148958683013916,
0.017036886885762215,
0.3260754644870758,
-0.029310502111911774,
-0.03094971738755703,
0.015504960902035236,
0.21544606983661652,
0.014575667679309845,
0.173798233270... | 2 | Saint Nicholas was born into a wealthy Christian family in the third century. The sudden death of his parents following the plague made him the heir to a heavy family property. Due to his intense love for Christ, he decided to donate his wealth to the poor.
He became known for his compassion for the destitute, his passion for children, and his cooperation with workers in various fields. It was a time when the slave trade was rampant. He used all his money to redeem children who would be sold into slavery. Nicholas, who had left everything to himself, accepted God’s call and became one in Christ. He worked hard in his ministry and was exiled and imprisoned during the persecution of Emperor Diocletian.
He was later released from prison but later returned to AD. At the Council of Nicaea in 325, he was struck by a religious missionary, Arius. Historians have noted that this was a great event of late. AD He died at Meera on December 6, 343. He was buried in his own cathedral church. Eventually, he spread many stories about his gift of charity and became one of the most wonderful saints in Europe. St. Nicholas was a man who traveled a lot; Saint Nicholas was also described as “the savior of the seafarers”. The early Europeans arrived in the newly discovered country and joined this saint as their mediator.
Columbus arrived at the port of Haiti on December 6, 1492, on the feast day of the saint, and named it “Port of St. Nicholas.” The town of Florida, now known as “Jacksonville”, was later called “St. Nicholas Cross” by Spanish nationalists.
The Protestant revolutionaries were indifferent to the saints, But St. Nicholas’ celebrations were so widespread that they could not be uprooted. Northern Europeans, especially the Dutch, continued the celebration of a man wearing a long white robe, dressed in red, and riding his horse in the streets. To commemorate the work of Nicholas who redeemed the children who were to be sold into slavery, children’s entertainment, such as nuts, apples, and donuts in their clothes, were frequent.
It is generally believed that it was the Dutch who brought “Nicholas Day” customs to the modern world. But historians do not agree with this; They believe that Nicholas’ feast was brought by the German settlers of Pennsylvania, “Penisil Waniadach.” The ‘Nicholas Celebrations’ arrived in New York via Vania in Peninsula. But it was only after American independence from slavery that the Dutch in New York began celebrating their tradition.
The patriot and the archaeologist John Pinard was the author of St. Nicholas’s The World. Nicholas Centers Website Reveals. In 1804, The New-York Historical Society was founded by John Pinard.
In January 1809, he became a member of the Historical Society of Washington Irving and published the Knickerbocker’s History of New York, the same year. This is a book about humorous Saint Nicholas. According to this historical organization, they see V. Nicholas not as an orthodox bishop from the East, but as a crafty Dutchman with an earthen pipe.
Nicholas is first portrayed in the book St Nick in Dutch New Amsterdam as a smoker leaning over to give gifts to his children. On December 6, 1810, when Nicholas Thirunel celebrated the New York Historical Society for the first time, Pinkard asked Alexander Anderson to paint a portrait of Nicholas. Eleven years later, William b. Gilly has released another book titled ‘Sante Claus the children’s friend’. The book depicts the saint coming from the north with gifts in a swift snowman. It is a beautiful poem, and it adds to the memory of the bishop Nicholas. Two years later, the story of Nicholas comes to an end with the most famous being A Visit from St. Nicholas’ single was released; That is the famous song today called The Night Belone.
By 1920, renowned painters, N.C. Wyatt and JCLendecker made lifelong images of a red-haired, white-bearded man. Following this tradition, Norman Rockwall painted covers for the publication of The Saturday Evening Post in the 1930s.
In 1931, painter Haddon Suntbloem linked Santa to Coca-Cola and created “Coca-Cola Santa”. On countless Christmas Day trips, the face of Santa, who drinks Coca-Cola for thirst, began to appear in the media before he left home and moved into another house.
Consequently, Saint Nicholas’ saintly image has been transformed into that of a world-class vendor. To put it mildly, he would have to be replaced by a magical seller who sells almost anything at the end of the year. Today is a good time to rekindle the true Nicholas Day celebration, as the relationship with Saint Nicholas is completely cut off. Let us bring back St. Nicholas. The arrival of Santa can be remembered as a reminder of Nicholas’ true strength.
Let us come to the coming of Jesus by joining with St. Nicholas, a kind and generous benefactor of faith, a courageous warrior and a helper of the poor.
From the Works of Fr. White Longnecker | 1,082 | ENGLISH | 1 |
He was known to be a sincere Catholic, having written a book containing criticisms against Luther and his teachings. Since the reformation at that time was very strong that many believers were converted and the issue of the infallibility of the Pope was at its peak, he thought of it as something negative, that it may affect his popularity and people might withdraw support from him whenever he retained his stand against Protestant teachings and remain his bind to the Papacy. In line with this, he feared of being criticized of having only one child, a heir that would be the one to get his crown of kingship.
Frederick was raised in a house on the plantation with all the other slave children. At the age of seven, like many other slaves, Frederick was put to work in the fields. His thoughts frequently came back to him, leaving him with a great hatred for slavery.
InFrederick had finally had enough of his imprisonment, and attempted an escape with many other slaves. The escape was not successful, Frederick and the other slaves were sent to work in a shipyard hauling crates.
Frederick worked the shipyard for two years until he had another great escape idea, this one would work though. The sailing papers of a sailor had been borrowed, and disguised as a sailor, Frederick Douglass made his escape to New Bedford, Massachusetts.
Upon his arrival, Frederick took up his new assumed last name Douglass, to escape being captured. InFrederick attended an anti-slavery convention in Nantucket Massachusetts.
Here, his impromptu speech he gave showed him to be a great speaker. The opponents of Frederick believed that he was never a slave, because of his great speaking skills and knowledge. Frederick made a fatal mistake though, he had used the name of his old master on the slave plantation.
Upon learning of this, his old master sent slave catchers to New England to bring him back. Fearing a life of slavery again, Frederick fled to England. Here in England, he gave many lectures on the abolitionists movement, and earned sufficient funds to buy his freedom in America.
Here he also began publishing his anti-slavery newspaper, The North Star. During these publishing years, Frederick became good friends with John Brown.
John had a vision of training groups of men to help slaves escape via the Underground Railroad. He was sure this would bring disastrous results, and took no part in the raid.
Following the raid, Douglass fled to Europe, fearing the government would hold him responsible for what had happened. He stayed for six months, until finally returning to America to campaign for Abraham Lincoln during the Presidential election of At the outbreak of the Civil War, Frederick helped raise the regiment of the Massachusetts 54th.
This group of soldiers fought hard, and Douglass was respected as a leader of ex-slaves. Frederick soon fought for the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments for the U. Constitution, which gave rights to everyone. S marshal for the District of Columbiarecorder of deeds for the District of Columbia and U.Islam, Muslims and Islamic civilization are under siege in America.
Subsequent to the tragic incidents of September 11, Afghanistan and Iraq wars, ISIS’s barbarism and Paris shooting, Islam both as religion and community has witnessed some of the worst attacks upon its heritage and legacy unprecedented in the previous history.
As is the case with any field of study, however, history goes through its own periods of revolt, reform, and retrenchment. Over the past few decades, Reformation Studies have seen the old. To get a unique essay. Hire Writer. ashio-midori.com,.docx,.epub,.txt. making him decide to reject the power of Rome on the Church of England.
Through the act of Supremacy, he became the Supreme Head of the Church of England.
No wonder why their teachings regarding the reformation were in the texts. The reformers put emphasis on the. The culture of England is defined by the idiosyncratic cultural norms of England and the English people.. Owing to England's influential position within the United Kingdom it can sometimes be difficult to differentiate English culture from the culture of the United Kingdom as a whole.
However, since Anglo-Saxon times, England has had its own unique culture, apart from Welsh, Scottish or. The Protestant Reformation in Scotland in contrast was a Reformation that was prompted by the Scots people from below rather than by the government as in England.
Protestantism in Scotland was more radical than in England. Fideisms Judaism is the Semitic monotheistic fideist religion based on the Old Testament's ( BCE) rules for the worship of Yahweh by his chosen people, the children of Abraham's son Isaac (c BCE)..
Zoroastrianism is the Persian monotheistic fideist religion founded by Zarathustra (cc BCE) and which teaches that good must be chosen over evil in order to achieve salvation. | <urn:uuid:d97e9bbc-b752-4e16-ac62-f1477cfe191c> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://solujib.ashio-midori.com/why-was-there-a-reformation-in-england-essay-writer-9188jq.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250608295.52/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123041345-20200123070345-00290.warc.gz | en | 0.986716 | 1,025 | 3.703125 | 4 | [
-0.12562239170074463,
0.3793013095855713,
0.09904586523771286,
0.06346789002418518,
-0.11700448393821716,
-0.11474921554327011,
-0.0628688633441925,
0.016994260251522064,
-0.026713237166404724,
-0.03926210105419159,
-0.07261745631694794,
0.00975098367780447,
-0.21385589241981506,
-0.010210... | 2 | He was known to be a sincere Catholic, having written a book containing criticisms against Luther and his teachings. Since the reformation at that time was very strong that many believers were converted and the issue of the infallibility of the Pope was at its peak, he thought of it as something negative, that it may affect his popularity and people might withdraw support from him whenever he retained his stand against Protestant teachings and remain his bind to the Papacy. In line with this, he feared of being criticized of having only one child, a heir that would be the one to get his crown of kingship.
Frederick was raised in a house on the plantation with all the other slave children. At the age of seven, like many other slaves, Frederick was put to work in the fields. His thoughts frequently came back to him, leaving him with a great hatred for slavery.
InFrederick had finally had enough of his imprisonment, and attempted an escape with many other slaves. The escape was not successful, Frederick and the other slaves were sent to work in a shipyard hauling crates.
Frederick worked the shipyard for two years until he had another great escape idea, this one would work though. The sailing papers of a sailor had been borrowed, and disguised as a sailor, Frederick Douglass made his escape to New Bedford, Massachusetts.
Upon his arrival, Frederick took up his new assumed last name Douglass, to escape being captured. InFrederick attended an anti-slavery convention in Nantucket Massachusetts.
Here, his impromptu speech he gave showed him to be a great speaker. The opponents of Frederick believed that he was never a slave, because of his great speaking skills and knowledge. Frederick made a fatal mistake though, he had used the name of his old master on the slave plantation.
Upon learning of this, his old master sent slave catchers to New England to bring him back. Fearing a life of slavery again, Frederick fled to England. Here in England, he gave many lectures on the abolitionists movement, and earned sufficient funds to buy his freedom in America.
Here he also began publishing his anti-slavery newspaper, The North Star. During these publishing years, Frederick became good friends with John Brown.
John had a vision of training groups of men to help slaves escape via the Underground Railroad. He was sure this would bring disastrous results, and took no part in the raid.
Following the raid, Douglass fled to Europe, fearing the government would hold him responsible for what had happened. He stayed for six months, until finally returning to America to campaign for Abraham Lincoln during the Presidential election of At the outbreak of the Civil War, Frederick helped raise the regiment of the Massachusetts 54th.
This group of soldiers fought hard, and Douglass was respected as a leader of ex-slaves. Frederick soon fought for the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments for the U. Constitution, which gave rights to everyone. S marshal for the District of Columbiarecorder of deeds for the District of Columbia and U.Islam, Muslims and Islamic civilization are under siege in America.
Subsequent to the tragic incidents of September 11, Afghanistan and Iraq wars, ISIS’s barbarism and Paris shooting, Islam both as religion and community has witnessed some of the worst attacks upon its heritage and legacy unprecedented in the previous history.
As is the case with any field of study, however, history goes through its own periods of revolt, reform, and retrenchment. Over the past few decades, Reformation Studies have seen the old. To get a unique essay. Hire Writer. ashio-midori.com,.docx,.epub,.txt. making him decide to reject the power of Rome on the Church of England.
Through the act of Supremacy, he became the Supreme Head of the Church of England.
No wonder why their teachings regarding the reformation were in the texts. The reformers put emphasis on the. The culture of England is defined by the idiosyncratic cultural norms of England and the English people.. Owing to England's influential position within the United Kingdom it can sometimes be difficult to differentiate English culture from the culture of the United Kingdom as a whole.
However, since Anglo-Saxon times, England has had its own unique culture, apart from Welsh, Scottish or. The Protestant Reformation in Scotland in contrast was a Reformation that was prompted by the Scots people from below rather than by the government as in England.
Protestantism in Scotland was more radical than in England. Fideisms Judaism is the Semitic monotheistic fideist religion based on the Old Testament's ( BCE) rules for the worship of Yahweh by his chosen people, the children of Abraham's son Isaac (c BCE)..
Zoroastrianism is the Persian monotheistic fideist religion founded by Zarathustra (cc BCE) and which teaches that good must be chosen over evil in order to achieve salvation. | 1,018 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.