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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Jacques Marquette was born on the 10th of June, 1637 at Leon. This Jesuit Missionary from France became a part of the Society of Jesus when he was only 17 years old. He is well known for the base that he had set up at Sault Ste. Marie and for discovering Michigan’s St. Ignace.
Together with Louis Joliet, he became America’s first native to discover the Mississippi River’s northern area and the two of them even mapped the region. It was in 1666 that he was sent to Quebec in order to propagate his religion among the natives of the area.
Later he was sent to St. Lawrence River and the Great Lakes to continue his work. It was during this time that he established a mission in Sault Ste. Marie and also at places like La Pointe. It was here that he started interacting with the local tribes and learned about the Mississippi River from them.
The natives wanted him to preach the religion to their people. However, due to unsafe and adverse situations, Jacques Marquette had to leave for Strait of Mackinac during this time.
Jacques Marquette Route
It was only in 1673 that Louis Jolliet joined Marquette and they started their journey in May of that year. They sailed across the Fox River following the route that passed through the Michigan Lake and the Green Bay.
It was from here that they traveled to river Wisconsin and finally reached the Mississippi River on the 17th of June the same year. Jacques Marquette returned to Illinois by the latter part of 1674 after spending the winter in Chicago he started towards the west and took a halt around the Starved Rock.
Jacques Marquette Facts
Unfortunately, the illnesses that he had suffered during his journey began to take a toll on his general health and started weakening him.
He, unfortunately, could not make it back to St. Ignace and passed away on his way back near Michigan’s Ludington town. His grave is in St. Ignace and he lives on through his name which has been used in his honor in many places.
Some such examples are, the Marquette University located in Milwaukee in Michigan, Father Marquette National Memorial at St. Ignace and the Pere Marquette State Park in Illinois.
He is forever respected for the work that he did and the way he spread his religion far and wide and served his nation and his religion with complete dedication. | <urn:uuid:d4240fa0-bd6f-4042-99cf-50137e234c2c> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://elizabethanenglandlife.com/jacques-marquette.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251681625.83/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125222506-20200126012506-00057.warc.gz | en | 0.990773 | 501 | 3.421875 | 3 | [
-0.08319949358701706,
0.5221830010414124,
-0.27990618348121643,
-0.4250798523426056,
-0.15333589911460876,
-0.034573040902614594,
-0.01011937577277422,
0.2859567403793335,
-0.20028823614120483,
-0.2524813711643219,
0.36244654655456543,
0.05651625618338585,
-0.09308073669672012,
-0.06557211... | 4 | Jacques Marquette was born on the 10th of June, 1637 at Leon. This Jesuit Missionary from France became a part of the Society of Jesus when he was only 17 years old. He is well known for the base that he had set up at Sault Ste. Marie and for discovering Michigan’s St. Ignace.
Together with Louis Joliet, he became America’s first native to discover the Mississippi River’s northern area and the two of them even mapped the region. It was in 1666 that he was sent to Quebec in order to propagate his religion among the natives of the area.
Later he was sent to St. Lawrence River and the Great Lakes to continue his work. It was during this time that he established a mission in Sault Ste. Marie and also at places like La Pointe. It was here that he started interacting with the local tribes and learned about the Mississippi River from them.
The natives wanted him to preach the religion to their people. However, due to unsafe and adverse situations, Jacques Marquette had to leave for Strait of Mackinac during this time.
Jacques Marquette Route
It was only in 1673 that Louis Jolliet joined Marquette and they started their journey in May of that year. They sailed across the Fox River following the route that passed through the Michigan Lake and the Green Bay.
It was from here that they traveled to river Wisconsin and finally reached the Mississippi River on the 17th of June the same year. Jacques Marquette returned to Illinois by the latter part of 1674 after spending the winter in Chicago he started towards the west and took a halt around the Starved Rock.
Jacques Marquette Facts
Unfortunately, the illnesses that he had suffered during his journey began to take a toll on his general health and started weakening him.
He, unfortunately, could not make it back to St. Ignace and passed away on his way back near Michigan’s Ludington town. His grave is in St. Ignace and he lives on through his name which has been used in his honor in many places.
Some such examples are, the Marquette University located in Milwaukee in Michigan, Father Marquette National Memorial at St. Ignace and the Pere Marquette State Park in Illinois.
He is forever respected for the work that he did and the way he spread his religion far and wide and served his nation and his religion with complete dedication. | 505 | ENGLISH | 1 |
“ Appeasement created the opportunity for Hitler to start World War II.” To what extent do you agree with the statement? Explain you answer.
The First World War ended in an Allied victory, but the economies of Britain and France were shattered. In order to rebuild their economies, they had to disarm rapidly. The First World War had also given rise to strong anti-war sentiments, especially in Britain and France. Germany, who was blamed entirely for the outbreak of the First World War, received harsh reparations and was forced to sign the unfair Treaty of Versailles, which made Germany lose territory, as well as limited her armaments. This sparked resentment in the Germans who felt injustice that the war was entirely blamed on them which was prominently evident in Adolf Hitler who rose to power as Fuhrer of Germany in 1933. The highly nationalistic Nazi leader came into power a goal: to make secure and to preserve the racial community and to enlarge it. He hated the Versailles settlement and wanted to destroy it, hence fore building up the army and recovering lost territories to preserve German race. Therefore the in contrast to the Allies, Germany under Adolf Hitler was aggressive and influenced by revisionism. In attempt to preserve peace and not start a war with Germany, Britain and France, the two great powers gave in to Germany instead of standing against the aggressive Hitler. Appeasement is a term often applied to the overly acquiescent foreign policy practiced by Neville Chamberlain when dealing with Hitler’s Nazi regime. However, instead of preserving peace that Britain and France desperately wanted, it ironically allowed Hitler who did not have concrete plans on how to achieve his goals, to exploit their weakness and used situations in his advantage, which then resulted in the Second World War. While some may agree to this stand, others argue that Hitler intended a major war right from the beginning as seen from his book Mein Kampf and later on plans verbalized at the Hossbach conference. His aggression threatened to destroy the balance of power, which made the Second World War inevitable, whereby appeasement cannot be blamed as the creation of opportunity to start a war except that it made things easier for Hitler. However, the sources which supports the latter are not fully reliable and consistent, showing evidences that Hitler had no cut and dry views on how he was going to proceed but instead merely reacted to situations that occur. Therefore, I agree to the statement that appeasement created the opportunity for Hitler to start World War II.
Indeed, appeasement created the opportunity for Hitler to start World War II; the opportunistic Hitler received encouragement from the passive Britain and France. Chamberlain’s overly acquiescent foreign policies towards Germany emboldened Hitler to become more aggressive and make increasingly unacceptable demands, which would result in a dominant Germany. He did not intend to cause a major war but expected a short and localized war, which he had no plans on how to so. However, he was a brilliant opportunist, taking advantages of the mistakes of the appeasers and hence was able to successfully remilitarize or invade other countries, which eventually created war when Germany was upsetting the balance of power. For example, in March 1935, Hitler used the excuse of British increasing their air force and France extending her conscription from 12-18 months to explain the reintroduction of conscription. Hitler buildup his peacetime army to 36 divisons (6000000 men) which was 6 times more that was allowed by the Treaty of Versailles. This was the first successful breach of Versailles whereby British and France took no action because they felt that the demands of the treaty was unfair to Germany and that since everyone was undergoing re-armament, his demands were not unreasonable. Subsequently, in March 1936 Hitler sent troops to the demilitarized zone Rhineland. He...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document | <urn:uuid:7f38bead-1ab1-4ec2-b93c-9489922a3e8a> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.studymode.com/essays/Role-Of-Appeasement-In-World-War-59856849.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250606872.19/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122071919-20200122100919-00330.warc.gz | en | 0.980472 | 787 | 4.15625 | 4 | [
-0.4968198239803314,
0.5896835327148438,
-0.2207539975643158,
-0.05428518354892731,
-0.08306235074996948,
-0.08529937267303467,
-0.14106379449367523,
0.21414080262184143,
-0.05500982701778412,
-0.3534172773361206,
0.1861841380596161,
-0.3086490035057068,
-0.004273155704140663,
0.3665249049... | 2 | “ Appeasement created the opportunity for Hitler to start World War II.” To what extent do you agree with the statement? Explain you answer.
The First World War ended in an Allied victory, but the economies of Britain and France were shattered. In order to rebuild their economies, they had to disarm rapidly. The First World War had also given rise to strong anti-war sentiments, especially in Britain and France. Germany, who was blamed entirely for the outbreak of the First World War, received harsh reparations and was forced to sign the unfair Treaty of Versailles, which made Germany lose territory, as well as limited her armaments. This sparked resentment in the Germans who felt injustice that the war was entirely blamed on them which was prominently evident in Adolf Hitler who rose to power as Fuhrer of Germany in 1933. The highly nationalistic Nazi leader came into power a goal: to make secure and to preserve the racial community and to enlarge it. He hated the Versailles settlement and wanted to destroy it, hence fore building up the army and recovering lost territories to preserve German race. Therefore the in contrast to the Allies, Germany under Adolf Hitler was aggressive and influenced by revisionism. In attempt to preserve peace and not start a war with Germany, Britain and France, the two great powers gave in to Germany instead of standing against the aggressive Hitler. Appeasement is a term often applied to the overly acquiescent foreign policy practiced by Neville Chamberlain when dealing with Hitler’s Nazi regime. However, instead of preserving peace that Britain and France desperately wanted, it ironically allowed Hitler who did not have concrete plans on how to achieve his goals, to exploit their weakness and used situations in his advantage, which then resulted in the Second World War. While some may agree to this stand, others argue that Hitler intended a major war right from the beginning as seen from his book Mein Kampf and later on plans verbalized at the Hossbach conference. His aggression threatened to destroy the balance of power, which made the Second World War inevitable, whereby appeasement cannot be blamed as the creation of opportunity to start a war except that it made things easier for Hitler. However, the sources which supports the latter are not fully reliable and consistent, showing evidences that Hitler had no cut and dry views on how he was going to proceed but instead merely reacted to situations that occur. Therefore, I agree to the statement that appeasement created the opportunity for Hitler to start World War II.
Indeed, appeasement created the opportunity for Hitler to start World War II; the opportunistic Hitler received encouragement from the passive Britain and France. Chamberlain’s overly acquiescent foreign policies towards Germany emboldened Hitler to become more aggressive and make increasingly unacceptable demands, which would result in a dominant Germany. He did not intend to cause a major war but expected a short and localized war, which he had no plans on how to so. However, he was a brilliant opportunist, taking advantages of the mistakes of the appeasers and hence was able to successfully remilitarize or invade other countries, which eventually created war when Germany was upsetting the balance of power. For example, in March 1935, Hitler used the excuse of British increasing their air force and France extending her conscription from 12-18 months to explain the reintroduction of conscription. Hitler buildup his peacetime army to 36 divisons (6000000 men) which was 6 times more that was allowed by the Treaty of Versailles. This was the first successful breach of Versailles whereby British and France took no action because they felt that the demands of the treaty was unfair to Germany and that since everyone was undergoing re-armament, his demands were not unreasonable. Subsequently, in March 1936 Hitler sent troops to the demilitarized zone Rhineland. He...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document | 799 | ENGLISH | 1 |
World War two started in 1939 and ended in 1945. WW2 was a global war involving around 57 countries. It was a fight between two major opposing alliances; The Allied Forces and the Axis Powers. The Axis powers were made up of three main powers, Italy(Benito Mussolini), Germany(Adolf Hitler) and Japan(Hirohito). The main Allies were the U.S.A(Franklin D. Roosevelt), UK(Winston Churchill), Soviet Union(Joseph Stalin) and China(Chiang Kai-shek). At first Nazi Germany started to expand it’s borders by invading nearby countries and formed a pact with the Soviet Union. Hitler and Stalin had originally planned on dividing the territories of Romania, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Finland between themselves. At first, the UK and France tried resolving these growing problems peacefully by low-key saying “please stop”; however, when Poland was invaded they declared war on Germany. In 1940, Germany invaded Denmark and Norway to stop the Allies from cutting off their iron ore shipments from Sweden. Due to the losses in Norway, Winston Churchill was assigned to be Prime Minister in 1940; this was the same day Germany launched an attack on France. As soon as France fell, Germany tried to use the same tactic against the UK, attempting to take over quickly. However, the resistance the UK was showing stalled Hitler’s original plan. Hitler came to the conclusion that they were waiting/hoping for the U.S.A. and Soviet Union to join the war against the Axis. Although the Soviet Union worked with Germany, they weren’t officially part of the Axis, despite Germany’s attempts to convince them. Hitler then decided to invade the Soviet Union in 1941, but it was unsuccessful. This caused the Soviet Union to join the Allies against Germany. The Japanese had also launched a surprise attack on the U.S.A.(attack on Pearl Harbor), causing them to join the war as part of the Allies. Now, Germany had a major fight on two fronts and this is where Germany is said to have started to lose the war. The Axis endured many defeats after, and in 1943, Italy surrendered. Benito Mussolini was then kicked out of his dictatorship role and Gen. Pietro Badoglio, seeking peace, took his place. Only a month later, Italy joined the Allies by declaring war on Germany. On June 6, 1944(D-day), after years of Soviet pressure, the Allies launched an attack to take back northern France from the Germans. In Italy, there were several Allied units sent to attack the southern part of France, putting stress on the German army. Eventually, the Germans stationed in France were all defeated and the Allies set their sights on Germany. While the events of D-day were happening, the Soviets planned a strategic attack on Belarus, Ukraine and Poland in order to drive the German troops out. Then they went to cut off and later defeat a considerably large amount of German troops in Romania and Bulgaria. The Allies were closing in on Germany and they made a last attempt to take back ground, but it was in vain. On May 7, 1945, Germany surrendered, but the war wasn’t over. Japan was still fighting and showing no interest in surrendering to the Allies. Japanese pilots started to purposely crash their planes into Allied ships in order to do some kind of damage. This action caused a lot of deaths on both sides. Japan knew they wouldn’t be able to win, and was hoping to hold out until a cease fire was called. The Allies repeatedly tried to get them to surrender, but Japan kept refusing. In order to end the fighting, Roosevelt agreed to send two atomic bombs to two civilian populated cities. After the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan surrendered, fearing another cities destruction. In September 2, 1945 Japan signed the Surrender documents and the war officially ended. WW2 was a very violent and bloody war that cost nearly 70-85 million people their lives(civilian and soldiers alike). As a result, the war prompted people to rise for independence and revolutions. There is a lot more to WW2 than what was mentioned here. There are also many WW2 memorial sites around the world dedicated to honoring/remembering those lost in the war. | <urn:uuid:8eb510c3-6869-4e89-ac1c-d0b36733d6f0> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://nope.video.blog/2019/06/15/history-ww2/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594705.17/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119180644-20200119204644-00399.warc.gz | en | 0.983429 | 878 | 3.765625 | 4 | [
-0.42822912335395813,
0.22087757289409637,
0.05082286149263382,
-0.017725640907883644,
-0.17160364985466003,
0.2752557396888733,
-0.3455383777618408,
0.14885953068733215,
-0.10987406969070435,
-0.23204295337200165,
0.3520644009113312,
-0.22653165459632874,
0.6502952575683594,
0.60931038856... | 3 | World War two started in 1939 and ended in 1945. WW2 was a global war involving around 57 countries. It was a fight between two major opposing alliances; The Allied Forces and the Axis Powers. The Axis powers were made up of three main powers, Italy(Benito Mussolini), Germany(Adolf Hitler) and Japan(Hirohito). The main Allies were the U.S.A(Franklin D. Roosevelt), UK(Winston Churchill), Soviet Union(Joseph Stalin) and China(Chiang Kai-shek). At first Nazi Germany started to expand it’s borders by invading nearby countries and formed a pact with the Soviet Union. Hitler and Stalin had originally planned on dividing the territories of Romania, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Finland between themselves. At first, the UK and France tried resolving these growing problems peacefully by low-key saying “please stop”; however, when Poland was invaded they declared war on Germany. In 1940, Germany invaded Denmark and Norway to stop the Allies from cutting off their iron ore shipments from Sweden. Due to the losses in Norway, Winston Churchill was assigned to be Prime Minister in 1940; this was the same day Germany launched an attack on France. As soon as France fell, Germany tried to use the same tactic against the UK, attempting to take over quickly. However, the resistance the UK was showing stalled Hitler’s original plan. Hitler came to the conclusion that they were waiting/hoping for the U.S.A. and Soviet Union to join the war against the Axis. Although the Soviet Union worked with Germany, they weren’t officially part of the Axis, despite Germany’s attempts to convince them. Hitler then decided to invade the Soviet Union in 1941, but it was unsuccessful. This caused the Soviet Union to join the Allies against Germany. The Japanese had also launched a surprise attack on the U.S.A.(attack on Pearl Harbor), causing them to join the war as part of the Allies. Now, Germany had a major fight on two fronts and this is where Germany is said to have started to lose the war. The Axis endured many defeats after, and in 1943, Italy surrendered. Benito Mussolini was then kicked out of his dictatorship role and Gen. Pietro Badoglio, seeking peace, took his place. Only a month later, Italy joined the Allies by declaring war on Germany. On June 6, 1944(D-day), after years of Soviet pressure, the Allies launched an attack to take back northern France from the Germans. In Italy, there were several Allied units sent to attack the southern part of France, putting stress on the German army. Eventually, the Germans stationed in France were all defeated and the Allies set their sights on Germany. While the events of D-day were happening, the Soviets planned a strategic attack on Belarus, Ukraine and Poland in order to drive the German troops out. Then they went to cut off and later defeat a considerably large amount of German troops in Romania and Bulgaria. The Allies were closing in on Germany and they made a last attempt to take back ground, but it was in vain. On May 7, 1945, Germany surrendered, but the war wasn’t over. Japan was still fighting and showing no interest in surrendering to the Allies. Japanese pilots started to purposely crash their planes into Allied ships in order to do some kind of damage. This action caused a lot of deaths on both sides. Japan knew they wouldn’t be able to win, and was hoping to hold out until a cease fire was called. The Allies repeatedly tried to get them to surrender, but Japan kept refusing. In order to end the fighting, Roosevelt agreed to send two atomic bombs to two civilian populated cities. After the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan surrendered, fearing another cities destruction. In September 2, 1945 Japan signed the Surrender documents and the war officially ended. WW2 was a very violent and bloody war that cost nearly 70-85 million people their lives(civilian and soldiers alike). As a result, the war prompted people to rise for independence and revolutions. There is a lot more to WW2 than what was mentioned here. There are also many WW2 memorial sites around the world dedicated to honoring/remembering those lost in the war. | 895 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Assimilation is defined as "The process whereby a minority group gradually adopts the customs and attitudes of the prevailing culture" . The Canadian Government claimed that "the motivation for the assimilation of the immigrants and native was that it would help those groups lead better lives," I feel that this idea is false. Forcing the Canadian Culture on natives is morally wrong. Pushing these groups to adapt this new culture, made them frustrated and unhappy. In this position paper, I will prove that the Canadian Government did not help these new groups of people lead better lives, but lead natives to lives, where they fought for ways to preserve their culture.
Starting in 1876, one of the first cases where the Government tried to provide a better life for the aboriginals and failed was in creating The Indian Act. This act of assimilation denied "status Indians", the right to vote and practice traditional religious ceremonies. The Government claimed this act was created to protect the aboriginals. This act forced the natives to adapt the English-Canadians language and culture. Producing the Indian Act, made the aboriginals angry, they were denied the right to their own culture, this caused problems that have lasted for centuries. .
The schooling system in Canada starting in the late 1800s and 1900s when many immigrants were coming into Canada, was used as an assimilation tool. Residential Schools were set up and run by churches. An amendment in the Indian Act in 1920, made it mandatory for the "status Indian" children to attend these schools. Many aboriginal children were forced away from their homes, families included and sent to schools were they were forbidden to use their own language, they had to dress in a new style of clothing and they had to abandon their spiritual beliefs. This created great conflicts in the lives of the children, how were they to know what was right or wrong anymore. | <urn:uuid:0d34551f-6836-445f-b995-b29d44ba479b> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.exampleessays.com/viewpaper/13935.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251783621.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129010251-20200129040251-00059.warc.gz | en | 0.989331 | 379 | 3.765625 | 4 | [
-0.07863228023052216,
0.267503947019577,
0.1934366673231125,
-0.18115171790122986,
-0.3089393973350525,
0.04427588731050491,
0.1826866865158081,
-0.14988848567008972,
-0.25154003500938416,
0.2875841557979584,
0.41417109966278076,
-0.3017582893371582,
0.24128340184688568,
-0.144544169306755... | 2 | Assimilation is defined as "The process whereby a minority group gradually adopts the customs and attitudes of the prevailing culture" . The Canadian Government claimed that "the motivation for the assimilation of the immigrants and native was that it would help those groups lead better lives," I feel that this idea is false. Forcing the Canadian Culture on natives is morally wrong. Pushing these groups to adapt this new culture, made them frustrated and unhappy. In this position paper, I will prove that the Canadian Government did not help these new groups of people lead better lives, but lead natives to lives, where they fought for ways to preserve their culture.
Starting in 1876, one of the first cases where the Government tried to provide a better life for the aboriginals and failed was in creating The Indian Act. This act of assimilation denied "status Indians", the right to vote and practice traditional religious ceremonies. The Government claimed this act was created to protect the aboriginals. This act forced the natives to adapt the English-Canadians language and culture. Producing the Indian Act, made the aboriginals angry, they were denied the right to their own culture, this caused problems that have lasted for centuries. .
The schooling system in Canada starting in the late 1800s and 1900s when many immigrants were coming into Canada, was used as an assimilation tool. Residential Schools were set up and run by churches. An amendment in the Indian Act in 1920, made it mandatory for the "status Indian" children to attend these schools. Many aboriginal children were forced away from their homes, families included and sent to schools were they were forbidden to use their own language, they had to dress in a new style of clothing and they had to abandon their spiritual beliefs. This created great conflicts in the lives of the children, how were they to know what was right or wrong anymore. | 392 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Get help with any kind of project - from a high school essay to a PhD dissertation
Zeus is known most regularly as the reasonable ruler of most Gods and men. He's the god of hospitality and justice known for his courage and fairness to the people; he saved his sisters and brothers from the depths of their evil, selfish father; and he's the “father of guys and gods.” While it holds true these are incredible deeds worth honor, it is necessary to notice that Zeus had not been always portrayed as the nice guy by ancient writers. There are many situations in Greek literature and mythology where Zeus is certainly unfair and wrathful. However, while Zeus has already established his fair share of rage-induced tyrannical practices and punishments, overall he had not been a tyrannical leader. Further, he was nowhere close to as as his dad and grandfather who ruled before him awful. To comprehend and justify Zeus’ occasional wickedness, it is necessary to note the type of Kings were ruling Olympus before Zeus’ birth. To comprehend why Zeus was therefore respected and treasured as ruler, we must go completely back again to his grandfather first, Uranus. Through the pairing of Ge and Uranus, the Cyclopes and the Titans of Zeus’ father’s era were created. Because they were born immediately, Uranus “hid all of them in the depths of Ge and didn't permit them to emerge in to the light.” He did this most likely for his personal selfish gain; with no children, there is nobody to steal his power as ruler from him. Uranus’ last kid was overall awful and had an extremely passionate hatred for his dad; this youngster was Cronus, the paternalfather of Zeus. Cronus castrated his father, freeing his siblings from their imprisonment in Ge. Cronus despised his dad and freed his siblings, but this didn't stop him from pursuing his father’s footsteps when he beginning having his very own children. Uran... | <urn:uuid:997924af-5075-41e1-af6e-3b580bd88892> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://studybay.com/example-works/essay/other/1014470/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251783621.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129010251-20200129040251-00448.warc.gz | en | 0.993149 | 407 | 3.359375 | 3 | [
-0.3648678958415985,
0.3564789295196533,
-0.016935259103775024,
-0.5163878798484802,
-0.4258977472782135,
-0.19635741412639618,
0.31726548075675964,
0.6688292026519775,
-0.10231050848960876,
-0.004316287115216255,
-0.34968364238739014,
-0.16176444292068481,
0.1856287270784378,
0.3833317458... | 1 | Get help with any kind of project - from a high school essay to a PhD dissertation
Zeus is known most regularly as the reasonable ruler of most Gods and men. He's the god of hospitality and justice known for his courage and fairness to the people; he saved his sisters and brothers from the depths of their evil, selfish father; and he's the “father of guys and gods.” While it holds true these are incredible deeds worth honor, it is necessary to notice that Zeus had not been always portrayed as the nice guy by ancient writers. There are many situations in Greek literature and mythology where Zeus is certainly unfair and wrathful. However, while Zeus has already established his fair share of rage-induced tyrannical practices and punishments, overall he had not been a tyrannical leader. Further, he was nowhere close to as as his dad and grandfather who ruled before him awful. To comprehend and justify Zeus’ occasional wickedness, it is necessary to note the type of Kings were ruling Olympus before Zeus’ birth. To comprehend why Zeus was therefore respected and treasured as ruler, we must go completely back again to his grandfather first, Uranus. Through the pairing of Ge and Uranus, the Cyclopes and the Titans of Zeus’ father’s era were created. Because they were born immediately, Uranus “hid all of them in the depths of Ge and didn't permit them to emerge in to the light.” He did this most likely for his personal selfish gain; with no children, there is nobody to steal his power as ruler from him. Uranus’ last kid was overall awful and had an extremely passionate hatred for his dad; this youngster was Cronus, the paternalfather of Zeus. Cronus castrated his father, freeing his siblings from their imprisonment in Ge. Cronus despised his dad and freed his siblings, but this didn't stop him from pursuing his father’s footsteps when he beginning having his very own children. Uran... | 395 | ENGLISH | 1 |
New York: Multitasking makes adolescents feel both more positive as well as more negative about the main task they are trying to accomplish, says a new study.
The study, published in the journal Human Communication Research, found that when adolescents combined something they had to do (like homework) with media use (such as texting with friends), they said the homework was more rewarding, stimulating or pleasant.
But they also reported feeling more negative emotions about the homework, such as finding it more difficult or tiring.
"It suggests that adolescents may be less likely to multitask if they already find their tasks rewarding," said study co-author Zheng Wang, Professor at the Ohio State University in the US.
The study involved 71 adolescents aged 11 to 17 living in the Midwest. All participants reported their activities, both media-related and non-media related, three times a day for 14 days on a digital tablet device.
At each time point, they listed a main activity they were doing (such as homework or chores), and whether they were doing any media multitasking (such as texting or playing video games) at the same time.
For each main activity, they rated to what extent they felt seven emotional responses (three positive and four negative).
The results showed that the teens in the study were media multitasking about 40 per cent of the time that they were performing other activities.
According to the researchers, both positive and negative emotions initially increased when participants said they were multitasking.
But the longer they were working at any main task and multitasking, the less they felt these negative and positive emotions, the study said. | <urn:uuid:03417bcb-a7b6-4610-88c5-0bca740ec488> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://gulfnews.com/lifestyle/health-fitness/multitasking-makes-teens-feel-both-positive-and-negative-1.1572537831714 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250606226.29/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121222429-20200122011429-00406.warc.gz | en | 0.981036 | 331 | 3.265625 | 3 | [
-0.020199984312057495,
0.04282357543706894,
0.33470815420150757,
-0.36787551641464233,
-0.382355272769928,
0.14188581705093384,
-0.07509461045265198,
0.039832402020692825,
0.22933004796504974,
-0.17206983268260956,
0.224019855260849,
-0.10006488859653473,
0.4042518734931946,
0.360109686851... | 3 | New York: Multitasking makes adolescents feel both more positive as well as more negative about the main task they are trying to accomplish, says a new study.
The study, published in the journal Human Communication Research, found that when adolescents combined something they had to do (like homework) with media use (such as texting with friends), they said the homework was more rewarding, stimulating or pleasant.
But they also reported feeling more negative emotions about the homework, such as finding it more difficult or tiring.
"It suggests that adolescents may be less likely to multitask if they already find their tasks rewarding," said study co-author Zheng Wang, Professor at the Ohio State University in the US.
The study involved 71 adolescents aged 11 to 17 living in the Midwest. All participants reported their activities, both media-related and non-media related, three times a day for 14 days on a digital tablet device.
At each time point, they listed a main activity they were doing (such as homework or chores), and whether they were doing any media multitasking (such as texting or playing video games) at the same time.
For each main activity, they rated to what extent they felt seven emotional responses (three positive and four negative).
The results showed that the teens in the study were media multitasking about 40 per cent of the time that they were performing other activities.
According to the researchers, both positive and negative emotions initially increased when participants said they were multitasking.
But the longer they were working at any main task and multitasking, the less they felt these negative and positive emotions, the study said. | 328 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer is a story that provides hope for children who are being bullied and otherwise rejected by their society. Rudolph is clearly the hero of the story. The villains are most of the rest of the people in Rudolph’s society, including Santa Claus himself. Some critics have complained that the Rudolph story teaches bullied children that they cannot trust authority figures. But the bullied children already knew that. It’s high time that the adults figured it out as well.
Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer was a character created in 1939 in a Christmas story created by Robert L. May, who was working as a copywriter for the Montgomery Ward Company. The story was such a hit that it was reprinted for several years. The story was adapted into a 9‑minute cartoon, to be shown in movie theaters. May’s brother-in-law, Johnny Marks, then wrote the lyrics and melody for the popular song. In 1964, the Rankin/Bass company produced a stop-action Christmas special, which has become a modern classic.
Robert May based his Rudolph story on the story of the Ugly Duckling. This duckling was a misfit among its flock of ducklings. Yet to everyone’s surprise, the Ugly Duckling grew up to be a beautiful swan. Likewise, Rudolph is initially rejected because he looks different from the other reindeer. As a result, his childhood is lonely and unhappy. Yet thanks to his natural gift, he becomes a valued member of society as an adult.
The television special introduced some new characters, including Hermey, an elf who ran away from Santa’s workshop because he wanted to become a dentist, instead of a toymaker. The two find their way to the Island of Misfit Toys, whose ruler asks Rudolph to ask Santa to find homes for the misfits. Yet Rudolph cannot live with the misfits because he’s afraid that his shining nose will endanger the others, by attracting the attention of the Abominable Snowman. Despite how horribly Rudolph has been treated by others, Rudolf grows up to be not only brave but selfless. He even has the magnanimity (greatness of soul) to forgive Santa and his father for their cruel rejection of him. Yet thanks to the brilliance that made others reject him, Rudoloph is eventually able to solve a problem that no one else in his society could solve.
Some people have argued that the Rudolph story is a parable about growing up gay. Certainly, gay children have often been targets of bullying, and gay children can draw comfort from the story, with its “It Gets Better” message (https://itgetsbetter.org). Yet Rudolph is not gay. He falls in love with a doe named Clarice. Instead, Rudolph represents another class of bullied children: the gifted. Gifted children are described as “bright” or “brilliant” because of their intelligence, whereas Rudolph is literally bright, because of his shiny nose. Like many gifted children, Rudolph was bullied by other youngsters as well as by adults, who were inexplicably frightened by his nose. (Likewise, many ordinary children and adults feel fear as well as loathing when they encounter brilliant people.) Rudolph’s father Donner had tried to get Rudolph to hide his nose, but the fake nose that Donner made for Rudolph eventually failed. Rudolph’s brilliance was as plain as the nose on his face. The attempt to hide it was stifling and was doomed to failure. The same goes for gifted children.
Like many other gifted children, Rudolph had a strong moral sense. He was kind and brave and selfless. His moral sense put Santa’s to shame, even though Santa is supposedly the one who knows who’s naughty or nice. Similarly, gifted children (and gifted adults) are often shunned, precisely because of their moral integrity, as well as their brilliance.
What about Hermey the elf? Some commentators have suggested that Hermey is gay because he is kind of nerdy. Yet when I was growing up, I knew some children who were not gay but were kind of nerdy, who did not worship Santa or take part in Christmas celebrations, and who went on to become dentists or other professionals. They described themselves as “Jewish.” Like Hermey, Jewish kids seemed to think that it was good to be bright. Although Hermey is not explicitly labeled as Jewish, his role in the Rudolph story is to teach children that anti-Semitism is stupid.
Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer teaches important moral lessons. Rudolph and Hermey serve as a role models for bright, nonconforming children. Rudolph and Hermey’s story arcs reassure bright children that their childhood misery is not their fault, and that their intelligence, compassion, and moral courage may allow them to become valuable and valued members of society in adult life. In contrast, Donner and Santa’s story arcs serve as cautionary tales for parents and teachers.
Many adults like to think that schoolyard bullying is “kid’s stuff” and therefore none of their concern. Yet the schoolyard bullies are taking their cues from the adults in their societies. Bullies often see themselves as a police force, enforcing the social norms that have been established by the adults. Likewise, Santa and Donner decided that Rudolph’s nose was an embarrassment, and they allowed “all of the other reindeer” to be cruel. The blinding snowstorm serves as a metaphor for Santa and Donner’s moral blindness. Without (moral) guidance from Rudolph, Santa and Donner could not deliver joy to children.
The moral lessons from Rudolph are simple: Be Rudolph. If you can’t be Rudolph, be Hermey. Don’t be bigoted and callous, like Donner and Santa and all of the other reindeer (except Rudolph’s girlfriend Clarice). If you find yourself having to rear or teach a child who is exceptionally bright, contact Serving the Emotional Needs of the Gifted (www.seng.org) for guidance.
Photo by joebeone | <urn:uuid:f48e358d-d2b8-49c5-9f41-c9704065c487> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://nottrivialbook.com/2017/12/21/why-parents-and-teachers-should-watch-rudolph-the-red-nosed-reindeer/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250601040.47/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120224950-20200121013950-00163.warc.gz | en | 0.981184 | 1,303 | 3.265625 | 3 | [
0.09455687552690506,
0.01460411585867405,
0.02629585564136505,
0.18767762184143066,
-0.20134344696998596,
-0.26934391260147095,
0.08164016157388687,
0.29926466941833496,
-0.0054876189678907394,
0.05872514843940735,
0.30672627687454224,
0.24299216270446777,
0.4280344247817993,
0.08344725519... | 18 | Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer is a story that provides hope for children who are being bullied and otherwise rejected by their society. Rudolph is clearly the hero of the story. The villains are most of the rest of the people in Rudolph’s society, including Santa Claus himself. Some critics have complained that the Rudolph story teaches bullied children that they cannot trust authority figures. But the bullied children already knew that. It’s high time that the adults figured it out as well.
Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer was a character created in 1939 in a Christmas story created by Robert L. May, who was working as a copywriter for the Montgomery Ward Company. The story was such a hit that it was reprinted for several years. The story was adapted into a 9‑minute cartoon, to be shown in movie theaters. May’s brother-in-law, Johnny Marks, then wrote the lyrics and melody for the popular song. In 1964, the Rankin/Bass company produced a stop-action Christmas special, which has become a modern classic.
Robert May based his Rudolph story on the story of the Ugly Duckling. This duckling was a misfit among its flock of ducklings. Yet to everyone’s surprise, the Ugly Duckling grew up to be a beautiful swan. Likewise, Rudolph is initially rejected because he looks different from the other reindeer. As a result, his childhood is lonely and unhappy. Yet thanks to his natural gift, he becomes a valued member of society as an adult.
The television special introduced some new characters, including Hermey, an elf who ran away from Santa’s workshop because he wanted to become a dentist, instead of a toymaker. The two find their way to the Island of Misfit Toys, whose ruler asks Rudolph to ask Santa to find homes for the misfits. Yet Rudolph cannot live with the misfits because he’s afraid that his shining nose will endanger the others, by attracting the attention of the Abominable Snowman. Despite how horribly Rudolph has been treated by others, Rudolf grows up to be not only brave but selfless. He even has the magnanimity (greatness of soul) to forgive Santa and his father for their cruel rejection of him. Yet thanks to the brilliance that made others reject him, Rudoloph is eventually able to solve a problem that no one else in his society could solve.
Some people have argued that the Rudolph story is a parable about growing up gay. Certainly, gay children have often been targets of bullying, and gay children can draw comfort from the story, with its “It Gets Better” message (https://itgetsbetter.org). Yet Rudolph is not gay. He falls in love with a doe named Clarice. Instead, Rudolph represents another class of bullied children: the gifted. Gifted children are described as “bright” or “brilliant” because of their intelligence, whereas Rudolph is literally bright, because of his shiny nose. Like many gifted children, Rudolph was bullied by other youngsters as well as by adults, who were inexplicably frightened by his nose. (Likewise, many ordinary children and adults feel fear as well as loathing when they encounter brilliant people.) Rudolph’s father Donner had tried to get Rudolph to hide his nose, but the fake nose that Donner made for Rudolph eventually failed. Rudolph’s brilliance was as plain as the nose on his face. The attempt to hide it was stifling and was doomed to failure. The same goes for gifted children.
Like many other gifted children, Rudolph had a strong moral sense. He was kind and brave and selfless. His moral sense put Santa’s to shame, even though Santa is supposedly the one who knows who’s naughty or nice. Similarly, gifted children (and gifted adults) are often shunned, precisely because of their moral integrity, as well as their brilliance.
What about Hermey the elf? Some commentators have suggested that Hermey is gay because he is kind of nerdy. Yet when I was growing up, I knew some children who were not gay but were kind of nerdy, who did not worship Santa or take part in Christmas celebrations, and who went on to become dentists or other professionals. They described themselves as “Jewish.” Like Hermey, Jewish kids seemed to think that it was good to be bright. Although Hermey is not explicitly labeled as Jewish, his role in the Rudolph story is to teach children that anti-Semitism is stupid.
Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer teaches important moral lessons. Rudolph and Hermey serve as a role models for bright, nonconforming children. Rudolph and Hermey’s story arcs reassure bright children that their childhood misery is not their fault, and that their intelligence, compassion, and moral courage may allow them to become valuable and valued members of society in adult life. In contrast, Donner and Santa’s story arcs serve as cautionary tales for parents and teachers.
Many adults like to think that schoolyard bullying is “kid’s stuff” and therefore none of their concern. Yet the schoolyard bullies are taking their cues from the adults in their societies. Bullies often see themselves as a police force, enforcing the social norms that have been established by the adults. Likewise, Santa and Donner decided that Rudolph’s nose was an embarrassment, and they allowed “all of the other reindeer” to be cruel. The blinding snowstorm serves as a metaphor for Santa and Donner’s moral blindness. Without (moral) guidance from Rudolph, Santa and Donner could not deliver joy to children.
The moral lessons from Rudolph are simple: Be Rudolph. If you can’t be Rudolph, be Hermey. Don’t be bigoted and callous, like Donner and Santa and all of the other reindeer (except Rudolph’s girlfriend Clarice). If you find yourself having to rear or teach a child who is exceptionally bright, contact Serving the Emotional Needs of the Gifted (www.seng.org) for guidance.
Photo by joebeone | 1,258 | ENGLISH | 1 |
1144 March 22, FIRST RITUAL MURDER LIBEL (Norwich, England)
The first medieval ritual murder libel - which set the pattern for subsequent accusations in England and France - arose against the background of the Civil War. A 12 year old boy, William, was found dead on Easter Eve and the Jews were accused of killing him in a mock crucifixion. They were not, however, accused of using his blood for the making of matzos (matzot), although this would become a standard feature of later libels.(The idea behind the blood libel was to accuse Jews of killing Christians in order to obtain their blood. In almost all cases it was linked to the baking of matzos for Passover - Christians alleged that blood was an essential ingredient in matzos. It was later presumed by scholars that the boy either died during a cataleptic fit or was killed by a sexual pervert. After Easter a synod convened and summoned the Jews to the Church court. The Jews refused on the grounds that only the king had jurisdiction over them and they feared that they would be subjected to "trial by ordeal". William was regarded as a martyred saint and a shrine was erected in his memory. In spite of this episode there was no immediate violence against the Jews. The origins of the ritual murder accusation go as far back as to Democritus of Thrace (c.460-370 BCE) and Apion (first century C.E.) an anti-Jewish Greek propagandist who accused the Jews of preparing a human sacrifice in the Temple, who was saved by King Antiochus Epiphanes. Over the years ritual murder libels continued, (even it in popular literature such as Geoffrey Chaucer's "Prioress' Tale") despite denunciations by various popes. Possession of a saint's shrine bestowed great economic benefits on a town because sacred relics drew pilgrims, who spent money on offerings, board and lodging. For bones to be considered sacred relics they had to be killed by a heretic (i.e. a Jew). Such charges were used as an excuse to murder Jews as late as 1900 (Konitz). | <urn:uuid:13c4b265-96e2-40c5-a86f-ba8d1124cae7> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://www.jewishhistory.org.il/history.php?anchor=1100ritual%20murder | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250597230.18/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120023523-20200120051523-00558.warc.gz | en | 0.984373 | 441 | 3.59375 | 4 | [
0.06596064567565918,
0.4668855667114258,
0.004983160644769669,
0.14830592274665833,
0.10055506229400635,
0.19711832702159882,
-0.008879114873707294,
0.12969839572906494,
0.4382559657096863,
-0.10923828929662704,
-0.12648093700408936,
0.12222906202077866,
-0.13669919967651367,
0.01840713806... | 10 | 1144 March 22, FIRST RITUAL MURDER LIBEL (Norwich, England)
The first medieval ritual murder libel - which set the pattern for subsequent accusations in England and France - arose against the background of the Civil War. A 12 year old boy, William, was found dead on Easter Eve and the Jews were accused of killing him in a mock crucifixion. They were not, however, accused of using his blood for the making of matzos (matzot), although this would become a standard feature of later libels.(The idea behind the blood libel was to accuse Jews of killing Christians in order to obtain their blood. In almost all cases it was linked to the baking of matzos for Passover - Christians alleged that blood was an essential ingredient in matzos. It was later presumed by scholars that the boy either died during a cataleptic fit or was killed by a sexual pervert. After Easter a synod convened and summoned the Jews to the Church court. The Jews refused on the grounds that only the king had jurisdiction over them and they feared that they would be subjected to "trial by ordeal". William was regarded as a martyred saint and a shrine was erected in his memory. In spite of this episode there was no immediate violence against the Jews. The origins of the ritual murder accusation go as far back as to Democritus of Thrace (c.460-370 BCE) and Apion (first century C.E.) an anti-Jewish Greek propagandist who accused the Jews of preparing a human sacrifice in the Temple, who was saved by King Antiochus Epiphanes. Over the years ritual murder libels continued, (even it in popular literature such as Geoffrey Chaucer's "Prioress' Tale") despite denunciations by various popes. Possession of a saint's shrine bestowed great economic benefits on a town because sacred relics drew pilgrims, who spent money on offerings, board and lodging. For bones to be considered sacred relics they had to be killed by a heretic (i.e. a Jew). Such charges were used as an excuse to murder Jews as late as 1900 (Konitz). | 458 | ENGLISH | 1 |
James Monroe Biography
5th President of the United States
Years Served as President: 1817-1825
Vice President: Daniel D. Tompkins
Age at Inauguration: 58
Home State: Virginia
Date of Birth: April 28, 1758
Died: July 4, 1831
Married: Elizabeth Kortright
Children: Eliza and Maria
Nickname: The Era of Good Feelings President
What is James Monroe known for?
It said that colonization would be viewed as “the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States.” In other words, the United States would view it as an act of war.
The Monroe Doctrine is seen as a defining moment in U.S. foreign policy.
James Monroe was born in Westmoreland County, Virginia. His father was Spence Monroe, a carpenter and farmer. His mother was Elizabeth Jones Monroe. James was their oldest child.
As a boy, James was tutored at home by his mother. He then attended Campbelltown Academy, where he was known as an excellent student.
In 1774, 16-year-old James entered the College of William and Mary. He left college in 1776 to join the Continental Army and fight against the British in the Revolutionary War.
He became a major and fought under the command of George Washington. He was wounded at the Battle of Trenton, New Jersey and was with Washington and his troops during the difficult winter in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania.
While he was in the army, James got to know Thomas Jefferson, who was then the governor of Virginia. He began studying law under Jefferson and soon began a career in politics.
In 1782, James Monroe was elected to the Virginia House of Delegates. From 1783 to 1786, he served in the Continental Congress. At the time, the Continental Congress was meeting in New York.
He also held a seat in the U.S. Senate representing Virginia. He formed a political alliance with Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.
They believed that a strong federal government was important, but not at the cost of state and individual rights.
Together, the men founded the Democratic-Republican Party to oppose the Federalists, who wanted more federal power. It’s considered the first opposition party in United States history.
The Louisiana Purchase doubled the size of the United States.
After that, James became the minister to Great Britain. In 1811, he served as secretary of state and secretary of war under James Madison.
While James Monroe was in New York with the Continental Congress, he met and married Elizabeth Kortright.
Elizabeth and James had two daughters, Eliza and Maria. They also had a son who died as an infant.
In 1816, James Monroe ran for president and defeated Rufus King, the Federalist candidate.
His time as president was known as the “Era of Good Feelings.” After several victories during the War of 1812, the United States was feeling confident. It was also growing and offering new opportunities to its people.
In addition, the Federalist Party was becoming so unpopular that most Americans were united in support of the Democratic-Republicans. It was a peaceful time for most of the country.
Accomplishments during James Monroe’s presidency included:
The purchase of Florida from Spain.
Admitting Mississippi, Alabama, Maine, Illinois, and Missouri to the United States.
Signing of the Monroe Doctrine, declaring that the U.S. would consider it a sign of war if a European country attacked or attempted to colonize any nation in North or South America.
With the rapid expansion of the United States, there were some economic troubles. James Monroe was still fairly popular, and no one ran against him in the presidential election of 1820.
It was during his second term that James signed the Monroe Doctrine. He also helped build transportation infrastructure and lay the foundation for the United States to become a world power.
After the Presidency
In 1825, James Monroe returned to Virginia. There, he helped create a new state constitution in 1829.
His wife Elizabeth died the following year, and James moved in with his daughter in New York City. He died in 1831 at the age of 73.
Fun Facts About James Monroe
James Monroe was the last president of the “Virginia Dynasty.” Four of the first five presidents were from Virginia.
His death was also the fifty-fifth anniversary of the approval of the Declaration of Independence.
James Monroe was the first president to have his inauguration ceremony outside to deliver his inauguration address to the public.
James and his family spent the beginning of his presidency in a home on I Street in Washington while the White House was being rebuilt. (It had been burnt down during the War of 1812.)
James Monroe had also run for president in 1808 against James Madison, but he lost. The men were still friends, and Madison asked Monroe to be his secretary of state in 1811.
His daughter Maria was married in the White House. Her wedding was the first to ever take place in the White House.
James Monroe is considered the last of the Founding Fathers to become president. | <urn:uuid:d1b2cca5-64bc-45f8-b161-b9fdf6d76255> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.coolkidfacts.com/james-monroe-facts/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250589560.16/warc/CC-MAIN-20200117123339-20200117151339-00213.warc.gz | en | 0.984217 | 1,079 | 3.375 | 3 | [
-0.48062223196029663,
-0.09073946624994278,
0.8728086352348328,
-0.21375006437301636,
-0.2524578869342804,
0.42276936769485474,
0.2724730670452118,
-0.027244340628385544,
-0.2260720431804657,
-0.03623780235648155,
0.26150423288345337,
0.3242422938346863,
0.06878070533275604,
0.546507835388... | 13 | James Monroe Biography
5th President of the United States
Years Served as President: 1817-1825
Vice President: Daniel D. Tompkins
Age at Inauguration: 58
Home State: Virginia
Date of Birth: April 28, 1758
Died: July 4, 1831
Married: Elizabeth Kortright
Children: Eliza and Maria
Nickname: The Era of Good Feelings President
What is James Monroe known for?
It said that colonization would be viewed as “the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States.” In other words, the United States would view it as an act of war.
The Monroe Doctrine is seen as a defining moment in U.S. foreign policy.
James Monroe was born in Westmoreland County, Virginia. His father was Spence Monroe, a carpenter and farmer. His mother was Elizabeth Jones Monroe. James was their oldest child.
As a boy, James was tutored at home by his mother. He then attended Campbelltown Academy, where he was known as an excellent student.
In 1774, 16-year-old James entered the College of William and Mary. He left college in 1776 to join the Continental Army and fight against the British in the Revolutionary War.
He became a major and fought under the command of George Washington. He was wounded at the Battle of Trenton, New Jersey and was with Washington and his troops during the difficult winter in Valley Forge, Pennsylvania.
While he was in the army, James got to know Thomas Jefferson, who was then the governor of Virginia. He began studying law under Jefferson and soon began a career in politics.
In 1782, James Monroe was elected to the Virginia House of Delegates. From 1783 to 1786, he served in the Continental Congress. At the time, the Continental Congress was meeting in New York.
He also held a seat in the U.S. Senate representing Virginia. He formed a political alliance with Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.
They believed that a strong federal government was important, but not at the cost of state and individual rights.
Together, the men founded the Democratic-Republican Party to oppose the Federalists, who wanted more federal power. It’s considered the first opposition party in United States history.
The Louisiana Purchase doubled the size of the United States.
After that, James became the minister to Great Britain. In 1811, he served as secretary of state and secretary of war under James Madison.
While James Monroe was in New York with the Continental Congress, he met and married Elizabeth Kortright.
Elizabeth and James had two daughters, Eliza and Maria. They also had a son who died as an infant.
In 1816, James Monroe ran for president and defeated Rufus King, the Federalist candidate.
His time as president was known as the “Era of Good Feelings.” After several victories during the War of 1812, the United States was feeling confident. It was also growing and offering new opportunities to its people.
In addition, the Federalist Party was becoming so unpopular that most Americans were united in support of the Democratic-Republicans. It was a peaceful time for most of the country.
Accomplishments during James Monroe’s presidency included:
The purchase of Florida from Spain.
Admitting Mississippi, Alabama, Maine, Illinois, and Missouri to the United States.
Signing of the Monroe Doctrine, declaring that the U.S. would consider it a sign of war if a European country attacked or attempted to colonize any nation in North or South America.
With the rapid expansion of the United States, there were some economic troubles. James Monroe was still fairly popular, and no one ran against him in the presidential election of 1820.
It was during his second term that James signed the Monroe Doctrine. He also helped build transportation infrastructure and lay the foundation for the United States to become a world power.
After the Presidency
In 1825, James Monroe returned to Virginia. There, he helped create a new state constitution in 1829.
His wife Elizabeth died the following year, and James moved in with his daughter in New York City. He died in 1831 at the age of 73.
Fun Facts About James Monroe
James Monroe was the last president of the “Virginia Dynasty.” Four of the first five presidents were from Virginia.
His death was also the fifty-fifth anniversary of the approval of the Declaration of Independence.
James Monroe was the first president to have his inauguration ceremony outside to deliver his inauguration address to the public.
James and his family spent the beginning of his presidency in a home on I Street in Washington while the White House was being rebuilt. (It had been burnt down during the War of 1812.)
James Monroe had also run for president in 1808 against James Madison, but he lost. The men were still friends, and Madison asked Monroe to be his secretary of state in 1811.
His daughter Maria was married in the White House. Her wedding was the first to ever take place in the White House.
James Monroe is considered the last of the Founding Fathers to become president. | 1,091 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Incubated Babies Fairs
Photo credit: Wikimedia
Before the 20th century, premature babies had very little chance of survival. That was set to change when Dr. Martin Corney invented his incubator, but not many people trusted the machine. Hospitals rejected it, and investors were not forthcoming. To prevent the death of his invention and convince skeptics, Couney came up with a very strange and crazy solution. He built an exhibit in which premature babies will be put on display at fairs and parks. The first exhibit, or “child hatchery,” opened in Berlin in 1896. He soon moved to the US, where he opened an exhibit on Coney Island.
Couney’s exhibit looked like a normal hospital. He placed babies in wards and employed doctors and nurses to look after them. The only difference was that one side of the ward was glass, and people watched through it.
The exhibit was very successful. Parents brought their premature babies to Couney and did not have to pay for medical care. The customers were charged up to 25 cents for the show, and the money collected paid for all expenses. Most of the premature children on display survived. By the time incubated babies fairs ended four decades later, Couney had managed to convince everyone that his incubators were safe.
Not a traditional approach, but it seemed to have done the job. That's what counts, I reckon.
Coffee inside again, even though it is supposed to warm up some out on the patio. | <urn:uuid:ab592072-64fc-47bb-b79c-f6635c6b7c0d> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://hermitjim.blogspot.com/2019/11/the-incubator-fairs.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250592394.9/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118081234-20200118105234-00204.warc.gz | en | 0.988786 | 315 | 3.375 | 3 | [
-0.12539218366146088,
0.06776372343301773,
0.2401091307401657,
0.1922529637813568,
0.1426345854997635,
0.26465338468551636,
0.20075444877147675,
0.07703203707933426,
-0.2325817197561264,
-0.18833085894584656,
-0.05370486155152321,
0.2580046057701111,
0.06687231361865997,
0.2952768504619598... | 2 | Incubated Babies Fairs
Photo credit: Wikimedia
Before the 20th century, premature babies had very little chance of survival. That was set to change when Dr. Martin Corney invented his incubator, but not many people trusted the machine. Hospitals rejected it, and investors were not forthcoming. To prevent the death of his invention and convince skeptics, Couney came up with a very strange and crazy solution. He built an exhibit in which premature babies will be put on display at fairs and parks. The first exhibit, or “child hatchery,” opened in Berlin in 1896. He soon moved to the US, where he opened an exhibit on Coney Island.
Couney’s exhibit looked like a normal hospital. He placed babies in wards and employed doctors and nurses to look after them. The only difference was that one side of the ward was glass, and people watched through it.
The exhibit was very successful. Parents brought their premature babies to Couney and did not have to pay for medical care. The customers were charged up to 25 cents for the show, and the money collected paid for all expenses. Most of the premature children on display survived. By the time incubated babies fairs ended four decades later, Couney had managed to convince everyone that his incubators were safe.
Not a traditional approach, but it seemed to have done the job. That's what counts, I reckon.
Coffee inside again, even though it is supposed to warm up some out on the patio. | 310 | ENGLISH | 1 |
A MAP of "hell" has been found scrawled on a 4,000-year-old coffin in Egypt.
The ancient doodle was designed to help the dead reach the afterlife by guiding them through the perilous obstacles of the underworld.
The coffin and its artwork were discovered in a burial shaft in the Egyptian necropolis of Dayr al-Barsha.
An inscription on two wooden panels recovered by archaeologists is a mix of hieroglyphs and symbols known to the Ancient Egyptians as The Book of Two Ways.
It depicts two zigzagging lines that detail two routes the dead can use to reach Osiris – the Ancient Egyptian god of the dead – in the afterlife.
Spells were written into the text to help the deceased ward off demons on their dangerous journey.
"In many ways, the Book of Two Ways can be described as the first illustrated book in history,” Ancient Egypt expert Dr Foy Scalf, of the University of Chicago, told The Times.
"It offers the first illustrated guide to a sacred geography."
While the find was made in 2012, a new study reveals it's the oldest known example of The Book of Two Ways.
The guidebook was written on the inside of a coffin of a high-ranking woman called Ankh.
A brief history of Ancient Egypt
Here's everything you need to know...
- The Ancient Egyptians were an advanced civilisation who at one point owned a huge portion of the globe
- The civilisation began about 5,000 years ago when ancient humans began building villages along the River Nile
- It lasted for about 3,000 years and saw the building of complex cities centuries ahead of their time – as well as the famous Great Pyramids
- The Ancient Egyptians were experts at farming and construction
- They invented a solar calendar, and one of the world's earliest writing systems: The hieroglyph
- The Egyptians were ruled by kings and queens called pharaohs
- Religion and the afterlife were a huge part of Ancient Egyptian culture. They had over 2,000 gods
- Pharaohs built huge elaborate tombs to be buried in, some of which were pyramids – at the time among the largest buildings in the world
- The Egyptians believed in life after death, and important people's corpses were mummified to preserve their bodies for the afterlife
- The Ancient Egytpian empire fell due to a mix of factors, including wars with other empires and a 100-year period of drought and starvation
It's one of few artefacts found inside the tomb, which grave robbers ransacked over multiple visits centuries ago.
Archaeologists dated the tomb and its contents to around 4,000 years ago based on inscriptions carved within.
They depict Djehutinakht I, an ancient governor who ruled the region from around the 21st to 20th century BC.
If true, that would make the copy of the book found on the coffin around 500 years older than any other found.
Several copies have been found before, written on everything from tomb walls to mummy masks.
They were typically reserved for high-ranking officials of the Kingdom of Egypt.
The book is part of a huge body of work known as The Coffin Texts, which includes more than 1,000 spells and religious writings on the afterlife.
Little is known about the Book of Two Ways, including when it was written and by whom.
Curse of the Pharaohs – who died after King Tutankhamun's tomb was opened?
Tutankhamun's tomb was opened on November 29, 1922. These are the deaths that followed...
- Lord Carnarvon (died April 5, 1923) – a financial backer of the excavation, he died from an infected mosquito bite
- George Jay Gould I (died May 16, 1923) – a tomb visitor who died from a fever following his visit
- Prince Ali Kamel Fahmy Bey (died July 10, 1923) – an Egyptian prince who was shot and killed by his wife
- Colonel The Hon. Aubrey Herbert, MP (died September 26, 1923) – the half-brother of Lord Cardnarvon, he died from blood poisoning related to dental work
- Sir Archibald Douglas-Reid (died January 15, 1924) – the radiologist who X-Ray Tut's tomb died from a mysterious illness
- Sir Lee Stack (died November 19, 1924) – the Governer-General of Sudan was assassinated driving through Egypt's capital, Cairo
- A. C. Mace (died April 6, 1928) – a member of Howard Carter's excavation team, he died from arsenic poisoning
- The Hon. Mervyn Herbert (died May 26, 1929) – another half-brother of Lord Carnarvon, he died from malarial pneumonia
- Captain The Hon. Richard Bethell (died November 15, 1929) – Howard Carter's personal secretary, he died from a suspected smothering in a Mayfair club
- Richard Luttrell Pilkington Bethell (died February 20, 1930) – father of Richard Bethell, he supposedly threw himself off his seventh floor apartment
- Howard Carter (died February 16, 1923) – Carter opened Tut's tomb, and died aged 64 from Hodgkin's disease. His older brother William died the same year
Scientists hope to use the discovery to uncover more of the text's secrets.
The opening of the tomb is likely to spark fears of the Ancient Egyptian "Curse of the Pharaohs".
The alleged hex is believed by some to be cast upon anyone who disturbs the mummy of an Ancient Egyptian person.
The research was published in The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology.
TOP STORIES IN SCIENCE
In other news, we revealed last month that Ancient Egyptian grave robbers looted £700,000 of gold from a Pharaoh’s tomb – and were impaled as punishment.
Ancient Chinese people gave their babies coneheads by "moulding their skulls" to show off how rich they were.
And, from headless vikings to "screaming" mummies, here are some of the most gruesome corpses ever found.
What do you think the ancient text means? Let us know in the comments...
We pay for your stories! Do you have a story for The Sun Online Tech & Science team? Email us at email@example.com | <urn:uuid:ab9e8fe8-a5e5-457a-bebe-d24d55b794b0> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/tech/4812806/ancient-egyptian-coffin-contains-oldest-map-of-the-underworld-inscribed-4000-years-ago/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251802249.87/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129194333-20200129223333-00504.warc.gz | en | 0.981756 | 1,329 | 3.421875 | 3 | [
-0.26413458585739136,
0.5440510511398315,
0.2522691488265991,
0.014906978234648705,
-0.7781326770782471,
0.12349461764097214,
0.11399131268262863,
-0.25233325362205505,
-0.2956138253211975,
-0.01451396569609642,
0.02084961161017418,
-0.664771318435669,
-0.3281875550746918,
0.22462493181228... | 1 | A MAP of "hell" has been found scrawled on a 4,000-year-old coffin in Egypt.
The ancient doodle was designed to help the dead reach the afterlife by guiding them through the perilous obstacles of the underworld.
The coffin and its artwork were discovered in a burial shaft in the Egyptian necropolis of Dayr al-Barsha.
An inscription on two wooden panels recovered by archaeologists is a mix of hieroglyphs and symbols known to the Ancient Egyptians as The Book of Two Ways.
It depicts two zigzagging lines that detail two routes the dead can use to reach Osiris – the Ancient Egyptian god of the dead – in the afterlife.
Spells were written into the text to help the deceased ward off demons on their dangerous journey.
"In many ways, the Book of Two Ways can be described as the first illustrated book in history,” Ancient Egypt expert Dr Foy Scalf, of the University of Chicago, told The Times.
"It offers the first illustrated guide to a sacred geography."
While the find was made in 2012, a new study reveals it's the oldest known example of The Book of Two Ways.
The guidebook was written on the inside of a coffin of a high-ranking woman called Ankh.
A brief history of Ancient Egypt
Here's everything you need to know...
- The Ancient Egyptians were an advanced civilisation who at one point owned a huge portion of the globe
- The civilisation began about 5,000 years ago when ancient humans began building villages along the River Nile
- It lasted for about 3,000 years and saw the building of complex cities centuries ahead of their time – as well as the famous Great Pyramids
- The Ancient Egyptians were experts at farming and construction
- They invented a solar calendar, and one of the world's earliest writing systems: The hieroglyph
- The Egyptians were ruled by kings and queens called pharaohs
- Religion and the afterlife were a huge part of Ancient Egyptian culture. They had over 2,000 gods
- Pharaohs built huge elaborate tombs to be buried in, some of which were pyramids – at the time among the largest buildings in the world
- The Egyptians believed in life after death, and important people's corpses were mummified to preserve their bodies for the afterlife
- The Ancient Egytpian empire fell due to a mix of factors, including wars with other empires and a 100-year period of drought and starvation
It's one of few artefacts found inside the tomb, which grave robbers ransacked over multiple visits centuries ago.
Archaeologists dated the tomb and its contents to around 4,000 years ago based on inscriptions carved within.
They depict Djehutinakht I, an ancient governor who ruled the region from around the 21st to 20th century BC.
If true, that would make the copy of the book found on the coffin around 500 years older than any other found.
Several copies have been found before, written on everything from tomb walls to mummy masks.
They were typically reserved for high-ranking officials of the Kingdom of Egypt.
The book is part of a huge body of work known as The Coffin Texts, which includes more than 1,000 spells and religious writings on the afterlife.
Little is known about the Book of Two Ways, including when it was written and by whom.
Curse of the Pharaohs – who died after King Tutankhamun's tomb was opened?
Tutankhamun's tomb was opened on November 29, 1922. These are the deaths that followed...
- Lord Carnarvon (died April 5, 1923) – a financial backer of the excavation, he died from an infected mosquito bite
- George Jay Gould I (died May 16, 1923) – a tomb visitor who died from a fever following his visit
- Prince Ali Kamel Fahmy Bey (died July 10, 1923) – an Egyptian prince who was shot and killed by his wife
- Colonel The Hon. Aubrey Herbert, MP (died September 26, 1923) – the half-brother of Lord Cardnarvon, he died from blood poisoning related to dental work
- Sir Archibald Douglas-Reid (died January 15, 1924) – the radiologist who X-Ray Tut's tomb died from a mysterious illness
- Sir Lee Stack (died November 19, 1924) – the Governer-General of Sudan was assassinated driving through Egypt's capital, Cairo
- A. C. Mace (died April 6, 1928) – a member of Howard Carter's excavation team, he died from arsenic poisoning
- The Hon. Mervyn Herbert (died May 26, 1929) – another half-brother of Lord Carnarvon, he died from malarial pneumonia
- Captain The Hon. Richard Bethell (died November 15, 1929) – Howard Carter's personal secretary, he died from a suspected smothering in a Mayfair club
- Richard Luttrell Pilkington Bethell (died February 20, 1930) – father of Richard Bethell, he supposedly threw himself off his seventh floor apartment
- Howard Carter (died February 16, 1923) – Carter opened Tut's tomb, and died aged 64 from Hodgkin's disease. His older brother William died the same year
Scientists hope to use the discovery to uncover more of the text's secrets.
The opening of the tomb is likely to spark fears of the Ancient Egyptian "Curse of the Pharaohs".
The alleged hex is believed by some to be cast upon anyone who disturbs the mummy of an Ancient Egyptian person.
The research was published in The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology.
TOP STORIES IN SCIENCE
In other news, we revealed last month that Ancient Egyptian grave robbers looted £700,000 of gold from a Pharaoh’s tomb – and were impaled as punishment.
Ancient Chinese people gave their babies coneheads by "moulding their skulls" to show off how rich they were.
And, from headless vikings to "screaming" mummies, here are some of the most gruesome corpses ever found.
What do you think the ancient text means? Let us know in the comments...
We pay for your stories! Do you have a story for The Sun Online Tech & Science team? Email us at email@example.com | 1,414 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Wikijunior:World War II/Tanks
|This Wikijunior article is a stub. You can help Wikijunior by expanding it.|
- 1 Tanks
- 2 Use in Combat
- 3 Nations
- 4 Tanks Used in the War
Tanks are large, heavily armoured vehicles used for fighting. Tanks move on 'treads' which allow them to travel on almost any surface (except for water) and most tanks have a large cannon which are used to attack other vehicles, buildings and large groups of men. Most tanks also have a smaller machine gun for fighting against troops.
Tanks were first used by the British in World War I by the British, then later in the war by the Germans, French, and the Americans. However, tanks didn't play a big role in combat until World War II.
Tanks were able to cross trench lines quickly, without taking much damage, as usually they were bulletproof. This was very useful as it allowed armies to move forward much more quickly. During the war however anti-tank traps were put in place to make tanks less effective.
Use in CombatEdit
During the beginning of the war, tanks would accompany troops, being used solely as weapons to aid the ground troops.
Towards the end of the war, many tanks were being fitted with radios, allowing them to communicate with one-another and be able to go off on their own or in groups, without the ground troops to guide them. This allowed tanks to move much faster for they were no longer forced to move at the same speed as the walking troops while at war.
Tanks were adapted to perform a variety of different jobs, from clearing minefields to fortifying/destroying roads and bridges.
World War II firmly cemented the tank in the military, proving that troops alone could no longer win wars.
Most of the large nations involved in the war had tanks. The Germans used several different types of panzers (the German name for a tank) including the Tiger and Panther. The Soviets generally used T-34s. The British, American, French and Polish forces, along with other nations, also used tanks in combat.
Tanks Used in the WarEdit
Mk VI CrusaderEdit
Panzer I (also known as Panzerkampfwagen I) was developed as a training tank in the 1930s by Germany but was used as the main tank for Germany's army in the early stages of World War 2. The Panzer I was only equipped with two machine guns so couldn't fight other tanks.
Panzer III (also known as Panzerkampfwagen III) was developed in the 1930s by Germany. Production of the Panzer III ended in 1943. Until 1942, the Panzer III was the first German tank armed with a weapon that could penetrate the armor of the main British and Soviet tanks.
The Panzer IV (also known as the Panzerkampfwagen IV) was a tank developed by Germany in the late 1930s. Having a 75 mm Lwk gun, it could penetrate the best soviet tanks fairly easily.
Panther (Panzer V)Edit
The Panther was the best known German tank in the war. It was first produced in 1942. Classified medium tank by the Germans, its weight allowed it to be a heavy tank. Had 76 mm gun. Even though smaller gun it had more pressure in the barrel therefore more speed then tiger. It had constant breakdowns, but later models resolved this issue partway. Angled armor made this tank inpenetrable only through turret ring. Later models, like Panther G, had a chin mantlet which resolved this issue.
Tiger I (Panzer VI)Edit
Tiger I is the common name of a German heavy tank which was developed in 1942. The official German designation was Panzerkampfwagen Tiger Ausf. E. It was very powerful and could take a hit. Looking on paper, the amount of armor this tank has (mostly non sloped) is very good. When its angled, however, this tank was nearly impenetrable.
Tiger II (KonigsTiger)Edit
The Tiger II was a beast of a tank, with upgraded 88mm gun, also with immense amount of armor. Very slow and had breakdowns. No allied tank during the war could destroy this machine in a frontal engagement.The only time a tank of this sort was taken from combat was when it was captured or tracked.
The Maus (meaning mouse in German) was quite the opposite. This vehicle was massive, and was designed to be a mobile bunker. Two prototypes were built in the later part of the war, one was fitted with a turret and the other was just the chassis. This vehicle never saw combat other than being shot at by the Germans. A completed tank would have weighed 188 tonnes.
The T-34 was a Soviet tank produced from 1940 to 1958 at the KhPZ factory in Kharkov. Sloped armor helped its survivability but later German tanks outclassed it by far. | <urn:uuid:7f311cbc-3545-45bc-a08a-51fc1bdf1568> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://en.m.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikijunior:World_War_II/Tanks | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250598800.30/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120135447-20200120164447-00053.warc.gz | en | 0.982292 | 1,039 | 3.359375 | 3 | [
-0.4703882932662964,
0.1024492084980011,
0.09864897280931473,
-0.1945197582244873,
-0.21259741485118866,
-0.13793739676475525,
0.06710948050022125,
0.1865525096654892,
-0.138393372297287,
-0.2678232789039612,
0.16327950358390808,
-0.14060792326927185,
0.17352993786334991,
0.229592755436897... | 1 | Wikijunior:World War II/Tanks
|This Wikijunior article is a stub. You can help Wikijunior by expanding it.|
- 1 Tanks
- 2 Use in Combat
- 3 Nations
- 4 Tanks Used in the War
Tanks are large, heavily armoured vehicles used for fighting. Tanks move on 'treads' which allow them to travel on almost any surface (except for water) and most tanks have a large cannon which are used to attack other vehicles, buildings and large groups of men. Most tanks also have a smaller machine gun for fighting against troops.
Tanks were first used by the British in World War I by the British, then later in the war by the Germans, French, and the Americans. However, tanks didn't play a big role in combat until World War II.
Tanks were able to cross trench lines quickly, without taking much damage, as usually they were bulletproof. This was very useful as it allowed armies to move forward much more quickly. During the war however anti-tank traps were put in place to make tanks less effective.
Use in CombatEdit
During the beginning of the war, tanks would accompany troops, being used solely as weapons to aid the ground troops.
Towards the end of the war, many tanks were being fitted with radios, allowing them to communicate with one-another and be able to go off on their own or in groups, without the ground troops to guide them. This allowed tanks to move much faster for they were no longer forced to move at the same speed as the walking troops while at war.
Tanks were adapted to perform a variety of different jobs, from clearing minefields to fortifying/destroying roads and bridges.
World War II firmly cemented the tank in the military, proving that troops alone could no longer win wars.
Most of the large nations involved in the war had tanks. The Germans used several different types of panzers (the German name for a tank) including the Tiger and Panther. The Soviets generally used T-34s. The British, American, French and Polish forces, along with other nations, also used tanks in combat.
Tanks Used in the WarEdit
Mk VI CrusaderEdit
Panzer I (also known as Panzerkampfwagen I) was developed as a training tank in the 1930s by Germany but was used as the main tank for Germany's army in the early stages of World War 2. The Panzer I was only equipped with two machine guns so couldn't fight other tanks.
Panzer III (also known as Panzerkampfwagen III) was developed in the 1930s by Germany. Production of the Panzer III ended in 1943. Until 1942, the Panzer III was the first German tank armed with a weapon that could penetrate the armor of the main British and Soviet tanks.
The Panzer IV (also known as the Panzerkampfwagen IV) was a tank developed by Germany in the late 1930s. Having a 75 mm Lwk gun, it could penetrate the best soviet tanks fairly easily.
Panther (Panzer V)Edit
The Panther was the best known German tank in the war. It was first produced in 1942. Classified medium tank by the Germans, its weight allowed it to be a heavy tank. Had 76 mm gun. Even though smaller gun it had more pressure in the barrel therefore more speed then tiger. It had constant breakdowns, but later models resolved this issue partway. Angled armor made this tank inpenetrable only through turret ring. Later models, like Panther G, had a chin mantlet which resolved this issue.
Tiger I (Panzer VI)Edit
Tiger I is the common name of a German heavy tank which was developed in 1942. The official German designation was Panzerkampfwagen Tiger Ausf. E. It was very powerful and could take a hit. Looking on paper, the amount of armor this tank has (mostly non sloped) is very good. When its angled, however, this tank was nearly impenetrable.
Tiger II (KonigsTiger)Edit
The Tiger II was a beast of a tank, with upgraded 88mm gun, also with immense amount of armor. Very slow and had breakdowns. No allied tank during the war could destroy this machine in a frontal engagement.The only time a tank of this sort was taken from combat was when it was captured or tracked.
The Maus (meaning mouse in German) was quite the opposite. This vehicle was massive, and was designed to be a mobile bunker. Two prototypes were built in the later part of the war, one was fitted with a turret and the other was just the chassis. This vehicle never saw combat other than being shot at by the Germans. A completed tank would have weighed 188 tonnes.
The T-34 was a Soviet tank produced from 1940 to 1958 at the KhPZ factory in Kharkov. Sloped armor helped its survivability but later German tanks outclassed it by far. | 1,080 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The office of interrex was supposedly created following the death of Rome's first king Romulus, and thus its origin is obscured by legend. The Senate of the Roman Kingdom was at first unable to choose a new king. For the purpose of continuing the government of the city, the senate, which then consisted of one hundred members, was divided into ten decuriae (groups of ten); and from each of these decuriae one senator was nominated as decurio. Each of the ten decuriones in succession held the regal power and its badges for five days as interrex; and if no king had been appointed at the expiration of fifty days, the rotation began anew. The period during which they exercised their power was called an interregnum, and on that occasion lasted for one year, after which Numa Pompilius was elected as the new king.
Under the Republic, interreges were appointed to hold the comitia for the election of the consuls when the consuls, through civil commotion or other cause such as death, had been unable to do so during their year of office. Each interrex held the office for only five days, as under the kings. The comitia were, as a general rule, not held by the first interrex, who was originally the curio maximus, but more usually by the second or third; but in one instance we read of an eleventh, and in another of a fourteenth interrex. The comitia to elect the first consuls were held by Spurius Lucretius Tricipitinus as interrex was also called praefectus urbis.[clarification needed] The interreges under the republic, at least from 482 BC, were elected from ex-consuls by the senate, and were not confined to the decem primi or ten chief senators as under the kings. Plebeians, however, were not admissible to this office; and consequently when the senate included plebeians, the patrician senators met together without the plebeian members to elect an interrex. For this reason, as well as on account of the influence which the interrex exerted in the election of the magistrates, we find that the tribunes of the plebs were strongly opposed to the appointment of an interrex. The interrex had jurisdictio.[clarification needed]
Interreges continued to be appointed occasionally until the time of the Second Punic War. After that no interrex was appointed until the senate, by command of Sulla, named L. Valerius Flaccus to hold the comitia for his election as Dictator in 82 BC. In 55 BC another interrex was appointed to hold the comitia in which Pompey and Crassus were elected consuls. There were interreges in 53 and 52 BC; in 52 an interrex held the comitia in which Pompey was appointed sole consul.
"Oxford Classical Dictionary: Interrex". Oxford Classical Dictionary. Oxford Research Encyclopedias. Retrieved 2019. | <urn:uuid:b2decf08-a7f8-4e45-b815-2fb858e6cc40> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://www.popflock.com/learn?s=Interrex | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251688806.91/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126104828-20200126134828-00306.warc.gz | en | 0.986582 | 627 | 3.734375 | 4 | [
-0.5114038586616516,
0.03343663737177849,
0.4891270697116852,
-0.5387940406799316,
-0.4693926274776459,
0.0013916953466832638,
0.05408221855759621,
0.12994730472564697,
0.24181921780109406,
-0.19998054206371307,
0.12491905689239502,
-0.23207005858421326,
0.23891907930374146,
0.034208115190... | 2 | The office of interrex was supposedly created following the death of Rome's first king Romulus, and thus its origin is obscured by legend. The Senate of the Roman Kingdom was at first unable to choose a new king. For the purpose of continuing the government of the city, the senate, which then consisted of one hundred members, was divided into ten decuriae (groups of ten); and from each of these decuriae one senator was nominated as decurio. Each of the ten decuriones in succession held the regal power and its badges for five days as interrex; and if no king had been appointed at the expiration of fifty days, the rotation began anew. The period during which they exercised their power was called an interregnum, and on that occasion lasted for one year, after which Numa Pompilius was elected as the new king.
Under the Republic, interreges were appointed to hold the comitia for the election of the consuls when the consuls, through civil commotion or other cause such as death, had been unable to do so during their year of office. Each interrex held the office for only five days, as under the kings. The comitia were, as a general rule, not held by the first interrex, who was originally the curio maximus, but more usually by the second or third; but in one instance we read of an eleventh, and in another of a fourteenth interrex. The comitia to elect the first consuls were held by Spurius Lucretius Tricipitinus as interrex was also called praefectus urbis.[clarification needed] The interreges under the republic, at least from 482 BC, were elected from ex-consuls by the senate, and were not confined to the decem primi or ten chief senators as under the kings. Plebeians, however, were not admissible to this office; and consequently when the senate included plebeians, the patrician senators met together without the plebeian members to elect an interrex. For this reason, as well as on account of the influence which the interrex exerted in the election of the magistrates, we find that the tribunes of the plebs were strongly opposed to the appointment of an interrex. The interrex had jurisdictio.[clarification needed]
Interreges continued to be appointed occasionally until the time of the Second Punic War. After that no interrex was appointed until the senate, by command of Sulla, named L. Valerius Flaccus to hold the comitia for his election as Dictator in 82 BC. In 55 BC another interrex was appointed to hold the comitia in which Pompey and Crassus were elected consuls. There were interreges in 53 and 52 BC; in 52 an interrex held the comitia in which Pompey was appointed sole consul.
"Oxford Classical Dictionary: Interrex". Oxford Classical Dictionary. Oxford Research Encyclopedias. Retrieved 2019. | 638 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The Navajo are a Native American people from the Four Corners area of the southwestern United States.
In the early 1600s, the Navajo people ingrained in the American Southwest, and later stretches across the bigger area.
Navajo textiles are produced by the Diné, which is how the Navajo refer to themselves (the word means ‘people’ in their language).
Weaving is an important part of Navajo culture and tradition. Although some history tells that they learned to weave from their Pueblo Indian neighbors when they settled in this area during the year 1000 AD, historians believe that the Navajo were not weavers until the 17th century. Stories in Navajo folklore tell of Spider-woman, who wove weaving the most beautiful rugs and taught Navajo weavers their unique techniques for making rugs and blankets.
Navajo textiles have been highly regarded around the world for over 150 years, and their production has been an important element of the Navajo economy. The original function of their textiles was to produce clothing such as wrap-around-dresses, breechcloths, shoulder robes, hair ties, semi-tailored shirts and also saddle blankets and cloaks. After the mid-1800s, Navajo weavers traded with the white settlers and started to make rugs for tourism and export.
The textiles had great geometric patterns and the wool that made them was hand-spun until the 1860s. After this period Navajo weavers started to use a three-ply yarn called Saxony, which is a high-quality, naturally dyed silk thread. At the end of 19th century, with the arrival of the railroad, Navajo people began to use machine-produced yarn in their weaving, particularly a four-ply aniline dyed yarn known as Germantown.
By the mid-19th century, the palette of Navajo weaving included many colors such as red, yellow, green, black, and gray. Before that, the textiles were mostly indigo, white, and natural brown. Indigo dying produced darker shades of blue, while yellow and green were used for lighter colors. Red was the most difficult to purchase locally but was still used often. Traditional Navajo weaving used upright looms with wooden support poles.
The time it took for a weaver to finish an average rug was between 2 months to several years. A significant number of textiles that survive were from the early 1800s, such as blankets which were typically sold for $50 in gold in the 1850s, which was a substantial amount of money for that time. These highly prized rugs and blankets are not just artifacts; their art represented a concept of religion and beauty in the design and craftsmanship. The textiles are not simply artworks but are important pieces of Navajo culture. | <urn:uuid:ee947db7-7a71-4447-94d5-5199a0e7abd9> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://www.wallswithstories.com/uncategorized/navajo-weaving-rugs-blankets-which-represent-navajo-culture-spirituality.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594333.5/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119064802-20200119092802-00448.warc.gz | en | 0.986509 | 563 | 4.09375 | 4 | [
0.05669577419757843,
0.20276802778244019,
0.34478557109832764,
0.3730202615261078,
-0.2476637214422226,
-0.21363234519958496,
0.16109080612659454,
0.19166699051856995,
-0.42343688011169434,
-0.46272045373916626,
0.25533419847488403,
0.10378356277942657,
-0.13232223689556122,
0.405772447586... | 4 | The Navajo are a Native American people from the Four Corners area of the southwestern United States.
In the early 1600s, the Navajo people ingrained in the American Southwest, and later stretches across the bigger area.
Navajo textiles are produced by the Diné, which is how the Navajo refer to themselves (the word means ‘people’ in their language).
Weaving is an important part of Navajo culture and tradition. Although some history tells that they learned to weave from their Pueblo Indian neighbors when they settled in this area during the year 1000 AD, historians believe that the Navajo were not weavers until the 17th century. Stories in Navajo folklore tell of Spider-woman, who wove weaving the most beautiful rugs and taught Navajo weavers their unique techniques for making rugs and blankets.
Navajo textiles have been highly regarded around the world for over 150 years, and their production has been an important element of the Navajo economy. The original function of their textiles was to produce clothing such as wrap-around-dresses, breechcloths, shoulder robes, hair ties, semi-tailored shirts and also saddle blankets and cloaks. After the mid-1800s, Navajo weavers traded with the white settlers and started to make rugs for tourism and export.
The textiles had great geometric patterns and the wool that made them was hand-spun until the 1860s. After this period Navajo weavers started to use a three-ply yarn called Saxony, which is a high-quality, naturally dyed silk thread. At the end of 19th century, with the arrival of the railroad, Navajo people began to use machine-produced yarn in their weaving, particularly a four-ply aniline dyed yarn known as Germantown.
By the mid-19th century, the palette of Navajo weaving included many colors such as red, yellow, green, black, and gray. Before that, the textiles were mostly indigo, white, and natural brown. Indigo dying produced darker shades of blue, while yellow and green were used for lighter colors. Red was the most difficult to purchase locally but was still used often. Traditional Navajo weaving used upright looms with wooden support poles.
The time it took for a weaver to finish an average rug was between 2 months to several years. A significant number of textiles that survive were from the early 1800s, such as blankets which were typically sold for $50 in gold in the 1850s, which was a substantial amount of money for that time. These highly prized rugs and blankets are not just artifacts; their art represented a concept of religion and beauty in the design and craftsmanship. The textiles are not simply artworks but are important pieces of Navajo culture. | 586 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The reign of James I (1603-1625)
When Elizabeth I died, James VI of Scotland (James Stuart) came to the throne, he was known as James I of England and VI of Scotland ; in this way, Scotland and England were united at last. As he had been brought up a Calvinist, the English Calvinists had hopes of England becoming Presbyteria but they were soon disappointed when he converted to Anglicanism. As he had complete power in the realm of religion, it was a temptation to also have complete power in politics as an absolute monarch. He did, however, allow Anglican priests a certain amount of freedom in the way they led their services and their use of the liturgy in the Prayer Book. Those who rejected the sign of the cross and the practice of kneeling were not persecuted ; in fact the Church of England was popular with most of the population around 1620.
There was, however, a small minority of Calvinists who were in opposition to the Church of England. They were persecuted and some emigrated to the Low Countries or to America (the “Mayflower” pilgrims in 1620). King James 1st considered the Geneva Bible to be too Calvinist, so he had it replaced by a new translation (the “King James” version). This was the work of 47 scholars, much loved and had a great influence on English literature – it was so popular that its use extended right into the XXth century. Even though people were allowed to read other versions in private, this was the only version to be officially used in the churches.
The reign of Charles I (1642-1649)
James’ son Charles I believed in absolute power and he tried to impose his authority on Parliament, who objected violently. He appointed Laud as archbishop of Canterbury and with his help, tried to impose more rigid rules on the way the Church of England conducted their services. He forced priests to follow the Prayer Book to the letter and to wear special religious ornaments. As for the congregation, they had to kneel for communion, make the sign of the cross etc. He had the churches decorated with religious images. So much so, that many Englishmen had the impression that Laud wanted to bring back Roman Catholicism. And as for the Calvinists, (who had managed to survive without too much harassment under James I), many now openly broke away from the Church of England. In Scotland, Charles 1st imposed Anglican rites and especially the Scottish Book of Common Prayer on the Presbyterians. In spite of opposition from the clergy and Church members he continued to impose his will. This led to armed rebellion. In order to put it down, the king had to call Parliament, which had not met for eleven years. In the House of Commons those who opposed the king held sway and the country was plunged into civil war.
Civil War (1642-1649)
At first the civil war was a conflict between the king and Parliament. However, this soon took on a religious aspect when the Scottish Presbyterians and rebels against Laud decided to support Parliament. In the first Act of Parliament, Laud was dismissed, later imprisoned and finally executed in 1643.
Since Parliament and the population of London were in open rebellion against the king, he decided to leave London for Nottingham, where he raised an army. The Civil war consisted of a conflict between the “Cavaliers” who supported the king (Anglicans, noblemen, farmers) and the “Roundheads” who supported Parliament (Calvinists, the urban middle class and minor nobility). At an early stage of the war, Oliver Cromwell came to be recognized as an outstanding leader ; he was a country gentleman who had raised a Roundhead army at his own expense, which was organized on democratic lines with elected officers. Parliament appointed him General Lieutenant of the cavalry and his role was to totally reorganize the army which was then renamed “the new model army”. His officers often led the prayers or preached at church services. Cromwell led this army to a resounding victory against the royalists in 1645. Charles 1st fled to Scotland but the Scots handed him over to Parliament in 1647. The latter wanted to reduce the power of the king but not necessarily abolish the monarchy. However the army seized power and when Charles I tried to escape, Cromwell took the opportunity to crush Parliament. The new Parliament, consisting only of extremist puritans, sentenced the king to death and he was executed in 1649.
In 1649 England became a Republic, although only a minority of the population were actually republicans. Oliver Cromwell was appointed lord-protector in 1653 and his position resembled more and more that of an absolute ruler.
Parliament had already abolished the episcopacy and the Prayer Book since the beginning of the civil war in favour of a Presbyterian system which was in fact only applied in London and Lancashire. Oliver Cromwell was not a Presbyterian but an “independent”, believing in the “reign of saints” that is to say, the reign of the puritans. This religious tendency gave rise to many new communities and its most eminent member was the great English poet John Milton.
The name “puritans” was given around 1560 to a certain group of Calvinist protestants who wanted further reforms to be carried out within the Church. They objected to priestly robes as they wanted to purify the Church of anything ornamental. They wanted a simpler kind of liturgy and refused strict obedience to the Prayer Book. However their main reaction was to the Episcopal system which they wanted to abolish in favour of Presbyterianism ; this led Elisabeth I to install a violent regime of repression against them.
At the beginning of the 17th century, the puritans welcomed James 1st favourably. When he converted to Anglicanism some began to emigrate to America, but most of them remained members of the Church of England, who did not reject them. In the reign of Charles I they became actively involved in opposing the king and in the civil war the puritans, victorious, seized power under Cromwell’s Protectorate. However, the puritans as we know them, renowned for their austerity, strict respect for morality and the Sabbath, did not actually form a united group. On the contrary, there were various different tendencies:
- The Presbyterians were the majority. These Calvinists wanted their ministers to be free to preach the Gospel and a Presbyterian system to be established within the Church ;
- The Congregationalists or independent Church (of whom Oliver Cromwell was a member), were also Calvinist, they but wanted total autonomy for their parishes. In Cromwell’s reign, some parishes became Congregationalist and other, new parishes started up alongside those which already existed. They were led by ordained ministers.
- The Baptists practiced adult baptism – this was necessary to become a member of the Church, or a “saint”. They were influenced by the Dutch Mennonites, the modern equivalent of the Anabaptists. Some remained Calvinists but others rejected predestination. Moral discipline was strict.
- The millennium communities attracted members at times of political or religious crisis. They sought their inspiration in the books of Daniel and Revelation, which they used to justify the idea that Christ would reign for a thousand years and the year 1666 was the apotheosis of such an expectation (this was because 666 was the number of the beast in Revelation). Some communities tried to set up a new social and political order to establish a new Jerusalem. However, since the millennium did not actually happen, these somewhat ill assorted movements tended to disappear little by little. They were often led by “inspired” leaders.
- The Quakers, or tremblers were part of these “inspired” groups. They thought that the inner light in a human being was more important than Scripture and that everyone could have this light. George Fox, the founder, was an inspired layman. He rejected any form of worship or hierarchy and proclaimed brotherhood and equality among men. His “Society of Friends” was founded in 1688. At their meetings, Quakers would express their inner inspiration by improvised speech, gestures and expressions of enthusiasm or by trembling – (to quake = to tremble). George Fox was insolent towards the clergy and magistrates – as a result he was imprisoned several times. His charisma and gift for organization enabled the movement to survive even when it was persecuted in the reign of Charles 1st. At this time the emphasis was on pacifism, mysticism and the search for the Kingdom within oneself. The Quaker William Penn, the son of an admiral, studied in France with Moïse Amyraut and went on to found the colony of Pennsylvania in America in 1682.
- Although their refusal of military service and the taking of oaths for the authorities caused them many difficulties, their spirit of tolerance, social work and educational institutions made them pioneers of the ages to come – it was thanks to their influence that the future anti-slavery and human rights movements were able to achieve their aims.
The restoration : Charles II (1660-1685) and James II (1685-1688)
When Cromwell died in 1658, his son Richard and successor came into conflict with the army and had to abdicate. The English no longer wanted anything to do with military dictatorship so they called on the son of Charles I to be king in 1660, under the name of Charles II. This was after he had promised a general amnesty and freedom of conscience. Charles II restored the Church of England and the episcopacy. There were attempts at altering the Prayer Book in favour of a more Presbyterian approach but these failed and 20% of the ministers left their parishes. The puritans (or dissenters) were persecuted : they were not allowed to have meetings or hold public office in their local community and were imprisoned. 8,000 people were imprisoned on religious grounds, among whom there were many Quakers and Baptists. The most famous prisoner was John Bunyan, who, while he was behind bars, wrote his famous book, The Pilgrim’s Progress which would become the most translated book after the Bible.
Charles II’s brother James II (1685-1688), a convert to Catholicism, became king and swore an oath to defend the Church of England. However, he had many Jesuit friends, who drew the animosity of both Anglicans and dissenters. When his son was born, his adversaries called on James II’s son in law, the Dutch stathouder William of Orange, who was recognized as a royal regent when the king escaped from the country : he later became king and his wife Mary became queen. They were known as William III (1689-1702) and Mary II.
William and Mary (1688-1702) : the Glorious Revolution
When the Calvinist William of Orange and his wife Mary came to the throne, there was no violence or bloodshed. This is why the English call this period the “Glorious Revolution“. The new sovereign led England and the United Provinces into the Nine Years’ War (also called the War of the Grand Alliance – Ligue d’Augsbourg) against Louis XIV; at one stage this raised the hopes of the persecuted protestants in France, but they were soon to be disappointed.
From the religious point of view, this was a peaceful time, but 400 priests and 6 bishops, out of loyalty towards James II and the Stuarts, refused to swear allegiance to William III and they were evicted from the Church of England. On the other hand, the king, a Calvinist, tried to reintegrate the Presbyterian pastors into the Church of England but he did not achieve his aim. The most important act to be passed during this reign was the Act of Tolerance on 24th May 1689, which raised the sanctions against the “non-conformists”, that is to say the protestants who were not part of the Church of England and gave them places of worship on condition they swore allegiance to the king. This was an era of relative tolerance towards religious minorities, excluding the Catholics.
Gradually a spirit of rationalism and tolerance spread throughout the country. This gave rise to a new movement within the Church of England which aimed at putting an end to theological disputes – the accent was put on moral reform and piety rather than dogma and church government. It was called the “Low Church” and its pastors gave new energy to the Church of England through their enthusiasm and example.
As none of William and Mary’s children survived, the king and Parliament voted the Act of Succession in 1701, which excluded any catholic monarch from the English throne and gave the succession to Ann, Mary’s sister, a protestant, then, to the House of Hanover.
- MILLER John, L’Europe protestante aux XVIe et XVIIe siècles, Belin-De Boeck, 1997
- PICTON Hervé, Histoire de l’Église d’Angleterre, Ellipses, 2006
- VIDLER Alec R., The Church in an age of revolution, Penguin Books, 1990
- Protestantism in England in the 16th century (separation from Rome)
- Protestantism in England in the 20th century
- Protestantism in England in the 19th century
- Protestantism in England in the 18th century | <urn:uuid:ce2bd10a-7a8a-48c0-a272-17182dcb6bc5> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.museeprotestant.org/en/notice/english-protestantism-in-the-xviiith-century/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250607314.32/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122161553-20200122190553-00032.warc.gz | en | 0.984624 | 2,816 | 3.703125 | 4 | [
-0.15280357003211975,
0.23902709782123566,
0.38590672612190247,
-0.2849084138870239,
-0.15832355618476868,
-0.19334104657173157,
-0.2828993499279022,
0.03158459812402725,
0.14270687103271484,
0.053953833878040314,
-0.4151613414287567,
-0.22872167825698853,
0.40068960189819336,
-0.253891527... | 1 | The reign of James I (1603-1625)
When Elizabeth I died, James VI of Scotland (James Stuart) came to the throne, he was known as James I of England and VI of Scotland ; in this way, Scotland and England were united at last. As he had been brought up a Calvinist, the English Calvinists had hopes of England becoming Presbyteria but they were soon disappointed when he converted to Anglicanism. As he had complete power in the realm of religion, it was a temptation to also have complete power in politics as an absolute monarch. He did, however, allow Anglican priests a certain amount of freedom in the way they led their services and their use of the liturgy in the Prayer Book. Those who rejected the sign of the cross and the practice of kneeling were not persecuted ; in fact the Church of England was popular with most of the population around 1620.
There was, however, a small minority of Calvinists who were in opposition to the Church of England. They were persecuted and some emigrated to the Low Countries or to America (the “Mayflower” pilgrims in 1620). King James 1st considered the Geneva Bible to be too Calvinist, so he had it replaced by a new translation (the “King James” version). This was the work of 47 scholars, much loved and had a great influence on English literature – it was so popular that its use extended right into the XXth century. Even though people were allowed to read other versions in private, this was the only version to be officially used in the churches.
The reign of Charles I (1642-1649)
James’ son Charles I believed in absolute power and he tried to impose his authority on Parliament, who objected violently. He appointed Laud as archbishop of Canterbury and with his help, tried to impose more rigid rules on the way the Church of England conducted their services. He forced priests to follow the Prayer Book to the letter and to wear special religious ornaments. As for the congregation, they had to kneel for communion, make the sign of the cross etc. He had the churches decorated with religious images. So much so, that many Englishmen had the impression that Laud wanted to bring back Roman Catholicism. And as for the Calvinists, (who had managed to survive without too much harassment under James I), many now openly broke away from the Church of England. In Scotland, Charles 1st imposed Anglican rites and especially the Scottish Book of Common Prayer on the Presbyterians. In spite of opposition from the clergy and Church members he continued to impose his will. This led to armed rebellion. In order to put it down, the king had to call Parliament, which had not met for eleven years. In the House of Commons those who opposed the king held sway and the country was plunged into civil war.
Civil War (1642-1649)
At first the civil war was a conflict between the king and Parliament. However, this soon took on a religious aspect when the Scottish Presbyterians and rebels against Laud decided to support Parliament. In the first Act of Parliament, Laud was dismissed, later imprisoned and finally executed in 1643.
Since Parliament and the population of London were in open rebellion against the king, he decided to leave London for Nottingham, where he raised an army. The Civil war consisted of a conflict between the “Cavaliers” who supported the king (Anglicans, noblemen, farmers) and the “Roundheads” who supported Parliament (Calvinists, the urban middle class and minor nobility). At an early stage of the war, Oliver Cromwell came to be recognized as an outstanding leader ; he was a country gentleman who had raised a Roundhead army at his own expense, which was organized on democratic lines with elected officers. Parliament appointed him General Lieutenant of the cavalry and his role was to totally reorganize the army which was then renamed “the new model army”. His officers often led the prayers or preached at church services. Cromwell led this army to a resounding victory against the royalists in 1645. Charles 1st fled to Scotland but the Scots handed him over to Parliament in 1647. The latter wanted to reduce the power of the king but not necessarily abolish the monarchy. However the army seized power and when Charles I tried to escape, Cromwell took the opportunity to crush Parliament. The new Parliament, consisting only of extremist puritans, sentenced the king to death and he was executed in 1649.
In 1649 England became a Republic, although only a minority of the population were actually republicans. Oliver Cromwell was appointed lord-protector in 1653 and his position resembled more and more that of an absolute ruler.
Parliament had already abolished the episcopacy and the Prayer Book since the beginning of the civil war in favour of a Presbyterian system which was in fact only applied in London and Lancashire. Oliver Cromwell was not a Presbyterian but an “independent”, believing in the “reign of saints” that is to say, the reign of the puritans. This religious tendency gave rise to many new communities and its most eminent member was the great English poet John Milton.
The name “puritans” was given around 1560 to a certain group of Calvinist protestants who wanted further reforms to be carried out within the Church. They objected to priestly robes as they wanted to purify the Church of anything ornamental. They wanted a simpler kind of liturgy and refused strict obedience to the Prayer Book. However their main reaction was to the Episcopal system which they wanted to abolish in favour of Presbyterianism ; this led Elisabeth I to install a violent regime of repression against them.
At the beginning of the 17th century, the puritans welcomed James 1st favourably. When he converted to Anglicanism some began to emigrate to America, but most of them remained members of the Church of England, who did not reject them. In the reign of Charles I they became actively involved in opposing the king and in the civil war the puritans, victorious, seized power under Cromwell’s Protectorate. However, the puritans as we know them, renowned for their austerity, strict respect for morality and the Sabbath, did not actually form a united group. On the contrary, there were various different tendencies:
- The Presbyterians were the majority. These Calvinists wanted their ministers to be free to preach the Gospel and a Presbyterian system to be established within the Church ;
- The Congregationalists or independent Church (of whom Oliver Cromwell was a member), were also Calvinist, they but wanted total autonomy for their parishes. In Cromwell’s reign, some parishes became Congregationalist and other, new parishes started up alongside those which already existed. They were led by ordained ministers.
- The Baptists practiced adult baptism – this was necessary to become a member of the Church, or a “saint”. They were influenced by the Dutch Mennonites, the modern equivalent of the Anabaptists. Some remained Calvinists but others rejected predestination. Moral discipline was strict.
- The millennium communities attracted members at times of political or religious crisis. They sought their inspiration in the books of Daniel and Revelation, which they used to justify the idea that Christ would reign for a thousand years and the year 1666 was the apotheosis of such an expectation (this was because 666 was the number of the beast in Revelation). Some communities tried to set up a new social and political order to establish a new Jerusalem. However, since the millennium did not actually happen, these somewhat ill assorted movements tended to disappear little by little. They were often led by “inspired” leaders.
- The Quakers, or tremblers were part of these “inspired” groups. They thought that the inner light in a human being was more important than Scripture and that everyone could have this light. George Fox, the founder, was an inspired layman. He rejected any form of worship or hierarchy and proclaimed brotherhood and equality among men. His “Society of Friends” was founded in 1688. At their meetings, Quakers would express their inner inspiration by improvised speech, gestures and expressions of enthusiasm or by trembling – (to quake = to tremble). George Fox was insolent towards the clergy and magistrates – as a result he was imprisoned several times. His charisma and gift for organization enabled the movement to survive even when it was persecuted in the reign of Charles 1st. At this time the emphasis was on pacifism, mysticism and the search for the Kingdom within oneself. The Quaker William Penn, the son of an admiral, studied in France with Moïse Amyraut and went on to found the colony of Pennsylvania in America in 1682.
- Although their refusal of military service and the taking of oaths for the authorities caused them many difficulties, their spirit of tolerance, social work and educational institutions made them pioneers of the ages to come – it was thanks to their influence that the future anti-slavery and human rights movements were able to achieve their aims.
The restoration : Charles II (1660-1685) and James II (1685-1688)
When Cromwell died in 1658, his son Richard and successor came into conflict with the army and had to abdicate. The English no longer wanted anything to do with military dictatorship so they called on the son of Charles I to be king in 1660, under the name of Charles II. This was after he had promised a general amnesty and freedom of conscience. Charles II restored the Church of England and the episcopacy. There were attempts at altering the Prayer Book in favour of a more Presbyterian approach but these failed and 20% of the ministers left their parishes. The puritans (or dissenters) were persecuted : they were not allowed to have meetings or hold public office in their local community and were imprisoned. 8,000 people were imprisoned on religious grounds, among whom there were many Quakers and Baptists. The most famous prisoner was John Bunyan, who, while he was behind bars, wrote his famous book, The Pilgrim’s Progress which would become the most translated book after the Bible.
Charles II’s brother James II (1685-1688), a convert to Catholicism, became king and swore an oath to defend the Church of England. However, he had many Jesuit friends, who drew the animosity of both Anglicans and dissenters. When his son was born, his adversaries called on James II’s son in law, the Dutch stathouder William of Orange, who was recognized as a royal regent when the king escaped from the country : he later became king and his wife Mary became queen. They were known as William III (1689-1702) and Mary II.
William and Mary (1688-1702) : the Glorious Revolution
When the Calvinist William of Orange and his wife Mary came to the throne, there was no violence or bloodshed. This is why the English call this period the “Glorious Revolution“. The new sovereign led England and the United Provinces into the Nine Years’ War (also called the War of the Grand Alliance – Ligue d’Augsbourg) against Louis XIV; at one stage this raised the hopes of the persecuted protestants in France, but they were soon to be disappointed.
From the religious point of view, this was a peaceful time, but 400 priests and 6 bishops, out of loyalty towards James II and the Stuarts, refused to swear allegiance to William III and they were evicted from the Church of England. On the other hand, the king, a Calvinist, tried to reintegrate the Presbyterian pastors into the Church of England but he did not achieve his aim. The most important act to be passed during this reign was the Act of Tolerance on 24th May 1689, which raised the sanctions against the “non-conformists”, that is to say the protestants who were not part of the Church of England and gave them places of worship on condition they swore allegiance to the king. This was an era of relative tolerance towards religious minorities, excluding the Catholics.
Gradually a spirit of rationalism and tolerance spread throughout the country. This gave rise to a new movement within the Church of England which aimed at putting an end to theological disputes – the accent was put on moral reform and piety rather than dogma and church government. It was called the “Low Church” and its pastors gave new energy to the Church of England through their enthusiasm and example.
As none of William and Mary’s children survived, the king and Parliament voted the Act of Succession in 1701, which excluded any catholic monarch from the English throne and gave the succession to Ann, Mary’s sister, a protestant, then, to the House of Hanover.
- MILLER John, L’Europe protestante aux XVIe et XVIIe siècles, Belin-De Boeck, 1997
- PICTON Hervé, Histoire de l’Église d’Angleterre, Ellipses, 2006
- VIDLER Alec R., The Church in an age of revolution, Penguin Books, 1990
- Protestantism in England in the 16th century (separation from Rome)
- Protestantism in England in the 20th century
- Protestantism in England in the 19th century
- Protestantism in England in the 18th century | 2,868 | ENGLISH | 1 |
It’s one thing to declare independence, but another thing altogether to attain it. The English colonies had sheltered under the mother country’s wing for more than a century and a half. Their entire way of life, from language to religion to cultural heritage, proclaimed them Englishmen. Their economy was tied to the British empire in accordance with the mercantilist economics of the day. Their ships in foreign waters enjoyed the explicit and implicit protection of the world’s most powerful navy. They might be only subsidiary parts of a vast empire, but they were part of it. What would they be, on their own?
Franklin famously said that they would all have to hang together, or they would hang separately. But – could they hang together? The 13 colonies were of three types, as we shall see, with different economic interests, different thoughts on how the ideal society would be structured, and different religious outlooks. (And religion in their day, it must be remembered, still had the explosive power that ideology would have in the twentieth century.) Could they learn to understand each other and find ways to live together?
Beyond that, perhaps as many as a third of the population of the colonies (and perhaps less) actively sought separation from England; certainly a third, and perhaps more, sought to maintain the age-old association with the mother country. And another third – perhaps as much as half, if we knew their private thoughts – just wanted to live their lives in peace, not expecting to have any say in government and not much caring who governed provided that the colonies were protected from Indian raids, domestic disorder, and foreign aggression (which, with the elimination of France from the North American continent, no longer seemed much of a threat). Had the colonies been overwhelmingly in favor of independence, or of continued allegiance to the British crown and empire, there would have been no war. But as it was, each side saw itself surviving in the midst of domestic enemies. America was fortunate indeed that the persecution of Tories or patriots by their opponents was not more vicious and widespread than it was.
Nonetheless, after July 4, 1776, there was no turning back. Washington, Adams, Hancock, etc. were going to become founding fathers or they were going to go down in history as traitors, perhaps having their possessions confiscated, perhaps dying on the gallows or before a firing squad. (For instance, John Adams later learned that he was one of those explicitly named as being excluded from any amnesty that might be granted.)
The military campaigns between the declaration of independence and the Battle of Saratoga are soon described, or rather, easily glossed over. They center on the middle colonies, because British attempts in the South went nowhere, and they had tacitly given up on New England for the moment, other than occupying Newport, Rhode Island, as we shall see.
What war there was took place in the middle colonies. Washington, still learning his trade, almost lost his army before the summer was over. Seeing a British landing on Staten Island and desiring to prevent a British occupation of New York City, he set up defenses along the harbor shores – partly on Long Island, partly on Manhattan. This, against an enemy with command of the sea and a long naval tradition of amphibious assaults.
Late in August, the British under Lord Howe landed 22,000 men on Long Island, and decisively defeated the Americans, taking more than 1,000 prisoners in what would turn out to be the largest battle of the war. Washington was driven back to Brooklyn Heights, and if Howe had assaulted the position, all would have been lost. Instead, Howe began a formal siege – to spare the lives of his men, he said; others suspected that as a Whig he hated the idea of fighting Americans, and hoped for a soft peace. Whatever his motives, he let Washington out of the bag. He got his men and material across the East River to fight again another day.
Howe was slow in pursuing, as he was slow in all things. (“William Howe, Lord When.”) Instead, he called a peace conference, which proved abortive since the terms the two sides were authorized to accept were incompatible.. When Howe did attack, he took New York City without trouble.
Again, no reason to go into it in detail. Howe had two more chances to destroy Washington’s army; missed them both. As the Americans retreated across New Jersey, Howe sent General Clinton and 6,000 men to seize Newport as a base for the British fleet. Clinton thought this was a mistake, and it is hard to disagree with his argument that those men and those ships, brought down to and around Cape May, and up the Delaware River, could have severely damaged, maybe destroyed Washington’s retreating army. But, orders were orders. Clinton took his men to Newport, captured it easily, and might as well have been on the moon as far as interfering with Washington’s army was concerned.
You know what happened next. Washington got across the river safely, with fewer than 5,000 men. Turned right around on Christmas Day, crossed the river, won two quick victories at Trenton and Princeton, and somehow Howe let him have most of New Jersey, with the Continentals wintering in Morristown.
And by then it was 1777, and the British had big plans involving Howe going up the Hudson River, Burgoyne coming down from Canada, and the two meeting triumphantly half way, splitting New England off from the other nine colonies. We know how that worked out. Saratoga brought the French alliance, and the Americans were no longer fighting on their own. | <urn:uuid:9f686e8c-0a52-4854-b605-6ae5a7c7ef2a> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://ofmyownknowledge.com/category/uncategorized/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251700988.64/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127143516-20200127173516-00334.warc.gz | en | 0.98717 | 1,164 | 3.265625 | 3 | [
-0.08181874454021454,
-0.01492518000304699,
0.06918983906507492,
-0.3285583257675171,
0.01804327219724655,
-0.022351523861289024,
0.10977037250995636,
0.09706032276153564,
0.19687208533287048,
-0.09932611137628555,
0.030697638168931007,
0.042833879590034485,
0.17430934309959412,
0.11400034... | 8 | It’s one thing to declare independence, but another thing altogether to attain it. The English colonies had sheltered under the mother country’s wing for more than a century and a half. Their entire way of life, from language to religion to cultural heritage, proclaimed them Englishmen. Their economy was tied to the British empire in accordance with the mercantilist economics of the day. Their ships in foreign waters enjoyed the explicit and implicit protection of the world’s most powerful navy. They might be only subsidiary parts of a vast empire, but they were part of it. What would they be, on their own?
Franklin famously said that they would all have to hang together, or they would hang separately. But – could they hang together? The 13 colonies were of three types, as we shall see, with different economic interests, different thoughts on how the ideal society would be structured, and different religious outlooks. (And religion in their day, it must be remembered, still had the explosive power that ideology would have in the twentieth century.) Could they learn to understand each other and find ways to live together?
Beyond that, perhaps as many as a third of the population of the colonies (and perhaps less) actively sought separation from England; certainly a third, and perhaps more, sought to maintain the age-old association with the mother country. And another third – perhaps as much as half, if we knew their private thoughts – just wanted to live their lives in peace, not expecting to have any say in government and not much caring who governed provided that the colonies were protected from Indian raids, domestic disorder, and foreign aggression (which, with the elimination of France from the North American continent, no longer seemed much of a threat). Had the colonies been overwhelmingly in favor of independence, or of continued allegiance to the British crown and empire, there would have been no war. But as it was, each side saw itself surviving in the midst of domestic enemies. America was fortunate indeed that the persecution of Tories or patriots by their opponents was not more vicious and widespread than it was.
Nonetheless, after July 4, 1776, there was no turning back. Washington, Adams, Hancock, etc. were going to become founding fathers or they were going to go down in history as traitors, perhaps having their possessions confiscated, perhaps dying on the gallows or before a firing squad. (For instance, John Adams later learned that he was one of those explicitly named as being excluded from any amnesty that might be granted.)
The military campaigns between the declaration of independence and the Battle of Saratoga are soon described, or rather, easily glossed over. They center on the middle colonies, because British attempts in the South went nowhere, and they had tacitly given up on New England for the moment, other than occupying Newport, Rhode Island, as we shall see.
What war there was took place in the middle colonies. Washington, still learning his trade, almost lost his army before the summer was over. Seeing a British landing on Staten Island and desiring to prevent a British occupation of New York City, he set up defenses along the harbor shores – partly on Long Island, partly on Manhattan. This, against an enemy with command of the sea and a long naval tradition of amphibious assaults.
Late in August, the British under Lord Howe landed 22,000 men on Long Island, and decisively defeated the Americans, taking more than 1,000 prisoners in what would turn out to be the largest battle of the war. Washington was driven back to Brooklyn Heights, and if Howe had assaulted the position, all would have been lost. Instead, Howe began a formal siege – to spare the lives of his men, he said; others suspected that as a Whig he hated the idea of fighting Americans, and hoped for a soft peace. Whatever his motives, he let Washington out of the bag. He got his men and material across the East River to fight again another day.
Howe was slow in pursuing, as he was slow in all things. (“William Howe, Lord When.”) Instead, he called a peace conference, which proved abortive since the terms the two sides were authorized to accept were incompatible.. When Howe did attack, he took New York City without trouble.
Again, no reason to go into it in detail. Howe had two more chances to destroy Washington’s army; missed them both. As the Americans retreated across New Jersey, Howe sent General Clinton and 6,000 men to seize Newport as a base for the British fleet. Clinton thought this was a mistake, and it is hard to disagree with his argument that those men and those ships, brought down to and around Cape May, and up the Delaware River, could have severely damaged, maybe destroyed Washington’s retreating army. But, orders were orders. Clinton took his men to Newport, captured it easily, and might as well have been on the moon as far as interfering with Washington’s army was concerned.
You know what happened next. Washington got across the river safely, with fewer than 5,000 men. Turned right around on Christmas Day, crossed the river, won two quick victories at Trenton and Princeton, and somehow Howe let him have most of New Jersey, with the Continentals wintering in Morristown.
And by then it was 1777, and the British had big plans involving Howe going up the Hudson River, Burgoyne coming down from Canada, and the two meeting triumphantly half way, splitting New England off from the other nine colonies. We know how that worked out. Saratoga brought the French alliance, and the Americans were no longer fighting on their own. | 1,164 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Crooked Forest (referred to locally as Krzywy Las) is where you will find around 400 pine trees are abnormally shaped with full 90-degree bends at their bases that curve towards the north. From its base, the trees bend into a “C” shape, it follows the same curve up to nine feet sideways before bending back to a straight shape. They grow to be around 50 feet tall and are all healthy in spite of the unnatural bends at their bases.
While a lot of different bizarre trees elsewhere have been known to create bends or other unusual shapes, the trees in the Crooked Forest are unique. The main fact about their bends is that it is not at all heredity and the pattern is seen only in some covered area.
The story of these trees is as mysterious as they look in reality. It’s evaluated that the trees were planted in the mid-1930s, and also discovered that the misshaping happened when the trees were only 5-7 years of age. At the time, the area was a piece of Germany, yet history would before long toss a cover over what precisely occurred.
As war broke out over Europe, numerous lives and stories were lost, including the origins of the Crooked Forest. One hypothesis of might have happened is that a Nazi tank run over the youthful trees, twisting them 90 degrees. This bodes well outwardly since by far most of the trees are twisted a similar way (North), however, it loses the reality when we look at the surrounding trees.
The twisted trees are surrounded by several ordinary trees, so there is no way a tank could have run over a little area while not affecting other trees. Moreover, if the trees were bowed so drastically by the tanks, then they wouldn’t even survive such experience. But still, this theory can’t be overlooked.
Also Read: 10 Most Mysterious Places Across The World
The ghostly looking trees of Krzywy Las have started a wide range of speculations with respect to how they came to be like this. One of the speculations is that there is some sort of one of a kind gravitational force in this specific region that made the trees become outward towards the North rather than straight up.
In any case, that hypothesis doesn’t hold up to investigation, given that gravity pulls things downwards and not bend them. Besides, there are different groups of pine trees and trees in the region of the Crooked Forest that is not bent, and one could say that gravitational force does have some effect on only those special trees!!
Another hypothesis about Krzywy Las is that heavy snowfall bend the trees as they were growing, making them develop in this manner. But still as mentioned above the theory could not be said to be true as to why is it only applicable to some trees in the area, while others did not have any kind of effect on them.
One of the most extraordinary theories is that the trees were squashed by an alien shuttle, like crop circles. Crop circles themselves were also considered to be made by the farmers, so how can this theory holds any proof. So its best to leave the crop circles to the alien experts.
Reality vs Theory
The doubtless theory is that the trees were deliberately adjusted to deliver a normally bent material for furniture or structures. The procedure takes a very long time to perfect, yet has been reported in the past.
In England, early shipbuilders prized English Oak for use as ‘compass timber’, or the bent bits of a boats’ frame. These pieces could be made of a few straight joined together, and for littler boats, wood steam twisted into any shape, yet timber that has normally developed into a specific shape is a lot stronger. The oaks in England’s numerous heavyweight works were ideal for this, and before the finish of the seventeenth century, huge numbers of them had been chopped down for this utilization.
This theory also stands well considering the timestamp. Up until the 1930s, Art Nouveau was extremely popular, and its bended and uncommon structures could be the motivation for the Crooked Forest trees. The town surrounding the forest was under war at that time, so the original curator would have fled or died.
Another less convincing theory is that the trees were left stranded when the fashion of curved trees was shifted. The straight trees fashion came again into existence in German rule in the late 1930s. The Bauhaus ( German school for Arts) influenced the change of tree art to be straight again.
Although this is not a perfect answer still the alteration to the trees has been carried out by the farmers. The farmers at those time did know about the technique for tree bending and that would be the perfect answer for this. But that revolution was started by the Englishmen and during that time Poland was invaded by the Germans who had different techniques for such alterations. So, in general, it is the best possible answer to think of right now.
The locals who were residing in Gryfino, Poland which was the surrounding area of crooked forest abandoned the place during wartime and no one knows what happened with those locals. So this mystery of what might have really happened there has really vanished with their took off. In general, it is still a mystery of what really happened in the crooked forest but there are many general theories about this which have been mentioned above. Now it’s up to you to decide which fact is best fitted for these forests. | <urn:uuid:71e9436a-7f13-4555-ada3-f1397ce1eddf> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.indiaimagine.com/adventure-travel/mysterious/mysterious-facts-about-the-crooked-forest-of-poland/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250592394.9/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118081234-20200118105234-00235.warc.gz | en | 0.984667 | 1,124 | 3.328125 | 3 | [
0.14118894934654236,
-0.007666464429348707,
0.2158854901790619,
0.16412439942359924,
0.5574252009391785,
0.14104127883911133,
-0.11363495886325836,
0.0649837851524353,
-0.09722349047660828,
0.21540383994579315,
0.26093772053718567,
-0.3780975341796875,
-0.7004480361938477,
0.18886591494083... | 7 | Crooked Forest (referred to locally as Krzywy Las) is where you will find around 400 pine trees are abnormally shaped with full 90-degree bends at their bases that curve towards the north. From its base, the trees bend into a “C” shape, it follows the same curve up to nine feet sideways before bending back to a straight shape. They grow to be around 50 feet tall and are all healthy in spite of the unnatural bends at their bases.
While a lot of different bizarre trees elsewhere have been known to create bends or other unusual shapes, the trees in the Crooked Forest are unique. The main fact about their bends is that it is not at all heredity and the pattern is seen only in some covered area.
The story of these trees is as mysterious as they look in reality. It’s evaluated that the trees were planted in the mid-1930s, and also discovered that the misshaping happened when the trees were only 5-7 years of age. At the time, the area was a piece of Germany, yet history would before long toss a cover over what precisely occurred.
As war broke out over Europe, numerous lives and stories were lost, including the origins of the Crooked Forest. One hypothesis of might have happened is that a Nazi tank run over the youthful trees, twisting them 90 degrees. This bodes well outwardly since by far most of the trees are twisted a similar way (North), however, it loses the reality when we look at the surrounding trees.
The twisted trees are surrounded by several ordinary trees, so there is no way a tank could have run over a little area while not affecting other trees. Moreover, if the trees were bowed so drastically by the tanks, then they wouldn’t even survive such experience. But still, this theory can’t be overlooked.
Also Read: 10 Most Mysterious Places Across The World
The ghostly looking trees of Krzywy Las have started a wide range of speculations with respect to how they came to be like this. One of the speculations is that there is some sort of one of a kind gravitational force in this specific region that made the trees become outward towards the North rather than straight up.
In any case, that hypothesis doesn’t hold up to investigation, given that gravity pulls things downwards and not bend them. Besides, there are different groups of pine trees and trees in the region of the Crooked Forest that is not bent, and one could say that gravitational force does have some effect on only those special trees!!
Another hypothesis about Krzywy Las is that heavy snowfall bend the trees as they were growing, making them develop in this manner. But still as mentioned above the theory could not be said to be true as to why is it only applicable to some trees in the area, while others did not have any kind of effect on them.
One of the most extraordinary theories is that the trees were squashed by an alien shuttle, like crop circles. Crop circles themselves were also considered to be made by the farmers, so how can this theory holds any proof. So its best to leave the crop circles to the alien experts.
Reality vs Theory
The doubtless theory is that the trees were deliberately adjusted to deliver a normally bent material for furniture or structures. The procedure takes a very long time to perfect, yet has been reported in the past.
In England, early shipbuilders prized English Oak for use as ‘compass timber’, or the bent bits of a boats’ frame. These pieces could be made of a few straight joined together, and for littler boats, wood steam twisted into any shape, yet timber that has normally developed into a specific shape is a lot stronger. The oaks in England’s numerous heavyweight works were ideal for this, and before the finish of the seventeenth century, huge numbers of them had been chopped down for this utilization.
This theory also stands well considering the timestamp. Up until the 1930s, Art Nouveau was extremely popular, and its bended and uncommon structures could be the motivation for the Crooked Forest trees. The town surrounding the forest was under war at that time, so the original curator would have fled or died.
Another less convincing theory is that the trees were left stranded when the fashion of curved trees was shifted. The straight trees fashion came again into existence in German rule in the late 1930s. The Bauhaus ( German school for Arts) influenced the change of tree art to be straight again.
Although this is not a perfect answer still the alteration to the trees has been carried out by the farmers. The farmers at those time did know about the technique for tree bending and that would be the perfect answer for this. But that revolution was started by the Englishmen and during that time Poland was invaded by the Germans who had different techniques for such alterations. So, in general, it is the best possible answer to think of right now.
The locals who were residing in Gryfino, Poland which was the surrounding area of crooked forest abandoned the place during wartime and no one knows what happened with those locals. So this mystery of what might have really happened there has really vanished with their took off. In general, it is still a mystery of what really happened in the crooked forest but there are many general theories about this which have been mentioned above. Now it’s up to you to decide which fact is best fitted for these forests. | 1,111 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The Embargo Act of 1807 was a general embargo which was enacted by the Congress of the United States of America. The law was meant to prohibit the American ships from trading and interacting with foreign ships in foreign ports. The law was mostly aimed at French and British ships and was enacted as a reaction to the seizure of the US ships, which were suspected to be having war contraband. The move was seen as a violation of US’s neutrality in the Napoleonic War. The Embargo Act of 1807 was passed as payback for the many seizures but mostly the Chesapeake-Leopard Affair.
The Embargo Act of 1807 was signed by the then President Thomas Jefferson on December 22, 1807. President Jefferson urged the members of the Congress to consider a commercial war, rather than a physical war. The commercial war was meant to put the rival nations, Great Britain and France, into some sort of economic hardship which would force them to end their unfair treatment on the US ship. The law had a number of provisions and regulations that were to be followed. First, the American warships were exempted from the embargo provisions. The president was also given the mandate to make an exception for the vessels under his direction. The ships trading between the US would have bonds to ensure they abide by the legislation. The American Ships were not required to obtain any form of permission allowing them to sail in foreign ports.
Although the embargo was meant to protect the US and its vessels from foreign aggressors, the then Secretary of Treasury, Albert Gallatin, was completely against the embargo, foreseeing that it would be impossible to completely enforce it. He also correctly predicted that the embargo would lead to a negative publicity for the country. Soon after the enactment of the law, a loophole was discovered. The coasting vessels and fishing boats had been exempted from the embargo. To seal the loophole, the first supplementary act was passed by Tenth US Congress on January 8, 1808. The Congress also passes several other supplementary acts to the Embargo Act including one on March 12, 1808, which prohibited export of all goods whether by land or sea.
Consequences of the Embargo Act
The embargo, which was supposed to cause economic burden to the belligerent countries, brought even more burden to the United States. The American overseas trade was largely affected. In fact, it almost got crippled. The residents of the southern region were the most severely affected. They had to remain with their surplus farm produce since they could not easily export the products to international market. The British were not adversely affected since they could still access the United States through Canada. The British shipowners were also pleased with the reduced competition following the action of the US government.
Historical Significance and Legacy
The Embargo Act of 1807 was not as successful as was expected. In fact, it resulted in economic burdens to both the people of America and economy of the country. The Federalist Party received a large following after the passing of the law. Its support grew tremendously. In 1808, it acquired an increased representation in the Electoral College and in the Congress. The Embargo Act of 1807 also influenced the America’s declaration of war in 1812 and enactment of other embargoes.
What Was The Embargo Act Of 1807?
The Embargo Act, signed on December 22, 1807 by the US Congress, imposed a general embargo upon both Great Britain and France. The move was in retaliation for the Chesapeake-Leopard Affair and seen as a violation of US’s neutrality in the Napoleonic War.
About the Author
John Misachi is a seasoned writer with 5+ years of experience. His favorite topics include finance, history, geography, agriculture, legal, and sports.
Your MLA Citation
Your APA Citation
Your Chicago Citation
Your Harvard CitationRemember to italicize the title of this article in your Harvard citation. | <urn:uuid:d1702930-288e-4dfd-8fe1-726f0d89d151> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/what-was-the-embargo-act-of-1807.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251681412.74/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125191854-20200125221854-00365.warc.gz | en | 0.983341 | 802 | 3.734375 | 4 | [
-0.2324490249156952,
0.09578748047351837,
0.47032254934310913,
-0.48399144411087036,
-0.12331552803516388,
-0.06236688047647476,
0.06689013540744781,
-0.12450522929430008,
-0.17101715505123138,
0.3832748532295227,
0.28887632489204407,
0.042486585676670074,
-0.36503833532333374,
0.076521068... | 2 | The Embargo Act of 1807 was a general embargo which was enacted by the Congress of the United States of America. The law was meant to prohibit the American ships from trading and interacting with foreign ships in foreign ports. The law was mostly aimed at French and British ships and was enacted as a reaction to the seizure of the US ships, which were suspected to be having war contraband. The move was seen as a violation of US’s neutrality in the Napoleonic War. The Embargo Act of 1807 was passed as payback for the many seizures but mostly the Chesapeake-Leopard Affair.
The Embargo Act of 1807 was signed by the then President Thomas Jefferson on December 22, 1807. President Jefferson urged the members of the Congress to consider a commercial war, rather than a physical war. The commercial war was meant to put the rival nations, Great Britain and France, into some sort of economic hardship which would force them to end their unfair treatment on the US ship. The law had a number of provisions and regulations that were to be followed. First, the American warships were exempted from the embargo provisions. The president was also given the mandate to make an exception for the vessels under his direction. The ships trading between the US would have bonds to ensure they abide by the legislation. The American Ships were not required to obtain any form of permission allowing them to sail in foreign ports.
Although the embargo was meant to protect the US and its vessels from foreign aggressors, the then Secretary of Treasury, Albert Gallatin, was completely against the embargo, foreseeing that it would be impossible to completely enforce it. He also correctly predicted that the embargo would lead to a negative publicity for the country. Soon after the enactment of the law, a loophole was discovered. The coasting vessels and fishing boats had been exempted from the embargo. To seal the loophole, the first supplementary act was passed by Tenth US Congress on January 8, 1808. The Congress also passes several other supplementary acts to the Embargo Act including one on March 12, 1808, which prohibited export of all goods whether by land or sea.
Consequences of the Embargo Act
The embargo, which was supposed to cause economic burden to the belligerent countries, brought even more burden to the United States. The American overseas trade was largely affected. In fact, it almost got crippled. The residents of the southern region were the most severely affected. They had to remain with their surplus farm produce since they could not easily export the products to international market. The British were not adversely affected since they could still access the United States through Canada. The British shipowners were also pleased with the reduced competition following the action of the US government.
Historical Significance and Legacy
The Embargo Act of 1807 was not as successful as was expected. In fact, it resulted in economic burdens to both the people of America and economy of the country. The Federalist Party received a large following after the passing of the law. Its support grew tremendously. In 1808, it acquired an increased representation in the Electoral College and in the Congress. The Embargo Act of 1807 also influenced the America’s declaration of war in 1812 and enactment of other embargoes.
What Was The Embargo Act Of 1807?
The Embargo Act, signed on December 22, 1807 by the US Congress, imposed a general embargo upon both Great Britain and France. The move was in retaliation for the Chesapeake-Leopard Affair and seen as a violation of US’s neutrality in the Napoleonic War.
About the Author
John Misachi is a seasoned writer with 5+ years of experience. His favorite topics include finance, history, geography, agriculture, legal, and sports.
Your MLA Citation
Your APA Citation
Your Chicago Citation
Your Harvard CitationRemember to italicize the title of this article in your Harvard citation. | 833 | ENGLISH | 1 |
returning Jews. Ammonites and Moabites became adherents. The book of Nehemiah is full of the distress occasioned by this invasion of the privileges of the chosen. The Jews were already a people dispersed in many lands and cities, when their minds and hopes were unified and they became an exclusive people. But at first their exclusiveness is merely to preserve soundness of doctrine and worship, warned by such lamentable lapses as those of King Solomon. To genuine proselytes of whatever race, Judaism long held out welcoming arms.
To Phœnicians after the falls of Tyre and Carthage, conversion to Judaism must have been particularly easy and attractive. Their language was closely akin to Hebrew. It is possible that the great majority of African and Spanish Jews are really of Phœnician origin. There were also great Arabian accessions. In South Russia, as we shall note later, there were even Mongolian Jews.
The historical books from Genesis to Nehemiah, upon which the idea of the promise to the chosen people had been imposed later, were no doubt the backbone of Jewish mental unity, but they by no means complete the Hebrew literature from which finally the Bible was made up. Of such books as Job, said to be an imitation of Greek tragedy, the Song of Solomon, the Psalms, Proverbs, and others, there is no time to write in this Outline, but it is necessary to deal with the books known as "the Prophets" with some fullness. For those books are almost the earliest and certainly the best evidence of the appearance of a new kind of leading in human affairs.
These prophets are not a new class in the community; they are of the most various origins—Ezekiel was of the priestly caste and of priestly sympathies, and Amos was a shepherd; but they have this in common, that they bring into life a religious force outside the sacrifices and formalities of priesthood and temple. The earlier prophets seem most like the earlier priests, they are oracular, they give advice and foretell events; it is quite possible that at
- For early Egyptian anticipations of the idea of a Messiah and of the prophetic style, see Breasted's Development of Religion and Thought in Ancient Egypt. A very good book on the Hebrew prophets is W. A. C. Allen's Old Testament Prophets. | <urn:uuid:215d8f5f-a45d-477f-b51f-dca0f5c1697c> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:The_Outline_of_History_Vol_1.djvu/318 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251788528.85/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129041149-20200129071149-00012.warc.gz | en | 0.983543 | 486 | 3.390625 | 3 | [
-0.3869493305683136,
0.5090689063072205,
0.10416185110807419,
0.17042922973632812,
-0.28008508682250977,
-0.16457483172416687,
-0.2631565034389496,
0.2174612581729889,
-0.08382125198841095,
0.11292292177677155,
-0.1360587626695633,
-0.14701054990291595,
-0.213459774851799,
0.12119093537330... | 1 | returning Jews. Ammonites and Moabites became adherents. The book of Nehemiah is full of the distress occasioned by this invasion of the privileges of the chosen. The Jews were already a people dispersed in many lands and cities, when their minds and hopes were unified and they became an exclusive people. But at first their exclusiveness is merely to preserve soundness of doctrine and worship, warned by such lamentable lapses as those of King Solomon. To genuine proselytes of whatever race, Judaism long held out welcoming arms.
To Phœnicians after the falls of Tyre and Carthage, conversion to Judaism must have been particularly easy and attractive. Their language was closely akin to Hebrew. It is possible that the great majority of African and Spanish Jews are really of Phœnician origin. There were also great Arabian accessions. In South Russia, as we shall note later, there were even Mongolian Jews.
The historical books from Genesis to Nehemiah, upon which the idea of the promise to the chosen people had been imposed later, were no doubt the backbone of Jewish mental unity, but they by no means complete the Hebrew literature from which finally the Bible was made up. Of such books as Job, said to be an imitation of Greek tragedy, the Song of Solomon, the Psalms, Proverbs, and others, there is no time to write in this Outline, but it is necessary to deal with the books known as "the Prophets" with some fullness. For those books are almost the earliest and certainly the best evidence of the appearance of a new kind of leading in human affairs.
These prophets are not a new class in the community; they are of the most various origins—Ezekiel was of the priestly caste and of priestly sympathies, and Amos was a shepherd; but they have this in common, that they bring into life a religious force outside the sacrifices and formalities of priesthood and temple. The earlier prophets seem most like the earlier priests, they are oracular, they give advice and foretell events; it is quite possible that at
- For early Egyptian anticipations of the idea of a Messiah and of the prophetic style, see Breasted's Development of Religion and Thought in Ancient Egypt. A very good book on the Hebrew prophets is W. A. C. Allen's Old Testament Prophets. | 485 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Shinhan Limestone Kilns
At this point along the Canal, you can observe brick-lined arches in a concrete facing. These are the remains of several limestone kilns that were used to create fertilizer, plaster and cement during the 19th century. Owned by O.J. Shinhan, the kilns were operating as late as the 1960s. Cement was likely not produced here after the turn of the century, however, as Portland cement became the preferred product.
To transform raw limestone into its final burnt powder form, it was first broken down to nut-sized pieces by an “iron cracker.” The smaller pieces were placed in alternate layers with coal at the top of the kiln. The burnt limestone was drawn out at the bottom and ground into powder using millwheels. Powder was measured in bushels and placed in sacks or barrels for shipment downstream.
Photo by: Bud and Dell Cline | <urn:uuid:1962268e-4039-4124-987c-2673537d497c> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.canaltrust.org/pyv/shinhan-limestone-kilns/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250598726.39/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120110422-20200120134422-00146.warc.gz | en | 0.989605 | 192 | 3.453125 | 3 | [
-0.1810491681098938,
0.30000540614128113,
0.1488272249698639,
-0.2731676995754242,
-0.3310895562171936,
0.10722846537828445,
0.05497124791145325,
0.06217871233820915,
-0.3250235617160797,
-0.037081554532051086,
0.019648276269435883,
-0.7405391335487366,
0.0770263671875,
0.26396292448043823... | 6 | Shinhan Limestone Kilns
At this point along the Canal, you can observe brick-lined arches in a concrete facing. These are the remains of several limestone kilns that were used to create fertilizer, plaster and cement during the 19th century. Owned by O.J. Shinhan, the kilns were operating as late as the 1960s. Cement was likely not produced here after the turn of the century, however, as Portland cement became the preferred product.
To transform raw limestone into its final burnt powder form, it was first broken down to nut-sized pieces by an “iron cracker.” The smaller pieces were placed in alternate layers with coal at the top of the kiln. The burnt limestone was drawn out at the bottom and ground into powder using millwheels. Powder was measured in bushels and placed in sacks or barrels for shipment downstream.
Photo by: Bud and Dell Cline | 188 | ENGLISH | 1 |
As one of the world’s greatest writers, Charles Dickens has written some of the greatest classics such as: Great Expectations, A Tale of Two Cities, and Oliver Twist. In these works, Dickens often uses past experiences in his life, and develops a character that goes through the same kind of struggles. He also uses much satire as comic relief, much like that of someone who is trying to hide behind a mask of joking. Such is the case with Oliver Twist.
During his childhood, Charles Dickens suffered much abuse from his parents. Oliver Twist, the main character in the novel, while at the orphanage, also experienced a great amount of abuse. For example, while suffering from starvation and malnutrition, Oliver was chosen by the other boys at the orphanage to request more gruel at dinner one night. After making this simple request, “the master aimed a blow at Oliver’s head with the ladle; pinioned him in his arms; and shrieked aloud for the beadle.”
The whole beginning of Oliver Twist’s story was created from memories which related to Dickens’ childhood in a blacking factory. While working in the blacking factory, Dickens suffered tremendous humiliation, which is expressed through Oliver’s adventures at the orphanage.
Throughout his lifetime, Dickens appeared to have acquired a drawing towards the bleak and dreary. Most of Oliver Twist, for example, takes place in London’s lowest slums. Many of the settings, such as the pickpocket’s hideout, the surrounding streets, and the bars, are described as dark, gloomy, and bland. It often appears that Dickens was extremely depressed and dwelled on the past. If he had looked to Jesus to break the chains of the past,
Another similarity between Oliver and Dickens is that they both have had interactions with convicts. Fagin, the head of a group of young thieves, spends most of his time trying to corrupt Oliver, which would later prevent him from ever coming into his rightful inheritance. To Oliver, Fagin is seen as an escape from all previous misery. He also helps Oliver to ease any fears about starvation and loneliness. While at the blacking factory, Charles had a similar run-in with a theif who enticed him with money and food.
Much satire is used as a writing technique in the book mainly to emphasize some of the social injustices that poorer people of that time had to endure.
The use of personal experience and good writing technique has made Dickens into the writing legend that he is. As you can see, Dickens’ use of personal experience was able to help develop a character that was a mirror of himself, and was able to create a great story. | <urn:uuid:9c1b6963-beb2-4af1-aa10-b5b2b26b86e2> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://farmersfeastmanitoba.com/oliver-twist/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251700675.78/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127112805-20200127142805-00382.warc.gz | en | 0.984181 | 560 | 3.671875 | 4 | [
0.11304601281881332,
0.23383766412734985,
0.5122417211532593,
0.3761555552482605,
-0.03599105775356293,
-0.2784772515296936,
-0.014241481199860573,
0.0020249267108738422,
-0.2020372897386551,
-0.02762152999639511,
0.1336224377155304,
0.006065444089472294,
-0.010519090108573437,
-0.13617348... | 3 | As one of the world’s greatest writers, Charles Dickens has written some of the greatest classics such as: Great Expectations, A Tale of Two Cities, and Oliver Twist. In these works, Dickens often uses past experiences in his life, and develops a character that goes through the same kind of struggles. He also uses much satire as comic relief, much like that of someone who is trying to hide behind a mask of joking. Such is the case with Oliver Twist.
During his childhood, Charles Dickens suffered much abuse from his parents. Oliver Twist, the main character in the novel, while at the orphanage, also experienced a great amount of abuse. For example, while suffering from starvation and malnutrition, Oliver was chosen by the other boys at the orphanage to request more gruel at dinner one night. After making this simple request, “the master aimed a blow at Oliver’s head with the ladle; pinioned him in his arms; and shrieked aloud for the beadle.”
The whole beginning of Oliver Twist’s story was created from memories which related to Dickens’ childhood in a blacking factory. While working in the blacking factory, Dickens suffered tremendous humiliation, which is expressed through Oliver’s adventures at the orphanage.
Throughout his lifetime, Dickens appeared to have acquired a drawing towards the bleak and dreary. Most of Oliver Twist, for example, takes place in London’s lowest slums. Many of the settings, such as the pickpocket’s hideout, the surrounding streets, and the bars, are described as dark, gloomy, and bland. It often appears that Dickens was extremely depressed and dwelled on the past. If he had looked to Jesus to break the chains of the past,
Another similarity between Oliver and Dickens is that they both have had interactions with convicts. Fagin, the head of a group of young thieves, spends most of his time trying to corrupt Oliver, which would later prevent him from ever coming into his rightful inheritance. To Oliver, Fagin is seen as an escape from all previous misery. He also helps Oliver to ease any fears about starvation and loneliness. While at the blacking factory, Charles had a similar run-in with a theif who enticed him with money and food.
Much satire is used as a writing technique in the book mainly to emphasize some of the social injustices that poorer people of that time had to endure.
The use of personal experience and good writing technique has made Dickens into the writing legend that he is. As you can see, Dickens’ use of personal experience was able to help develop a character that was a mirror of himself, and was able to create a great story. | 540 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Caecilia Metella's first marriage was to Marcus Aemilius Scaurus, an aging politician at the peak of his power. Scaurus was a patrician, the princeps senatus (president of the Senate) and a traditional ally of her family. Caecilia bore Scaurus two children: Marcus Aemilius Scaurus and Aemilia Scaura, whom Sulla, her second husband, married to Pompey to forge an alliance with him. Aemilia became the second wife of Pompey. Caecilia Metella had two twins, Faustus and Fausta, and another unnamed son with Sulla.
Following Scaurus' death, Caecilia married Lucius Cornelius Sulla, who was fifty. In his account of the life of Sulla, Plutarch wrote that this was a prestigious marriage for Sulla due to Caecilia being the daughter of the Pontifex Maximus, the high priest of Roman state religion. The marriage was ridiculed by the people and many leading men were dissatisfied because they thought that it was unworthy of Caecilia. Caecilia was Sulla's fourth wife and he married her only a few days after divorcing Cloelia for 'barrenness'. Because of this and despite the fact that Sulla praised Cloelia and gave her gifts, many thought that he had accused her unfairly. However, he always showed Caecilia great deference. Because of this, when Sulla refused the request of the people to restore the exiled supporters of Marius (whom Sulla had fought in Sulla's First Civil War, 88–87 BC) they asked Caecilia for help. Plutarch wrote that it "was thought also that when [Sulla] took the city of Athens, he treated its people more harshly because they had scurrilously abused Metella from the walls." In another passage, Plutarch specified that the scurrilous abuse against Sulla and Caecilia was from Aristion, the tyrant of Athens.
While Sulla was in Greece the Marians (the supporters of Gaius Marius) seized Rome and perpetrated violence against the supporters of Sulla. Metella fled with her children with difficulty, informed Sulla that his villas had been burned and offered to help the Sullans (the supporters of Sulla) at home. After Sulla celebrated his triumph for his victory in Greece, Metella bore him twin children, "[Sulla] named the male child Faustus, and the female Fausta; for the Romans call what is auspicious and joyful, "faustum." " While Sulla was devoting a lavish feast in honour of the god Hercules, Caecilia was sick and dying. The priests forbade Sulla 'to go near her or to have his house polluted by her funeral.' Sulla divorced her and had her taken to another house while she was still alive. In this way he respected the law. Sulla transgressed his laws limiting the expenses of funerals and of banquets, organised a sumptuous funeral and drowned his sorrows in drinking parties and extravagant banquets. Plutarch mentioned that another, unnamed son who died shortly before the death of his mother Metella appeared to him in a dream. Plutarch clarified this by saying that when Sulla died he left two young children by Metella. | <urn:uuid:0081fde8-b07a-4c56-8988-3a3f43eb59a9> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://everything.explained.today/Caecilia_Metella_(daughter_of_Dalmaticus)/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251696046.73/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127081933-20200127111933-00249.warc.gz | en | 0.988225 | 698 | 3.375 | 3 | [
-0.29339367151260376,
0.3434191942214966,
-0.01802878826856613,
-0.1388399749994278,
-0.6353666186332703,
-0.1916307806968689,
0.09056542813777924,
0.12238315492868423,
0.06531974673271179,
-0.2772630751132965,
-0.06329286098480225,
-0.3876364231109619,
0.4255005717277527,
0.46208322048187... | 1 | Caecilia Metella's first marriage was to Marcus Aemilius Scaurus, an aging politician at the peak of his power. Scaurus was a patrician, the princeps senatus (president of the Senate) and a traditional ally of her family. Caecilia bore Scaurus two children: Marcus Aemilius Scaurus and Aemilia Scaura, whom Sulla, her second husband, married to Pompey to forge an alliance with him. Aemilia became the second wife of Pompey. Caecilia Metella had two twins, Faustus and Fausta, and another unnamed son with Sulla.
Following Scaurus' death, Caecilia married Lucius Cornelius Sulla, who was fifty. In his account of the life of Sulla, Plutarch wrote that this was a prestigious marriage for Sulla due to Caecilia being the daughter of the Pontifex Maximus, the high priest of Roman state religion. The marriage was ridiculed by the people and many leading men were dissatisfied because they thought that it was unworthy of Caecilia. Caecilia was Sulla's fourth wife and he married her only a few days after divorcing Cloelia for 'barrenness'. Because of this and despite the fact that Sulla praised Cloelia and gave her gifts, many thought that he had accused her unfairly. However, he always showed Caecilia great deference. Because of this, when Sulla refused the request of the people to restore the exiled supporters of Marius (whom Sulla had fought in Sulla's First Civil War, 88–87 BC) they asked Caecilia for help. Plutarch wrote that it "was thought also that when [Sulla] took the city of Athens, he treated its people more harshly because they had scurrilously abused Metella from the walls." In another passage, Plutarch specified that the scurrilous abuse against Sulla and Caecilia was from Aristion, the tyrant of Athens.
While Sulla was in Greece the Marians (the supporters of Gaius Marius) seized Rome and perpetrated violence against the supporters of Sulla. Metella fled with her children with difficulty, informed Sulla that his villas had been burned and offered to help the Sullans (the supporters of Sulla) at home. After Sulla celebrated his triumph for his victory in Greece, Metella bore him twin children, "[Sulla] named the male child Faustus, and the female Fausta; for the Romans call what is auspicious and joyful, "faustum." " While Sulla was devoting a lavish feast in honour of the god Hercules, Caecilia was sick and dying. The priests forbade Sulla 'to go near her or to have his house polluted by her funeral.' Sulla divorced her and had her taken to another house while she was still alive. In this way he respected the law. Sulla transgressed his laws limiting the expenses of funerals and of banquets, organised a sumptuous funeral and drowned his sorrows in drinking parties and extravagant banquets. Plutarch mentioned that another, unnamed son who died shortly before the death of his mother Metella appeared to him in a dream. Plutarch clarified this by saying that when Sulla died he left two young children by Metella. | 712 | ENGLISH | 1 |
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important:
Prelims level: Philosophy of Kabir and Kabir Panth
Mains level: Role of Kabir and various other saints during Bhakti Movement.
- Kabir was a 15th-century Indian mystic poet and saint, whose writings influenced Hinduism’s Bhakti movement and his verses are found in Sikhism’s scripture Guru Granth Sahib.
- His early life was in a Muslim family, but he was strongly influenced by his teacher, the Hindu bhakti leader Ramananda.
- Kabir is known for being critical of both Hinduism and Islam, stating that the former was misguided by the Vedas, and questioning their meaningless rites of initiation such as the sacred thread and circumcision respectively.
- Kabir suggested that True God is with the person who is on the path of righteousness, considered all creatures on earth as his own self, and who is passively detached from the affairs of the world.
- Kabir’s legacy survives and continues through the Kabir Panth (“Path of Kabir”), a religious community that recognizes him as its founder and its members are known as Kabir panthis.
- Kabir’s poetry is very famous in popular culture as ‘Dohas’. | <urn:uuid:177d2ca9-c32b-4153-a6ea-890cea49472b> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.civilsdaily.com/news/pib-500th-death-anniversary-of-the-great-saint-and-poet-kabir/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250597230.18/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120023523-20200120051523-00021.warc.gz | en | 0.980695 | 276 | 3.671875 | 4 | [
0.07597174495458603,
0.07752741128206253,
0.004588374402374029,
0.146079421043396,
-0.2711388170719147,
-0.05373484268784523,
0.6689102649688721,
0.15666528046131134,
0.13477446138858795,
-0.04580286517739296,
-0.2994821071624756,
-0.18964678049087524,
0.06406045705080032,
0.06393140554428... | 2 | From UPSC perspective, the following things are important:
Prelims level: Philosophy of Kabir and Kabir Panth
Mains level: Role of Kabir and various other saints during Bhakti Movement.
- Kabir was a 15th-century Indian mystic poet and saint, whose writings influenced Hinduism’s Bhakti movement and his verses are found in Sikhism’s scripture Guru Granth Sahib.
- His early life was in a Muslim family, but he was strongly influenced by his teacher, the Hindu bhakti leader Ramananda.
- Kabir is known for being critical of both Hinduism and Islam, stating that the former was misguided by the Vedas, and questioning their meaningless rites of initiation such as the sacred thread and circumcision respectively.
- Kabir suggested that True God is with the person who is on the path of righteousness, considered all creatures on earth as his own self, and who is passively detached from the affairs of the world.
- Kabir’s legacy survives and continues through the Kabir Panth (“Path of Kabir”), a religious community that recognizes him as its founder and its members are known as Kabir panthis.
- Kabir’s poetry is very famous in popular culture as ‘Dohas’. | 257 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The 'invention' of paper towels was as much accidental as it was deliberate. There were several events in history that led to the advent of paper towels.
History of Smallpox Vaccine
Smallpox vaccine is a big achievement in the history of vaccination and medicine. Let us know all about its history, in the information below.
Diseases can be tackled by medicine and other treatments, and that is because of the revolution and progress in medicine today. But, diseases have been infiltrating human health since ages, even before the research and invention of medicines. So what did people do back then? Since centuries, or ever since the evolution of mankind, certain diseases have been attacking, and killing many people every year.
Among the deadliest diseases history has seen across the globe, smallpox, is one name that cannot be forgotten. We all have information on smallpox, but are not aware of its history. This disease spread like wild in the 18th century and was spreading waves of infection in many countries.
Smallpox is an infectious viral disease, that was caused by ‘Orthopox variola ‘. It is known that mankind saw the fierce killer thousands of years ago. Since then, it was known that smallpox survivors were immune to any further infection from the virus. Considering this theory, many healthy people were treated with dried, powdered scabs of the smallpox, so as to induce immunity against the virus. This was known as ‘inoculation’.
It was observed that people developed a mild disease due to this method, but they did not catch the deadly virus. Mortality rate too was very less (1-2%) as compared to the infection that killed people. This was perhaps the beginning, let’s understand, the history of this vaccine in detail.
Now the methods of inoculation were tried and tested on many people and which also showed convincing results. This method spreads across many countries and inoculation became the preventive measure against smallpox. This later came to be known as variolation. This became very popular, most of the cases saw an improvement in the health and recovery, while few cases reported death due to the disease.
There was no demand for the treatment for smallpox then, so most of the physicians got into inoculation. The mortality rate was very low and it also gave people assurance of immunity against the infection. This practice grew in the European states and other countries as well, but it also drew a lot of controversies, as during the trials, many epidemics broke in, and the variolation though effective, still saw the disease spread like wildfire.
In 1757, inoculation was carried out for many children in England. In Gloucester, an eight year old boy was inoculated, who was among the thousands of other children inoculated. This boy developed a mild disease and later got immune to the same. This child proved to be the next savior of the world from smallpox, with the introduction of this vaccine. Let us know how, in the following.
Invention of the Smallpox Vaccine
This boy who was inoculated among the thousands in England was Edward Jenner. He grew up to become a scientist and has credits on the invention of the smallpox vaccine. He took note of the knowing, that milk maids that contracted cowpox, which is a mild disease, were immune to smallpox. Considering this theory, he inoculated an eight year old boy with cowpox. Cowpox too is known to be caused by a similar virus like that of variola.
Now after this inoculation, the boy showed immunity to smallpox even after deliberate exposure to the virus. This was the time, it was observed that not only does cowpox when contracted protect you from smallpox, but it can also be used as a protective and preventive option. This was later experimented on another person, where, the cowpox was taken from a lesion on the hands of a milk maid, and inoculated in the healthy person.
The experiment was a success. Cowpox created immunity against smallpox, that too with very few side effects and decreased mortality rates as compared to variolation. This is when, the vaccine for was invented. The vaccine word comes from ‘vacca’ which means ‘cow’ in Latin. This vaccine gained a lot of importance, and helped in eradication of this dreaded infection.
Smallpox later was completely eradicated in the year 1979, after the global campaign of WHO (World Health Organization) in 1967, which slowly wiped out this disease. This is a great achievement in health and medicine. With all these facts, we conclude this article on history of smallpox vaccine, which surely portrays the fight of mankind, which won with the complete eradication of this infectious disease. | <urn:uuid:c1741765-1f99-4c83-bc54-6759b9a4ebef> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://sciencestruck.com/smallpox-vaccine-history | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251694176.67/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127020458-20200127050458-00157.warc.gz | en | 0.987318 | 982 | 3.46875 | 3 | [
-0.03243914619088173,
0.2995190918445587,
0.45086273550987244,
-0.07725534588098526,
0.16800343990325928,
-0.22059497237205505,
0.6813421845436096,
0.5609058737754822,
-0.1920844465494156,
-0.03994280472397804,
0.1504037082195282,
-0.3962145149707794,
-0.007570779882371426,
0.1866315901279... | 3 | The 'invention' of paper towels was as much accidental as it was deliberate. There were several events in history that led to the advent of paper towels.
History of Smallpox Vaccine
Smallpox vaccine is a big achievement in the history of vaccination and medicine. Let us know all about its history, in the information below.
Diseases can be tackled by medicine and other treatments, and that is because of the revolution and progress in medicine today. But, diseases have been infiltrating human health since ages, even before the research and invention of medicines. So what did people do back then? Since centuries, or ever since the evolution of mankind, certain diseases have been attacking, and killing many people every year.
Among the deadliest diseases history has seen across the globe, smallpox, is one name that cannot be forgotten. We all have information on smallpox, but are not aware of its history. This disease spread like wild in the 18th century and was spreading waves of infection in many countries.
Smallpox is an infectious viral disease, that was caused by ‘Orthopox variola ‘. It is known that mankind saw the fierce killer thousands of years ago. Since then, it was known that smallpox survivors were immune to any further infection from the virus. Considering this theory, many healthy people were treated with dried, powdered scabs of the smallpox, so as to induce immunity against the virus. This was known as ‘inoculation’.
It was observed that people developed a mild disease due to this method, but they did not catch the deadly virus. Mortality rate too was very less (1-2%) as compared to the infection that killed people. This was perhaps the beginning, let’s understand, the history of this vaccine in detail.
Now the methods of inoculation were tried and tested on many people and which also showed convincing results. This method spreads across many countries and inoculation became the preventive measure against smallpox. This later came to be known as variolation. This became very popular, most of the cases saw an improvement in the health and recovery, while few cases reported death due to the disease.
There was no demand for the treatment for smallpox then, so most of the physicians got into inoculation. The mortality rate was very low and it also gave people assurance of immunity against the infection. This practice grew in the European states and other countries as well, but it also drew a lot of controversies, as during the trials, many epidemics broke in, and the variolation though effective, still saw the disease spread like wildfire.
In 1757, inoculation was carried out for many children in England. In Gloucester, an eight year old boy was inoculated, who was among the thousands of other children inoculated. This boy developed a mild disease and later got immune to the same. This child proved to be the next savior of the world from smallpox, with the introduction of this vaccine. Let us know how, in the following.
Invention of the Smallpox Vaccine
This boy who was inoculated among the thousands in England was Edward Jenner. He grew up to become a scientist and has credits on the invention of the smallpox vaccine. He took note of the knowing, that milk maids that contracted cowpox, which is a mild disease, were immune to smallpox. Considering this theory, he inoculated an eight year old boy with cowpox. Cowpox too is known to be caused by a similar virus like that of variola.
Now after this inoculation, the boy showed immunity to smallpox even after deliberate exposure to the virus. This was the time, it was observed that not only does cowpox when contracted protect you from smallpox, but it can also be used as a protective and preventive option. This was later experimented on another person, where, the cowpox was taken from a lesion on the hands of a milk maid, and inoculated in the healthy person.
The experiment was a success. Cowpox created immunity against smallpox, that too with very few side effects and decreased mortality rates as compared to variolation. This is when, the vaccine for was invented. The vaccine word comes from ‘vacca’ which means ‘cow’ in Latin. This vaccine gained a lot of importance, and helped in eradication of this dreaded infection.
Smallpox later was completely eradicated in the year 1979, after the global campaign of WHO (World Health Organization) in 1967, which slowly wiped out this disease. This is a great achievement in health and medicine. With all these facts, we conclude this article on history of smallpox vaccine, which surely portrays the fight of mankind, which won with the complete eradication of this infectious disease. | 991 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Indus Area Art and Architecture
The overall design of the Indus is based on a grid of right perspectives. Large roads run in straight lines in north-south directions and therefore are crossed simply by smaller pavements in an east-west direction. The best streets were 33 foot wide and smaller roadways ranged from 9 to doze feet in length. The division of space in to separate prevents is seen with the layout of the streets nevertheless also internally plans, the designs on pottery as well as the diagrams upon seals. In contrast to this, the layout of early on Mesopotamian cities was quite irregular. The thought of settlement planning was already well established before 2600 BC and it is seen in all of the settlements throughout the Indus. Every single city is made up of a series of walled sectors or mounds with massive stone gateways. The orientation in the Indus urban centers along a north-south and east-west course was probably linked to spiritual beliefs.
Very well laid out streets and part lanes with drains happen to be one of the outstanding highlights of the Indus cities, also in small towns and villages. The drains, created from brick, connected the baths and toilets of private properties to medium-sized drains inside the side pavements. These flowed into bigger drains in the primary streets which were covered with brick and or stone obstructs, which were easily-removed for cleaning purposes. Corbelled arches had been built to allow larger pumps out to cut under streets and buildings until they come to the city wall membrane, throwing the water out on the outlying plain. At regular periods along the key sewage canal, were rectangle-shaped sump pits for collecting solid waste. These sump pits had been cleaned upon regular basis.
Bore holes and reservoirs were developed within the urban centers to ensure drinking and baths water. It is often estimated that Mohenjo-Daro may have had seven hundred wells, while Harappa may possibly have had as little as 30. It could be because Mohenjo-Daro was a long way away from the Indus and had much less winter rainfall. In Harappa, a large depressive disorder in the centre of the city shows a reservoir that was accessible to numerous neighbor hoods. These 10 to 15 meter profound wells had been lined with specially built wedge molded bricks to for a sound cylinder that would not cave in with the pressure of the surrounding dirt. At Mohenjo-Daro, most houses or obstructs of houses experienced at least one private well and there were frequently public wells along the main streets concern and the general public.
In the Indus metropolitan areas, there is a remarkable uniformity in both the recycleables and the design of construction. The most common material was sun dried bricks, baked bricks or stones. Doors and windows were made of wood. Flooring were generally hard jam-packed earth that was often replastered. Showering areas and drains were created with baked bricks. Few actual roofs have been discovered but they were probably of wooden beams covered with reeds and packed clay-based.
The majority of the architecture by /Indus Area civilization could be grouped in three categories: * Exclusive houses:
They were built with rooms and central courtyard. Doorways and windows hardly ever opened away into the primary streets yet faced part lanes. The lovely view into the property was clogged by a wall structure or hallway, so that the courtyard was exclusive. Stairs led up to the roof or the second storey from of the areas or courtyard. Many houses were at least two storey high and several probably three storey judging from the width of the wall surfaces. Doors were created of real wood; some were painted and maybe carved with a simple ornamentation. Windows experienced wooden wooden shutters with latticework grills over and below them. In a few houses large jars have been found which are probably used for storage reasons. Pottery ships were sunk in some of... | <urn:uuid:cec811b1-ae26-4cb8-8147-f447d4225fca> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://mydebtreductionblueprint.com/extremes-valley-civilization/31955-indus-pit-civilization-article.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251681412.74/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125191854-20200125221854-00066.warc.gz | en | 0.985513 | 802 | 3.5 | 4 | [
-0.07149061560630798,
0.13265278935432434,
0.47710859775543213,
0.26596951484680176,
-0.49587976932525635,
-0.010795516893267632,
0.04405340552330017,
0.02074044570326805,
-0.4215463697910309,
-0.20599353313446045,
-0.17247195541858673,
-0.34756675362586975,
0.2559032440185547,
-0.00711929... | 1 | Indus Area Art and Architecture
The overall design of the Indus is based on a grid of right perspectives. Large roads run in straight lines in north-south directions and therefore are crossed simply by smaller pavements in an east-west direction. The best streets were 33 foot wide and smaller roadways ranged from 9 to doze feet in length. The division of space in to separate prevents is seen with the layout of the streets nevertheless also internally plans, the designs on pottery as well as the diagrams upon seals. In contrast to this, the layout of early on Mesopotamian cities was quite irregular. The thought of settlement planning was already well established before 2600 BC and it is seen in all of the settlements throughout the Indus. Every single city is made up of a series of walled sectors or mounds with massive stone gateways. The orientation in the Indus urban centers along a north-south and east-west course was probably linked to spiritual beliefs.
Very well laid out streets and part lanes with drains happen to be one of the outstanding highlights of the Indus cities, also in small towns and villages. The drains, created from brick, connected the baths and toilets of private properties to medium-sized drains inside the side pavements. These flowed into bigger drains in the primary streets which were covered with brick and or stone obstructs, which were easily-removed for cleaning purposes. Corbelled arches had been built to allow larger pumps out to cut under streets and buildings until they come to the city wall membrane, throwing the water out on the outlying plain. At regular periods along the key sewage canal, were rectangle-shaped sump pits for collecting solid waste. These sump pits had been cleaned upon regular basis.
Bore holes and reservoirs were developed within the urban centers to ensure drinking and baths water. It is often estimated that Mohenjo-Daro may have had seven hundred wells, while Harappa may possibly have had as little as 30. It could be because Mohenjo-Daro was a long way away from the Indus and had much less winter rainfall. In Harappa, a large depressive disorder in the centre of the city shows a reservoir that was accessible to numerous neighbor hoods. These 10 to 15 meter profound wells had been lined with specially built wedge molded bricks to for a sound cylinder that would not cave in with the pressure of the surrounding dirt. At Mohenjo-Daro, most houses or obstructs of houses experienced at least one private well and there were frequently public wells along the main streets concern and the general public.
In the Indus metropolitan areas, there is a remarkable uniformity in both the recycleables and the design of construction. The most common material was sun dried bricks, baked bricks or stones. Doors and windows were made of wood. Flooring were generally hard jam-packed earth that was often replastered. Showering areas and drains were created with baked bricks. Few actual roofs have been discovered but they were probably of wooden beams covered with reeds and packed clay-based.
The majority of the architecture by /Indus Area civilization could be grouped in three categories: * Exclusive houses:
They were built with rooms and central courtyard. Doorways and windows hardly ever opened away into the primary streets yet faced part lanes. The lovely view into the property was clogged by a wall structure or hallway, so that the courtyard was exclusive. Stairs led up to the roof or the second storey from of the areas or courtyard. Many houses were at least two storey high and several probably three storey judging from the width of the wall surfaces. Doors were created of real wood; some were painted and maybe carved with a simple ornamentation. Windows experienced wooden wooden shutters with latticework grills over and below them. In a few houses large jars have been found which are probably used for storage reasons. Pottery ships were sunk in some of... | 799 | ENGLISH | 1 |
What were Walt Whitman's beliefs?
Walk Whitman was an unconventional American poet whose work had an enormous impact upon new developments and trends in poetry at the end of the 19th century, and widely influenced American poetry of the 20th century. This time period was characterized by the presence of various trends and schools of thought in poetry; Whitman was considered a Transcendentalist (along with Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry Thoreau, who were both friends of Whitman); but he was also credited with being an influence upon the Realist school of poetry. Whitman's subject matter was considered by some readers to be controversial for his frank depiction of sexuality and the sensual nature of his poetic observations. He also had unusual views about spirituality.
Whitman rejected conventional views of religion...
(The entire section contains 384 words.)
check Approved by eNotes Editorial | <urn:uuid:e042ec5f-0177-401f-b7a1-2f9fd23ec4ff> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/what-were-walt-whitmans-beliefs-584664 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250597230.18/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120023523-20200120051523-00184.warc.gz | en | 0.987829 | 173 | 3.6875 | 4 | [
0.21278780698776245,
0.29820242524147034,
0.16932527720928192,
0.17948131263256073,
0.061669062823057175,
0.4253441095352173,
0.5333667993545532,
0.23068977892398834,
-0.009327086620032787,
-0.14194582402706146,
0.24118798971176147,
0.06868822872638702,
-0.023641245439648628,
0.23148359358... | 2 | What were Walt Whitman's beliefs?
Walk Whitman was an unconventional American poet whose work had an enormous impact upon new developments and trends in poetry at the end of the 19th century, and widely influenced American poetry of the 20th century. This time period was characterized by the presence of various trends and schools of thought in poetry; Whitman was considered a Transcendentalist (along with Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry Thoreau, who were both friends of Whitman); but he was also credited with being an influence upon the Realist school of poetry. Whitman's subject matter was considered by some readers to be controversial for his frank depiction of sexuality and the sensual nature of his poetic observations. He also had unusual views about spirituality.
Whitman rejected conventional views of religion...
(The entire section contains 384 words.)
check Approved by eNotes Editorial | 180 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Jemima Bartley is Head of English at Cwmbran High School in Cwmbran, South Wales. Following the Talk The Talk programme being implemented with her Year 11 students in September, she chatted with us about literacy, the challenges facing educators and the idea of ‘success’ and ‘achievement’ needing to be more inclusive.
Q. What are the biggest challenges that teachers face today?
Some of the biggest challenges faced by teachers today are literacy levels of young people. This includes reading, writing and oracy. Other challenges include -
Time to embed all of the skills we are trying to develop for our learners.
Limited parental engagement in some cases.
Pupils being resilient and unprepared to problem solve.
Pupils believing in themselves and having the confidence to give it a go. Many of our pupils are afraid of failure and so opt out before they've even tried.
The focus on everything being about the academic outcome without enough opportunity for learners to 'grow' as an individual.
The focus on wellbeing.
Q. How can we best help our students to discover their strengths?
By building their confidence in their own abilities and celebrating their achievements. Giving them opportunities that take them outside of their comfort zone and watch them build on what they know. Asking them to work with others from whom they can learn and/ or support. To instill the idea that they shouldn't be afraid to ask questions nor should they be afraid of the responses that they should give with questions that are directed at them.
Q. What skills and qualities – besides academic achievements – do you believe every student should be equipped with by the time they leave school?
The ability to communicate clearly and make their ideas or messages heard. To feel confident to approach and connect with other people. To use a range of verbal and non-verbal skills to convey their responses and ideas. To be confident to express themselves in a range of situations and to believe in themselves.
Q. Teachers are busy and under pressure. Why did you choose to take on the additional responsibility of arranging a Talk The Talk day?
We felt that our pupils would benefit from the workshops as they would be given a range of trialled and tested strategies that would support them initially for their English Oracy assessments at GCSE. Also, that these would be able to be developed in other lessons and other situations outside of school. Our pupils really benefitted from training by professionals other than their teachers who could share with them real life experiences and take them through, step-by-step, a range of tips and ideas that were manageable and relevant to them. They have gone on to use these strategies in planning and completing their assessments as well as using them in a range of situations outside the classroom. It was an opportunity for them to see that the resources and guidance given by their teachers is functional and used in the real world.
The training was interesting for the teachers also who celebrated achievements with pupils who were less confident and had started the day dreading the experience but had survived and realised that they could do it - and with great success. Those pupils who were more confident helped to develop a lovely working and supportive environment within the classroom, guiding, mentoring and modelling public speaking in the group whilst in pursuit of the engagement of the listener. A great deal of the lessons following this have made reference to the training the pupils received either by the teachers or the pupils.
Q. If we were sitting together a year from now, celebrating a major change in education in Wales, what would that change be and why would it be so important?
A further recognition that Literacy needs to be embedded in everything that we do. Wales has come a long way in bringing about this change on a bureaucratic level but this needs to have time to grow and develop before learners are deemed as unsuccessful when they haven't had the time to fully develop these skills on a range of levels. The time and support to develop this across each school is essential.
There would be more recognition for those learners who don't achieve the 'C' grade - some will never achieve this no matter how hard they work. It is incredibly disheartening and demoralising for these individuals to always be perceived as a failure. We are trying to encourage our learners to persevere and be proud of their achievements. This idea of 'success' and 'achievement' needs to be more inclusive in order to appreciate the idea that everyone has something to offer and the opportunity to become successful. | <urn:uuid:ad51644b-499b-4234-b000-11e1ccf00f76> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.talkthetalkuk.org/single-post/2016/12/05/Cwmbran-High-School | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251700988.64/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127143516-20200127173516-00003.warc.gz | en | 0.982606 | 921 | 3.421875 | 3 | [
-0.25189292430877686,
-0.08151808381080627,
0.2424439638853073,
0.21582671999931335,
-0.26067379117012024,
-0.07722461223602295,
0.1146896630525589,
0.17229735851287842,
-0.10929747670888901,
-0.3182086646556854,
-0.18283513188362122,
-0.0681692510843277,
-0.06002553552389145,
0.6854481697... | 2 | Jemima Bartley is Head of English at Cwmbran High School in Cwmbran, South Wales. Following the Talk The Talk programme being implemented with her Year 11 students in September, she chatted with us about literacy, the challenges facing educators and the idea of ‘success’ and ‘achievement’ needing to be more inclusive.
Q. What are the biggest challenges that teachers face today?
Some of the biggest challenges faced by teachers today are literacy levels of young people. This includes reading, writing and oracy. Other challenges include -
Time to embed all of the skills we are trying to develop for our learners.
Limited parental engagement in some cases.
Pupils being resilient and unprepared to problem solve.
Pupils believing in themselves and having the confidence to give it a go. Many of our pupils are afraid of failure and so opt out before they've even tried.
The focus on everything being about the academic outcome without enough opportunity for learners to 'grow' as an individual.
The focus on wellbeing.
Q. How can we best help our students to discover their strengths?
By building their confidence in their own abilities and celebrating their achievements. Giving them opportunities that take them outside of their comfort zone and watch them build on what they know. Asking them to work with others from whom they can learn and/ or support. To instill the idea that they shouldn't be afraid to ask questions nor should they be afraid of the responses that they should give with questions that are directed at them.
Q. What skills and qualities – besides academic achievements – do you believe every student should be equipped with by the time they leave school?
The ability to communicate clearly and make their ideas or messages heard. To feel confident to approach and connect with other people. To use a range of verbal and non-verbal skills to convey their responses and ideas. To be confident to express themselves in a range of situations and to believe in themselves.
Q. Teachers are busy and under pressure. Why did you choose to take on the additional responsibility of arranging a Talk The Talk day?
We felt that our pupils would benefit from the workshops as they would be given a range of trialled and tested strategies that would support them initially for their English Oracy assessments at GCSE. Also, that these would be able to be developed in other lessons and other situations outside of school. Our pupils really benefitted from training by professionals other than their teachers who could share with them real life experiences and take them through, step-by-step, a range of tips and ideas that were manageable and relevant to them. They have gone on to use these strategies in planning and completing their assessments as well as using them in a range of situations outside the classroom. It was an opportunity for them to see that the resources and guidance given by their teachers is functional and used in the real world.
The training was interesting for the teachers also who celebrated achievements with pupils who were less confident and had started the day dreading the experience but had survived and realised that they could do it - and with great success. Those pupils who were more confident helped to develop a lovely working and supportive environment within the classroom, guiding, mentoring and modelling public speaking in the group whilst in pursuit of the engagement of the listener. A great deal of the lessons following this have made reference to the training the pupils received either by the teachers or the pupils.
Q. If we were sitting together a year from now, celebrating a major change in education in Wales, what would that change be and why would it be so important?
A further recognition that Literacy needs to be embedded in everything that we do. Wales has come a long way in bringing about this change on a bureaucratic level but this needs to have time to grow and develop before learners are deemed as unsuccessful when they haven't had the time to fully develop these skills on a range of levels. The time and support to develop this across each school is essential.
There would be more recognition for those learners who don't achieve the 'C' grade - some will never achieve this no matter how hard they work. It is incredibly disheartening and demoralising for these individuals to always be perceived as a failure. We are trying to encourage our learners to persevere and be proud of their achievements. This idea of 'success' and 'achievement' needs to be more inclusive in order to appreciate the idea that everyone has something to offer and the opportunity to become successful. | 895 | ENGLISH | 1 |
There is a never-ending war going on between teachers about the use of “whole word” and “phonics” method in teaching kids to read and write. More and more of them are opting for the phonics method, as kids become able to decipher unknown words due to a phonics code they’re taught. In the following paragraphs, you can find out what this method actually is and how you as parents can help your children practice and improve at home.
How it works
There are only 26 letters in English and some might think that it’s easy to learn to read due to that. However, those letters can form 44 different sounds, which are called phonemes. When kids learn to read with phonics, they are taught how to break down words into their individual phonemes. In other words, in everyday phonics for kids, they are taught a code which helps them read unknown words. Contrary to this, the whole-word method teaches them to remember words as whole units, without analyzing the letters and sounds they’re made of.
This means that they probably won’t be able to read words they’ve never seen before. Of course, there are some words that don’t follow the rules of phonics and those have to be memorized as exceptions. Even so, it’s easier to memorize 100 words and learn others through the code than to memorize them all.
All those technical terms
Children love to use this terminology, they have fun learning it and they should learn it, as well as you. We’ve already mentioned phonemes, which are the smallest units of sound. First, they are represented with a letter sound, but later on, kids are introduced to digraphs, trigraphs and split digraphs. Digraphs are two letters that are combined to make a phoneme and trigraphs are phonemes made up of three letters. Split digraphs are something that children struggle with the most.
They represent two letters that make one sound, but there is a letter between them that separates them. Digraphs, trigraphs and split digraphs are called graphemes, which represent any letter or a number of letters that represent a sound. Learning about these will help kids in their process of learning how to read and write, along with some other skills such as blending and segmenting.
Blending is a process through which they learn to bring the sounds together to make a word or syllable, which is really important for them to learn to read and write. Also, it helps improve their fluency while reading. Segmenting is a skill used in spelling, as they learn to segment words into the sounds they’re made of. This helps them a lot when they are learning to write and they think it’s fun.
When they start learning it
Most kids start reading at the age of 5, but there are some who start even earlier. In those early stages of learning, they are taught to recognize and differentiate between sounds. They get attuned to them, which lays a foundation for oral blending and segmenting skills. Next, they learn single letter sounds from the alphabet before moving on to digraphs, trigraphs and split digraphs.
Then they learn about the special sounds and how they’re used in words and sentences. As a result, they become able to represent all the phonemes with a grapheme and they become able to read, write and spell ordinary and tricky words they’ve learned up to that point.
How to practice at home
Kids who practice at home will improve much faster than those who don’t, but you have to make it fun for them. You can play some games with them and challenge them to break their records every time you play. Buy some flashcards with the sounds written on them, place them in a pile, set the timer and ask your child to say the sound clearly.
Keep a track of their achievements for the next time when they can try to beat the previous score. You should also read with them a lot, but try to pick books they’re interested in. Exposing them to words will make the whole process much easier and faster and they’ll get to broaden their vocabulary. It can also serve as a quality time you get to spend with them.
This method isn’t only effective but also interesting and fun for kids. They can learn how to read through some multi-sensory activities and not just reading. If they have fun doing it, they’ll remember it faster and easier and you can help them in the process as well. | <urn:uuid:4551e9ac-2b40-4e7c-ba04-0e3e6c5cc395> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://activitybucket.com/a-parents-guide-to-phonics/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251728207.68/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127205148-20200127235148-00363.warc.gz | en | 0.980614 | 976 | 3.8125 | 4 | [
-0.13358162343502045,
0.00841705035418272,
-0.02903459034860134,
-0.24615907669067383,
-0.5957149267196655,
-0.013991028070449829,
0.030995184555649757,
0.017139101400971413,
-0.139570951461792,
0.13402900099754333,
0.17046581208705902,
-0.048986487090587616,
0.21183189749717712,
0.4182758... | 10 | There is a never-ending war going on between teachers about the use of “whole word” and “phonics” method in teaching kids to read and write. More and more of them are opting for the phonics method, as kids become able to decipher unknown words due to a phonics code they’re taught. In the following paragraphs, you can find out what this method actually is and how you as parents can help your children practice and improve at home.
How it works
There are only 26 letters in English and some might think that it’s easy to learn to read due to that. However, those letters can form 44 different sounds, which are called phonemes. When kids learn to read with phonics, they are taught how to break down words into their individual phonemes. In other words, in everyday phonics for kids, they are taught a code which helps them read unknown words. Contrary to this, the whole-word method teaches them to remember words as whole units, without analyzing the letters and sounds they’re made of.
This means that they probably won’t be able to read words they’ve never seen before. Of course, there are some words that don’t follow the rules of phonics and those have to be memorized as exceptions. Even so, it’s easier to memorize 100 words and learn others through the code than to memorize them all.
All those technical terms
Children love to use this terminology, they have fun learning it and they should learn it, as well as you. We’ve already mentioned phonemes, which are the smallest units of sound. First, they are represented with a letter sound, but later on, kids are introduced to digraphs, trigraphs and split digraphs. Digraphs are two letters that are combined to make a phoneme and trigraphs are phonemes made up of three letters. Split digraphs are something that children struggle with the most.
They represent two letters that make one sound, but there is a letter between them that separates them. Digraphs, trigraphs and split digraphs are called graphemes, which represent any letter or a number of letters that represent a sound. Learning about these will help kids in their process of learning how to read and write, along with some other skills such as blending and segmenting.
Blending is a process through which they learn to bring the sounds together to make a word or syllable, which is really important for them to learn to read and write. Also, it helps improve their fluency while reading. Segmenting is a skill used in spelling, as they learn to segment words into the sounds they’re made of. This helps them a lot when they are learning to write and they think it’s fun.
When they start learning it
Most kids start reading at the age of 5, but there are some who start even earlier. In those early stages of learning, they are taught to recognize and differentiate between sounds. They get attuned to them, which lays a foundation for oral blending and segmenting skills. Next, they learn single letter sounds from the alphabet before moving on to digraphs, trigraphs and split digraphs.
Then they learn about the special sounds and how they’re used in words and sentences. As a result, they become able to represent all the phonemes with a grapheme and they become able to read, write and spell ordinary and tricky words they’ve learned up to that point.
How to practice at home
Kids who practice at home will improve much faster than those who don’t, but you have to make it fun for them. You can play some games with them and challenge them to break their records every time you play. Buy some flashcards with the sounds written on them, place them in a pile, set the timer and ask your child to say the sound clearly.
Keep a track of their achievements for the next time when they can try to beat the previous score. You should also read with them a lot, but try to pick books they’re interested in. Exposing them to words will make the whole process much easier and faster and they’ll get to broaden their vocabulary. It can also serve as a quality time you get to spend with them.
This method isn’t only effective but also interesting and fun for kids. They can learn how to read through some multi-sensory activities and not just reading. If they have fun doing it, they’ll remember it faster and easier and you can help them in the process as well. | 925 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Early coins were made of precious metals, with the value of the metal being equal to the face value of the coin. Since the value of the metal was key to its worth, no one thought twice about cutting a silver coin into pieces; a rather novel way of making change, one might say. This sliver of a silver dollar coin, eight Spanish reales (royals), was found during an excavation of the Fort Williams site on the Wabash River near its confluence with the Ohio River. A Spanish piece of eight was one-eighth of the eight reales coin.
These fragments were discovered during an investigation of a well that had been filled in at the Williams Fort site in southeastern Illinois. The site was the location of a farmstead occupied by the family of Aaron and Tabitha Williams from about 1811-1838. To defend against the possibility of attack by Native Americans during the War of 1812, a stockade was constructed. A tavern was operated at the site in the years following the war. | <urn:uuid:edadfed3-64ae-479c-a3a9-1c9ffd762feb> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://story.illinoisstatemuseum.org/county-maps/white-county | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250604397.40/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121132900-20200121161900-00318.warc.gz | en | 0.988702 | 209 | 3.734375 | 4 | [
-0.33116835355758667,
0.01849578693509102,
0.28250759840011597,
0.11869193613529205,
0.13594716787338257,
-0.3779028654098511,
0.17114122211933136,
0.15854515135288239,
-0.19933557510375977,
-0.06812476366758347,
0.22109992802143097,
-0.2261125147342682,
-0.3236115574836731,
0.328974545001... | 6 | Early coins were made of precious metals, with the value of the metal being equal to the face value of the coin. Since the value of the metal was key to its worth, no one thought twice about cutting a silver coin into pieces; a rather novel way of making change, one might say. This sliver of a silver dollar coin, eight Spanish reales (royals), was found during an excavation of the Fort Williams site on the Wabash River near its confluence with the Ohio River. A Spanish piece of eight was one-eighth of the eight reales coin.
These fragments were discovered during an investigation of a well that had been filled in at the Williams Fort site in southeastern Illinois. The site was the location of a farmstead occupied by the family of Aaron and Tabitha Williams from about 1811-1838. To defend against the possibility of attack by Native Americans during the War of 1812, a stockade was constructed. A tavern was operated at the site in the years following the war. | 215 | ENGLISH | 1 |
As parents, we want nothing but the best for our children. Hence, we are so inclined in attending to their needs. It is a way we express our love. However, to give children the opportunity to become successful in life, we also have to teach them independence. Here are the reasons why children ought to learn independence.
It enables children to gain first hand knowledge. When children gain the chance to do things on their own, they are most likely to learn things efficiently. It is because they got to learn through trial and error.
It gives the opportunity to choose what will make them happy. Children need to practice to take choices. To develop their emotional maturity, they have to learn how to decide on their own. For now, these choices would not have to come in wide variety. Adults can give them set of choices. From these choices, children will have the freedom to pick one. Thus, they also learn that in life they cannot have everything. They only have the freedom to take choices.
Through independence children got to enhance their skills, learn right and wrong, develop their personality, and take decisions. To learn the ways of life, children need to experience life. This way, they will grow up strong, ready to take on life challenges, emotionally secured, and happy. | <urn:uuid:09e8eed7-33d2-41d9-a310-60ac335d04dd> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.luckycloverchildcarelearningcenter.com/single-post/2018/03/09/The-Importance-of-Teaching-a-Child-to-Become-Independent | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250599789.45/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120195035-20200120224035-00178.warc.gz | en | 0.982014 | 262 | 3.40625 | 3 | [
-0.1549079865217209,
-0.2599923610687256,
0.0704454556107521,
-0.6252698302268982,
-0.5322780609130859,
0.37868577241897583,
0.34053099155426025,
0.2678116261959076,
-0.05566684529185295,
-0.03902874514460564,
0.2081279307603836,
0.06227026879787445,
0.10570533573627472,
0.3140902519226074... | 4 | As parents, we want nothing but the best for our children. Hence, we are so inclined in attending to their needs. It is a way we express our love. However, to give children the opportunity to become successful in life, we also have to teach them independence. Here are the reasons why children ought to learn independence.
It enables children to gain first hand knowledge. When children gain the chance to do things on their own, they are most likely to learn things efficiently. It is because they got to learn through trial and error.
It gives the opportunity to choose what will make them happy. Children need to practice to take choices. To develop their emotional maturity, they have to learn how to decide on their own. For now, these choices would not have to come in wide variety. Adults can give them set of choices. From these choices, children will have the freedom to pick one. Thus, they also learn that in life they cannot have everything. They only have the freedom to take choices.
Through independence children got to enhance their skills, learn right and wrong, develop their personality, and take decisions. To learn the ways of life, children need to experience life. This way, they will grow up strong, ready to take on life challenges, emotionally secured, and happy. | 259 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Question Can we use this image in the "Lincoln in art and popular culture" section. If not, could I still upload it and use on my userpage? We can't add it here unless you start explaining the picture. Explain what's going on and explain how it's notable enough to be in the main article.
Table of Contents Brief Overview Abraham Lincoln was born in rural Kentucky into parents of low social standing and little education.
During his childhood and early youth, the family would move several times, first to Indiana and later to Illinois.
Lincoln's mother, Nancy Hanks, died when Lincoln was still a boy, and the next year his father, Thomas remarried to Sarah Bush Johnston, who helped raise the young Lincoln.
Lincoln got his start in life after a pair of flatboat journeys to New Orleans. Soon afterward, he moved to New Salem, Illinois and set up as a store clerk there.
When the Black Hawk War broke out inhe became the captain of his volunteer company, serving for three months but seeing no active duty. Lincoln's first bid for elected office came in that same year, when he ran unsuccessfully for the Illinois state legislature.
Two years later, he ran again and was victorious, becoming a fixture of the Whig party in the General Assembly for the next eight years.
At the same time, Lincoln's law career began to flourish. He was admitted to the bar inand moved to Springfield, the new state capital, later that same year. Lincoln married Mary Todd in The couple had four sons together, two of whom would die tragically while still children.
Then, inLincoln was elected to U. Congress, and moved to Washington to serve out his term, where he spoke out against the Mexican War and unsuccessfully attempted to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia.
InLincoln returned to Springfield to resume his career as a lawyer and devote more time to his family.
His political life seemed to be over. But when the slavery question heated up in the middle s, Lincoln took to the stump again, running unsuccessfully for Senate in and Despite these losses, Lincoln gained national exposure due to his flair for oration.
Such talent was especially evident during the series of debates he engaged in against Stephen Douglas during the campaign ofwhen Lincoln established himself as a leading opponent of popular sovereignty.
A combination of luck, manipulation, and talent won Lincoln the Republican nomination for president in An especially fragmented race, featuring four major candidates, resulted in a victory for Lincoln despite the fact that he won less than 40 percent of the popular vote. With an avowed opponent of slavery having gained the nation's top office, several southern states began to consider the prospect of secession.
An initial wave of secession led by South Carolina brought about the establishment of the Confederate States of America, a self-declared independent nation apart from the United States of America. When Lincoln called for a sizeable militia to quash the rebellion, several more states, led by Virginia, also seceded.
While Lincoln insisted that the Civil War was being fought to preserve the Union, the fate of slavery also played a major role. Lincoln took an overpowering role as commander-in-chief in a time of war. Controversially, he suspended several rights as defined by the Constitution and expanded the powers of both the executive and the federal government considerably.
In addition, Lincoln signed several significant pieces of legislation into law, including policies relating to currency, homesteaders, railroads, and taxes. Today, many view Lincoln's most significant action as president to be his Emancipation Proclamation of January 1,which paved the way for the Thirteenth Amendment and the abolishment of slavery in the United States.
He also became noted for his pithy way with words, giving such memorable speeches as the Gettysburg Address and the Second Inaugural.Abraham Lincoln (February 12 – April 15 ) was the 16th President of the United States. He served as president from to , during the American Civil War.
Just five days after most of the Confederate forces had surrendered and the war was ending, John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln. In , as the American Civil War winds inexorably toward conclusion, U.S. president Abraham Lincoln endeavors to achieve passage of the landmark constitutional amendment which will forever ban slavery from the United States.
At a.m., Abraham Lincoln, the 16th president of the United States, dies from a bullet wound inflicted the night before by John Wilkes Booth, an . Abraham Lincoln (February 12, – April 15, ) was an American statesman and lawyer who served as the 16th President of the United States from March until his assassination in April Abraham Lincoln was born Sunday, February 12, , in a log cabin near Hodgenville, Kentucky.
He was the son of Thomas and Nancy Hanks Lincoln, and he was named for his paternal grandfather. Thomas Lincoln was a carpenter and farmer. Lincoln is a American epic historical drama film directed and produced by Steven Spielberg, starring Daniel Day-Lewis as United States President Abraham Lincoln.
The film also features Sally Field, David Strathairn, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, James Spader, Hal Holbrook and Tommy Lee Jones in supporting performances. | <urn:uuid:e986b34b-57d5-4bef-aee7-8e97353573fb> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://lebofug.metin2sell.com/abraham-lincoln-summary-15-27162sv.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250624328.55/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124161014-20200124190014-00124.warc.gz | en | 0.98177 | 1,074 | 3.484375 | 3 | [
-0.2069375365972519,
0.306244820356369,
0.008059862069785595,
-0.10576614737510681,
-0.4300566613674164,
0.3803277611732483,
0.2829233705997467,
-0.09854578971862793,
-0.4153403639793396,
-0.3338489532470703,
-0.14482179284095764,
0.1760549396276474,
-0.07084586471319199,
0.430498957633972... | 1 | Question Can we use this image in the "Lincoln in art and popular culture" section. If not, could I still upload it and use on my userpage? We can't add it here unless you start explaining the picture. Explain what's going on and explain how it's notable enough to be in the main article.
Table of Contents Brief Overview Abraham Lincoln was born in rural Kentucky into parents of low social standing and little education.
During his childhood and early youth, the family would move several times, first to Indiana and later to Illinois.
Lincoln's mother, Nancy Hanks, died when Lincoln was still a boy, and the next year his father, Thomas remarried to Sarah Bush Johnston, who helped raise the young Lincoln.
Lincoln got his start in life after a pair of flatboat journeys to New Orleans. Soon afterward, he moved to New Salem, Illinois and set up as a store clerk there.
When the Black Hawk War broke out inhe became the captain of his volunteer company, serving for three months but seeing no active duty. Lincoln's first bid for elected office came in that same year, when he ran unsuccessfully for the Illinois state legislature.
Two years later, he ran again and was victorious, becoming a fixture of the Whig party in the General Assembly for the next eight years.
At the same time, Lincoln's law career began to flourish. He was admitted to the bar inand moved to Springfield, the new state capital, later that same year. Lincoln married Mary Todd in The couple had four sons together, two of whom would die tragically while still children.
Then, inLincoln was elected to U. Congress, and moved to Washington to serve out his term, where he spoke out against the Mexican War and unsuccessfully attempted to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia.
InLincoln returned to Springfield to resume his career as a lawyer and devote more time to his family.
His political life seemed to be over. But when the slavery question heated up in the middle s, Lincoln took to the stump again, running unsuccessfully for Senate in and Despite these losses, Lincoln gained national exposure due to his flair for oration.
Such talent was especially evident during the series of debates he engaged in against Stephen Douglas during the campaign ofwhen Lincoln established himself as a leading opponent of popular sovereignty.
A combination of luck, manipulation, and talent won Lincoln the Republican nomination for president in An especially fragmented race, featuring four major candidates, resulted in a victory for Lincoln despite the fact that he won less than 40 percent of the popular vote. With an avowed opponent of slavery having gained the nation's top office, several southern states began to consider the prospect of secession.
An initial wave of secession led by South Carolina brought about the establishment of the Confederate States of America, a self-declared independent nation apart from the United States of America. When Lincoln called for a sizeable militia to quash the rebellion, several more states, led by Virginia, also seceded.
While Lincoln insisted that the Civil War was being fought to preserve the Union, the fate of slavery also played a major role. Lincoln took an overpowering role as commander-in-chief in a time of war. Controversially, he suspended several rights as defined by the Constitution and expanded the powers of both the executive and the federal government considerably.
In addition, Lincoln signed several significant pieces of legislation into law, including policies relating to currency, homesteaders, railroads, and taxes. Today, many view Lincoln's most significant action as president to be his Emancipation Proclamation of January 1,which paved the way for the Thirteenth Amendment and the abolishment of slavery in the United States.
He also became noted for his pithy way with words, giving such memorable speeches as the Gettysburg Address and the Second Inaugural.Abraham Lincoln (February 12 – April 15 ) was the 16th President of the United States. He served as president from to , during the American Civil War.
Just five days after most of the Confederate forces had surrendered and the war was ending, John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln. In , as the American Civil War winds inexorably toward conclusion, U.S. president Abraham Lincoln endeavors to achieve passage of the landmark constitutional amendment which will forever ban slavery from the United States.
At a.m., Abraham Lincoln, the 16th president of the United States, dies from a bullet wound inflicted the night before by John Wilkes Booth, an . Abraham Lincoln (February 12, – April 15, ) was an American statesman and lawyer who served as the 16th President of the United States from March until his assassination in April Abraham Lincoln was born Sunday, February 12, , in a log cabin near Hodgenville, Kentucky.
He was the son of Thomas and Nancy Hanks Lincoln, and he was named for his paternal grandfather. Thomas Lincoln was a carpenter and farmer. Lincoln is a American epic historical drama film directed and produced by Steven Spielberg, starring Daniel Day-Lewis as United States President Abraham Lincoln.
The film also features Sally Field, David Strathairn, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, James Spader, Hal Holbrook and Tommy Lee Jones in supporting performances. | 1,072 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Examples of sacred places, areas and objects: the Vilcanota or Wilcamayu, the "Sacred River", which is a section of the Urubamba River, the Sacred Valley of the Incas, the Intihuatana Stone, the Golden Sun Disk, disk-shaped golden object representing the Sun - this was one of the most important Inca treasures that the Spaniards and many explorers and treasure hunters were looking for and some are still looking for to this day.
Families lived in groups called ayllus. The rest of the population was insignificant and their only duty was to serve to their masters, i.
However, despite such a geographical distance that separated these civilizations they had some similarities in their cultural, socio-economic and political life. There greatest art was ceramic which had real and mythological features painted on them.
At the age of 15, they endured tests of courage, strength, and discipline that lasted a month. Women who were sacrificed to the God of Corn had their heads cut off.
The Mayas civilization was already in decline under the influence of different natural factors that reduced the crops and consequently, productivity of Mayas economy, the attacks of other Indian tribes, etc. | <urn:uuid:b4b95058-5801-4282-9221-a25b5be3734c> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://puzaginejeh.ettroisptitspointscompagnie.com/mayan-and-incan-civilizations-comparecontrast-essay287401956qe.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251678287.60/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125161753-20200125190753-00144.warc.gz | en | 0.982229 | 247 | 3.359375 | 3 | [
0.060314737260341644,
0.3342203199863434,
0.3563729524612427,
0.15360060334205627,
0.023346329107880592,
-0.05278152599930763,
0.5437946319580078,
-0.04162566736340523,
-0.21137119829654694,
0.06174219027161598,
0.10288458317518234,
-0.6431090235710144,
-0.03645765781402588,
0.282654196023... | 2 | Examples of sacred places, areas and objects: the Vilcanota or Wilcamayu, the "Sacred River", which is a section of the Urubamba River, the Sacred Valley of the Incas, the Intihuatana Stone, the Golden Sun Disk, disk-shaped golden object representing the Sun - this was one of the most important Inca treasures that the Spaniards and many explorers and treasure hunters were looking for and some are still looking for to this day.
Families lived in groups called ayllus. The rest of the population was insignificant and their only duty was to serve to their masters, i.
However, despite such a geographical distance that separated these civilizations they had some similarities in their cultural, socio-economic and political life. There greatest art was ceramic which had real and mythological features painted on them.
At the age of 15, they endured tests of courage, strength, and discipline that lasted a month. Women who were sacrificed to the God of Corn had their heads cut off.
The Mayas civilization was already in decline under the influence of different natural factors that reduced the crops and consequently, productivity of Mayas economy, the attacks of other Indian tribes, etc. | 244 | ENGLISH | 1 |
To My Dearests,
Amidst all of the marching and fighting, soldiers during the Civil War made efforts to write back home to their loved ones. They told stories of loss, love, and life as they knew it to be. Some letters were sorrowful, while other letters kept spirits high and mouths laughing. Many letters have been saved to this very day, containing special information in regards to their battles as soldiers. These letters give insight on the means of communication during this time, the spirits of the soldiers from both the Confederate side and Union side, and the difference in language between the two.
Postal delivery was difficult during the Civil War, resulting in long periods of waiting for mail. For the North, postal services worked as smoothly as they had before the war, but this was not the same for the South. Because their letters that traveled between the North and the South had to go through a blockade controlled by the Union, many letters were confiscated making the postal service for the South less reliable. Postal delivery difficulties occurred all the time due to the fact that soldiers were constantly on the move. Hopping from one base camp to the next, soldiers didn’t stay in one place for too long. This made it harder for the soldiers to receive their letters from home. In order to write, soldiers had to buy paper, ink, pens, and envelopes from local, civilian merchants. Post offices for the Union Army were stationed near the forts and camps, but the Confederates did not have the same pleasure. Whether one was a Confederate soldier or a Union soldier, both sides loved receiving mail in return. Soldiers longed to hear from their loved ones, begging for even just a couple of words. Packages from home were even more prized since those took a lot more effort to make it to the soldiers. The packages included things such as soap, candies, and clothing.
The spirits of the soldiers were evident in their letters. As they told of their times away from home, they also admitted to their hardships. Many letters contained sad renditions of lost friends, lost battles, and lost spirits. Roughly 620,000 people died in the Civil War. This means 620,000 sons were killed. This means a number of brothers, friends, and lovers were killed. The most heartbreaking letters were the ones that spoke words of death. Many soldiers died, and many families back home received word of these deaths by mail. Some letters contained great detail, describing how the loved one died or maybe even the soldier’s last words. After the charge at Fredericksburg, Patrick Scanlan lay mortally wounded. As he lay dying, he requested that his fellow soldier write down his final thoughts. Patrick left a message for his wife, Ana, wanting her to believe that he died a “natural death in bed, having received the full benefits of [his] church.” He expressed his apologies for not being able to see her and their kids once more. Many women like Ana received letters like Patrick’s, passing on the news of a loved one’s death.
When reading a letter from the Civil War era, it is not hard to figure out which side the letter came from. Many soldiers had difficulty writing letters properly or spelling the words correctly, especially those from the South. Rural education suffered in America back then, and this is evident when analyzing the letters today. A lot of the soldiers only had up to a fourth-grade level education. Some soldiers didn’t even attend school. Fellow soldiers often lent hands to their men, writing their letters for them. As seen in a letter from Francis M. Russell to his family, multiple words were misspelled. Francis used words like “ast” (meaning “asked”), “sittled” (meaning “settled”), and “wright” (meaning “write”). The soldier’s academic intelligence is obviously on a low scale.
Through the analyzation of these letters which are perfectly preserved today, it is evident that mail was an important part of the Civil War. These letters give the people of today a glimpse into the life of a soldier, reading their feelings about life and love. The letters prove the importance of communication through postal services and the steps the soldiers had to go through in order to even write. Through these Civil War letters, the spirits of the soldiers are shown and the difference between the Confederates and the Union soldiers are clear. | <urn:uuid:39bb811f-4cfa-4291-adf2-ee576cf9433c> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://thebestblog861016218.wordpress.com/2018/04/14/the-big-picture/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251672537.90/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125131641-20200125160641-00276.warc.gz | en | 0.986251 | 921 | 3.484375 | 3 | [
-0.4884342551231384,
0.31262367963790894,
0.3578518033027649,
0.018485693261027336,
0.03406257927417755,
0.05049837380647659,
0.2010616958141327,
0.06204702705144882,
-0.07714065909385681,
-0.26100319623947144,
0.1987268328666687,
0.08779460191726685,
0.30931222438812256,
-0.04757487773895... | 3 | To My Dearests,
Amidst all of the marching and fighting, soldiers during the Civil War made efforts to write back home to their loved ones. They told stories of loss, love, and life as they knew it to be. Some letters were sorrowful, while other letters kept spirits high and mouths laughing. Many letters have been saved to this very day, containing special information in regards to their battles as soldiers. These letters give insight on the means of communication during this time, the spirits of the soldiers from both the Confederate side and Union side, and the difference in language between the two.
Postal delivery was difficult during the Civil War, resulting in long periods of waiting for mail. For the North, postal services worked as smoothly as they had before the war, but this was not the same for the South. Because their letters that traveled between the North and the South had to go through a blockade controlled by the Union, many letters were confiscated making the postal service for the South less reliable. Postal delivery difficulties occurred all the time due to the fact that soldiers were constantly on the move. Hopping from one base camp to the next, soldiers didn’t stay in one place for too long. This made it harder for the soldiers to receive their letters from home. In order to write, soldiers had to buy paper, ink, pens, and envelopes from local, civilian merchants. Post offices for the Union Army were stationed near the forts and camps, but the Confederates did not have the same pleasure. Whether one was a Confederate soldier or a Union soldier, both sides loved receiving mail in return. Soldiers longed to hear from their loved ones, begging for even just a couple of words. Packages from home were even more prized since those took a lot more effort to make it to the soldiers. The packages included things such as soap, candies, and clothing.
The spirits of the soldiers were evident in their letters. As they told of their times away from home, they also admitted to their hardships. Many letters contained sad renditions of lost friends, lost battles, and lost spirits. Roughly 620,000 people died in the Civil War. This means 620,000 sons were killed. This means a number of brothers, friends, and lovers were killed. The most heartbreaking letters were the ones that spoke words of death. Many soldiers died, and many families back home received word of these deaths by mail. Some letters contained great detail, describing how the loved one died or maybe even the soldier’s last words. After the charge at Fredericksburg, Patrick Scanlan lay mortally wounded. As he lay dying, he requested that his fellow soldier write down his final thoughts. Patrick left a message for his wife, Ana, wanting her to believe that he died a “natural death in bed, having received the full benefits of [his] church.” He expressed his apologies for not being able to see her and their kids once more. Many women like Ana received letters like Patrick’s, passing on the news of a loved one’s death.
When reading a letter from the Civil War era, it is not hard to figure out which side the letter came from. Many soldiers had difficulty writing letters properly or spelling the words correctly, especially those from the South. Rural education suffered in America back then, and this is evident when analyzing the letters today. A lot of the soldiers only had up to a fourth-grade level education. Some soldiers didn’t even attend school. Fellow soldiers often lent hands to their men, writing their letters for them. As seen in a letter from Francis M. Russell to his family, multiple words were misspelled. Francis used words like “ast” (meaning “asked”), “sittled” (meaning “settled”), and “wright” (meaning “write”). The soldier’s academic intelligence is obviously on a low scale.
Through the analyzation of these letters which are perfectly preserved today, it is evident that mail was an important part of the Civil War. These letters give the people of today a glimpse into the life of a soldier, reading their feelings about life and love. The letters prove the importance of communication through postal services and the steps the soldiers had to go through in order to even write. Through these Civil War letters, the spirits of the soldiers are shown and the difference between the Confederates and the Union soldiers are clear. | 892 | ENGLISH | 1 |
(82 BC, November 1) – First Civil War
Carrinas, Censorinus and Damasippus made a last effort to relieve Praeneste from the north, in conjunction with the Samnites who were trying once more to break through from the south. This attempt too failed, and so it was decided to try a diversion by marching on Rome itself, which now lay almost empty of both men and supplies, in the hope of drawing Sulla out of his impregnable position. By the early morning of 1 November the Italian force had reached a point just over a Roman mile from the Colline Gate. But although Telesinus may have made a speech urging his men to destroy the wolf in its lair, he made no attempt to take the city. No doubt, whatever his ultimate intentions may have been, he realized that it would be not only pointless but dangerous to allow his men to be distracted by the delights of sacking Rome while Sulla was still in the field. So the Samnites and their allies waited for Sulla to appear.
Sulla had sent a squadron of cavalry ahead while he himself hurried in full force down the Via Praenestina. About noon he encamped near the temple of Venus Erycina. The battle began in late afternoon, against the advice of some of Sulla’s officers, who thought that the men were too tired. The right wing, commanded by Crassus, won an easy victory, but the left, under Sulla’s own command, broke. Sulla risked his life in trying to rally his forces but they fled, despite his despairing prayers to Apollo, towards the city. Sulla was forced to take refuge in his camp, and some of his men rode for Praeneste to tell Afella to abandon the siege, though Afella refused to panic. But when Sulla’s fleeing troops reached the gates of Rome the veterans dropped the portcullis, compelling them to stand and fight. The battle continued well into the night, as slowly but surely Sulla’s men gained the upper hand, until finally they captured the Samnite camp. Telesinus himself was found among the dead, but Lamponius, Censorinus and Carrinas escaped. Later still messengers came from Crassus, who had pursued the enemy as far as Antemnae, and Sulla learned for the first time of his success.
The generals of Carbo’s faction fled after their army had been destroyed. It was estimated that in all about 50,000 men were slain. In the aftermath of Sulla’s narrow victory his enemies were rooted out one by one and eliminated, leaving him with the absolute power of a dictator.
Its aftermath was marked by yet more bloodshed. The Samnites who fought with the Marians were systematically massacred. A full attack was launched against Praeneste; Marius committed suicide, and all his associates who happened to be in the city were massacred. It was the opening act of the organised massacre known as the first `proscription’, which was accompanied by a law (the lex Cornelia de proscriptione) that legalised the confiscation of the patrimonies of the victims and gave impunity to their killer. Proscriptions were to become a trademark of late Republican history.
The success of Sulla’s campaign, with major efforts being concentrated on two fronts-Campania and Praeneste-was made possible only by the contemporaneous parallel victories of the Sullan generals on other fronts. In northern Etruria and in Aemilia Metellus countered the attacks of Carbo, while Pompey and Crassus obtained crucial victories against Carbo himself and C. Carrinas. Sulla’s direct involvement on this front appears to be limited to a single military confrontation with Carbo, near Clusium.
This city was certainly loyal to the Marians, who used it as a pivotal point for the movements of their troops. The allegiance of the Etruscan cities to the anti-Sullan coalition is widely accepted, and con? rmed by the available evidence, which however fails to be satisfactory in many respects. It has been argued that Cinna managed to obtain the support of the elites, while the lower classes had wholeheartedly supported Marius, perhaps being attracted by the prospect of serving in his army. The evidence, however, is almost non-existent, and we also lack any information about the dissensions that may have arisen within the Etruscan elites about their attitude towards Sulla. It is beyond dispute, nonetheless, that some groups of the aristocracy managed to reach an agreement with the winner as soon as the outcome of the war became clear.
What was left of the army of the Mariani after the Colline Gate battle was disbanded in Etruria. The war, however, continued on several fronts, as the literary sources on one hand, and the archaeological evidence from a number of sites on the other show. From the literary accounts of the war, it is apparent that Clusium and Arretium had an important role in the development of the operations. Populonia was besieged and sacked, almost certainly by Sulla. The Acropolis, which had gone through an impressive renovation in the last decades of the second century BC, was abandoned from then on. The site still looked almost depopulated in the early fifth century. Telamon, although not a municipium, was ravaged, and traces of a sack, followed by a prompt reconstruction, have been recently detected at Saturnia. The extent of violence and human losses finds further confirmation in the four coin hoards datable to the late 80s that have been discovered in Etruria.
Volaterrae came into play at a late stage of the war, as the last stronghold of the diehard enemies of Sulla, both Etruscans and Roman victims of the proscriptions. It was, along with Nola, one of the last fronts Sulla had to deal with before concentrating all his energies on the institutional reforms. From a passage of the pro Roscio Amerino we know that he was still besieging the city in the first months of 81BC, soon after the beginning of the proscriptions. A passage of Licinianus, whose importance was rightly stressed by A. Krawczuk, dates the final conquest to 79BC, during the consulship of Appius Claudius Pulcher and Servilius Vatia. A number of proscribed were still in the city, and left just before the besiegers arrived. However, they were promptly caught and eliminated. The siege of Volaterrae is therefore a significant exception in Italy, which was mostly pacified after 82BC. For three years, possibly until Sulla’s abdication from dictatorship, an important Etruscan city was still held by a contingent of rebels; there is no reason to disbelieve Licinianus. That the situation at Volaterrae was unparalleled in Italy is apparent from several pieces of evidence. Nola, the other main anti-Sullan city, was conquered about two years before, in 81, and its ager was promptly assigned to the Sullan veterans. On the contrary Volaterrae attracted all sorts of anti-Sullan partisans because of its strategically invaluable position, and it remained a critical front for a longer period. | <urn:uuid:6df311cb-743b-4757-a702-a81993e47fb9> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://weaponsandwarfare.com/2019/12/13/battle-of-the-colline-gate-82-bc/?shared=email&msg=fail | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594391.21/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119093733-20200119121733-00338.warc.gz | en | 0.984826 | 1,537 | 3.515625 | 4 | [
-0.6505882143974304,
0.446089506149292,
0.19364434480667114,
-0.03352988138794899,
-0.4193873703479767,
0.042641885578632355,
-0.015737252309918404,
0.32060903310775757,
0.017992546781897545,
-0.2422921061515808,
-0.17678141593933105,
-0.47891223430633545,
-0.21699491143226624,
0.524147629... | 8 | (82 BC, November 1) – First Civil War
Carrinas, Censorinus and Damasippus made a last effort to relieve Praeneste from the north, in conjunction with the Samnites who were trying once more to break through from the south. This attempt too failed, and so it was decided to try a diversion by marching on Rome itself, which now lay almost empty of both men and supplies, in the hope of drawing Sulla out of his impregnable position. By the early morning of 1 November the Italian force had reached a point just over a Roman mile from the Colline Gate. But although Telesinus may have made a speech urging his men to destroy the wolf in its lair, he made no attempt to take the city. No doubt, whatever his ultimate intentions may have been, he realized that it would be not only pointless but dangerous to allow his men to be distracted by the delights of sacking Rome while Sulla was still in the field. So the Samnites and their allies waited for Sulla to appear.
Sulla had sent a squadron of cavalry ahead while he himself hurried in full force down the Via Praenestina. About noon he encamped near the temple of Venus Erycina. The battle began in late afternoon, against the advice of some of Sulla’s officers, who thought that the men were too tired. The right wing, commanded by Crassus, won an easy victory, but the left, under Sulla’s own command, broke. Sulla risked his life in trying to rally his forces but they fled, despite his despairing prayers to Apollo, towards the city. Sulla was forced to take refuge in his camp, and some of his men rode for Praeneste to tell Afella to abandon the siege, though Afella refused to panic. But when Sulla’s fleeing troops reached the gates of Rome the veterans dropped the portcullis, compelling them to stand and fight. The battle continued well into the night, as slowly but surely Sulla’s men gained the upper hand, until finally they captured the Samnite camp. Telesinus himself was found among the dead, but Lamponius, Censorinus and Carrinas escaped. Later still messengers came from Crassus, who had pursued the enemy as far as Antemnae, and Sulla learned for the first time of his success.
The generals of Carbo’s faction fled after their army had been destroyed. It was estimated that in all about 50,000 men were slain. In the aftermath of Sulla’s narrow victory his enemies were rooted out one by one and eliminated, leaving him with the absolute power of a dictator.
Its aftermath was marked by yet more bloodshed. The Samnites who fought with the Marians were systematically massacred. A full attack was launched against Praeneste; Marius committed suicide, and all his associates who happened to be in the city were massacred. It was the opening act of the organised massacre known as the first `proscription’, which was accompanied by a law (the lex Cornelia de proscriptione) that legalised the confiscation of the patrimonies of the victims and gave impunity to their killer. Proscriptions were to become a trademark of late Republican history.
The success of Sulla’s campaign, with major efforts being concentrated on two fronts-Campania and Praeneste-was made possible only by the contemporaneous parallel victories of the Sullan generals on other fronts. In northern Etruria and in Aemilia Metellus countered the attacks of Carbo, while Pompey and Crassus obtained crucial victories against Carbo himself and C. Carrinas. Sulla’s direct involvement on this front appears to be limited to a single military confrontation with Carbo, near Clusium.
This city was certainly loyal to the Marians, who used it as a pivotal point for the movements of their troops. The allegiance of the Etruscan cities to the anti-Sullan coalition is widely accepted, and con? rmed by the available evidence, which however fails to be satisfactory in many respects. It has been argued that Cinna managed to obtain the support of the elites, while the lower classes had wholeheartedly supported Marius, perhaps being attracted by the prospect of serving in his army. The evidence, however, is almost non-existent, and we also lack any information about the dissensions that may have arisen within the Etruscan elites about their attitude towards Sulla. It is beyond dispute, nonetheless, that some groups of the aristocracy managed to reach an agreement with the winner as soon as the outcome of the war became clear.
What was left of the army of the Mariani after the Colline Gate battle was disbanded in Etruria. The war, however, continued on several fronts, as the literary sources on one hand, and the archaeological evidence from a number of sites on the other show. From the literary accounts of the war, it is apparent that Clusium and Arretium had an important role in the development of the operations. Populonia was besieged and sacked, almost certainly by Sulla. The Acropolis, which had gone through an impressive renovation in the last decades of the second century BC, was abandoned from then on. The site still looked almost depopulated in the early fifth century. Telamon, although not a municipium, was ravaged, and traces of a sack, followed by a prompt reconstruction, have been recently detected at Saturnia. The extent of violence and human losses finds further confirmation in the four coin hoards datable to the late 80s that have been discovered in Etruria.
Volaterrae came into play at a late stage of the war, as the last stronghold of the diehard enemies of Sulla, both Etruscans and Roman victims of the proscriptions. It was, along with Nola, one of the last fronts Sulla had to deal with before concentrating all his energies on the institutional reforms. From a passage of the pro Roscio Amerino we know that he was still besieging the city in the first months of 81BC, soon after the beginning of the proscriptions. A passage of Licinianus, whose importance was rightly stressed by A. Krawczuk, dates the final conquest to 79BC, during the consulship of Appius Claudius Pulcher and Servilius Vatia. A number of proscribed were still in the city, and left just before the besiegers arrived. However, they were promptly caught and eliminated. The siege of Volaterrae is therefore a significant exception in Italy, which was mostly pacified after 82BC. For three years, possibly until Sulla’s abdication from dictatorship, an important Etruscan city was still held by a contingent of rebels; there is no reason to disbelieve Licinianus. That the situation at Volaterrae was unparalleled in Italy is apparent from several pieces of evidence. Nola, the other main anti-Sullan city, was conquered about two years before, in 81, and its ager was promptly assigned to the Sullan veterans. On the contrary Volaterrae attracted all sorts of anti-Sullan partisans because of its strategically invaluable position, and it remained a critical front for a longer period. | 1,521 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The Role of Women in Ancient Athens The role of women has changed dramatically over the last few thousand years, and some things are now very different for women from what they were before. However, there are also some similarities between the role of women in ancient Athens and the role of women today. The people of ancient Athens saw the importance of providing everyone with some level of education, so all women received an education of some sort. The main reason to educate women was so they could bring up and teach their children, the importance of the mother figure being recognized just as much as it is today.
By comparison to present day standards, Athenian women were only a small step above slaves by the 5th century BC. From birth a girl was not expected to learn how to read or write, nor was she expected to earn an education.
On reading and writing, Menander wrote, "Teaching a woman to read and write? What a terrible thing to do! Like feeding a vile snake on more poison. Most of what has been written about Athenian women comes from the 7th century BC onward, when education in Athens began to emerge.
Prior to that date, it has been alluded to by some authors, that the status of women was not so glum. In particular, the rights of women in Athens and their decline may have been the direct result of political pressures brought about by Pericle's ruling on the legitimacy of marriage.
Similarly there is evidence to suggest that Athenian women prior to the 7th century BC had been subject to similar rites of passage as boys.
The scholar Jean-Pierre Vernant, wrote that the Arrephoroi, and many other religious celebrations of Athens, could have been reduced from perhaps an entire age grade's participation, to only a handful of girls who were chosen to participate.
Even then, it was only the noble and upper class families which were considered for participation. Typical Day of a Greek Housewife Excerpt from: Let There Be Clothes. Workman Publishing; New York, Is still hungry, but must be careful about her figure7: Looks at the four bare slightly tinted walls.
Rarely allowed out of the house, she prepares for another day at home. Asks to join them. Is reminded this is improper behavior - they suggest she ready herself for lunch. Husband leaves at She hears about his day.
He tells her she should not bother about the affairs of men. She is too hungry to argue. Does not dream of tomorrow. Athenian women can be classified into three general classes.
The lowest class was the slave women, who carried out more of the menial domestic chores, and helped to raise the children of the wife. Male slaves held the task of working in the trade arts pottery making, glass working, wood working, etc or to educate the sons of a house.
The second class was that of the Athenian citizen woman.
The third class was known as the Hetaerae. The hetaerae unlike the slaves and the citizens, were much akin to the Geisha's of China. Hetaerae women were given an education in reading, writing, and music, and were allowed into the Agora and other structures which were off limits to citizen and slave women.
Most sources about the Hetaerae indicate however, that their standing was at best at the level of prostitutes, and the level of power they attained was only slightly significant. Marriage Athenian citizen girls, since birth were raised differently than their male counterparts. Jean Vernant, likened the difference to the phrases of Xenophon, that "boys were meant to be made men in their early years, while girls were raised to be kept and protected i.
In domestic life, a boy was taught reading and writing, while a girl was taught spinning and other domestic duties by the slaves her family had.
In the ritual sphere, children of either sex were not excluded from the numerous rites of Athens until their later years, and women played an important role in the festivals which took place in Athens every year. Children in Athens were constantly subject to numerous religious rites and festivals.
Young girls and women often played a part in these festivals as for some it was the only contact the women had with other women outside of their general localityhowever, the most ritualistic and most important aspect of their life was marriage.
Marriages were arranged by the father and were accompanied by a great deal of fanfare. When the marriage was to take place the girl gave away all of her toys to the temple of Artemis, and her hair was cut in some places her girdle was offered to Athena Apatouria.
For the next several months the bride was taught the domestic duties she would perform for the rest of her life, by her mother and by slaves.
A series of rites then followed. On the night before the wedding day, the bride and groom took rituals baths, and sang hymns to Hymen.differences in leadership styles between genders, but the fact that leadership styles in their roles are highly situational.
This side of argument debates that neither of the genders are better in. Women in the ancient Greek world had few rights in comparison to male citizens. Unable to vote, own land, or inherit, a woman’s place was in the home and her purpose in life was the rearing of children.
This, though, is a general description, and when considering the role of women in ancient Greece one should remember that information regarding specific city-states is often lacking, is. Comparison of women in the past and present..
Comparison of women in the past and present.. -Women are excluded from public roles in religious life. Women are not expected to participate in public prayers. -Women must only live to serve men.
This particular quote had been going on for ages since then. Some legal religious decisors have. The relationship between education levels and earnings is clearly and accurately expressed in a single sentence: The more education you have, the more money you will make. The unanimous conclusion of social scientists, researchers and investigative journalists as we move toward the third decade of.
The Roles for Women Although later pushed to the side, women in early Christian communities often owned the 'house churches' where congregations gathered to worship. The Role of the Wife and Mother. In the later nineteenth century things for women began to change.
No doubt this had something to do with modernity and its intrinsic insistence on change, and no doubt it had something to do with the actions of women themselves, with their desire to break out of the limits imposed on their sex. | <urn:uuid:4608783a-c640-44d7-9063-678113aa589e> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://fybebajeno.leslutinsduphoenix.com/a-comparison-of-roles-of-women-9821tb.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250607596.34/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122221541-20200123010541-00164.warc.gz | en | 0.989276 | 1,355 | 3.796875 | 4 | [
0.0518735870718956,
0.3204081654548645,
0.34011363983154297,
-0.13719280064105988,
-0.7020782828330994,
-0.11917579174041748,
-0.07054687291383743,
0.34420061111450195,
-0.3069714307785034,
-0.14337989687919617,
-0.4362518787384033,
-0.37640029191970825,
-0.047738734632730484,
0.2431210875... | 3 | The Role of Women in Ancient Athens The role of women has changed dramatically over the last few thousand years, and some things are now very different for women from what they were before. However, there are also some similarities between the role of women in ancient Athens and the role of women today. The people of ancient Athens saw the importance of providing everyone with some level of education, so all women received an education of some sort. The main reason to educate women was so they could bring up and teach their children, the importance of the mother figure being recognized just as much as it is today.
By comparison to present day standards, Athenian women were only a small step above slaves by the 5th century BC. From birth a girl was not expected to learn how to read or write, nor was she expected to earn an education.
On reading and writing, Menander wrote, "Teaching a woman to read and write? What a terrible thing to do! Like feeding a vile snake on more poison. Most of what has been written about Athenian women comes from the 7th century BC onward, when education in Athens began to emerge.
Prior to that date, it has been alluded to by some authors, that the status of women was not so glum. In particular, the rights of women in Athens and their decline may have been the direct result of political pressures brought about by Pericle's ruling on the legitimacy of marriage.
Similarly there is evidence to suggest that Athenian women prior to the 7th century BC had been subject to similar rites of passage as boys.
The scholar Jean-Pierre Vernant, wrote that the Arrephoroi, and many other religious celebrations of Athens, could have been reduced from perhaps an entire age grade's participation, to only a handful of girls who were chosen to participate.
Even then, it was only the noble and upper class families which were considered for participation. Typical Day of a Greek Housewife Excerpt from: Let There Be Clothes. Workman Publishing; New York, Is still hungry, but must be careful about her figure7: Looks at the four bare slightly tinted walls.
Rarely allowed out of the house, she prepares for another day at home. Asks to join them. Is reminded this is improper behavior - they suggest she ready herself for lunch. Husband leaves at She hears about his day.
He tells her she should not bother about the affairs of men. She is too hungry to argue. Does not dream of tomorrow. Athenian women can be classified into three general classes.
The lowest class was the slave women, who carried out more of the menial domestic chores, and helped to raise the children of the wife. Male slaves held the task of working in the trade arts pottery making, glass working, wood working, etc or to educate the sons of a house.
The second class was that of the Athenian citizen woman.
The third class was known as the Hetaerae. The hetaerae unlike the slaves and the citizens, were much akin to the Geisha's of China. Hetaerae women were given an education in reading, writing, and music, and were allowed into the Agora and other structures which were off limits to citizen and slave women.
Most sources about the Hetaerae indicate however, that their standing was at best at the level of prostitutes, and the level of power they attained was only slightly significant. Marriage Athenian citizen girls, since birth were raised differently than their male counterparts. Jean Vernant, likened the difference to the phrases of Xenophon, that "boys were meant to be made men in their early years, while girls were raised to be kept and protected i.
In domestic life, a boy was taught reading and writing, while a girl was taught spinning and other domestic duties by the slaves her family had.
In the ritual sphere, children of either sex were not excluded from the numerous rites of Athens until their later years, and women played an important role in the festivals which took place in Athens every year. Children in Athens were constantly subject to numerous religious rites and festivals.
Young girls and women often played a part in these festivals as for some it was the only contact the women had with other women outside of their general localityhowever, the most ritualistic and most important aspect of their life was marriage.
Marriages were arranged by the father and were accompanied by a great deal of fanfare. When the marriage was to take place the girl gave away all of her toys to the temple of Artemis, and her hair was cut in some places her girdle was offered to Athena Apatouria.
For the next several months the bride was taught the domestic duties she would perform for the rest of her life, by her mother and by slaves.
A series of rites then followed. On the night before the wedding day, the bride and groom took rituals baths, and sang hymns to Hymen.differences in leadership styles between genders, but the fact that leadership styles in their roles are highly situational.
This side of argument debates that neither of the genders are better in. Women in the ancient Greek world had few rights in comparison to male citizens. Unable to vote, own land, or inherit, a woman’s place was in the home and her purpose in life was the rearing of children.
This, though, is a general description, and when considering the role of women in ancient Greece one should remember that information regarding specific city-states is often lacking, is. Comparison of women in the past and present..
Comparison of women in the past and present.. -Women are excluded from public roles in religious life. Women are not expected to participate in public prayers. -Women must only live to serve men.
This particular quote had been going on for ages since then. Some legal religious decisors have. The relationship between education levels and earnings is clearly and accurately expressed in a single sentence: The more education you have, the more money you will make. The unanimous conclusion of social scientists, researchers and investigative journalists as we move toward the third decade of.
The Roles for Women Although later pushed to the side, women in early Christian communities often owned the 'house churches' where congregations gathered to worship. The Role of the Wife and Mother. In the later nineteenth century things for women began to change.
No doubt this had something to do with modernity and its intrinsic insistence on change, and no doubt it had something to do with the actions of women themselves, with their desire to break out of the limits imposed on their sex. | 1,327 | ENGLISH | 1 |
University of Virginia
Monticello was a working plantation, and Jefferson was eager to make it pay. His slaves may have been members of his
family, but they were units of production as well. Everywhere on his plantation he sought to eliminate pockets of idleness. If a slave was too old or too sick to work in the fields, he or she was put to tending the vegetable gardens or to cooking in the quarters. When one of his former head men named Nace became ill, Jefferson ordered that he be
entirely kept from labour until he recovers; nevertheless, Nace was to spend his days indoors shelling corn or making shoes or baskets. Jefferson was willing to prescribe lighter work for women who were pregnant or raising infant children because they were actually breeding more property; thus, said Jefferson,
a child raised every 2 years is of more profit than the crop of the best laboring man. This is one of the times, he said, when
providence has made our interest and our duties coincide perfectly. | <urn:uuid:d0c3b7ac-9f43-4bb7-bca0-89fd27bf6aae> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.americanrevolution.com/places_to_visit/va/university_of_virginia | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250619323.41/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124100832-20200124125832-00143.warc.gz | en | 0.991277 | 207 | 3.5 | 4 | [
-0.5097559094429016,
0.43795791268348694,
0.05558609589934349,
-0.2641534209251404,
0.08733794093132019,
-0.14892862737178802,
0.29508888721466064,
-0.12620332837104797,
-0.1124689057469368,
0.5430036187171936,
0.0868106558918953,
-0.2615531086921692,
-0.3984827399253845,
0.198698341846466... | 1 | University of Virginia
Monticello was a working plantation, and Jefferson was eager to make it pay. His slaves may have been members of his
family, but they were units of production as well. Everywhere on his plantation he sought to eliminate pockets of idleness. If a slave was too old or too sick to work in the fields, he or she was put to tending the vegetable gardens or to cooking in the quarters. When one of his former head men named Nace became ill, Jefferson ordered that he be
entirely kept from labour until he recovers; nevertheless, Nace was to spend his days indoors shelling corn or making shoes or baskets. Jefferson was willing to prescribe lighter work for women who were pregnant or raising infant children because they were actually breeding more property; thus, said Jefferson,
a child raised every 2 years is of more profit than the crop of the best laboring man. This is one of the times, he said, when
providence has made our interest and our duties coincide perfectly. | 210 | ENGLISH | 1 |
have been casting their lines off the coast of the north east of Scotland
for many centuries. From the shorelines
of the Moray Firth down the eastern seaboard to the town of Stonehaven
and beyond, communities of fisher folk lived and worked for many generations
in isolation of the larger world yet bound together in commonality of
their hazardous occupation.
Despite this commonality, each of the old fisher towns were unique and
distinct communities, holding themselves separate from other fishing villages.
Each village had its own customs and social lore; many had their boat
building and fishing techniques; marriage outside the village, while not
unknown, was uncommon; each village shared the same few surnames and despite
their proximity to each other, had their own individual ideas and beliefs,
and rivalry between the villages was not always friendly!
the 19th century, and probably even earlier, white fish throughout the
length and breadth of Scotland, were caught by baited hook and line. The
boats used were wooden and un-decked and usually measured between twenty
five and forty feet in length.
Each boat normally had a crew of around six men;
four to pull the oars, one to set the lines and one to land the catch.
A mast and sail were sometimes used to free up the oarsmen to assist in
the onboard work.
There were two types of line fishing. The “Great Line” fishing
took the boats as far as forty miles offshore necessitating a few uncomfortable
nights at sea in all weathers, whereas the "Small Line" fishing
took place much closer to shore and usually allowed the men to return
home during the same day. The lines that were used in both types of fishing
were of similar construction and any variations between them were slight.
The main line (the Back) consisted of a thick piece of brown backed string
cord and would vary in length, although an average size would be a line
of approximately sixty fathoms length.Attached to this string were snoods
- shorter pieces of thinner cord
spaced at intervals of approximately
forty inches along the line. To the snoods were fixed horse hair “tippings”
around ten inches in length onto which the hook was whipped with strong
thread. The snood was bent onto the line with a knotted clove hitch and
sufficient end was left to turn back around to form a kind of plait which
prevented ravelling and twisting. Some lines could carry as many as one
thousand individual hooks. The head of the line went over the side first,
shot across the tide so that the snoods would drift away from the main
line, and this was anchored to the sea bed by a plain unhooked line (a
Tow), which was held in place by a heavy stone or anchor. A
buoy marked the position of the Tow on the surface. The boat was then
allowed to drift for a time before hauling in the line to be stowed in
a wicker scull or basket. The fish that were targeted and caught were
mainly cod, haddock, ling and plaice. This method of fishing was quite
labour intensive, particularly in the preparation of the lines prior to
putting out to sea which involved the “redding” and “sheillin-and-baiting”
of the lines, tasks that, invariably, were performed by the local women-folk.
The pillars of the fishing communities were the women who were the stalwarts
behind their men and at the fore in all business and domestic matters.
They gathered the bait, baited the lines, carried
creels and fishing gear, brought the fish to market which was usually many
miles away and did the selling. On occasions it was the men who replaced
the creels on the women’s backs! This was not exploitation but a necessary
act because the men may have had to spend days at sea, and exposure to the
elements in wet clothes heightened the risk of illness which was something
that no fisherman wanted. The men had to stay dry because illness meant
no fishing and without any fishing there was no income so this meant that
had the onerous task of carrying the men on to their boats! On top of all
this hard work, the women also had families to rear and children to look
By the end of the 1800’s the tide was turning in the white fishing
industry. The perils and dangers of working from small boats from primitive
harbours and the subsequent loss of life was one influential factor that
was turning the younger population away from the industry and the coastal
villages, but perhaps more significantly the arrival of the trawler and
deep sea fishing was a more influential factor.
Soon a vessel was built which was specially designed for trawling. This
was the North Star, built and launched in Aberdeen in September 1883. In
less than eight years she had landed over £46000 worth of fish. The
trawling revolution was well under way and the death bell was tolling in
respect to the line fishing and the small coastal villages that relied on
that form of fishing to make a living. The introduction of steam power to
the fishing industry was the catalyst that doomed the old methods and ways
of life. Initially steam was used merely to power the capstan for pulling
the nets however it later replaced the sail as well. The small village boats
with their oars and occasional sails were being consigned to the history
books, although remarkably a few of them clung to life into the 1900’s.
transformed fishing from craft industry to modern industry, and encouraged
growth and development in major ports. Trawlers became the norm, and the
great distant water trawler fleets from Aberdeen and Peterhead, owned by
fishing companies and worked by hired deckhands, were soon established.
These new, highly capitalised methods were not welcome everywhere. Tradition
dictated that white fish should only be taken by hook and line; since vessels
catching white fish in other ways threatened the survival of whole communities
these vessels sometimes found themselves being pelted by stones if they
tried to land their catch at “tradition-bound” harbours. So
strong was the feeling over this, that effigies of “the capitalists”
who threatened tradition and communal survival were burnt in a number of
As this reality set in, some of the independent fishers from up and down
the east coast would have realised that resistance was futile and they upped
sticks and moved to the larger fishing towns, possibly suffering the degradation
of signing on as hired
deckhands on steam
trawlers after many years
of freedom and working | <urn:uuid:08b973fa-b709-4e5a-9f26-e15728a46ced> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://footdeeancestors.co.uk/Original%202014/Articles/White%20Fishers.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250591234.15/warc/CC-MAIN-20200117205732-20200117233732-00513.warc.gz | en | 0.983882 | 1,434 | 3.671875 | 4 | [
0.03339332342147827,
-0.34216469526290894,
-0.034229010343551636,
-0.28640854358673096,
0.02746812254190445,
-0.33399122953414917,
0.2007453590631485,
0.06832051277160645,
-0.4083625376224518,
-0.4255076050758362,
0.0849793553352356,
-0.14125311374664307,
0.10633544623851776,
0.12252454459... | 2 | have been casting their lines off the coast of the north east of Scotland
for many centuries. From the shorelines
of the Moray Firth down the eastern seaboard to the town of Stonehaven
and beyond, communities of fisher folk lived and worked for many generations
in isolation of the larger world yet bound together in commonality of
their hazardous occupation.
Despite this commonality, each of the old fisher towns were unique and
distinct communities, holding themselves separate from other fishing villages.
Each village had its own customs and social lore; many had their boat
building and fishing techniques; marriage outside the village, while not
unknown, was uncommon; each village shared the same few surnames and despite
their proximity to each other, had their own individual ideas and beliefs,
and rivalry between the villages was not always friendly!
the 19th century, and probably even earlier, white fish throughout the
length and breadth of Scotland, were caught by baited hook and line. The
boats used were wooden and un-decked and usually measured between twenty
five and forty feet in length.
Each boat normally had a crew of around six men;
four to pull the oars, one to set the lines and one to land the catch.
A mast and sail were sometimes used to free up the oarsmen to assist in
the onboard work.
There were two types of line fishing. The “Great Line” fishing
took the boats as far as forty miles offshore necessitating a few uncomfortable
nights at sea in all weathers, whereas the "Small Line" fishing
took place much closer to shore and usually allowed the men to return
home during the same day. The lines that were used in both types of fishing
were of similar construction and any variations between them were slight.
The main line (the Back) consisted of a thick piece of brown backed string
cord and would vary in length, although an average size would be a line
of approximately sixty fathoms length.Attached to this string were snoods
- shorter pieces of thinner cord
spaced at intervals of approximately
forty inches along the line. To the snoods were fixed horse hair “tippings”
around ten inches in length onto which the hook was whipped with strong
thread. The snood was bent onto the line with a knotted clove hitch and
sufficient end was left to turn back around to form a kind of plait which
prevented ravelling and twisting. Some lines could carry as many as one
thousand individual hooks. The head of the line went over the side first,
shot across the tide so that the snoods would drift away from the main
line, and this was anchored to the sea bed by a plain unhooked line (a
Tow), which was held in place by a heavy stone or anchor. A
buoy marked the position of the Tow on the surface. The boat was then
allowed to drift for a time before hauling in the line to be stowed in
a wicker scull or basket. The fish that were targeted and caught were
mainly cod, haddock, ling and plaice. This method of fishing was quite
labour intensive, particularly in the preparation of the lines prior to
putting out to sea which involved the “redding” and “sheillin-and-baiting”
of the lines, tasks that, invariably, were performed by the local women-folk.
The pillars of the fishing communities were the women who were the stalwarts
behind their men and at the fore in all business and domestic matters.
They gathered the bait, baited the lines, carried
creels and fishing gear, brought the fish to market which was usually many
miles away and did the selling. On occasions it was the men who replaced
the creels on the women’s backs! This was not exploitation but a necessary
act because the men may have had to spend days at sea, and exposure to the
elements in wet clothes heightened the risk of illness which was something
that no fisherman wanted. The men had to stay dry because illness meant
no fishing and without any fishing there was no income so this meant that
had the onerous task of carrying the men on to their boats! On top of all
this hard work, the women also had families to rear and children to look
By the end of the 1800’s the tide was turning in the white fishing
industry. The perils and dangers of working from small boats from primitive
harbours and the subsequent loss of life was one influential factor that
was turning the younger population away from the industry and the coastal
villages, but perhaps more significantly the arrival of the trawler and
deep sea fishing was a more influential factor.
Soon a vessel was built which was specially designed for trawling. This
was the North Star, built and launched in Aberdeen in September 1883. In
less than eight years she had landed over £46000 worth of fish. The
trawling revolution was well under way and the death bell was tolling in
respect to the line fishing and the small coastal villages that relied on
that form of fishing to make a living. The introduction of steam power to
the fishing industry was the catalyst that doomed the old methods and ways
of life. Initially steam was used merely to power the capstan for pulling
the nets however it later replaced the sail as well. The small village boats
with their oars and occasional sails were being consigned to the history
books, although remarkably a few of them clung to life into the 1900’s.
transformed fishing from craft industry to modern industry, and encouraged
growth and development in major ports. Trawlers became the norm, and the
great distant water trawler fleets from Aberdeen and Peterhead, owned by
fishing companies and worked by hired deckhands, were soon established.
These new, highly capitalised methods were not welcome everywhere. Tradition
dictated that white fish should only be taken by hook and line; since vessels
catching white fish in other ways threatened the survival of whole communities
these vessels sometimes found themselves being pelted by stones if they
tried to land their catch at “tradition-bound” harbours. So
strong was the feeling over this, that effigies of “the capitalists”
who threatened tradition and communal survival were burnt in a number of
As this reality set in, some of the independent fishers from up and down
the east coast would have realised that resistance was futile and they upped
sticks and moved to the larger fishing towns, possibly suffering the degradation
of signing on as hired
deckhands on steam
trawlers after many years
of freedom and working | 1,408 | ENGLISH | 1 |
What is an Ard?
When I reflect on hard work is the correct term ‘ard work?’ The ard was an ancient implement and using it must have been one of the hardest tasks for any human. But, what is an ard? It is an implement made of wood and was probably first used in the Neolithic period, the Stone Age. When the growing of crops started here, said to be around 4,000 BC, the ard was the forerunner to what we recognise as a plough today.
What is an Ard?
Being made of wood, very few ards have survived. One was excavated a few years ago in the Thames Valley, preserved in mud. This was dated to 940-560 BC and was made of a split log of Field Maple. The people who made it recognised that this small native tree produced the hardest wood. The media reports of the find showed an artist’s reconstruction of the ard being pulled by two oxon. They called it the simplest form of plough.
What is a plough?
Calling it a plough could be misleading. It is not correct if we consider that a modern plough must turn the sod over so that we can cultivate the weed free soil beneath. The wooden point of the ard cannot turn the soil. As it only scrapes a channel across the surface, it is often called a scratch plough. To scratch the soil sounds easy but it depends upon the type of soil being worked.
Soils come in so many forms. Most fertile soils in the UK are either clay or loam. Loam is a mixed soil but with a high clay content. Consequently, these soils are hard in dry weather and sticky in wet. It would be difficult for an ard to scratch these soils. This is why the early horticulturalists had to grow their corn on silt, which is the light soil deposited along rivers by flooding. We call this a riverine culture.
What Provided the Power?
As stated earlier, oxon are often shown pulling the ard. Certainly oxon were in use by the Iron Age but what about 2,500 years earlier, when Stonehenge was built? As far as we know, there were no beasts of burden and it is suggested that humans provided the power; one pulling and one pushing the ard. That was one hell of a job. Somewhere in the mud along the River Avon or Stour there must lie a wooden ard waiting to be found. What a wonder it would be if it showed the wear and tear of human hands! | <urn:uuid:e24e36f9-c9b7-4fd9-aaa9-478d9cc1c1ea> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://stonehengepensioner.com/neolithic/what-is-an-ard/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251801423.98/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129164403-20200129193403-00523.warc.gz | en | 0.981847 | 526 | 3.4375 | 3 | [
-0.3216577470302582,
-0.3052951395511627,
0.20740346610546112,
-0.04454721510410309,
0.34934401512145996,
-0.3615330159664154,
0.09776035696268082,
-0.3233761191368103,
-0.36018848419189453,
0.2588556110858917,
0.11642290651798248,
-0.8063018321990967,
-0.1979551464319229,
0.25947818160057... | 1 | What is an Ard?
When I reflect on hard work is the correct term ‘ard work?’ The ard was an ancient implement and using it must have been one of the hardest tasks for any human. But, what is an ard? It is an implement made of wood and was probably first used in the Neolithic period, the Stone Age. When the growing of crops started here, said to be around 4,000 BC, the ard was the forerunner to what we recognise as a plough today.
What is an Ard?
Being made of wood, very few ards have survived. One was excavated a few years ago in the Thames Valley, preserved in mud. This was dated to 940-560 BC and was made of a split log of Field Maple. The people who made it recognised that this small native tree produced the hardest wood. The media reports of the find showed an artist’s reconstruction of the ard being pulled by two oxon. They called it the simplest form of plough.
What is a plough?
Calling it a plough could be misleading. It is not correct if we consider that a modern plough must turn the sod over so that we can cultivate the weed free soil beneath. The wooden point of the ard cannot turn the soil. As it only scrapes a channel across the surface, it is often called a scratch plough. To scratch the soil sounds easy but it depends upon the type of soil being worked.
Soils come in so many forms. Most fertile soils in the UK are either clay or loam. Loam is a mixed soil but with a high clay content. Consequently, these soils are hard in dry weather and sticky in wet. It would be difficult for an ard to scratch these soils. This is why the early horticulturalists had to grow their corn on silt, which is the light soil deposited along rivers by flooding. We call this a riverine culture.
What Provided the Power?
As stated earlier, oxon are often shown pulling the ard. Certainly oxon were in use by the Iron Age but what about 2,500 years earlier, when Stonehenge was built? As far as we know, there were no beasts of burden and it is suggested that humans provided the power; one pulling and one pushing the ard. That was one hell of a job. Somewhere in the mud along the River Avon or Stour there must lie a wooden ard waiting to be found. What a wonder it would be if it showed the wear and tear of human hands! | 525 | ENGLISH | 1 |
View detail of all martial arts weapons in the world. Each martial arts have their own unique weapons fighting style. Read more to view detail and video clips about this special unique martial arts.
Targe (from Old Franconian *targa “shield”, Proto-Germanic *targo “border”) was a general word for shield in late Old English. Its diminutive, target, came to mean an object to be aimed at in the 18th century.
The term refers to various types of shields used by infantry troops from the 13th to 16th centuries. More specifically, a targe was a concave shield fitted with enarmes on the inside, one adjustable by a buckle, to be attached to the forearm, and the other fixed as a grip for the left hand. These shields were mostly made of iron or iron-plated wood. From the 15th century, the term could also refer to special shields used for jousting.
From the early 17th century, until the Battle of Culloden in 1746, the Scottish Highlander’s main means of defence in battle was his targe. After the disastrous defeat of the Jacobites at Culloden, the carrying of the targe would have been banned, and many would have been destroyed, or put to other uses. Those which do remain appear to be of quite intricate patterns, and are well decorated, indicating that they would have originally belonged to important people.
Targes are generally, but not always, round shields between 18 in and 21 in (45–55 cm) in diameter. The inside of the targe was formed from two very thin layers of flat wooden boards, with the grain of each layer at right angles to the other. They were fixed together with small wooden pegs, forming plywood. The front was covered with a tough cowhide which was often decorated with embossed celtic style patterns. This was fixed to the wood with many brass, or in some cases, silver, nails, and occasionally brass plates were also fixed to the face for strength and decoration. Some targes had center bosses of brass, and a few of these could accept a long steel spike which screwed into a small “puddle” of lead which was fixed to the wood, under the boss. When not in use, the spike could be unscrewed and placed in a sheath on the back of the targe. A Highlander armed with a broadsword in one hand, dagger in the other and a spiked targe on his arm would have been a formidable enemy in close combat.
The back of the targe was commonly covered in deerskin, and a very few had some packing of straw etc. behind this. Some targes, usually those actually used in battle, had their backs covered in a piece of red cloth taken from the uniform of a government soldier (a “Redcoat”) that the owner had killed in battle. Although all the old targes show signs of handles and arm straps, of various designs, there is very little evidence to indicate that there was any guige strap for carrying the targe over the shoulder.
The face of a targe typically used two general patterns – concentric circles, or a centre boss with subsidiary bosses around this. There are a few notable exceptions, such as a targe in Perth Museum in Scotland which is of a star design. Although some targe designs appear to have been more popular than others, there is very little to indicate that there ever were “clan” designs. The nearest that one might come to finding a “clan” design is possibly the four identical targes which came from the family armoury at Castle Grant. It appears more likely that targe designs were individual to their owner. During the 1745/46 Jacobite uprising, a William Lindsay, a shieldwright in Perth made hundreds of targes for Charles Edward Stuart’s army. He made a distinction in price between an “officer’s targe” and an ordinary targe. | <urn:uuid:138b559e-ef7d-4d95-aa18-35f46ea84a2f> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://anymartialarts.com/martial-arts-weapons/targe/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251694908.82/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127051112-20200127081112-00233.warc.gz | en | 0.985391 | 841 | 3.28125 | 3 | [
-0.4099249243736267,
0.6496877670288086,
0.22230452299118042,
0.16131791472434998,
-0.013073915615677834,
-0.2953539788722992,
0.5199371576309204,
0.05820026248693466,
-0.2115098536014557,
0.11174000799655914,
-0.02920570969581604,
-0.6538637280464172,
-0.25523287057876587,
0.5192850828170... | 3 | View detail of all martial arts weapons in the world. Each martial arts have their own unique weapons fighting style. Read more to view detail and video clips about this special unique martial arts.
Targe (from Old Franconian *targa “shield”, Proto-Germanic *targo “border”) was a general word for shield in late Old English. Its diminutive, target, came to mean an object to be aimed at in the 18th century.
The term refers to various types of shields used by infantry troops from the 13th to 16th centuries. More specifically, a targe was a concave shield fitted with enarmes on the inside, one adjustable by a buckle, to be attached to the forearm, and the other fixed as a grip for the left hand. These shields were mostly made of iron or iron-plated wood. From the 15th century, the term could also refer to special shields used for jousting.
From the early 17th century, until the Battle of Culloden in 1746, the Scottish Highlander’s main means of defence in battle was his targe. After the disastrous defeat of the Jacobites at Culloden, the carrying of the targe would have been banned, and many would have been destroyed, or put to other uses. Those which do remain appear to be of quite intricate patterns, and are well decorated, indicating that they would have originally belonged to important people.
Targes are generally, but not always, round shields between 18 in and 21 in (45–55 cm) in diameter. The inside of the targe was formed from two very thin layers of flat wooden boards, with the grain of each layer at right angles to the other. They were fixed together with small wooden pegs, forming plywood. The front was covered with a tough cowhide which was often decorated with embossed celtic style patterns. This was fixed to the wood with many brass, or in some cases, silver, nails, and occasionally brass plates were also fixed to the face for strength and decoration. Some targes had center bosses of brass, and a few of these could accept a long steel spike which screwed into a small “puddle” of lead which was fixed to the wood, under the boss. When not in use, the spike could be unscrewed and placed in a sheath on the back of the targe. A Highlander armed with a broadsword in one hand, dagger in the other and a spiked targe on his arm would have been a formidable enemy in close combat.
The back of the targe was commonly covered in deerskin, and a very few had some packing of straw etc. behind this. Some targes, usually those actually used in battle, had their backs covered in a piece of red cloth taken from the uniform of a government soldier (a “Redcoat”) that the owner had killed in battle. Although all the old targes show signs of handles and arm straps, of various designs, there is very little evidence to indicate that there was any guige strap for carrying the targe over the shoulder.
The face of a targe typically used two general patterns – concentric circles, or a centre boss with subsidiary bosses around this. There are a few notable exceptions, such as a targe in Perth Museum in Scotland which is of a star design. Although some targe designs appear to have been more popular than others, there is very little to indicate that there ever were “clan” designs. The nearest that one might come to finding a “clan” design is possibly the four identical targes which came from the family armoury at Castle Grant. It appears more likely that targe designs were individual to their owner. During the 1745/46 Jacobite uprising, a William Lindsay, a shieldwright in Perth made hundreds of targes for Charles Edward Stuart’s army. He made a distinction in price between an “officer’s targe” and an ordinary targe. | 831 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Visit Website After the Trojan defeat, the Greeks heroes slowly made their way home. After his death, some sources say she was exiled to the island of Rhodes, where a vengeful war widow had her hanged. Both began within the oral tradition, and were first transcribed decades or centuries after their composition.
There is no single, authoritative text which tells the entire events of the war. Instead, the story is assembled from a variety of sources, some of which report contradictory versions of the events.
The most important literary sources are the two epic poems traditionally credited to Homerthe Iliad and the Odysseycomposed sometime between the 9th and 6th centuries BC.
The Iliad covers a short period in the last year of the siege of Troy, while the Odyssey concerns Odysseus's return to his home island of Ithaca following the sack of Troy and contains several flashbacks to particular episodes in the war. Though these poems survive only in fragments, their content is known from a summary included in Proclus ' Chrestomathy.
It is generally thought that the poems were written down in the 7th and 6th century BC, after the composition of the Homeric poems, though it is widely believed that they were based on earlier traditions. Even after the composition of the Iliad, Odyssey, and the Cyclic Epics, the myths of the Trojan War were passed on orally in many genres of poetry and through non-poetic storytelling.
Events and details of the story that are only found in later authors may have been passed on through oral tradition and could be as old as the Homeric poems. Visual art, such as vase paintingwas another medium in which myths of the Trojan War circulated. The three great tragedians of Athens - AeschylusSophoclesand Euripides — wrote a number of dramas that portray episodes from the Trojan War.
Among Roman writers the most important is the 1st century BC poet Virgil. Origins of the war Plan of Zeus According to Greek mythology, Zeus had become king of the gods by overthrowing his father Cronus ; Cronus in turn had overthrown his father Uranus.
Zeus was not faithful to his wife and sister Heraand had many relationships from which many children were born. Since Zeus believed that there were too many people populating the earth, he envisioned Momus or Themis who was to use the Trojan War as a means to depopulate the Earth, especially of his demigod descendants.
Now all the gods were divided through strife; for at that very time Zeus who thunders on high was meditating marvelous deeds, even to mingle storm and tempest over the boundless earth, and already he was hastening to make an utter end of the race of mortal men, declaring that he would destroy the lives of the demi-gods, that the children of the gods should not mate with wretched mortals, seeing their fate with their own eyes; but that the blessed gods henceforth even as aforetime should have their living and their habitations apart from men.
But on those who were born of immortals and of mankind verily Zeus laid toil and sorrow upon sorrow. Judgement of Paris Zeus came to learn from either Themis or Prometheusafter Heracles had released him from Caucasus that, like his father Cronus, he would be overthrown by one of his sons.
Another prophecy stated that a son of the sea-nymph Thetiswith whom Zeus fell in love after gazing upon her in the oceans off the Greek coast, would become greater than his father. They quarreled bitterly over it, and none of the other gods would venture an opinion favoring one, for fear of earning the enmity of the other two.
Eventually, Zeus ordered Hermes to lead the three goddesses to Paris, a prince of Troywho, unaware of his ancestry, was being raised as a shepherd in Mount Ida because of a prophecy that he would be the downfall of Troy.
Paris was unable to decide between them, so the goddesses resorted to bribes. Athena offered Paris wisdom, skill in battle, and the abilities of the greatest warriors; Hera offered him political power and control of all of Asia ; and Aphrodite offered him the love of the most beautiful woman in the world, Helen of Sparta.
Paris awarded the apple to Aphrodite, and, after several adventures, returned to Troy, where he was recognized by his royal family. Thetis gives her son Achilles weapons forged by Hephaestus detail of Attic black-figure hydria— BC Peleus and Thetis bore a son, whom they named Achilles.
It was foretold that he would either die of old age after an uneventful life, or die young in a battlefield and gain immortality through poetry. Some of these state that she held him over fire every night to burn away his mortal parts and rubbed him with ambrosia during the day, but Peleus discovered her actions and stopped her.
He grew up to be the greatest of all mortal warriors. After Calchas' prophesy, Thetis hid Achilles in Skyros at the court of King Lycomedeswhere he was disguised as a girl.
Her mother was Ledawho had been either raped or seduced by Zeus in the form of a swan. However, Helen is usually credited as Zeus' daughter, and sometimes Nemesis is credited as her mother.The Trojan Horse: How the Greeks Won the War (Step into Reading) [Emily Little] on srmvision.com *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers.
Illus. in full color. "An ancient history lesson emerges from this account of the way the Greeks tricked the Trojans and rescued Helen of Troy. The book is well tailored to younger readers with careful explanations and short sentences; a pronunciation guide is. The Trojan War Free Essay, Term Paper and Book Report Achilles and the Trojan War I: The Legend of Troy The legend of Troy has always been a mystery to historians, anthropologists, and .
His book, The Trojan War: A New History, is filled with his own interpretations and opinion, based on research and newly found discoveries, about the Trojan War.
3/5(4). The Trojan War Free Essay, Term Paper and Book Report Achilles and the Trojan War I: The Legend of Troy The legend of Troy has always been a mystery to historians, anthropologists, and anyone who has ever studied it.
"Book Report Of Trojan War" Essays and Research Papers Book Report Of Trojan War The film Troy, portrays several historical inaccuracies throughout the film. In the original versions, the Trojan war lasted for 24 years, but in this book, there is only 10 years of war.
This book shows how painful war is through death of loved ones, homesickness, dest This book is great in some ways but it falls apart in other ways/5. | <urn:uuid:faa22cc6-a718-477d-9357-40714109b13d> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://hewybypoxupafe.srmvision.com/book-report-of-trojan-war-9672gu.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251681412.74/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125191854-20200125221854-00102.warc.gz | en | 0.980087 | 1,425 | 4.0625 | 4 | [
0.0761125236749649,
0.21838587522506714,
0.207392156124115,
-0.04328009486198425,
-0.4140954315662384,
-0.4447958469390869,
-0.2691223621368408,
0.7895163893699646,
0.01909409463405609,
-0.06239239498972893,
-0.26989105343818665,
-0.07111260294914246,
-0.16744132339954376,
0.59374332427978... | 1 | Visit Website After the Trojan defeat, the Greeks heroes slowly made their way home. After his death, some sources say she was exiled to the island of Rhodes, where a vengeful war widow had her hanged. Both began within the oral tradition, and were first transcribed decades or centuries after their composition.
There is no single, authoritative text which tells the entire events of the war. Instead, the story is assembled from a variety of sources, some of which report contradictory versions of the events.
The most important literary sources are the two epic poems traditionally credited to Homerthe Iliad and the Odysseycomposed sometime between the 9th and 6th centuries BC.
The Iliad covers a short period in the last year of the siege of Troy, while the Odyssey concerns Odysseus's return to his home island of Ithaca following the sack of Troy and contains several flashbacks to particular episodes in the war. Though these poems survive only in fragments, their content is known from a summary included in Proclus ' Chrestomathy.
It is generally thought that the poems were written down in the 7th and 6th century BC, after the composition of the Homeric poems, though it is widely believed that they were based on earlier traditions. Even after the composition of the Iliad, Odyssey, and the Cyclic Epics, the myths of the Trojan War were passed on orally in many genres of poetry and through non-poetic storytelling.
Events and details of the story that are only found in later authors may have been passed on through oral tradition and could be as old as the Homeric poems. Visual art, such as vase paintingwas another medium in which myths of the Trojan War circulated. The three great tragedians of Athens - AeschylusSophoclesand Euripides — wrote a number of dramas that portray episodes from the Trojan War.
Among Roman writers the most important is the 1st century BC poet Virgil. Origins of the war Plan of Zeus According to Greek mythology, Zeus had become king of the gods by overthrowing his father Cronus ; Cronus in turn had overthrown his father Uranus.
Zeus was not faithful to his wife and sister Heraand had many relationships from which many children were born. Since Zeus believed that there were too many people populating the earth, he envisioned Momus or Themis who was to use the Trojan War as a means to depopulate the Earth, especially of his demigod descendants.
Now all the gods were divided through strife; for at that very time Zeus who thunders on high was meditating marvelous deeds, even to mingle storm and tempest over the boundless earth, and already he was hastening to make an utter end of the race of mortal men, declaring that he would destroy the lives of the demi-gods, that the children of the gods should not mate with wretched mortals, seeing their fate with their own eyes; but that the blessed gods henceforth even as aforetime should have their living and their habitations apart from men.
But on those who were born of immortals and of mankind verily Zeus laid toil and sorrow upon sorrow. Judgement of Paris Zeus came to learn from either Themis or Prometheusafter Heracles had released him from Caucasus that, like his father Cronus, he would be overthrown by one of his sons.
Another prophecy stated that a son of the sea-nymph Thetiswith whom Zeus fell in love after gazing upon her in the oceans off the Greek coast, would become greater than his father. They quarreled bitterly over it, and none of the other gods would venture an opinion favoring one, for fear of earning the enmity of the other two.
Eventually, Zeus ordered Hermes to lead the three goddesses to Paris, a prince of Troywho, unaware of his ancestry, was being raised as a shepherd in Mount Ida because of a prophecy that he would be the downfall of Troy.
Paris was unable to decide between them, so the goddesses resorted to bribes. Athena offered Paris wisdom, skill in battle, and the abilities of the greatest warriors; Hera offered him political power and control of all of Asia ; and Aphrodite offered him the love of the most beautiful woman in the world, Helen of Sparta.
Paris awarded the apple to Aphrodite, and, after several adventures, returned to Troy, where he was recognized by his royal family. Thetis gives her son Achilles weapons forged by Hephaestus detail of Attic black-figure hydria— BC Peleus and Thetis bore a son, whom they named Achilles.
It was foretold that he would either die of old age after an uneventful life, or die young in a battlefield and gain immortality through poetry. Some of these state that she held him over fire every night to burn away his mortal parts and rubbed him with ambrosia during the day, but Peleus discovered her actions and stopped her.
He grew up to be the greatest of all mortal warriors. After Calchas' prophesy, Thetis hid Achilles in Skyros at the court of King Lycomedeswhere he was disguised as a girl.
Her mother was Ledawho had been either raped or seduced by Zeus in the form of a swan. However, Helen is usually credited as Zeus' daughter, and sometimes Nemesis is credited as her mother.The Trojan Horse: How the Greeks Won the War (Step into Reading) [Emily Little] on srmvision.com *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers.
Illus. in full color. "An ancient history lesson emerges from this account of the way the Greeks tricked the Trojans and rescued Helen of Troy. The book is well tailored to younger readers with careful explanations and short sentences; a pronunciation guide is. The Trojan War Free Essay, Term Paper and Book Report Achilles and the Trojan War I: The Legend of Troy The legend of Troy has always been a mystery to historians, anthropologists, and .
His book, The Trojan War: A New History, is filled with his own interpretations and opinion, based on research and newly found discoveries, about the Trojan War.
3/5(4). The Trojan War Free Essay, Term Paper and Book Report Achilles and the Trojan War I: The Legend of Troy The legend of Troy has always been a mystery to historians, anthropologists, and anyone who has ever studied it.
"Book Report Of Trojan War" Essays and Research Papers Book Report Of Trojan War The film Troy, portrays several historical inaccuracies throughout the film. In the original versions, the Trojan war lasted for 24 years, but in this book, there is only 10 years of war.
This book shows how painful war is through death of loved ones, homesickness, dest This book is great in some ways but it falls apart in other ways/5. | 1,414 | ENGLISH | 1 |
This is the story of three families: the Graves, the Eatons and the Bootons.
The first family, the Graves, starts with Thomas Graves, gentleman, joining forces with several other men to form the Virginia Company, a subsidiary of the London Company. The other two subsidiaries were Plymouth and Somers Island (Barbados). The London Company was a stock company with the dual purpose of establishing colonial settlements and profiting from cash crops such as timber and tobacco. Although it was a privately owned stock company, it was granted a chapter by the new king, James I, which gave it a monopoly to explore, trade and settle.
Today we don't see a problem with investing in stocks, but this stock was quite expensive. Pamplets and broadsides had gone out all over England advertising a chance to buy in. But the cost of one share was 12 pounds, 10 shillings, about a six months' gross salary for a blue collar worker. Thomas Graves bought two shares.
On April 26, 1607, the first settlers of the company landed at the southern edge of the mouth of Chesapeake Bay, naming it Cape Henry. It is quite close to present day Virginia Beach.
A week later, after having been attacked by Indians, the settlers sailed 40 miles up the James River and established the Jamestown Settlement.
Thomas Graves arrived in the third ship, the second supply ship, in mid 1608, leaving his family behind. Despite the extra supplies the company struggled, especially financially. Part of the problem was lack of labor. Starvation and Indian attacks, as well as a ridiculous concept that "gentlemen don't work" slowed down development.
Despite the fact that over 500 colonists set sail for Virginia by 1608, only 60 people had survived to receive the new governor in early 1610.
However by 1612, due to Thomas Rolfe's experiments, sweet tobacco from Barbados was mixed with the sour tobacco available locally and the export business took off. Still with a labor shortage, a system of indentured service was developed by 1619, in which four to seven years work for the company was exchanged for passage, food, protection and 50 acres of land at the end.
In 1621, the colony was having trouble meeting taxes of the Crown. The following year, one quarter of the population was killed during the Indian Massacre of '22. Taxes were even harder to pay without people to harvest the tobacco. The king rescinded the charter and turned the status into a royal colony with a king-appointed governor.
Thomas Graves, who had bought two shares for 25 pounds, received 200 acres for his personal use. Apparently he took the ships back and forth between Virginia and London a number of times since he does not seem to have been much affected by the massacre or the starvation. And eventually, probably 1612, he brought his wife and two baby boys over. On June 30, 1618, Graves was sent out from Jamestown with a small band of settlers to establish the hamlet of Smythe's Hundred ten miles from Jamestown. When the house of Burgesses was established in 1619, he was a delegate.
Smythe's Hundred was abandoned after the massacre and he next moved to the eastern shore by early 1524. In 1625, the hamlet had 51 inhabitants. He became commissioner of Accomac County in 1629 having received twoo hundred acres the year before as payment for finding indentured for which he was paid 50 acres per servant. He was commissioned captain and served as a burgess for Accomac County in 1629-30 and again 1632. Graves was also a vestryman for the new church in 1635. He died in late 1635/early 1536, survived by his wife Katherin and children John, Thomas, Ann, Verlinda, Katherine and Frances.
Hungars Parish, Accomac County, was a sizeable hamlet by 1635. The first minister was Rev. Francis Bolton, but he did not last too many years. The first vestry meeting was Sept. 29, 1635. The vestrymen (parish council but with more power) were William Cotton, minister, Thomas Graves, Obedience Robins, John Howe, William Stone, William Burdett, William Andrews, John Wilkins, Alexander Mountray, Edward Drews, William Beneman and Stephen Charlton. To demonstrate how small the number of settlers, William Stone, William Cotton, William Burdett or their children all married into Graves' family.
The story now goes to the next generation, Ann. Ann Graves was born in the colony abpout 1620. At the age of 15, her father became vestryman in the Hungars Parish church. And the minister was William Cotton, recently arrived from England.
Cotton was the son of Andrew and Joane Cotton and was a graduate of Exeter Collee, Oxford University. Born about 1610, he graduated 1634-5 and was in Hungars Parish by February, 1634. Ann married William within a year or so.
One must understand the institutional structure of ecclesiastical feudal rights to dues, fees and perquisites common in England and Anglican Virginia. So, it should come as no surprise to find a minister in the wilderness of Virginia aggressively collecting tithes or "God's feudal dues" in order to advance his own modest but worldly career. It is amazing that Mr. Cotton used open litigation sanctioned by the local county court.
It all began when the General Assembly in Jamestown insisted on the compulsory payment of tithes to the Anglican Church of Virginia. The tithe was set at ten pounds of tobacco plus one bushel of corn per "tithable" with a surcharge payable in livestock. And failure to pay was punishable by twice the fee. Local church wardens were ordered to attach goods belonging to the delinquent parishoners. In January, 1633, the County Court of Accomac acknowledged the enactment.
In December 1633, the commissioners of the county again requested the church warden to initiate attachment proceedings. The following February, Mr. Cotton personally appeared before the commissioners to complain that the church warden was obstucting the progress of justice by "failing to obtain warrants and attach the goods owed to him as parish minister". In other words, Cotton was identified with the church. All things owed to the church thus were owed to him, personally.
Although relatives and friends joined the vestry to assist in the situation, Cotton eventually attacked the estate of the now deceased church warden and walked away with 300 acres of land.
Cotton died young in early 1640 and in his will, he left his land to his unborn child, who turned out to be a girl, named Verlinda, after her aunt.
Now we move, briefly, to Boston where Nathaniel Eaton lived with his wife and children. Educated at Westminster School and Trinity College of Cambridge, in England, he was good friends with John Harvard. They both immigrated to New England in the mid 1630s. Nathaniel's brother, Theophilus, came about the same time, but, not liking the austere Puritanical policies of Governor Winthrop, moved on to found New Haven in 1638.
Meanwhile, Nathaniel, seen as very educated, was invited by a committee to build a boarding school for young me. He was well funded and built both the building, planted an orchard, created its first semi-public library and established the colony's first printing press. Yet, one year later, he was fired following allegations that he beat the students and his wife gave them unfit meals. Eaton was tried and found guilty. However, the lack of information lead to the establishment of court reporters.
About the same time that Eaton was fired, he was also excommunicated from the congregation in Cambridge. He also had some serious debts against him.
He decided it was wise to leave the colony and he headed for Virginia, with instructions to his wife to follow. He arrived in 1639-40. The rest of the family was lost at sea.
Eaton found a small church in Hungar's Parish and became assistant to the minister. He met and married the widow Ann Cotton in short order. They had two sons by the time the New England debtors caught up with him. So, again, Eaton took off, this time back to England, in 1646-7. Ann thought he was dead. As it turned out, he was exonerated of 100pound debt after he left.
Later on Eaton was ordained an Anglican priest and appointed vicar of Bishops Castle, Salop in 1661 and rector of Bideford, Devon in 1669. But his debts followed him and he died in debtor prison in 1674.
Ann Cotton Eaton spent some years raising her children Verlinda, Samuel, and Nathaniel.
On June 8, 1657, she married again. This was another rector of the Hungars Parish church, Rev. Francis Doughty. He was 53, she was 37. Unfortunately, he was much of the same breed as the other two. He had been married before and had lived in Massachusetts before. There he had gotten into trouble with a church. He also had a several years long law suit with his sister over an inheritance before being dragged out of his church and chased out of town. Then he became a Presbyterian minister in Long Island before moving to Virginia.He had known her only a few months before they married. Later he became rector of Sittenborn and South Fardham in 1665. Apparently, he was opinionated and turned people against him. Around the beginning of 1668, he was told to leave the colony.
Ann was unwilling to move away from her family which now included four grandchildren and they divorced. In the divorce papers, Doughty claimed that the climate of Virginia no longer suited him, so he gave Ann 200 acres of land on the Rappahonnock River. In typical fashion, he gave the land a trustee, his son, Enoch, whose granddaughter married into one of my branches.
Verlina, Ann's daughter, had married just after her mother had, on September 1, 1658, to Thomas Burdett. They had five children, Thomas, Eliabeth, Frances, Parthenia and Sarah. He died within 10 years. Shortly after, she became engaged to Rochard Boughton, who before their marriage, was appointed trustee for Ann Cotton Eaton Doughty's land. She moved in with them and lived with them in Charles City Maryland until she died in 1686. Verlinda and Richard had four children: Samuel, Verlinda, Katherine and Mary. Verlinda died about the same time as her mother. Richard died in 1706.
Richard is not in my direct line. Either his brother or an uncle is the father of our direct line. However, it is pretty sure that Thomas Boughton, who arrived as an indentured servant in 1635, and bravely expanded his property, is our direct ancestor.
Elizabeth A Martina is a historical fiction writer, but the history is true and the characters are real. Her aim is to get people to see life from another perspective, using history as the venue. | <urn:uuid:520444e4-3161-4c37-8db9-f16a5779fc7d> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://elizabethamartina.weebly.com/elizabeths-thoughts/archives/03-2018 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251694908.82/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127051112-20200127081112-00135.warc.gz | en | 0.988726 | 2,324 | 3.609375 | 4 | [
0.26009222865104675,
0.16965259611606598,
0.31857967376708984,
-0.2370152473449707,
0.01655907928943634,
-0.09355545789003372,
0.01789785735309124,
-0.2754952907562256,
-0.2497459352016449,
0.03617106378078461,
0.22364693880081177,
-0.24447715282440186,
-0.10483052581548691,
0.094855904579... | 1 | This is the story of three families: the Graves, the Eatons and the Bootons.
The first family, the Graves, starts with Thomas Graves, gentleman, joining forces with several other men to form the Virginia Company, a subsidiary of the London Company. The other two subsidiaries were Plymouth and Somers Island (Barbados). The London Company was a stock company with the dual purpose of establishing colonial settlements and profiting from cash crops such as timber and tobacco. Although it was a privately owned stock company, it was granted a chapter by the new king, James I, which gave it a monopoly to explore, trade and settle.
Today we don't see a problem with investing in stocks, but this stock was quite expensive. Pamplets and broadsides had gone out all over England advertising a chance to buy in. But the cost of one share was 12 pounds, 10 shillings, about a six months' gross salary for a blue collar worker. Thomas Graves bought two shares.
On April 26, 1607, the first settlers of the company landed at the southern edge of the mouth of Chesapeake Bay, naming it Cape Henry. It is quite close to present day Virginia Beach.
A week later, after having been attacked by Indians, the settlers sailed 40 miles up the James River and established the Jamestown Settlement.
Thomas Graves arrived in the third ship, the second supply ship, in mid 1608, leaving his family behind. Despite the extra supplies the company struggled, especially financially. Part of the problem was lack of labor. Starvation and Indian attacks, as well as a ridiculous concept that "gentlemen don't work" slowed down development.
Despite the fact that over 500 colonists set sail for Virginia by 1608, only 60 people had survived to receive the new governor in early 1610.
However by 1612, due to Thomas Rolfe's experiments, sweet tobacco from Barbados was mixed with the sour tobacco available locally and the export business took off. Still with a labor shortage, a system of indentured service was developed by 1619, in which four to seven years work for the company was exchanged for passage, food, protection and 50 acres of land at the end.
In 1621, the colony was having trouble meeting taxes of the Crown. The following year, one quarter of the population was killed during the Indian Massacre of '22. Taxes were even harder to pay without people to harvest the tobacco. The king rescinded the charter and turned the status into a royal colony with a king-appointed governor.
Thomas Graves, who had bought two shares for 25 pounds, received 200 acres for his personal use. Apparently he took the ships back and forth between Virginia and London a number of times since he does not seem to have been much affected by the massacre or the starvation. And eventually, probably 1612, he brought his wife and two baby boys over. On June 30, 1618, Graves was sent out from Jamestown with a small band of settlers to establish the hamlet of Smythe's Hundred ten miles from Jamestown. When the house of Burgesses was established in 1619, he was a delegate.
Smythe's Hundred was abandoned after the massacre and he next moved to the eastern shore by early 1524. In 1625, the hamlet had 51 inhabitants. He became commissioner of Accomac County in 1629 having received twoo hundred acres the year before as payment for finding indentured for which he was paid 50 acres per servant. He was commissioned captain and served as a burgess for Accomac County in 1629-30 and again 1632. Graves was also a vestryman for the new church in 1635. He died in late 1635/early 1536, survived by his wife Katherin and children John, Thomas, Ann, Verlinda, Katherine and Frances.
Hungars Parish, Accomac County, was a sizeable hamlet by 1635. The first minister was Rev. Francis Bolton, but he did not last too many years. The first vestry meeting was Sept. 29, 1635. The vestrymen (parish council but with more power) were William Cotton, minister, Thomas Graves, Obedience Robins, John Howe, William Stone, William Burdett, William Andrews, John Wilkins, Alexander Mountray, Edward Drews, William Beneman and Stephen Charlton. To demonstrate how small the number of settlers, William Stone, William Cotton, William Burdett or their children all married into Graves' family.
The story now goes to the next generation, Ann. Ann Graves was born in the colony abpout 1620. At the age of 15, her father became vestryman in the Hungars Parish church. And the minister was William Cotton, recently arrived from England.
Cotton was the son of Andrew and Joane Cotton and was a graduate of Exeter Collee, Oxford University. Born about 1610, he graduated 1634-5 and was in Hungars Parish by February, 1634. Ann married William within a year or so.
One must understand the institutional structure of ecclesiastical feudal rights to dues, fees and perquisites common in England and Anglican Virginia. So, it should come as no surprise to find a minister in the wilderness of Virginia aggressively collecting tithes or "God's feudal dues" in order to advance his own modest but worldly career. It is amazing that Mr. Cotton used open litigation sanctioned by the local county court.
It all began when the General Assembly in Jamestown insisted on the compulsory payment of tithes to the Anglican Church of Virginia. The tithe was set at ten pounds of tobacco plus one bushel of corn per "tithable" with a surcharge payable in livestock. And failure to pay was punishable by twice the fee. Local church wardens were ordered to attach goods belonging to the delinquent parishoners. In January, 1633, the County Court of Accomac acknowledged the enactment.
In December 1633, the commissioners of the county again requested the church warden to initiate attachment proceedings. The following February, Mr. Cotton personally appeared before the commissioners to complain that the church warden was obstucting the progress of justice by "failing to obtain warrants and attach the goods owed to him as parish minister". In other words, Cotton was identified with the church. All things owed to the church thus were owed to him, personally.
Although relatives and friends joined the vestry to assist in the situation, Cotton eventually attacked the estate of the now deceased church warden and walked away with 300 acres of land.
Cotton died young in early 1640 and in his will, he left his land to his unborn child, who turned out to be a girl, named Verlinda, after her aunt.
Now we move, briefly, to Boston where Nathaniel Eaton lived with his wife and children. Educated at Westminster School and Trinity College of Cambridge, in England, he was good friends with John Harvard. They both immigrated to New England in the mid 1630s. Nathaniel's brother, Theophilus, came about the same time, but, not liking the austere Puritanical policies of Governor Winthrop, moved on to found New Haven in 1638.
Meanwhile, Nathaniel, seen as very educated, was invited by a committee to build a boarding school for young me. He was well funded and built both the building, planted an orchard, created its first semi-public library and established the colony's first printing press. Yet, one year later, he was fired following allegations that he beat the students and his wife gave them unfit meals. Eaton was tried and found guilty. However, the lack of information lead to the establishment of court reporters.
About the same time that Eaton was fired, he was also excommunicated from the congregation in Cambridge. He also had some serious debts against him.
He decided it was wise to leave the colony and he headed for Virginia, with instructions to his wife to follow. He arrived in 1639-40. The rest of the family was lost at sea.
Eaton found a small church in Hungar's Parish and became assistant to the minister. He met and married the widow Ann Cotton in short order. They had two sons by the time the New England debtors caught up with him. So, again, Eaton took off, this time back to England, in 1646-7. Ann thought he was dead. As it turned out, he was exonerated of 100pound debt after he left.
Later on Eaton was ordained an Anglican priest and appointed vicar of Bishops Castle, Salop in 1661 and rector of Bideford, Devon in 1669. But his debts followed him and he died in debtor prison in 1674.
Ann Cotton Eaton spent some years raising her children Verlinda, Samuel, and Nathaniel.
On June 8, 1657, she married again. This was another rector of the Hungars Parish church, Rev. Francis Doughty. He was 53, she was 37. Unfortunately, he was much of the same breed as the other two. He had been married before and had lived in Massachusetts before. There he had gotten into trouble with a church. He also had a several years long law suit with his sister over an inheritance before being dragged out of his church and chased out of town. Then he became a Presbyterian minister in Long Island before moving to Virginia.He had known her only a few months before they married. Later he became rector of Sittenborn and South Fardham in 1665. Apparently, he was opinionated and turned people against him. Around the beginning of 1668, he was told to leave the colony.
Ann was unwilling to move away from her family which now included four grandchildren and they divorced. In the divorce papers, Doughty claimed that the climate of Virginia no longer suited him, so he gave Ann 200 acres of land on the Rappahonnock River. In typical fashion, he gave the land a trustee, his son, Enoch, whose granddaughter married into one of my branches.
Verlina, Ann's daughter, had married just after her mother had, on September 1, 1658, to Thomas Burdett. They had five children, Thomas, Eliabeth, Frances, Parthenia and Sarah. He died within 10 years. Shortly after, she became engaged to Rochard Boughton, who before their marriage, was appointed trustee for Ann Cotton Eaton Doughty's land. She moved in with them and lived with them in Charles City Maryland until she died in 1686. Verlinda and Richard had four children: Samuel, Verlinda, Katherine and Mary. Verlinda died about the same time as her mother. Richard died in 1706.
Richard is not in my direct line. Either his brother or an uncle is the father of our direct line. However, it is pretty sure that Thomas Boughton, who arrived as an indentured servant in 1635, and bravely expanded his property, is our direct ancestor.
Elizabeth A Martina is a historical fiction writer, but the history is true and the characters are real. Her aim is to get people to see life from another perspective, using history as the venue. | 2,473 | ENGLISH | 1 |
-The Talmud says, in two places, "He who reports a saying in the name of its author brings deliverance to the world." [Megillah 15a; Chullin 104b]
-The Talmud is very careful to always attribute its teachings. The above is credited to Rabbi Elazar.
-Rashi and the Rambam did not generally attribute teachings in their writings. But then, their purpose was to summarize, to compile, to organize. They could have cited sources in footnotes, but didn't.
-Many later commentators cite Rashi and the Rambam as if they were the originators of teachings. For example: "See Rashi on Exodus 4:3". They could have looked up the original in Talmud or the midrashim, and credited it, but didn't.
-So why did Rashi, the Rambam, and many later commentators not follow the Talmudic injunction?
(If someone wishes to argue: "All rabbis quote their masters and it all goes back to Moses anyway, so why bother with names?", then why did the Talmud report that teaching and follow it scrupulously in every single page?) | <urn:uuid:2850a54f-24c0-4d22-89f1-5bdb8ece9caa> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/100644/giving-credit-where-credit-is-due | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251773463.72/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128030221-20200128060221-00182.warc.gz | en | 0.98032 | 247 | 3.296875 | 3 | [
-0.2023329883813858,
0.5459444522857666,
-0.2012534886598587,
0.12290312349796295,
0.046419184654951096,
0.008796465583145618,
0.42473986744880676,
0.2106446474790573,
0.3451143205165863,
-0.061679936945438385,
-0.12399372458457947,
0.0324779748916626,
0.095740407705307,
0.4081505537033081... | 6 | -The Talmud says, in two places, "He who reports a saying in the name of its author brings deliverance to the world." [Megillah 15a; Chullin 104b]
-The Talmud is very careful to always attribute its teachings. The above is credited to Rabbi Elazar.
-Rashi and the Rambam did not generally attribute teachings in their writings. But then, their purpose was to summarize, to compile, to organize. They could have cited sources in footnotes, but didn't.
-Many later commentators cite Rashi and the Rambam as if they were the originators of teachings. For example: "See Rashi on Exodus 4:3". They could have looked up the original in Talmud or the midrashim, and credited it, but didn't.
-So why did Rashi, the Rambam, and many later commentators not follow the Talmudic injunction?
(If someone wishes to argue: "All rabbis quote their masters and it all goes back to Moses anyway, so why bother with names?", then why did the Talmud report that teaching and follow it scrupulously in every single page?) | 251 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Ancient Egyptian art frequently depicts people wearing cone-shaped headgear, but none has ever been found.
Now an international team of archaeologists has uncovered the first ever physical evidence of Egyptian head cones in the ancient city of Armarna, 194 miles south of the capital Cairo.
The head cones, made from wax, were discovered at two graves in 2010 and 2015. They were found in fragments but researchers have been able to reconstruct their shape.
They provide the first conclusive evidence that the objects actually existed and were worn by Egyptians, according to the archaeologists.
Due to the lack of material evidence, scholars have previously speculated that the head cones only ever existed as mere depictions in art.
Some believed that they were entirely symbolic – like halos given to religious figures in Christian art – while others argued that they did exist but were made of materials that did not survive.
Cone 1 excavated at the South Tombs Cemetery in 2010, on the remains of an individual estimated to be a 20–29-year-old female
The Egyptian city of Amarna, 194 miles south of the Egyptian capital Cairo, was abandoned in 1332 after being occupied for only 15 years
The graves in which the cones were discovered are thought to have belonged to the non-elite, suggesting that the cones were not a particular mark of status.
‘These are the first archaeological examples of this usual headwear yet known from Egypt, although we have many images of people wearing them’, said Anna Stevens, lead author of the study.
‘Many questions remain about the meaning and function of the head cones – and the excavated examples won’t answer them all.
‘But careful excavation has now shown that the cones certainly existed in 3D form, that they could be worn by the deceased and that they were not only for the elite.’
Spectroscopy analysis of the cones revealed that they were hollow and made of plant or animal wax – most likely beeswax.
It is believed they may have been infused with perfume to purify the wearer so they could engage with the rituals and deities of the afterlife.
Other theories suggest they may be connected with ideas of fertility and resurrection.
Based on cranial and pelvic observations of the human remains found with the head cones, one of the bodies is believed to be of a woman aged between 20-29 years at her time of death, still with well-preserved hair under the cone.
The adult female remains in its original place of discovery, compelete with headcone and well-preserved hair
Excavations taking place at the North Tombs Cemetery in 2017 as part of the Amarna project
The second cone, found in 2015, belonged to a 15-20 year-old of indeterminate sex.
Researchers say it’s probable that these two cones were ‘model’ versions made for a burial environment, and that cones intended to be worn by the living could have been constructed differently.
Ancient Egyptians are often depicted wearing cones in artwork depicting banquets, worship and the afterlife.
Scholars often link the cones with sensuality and sexuality, as they frequently appear in artistic imagery of women – sometimes unclothed.
One popular theory is was that they were an unguent – pieces of fat or wax perfumed, perhaps with myrrh.
As the cone melted, the scent was released, with some ancient Egyptian literature suggesting that this process would scent and cleanse the hair and body.
Head cones are worn by females and males in Ancient Egyptian art depicting banqueting scenes, including those honouring the dead, funerals, or people being rewarded by the king
A reconstruction of the two cones, revealing they are both hollow
It is not known why these cones were included in the burials, but researchers suggest they may have been symbols meant to enhance the rebirth or personal fertility of the deceased in the afterlife.
They have also previously simply been interpreted more broadly as symbols of the tomb owner’s contentedness in the afterlife.
The city of Amarna was built by the pharaoh Akhenaten as home for the cult of the sun god Aten and now contains thousands of graves.
Akhenaten controversially placed much emphasis on the worship of the Egyptian sun, and away from Egyptian tradition of polytheism, the worship of multiple deities.
The city was abandoned around 10 years after the pharaoh’s death, despite only being occupied for 15 years from 1347 to 1332 BC.
But the abandoned city attracted ancient looters, who stole from all four cemeteries at the site.
This has made the task of piecing together all the disturbed burials all the more difficult for archaeologists of the Amarna Project, who have been excavating the site since2005.
The study of the two head cones has been published in the journal Antiquity.
WHO WAS AKHENATEN?
Akhenaten was a pharaoh of 18th Dynasty of the New Kingdom of Egypt.
The ancient Egyptian city of Tell el-Amarna (or simply Amarna) was the short-lived capital built by the ‘heretic’ Pharaoh Akhenaten and abandoned shortly after his death (c. 1332).
It was here that he pursued his vision of a society dedicated to the cult of one god, the power of the sun (the Aten) – seen as heresy at the time.
Akhenaten, upon becoming Pharaoh, ordered all the iconography of previous gods to be removed.
After his death, his monuments were dismantled and hidden and his statues were destroyed.
One of Akhenaten’s sons was Tutankhaten, who went on to become pharaoh and took the name Tutankhamun, one of the most famous ancient Egyptian pharaohs. | <urn:uuid:e16e57fd-51da-4388-bbfe-c719b479f8c8> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://expressdigest.com/archaeologists-reveal-first-ever-physical-remains-of-egyptian-head-cones/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251796127.92/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129102701-20200129132701-00243.warc.gz | en | 0.982183 | 1,201 | 3.671875 | 4 | [
-0.10814347863197327,
0.5202847719192505,
0.5577085018157959,
0.22936567664146423,
-0.6187762022018433,
0.32396647334098816,
0.5553102493286133,
-0.23999276757240295,
-0.16591623425483704,
0.1024770587682724,
0.18047013878822327,
-0.5886582136154175,
-0.26949071884155273,
0.160383850336074... | 1 | Ancient Egyptian art frequently depicts people wearing cone-shaped headgear, but none has ever been found.
Now an international team of archaeologists has uncovered the first ever physical evidence of Egyptian head cones in the ancient city of Armarna, 194 miles south of the capital Cairo.
The head cones, made from wax, were discovered at two graves in 2010 and 2015. They were found in fragments but researchers have been able to reconstruct their shape.
They provide the first conclusive evidence that the objects actually existed and were worn by Egyptians, according to the archaeologists.
Due to the lack of material evidence, scholars have previously speculated that the head cones only ever existed as mere depictions in art.
Some believed that they were entirely symbolic – like halos given to religious figures in Christian art – while others argued that they did exist but were made of materials that did not survive.
Cone 1 excavated at the South Tombs Cemetery in 2010, on the remains of an individual estimated to be a 20–29-year-old female
The Egyptian city of Amarna, 194 miles south of the Egyptian capital Cairo, was abandoned in 1332 after being occupied for only 15 years
The graves in which the cones were discovered are thought to have belonged to the non-elite, suggesting that the cones were not a particular mark of status.
‘These are the first archaeological examples of this usual headwear yet known from Egypt, although we have many images of people wearing them’, said Anna Stevens, lead author of the study.
‘Many questions remain about the meaning and function of the head cones – and the excavated examples won’t answer them all.
‘But careful excavation has now shown that the cones certainly existed in 3D form, that they could be worn by the deceased and that they were not only for the elite.’
Spectroscopy analysis of the cones revealed that they were hollow and made of plant or animal wax – most likely beeswax.
It is believed they may have been infused with perfume to purify the wearer so they could engage with the rituals and deities of the afterlife.
Other theories suggest they may be connected with ideas of fertility and resurrection.
Based on cranial and pelvic observations of the human remains found with the head cones, one of the bodies is believed to be of a woman aged between 20-29 years at her time of death, still with well-preserved hair under the cone.
The adult female remains in its original place of discovery, compelete with headcone and well-preserved hair
Excavations taking place at the North Tombs Cemetery in 2017 as part of the Amarna project
The second cone, found in 2015, belonged to a 15-20 year-old of indeterminate sex.
Researchers say it’s probable that these two cones were ‘model’ versions made for a burial environment, and that cones intended to be worn by the living could have been constructed differently.
Ancient Egyptians are often depicted wearing cones in artwork depicting banquets, worship and the afterlife.
Scholars often link the cones with sensuality and sexuality, as they frequently appear in artistic imagery of women – sometimes unclothed.
One popular theory is was that they were an unguent – pieces of fat or wax perfumed, perhaps with myrrh.
As the cone melted, the scent was released, with some ancient Egyptian literature suggesting that this process would scent and cleanse the hair and body.
Head cones are worn by females and males in Ancient Egyptian art depicting banqueting scenes, including those honouring the dead, funerals, or people being rewarded by the king
A reconstruction of the two cones, revealing they are both hollow
It is not known why these cones were included in the burials, but researchers suggest they may have been symbols meant to enhance the rebirth or personal fertility of the deceased in the afterlife.
They have also previously simply been interpreted more broadly as symbols of the tomb owner’s contentedness in the afterlife.
The city of Amarna was built by the pharaoh Akhenaten as home for the cult of the sun god Aten and now contains thousands of graves.
Akhenaten controversially placed much emphasis on the worship of the Egyptian sun, and away from Egyptian tradition of polytheism, the worship of multiple deities.
The city was abandoned around 10 years after the pharaoh’s death, despite only being occupied for 15 years from 1347 to 1332 BC.
But the abandoned city attracted ancient looters, who stole from all four cemeteries at the site.
This has made the task of piecing together all the disturbed burials all the more difficult for archaeologists of the Amarna Project, who have been excavating the site since2005.
The study of the two head cones has been published in the journal Antiquity.
WHO WAS AKHENATEN?
Akhenaten was a pharaoh of 18th Dynasty of the New Kingdom of Egypt.
The ancient Egyptian city of Tell el-Amarna (or simply Amarna) was the short-lived capital built by the ‘heretic’ Pharaoh Akhenaten and abandoned shortly after his death (c. 1332).
It was here that he pursued his vision of a society dedicated to the cult of one god, the power of the sun (the Aten) – seen as heresy at the time.
Akhenaten, upon becoming Pharaoh, ordered all the iconography of previous gods to be removed.
After his death, his monuments were dismantled and hidden and his statues were destroyed.
One of Akhenaten’s sons was Tutankhaten, who went on to become pharaoh and took the name Tutankhamun, one of the most famous ancient Egyptian pharaohs. | 1,212 | ENGLISH | 1 |
When he was just 11 years old, George Washington inherited 10 enslaved workers from his father’s estate. He would acquire many more in the years to come, whether through the death of other family members or by purchasing them directly. When he married the wealthy widow Martha Dandridge Custis in 1759, she brought more than 80 enslaved workers along with her, bringing the total number of enslaved men, women and children at Mount Vernon to more than 150 by the time the Revolutionary War began.
Ona Judge was born around 1773. Her mother, Betty, was a “dower slave,” part of the estate of Martha’s first husband; her father, Andrew Judge, was a white indentured servant who had recently arrived in America from Leeds, England. After fulfilling his four-year work contract at Mount Vernon, Andrew Judge moved off the plantation to start his own farm. As children born to enslaved women were considered property of the slaveholder, according to Virginia law, his daughter remained in bondage.
Ona, more commonly known as Oney, moved into the mansion house when she was just 9 years old. Like her mother, she became a talented and highly valued seamstress, and was later promoted to become Martha Washington’s personal maid. When Washington headed to New York City in 1789 for his inauguration as president, Oney was one of only a handful of enslaved people the couple took with them. Late the following year, when the federal capital moved to Philadelphia, the presidential household moved with it.
With an active and growing free black community of some 6,000 people, Philadelphia had become the nation’s leading hotbed of abolitionism. In fact, as Erica Armstrong Dunbar writes in her book, Never Caught: The Washingtons’ Relentless Pursuit of Their Runaway Slave, Ona Judge, Oney would have been in the minority as a enslaved woman in Philadelphia; fewer than 100 slaves lived within city limits in 1796. To evade a gradual abolition law that took effect in Pennsylvania in 1780, the Washingtons made sure to transport their enslaved workers in and out of the state every six months to avoid them establishing legal residency.
As the first lady’s bodyservant, Judge helped dress her mistress for special events, traveled with her on social calls and ran errands for her. Over more than five years in Philadelphia—traveling in and out every six months—she met and became acquainted with members of the city’s free black community and former enslaved workers who had gained their freedom under the gradual abolition law. Such interactions undoubtedly fueled her thinking about slavery, the changing laws regarding the institution and the possibilities of freedom.
In the spring of 1796, when she was 22 years old, Judge learned that Martha Washington planned to give her away as a wedding gift to her famously temperamental granddaughter, Elizabeth Parke Custis. As Dunbar writes, “Martha Washington’s decision to turn Judge over to Eliza was a reminder to Judge and everyone enslaved at the Executive Mansion that they had absolutely no control over their lives, no matter how loyally they served.”
So, as the household prepared for the Washingtons’ return to Mount Vernon for the summer, Judge made plans for her escape. On May 21, 1796, she slipped out of the mansion while the president and first lady were eating their supper. Members of the free black community helped her get aboard a ship commanded by Captain John Bowles, who sailed frequently between Philadelphia, New York and Portsmouth, New Hampshire. After a five-day journey, Judge disembarked in that coastal city, where she would begin her new life.
With a free black population of some 360 citizens and virtually no enslaved workers, Portsmouth was different from any place Judge had ever known. She found lodging within the free black community, which was accustomed to aiding fugitive slaves, and supported herself doing domestic work, one of the few opportunities available for women of color.
During the summer after she escaped, Judge was walking in Portsmouth when she saw Elizabeth Langdon, the daughter of New Hampshire Senator John Langdon. Betsy Langdon recognized Oney, having encountered her before when calling on Martha Washington, a family friend, or her granddaughter Nelly Custis. After Judge passed by without acknowledging her, Betsy likely told her father of the sighting, and her father felt obligated to notify Washington of his fugitive slave’s whereabouts.
Trying to act discreetly, Washington got in contact with Joseph Whipple, the collector of customs in Portsmouth and the brother of famed Revolutionary General William Whipple. When Whipple tracked Judge down (by falsely advertising that he was seeking a female domestic for his home), he asked her about her reasons for fleeing bondage, and offered to negotiate on her behalf. He subsequently wrote to Washington that she had agreed to return, on the condition that she be freed when Martha Washington died.
Dunbar writes in her book that Judge never intended to honor this agreement: “She told Whipple what he wanted to hear, agreed to return to her owners, and left his presence with no intention of ever keeping her word.” In any case, Washington bluntly refused Whipple’s proposal, writing that “To enter into such a compromise…is totally inadmissible.” Though he might be in favor of gradual abolition of slavery, the president continued, he didn’t want to reward Judge’s “unfaithfulness” and inspire other enslaved people to try and escape.
By the 1780s, Washington’s feelings about slavery had changed, and he expressed his uneasiness with the institution to close friends, including his Revolutionary War comrade the Marquis de Lafayette. But as his reaction to Judge’s escape made clear, Washington was not ready to give up on the bound labor on which his Virginia plantation—and his life—was built. Far from a passive bystander in the perpetuation of slavery, Washington at this point was actively engaged in returning Judge to his (or his wife’s) possession.
With antislavery sentiment growing in New Hampshire, and Washington’s influence waning as his term ended, Whipple did little more to pursue Judge on his behalf. Safe for the time being, she started building a life in Portsmouth, and married Jack Staines, a free black sailor, in early 1797.
Though marriage gave her some additional legal protection, Ona remained vigilant–with good reason. In August 1799, Washington asked his nephew, Burwell Bassett Jr., to try and seize Judge and any children she may have had on his upcoming business trip to New Hampshire. When Bassett dined with Langdon and told him of his intention, the senator quickly got word to Ona through one of his servants. Jack Staines was at sea at the time, but Ona managed to escape to the neighboring town of Greenland, where she and her infant daughter hid with a free black family, the Jacks, until Bassett left Portsmouth, empty-handed.
Four months later, George Washington died, freeing all of his enslaved workers according to his will. Though the gesture was far from meaningless, it didn’t go far enough. Martha Washington, who lived until 1802, couldn’t even legally have emancipated her enslaved workers upon her death (including, technically, Oney Judge Staines and her children), as they were part of her inheritance from her first husband and by law went to her surviving grandchildren. In the end, Washington and his fellow founders would push the hard decisions about slavery off onto future generations of Americans–with explosive consequences.
Ona Judge Staines lived with her husband and their three children until Jack’s death in 1803. After briefly holding a live-in position with the Bartlett family in Portsmouth, Ona left and moved with her children into the home of the Jacks family, where they remained. Work was scarce, and Ona’s son, William, is believed to have left home in the 1820s to become a sailor, like his father. Her two daughters, Eliza and Nancy, were sadly forced into indentured servitude; both died before their mother. After she became too old for physical labor, Ona herself lived in poverty, relying on donations from the community.
Despite all the hardships, Ona enjoyed the benefits of a life of freedom: She taught herself to read and write, embraced Christianity and worshiped regularly at a church of her choice. Several years before her death in 1848, she granted two interviews to abolitionist newspapers recounting her journey from bondage. When a reporter from the Granite Freeman asked her if she regretted leaving the relative luxury of the Washingtons’ household, as she had worked so much harder after her escape, Ona Judge Staines memorably replied “No, I am free, and have, I trust been made a child of God by the means.” | <urn:uuid:0338c29d-4e19-4fd0-9fea-c3820b85d08d> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.history.com/news/george-washington-and-the-slave-who-got-away | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250609478.50/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123071220-20200123100220-00082.warc.gz | en | 0.983999 | 1,852 | 3.71875 | 4 | [
-0.4900277853012085,
0.611689031124115,
0.15195941925048828,
-0.310187965631485,
-0.5554248094558716,
0.20884796977043152,
0.0071402983739972115,
-0.3322695195674896,
-0.07659056782722473,
0.07348516583442688,
0.3043409585952759,
0.5122614502906799,
-0.4147033393383026,
0.25016698241233826... | 1 | When he was just 11 years old, George Washington inherited 10 enslaved workers from his father’s estate. He would acquire many more in the years to come, whether through the death of other family members or by purchasing them directly. When he married the wealthy widow Martha Dandridge Custis in 1759, she brought more than 80 enslaved workers along with her, bringing the total number of enslaved men, women and children at Mount Vernon to more than 150 by the time the Revolutionary War began.
Ona Judge was born around 1773. Her mother, Betty, was a “dower slave,” part of the estate of Martha’s first husband; her father, Andrew Judge, was a white indentured servant who had recently arrived in America from Leeds, England. After fulfilling his four-year work contract at Mount Vernon, Andrew Judge moved off the plantation to start his own farm. As children born to enslaved women were considered property of the slaveholder, according to Virginia law, his daughter remained in bondage.
Ona, more commonly known as Oney, moved into the mansion house when she was just 9 years old. Like her mother, she became a talented and highly valued seamstress, and was later promoted to become Martha Washington’s personal maid. When Washington headed to New York City in 1789 for his inauguration as president, Oney was one of only a handful of enslaved people the couple took with them. Late the following year, when the federal capital moved to Philadelphia, the presidential household moved with it.
With an active and growing free black community of some 6,000 people, Philadelphia had become the nation’s leading hotbed of abolitionism. In fact, as Erica Armstrong Dunbar writes in her book, Never Caught: The Washingtons’ Relentless Pursuit of Their Runaway Slave, Ona Judge, Oney would have been in the minority as a enslaved woman in Philadelphia; fewer than 100 slaves lived within city limits in 1796. To evade a gradual abolition law that took effect in Pennsylvania in 1780, the Washingtons made sure to transport their enslaved workers in and out of the state every six months to avoid them establishing legal residency.
As the first lady’s bodyservant, Judge helped dress her mistress for special events, traveled with her on social calls and ran errands for her. Over more than five years in Philadelphia—traveling in and out every six months—she met and became acquainted with members of the city’s free black community and former enslaved workers who had gained their freedom under the gradual abolition law. Such interactions undoubtedly fueled her thinking about slavery, the changing laws regarding the institution and the possibilities of freedom.
In the spring of 1796, when she was 22 years old, Judge learned that Martha Washington planned to give her away as a wedding gift to her famously temperamental granddaughter, Elizabeth Parke Custis. As Dunbar writes, “Martha Washington’s decision to turn Judge over to Eliza was a reminder to Judge and everyone enslaved at the Executive Mansion that they had absolutely no control over their lives, no matter how loyally they served.”
So, as the household prepared for the Washingtons’ return to Mount Vernon for the summer, Judge made plans for her escape. On May 21, 1796, she slipped out of the mansion while the president and first lady were eating their supper. Members of the free black community helped her get aboard a ship commanded by Captain John Bowles, who sailed frequently between Philadelphia, New York and Portsmouth, New Hampshire. After a five-day journey, Judge disembarked in that coastal city, where she would begin her new life.
With a free black population of some 360 citizens and virtually no enslaved workers, Portsmouth was different from any place Judge had ever known. She found lodging within the free black community, which was accustomed to aiding fugitive slaves, and supported herself doing domestic work, one of the few opportunities available for women of color.
During the summer after she escaped, Judge was walking in Portsmouth when she saw Elizabeth Langdon, the daughter of New Hampshire Senator John Langdon. Betsy Langdon recognized Oney, having encountered her before when calling on Martha Washington, a family friend, or her granddaughter Nelly Custis. After Judge passed by without acknowledging her, Betsy likely told her father of the sighting, and her father felt obligated to notify Washington of his fugitive slave’s whereabouts.
Trying to act discreetly, Washington got in contact with Joseph Whipple, the collector of customs in Portsmouth and the brother of famed Revolutionary General William Whipple. When Whipple tracked Judge down (by falsely advertising that he was seeking a female domestic for his home), he asked her about her reasons for fleeing bondage, and offered to negotiate on her behalf. He subsequently wrote to Washington that she had agreed to return, on the condition that she be freed when Martha Washington died.
Dunbar writes in her book that Judge never intended to honor this agreement: “She told Whipple what he wanted to hear, agreed to return to her owners, and left his presence with no intention of ever keeping her word.” In any case, Washington bluntly refused Whipple’s proposal, writing that “To enter into such a compromise…is totally inadmissible.” Though he might be in favor of gradual abolition of slavery, the president continued, he didn’t want to reward Judge’s “unfaithfulness” and inspire other enslaved people to try and escape.
By the 1780s, Washington’s feelings about slavery had changed, and he expressed his uneasiness with the institution to close friends, including his Revolutionary War comrade the Marquis de Lafayette. But as his reaction to Judge’s escape made clear, Washington was not ready to give up on the bound labor on which his Virginia plantation—and his life—was built. Far from a passive bystander in the perpetuation of slavery, Washington at this point was actively engaged in returning Judge to his (or his wife’s) possession.
With antislavery sentiment growing in New Hampshire, and Washington’s influence waning as his term ended, Whipple did little more to pursue Judge on his behalf. Safe for the time being, she started building a life in Portsmouth, and married Jack Staines, a free black sailor, in early 1797.
Though marriage gave her some additional legal protection, Ona remained vigilant–with good reason. In August 1799, Washington asked his nephew, Burwell Bassett Jr., to try and seize Judge and any children she may have had on his upcoming business trip to New Hampshire. When Bassett dined with Langdon and told him of his intention, the senator quickly got word to Ona through one of his servants. Jack Staines was at sea at the time, but Ona managed to escape to the neighboring town of Greenland, where she and her infant daughter hid with a free black family, the Jacks, until Bassett left Portsmouth, empty-handed.
Four months later, George Washington died, freeing all of his enslaved workers according to his will. Though the gesture was far from meaningless, it didn’t go far enough. Martha Washington, who lived until 1802, couldn’t even legally have emancipated her enslaved workers upon her death (including, technically, Oney Judge Staines and her children), as they were part of her inheritance from her first husband and by law went to her surviving grandchildren. In the end, Washington and his fellow founders would push the hard decisions about slavery off onto future generations of Americans–with explosive consequences.
Ona Judge Staines lived with her husband and their three children until Jack’s death in 1803. After briefly holding a live-in position with the Bartlett family in Portsmouth, Ona left and moved with her children into the home of the Jacks family, where they remained. Work was scarce, and Ona’s son, William, is believed to have left home in the 1820s to become a sailor, like his father. Her two daughters, Eliza and Nancy, were sadly forced into indentured servitude; both died before their mother. After she became too old for physical labor, Ona herself lived in poverty, relying on donations from the community.
Despite all the hardships, Ona enjoyed the benefits of a life of freedom: She taught herself to read and write, embraced Christianity and worshiped regularly at a church of her choice. Several years before her death in 1848, she granted two interviews to abolitionist newspapers recounting her journey from bondage. When a reporter from the Granite Freeman asked her if she regretted leaving the relative luxury of the Washingtons’ household, as she had worked so much harder after her escape, Ona Judge Staines memorably replied “No, I am free, and have, I trust been made a child of God by the means.” | 1,839 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Download this resource
Save PDFs to your computer or to Google Drive.
Meanwhile at the Creek...
1 Student Writing Sample
Lesson: Include Someone, Make a Difference
Full lesson text and accompanying resources
Meanwhile at the Creek…
By Gabriela T., 826 Valencia
In this resolution inspired by the "Include Someone" lesson and Cartoon Network storyboard, we learn that inclusive leaders take action—they don't wait for others to make a difference.
Narrative, Social-Emotional Learning
This story was written in response to the Include Someone, Make a Difference lesson. Gabriela, student from 826 Valencia, chose to write an inclusive ending to finish the storyboard created by Cartoon Network:
Wondering what happens next? Read on to discover Gabriela’s inclusive resolution:
…Kelsey and JP noticed that Craig has been gloomily left out, a wistful look residing on their faces. They feel ineffective just glancing over at Craig and not being able to help because they are very shy. They feel like starting a conversation with Craig and inviting him to hang out with them, but the fear of making things worse prevents them from doing anything. They’ve always wanted to learn how to bike and make new friends, but they are never able to follow their gut. So, they just walk to the nearest bench and sit down. Craig notices them, but is afraid to talk to talk to them. Thinking they will ignore him and not wanting to feel excluded again on such a tough day, he feels his eyes get glassy and he feels a knot in his throat.
The first tear is about to roll down his face when he feels a tap on his shoulder. Next to him stands a young, beautiful girl about his age with a blue and pink bun hovering above her head, a cute small nose, and her brilliant smile which gives her a caring, kind, and sweet feel. Behind her, are Kelsey and JP looking amazingly happy. (Craig wondered what had happened to make them so happy). Just then, before he knew it, a big bright smile spread across Craig’s face.
“Hello Craig, I’m Lillie. Nice to meet you,” the girl named Lillie says.
Craig smiles even more and shakes her hand saying “Nice to meet you, Lillie.”
“How do you know my name?” asked Craig.
“Well, I just happened to be walking by when I noticed a sad, disappointing look on your face and my heart broke. I wondered who had made you feel sad, but when I saw when I saw those two other kids on a hunch looking over at you and wondered why they excluded you. I asked the bikers if they knew what was going on and they told me the whole story. I wasn’t just going to leave or wish for someone else to talk to you. I decided to come talk to you so we could hopefully become friends because I can teach you how to ride a bike. Kelsey and JP have always wanted to be your friends, but they were too shy to start a conversation. So, we decided to come and hang out with you.”
Craig could not believe what was happening. He felt the happiest he had ever felt. They became great friends in the short time they had spent together. They chatted and learned how to skate together. But Handlebar was still ignoring Craig and they needed to solve this problem. So, just like that, Craig accompanied by Lillie approached Handlebar. At first, Handlebar did not want to listen to them, but eventually he reflected Craig’s sad expression when he realized he had hurt Craig’s feelings.
“I’m so sorry for treating you like that. Will you forgive me?”
“Of course,” said Craig. “Friends have their disagreements at times, but really good friends know how to forgive.”
Everyone around Craig smiled and joy filled the air. Craig got on the ramp and floated along with his bike in the air. Everyone was amazed at how good he had become with the help of Lillie.
“Thanks for everything, you are amazing!” Craig told Lillie. And just like that, they forgave each other, laughing so hard they cried. They learned from each other what the true definition of friendship was. | <urn:uuid:16bc65e9-0909-475f-8398-0f429262151c> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://826digital.com/writing/meanwhile-at-the-creek/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251783621.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129010251-20200129040251-00181.warc.gz | en | 0.981998 | 924 | 3.359375 | 3 | [
-0.38611942529678345,
-0.41662168502807617,
0.525326669216156,
0.30849993228912354,
-0.44017088413238525,
0.04524274170398712,
0.1616731584072113,
0.31579434871673584,
0.08294945955276489,
-0.2810695469379425,
0.3679767847061157,
-0.1350812017917633,
0.22948916256427765,
0.1639681309461593... | 3 | Download this resource
Save PDFs to your computer or to Google Drive.
Meanwhile at the Creek...
1 Student Writing Sample
Lesson: Include Someone, Make a Difference
Full lesson text and accompanying resources
Meanwhile at the Creek…
By Gabriela T., 826 Valencia
In this resolution inspired by the "Include Someone" lesson and Cartoon Network storyboard, we learn that inclusive leaders take action—they don't wait for others to make a difference.
Narrative, Social-Emotional Learning
This story was written in response to the Include Someone, Make a Difference lesson. Gabriela, student from 826 Valencia, chose to write an inclusive ending to finish the storyboard created by Cartoon Network:
Wondering what happens next? Read on to discover Gabriela’s inclusive resolution:
…Kelsey and JP noticed that Craig has been gloomily left out, a wistful look residing on their faces. They feel ineffective just glancing over at Craig and not being able to help because they are very shy. They feel like starting a conversation with Craig and inviting him to hang out with them, but the fear of making things worse prevents them from doing anything. They’ve always wanted to learn how to bike and make new friends, but they are never able to follow their gut. So, they just walk to the nearest bench and sit down. Craig notices them, but is afraid to talk to talk to them. Thinking they will ignore him and not wanting to feel excluded again on such a tough day, he feels his eyes get glassy and he feels a knot in his throat.
The first tear is about to roll down his face when he feels a tap on his shoulder. Next to him stands a young, beautiful girl about his age with a blue and pink bun hovering above her head, a cute small nose, and her brilliant smile which gives her a caring, kind, and sweet feel. Behind her, are Kelsey and JP looking amazingly happy. (Craig wondered what had happened to make them so happy). Just then, before he knew it, a big bright smile spread across Craig’s face.
“Hello Craig, I’m Lillie. Nice to meet you,” the girl named Lillie says.
Craig smiles even more and shakes her hand saying “Nice to meet you, Lillie.”
“How do you know my name?” asked Craig.
“Well, I just happened to be walking by when I noticed a sad, disappointing look on your face and my heart broke. I wondered who had made you feel sad, but when I saw when I saw those two other kids on a hunch looking over at you and wondered why they excluded you. I asked the bikers if they knew what was going on and they told me the whole story. I wasn’t just going to leave or wish for someone else to talk to you. I decided to come talk to you so we could hopefully become friends because I can teach you how to ride a bike. Kelsey and JP have always wanted to be your friends, but they were too shy to start a conversation. So, we decided to come and hang out with you.”
Craig could not believe what was happening. He felt the happiest he had ever felt. They became great friends in the short time they had spent together. They chatted and learned how to skate together. But Handlebar was still ignoring Craig and they needed to solve this problem. So, just like that, Craig accompanied by Lillie approached Handlebar. At first, Handlebar did not want to listen to them, but eventually he reflected Craig’s sad expression when he realized he had hurt Craig’s feelings.
“I’m so sorry for treating you like that. Will you forgive me?”
“Of course,” said Craig. “Friends have their disagreements at times, but really good friends know how to forgive.”
Everyone around Craig smiled and joy filled the air. Craig got on the ramp and floated along with his bike in the air. Everyone was amazed at how good he had become with the help of Lillie.
“Thanks for everything, you are amazing!” Craig told Lillie. And just like that, they forgave each other, laughing so hard they cried. They learned from each other what the true definition of friendship was. | 861 | ENGLISH | 1 |
"Racial prejudice happens because of ignorance, lack of understanding, and cultural Backgrounds." What quotes from The House on Mango Street help support this theme?
In "Those Who Don't," Sanda Cisneros writes, "Those who don't know any better come into our neighborhood scared. They think we're dangerous. They think we will attack them with shiny knives." She says that they're stupid and got lost and are there by mistake. She goes on to explain that when she's in a neighborhood and everyone there is brown like her, she's safe. When she is familiar with a place, she can relax and feel at home. Lack of familiarity breeds fear.
It isn't that the people in her neighborhood are dangerous. It's that the visitors don't know any better and are scared of what might happen.
To make it clear that it's not something that affects one group of people, she says, "But watch us drive into a neighborhood of another color and our knees go shakity-shake and our car windows get rolled up tight and our eyes look straight." This shows how nervous they are. They are so scared that their bodies are reacting by shaking and they're looking around, alert and aware that there could be potential trouble.
The speaker knows that racial prejudice happens because of a lack of understanding. People are familiar with what they know; in this case, that's represented by their racially distinct neighborhoods. Once they venture outside those boundaries, they're outside their comfort zone. They react with fear because all they know are the views of the people there that they've heard from others. Prejudice guides their feelings and actions.
check Approved by eNotes Editorial | <urn:uuid:6c339a80-b7ec-408d-a06e-edb91eeaa4fb> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/racial-prejudice-happens-because-of-ignorance-2106647 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251776516.99/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128060946-20200128090946-00177.warc.gz | en | 0.986665 | 346 | 3.421875 | 3 | [
0.34093308448791504,
-0.22680668532848358,
0.28808659315109253,
0.2421293705701828,
0.2511182427406311,
0.0826098695397377,
0.8861261606216431,
0.08862626552581787,
0.010955768637359142,
0.043337631970644,
0.5406513214111328,
-0.08973900228738785,
-0.10474922508001328,
0.20214003324508667,... | 1 | "Racial prejudice happens because of ignorance, lack of understanding, and cultural Backgrounds." What quotes from The House on Mango Street help support this theme?
In "Those Who Don't," Sanda Cisneros writes, "Those who don't know any better come into our neighborhood scared. They think we're dangerous. They think we will attack them with shiny knives." She says that they're stupid and got lost and are there by mistake. She goes on to explain that when she's in a neighborhood and everyone there is brown like her, she's safe. When she is familiar with a place, she can relax and feel at home. Lack of familiarity breeds fear.
It isn't that the people in her neighborhood are dangerous. It's that the visitors don't know any better and are scared of what might happen.
To make it clear that it's not something that affects one group of people, she says, "But watch us drive into a neighborhood of another color and our knees go shakity-shake and our car windows get rolled up tight and our eyes look straight." This shows how nervous they are. They are so scared that their bodies are reacting by shaking and they're looking around, alert and aware that there could be potential trouble.
The speaker knows that racial prejudice happens because of a lack of understanding. People are familiar with what they know; in this case, that's represented by their racially distinct neighborhoods. Once they venture outside those boundaries, they're outside their comfort zone. They react with fear because all they know are the views of the people there that they've heard from others. Prejudice guides their feelings and actions.
check Approved by eNotes Editorial | 340 | ENGLISH | 1 |
During the 16th Century, in Great Britain, Henry VIII encouraged farmers to plant the crop extensively to provide materials for the British Naval fleet. It took a steady supply of hemp for the construction of battleships and their components. Other items such as maps and Bibles were also made with hemp paper.
During the 17th century, farmers in America were encouraged to grow hemp. The United States census of 1850 states that there were a total of 8,327 hemp plantations, with each being a minimum of 2,000 acres. For years, farmers harvested hemp by hand. Finally a machine was built that would take care of the entire harvesting process and by 1920 the hemp crop was entirely harvested by machinery.
As time went on, competitors started viewing hemp as a threat. As a result a smear campaign against hemp was started, associating hemp with marijuana. To follow, propaganda films were released to assure hemp’s demise. When Congress passed the Marijuana Tax Act in 1937, the decline of hemp effectively began. The tax and licensing regulations of the act made hemp cultivation nearly impossible for American farmers.
However, during World War II, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor halted the importation of Manila hemp from the Philippines. Although American farmers were still prohibited by law from growing hemp, this situation did cause the USDA to reconsider their agenda. They created a call to action with the release of Hemp for Victory, encouraging farmers to grow hemp for the war effort. War Hemp Industries was created by the government to subsidize hemp cultivation. Over a million acres were grown across the Midwest as part of the program. As you could already guess, once the war was over the processing plants were shut down and the industry disappeared again.
From 1937 until the late 1960s the United States government recognized that Industrial Hemp and marijuana were two distinct varieties of the cannabis plant. After the Controlled Substances Act was passed in 1970, hemp was no longer recognized as being distinct from marijuana. | <urn:uuid:624a289f-ecec-43aa-8286-cf8a920bca3f> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://greengenerationcbd.com/history-of-hemp/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251690095.81/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126165718-20200126195718-00100.warc.gz | en | 0.984165 | 394 | 3.5625 | 4 | [
-0.28989773988723755,
0.04328136891126633,
-0.01793334074318409,
-0.2586330473423004,
0.2804601788520813,
0.12943361699581146,
-0.1419663280248642,
0.2386224865913391,
-0.3862929046154022,
0.31727027893066406,
-0.03264183923602104,
-0.025879519060254097,
-0.023464851081371307,
0.2460018694... | 4 | During the 16th Century, in Great Britain, Henry VIII encouraged farmers to plant the crop extensively to provide materials for the British Naval fleet. It took a steady supply of hemp for the construction of battleships and their components. Other items such as maps and Bibles were also made with hemp paper.
During the 17th century, farmers in America were encouraged to grow hemp. The United States census of 1850 states that there were a total of 8,327 hemp plantations, with each being a minimum of 2,000 acres. For years, farmers harvested hemp by hand. Finally a machine was built that would take care of the entire harvesting process and by 1920 the hemp crop was entirely harvested by machinery.
As time went on, competitors started viewing hemp as a threat. As a result a smear campaign against hemp was started, associating hemp with marijuana. To follow, propaganda films were released to assure hemp’s demise. When Congress passed the Marijuana Tax Act in 1937, the decline of hemp effectively began. The tax and licensing regulations of the act made hemp cultivation nearly impossible for American farmers.
However, during World War II, the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor halted the importation of Manila hemp from the Philippines. Although American farmers were still prohibited by law from growing hemp, this situation did cause the USDA to reconsider their agenda. They created a call to action with the release of Hemp for Victory, encouraging farmers to grow hemp for the war effort. War Hemp Industries was created by the government to subsidize hemp cultivation. Over a million acres were grown across the Midwest as part of the program. As you could already guess, once the war was over the processing plants were shut down and the industry disappeared again.
From 1937 until the late 1960s the United States government recognized that Industrial Hemp and marijuana were two distinct varieties of the cannabis plant. After the Controlled Substances Act was passed in 1970, hemp was no longer recognized as being distinct from marijuana. | 423 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Scientific analysis of King Richard I's heart shows that Christians in the 12<sup>th century did embalm church leaders and royalty.
In the past, Christians have played down the practice of embalming because of its pagan roots. However, evidence of the Lionheart's actual heart has provem that it did happen.
Researchers from the Raymond Poincaré University Hospital in Garches, France, examined his heart 800 years after he died and published their findings in the journal Scientific Reports.
Richard is well known for his part in the Crusades. He fought against the Muslim sultan Saladin during the Third Crusade in the 12<sup>th century.
When he returned home he found Europe wartorn and spent his final years trying to suppress a revolt in the French territories.
In March 1199, Richard was pierced by an arrow in the left shoulder while laying siege to the castle of Châlus-Chabrol in the Limousin region.
He died 12 days later from what historians believe was an infected wound. His entrails were removed and stored in a coffin in Châlus while his body was sent to Fontevraud Abbey in Anjou.
But his heart was embalmed so that it could be preserved for the 500km journey to Notre Dame Cathedral in Rouen, which at the time was the base for English forces in Normandy.
In the 19<sup>th century, his heart was rediscovered by local historian Achille Deville inside a reliquary the size of a shoebox.
Philippe Charlier, a forensic pathologist and anthropologist, took two grams of the heart's powdered remains for tests.
Charlier has previously uncovered historical lies through forensic tests; he found that sacred bones thought to belong to Joan of Arc were actually those of an Egyptian mummy.
He also successfully identified the head of King Henry IV of France, who was assassinated in 1610 and and then decapitated during the French Revolution 180 years later.
In examining Richard's heart, the team found it had been preserved in a host of embalming agents, including pollen grains from myrtle, mint and other known embalming plants, including bellflower, which were in bloom at the time Richard died.
They also found high concentrations of calcium, suggesting that lime was used as a preservative, as well as traces of creosote and frankincense.
Stephen Buckley, an archaeological chemist at the University of York, added: "It proves that embalming of Christians did happen. The Church has tried to downplay the use of embalming in religious leaders and royalty [because of pagan origins]."
Charlier added: "We were surprised to get so much information." | <urn:uuid:3f963a8c-8f81-416c-88be-f1c41f59735a> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/king-richard-lionheart-heart-analysed-french-scientists-440687 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251802249.87/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129194333-20200129223333-00169.warc.gz | en | 0.981714 | 563 | 3.265625 | 3 | [
-0.36523520946502686,
0.866936981678009,
0.1779315173625946,
-0.06025595963001251,
-0.045329853892326355,
-0.16558937728405,
-0.11598268151283264,
0.24310269951820374,
-0.004273654893040657,
0.11767810583114624,
-0.18492446839809418,
-0.24790041148662567,
0.07376990467309952,
0.02847770974... | 1 | Scientific analysis of King Richard I's heart shows that Christians in the 12<sup>th century did embalm church leaders and royalty.
In the past, Christians have played down the practice of embalming because of its pagan roots. However, evidence of the Lionheart's actual heart has provem that it did happen.
Researchers from the Raymond Poincaré University Hospital in Garches, France, examined his heart 800 years after he died and published their findings in the journal Scientific Reports.
Richard is well known for his part in the Crusades. He fought against the Muslim sultan Saladin during the Third Crusade in the 12<sup>th century.
When he returned home he found Europe wartorn and spent his final years trying to suppress a revolt in the French territories.
In March 1199, Richard was pierced by an arrow in the left shoulder while laying siege to the castle of Châlus-Chabrol in the Limousin region.
He died 12 days later from what historians believe was an infected wound. His entrails were removed and stored in a coffin in Châlus while his body was sent to Fontevraud Abbey in Anjou.
But his heart was embalmed so that it could be preserved for the 500km journey to Notre Dame Cathedral in Rouen, which at the time was the base for English forces in Normandy.
In the 19<sup>th century, his heart was rediscovered by local historian Achille Deville inside a reliquary the size of a shoebox.
Philippe Charlier, a forensic pathologist and anthropologist, took two grams of the heart's powdered remains for tests.
Charlier has previously uncovered historical lies through forensic tests; he found that sacred bones thought to belong to Joan of Arc were actually those of an Egyptian mummy.
He also successfully identified the head of King Henry IV of France, who was assassinated in 1610 and and then decapitated during the French Revolution 180 years later.
In examining Richard's heart, the team found it had been preserved in a host of embalming agents, including pollen grains from myrtle, mint and other known embalming plants, including bellflower, which were in bloom at the time Richard died.
They also found high concentrations of calcium, suggesting that lime was used as a preservative, as well as traces of creosote and frankincense.
Stephen Buckley, an archaeological chemist at the University of York, added: "It proves that embalming of Christians did happen. The Church has tried to downplay the use of embalming in religious leaders and royalty [because of pagan origins]."
Charlier added: "We were surprised to get so much information." | 574 | ENGLISH | 1 |
During the course of history people have changed the manufacturing process dramatically. Instead of items being produced by hand, the owners of the facilities created ways to have machines produce the items. This change in production, now known as the Industrial Revolution, began in England in the 18th century and ultimately stretched to neighboring countries such as France and Germany, and by the late 18th century came across the sea to the United States.
The impact of changing the way items were manufactured had a wide reach. Industries such as textile manufacturing, mining, glass making and agriculture all had undergone changes. For example, prior to the Industrial Revolution, textiles were primarily made of wool and were hand spun. But, with the invention of the spinning wheel and the loom, cotton was produced quicker and eventually replaced wool in the textile field. This dramatically reduced production time and the cost the produce material. Advances such as these were evident in all industries during this era.
During the Industrial Revolution changes took place in how goods were produced. Instead of utilizing artisans to produce hand-made items, machines started to help and eventually take the place of the artisans. Machinery such as the spinning wheel to produce textiles, the water wheel used to power machinery and the steam engine were invented. These inventions aided in speeding up the production of manufactured items.
However, with materials now being produced quicker and cheaper, the need for manufactured goods was greater than the supply. This material shortage forced factories to open up for greater production hours and placed hard demands on the men, women and children in the workplace. These demands became increasingly difficult to achieve and ultimately led to laws to protect workers. In 1833, the Factory Act was passed to place restrictions on working hours of children, and set standards that factories needed to attain. However, these changes were basically good and led to new and better ways for businesses to achieve success. | <urn:uuid:a1a58f87-aea4-4423-9309-7424a7cb45dc> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://www.chinarongxin.com/IndustrialRevolution/industrial-revolution-industry | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250610919.33/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123131001-20200123160001-00343.warc.gz | en | 0.98467 | 380 | 4.15625 | 4 | [
-0.15361866354942322,
0.09474408626556396,
0.5868210792541504,
0.04871685802936554,
0.16118523478507996,
0.355698823928833,
-0.05111542344093323,
0.24170084297657013,
-0.5176148414611816,
-0.20813198387622833,
0.09897438436746597,
0.13928170502185822,
-0.08873971551656723,
-0.1795830130577... | 15 | During the course of history people have changed the manufacturing process dramatically. Instead of items being produced by hand, the owners of the facilities created ways to have machines produce the items. This change in production, now known as the Industrial Revolution, began in England in the 18th century and ultimately stretched to neighboring countries such as France and Germany, and by the late 18th century came across the sea to the United States.
The impact of changing the way items were manufactured had a wide reach. Industries such as textile manufacturing, mining, glass making and agriculture all had undergone changes. For example, prior to the Industrial Revolution, textiles were primarily made of wool and were hand spun. But, with the invention of the spinning wheel and the loom, cotton was produced quicker and eventually replaced wool in the textile field. This dramatically reduced production time and the cost the produce material. Advances such as these were evident in all industries during this era.
During the Industrial Revolution changes took place in how goods were produced. Instead of utilizing artisans to produce hand-made items, machines started to help and eventually take the place of the artisans. Machinery such as the spinning wheel to produce textiles, the water wheel used to power machinery and the steam engine were invented. These inventions aided in speeding up the production of manufactured items.
However, with materials now being produced quicker and cheaper, the need for manufactured goods was greater than the supply. This material shortage forced factories to open up for greater production hours and placed hard demands on the men, women and children in the workplace. These demands became increasingly difficult to achieve and ultimately led to laws to protect workers. In 1833, the Factory Act was passed to place restrictions on working hours of children, and set standards that factories needed to attain. However, these changes were basically good and led to new and better ways for businesses to achieve success. | 377 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Although the Gay Rights Movement was fully underway by the early 1980s, LGBT families were still invisible, especially in education and literature. LGBT parents existed, but everything from TV shows to books only displayed heteronormative family structures, with no media outlet reflecting LGBT family structures. The early 1980s was a pivoting movement for the introduction of children’s picture books focusing on LGBT parents. “Your Family, My Family” by Joan Drescher in 1980 was one of the first US children’s picture books to show a same-sex family when discussing the many types of families a child could have. Although the idea of educating people on different types of families seems positive, with every step forward there was backlash. “Jenny Lives with Eric and Martin” by Susanne Bosche was also one of the first, and very controversial, children’s books to exclusively discuss gay fathers. It was originally written in Danish, but was translated into English in 1983. This book used real photographs to tell the story of Jenny, a five year old girl, who lived with her father and his boyfriend. The book is known famously for evoking so many mixed emotions that it unfortunately was followed by a huge backlash in the form of the UK’s Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988, which banned the promotion of homosexuality by local government. So in attempting to educate people about LGBT families, the UK took a step back by banning LGBT education altogether.
“Heather has two Mommies,” published in 1989 and written by Lesléa Newman, was one of the first children’s picture books to discuss lesbian mothers. This book also lead to political controversy in the US. Newman stated, “I wanted to create a book the would help children with lesbian mothers feel good about themselves and their family.” She felt that all children, including children of LGBT parents, would benefit from more books that focused on educating about diversity. This book told the story of Heather and her experience discussing her family at daycare. A year later, “Daddy’s Roommate” by Michael WIllhoite was published in 1990. This children’s picture book focused on a boy telling the audience about his father’s relationship with his “roommate” and the interactions that occur between the family members. Both of these books depicted what life was like as a child being raised by LGBT parents, and revealed the similarities between having same-sex parents and heterosexual parents.
I think that these children’s books represent queer culture because they represent, educate about, and give examples of families who have LGBT parents. Queer culture attempts to provide a positive and welcoming acceptance of LGBT people and their lives. An important factor in everyone’s life, including LGBT people, is family. Both queer culture and these children’s books provide a positive outlet to embrace and support LGBT families. The overall message of all of the children’s books was to show that the most important factor in a family was love and being happy. “Heather has two Mommies” ended by stating, “It does not matter how many mommies or daddies your family has. Each family is special. The most important thing about a family is that all people in it love each other.” “Daddy’s Roommate” ended by stating, “ Being gay is just one more kind of love and love is the best kind of happiness. Daddy and his roommate are very happy together and I am happy too!” Each book ended with revealing the common thread between families, love. Queer culture is about LGBT people’s lives, and these books tell their story, a story which is too often not told to children. The authors of these books were LGBT, the characters in these books are LGBT parents, and the target audience were LGBT families and families of heterosexual parents to educate their children about LGBT families.
I think that these children’s books belong in our history unit because they played a large role in LGBT lives by impacting laws, bringing attention to other aspects of LGBT peoples’ lives, and introducing a new genre of children’s books that encouraged the education, knowledge, and acceptance of LGBT families. Before these books, there were no children’s books at all that discussed even the possibility of LGBT parents. Children’s books reflected the attitudes of a heteronormative society and LGBT families were invisible. As Michel Foucault states in The History of Sexuality: Volume 1,
“Repression operated as a sentence to disappear, but also as an injunction to silence, as affirmation of nonexistence, and, by implication, an admission that there was nothing to say about such things, nothing to see, and nothing to know.”
I think that Foucault’s quote explains that the lack of representation of LGBT families in children’s books told those LGBT parents and their children that their families were not important or of value. These children’s books broke that barrier; they told LGBT families that they were important, that they matter, that they were worth writing about, they were worth reading about, and they were worth educating other children about. Finally, there was a book that children of LGBT parents could relate to and that they felt told their story. Finally, there was positive discussion and education for children about LGBT families.
These books both revealed progress for LGBT people and queer culture, and also revealed that there was much more work to be done. Unfortunately, in cases like “Jenny Lives with Eric and Martin,” these little successes were often faced with bigger backlash. Each and every book that I have discussed has been banned at one point or another, but now, more than 30 years after “Jenny Lives with Eric and Martin” was published, there are hundreds of childrens books which focus on various topics of LGBT life including LGBT families. Although LGBT children’s books can still be viewed as controversial, there has been so much progress, all thanks to these very first children’s books which introduced LGBT parents. LGBT families are now more visible than ever in children’s books. | <urn:uuid:26e23080-f2a3-4419-bcf7-90940a63354b> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://sites.psu.edu/245spring2015/2015/04/29/the-representation-of-lgbt-families-in-childrens-picture-books/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250606696.26/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122042145-20200122071145-00034.warc.gz | en | 0.987332 | 1,285 | 3.3125 | 3 | [
0.12078128010034561,
0.47349756956100464,
0.1253870725631714,
-0.36231690645217896,
-0.20682789385318756,
0.6416746973991394,
-0.8441925644874573,
0.1506531536579132,
0.015132619068026543,
0.2803223729133606,
0.24678705632686615,
0.3806306719779968,
0.11361292004585266,
-0.0752241760492324... | 5 | Although the Gay Rights Movement was fully underway by the early 1980s, LGBT families were still invisible, especially in education and literature. LGBT parents existed, but everything from TV shows to books only displayed heteronormative family structures, with no media outlet reflecting LGBT family structures. The early 1980s was a pivoting movement for the introduction of children’s picture books focusing on LGBT parents. “Your Family, My Family” by Joan Drescher in 1980 was one of the first US children’s picture books to show a same-sex family when discussing the many types of families a child could have. Although the idea of educating people on different types of families seems positive, with every step forward there was backlash. “Jenny Lives with Eric and Martin” by Susanne Bosche was also one of the first, and very controversial, children’s books to exclusively discuss gay fathers. It was originally written in Danish, but was translated into English in 1983. This book used real photographs to tell the story of Jenny, a five year old girl, who lived with her father and his boyfriend. The book is known famously for evoking so many mixed emotions that it unfortunately was followed by a huge backlash in the form of the UK’s Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988, which banned the promotion of homosexuality by local government. So in attempting to educate people about LGBT families, the UK took a step back by banning LGBT education altogether.
“Heather has two Mommies,” published in 1989 and written by Lesléa Newman, was one of the first children’s picture books to discuss lesbian mothers. This book also lead to political controversy in the US. Newman stated, “I wanted to create a book the would help children with lesbian mothers feel good about themselves and their family.” She felt that all children, including children of LGBT parents, would benefit from more books that focused on educating about diversity. This book told the story of Heather and her experience discussing her family at daycare. A year later, “Daddy’s Roommate” by Michael WIllhoite was published in 1990. This children’s picture book focused on a boy telling the audience about his father’s relationship with his “roommate” and the interactions that occur between the family members. Both of these books depicted what life was like as a child being raised by LGBT parents, and revealed the similarities between having same-sex parents and heterosexual parents.
I think that these children’s books represent queer culture because they represent, educate about, and give examples of families who have LGBT parents. Queer culture attempts to provide a positive and welcoming acceptance of LGBT people and their lives. An important factor in everyone’s life, including LGBT people, is family. Both queer culture and these children’s books provide a positive outlet to embrace and support LGBT families. The overall message of all of the children’s books was to show that the most important factor in a family was love and being happy. “Heather has two Mommies” ended by stating, “It does not matter how many mommies or daddies your family has. Each family is special. The most important thing about a family is that all people in it love each other.” “Daddy’s Roommate” ended by stating, “ Being gay is just one more kind of love and love is the best kind of happiness. Daddy and his roommate are very happy together and I am happy too!” Each book ended with revealing the common thread between families, love. Queer culture is about LGBT people’s lives, and these books tell their story, a story which is too often not told to children. The authors of these books were LGBT, the characters in these books are LGBT parents, and the target audience were LGBT families and families of heterosexual parents to educate their children about LGBT families.
I think that these children’s books belong in our history unit because they played a large role in LGBT lives by impacting laws, bringing attention to other aspects of LGBT peoples’ lives, and introducing a new genre of children’s books that encouraged the education, knowledge, and acceptance of LGBT families. Before these books, there were no children’s books at all that discussed even the possibility of LGBT parents. Children’s books reflected the attitudes of a heteronormative society and LGBT families were invisible. As Michel Foucault states in The History of Sexuality: Volume 1,
“Repression operated as a sentence to disappear, but also as an injunction to silence, as affirmation of nonexistence, and, by implication, an admission that there was nothing to say about such things, nothing to see, and nothing to know.”
I think that Foucault’s quote explains that the lack of representation of LGBT families in children’s books told those LGBT parents and their children that their families were not important or of value. These children’s books broke that barrier; they told LGBT families that they were important, that they matter, that they were worth writing about, they were worth reading about, and they were worth educating other children about. Finally, there was a book that children of LGBT parents could relate to and that they felt told their story. Finally, there was positive discussion and education for children about LGBT families.
These books both revealed progress for LGBT people and queer culture, and also revealed that there was much more work to be done. Unfortunately, in cases like “Jenny Lives with Eric and Martin,” these little successes were often faced with bigger backlash. Each and every book that I have discussed has been banned at one point or another, but now, more than 30 years after “Jenny Lives with Eric and Martin” was published, there are hundreds of childrens books which focus on various topics of LGBT life including LGBT families. Although LGBT children’s books can still be viewed as controversial, there has been so much progress, all thanks to these very first children’s books which introduced LGBT parents. LGBT families are now more visible than ever in children’s books. | 1,227 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The history of World War-I can be traced back to as far as 1914. It was 28 June 1914 that the Austrian-Hungarian prince, Archduke Franz Ferdinand along with his pregnant wife Sophie, were shot dead. The assassin was identified to have been a member of ‘The Black Hand’, an extremist Serbian group. In the aftermath of the assassination Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia. The conflicts between two countries lead to the bloodiest war in the history of mankind which killed approximately 16 million people.
Britain had large colonial colonies and relied heavily on them for manpower. By an estimate, every sixth soldier sent into the War by the British Empire was from the Indian subcontinent. Indian troops fought on several fronts which included France, Mesopotamia, Persia, East Africa, Gallipoli and elsewhere in the far East.
The Indian leaders had divided opinions about India’s participation in the war. Some of them supported the participation as it would allow her to demand greater freedom from Britain. Some were against as it would unnecessarily include India in the war. According to some Indians, service in the War was seen as a way to establish racial equality and proved that Indians didn’t lack in courage and loyalty. It was simply ‘Izzat’ and a sense of duty towards their regiment.
It gave Indian soldiers exposure to new lands and enemies. They learned new warfare tactics and the most important aspect of it was they saw freer ways of living. Almost 7 lakh Indian troops were deployed to fight the war. 70,000 laid their lives on the battlefield. A combination of Eurocentrism and unease about the imperial past has meant that this aspect of the War received very little attention.
A century later Pramod Kapoor exhibits his work at Indira Gandhi National Centre for Arts. It’s about time that we remember their valour and sacrifice.
Picture Credits : Neel Kamal Pandey, One World News | <urn:uuid:73eb3729-9fc0-4511-a5c9-70743ca2d9b8> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.oneworldnews.com/indias-participation-in-world-war-i/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251694071.63/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126230255-20200127020255-00279.warc.gz | en | 0.982683 | 404 | 3.625 | 4 | [
-0.03593713790178299,
0.5653266310691833,
0.19426006078720093,
-0.02234720252454281,
-0.17056187987327576,
0.03666817769408226,
0.3770498037338257,
0.17743951082229614,
0.10258860141038895,
-0.14249706268310547,
0.37059661746025085,
-0.5276516079902649,
-0.1723506897687912,
0.6784462928771... | 3 | The history of World War-I can be traced back to as far as 1914. It was 28 June 1914 that the Austrian-Hungarian prince, Archduke Franz Ferdinand along with his pregnant wife Sophie, were shot dead. The assassin was identified to have been a member of ‘The Black Hand’, an extremist Serbian group. In the aftermath of the assassination Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia. The conflicts between two countries lead to the bloodiest war in the history of mankind which killed approximately 16 million people.
Britain had large colonial colonies and relied heavily on them for manpower. By an estimate, every sixth soldier sent into the War by the British Empire was from the Indian subcontinent. Indian troops fought on several fronts which included France, Mesopotamia, Persia, East Africa, Gallipoli and elsewhere in the far East.
The Indian leaders had divided opinions about India’s participation in the war. Some of them supported the participation as it would allow her to demand greater freedom from Britain. Some were against as it would unnecessarily include India in the war. According to some Indians, service in the War was seen as a way to establish racial equality and proved that Indians didn’t lack in courage and loyalty. It was simply ‘Izzat’ and a sense of duty towards their regiment.
It gave Indian soldiers exposure to new lands and enemies. They learned new warfare tactics and the most important aspect of it was they saw freer ways of living. Almost 7 lakh Indian troops were deployed to fight the war. 70,000 laid their lives on the battlefield. A combination of Eurocentrism and unease about the imperial past has meant that this aspect of the War received very little attention.
A century later Pramod Kapoor exhibits his work at Indira Gandhi National Centre for Arts. It’s about time that we remember their valour and sacrifice.
Picture Credits : Neel Kamal Pandey, One World News | 404 | ENGLISH | 1 |
For over a generation, from 1618 to 1648, Germany was the battleground of the Thirty Years' War, a series of fierce struggles for dominance between the basically Protestant north and the basically Catholic south. Soon after the outbreak of the Thirty Years' War, money-changers moved through Germany buying up larger, good-quality coins and paying for them in poor-quality small coins. From their practice of weighing the coins against each other on weighing-scales, making the scales tip or tilt whichever way favored them, these people became known as "kipper and wipper" (tippers and tilters). The good coins were later smelted down and reminted into less precious small coins, the so-called "kipper coins." Kipper coins were thus coins whose intrinsic value lay far below their face value. More or less all princes, and also the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, participated in the practice of issuing debased money. Even coin authorities who until then had paid great attention to the quality of their coins, were now forced to issue devaluated money – good coins would have disappeared from circulation immediately. This kipper coin was minted in Nuremberg, which, as a trade town, actually attached great importance to good coins. | <urn:uuid:794736b2-4bd6-4ad8-bca1-e9495ed6c23b> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.moneymuseum.com/en/coins?id=1390 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250610004.56/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123101110-20200123130110-00521.warc.gz | en | 0.981646 | 256 | 4.21875 | 4 | [
-0.35117530822753906,
0.3153429925441742,
-0.04665575921535492,
0.00889556109905243,
0.058682166039943695,
0.039713941514492035,
0.19141674041748047,
0.0498073548078537,
-0.3608960211277008,
-0.13629230856895447,
0.27238357067108154,
-0.3996398448944092,
0.09528859704732895,
0.301521867513... | 8 | For over a generation, from 1618 to 1648, Germany was the battleground of the Thirty Years' War, a series of fierce struggles for dominance between the basically Protestant north and the basically Catholic south. Soon after the outbreak of the Thirty Years' War, money-changers moved through Germany buying up larger, good-quality coins and paying for them in poor-quality small coins. From their practice of weighing the coins against each other on weighing-scales, making the scales tip or tilt whichever way favored them, these people became known as "kipper and wipper" (tippers and tilters). The good coins were later smelted down and reminted into less precious small coins, the so-called "kipper coins." Kipper coins were thus coins whose intrinsic value lay far below their face value. More or less all princes, and also the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, participated in the practice of issuing debased money. Even coin authorities who until then had paid great attention to the quality of their coins, were now forced to issue devaluated money – good coins would have disappeared from circulation immediately. This kipper coin was minted in Nuremberg, which, as a trade town, actually attached great importance to good coins. | 262 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.Join Britannica's Publishing Partner Program and our community of experts to gain a global audience for your work!
Ibn Saud, also spelled Ibn Saʿūd, in full ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Fayṣal ibn Turkī ʿAbd Allāh ibn Muḥammad Āl Saʿūd, (born c. 1880, Riyadh, Arabia—died November 9, 1953, Al-Ṭāʾif, Saudi Arabia), tribal and Muslim religious leader who formed the modern state of Saudi Arabia and initiated the exploitation of its oil.
The young leader
The Sauds ruled much of Arabia from 1780 to 1880, but, while Ibn Saud was still an infant, his family, driven out by their rivals, the Rashīds, became penniless exiles in Kuwait. In 1901 Ibn Saud, then 21, set out from Kuwait with 40 camel men in a bold attempt to regain his family’s lands.
Reaching their old family capital, Riyadh, the little group slipped into the town by night (January 1902). The Rashīdī governor slept in the castle but came out every morning after dawn. Ibn Saud lay hidden until the governor emerged. Then, rushing forward with his men, he killed him and seized the castle. This exploit roused the former supporters of his dynasty. They rallied to so magnetic a leader, and in two years of raids and skirmishes Ibn Saud reconquered half of central Arabia.
Ibn Rashīd, however, appealed for help to the Turks, who sent troops. Ibn Saud suffered a defeat at their hands on June 15, 1904. But he was not driven from central Arabia and soon reconstituted his forces, the years 1907 to 1912 being passed in desultory fighting. The Turks eventually left, unable to supply their troops.
Role of religion in Ibn Saud’s policy
Ibn Saud decided, in the years before World War I, to revive his dynasty’s support for Wahhābism, an extremist Muslim puritan revival. Ibn Saud was in fact a devoted puritan Muslim. To him the Qurʾān was literally the word of God, and his life was regulated by it. Yet he was also aware that religious fanaticism could serve his ambition, and he deliberately fostered it, founding a militantly religious tribal organization known as the Ikhwān (Brethren). This fanatical brotherhood encouraged his followers to fight and to massacre their Arab rivals, and it helped him to bring many nomadic tribesmen under more immediate control.
He was able to persuade the religious leaders to declare it a religious duty of all Wahhābīs to abandon nomadism and to build houses at the desert wells. Thus settled, they could more easily be levied into his army. But the scheme was unrealistic: nomads who sold their flocks were often unable to cultivate and were reduced to penury. The destitution of the more fanatical tribes, however, made them more eager to raid, and Ibn Saud was not slow to suggest that they plunder the subjects of Ibn Rashīd.
During World War I Ibn Saud entered into a treaty with the British (December 1915), accepting protectorate status and agreeing to make war against Ibn Rashīd, who was being supported by the Turks. But, despite British arms and a subsidy of £5,000 a month from the British government (which continued until 1924), he was inactive until 1920, arguing that his subsidy was insufficient. During 1920–22, however, he marched against Ibn Rashīd and extinguished Rashīdī rule, doubling his own territory but without significantly increasing his meagre revenue.
Ibn Saud now ruled central Arabia except for the Hejaz region along the Red Sea. This was the territory of Sharīf Ḥusayn of Mecca, who had become king of the Hejaz during the war and who declared himself caliph (head of the Muslim community) in 1924. Sharīf Ḥusayn’s son ʿAbd Allāh had become ruler of Transjordan in 1921, and another son, Fayṣal, king of Iraq. Ibn Saud, fearing encirclement by this rival dynasty, decided to invade the Hejaz. He was then at the height of his powers; his strong personality and extraordinary charm had won the devotion of all his subjects. A skillful politician, he worked closely with the religious leaders, who always supported him. Relying on the Ikhwān to eliminate his Arab rivals, he sent them to raid his neighbours, then cabled the British, whose imperial interests were involved, that the raid was against his orders. In 1924 the Ikhwān took Mecca, and the Hejaz was added to his dominions.
At this point, there were no more rivals whom Ibn Saud could conquer, for those remaining had treaties with Britain. But the Ikhwān had been taught that all non-Wahhābī Muslims were infidels. When Ibn Saud forbade further raiding, they charged him with treachery, quoting his own words against him. In 1927 they invaded Iraq against his wishes. They were repulsed by British aircraft, but Ibn Saud’s authority over them had vanished, and on March 29, 1929, the Ikhwān, the fanatics whom he himself had trained, were crushed by Ibn Saud himself at the Battle of Sibilla.
Foundation of Saudi Arabia
This battle opened a new era: thereafter Ibn Saud’s task was government, not conquest. In 1932 he formally unified his domains into the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. An absolute monarch, he had no regular civil service or professional administrators. All decisions were made by him or by those he personally delegated for a particular task. There was little money, and he himself was not interested in finance. In May 1933 Ibn Saud signed his first agreement with an American oil company. Not until March 1938 did the company strike oil, and work virtually ceased during World War II, so that Ibn Saud was again nearly penniless.
Saudi Arabia took no part in the war, but toward its end the exploitation of oil was resumed. By 1950 Ibn Saud had received a total of about $200,000. Three years later, he was getting some $2,500,000 a week. The effect was disastrous on the country and on Ibn Saud. He had no idea of what to do with all the money, and he watched helplessly the triumph of everything he hated. His austere religious views were offended. The secluded, penurious, hard, but idealistic life of Arabia was vanishing. Such vast sums of money drew half the swindlers in the Middle East to this puritan religious sanctum. Ibn Saud was unable to cope with financial adventurers. His last years were marked by severe physical and emotional deterioration. He died at Al-Ṭāʾif in 1953.John Bagot Glubb
Learn More in these related Britannica articles:
Saudi Arabia: Ibn Saud and the third Saʿūdī stateʿAbd al-ʿAzīz (known commonly as Ibn Saud), the son of the exiled ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, took advantage of his new location to acquire useful knowledge of world affairs, while the new Rashīdī prince, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn Mitʿab, alienated the population…
history of Arabia: Resistance to the Ottomans…the greatest of the Saʿūdīs, Ibn Saʿūd (ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz II), to retake Riyadh in 1902 and establish the third Saʿūdī kingdom. By 1904, through raiding and skirmishing, Ibn Saʿūd had recovered much of the earlier Saʿūdī territory. In 1912, to bring the nomads under control, he set up agricultural settlements…
history of Arabia: Arabia since 1962Following the death of King Ibn Saʿūd of Saudi Arabia in 1953, his ineffective heir, Saʿūd, was replaced in a royal family coup d’état in 1964 by another son, Fayṣal, who initiated a number of modernizing changes.… | <urn:uuid:d527affb-a502-494e-a393-9c71def3923b> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ibn-Saud | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250593994.14/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118221909-20200119005909-00197.warc.gz | en | 0.984565 | 1,769 | 3.453125 | 3 | [
-0.2790679931640625,
0.5644643902778625,
-0.18314304947853088,
-0.0012189398985356092,
0.09049707651138306,
-0.05707734450697899,
-0.18227219581604004,
0.14275899529457092,
-0.22174319624900818,
0.15756148099899292,
0.18015670776367188,
0.11261115968227386,
0.5268361568450928,
-0.084817901... | 1 | Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.Join Britannica's Publishing Partner Program and our community of experts to gain a global audience for your work!
Ibn Saud, also spelled Ibn Saʿūd, in full ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn Fayṣal ibn Turkī ʿAbd Allāh ibn Muḥammad Āl Saʿūd, (born c. 1880, Riyadh, Arabia—died November 9, 1953, Al-Ṭāʾif, Saudi Arabia), tribal and Muslim religious leader who formed the modern state of Saudi Arabia and initiated the exploitation of its oil.
The young leader
The Sauds ruled much of Arabia from 1780 to 1880, but, while Ibn Saud was still an infant, his family, driven out by their rivals, the Rashīds, became penniless exiles in Kuwait. In 1901 Ibn Saud, then 21, set out from Kuwait with 40 camel men in a bold attempt to regain his family’s lands.
Reaching their old family capital, Riyadh, the little group slipped into the town by night (January 1902). The Rashīdī governor slept in the castle but came out every morning after dawn. Ibn Saud lay hidden until the governor emerged. Then, rushing forward with his men, he killed him and seized the castle. This exploit roused the former supporters of his dynasty. They rallied to so magnetic a leader, and in two years of raids and skirmishes Ibn Saud reconquered half of central Arabia.
Ibn Rashīd, however, appealed for help to the Turks, who sent troops. Ibn Saud suffered a defeat at their hands on June 15, 1904. But he was not driven from central Arabia and soon reconstituted his forces, the years 1907 to 1912 being passed in desultory fighting. The Turks eventually left, unable to supply their troops.
Role of religion in Ibn Saud’s policy
Ibn Saud decided, in the years before World War I, to revive his dynasty’s support for Wahhābism, an extremist Muslim puritan revival. Ibn Saud was in fact a devoted puritan Muslim. To him the Qurʾān was literally the word of God, and his life was regulated by it. Yet he was also aware that religious fanaticism could serve his ambition, and he deliberately fostered it, founding a militantly religious tribal organization known as the Ikhwān (Brethren). This fanatical brotherhood encouraged his followers to fight and to massacre their Arab rivals, and it helped him to bring many nomadic tribesmen under more immediate control.
He was able to persuade the religious leaders to declare it a religious duty of all Wahhābīs to abandon nomadism and to build houses at the desert wells. Thus settled, they could more easily be levied into his army. But the scheme was unrealistic: nomads who sold their flocks were often unable to cultivate and were reduced to penury. The destitution of the more fanatical tribes, however, made them more eager to raid, and Ibn Saud was not slow to suggest that they plunder the subjects of Ibn Rashīd.
During World War I Ibn Saud entered into a treaty with the British (December 1915), accepting protectorate status and agreeing to make war against Ibn Rashīd, who was being supported by the Turks. But, despite British arms and a subsidy of £5,000 a month from the British government (which continued until 1924), he was inactive until 1920, arguing that his subsidy was insufficient. During 1920–22, however, he marched against Ibn Rashīd and extinguished Rashīdī rule, doubling his own territory but without significantly increasing his meagre revenue.
Ibn Saud now ruled central Arabia except for the Hejaz region along the Red Sea. This was the territory of Sharīf Ḥusayn of Mecca, who had become king of the Hejaz during the war and who declared himself caliph (head of the Muslim community) in 1924. Sharīf Ḥusayn’s son ʿAbd Allāh had become ruler of Transjordan in 1921, and another son, Fayṣal, king of Iraq. Ibn Saud, fearing encirclement by this rival dynasty, decided to invade the Hejaz. He was then at the height of his powers; his strong personality and extraordinary charm had won the devotion of all his subjects. A skillful politician, he worked closely with the religious leaders, who always supported him. Relying on the Ikhwān to eliminate his Arab rivals, he sent them to raid his neighbours, then cabled the British, whose imperial interests were involved, that the raid was against his orders. In 1924 the Ikhwān took Mecca, and the Hejaz was added to his dominions.
At this point, there were no more rivals whom Ibn Saud could conquer, for those remaining had treaties with Britain. But the Ikhwān had been taught that all non-Wahhābī Muslims were infidels. When Ibn Saud forbade further raiding, they charged him with treachery, quoting his own words against him. In 1927 they invaded Iraq against his wishes. They were repulsed by British aircraft, but Ibn Saud’s authority over them had vanished, and on March 29, 1929, the Ikhwān, the fanatics whom he himself had trained, were crushed by Ibn Saud himself at the Battle of Sibilla.
Foundation of Saudi Arabia
This battle opened a new era: thereafter Ibn Saud’s task was government, not conquest. In 1932 he formally unified his domains into the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. An absolute monarch, he had no regular civil service or professional administrators. All decisions were made by him or by those he personally delegated for a particular task. There was little money, and he himself was not interested in finance. In May 1933 Ibn Saud signed his first agreement with an American oil company. Not until March 1938 did the company strike oil, and work virtually ceased during World War II, so that Ibn Saud was again nearly penniless.
Saudi Arabia took no part in the war, but toward its end the exploitation of oil was resumed. By 1950 Ibn Saud had received a total of about $200,000. Three years later, he was getting some $2,500,000 a week. The effect was disastrous on the country and on Ibn Saud. He had no idea of what to do with all the money, and he watched helplessly the triumph of everything he hated. His austere religious views were offended. The secluded, penurious, hard, but idealistic life of Arabia was vanishing. Such vast sums of money drew half the swindlers in the Middle East to this puritan religious sanctum. Ibn Saud was unable to cope with financial adventurers. His last years were marked by severe physical and emotional deterioration. He died at Al-Ṭāʾif in 1953.John Bagot Glubb
Learn More in these related Britannica articles:
Saudi Arabia: Ibn Saud and the third Saʿūdī stateʿAbd al-ʿAzīz (known commonly as Ibn Saud), the son of the exiled ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, took advantage of his new location to acquire useful knowledge of world affairs, while the new Rashīdī prince, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn Mitʿab, alienated the population…
history of Arabia: Resistance to the Ottomans…the greatest of the Saʿūdīs, Ibn Saʿūd (ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz II), to retake Riyadh in 1902 and establish the third Saʿūdī kingdom. By 1904, through raiding and skirmishing, Ibn Saʿūd had recovered much of the earlier Saʿūdī territory. In 1912, to bring the nomads under control, he set up agricultural settlements…
history of Arabia: Arabia since 1962Following the death of King Ibn Saʿūd of Saudi Arabia in 1953, his ineffective heir, Saʿūd, was replaced in a royal family coup d’état in 1964 by another son, Fayṣal, who initiated a number of modernizing changes.… | 1,848 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Common steps and sub-activities
The seminars, workshops and lectures of Milton H Erickson – edited by Ernest Rossi and Margaret O Ryan
Psychologically you approach a patient in that same way. You approach the development of an amnesia by telling him:
"l would like to have you remember this simple little thing. I'm going to give you four digits. Do you mind remembering the four digits, 4... 7... 81?"
What have you done? You have said, " . . . four digits, 4 . ..7 ...81."
And the patient has to stop and analyze the 81 as 8 and l.
You have named four digits, right?
You've made him pause and put all of his attention, not on the 4 and the 7, but on the 8 and the l. And so he's giving the major part of his attention to the 81.
Then you apologize, "I should have said '8 and 1 instead of 81."'
And the patient accepts your apology.
Then you ask, "Now, what were the other two numbers?"
Because the patient is giving so much of his attention to the 8l he tends to forget the 4 and the 7. You've mentioned these last two digits coupled together so frequently that he's forgotten the 4 and the 7.
You have taught him to fixate his attention. You have taught him to separate his attention. You have taught him to accept an idea; you have taught him to fixate his attention from all other parts of the task.
Then you can compliment him upon the fact that he developed an amnesia so quickly, so easily.
How does one develop an amnesia?
It's so easily done. You can be introduced to half a dozen people very rapidly. When the introductions are completed you wonder who was who, and what was the first person's name; and while you're trying to figure that out, you're busy forgetting the second person's name; and once you become aware of the second person's name you wonder, "Now, what was the third person's name?"
You wind up wishing that the person who had introduced you had taken his time. But it's a very nice way of developing amnesia. | <urn:uuid:48eb2563-db61-400c-b385-73dfb5fb5e11> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://allaboutheaven.org/commonsteps/number-games/120 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250591431.4/warc/CC-MAIN-20200117234621-20200118022621-00034.warc.gz | en | 0.983649 | 460 | 3.3125 | 3 | [
-0.4284118115901947,
-0.31185972690582275,
0.13280463218688965,
0.13524183630943298,
-0.5225196480751038,
0.24998949468135834,
0.5042034387588501,
-0.0048702252097427845,
0.30804014205932617,
-0.026388144120573997,
-0.015354027040302753,
0.10687122493982315,
0.32639873027801514,
0.22714866... | 7 | Common steps and sub-activities
The seminars, workshops and lectures of Milton H Erickson – edited by Ernest Rossi and Margaret O Ryan
Psychologically you approach a patient in that same way. You approach the development of an amnesia by telling him:
"l would like to have you remember this simple little thing. I'm going to give you four digits. Do you mind remembering the four digits, 4... 7... 81?"
What have you done? You have said, " . . . four digits, 4 . ..7 ...81."
And the patient has to stop and analyze the 81 as 8 and l.
You have named four digits, right?
You've made him pause and put all of his attention, not on the 4 and the 7, but on the 8 and the l. And so he's giving the major part of his attention to the 81.
Then you apologize, "I should have said '8 and 1 instead of 81."'
And the patient accepts your apology.
Then you ask, "Now, what were the other two numbers?"
Because the patient is giving so much of his attention to the 8l he tends to forget the 4 and the 7. You've mentioned these last two digits coupled together so frequently that he's forgotten the 4 and the 7.
You have taught him to fixate his attention. You have taught him to separate his attention. You have taught him to accept an idea; you have taught him to fixate his attention from all other parts of the task.
Then you can compliment him upon the fact that he developed an amnesia so quickly, so easily.
How does one develop an amnesia?
It's so easily done. You can be introduced to half a dozen people very rapidly. When the introductions are completed you wonder who was who, and what was the first person's name; and while you're trying to figure that out, you're busy forgetting the second person's name; and once you become aware of the second person's name you wonder, "Now, what was the third person's name?"
You wind up wishing that the person who had introduced you had taken his time. But it's a very nice way of developing amnesia. | 467 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The Founding of the Round Table
I T is said that Arthur not only drove the Saxons out of Britain, but that he conquered many parts of Europe, until at last he ruled over thirty kingdoms. Then for some years there was peace.
During these years, Arthur did much for his people. He taught them to love truth and goodness, and to be Christian and gentle. No king had ever been loved as Arthur was loved.
In those fierce and
No noble thought himself perfect unless his armour, and clothes even, were made like those of Arthur's knights. No man thought himself worthy of love until, fighting for the right against the wrong, he had three times conquered an enemy.
Many pretty stories are told of Arthur and his gentle, courteous knights, although they did not learn all their gentleness and their courtesy at once, as you shall hear.
Upon an Easter Day, Arthur called together all his knights and nobles, from his many kingdoms, to a great feast. They came from far and near, kings, earls, barons and knights, gay in splendid clothes, glittering with jewels and gold.
As they waited for the King they laughed and talked together. But secretly each heart was full of proud thoughts. Each man thought himself nobler and grander than any of the others.
The tables were spread for the feast. They were covered with white silk cloths. Silver baskets piled with loaves, golden bowls and cups full of wine stood ready, and, as the knights and nobles talked and waited, they began to choose where they would sit.
In those days master and servants all sat together at the same table for meals. The master and his family sat at the top, and the servants and poor people at the bottom of the table. So it came to be considered that the seats near the top were the best. The further down the table any one sat, the less honour was paid him.
At this feast no servants nor poor people were going to sit at table, yet all the nobles wanted places at the top. "We will not sit in the seats of scullions and beggars," they said.
So they began to push each other aside, and to say, "Make way, this is my seat."
"Nay, I am more honourable than you. You must sit below me."
"How dare you? My name is more noble than yours. That is my seat."
"Give place, I say."
At first it was only words. Soon it came to blows. They had come to the feast unarmed, so they had only their hands with which to fight, but as they grew angrier and angrier, they seized the bowls of wine and threw them at each other. Next the loaves of bread and the gold and silver cups were thrown about, the tables and benches were overturned, howls and yells filled the hall, and everything was in dreadful confusion.
When the noise was at its worst, the door opened and the King appeared. His face was stern and grand as he looked down on the struggling, yelling crowd.
"Sit ye, sit ye down quickly, every man in the place where he is," he cried. "Whoso will not, he shall be put to death."
At the sound of their King's stern voice, the foolish nobles were filled with shame. Silently they sat down; the tables and benches were put back in their places and the feast began.
But Arthur was sad at heart. "How can I teach my people to be gentle and kind, if my knights will not even sit at meat in peace," he said to himself. Then as he sat sorrowfully wondering what he could do, Merlin came to him.
"Be not sad, O King," he said, "but listen to my advice. Tell your carpenters to make a great round table at which there shall be a place for every knight. Then there can be no more quarrelling. For at a round table there is neither top nor bottom, so no knight can say that he sits above or below another. All shall be equal."
Then Arthur was sad no longer. He did as Merlin advised, and had a great round table made, at which there was a seat for each one of his knights. After that there was no more quarrelling as to who should have the best place, for all were equal, and Arthur's knights became known as The Knights of the Round Table.
But, alas! the time of peace did not last. Again came days of war and strife. In a great and terrible battle, Arthur and nearly all his knights were killed. Once more the fierce heathen swept over the land, filling it with sorrow and bloodshed, and the glory and beauty of knighthood were forgotten in Britain.
But some people think that Arthur did not die. They say that when he was wounded so that he could fight no more, the wise fairies came to take him back to fairyland. They say that he is still there, and that some day he will come again.
Other people say the stories about Arthur and his knights
are not true, but at least we may believe that in those | <urn:uuid:45a0bf21-a81a-4517-9542-077823986efa> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://www.gatewaytotheclassics.com/browse/display.php?author=marshall&book=island&story=round | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251672440.80/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125101544-20200125130544-00236.warc.gz | en | 0.990966 | 1,072 | 3.328125 | 3 | [
-0.07902418822050095,
0.005035636015236378,
0.3414512872695923,
-0.09145398437976837,
-0.436702162027359,
0.04939807206392288,
0.39715901017189026,
0.020010966807603836,
0.3130584955215454,
-0.13262157142162323,
-0.11434737592935562,
-0.36813241243362427,
0.23916573822498322,
-0.1742281764... | 6 | The Founding of the Round Table
I T is said that Arthur not only drove the Saxons out of Britain, but that he conquered many parts of Europe, until at last he ruled over thirty kingdoms. Then for some years there was peace.
During these years, Arthur did much for his people. He taught them to love truth and goodness, and to be Christian and gentle. No king had ever been loved as Arthur was loved.
In those fierce and
No noble thought himself perfect unless his armour, and clothes even, were made like those of Arthur's knights. No man thought himself worthy of love until, fighting for the right against the wrong, he had three times conquered an enemy.
Many pretty stories are told of Arthur and his gentle, courteous knights, although they did not learn all their gentleness and their courtesy at once, as you shall hear.
Upon an Easter Day, Arthur called together all his knights and nobles, from his many kingdoms, to a great feast. They came from far and near, kings, earls, barons and knights, gay in splendid clothes, glittering with jewels and gold.
As they waited for the King they laughed and talked together. But secretly each heart was full of proud thoughts. Each man thought himself nobler and grander than any of the others.
The tables were spread for the feast. They were covered with white silk cloths. Silver baskets piled with loaves, golden bowls and cups full of wine stood ready, and, as the knights and nobles talked and waited, they began to choose where they would sit.
In those days master and servants all sat together at the same table for meals. The master and his family sat at the top, and the servants and poor people at the bottom of the table. So it came to be considered that the seats near the top were the best. The further down the table any one sat, the less honour was paid him.
At this feast no servants nor poor people were going to sit at table, yet all the nobles wanted places at the top. "We will not sit in the seats of scullions and beggars," they said.
So they began to push each other aside, and to say, "Make way, this is my seat."
"Nay, I am more honourable than you. You must sit below me."
"How dare you? My name is more noble than yours. That is my seat."
"Give place, I say."
At first it was only words. Soon it came to blows. They had come to the feast unarmed, so they had only their hands with which to fight, but as they grew angrier and angrier, they seized the bowls of wine and threw them at each other. Next the loaves of bread and the gold and silver cups were thrown about, the tables and benches were overturned, howls and yells filled the hall, and everything was in dreadful confusion.
When the noise was at its worst, the door opened and the King appeared. His face was stern and grand as he looked down on the struggling, yelling crowd.
"Sit ye, sit ye down quickly, every man in the place where he is," he cried. "Whoso will not, he shall be put to death."
At the sound of their King's stern voice, the foolish nobles were filled with shame. Silently they sat down; the tables and benches were put back in their places and the feast began.
But Arthur was sad at heart. "How can I teach my people to be gentle and kind, if my knights will not even sit at meat in peace," he said to himself. Then as he sat sorrowfully wondering what he could do, Merlin came to him.
"Be not sad, O King," he said, "but listen to my advice. Tell your carpenters to make a great round table at which there shall be a place for every knight. Then there can be no more quarrelling. For at a round table there is neither top nor bottom, so no knight can say that he sits above or below another. All shall be equal."
Then Arthur was sad no longer. He did as Merlin advised, and had a great round table made, at which there was a seat for each one of his knights. After that there was no more quarrelling as to who should have the best place, for all were equal, and Arthur's knights became known as The Knights of the Round Table.
But, alas! the time of peace did not last. Again came days of war and strife. In a great and terrible battle, Arthur and nearly all his knights were killed. Once more the fierce heathen swept over the land, filling it with sorrow and bloodshed, and the glory and beauty of knighthood were forgotten in Britain.
But some people think that Arthur did not die. They say that when he was wounded so that he could fight no more, the wise fairies came to take him back to fairyland. They say that he is still there, and that some day he will come again.
Other people say the stories about Arthur and his knights
are not true, but at least we may believe that in those | 1,054 | ENGLISH | 1 |
By Major General Michael Reynolds
By early 1945, Hitler’s armies were almost exhausted. With most of Poland in Soviet hands and the Ruhr in ruins from Allied air attacks, the replenishment of fuel, ammunition, and weapon stocks had almost come to a halt, and coal and steel production had been reduced to a fifth of what it had been only six months earlier.
On the Eastern Front, the Soviet winter offensive had reached a line less than 100 miles from Berlin, and although in the West the Siegfried Line was still basically intact and the Rhine had yet to be crossed, it was clear that with American divisions arriving in Europe at the rate of one a week it was only a matter of time before the Third Reich collapsed in chaos and disaster. Still, Hitler refused to consider surrender.
Pressure to Cross the Rhine
The success and speed of the Soviet advance had in fact presented the Western Allies with a serious problem: unless they broke through to the North German plain within a few weeks, Stalin would almost certainly seize control of virtually the whole of Germany, including its Baltic and North Sea ports.
The Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, Dwight D. Eisenhower, had issued his outline plan for the first phase of the advance into Germany on the last day of 1944. It called first for the destruction of the German forces west of the Rhine, following which Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery’s 21st Army Group (British and Canadian) was to make the main drive to the North German Plain, north of the Ruhr, while General Omar Bradley’s 12th Army Group (American and French) made a complementary, but secondary, attack from the Mainz–Frankfurt area northeast to Kassel. The overall objective of the plan was to effect “a massive double envelopment of the Ruhr to be followed by a great thrust to join up with the Russians.”
After studying it, Monty came to the conclusion that it did all he wanted in that it put the weight in the north and put the Ninth American Army under his command. Even more amazingly, it gave him the power of decision in the event of disagreement with Bradley on the boundary between the 12th and 21st Army Groups.
Ike’s detailed plan for the Rhineland campaign, which was to precede the thrust into Germany proper, saw Monty’s 21st Army Group, with the Ninth U.S. Army under command, seizing the west bank of the Rhine from Nijmegen to Düsseldorf. During this phase, Bradley’s 12th Army Group was to maintain an aggressive defense. Then, while Monty prepared to cross the lower Rhine, Bradley was to secure the river from Düsseldorf to Köln, following which General George Patton’s Third Army would “take up the ball” and thrust eastward from Prüm to Koblenz. At the same time, the Third and Seventh U.S. Armies would be responsible for securing crossings over the Rhine between Mainz and Karlsruhe for the forces destined to carry out the thrust south of the Ruhr.
Needless to say, Bradley was far from happy to see Monty being given not only the main role, but also a complete U.S. army. With two-thirds of the Allied Expeditionary Force now made up of American troops, he had wanted, not surprisingly, the main effort to be made by American troops under American command. Indeed, he envisaged all four U.S. armies driving into central Germany with the British, Canadian, and French armies being relegated to flank protection. He was bitterly disappointed when his plea fell on deaf ears.
Inevitably, Patton was furious when he was told that his Third U.S. Army was to adopt a posture of “aggressive defense,” while Monty’s 21st Army Group launched a major offensive. On February 4, he wrote to his wife, Beatrice, telling her that if she heard he was on the defensive, “It was not the enemy who put me there. I don’t see much future for me in this war. There are too many safety-first people running it.”
Patton was certainly not going to be defeated by the safety-first people, and he chose to view the order to adopt a posture of aggressive defense as meaning that he could “keep moving towards the Rhine with a low profile.” He told his staff that the Third Army was going to carry out an “armored reconnaissance,” but that it would be done with seven divisions and that the initial objectives were Prüm, Bitburg, and the vital city of Trier on the Mosel River. Furthermore, he told his commanders to make sure that their units were always fully committed so that they could not be removed from his command and placed in Eisenhower’s new theater reserve. He wrote in his diary: “Reserve against what?…Certainly at this point in the war no reserve is needed—simply violent attacks everywhere with everything.”
Draining Patton’s Force
On February 10, Bradley telephoned Patton to tell him that Ike was transferring divisions from the 12th Army Group to General Bill Simpson’s Ninth U.S. Army. The latter was now, of course, part of Monty’s army group. Patton replied that as the oldest and most experienced serving general in the theater he was damned if he would release any of his divisions or go onto the defensive, and that he would resign rather than comply with such orders. He clearly had no intention of really resigning, but he withdrew his threat anyway when Bradley suggested that he owed too much to his troops to even consider it. Nevertheless, in early February Patton lost the 17th Airborne and 95th Infantry Divisions to Simpson and Monty.
The area in which the Third Army was operating during February 1945, the Eifel, is hilly, heavily forested, and bisected by three fast- flowing rivers, which at that time were swollen by the snow and rains of the worst winter in 38 years. Patton wrote later, “The crossing of … these rivers was a magnificent feat of arms.”
The campaign, carried out in appalling conditions, cost a total of 42,217 battle casualties and a staggering 20,790 nonbattle casualties, but it was eventually successful. By March 1, Patton’s troops had captured Prüm and Bitburg; Trier fell a day later. Ike’s headquarters had estimated that it would take four divisions to capture the former Roman provincial capital of Trier, but Patton was able to send a message saying, “Have taken Trier with two divisions. Do you want me to give it back?”
On March 5, General Courtney Hodges’s First U.S. Army finally went on the offensive. Köln fell on the 6th, and to everyone’s amazement, by 4 pm on the 7th a bridge had been secured over the Rhine, roughly halfway between Köln and Koblenz—the Ludendorff railway bridge at Remagen. “We were quite happy over it, but just a little envious,” wrote Patton later.
American bravery and initiative had ensured that the bridge, although prepared for demolition, was secured intact. But the euphoria soon disappeared the following day when, sadly for Bradley, Eisenhower gave orders that to provide the necessary number of divisions to Simpson’s Ninth Army for Monty’s northern push, no more than four were to be committed at Remagen and that for the time being at least the bridgehead was to be held but not developed.
This, in fact, also made sense tactically since beyond the bridge for about 12 miles were heavily forested mountains crossed by poor roads, making further advance against any kind of determined resistance extremely difficult. Even so, by the 17th, when the bridge finally collapsed, there were six American divisions in a bridgehead 10 miles deep and 30 miles wide.
“Take the Rhine on the Run”
On March 5, as the First U.S. Army launched its attack, Patton finally obtained Eisenhower’s authority to advance into the rest of the Rhineland Palatinate. Bradley told him to “take the Rhine on the run,” and on March 10, just three days after the Remagen bridge was captured by the First Army, Patton’s 4th Armored Division reached the river north of Koblenz. It had advanced 55 miles in less than 48 hours. On the 13th, Patton ordered his divisions across the Mosel and through the Hunsrück, a mountainous area to the east of Trier thought by SHAEF (Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force) to be too difficult for armor. Nevertheless, by the 22nd he had eight divisions on the Rhine from Koblenz to Ludwigshafen.
With that, Patton’s campaign west of the Rhine was over. It had cost another 7,287 casualties, but the Third Army engineers were ready, and Patton, desperate to cross the great river before Monty, decided that his men should make a feint at Mainz and cross at once at Oppenheim. By daylight on the 23rd, six battalions were over the river for a loss of only 28 men killed and wounded, while other infantry and engineer units had crossed just to the north, at Nierstein, without opposition. Patton telephoned Bradley: “Brad, don’t tell anyone but I’m across … there are so few Krauts around there they don’t know it yet. So don’t make any announcement. We’ll keep it secret until we see how it goes.”
However, the Germans soon became aware of the crossings and after heavy Luftwaffe raids on the Third Army pontoon bridges during the day, Patton called Bradley again that evening: “For God’s sake tell the world we’re across … I want the world to know Third Army made it before Monty.”
In fact, the world already knew. At Bradley’s headquarters that morning, Patton’s representative had announced that the Third Army had crossed the Rhine at 10 pm on March 22, “without benefit of aerial bombing, ground smoke, artillery preparation and airborne assistance.” Clearly, this was a dig at Montgomery, who was using all these assets at that very moment to assist his crossing of the same river.
General Order Number 70
On the day his first troops crossed the Rhine, Patton issued General Order Number 70 to his Third Army and to his supporting XIX Tactical Air Command: “In the period from January 29 to March 22, 1945, you have wrested 6,484 square miles of territory from the enemy. You have taken 3,072 cities, towns, and villages, including among the former: Trier, Coblenz, Bingen, Worms, Mainz, Kaiserslautern, and Ludwigshafen. You have captured 140,112 enemy soldiers and have killed or wounded an additional 99,000, thereby eliminating practically all of the German 7th and 1st Armies. History records no greater achievement in so limited a time … The world rings with your praises; better still General Marshall, General Eisenhower, and General Bradley have all personally commended you. The highest honor I have ever attained is that of having my name coupled with yours in these great events.”
The following day George Patton crossed the Rhine on a pontoon bridge at Oppenheim. Halfway across he undid his trousers “to take a piss in the Rhine. I have been looking forward to this for a long time,” he wrote in his diary. Another report says that he added, “I didn’t even piss this morning when I got up so I would have a really full load. Yes, sir, the pause that refreshes.” He had not only beaten Monty across the famous river, he had relieved himself in it two days before Winston Churchill! On arrival on the eastern bank he deliberately stubbed his toe and “fell, picking up a handful of German soil, in emulation of … William the Conqueror,” who allegedly did the same thing on arriving on the shore of England in 1066.
The Raid on Hammelburg
On March 23, after gaining his first bridgeheads over the Rhine, Patton had written to his wife, “I am scared by my good luck. This operation is stupendous.” But alas, his luck was about to run out, at least temporarily, in what became known as the Hammelburg raid.
Patton’s son-in-law, Lt. Col. John Waters, had been captured in North Africa in February 1943. It seems that Patton learned on or shortly before March 23 that Waters was being held in a German prison camp, Oflag XIIIB, three miles south of Hammelburg and some 60 miles east of Frankfurt. How he found out remains a mystery. The camp in fact held some 1,230 Americans and about 3,000 Serbian officers, former members of the Royal Yugoslav Army.
On March 25, Brig. Gen. William Hoge, the commander of the 4th Armored Division, received an order from his corps commander, Maj. Gen. Manton Eddy, telling him to mount a special task force (TF) to liberate Oflag XIIIB. On the same day, Patton’s general factotum and bodyguard and a former sergeant in Patton’s headquarters in World War I, Major Al Stiller, arrived at Hoge’s headquarters and announced that he had been ordered by Patton to accompany the TF. Not surprisingly, both Eddy and Hoge were unhappy with the idea of a raid some 40 miles behind enemy lines, and they expressed their concerns. This brought Patton to XII Corps on the 26th, and he ended up giving Hoge a direct order over the telephone “to cross the Main River and get over to Hammelburg.” Apparently it was at this point that Hoge turned to Stiller, who had been listening, and was told that Patton’s son-in-law was one of the prisoners in the camp.
The TF organized for the raid came from Lt. Col. Creighton Abrams’s Combat Command B (CCB) of the 4th Armored Division. Its commander was a young captain named Abraham Baum, and it comprised 16 tanks, 27 half-tracks, three 105mm self-propelled guns, and a total of 294 officers and men, including Al Stiller. Quite how the TF was meant to carry back some 1,200 released American prisoners remains a mystery—the total seating capacity of the vehicles was well under 500. Be that as it may, the basic plan was relatively simple. CCB would cross the Main River and make a hole in the German defenses, following which TF Baum would drive flat out for the camp. It was hoped that the raiding party would be safely back behind U.S. lines in less than 24 hours.
A Disastrous Outcome
Task Force Baum set out at 7 pm on the 26th, and by first light on the 28th it had ceased to exist. Although the American prisoners were freed for a time, the raid ended up in chaos. Nine members of TF Baum were killed, 32 wounded, including Baum, and 16 were never seen again. Every vehicle was lost, and most of the prisoners and the raiding party ended up back in the camp, including the reason for the raid, John Waters, who was badly wounded. He was still in Oflag XIIIB when a unit of the 14th Armored Division, part of the Seventh Army, reached the camp on April 5.
Waters’s life had been saved by a Serbian doctor. Patton sent his personal doctor, Charles Odom, to look after him and arranged for him to be airlifted to Frankfurt. This preferential treatment apparently caused resentment among some of the other wounded. On April 5, Patton wrote to his wife, “I feel terrible. I tried hard to save him and may be the cause of his death. Al Stiller was in the column and I fear he is dead. I don’t know what you and B [his daughter] will think. Don’t tell her yet … We have liberated a lot of PW camps but not the one I wanted.” On May 1, Stiller was found unharmed in another PW camp at Moosburg in southern Germany.
Officially, the Hammelburg raid never happened. When Patton visited Baum in the hospital to award him a Distinguished Service Cross, he told him he had done “one helluva job.” Baum replied that he could not believe the general would send his men on a mission like that to rescue one man.
Patton allegedly replied, “That’s right, Abe, I wouldn’t.” After Patton left, his aide told Baum the raid had been classified Top Secret and that he was to use discretion when discussing it. Baum interpreted this to mean that his TF would get no recognition and that he and his men had been “screwed again.”
Revealing Patton’s Motivations
Needless to say, Patton blamed everybody except himself for the failure of the Hammelburg raid, including Bradley, Eddy, and Hoge. In his April 5 letter to his wife, he wrote, “My first thought was to send a combat command but I was talked out of it by Omar and others.”
Patton went even further in his diary, where he claimed that he sent only two companies instead of a complete combat command “on account of strenuous objections of General Bradley.”
This accusation, however, seems to have been contradicted by Bradley who wrote later, “It was a story that began as a wild goose chase and ended in tragedy. I did not rebuke him for it. Failure itself was George’s own worst reprimand.” In his own book, War As I Knew It, Patton certainly blamed Eddy and Hoge. “I intended to send one combat command of the 4th Armored, but, unfortunately, was talked out of it by Eddy and Hoge.”
But for all Patton’s subsequent claims that he had no knowledge of Waters’s presence in Oflag XIIIB until nine days after the raid, and that it had been launched only to divert German attention and ease his army’s advance, those most closely involved at the top level—Hoge, Abrams, Baum, and Stiller—all believed that the raid had been launched for one reason only and that was to rescue Patton’s son-in-law. They remained silent at the time to protect their army commander, and it was long after the war, in 1967, before one of them, Creighton Abrams, stated openly that the raid had been launched solely because Waters was in the camp.
It is quite clear from Patton’s letters to his wife that this was true. Three days before the raid he wrote, “We are headed right for John’s place and may get there before he is moved, he had better escape or he will end up in Bavaria….” On the day of the raid he wrote again, “Last night I sent an armored column to a place 40 miles east of Frankfurt where John and some 900 PW are said to be. I have been as nervous as a cat all day as everyone but me thought it was too great a risk; I hope it works. Al Stiller went along. If I lose the column it will possibly be a new incident but I won’t.”
The Hammelburg raid was another potentially disastrous point in George Patton’s career, but President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s death on April 12 diverted the attention of his superiors and, perhaps more importantly, the press. As Patton put it so delicately in his diary two days later, “With the President’s death you could execute buggery in the streets and get no further than the fourth page.”
Third Army on the Move
On March 27, Patton had moved his headquarters from Luxembourg City to Oberstein, 20 miles east of Kassel. It was its first move for 14 weeks, but at last he was commanding from German soil, and in that period his army had fought its way through nearly 300 miles of German territory. He continued to “beg, coax, demand and threaten” his commanders in his desire to drive ever deeper into Hitler’s Reich, and he was constantly on the move, visiting his commanders and troops and attending meetings with other army commanders and his superiors.
During his travels in April, Patton noticed several things that displeased him. One was that his “Army was going to hell on uniform. During the extremely cold weather it had been permissible, and even necessary, to permit certain variations, but with the approach of summer I got out another uniform order.”
Another thing he noticed was “great carelessness in leaving gasoline cans along the road, so issued an order that the Assistant Quartermaster General of the Third Army was personally to drive along the road, followed by two trucks, and pick up all the cans he found.”
Patton also noted “that practically every enlisted member of the Medical Corps had captured a civilian automobile or motorcycle, with the result that we were wasting gasoline at a magnificent rate and cluttering up the road. . . We therefore issued an order for the sequestration of these vehicles.”
On April 10, Patton’s intelligence staff warned him that the Germans were setting up a partisan movement, the so-called Werewolves, and that they might well try to land a small glider-borne force near his forward HQ with the mission of killing him. His reaction was typical. “I never put much faith in this rumor, but did take my carbine to my truck every night.”
Two Shocking Finds
On the 12th, Patton had two unusual experiences—one exciting and one distressing. Five days earlier, Manton Eddy had told him that one of his XII Corps units had discovered a number of sealed vaults 2,000 feet deep in a salt mine at Merkers, 60 miles west of Erfurt. When Eddy went on to say he had no idea what was in the vaults, Patton allegedly responded, “General Eddy. You blow open that…vault and see what’s in it.”
Eddy did as ordered and found the entire German bullion reserve—4,500 bars of gold with an estimated value of more than $57 million along with millions of reichsmarks and dollar bills, paintings by great masters such as Titian and Van Dyck, some of which Patton thought were worth “about $2.50, and were of the type normally seen in bars in America,” and many other treasures. Eisenhower, Bradley, and Patton visited the mine on April 12. As they were lowered down the mine shaft, Patton, according to his aide, said, “If that clothesline (the elevator cable) should part, promotions in the U.S. Army would be considerably stimulated.”
To which Ike replied, “OK, George, that’s enough! No more cracks until we are above ground again.”
Afterward, the three commanders went on to the recently liberated concentration camp at Ohrdruf, less than 30 miles west of Erfurt, where the scenes inevitably shocked and disgusted them. Eisenhower and Bradley spent that night at Patton’s headquarters, and after dinner Ike told Patton that he planned to halt the First and Ninth Armies on the Elbe and direct his Third Army southeastward toward Czechoslovakia. But as Patton was getting ready for bed, he turned on the radio and heard a BBC announcer report the death of President Roosevelt. He immediately informed Ike and Bradley, and they discussed what might happen. It seemed to them very unfortunate that at so critical a period in their history they should have to “change horses.” Actually, subsequent events demonstrated that it made no difference at all.
On April 15, Patton visited the Buchenwald death camp, 10 miles to the east of Erfurt and only three miles from the famous town of Weimar, where he “could not stomach the sights he saw … [and] went off to a corner thoroughly sick.” As a result he gave orders that the inhabitants of Weimar were to be made to walk through the camp and see for themselves the results of the bestiality of their countrymen.
A Short Rest in Paris
On April 16, Bradley gave Patton the order he had been expecting since his conversation with Ike on the 12th. His army was to change the direction of its advance from east to southeast and move toward the so-called German national redoubt. This meant it would be moving parallel to the Czechoslovakian border. Patton did not believe in the national redoubt any more than he believed in the Werewolf movement, but he gave the necessary orders. Then, on the 17th, he flew to Paris for a 24-hour break.
On arrival, he visited his son-in-law, John Waters, in the hospital and found him much improved and being prepared for evacuation to the United States. According to his lifelong friend, Everett Hughes, Patton stayed in the George V Hotel and they had dinner together and drank “until the weesome hours.”
At breakfast on the 18th, Patton learned from the Stars and Stripes newspaper that he had been promoted to the rank of full general. He wrote later, “While I was, of course, glad to get the rank, the fact that I was not in the initial group (Bradley and Devers) and was therefore an ‘also ran’ removed some of the pleasure.”
At the time, though, he was thrilled to find that when he arrived at Orly Airport to fly back to Germany, not only had his aide, Colonel Charles Codman, found four-star collar insignia for him to wear, but also his plane had a four-star pennant flying outside and a four-star general’s flag and a bottle of four-star cognac inside.
The Third Army War Memorial Project
The Third Army’s final offensive began on April 19. By then the Second British Army had reached the Elbe at Lauenburg, the First U.S. Army had crossed the Elbe at Magdeburg and taken Leipzig, and the Ninth U.S. Army had crossed the same river and taken Brunswick.
For his last offensive, Patton developed a system known as the Third Army War Memorial Project. It consisted of firing a few salvos into every town approached, before even asking for surrender. According to Patton, “The object of this was to let the inhabitants have something to show future generations of Germans by way of proof that the Third Army had passed that way.”
The beautiful city of Passau, Germany, was one of the last victims. It was bombarded for 36 hours before Patton’s men entered the smoldering ruins.
On the 20th, Patton flew to XII Corps to say goodbye to his great friend Manton Eddy, who was being evacuated with very high blood pressure, first to Paris and then, like Waters, on to the States. On his return journey he had a very narrow escape from death himself. In order to cover the long distances involved in commanding his army and attending conferences with his superiors, Patton had, since arriving in Normandy, often flown to his destinations in a Piper Cub light aircraft. Usually a reasonably safe way to travel, this was not so on this particular day.
Patton suddenly “noticed some tracers coming by the right side of our plane which, at the same instant, dove for the ground, very nearly colliding with a plane that looked like a Spitfire. This plane made a second pass, again firing and missing … On the third pass, our attacker came in so fast and we were so close to the ground that he was unable to pull out of his dive and crashed, to our great satisfaction.”
It turned out that the pilot of the Spitfire was a Polish officer serving with the RAF. He had presumably mistaken the Cub for a German Fieseler Storch. A second life-threatening incident occurred on May 3, when an oxcart “came out of a side street so that the pole missed us (in a jeep) by about an inch.”
Patton is alleged to have exclaimed, “God, what a fate that would have been. To have gone through all the war I’ve seen and been killed by an ox.”
Pushing into the East
By April 26, Patton’s headquarters was located 75 miles northwest of Regensburg. His leading units had entered the city that same day and had quickly established bridgeheads over the Danube. The Third Army was thus poised to move into either Czechoslovakia or Austria. Both the American and British chiefs of staff had agreed that Czechoslovakia was a political prize that should be denied to Stalin, but Eisenhower, ever fearful of a major “blue on blue” incident with the Red Army, said he did not believe Patton could get to Prague before the Soviets and ordered a halt at the border some 100 miles southwest of the capital.
Bradley, and of course Patton, believed Prague could have been liberated within 24 hours. On May 2, Patton was told that the Seventh U.S. Army was to take over responsibility for reducing the national redoubt and that his army was to halt. His headquarters had moved 19 times since arriving in Normandy and had covered 1,225 miles. Two days later, at 7:30 pm on the 4th, Ike finally agreed that his army could cross the Czech border—but he was to halt again at Plzen, 55 miles from Prague. At this time the Third Army was, according to Patton, at its greatest strength in the war—18 divisions of just over 540,000 men. On the 6th, Bradley telephoned Patton. He was worried that, having heard of an uprising in Prague against the Germans, he might ignore the order to halt.
“You hear me, George … halt!” he yelled. Patton wrote later, “I was very much chagrined, because I felt, and still feel, that we should have gone on to the Moldau river [in Prague] and, if the Russians didn’t like it, let them go to hell.”
Early on the morning of May 7, Bradley called Patton and told him the Germans had surrendered. “It takes effect at midnight, May 8th. We’re to hold in place everywhere up and down the line. There’s no sense in taking any more casualties now.”
On the same day, together with the Under Secretary of War, Robert Patterson, who was staying with him, Patton flew to a village near the Austro-German border about 100 miles east of Munich, to see a group of Lipizzaner stallions from the Spanish Riding School of Vienna. They had been handed over to one of his units for safe keeping from the Russians.
Although Patton agreed, “These horses will be wards of the U.S. Army until they can be returned to the new Austria,” his private view of the whole event, expressed in his diary, is interesting and, in view of his love of horses and riding ability, perhaps surprising. “It struck me as rather strange that, in the middle of a world at war, some twenty young and middle-aged men in great physical condition, together with about thirty grooms, had spent their entire time teaching a group of horses to wiggle their butts and raise their feet in consonance with certain signals from the heels and reins. Much as I like horses, this seemed to me wasted energy. On the other hand, … to me the high-schooling of horses is certainly more interesting than either painting or music.”
The War According to Patton
At his normal morning briefing on the 8th, exactly two and a half years since he had landed in Morocco, Patton told his staff this would be the last such meeting in Europe. “I think most of them realized I was hoping to have some more briefings in Asia,” he said.
The day after the fighting officially ended, Patton issued General Order Number 98, which outlined the Third Army’s successes and claimed that it had advanced farther in less time than any other army in history—just over 1,300 miles in 281 days. He had, of course, either conveniently forgotten or purposely ignored the fact that Monty’s Eighth Army had advanced some 1,850 miles from Alamein to Tunis in 201 days!
Patton went on to claim that his army had killed or wounded at least half a million Germans and captured another 956,000. The general order ended, “During the course of this war I have received promotion and decorations far above and beyond my individual merit. You won them; I as your representative wear them. The one honor which is mine and mine alone is that of having commanded such an incomparable group of Americans, the record of whose fortitude, audacity, and valor will endure as long as history lasts.”
Patton’s postscript to the war in Europe was written later. “I can say this, that throughout the campaign in Europe I know of no error I made except that of failing to send a Combat Command to take Hammelburg. Otherwise, my operations were, to me, strictly satisfactory. In every case, practically throughout the campaign, I was under wraps from the High Command. This may have been a good thing, as perhaps I am too impetuous. However, I do not believe I was and feel that had I been permitted to go all out, the war would have ended sooner and more lives would have been saved. Particularly I think this statement applies to the time when, in the early days of September, we were halted, owing to the desire, or necessity, on the part of General Eisenhower in backing Montgomery’s move to the north. At that time there is no question of doubt but that we could have gone through and across the Rhine within ten days. This would have saved a great many thousand men.”
The claim that he could have crossed the Rhine within 10 days in early September 1944 is typical of Patton, and one that neither of his direct superiors, Ike or Bradley, believed possible.
Patton and the Soviets
Patton held a press conference on VE Day, during which he forcibly expressed his views on the Soviets. Pointing to a map of Central Europe he said, “What the tin-soldier politicians in Washington and Paris have managed to do today is … to kick hell out of one bastard and at the same time forced us to help establish a second one as evil or more evil than the first … This day we have missed another date with our destiny, and this time we’ll need Almighty God’s constant help if we’re to live in the same world with Stalin and his murdering cutthroats.”
Later that day in a farewell meeting with Cornelius Ryan and another correspondent, he confirmed his views on this subject. “You cannot lay [sic] down with a diseased jackal. Neither can you do business with the Russians … I just couldn’t stand being around and taking any lip from those SOBs.”
George Patton took no great pleasure in the events of VE Day. He already knew that despite his lobbying of many influential figures in Washington, he had no hope of being assigned to the Pacific Theater. As he put it to his III Corps commander, Maj. Gen. James Van Fleet, “There is already a star [MacArthur] in that theater and you can only have one star in a show.”
Patton was also depressed because he knew there would be a rapid reduction in the strength of the U.S. Army in Europe, and he believed this was inviting disaster. On May 7, he had pleaded with the visiting Under Secretary of War, Robert Patterson, “Let’s keep our boots polished, bayonets sharpened and present a picture of force and strength to these people [the Soviets]. This is the only language they understand and respect. If you fail to do this, then I would like to say to you that we have had a victory over the Germans and have disarmed them, but have lost the war.”
When Patterson told him that he did not understand the “big picture,” but asked Patton what he would do about the Russians, he allegedly replied that he would keep the U.S. Army in Europe intact, delineate the border with the Soviets, and if they did not withdraw behind it “push them back across it …We did not come over here to acquire jurisdiction over either the people or their countries. We came to give them back the right to govern themselves. We must either finish the job now—while we are here and ready—or later in less favorable circumstances.”
Needless to say, such ideas were totally unacceptable to the politicians in Washington—and indeed to most of the American soldiers in Europe. All they wanted to do was to go home. | <urn:uuid:db1cfb3a-8b5f-4bb3-a2f1-ae82fab28e79> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://warfarehistorynetwork.com/2016/07/21/pattons-end-run/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250606872.19/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122071919-20200122100919-00504.warc.gz | en | 0.986849 | 7,889 | 3.546875 | 4 | [
-0.36333227157592773,
0.5529357194900513,
0.0016422979533672333,
0.10896982997655869,
-0.028289616107940674,
0.18901899456977844,
-0.3387836813926697,
0.1493682712316513,
-0.3428639769554138,
-0.2536904215812683,
0.19102418422698975,
-0.006830276921391487,
0.5688691735267639,
0.48583623766... | 3 | By Major General Michael Reynolds
By early 1945, Hitler’s armies were almost exhausted. With most of Poland in Soviet hands and the Ruhr in ruins from Allied air attacks, the replenishment of fuel, ammunition, and weapon stocks had almost come to a halt, and coal and steel production had been reduced to a fifth of what it had been only six months earlier.
On the Eastern Front, the Soviet winter offensive had reached a line less than 100 miles from Berlin, and although in the West the Siegfried Line was still basically intact and the Rhine had yet to be crossed, it was clear that with American divisions arriving in Europe at the rate of one a week it was only a matter of time before the Third Reich collapsed in chaos and disaster. Still, Hitler refused to consider surrender.
Pressure to Cross the Rhine
The success and speed of the Soviet advance had in fact presented the Western Allies with a serious problem: unless they broke through to the North German plain within a few weeks, Stalin would almost certainly seize control of virtually the whole of Germany, including its Baltic and North Sea ports.
The Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, Dwight D. Eisenhower, had issued his outline plan for the first phase of the advance into Germany on the last day of 1944. It called first for the destruction of the German forces west of the Rhine, following which Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery’s 21st Army Group (British and Canadian) was to make the main drive to the North German Plain, north of the Ruhr, while General Omar Bradley’s 12th Army Group (American and French) made a complementary, but secondary, attack from the Mainz–Frankfurt area northeast to Kassel. The overall objective of the plan was to effect “a massive double envelopment of the Ruhr to be followed by a great thrust to join up with the Russians.”
After studying it, Monty came to the conclusion that it did all he wanted in that it put the weight in the north and put the Ninth American Army under his command. Even more amazingly, it gave him the power of decision in the event of disagreement with Bradley on the boundary between the 12th and 21st Army Groups.
Ike’s detailed plan for the Rhineland campaign, which was to precede the thrust into Germany proper, saw Monty’s 21st Army Group, with the Ninth U.S. Army under command, seizing the west bank of the Rhine from Nijmegen to Düsseldorf. During this phase, Bradley’s 12th Army Group was to maintain an aggressive defense. Then, while Monty prepared to cross the lower Rhine, Bradley was to secure the river from Düsseldorf to Köln, following which General George Patton’s Third Army would “take up the ball” and thrust eastward from Prüm to Koblenz. At the same time, the Third and Seventh U.S. Armies would be responsible for securing crossings over the Rhine between Mainz and Karlsruhe for the forces destined to carry out the thrust south of the Ruhr.
Needless to say, Bradley was far from happy to see Monty being given not only the main role, but also a complete U.S. army. With two-thirds of the Allied Expeditionary Force now made up of American troops, he had wanted, not surprisingly, the main effort to be made by American troops under American command. Indeed, he envisaged all four U.S. armies driving into central Germany with the British, Canadian, and French armies being relegated to flank protection. He was bitterly disappointed when his plea fell on deaf ears.
Inevitably, Patton was furious when he was told that his Third U.S. Army was to adopt a posture of “aggressive defense,” while Monty’s 21st Army Group launched a major offensive. On February 4, he wrote to his wife, Beatrice, telling her that if she heard he was on the defensive, “It was not the enemy who put me there. I don’t see much future for me in this war. There are too many safety-first people running it.”
Patton was certainly not going to be defeated by the safety-first people, and he chose to view the order to adopt a posture of aggressive defense as meaning that he could “keep moving towards the Rhine with a low profile.” He told his staff that the Third Army was going to carry out an “armored reconnaissance,” but that it would be done with seven divisions and that the initial objectives were Prüm, Bitburg, and the vital city of Trier on the Mosel River. Furthermore, he told his commanders to make sure that their units were always fully committed so that they could not be removed from his command and placed in Eisenhower’s new theater reserve. He wrote in his diary: “Reserve against what?…Certainly at this point in the war no reserve is needed—simply violent attacks everywhere with everything.”
Draining Patton’s Force
On February 10, Bradley telephoned Patton to tell him that Ike was transferring divisions from the 12th Army Group to General Bill Simpson’s Ninth U.S. Army. The latter was now, of course, part of Monty’s army group. Patton replied that as the oldest and most experienced serving general in the theater he was damned if he would release any of his divisions or go onto the defensive, and that he would resign rather than comply with such orders. He clearly had no intention of really resigning, but he withdrew his threat anyway when Bradley suggested that he owed too much to his troops to even consider it. Nevertheless, in early February Patton lost the 17th Airborne and 95th Infantry Divisions to Simpson and Monty.
The area in which the Third Army was operating during February 1945, the Eifel, is hilly, heavily forested, and bisected by three fast- flowing rivers, which at that time were swollen by the snow and rains of the worst winter in 38 years. Patton wrote later, “The crossing of … these rivers was a magnificent feat of arms.”
The campaign, carried out in appalling conditions, cost a total of 42,217 battle casualties and a staggering 20,790 nonbattle casualties, but it was eventually successful. By March 1, Patton’s troops had captured Prüm and Bitburg; Trier fell a day later. Ike’s headquarters had estimated that it would take four divisions to capture the former Roman provincial capital of Trier, but Patton was able to send a message saying, “Have taken Trier with two divisions. Do you want me to give it back?”
On March 5, General Courtney Hodges’s First U.S. Army finally went on the offensive. Köln fell on the 6th, and to everyone’s amazement, by 4 pm on the 7th a bridge had been secured over the Rhine, roughly halfway between Köln and Koblenz—the Ludendorff railway bridge at Remagen. “We were quite happy over it, but just a little envious,” wrote Patton later.
American bravery and initiative had ensured that the bridge, although prepared for demolition, was secured intact. But the euphoria soon disappeared the following day when, sadly for Bradley, Eisenhower gave orders that to provide the necessary number of divisions to Simpson’s Ninth Army for Monty’s northern push, no more than four were to be committed at Remagen and that for the time being at least the bridgehead was to be held but not developed.
This, in fact, also made sense tactically since beyond the bridge for about 12 miles were heavily forested mountains crossed by poor roads, making further advance against any kind of determined resistance extremely difficult. Even so, by the 17th, when the bridge finally collapsed, there were six American divisions in a bridgehead 10 miles deep and 30 miles wide.
“Take the Rhine on the Run”
On March 5, as the First U.S. Army launched its attack, Patton finally obtained Eisenhower’s authority to advance into the rest of the Rhineland Palatinate. Bradley told him to “take the Rhine on the run,” and on March 10, just three days after the Remagen bridge was captured by the First Army, Patton’s 4th Armored Division reached the river north of Koblenz. It had advanced 55 miles in less than 48 hours. On the 13th, Patton ordered his divisions across the Mosel and through the Hunsrück, a mountainous area to the east of Trier thought by SHAEF (Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force) to be too difficult for armor. Nevertheless, by the 22nd he had eight divisions on the Rhine from Koblenz to Ludwigshafen.
With that, Patton’s campaign west of the Rhine was over. It had cost another 7,287 casualties, but the Third Army engineers were ready, and Patton, desperate to cross the great river before Monty, decided that his men should make a feint at Mainz and cross at once at Oppenheim. By daylight on the 23rd, six battalions were over the river for a loss of only 28 men killed and wounded, while other infantry and engineer units had crossed just to the north, at Nierstein, without opposition. Patton telephoned Bradley: “Brad, don’t tell anyone but I’m across … there are so few Krauts around there they don’t know it yet. So don’t make any announcement. We’ll keep it secret until we see how it goes.”
However, the Germans soon became aware of the crossings and after heavy Luftwaffe raids on the Third Army pontoon bridges during the day, Patton called Bradley again that evening: “For God’s sake tell the world we’re across … I want the world to know Third Army made it before Monty.”
In fact, the world already knew. At Bradley’s headquarters that morning, Patton’s representative had announced that the Third Army had crossed the Rhine at 10 pm on March 22, “without benefit of aerial bombing, ground smoke, artillery preparation and airborne assistance.” Clearly, this was a dig at Montgomery, who was using all these assets at that very moment to assist his crossing of the same river.
General Order Number 70
On the day his first troops crossed the Rhine, Patton issued General Order Number 70 to his Third Army and to his supporting XIX Tactical Air Command: “In the period from January 29 to March 22, 1945, you have wrested 6,484 square miles of territory from the enemy. You have taken 3,072 cities, towns, and villages, including among the former: Trier, Coblenz, Bingen, Worms, Mainz, Kaiserslautern, and Ludwigshafen. You have captured 140,112 enemy soldiers and have killed or wounded an additional 99,000, thereby eliminating practically all of the German 7th and 1st Armies. History records no greater achievement in so limited a time … The world rings with your praises; better still General Marshall, General Eisenhower, and General Bradley have all personally commended you. The highest honor I have ever attained is that of having my name coupled with yours in these great events.”
The following day George Patton crossed the Rhine on a pontoon bridge at Oppenheim. Halfway across he undid his trousers “to take a piss in the Rhine. I have been looking forward to this for a long time,” he wrote in his diary. Another report says that he added, “I didn’t even piss this morning when I got up so I would have a really full load. Yes, sir, the pause that refreshes.” He had not only beaten Monty across the famous river, he had relieved himself in it two days before Winston Churchill! On arrival on the eastern bank he deliberately stubbed his toe and “fell, picking up a handful of German soil, in emulation of … William the Conqueror,” who allegedly did the same thing on arriving on the shore of England in 1066.
The Raid on Hammelburg
On March 23, after gaining his first bridgeheads over the Rhine, Patton had written to his wife, “I am scared by my good luck. This operation is stupendous.” But alas, his luck was about to run out, at least temporarily, in what became known as the Hammelburg raid.
Patton’s son-in-law, Lt. Col. John Waters, had been captured in North Africa in February 1943. It seems that Patton learned on or shortly before March 23 that Waters was being held in a German prison camp, Oflag XIIIB, three miles south of Hammelburg and some 60 miles east of Frankfurt. How he found out remains a mystery. The camp in fact held some 1,230 Americans and about 3,000 Serbian officers, former members of the Royal Yugoslav Army.
On March 25, Brig. Gen. William Hoge, the commander of the 4th Armored Division, received an order from his corps commander, Maj. Gen. Manton Eddy, telling him to mount a special task force (TF) to liberate Oflag XIIIB. On the same day, Patton’s general factotum and bodyguard and a former sergeant in Patton’s headquarters in World War I, Major Al Stiller, arrived at Hoge’s headquarters and announced that he had been ordered by Patton to accompany the TF. Not surprisingly, both Eddy and Hoge were unhappy with the idea of a raid some 40 miles behind enemy lines, and they expressed their concerns. This brought Patton to XII Corps on the 26th, and he ended up giving Hoge a direct order over the telephone “to cross the Main River and get over to Hammelburg.” Apparently it was at this point that Hoge turned to Stiller, who had been listening, and was told that Patton’s son-in-law was one of the prisoners in the camp.
The TF organized for the raid came from Lt. Col. Creighton Abrams’s Combat Command B (CCB) of the 4th Armored Division. Its commander was a young captain named Abraham Baum, and it comprised 16 tanks, 27 half-tracks, three 105mm self-propelled guns, and a total of 294 officers and men, including Al Stiller. Quite how the TF was meant to carry back some 1,200 released American prisoners remains a mystery—the total seating capacity of the vehicles was well under 500. Be that as it may, the basic plan was relatively simple. CCB would cross the Main River and make a hole in the German defenses, following which TF Baum would drive flat out for the camp. It was hoped that the raiding party would be safely back behind U.S. lines in less than 24 hours.
A Disastrous Outcome
Task Force Baum set out at 7 pm on the 26th, and by first light on the 28th it had ceased to exist. Although the American prisoners were freed for a time, the raid ended up in chaos. Nine members of TF Baum were killed, 32 wounded, including Baum, and 16 were never seen again. Every vehicle was lost, and most of the prisoners and the raiding party ended up back in the camp, including the reason for the raid, John Waters, who was badly wounded. He was still in Oflag XIIIB when a unit of the 14th Armored Division, part of the Seventh Army, reached the camp on April 5.
Waters’s life had been saved by a Serbian doctor. Patton sent his personal doctor, Charles Odom, to look after him and arranged for him to be airlifted to Frankfurt. This preferential treatment apparently caused resentment among some of the other wounded. On April 5, Patton wrote to his wife, “I feel terrible. I tried hard to save him and may be the cause of his death. Al Stiller was in the column and I fear he is dead. I don’t know what you and B [his daughter] will think. Don’t tell her yet … We have liberated a lot of PW camps but not the one I wanted.” On May 1, Stiller was found unharmed in another PW camp at Moosburg in southern Germany.
Officially, the Hammelburg raid never happened. When Patton visited Baum in the hospital to award him a Distinguished Service Cross, he told him he had done “one helluva job.” Baum replied that he could not believe the general would send his men on a mission like that to rescue one man.
Patton allegedly replied, “That’s right, Abe, I wouldn’t.” After Patton left, his aide told Baum the raid had been classified Top Secret and that he was to use discretion when discussing it. Baum interpreted this to mean that his TF would get no recognition and that he and his men had been “screwed again.”
Revealing Patton’s Motivations
Needless to say, Patton blamed everybody except himself for the failure of the Hammelburg raid, including Bradley, Eddy, and Hoge. In his April 5 letter to his wife, he wrote, “My first thought was to send a combat command but I was talked out of it by Omar and others.”
Patton went even further in his diary, where he claimed that he sent only two companies instead of a complete combat command “on account of strenuous objections of General Bradley.”
This accusation, however, seems to have been contradicted by Bradley who wrote later, “It was a story that began as a wild goose chase and ended in tragedy. I did not rebuke him for it. Failure itself was George’s own worst reprimand.” In his own book, War As I Knew It, Patton certainly blamed Eddy and Hoge. “I intended to send one combat command of the 4th Armored, but, unfortunately, was talked out of it by Eddy and Hoge.”
But for all Patton’s subsequent claims that he had no knowledge of Waters’s presence in Oflag XIIIB until nine days after the raid, and that it had been launched only to divert German attention and ease his army’s advance, those most closely involved at the top level—Hoge, Abrams, Baum, and Stiller—all believed that the raid had been launched for one reason only and that was to rescue Patton’s son-in-law. They remained silent at the time to protect their army commander, and it was long after the war, in 1967, before one of them, Creighton Abrams, stated openly that the raid had been launched solely because Waters was in the camp.
It is quite clear from Patton’s letters to his wife that this was true. Three days before the raid he wrote, “We are headed right for John’s place and may get there before he is moved, he had better escape or he will end up in Bavaria….” On the day of the raid he wrote again, “Last night I sent an armored column to a place 40 miles east of Frankfurt where John and some 900 PW are said to be. I have been as nervous as a cat all day as everyone but me thought it was too great a risk; I hope it works. Al Stiller went along. If I lose the column it will possibly be a new incident but I won’t.”
The Hammelburg raid was another potentially disastrous point in George Patton’s career, but President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s death on April 12 diverted the attention of his superiors and, perhaps more importantly, the press. As Patton put it so delicately in his diary two days later, “With the President’s death you could execute buggery in the streets and get no further than the fourth page.”
Third Army on the Move
On March 27, Patton had moved his headquarters from Luxembourg City to Oberstein, 20 miles east of Kassel. It was its first move for 14 weeks, but at last he was commanding from German soil, and in that period his army had fought its way through nearly 300 miles of German territory. He continued to “beg, coax, demand and threaten” his commanders in his desire to drive ever deeper into Hitler’s Reich, and he was constantly on the move, visiting his commanders and troops and attending meetings with other army commanders and his superiors.
During his travels in April, Patton noticed several things that displeased him. One was that his “Army was going to hell on uniform. During the extremely cold weather it had been permissible, and even necessary, to permit certain variations, but with the approach of summer I got out another uniform order.”
Another thing he noticed was “great carelessness in leaving gasoline cans along the road, so issued an order that the Assistant Quartermaster General of the Third Army was personally to drive along the road, followed by two trucks, and pick up all the cans he found.”
Patton also noted “that practically every enlisted member of the Medical Corps had captured a civilian automobile or motorcycle, with the result that we were wasting gasoline at a magnificent rate and cluttering up the road. . . We therefore issued an order for the sequestration of these vehicles.”
On April 10, Patton’s intelligence staff warned him that the Germans were setting up a partisan movement, the so-called Werewolves, and that they might well try to land a small glider-borne force near his forward HQ with the mission of killing him. His reaction was typical. “I never put much faith in this rumor, but did take my carbine to my truck every night.”
Two Shocking Finds
On the 12th, Patton had two unusual experiences—one exciting and one distressing. Five days earlier, Manton Eddy had told him that one of his XII Corps units had discovered a number of sealed vaults 2,000 feet deep in a salt mine at Merkers, 60 miles west of Erfurt. When Eddy went on to say he had no idea what was in the vaults, Patton allegedly responded, “General Eddy. You blow open that…vault and see what’s in it.”
Eddy did as ordered and found the entire German bullion reserve—4,500 bars of gold with an estimated value of more than $57 million along with millions of reichsmarks and dollar bills, paintings by great masters such as Titian and Van Dyck, some of which Patton thought were worth “about $2.50, and were of the type normally seen in bars in America,” and many other treasures. Eisenhower, Bradley, and Patton visited the mine on April 12. As they were lowered down the mine shaft, Patton, according to his aide, said, “If that clothesline (the elevator cable) should part, promotions in the U.S. Army would be considerably stimulated.”
To which Ike replied, “OK, George, that’s enough! No more cracks until we are above ground again.”
Afterward, the three commanders went on to the recently liberated concentration camp at Ohrdruf, less than 30 miles west of Erfurt, where the scenes inevitably shocked and disgusted them. Eisenhower and Bradley spent that night at Patton’s headquarters, and after dinner Ike told Patton that he planned to halt the First and Ninth Armies on the Elbe and direct his Third Army southeastward toward Czechoslovakia. But as Patton was getting ready for bed, he turned on the radio and heard a BBC announcer report the death of President Roosevelt. He immediately informed Ike and Bradley, and they discussed what might happen. It seemed to them very unfortunate that at so critical a period in their history they should have to “change horses.” Actually, subsequent events demonstrated that it made no difference at all.
On April 15, Patton visited the Buchenwald death camp, 10 miles to the east of Erfurt and only three miles from the famous town of Weimar, where he “could not stomach the sights he saw … [and] went off to a corner thoroughly sick.” As a result he gave orders that the inhabitants of Weimar were to be made to walk through the camp and see for themselves the results of the bestiality of their countrymen.
A Short Rest in Paris
On April 16, Bradley gave Patton the order he had been expecting since his conversation with Ike on the 12th. His army was to change the direction of its advance from east to southeast and move toward the so-called German national redoubt. This meant it would be moving parallel to the Czechoslovakian border. Patton did not believe in the national redoubt any more than he believed in the Werewolf movement, but he gave the necessary orders. Then, on the 17th, he flew to Paris for a 24-hour break.
On arrival, he visited his son-in-law, John Waters, in the hospital and found him much improved and being prepared for evacuation to the United States. According to his lifelong friend, Everett Hughes, Patton stayed in the George V Hotel and they had dinner together and drank “until the weesome hours.”
At breakfast on the 18th, Patton learned from the Stars and Stripes newspaper that he had been promoted to the rank of full general. He wrote later, “While I was, of course, glad to get the rank, the fact that I was not in the initial group (Bradley and Devers) and was therefore an ‘also ran’ removed some of the pleasure.”
At the time, though, he was thrilled to find that when he arrived at Orly Airport to fly back to Germany, not only had his aide, Colonel Charles Codman, found four-star collar insignia for him to wear, but also his plane had a four-star pennant flying outside and a four-star general’s flag and a bottle of four-star cognac inside.
The Third Army War Memorial Project
The Third Army’s final offensive began on April 19. By then the Second British Army had reached the Elbe at Lauenburg, the First U.S. Army had crossed the Elbe at Magdeburg and taken Leipzig, and the Ninth U.S. Army had crossed the same river and taken Brunswick.
For his last offensive, Patton developed a system known as the Third Army War Memorial Project. It consisted of firing a few salvos into every town approached, before even asking for surrender. According to Patton, “The object of this was to let the inhabitants have something to show future generations of Germans by way of proof that the Third Army had passed that way.”
The beautiful city of Passau, Germany, was one of the last victims. It was bombarded for 36 hours before Patton’s men entered the smoldering ruins.
On the 20th, Patton flew to XII Corps to say goodbye to his great friend Manton Eddy, who was being evacuated with very high blood pressure, first to Paris and then, like Waters, on to the States. On his return journey he had a very narrow escape from death himself. In order to cover the long distances involved in commanding his army and attending conferences with his superiors, Patton had, since arriving in Normandy, often flown to his destinations in a Piper Cub light aircraft. Usually a reasonably safe way to travel, this was not so on this particular day.
Patton suddenly “noticed some tracers coming by the right side of our plane which, at the same instant, dove for the ground, very nearly colliding with a plane that looked like a Spitfire. This plane made a second pass, again firing and missing … On the third pass, our attacker came in so fast and we were so close to the ground that he was unable to pull out of his dive and crashed, to our great satisfaction.”
It turned out that the pilot of the Spitfire was a Polish officer serving with the RAF. He had presumably mistaken the Cub for a German Fieseler Storch. A second life-threatening incident occurred on May 3, when an oxcart “came out of a side street so that the pole missed us (in a jeep) by about an inch.”
Patton is alleged to have exclaimed, “God, what a fate that would have been. To have gone through all the war I’ve seen and been killed by an ox.”
Pushing into the East
By April 26, Patton’s headquarters was located 75 miles northwest of Regensburg. His leading units had entered the city that same day and had quickly established bridgeheads over the Danube. The Third Army was thus poised to move into either Czechoslovakia or Austria. Both the American and British chiefs of staff had agreed that Czechoslovakia was a political prize that should be denied to Stalin, but Eisenhower, ever fearful of a major “blue on blue” incident with the Red Army, said he did not believe Patton could get to Prague before the Soviets and ordered a halt at the border some 100 miles southwest of the capital.
Bradley, and of course Patton, believed Prague could have been liberated within 24 hours. On May 2, Patton was told that the Seventh U.S. Army was to take over responsibility for reducing the national redoubt and that his army was to halt. His headquarters had moved 19 times since arriving in Normandy and had covered 1,225 miles. Two days later, at 7:30 pm on the 4th, Ike finally agreed that his army could cross the Czech border—but he was to halt again at Plzen, 55 miles from Prague. At this time the Third Army was, according to Patton, at its greatest strength in the war—18 divisions of just over 540,000 men. On the 6th, Bradley telephoned Patton. He was worried that, having heard of an uprising in Prague against the Germans, he might ignore the order to halt.
“You hear me, George … halt!” he yelled. Patton wrote later, “I was very much chagrined, because I felt, and still feel, that we should have gone on to the Moldau river [in Prague] and, if the Russians didn’t like it, let them go to hell.”
Early on the morning of May 7, Bradley called Patton and told him the Germans had surrendered. “It takes effect at midnight, May 8th. We’re to hold in place everywhere up and down the line. There’s no sense in taking any more casualties now.”
On the same day, together with the Under Secretary of War, Robert Patterson, who was staying with him, Patton flew to a village near the Austro-German border about 100 miles east of Munich, to see a group of Lipizzaner stallions from the Spanish Riding School of Vienna. They had been handed over to one of his units for safe keeping from the Russians.
Although Patton agreed, “These horses will be wards of the U.S. Army until they can be returned to the new Austria,” his private view of the whole event, expressed in his diary, is interesting and, in view of his love of horses and riding ability, perhaps surprising. “It struck me as rather strange that, in the middle of a world at war, some twenty young and middle-aged men in great physical condition, together with about thirty grooms, had spent their entire time teaching a group of horses to wiggle their butts and raise their feet in consonance with certain signals from the heels and reins. Much as I like horses, this seemed to me wasted energy. On the other hand, … to me the high-schooling of horses is certainly more interesting than either painting or music.”
The War According to Patton
At his normal morning briefing on the 8th, exactly two and a half years since he had landed in Morocco, Patton told his staff this would be the last such meeting in Europe. “I think most of them realized I was hoping to have some more briefings in Asia,” he said.
The day after the fighting officially ended, Patton issued General Order Number 98, which outlined the Third Army’s successes and claimed that it had advanced farther in less time than any other army in history—just over 1,300 miles in 281 days. He had, of course, either conveniently forgotten or purposely ignored the fact that Monty’s Eighth Army had advanced some 1,850 miles from Alamein to Tunis in 201 days!
Patton went on to claim that his army had killed or wounded at least half a million Germans and captured another 956,000. The general order ended, “During the course of this war I have received promotion and decorations far above and beyond my individual merit. You won them; I as your representative wear them. The one honor which is mine and mine alone is that of having commanded such an incomparable group of Americans, the record of whose fortitude, audacity, and valor will endure as long as history lasts.”
Patton’s postscript to the war in Europe was written later. “I can say this, that throughout the campaign in Europe I know of no error I made except that of failing to send a Combat Command to take Hammelburg. Otherwise, my operations were, to me, strictly satisfactory. In every case, practically throughout the campaign, I was under wraps from the High Command. This may have been a good thing, as perhaps I am too impetuous. However, I do not believe I was and feel that had I been permitted to go all out, the war would have ended sooner and more lives would have been saved. Particularly I think this statement applies to the time when, in the early days of September, we were halted, owing to the desire, or necessity, on the part of General Eisenhower in backing Montgomery’s move to the north. At that time there is no question of doubt but that we could have gone through and across the Rhine within ten days. This would have saved a great many thousand men.”
The claim that he could have crossed the Rhine within 10 days in early September 1944 is typical of Patton, and one that neither of his direct superiors, Ike or Bradley, believed possible.
Patton and the Soviets
Patton held a press conference on VE Day, during which he forcibly expressed his views on the Soviets. Pointing to a map of Central Europe he said, “What the tin-soldier politicians in Washington and Paris have managed to do today is … to kick hell out of one bastard and at the same time forced us to help establish a second one as evil or more evil than the first … This day we have missed another date with our destiny, and this time we’ll need Almighty God’s constant help if we’re to live in the same world with Stalin and his murdering cutthroats.”
Later that day in a farewell meeting with Cornelius Ryan and another correspondent, he confirmed his views on this subject. “You cannot lay [sic] down with a diseased jackal. Neither can you do business with the Russians … I just couldn’t stand being around and taking any lip from those SOBs.”
George Patton took no great pleasure in the events of VE Day. He already knew that despite his lobbying of many influential figures in Washington, he had no hope of being assigned to the Pacific Theater. As he put it to his III Corps commander, Maj. Gen. James Van Fleet, “There is already a star [MacArthur] in that theater and you can only have one star in a show.”
Patton was also depressed because he knew there would be a rapid reduction in the strength of the U.S. Army in Europe, and he believed this was inviting disaster. On May 7, he had pleaded with the visiting Under Secretary of War, Robert Patterson, “Let’s keep our boots polished, bayonets sharpened and present a picture of force and strength to these people [the Soviets]. This is the only language they understand and respect. If you fail to do this, then I would like to say to you that we have had a victory over the Germans and have disarmed them, but have lost the war.”
When Patterson told him that he did not understand the “big picture,” but asked Patton what he would do about the Russians, he allegedly replied that he would keep the U.S. Army in Europe intact, delineate the border with the Soviets, and if they did not withdraw behind it “push them back across it …We did not come over here to acquire jurisdiction over either the people or their countries. We came to give them back the right to govern themselves. We must either finish the job now—while we are here and ready—or later in less favorable circumstances.”
Needless to say, such ideas were totally unacceptable to the politicians in Washington—and indeed to most of the American soldiers in Europe. All they wanted to do was to go home. | 7,698 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The 1905 Revolution had various long term and short term causes that lead up to it. Bloody Sunday could be considered to be the most important cause of the revolution, due to its immediate short term effect. However there are various other causes that played in important part.
Bloody Sunday was the name that came to be given to the events of 22 January, 1905, in St Petersburg, Russia, where unarmed demonstrators marching to present a petition to Tsar Nicholas II were fired upon by soldiers of the Imperial Guard when approaching the city centre and the Winter Palace from several gathering points. Guards killed over 1000 peasants and workers during the demonstration. After the massacre occurred, many of the surviving demonstrators were expelled from Russia. This supports Bloody Sunday as being an important cause of the revolution, as after it only spread the news further and sparked many sympathy strikes in many other parts of Russia. As well as this it also majorly damaged the Tsar’s overall popularity. Before the revolution, many Russian’s referred to the Tsar as ‘Little Father’. They believed to be on their side and would listen to them if they were to petition to him. However, the occurrence of Bloody Sunday abolished this trust. Bloody Sunday was a short tern cause of the revolution. This is due to the fact that it immediately created a reaction from the public, as the Tsar they believed in essentially let them down. This meant that the public no longer attainted faith in the Tsar and his ability to rule over Russia successfully and effectively, sparking the revolution.
The Russo Japanese was also another important cause of the 1905 revolution. Russia wanted more land in Korea but the Japanese also wanted this land, so ultimately didn’t want Russia to get it. Russia believed they were the superior power and wanted a warm water port, ‘Port Arthur’. However the Japanese navy attacked the Russian fleet and Russia lost 25 out of its 35 warships. This shows the Russo Japanese was to be a cause of the revolution as Russia’s lack of organisation and humiliation of being defeated damaged support for the Tsar. Further defeats that followed during the period of 1905 also made the government and Tsar look even weaker and encouraged revolutionaries. The Russo Japanese was a short term cause of the revolution. This is due to the fact that the Russian fleet was so dented by the Japanese essentially due to the Tsar’s poor organisation of the whole event. This lack of organisation would mean the public would question his ability to organise a country, and lost faith in him and his power.
Poor working and living conditions also played a part in the 1905 revolution. The Russian population was rapidly growing over time, from 98 million in 1885 to 125 million by 1905. The size of peasant landholdings fell in an attempt to provide individual plots for each peasant family. In 1901 there were serious harvest failures which led to widespread famine. This also meant peasants were unable to make a living out of selling their crops to provide for themselves. Working conditions were also a serious issue. The increase in the population meant more people attempting to get jobs. Consequently, this means less jobs available for the entire public. There was also this issue of the overall conditions of working, the employees had to work in poor environments and for long hours. Poor working and living conditions were a cause of the revolution due to the fact that peasants reacted with violence. Peasants attacked government officials and destroyed government records on landholdings, especially those documents which referred to unpaid rents on land. By 1905 the Russian countryside seemed on the verge of revolution. This demonstration of violence would encourage others and strongly enforce the negative views towards the Tsar.… | <urn:uuid:9efdbb6e-c1b6-4d23-ba8a-c9d912a75ff1> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.majortests.com/essay/Describe-The-Egg-Of-Life-598706.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251690095.81/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126165718-20200126195718-00190.warc.gz | en | 0.986284 | 745 | 3.625 | 4 | [
-0.37961968779563904,
0.07269220799207687,
0.09967010468244553,
-0.048993006348609924,
0.25423958897590637,
0.2926684617996216,
-0.048578642308712006,
0.7475389838218689,
-0.1477493792772293,
0.15967217087745667,
-0.2149033546447754,
0.3531968891620636,
0.20152539014816284,
0.7369355559349... | 1 | The 1905 Revolution had various long term and short term causes that lead up to it. Bloody Sunday could be considered to be the most important cause of the revolution, due to its immediate short term effect. However there are various other causes that played in important part.
Bloody Sunday was the name that came to be given to the events of 22 January, 1905, in St Petersburg, Russia, where unarmed demonstrators marching to present a petition to Tsar Nicholas II were fired upon by soldiers of the Imperial Guard when approaching the city centre and the Winter Palace from several gathering points. Guards killed over 1000 peasants and workers during the demonstration. After the massacre occurred, many of the surviving demonstrators were expelled from Russia. This supports Bloody Sunday as being an important cause of the revolution, as after it only spread the news further and sparked many sympathy strikes in many other parts of Russia. As well as this it also majorly damaged the Tsar’s overall popularity. Before the revolution, many Russian’s referred to the Tsar as ‘Little Father’. They believed to be on their side and would listen to them if they were to petition to him. However, the occurrence of Bloody Sunday abolished this trust. Bloody Sunday was a short tern cause of the revolution. This is due to the fact that it immediately created a reaction from the public, as the Tsar they believed in essentially let them down. This meant that the public no longer attainted faith in the Tsar and his ability to rule over Russia successfully and effectively, sparking the revolution.
The Russo Japanese was also another important cause of the 1905 revolution. Russia wanted more land in Korea but the Japanese also wanted this land, so ultimately didn’t want Russia to get it. Russia believed they were the superior power and wanted a warm water port, ‘Port Arthur’. However the Japanese navy attacked the Russian fleet and Russia lost 25 out of its 35 warships. This shows the Russo Japanese was to be a cause of the revolution as Russia’s lack of organisation and humiliation of being defeated damaged support for the Tsar. Further defeats that followed during the period of 1905 also made the government and Tsar look even weaker and encouraged revolutionaries. The Russo Japanese was a short term cause of the revolution. This is due to the fact that the Russian fleet was so dented by the Japanese essentially due to the Tsar’s poor organisation of the whole event. This lack of organisation would mean the public would question his ability to organise a country, and lost faith in him and his power.
Poor working and living conditions also played a part in the 1905 revolution. The Russian population was rapidly growing over time, from 98 million in 1885 to 125 million by 1905. The size of peasant landholdings fell in an attempt to provide individual plots for each peasant family. In 1901 there were serious harvest failures which led to widespread famine. This also meant peasants were unable to make a living out of selling their crops to provide for themselves. Working conditions were also a serious issue. The increase in the population meant more people attempting to get jobs. Consequently, this means less jobs available for the entire public. There was also this issue of the overall conditions of working, the employees had to work in poor environments and for long hours. Poor working and living conditions were a cause of the revolution due to the fact that peasants reacted with violence. Peasants attacked government officials and destroyed government records on landholdings, especially those documents which referred to unpaid rents on land. By 1905 the Russian countryside seemed on the verge of revolution. This demonstration of violence would encourage others and strongly enforce the negative views towards the Tsar.… | 776 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Added to the National Register of Historic Places in 2001, Bonaventure Cemetery is one of Savannah's more popular tourist attractions. It is well known for its large oak trees and burial art and architecture (statues, obelisks and mausoleums). Another interesting feature is there is a section where Jewish people are interred; there is also a Jewish Chapel, the only one known to exist in a public cemetery in the state. The cemetery, which was originally part of a large plantation, was also the location where French and Haitian troops, under the command of Count Charles d'Estaing, landed, camped and prepared for a combined American-Franco siege to retake Savannah from the British during the American Revolutionary War in September-October 1779 (the siege and subsequent attack failed).
The plantation was established by John Mullryne and his son-in-law Josiah Tattnall around 1770. The family started small family burial ground, around which the cemetery would eventually surround. Both men were loyalists to the British Crown and as a result, the plantation was confiscated and later sold to an American supporter. However, Josiah reacquired the land and his family owned the property (and continued to bury family members here) until 1846 when they sold it to a hotelier, who maintained the cemetery and whose son opened the cemetery to others who wished to be buried there. Eventually, the city bought the property in 1907. | <urn:uuid:52b87993-67c9-47ba-9962-c8a805bd65d0> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.theclio.com/entry/26479 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251788528.85/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129041149-20200129071149-00530.warc.gz | en | 0.985165 | 294 | 3.296875 | 3 | [
0.1374628245830536,
0.1920119822025299,
0.35755419731140137,
-0.1594865471124649,
0.15258044004440308,
0.27761831879615784,
0.4435673654079437,
-0.11176405102014542,
-0.23591171205043793,
0.14561770856380463,
-0.14228257536888123,
-0.010625259950757027,
-0.20528544485569,
0.656169891357421... | 1 | Added to the National Register of Historic Places in 2001, Bonaventure Cemetery is one of Savannah's more popular tourist attractions. It is well known for its large oak trees and burial art and architecture (statues, obelisks and mausoleums). Another interesting feature is there is a section where Jewish people are interred; there is also a Jewish Chapel, the only one known to exist in a public cemetery in the state. The cemetery, which was originally part of a large plantation, was also the location where French and Haitian troops, under the command of Count Charles d'Estaing, landed, camped and prepared for a combined American-Franco siege to retake Savannah from the British during the American Revolutionary War in September-October 1779 (the siege and subsequent attack failed).
The plantation was established by John Mullryne and his son-in-law Josiah Tattnall around 1770. The family started small family burial ground, around which the cemetery would eventually surround. Both men were loyalists to the British Crown and as a result, the plantation was confiscated and later sold to an American supporter. However, Josiah reacquired the land and his family owned the property (and continued to bury family members here) until 1846 when they sold it to a hotelier, who maintained the cemetery and whose son opened the cemetery to others who wished to be buried there. Eventually, the city bought the property in 1907. | 310 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Polynesian Voyagers. The Maori as a Deep-sea Navigator, Explorer, and Colonizer
Course picked up from Landmarks
Course picked up from Landmarks.
John Williams remarked that “The natives, in making their voyages do not leave from any part of an island, as we do, but invariably have what may be called starting-points. At these places they have certain landmarks by which they steer until the stars become visible, and they generally contrive to set sail so as to get sight of their heavenly guides by the time their landmarks disappear.”
Williams had failed to find the island of Rarotonga, and resolved to adopt the native custom of starting from known landmarks on Atiu Island. He continues: “Knowing this, we determined to adopt the native plan, and took our vessel round to the starting-point. Having arrived there, the chief was desired to look to the landmarks while the vessel was being turned gradually round, and when they ranged with each other he cried out ‘That is it.’ I looked immediately at the compass and found the course to be south-west by west, and it proved to be as correct as if he had been an accomplished navigator.”
To these remarks are added the following, made by Colonel Gudgeon: “Polynesians always went long voyages by well-known courses—i.e., always had a starting-point at a certain island to reach a distant place, and would first sail from the primal starting-point to the place of departure for New Zealand, or wherever they were going to.”
In Beechey's Voyage we read the following account of the starting of three native canoes from Chain Island, in Eastern Polynesia: “On the day of departure all the natives assembled upon the beach to take their leave of our adventurers: the canoes were placed with scrupulous exactness in the supposed direction, which was indicated by certain marks on the land, and then launched into the sea amidst the good wishes of thei countrymen.”
Maori traditions tell us that vessels coming to New Zealand steered a south-west course. As they always seem to have made Rarotonga their final starting-place, this definition is about correct. It is said that the bow of the vessel was kept just to the left of the sun or moon, or of Kopu (Venus), or some star; these were the sailing directions for about November and December. Presumably these seafarers employed as guides such heavenly bodies as were in the right position to be so utilized at the time.
Of the islanders of the Ralick Chain Mr. H. B. Sterndale wrote: “The Ralick men are good navigators, and have no page 45 iear of the sea, They have been accustomed to make voyages at a great distance, such as the Coquilles and Ualan, returning at all seasons, and making a correct landfall. Sometimes they leave their homes for a year or two, and cruise from one island to another for trade in such articles as they make, and often for mere pastime.” | <urn:uuid:6c87da6e-bd1a-4087-a6c8-c98dccd4455e> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-BesPoly-t1-body-d1-d25.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250589560.16/warc/CC-MAIN-20200117123339-20200117151339-00094.warc.gz | en | 0.98426 | 655 | 3.640625 | 4 | [
-0.1282728612422943,
0.08923164010047913,
0.155277818441391,
-0.2552458345890045,
-0.6702941656112671,
-0.01293121837079525,
0.16908018290996552,
0.22295652329921722,
-0.08092405647039413,
0.1671522855758667,
0.3394165635108948,
-0.41554129123687744,
-0.015728436410427094,
0.63900101184844... | 3 | Polynesian Voyagers. The Maori as a Deep-sea Navigator, Explorer, and Colonizer
Course picked up from Landmarks
Course picked up from Landmarks.
John Williams remarked that “The natives, in making their voyages do not leave from any part of an island, as we do, but invariably have what may be called starting-points. At these places they have certain landmarks by which they steer until the stars become visible, and they generally contrive to set sail so as to get sight of their heavenly guides by the time their landmarks disappear.”
Williams had failed to find the island of Rarotonga, and resolved to adopt the native custom of starting from known landmarks on Atiu Island. He continues: “Knowing this, we determined to adopt the native plan, and took our vessel round to the starting-point. Having arrived there, the chief was desired to look to the landmarks while the vessel was being turned gradually round, and when they ranged with each other he cried out ‘That is it.’ I looked immediately at the compass and found the course to be south-west by west, and it proved to be as correct as if he had been an accomplished navigator.”
To these remarks are added the following, made by Colonel Gudgeon: “Polynesians always went long voyages by well-known courses—i.e., always had a starting-point at a certain island to reach a distant place, and would first sail from the primal starting-point to the place of departure for New Zealand, or wherever they were going to.”
In Beechey's Voyage we read the following account of the starting of three native canoes from Chain Island, in Eastern Polynesia: “On the day of departure all the natives assembled upon the beach to take their leave of our adventurers: the canoes were placed with scrupulous exactness in the supposed direction, which was indicated by certain marks on the land, and then launched into the sea amidst the good wishes of thei countrymen.”
Maori traditions tell us that vessels coming to New Zealand steered a south-west course. As they always seem to have made Rarotonga their final starting-place, this definition is about correct. It is said that the bow of the vessel was kept just to the left of the sun or moon, or of Kopu (Venus), or some star; these were the sailing directions for about November and December. Presumably these seafarers employed as guides such heavenly bodies as were in the right position to be so utilized at the time.
Of the islanders of the Ralick Chain Mr. H. B. Sterndale wrote: “The Ralick men are good navigators, and have no page 45 iear of the sea, They have been accustomed to make voyages at a great distance, such as the Coquilles and Ualan, returning at all seasons, and making a correct landfall. Sometimes they leave their homes for a year or two, and cruise from one island to another for trade in such articles as they make, and often for mere pastime.” | 628 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The romantic period in american literature had taken place in 1830 and lasted until 1865. This was a time of extreme growth and expansion in the United States that supported imagination and individualism in literature. When we think about stories that are titled 'romantic' we think about love stories and intimate romance novels, but that is not what they are talking about in the American Romantic Period. Edgar Allan Poe was an american poet considered a part of the American Romantic Movement that seemed to carry a message of gothic literature and romanticism in his works. His body of work, which included stories, tales, and poems, is filled with many different qualities and characteristics. Poe's example of romanticism was very similar to his life, but most of his works often focused on what was later called the gothic genre. The gothic genre focused on darkness, death, isolation and caution either in the behavior of one person toward another or within an individual's own selfhood (poemuseum.org). As Poe put the scientifically proven facts into the basis of the work, he eventually created outstanding poems and short stories which later influenced other authors and trends in literature. Edgar was the inventor of the detective fiction genre and also famous for his poetry like "The Raven", and short stories like "The Tell-Tale Heart". He was an American author, poet, editor and literary critic and was better known for his tales of mystery and horror.
Poe had a life that was full of depression. This being said, his depressing life helped with his inspirations for his dark stories. When he was born on January 19, 1809, he was separated from his parents and siblings at birth. After this, he went on to watch the rest of his family die around him. Throughout his early life at the age of eighteen, he enlisted into the army. In 1830, at the age of twenty-one, Edgar Allan entered as a cadet at West Point. | <urn:uuid:4f3bc73e-83b5-4088-9a2e-1d0a2bc04563> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.exampleessays.com/viewpaper/213916.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250624328.55/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124161014-20200124190014-00468.warc.gz | en | 0.991552 | 396 | 3.625 | 4 | [
0.08845829218626022,
0.38892829418182373,
0.27357494831085205,
0.3598438501358032,
-0.25915417075157166,
0.08869471400976181,
0.06164928525686264,
-0.14495588839054108,
0.02803230844438076,
-0.4562704861164093,
0.18264859914779663,
0.4080650508403778,
0.014661284163594246,
0.04327843710780... | 3 | The romantic period in american literature had taken place in 1830 and lasted until 1865. This was a time of extreme growth and expansion in the United States that supported imagination and individualism in literature. When we think about stories that are titled 'romantic' we think about love stories and intimate romance novels, but that is not what they are talking about in the American Romantic Period. Edgar Allan Poe was an american poet considered a part of the American Romantic Movement that seemed to carry a message of gothic literature and romanticism in his works. His body of work, which included stories, tales, and poems, is filled with many different qualities and characteristics. Poe's example of romanticism was very similar to his life, but most of his works often focused on what was later called the gothic genre. The gothic genre focused on darkness, death, isolation and caution either in the behavior of one person toward another or within an individual's own selfhood (poemuseum.org). As Poe put the scientifically proven facts into the basis of the work, he eventually created outstanding poems and short stories which later influenced other authors and trends in literature. Edgar was the inventor of the detective fiction genre and also famous for his poetry like "The Raven", and short stories like "The Tell-Tale Heart". He was an American author, poet, editor and literary critic and was better known for his tales of mystery and horror.
Poe had a life that was full of depression. This being said, his depressing life helped with his inspirations for his dark stories. When he was born on January 19, 1809, he was separated from his parents and siblings at birth. After this, he went on to watch the rest of his family die around him. Throughout his early life at the age of eighteen, he enlisted into the army. In 1830, at the age of twenty-one, Edgar Allan entered as a cadet at West Point. | 404 | ENGLISH | 1 |
- Arbitration in industrial disputes.
- International Arbitration.
- The Alabama Case
- The Hague Tribunal
- The League of Nations
- The U.N.O.
If two persons indulge in a dispute and cannot come to any agreement, they may ask some impartial third person to settle the question, both promising to abide by his decision. This is what is meant by “arbitration”. Arbitration has often been tried, and with a good deal of success, as a method of settling disputes in the industrial world between employers and their workmen. Many disastrous strikes have been averted in this way, though strikes still occur. There is hope, however, that gradually arbitration will win its way, and strikes and lockouts become things of the past.
War is such a horrible way of settling disputes between nations that long ago arbitration was tried instead; and not without success. The first great case settled by international arbitration was what we called the Alabama case. This was a dispute between England and the United States about a privateer, called the Alabama, which almost brought the two countries into war with each other. Both countries, however, agreed to refer the case to an international tribunal which met at Geneva in 1872. Both countries loyally accepted the decision of the tribunal, which went against England; and war was averted. Since then many arbitration treaties have been made between different countries, and many disputes settled in this way. But still wars have continued.
The Hague Conference in 1899, which was called at the suggestion of the Tzar of Russia, was an important step towards international arbitration. It appointed a permanent Arbitration Court called the Hague Tribunal. But it had two defects. One was that reference of disputes to the court was to be voluntary; the other was the Tribunal’s lack of any power to enforce its decisions. Anyway, this scheme did not abolish war; for only fifteen years after it was established, the most awful war in history broke out.
The next step was the establishment of the Great War-I of the 1914 of the League of Nations. There were great hopes that it would make an end of war; and it did certainly prevent some minor conflicts. But it had the same weakness that stultified the Hague Tribunal, lack of authority and force. Now the League, weakened by the defection of several great powers, is practically dead. But something like it is undoubtedly needed to save Europe from another world war, which might completely wreck modern civilization. War has become such a menace that the nations will have to find some way of abolishing it forever. The League of Nations became null and void due to its weakness. Its place was later taken by the UNO after the Second World War of 1939. | <urn:uuid:6ba20170-e8da-4caa-8657-4d7402875c1c> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.thecollegestudy.net/2018/04/short-paragraph-on-arbitration.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251773463.72/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128030221-20200128060221-00067.warc.gz | en | 0.985744 | 562 | 3.375 | 3 | [
-0.8504282236099243,
0.11510639637708664,
-0.05262276530265808,
0.15092864632606506,
-0.10620030015707016,
-0.05654063820838928,
0.32705628871917725,
0.04290296509861946,
0.19606341421604156,
0.027033958584070206,
0.014664488844573498,
0.04460432380437851,
0.09339173138141632,
0.2515167295... | 13 | - Arbitration in industrial disputes.
- International Arbitration.
- The Alabama Case
- The Hague Tribunal
- The League of Nations
- The U.N.O.
If two persons indulge in a dispute and cannot come to any agreement, they may ask some impartial third person to settle the question, both promising to abide by his decision. This is what is meant by “arbitration”. Arbitration has often been tried, and with a good deal of success, as a method of settling disputes in the industrial world between employers and their workmen. Many disastrous strikes have been averted in this way, though strikes still occur. There is hope, however, that gradually arbitration will win its way, and strikes and lockouts become things of the past.
War is such a horrible way of settling disputes between nations that long ago arbitration was tried instead; and not without success. The first great case settled by international arbitration was what we called the Alabama case. This was a dispute between England and the United States about a privateer, called the Alabama, which almost brought the two countries into war with each other. Both countries, however, agreed to refer the case to an international tribunal which met at Geneva in 1872. Both countries loyally accepted the decision of the tribunal, which went against England; and war was averted. Since then many arbitration treaties have been made between different countries, and many disputes settled in this way. But still wars have continued.
The Hague Conference in 1899, which was called at the suggestion of the Tzar of Russia, was an important step towards international arbitration. It appointed a permanent Arbitration Court called the Hague Tribunal. But it had two defects. One was that reference of disputes to the court was to be voluntary; the other was the Tribunal’s lack of any power to enforce its decisions. Anyway, this scheme did not abolish war; for only fifteen years after it was established, the most awful war in history broke out.
The next step was the establishment of the Great War-I of the 1914 of the League of Nations. There were great hopes that it would make an end of war; and it did certainly prevent some minor conflicts. But it had the same weakness that stultified the Hague Tribunal, lack of authority and force. Now the League, weakened by the defection of several great powers, is practically dead. But something like it is undoubtedly needed to save Europe from another world war, which might completely wreck modern civilization. War has become such a menace that the nations will have to find some way of abolishing it forever. The League of Nations became null and void due to its weakness. Its place was later taken by the UNO after the Second World War of 1939. | 563 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Ripples of Metamorphoses Butterflies are not the only creatures that are subject to experience metamorphosis. All beings, including humans, experience certain changes throughout their lives. Interconnectedness between individuals reveals even a single change cannot go undetected. Metamorphosis is an important motif in Franz Kafka’s The Metamorphosis, which symbolizes not only Gregor’s transformation, but also the change in the Samsa family as a whole, as well as Grete in particular. Gregor’s metamorphosis is the main symbol of metamorphosis in the story.
His transfiguration into a bug changes him not only physically, but also mentally. At first, he is hopeful his physical state is only a momentary medical condition. The concern Gregor’s family initially portray supports Gregor’s belief that he is only temporarily a bug. Kafka describes Gregor’s confidence, “The positive certainty with which these first measures had been taken comforted him. He felt himself drawn once more into the human circle and hoped for great and remarkable results…”(Kafka 155).
At this point Gregor is still hopeful and optimistic. He asserts to the chief clerk, “I have to provide for my parents and my sister. I’m in great difficulties, but I’ll get out of them again” (156). Although Gregor is in no condition to work he exclaims, “But what’s the use of lying idle in bed” (149). By supporting his family financially, Gregor is essential to the Samsas and feels needed. Without the ability to provide for his family, Gregor is no longer a valuable asset to the Samsas. As time progresses, Gregor’s optimism and high spirits dwindle.
He loses interest in things that once brought him joy, staring out of the window in “some recollection of the sense of freedom that looking out of a window always used to give him” (166). Formerly having a strong appetite, Gregor begins to lose “any interest he had ever taken in food, so that for mere recreation he had formed the habit of crawling crisscross over the walls and ceiling” (168). Grete notices how Gregor likes to crawl on the walls and has the idea that Gregor would appreciate a more spacious room.
She decides to clear everything our of Gregor’s room to allow him more crawling space. Gregor is happy about the idea at first until he realizes his possessions are the last indicators of his humanity: Gregor realized that the lack of all direct human speech for the past two months together with the monotony of family life must have confused his mind, otherwise he could not account for the fact that he had quite earnestly looked forward to having his room emptied of furnishing.
Did he really want his warm room, so comfortably fitted with old family furniture, to be turned into a naked den in which he would certainly be able to crawl unhampered in all directions but at the price of shedding simultaneously all recollection of his human background (170)? Gregor realizes the extent to which his transformation has altered his mentality, and wants to resist any further change. Grete, however, disregards this insight and Gregor’s belongings are cleared out.
Gregor observes as pieces of his furniture are carried out one by one, stripping the room of all of Gregor’s human possessions. He decides if anything is to stay, it must be his beloved picture. “He clung to his picture and would not give it up. He would rather fly in Grete’s face” (172). This is the first instance Gregor displays thoughts of aggressive behavior, contrasting his submissive nature at the beginning of his transformation. Gregor’s change in emotion illustrates Kafka’s notion that people’s experiences cause their attitudes to change.
Metamorphosis is a symbol of change. Gregor’s condition now leaves him feeling restless; he “hardly slept at all by night or by day” (177). He feels alienated, expressing how he feels not “in the mood to bother about his family, he was only filled with rage at the way they were neglecting him” (177). As Gregor’s room gets dirtier from lack of attention, he loses the need to convey his complaints. “At first Gregor used to station himself in some particularly filthy corner when his sister arrived, in order to reproach her with it, so to speak…” (178).
Gregor does not have the same concern for his hygiene. “His indifference to everything was much too great for him to turn on his back and scrape himself clean on the carpet, as once he had done several times a day” (181). Gregor is now depressed, “eating hardly anything” (179). He does not feel the same concern about himself or his family. “He felt hardly any surprise at his growing lack of consideration for the others; there had been a time when he prided himself on being considerate” (181).
Gregor then reaches the lowest point of his metamorphosis. The lodgers living in his house become aware of his presence and claim they will not pay the Samsa’s any rent. The family decides they must get rid of Gregor, and he concedes leaving would be the best choice for everyone. “He thought of his family with tenderness and love. The decision that he must disappear was one that he held to even more strongly than his sister, if that were possible” (186). That night, he dies in “a state of vacant and peaceful meditation” (186).
This is the end of Gregor’s metamorphosis, and he is at last at peace. While Gregor underwent his individual metamorphosis, the Samsa family underwent a metamorphosis of their own. They were forced to deal with an essential loss of a family member, who they relied on financially. The Samsa family shows the most concern for Gregor during the initial days following his transformation. “In the first few days especially there was no conversation that did not refer to him somehow, even if only indirectly.
For two whole days there were family consultations at every mealtime about what should be done; but also between meals the same subject was discussed…” (164). They are still hopeful for Gregor, and appear to think his transformation is only temporary. Gregor’s mother urges Gregor’s room not to be altered, for she thinks “it would be best to keep his room exactly as it has always been, so that when he comes back to us he will find everything unchanged and be able all the more easily to forget what has happened in between” (169).
Grete assumes caretaker for Gregor, feeding and cleaning his room, but as time passes her persistence diminishes: His sister no longer took thought to bring him what might especially please him, but in the morning and at noon before she went to business hurriedly pushed into his room with her foot any food that was available, and in the evening cleared it out again with one sweep of the broom, heedless of whether it had been merely tasted, or-as most frequently happened-left untouched. The cleaning of his room, which she now did always in the evenings, could not have been more hastily done.
Streaks of dirt stretched along the walls, here and there lay balls of dust and filth (177). The family even uses Gregor’s room as a storage area. Items “found their way into Gregor’s room. The ash can likewise and the kitchen garbage can. Anything that was not needed for the moment was simply flung into Gregor’s room…” (179). The family is less and less attentive to Gregor. Gregor’s father, mother, and sister each are forced to get jobs to pay for their flat “which was much too big for their present circumstances” (176). For five years Gregor’s family relied on him for financial support.
As Gregor lies in bed unable to move he wonders why Grete is crying, “…because he was in danger of losing his job, and because the chief would begin dunning his parents for the old debts? ” (152). The family is in debt but Gregor is the only person working. “Gregor had earned so much money that he was able to meet the expenses of the whole household and did so. They had simply gotten used to it” (165). However, he is working only to support his family and thinks to himself if it weren’t for his parents, “I’d have quit ages ago” (147).
Gregor was unhappy with his job, but he sacrificed his happiness for the sake of supporting his family. To afford their large and expensive flat, each of the Samsas acquire a job. The family has to cope with Gregor’s transformation indirectly, marking their own metamorphoses’ into a functioning household. Grete, in particular picks up a lot of slack. She not only cares for Gregor, but “had taken a job as a salesgirl, was learning shorthand and French in the evenings on the chance of bettering herself” (175).
Her job surely detracts from her care for Gregor, which attributes to his depressed state before dying. Grete was only seventeen at the time of Gregor’s initial metamorphosis. He admits his sister “was only a child despite the efforts she was making and had perhaps taken on so difficult a task merely out of childish thoughtlessness” (168). However, Mr. and Mrs. Samsa appreciate Grete’s initiative, “whereas formerly they had frequently scolded her for being as they thought a somewhat useless daughter” (168).
As Grete gets busier with her job, her life revolves less and less around Gregor. She does not bring him food and rather starves him. An incident with the Samsa’s lodgers causes Grete to realize how Gregor is hurting their family. She exclaims to her parents, “it will be the death of both of you, I can see that coming. When one has to work as hard as we do, all of us, one can’t stand this continual torment at home on top of it. At least I can’t stand it any longer” (184). Grete finally realizes what her parents knew all along; Gregor was not fit to be a part of the family any more.
On the day of Gregor’s death Mr. and Mrs. Samsa notice Grete’s maturity. She had an “increasing vivacity, that in spite of all the sorrow of recent times, which had made her cheeks pale, she had bloomed into a pretty girl with a good figure… it would soon be time to find a good husband for her” (189). Having to cope with Gregor’s metamorphosis initiated a metamorphosis in Grete. Gregor’s metamorphosis affects all the main characters in the story. Franz Kafka uses metamorphosis as a symbol of the changes people experience throughout their lives.
What affects one person can inevitably affect those around them. In this case Gregor’s change forced his family to become financially independent, and caused his sister to mature into a woman. Gregor’s metamorphosis instigated an interconnection of events that caused those around him to have to adapt to his change. Like ripples in a lake, metamorphosis has the power to touch even the waters of the farthest shore. Works Cited Kafka, Franz. The Metamorphosis. Kennedy and Gioia. 146-89. Print. | <urn:uuid:44dfd3ac-abe8-4347-9756-26c9224ad4c3> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://newyorkessays.com/essay-metamorphosis-2/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250608062.57/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123011418-20200123040418-00272.warc.gz | en | 0.984736 | 2,498 | 3.265625 | 3 | [
-0.12204088270664215,
-0.2611958086490631,
0.08210577815771103,
0.22889995574951172,
-0.5574201345443726,
-0.27662044763565063,
0.2895659804344177,
0.2062445878982544,
0.03446841612458229,
-0.2036665678024292,
0.14293038845062256,
-0.2899177372455597,
-0.06974455714225769,
0.04002642631530... | 1 | Ripples of Metamorphoses Butterflies are not the only creatures that are subject to experience metamorphosis. All beings, including humans, experience certain changes throughout their lives. Interconnectedness between individuals reveals even a single change cannot go undetected. Metamorphosis is an important motif in Franz Kafka’s The Metamorphosis, which symbolizes not only Gregor’s transformation, but also the change in the Samsa family as a whole, as well as Grete in particular. Gregor’s metamorphosis is the main symbol of metamorphosis in the story.
His transfiguration into a bug changes him not only physically, but also mentally. At first, he is hopeful his physical state is only a momentary medical condition. The concern Gregor’s family initially portray supports Gregor’s belief that he is only temporarily a bug. Kafka describes Gregor’s confidence, “The positive certainty with which these first measures had been taken comforted him. He felt himself drawn once more into the human circle and hoped for great and remarkable results…”(Kafka 155).
At this point Gregor is still hopeful and optimistic. He asserts to the chief clerk, “I have to provide for my parents and my sister. I’m in great difficulties, but I’ll get out of them again” (156). Although Gregor is in no condition to work he exclaims, “But what’s the use of lying idle in bed” (149). By supporting his family financially, Gregor is essential to the Samsas and feels needed. Without the ability to provide for his family, Gregor is no longer a valuable asset to the Samsas. As time progresses, Gregor’s optimism and high spirits dwindle.
He loses interest in things that once brought him joy, staring out of the window in “some recollection of the sense of freedom that looking out of a window always used to give him” (166). Formerly having a strong appetite, Gregor begins to lose “any interest he had ever taken in food, so that for mere recreation he had formed the habit of crawling crisscross over the walls and ceiling” (168). Grete notices how Gregor likes to crawl on the walls and has the idea that Gregor would appreciate a more spacious room.
She decides to clear everything our of Gregor’s room to allow him more crawling space. Gregor is happy about the idea at first until he realizes his possessions are the last indicators of his humanity: Gregor realized that the lack of all direct human speech for the past two months together with the monotony of family life must have confused his mind, otherwise he could not account for the fact that he had quite earnestly looked forward to having his room emptied of furnishing.
Did he really want his warm room, so comfortably fitted with old family furniture, to be turned into a naked den in which he would certainly be able to crawl unhampered in all directions but at the price of shedding simultaneously all recollection of his human background (170)? Gregor realizes the extent to which his transformation has altered his mentality, and wants to resist any further change. Grete, however, disregards this insight and Gregor’s belongings are cleared out.
Gregor observes as pieces of his furniture are carried out one by one, stripping the room of all of Gregor’s human possessions. He decides if anything is to stay, it must be his beloved picture. “He clung to his picture and would not give it up. He would rather fly in Grete’s face” (172). This is the first instance Gregor displays thoughts of aggressive behavior, contrasting his submissive nature at the beginning of his transformation. Gregor’s change in emotion illustrates Kafka’s notion that people’s experiences cause their attitudes to change.
Metamorphosis is a symbol of change. Gregor’s condition now leaves him feeling restless; he “hardly slept at all by night or by day” (177). He feels alienated, expressing how he feels not “in the mood to bother about his family, he was only filled with rage at the way they were neglecting him” (177). As Gregor’s room gets dirtier from lack of attention, he loses the need to convey his complaints. “At first Gregor used to station himself in some particularly filthy corner when his sister arrived, in order to reproach her with it, so to speak…” (178).
Gregor does not have the same concern for his hygiene. “His indifference to everything was much too great for him to turn on his back and scrape himself clean on the carpet, as once he had done several times a day” (181). Gregor is now depressed, “eating hardly anything” (179). He does not feel the same concern about himself or his family. “He felt hardly any surprise at his growing lack of consideration for the others; there had been a time when he prided himself on being considerate” (181).
Gregor then reaches the lowest point of his metamorphosis. The lodgers living in his house become aware of his presence and claim they will not pay the Samsa’s any rent. The family decides they must get rid of Gregor, and he concedes leaving would be the best choice for everyone. “He thought of his family with tenderness and love. The decision that he must disappear was one that he held to even more strongly than his sister, if that were possible” (186). That night, he dies in “a state of vacant and peaceful meditation” (186).
This is the end of Gregor’s metamorphosis, and he is at last at peace. While Gregor underwent his individual metamorphosis, the Samsa family underwent a metamorphosis of their own. They were forced to deal with an essential loss of a family member, who they relied on financially. The Samsa family shows the most concern for Gregor during the initial days following his transformation. “In the first few days especially there was no conversation that did not refer to him somehow, even if only indirectly.
For two whole days there were family consultations at every mealtime about what should be done; but also between meals the same subject was discussed…” (164). They are still hopeful for Gregor, and appear to think his transformation is only temporary. Gregor’s mother urges Gregor’s room not to be altered, for she thinks “it would be best to keep his room exactly as it has always been, so that when he comes back to us he will find everything unchanged and be able all the more easily to forget what has happened in between” (169).
Grete assumes caretaker for Gregor, feeding and cleaning his room, but as time passes her persistence diminishes: His sister no longer took thought to bring him what might especially please him, but in the morning and at noon before she went to business hurriedly pushed into his room with her foot any food that was available, and in the evening cleared it out again with one sweep of the broom, heedless of whether it had been merely tasted, or-as most frequently happened-left untouched. The cleaning of his room, which she now did always in the evenings, could not have been more hastily done.
Streaks of dirt stretched along the walls, here and there lay balls of dust and filth (177). The family even uses Gregor’s room as a storage area. Items “found their way into Gregor’s room. The ash can likewise and the kitchen garbage can. Anything that was not needed for the moment was simply flung into Gregor’s room…” (179). The family is less and less attentive to Gregor. Gregor’s father, mother, and sister each are forced to get jobs to pay for their flat “which was much too big for their present circumstances” (176). For five years Gregor’s family relied on him for financial support.
As Gregor lies in bed unable to move he wonders why Grete is crying, “…because he was in danger of losing his job, and because the chief would begin dunning his parents for the old debts? ” (152). The family is in debt but Gregor is the only person working. “Gregor had earned so much money that he was able to meet the expenses of the whole household and did so. They had simply gotten used to it” (165). However, he is working only to support his family and thinks to himself if it weren’t for his parents, “I’d have quit ages ago” (147).
Gregor was unhappy with his job, but he sacrificed his happiness for the sake of supporting his family. To afford their large and expensive flat, each of the Samsas acquire a job. The family has to cope with Gregor’s transformation indirectly, marking their own metamorphoses’ into a functioning household. Grete, in particular picks up a lot of slack. She not only cares for Gregor, but “had taken a job as a salesgirl, was learning shorthand and French in the evenings on the chance of bettering herself” (175).
Her job surely detracts from her care for Gregor, which attributes to his depressed state before dying. Grete was only seventeen at the time of Gregor’s initial metamorphosis. He admits his sister “was only a child despite the efforts she was making and had perhaps taken on so difficult a task merely out of childish thoughtlessness” (168). However, Mr. and Mrs. Samsa appreciate Grete’s initiative, “whereas formerly they had frequently scolded her for being as they thought a somewhat useless daughter” (168).
As Grete gets busier with her job, her life revolves less and less around Gregor. She does not bring him food and rather starves him. An incident with the Samsa’s lodgers causes Grete to realize how Gregor is hurting their family. She exclaims to her parents, “it will be the death of both of you, I can see that coming. When one has to work as hard as we do, all of us, one can’t stand this continual torment at home on top of it. At least I can’t stand it any longer” (184). Grete finally realizes what her parents knew all along; Gregor was not fit to be a part of the family any more.
On the day of Gregor’s death Mr. and Mrs. Samsa notice Grete’s maturity. She had an “increasing vivacity, that in spite of all the sorrow of recent times, which had made her cheeks pale, she had bloomed into a pretty girl with a good figure… it would soon be time to find a good husband for her” (189). Having to cope with Gregor’s metamorphosis initiated a metamorphosis in Grete. Gregor’s metamorphosis affects all the main characters in the story. Franz Kafka uses metamorphosis as a symbol of the changes people experience throughout their lives.
What affects one person can inevitably affect those around them. In this case Gregor’s change forced his family to become financially independent, and caused his sister to mature into a woman. Gregor’s metamorphosis instigated an interconnection of events that caused those around him to have to adapt to his change. Like ripples in a lake, metamorphosis has the power to touch even the waters of the farthest shore. Works Cited Kafka, Franz. The Metamorphosis. Kennedy and Gioia. 146-89. Print. | 2,413 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Tobacco became the staple product of the colony, and experiments were made in producing soap, glass, silk, and wine. A better class of emigrants came over, and in 1619 a shipload of “respectable maidens” arrived, who were auctioned off to the bachelor planters for so many pounds of tobacco apiece. At the same time, the sharing of harvests in common was abandoned, and the settlers were given their lands in full ownership.
The year 1619, which brought the Virginian’s wives and lands, is memorable also for two events of great significance for slavery and later history of the colonies and the nation. In that year the government’s first cargo of black slaves was brought to the colony, and the ‘first representative assembly convened on American soil. On July 30th, two citizens from each plantation met with the governor and his six councilors in the little church at Jamestown. This tiny legislature of 27 members, after enacting various laws for the colony, adjourned on August 4th. Spanish, French, and Dutch settlements existed in America at the time of this first Virginia assembly, but none of them had or copied later the system of representative government. Democracy was England’s gift to the New World.
The man to whom Virginia owed this great boon of self-government, and whose name should be known and honored by every American, was Sir Edwin Sandys, treasurer of the London Company. Sandys belonged to the country party in Parliament, who was making James’ life miserable by their resistance to his arbitrary government based on “divine right,” or responsibility to God alone for his royal acts. In the meantime, Gondomar, the Spanish minister in London, whispered in James’s ear that assemblies like that in Virginia were “hotbeds of sedition.”
But, James had let the London Company get out of his hands by the new charter, and when he tried to interfere in their election of a treasurer, they rebuked him by choosing one of the most prominent of the country party, the Earl of Southampton. Not being able to dictate to the company, James resolved to destroy it. In a moment of great depression for the colony, just after a horrible Indian massacre in 1622 and a famine, James commenced suit against the company, which a subservient court declared had overstepped its legal rights and forfeited its charter. James then took the colony into his own hands and sent over men to govern it that was responsible only to his Privy Council. Virginia thus became a “royal province” in 1624, and remained so for one hundred fifty years, until the American Revolution.
James intended to suppress the “seminary of sedition” too and rule the colony by a committee province of his courtiers. But he died before he had a chance to extinguish the liberties of Virginia, and his son, Charles I, hoping to get the monopoly of the tobacco trade in return for the favor, allowed the House of Burgesses to continue. So, Virginia furnished the pattern which sooner or later nearly all the American colonies reproduced, namely, that of a governor with a small council appointed by the English king, and a legislature, or assembly, elected by the people of the colony.
The people of Virginia were very loyal to the Stuarts. When the quarrel between King and Parliament in England reached the stage of the civil war in 1642, and Charles I was driven from his throne and beheaded in 1649, many of his supporters in England immigrated to Virginia, giving the colony a decidedly aristocratic character. And, when Charles II was restored to his father’s throne in 1660, the Virginian citizens recognized his authority so promptly and enthusiastically that he called them “the best of his distant children.”
He even elevated Virginia to the proud position of a “dominion,” by quartering its arms (the old seal of the Virginia Company) on his royal shield with the arms of England, Scotland, and Ireland. The Virginians were very proud of this distinction, and remembering that they were the oldest as well as the most faithful of the Stuart settlements in America, adopted the name of “The Old Dominion.”
Though there were actually many occasions of dispute between the governors sent over by the king and the legislature elected by the people, only one incident of prime importance occurred to disturb the peaceful history of the Old Dominion under its royal masters. In 1675 the Susquehannock Indians were harassing the upper settlements of the colony, and Governor William Berkeley, who was profiting largely by his private interest in the fur trade, refused to send a force of militia to punish them. He was supported by an “old and rotten” House of Burgesses, which he had kept in office, doing his bidding, for 14 years.
A young and popular planter named Nathaniel Bacon, who had seen one of his overseers murdered by the Indians, put himself at the head of 300 volunteers and demanded an officer’s commission of Governor Berkeley. Berkeley refused, and Bacon marched against the Indians without any commission, utterly routing them and saving the colony from tomahawk and firebrand.
The governor proclaimed Bacon a rebel and set a price upon his head. In the distressing civil war which followed, the governor was driven from his capital and Jamestown was burned by the “rebels.” But, Bacon died of dysentery shortly after his victory, and his party, being made up only of his personal following, fell to pieces. Berkeley returned and took grim vengeance on Bacon’s supporters until the citizens petitioned him to “spill no more blood.”
Bacon’s Rebellion, despite its deplorable features, did good work. It showed that the colonists dared to act for themselves. It forced the dissolution of the “old and rotten” assembly and the choice of a new one representing the will of the people. It led to the recall of Governor Berkeley by King Charles II, who explained indignantly when he heard of the governor’s cruel reprisals: “That old fool has taken away more lives in that naked country than I did here for the murder of my father.” And, finally, it showed that the people of the Old Dominion, though loyal to their king, had no intention of submitting to an arbitrary governor in collusion with a corrupt assembly.
Today, historic Jamestown is part of the Colonial National Historic Park. The park provides views of both Old Towne, where a triangular fort was constructed by English settlers in the spring of 1607, as well as New Towne, east of the fort, which was first surveyed in the 1620s. Jamestown served as the capital of Virginia until 1699, when it was moved to Williamsburg.
Jointly administered by the Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities and the National Park Service, the site is located at 1368 Colonial Parkway, Jamestown, Virginia. | <urn:uuid:9aa44df4-b9f1-408a-90dc-8b2f70279e24> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.legendsofamerica.com/ah-olddominion/2/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251690379.95/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126195918-20200126225918-00438.warc.gz | en | 0.985248 | 1,466 | 3.734375 | 4 | [
-0.40888869762420654,
0.5485061407089233,
0.5594207048416138,
-0.35150420665740967,
0.14730292558670044,
-0.10496170818805695,
0.17822590470314026,
-0.03405700623989105,
-0.2782741189002991,
0.2935139238834381,
-0.12291069328784943,
-0.08448177576065063,
-0.21258945763111115,
0.16675351560... | 1 | Tobacco became the staple product of the colony, and experiments were made in producing soap, glass, silk, and wine. A better class of emigrants came over, and in 1619 a shipload of “respectable maidens” arrived, who were auctioned off to the bachelor planters for so many pounds of tobacco apiece. At the same time, the sharing of harvests in common was abandoned, and the settlers were given their lands in full ownership.
The year 1619, which brought the Virginian’s wives and lands, is memorable also for two events of great significance for slavery and later history of the colonies and the nation. In that year the government’s first cargo of black slaves was brought to the colony, and the ‘first representative assembly convened on American soil. On July 30th, two citizens from each plantation met with the governor and his six councilors in the little church at Jamestown. This tiny legislature of 27 members, after enacting various laws for the colony, adjourned on August 4th. Spanish, French, and Dutch settlements existed in America at the time of this first Virginia assembly, but none of them had or copied later the system of representative government. Democracy was England’s gift to the New World.
The man to whom Virginia owed this great boon of self-government, and whose name should be known and honored by every American, was Sir Edwin Sandys, treasurer of the London Company. Sandys belonged to the country party in Parliament, who was making James’ life miserable by their resistance to his arbitrary government based on “divine right,” or responsibility to God alone for his royal acts. In the meantime, Gondomar, the Spanish minister in London, whispered in James’s ear that assemblies like that in Virginia were “hotbeds of sedition.”
But, James had let the London Company get out of his hands by the new charter, and when he tried to interfere in their election of a treasurer, they rebuked him by choosing one of the most prominent of the country party, the Earl of Southampton. Not being able to dictate to the company, James resolved to destroy it. In a moment of great depression for the colony, just after a horrible Indian massacre in 1622 and a famine, James commenced suit against the company, which a subservient court declared had overstepped its legal rights and forfeited its charter. James then took the colony into his own hands and sent over men to govern it that was responsible only to his Privy Council. Virginia thus became a “royal province” in 1624, and remained so for one hundred fifty years, until the American Revolution.
James intended to suppress the “seminary of sedition” too and rule the colony by a committee province of his courtiers. But he died before he had a chance to extinguish the liberties of Virginia, and his son, Charles I, hoping to get the monopoly of the tobacco trade in return for the favor, allowed the House of Burgesses to continue. So, Virginia furnished the pattern which sooner or later nearly all the American colonies reproduced, namely, that of a governor with a small council appointed by the English king, and a legislature, or assembly, elected by the people of the colony.
The people of Virginia were very loyal to the Stuarts. When the quarrel between King and Parliament in England reached the stage of the civil war in 1642, and Charles I was driven from his throne and beheaded in 1649, many of his supporters in England immigrated to Virginia, giving the colony a decidedly aristocratic character. And, when Charles II was restored to his father’s throne in 1660, the Virginian citizens recognized his authority so promptly and enthusiastically that he called them “the best of his distant children.”
He even elevated Virginia to the proud position of a “dominion,” by quartering its arms (the old seal of the Virginia Company) on his royal shield with the arms of England, Scotland, and Ireland. The Virginians were very proud of this distinction, and remembering that they were the oldest as well as the most faithful of the Stuart settlements in America, adopted the name of “The Old Dominion.”
Though there were actually many occasions of dispute between the governors sent over by the king and the legislature elected by the people, only one incident of prime importance occurred to disturb the peaceful history of the Old Dominion under its royal masters. In 1675 the Susquehannock Indians were harassing the upper settlements of the colony, and Governor William Berkeley, who was profiting largely by his private interest in the fur trade, refused to send a force of militia to punish them. He was supported by an “old and rotten” House of Burgesses, which he had kept in office, doing his bidding, for 14 years.
A young and popular planter named Nathaniel Bacon, who had seen one of his overseers murdered by the Indians, put himself at the head of 300 volunteers and demanded an officer’s commission of Governor Berkeley. Berkeley refused, and Bacon marched against the Indians without any commission, utterly routing them and saving the colony from tomahawk and firebrand.
The governor proclaimed Bacon a rebel and set a price upon his head. In the distressing civil war which followed, the governor was driven from his capital and Jamestown was burned by the “rebels.” But, Bacon died of dysentery shortly after his victory, and his party, being made up only of his personal following, fell to pieces. Berkeley returned and took grim vengeance on Bacon’s supporters until the citizens petitioned him to “spill no more blood.”
Bacon’s Rebellion, despite its deplorable features, did good work. It showed that the colonists dared to act for themselves. It forced the dissolution of the “old and rotten” assembly and the choice of a new one representing the will of the people. It led to the recall of Governor Berkeley by King Charles II, who explained indignantly when he heard of the governor’s cruel reprisals: “That old fool has taken away more lives in that naked country than I did here for the murder of my father.” And, finally, it showed that the people of the Old Dominion, though loyal to their king, had no intention of submitting to an arbitrary governor in collusion with a corrupt assembly.
Today, historic Jamestown is part of the Colonial National Historic Park. The park provides views of both Old Towne, where a triangular fort was constructed by English settlers in the spring of 1607, as well as New Towne, east of the fort, which was first surveyed in the 1620s. Jamestown served as the capital of Virginia until 1699, when it was moved to Williamsburg.
Jointly administered by the Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities and the National Park Service, the site is located at 1368 Colonial Parkway, Jamestown, Virginia. | 1,445 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The Caribbean islands, the Cockpit of Europe; where most of Europeans sought out power and fought in wars for dominance over their territories. The Cockpit of the Caribbean, where average white Europeans were enslaved in the midst as cocks and eventually cock fighters; Slave trade was about economics and not race. Invented by the Europeans with absolute power, for their own greed, and of course with war.
Gold, sugar, slaves was the Caribbean trinity represented an enormous accession of wealth and power, and with that greed throughout Europe (Williams 69). As the greed for the Caribbean islands intensified, war was an effect. As stated in our lecture Slavery was usually a result of war, a defeated enemy was understood to be subject to a portion of the defeated population being taken as slaves. War among France, England, Spain, in addition to other nations. War was inevitable, most if not all of Europe wanted the Caribbean; neither would renounce nor share and there was not enough room for France or Britain, let alone all of Europe; war was the result. With war there were losses and enslavement of the average European, whether he be a French, Spaniard, or British man. The Europeans invaded the Caribbean and destroyed the land and their people to the point of extinction. Thus, they turned to average citizens of their own nations to work the hard labor on the fertile land (Williams 95).
The period during European colonization of the Caribbean, thousands of European workers were condemned to involuntary slavery as punishment for their debts or their rebellion against the king. Since the Black Plague epidemic, average white Europeans were sought out to the islands for involuntary labor. This system known as an indenture, a legal and financial arrangement of indentured slavery. As French philosopher Roland Barthes has reasoned race itself is a red herring, and was used as such by despotic, embryonic corporations. Slave trading corporation sought to justify the crimes they committed against the European people as well.
As Hobbes stated for the violation of the social contract “No right to rebel. The ruler's will defines good and evil for his subjects. The King can do no wrong, because lawful and unlawful, good and evil, are merely commands, merely the will of the ruler.” This I would say is the absolute power kings during their period had and they were able to decree whomever to be enslaved. Whom do you think were usually the King’s target; average Europeans. Contrary to Locke’s statement on social contract “If a ruler seeks absolute power, if he acts both as judge and participant in disputes, he puts himself in a state of war with his subjects and we have the right and the duty to kill such rulers and their servants.” Kings do not have the right to pass judgment alone and this would only bring them to their... | <urn:uuid:372c2bc9-08b2-4817-ac6b-5a39f0e09d0f> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://brightkite.com/essay-on/king-sugar-1 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250593295.11/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118164132-20200118192132-00433.warc.gz | en | 0.983855 | 577 | 3.953125 | 4 | [
-0.10031504184007645,
0.33334219455718994,
0.193425714969635,
-0.0811193436384201,
0.20683066546916962,
-0.15705224871635437,
-0.0877382904291153,
0.2553044557571411,
0.2244846522808075,
0.3986814022064209,
0.24886272847652435,
-0.15785814821720123,
-0.43982434272766113,
0.4317771792411804... | 1 | The Caribbean islands, the Cockpit of Europe; where most of Europeans sought out power and fought in wars for dominance over their territories. The Cockpit of the Caribbean, where average white Europeans were enslaved in the midst as cocks and eventually cock fighters; Slave trade was about economics and not race. Invented by the Europeans with absolute power, for their own greed, and of course with war.
Gold, sugar, slaves was the Caribbean trinity represented an enormous accession of wealth and power, and with that greed throughout Europe (Williams 69). As the greed for the Caribbean islands intensified, war was an effect. As stated in our lecture Slavery was usually a result of war, a defeated enemy was understood to be subject to a portion of the defeated population being taken as slaves. War among France, England, Spain, in addition to other nations. War was inevitable, most if not all of Europe wanted the Caribbean; neither would renounce nor share and there was not enough room for France or Britain, let alone all of Europe; war was the result. With war there were losses and enslavement of the average European, whether he be a French, Spaniard, or British man. The Europeans invaded the Caribbean and destroyed the land and their people to the point of extinction. Thus, they turned to average citizens of their own nations to work the hard labor on the fertile land (Williams 95).
The period during European colonization of the Caribbean, thousands of European workers were condemned to involuntary slavery as punishment for their debts or their rebellion against the king. Since the Black Plague epidemic, average white Europeans were sought out to the islands for involuntary labor. This system known as an indenture, a legal and financial arrangement of indentured slavery. As French philosopher Roland Barthes has reasoned race itself is a red herring, and was used as such by despotic, embryonic corporations. Slave trading corporation sought to justify the crimes they committed against the European people as well.
As Hobbes stated for the violation of the social contract “No right to rebel. The ruler's will defines good and evil for his subjects. The King can do no wrong, because lawful and unlawful, good and evil, are merely commands, merely the will of the ruler.” This I would say is the absolute power kings during their period had and they were able to decree whomever to be enslaved. Whom do you think were usually the King’s target; average Europeans. Contrary to Locke’s statement on social contract “If a ruler seeks absolute power, if he acts both as judge and participant in disputes, he puts himself in a state of war with his subjects and we have the right and the duty to kill such rulers and their servants.” Kings do not have the right to pass judgment alone and this would only bring them to their... | 570 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The Dorsey-Jones House was home to escaped slaves Thomas Jones and Basil Dorsey in a small community in Massachusettes. Many slaves came this route on the Underground Railroad. The house was built by Basil Dorsey around 1850, and he bought his freedom while he lived there. Thomas Jones bought the freedom of his wife but could not afford his own or that of her children. The house was located on the National Register of Historic Places on August 25, 2005.
Basil Dorsey escaped slavery in Frederick County, Maryland and relied on stops of the Underground Railroad to aid in his escape. He fled with three of his brothers around 1836. The brothers took on Christian names including Basil, while in Philadelphia, and was aided by one of the most prominent black abolitionists in the country, Robert Purvis. Since Louisa, Dorsey's wife, was free, she joined him in Pennsylvania, while he was working for Purvis on his farm. He was found out by the betrayal of his brother-in-law and jailed. His brothers fled but were later captured. The case was dismissed and afterward Dorsey moved to Massachusettes, where he was receiving help from Joshua Leavitt, editor of the Emancipator.
Mary Jones, wife of Thomas Jones, purchased the house in 1858. Thomas Jones, born a slave on a North Carolina plantation was sold to a storekeeper at the age of nine. He lost his first wife and three kids to her mistress when she moved to Alabama with him. He remarried Mary Moore, who had three children of her own. He purchased her freedom along with all but one of her children after he learned they were going to be sold. He later became known as a Reverend and earned money by preaching. It is believed that he fled to Canada because of the Fugitive Slave Act.
Selah Trask purchased the Dorsey-Jones house and lived there in 1852. Dorsey moved to the William Warner house at this time. In 1854, Mary Jones purchased the house again. Basil refused to purchase his freedom until friends convinced him to let them raise money for him to be free and finally he agreed. He also said during his trial that he would cut his throat in the court house before he returned to slavery. He made this statement before his case was dismissed in Maryland. | <urn:uuid:1a42cb35-9b7b-494e-b1a6-bc1404aa4ed8> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.theclio.com/entry/7556 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251788528.85/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129041149-20200129071149-00399.warc.gz | en | 0.995445 | 477 | 3.609375 | 4 | [
-0.03433837369084358,
0.42852726578712463,
-0.1271941363811493,
-0.07738599926233292,
-0.39759141206741333,
-0.15247641503810883,
0.14648891985416412,
-0.5411600470542908,
-0.10160548239946365,
0.18399564921855927,
0.3061620891094208,
0.051538072526454926,
-0.20880024135112762,
-0.29014980... | 1 | The Dorsey-Jones House was home to escaped slaves Thomas Jones and Basil Dorsey in a small community in Massachusettes. Many slaves came this route on the Underground Railroad. The house was built by Basil Dorsey around 1850, and he bought his freedom while he lived there. Thomas Jones bought the freedom of his wife but could not afford his own or that of her children. The house was located on the National Register of Historic Places on August 25, 2005.
Basil Dorsey escaped slavery in Frederick County, Maryland and relied on stops of the Underground Railroad to aid in his escape. He fled with three of his brothers around 1836. The brothers took on Christian names including Basil, while in Philadelphia, and was aided by one of the most prominent black abolitionists in the country, Robert Purvis. Since Louisa, Dorsey's wife, was free, she joined him in Pennsylvania, while he was working for Purvis on his farm. He was found out by the betrayal of his brother-in-law and jailed. His brothers fled but were later captured. The case was dismissed and afterward Dorsey moved to Massachusettes, where he was receiving help from Joshua Leavitt, editor of the Emancipator.
Mary Jones, wife of Thomas Jones, purchased the house in 1858. Thomas Jones, born a slave on a North Carolina plantation was sold to a storekeeper at the age of nine. He lost his first wife and three kids to her mistress when she moved to Alabama with him. He remarried Mary Moore, who had three children of her own. He purchased her freedom along with all but one of her children after he learned they were going to be sold. He later became known as a Reverend and earned money by preaching. It is believed that he fled to Canada because of the Fugitive Slave Act.
Selah Trask purchased the Dorsey-Jones house and lived there in 1852. Dorsey moved to the William Warner house at this time. In 1854, Mary Jones purchased the house again. Basil refused to purchase his freedom until friends convinced him to let them raise money for him to be free and finally he agreed. He also said during his trial that he would cut his throat in the court house before he returned to slavery. He made this statement before his case was dismissed in Maryland. | 494 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The good old days. That term didn’t apply to life in the American Colonies, where epidemics were prevalent, starvation loomed and ignorance pervaded.
Because most colonists were from Europe, they brought superstitions from there with them to the New World. Unfortunately, many areas of Europe believed that diseases and natural disasters were the work of the devil and his witches.
When a town in New England suffered a disaster, residents searched for witches to blame — men or women. Suspected witches were arrested, thrown into jails or sheds, shackled and subjected to witch tests.
If you have traced your ancestry to the Colonies in the late 1600s, you may have an ancestor who was accused, an accuser or a member of their families.
Accused people were sometimes asked to repeat The Lord’s Prayer flawlessly. They might pass this test, but more tests were applied.
A second test was to remove the undergarments of accused people, tie a rope around the person’s waist, and bind the arms and feet. The accused was thrown into a body of flowing water. People who sank (and often drowned) were innocent, while those who floated were declared witches.
Another test was to prick the skin of the accused person using dull blades or nails. Sometimes the skin was scratched with the objects. People who didn’t bleed were declared witches.
Accused people were also examined for witch’s marks. Scars, moles, warts, skin infections, birthmarks and tattoos were all suspect. Another suspicious mark was an extra nipple.
After living in shackles for months and suffering through the torture of witch tests, many people gave up and confessed.
Although people convicted of witchcraft in Europe were burned at the stake, they suffered a different fate in the Colonies. In New England they were hanged, or they were pressed to death by having boards placed on top of their body and heavy rocks added. Many accused people died in prison as they awaited trial.
Witch hysteria was most prevalent in the Massachusetts towns of Boston, Salem, Dorchester and Cambridge. Two Connecticut towns involved were Hartford and Fairfield.
Comments or Suggestions? Contact Frankie Meyer: email@example.com. | <urn:uuid:1b9d28c7-ae09-4000-9304-cabda383fd16> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.joplinglobe.com/news/lifestyles/frankie-meyer-could-one-of-your-ancestors-have-been-accused/article_c3b687e3-654a-5975-8fa4-c36a5f8bc7ea.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251788528.85/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129041149-20200129071149-00452.warc.gz | en | 0.987476 | 463 | 3.265625 | 3 | [
0.09435003995895386,
0.456350177526474,
0.30102288722991943,
0.05699516832828522,
0.2652912437915802,
-0.0747620239853859,
0.6230260133743286,
-0.12095169723033905,
-0.20887966454029083,
0.14697565138339996,
-0.21626894176006317,
0.00433307746425271,
-0.4163869321346283,
0.3265132009983063... | 1 | The good old days. That term didn’t apply to life in the American Colonies, where epidemics were prevalent, starvation loomed and ignorance pervaded.
Because most colonists were from Europe, they brought superstitions from there with them to the New World. Unfortunately, many areas of Europe believed that diseases and natural disasters were the work of the devil and his witches.
When a town in New England suffered a disaster, residents searched for witches to blame — men or women. Suspected witches were arrested, thrown into jails or sheds, shackled and subjected to witch tests.
If you have traced your ancestry to the Colonies in the late 1600s, you may have an ancestor who was accused, an accuser or a member of their families.
Accused people were sometimes asked to repeat The Lord’s Prayer flawlessly. They might pass this test, but more tests were applied.
A second test was to remove the undergarments of accused people, tie a rope around the person’s waist, and bind the arms and feet. The accused was thrown into a body of flowing water. People who sank (and often drowned) were innocent, while those who floated were declared witches.
Another test was to prick the skin of the accused person using dull blades or nails. Sometimes the skin was scratched with the objects. People who didn’t bleed were declared witches.
Accused people were also examined for witch’s marks. Scars, moles, warts, skin infections, birthmarks and tattoos were all suspect. Another suspicious mark was an extra nipple.
After living in shackles for months and suffering through the torture of witch tests, many people gave up and confessed.
Although people convicted of witchcraft in Europe were burned at the stake, they suffered a different fate in the Colonies. In New England they were hanged, or they were pressed to death by having boards placed on top of their body and heavy rocks added. Many accused people died in prison as they awaited trial.
Witch hysteria was most prevalent in the Massachusetts towns of Boston, Salem, Dorchester and Cambridge. Two Connecticut towns involved were Hartford and Fairfield.
Comments or Suggestions? Contact Frankie Meyer: email@example.com. | 443 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Rosa Parks Day
Rosa Parks Day is an American commemorative day that takes place on February 4, the day of Rosa Parks’s birthday. However, the States of Ohio and Oregon choose to celebrate this day on December 1st, the day of her arrest. It is not a public holiday, and as such businesses run on normal working hours.
The History of Rosa Parks Day
Rosa Parks Day became an official observance in the United States when a California State Legislature was passed in 2000. The first celebration took place in Ohio after Joyce Beatty strongly advocated for the passing of the law that would mark a day for the recognition of Rosa Parks’s life and legacy. This day is also commemorated by the Columbus Ohio Bus System.
However, it was not until 2014 that this day was formally recognized in the States of Missouri and Oregon, by the hands of Governors Jay Nixon and Kitzhaber, respectively.
Who was Rosa Parks?
Rosa Parks was a leader of the Civil Rights Movement, who gained notoriety after refusing to give up her bus seat for a white person on a segregated bus. This led to the significant Montgomery Bus Boycott, which marked the end of racial segregation in Alabama.
For her efforts, Parks was awarded the Martin Luther King Jr.’s award by the NAACP, the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Congressional Gold Medal.
Rosa Parks was born on February 4, 1913, in Alabama. She was the granddaughter of former slaves, who instilled in her the need for the advocacy for racial equality. Her childhood was then shaped by discrimination and activism, with her grandfather once confronting members of the Ku Klux Klan who were marching in front of their house.
Parks attended school but was taught how to read by her mother, as the segregated schools of the time offered no conditions for African-American students, who lacked proper school supplies and had to walk for miles to school, as school buses were only available for white students.
She attended school up to the 11th grade, in 1929 when she had to leave to help her sick grandmother and mother back home. After, she got a job as a seamstress at a shirt factory in Montgomery.
In 1932 she married NAACP member Raymond Parks, who encouraged her to graduate high school. She did so in 1933, and became involved in civil rights issues, joining the NAACP as a youth leader and secretary to the president of the association.
Rosa Parks’s Arrest
On December 1st 1955 Rosa Parks boarded a bus after work, sitting on the first row designated for colored passengers. She was subsequently arrested after resisting a bus driver’s orders to give up her seat for a white passenger. She later explained that she did so because she was tired of giving in to the discriminatory laws.
At the time the Montgomery City Code stated that all public transport must be segregated, and gave bus drivers the same power that police officers had inside their buses. This law designated that passengers should have separate but equal seating, with a line down the middle of the bus which separated white passengers from black passengers. Black people should get on in the front to pay their ticket and then get off the bus to board again through the back door.
On this day, the bus was filling up with white passengers, who not having anywhere to sit, had to stand up. The driver then moved the separating line back one row, forcing four black passengers to give up their seats. The other three passengers obeyed him, but Rosa Parks remained seated stating that she didn’t have to stand up. The driver called the police, who arrived and arrested Parks.
The Montgomery Bus Boycott
On December 5 1955, the day of Rosa Parks’s trial, the African-American community united in her support and stayed off any public transport in the city. Seeing this unity, NAACP leaders thought that a longer boycott would be more efficient in passing a message, thus starting the Montgomery Bus Boycott which lasted for 381 days and concluded with the Supreme Court’s ruling that segregation on public transport was unconstitutional.
On June 1956 the district court ruled that Segregationist Laws were unlawful, and on November 13, 1956, the Supreme Court agreed, thus marking the end of the Jim Crow Laws era.
The boycott then ended on December 20 1956, and it is now recognized as one of the biggest and most successful movements against racial segregation.
Honoring Rosa Parks
For her efforts and struggles, Rosa Parks has been honored and remembered in America in several ways.
In 2000, Troy University opened the Rosa Parks Museum in Montgomery, Alabama. More recently, in 2019, a statue of Parks has been unveiled in the same place, as a memorial to the 64th anniversary of her arrest.
The Rosa Parks Story, a movie about the activist’s life, was released in 2002.
On her 100th birthday in 2013, the US Postal Service released a Rosa Parks Commemorative Stamp. In the same year, President Obama unveiled a statue of Parks that is housed in the Capitol Building. | <urn:uuid:2c2059bc-9ec9-4412-9fa1-ac15223bcd5d> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.calendarr.com/united-states/rosa-parks-day/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251783342.96/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128215526-20200129005526-00487.warc.gz | en | 0.984115 | 1,036 | 3.859375 | 4 | [
-0.22069421410560608,
0.018452124670147896,
0.3760049641132355,
-0.022421984001994133,
-0.1999211609363556,
-0.18423664569854736,
0.07768827676773071,
-0.03339585289359093,
-0.08684365451335907,
0.2661483883857727,
0.1472627967596054,
0.16873425245285034,
0.11759237200021744,
0.16816911101... | 7 | Rosa Parks Day
Rosa Parks Day is an American commemorative day that takes place on February 4, the day of Rosa Parks’s birthday. However, the States of Ohio and Oregon choose to celebrate this day on December 1st, the day of her arrest. It is not a public holiday, and as such businesses run on normal working hours.
The History of Rosa Parks Day
Rosa Parks Day became an official observance in the United States when a California State Legislature was passed in 2000. The first celebration took place in Ohio after Joyce Beatty strongly advocated for the passing of the law that would mark a day for the recognition of Rosa Parks’s life and legacy. This day is also commemorated by the Columbus Ohio Bus System.
However, it was not until 2014 that this day was formally recognized in the States of Missouri and Oregon, by the hands of Governors Jay Nixon and Kitzhaber, respectively.
Who was Rosa Parks?
Rosa Parks was a leader of the Civil Rights Movement, who gained notoriety after refusing to give up her bus seat for a white person on a segregated bus. This led to the significant Montgomery Bus Boycott, which marked the end of racial segregation in Alabama.
For her efforts, Parks was awarded the Martin Luther King Jr.’s award by the NAACP, the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Congressional Gold Medal.
Rosa Parks was born on February 4, 1913, in Alabama. She was the granddaughter of former slaves, who instilled in her the need for the advocacy for racial equality. Her childhood was then shaped by discrimination and activism, with her grandfather once confronting members of the Ku Klux Klan who were marching in front of their house.
Parks attended school but was taught how to read by her mother, as the segregated schools of the time offered no conditions for African-American students, who lacked proper school supplies and had to walk for miles to school, as school buses were only available for white students.
She attended school up to the 11th grade, in 1929 when she had to leave to help her sick grandmother and mother back home. After, she got a job as a seamstress at a shirt factory in Montgomery.
In 1932 she married NAACP member Raymond Parks, who encouraged her to graduate high school. She did so in 1933, and became involved in civil rights issues, joining the NAACP as a youth leader and secretary to the president of the association.
Rosa Parks’s Arrest
On December 1st 1955 Rosa Parks boarded a bus after work, sitting on the first row designated for colored passengers. She was subsequently arrested after resisting a bus driver’s orders to give up her seat for a white passenger. She later explained that she did so because she was tired of giving in to the discriminatory laws.
At the time the Montgomery City Code stated that all public transport must be segregated, and gave bus drivers the same power that police officers had inside their buses. This law designated that passengers should have separate but equal seating, with a line down the middle of the bus which separated white passengers from black passengers. Black people should get on in the front to pay their ticket and then get off the bus to board again through the back door.
On this day, the bus was filling up with white passengers, who not having anywhere to sit, had to stand up. The driver then moved the separating line back one row, forcing four black passengers to give up their seats. The other three passengers obeyed him, but Rosa Parks remained seated stating that she didn’t have to stand up. The driver called the police, who arrived and arrested Parks.
The Montgomery Bus Boycott
On December 5 1955, the day of Rosa Parks’s trial, the African-American community united in her support and stayed off any public transport in the city. Seeing this unity, NAACP leaders thought that a longer boycott would be more efficient in passing a message, thus starting the Montgomery Bus Boycott which lasted for 381 days and concluded with the Supreme Court’s ruling that segregation on public transport was unconstitutional.
On June 1956 the district court ruled that Segregationist Laws were unlawful, and on November 13, 1956, the Supreme Court agreed, thus marking the end of the Jim Crow Laws era.
The boycott then ended on December 20 1956, and it is now recognized as one of the biggest and most successful movements against racial segregation.
Honoring Rosa Parks
For her efforts and struggles, Rosa Parks has been honored and remembered in America in several ways.
In 2000, Troy University opened the Rosa Parks Museum in Montgomery, Alabama. More recently, in 2019, a statue of Parks has been unveiled in the same place, as a memorial to the 64th anniversary of her arrest.
The Rosa Parks Story, a movie about the activist’s life, was released in 2002.
On her 100th birthday in 2013, the US Postal Service released a Rosa Parks Commemorative Stamp. In the same year, President Obama unveiled a statue of Parks that is housed in the Capitol Building. | 1,082 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Founding Father: William Paterson
William Paterson was born in County Antrim, Ireland, in on December 14, 1745. When he was almost 2 years old, his family moved from Ireland to America. While his father traveled around the country, selling tin products, William Paterson’s family lived in New London, other areas of Connecticut, and Trenton, New Jersey. In 1750, William Paterson settled in Princeton, NJ. There, William Paterson became a manufacturer of tin goods and a merchant. William Paterson’s wealth allowed him to go to local private schools and then the College of New Jersey. He received his Bachelor of Arts in 1763 and Master of Arts 3 years later.
Afterwards, Paterson studied law under Richard Stockton, who signed the Declaration of Independence, in the city of Princeton. Soon after, William Paterson began practicing law at New Bromley, in Hunterdon County. Afterwards, William Paterson moved to South Branch, which was in Somerset County, and then relocated near New Brunswick at Raritan estate in 1779.
When the Revolutionary War broke out, William Paterson joined the New Jersey patriots’ vanguard. He also served in the provincial congress between 1775 and 1776, the constitutional convention in 1776, the legislative council from 1776 to 1777, and the council of safety in 1777. During the last year, William Paterson also held a militia commission. Between 1776 and 1783, William Paterson was attorney general of New Jersey, a job that took up so much time that he could not accept his election in 1780 to the Continental Congress. Meantime, the previous year, William Paterson had married Cornelia Bell, and he had three children with her before her death in 1783. Two years later, William Paterson got remarried to Euphemia White.
From 1783, when William Paterson moved to New Brunswick, New Jersey, until 1787, he devoted a lot of his time and energy in law and did not enter the public spotlight. Afterwards, he was chosen to be the representative of New Jersey at the Constitutional Convention. He only acted as New Jersey’s representative until late July of that year. Until then, William Paterson took careful notes of all the proceedings. More importantly, William Paterson was very prominent because of his support and co-authorship of the New Jersey Plan, sometimes called the Paterson Plan, which stated the small states’ rights against the large. William Paterson only returned to the Constitutional Convention to sign the Constitution. After supporting the ratification of the Constitution in New Jersey, William Paterson started his career in the new American government.
In 1789, William Paterson was elected to the United States Senate between 1789 and 1790, where he played an important role in writing the Judiciary Act of 1789. William Paterson’s next position after being a judge was the governor of his New Jersey from 1790 to 1793. Here, he started writing what later became the volume called Laws of the State of New Jersey in 1800. He also started to revise the practices and rules of the common law courts and chancery.
Between 1793 and 1806, William Paterson served the United States Supreme Court as an associate Justice. At that time, federal judges had to ride the circuit, or travel around. Here William Paterson travelled with the full court to preside over many major trials.
In September 1806, 60 year old Paterson began travelling Ballston Spa, New York for a cure to his sickness, but he died before he could get there at his daughter’s home in Albany, New York. William Paterson was buried in the nearby Van Rensselaer family vault, but his body was later moved to the Albany Rural Cemetery, in Menands, New York.
Fun Facts about William Paterson
• Both William Paterson University and the town Paterson, New Jersey are both named after William Paterson.
• He is currently buried in the same cemetery as President Chester A. Arthur. | <urn:uuid:ff33dd48-d4b7-4042-9867-88501bb52f0a> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://kids.laws.com/william-paterson | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250593937.27/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118193018-20200118221018-00358.warc.gz | en | 0.980837 | 843 | 3.625 | 4 | [
-0.27736032009124756,
0.2850680947303772,
0.2939189672470093,
-0.4516598582267761,
-0.5720369815826416,
-0.04969438165426254,
0.5687276124954224,
-0.24748946726322174,
-0.45289862155914307,
-0.2722267508506775,
-0.22784748673439026,
0.41292014718055725,
0.152848482131958,
0.810414135456085... | 5 | Founding Father: William Paterson
William Paterson was born in County Antrim, Ireland, in on December 14, 1745. When he was almost 2 years old, his family moved from Ireland to America. While his father traveled around the country, selling tin products, William Paterson’s family lived in New London, other areas of Connecticut, and Trenton, New Jersey. In 1750, William Paterson settled in Princeton, NJ. There, William Paterson became a manufacturer of tin goods and a merchant. William Paterson’s wealth allowed him to go to local private schools and then the College of New Jersey. He received his Bachelor of Arts in 1763 and Master of Arts 3 years later.
Afterwards, Paterson studied law under Richard Stockton, who signed the Declaration of Independence, in the city of Princeton. Soon after, William Paterson began practicing law at New Bromley, in Hunterdon County. Afterwards, William Paterson moved to South Branch, which was in Somerset County, and then relocated near New Brunswick at Raritan estate in 1779.
When the Revolutionary War broke out, William Paterson joined the New Jersey patriots’ vanguard. He also served in the provincial congress between 1775 and 1776, the constitutional convention in 1776, the legislative council from 1776 to 1777, and the council of safety in 1777. During the last year, William Paterson also held a militia commission. Between 1776 and 1783, William Paterson was attorney general of New Jersey, a job that took up so much time that he could not accept his election in 1780 to the Continental Congress. Meantime, the previous year, William Paterson had married Cornelia Bell, and he had three children with her before her death in 1783. Two years later, William Paterson got remarried to Euphemia White.
From 1783, when William Paterson moved to New Brunswick, New Jersey, until 1787, he devoted a lot of his time and energy in law and did not enter the public spotlight. Afterwards, he was chosen to be the representative of New Jersey at the Constitutional Convention. He only acted as New Jersey’s representative until late July of that year. Until then, William Paterson took careful notes of all the proceedings. More importantly, William Paterson was very prominent because of his support and co-authorship of the New Jersey Plan, sometimes called the Paterson Plan, which stated the small states’ rights against the large. William Paterson only returned to the Constitutional Convention to sign the Constitution. After supporting the ratification of the Constitution in New Jersey, William Paterson started his career in the new American government.
In 1789, William Paterson was elected to the United States Senate between 1789 and 1790, where he played an important role in writing the Judiciary Act of 1789. William Paterson’s next position after being a judge was the governor of his New Jersey from 1790 to 1793. Here, he started writing what later became the volume called Laws of the State of New Jersey in 1800. He also started to revise the practices and rules of the common law courts and chancery.
Between 1793 and 1806, William Paterson served the United States Supreme Court as an associate Justice. At that time, federal judges had to ride the circuit, or travel around. Here William Paterson travelled with the full court to preside over many major trials.
In September 1806, 60 year old Paterson began travelling Ballston Spa, New York for a cure to his sickness, but he died before he could get there at his daughter’s home in Albany, New York. William Paterson was buried in the nearby Van Rensselaer family vault, but his body was later moved to the Albany Rural Cemetery, in Menands, New York.
Fun Facts about William Paterson
• Both William Paterson University and the town Paterson, New Jersey are both named after William Paterson.
• He is currently buried in the same cemetery as President Chester A. Arthur. | 909 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Joseph Stalin, however, was once their favorite.
Hitler and Stalin were both Dictators of the countries they ruled. When Hitler and Stalin are compared, we can clearly see that each one of them were cold blooded killers.
They are both responsible for an absurd amount of innocent deaths. Hitler is believed to be responsible for killing at least six million Jewish people during the Holocaust; Stalin is responsible for the killings of millions of people many of them Jews.
An interesting similarity between Hitler and Stalin is their childhood. Both Hitler and Stalin grew up with abusive fathers.
Stalin however never completed his education, thus, never becoming a priest. During his time there is where he began to idolize the priests and seriously considered becoming a priest himself. Adolf also never completed his education, thus, he never became a priest either An additional similarity between Hitler and Stalin was their following of totalitarianism.
It indicates a totality of control by the state. This implies a relationship in which the state through its instruments dominates society. If individuals questioned or disagreed with the government, they were silenced by death or prison. The Government ran and censored the media.
All forms of communication were liable to interference from above and could, and were, heavily censored. Government newspapers glorified work and Stalin himself. They practiced racism and anti-Semitism. Finally, the last similarity was that: Neither men were natives of the nations they eventually ran.
Stalin was from Georgia, his real name Jozef Jughashvili, and not a Russian as his name implies, Stalin being a variation on the Russian word for steel. Even though Hitler and Stalin had many things in common, they of course had differences too. The most obvious differences are that Hitler was from Germany whereas Stalin was from Russia.
They also spoke different languages:Comparing Dictators Adolf Hitler versus Benito Mussolini versus Joseph Stalin Words 7 Pages This essay will compare the three leaders who are famous for their dictatorship and totalitarianism during the 30's decade .
Describe the Nature of a Totalitarian Regime, and Compare and Contrast Hitler's Nazi Regime with that of Stalin in Communist Russia Hitler and Stalin used the judiciary as a legal vehicle to either execute or transfer to labour and concentration camps, all political and civil opposition to their respective regimes, where they were employed as /5(1).
Adolf Hitler was the Nazi leader of Germany during World War II, and Joseph Stalin was the Communist leader of the Soviet Union during World War II. Though both men were harsh dictators, the ideologies they functioned under were different.
Hitler was a Nazi, and Stalin was a Communist. According to. Adolf Hitler was the Nazi leader of Germany during World War II, and Joseph Stalin was the Communist leader of the Soviet Union during World War II.
Though both men were harsh dictators, the ideologies they functioned under were different. Hitler was a Nazi, and Stalin was a Communist. Mao Tse Tung, Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler were statistically the most effective mass murderers of the 20th century.
The first was probably responsible for most deaths, the last for . Mommsen argues that this represents a structural difference between the regimes of Hitler and Stalin.
In spite of its purges, Stalin’s regime was more effective in building a stable bureaucracy, such that it was possible for the system to sustain itself and continue even without Stalin. | <urn:uuid:b6c8fabd-6216-43c9-b0fc-4ef8aa95f2fb> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://halequsapukicam.nationwidesecretarial.com/a-comparison-of-the-regimes-of-adolf-hitler-and-joseph-stalin-18955np.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250626449.79/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124221147-20200125010147-00461.warc.gz | en | 0.98663 | 692 | 3.34375 | 3 | [
-0.35386955738067627,
0.3558489680290222,
-0.08019474148750305,
0.08102595061063766,
0.15538202226161957,
-0.029475167393684387,
0.7289876341819763,
0.10174525529146194,
0.20057444274425507,
-0.17563527822494507,
0.1572798192501068,
0.033548180013895035,
0.46719539165496826,
0.353704184293... | 2 | Joseph Stalin, however, was once their favorite.
Hitler and Stalin were both Dictators of the countries they ruled. When Hitler and Stalin are compared, we can clearly see that each one of them were cold blooded killers.
They are both responsible for an absurd amount of innocent deaths. Hitler is believed to be responsible for killing at least six million Jewish people during the Holocaust; Stalin is responsible for the killings of millions of people many of them Jews.
An interesting similarity between Hitler and Stalin is their childhood. Both Hitler and Stalin grew up with abusive fathers.
Stalin however never completed his education, thus, never becoming a priest. During his time there is where he began to idolize the priests and seriously considered becoming a priest himself. Adolf also never completed his education, thus, he never became a priest either An additional similarity between Hitler and Stalin was their following of totalitarianism.
It indicates a totality of control by the state. This implies a relationship in which the state through its instruments dominates society. If individuals questioned or disagreed with the government, they were silenced by death or prison. The Government ran and censored the media.
All forms of communication were liable to interference from above and could, and were, heavily censored. Government newspapers glorified work and Stalin himself. They practiced racism and anti-Semitism. Finally, the last similarity was that: Neither men were natives of the nations they eventually ran.
Stalin was from Georgia, his real name Jozef Jughashvili, and not a Russian as his name implies, Stalin being a variation on the Russian word for steel. Even though Hitler and Stalin had many things in common, they of course had differences too. The most obvious differences are that Hitler was from Germany whereas Stalin was from Russia.
They also spoke different languages:Comparing Dictators Adolf Hitler versus Benito Mussolini versus Joseph Stalin Words 7 Pages This essay will compare the three leaders who are famous for their dictatorship and totalitarianism during the 30's decade .
Describe the Nature of a Totalitarian Regime, and Compare and Contrast Hitler's Nazi Regime with that of Stalin in Communist Russia Hitler and Stalin used the judiciary as a legal vehicle to either execute or transfer to labour and concentration camps, all political and civil opposition to their respective regimes, where they were employed as /5(1).
Adolf Hitler was the Nazi leader of Germany during World War II, and Joseph Stalin was the Communist leader of the Soviet Union during World War II. Though both men were harsh dictators, the ideologies they functioned under were different.
Hitler was a Nazi, and Stalin was a Communist. According to. Adolf Hitler was the Nazi leader of Germany during World War II, and Joseph Stalin was the Communist leader of the Soviet Union during World War II.
Though both men were harsh dictators, the ideologies they functioned under were different. Hitler was a Nazi, and Stalin was a Communist. Mao Tse Tung, Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler were statistically the most effective mass murderers of the 20th century.
The first was probably responsible for most deaths, the last for . Mommsen argues that this represents a structural difference between the regimes of Hitler and Stalin.
In spite of its purges, Stalin’s regime was more effective in building a stable bureaucracy, such that it was possible for the system to sustain itself and continue even without Stalin. | 682 | ENGLISH | 1 |
A Massachusetts jury acquitted Mary Webster of witchcraft in 1683, but her Hadley neighbors still thought her a witch – especially since she survived after they left her hanging from a tree.
It was nine years before the Salem witch trials would begin, a time when accusations of witchcraft were fairly common. In nearby Northampton, Mass., Mary Bliss Parsons was accused of witchcraft in 1675, but exonerated.
If accusations of witchcraft were common, convictions were rare until 1692-93, when 20 people were executed during the Salem witch trials.
But exoneration didn’t lift suspicion from the alleged witch. The Puritans believed ‘disturbing’ witches – beating or restraining them – prevented them from casting spells. So someone suspected of witchcraft could expect disturbances. For Mary Webster, the bizarre death of a prominent citizen nearly got her killed.
Half-Hanged Mary Webster
‘Half-Hanged Mary’ Webster was born Mary Reeve, daughter of Thomas Reeve and Hannah Rowe Reeve, in England around 1624. The family migrated to Springfield in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, and Mary married William Webster in 1670. He was 53 and she was about 46. They lived in the Puritan town of Hadley, Mass., 20 miles north of Springfield along the Connecticut River.
William and Mary Webster had little money, lived in a small house and sometimes needed help from the town to survive.
Poverty and neglect did not improve Mary’s fiery temper, and she spoke harshly when offended, wrote Sylvester Judd in his 1905 History of Hadley.
“Despised and sometimes ill-treated, she was soured with the world, and rendered spiteful towards some of her neighbors; they began to call her a witch, and to abuse her,” Judd wrote.
Mary Webster supposedly put a spell on cattle and horses so they couldn’t go past her house. The drivers found her and beat her so the animals could pass.
She once walked into a house and a hen fell down a chimney into a pot of boiling water. She had a scald mark on her body, probably from the hot water, but her neighbors called it the witches’ mark.
On March 27, 1683, the Northampton county court magistrates examined Mary Webster on suspicion of witchcraft.
The Northampton magistrates decided they couldn’t handle the matter, so they sent Mary to Boston in April.
They decided to indict her, “for that she, not having the fear of God before her eyes, and being instigated by the devil, hath entered into covenant and had familiarity with him in the shape of a warraneage, [fisher or wild black cat of the woods] and had his imps sucking her, and teats or marks found on her.”
Witches supposedly suckled their ‘imps’ or ‘familiars’ — maybe even the devil — in exchange for help with their magic.
At her trial on June 1st, 1683, the court found Mary Webster ‘not guilty,’ and she returned to Hadley.
Cotton Mather Weighs In
Mary Webster still faced persecution at home. A year and a half after her return, a prominent Hadley citizen named Philip Smith died a painful death.
the mysterious circumstances that surrounded them.
Mather, along with people of Hadley, had no doubt Mary Webster murdered Philip Smith ‘with an hideous witchcraft’ – all because he had tried to help her.
At the beginning of January, 1684-5, Smith suffered fits and delirium, wrote Mather. He was in great pain, crying out, “Lord, stay thy hand; it is enough, it is more than thy frail servant can bear.”
Smith also managed to blame Mary Webster for his dire condition.
Strange things had happened at his sickbed. Ports of medicine mysteriously emptied. When others held him down during his fits, they heard scratchings around the bed and saw fire on top of it. They also felt something in the bed as large as a cat.
After Philip Smith died, his corpse had swelling in one breast, bruises on the back and holes that seemed made with awls. And though he died on Saturday morning, his body was still warm on Sunday afternoon though it was cold outside. On Monday his face was discolored, with blood running down his cheek. Finally, people heard strange noises in the room where his corpse lay.
The death of Philip Smith, ‘filled all those parts of New England, with astonishment,’ wrote Mather.
Disturbing Mary Webster
The young men of Hadley believed disturbing Mary Webster would ease Smith’s pain. So they went after her.
Thomas Hutchinson, in his History of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, described what they did to her: “While [Philip Smith] lay ill, a number of brisk lads tried an experiment upon the old woman. Having dragged her out of the house, they hung her up until she was near dead, let her down, rolled her sometime in the snow, and at last buried her in it, and there left her; but it happened that she survived, and the melancholy man died.”
Mary Webster earned the nickname Half-hanged Mary, and she lived another 11 years. The townspeople, no doubt, continued to persecute her.
Canadian novelist and poet, Margaret Atwood believes she is descended from Mary Webster. In 1995 she wrote a poem, Half-Hanged Mary, about her ancestor. Her novel, The Handmaid’s Tale, is dedicated to Mary Webster.
With thanks to Mary (Reeve) Webster, the “Witch” of Hadley from a talk by Bridget M. Marshall, May 2003. This story was updated in 2019. | <urn:uuid:500e3f74-528b-42bc-8e3f-5f137cfd4bc4> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.newenglandhistoricalsociety.com/mary-webster-witch-hadley-survives-hanging/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251694071.63/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126230255-20200127020255-00360.warc.gz | en | 0.983738 | 1,224 | 3.4375 | 3 | [
0.25790834426879883,
0.18949639797210693,
0.40919753909111023,
-0.019334843382239342,
-0.3841807544231415,
0.2581532895565033,
0.23976972699165344,
-0.2008737325668335,
-0.08198842406272888,
0.1585860550403595,
-0.47771668434143066,
0.05565369501709938,
-0.4687090516090393,
0.0730019211769... | 4 | A Massachusetts jury acquitted Mary Webster of witchcraft in 1683, but her Hadley neighbors still thought her a witch – especially since she survived after they left her hanging from a tree.
It was nine years before the Salem witch trials would begin, a time when accusations of witchcraft were fairly common. In nearby Northampton, Mass., Mary Bliss Parsons was accused of witchcraft in 1675, but exonerated.
If accusations of witchcraft were common, convictions were rare until 1692-93, when 20 people were executed during the Salem witch trials.
But exoneration didn’t lift suspicion from the alleged witch. The Puritans believed ‘disturbing’ witches – beating or restraining them – prevented them from casting spells. So someone suspected of witchcraft could expect disturbances. For Mary Webster, the bizarre death of a prominent citizen nearly got her killed.
Half-Hanged Mary Webster
‘Half-Hanged Mary’ Webster was born Mary Reeve, daughter of Thomas Reeve and Hannah Rowe Reeve, in England around 1624. The family migrated to Springfield in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, and Mary married William Webster in 1670. He was 53 and she was about 46. They lived in the Puritan town of Hadley, Mass., 20 miles north of Springfield along the Connecticut River.
William and Mary Webster had little money, lived in a small house and sometimes needed help from the town to survive.
Poverty and neglect did not improve Mary’s fiery temper, and she spoke harshly when offended, wrote Sylvester Judd in his 1905 History of Hadley.
“Despised and sometimes ill-treated, she was soured with the world, and rendered spiteful towards some of her neighbors; they began to call her a witch, and to abuse her,” Judd wrote.
Mary Webster supposedly put a spell on cattle and horses so they couldn’t go past her house. The drivers found her and beat her so the animals could pass.
She once walked into a house and a hen fell down a chimney into a pot of boiling water. She had a scald mark on her body, probably from the hot water, but her neighbors called it the witches’ mark.
On March 27, 1683, the Northampton county court magistrates examined Mary Webster on suspicion of witchcraft.
The Northampton magistrates decided they couldn’t handle the matter, so they sent Mary to Boston in April.
They decided to indict her, “for that she, not having the fear of God before her eyes, and being instigated by the devil, hath entered into covenant and had familiarity with him in the shape of a warraneage, [fisher or wild black cat of the woods] and had his imps sucking her, and teats or marks found on her.”
Witches supposedly suckled their ‘imps’ or ‘familiars’ — maybe even the devil — in exchange for help with their magic.
At her trial on June 1st, 1683, the court found Mary Webster ‘not guilty,’ and she returned to Hadley.
Cotton Mather Weighs In
Mary Webster still faced persecution at home. A year and a half after her return, a prominent Hadley citizen named Philip Smith died a painful death.
the mysterious circumstances that surrounded them.
Mather, along with people of Hadley, had no doubt Mary Webster murdered Philip Smith ‘with an hideous witchcraft’ – all because he had tried to help her.
At the beginning of January, 1684-5, Smith suffered fits and delirium, wrote Mather. He was in great pain, crying out, “Lord, stay thy hand; it is enough, it is more than thy frail servant can bear.”
Smith also managed to blame Mary Webster for his dire condition.
Strange things had happened at his sickbed. Ports of medicine mysteriously emptied. When others held him down during his fits, they heard scratchings around the bed and saw fire on top of it. They also felt something in the bed as large as a cat.
After Philip Smith died, his corpse had swelling in one breast, bruises on the back and holes that seemed made with awls. And though he died on Saturday morning, his body was still warm on Sunday afternoon though it was cold outside. On Monday his face was discolored, with blood running down his cheek. Finally, people heard strange noises in the room where his corpse lay.
The death of Philip Smith, ‘filled all those parts of New England, with astonishment,’ wrote Mather.
Disturbing Mary Webster
The young men of Hadley believed disturbing Mary Webster would ease Smith’s pain. So they went after her.
Thomas Hutchinson, in his History of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, described what they did to her: “While [Philip Smith] lay ill, a number of brisk lads tried an experiment upon the old woman. Having dragged her out of the house, they hung her up until she was near dead, let her down, rolled her sometime in the snow, and at last buried her in it, and there left her; but it happened that she survived, and the melancholy man died.”
Mary Webster earned the nickname Half-hanged Mary, and she lived another 11 years. The townspeople, no doubt, continued to persecute her.
Canadian novelist and poet, Margaret Atwood believes she is descended from Mary Webster. In 1995 she wrote a poem, Half-Hanged Mary, about her ancestor. Her novel, The Handmaid’s Tale, is dedicated to Mary Webster.
With thanks to Mary (Reeve) Webster, the “Witch” of Hadley from a talk by Bridget M. Marshall, May 2003. This story was updated in 2019. | 1,213 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Trails are places to pass through and their networks have developed as people and objects transport. They also have been places for interaction of people and cultures, traditional events, recreations and evacuation. In this paper, Minamisanriku Town, a coastal town in northeastern Miyagi Prefecture, was selected as the study area in which we investigated changes that have occurred throughout time in existing trails and in the relations between trails and people. We analyzed topographic maps, historical documents, and hearing surveys of residents and related organizations. The results showed that trails in Minamisanriku Town have traditionally been used for transport, trade, procurement of food and wood, and religious events, and that they have changed along with changes in people’s lives. Main routes have moved from trails in the mountains to coastal paved roadways, a move that increased the impact of tsunamis. Mountain trails have become ruined and are currently disappearing, but they work as emergency routes when a tsunami hits. The results showed that keeping mountain trails in good condition and preserving mountain trail networks is important not only for environmental education and for preserving traditions, but also to provide emergency evacuation and transportation routes during disasters. | <urn:uuid:e2e884a2-85ea-48cd-91cf-0ed00f767cf9> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jila/78/5/78_641/_article/-char/ja | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251796127.92/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129102701-20200129132701-00144.warc.gz | en | 0.980475 | 237 | 3.28125 | 3 | [
-0.13343705236911774,
-0.11510724574327469,
0.3504437506198883,
0.013876834884285927,
0.3087393343448639,
0.038523118942976,
0.09386008977890015,
0.1477251797914505,
-0.22461557388305664,
-0.076551154255867,
-0.10858345776796341,
-0.4948224723339081,
0.12952028214931488,
0.3761588633060455... | 1 | Trails are places to pass through and their networks have developed as people and objects transport. They also have been places for interaction of people and cultures, traditional events, recreations and evacuation. In this paper, Minamisanriku Town, a coastal town in northeastern Miyagi Prefecture, was selected as the study area in which we investigated changes that have occurred throughout time in existing trails and in the relations between trails and people. We analyzed topographic maps, historical documents, and hearing surveys of residents and related organizations. The results showed that trails in Minamisanriku Town have traditionally been used for transport, trade, procurement of food and wood, and religious events, and that they have changed along with changes in people’s lives. Main routes have moved from trails in the mountains to coastal paved roadways, a move that increased the impact of tsunamis. Mountain trails have become ruined and are currently disappearing, but they work as emergency routes when a tsunami hits. The results showed that keeping mountain trails in good condition and preserving mountain trail networks is important not only for environmental education and for preserving traditions, but also to provide emergency evacuation and transportation routes during disasters. | 236 | ENGLISH | 1 |
So what other early options were swept aside by petrol driven engines? The electric motor driven car is surely a latter-day invention, product of recent concerns about emissions and pollution. In fact, neither concerns about air quality nor electric powered vehicles are new.
The first electric cars were made in 1880 (although some experimental prototypes were created as early as the 1830s). London designer Thomas Parker (also responsible for the electrification of the London Underground) produced a production electric vehicle in 1884 and over the next few years electric vehicles became a popular choice. Parker's vehicle ran on his own design of high density rechargeable batteries. The rechargeable batteries of the era were lead-acid batteries (invented in 1859) and this was not to change - apart from tweaking - for decades.
Electric vehicles were most popular in the US, where, by 1900, 38% of cars were electric vehicles, 40% were steam powered whilst only 22% were petrol fuelled. Electric vehicles were valued as cleaner, quieter and more economical than petrol driven cars even back in the early twentieth century.
However, within twenty years, their fortunes were to dwindle. The early electric vehicles were the victims of dual forces of oil discovery and the Ford Model T. Oil provided a plentiful (and cheap) fuel whilst Henry Ford's invention of the mass production process for cars reduced the manufacturing costs of vehicles enabling them to be marketed at a lower price and bought by many more people.
And as the Model T's star rose, the fortunes of the internal combustion engine rose with it. With these efficiently produced petrol vehicles retailing at less than half the price of electric vehicles, it's not surprising that they were in the ascendency. The infrastructure for refuelling developed in parallel with the growth in production and use, similarly outstripping that for electric motor driven cars. With refuelling concerns and shorter ranges, electric vehicles were limited to city use - although battery exchange programmes were launched that potentially extended the journeys electric vehicles could make, they were too late. The very popularity of petrol cars made them the dominant force, all but wiping out electric vehicles within twenty years.
Electric cars have seen sporadic revivals of interest throughout the twentieth century - but none that really took hold until the 1990s. If you want more about contemporary electric vehicle development, look no further than this blog - and our posts on electric vehicles and Tesla's amazing battery development.
by at 31 Mar 2015, 00:00 AM | <urn:uuid:ea15d1de-6c4a-4c90-bee2-27697979bb8a> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://blog.directgap.co.uk/posts/2015/the-betamax-effect-part-3/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251700988.64/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127143516-20200127173516-00156.warc.gz | en | 0.985536 | 500 | 3.28125 | 3 | [
-0.2608853578567505,
0.26555463671684265,
0.4935348629951477,
0.052668794989585876,
-0.31636911630630493,
0.35352036356925964,
-0.1703203320503235,
0.21684251725673676,
-0.003152032382786274,
-0.2102765440940857,
0.16481691598892212,
0.11545474082231522,
-0.27169376611709595,
0.29262816905... | 1 | So what other early options were swept aside by petrol driven engines? The electric motor driven car is surely a latter-day invention, product of recent concerns about emissions and pollution. In fact, neither concerns about air quality nor electric powered vehicles are new.
The first electric cars were made in 1880 (although some experimental prototypes were created as early as the 1830s). London designer Thomas Parker (also responsible for the electrification of the London Underground) produced a production electric vehicle in 1884 and over the next few years electric vehicles became a popular choice. Parker's vehicle ran on his own design of high density rechargeable batteries. The rechargeable batteries of the era were lead-acid batteries (invented in 1859) and this was not to change - apart from tweaking - for decades.
Electric vehicles were most popular in the US, where, by 1900, 38% of cars were electric vehicles, 40% were steam powered whilst only 22% were petrol fuelled. Electric vehicles were valued as cleaner, quieter and more economical than petrol driven cars even back in the early twentieth century.
However, within twenty years, their fortunes were to dwindle. The early electric vehicles were the victims of dual forces of oil discovery and the Ford Model T. Oil provided a plentiful (and cheap) fuel whilst Henry Ford's invention of the mass production process for cars reduced the manufacturing costs of vehicles enabling them to be marketed at a lower price and bought by many more people.
And as the Model T's star rose, the fortunes of the internal combustion engine rose with it. With these efficiently produced petrol vehicles retailing at less than half the price of electric vehicles, it's not surprising that they were in the ascendency. The infrastructure for refuelling developed in parallel with the growth in production and use, similarly outstripping that for electric motor driven cars. With refuelling concerns and shorter ranges, electric vehicles were limited to city use - although battery exchange programmes were launched that potentially extended the journeys electric vehicles could make, they were too late. The very popularity of petrol cars made them the dominant force, all but wiping out electric vehicles within twenty years.
Electric cars have seen sporadic revivals of interest throughout the twentieth century - but none that really took hold until the 1990s. If you want more about contemporary electric vehicle development, look no further than this blog - and our posts on electric vehicles and Tesla's amazing battery development.
by at 31 Mar 2015, 00:00 AM | 531 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The struggle for North America began long before Andrew Jackson was born. Like similar struggles on all the inhabited continents, it ran back millennia, perhaps to the moment humans first found their way across the Arctic plain from Asia. Oral tradition and archaeological evidence indicate that conflict was a regular feature of life among the North Americans. They fought for forests where the game was most abundant, for rivers where the fish were thickest, for bottomlands where their corn and beans and squashes grew most readily. Great warriors were the heroes of their tribes, emulated by other men, sought by women, hallowed in memory. Strong tribes expanded their territories, driving the weak to less-favored regions and sometimes to extinction. Diplomacy complemented military force: the Iroquois confederation made that alliance a terror to its neighbors.
The arrival of the Europeans added new elements to the competition. These far-easterners possessed weapons the aboriginals hadn't seen: steel knives, swords, and axes; muskets and rifles; cannon. But their most potent agents of conquest were ones neither they nor their victims understood: the pathogens to which long exposure had inured the Europeans but that devastated the native Americans. In many instances the novel diseases raced ahead of European settlers, who arrived to discover human deserts and concluded that the Christian God in his wisdom and power had prepared the way for their colonies.
But the diseases didn't kill all the Indians. Those who survived often welcomed the interlopers, at least at first. Especially after smallpox and the other epidemics killed as many as three-fourths of the members of the afflicted tribes, there seemed room enough for all. And the newcomers' traders brought goods the natives quickly learned to value: iron pots, which bested clay for durability; steel blades, which held an edge longer than flint or obsidian; rifles, which felled game at distances arrows couldn't reach and gave their possessors an advantage in battle over tribes that lacked them. Some purists among the Indians rejected everything European, but most of the natives adapted happily to the improved lifestyle the new technology brought.
In time, however, the palefaces got pushy. Their farmers followed the traders and expropriated Indian land. This was when the real struggle started. In New England in the 1670s a coalition led by a chief the English called King Philip contested the advancing settlement by destroying several towns and killing the inhabitants. The English fought back, with the help of Indians holding a grudge against Philip's group, and eventually won. Philip was beheaded and his captured followers enslaved.
The Indians' resistance grew more sophisticated. They discovered that the Europeans belonged to more than one tribe, with the French as hostile to the English as either were to any of the Indians. Some Indians sided with the French, others with the English, and when the French and English went to war--as they did once a generation--the various Indian tribes exploited the opportunities to their own advantage. The largest of the conflicts (called the French and Indian War by the English in America) began in 1754 and inspired the Delawares and Shawnees, allies of France, to try to drive the English away from the frontier. To this end they launched a campaign of terror against British settlements in the Ohio Valley. The terror began successfully and over three years threatened to throw the English all the way back to the coast. But British victories in Canada and elsewhere weakened the French and emboldened Britain's own allies, including the Iroquois, and when the war ended in 1763 the French surrendered all their North American territories.
This was good news for Britain's American subjects but bad news for nearly all the Indians of the frontier, including Britain's allies. As long as the British and French had vied for control in America, each had to bid for the support of the Indians, who learned to play the Europeans against one another. With the French departure the bidding ended and the Indians were left to confront British power alone.
The Ottawa chief Pontiac was among the first to appreciate the new state of affairs. The Ottawas had long been rivals of the Iroquois and were recently allies of the French. For both reasons they fought against the British in the French and Indian War. When that war ended in French defeat, Pontiac saw disaster looming for the Ottawas--and for Indians generally. A tall, powerful warrior with a striking mien, he was also a charismatic political leader and an adroit diplomat. The fighting between Britain and France had hardly ceased before he welded together a coalition of tribes dedicated to expelling the British from the interior of the continent. Pontiac's forces besieged Fort Detroit above Lake Erie during the spring of 1763. From there the offensive spread north and east along the Great Lakes and south into the Ohio Valley. One British garrison after another was surrounded and destroyed. As this was a psychological offensive as much as a military one, the methods of destruction often included the most gruesome treatment of those soldiers, traders, and dependents who fell into the attackers' hands.
The assault on a British fort at Mackinac showed the swiftness with which the Indians commenced their attacks and the brutality with which they completed them. Pontiac's campaign was spreading faster than the news of it, and the troops and traders at Mackinac knew of no reason to fear the large group of Ojibwas who approached the fort in amicable fashion and commenced a game of lacrosse immediately beneath the walls. The British came out to watch, as they did on such occasions. The intensity of the game mounted, until one of the players threw the ball close to the gate. The laughing, cheering spectators took no alarm when both teams tore after it. But then the players dropped their lacrosse sticks, snatched war axes from under the robes of their women, and rushed through the unguarded gate. The surprise was total and the carnage almost equally so. A trader named Alexander Henry, who managed to hide in a storage closet, left a chilling account:
Through an aperture, which afforded me a view of the area of the fort, I beheld, in shapes the foulest and most terrible, the ferocious triumphs of barbarian conquerors. The dead were scalped and mangled; the dying were writhing and shrieking under the unsatiated knife and tomahawk; and from the bodies of some, ripped open, their butchers were drinking the blood, scooped up in the hollow of joined hands, and quaffed amid shouts of rage and victory.
The story was much the same all along the frontier. The offensive continued to outrace reports of it, and in many cases the first intimation the English settlers and soldiers had of trouble was the arrival of war parties. One by one the garrisons fell, until Pontiac and his allies controlled the entire region west of Fort Pitt, at the forks of the Ohio. Isolated frontier settlements were even more vulnerable and the destruction was commensurately greater. Some two thousand settlers were killed, and about four hundred soldiers. Many others were taken hostage. Those who survived the attacks and evaded capture fled east, bearing tales of calamity and horror.
The British commander in North America, Jeffrey Amherst, a large man with a big nose and a deeply held conviction that his talents were being wasted in the colonies, received the news of the western disaster at his headquarters in New York. Although the reports shocked him, he wasn't surprised at the behavior of the Indians, whom he considered savages beneath regard by civilized men. This attitude was common among the British, and it had helped trigger the current uprising. (By contrast, the French, whose imperial policy relied less on displacing the Indians than on trading with them, developed a more sophisticated view of the indigenes.) Amherst terminated the practice of sending gifts to Britain's Indian allies, and he curtailed the trade in guns and ammunition. He judged that though the Indians had been useful against the French, now that the French were vanquished it was time to make the Indians understand who the true rulers of North America were.
While Amherst had to respect the fighting ability of the Indians, he blamed incompetence among his subordinates for the success of Pontiac's offensive. Upon receiving a report of a massacre of the British garrison at Presque Isle, which followed the fort's surrender by its commanding officer, he could hardly contain his anger. "It is amazing that an officer could put so much faith in the promises of the Indians as to capitulate with them, when there are so many recent instances of their never failing to massacre the people whom they can persuade to put themselves in their power," he wrote in his journal. "The officer and garrison would have had a much better chance for their lives if they had defended themselves to the last, and if not relieved, they had confided to a retreat through the woods or got off in a boat in the night. These people are undoubtedly murdered unless the Indians may have feared to do it lest we may retaliate. There is absolutely nothing but fear of us that can hinder them from committing all the cruelties in their power."
Amherst determined to answer the terror of the Indians with terror of his own. Knowing that the Indians rightly feared the white men's diseases more than anything else about the Europeans, he directed Henry Bouquet, the commander of the western district, to launch a campaign of biological warfare. "Could it not be contrived to send the smallpox among the disaffected tribes of Indians?" Amherst inquired. "We must on this occasion use every stratagem in our power to reduce them."
Bouquet responded at once. Some of his own troops were suffering from smallpox; he proposed to take blankets from the sick men and distribute them among the Indians. "I will try to inoculate the ------ with some blankets that may fall in their hands, and take care not to get the disease myself," he told Amherst. (Whether discretion caused him not to identify the targets or he hadn't decided which Indians to infect is unclear.)
Amherst approved the plan. "You will do well to try to inoculate the Indians by means of blankets, as well as to try every other method that can serve to extirpate this execrable race," he said.
Bouquet distributed the blankets. By the time he did, they may have proved redundant, as the smallpox had already jumped from the whites in the area to the Indians. Yet the outcome was certainly what Bouquet and Amherst desired. "The smallpox has been very general and raging among the Indians since last spring," an observer wrote several months later. A subordinate of Bouquet--who, unlike his commander, wasn't beyond pity--reported from the front, "The poor rascals are dying very fast with the smallpox; they can make but little resistance and when routed from their settlements must perish in great numbers by the disorders."
Aided by the epidemic, the British managed to roll back the Indian advances. Bouquet battered an Indian army at Bushy Run near Fort Pitt, and he sent his troops to burn Indian villages and drive off their inhabitants, many of whom then perished of hunger and disease. The villages were always the weak spot of Indians, for although Indian warriors were masters at raiding garrisons and terrorizing settlers, they lacked the numbers and firepower to defend their own women and children against British counterattack. In the face of Bouquet's scorched-earth strategy, Pontiac's allies fell away band by band and tribe by tribe, to make peace with the British.
Yet the outcome was far from an undiluted victory for British arms. To entice Pontiac's allies to the peace table, the British government recalled Amherst and repealed most of the measures the Indians resented. As a result, it wasn't hard for many of the Indians to conclude that, in dealing with the Europeans, war worked. (For Pontiac personally, the failure to drive the British from the Ohio marked a defeat from which he never recovered. His fellow Ottawas turned to others for leadership, and the younger warriors derided the old man as a relic of the past. In 1769 he was fatally stabbed by a Peoria Indian at a trading post on the Mississippi River. None of the Ottawas, not even his own sons, lifted a finger to avenge him.)
The lesson American colonists drew from Pontiac's War was similar in content to that drawn by the Indians but altogether different in tone. The uprising had sent shudders all along the American backcountry, from New York to Georgia. In every community that lived within sight or consciousness of the great forest that stretched away to the west, the reports of the Indian atrocities--with the torture of prisoners and the mutilation and cannibalism of the murdered recounted in excruciating detail--caused hearts to clutch and eyes to examine every grove of trees for signs of the enemy's approach. The flood of refugees from the war provided additional evidence of the scope and meaning of the Indian uprising. An inhabitant of Frederick, Maryland, noted, "Every day, for some time past, has offered the melancholy scene of poor distressed families driving downwards through this town with their effects, who have deserted their plantations for fear of falling into the cruel hands of our savage enemies, now daily seen in the woods." A witness in Winchester, Virginia, explained, "Near 500 families have run away within this week. I assure you it was a most melancholy sight to see such numbers of poor people, who had abandoned their settlements in such consternation and hurry that they had hardly anything with them but their children. And what is still worse, I dare say there is not money enough amongst the whole families to maintain a fifth part of them till the fall; and none of the poor creatures can get a hovel to shelter them from the weather, but lie about scattered in the woods."
For the refugees, and for the many more who held on to their homes but watched their cold, hungry compatriots stream by, the outcome of Pontiac's War was decidedly unsatisfactory. Except for the traders, who required the Indians as customers, nearly all the Americans who lived anywhere near the frontier considered the Indians an existential danger. Few would have mourned had every one of the natives fallen victim to British arms or European disease. And when the post-Pontiac settlement essentially restored the status quo, the Americans once more saw the tomahawk hanging over their heads.
Among those who fought against Pontiac were members of a peculiar tribe with origins in the foggy North Atlantic. During the first decade of the seventeenth century--at the same time as the founding in America of English Jamestown and French Quebec--King James of England and Scotland planted a colony of English and Scots in the north of Ireland. The purpose of the Ulster plantation was to subdue the unruly Irish, who were considered by the English to be fully as savage as the Indian tribes of North America. So refractory were they that few Englishmen accepted James's invitation to emigrate to Ulster, leaving it to the Scots to claim the Irish territory James opened to them. Nor were these just any Scots, but bands of Lowlanders who had fought for centuries against rival tribesman--or clansmen--of the Scottish Highlands. The centuries of battle had forged a character equal to almost any challenge requiring courage and determination. As one Scotsman explained, "When I do consider with myself what things are necessary for a plantation, I cannot but be confident that my own countrymen are as fit for such a purpose as any men in the world, having daring minds that upon any probable appearance do despise danger, and bodies able to endure as much as the height of their minds can undertake." Another Scotsman, perhaps more candid, characterized those who accepted James's offer rather differently: "Albeit amongst these Divine Providence sent over some worthy persons for birth, education and parts, yet the most part were such as either poverty, scandalous lives, or, at the best, adventurous seeking of better accommodation, set forward that way."
Copyright © 2005 by H.W. Brands. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher. | <urn:uuid:5d157512-d111-4ec8-ba02-cffd9d5706ee> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://www.penguinrandomhouseretail.com/book/?isbn=9781400030729 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251687958.71/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126074227-20200126104227-00128.warc.gz | en | 0.980824 | 3,338 | 3.84375 | 4 | [
-0.19866764545440674,
0.4513387084007263,
0.36042290925979614,
0.3670988976955414,
-0.04336202144622803,
0.027476532384753227,
-0.0034385998733341694,
0.13283684849739075,
-0.12125859409570694,
-0.21371398866176605,
-0.12895271182060242,
0.011890844441950321,
0.06548891961574554,
0.0737426... | 4 | The struggle for North America began long before Andrew Jackson was born. Like similar struggles on all the inhabited continents, it ran back millennia, perhaps to the moment humans first found their way across the Arctic plain from Asia. Oral tradition and archaeological evidence indicate that conflict was a regular feature of life among the North Americans. They fought for forests where the game was most abundant, for rivers where the fish were thickest, for bottomlands where their corn and beans and squashes grew most readily. Great warriors were the heroes of their tribes, emulated by other men, sought by women, hallowed in memory. Strong tribes expanded their territories, driving the weak to less-favored regions and sometimes to extinction. Diplomacy complemented military force: the Iroquois confederation made that alliance a terror to its neighbors.
The arrival of the Europeans added new elements to the competition. These far-easterners possessed weapons the aboriginals hadn't seen: steel knives, swords, and axes; muskets and rifles; cannon. But their most potent agents of conquest were ones neither they nor their victims understood: the pathogens to which long exposure had inured the Europeans but that devastated the native Americans. In many instances the novel diseases raced ahead of European settlers, who arrived to discover human deserts and concluded that the Christian God in his wisdom and power had prepared the way for their colonies.
But the diseases didn't kill all the Indians. Those who survived often welcomed the interlopers, at least at first. Especially after smallpox and the other epidemics killed as many as three-fourths of the members of the afflicted tribes, there seemed room enough for all. And the newcomers' traders brought goods the natives quickly learned to value: iron pots, which bested clay for durability; steel blades, which held an edge longer than flint or obsidian; rifles, which felled game at distances arrows couldn't reach and gave their possessors an advantage in battle over tribes that lacked them. Some purists among the Indians rejected everything European, but most of the natives adapted happily to the improved lifestyle the new technology brought.
In time, however, the palefaces got pushy. Their farmers followed the traders and expropriated Indian land. This was when the real struggle started. In New England in the 1670s a coalition led by a chief the English called King Philip contested the advancing settlement by destroying several towns and killing the inhabitants. The English fought back, with the help of Indians holding a grudge against Philip's group, and eventually won. Philip was beheaded and his captured followers enslaved.
The Indians' resistance grew more sophisticated. They discovered that the Europeans belonged to more than one tribe, with the French as hostile to the English as either were to any of the Indians. Some Indians sided with the French, others with the English, and when the French and English went to war--as they did once a generation--the various Indian tribes exploited the opportunities to their own advantage. The largest of the conflicts (called the French and Indian War by the English in America) began in 1754 and inspired the Delawares and Shawnees, allies of France, to try to drive the English away from the frontier. To this end they launched a campaign of terror against British settlements in the Ohio Valley. The terror began successfully and over three years threatened to throw the English all the way back to the coast. But British victories in Canada and elsewhere weakened the French and emboldened Britain's own allies, including the Iroquois, and when the war ended in 1763 the French surrendered all their North American territories.
This was good news for Britain's American subjects but bad news for nearly all the Indians of the frontier, including Britain's allies. As long as the British and French had vied for control in America, each had to bid for the support of the Indians, who learned to play the Europeans against one another. With the French departure the bidding ended and the Indians were left to confront British power alone.
The Ottawa chief Pontiac was among the first to appreciate the new state of affairs. The Ottawas had long been rivals of the Iroquois and were recently allies of the French. For both reasons they fought against the British in the French and Indian War. When that war ended in French defeat, Pontiac saw disaster looming for the Ottawas--and for Indians generally. A tall, powerful warrior with a striking mien, he was also a charismatic political leader and an adroit diplomat. The fighting between Britain and France had hardly ceased before he welded together a coalition of tribes dedicated to expelling the British from the interior of the continent. Pontiac's forces besieged Fort Detroit above Lake Erie during the spring of 1763. From there the offensive spread north and east along the Great Lakes and south into the Ohio Valley. One British garrison after another was surrounded and destroyed. As this was a psychological offensive as much as a military one, the methods of destruction often included the most gruesome treatment of those soldiers, traders, and dependents who fell into the attackers' hands.
The assault on a British fort at Mackinac showed the swiftness with which the Indians commenced their attacks and the brutality with which they completed them. Pontiac's campaign was spreading faster than the news of it, and the troops and traders at Mackinac knew of no reason to fear the large group of Ojibwas who approached the fort in amicable fashion and commenced a game of lacrosse immediately beneath the walls. The British came out to watch, as they did on such occasions. The intensity of the game mounted, until one of the players threw the ball close to the gate. The laughing, cheering spectators took no alarm when both teams tore after it. But then the players dropped their lacrosse sticks, snatched war axes from under the robes of their women, and rushed through the unguarded gate. The surprise was total and the carnage almost equally so. A trader named Alexander Henry, who managed to hide in a storage closet, left a chilling account:
Through an aperture, which afforded me a view of the area of the fort, I beheld, in shapes the foulest and most terrible, the ferocious triumphs of barbarian conquerors. The dead were scalped and mangled; the dying were writhing and shrieking under the unsatiated knife and tomahawk; and from the bodies of some, ripped open, their butchers were drinking the blood, scooped up in the hollow of joined hands, and quaffed amid shouts of rage and victory.
The story was much the same all along the frontier. The offensive continued to outrace reports of it, and in many cases the first intimation the English settlers and soldiers had of trouble was the arrival of war parties. One by one the garrisons fell, until Pontiac and his allies controlled the entire region west of Fort Pitt, at the forks of the Ohio. Isolated frontier settlements were even more vulnerable and the destruction was commensurately greater. Some two thousand settlers were killed, and about four hundred soldiers. Many others were taken hostage. Those who survived the attacks and evaded capture fled east, bearing tales of calamity and horror.
The British commander in North America, Jeffrey Amherst, a large man with a big nose and a deeply held conviction that his talents were being wasted in the colonies, received the news of the western disaster at his headquarters in New York. Although the reports shocked him, he wasn't surprised at the behavior of the Indians, whom he considered savages beneath regard by civilized men. This attitude was common among the British, and it had helped trigger the current uprising. (By contrast, the French, whose imperial policy relied less on displacing the Indians than on trading with them, developed a more sophisticated view of the indigenes.) Amherst terminated the practice of sending gifts to Britain's Indian allies, and he curtailed the trade in guns and ammunition. He judged that though the Indians had been useful against the French, now that the French were vanquished it was time to make the Indians understand who the true rulers of North America were.
While Amherst had to respect the fighting ability of the Indians, he blamed incompetence among his subordinates for the success of Pontiac's offensive. Upon receiving a report of a massacre of the British garrison at Presque Isle, which followed the fort's surrender by its commanding officer, he could hardly contain his anger. "It is amazing that an officer could put so much faith in the promises of the Indians as to capitulate with them, when there are so many recent instances of their never failing to massacre the people whom they can persuade to put themselves in their power," he wrote in his journal. "The officer and garrison would have had a much better chance for their lives if they had defended themselves to the last, and if not relieved, they had confided to a retreat through the woods or got off in a boat in the night. These people are undoubtedly murdered unless the Indians may have feared to do it lest we may retaliate. There is absolutely nothing but fear of us that can hinder them from committing all the cruelties in their power."
Amherst determined to answer the terror of the Indians with terror of his own. Knowing that the Indians rightly feared the white men's diseases more than anything else about the Europeans, he directed Henry Bouquet, the commander of the western district, to launch a campaign of biological warfare. "Could it not be contrived to send the smallpox among the disaffected tribes of Indians?" Amherst inquired. "We must on this occasion use every stratagem in our power to reduce them."
Bouquet responded at once. Some of his own troops were suffering from smallpox; he proposed to take blankets from the sick men and distribute them among the Indians. "I will try to inoculate the ------ with some blankets that may fall in their hands, and take care not to get the disease myself," he told Amherst. (Whether discretion caused him not to identify the targets or he hadn't decided which Indians to infect is unclear.)
Amherst approved the plan. "You will do well to try to inoculate the Indians by means of blankets, as well as to try every other method that can serve to extirpate this execrable race," he said.
Bouquet distributed the blankets. By the time he did, they may have proved redundant, as the smallpox had already jumped from the whites in the area to the Indians. Yet the outcome was certainly what Bouquet and Amherst desired. "The smallpox has been very general and raging among the Indians since last spring," an observer wrote several months later. A subordinate of Bouquet--who, unlike his commander, wasn't beyond pity--reported from the front, "The poor rascals are dying very fast with the smallpox; they can make but little resistance and when routed from their settlements must perish in great numbers by the disorders."
Aided by the epidemic, the British managed to roll back the Indian advances. Bouquet battered an Indian army at Bushy Run near Fort Pitt, and he sent his troops to burn Indian villages and drive off their inhabitants, many of whom then perished of hunger and disease. The villages were always the weak spot of Indians, for although Indian warriors were masters at raiding garrisons and terrorizing settlers, they lacked the numbers and firepower to defend their own women and children against British counterattack. In the face of Bouquet's scorched-earth strategy, Pontiac's allies fell away band by band and tribe by tribe, to make peace with the British.
Yet the outcome was far from an undiluted victory for British arms. To entice Pontiac's allies to the peace table, the British government recalled Amherst and repealed most of the measures the Indians resented. As a result, it wasn't hard for many of the Indians to conclude that, in dealing with the Europeans, war worked. (For Pontiac personally, the failure to drive the British from the Ohio marked a defeat from which he never recovered. His fellow Ottawas turned to others for leadership, and the younger warriors derided the old man as a relic of the past. In 1769 he was fatally stabbed by a Peoria Indian at a trading post on the Mississippi River. None of the Ottawas, not even his own sons, lifted a finger to avenge him.)
The lesson American colonists drew from Pontiac's War was similar in content to that drawn by the Indians but altogether different in tone. The uprising had sent shudders all along the American backcountry, from New York to Georgia. In every community that lived within sight or consciousness of the great forest that stretched away to the west, the reports of the Indian atrocities--with the torture of prisoners and the mutilation and cannibalism of the murdered recounted in excruciating detail--caused hearts to clutch and eyes to examine every grove of trees for signs of the enemy's approach. The flood of refugees from the war provided additional evidence of the scope and meaning of the Indian uprising. An inhabitant of Frederick, Maryland, noted, "Every day, for some time past, has offered the melancholy scene of poor distressed families driving downwards through this town with their effects, who have deserted their plantations for fear of falling into the cruel hands of our savage enemies, now daily seen in the woods." A witness in Winchester, Virginia, explained, "Near 500 families have run away within this week. I assure you it was a most melancholy sight to see such numbers of poor people, who had abandoned their settlements in such consternation and hurry that they had hardly anything with them but their children. And what is still worse, I dare say there is not money enough amongst the whole families to maintain a fifth part of them till the fall; and none of the poor creatures can get a hovel to shelter them from the weather, but lie about scattered in the woods."
For the refugees, and for the many more who held on to their homes but watched their cold, hungry compatriots stream by, the outcome of Pontiac's War was decidedly unsatisfactory. Except for the traders, who required the Indians as customers, nearly all the Americans who lived anywhere near the frontier considered the Indians an existential danger. Few would have mourned had every one of the natives fallen victim to British arms or European disease. And when the post-Pontiac settlement essentially restored the status quo, the Americans once more saw the tomahawk hanging over their heads.
Among those who fought against Pontiac were members of a peculiar tribe with origins in the foggy North Atlantic. During the first decade of the seventeenth century--at the same time as the founding in America of English Jamestown and French Quebec--King James of England and Scotland planted a colony of English and Scots in the north of Ireland. The purpose of the Ulster plantation was to subdue the unruly Irish, who were considered by the English to be fully as savage as the Indian tribes of North America. So refractory were they that few Englishmen accepted James's invitation to emigrate to Ulster, leaving it to the Scots to claim the Irish territory James opened to them. Nor were these just any Scots, but bands of Lowlanders who had fought for centuries against rival tribesman--or clansmen--of the Scottish Highlands. The centuries of battle had forged a character equal to almost any challenge requiring courage and determination. As one Scotsman explained, "When I do consider with myself what things are necessary for a plantation, I cannot but be confident that my own countrymen are as fit for such a purpose as any men in the world, having daring minds that upon any probable appearance do despise danger, and bodies able to endure as much as the height of their minds can undertake." Another Scotsman, perhaps more candid, characterized those who accepted James's offer rather differently: "Albeit amongst these Divine Providence sent over some worthy persons for birth, education and parts, yet the most part were such as either poverty, scandalous lives, or, at the best, adventurous seeking of better accommodation, set forward that way."
Copyright © 2005 by H.W. Brands. All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher. | 3,371 | ENGLISH | 1 |
On December 24, 1165, William I, the second son of Henry of Scotland, Earl of Huntingdon succeeded his brother Malcolm IV as King of Scotland.
He was known as «The Lion» because of his standard, a red lion rampant on a yellow background, which remains Scotland’s royal standard today.
His 50-year reign was initially marked by many conflicts with Henry II of England, during which William was captured and had to pay homage to Henry in exchange for his release, and sign the humiliating Treaty of Falaise.
This treaty was an agreement made in December 1174 between the captive William I, King of Scots, and Henry II, King of England.
It required William to swear that Scotland would thereafter be subordinate to the English crown. English soldiers were also to occupy several key Scottish castles, and Scotland would be heavily taxed to pay for their upkeep.
The treaty was cancelled in 1189 when Richard the Lionheart.
The Scotland was taxed heavily to cover the cost of the English forces’ occupation of their country. 15 years later Richard I, seeking funds for his crusades, released Scotland from this treaty in exchange for a huge sum of money.
William developed a small but efficient central administrative bureaucracy. He granted charters to many of the major burghs of Scotland and in 1178 founded Arbroath Abbey, which was to become one of the wealthiest monasteries in Scotland the site of the Declaration of Arbroath.
In 1182 Pope Lucius III bestowed in him the great papal honour, a Golden Rose. In 1188 Pope Clement III gave his personal protection to the Scottish Church. And in 1192, the Pope issued a Bull that recognised the independence of the Scottish Church (previously under the authority of the Archbishop of York) reporting directly to Rome.
William died on December 12, 1214 and was succeeded by his son, Alexander II. | <urn:uuid:20355ecc-7b24-41cd-b36b-548ac38bc6c2> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://tall-white-aliens.com/?p=10143 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250624328.55/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124161014-20200124190014-00162.warc.gz | en | 0.986229 | 389 | 3.8125 | 4 | [
-0.5092185139656067,
0.23063695430755615,
0.07905354350805283,
0.15098080039024353,
-0.1935516893863678,
-0.5932614207267761,
-0.041496772319078445,
0.11961698532104492,
-0.008427740074694157,
-0.06583592295646667,
0.10788778960704803,
-0.681104302406311,
0.34967339038848877,
-0.0077566923... | 2 | On December 24, 1165, William I, the second son of Henry of Scotland, Earl of Huntingdon succeeded his brother Malcolm IV as King of Scotland.
He was known as «The Lion» because of his standard, a red lion rampant on a yellow background, which remains Scotland’s royal standard today.
His 50-year reign was initially marked by many conflicts with Henry II of England, during which William was captured and had to pay homage to Henry in exchange for his release, and sign the humiliating Treaty of Falaise.
This treaty was an agreement made in December 1174 between the captive William I, King of Scots, and Henry II, King of England.
It required William to swear that Scotland would thereafter be subordinate to the English crown. English soldiers were also to occupy several key Scottish castles, and Scotland would be heavily taxed to pay for their upkeep.
The treaty was cancelled in 1189 when Richard the Lionheart.
The Scotland was taxed heavily to cover the cost of the English forces’ occupation of their country. 15 years later Richard I, seeking funds for his crusades, released Scotland from this treaty in exchange for a huge sum of money.
William developed a small but efficient central administrative bureaucracy. He granted charters to many of the major burghs of Scotland and in 1178 founded Arbroath Abbey, which was to become one of the wealthiest monasteries in Scotland the site of the Declaration of Arbroath.
In 1182 Pope Lucius III bestowed in him the great papal honour, a Golden Rose. In 1188 Pope Clement III gave his personal protection to the Scottish Church. And in 1192, the Pope issued a Bull that recognised the independence of the Scottish Church (previously under the authority of the Archbishop of York) reporting directly to Rome.
William died on December 12, 1214 and was succeeded by his son, Alexander II. | 409 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Herman Melville’s classic, Moby Dick, is a complicated novel which was first published in 1851. Although the book was commercially unsuccessful at first, even going out of print at the time of Melville’s death in 1891, a resurgence took place in the early 20th century, with Moby Dick taking its rightful place as a great work of literature.
The book covers many themes, with the most obvious being the perils of life at sea, alongside biblical subjects and the desire for revenge. The novel is also noted for its depiction of class differences, something that was far more prevalent during Melville’s time than now.
Moby Dick is also touted as one of the best examples of 19th-century literary prose, particularly for its use of longer, drawn-out sentences, rather than the shorter, more abrupt sentences which are found in many contemporary books.
The novel is regularly listed on must-read lists, although it has received few international accolades. There have been several attempted adaptations for bringing Moby Dick to television and movie theatres, but most attempts have been met with limited critical success, although some have been praised for their faithful adherence to the original text. | <urn:uuid:6d602c14-15c6-48fc-b859-61bae80c59d9> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://marysaums.com/moby-dick/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250608062.57/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123011418-20200123040418-00456.warc.gz | en | 0.988352 | 249 | 3.375 | 3 | [
-0.3719255030155182,
0.3310120701789856,
0.00439125532284379,
0.12445840984582901,
-0.2286299616098404,
-0.0456092394888401,
-0.3565741181373596,
0.08932706713676453,
-0.0493147075176239,
-0.23534175753593445,
-0.04566240310668945,
0.13310587406158447,
0.19093839824199677,
0.07831077277660... | 16 | Herman Melville’s classic, Moby Dick, is a complicated novel which was first published in 1851. Although the book was commercially unsuccessful at first, even going out of print at the time of Melville’s death in 1891, a resurgence took place in the early 20th century, with Moby Dick taking its rightful place as a great work of literature.
The book covers many themes, with the most obvious being the perils of life at sea, alongside biblical subjects and the desire for revenge. The novel is also noted for its depiction of class differences, something that was far more prevalent during Melville’s time than now.
Moby Dick is also touted as one of the best examples of 19th-century literary prose, particularly for its use of longer, drawn-out sentences, rather than the shorter, more abrupt sentences which are found in many contemporary books.
The novel is regularly listed on must-read lists, although it has received few international accolades. There have been several attempted adaptations for bringing Moby Dick to television and movie theatres, but most attempts have been met with limited critical success, although some have been praised for their faithful adherence to the original text. | 247 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Kaliningrad: former name is Königsberg. I always wondered about why and how Russia kept Kaliningrad (located between Poland and Lithuania on the seaside). I see the strategic point of the city, it can hold some flotilla, and also I see its population mainly now is Russian. But how it comes that the territory was never questioned, since Russia (more precisely USSR) gained this territory by the second world war. Does anybody have a clue why it never joined to the neighbouring countries or to Germany? Just because Russian population?
As stated in the question, Prussian Konigsberg was in fact depopulated by the Russians after WWII, and annexed. This was part of the terms of surrender, as the region around Gdansk in particular, had long been sore point. (The Gdansk corridor, in particular, was given to Poland after WWI as part of the terms of surrender too.)
Desiring an additional warm water port on the Baltic, Russia chose to place a naval base there. As the remaining Baltics had by then been incorporated into the USSR there was never any questioned opposition by, say, Lithuania. Poland had already been greatly enhanced by the addition of Pomerania and Silesia. As such, territoriality, there were no other claimants.
I will try to answer from another angle. As stated in the question, after WWII Kaliningrad and the area around became part of USSR. However, an important point is that Kaliningrad became the part of RSFSR (Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, which was the main part of USSR), while Lithuania was LSSR (Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic) and Poland was and is another country. After the fall of USSR, former Soviet Republics became separate countries. E.g., LSSR became Lithuania, BSSR became Belarus and so on. And Kaliningrad, as part of RSFSR continued to be part of Russia. So there is no reason to question this territory.
Unless you consider the "Prussians," the Russians have as good a claim on Kalingrad, and the area around it, as anybody.
"Prussia" used to be the fourth Baltic state, (after Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania), occupied by a people called the Prussians. It became "German" because the "Teutonic" knights returned from the Crusades in the 13th century, and wanted a new "challenge." Prussia was the furthest south of Baltic territories occupied by "heathen" people, which is why the Teutons captured it, and not the others. Between "execution" and intermarriage, the Prussians melded with the Teutons and lost their identity, unlike the other Baltic peoples.
The Soviet Union occupied Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania in 1940, and then (East) Prussia in 1945 as spoils of war. Germans were expelled from all these lands, but this had the greatest impact on "Prussia," who by then, had lost its "native" population. After the breakup of the Soviet Union, the other three Baltic states had people to reclaim their homelands, but there were no "Prussians" (other than Germans) to reclaim Prussia, so Russia basically kept it by "default."
At the end of World War II in 1945, the city became part of the Soviet Union pending the final determination of territorial questions at the peace settlement (as part of the Russian SFSR ) as agreed upon by the Allies at the Potsdam Conference : The Conference agreed in principle to the proposal of the Soviet Government concerning the ultimate transfer to the Soviet Union of the city of Koenigsberg and the area adjacent to it as described above, subject to expert examination of the actual frontier. The President of the United States and the British Prime Minister declared that they support the proposal of the Conference at the forthcoming peace settlement. Nowadays it is beatifull russian city almost named as russian forpost in Europe. | <urn:uuid:c3edeb1e-4dd3-47ce-9691-04ade0e155be> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/987/why-does-kaliningrad-belong-to-russia/7990 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594662.6/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119151736-20200119175736-00498.warc.gz | en | 0.982218 | 829 | 3.265625 | 3 | [
-0.30050432682037354,
-0.15174025297164917,
0.07600916922092438,
0.1288621872663498,
0.5558559894561768,
-0.4026016294956207,
0.11019491404294968,
0.3551466464996338,
-0.32324278354644775,
-0.10661464929580688,
0.057178087532520294,
-0.41960063576698303,
-0.23552578687667847,
0.46884334087... | 4 | Kaliningrad: former name is Königsberg. I always wondered about why and how Russia kept Kaliningrad (located between Poland and Lithuania on the seaside). I see the strategic point of the city, it can hold some flotilla, and also I see its population mainly now is Russian. But how it comes that the territory was never questioned, since Russia (more precisely USSR) gained this territory by the second world war. Does anybody have a clue why it never joined to the neighbouring countries or to Germany? Just because Russian population?
As stated in the question, Prussian Konigsberg was in fact depopulated by the Russians after WWII, and annexed. This was part of the terms of surrender, as the region around Gdansk in particular, had long been sore point. (The Gdansk corridor, in particular, was given to Poland after WWI as part of the terms of surrender too.)
Desiring an additional warm water port on the Baltic, Russia chose to place a naval base there. As the remaining Baltics had by then been incorporated into the USSR there was never any questioned opposition by, say, Lithuania. Poland had already been greatly enhanced by the addition of Pomerania and Silesia. As such, territoriality, there were no other claimants.
I will try to answer from another angle. As stated in the question, after WWII Kaliningrad and the area around became part of USSR. However, an important point is that Kaliningrad became the part of RSFSR (Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, which was the main part of USSR), while Lithuania was LSSR (Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic) and Poland was and is another country. After the fall of USSR, former Soviet Republics became separate countries. E.g., LSSR became Lithuania, BSSR became Belarus and so on. And Kaliningrad, as part of RSFSR continued to be part of Russia. So there is no reason to question this territory.
Unless you consider the "Prussians," the Russians have as good a claim on Kalingrad, and the area around it, as anybody.
"Prussia" used to be the fourth Baltic state, (after Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania), occupied by a people called the Prussians. It became "German" because the "Teutonic" knights returned from the Crusades in the 13th century, and wanted a new "challenge." Prussia was the furthest south of Baltic territories occupied by "heathen" people, which is why the Teutons captured it, and not the others. Between "execution" and intermarriage, the Prussians melded with the Teutons and lost their identity, unlike the other Baltic peoples.
The Soviet Union occupied Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania in 1940, and then (East) Prussia in 1945 as spoils of war. Germans were expelled from all these lands, but this had the greatest impact on "Prussia," who by then, had lost its "native" population. After the breakup of the Soviet Union, the other three Baltic states had people to reclaim their homelands, but there were no "Prussians" (other than Germans) to reclaim Prussia, so Russia basically kept it by "default."
At the end of World War II in 1945, the city became part of the Soviet Union pending the final determination of territorial questions at the peace settlement (as part of the Russian SFSR ) as agreed upon by the Allies at the Potsdam Conference : The Conference agreed in principle to the proposal of the Soviet Government concerning the ultimate transfer to the Soviet Union of the city of Koenigsberg and the area adjacent to it as described above, subject to expert examination of the actual frontier. The President of the United States and the British Prime Minister declared that they support the proposal of the Conference at the forthcoming peace settlement. Nowadays it is beatifull russian city almost named as russian forpost in Europe. | 831 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The life of the historical hero of the town, William Spears (1812–1885), is celebrated by the dramatic bronze statue in Eyemouth Market Place, where he stands pointing the way to Ayton, the scene of his peaceful demonstration. At great personal risk, Spears led a revolt against the tithes on fish levied by the Church of Scotland, even after the great Disruption of 1843 when most fishermen left the established Church to join other congregations.
Sadly, when Spears was 14, his father and brother drowned at sea leaving as the provider for his mother but went on to become one of the most successful fishermen in Scotland, resulting in the nickname, “The Kingfisher”. Spears was a natural leader when the local fishermen began to rebel against the tithe. The fight was a long 20 year battle with Spears spending time in jail before being bailed out from the local people.
The fight was long and resulted in the agreement of broker deal which allowed fishermen to buy out the tithe for £2,000. They were reluctant but Spears was worried that someone would end up being killed. Furthermore, the harbours were missing out on government funds for improvements. However, once the bank loan was paid off plans were drawn up for harbour improvements. Sadly, six weeks later the great fishing disaster of 1881 happened taking the lives of 189 Berwickshire fishermen. It is suspected that had these improvements been made sooner, the disaster would not have happened. Spears watched from land when the disaster took place. | <urn:uuid:6182bf2e-dec6-439a-a04d-9ffa74e2c2a7> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.visitberwickshirecoast.co.uk/listings/willie-spears-statue/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251783342.96/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128215526-20200129005526-00152.warc.gz | en | 0.987317 | 309 | 3.40625 | 3 | [
-0.03419658914208412,
0.13089914619922638,
0.469108521938324,
0.2539227306842804,
-0.10374990105628967,
-0.7098146080970764,
0.39321598410606384,
0.16722002625465393,
-0.3566659688949585,
-0.11492379009723663,
0.16917964816093445,
-0.2695919871330261,
0.14209286868572235,
0.329592227935791... | 6 | The life of the historical hero of the town, William Spears (1812–1885), is celebrated by the dramatic bronze statue in Eyemouth Market Place, where he stands pointing the way to Ayton, the scene of his peaceful demonstration. At great personal risk, Spears led a revolt against the tithes on fish levied by the Church of Scotland, even after the great Disruption of 1843 when most fishermen left the established Church to join other congregations.
Sadly, when Spears was 14, his father and brother drowned at sea leaving as the provider for his mother but went on to become one of the most successful fishermen in Scotland, resulting in the nickname, “The Kingfisher”. Spears was a natural leader when the local fishermen began to rebel against the tithe. The fight was a long 20 year battle with Spears spending time in jail before being bailed out from the local people.
The fight was long and resulted in the agreement of broker deal which allowed fishermen to buy out the tithe for £2,000. They were reluctant but Spears was worried that someone would end up being killed. Furthermore, the harbours were missing out on government funds for improvements. However, once the bank loan was paid off plans were drawn up for harbour improvements. Sadly, six weeks later the great fishing disaster of 1881 happened taking the lives of 189 Berwickshire fishermen. It is suspected that had these improvements been made sooner, the disaster would not have happened. Spears watched from land when the disaster took place. | 325 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Of all of Charles Dickens’ characters, Ebenezer Scrooge resonates most vividly across time; he is the ultimate example of greed and selfishness. Even the name “Scrooge” is a popular aphorism for a grumpy old man.
There are several theories speculating on the main inspiration for the character. One of them is John Elwes, and the other is Ebenezer Lennox Scroogie. Nobody knows if Dickens was inspired by both or just one of them.
Charles Dickens struggled in writing and publishing this literary masterpiece, as there were many financial setbacks going on at the same time. A Christmas Carol was published on December 19, 1843, and it had taken just six weeks for Dickens to write it. He took breaks for a brisk walk early in the morning to settle his thoughts, but other than that he was writing fast and furious.
According to legend, when Dickens visited Edinburgh in 1841, he went to the city’s Canongate churchyard and there he noticed a strange gravestone with “Ebenezer Lennox Scroogie — MEAN MAN (1792-1836)” written on it. Dickens noted the harsh inscription and perhaps thought to himself how terrible it was for this man to be remembered in such a way.
Details of the man’s life are sparse and largely unchecked, but it has been confirmed that he was a vintner and corn merchant. It was only by mere chance that he was associated with Dickens’ bitter character.
Born in Kircaldy, he grew to be a party-going, hedonistic, raunchy, and generous man who once interrupted a general assembly of the Church of Scotland by grabbing the buttocks of a hapless countess; he also won a very honorable catering contract as a meal man for George IV when the king was on a visit to Edinburgh in 1822.
He won the first whiskey supply contract for the Royal Navy, was recognized as the great-nephew of the famous economist Adam Smith, and allegedly getting a serving lady pregnant, to everyone’s shock.
The problem with that widely accepted tale is that there is not enough evidence to support it. There is a lack of evidence in the post office directories for a Ebenezer Scroggie, and there are no parish burial records, plus the grave is no longer there. It’s also possible that instead of “Mean Man,” the tombstone said, “Meal Man..”
A more fact-friendly story of the real person who inspired Dickens was the incredible penny-pinching politician known as John Elwes. He is remembered as the epitome of miserly eccentricity.
John Elwes was born John Meggot in 1714, and he changed his name in order to inherit his uncle’s money. But a large inheritance failed to put a stop to this man’s unimaginable skinflint stinginess.
Robert Meggot, his father and a wealthy London brewer, died when Elwes was only four. His mother also died not long after and left him an estimated £100,000 (about $10.5 million in today’s money) in inheritance. His mother was so miserly that despite being wealthy it’s believed that she literally starved herself to death.
The second large inheritance was from Elwes’ entitled uncle, Sir Harvey Elwes, who died in 1763, and his even larger estate–worth more than £250,000 ($23 million)–was also given to him. It’s thought that the biggest reason for young John’s stinginess was his desire to impress his uncle. Formerly a typical rich kid, he changed his snobbish ways to earn Sir Harvey’s favor.
Stories of his self-destructive miserliness have made their way into books, such as the fact that Elwes always went to bed in darkness so he wouldn’t use a precious candle.
He would sit with his servants in the kitchen so as not to light another fire in the living room. His mansion was equipped with luxury furniture, but it would be in a complete state of decay, with water dripping from every hole in the roof. Elwes simply refused to pay good money for any maintenance on his house.
The miser usually wore ragged clothes, even to bed, and he would be mistaken as a beggar and given handouts, much to his joy. He wore a tatty wig he found discarded in a hedge, avoided paying coaches during the rain while sitting in wet clothes so as not to use up all the wood for a fire, ate moldy food, and even took a moorhen from a rat, so legend has it.
When it came to food, he would take along a single hard-boiled egg to eat and a pancake could be found in his pocket, sitting there for a whole day. He would swear it was as good as new just as he was about to eat it in front of a shocked friend of his.
A story tells of a wounded Elwes with both of his legs badly gashed while walking in the dark. The insane man only allowed the apothecary to treat one while wagering his fee that the untreated limb would heal first. Elwes won the bet after a fortnight, delightedly avoiding paying the poor doctor.
Elwes was elected MP for Berkshire in 1772, sitting in the House of Commons as a compromise candidate and replacing Thomas Craven. He paid a whopping 18 pence in election expenses. His new position meant regular travel to London, and of course, he went there riding a horse via a roundabout route to avoid the expensive turnpike tolls.
Elwes sat with either party all according to his own whim, and not even once rose to address the House of Commons. Fellow members mockingly observed that since he possessed only one suit, they could never accuse him of being a “turncoat.”
After 12 long years, he gave up his political seat, growing tired of what he saw as the outrageous financial demands. He then immersed himself in full-time miserliness.
Surprisingly, he did actually put a large sum of his money to good use. If it weren’t for the man who inspired fiction’s greatest miser, amazing Georgian architecture in London such as Piccadilly, Portman Square, the famous Baker Street, and Marylebone wouldn’t exist.
He also lost a lot of money through investing unwisely and lending large sums to colleagues who then failed to repay him.
Through his unimaginable penny-pinching, Elwes managed to leave an estate worth at least £500,000 ($57.5 million adjusted for inflation) to his two sons, both of whom were born out of wedlock, when he kicked the miserly bucket in 1789.
After his death, Edward Topham immortalized the tightfisted Elwes and wrote a popular biography of the man that was published in 12 editions over the following years. Topham had his own reasons for writing Elwes’ story because, to him, Elwes represented “the perfect vanity of unused wealth.”
Topham hit the nail on the head when he summed up his stingy old friend excellently in one paragraph: “…his public character lives after him pure and without stain. In private life, he was chiefly an enemy to himself.”
He continued, “To others, he lent much; to himself, he denied everything. But in the pursuit of his property, or in the recovery of it, I have it not in my remembrance one unkind thing that ever was done by him.” | <urn:uuid:6a110d20-bfd6-4935-a0a2-0911be510593> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.thevintagenews.com/2017/07/28/a-stingy-member-of-british-parliament-who-ate-moldy-food-and-sat-in-the-dark-was-inspiration-for-ebenezer-scrooge/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250608295.52/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123041345-20200123070345-00199.warc.gz | en | 0.987281 | 1,634 | 3.265625 | 3 | [
-0.2613055109977722,
0.1866341531276703,
0.3441905379295349,
-0.040257133543491364,
0.12392991781234741,
-0.426227331161499,
0.19657456874847412,
0.19760842621326447,
-0.3056880831718445,
0.2560690641403198,
-0.03933398425579071,
0.1703367531299591,
-0.004392026923596859,
-0.01125221047550... | 3 | Of all of Charles Dickens’ characters, Ebenezer Scrooge resonates most vividly across time; he is the ultimate example of greed and selfishness. Even the name “Scrooge” is a popular aphorism for a grumpy old man.
There are several theories speculating on the main inspiration for the character. One of them is John Elwes, and the other is Ebenezer Lennox Scroogie. Nobody knows if Dickens was inspired by both or just one of them.
Charles Dickens struggled in writing and publishing this literary masterpiece, as there were many financial setbacks going on at the same time. A Christmas Carol was published on December 19, 1843, and it had taken just six weeks for Dickens to write it. He took breaks for a brisk walk early in the morning to settle his thoughts, but other than that he was writing fast and furious.
According to legend, when Dickens visited Edinburgh in 1841, he went to the city’s Canongate churchyard and there he noticed a strange gravestone with “Ebenezer Lennox Scroogie — MEAN MAN (1792-1836)” written on it. Dickens noted the harsh inscription and perhaps thought to himself how terrible it was for this man to be remembered in such a way.
Details of the man’s life are sparse and largely unchecked, but it has been confirmed that he was a vintner and corn merchant. It was only by mere chance that he was associated with Dickens’ bitter character.
Born in Kircaldy, he grew to be a party-going, hedonistic, raunchy, and generous man who once interrupted a general assembly of the Church of Scotland by grabbing the buttocks of a hapless countess; he also won a very honorable catering contract as a meal man for George IV when the king was on a visit to Edinburgh in 1822.
He won the first whiskey supply contract for the Royal Navy, was recognized as the great-nephew of the famous economist Adam Smith, and allegedly getting a serving lady pregnant, to everyone’s shock.
The problem with that widely accepted tale is that there is not enough evidence to support it. There is a lack of evidence in the post office directories for a Ebenezer Scroggie, and there are no parish burial records, plus the grave is no longer there. It’s also possible that instead of “Mean Man,” the tombstone said, “Meal Man..”
A more fact-friendly story of the real person who inspired Dickens was the incredible penny-pinching politician known as John Elwes. He is remembered as the epitome of miserly eccentricity.
John Elwes was born John Meggot in 1714, and he changed his name in order to inherit his uncle’s money. But a large inheritance failed to put a stop to this man’s unimaginable skinflint stinginess.
Robert Meggot, his father and a wealthy London brewer, died when Elwes was only four. His mother also died not long after and left him an estimated £100,000 (about $10.5 million in today’s money) in inheritance. His mother was so miserly that despite being wealthy it’s believed that she literally starved herself to death.
The second large inheritance was from Elwes’ entitled uncle, Sir Harvey Elwes, who died in 1763, and his even larger estate–worth more than £250,000 ($23 million)–was also given to him. It’s thought that the biggest reason for young John’s stinginess was his desire to impress his uncle. Formerly a typical rich kid, he changed his snobbish ways to earn Sir Harvey’s favor.
Stories of his self-destructive miserliness have made their way into books, such as the fact that Elwes always went to bed in darkness so he wouldn’t use a precious candle.
He would sit with his servants in the kitchen so as not to light another fire in the living room. His mansion was equipped with luxury furniture, but it would be in a complete state of decay, with water dripping from every hole in the roof. Elwes simply refused to pay good money for any maintenance on his house.
The miser usually wore ragged clothes, even to bed, and he would be mistaken as a beggar and given handouts, much to his joy. He wore a tatty wig he found discarded in a hedge, avoided paying coaches during the rain while sitting in wet clothes so as not to use up all the wood for a fire, ate moldy food, and even took a moorhen from a rat, so legend has it.
When it came to food, he would take along a single hard-boiled egg to eat and a pancake could be found in his pocket, sitting there for a whole day. He would swear it was as good as new just as he was about to eat it in front of a shocked friend of his.
A story tells of a wounded Elwes with both of his legs badly gashed while walking in the dark. The insane man only allowed the apothecary to treat one while wagering his fee that the untreated limb would heal first. Elwes won the bet after a fortnight, delightedly avoiding paying the poor doctor.
Elwes was elected MP for Berkshire in 1772, sitting in the House of Commons as a compromise candidate and replacing Thomas Craven. He paid a whopping 18 pence in election expenses. His new position meant regular travel to London, and of course, he went there riding a horse via a roundabout route to avoid the expensive turnpike tolls.
Elwes sat with either party all according to his own whim, and not even once rose to address the House of Commons. Fellow members mockingly observed that since he possessed only one suit, they could never accuse him of being a “turncoat.”
After 12 long years, he gave up his political seat, growing tired of what he saw as the outrageous financial demands. He then immersed himself in full-time miserliness.
Surprisingly, he did actually put a large sum of his money to good use. If it weren’t for the man who inspired fiction’s greatest miser, amazing Georgian architecture in London such as Piccadilly, Portman Square, the famous Baker Street, and Marylebone wouldn’t exist.
He also lost a lot of money through investing unwisely and lending large sums to colleagues who then failed to repay him.
Through his unimaginable penny-pinching, Elwes managed to leave an estate worth at least £500,000 ($57.5 million adjusted for inflation) to his two sons, both of whom were born out of wedlock, when he kicked the miserly bucket in 1789.
After his death, Edward Topham immortalized the tightfisted Elwes and wrote a popular biography of the man that was published in 12 editions over the following years. Topham had his own reasons for writing Elwes’ story because, to him, Elwes represented “the perfect vanity of unused wealth.”
Topham hit the nail on the head when he summed up his stingy old friend excellently in one paragraph: “…his public character lives after him pure and without stain. In private life, he was chiefly an enemy to himself.”
He continued, “To others, he lent much; to himself, he denied everything. But in the pursuit of his property, or in the recovery of it, I have it not in my remembrance one unkind thing that ever was done by him.” | 1,587 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The Holocaust (Ha-shoah in Hebrew) took place between 1933 and 1945 and is associated with the persecution and murder of over 6,000,000 Jews and other people, including gays and Roma people. During the Holocaust, two thirds of all Jews in Europe were killed and one third of the world’s Jewish population.
They were killed in concentration camps. Between 1933 and 1945 the Nazis opened around 20,000 concentration camps in Germany and Nazi-occupied countries to deal with the numbers of people arrested as enemies of the state. The camps were run by the SS and inmates faced harsh, insanitary conditions, poor diet, forced hard labour and ad hoc punishments.
Scroll down to see more Holocaust facts in this article.
|30th January 1933||Hitler Chancellor of Germany||Adolf Hitler was elected Chancellor of Germany|
|22nd March 1933||First concentration camp opened||The first concentration camp was opened at Dachau in Germany|
|1st April 1933||Jewish shops boycotted||Germans were told not to buy from Jewish shops or businesses|
|24th November 1933||‘Undesirables’ sent to camps||Homeless, alcoholic and unemployed people were sent to concentration camps|
|17th May 1934||Jewish persecution||An order was issued which prohibited Jewish people from having health insurance|
|15th September 1935||Nuremberg Laws||The Nuremberg Laws were introduced. These laws were designed to take away Jewish rights of citizenship and included orders that:
Jews are no longer allowed to be German citizens.
|13th March 1938||Austrian Jews persecuted||Following Anschluss which joined Germany and Austria, Jews in Austria were persecuted and victimised.|
|8th July 1938||Munich synagogue destroyed||The Jewish synagogue in Munich was destroyed|
|5th October 1938||Jewish passports stamped with ‘J’||The passports of all Austrian and German Jews had to be stamped with a large red letter ‘J’|
|9th November 1938||Kristallnacht|| A night of extreme violence.
Approximately 100 Jews were murdered,
|12th November 1938||Jews fined||Jews were made to pay one billion marks for the damage caused by Kristallnacht.|
|15th November 1938||Jewish children expelled from schools||An order was issued that stated that Jewish children should not be allowed to attend non-Jewish German schools|
|12th October 1939||Austrian and Czech Jews deported||Jews living in Austria and Czechoslovakia were sent to Poland|
|23rd November 1939||Yellow Star introduced||Jews in Poland were forced to sew a yellow star onto their clothes so that they could be easily identified.|
|Early 1940||European Jews persecuted||Jews in German occupied countries were persecuted by the Nazis and many were sent to concentration camps.|
|20th May 1940||Auschwitz||A new concentration camp, Auschwitz, opened|
|15th November 1940||Warsaw Ghetto||The Warsaw Ghetto was sealed off. There were around 400,000 Jewish people inside|
|July 1941||Einsatzgruppen||The Einsatzgruppen (killing squads) began rounding up and murdering Jews in Russia. 33,000 Jews are murdered in two days at Babi Yar near Kiev.|
|31st July 1941||‘Final Solution’||Reinhard Heydrich chosen to implement ‘Final Solution’|
|8th December 1941||First ‘Death Camp’||The first ‘Death Camp’ was opened at Chelmno.|
|January 1942||Mass-gassing||Mass-gassing of Jews began at Auschwitz-Birkenau|
|Summer 1942||European Jews gassed||Jews from all over occupied Europe were sent to ‘Death Camps’|
|29th January 1943||Gypsies sent to camps||An order was issued for gypsies to be sent to concentration camps.|
|19th April – 16th May 1943||Warsaw Ghetto Uprising|| An order was issued to empty the Warsaw Ghetto and deport the inmates to Treblinka. Following the deportation of some Warsaw Jews, news leaked back to those remaining in the Ghetto of mass killings.
A group of about 750 mainly young people decided that they had nothing to lose by resisting deportation. Using weapons smuggled into the Ghetto they fired on German troops who tried to round up inmates for deportation.
They held out for nearly a month before they were taken by the Nazis and shot or sent to death camps.
|Late 1943||‘Death Camps’ closed||With the Russians advancing from the East, many ‘Death Camps’ were closed and evidence destroyed.|
|14th May – 8th July 1944||Hungarian Jews sent to Auschwitz||440,000 Hungarian Jews were transported to Auschwitz|
|30th October 1944||Auschwitz||The gas chambers at Auschwitz were used for the last time|
|27th January 1945||‘Death Marches’||Many remaining camps were closed and evidence of their existence destroyed. Those who had survived the camps so far were taken on forced ‘Death Marches’.|
|30th April 1945||Hitler committed suicide||Faced with impending defeat, Hitler committed suicide|
|7th May 1945||German surrender||Germany surrendered and the war in Europe was over|
|20th November 1945||Nuremberg war trial began||Surviving Nazi leaders were put on trial at Nuremberg|
The Beginning of the Holocaust
Anti-Semitism in Germany existed for quite some time before the Nazi rule and the ethnic cleansing plan that they called the “Final Solution” developed gradually, making it hard to tie a set date to the start of the Holocaust. Most historians however agree that the 30th January 1933 when Adolf Hitler became chancellor of Germany, was the main turning point that set everything in motion, marking this date as the start of the Holocaust.
Some Important Early Holocaust Dates
After Hitler came to power, there were however also certain other early events that can be seen as important starting points to what became the Holocaust:
- April 1, 1933 – only 3 months after Hitler was appointed chancellor, the boycott of Jewish-owned businesses and shops in Germany started.
- September 15, 1935 – The famous Nuremberg Race Laws were passed, providing a legal basis for the exclusion of Jews from German society and implementing a very restrictive Jewish policy.
- November 9, 10 1938 – Attacks on the Jews become violent for the first time after the Jewish Hershel Grynszpan assassinates Ernst vom Rath in Paris. In what is now known as Kristallnacht, Jewish businesses, homes and synagogues are looted and destroyed. Many Jews are beaten and killed and 30,000 Jewish people are arrested and taken to concentration camps.
There were obviously other important Holocaust dates, such as the invasion of Poland and establishment of Jewish ghettos, the brutal murder of Jews in the U.S.S.R and the final mass killings at the Nazi death camps, but by that time the Holocaust was already in full swing.
Concentration Camp Overview
A concentration camp is when, often during war, a large amount of people are imprisoned in a small area without adequate facilities. People in concentration camps were often required to do forced labor or kept there to wait for execution. The word “concentration camp” is usually associated with the Nazi camps in Germany, among which the most infamous were Auschwitz, Belsen and Dachau. Nazi Germany was however not the first to make use of the concentration camp system and the term, “concentration camp” was actually derived from the word the British used for the camps they used during the Second Anglo-Boer War.
Other Concentration Camps Prior To Nazi Germany
* The U.S. often used to keep Native Americans in concentration camps
* The British kept prisoners of war, as well as the wives and children of South African Boers in their concentration camps, where many people died from illness due to the lack of proper facilities.
* The Imperial Schutztruppe used concentration camps in Namibia (then German South-West Africa) in their genocide program of the Namaqua and Herero peoples. Luderitz had the biggest, harshest camp, the Shark Island Concentration Camp.
Types of Concentration Camps in Nazi Germany
Although Germany had a lot of concentration camps, many of them served different purposes, which is why the Nazis gave them different names. They had regular concentration camps, prisoner-of-war camps, extermination camps, transit camps and labor camps. In all of these camps, conditions were harsh and illnesses broke out all the time.
Holocaust: Overview of Concentration Camps
The first camp was opened at Dachau on 22nd March 1933. It was built to detain 5000 political opponents of the Nazi Party, mainly Communists.
In 1934 the Nazis began using inmates of concentration camps as forced labour for personal or camp projects. The work was hard and physically demanding and without sufficient food rations the mortality rate of concentration camp inmates rose dramatically. In 1943 a concentration camp detainee would have had a life expectancy of six weeks.
All concentration camp inmates had to wear a coloured badge to show the nature of their ‘crime’.
Holocaust Killing Centers
The Nazis operated five main purpose-built killing centres, sometimes referred to as death camps or extermination camps.
Chelmno began operating as a killing centre in December 1941. Victims were put into sealed container trucks which had been specially configured to allow carbon monoxide gas from the exhaust to be pumped inside. The bodies were buried in mass graves. It is estimated that at least 150,000 Jews and gypsies died at this camp.
Belzec opened in March 1942. Victims were brought to the camp by trains, unloaded and taken to gas chambers disguised as showers. Carbon monoxide was them pumped into the chamber. The bodies were buried in mass graves. Around 500,000 Jews perished in this camp together with an unknown number of Poles and gypsies.
Sobibor opened in May 1942. It was constructed and operated in the same manner as Belzec. In the spring of 1943 around 300 prisoners managed to escape. In November 1943 all remaining prisoners in the camp were shot. In total around 167,000 Jews were killed in this camp.
Treblinka II was built next to the Treblinka I concentration camp and opened in July 1942. It was constructed and operated in the same manner as Belzec and Sobibor. The bodies were initially buried in mass graves but later were burned in huge ovens. Around 925,000 Jews were killed in this camp.
Auschwitz-Birkenau (pictured above) was the largest killing centre and was designed to be used as a mass extermination camp for Jews as part of Hitler’s Final Solution. The first gas chamber was operational by March 1942 and by mid 1943 there were a total of four gas chambers. Trains arrived on a daily basis bringing Jews from all German-occupied countries and victims were taken straight to gas chambers disguised as showers. Zyklon B pellets were dropped into the chambers and the bodies were burned in crematoria. It is estimated that between 1 and 2 million Jews were killed in this camp.
Auschwitz-Birkenau, the largest Nazi concentration and extermination camp was first established in 1940 on the outskirts of the Polish town Oswiecim (changed by the Nazis to Auschwitz).
The camp was divided into three sections: Auschwitz I; Auschwitz II and around forty labour camps of which Auschwitz III was the largest.
Auschwitz I was founded in 1940 as a concentration camp for the internment of Polish and Soviet dissidents, resistance members and prisoners of war. During its first two years of existence it also housed homosexuals and some Jews. The mortality rate was high as inmates were given hard labour and poor nutrition. During the later months of 1941 trials using Zyklon B were carried out at an extermination chamber in Auschwitz I. Having deemed the trials successful the Nazi’s ordered the enlargement of the camp.
Auschwitz II (Birkenau)
Work began on this camp in October 1941. It was designed to be used as a mass extermination camp for Jews as part of Hitler’s Final Solution. The first gas chamber was operational by March 1942 and by mid 1943 four gas chambers were operational. Cattle trucks containing Jews arrived on a daily basis from all German-occupied countries. Upon disembarkation they were told to form two lines, one containing men, the other women and children. The two lines of people were then subjected to the infamous selection process whereby those deemed fit to work were sent to Auschwitz I or III and those unfit – the elderly, sick, children and mothers of young children were sent straight to the gas chambers.
Those selected as unfit – usually around 60% – 70% of each train – were told to undress as they were to take a shower. The gas chambers were disguised as shower rooms and had dummy shower heads in the ceiling. Once all were inside Zyklon B pellets were dropped inside which killed all inside in about 20 minutes.
Those selected as fit for work were dehumanized – their heads were shaved, their arms were tattooed with a number and they were given striped uniforms to wear.
Auschwitz III (Monowitz)
There were around 40 labour camps associated with the Auschwitz complex. Auschwitz II, Monowitz, was the largest of these. It became operational in 1942 and most of the inmates were sent to work at the I G Farben factory which produced synthetic fuel and rubber.
Some of those deemed fit were selected for medical experimentation. Prisoners were used as human guinea pigs for sterilization experiments, testing of drugs and human reactions to various stimuli. The doctor Josef Mengele was given the nickname Angel of Death.
The Warsaw Ghetto
The Warsaw ghetto was established on October 12th 1940 when it was announced that all Jews living in Warsaw were to be segregated in a designated area.
Almost immediately after Warsaw fell to the Germans on 29th September 1939, a census of Jews living in the city was ordered. The number was around 350,000. Over the following year a further 90,000 Jews were relocated to Warsaw and Jewish people faced increasing restrictions on their lives. On October 12th all Jews in Warsaw had to move to the ghetto.
The ghetto covered an area of approximately 1.3 square miles, surrounded by a 3.5 metre wall topped with barbed wire and broken glass. The area contained around 1,500 houses to accommodate the 400,000 Jews. The average number of people occupying each room was 7.2.
On November 16th 1940, the Warsaw ghetto was sealed off from the rest of Warsaw. Conditions inside the ghetto were harsh, the food ration allocated to the Jewish population was around 200 calories per day. Food purchased as an official ration was reasonably priced but food purchased to supplement the ration was very expensive. In addition the ration allocated to the Jews was of poor nutritional value and did not include meat, fruit or vegetables. Consequently, many people died from starvation and disease. Others risked their lives trying to smuggle food into the ghetto. By April 1941 the death rate of those living in the Warsaw ghetto was around 6,000 per month.
In July 1942 the Germans began deporting people from the Warsaw ghetto to the Treblinka death camp. Between July and September 1942 around 265,000 Jews were sent to Treblinka. Inside the ghetto it soon became clear that those being deported were going to their deaths and many of those remaining became determined to resist the Nazis and defend those in the ghetto against further deportations. They called themselves the Z O B Zydowska Organizacja Bojowa which translates as Jewish Combat Organisation.
In January 1943 when German troops arrived at the ghetto to deport a further 80,000 Jews, they met organised and armed resistance from the Z O B who had armed themselves with a small number of weapons smuggled into the ghetto. The German soldiers were forced to retreat. Following this small victory the Z O B began making preparations for further resistance. Bunkers and hiding places were prepared and plans were made detailing tactics to use against the Germans.
On 19th April 1943 German soldiers arrived to liquidate the ghetto. They found the central area deserted and many had gone into hiding and also faced serious resistance from the Z O B. This action became known as the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. Street battles took place and in a bid to flush Jews out into the open houses were set alight. Despite the resistance German soldiers flushed people out of the bunkers by using tear gas or poison gas and on 8th May 1943 the command bunker of the Z O B was located bringing the Uprising to an end. Around 13,000 Jews were killed during the uprising, many of those burnt or died from smoke inhalation. Those that were left alive were deported to concentration camps or the Treblinka death camp.
Holocaust Memorial Day Trust – Holocaust Memorial Day Trust
Auschwitz-Birkenau History – Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial and Museum
The Final Solution – Lenin Imports
I Survived the Holocaust – Holocaust Survivors and Remembrance Project
Cite This Article"Holocaust: Timeline and Overview" History on the Net
© 2000-2020, Salem Media.
January 28, 2020 <https://www.historyonthenet.com/holocaust-timeline-and-overview>
More Citation Information. | <urn:uuid:74ef2529-1dee-4a13-8aeb-0f385ae0ae31> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.historyonthenet.com/holocaust-timeline-and-overview | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251778168.77/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128091916-20200128121916-00376.warc.gz | en | 0.982152 | 3,653 | 3.671875 | 4 | [
0.14892268180847168,
0.7027696967124939,
-0.09760603308677673,
-0.045777056366205215,
-0.06678183376789093,
0.5348513126373291,
-0.11357735097408295,
0.19816309213638306,
0.13054516911506653,
-0.17494384944438934,
0.45412546396255493,
-0.4598580598831177,
-0.2512561082839966,
0.31193464994... | 1 | The Holocaust (Ha-shoah in Hebrew) took place between 1933 and 1945 and is associated with the persecution and murder of over 6,000,000 Jews and other people, including gays and Roma people. During the Holocaust, two thirds of all Jews in Europe were killed and one third of the world’s Jewish population.
They were killed in concentration camps. Between 1933 and 1945 the Nazis opened around 20,000 concentration camps in Germany and Nazi-occupied countries to deal with the numbers of people arrested as enemies of the state. The camps were run by the SS and inmates faced harsh, insanitary conditions, poor diet, forced hard labour and ad hoc punishments.
Scroll down to see more Holocaust facts in this article.
|30th January 1933||Hitler Chancellor of Germany||Adolf Hitler was elected Chancellor of Germany|
|22nd March 1933||First concentration camp opened||The first concentration camp was opened at Dachau in Germany|
|1st April 1933||Jewish shops boycotted||Germans were told not to buy from Jewish shops or businesses|
|24th November 1933||‘Undesirables’ sent to camps||Homeless, alcoholic and unemployed people were sent to concentration camps|
|17th May 1934||Jewish persecution||An order was issued which prohibited Jewish people from having health insurance|
|15th September 1935||Nuremberg Laws||The Nuremberg Laws were introduced. These laws were designed to take away Jewish rights of citizenship and included orders that:
Jews are no longer allowed to be German citizens.
|13th March 1938||Austrian Jews persecuted||Following Anschluss which joined Germany and Austria, Jews in Austria were persecuted and victimised.|
|8th July 1938||Munich synagogue destroyed||The Jewish synagogue in Munich was destroyed|
|5th October 1938||Jewish passports stamped with ‘J’||The passports of all Austrian and German Jews had to be stamped with a large red letter ‘J’|
|9th November 1938||Kristallnacht|| A night of extreme violence.
Approximately 100 Jews were murdered,
|12th November 1938||Jews fined||Jews were made to pay one billion marks for the damage caused by Kristallnacht.|
|15th November 1938||Jewish children expelled from schools||An order was issued that stated that Jewish children should not be allowed to attend non-Jewish German schools|
|12th October 1939||Austrian and Czech Jews deported||Jews living in Austria and Czechoslovakia were sent to Poland|
|23rd November 1939||Yellow Star introduced||Jews in Poland were forced to sew a yellow star onto their clothes so that they could be easily identified.|
|Early 1940||European Jews persecuted||Jews in German occupied countries were persecuted by the Nazis and many were sent to concentration camps.|
|20th May 1940||Auschwitz||A new concentration camp, Auschwitz, opened|
|15th November 1940||Warsaw Ghetto||The Warsaw Ghetto was sealed off. There were around 400,000 Jewish people inside|
|July 1941||Einsatzgruppen||The Einsatzgruppen (killing squads) began rounding up and murdering Jews in Russia. 33,000 Jews are murdered in two days at Babi Yar near Kiev.|
|31st July 1941||‘Final Solution’||Reinhard Heydrich chosen to implement ‘Final Solution’|
|8th December 1941||First ‘Death Camp’||The first ‘Death Camp’ was opened at Chelmno.|
|January 1942||Mass-gassing||Mass-gassing of Jews began at Auschwitz-Birkenau|
|Summer 1942||European Jews gassed||Jews from all over occupied Europe were sent to ‘Death Camps’|
|29th January 1943||Gypsies sent to camps||An order was issued for gypsies to be sent to concentration camps.|
|19th April – 16th May 1943||Warsaw Ghetto Uprising|| An order was issued to empty the Warsaw Ghetto and deport the inmates to Treblinka. Following the deportation of some Warsaw Jews, news leaked back to those remaining in the Ghetto of mass killings.
A group of about 750 mainly young people decided that they had nothing to lose by resisting deportation. Using weapons smuggled into the Ghetto they fired on German troops who tried to round up inmates for deportation.
They held out for nearly a month before they were taken by the Nazis and shot or sent to death camps.
|Late 1943||‘Death Camps’ closed||With the Russians advancing from the East, many ‘Death Camps’ were closed and evidence destroyed.|
|14th May – 8th July 1944||Hungarian Jews sent to Auschwitz||440,000 Hungarian Jews were transported to Auschwitz|
|30th October 1944||Auschwitz||The gas chambers at Auschwitz were used for the last time|
|27th January 1945||‘Death Marches’||Many remaining camps were closed and evidence of their existence destroyed. Those who had survived the camps so far were taken on forced ‘Death Marches’.|
|30th April 1945||Hitler committed suicide||Faced with impending defeat, Hitler committed suicide|
|7th May 1945||German surrender||Germany surrendered and the war in Europe was over|
|20th November 1945||Nuremberg war trial began||Surviving Nazi leaders were put on trial at Nuremberg|
The Beginning of the Holocaust
Anti-Semitism in Germany existed for quite some time before the Nazi rule and the ethnic cleansing plan that they called the “Final Solution” developed gradually, making it hard to tie a set date to the start of the Holocaust. Most historians however agree that the 30th January 1933 when Adolf Hitler became chancellor of Germany, was the main turning point that set everything in motion, marking this date as the start of the Holocaust.
Some Important Early Holocaust Dates
After Hitler came to power, there were however also certain other early events that can be seen as important starting points to what became the Holocaust:
- April 1, 1933 – only 3 months after Hitler was appointed chancellor, the boycott of Jewish-owned businesses and shops in Germany started.
- September 15, 1935 – The famous Nuremberg Race Laws were passed, providing a legal basis for the exclusion of Jews from German society and implementing a very restrictive Jewish policy.
- November 9, 10 1938 – Attacks on the Jews become violent for the first time after the Jewish Hershel Grynszpan assassinates Ernst vom Rath in Paris. In what is now known as Kristallnacht, Jewish businesses, homes and synagogues are looted and destroyed. Many Jews are beaten and killed and 30,000 Jewish people are arrested and taken to concentration camps.
There were obviously other important Holocaust dates, such as the invasion of Poland and establishment of Jewish ghettos, the brutal murder of Jews in the U.S.S.R and the final mass killings at the Nazi death camps, but by that time the Holocaust was already in full swing.
Concentration Camp Overview
A concentration camp is when, often during war, a large amount of people are imprisoned in a small area without adequate facilities. People in concentration camps were often required to do forced labor or kept there to wait for execution. The word “concentration camp” is usually associated with the Nazi camps in Germany, among which the most infamous were Auschwitz, Belsen and Dachau. Nazi Germany was however not the first to make use of the concentration camp system and the term, “concentration camp” was actually derived from the word the British used for the camps they used during the Second Anglo-Boer War.
Other Concentration Camps Prior To Nazi Germany
* The U.S. often used to keep Native Americans in concentration camps
* The British kept prisoners of war, as well as the wives and children of South African Boers in their concentration camps, where many people died from illness due to the lack of proper facilities.
* The Imperial Schutztruppe used concentration camps in Namibia (then German South-West Africa) in their genocide program of the Namaqua and Herero peoples. Luderitz had the biggest, harshest camp, the Shark Island Concentration Camp.
Types of Concentration Camps in Nazi Germany
Although Germany had a lot of concentration camps, many of them served different purposes, which is why the Nazis gave them different names. They had regular concentration camps, prisoner-of-war camps, extermination camps, transit camps and labor camps. In all of these camps, conditions were harsh and illnesses broke out all the time.
Holocaust: Overview of Concentration Camps
The first camp was opened at Dachau on 22nd March 1933. It was built to detain 5000 political opponents of the Nazi Party, mainly Communists.
In 1934 the Nazis began using inmates of concentration camps as forced labour for personal or camp projects. The work was hard and physically demanding and without sufficient food rations the mortality rate of concentration camp inmates rose dramatically. In 1943 a concentration camp detainee would have had a life expectancy of six weeks.
All concentration camp inmates had to wear a coloured badge to show the nature of their ‘crime’.
Holocaust Killing Centers
The Nazis operated five main purpose-built killing centres, sometimes referred to as death camps or extermination camps.
Chelmno began operating as a killing centre in December 1941. Victims were put into sealed container trucks which had been specially configured to allow carbon monoxide gas from the exhaust to be pumped inside. The bodies were buried in mass graves. It is estimated that at least 150,000 Jews and gypsies died at this camp.
Belzec opened in March 1942. Victims were brought to the camp by trains, unloaded and taken to gas chambers disguised as showers. Carbon monoxide was them pumped into the chamber. The bodies were buried in mass graves. Around 500,000 Jews perished in this camp together with an unknown number of Poles and gypsies.
Sobibor opened in May 1942. It was constructed and operated in the same manner as Belzec. In the spring of 1943 around 300 prisoners managed to escape. In November 1943 all remaining prisoners in the camp were shot. In total around 167,000 Jews were killed in this camp.
Treblinka II was built next to the Treblinka I concentration camp and opened in July 1942. It was constructed and operated in the same manner as Belzec and Sobibor. The bodies were initially buried in mass graves but later were burned in huge ovens. Around 925,000 Jews were killed in this camp.
Auschwitz-Birkenau (pictured above) was the largest killing centre and was designed to be used as a mass extermination camp for Jews as part of Hitler’s Final Solution. The first gas chamber was operational by March 1942 and by mid 1943 there were a total of four gas chambers. Trains arrived on a daily basis bringing Jews from all German-occupied countries and victims were taken straight to gas chambers disguised as showers. Zyklon B pellets were dropped into the chambers and the bodies were burned in crematoria. It is estimated that between 1 and 2 million Jews were killed in this camp.
Auschwitz-Birkenau, the largest Nazi concentration and extermination camp was first established in 1940 on the outskirts of the Polish town Oswiecim (changed by the Nazis to Auschwitz).
The camp was divided into three sections: Auschwitz I; Auschwitz II and around forty labour camps of which Auschwitz III was the largest.
Auschwitz I was founded in 1940 as a concentration camp for the internment of Polish and Soviet dissidents, resistance members and prisoners of war. During its first two years of existence it also housed homosexuals and some Jews. The mortality rate was high as inmates were given hard labour and poor nutrition. During the later months of 1941 trials using Zyklon B were carried out at an extermination chamber in Auschwitz I. Having deemed the trials successful the Nazi’s ordered the enlargement of the camp.
Auschwitz II (Birkenau)
Work began on this camp in October 1941. It was designed to be used as a mass extermination camp for Jews as part of Hitler’s Final Solution. The first gas chamber was operational by March 1942 and by mid 1943 four gas chambers were operational. Cattle trucks containing Jews arrived on a daily basis from all German-occupied countries. Upon disembarkation they were told to form two lines, one containing men, the other women and children. The two lines of people were then subjected to the infamous selection process whereby those deemed fit to work were sent to Auschwitz I or III and those unfit – the elderly, sick, children and mothers of young children were sent straight to the gas chambers.
Those selected as unfit – usually around 60% – 70% of each train – were told to undress as they were to take a shower. The gas chambers were disguised as shower rooms and had dummy shower heads in the ceiling. Once all were inside Zyklon B pellets were dropped inside which killed all inside in about 20 minutes.
Those selected as fit for work were dehumanized – their heads were shaved, their arms were tattooed with a number and they were given striped uniforms to wear.
Auschwitz III (Monowitz)
There were around 40 labour camps associated with the Auschwitz complex. Auschwitz II, Monowitz, was the largest of these. It became operational in 1942 and most of the inmates were sent to work at the I G Farben factory which produced synthetic fuel and rubber.
Some of those deemed fit were selected for medical experimentation. Prisoners were used as human guinea pigs for sterilization experiments, testing of drugs and human reactions to various stimuli. The doctor Josef Mengele was given the nickname Angel of Death.
The Warsaw Ghetto
The Warsaw ghetto was established on October 12th 1940 when it was announced that all Jews living in Warsaw were to be segregated in a designated area.
Almost immediately after Warsaw fell to the Germans on 29th September 1939, a census of Jews living in the city was ordered. The number was around 350,000. Over the following year a further 90,000 Jews were relocated to Warsaw and Jewish people faced increasing restrictions on their lives. On October 12th all Jews in Warsaw had to move to the ghetto.
The ghetto covered an area of approximately 1.3 square miles, surrounded by a 3.5 metre wall topped with barbed wire and broken glass. The area contained around 1,500 houses to accommodate the 400,000 Jews. The average number of people occupying each room was 7.2.
On November 16th 1940, the Warsaw ghetto was sealed off from the rest of Warsaw. Conditions inside the ghetto were harsh, the food ration allocated to the Jewish population was around 200 calories per day. Food purchased as an official ration was reasonably priced but food purchased to supplement the ration was very expensive. In addition the ration allocated to the Jews was of poor nutritional value and did not include meat, fruit or vegetables. Consequently, many people died from starvation and disease. Others risked their lives trying to smuggle food into the ghetto. By April 1941 the death rate of those living in the Warsaw ghetto was around 6,000 per month.
In July 1942 the Germans began deporting people from the Warsaw ghetto to the Treblinka death camp. Between July and September 1942 around 265,000 Jews were sent to Treblinka. Inside the ghetto it soon became clear that those being deported were going to their deaths and many of those remaining became determined to resist the Nazis and defend those in the ghetto against further deportations. They called themselves the Z O B Zydowska Organizacja Bojowa which translates as Jewish Combat Organisation.
In January 1943 when German troops arrived at the ghetto to deport a further 80,000 Jews, they met organised and armed resistance from the Z O B who had armed themselves with a small number of weapons smuggled into the ghetto. The German soldiers were forced to retreat. Following this small victory the Z O B began making preparations for further resistance. Bunkers and hiding places were prepared and plans were made detailing tactics to use against the Germans.
On 19th April 1943 German soldiers arrived to liquidate the ghetto. They found the central area deserted and many had gone into hiding and also faced serious resistance from the Z O B. This action became known as the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. Street battles took place and in a bid to flush Jews out into the open houses were set alight. Despite the resistance German soldiers flushed people out of the bunkers by using tear gas or poison gas and on 8th May 1943 the command bunker of the Z O B was located bringing the Uprising to an end. Around 13,000 Jews were killed during the uprising, many of those burnt or died from smoke inhalation. Those that were left alive were deported to concentration camps or the Treblinka death camp.
Holocaust Memorial Day Trust – Holocaust Memorial Day Trust
Auschwitz-Birkenau History – Auschwitz-Birkenau Memorial and Museum
The Final Solution – Lenin Imports
I Survived the Holocaust – Holocaust Survivors and Remembrance Project
Cite This Article"Holocaust: Timeline and Overview" History on the Net
© 2000-2020, Salem Media.
January 28, 2020 <https://www.historyonthenet.com/holocaust-timeline-and-overview>
More Citation Information. | 3,980 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Genghis Khan was born a part of the Borjigin tribe around 1162 AD. His original name was Temujin after a Tartar chief his father had captured. He was believed to be a descendant of the fabled Khabul Khan.
Genghis Khan was taken to live with his future bride at nine years old. On the way back Genghis Khans father was invited to a meal with a enemy tribe where he was poisoned.
When Khan returned to his home tribe, they said Khan was too young to rule a village. Khan then killed his half brother to show he was tough enough for the job.
Genghis Khan and his men left and attack the tribe who had killed his father, the Tartars. This starting his journey as one of the most well know conquerors of the world.
All Genghis Khans armies had a well organized system of ox carts that carried military equipment, supplies, Shamans for spiritual guidance, and government officials.
Genghis Khan died. He ordered his men to bury him secretly and kill anyone who saw. It is said that they even put a river over his grave to hide him forever. | <urn:uuid:1cb725d6-dad5-4e6e-bafd-7d6fff4030a8> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.storyboardthat.com/storyboards/b77ca2ba/unknown-story | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250606226.29/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121222429-20200122011429-00558.warc.gz | en | 0.996055 | 241 | 3.5625 | 4 | [
-0.20009733736515045,
0.8474276661872864,
0.006924396846443415,
-0.06993697583675385,
-0.6908581852912903,
-0.17094573378562927,
0.6459787487983704,
-0.1709362417459488,
-0.1337103247642517,
-0.16618183255195618,
0.15419839322566986,
-0.429519921541214,
0.2661178708076477,
0.16248507797718... | 1 | Genghis Khan was born a part of the Borjigin tribe around 1162 AD. His original name was Temujin after a Tartar chief his father had captured. He was believed to be a descendant of the fabled Khabul Khan.
Genghis Khan was taken to live with his future bride at nine years old. On the way back Genghis Khans father was invited to a meal with a enemy tribe where he was poisoned.
When Khan returned to his home tribe, they said Khan was too young to rule a village. Khan then killed his half brother to show he was tough enough for the job.
Genghis Khan and his men left and attack the tribe who had killed his father, the Tartars. This starting his journey as one of the most well know conquerors of the world.
All Genghis Khans armies had a well organized system of ox carts that carried military equipment, supplies, Shamans for spiritual guidance, and government officials.
Genghis Khan died. He ordered his men to bury him secretly and kill anyone who saw. It is said that they even put a river over his grave to hide him forever. | 239 | ENGLISH | 1 |
- Search The Registry
- Teacher’s Forum
- Youth Programs
- About Us
- Creating Support
- My Account
*Thomas Dartmouth Rice was born on this date in1808. He was a White-American entertainer and playwright who popularized the Jim Crow character in minstrel shows.
Thomas Rice was born in the lower east side of Manhattan, New York near the East River docks. Rice received some formal education in his youth, but quit school in his teenage years when he acquired an apprenticeship with a woodcarver named Dodge. Despite his occupational training, Rice quickly made a career as a performer. By 1827, he was a traveling actor, appearing not only as a stock player in several New York theaters, but also performing on frontier stages in the coastal South and the Ohio River valley.
The actual origin of the Jim Crow character has been lost to legend. Rice was identified with the character the most, used African American vernacular speech, song, and dance to become one of the most popular minstrel show entertainers of his time. Several sources describe a tale of Rice encountering an elderly black stableman working in one of the river towns where Rice was performing. Also Rice had observed and absorbed the black experience in song and dance over many years. Rice appeared onstage at Louisville, Kentucky, in the 1830s and learned there to mimic local black speech: “Coming to New York he opened up at the old Park Theater, where he introduced his Jim Crow act, impersonating a negro slave. His character dressed in rags, battered hat and torn shoes. Rice blackened his face and hands and impersonated a very nimble and irreverently witty black field hand who sang, “Turn about and wheel about, and do just so. And every time I turn about I Jump Jim Crow.”
Rice not only performed in more than 100 plays, but also created plays of his own, providing himself slight variants on the Jim Crow persona. The Jim Crow period, which started when segregation rules, laws and customs surfaced during the Reconstruction era ended in the 1870s, existed until the mid-1960s when the struggle for civil rights in the United States gained national attention. On one of his stage tours in England, Rice married Charlotte B. Gladstone in 1837. She died in 1847, and none of their children survived infancy.
As early as 1840, Rice suffered from a type of paralysis, which began to limit his speech and movements, and eventually led to his death on September 19, 1860.
204 37th Avenue North Suite330
St. Petersburg, FL. 33704 | <urn:uuid:d8e7dbd6-7296-4398-b927-4b8d8b0a6336> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://aaregistry.org/story/thomas-rice-the-face-of-jim-crow/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594603.8/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119122744-20200119150744-00118.warc.gz | en | 0.98094 | 541 | 3.46875 | 3 | [
-0.05634656175971031,
0.10831516981124878,
0.5809931755065918,
-0.25120148062705994,
-0.03755577653646469,
0.5028246641159058,
0.28653693199157715,
-0.11830491572618484,
-0.19402797520160675,
-0.4377368688583374,
0.04185419902205467,
0.4103471040725708,
0.17028948664665222,
0.1900883018970... | 1 | - Search The Registry
- Teacher’s Forum
- Youth Programs
- About Us
- Creating Support
- My Account
*Thomas Dartmouth Rice was born on this date in1808. He was a White-American entertainer and playwright who popularized the Jim Crow character in minstrel shows.
Thomas Rice was born in the lower east side of Manhattan, New York near the East River docks. Rice received some formal education in his youth, but quit school in his teenage years when he acquired an apprenticeship with a woodcarver named Dodge. Despite his occupational training, Rice quickly made a career as a performer. By 1827, he was a traveling actor, appearing not only as a stock player in several New York theaters, but also performing on frontier stages in the coastal South and the Ohio River valley.
The actual origin of the Jim Crow character has been lost to legend. Rice was identified with the character the most, used African American vernacular speech, song, and dance to become one of the most popular minstrel show entertainers of his time. Several sources describe a tale of Rice encountering an elderly black stableman working in one of the river towns where Rice was performing. Also Rice had observed and absorbed the black experience in song and dance over many years. Rice appeared onstage at Louisville, Kentucky, in the 1830s and learned there to mimic local black speech: “Coming to New York he opened up at the old Park Theater, where he introduced his Jim Crow act, impersonating a negro slave. His character dressed in rags, battered hat and torn shoes. Rice blackened his face and hands and impersonated a very nimble and irreverently witty black field hand who sang, “Turn about and wheel about, and do just so. And every time I turn about I Jump Jim Crow.”
Rice not only performed in more than 100 plays, but also created plays of his own, providing himself slight variants on the Jim Crow persona. The Jim Crow period, which started when segregation rules, laws and customs surfaced during the Reconstruction era ended in the 1870s, existed until the mid-1960s when the struggle for civil rights in the United States gained national attention. On one of his stage tours in England, Rice married Charlotte B. Gladstone in 1837. She died in 1847, and none of their children survived infancy.
As early as 1840, Rice suffered from a type of paralysis, which began to limit his speech and movements, and eventually led to his death on September 19, 1860.
204 37th Avenue North Suite330
St. Petersburg, FL. 33704 | 572 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Images of Blood in William Shakespeare's Macbeth
In Shakespeare?s tragic play Macbeth, the symbol of blood is portrayed often and with different meanings. Blood as a symbol is developed throughout the play until it becomes the dominating theme.
Perhaps the best way to show how the symbol of blood changes throughout the play is to follow the character changes in Macbeth. First he is a brave honored soldier, but as the play progresses acknowledged and trusted by his king, he becomes a treacherous person who has become identified with death and bloodshed, and ends up killing Duncan who put so much trust in him. This is ironic because the previous thane of Cawdor was executed for treason, which is the first thought that comes into his mind when he is appointed thane. He knows that the king?s trust was misplaced; the fact that he murdered his king plays upon his conscience and shows his guilt in different forms. The situation worsens for him after he murders Banquo, who was one of his most loyal and trusted friends. A similar idea can also be applied to lady Macbeth, as her character changes dramatically throughout the course of the play. Hers and Macbeth?s roles can be seen to swap in a way. When the idea of killing Duncan comes into the minds of Macbeth and lady Macbeth, Macbeth is uncertain, he seems withdrawn about the whole idea. Lady Macbeth comes across as evil and bloodthirsty, for it is she who ensures that the murder takes place. Towards the end of the play though, although both characters show the immense guilt of what they have done, it is lady Macbeth who is now withdrawn, and Macbeth who comes across as evil, for the full spell of the witches has now taken effect, he does not believe that the Scots will be defeated, so he ridicules the idea of an English invasion.
The first reference of blood is one of honor, and occurs when Duncan sees the injured sergeant and says, "What bloody man is that?? This is symbolic of the brave fighter who has been injured in a valiant battle for his country. In the next passage, in which the sergeant says, "Which smok'd with bloody execution", he is referring to Macbeth's braveness in which his sword is covered in the hot blood of the enemy.
After these few references to honor, the symbol of blood now changes to show a theme of treachery and treason, mainly centered on the murder of Duncan. Lady Macbeth starts this off when she asks the spirits to "make thick my blood,? What she is saying by this, is that she wants to make herself insensitive and remorseless for the deeds which she is about to commit. Lady Macbeth knows that the evidence of blood is a treacherous symbol, and knows it will deflect the guilt from her and Macbeth to the servants when she says "smear the sleepy grooms with blood.? and "If he do bleed, I'll gild the faces of the grooms withal, for it must seem their guilt." When Banquo states "and question this most bloody piece of work," and Ross says "is't known who... | <urn:uuid:6efeffb7-158d-45e0-bafa-2c52ac563b28> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://brightkite.com/essay-on/pictures-of-blood-in-william-shakespeare-s-macbeth | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251802249.87/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129194333-20200129223333-00109.warc.gz | en | 0.984489 | 657 | 3.453125 | 3 | [
-0.5525816082954407,
0.11362656950950623,
0.3773355484008789,
0.05136410519480705,
-0.3936055600643158,
-0.12721337378025055,
0.9394658803939819,
0.25161898136138916,
0.06760232150554657,
-0.14033442735671997,
0.04383998364210129,
-0.47942686080932617,
-0.5308999419212341,
0.09279354661703... | 1 | Images of Blood in William Shakespeare's Macbeth
In Shakespeare?s tragic play Macbeth, the symbol of blood is portrayed often and with different meanings. Blood as a symbol is developed throughout the play until it becomes the dominating theme.
Perhaps the best way to show how the symbol of blood changes throughout the play is to follow the character changes in Macbeth. First he is a brave honored soldier, but as the play progresses acknowledged and trusted by his king, he becomes a treacherous person who has become identified with death and bloodshed, and ends up killing Duncan who put so much trust in him. This is ironic because the previous thane of Cawdor was executed for treason, which is the first thought that comes into his mind when he is appointed thane. He knows that the king?s trust was misplaced; the fact that he murdered his king plays upon his conscience and shows his guilt in different forms. The situation worsens for him after he murders Banquo, who was one of his most loyal and trusted friends. A similar idea can also be applied to lady Macbeth, as her character changes dramatically throughout the course of the play. Hers and Macbeth?s roles can be seen to swap in a way. When the idea of killing Duncan comes into the minds of Macbeth and lady Macbeth, Macbeth is uncertain, he seems withdrawn about the whole idea. Lady Macbeth comes across as evil and bloodthirsty, for it is she who ensures that the murder takes place. Towards the end of the play though, although both characters show the immense guilt of what they have done, it is lady Macbeth who is now withdrawn, and Macbeth who comes across as evil, for the full spell of the witches has now taken effect, he does not believe that the Scots will be defeated, so he ridicules the idea of an English invasion.
The first reference of blood is one of honor, and occurs when Duncan sees the injured sergeant and says, "What bloody man is that?? This is symbolic of the brave fighter who has been injured in a valiant battle for his country. In the next passage, in which the sergeant says, "Which smok'd with bloody execution", he is referring to Macbeth's braveness in which his sword is covered in the hot blood of the enemy.
After these few references to honor, the symbol of blood now changes to show a theme of treachery and treason, mainly centered on the murder of Duncan. Lady Macbeth starts this off when she asks the spirits to "make thick my blood,? What she is saying by this, is that she wants to make herself insensitive and remorseless for the deeds which she is about to commit. Lady Macbeth knows that the evidence of blood is a treacherous symbol, and knows it will deflect the guilt from her and Macbeth to the servants when she says "smear the sleepy grooms with blood.? and "If he do bleed, I'll gild the faces of the grooms withal, for it must seem their guilt." When Banquo states "and question this most bloody piece of work," and Ross says "is't known who... | 642 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Heavy Babies More Likely to Develop Heart Disease
Babies always seem to want food, and with their little adorable faces, it would be hard to limit nourishment. Although all babies need proper nutrition, the type of formula or baby foods that parents choose to give can play a vital role in the babies' development. According to a new study conducted by a research team from the University of Sydney in Australia, too much weight gain during infancy could lead to an increased risk of obesity, high blood pressure and heart disease later on in life.
For the study, the researchers followed 395 infants that were born in two different maternity hospitals located in Sydney. The infants were all born healthy and did not have type I diabetes. The researchers followed the children until they reached eight-years-old. They discovered that for infants who gained the most weight during infancy, which was considered to be from birth to 18 months, were at a higher risk of developing health issue at age eight and possibly later on in life. The heavier infants had larger waist circumferences, higher blood pressure, and more arterial wall thickening when they reached eight-years-old. The researchers calculated that for every one kilogram (roughly 2.2 pounds) of weight gain during infancy, there was a 2.1-3.3 kilogram (4.6-7.2 pounds) increase in body weight by the age of eight.
"The first 18 months of life are an important period for our growth and development," said lead author, Dr. Michael Skilton, reported by Medical Xpress. "Excessive weight gain over this period may have consequences for later body size, however, its relationship to arterial wall thickening and risk factors in later childhood had not been well documented, until now. "
The researchers also found that breast-feeding for at least six months lowered the chances of infancy weight gain. They also stated that a longer gestation period correlated to reducing infancy weight gain as well.
The findings were published in Pediatrics. | <urn:uuid:d8771695-225b-4f3d-b515-e701656f0dff> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.counselheal.com/articles/5588/20130530/heavy-babies-more-develop-heart-disease.htm | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250605075.24/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121192553-20200121221553-00409.warc.gz | en | 0.986782 | 409 | 3.3125 | 3 | [
-0.12651218473911285,
-0.07802782207727432,
0.14703093469142914,
-0.06029561534523964,
-0.3493746519088745,
0.445200115442276,
-0.31227266788482666,
-0.0011814208701252937,
-0.20900847017765045,
0.09327036142349243,
0.13462190330028534,
-0.37850749492645264,
0.1441754847764969,
0.271666198... | 4 | Heavy Babies More Likely to Develop Heart Disease
Babies always seem to want food, and with their little adorable faces, it would be hard to limit nourishment. Although all babies need proper nutrition, the type of formula or baby foods that parents choose to give can play a vital role in the babies' development. According to a new study conducted by a research team from the University of Sydney in Australia, too much weight gain during infancy could lead to an increased risk of obesity, high blood pressure and heart disease later on in life.
For the study, the researchers followed 395 infants that were born in two different maternity hospitals located in Sydney. The infants were all born healthy and did not have type I diabetes. The researchers followed the children until they reached eight-years-old. They discovered that for infants who gained the most weight during infancy, which was considered to be from birth to 18 months, were at a higher risk of developing health issue at age eight and possibly later on in life. The heavier infants had larger waist circumferences, higher blood pressure, and more arterial wall thickening when they reached eight-years-old. The researchers calculated that for every one kilogram (roughly 2.2 pounds) of weight gain during infancy, there was a 2.1-3.3 kilogram (4.6-7.2 pounds) increase in body weight by the age of eight.
"The first 18 months of life are an important period for our growth and development," said lead author, Dr. Michael Skilton, reported by Medical Xpress. "Excessive weight gain over this period may have consequences for later body size, however, its relationship to arterial wall thickening and risk factors in later childhood had not been well documented, until now. "
The researchers also found that breast-feeding for at least six months lowered the chances of infancy weight gain. They also stated that a longer gestation period correlated to reducing infancy weight gain as well.
The findings were published in Pediatrics. | 406 | ENGLISH | 1 |
As I understand it, bronze is softer than iron, so it's harder to make a sharp edge (a sharp edge on a bronze tool quickly gets blunted).Bronze axes were just as good at chopping down trees as iron ones. The problem with bronze is that it was expensive. Iron was cheaper and more plentiful, enabling a lot more axes for a lot more people. Of course, in the Neolithic, they didn't have bronze axes either. In the Neolithic, chopping down trees would have been extremely time consuming and labour intensive. I think that one of the chieftain's roles would be to ensure that trees were cut down and land cleared to allow his people to expand. It would be a tangible and very visible indicator of his success as a leader.
Anyway, as the neolithic people had no metal tools, it's a wonder that they could clear trees. Even with modern high-quality tools it''s a heck of a lot of physical work to do. Did they take a large fallen log and use that as a kind of lever to uproot them? Maybe they had a practice of pulling branches off trees for firewood, thus slowly killing them.
But with their very low population, did they really have to clear land? Could they not just move on to the next valley? I would think that trampling livestock could be a major force in clearing land, or at least keeping existing pasture land clear.
Is there any real evidence that they did clear forests? I guess such evidence would consist of carbon-dated tree pollen samples showing the presence of trees before humans arrived, and none after they came. | <urn:uuid:63469181-271e-4665-afd7-74cdb10d7ece> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://historum.com/threads/what-was-life-like-for-a-neolithic-farmer-in-ancient-europe.176485/page-2 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251672440.80/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125101544-20200125130544-00096.warc.gz | en | 0.988941 | 332 | 3.515625 | 4 | [
0.007813957519829273,
0.2225855141878128,
0.3721471130847931,
0.3800542950630188,
0.48144981265068054,
-0.36007362604141235,
-0.03455144166946411,
0.06551854312419891,
-0.0888846293091774,
-0.08081810921430588,
0.18760789930820465,
-0.7165700197219849,
0.01667853817343712,
0.48402282595634... | 1 | As I understand it, bronze is softer than iron, so it's harder to make a sharp edge (a sharp edge on a bronze tool quickly gets blunted).Bronze axes were just as good at chopping down trees as iron ones. The problem with bronze is that it was expensive. Iron was cheaper and more plentiful, enabling a lot more axes for a lot more people. Of course, in the Neolithic, they didn't have bronze axes either. In the Neolithic, chopping down trees would have been extremely time consuming and labour intensive. I think that one of the chieftain's roles would be to ensure that trees were cut down and land cleared to allow his people to expand. It would be a tangible and very visible indicator of his success as a leader.
Anyway, as the neolithic people had no metal tools, it's a wonder that they could clear trees. Even with modern high-quality tools it''s a heck of a lot of physical work to do. Did they take a large fallen log and use that as a kind of lever to uproot them? Maybe they had a practice of pulling branches off trees for firewood, thus slowly killing them.
But with their very low population, did they really have to clear land? Could they not just move on to the next valley? I would think that trampling livestock could be a major force in clearing land, or at least keeping existing pasture land clear.
Is there any real evidence that they did clear forests? I guess such evidence would consist of carbon-dated tree pollen samples showing the presence of trees before humans arrived, and none after they came. | 328 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Historians in England have uncovered evidence that baseball may not be as American as apple pie. The BBC reports that baseball was played in England in 1755, more than twenty years before America’s independence in 1776. This may come as a shock for lovers of America’s national game, who believe baseball is an American creation. A recently discovered diary is “proof” that Englishmen were hitting home runs long before their cousins across the Atlantic. The diarist was a man called William Bray, who wrote about the game being played in the county of Surrey, south of London. The Surrey History Centre confirmed the diary was authentic and that it contains an entry describing the game of baseball. The BBC says Major League Baseball officials are aware of this news.
It will come as no surprise to many sports fans that baseball originated in England. The English invented the world’s most popular sports, including football, tennis, rugby and cricket. What might come as a surprise is that the original form of baseball was played by both sexes. William Bray’s diary describes a game of baseball played on a spring afternoon in which “young ladies” took part. A Washington Post journalist, Kevin Sullivan, told the BBC that he was not surprised baseball came from Britain. He said: “It's a great American tradition to take things from other places and improve them. We've always known that baseball evolved; it wasn't invented like basketball.” Despite the recent discovery, it seems unlikely that England will overtake the USA as the number one baseball power. | <urn:uuid:f9744634-89ca-4ed8-8b8c-28751abc7d93> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://www.kekenet.com/broadcast/201607/453133.shtml | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251796127.92/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129102701-20200129132701-00219.warc.gz | en | 0.986323 | 319 | 3.28125 | 3 | [
0.017474528402090073,
0.2425335943698883,
0.10677315294742584,
-0.3546530306339264,
0.11201906204223633,
0.24276673793792725,
0.17411202192306519,
-0.004263543523848057,
0.1755640208721161,
0.25499606132507324,
-0.06709950417280197,
-0.2933705151081085,
-0.07254555821418762,
-0.09323359280... | 1 | Historians in England have uncovered evidence that baseball may not be as American as apple pie. The BBC reports that baseball was played in England in 1755, more than twenty years before America’s independence in 1776. This may come as a shock for lovers of America’s national game, who believe baseball is an American creation. A recently discovered diary is “proof” that Englishmen were hitting home runs long before their cousins across the Atlantic. The diarist was a man called William Bray, who wrote about the game being played in the county of Surrey, south of London. The Surrey History Centre confirmed the diary was authentic and that it contains an entry describing the game of baseball. The BBC says Major League Baseball officials are aware of this news.
It will come as no surprise to many sports fans that baseball originated in England. The English invented the world’s most popular sports, including football, tennis, rugby and cricket. What might come as a surprise is that the original form of baseball was played by both sexes. William Bray’s diary describes a game of baseball played on a spring afternoon in which “young ladies” took part. A Washington Post journalist, Kevin Sullivan, told the BBC that he was not surprised baseball came from Britain. He said: “It's a great American tradition to take things from other places and improve them. We've always known that baseball evolved; it wasn't invented like basketball.” Despite the recent discovery, it seems unlikely that England will overtake the USA as the number one baseball power. | 311 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Today we have been using bricks to measure objects in our outdoor area. We measured how tall, wide and long different objects were. We had to use our Counting skills to carefully count. What do you use to measure with?
Tag Archives: measuring
Today in class 1e have been very busy making Funnybones biscuits.We talked about all the ingredients needed to use to make our dough. We mixed flour, sugar, butter and egg together with vanilla extract. Then we learned how to rollout … Continue reading
We have been using objects from around class 1 to measure using our hands or feet.. We estimated how long they would be before measuring them to see if we were correct, then we compared objects and ordered them in … Continue reading
To continue our maths learning we challenged ourselves this afternoon and designed an activity to measure objects. We built a tower and carefully measured it using the meter sticks, adding more objects until it was the same height as the … Continue reading
Today in class 1 the children have been measuring using blocks, the children had to make an estimate on how many blocks they thought the object was in length. The children then measured the amount of blocks to find how close their estimate was.
Today in class 1 the children have been learning how to measure when using their hands and feet. The children measured the sticks they collected from the woodlands and made their own estimates before measuring accurately.
Today we were measuring objects. We used bricks and made sure there were no gaps, that they were the same size and that we counted them carefully to see how tall the object was.
What can you measure.
Today we measured the distance between the logs using our feet. We made sure there were no gaps between our feet and that we counted our steps carefully. Then we recorded the distance, writing our numbers correctly.
What else can you measure using your feet?
This gallery contains 2 photos.
We are learning to measure using bricks. We measured how tall we were using bricks. First we estimated then we measured our height. How tall are you?
There are always gardening jobs to be done! This week in maths we have been learning to measure height, length and capacity. We filled up the watering can and watered the garden until it was empty which helped us with capacity and some of us measured how tall the broccoli has grown (we think the giant has dropped some magic giant dust on it!) | <urn:uuid:959308f8-517c-4460-bf89-3dddedb90f08> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://class-one.wombridgeprimary.co.uk/tag/measuring/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250593937.27/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118193018-20200118221018-00348.warc.gz | en | 0.981237 | 488 | 3.796875 | 4 | [
-0.10568071901798248,
-0.15243713557720184,
0.4799397587776184,
-0.3477092981338501,
-0.3425257205963135,
-0.08631303906440735,
0.3109942674636841,
0.18273283541202545,
0.25185075402259827,
0.32194358110427856,
0.08509930968284607,
-0.6582343578338623,
0.013612063601613045,
0.3428499102592... | 4 | Today we have been using bricks to measure objects in our outdoor area. We measured how tall, wide and long different objects were. We had to use our Counting skills to carefully count. What do you use to measure with?
Tag Archives: measuring
Today in class 1e have been very busy making Funnybones biscuits.We talked about all the ingredients needed to use to make our dough. We mixed flour, sugar, butter and egg together with vanilla extract. Then we learned how to rollout … Continue reading
We have been using objects from around class 1 to measure using our hands or feet.. We estimated how long they would be before measuring them to see if we were correct, then we compared objects and ordered them in … Continue reading
To continue our maths learning we challenged ourselves this afternoon and designed an activity to measure objects. We built a tower and carefully measured it using the meter sticks, adding more objects until it was the same height as the … Continue reading
Today in class 1 the children have been measuring using blocks, the children had to make an estimate on how many blocks they thought the object was in length. The children then measured the amount of blocks to find how close their estimate was.
Today in class 1 the children have been learning how to measure when using their hands and feet. The children measured the sticks they collected from the woodlands and made their own estimates before measuring accurately.
Today we were measuring objects. We used bricks and made sure there were no gaps, that they were the same size and that we counted them carefully to see how tall the object was.
What can you measure.
Today we measured the distance between the logs using our feet. We made sure there were no gaps between our feet and that we counted our steps carefully. Then we recorded the distance, writing our numbers correctly.
What else can you measure using your feet?
This gallery contains 2 photos.
We are learning to measure using bricks. We measured how tall we were using bricks. First we estimated then we measured our height. How tall are you?
There are always gardening jobs to be done! This week in maths we have been learning to measure height, length and capacity. We filled up the watering can and watered the garden until it was empty which helped us with capacity and some of us measured how tall the broccoli has grown (we think the giant has dropped some magic giant dust on it!) | 484 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The Book of 2 Samuel does not tell us who wrote it. Most likely the Prophet Samuel did not write it because he died in 1 Samuel. Nathan and Gad are considered as two possible authors of this book. It was written during the time of King David, so the book basically chronicles about him, especially his conquests and troubles.
Here the books exposes David’s sins. First he commits adultery with a married woman named Bathsheba, and their affair results in her pregnancy. As if that wasn’t wrong enough, David has her husband placed in a position in battle that he is sure to be killed. The prophet Nathan confronts David with his sin. He confesses to God and asks for His forgiveness. God does forgive David graciously, but warns him that trouble would arise as a result of his sins.
First, his first child with Bathsheba dies. She later gives birth to Solomon, who will someday be the future King of Israel. David’s other son Absalom plots a revolt against his own father. David flees from Jerusalem, but raises a large enough number of troops in his bid to restore his kingdom. However, this is not without bloodshed. And more tragically, his son is killed in the process, and David mourns for him.
From King David’s life, we learn that even the most perfect and the most blessed people can fall into temptation and commit sins. God is gracious and will forgive us even if we have committed the most heinous transgressions. However, being forgiven does not mean that the scars of our sins would be erased — and it is possible that trouble could ensue as a consequences of our sins. It is better to ask for forgiveness because of the sins committed, but it is best to not to commit them in the first place. | <urn:uuid:cc66c320-8602-4a3f-8087-2f39dea959ce> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://onlyonehope.com/fun-facts-about-2-samuel/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250606975.49/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122101729-20200122130729-00045.warc.gz | en | 0.985566 | 371 | 3.296875 | 3 | [
-0.22690942883491516,
0.4050702452659607,
-0.12454451620578766,
-0.018844397738575935,
-0.04581741988658905,
-0.14124144613742828,
-0.0052389963530004025,
-0.03403526917099953,
0.24148933589458466,
-0.048021022230386734,
-0.03553873300552368,
-0.060784973204135895,
0.21631477773189545,
0.0... | 3 | The Book of 2 Samuel does not tell us who wrote it. Most likely the Prophet Samuel did not write it because he died in 1 Samuel. Nathan and Gad are considered as two possible authors of this book. It was written during the time of King David, so the book basically chronicles about him, especially his conquests and troubles.
Here the books exposes David’s sins. First he commits adultery with a married woman named Bathsheba, and their affair results in her pregnancy. As if that wasn’t wrong enough, David has her husband placed in a position in battle that he is sure to be killed. The prophet Nathan confronts David with his sin. He confesses to God and asks for His forgiveness. God does forgive David graciously, but warns him that trouble would arise as a result of his sins.
First, his first child with Bathsheba dies. She later gives birth to Solomon, who will someday be the future King of Israel. David’s other son Absalom plots a revolt against his own father. David flees from Jerusalem, but raises a large enough number of troops in his bid to restore his kingdom. However, this is not without bloodshed. And more tragically, his son is killed in the process, and David mourns for him.
From King David’s life, we learn that even the most perfect and the most blessed people can fall into temptation and commit sins. God is gracious and will forgive us even if we have committed the most heinous transgressions. However, being forgiven does not mean that the scars of our sins would be erased — and it is possible that trouble could ensue as a consequences of our sins. It is better to ask for forgiveness because of the sins committed, but it is best to not to commit them in the first place. | 366 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Little is known for sure about the life of Aeschylus. He seems to have been born about the year 525 BC, into an ancient family of the aristocracy, in the town of Eleusis. Eleusis was the home of the Eleusinian Mysteries, celebrated in honor of Demeter (whose name means Earth Mother) and Persephone, who reigned as queen of the Underworld for half the year, and whose coming up from the Underworld every year brought back the spring. A later legend tells us that as a teenager he had a dream in which Dionysus, god of wine and ecstasy (in whose honor the festival of the Great Dionysia was held, at which Greek tragedies were performed), ordered him to compose tragedies. The official records of the annual dramatic performances in Athens tell us that his first play was put on in about 498, and that he was still composing plays in 458. Of the probably eighty-nine plays he composed, only seven complete ones have survived, along with some fragments.
The art of tragedy was still a new one when Aeschylus began to write; the contests in tragedy at the Great Dionysia only began around 534. The art included the choral odes that had long been sung and danced as part of religious festivals, as well as solo odes and spoken poetry, and the actors wore not only costumes but masks. As a creator of tragedy, Aeschylus not only wrote the words, he composed the music and choreographed the dances, directed the play, acted in it, and taught the other actors their roles. He also expanded the art: at first only one actor had spoken independently of the chorus (though the same actor could appear in several roles); Aeschylus added a second, and when a third actor was added later, he used all three, as in The Oresteia. For each competition, he, like all tragic playwrights, composed three tragedies and a light, farcical kind of play called a satyr play. These plays were not necessarily connected; The Oresteia is the only surviving example of a complete trilogy of plays. Of the satyr play that went with it, we know only that it was called Menelaus and depicted Menelaus among the satyrs. We also know that Aeschylus had the reputation of being the best composer of satyr plays in Athens, and the fragments of these plays that have been discovered do suggest that he showed a light and playful side of his talent in them.
The relationship of Aeschylus's art to the changes that were going on in Athens in his day is a fascinating topic and quite relevant to any interpretation of the Oresteia, but it can only be pointed to in this brief account. Athens threw off tyranny when Aeschylus was about fifteen, acquired a democratic constitution a few years later, and then became the main leader in the struggle against the Persian Empire. Aeschylus fought at Marathon, the great defeat of the Persians by the Athenians in 490, as the epitaph said to be his records: "Of his valor and fair fame the field of Marathon can tell, / and the longhaired Persian, who learned to know it there."
After the Persian Wars, in 472, Aeschylus composed his first surviving tragedy, The Persians, telling of the decisive defeat inflicted on the Persian fleet by the Athenian fleet at the Battle of Salamis in 479, but telling of it from the Persian point of view. The other surviving plays: The Seven against Thebes (467); The Suppliants (463), Agamemnon, The Libation-Bearers, and The Eumenides, the three plays of The Oresteia (458); Prometheus Bound (no known date, but some argue after The Oresteia). Aeschylus seems to have spent the last two years of his life in Sicily, and he died there in about 456.
Agamemnon: Biography: Aeschylus | <urn:uuid:bec734f5-a3d2-4c06-9242-291b4e75eaf1> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://www.novelguide.com/agamemnon/biography | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250624328.55/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124161014-20200124190014-00115.warc.gz | en | 0.985216 | 845 | 3.453125 | 3 | [
0.010839338414371014,
0.07846313714981079,
0.3691096901893616,
-0.12347397208213806,
-0.5295009613037109,
-0.30500921607017517,
0.1717030107975006,
0.04922325536608696,
-0.24540892243385315,
-0.12331191450357437,
-0.37331098318099976,
-0.09448452293872833,
0.32403895258903503,
0.1312182545... | 8 | Little is known for sure about the life of Aeschylus. He seems to have been born about the year 525 BC, into an ancient family of the aristocracy, in the town of Eleusis. Eleusis was the home of the Eleusinian Mysteries, celebrated in honor of Demeter (whose name means Earth Mother) and Persephone, who reigned as queen of the Underworld for half the year, and whose coming up from the Underworld every year brought back the spring. A later legend tells us that as a teenager he had a dream in which Dionysus, god of wine and ecstasy (in whose honor the festival of the Great Dionysia was held, at which Greek tragedies were performed), ordered him to compose tragedies. The official records of the annual dramatic performances in Athens tell us that his first play was put on in about 498, and that he was still composing plays in 458. Of the probably eighty-nine plays he composed, only seven complete ones have survived, along with some fragments.
The art of tragedy was still a new one when Aeschylus began to write; the contests in tragedy at the Great Dionysia only began around 534. The art included the choral odes that had long been sung and danced as part of religious festivals, as well as solo odes and spoken poetry, and the actors wore not only costumes but masks. As a creator of tragedy, Aeschylus not only wrote the words, he composed the music and choreographed the dances, directed the play, acted in it, and taught the other actors their roles. He also expanded the art: at first only one actor had spoken independently of the chorus (though the same actor could appear in several roles); Aeschylus added a second, and when a third actor was added later, he used all three, as in The Oresteia. For each competition, he, like all tragic playwrights, composed three tragedies and a light, farcical kind of play called a satyr play. These plays were not necessarily connected; The Oresteia is the only surviving example of a complete trilogy of plays. Of the satyr play that went with it, we know only that it was called Menelaus and depicted Menelaus among the satyrs. We also know that Aeschylus had the reputation of being the best composer of satyr plays in Athens, and the fragments of these plays that have been discovered do suggest that he showed a light and playful side of his talent in them.
The relationship of Aeschylus's art to the changes that were going on in Athens in his day is a fascinating topic and quite relevant to any interpretation of the Oresteia, but it can only be pointed to in this brief account. Athens threw off tyranny when Aeschylus was about fifteen, acquired a democratic constitution a few years later, and then became the main leader in the struggle against the Persian Empire. Aeschylus fought at Marathon, the great defeat of the Persians by the Athenians in 490, as the epitaph said to be his records: "Of his valor and fair fame the field of Marathon can tell, / and the longhaired Persian, who learned to know it there."
After the Persian Wars, in 472, Aeschylus composed his first surviving tragedy, The Persians, telling of the decisive defeat inflicted on the Persian fleet by the Athenian fleet at the Battle of Salamis in 479, but telling of it from the Persian point of view. The other surviving plays: The Seven against Thebes (467); The Suppliants (463), Agamemnon, The Libation-Bearers, and The Eumenides, the three plays of The Oresteia (458); Prometheus Bound (no known date, but some argue after The Oresteia). Aeschylus seems to have spent the last two years of his life in Sicily, and he died there in about 456.
Agamemnon: Biography: Aeschylus | 855 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Christian-History.org does not receive any personally identifiable information from the search bar below.
We leave the post-Nicene era and enter medieval Christianity with a vastly different Church than that which existed before Nicea.
The independent churches that could boast of a unity produced only by faithful maintenance of apostolic doctrine and a common obedience to Christ had given way to a vast hierarchy ruled by local bishops with great prestige and some political power. Those bishops were answerable to even higher bishops, metropolitans over cities and 4 patriarchs ruling the entire Roman empire.
The unity of medieval Christianity was based on doctrines determined to be important by councils. Those councils were called by bishops and emperors and were both local, national, and empire-wide.
The local ones often disagreed with each other, and occasionally were called purposely to disagree with one another. It was the nature of the time.
After Chalcedon, things were not so simple. In 476, the last emperor in the west was deposed by the German chieftain Odoacer. Until Charlemagne was crowned king of the Franks in 800, the former western empire was ruled by a series of Germanic kingdoms.
The eastern Roman empire would continue under the rule of Constantinople until 1453, though they suffered heavy losses to the Muslims beginning in 622.
The Muslims conquered virtually all of the Middle East between 622 and 640, including the important cities of Jerusalem and Antioch, then swept through north Africa from 642 to 695, almost eliminating Christianity from the area. In the early 8th century, they pressed into Spain before being stopped by the Franks in 732.
They also conquered all of Persia, where they would become known as the Turks and be a thorn in the side of the eastern Roman empire until they finally overthrew Constantinople in 1453.
Thus, the political situation was a lot more complicated in early medieval Christianity than during the ante-Nicene and post-Nicene eras.
During all of medieval Christianity, people held to the religion of their leaders. As the German tribes conquered first parts and then all of the western Roman empire, they were converted to Christianity—not to the free, wholehearted discipleship of the apostles, but to the national religion that medieval Christianity had become. As a result, despite the conquests, Europe remained a "Christian" continent during the Middle Ages.
Interestingly enough, some of the Germanic kingdoms were Arian! They disagreed with the Nicene council and held to Arius' belief that the Son was created from nothing like all other creatures.
The crowning of Charlemagne by the pope in A.D. 800 would put an end to those sorts of deviations of the Christianity of the councils.
Justo Gonzalez writes this about the title of pope:
It is clear from letters written in the 5th century and later that the bishop of Rome was gaining a primary prestige in early medieval Christianity. Even Protestant scholars are usually willing to call Gregory the Great (590-604) pope, but it's possible it could be legitimately applied to bishops as early as Leo the Great, who was bishop of Rome during the Council of Chalcedon.
The other patriarchs—those bishops given authority over whole regions at the Council of Nicea (see Post-Nicene era)—were willing to acknowledge that the Roman bishop was the primary leader of the patriarchs, but they saw him as a first among equals, not a ruler by himself.
Later, this would directly lead to the Great Schism, which divided the western half of the church from the eastern, leaving only the Roman patriarch—the pope—in the west, while the other patriarchs became leaders of the modern day Orthodox Churches.
The conquering of the western empire by the Germanic tribes led directly to the isolation of the Roman bishop. He had a lot to deal with keeping medieval Christianity alive and orthodox under barbarian rule. This did not allow a lot of focus on working out doctrinal issues with eastern patriarchs, and the Roman bishop learned to work alone.
When Charlemagne proved an able enough leader to unite much of Europe, it was a great relief to Rome when Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne as emperor of the revived Holy Roman Empire. This provided some stability, gave the pope political clout, and allowed renewed interaction with the eastern patriarchs, though this interaction did not go well.
The monks, having gained the respect of everyone, proved a great boon to civilization. Whatever we Protestants may think of their religion, it is the monks who preserved Christian learning for us and who can be given much credit that we have a Bible that is as reliable as it is.
The most important monk of early medieval Christianity was St. Benedict. In 529 he wrote a rule for his monastery that would become the rule for almost all monasteries of early medieval Christianity. It emphasized physical labor and involved vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience.
The Benedictine Order of monks survives to this day. Monasteries were indeed the centers of learning in the Medieval period.
Since Christianity had become a national religion, where citizens held to the religion of their leaders, feudalism becomes an important issue in medieval times.
Feudalism is a system where all land is owned by nobles, and the citizens worked the land for the nobles. This created many more political leaders, which will prove crucially important when we leave Medieval Christianity to address the Reformation.
Feudalism arose as Europe suffered turmoil under German rulers and was squeezed in by the Muslims. Trade declined, and the only thing of lasting value was land. Those who owned the land became the rulers of the people.
The exception to this was the cities, which did not do well in the early medieval period in Europe. Cities thrive on businesses, crafts, and money, and these are only in plenty when trade with other countries is doing well. It was not.
The driving out of the Muslims and a growing hunger for learning in the late Middle Ages would restore trade and cause cities and educations to thrive, but that is for the next section. We can end our section on early medieval Christian with a description of the Great Schism.
With some semblance of political peace achieved under Charlemagne, Rome was able to turn its eyes outward.
As the meager interaction between Rome and Constantinople increased, one particular issue came to the forefront. The Nicene Creed, as it was approved at Constantinople in 381, had been changed in the west.
It had not been changed very much. In Latin, it was but one word: filioque. But what a big word that would prove to be!
Filioque means "and the son." The Creed, as confirmed at Constantinople, said, "We believe in the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father." Rome had added "and the Son" to the end of that line, making the Holy Spirit to proceed from both other divine persons.
Though the patriarch of Constantinople had no doctrinal problems with the addition, he insisted that the Roman patriarch, the pope, had no authority to make changes to the official creed. As a first among equals, such a change could only be made at a council with the approval of all the other patriarchs.
The Roman patriarch, who by now saw himself as the lone heir to the keys of the kingdom that Christ gave to Peter, insisted that he did have such authority.
This debate flared up in the 9th century, then sat on the back burner until an emissary of pope Leo IX excommunicated the patriarch Cerularius of Constantinople in 1054. This is known as the Great Schism, and it has split catholic Christianity in half for almost a millennium.
The churches affiliated with the patriarch of Constantinople, and even those excommunicated at Ephesus in 431 and Chalcedon in 451, are known to this day as Orthodox Churches, and those affiliated with Rome as the Roman Catholic Church.
It is of note that Pope John Paul II once said the Apostles Creed publicly without the filioque.
My newest book, Rome's Audacious Claim, was released December 1! | <urn:uuid:d91cb644-235b-4014-a467-133faf18f12c> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.christian-history.org/medieval-christianity-1.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251694176.67/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127020458-20200127050458-00492.warc.gz | en | 0.980371 | 1,673 | 3.53125 | 4 | [
-0.1178901195526123,
0.3124059736728668,
0.1299152374267578,
-0.034572064876556396,
-0.33351266384124756,
-0.05022156983613968,
-0.5153905749320984,
0.10203227400779724,
0.38119059801101685,
-0.01320696622133255,
-0.3039172291755676,
-0.10567853599786758,
0.09181760251522064,
0.11588681489... | 1 | Christian-History.org does not receive any personally identifiable information from the search bar below.
We leave the post-Nicene era and enter medieval Christianity with a vastly different Church than that which existed before Nicea.
The independent churches that could boast of a unity produced only by faithful maintenance of apostolic doctrine and a common obedience to Christ had given way to a vast hierarchy ruled by local bishops with great prestige and some political power. Those bishops were answerable to even higher bishops, metropolitans over cities and 4 patriarchs ruling the entire Roman empire.
The unity of medieval Christianity was based on doctrines determined to be important by councils. Those councils were called by bishops and emperors and were both local, national, and empire-wide.
The local ones often disagreed with each other, and occasionally were called purposely to disagree with one another. It was the nature of the time.
After Chalcedon, things were not so simple. In 476, the last emperor in the west was deposed by the German chieftain Odoacer. Until Charlemagne was crowned king of the Franks in 800, the former western empire was ruled by a series of Germanic kingdoms.
The eastern Roman empire would continue under the rule of Constantinople until 1453, though they suffered heavy losses to the Muslims beginning in 622.
The Muslims conquered virtually all of the Middle East between 622 and 640, including the important cities of Jerusalem and Antioch, then swept through north Africa from 642 to 695, almost eliminating Christianity from the area. In the early 8th century, they pressed into Spain before being stopped by the Franks in 732.
They also conquered all of Persia, where they would become known as the Turks and be a thorn in the side of the eastern Roman empire until they finally overthrew Constantinople in 1453.
Thus, the political situation was a lot more complicated in early medieval Christianity than during the ante-Nicene and post-Nicene eras.
During all of medieval Christianity, people held to the religion of their leaders. As the German tribes conquered first parts and then all of the western Roman empire, they were converted to Christianity—not to the free, wholehearted discipleship of the apostles, but to the national religion that medieval Christianity had become. As a result, despite the conquests, Europe remained a "Christian" continent during the Middle Ages.
Interestingly enough, some of the Germanic kingdoms were Arian! They disagreed with the Nicene council and held to Arius' belief that the Son was created from nothing like all other creatures.
The crowning of Charlemagne by the pope in A.D. 800 would put an end to those sorts of deviations of the Christianity of the councils.
Justo Gonzalez writes this about the title of pope:
It is clear from letters written in the 5th century and later that the bishop of Rome was gaining a primary prestige in early medieval Christianity. Even Protestant scholars are usually willing to call Gregory the Great (590-604) pope, but it's possible it could be legitimately applied to bishops as early as Leo the Great, who was bishop of Rome during the Council of Chalcedon.
The other patriarchs—those bishops given authority over whole regions at the Council of Nicea (see Post-Nicene era)—were willing to acknowledge that the Roman bishop was the primary leader of the patriarchs, but they saw him as a first among equals, not a ruler by himself.
Later, this would directly lead to the Great Schism, which divided the western half of the church from the eastern, leaving only the Roman patriarch—the pope—in the west, while the other patriarchs became leaders of the modern day Orthodox Churches.
The conquering of the western empire by the Germanic tribes led directly to the isolation of the Roman bishop. He had a lot to deal with keeping medieval Christianity alive and orthodox under barbarian rule. This did not allow a lot of focus on working out doctrinal issues with eastern patriarchs, and the Roman bishop learned to work alone.
When Charlemagne proved an able enough leader to unite much of Europe, it was a great relief to Rome when Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne as emperor of the revived Holy Roman Empire. This provided some stability, gave the pope political clout, and allowed renewed interaction with the eastern patriarchs, though this interaction did not go well.
The monks, having gained the respect of everyone, proved a great boon to civilization. Whatever we Protestants may think of their religion, it is the monks who preserved Christian learning for us and who can be given much credit that we have a Bible that is as reliable as it is.
The most important monk of early medieval Christianity was St. Benedict. In 529 he wrote a rule for his monastery that would become the rule for almost all monasteries of early medieval Christianity. It emphasized physical labor and involved vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience.
The Benedictine Order of monks survives to this day. Monasteries were indeed the centers of learning in the Medieval period.
Since Christianity had become a national religion, where citizens held to the religion of their leaders, feudalism becomes an important issue in medieval times.
Feudalism is a system where all land is owned by nobles, and the citizens worked the land for the nobles. This created many more political leaders, which will prove crucially important when we leave Medieval Christianity to address the Reformation.
Feudalism arose as Europe suffered turmoil under German rulers and was squeezed in by the Muslims. Trade declined, and the only thing of lasting value was land. Those who owned the land became the rulers of the people.
The exception to this was the cities, which did not do well in the early medieval period in Europe. Cities thrive on businesses, crafts, and money, and these are only in plenty when trade with other countries is doing well. It was not.
The driving out of the Muslims and a growing hunger for learning in the late Middle Ages would restore trade and cause cities and educations to thrive, but that is for the next section. We can end our section on early medieval Christian with a description of the Great Schism.
With some semblance of political peace achieved under Charlemagne, Rome was able to turn its eyes outward.
As the meager interaction between Rome and Constantinople increased, one particular issue came to the forefront. The Nicene Creed, as it was approved at Constantinople in 381, had been changed in the west.
It had not been changed very much. In Latin, it was but one word: filioque. But what a big word that would prove to be!
Filioque means "and the son." The Creed, as confirmed at Constantinople, said, "We believe in the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from the Father." Rome had added "and the Son" to the end of that line, making the Holy Spirit to proceed from both other divine persons.
Though the patriarch of Constantinople had no doctrinal problems with the addition, he insisted that the Roman patriarch, the pope, had no authority to make changes to the official creed. As a first among equals, such a change could only be made at a council with the approval of all the other patriarchs.
The Roman patriarch, who by now saw himself as the lone heir to the keys of the kingdom that Christ gave to Peter, insisted that he did have such authority.
This debate flared up in the 9th century, then sat on the back burner until an emissary of pope Leo IX excommunicated the patriarch Cerularius of Constantinople in 1054. This is known as the Great Schism, and it has split catholic Christianity in half for almost a millennium.
The churches affiliated with the patriarch of Constantinople, and even those excommunicated at Ephesus in 431 and Chalcedon in 451, are known to this day as Orthodox Churches, and those affiliated with Rome as the Roman Catholic Church.
It is of note that Pope John Paul II once said the Apostles Creed publicly without the filioque.
My newest book, Rome's Audacious Claim, was released December 1! | 1,709 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Today we celebrate International Women's Day. One hundred years ago this was not self-explanatory. Women took to the streets to fight for their rights and more equality. A walk down the path of history.
The tradition of International Women's Day dates back to the early 20th century. The working class emerged during the industrialization era during the 19th century. Women who were part of this class were exploited working in factories under inhumane conditions.
This resulted in working class women organizing and fighting for better working conditions, higher wages and the like. In 1909 the first and earliest Women's Day took place in the USA, propagating women's suffrage.
On August 27th, one year later, during 2nd International Conference of Socialist Women in Copenhagen, the annual implementation of International Women's Day was determined. This first International Women's Day took place in Denmark, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Switzerland and the United States on March 19, 1911, whereby millions of women took part. The day was a success in the following years, however, there was no specified date. International Women's Day usually took place during March or April.
A date was determined in 1921 and marked on March 8th. Equal rights, a woman's right to vote, protection for mother and child, minimum wage and labour protection laws were the focal points of these demonstrations.
During the interwar period, these demands were modified to include the legalization of abortion as well as maternity protection and maternity leave. International Women's Day was banned under the Nazi regime and replaced by Mother's Day. This had a negative impact in other countries such as Switzerland. The fight for women's rights suffered much of its momentum during the Second World War. During the following decades it sadly only played a minor role.
The seventies displayed the emergence of a new women's movement on the day and was dubbed the day of Women's Solidarity. However, it soon became a day of action during the eighties, much like it was before the Second World War, emphasizing the worker's struggle.
Unfortunately, the trend was not carried through and the original concept and objectives, such as fighting against exploitation of women have softened and in some cases completely diminished. Today, March 8th is but a pale reflection of its origins and many women are still being exploited on all continents.
Fortunately, there are organizations and private initiatives that aim to improve this situation. Ecco Verde carries many brands that support local women's initiatives, contributing to the livelihood and empowerment of women around the world. Akamuti is one such brand that empowers women in Ghana by providing a valuable and sustainable form of income to women who contribute to harvesting the shea nuts for the production of shea butter. | <urn:uuid:aa402193-36d2-40bd-a6ce-b7f0ab0748a3> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.ecco-verde.co.uk/info/beauty-blog/march-8th-international-womens-day | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250603761.28/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121103642-20200121132642-00446.warc.gz | en | 0.984023 | 556 | 3.765625 | 4 | [
-0.31158947944641113,
0.17492416501045227,
-0.007221579551696777,
0.3264746069908142,
-0.1904384195804596,
0.2811722755432129,
-0.3568822741508484,
0.2554662823677063,
0.02056518755853176,
0.17330625653266907,
0.22309610247612,
-0.005046372767537832,
-0.03533366695046425,
0.400011479854583... | 13 | Today we celebrate International Women's Day. One hundred years ago this was not self-explanatory. Women took to the streets to fight for their rights and more equality. A walk down the path of history.
The tradition of International Women's Day dates back to the early 20th century. The working class emerged during the industrialization era during the 19th century. Women who were part of this class were exploited working in factories under inhumane conditions.
This resulted in working class women organizing and fighting for better working conditions, higher wages and the like. In 1909 the first and earliest Women's Day took place in the USA, propagating women's suffrage.
On August 27th, one year later, during 2nd International Conference of Socialist Women in Copenhagen, the annual implementation of International Women's Day was determined. This first International Women's Day took place in Denmark, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Switzerland and the United States on March 19, 1911, whereby millions of women took part. The day was a success in the following years, however, there was no specified date. International Women's Day usually took place during March or April.
A date was determined in 1921 and marked on March 8th. Equal rights, a woman's right to vote, protection for mother and child, minimum wage and labour protection laws were the focal points of these demonstrations.
During the interwar period, these demands were modified to include the legalization of abortion as well as maternity protection and maternity leave. International Women's Day was banned under the Nazi regime and replaced by Mother's Day. This had a negative impact in other countries such as Switzerland. The fight for women's rights suffered much of its momentum during the Second World War. During the following decades it sadly only played a minor role.
The seventies displayed the emergence of a new women's movement on the day and was dubbed the day of Women's Solidarity. However, it soon became a day of action during the eighties, much like it was before the Second World War, emphasizing the worker's struggle.
Unfortunately, the trend was not carried through and the original concept and objectives, such as fighting against exploitation of women have softened and in some cases completely diminished. Today, March 8th is but a pale reflection of its origins and many women are still being exploited on all continents.
Fortunately, there are organizations and private initiatives that aim to improve this situation. Ecco Verde carries many brands that support local women's initiatives, contributing to the livelihood and empowerment of women around the world. Akamuti is one such brand that empowers women in Ghana by providing a valuable and sustainable form of income to women who contribute to harvesting the shea nuts for the production of shea butter. | 570 | ENGLISH | 1 |
What is the first thing that comes to mind when you think about robots? Robots are machines that may be designed to look like humans and can copy our behaviour.
Robots can also perform difficult and complex actions and show a high degree of intelligence. We think of robots as being advanced and a part of our future. It is no wonder that we see plenty of these machines in stories and movies about science fiction. However, robots can be found as early as history itself. These early robots, as we will discover, are known as automatons.
An automaton is a machine built to perform an arranged set of operations. These machines create the illusion that they are moving by themselves. The word automaton is Greek, and means “acting of one’s will.” The first automatons were built in ancient Greece, and were usually powered by steam or water. These examples included a water clock and a water bowl with singing metal birds
In the ancient days, having your own automaton suggested a sense of power and wealth. Inventors were often asked to create new and better machines for their kings, rulers and sometimes rich families. During the Middle Ages, clockwork animals were very popular. There were mechanical lions and tigers that roared and moved for kings. In 8th century Baghdad, singing clockwork birds sat on silver and golden trees. The first wind-powered statues were built there as well, where they stood watch over the city gates.
The Renaissance period showed a great interest in automatons. Many clockwork machines were built and placed in the homes of central Europe. The famous inventor Leonardo da Vinci was said to have created a number of incredible automatons. One was a mechanical lion built for King Louis XII of France. It could roar, walk and stand on its back legs. Da Vinci also made a knight around the year 1495. This knight was human sized and could sit, stand and move its helmet and arms.
By the 17th century, people were becoming more fascinated by the idea of automatons. They wanted to see intelligent machines that could imitate human behaviour. In 1770, a chess-playing machine was introduced in the royal court of Vienna, Austria. The machine was called The Turk, and it looked like a wooden man seated at a chessboard. The Turk defeated many of its opponents, including Benjamin Franklin and Napoleon. It even travelled the world and became a huge attraction.
To view the complete article, subscribe to Just English magazine. | <urn:uuid:32b7b03a-3a4e-4339-aed0-501d8dd70c68> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.justenglish.com/article/automatons/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250591234.15/warc/CC-MAIN-20200117205732-20200117233732-00484.warc.gz | en | 0.98575 | 511 | 3.5625 | 4 | [
-0.34101787209510803,
-0.10566286742687225,
0.26274940371513367,
-0.19264915585517883,
-0.43496081233024597,
0.14420847594738007,
0.2501450777053833,
0.48432403802871704,
-0.13062432408332825,
0.15113414824008942,
0.18732881546020508,
0.0046141985803842545,
0.09998030215501785,
0.205925598... | 2 | What is the first thing that comes to mind when you think about robots? Robots are machines that may be designed to look like humans and can copy our behaviour.
Robots can also perform difficult and complex actions and show a high degree of intelligence. We think of robots as being advanced and a part of our future. It is no wonder that we see plenty of these machines in stories and movies about science fiction. However, robots can be found as early as history itself. These early robots, as we will discover, are known as automatons.
An automaton is a machine built to perform an arranged set of operations. These machines create the illusion that they are moving by themselves. The word automaton is Greek, and means “acting of one’s will.” The first automatons were built in ancient Greece, and were usually powered by steam or water. These examples included a water clock and a water bowl with singing metal birds
In the ancient days, having your own automaton suggested a sense of power and wealth. Inventors were often asked to create new and better machines for their kings, rulers and sometimes rich families. During the Middle Ages, clockwork animals were very popular. There were mechanical lions and tigers that roared and moved for kings. In 8th century Baghdad, singing clockwork birds sat on silver and golden trees. The first wind-powered statues were built there as well, where they stood watch over the city gates.
The Renaissance period showed a great interest in automatons. Many clockwork machines were built and placed in the homes of central Europe. The famous inventor Leonardo da Vinci was said to have created a number of incredible automatons. One was a mechanical lion built for King Louis XII of France. It could roar, walk and stand on its back legs. Da Vinci also made a knight around the year 1495. This knight was human sized and could sit, stand and move its helmet and arms.
By the 17th century, people were becoming more fascinated by the idea of automatons. They wanted to see intelligent machines that could imitate human behaviour. In 1770, a chess-playing machine was introduced in the royal court of Vienna, Austria. The machine was called The Turk, and it looked like a wooden man seated at a chessboard. The Turk defeated many of its opponents, including Benjamin Franklin and Napoleon. It even travelled the world and became a huge attraction.
To view the complete article, subscribe to Just English magazine. | 503 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The landing at Anzio took place on January 22nd, 1944. The initial hours of the landing were relatively bloodless for the Allies. Yet Anzio was to turn into one of the bloodiest battles fought in Western Europe by the Allies in World War Two.
The Allied advance up the ‘soft underbelly’ of Europe had not been as easy as many had predicted. The speed with which the Allies had captured Sicily gave a false impression as to how difficult it would be to conquer mainland Italy. To hinder the Allied advance north up Italy, the Germans had built the Gustav Line in the Appennine Mountains where any attack on the Line would have been severely restricted by the simple geography where the Line had been built. Field Marshal Albert Kesselring had been given command of all German forces in Italy.
The Allies developed a plan that was meant to have led to the collapse of the Gustav Line as a major block to the Allies advance. This was for a very large amphibious landing at Anzio (which was 55 miles north of the Gustav Line) combined with a major attack by the Allies on the Gustav Line itself. With such a two-pronged attack, the Allies believed that the Germans would not know where to place their men and in the confusion that would ensue, the Allied attack on the Gustav Line would be a success. The troops involved in this attack would then advance north, meet up with the troops who had landed at Anzio and then both would advance to Rome. The capture of Rome would be symbolic to the Allies as it was the capital city and it would further spell the end of Nazism in Europe. That was the plan.
The actual landings at Anzio and Nettuno beaches were spectacular successes. Twenty-four hours after the landing, the Allies had hoped to be four miles inland along a fifteen mile belt. They had achieved this goal by noon on the 22nd January. By the end of the day, 36,000 men had been landed with 3,200 vehicles. The Allies had suffered just 13 killed, 97 wounded and 44 missing. The US 36th Engineer Combat Regiment had already laid ‘roads’ to facilitate the movement of vehicles and air attacks had all but cleared away any threat from the Luftwaffe. The port of Anzio was readied to receive large landing craft.
By any standards the landings at Anzio and Nettuno were resounding successes. Probably the main reason for this was that the landing was in January and the German commanders in the area had been assured by OKW that no amphibious landing could ever take place in the area in January and February. As a result of this belief, the Germans had even moved men from the Anzio area to reinforce the Gustav Line leaving a nine-mile stretch of beach defended by just one company. The Rangers, paratroopers and commandos who landed at Anzio probably could not believe their luck.
However, the Allies attempt to break out of the beachhead met with stiffer opposition. By January 25th, the Germans had started to organise themselves so that they could mount an effective defence against the Allies. This opposition became far more effective and by January 29th, the Allies took the decision to halt the drive out of the beachhead and to consolidate and reorganise their forces near the beachhead. By February 1st, 1944, the dock facilities in Anzio were in full use and the total number of men in the beachhead by the start of February numbered just over 61,000, nearing twice that of Day 1 – hence the need for a planned reorganisation of forces.
However, the Allies were experiencing stern opposition from the Luftwaffe. The German Air Force had played a minimal part in the landing on January 22nd, but it was now harassing the Allies at sea on a regular basis, sinking one destroyer and a hospital ship.
Kesselring, despite the statements from OKW, had always feared an attack in the Anzio region. On hearing that the Allies had landed there, he ordered men from the 4th Parachute and Hermann Goering Divisions to Anzio. Both had been based in Rome. They were tasked with stopping the Allies moving north out of Anzio. Hitler had also ordered units based in Yugoslavia and France to the region. A counter-attack on the Allies at Anzio was ordered for January 28th, though this was postponed until February 1st to allow for further reinforcements to arrive. By the end of January, the Germans had nearly 70,000 soldiers near Anzio with more speeding to the area.
The only way out for the Allies at Anzio was to make a concerted breakout that was sustained. This breakout was to be combined with another all out assault on the Gustav Line by Allied forces in the south. The breakout from Anzio was to be initially spearheaded by three Ranger battalions – the 1st, 3rd and 4th – and their target was the village of Cisterna. Unknown to the Americans, 36 German battalions had gathered around Cisterna in preparation for their counter-attack against the Allies at Anzio. The nighttime movements of the Rangers had been seen by the Germans who waited until dawn for their attack. The Ranger units faced enormous odds including armoured units from the Hermann Goering Division. Not being equipped to fight off armoured vehicles, the Rangers attempted a withdrawal but men in the 1st and 3rd battalions took fearful casualties – of 767 men, only 6 returned to the Allied lines.
By February 2nd, the breakout had failed and Allied forces were ordered to dig in as intelligence reports had clearly indicated a massive German counter-attack. To buoy up Allied forces already in Anzio, military commanders ordered more men and equipment be sent there so that by February 4th, 100,000 Allied soldiers were based in the Anzio region. On paper, the German 14th Army that faced the Allies was larger. But it had had its preparation hindered by accurate attacks by Allied bombers so that the force itself was short of the most basic equipment such as ammunition.
The expected German counter-attack started with an artillery barrage on February 3rd that lasted into February 4th. However, when the Germans attacked they found that the terrain that had done little to assist the Allies in the previous days did little to help them. In particular, the boggy and undulating terrain greatly hindered any movement forward of armoured vehicles. The Germans found it as difficult to advance as the Allies had done and the battle became one of attrition where gains made were measured in just hundreds of yards as opposed to miles. The Allies had to form a strong defence point as the beach, and the huge problems that an evacuation would cause, precluded any more withdrawals.
The Germans renewed their attack on February 7th, but invariably any German advance was made with heavy casualties as was true of any Allied counter-attack. However, on February 16th, the Germans did punch a major hole in the British defence, which threatened the whole Allied line. A complete collapse was only averted by a massive aerial attack by the XII Tactical Air Command that flew 730 ground support sorties in support of Allied troops on the ground – the number of planes used and the number of bombs dropped was the largest ever up to D-Day in June 1944. It was Allied superiority in the air that was the key for the Allies at Anzio. The Germans had no way of countering this and such superiority allowed the Allies on the ground to consolidate their forces so that by February 20th, it seemed clear that the German counter-attack had petered out. The German counter-attack had cost over 5,300 German casualties, nearly 5% of the total number of German soldiers in the Anzio region. There were just under 3,500 Allied casualties, about 4% of the total troops there.
On February 29th, the Germans renewed their attack targeting the US 3rd Division. However, the Americans had anticipated that the 3rd Division might be a target and had suitably reinforced the men there – especially with artillery. When the Germans attacked, they were met with a massive American artillery bombardment – 66,000 shells being fired on February 29th alone. The German attack on the American positions continued until March 4th when it was ended without the Germans gaining what they had set out to achieve -once again, the Germans had taken heavy casualties, not only in terms of manpower but also in equipment.
Following this German attack, there was a three months lull in fighting. Both Allied and German forces had taken heavy casualties and both sides were exhausted. The time was spent reinforcing manpower in the area. The Anzio area resembled something from World War One. Trench systems were dug throughout the area and the greatest danger to the Allied forces was shrapnel from German artillery shells – accounting for 87% of all casualties in March. Everyone knew that the lull would not last and that a German attack was expected at some time. The Allies decided to counter this threat.
On May 11th, 1944, the Allies started another attack on the Gustav Line. After previous failures, this attack was a success and the Allies broke through the Line on May 15th. From here they raced to Anzio but met little German resistance as many German soldiers had been withdrawn to Rome. This advance was combined with another attempt by the Allies to breakout of Anzio. This attempt started on May 23rd. By May 25th, it was apparent that the breakout was a success when men from the Anzio beachhead met up with forces that had broken through the Gustav Line. The combined force advanced on Rome. The capital was liberated on June 4th. After the fall of the Gustav Line, German troops appeared to be in disarray with lack of supplies a constant problem.
The Anzio landing proved to be costly in terms of men lost. The Allies lost in combat over 29,000 men with 4,400 killed. Non-combat casualties totalled 37,000. The Germans lost 27,000 men with 5,500 killed. | <urn:uuid:d22d224d-d24b-42da-b604-0fb2c0a74831> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/world-war-two/war-in-the-mediterranean-sea/the-anzio-landings/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594333.5/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119064802-20200119092802-00126.warc.gz | en | 0.990874 | 2,076 | 3.28125 | 3 | [
-0.5115699768066406,
0.47314202785491943,
0.03379034623503685,
-0.0670490562915802,
-0.3395977020263672,
-0.09496821463108063,
-0.233232781291008,
0.47807422280311584,
-0.09238013625144958,
-0.14946827292442322,
-0.24101856350898743,
-0.2827419638633728,
0.4248054623603821,
0.5614237189292... | 6 | The landing at Anzio took place on January 22nd, 1944. The initial hours of the landing were relatively bloodless for the Allies. Yet Anzio was to turn into one of the bloodiest battles fought in Western Europe by the Allies in World War Two.
The Allied advance up the ‘soft underbelly’ of Europe had not been as easy as many had predicted. The speed with which the Allies had captured Sicily gave a false impression as to how difficult it would be to conquer mainland Italy. To hinder the Allied advance north up Italy, the Germans had built the Gustav Line in the Appennine Mountains where any attack on the Line would have been severely restricted by the simple geography where the Line had been built. Field Marshal Albert Kesselring had been given command of all German forces in Italy.
The Allies developed a plan that was meant to have led to the collapse of the Gustav Line as a major block to the Allies advance. This was for a very large amphibious landing at Anzio (which was 55 miles north of the Gustav Line) combined with a major attack by the Allies on the Gustav Line itself. With such a two-pronged attack, the Allies believed that the Germans would not know where to place their men and in the confusion that would ensue, the Allied attack on the Gustav Line would be a success. The troops involved in this attack would then advance north, meet up with the troops who had landed at Anzio and then both would advance to Rome. The capture of Rome would be symbolic to the Allies as it was the capital city and it would further spell the end of Nazism in Europe. That was the plan.
The actual landings at Anzio and Nettuno beaches were spectacular successes. Twenty-four hours after the landing, the Allies had hoped to be four miles inland along a fifteen mile belt. They had achieved this goal by noon on the 22nd January. By the end of the day, 36,000 men had been landed with 3,200 vehicles. The Allies had suffered just 13 killed, 97 wounded and 44 missing. The US 36th Engineer Combat Regiment had already laid ‘roads’ to facilitate the movement of vehicles and air attacks had all but cleared away any threat from the Luftwaffe. The port of Anzio was readied to receive large landing craft.
By any standards the landings at Anzio and Nettuno were resounding successes. Probably the main reason for this was that the landing was in January and the German commanders in the area had been assured by OKW that no amphibious landing could ever take place in the area in January and February. As a result of this belief, the Germans had even moved men from the Anzio area to reinforce the Gustav Line leaving a nine-mile stretch of beach defended by just one company. The Rangers, paratroopers and commandos who landed at Anzio probably could not believe their luck.
However, the Allies attempt to break out of the beachhead met with stiffer opposition. By January 25th, the Germans had started to organise themselves so that they could mount an effective defence against the Allies. This opposition became far more effective and by January 29th, the Allies took the decision to halt the drive out of the beachhead and to consolidate and reorganise their forces near the beachhead. By February 1st, 1944, the dock facilities in Anzio were in full use and the total number of men in the beachhead by the start of February numbered just over 61,000, nearing twice that of Day 1 – hence the need for a planned reorganisation of forces.
However, the Allies were experiencing stern opposition from the Luftwaffe. The German Air Force had played a minimal part in the landing on January 22nd, but it was now harassing the Allies at sea on a regular basis, sinking one destroyer and a hospital ship.
Kesselring, despite the statements from OKW, had always feared an attack in the Anzio region. On hearing that the Allies had landed there, he ordered men from the 4th Parachute and Hermann Goering Divisions to Anzio. Both had been based in Rome. They were tasked with stopping the Allies moving north out of Anzio. Hitler had also ordered units based in Yugoslavia and France to the region. A counter-attack on the Allies at Anzio was ordered for January 28th, though this was postponed until February 1st to allow for further reinforcements to arrive. By the end of January, the Germans had nearly 70,000 soldiers near Anzio with more speeding to the area.
The only way out for the Allies at Anzio was to make a concerted breakout that was sustained. This breakout was to be combined with another all out assault on the Gustav Line by Allied forces in the south. The breakout from Anzio was to be initially spearheaded by three Ranger battalions – the 1st, 3rd and 4th – and their target was the village of Cisterna. Unknown to the Americans, 36 German battalions had gathered around Cisterna in preparation for their counter-attack against the Allies at Anzio. The nighttime movements of the Rangers had been seen by the Germans who waited until dawn for their attack. The Ranger units faced enormous odds including armoured units from the Hermann Goering Division. Not being equipped to fight off armoured vehicles, the Rangers attempted a withdrawal but men in the 1st and 3rd battalions took fearful casualties – of 767 men, only 6 returned to the Allied lines.
By February 2nd, the breakout had failed and Allied forces were ordered to dig in as intelligence reports had clearly indicated a massive German counter-attack. To buoy up Allied forces already in Anzio, military commanders ordered more men and equipment be sent there so that by February 4th, 100,000 Allied soldiers were based in the Anzio region. On paper, the German 14th Army that faced the Allies was larger. But it had had its preparation hindered by accurate attacks by Allied bombers so that the force itself was short of the most basic equipment such as ammunition.
The expected German counter-attack started with an artillery barrage on February 3rd that lasted into February 4th. However, when the Germans attacked they found that the terrain that had done little to assist the Allies in the previous days did little to help them. In particular, the boggy and undulating terrain greatly hindered any movement forward of armoured vehicles. The Germans found it as difficult to advance as the Allies had done and the battle became one of attrition where gains made were measured in just hundreds of yards as opposed to miles. The Allies had to form a strong defence point as the beach, and the huge problems that an evacuation would cause, precluded any more withdrawals.
The Germans renewed their attack on February 7th, but invariably any German advance was made with heavy casualties as was true of any Allied counter-attack. However, on February 16th, the Germans did punch a major hole in the British defence, which threatened the whole Allied line. A complete collapse was only averted by a massive aerial attack by the XII Tactical Air Command that flew 730 ground support sorties in support of Allied troops on the ground – the number of planes used and the number of bombs dropped was the largest ever up to D-Day in June 1944. It was Allied superiority in the air that was the key for the Allies at Anzio. The Germans had no way of countering this and such superiority allowed the Allies on the ground to consolidate their forces so that by February 20th, it seemed clear that the German counter-attack had petered out. The German counter-attack had cost over 5,300 German casualties, nearly 5% of the total number of German soldiers in the Anzio region. There were just under 3,500 Allied casualties, about 4% of the total troops there.
On February 29th, the Germans renewed their attack targeting the US 3rd Division. However, the Americans had anticipated that the 3rd Division might be a target and had suitably reinforced the men there – especially with artillery. When the Germans attacked, they were met with a massive American artillery bombardment – 66,000 shells being fired on February 29th alone. The German attack on the American positions continued until March 4th when it was ended without the Germans gaining what they had set out to achieve -once again, the Germans had taken heavy casualties, not only in terms of manpower but also in equipment.
Following this German attack, there was a three months lull in fighting. Both Allied and German forces had taken heavy casualties and both sides were exhausted. The time was spent reinforcing manpower in the area. The Anzio area resembled something from World War One. Trench systems were dug throughout the area and the greatest danger to the Allied forces was shrapnel from German artillery shells – accounting for 87% of all casualties in March. Everyone knew that the lull would not last and that a German attack was expected at some time. The Allies decided to counter this threat.
On May 11th, 1944, the Allies started another attack on the Gustav Line. After previous failures, this attack was a success and the Allies broke through the Line on May 15th. From here they raced to Anzio but met little German resistance as many German soldiers had been withdrawn to Rome. This advance was combined with another attempt by the Allies to breakout of Anzio. This attempt started on May 23rd. By May 25th, it was apparent that the breakout was a success when men from the Anzio beachhead met up with forces that had broken through the Gustav Line. The combined force advanced on Rome. The capital was liberated on June 4th. After the fall of the Gustav Line, German troops appeared to be in disarray with lack of supplies a constant problem.
The Anzio landing proved to be costly in terms of men lost. The Allies lost in combat over 29,000 men with 4,400 killed. Non-combat casualties totalled 37,000. The Germans lost 27,000 men with 5,500 killed. | 2,209 | ENGLISH | 1 |
|Papacy began||22 May 964|
|Papacy ended||23 June 964|
|Born||Rome, Papal States|
|Died||4 July 965|
Hamburg, Holy Roman Empire
|Other popes named Benedict|
Pope Benedict V (Latin: Benedictus V; died 4 July 965) was Pope from 22 May to 23 June 964, in opposition to Pope Leo VIII. He was overthrown by emperor Otto I. His pontificate occurred at the end of a period known as the Saeculum obscurum.
Benedict was the son of a Roman called John, and was born and raised in Rome around the vicinity of the Theatre of Marcellus. A Cardinal-deacon before his election, Benedict was renowned for his learning, for which his contemporaries gave him the additional name of Grammaticus. He was also a Notarius and had taken part in the deposition of Pope John XII and the subsequent election of Pope Leo VIII.
The Roman people, unhappy with the election of Leo who was the candidate of the Holy Roman Emperor, Otto I, had instead recalled John XII, whom Otto had deposed. John convened a synod which condemned Leo, in which Benedict took part. However, with John's death, the Roman people again rejected Leo, who had fled from Rome and joined Otto who was at Rieti, in central Italy. After a violent struggle between rival factions, the Romans elected Benedict instead, who was acclaimed by the city militia. Prior to his coronation as pope, envoys were sent to Otto, informing them of their decision. The emperor rejected their decision out of hand and warned them not to proceed. Returning to Rome, they decided to ignore Otto; Benedict was consecrated bishop and crowned pope on 22 May 964. The Romans swore an oath to Benedict that they would not abandon him and would protect him against Otto.
Otto however, upon hearing the news, resolved to restore his candidate as pope. He marched and proceeded to besiege Rome, blockading it so that no one was able to leave the city. The result was famine, as the land around the city was ravaged, and a single modius of bran cost thirty denarii. Although Benedict tried to bolster morale by encouraging the defenders from the walls of the city, as well as threatening to excommunicate the emperor and his army, the Romans soon decided to capitulate. Opening the gates to Otto, they handed Benedict over to him on 23 June 964. Together with his clerical and lay supporters, and clad in his pontifical robes, Benedict was brought before a synod which Leo had convened, and was asked by the Arch-deacon how Benedict dared to assume the chair of Saint Peter while Leo was still alive. He was also accused of having broken his oath to the Emperor, where he promised never to elect a pope without the emperor's consent. Benedict responded “If I have sinned, have mercy on me.” Having received a promise from the emperor that his life would be spared if he submitted, Benedict threw himself at Leo's feet and acknowledged his guilt.
The synod revoked his consecration as Bishop, his pallium was torn from him, and his pastoral staff was broken over him by Pope Leo. However, through the intercession of Otto, he was allowed to retain the rank of deacon. Otto left Rome sometime after 29 June 964, taking Benedict with him. After some delay, he was taken to Germany in early 965. The ex-Pope was moved to Hamburg and placed under the care of Adaldag, Archbishop of Hamburg-Bremen. His period of exile was brief; Adam of Bremen noted:
”The archbishop [Adaldag] kept him with great honour till his death; for he is said to have been both holy and learned and worthy of the Apostolic See. . . . And so living a holy life with us, and teaching others how to live well, he at length died a happy death just when the Romans had come to ask the emperor that he might be restored.”
Although he was treated well by Archbishop Adaldag, many others considered him an antipope, and attempted to keep him ostracised. Archbishop Libentius I (the successor of Adaldag) commented:
”When the Lord Pope Benedict was an exile in these parts, I sought him out; and though every effort was made to prevent my going to him, I would never allow myself to be influenced against the Pope. But, as long as he lived, I closely adhered to him.”
Benedict died on 4 July 965 and was buried in the cathedral in Hamburg. Then sometime before the year 988, his remains were transferred to Rome, but where they were interred is unknown. A legend has it that Benedict prophesied his relocation to Rome, and the devastation of Hamburg by King Mstivoj of the Obodrites in 983:
”Here must my frail body return to dust. After my death all this country will be devastated by the sword of the heathen and be abandoned to wild beasts. Nor will the land experience solid peace till my translation. But when I am taken home, I trust that, by the intercession of the apostle, the pagan ravages will cease”
|Catholic Church titles|
|Preceded by |
| Pope |
- Gregorovius, Ferdinand, The History of Rome in the Middle Ages, Vol. III (1895)
- Mann, Horace K., The Lives of the Popes in the Early Middle Ages, Vol. IV: The Popes in the Days of Feudal Anarchy, 891-999 (1910)
- Mann, p. 273-274
- Mann, p. 274
- Gregorovius, p. 352
- David Warner, Ottonian Germany: the Chronicon of Thietmar of Merseburg, (Manchester University Press, 2001), 113.
- Mann, pg. 275
- Gregorovius, pg. 353
- Gregorovius, pg. 354
- Mann, pgs. 275-6
- Mann, pg. 276
- Philip Hughes, A History of the Church, (Sheed & Ward Ltd., 1978), 196.
- Mann, pg. 277
- Mann, pg. 278
- Gregorovius, pg. 357
- Mann, pgs. 278-9
- Mann, pg. 279 | <urn:uuid:8b076317-e5a7-4f9f-8fbc-d1f4bd94e3c9> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.wikiyy.com/en/Pope_Benedict_V | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251779833.86/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128153713-20200128183713-00209.warc.gz | en | 0.98331 | 1,359 | 3.40625 | 3 | [
-0.31865420937538147,
0.30552661418914795,
0.21109800040721893,
-0.1504141390323639,
-0.3898506760597229,
0.17141014337539673,
-0.1715644896030426,
0.1495474874973297,
0.29796141386032104,
-0.19353751838207245,
-0.13079985976219177,
-0.33341994881629944,
-0.0865345224738121,
0.178114086389... | 1 | |Papacy began||22 May 964|
|Papacy ended||23 June 964|
|Born||Rome, Papal States|
|Died||4 July 965|
Hamburg, Holy Roman Empire
|Other popes named Benedict|
Pope Benedict V (Latin: Benedictus V; died 4 July 965) was Pope from 22 May to 23 June 964, in opposition to Pope Leo VIII. He was overthrown by emperor Otto I. His pontificate occurred at the end of a period known as the Saeculum obscurum.
Benedict was the son of a Roman called John, and was born and raised in Rome around the vicinity of the Theatre of Marcellus. A Cardinal-deacon before his election, Benedict was renowned for his learning, for which his contemporaries gave him the additional name of Grammaticus. He was also a Notarius and had taken part in the deposition of Pope John XII and the subsequent election of Pope Leo VIII.
The Roman people, unhappy with the election of Leo who was the candidate of the Holy Roman Emperor, Otto I, had instead recalled John XII, whom Otto had deposed. John convened a synod which condemned Leo, in which Benedict took part. However, with John's death, the Roman people again rejected Leo, who had fled from Rome and joined Otto who was at Rieti, in central Italy. After a violent struggle between rival factions, the Romans elected Benedict instead, who was acclaimed by the city militia. Prior to his coronation as pope, envoys were sent to Otto, informing them of their decision. The emperor rejected their decision out of hand and warned them not to proceed. Returning to Rome, they decided to ignore Otto; Benedict was consecrated bishop and crowned pope on 22 May 964. The Romans swore an oath to Benedict that they would not abandon him and would protect him against Otto.
Otto however, upon hearing the news, resolved to restore his candidate as pope. He marched and proceeded to besiege Rome, blockading it so that no one was able to leave the city. The result was famine, as the land around the city was ravaged, and a single modius of bran cost thirty denarii. Although Benedict tried to bolster morale by encouraging the defenders from the walls of the city, as well as threatening to excommunicate the emperor and his army, the Romans soon decided to capitulate. Opening the gates to Otto, they handed Benedict over to him on 23 June 964. Together with his clerical and lay supporters, and clad in his pontifical robes, Benedict was brought before a synod which Leo had convened, and was asked by the Arch-deacon how Benedict dared to assume the chair of Saint Peter while Leo was still alive. He was also accused of having broken his oath to the Emperor, where he promised never to elect a pope without the emperor's consent. Benedict responded “If I have sinned, have mercy on me.” Having received a promise from the emperor that his life would be spared if he submitted, Benedict threw himself at Leo's feet and acknowledged his guilt.
The synod revoked his consecration as Bishop, his pallium was torn from him, and his pastoral staff was broken over him by Pope Leo. However, through the intercession of Otto, he was allowed to retain the rank of deacon. Otto left Rome sometime after 29 June 964, taking Benedict with him. After some delay, he was taken to Germany in early 965. The ex-Pope was moved to Hamburg and placed under the care of Adaldag, Archbishop of Hamburg-Bremen. His period of exile was brief; Adam of Bremen noted:
”The archbishop [Adaldag] kept him with great honour till his death; for he is said to have been both holy and learned and worthy of the Apostolic See. . . . And so living a holy life with us, and teaching others how to live well, he at length died a happy death just when the Romans had come to ask the emperor that he might be restored.”
Although he was treated well by Archbishop Adaldag, many others considered him an antipope, and attempted to keep him ostracised. Archbishop Libentius I (the successor of Adaldag) commented:
”When the Lord Pope Benedict was an exile in these parts, I sought him out; and though every effort was made to prevent my going to him, I would never allow myself to be influenced against the Pope. But, as long as he lived, I closely adhered to him.”
Benedict died on 4 July 965 and was buried in the cathedral in Hamburg. Then sometime before the year 988, his remains were transferred to Rome, but where they were interred is unknown. A legend has it that Benedict prophesied his relocation to Rome, and the devastation of Hamburg by King Mstivoj of the Obodrites in 983:
”Here must my frail body return to dust. After my death all this country will be devastated by the sword of the heathen and be abandoned to wild beasts. Nor will the land experience solid peace till my translation. But when I am taken home, I trust that, by the intercession of the apostle, the pagan ravages will cease”
|Catholic Church titles|
|Preceded by |
| Pope |
- Gregorovius, Ferdinand, The History of Rome in the Middle Ages, Vol. III (1895)
- Mann, Horace K., The Lives of the Popes in the Early Middle Ages, Vol. IV: The Popes in the Days of Feudal Anarchy, 891-999 (1910)
- Mann, p. 273-274
- Mann, p. 274
- Gregorovius, p. 352
- David Warner, Ottonian Germany: the Chronicon of Thietmar of Merseburg, (Manchester University Press, 2001), 113.
- Mann, pg. 275
- Gregorovius, pg. 353
- Gregorovius, pg. 354
- Mann, pgs. 275-6
- Mann, pg. 276
- Philip Hughes, A History of the Church, (Sheed & Ward Ltd., 1978), 196.
- Mann, pg. 277
- Mann, pg. 278
- Gregorovius, pg. 357
- Mann, pgs. 278-9
- Mann, pg. 279 | 1,431 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Once you learn to read, you will be forever free. —Frederick Douglass
Frederick Douglass was one of the most prominent abolitionists and social justice advocates of the 19th century.
Douglass was born into slavery in 1818, on a plantation on the eastern coast of Maryland. He was named Frederick Augustus Washington Bailey. His mother, Harriet Bailey, was a slave and died when Douglass was still a child. They had only met a few times. His father was white, and is presumed by many historians to be the master of the plantation. Douglass was raised by his maternal grandmother, Betty Bailey.
At the age of eight, he was sent to live as a houseboy for a ship carpenter in Baltimore named Hugh Auld, whose wife Sophia taught Douglass the alphabet. Teaching a slave to read was illegal at the time, so Sophia was forced to stop; Douglass persisted and eventually taught himself to read in secret. It was believed that a literate, educated slave would attempt to better his or her circumstances and would endanger the way of life in the South. As Douglass began to read pamphlets, books, and newspapers, he began to clarify his own beliefs and views on human rights and the institution of slavery.
At about the age of 15, Douglass became a field hand on a farm run by Edward Covey, a brutal man and known “slavebreaker.” Douglass was whipped mercilessly and on one occasion, he fought back. He attempted to escape from slavery and failed twice. On September 3, 1838, at the age of 20, Douglass finally succeeded and boarded a train from Maryland to New York, arriving at the safe house of abolitionist David Ruggles.
Douglass settled in New Bedford, Massachusetts to begin his life as a free man. The former Frederick Bailey changed his name to Frederick Douglass, the hero of Sir Walter Scott’s book, The Lady of the Lake. He married Anna Murray on September 15, 1838, whom he met and fell in love with in Maryland. Douglass attended abolitionist meetings within the free black community and began to tell his story of life as a slave. Many, including prominent white abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison, were impressed with his persuasive speaking and storytelling ability, and Douglass became a regular presenter at these meetings and conferences. Though their ideas regarding how best to end slavery would come into conflict with each other later on, Garrison was Douglass’ mentor and supporter.
Douglass published his first autobiography, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave, in 1845. It became a bestseller in the U.S. and was translated into several languages. His works were also met with criticism. Many people doubted a runaway slave could be capable of such eloquent writing. After his autobiography was published, Douglass went on a two-year speaking tour of Great Britain and Ireland to avoid recapture by his former owner, whose name and location Douglass had specifically mentioned in his writing. Upon his return, he continued writing and speaking out against slavery and also began editing abolitionist newspapers, such as The North Star and Frederick Douglass Weekly.
Douglass also supported the women’s rights movement and suggested that like blacks, women deserved the right to vote:
“In this denial of the right to participate in government, not merely the degradation of woman and the perpetuation of a great injustice happens, but the maiming and repudiation of one-half of the moral and intellectual power of the government of the world.”
He also used his reputation to influence the treatment of freed slaves fighting for the North during the American Civil War. He met with many other influential figures of the time, including President Abraham Lincoln. Slavery was eventually made illegal in the United States through the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which was adopted at the end of 1865.
An internationally renowned activist and powerful speaker, Douglass was a great influence on how Americans thought about race, slavery, and democracy in the United States.
Does your home country have any similar historical figures who fought for social justice? Share them with us below.
Allison joined the InterExchange team in 2011 and holds a B.A. in International Affairs and an M.A. in Higher Education. She oversees the daily operations of the Career Training USA program where she has the privilege of working with students and professionals from around the world pursuing U.S. internships and training programs. Allison is originally from Massachusetts and studied abroad in Buenos Aires, Argentina. | <urn:uuid:51c269ce-4221-4114-949f-2b6568b444e5> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.interexchange.org/articles/career-training-usa/2016/02/23/important-americans-frederick-douglass/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250614880.58/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124011048-20200124040048-00328.warc.gz | en | 0.985627 | 939 | 4 | 4 | [
-0.08210752159357071,
0.4224950969219208,
0.3439966142177582,
0.2911870777606964,
-0.15106216073036194,
-0.19460442662239075,
0.0490858256816864,
-0.36101049184799194,
-0.06718748062849045,
-0.21261844038963318,
0.19293546676635742,
-0.03542495146393776,
-0.47726142406463623,
0.12673607468... | 1 | Once you learn to read, you will be forever free. —Frederick Douglass
Frederick Douglass was one of the most prominent abolitionists and social justice advocates of the 19th century.
Douglass was born into slavery in 1818, on a plantation on the eastern coast of Maryland. He was named Frederick Augustus Washington Bailey. His mother, Harriet Bailey, was a slave and died when Douglass was still a child. They had only met a few times. His father was white, and is presumed by many historians to be the master of the plantation. Douglass was raised by his maternal grandmother, Betty Bailey.
At the age of eight, he was sent to live as a houseboy for a ship carpenter in Baltimore named Hugh Auld, whose wife Sophia taught Douglass the alphabet. Teaching a slave to read was illegal at the time, so Sophia was forced to stop; Douglass persisted and eventually taught himself to read in secret. It was believed that a literate, educated slave would attempt to better his or her circumstances and would endanger the way of life in the South. As Douglass began to read pamphlets, books, and newspapers, he began to clarify his own beliefs and views on human rights and the institution of slavery.
At about the age of 15, Douglass became a field hand on a farm run by Edward Covey, a brutal man and known “slavebreaker.” Douglass was whipped mercilessly and on one occasion, he fought back. He attempted to escape from slavery and failed twice. On September 3, 1838, at the age of 20, Douglass finally succeeded and boarded a train from Maryland to New York, arriving at the safe house of abolitionist David Ruggles.
Douglass settled in New Bedford, Massachusetts to begin his life as a free man. The former Frederick Bailey changed his name to Frederick Douglass, the hero of Sir Walter Scott’s book, The Lady of the Lake. He married Anna Murray on September 15, 1838, whom he met and fell in love with in Maryland. Douglass attended abolitionist meetings within the free black community and began to tell his story of life as a slave. Many, including prominent white abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison, were impressed with his persuasive speaking and storytelling ability, and Douglass became a regular presenter at these meetings and conferences. Though their ideas regarding how best to end slavery would come into conflict with each other later on, Garrison was Douglass’ mentor and supporter.
Douglass published his first autobiography, Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slave, in 1845. It became a bestseller in the U.S. and was translated into several languages. His works were also met with criticism. Many people doubted a runaway slave could be capable of such eloquent writing. After his autobiography was published, Douglass went on a two-year speaking tour of Great Britain and Ireland to avoid recapture by his former owner, whose name and location Douglass had specifically mentioned in his writing. Upon his return, he continued writing and speaking out against slavery and also began editing abolitionist newspapers, such as The North Star and Frederick Douglass Weekly.
Douglass also supported the women’s rights movement and suggested that like blacks, women deserved the right to vote:
“In this denial of the right to participate in government, not merely the degradation of woman and the perpetuation of a great injustice happens, but the maiming and repudiation of one-half of the moral and intellectual power of the government of the world.”
He also used his reputation to influence the treatment of freed slaves fighting for the North during the American Civil War. He met with many other influential figures of the time, including President Abraham Lincoln. Slavery was eventually made illegal in the United States through the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which was adopted at the end of 1865.
An internationally renowned activist and powerful speaker, Douglass was a great influence on how Americans thought about race, slavery, and democracy in the United States.
Does your home country have any similar historical figures who fought for social justice? Share them with us below.
Allison joined the InterExchange team in 2011 and holds a B.A. in International Affairs and an M.A. in Higher Education. She oversees the daily operations of the Career Training USA program where she has the privilege of working with students and professionals from around the world pursuing U.S. internships and training programs. Allison is originally from Massachusetts and studied abroad in Buenos Aires, Argentina. | 943 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Posted: 29 December 2015 20:00
Weapons go through a process of development in the light of war experience, either to improve their battlefield performance or to speed up and economise on manufacturing time and resources.
Producing new weapons is one thing; issuing them to the troops is another. For 1st Canadian Infantry Division the exchange of nearly 10,000 new rifles for old ones in 1943 was not a pain-free process.
The graphic below shows the two rifles; the top one is the Lee Enfield No.1 Mk.III, while the one below is the No.4 Mk.I that began replacing it in the British and Canadian Armies during World War Two. Both fired the standard British .303" round.
The nomenclature of British Army rifles is somewhat confusing, but a potted history may be of use. The Mark I Short Magazine Lee Enfield (SMLE) rifle was accepted by the British Army in 1902 after it had learned some hard lessons during the Boer War. The Mark III SMLE was the workhorse infantry weapon during the Great War, although the War Office had been planning to replace it with what later became the Pattern 1914 (P14) rifle.
The complexities of mass production and supply meant that although the P14 was manufactured and issued, it could not replace the SMLE during the war. In about 1916, the SMLE Mk.III was modified in order to simplify production. Long range volley sights and a magazine cut-off plate were omitted from the design, as these were relics of colonial warfare unnecessary for close-range trench fighting. The modified rifle was known as the Mk.III* (pronounced "Mark 3 (star)").
Between the wars, new developments occurred and the nomenclature was changed. The .303 SMLE lineage became known as "Rifle No.1", .22 calibre weapons became "Rifle No.2" while the P14 family became "Rifle No.3". The Mk.III* rifle therefore became "Rifle No.1 Mk.III*".
The No.4 Mk.I rifle was officially adopted by the British Army in 1941, partly to assist mass production.
There were a few differences from the SMLE; the No.4 had a heavier barrel, the muzzle of which was exposed, as seen in the photo at right.
The SMLE's rear sight was placed halfway down the weapon and comprised an open V-notch for the foresight to be aligned in.
In some lighting conditions it was hard to discern the notch and take effective aim, so on the No.4, the sight was moved to the rear of the receiver, right in front of the firer's eye.
An aperture sight made sighting far easier; the No.4 had either a simple L-shaped battle sight graduated at 300 or 600 yards, or more complex graduated "leaf" sight.
The SMLE nosecap was omitted, and the new No.4 Mk.II bayonet fixed by a socket and lugs onto the barrel itself.
The photo below compares the SMLE with 17-inch bladed 1907 Pattern "sword" bayonet, with the 8-inch No.4 Mk.II "pigsticker" spike. The latter was simpler to manufacture and made the weapon less muzzle-heavy when firing with fixed bayonets.
New military kit is never issued universally or speedily after its introduction; it's a gradual process as supply struggles to catch up with demand.
The war diaries of some of the Canadian Army units mention the delivery of their No.4 rifles; for example, the Perth Regiment, an infantry battalion with 5 Canadian Armoured Division, were issued theirs in August 1942.
However, we're going to focus on 1st Canadian Infantry Division for two reasons; firstly, they documented how the transfer happened and secondly, the process took place in the town that I grew up in.
In January 1943 1 Canadian Division was stationed in the East Sussex area, and as yet unaware that they would be invading Sicily in July.
The war diary of 1 Canadian Division's quartermaster for 19 January 1943:
1 Cdn Div is to be issued with the new Mk.IV Rifle. 9,908 Mk.IV Rifles are to be issued and there will be an equivalent withdrawal of Mk.III Rifles now held by units. Major Fraser, DAQMG, completed arrangements to take over the Armouries and subsidiary buildings at Hailsham to set up a central depot where the new rifles would be received and the old rifles turned in. Cleaning and inspection of the new rifles will be carried out at the Armouries at the time of issue. Rifles are expected to arrive by rail on 21 Jan 1943. Holdings of Mk.IV rifles will amount to 9958 against the rifle establishment of 11,783.
Note how the rifle is mistakingly referred to as the "Mk.IV" instead of the No.4 - this is a common error among the war diaries. The exchange of 11,783 SMLEs for 9,958 No.4 rifles is probably accounted for by the Canadian Army reforming along British lines in February 1943 and possibly a larger number of submachine guns (such as the Sten) being issued.
The photo below shows the drill hall at Hailsham where I believe the armouries were established. There was another drill hall built in the 1930's (now the ambulance station), but this is usually referred to as the "new drill hall" in the documents.
The old drill hall is Sturton Place, hidden behind what used to be the Terminus pub, just over the road from the old railway station.
The first batch of 2,620 rifles arrived at Hailsham Railway Station on 22 January, a day later than planned.
The issue was staggered; obviously 10,000 men didn't suddenly descend upon Hailsham, each to hand in an old rifle and be given a new one. Battalions made their own arrangements to exchange en masse and then issue the new No.4s to their troops at their leisure.
The 48th Highland Regiment sent 35 men from "D" Company to Hailsham on 21st January to count, clean and inspect the new rifles for the entire 1st Canadian Infantry Brigade. This operation took six days, but the 48th Highlanders and the Royal Canadian Regiment were issued their new rifles on 28 January. Brigade HQ and the Hastings and Prince Edward Regiment (who were out on exercise on the 28th and presumably still using their SMLEs) collected theirs the following day.
2 Canadian Infantry Brigade were quite not so organised; the three battalions picked up their rifles on three successive days, but the dirty work of cleaning the rifles was left to each battalion.
The Edmonton Regiment on 26 January:
The Battalion was issued today with new rifles No.4 Mk.I and the new 7" bayonet No.4 Mk.II. As is usual with new weapons they were loaded down with grease and the troops are going to have one H------ ("Helluva"??) time trying to get them clean.
For the 4th Recce Regiment, the main problem was that after handing in their SMLEs, they had no rifles for five hours!
3 Canadian Infantry Brigade successfully exchanged their rifles 29 January - 1 February.
By 2 February, 6,000 No.4 rifles had been issued, with 3,108 outstanding. On the same day, 11 SMLEs were stolen from a train after being dispatched from Hailsham!
Three days later it was reported that the work was now complete, with armourers having inspected 9,910 No.4 rifles and 9,908 SMLEs in three weeks. For some reason, these numbers do not tally with those given above.
Despite the apparent efficiency with which the changeover had proceeded, Divisional HQ reported on 29 January that the Ordnance Workshop had set up in Hailsham to effect "minor repairs" to the No.4 rifles and the incoming SMLEs. This indicates some underlying glitches with the new rifle.
Reaction to the new rifle was mixed; some units saw a dramatic increase in marksmanship. For one platoon of the Hastings and Prince Edward Regiment on 3 February "the results were exceptional, most firers averaging 80 per cent above their previous scores with their old rifle."
Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry also reported favourably on 28 March: "Scores showed two days of good firing, and that the new rifle is a great improvement on the old Lee Enfield."
The Seaforth Highlanders were skeptical however - 25 Jan: "the general impression is that these rifles are better than the old SMLEs only because they are new." They were not the only battalion to have doubts about the No.4 however.
The Edmonton Regiment having picked up their new rifles on 26 January, began "zeroing" them on 1 February at the Holywell Range at Eastbourne. Zeroing entails adjusting the sights so that, at a particular range, the sights and the impact point on the target coincide.
The second day of zeroing revealed some problems with the new rifles:
Rifle zeroing continued and it seems as if 30% need adjustments. Trigger actions are touchy and magazines seem sticky. The new battle sights seem to call for another zeroing method. The Armourer Sergeant suggesting that 200 yards would be the distance to zero at so that accuracy might be good between 100 and 300 yards.
Holywell Range was only 30 yards long so unsuitable for the armourer's suggestion; a week later the Battalion was at the Hawkenbury Ranges near Tunbridge Wells, at which most of the Division would be firing during this period.
More problems were experienced by the engineers; 1 Field Canadian Company on 18 March:
New rifles being zeroed on Ashburnham range by means of an improvised mount made from a vice. Rifles found to be in need of considerable adjustment and repair although new. Considerable difficulty experienced with magazine springs sticking.
2 Canadian Field Park Company had some good shooting, but also experienced the magazine problem: "A very successful day at the range with ideal weather. The shooting with the new Mk.IV rifles was quite good, although some jams were caused through defective magazines." Ten days later the Company despatched 100 of their rifles to 1 Field Company's armourer for zeroing and inspection.
The Lee Enfield magazine (photo at right) held ten rounds; a flat zig-zag spring kept the platform upon which the rounds rested pushed as high as possible. As the firer closes the bolt, the top round is stripped from the magazine and fed into the chamber where it is fired when the trigger is pressed.
If the spring is not strong enough to push the rounds up, or the platform sticks, the bolt rides over the top round without feeding it.
Other problems were recorded however; a document of 17 February indicates that these failings were known about shortly after issue:
1. Investigations have proceeded in respect to the No.4 Rifles and the following ascertained -
(a) Magazines and Magazine Springs are faulty in a number of cases, so that some bullets are not automatically forced into the chamber.
(b)There are two types of Blades, Foresight, one which has a foresight screw which holds the blade in place and is satisfactory, but the other type which has no screw and has the blade tapped in and is unsatisfactory as a large number of blades fall out in the field.
2. This does not appear to have been discovered or reported by REME (Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers) Workshops.
The Divisional Commander was not surprisingly concerned about the troops losing faith in the weapon; the Sten gun and Boys anti-tank rifle were two examples of weapons with bad reputations, and not all them unfounded.
As 1 Canadian Corps personnel were away on a major exercise, the Division contacted the British Ordnance depot at Weedon, Northamptonshire, as the rifles were of British manufacture. The response was that Weedon were aware of the magazine problem, as it had been commonplace with early issues, but the missing foresight problem was a new one to them. Faulty magazines were to be exchanged and Weedon was to investigate the foresight problem.
It was a serious problem; without the foresight blade (photo at right), you can't possibly hope to hit much beyond point blank range.
As a stop-gap, a supply of foresight blades was sent from Weedon, as commanders were asking questions about the problems. The complaints dragged on into March; workshops were ordered not to issue weapons with defective magazines or foresights, and REME top brass visited to inspect them.
The REME Commander conducted tests on the range at Divisional HQ on 5 March, but complaints still seem to have been coming in; 1 Canadian Division's Quartermaster's war diary for 17 March:
Reports came in from units regarding the Number 4 Mk I rifle about which there has been a lot of talk as to its poor manufacture. However, from the returns received, it would appear that people on the whole are fairly well satisfied with it and it is only a question of people getting to know a weapon about which they are not fully conversant and therefore do not take to it very readily.
I think this is a fair assessment; a couple of issues, one of which was known about and perhaps could have been picked up before the rifles were issued. The problem appeared to be limited to the second and third batches of rifles and, it would seem, the issues were ultimately resolved.
Soldiers are notorious for complaining about any new weapon, but don't forget that as many units quoted above praise the No.4, as raise issues. The complaints were entirely justified, but they were fixed, and the No.4 rifle proved itself a reliable battle rifle and remained in frontline British service until 1957.
The photo below is captioned "Soldiers of the 3rd Canadian Infantry Brigade run into snipers and machine gun fire, Campochiaro, Italy, 23 October 1943." Why have I included it here when my research is about the Allied armies in East Sussex? Because events in Sussex had an impact beyond the shores of Britain.
From now on, whenever I see a photo of men of 1st Canadian Division in Sicily, Italy or the Netherlands, I'm going to consider that the rifles they hold quite possibly went straight to the division from a building just down the road from where I grew up!
A record of events kept by all units from the point of mobilisation. A diary's contents vary enormously from unit to unit; some give detailed entries by the hour on a daily basis while others merely summarise events on a weekly/monthly basis.
This site is copyright © Peter Hibbs 2006 - 2020. All rights reserved.
Hibbs, Peter Issuing the No.4 Rifle - a lack of foresight? (2020) Available at: http://pillbox.org.uk/blog/239689/ Accessed: 22 January 2020
The information on this website is intended solely to describe the ongoing research activity of The Defence of East Sussex Project; it is not comprehensive or properly presented. It is therefore NOT suitable as a basis for producing derivative works or surveys! | <urn:uuid:4163ce05-549f-4532-8648-15c51f7a2d28> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://pillbox.org.uk/blog/239689/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250606872.19/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122071919-20200122100919-00149.warc.gz | en | 0.984078 | 3,167 | 3.3125 | 3 | [
-0.27979353070259094,
0.27904823422431946,
0.3037903606891632,
-0.3989657759666443,
0.2706545293331146,
-0.21645313501358032,
-0.08650623261928558,
0.0947493463754654,
-0.3823748230934143,
0.064364492893219,
0.21272793412208557,
-0.3463008999824524,
0.3059147000312805,
0.07973028719425201,... | 1 | Posted: 29 December 2015 20:00
Weapons go through a process of development in the light of war experience, either to improve their battlefield performance or to speed up and economise on manufacturing time and resources.
Producing new weapons is one thing; issuing them to the troops is another. For 1st Canadian Infantry Division the exchange of nearly 10,000 new rifles for old ones in 1943 was not a pain-free process.
The graphic below shows the two rifles; the top one is the Lee Enfield No.1 Mk.III, while the one below is the No.4 Mk.I that began replacing it in the British and Canadian Armies during World War Two. Both fired the standard British .303" round.
The nomenclature of British Army rifles is somewhat confusing, but a potted history may be of use. The Mark I Short Magazine Lee Enfield (SMLE) rifle was accepted by the British Army in 1902 after it had learned some hard lessons during the Boer War. The Mark III SMLE was the workhorse infantry weapon during the Great War, although the War Office had been planning to replace it with what later became the Pattern 1914 (P14) rifle.
The complexities of mass production and supply meant that although the P14 was manufactured and issued, it could not replace the SMLE during the war. In about 1916, the SMLE Mk.III was modified in order to simplify production. Long range volley sights and a magazine cut-off plate were omitted from the design, as these were relics of colonial warfare unnecessary for close-range trench fighting. The modified rifle was known as the Mk.III* (pronounced "Mark 3 (star)").
Between the wars, new developments occurred and the nomenclature was changed. The .303 SMLE lineage became known as "Rifle No.1", .22 calibre weapons became "Rifle No.2" while the P14 family became "Rifle No.3". The Mk.III* rifle therefore became "Rifle No.1 Mk.III*".
The No.4 Mk.I rifle was officially adopted by the British Army in 1941, partly to assist mass production.
There were a few differences from the SMLE; the No.4 had a heavier barrel, the muzzle of which was exposed, as seen in the photo at right.
The SMLE's rear sight was placed halfway down the weapon and comprised an open V-notch for the foresight to be aligned in.
In some lighting conditions it was hard to discern the notch and take effective aim, so on the No.4, the sight was moved to the rear of the receiver, right in front of the firer's eye.
An aperture sight made sighting far easier; the No.4 had either a simple L-shaped battle sight graduated at 300 or 600 yards, or more complex graduated "leaf" sight.
The SMLE nosecap was omitted, and the new No.4 Mk.II bayonet fixed by a socket and lugs onto the barrel itself.
The photo below compares the SMLE with 17-inch bladed 1907 Pattern "sword" bayonet, with the 8-inch No.4 Mk.II "pigsticker" spike. The latter was simpler to manufacture and made the weapon less muzzle-heavy when firing with fixed bayonets.
New military kit is never issued universally or speedily after its introduction; it's a gradual process as supply struggles to catch up with demand.
The war diaries of some of the Canadian Army units mention the delivery of their No.4 rifles; for example, the Perth Regiment, an infantry battalion with 5 Canadian Armoured Division, were issued theirs in August 1942.
However, we're going to focus on 1st Canadian Infantry Division for two reasons; firstly, they documented how the transfer happened and secondly, the process took place in the town that I grew up in.
In January 1943 1 Canadian Division was stationed in the East Sussex area, and as yet unaware that they would be invading Sicily in July.
The war diary of 1 Canadian Division's quartermaster for 19 January 1943:
1 Cdn Div is to be issued with the new Mk.IV Rifle. 9,908 Mk.IV Rifles are to be issued and there will be an equivalent withdrawal of Mk.III Rifles now held by units. Major Fraser, DAQMG, completed arrangements to take over the Armouries and subsidiary buildings at Hailsham to set up a central depot where the new rifles would be received and the old rifles turned in. Cleaning and inspection of the new rifles will be carried out at the Armouries at the time of issue. Rifles are expected to arrive by rail on 21 Jan 1943. Holdings of Mk.IV rifles will amount to 9958 against the rifle establishment of 11,783.
Note how the rifle is mistakingly referred to as the "Mk.IV" instead of the No.4 - this is a common error among the war diaries. The exchange of 11,783 SMLEs for 9,958 No.4 rifles is probably accounted for by the Canadian Army reforming along British lines in February 1943 and possibly a larger number of submachine guns (such as the Sten) being issued.
The photo below shows the drill hall at Hailsham where I believe the armouries were established. There was another drill hall built in the 1930's (now the ambulance station), but this is usually referred to as the "new drill hall" in the documents.
The old drill hall is Sturton Place, hidden behind what used to be the Terminus pub, just over the road from the old railway station.
The first batch of 2,620 rifles arrived at Hailsham Railway Station on 22 January, a day later than planned.
The issue was staggered; obviously 10,000 men didn't suddenly descend upon Hailsham, each to hand in an old rifle and be given a new one. Battalions made their own arrangements to exchange en masse and then issue the new No.4s to their troops at their leisure.
The 48th Highland Regiment sent 35 men from "D" Company to Hailsham on 21st January to count, clean and inspect the new rifles for the entire 1st Canadian Infantry Brigade. This operation took six days, but the 48th Highlanders and the Royal Canadian Regiment were issued their new rifles on 28 January. Brigade HQ and the Hastings and Prince Edward Regiment (who were out on exercise on the 28th and presumably still using their SMLEs) collected theirs the following day.
2 Canadian Infantry Brigade were quite not so organised; the three battalions picked up their rifles on three successive days, but the dirty work of cleaning the rifles was left to each battalion.
The Edmonton Regiment on 26 January:
The Battalion was issued today with new rifles No.4 Mk.I and the new 7" bayonet No.4 Mk.II. As is usual with new weapons they were loaded down with grease and the troops are going to have one H------ ("Helluva"??) time trying to get them clean.
For the 4th Recce Regiment, the main problem was that after handing in their SMLEs, they had no rifles for five hours!
3 Canadian Infantry Brigade successfully exchanged their rifles 29 January - 1 February.
By 2 February, 6,000 No.4 rifles had been issued, with 3,108 outstanding. On the same day, 11 SMLEs were stolen from a train after being dispatched from Hailsham!
Three days later it was reported that the work was now complete, with armourers having inspected 9,910 No.4 rifles and 9,908 SMLEs in three weeks. For some reason, these numbers do not tally with those given above.
Despite the apparent efficiency with which the changeover had proceeded, Divisional HQ reported on 29 January that the Ordnance Workshop had set up in Hailsham to effect "minor repairs" to the No.4 rifles and the incoming SMLEs. This indicates some underlying glitches with the new rifle.
Reaction to the new rifle was mixed; some units saw a dramatic increase in marksmanship. For one platoon of the Hastings and Prince Edward Regiment on 3 February "the results were exceptional, most firers averaging 80 per cent above their previous scores with their old rifle."
Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry also reported favourably on 28 March: "Scores showed two days of good firing, and that the new rifle is a great improvement on the old Lee Enfield."
The Seaforth Highlanders were skeptical however - 25 Jan: "the general impression is that these rifles are better than the old SMLEs only because they are new." They were not the only battalion to have doubts about the No.4 however.
The Edmonton Regiment having picked up their new rifles on 26 January, began "zeroing" them on 1 February at the Holywell Range at Eastbourne. Zeroing entails adjusting the sights so that, at a particular range, the sights and the impact point on the target coincide.
The second day of zeroing revealed some problems with the new rifles:
Rifle zeroing continued and it seems as if 30% need adjustments. Trigger actions are touchy and magazines seem sticky. The new battle sights seem to call for another zeroing method. The Armourer Sergeant suggesting that 200 yards would be the distance to zero at so that accuracy might be good between 100 and 300 yards.
Holywell Range was only 30 yards long so unsuitable for the armourer's suggestion; a week later the Battalion was at the Hawkenbury Ranges near Tunbridge Wells, at which most of the Division would be firing during this period.
More problems were experienced by the engineers; 1 Field Canadian Company on 18 March:
New rifles being zeroed on Ashburnham range by means of an improvised mount made from a vice. Rifles found to be in need of considerable adjustment and repair although new. Considerable difficulty experienced with magazine springs sticking.
2 Canadian Field Park Company had some good shooting, but also experienced the magazine problem: "A very successful day at the range with ideal weather. The shooting with the new Mk.IV rifles was quite good, although some jams were caused through defective magazines." Ten days later the Company despatched 100 of their rifles to 1 Field Company's armourer for zeroing and inspection.
The Lee Enfield magazine (photo at right) held ten rounds; a flat zig-zag spring kept the platform upon which the rounds rested pushed as high as possible. As the firer closes the bolt, the top round is stripped from the magazine and fed into the chamber where it is fired when the trigger is pressed.
If the spring is not strong enough to push the rounds up, or the platform sticks, the bolt rides over the top round without feeding it.
Other problems were recorded however; a document of 17 February indicates that these failings were known about shortly after issue:
1. Investigations have proceeded in respect to the No.4 Rifles and the following ascertained -
(a) Magazines and Magazine Springs are faulty in a number of cases, so that some bullets are not automatically forced into the chamber.
(b)There are two types of Blades, Foresight, one which has a foresight screw which holds the blade in place and is satisfactory, but the other type which has no screw and has the blade tapped in and is unsatisfactory as a large number of blades fall out in the field.
2. This does not appear to have been discovered or reported by REME (Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers) Workshops.
The Divisional Commander was not surprisingly concerned about the troops losing faith in the weapon; the Sten gun and Boys anti-tank rifle were two examples of weapons with bad reputations, and not all them unfounded.
As 1 Canadian Corps personnel were away on a major exercise, the Division contacted the British Ordnance depot at Weedon, Northamptonshire, as the rifles were of British manufacture. The response was that Weedon were aware of the magazine problem, as it had been commonplace with early issues, but the missing foresight problem was a new one to them. Faulty magazines were to be exchanged and Weedon was to investigate the foresight problem.
It was a serious problem; without the foresight blade (photo at right), you can't possibly hope to hit much beyond point blank range.
As a stop-gap, a supply of foresight blades was sent from Weedon, as commanders were asking questions about the problems. The complaints dragged on into March; workshops were ordered not to issue weapons with defective magazines or foresights, and REME top brass visited to inspect them.
The REME Commander conducted tests on the range at Divisional HQ on 5 March, but complaints still seem to have been coming in; 1 Canadian Division's Quartermaster's war diary for 17 March:
Reports came in from units regarding the Number 4 Mk I rifle about which there has been a lot of talk as to its poor manufacture. However, from the returns received, it would appear that people on the whole are fairly well satisfied with it and it is only a question of people getting to know a weapon about which they are not fully conversant and therefore do not take to it very readily.
I think this is a fair assessment; a couple of issues, one of which was known about and perhaps could have been picked up before the rifles were issued. The problem appeared to be limited to the second and third batches of rifles and, it would seem, the issues were ultimately resolved.
Soldiers are notorious for complaining about any new weapon, but don't forget that as many units quoted above praise the No.4, as raise issues. The complaints were entirely justified, but they were fixed, and the No.4 rifle proved itself a reliable battle rifle and remained in frontline British service until 1957.
The photo below is captioned "Soldiers of the 3rd Canadian Infantry Brigade run into snipers and machine gun fire, Campochiaro, Italy, 23 October 1943." Why have I included it here when my research is about the Allied armies in East Sussex? Because events in Sussex had an impact beyond the shores of Britain.
From now on, whenever I see a photo of men of 1st Canadian Division in Sicily, Italy or the Netherlands, I'm going to consider that the rifles they hold quite possibly went straight to the division from a building just down the road from where I grew up!
A record of events kept by all units from the point of mobilisation. A diary's contents vary enormously from unit to unit; some give detailed entries by the hour on a daily basis while others merely summarise events on a weekly/monthly basis.
This site is copyright © Peter Hibbs 2006 - 2020. All rights reserved.
Hibbs, Peter Issuing the No.4 Rifle - a lack of foresight? (2020) Available at: http://pillbox.org.uk/blog/239689/ Accessed: 22 January 2020
The information on this website is intended solely to describe the ongoing research activity of The Defence of East Sussex Project; it is not comprehensive or properly presented. It is therefore NOT suitable as a basis for producing derivative works or surveys! | 3,312 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Forced labor played an important role in the American history. It affected the lives of many Blacks living in the country during that time. Some slaves managed to escapethatenabled them to write some stories based on their lives. Fredrick Douglass, for example, wrote a narrative referred to as Narrative of the Life of Fredrick Douglass: An America Slave.
Douglass gave an account of his social-political life. For instance, he explained how his life changed through various stages of growth and development. After a certain age, Douglass stated that he managed to escape from one of the slave owners. He also explained some differences in his life, especially between his boyhood and adulthood. He elucidated that he was a young naïve person when he was forced into slavery.
Harriet Jacob is another slave who also succeeded to escape from slavery. She decided to write a narrative entitled Incidents of a Slave Girl. She described her life as full of misery because of being deprived of freedom and rights. Through her narrative, she posited that life under slavery was terrible. She explained that sexual violence and harassment were the major problemsthat she faced.
More specifically, she revealed how she used her sexuality to avoid harsh punishments from her master. In Addition, she explicated the dangers of attempting to escape from bondage. It was a criminal offence for a slave to run away from his or her master without following due process.
This was mainly because the slave was to supply free labor to slave owners (Oatis 78). Although some similarities existed, differences between the two narratives would be discussed. Through evaluation of differences, in-depth understanding of slavery is achieved.
Frederick Douglass and Harriet Jacobs demonstrate that slavery was a form of injustice that crippled the black race in America. However, there are some differences between their works as regards to literary and political circumstances. Each writer gave a different account of political activities that went on around this time.
For Example, Douglass authored his works on Narrative of the Life of Douglass after Blacks had started demanding for their rights and freedoms. In contrast, the works of Jacob was affected by the political and historical events that went on during publication of her works.
She published her works at a time that Americans rose against each other in the Civil War. She had to convey compelling argument to gain the attention of women about suffrage. Douglass had a major influence in society because he was both a leader and a writer. His works was met with criticism from owners of the slaves, which forced him to run for his safety.
Fredrick Douglass based his ideas on the sermon. He could influence church members to reject any form of slavery because it was against God’s will. He was hired to lecture at Massachusetts Antislavery organization, whereby he developed some of styles that could enable him to attack slave owners.
He came up with rhetorical devices that were similar to sermons and proclamations and used them in formulating his narrative. Such strategies included reverberation, contrast and many classical credible tactics. His findings were based on compilation of various speeches given in church.
This means that he used biblical quotes to condemn slavery because he cited some of the famous writings from the Holy book to prove that slavery was indeed inhuman (Pyne 71). Furthermore, Douglass borrowed the ideas of Emerson, which were popular in 1840s. He combined various views to encourage his supporters to fight against slavery, which caused anguish to people.
He gave a narration in which he likened slavery to the life of a man who undergoes initiation from childhood to adulthood. Initiation signifies transformation from boyhood to maturity. In the same way, fight for freedom is like transformation from human chattel to a free citizen. According to Douglass, he analyzes his displeasure against slavery, by stating:
Slaves sing most when they are most unhappy. The songs of the slaves represent the sorrows of his hear, and are relieved of them, only as its tears relieved an aching heart (Douglass 20)”.
Because of his personal view to slavery, he was able to relate to the vile moments of slavery to his sermons. In return, he had an opportunity to attack slavery. The sermons provided Douglass with a good opportunity to attack slavery. He used quotations from the Bible, which contradicted with the activities of slave owners, to challenge slavery.
This enlightened Christian slave owners to neglect the provisions of the slavery laws. In addition, he used the sermons in church to remind slave owners that it was against God’s Will to use or humiliate another human being by treating them as objects. It is noted that Christianity played a bigger role in abolishing slavery in the US.
Contrary to Douglass’ observation, Jacob gave her reasons against the slavery at around 1854. Such views and ideas made the author live as a renegade for about ten years. She authored her works after Cornelia Grinnell had given her a decent job.
In other words, her findings could be termed as sentimental meaning a domestic novel. The author targeted women in families, home, matrimony and womanly reticence. She had borrowed much from the previous women writers. Her works encouraged women to rise up and fight slavery as well as male patriarchy.
The issue of gender makes a big difference between the two scholars. Jacob focused on the problems encountered by women under slavery.
She argued that slave owners could demand for sexual relationships with their subjects. In this case, women were the first casualties because they could not resist. Jacob showed how society used physical qualities to discriminate some members.She claimed that no social structure was maintained by oppressing some of its members.
Conversely, the two scholars had different focuses because Douglass emphasized on struggle to achieve manhood and freedom while Jacob was much disturbed by the issue of sexual exploitation. As Jacob observed, slavery was much terrible for women as compared to men.
Women were affected most because there were no jobs for them (Shlaes 45). In society, women existed at the mercy of men. They were infringed economical and socially. They were only supposed to handle minor activities, but not to participate in major debates.
The major problem for women was male domination and societal structure, which was rigid and unbiased. Douglass did not talk much about women (Pyne 83), but was more focused on liberating the entire society from slavery. On the other hand, Jacob’s concerns were clear. She longed for liberating women from male patriarchy and domination. She cited societal structure as one of the impediments to women liberation.
Culture did not allow women to participate in active politics, neither did it encourage women to rise up and fight for their rights. Even pressure groups focused only on setting men free from slavery, not women. This implies that women were supposed to stand up and fight for their rights independently. This is reflected perfectly in the following text:
When he told me that I was made for his use, made to obey his command in everything; that I was nothing but a slave who will must and should surrender to his, never before had my puny arm felt half-strong (Jacob 29).
From Jacob’s narrative, it is established that she was not learned meaning that her works did not have any scholastic foundation. She could not be compared to Douglass who was educated (Shlaes 45), though very poor. Family backgrounds affected the writings of the two authors. Jacob claimed that her adventures seemed incredible because of the life she went through.
She also admitted that her descriptions fell short of acts because she was not much enlightened, unlike Douglass who was well off academically since he was offered employment as a tutor. He worked in one of the colleges that supported liberation. Educational backgrounds affected the narratives of the narrators since more education affects an individual’s orientation to the world.
In other words, learned narrators use tact in presenting his or her ideas. Douglass understood the importance of the importance of liberty hence encouraging slaves and other members of society to fight for their rights (McPherson 14).
On the other hand, Jacob urged women to raise their concerns through societal institutions, such as government, which proved to be futile. Douglass used his influence and position in the society to inform the public of the evils of slavery.
Overall, Douglass and Jacobs aimed at eliminating slavery by condemning it through written texts. They focused on the awful experiences and nature of slavery. Each of the narrators had different viewpoints as regards to slavery.
In addition, the scholars exposed injustices that infringed upon people’s rights to equality and equal opportunities. Comparison of works of the two writers reveal that differences endured by male and female slaves related to gender roles, political aspects, and societal structure.
Douglass, Fredrick. Narrative of the life of Fredrick Douglass, an American slave. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print.
Jacob, Harriet. Incidents in the life of a slave girl. Harvard: Harvard University Press, 2007.Print.
McPherson, James. Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era. Oxford: Pulitzer Prize, 2003.Print.
Oatis, Steven. A Colonial Complex: South Carolina’s Frontiers in the Era of the Yamasee War, 1680-1730. New York: University of Nebraska Press, 2004.Print.
Pyne, Stephen. How the Canyon Became Grand. New York, NY: Penguin Books, 1998.Print.
Shlaes, Amity. The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression. New York, NY: Harper Perennial, 2008.Print. | <urn:uuid:5fd98e3a-5a18-4439-8e2c-342a8d625055> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://ivypanda.com/essays/comparison-of-douglass-and-jacobs-narratives/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251802249.87/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129194333-20200129223333-00169.warc.gz | en | 0.983066 | 1,991 | 4.1875 | 4 | [
0.058713722974061966,
0.4326474070549011,
0.5043771862983704,
0.3452778458595276,
-0.05876651406288147,
0.19429370760917664,
0.07568322122097015,
-0.16593293845653534,
-0.1105002909898758,
0.08557868003845215,
-0.2432437241077423,
0.3364941477775574,
-0.31987571716308594,
0.272059082984924... | 1 | Forced labor played an important role in the American history. It affected the lives of many Blacks living in the country during that time. Some slaves managed to escapethatenabled them to write some stories based on their lives. Fredrick Douglass, for example, wrote a narrative referred to as Narrative of the Life of Fredrick Douglass: An America Slave.
Douglass gave an account of his social-political life. For instance, he explained how his life changed through various stages of growth and development. After a certain age, Douglass stated that he managed to escape from one of the slave owners. He also explained some differences in his life, especially between his boyhood and adulthood. He elucidated that he was a young naïve person when he was forced into slavery.
Harriet Jacob is another slave who also succeeded to escape from slavery. She decided to write a narrative entitled Incidents of a Slave Girl. She described her life as full of misery because of being deprived of freedom and rights. Through her narrative, she posited that life under slavery was terrible. She explained that sexual violence and harassment were the major problemsthat she faced.
More specifically, she revealed how she used her sexuality to avoid harsh punishments from her master. In Addition, she explicated the dangers of attempting to escape from bondage. It was a criminal offence for a slave to run away from his or her master without following due process.
This was mainly because the slave was to supply free labor to slave owners (Oatis 78). Although some similarities existed, differences between the two narratives would be discussed. Through evaluation of differences, in-depth understanding of slavery is achieved.
Frederick Douglass and Harriet Jacobs demonstrate that slavery was a form of injustice that crippled the black race in America. However, there are some differences between their works as regards to literary and political circumstances. Each writer gave a different account of political activities that went on around this time.
For Example, Douglass authored his works on Narrative of the Life of Douglass after Blacks had started demanding for their rights and freedoms. In contrast, the works of Jacob was affected by the political and historical events that went on during publication of her works.
She published her works at a time that Americans rose against each other in the Civil War. She had to convey compelling argument to gain the attention of women about suffrage. Douglass had a major influence in society because he was both a leader and a writer. His works was met with criticism from owners of the slaves, which forced him to run for his safety.
Fredrick Douglass based his ideas on the sermon. He could influence church members to reject any form of slavery because it was against God’s will. He was hired to lecture at Massachusetts Antislavery organization, whereby he developed some of styles that could enable him to attack slave owners.
He came up with rhetorical devices that were similar to sermons and proclamations and used them in formulating his narrative. Such strategies included reverberation, contrast and many classical credible tactics. His findings were based on compilation of various speeches given in church.
This means that he used biblical quotes to condemn slavery because he cited some of the famous writings from the Holy book to prove that slavery was indeed inhuman (Pyne 71). Furthermore, Douglass borrowed the ideas of Emerson, which were popular in 1840s. He combined various views to encourage his supporters to fight against slavery, which caused anguish to people.
He gave a narration in which he likened slavery to the life of a man who undergoes initiation from childhood to adulthood. Initiation signifies transformation from boyhood to maturity. In the same way, fight for freedom is like transformation from human chattel to a free citizen. According to Douglass, he analyzes his displeasure against slavery, by stating:
Slaves sing most when they are most unhappy. The songs of the slaves represent the sorrows of his hear, and are relieved of them, only as its tears relieved an aching heart (Douglass 20)”.
Because of his personal view to slavery, he was able to relate to the vile moments of slavery to his sermons. In return, he had an opportunity to attack slavery. The sermons provided Douglass with a good opportunity to attack slavery. He used quotations from the Bible, which contradicted with the activities of slave owners, to challenge slavery.
This enlightened Christian slave owners to neglect the provisions of the slavery laws. In addition, he used the sermons in church to remind slave owners that it was against God’s Will to use or humiliate another human being by treating them as objects. It is noted that Christianity played a bigger role in abolishing slavery in the US.
Contrary to Douglass’ observation, Jacob gave her reasons against the slavery at around 1854. Such views and ideas made the author live as a renegade for about ten years. She authored her works after Cornelia Grinnell had given her a decent job.
In other words, her findings could be termed as sentimental meaning a domestic novel. The author targeted women in families, home, matrimony and womanly reticence. She had borrowed much from the previous women writers. Her works encouraged women to rise up and fight slavery as well as male patriarchy.
The issue of gender makes a big difference between the two scholars. Jacob focused on the problems encountered by women under slavery.
She argued that slave owners could demand for sexual relationships with their subjects. In this case, women were the first casualties because they could not resist. Jacob showed how society used physical qualities to discriminate some members.She claimed that no social structure was maintained by oppressing some of its members.
Conversely, the two scholars had different focuses because Douglass emphasized on struggle to achieve manhood and freedom while Jacob was much disturbed by the issue of sexual exploitation. As Jacob observed, slavery was much terrible for women as compared to men.
Women were affected most because there were no jobs for them (Shlaes 45). In society, women existed at the mercy of men. They were infringed economical and socially. They were only supposed to handle minor activities, but not to participate in major debates.
The major problem for women was male domination and societal structure, which was rigid and unbiased. Douglass did not talk much about women (Pyne 83), but was more focused on liberating the entire society from slavery. On the other hand, Jacob’s concerns were clear. She longed for liberating women from male patriarchy and domination. She cited societal structure as one of the impediments to women liberation.
Culture did not allow women to participate in active politics, neither did it encourage women to rise up and fight for their rights. Even pressure groups focused only on setting men free from slavery, not women. This implies that women were supposed to stand up and fight for their rights independently. This is reflected perfectly in the following text:
When he told me that I was made for his use, made to obey his command in everything; that I was nothing but a slave who will must and should surrender to his, never before had my puny arm felt half-strong (Jacob 29).
From Jacob’s narrative, it is established that she was not learned meaning that her works did not have any scholastic foundation. She could not be compared to Douglass who was educated (Shlaes 45), though very poor. Family backgrounds affected the writings of the two authors. Jacob claimed that her adventures seemed incredible because of the life she went through.
She also admitted that her descriptions fell short of acts because she was not much enlightened, unlike Douglass who was well off academically since he was offered employment as a tutor. He worked in one of the colleges that supported liberation. Educational backgrounds affected the narratives of the narrators since more education affects an individual’s orientation to the world.
In other words, learned narrators use tact in presenting his or her ideas. Douglass understood the importance of the importance of liberty hence encouraging slaves and other members of society to fight for their rights (McPherson 14).
On the other hand, Jacob urged women to raise their concerns through societal institutions, such as government, which proved to be futile. Douglass used his influence and position in the society to inform the public of the evils of slavery.
Overall, Douglass and Jacobs aimed at eliminating slavery by condemning it through written texts. They focused on the awful experiences and nature of slavery. Each of the narrators had different viewpoints as regards to slavery.
In addition, the scholars exposed injustices that infringed upon people’s rights to equality and equal opportunities. Comparison of works of the two writers reveal that differences endured by male and female slaves related to gender roles, political aspects, and societal structure.
Douglass, Fredrick. Narrative of the life of Fredrick Douglass, an American slave. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print.
Jacob, Harriet. Incidents in the life of a slave girl. Harvard: Harvard University Press, 2007.Print.
McPherson, James. Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era. Oxford: Pulitzer Prize, 2003.Print.
Oatis, Steven. A Colonial Complex: South Carolina’s Frontiers in the Era of the Yamasee War, 1680-1730. New York: University of Nebraska Press, 2004.Print.
Pyne, Stephen. How the Canyon Became Grand. New York, NY: Penguin Books, 1998.Print.
Shlaes, Amity. The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression. New York, NY: Harper Perennial, 2008.Print. | 1,987 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Historians describe an era in Italy when the country was described as mad. This is the time of Italian unification where the country faced a lot of hurdles. Italian unification was a socio-political lobbying process that agglomerated various Italian states into a single nation of Italy. This took place in the 19th century. Many scholars apparently differ on the onset and the end of this period in history but it is mostly thought that it was between the commencements in 1815 during the Vienna congress and the end of Napoleonic reign (Beales & Biagini, pp. 2-23). It went all the way to 1871 during the Franco-Prussian war. During all this time, a lot factors contributed to Italy’s failure to unite. This essay paper seeks to highlight the most significant hindrances to the unification of Italy in its efforts of becoming one single state.
First-Class Online Research Paper Writing Service
- Your research paper is written by a PhD professor
- Your requirements and targets are always met
- You are able to control the progress of your writing assignment
- You get a chance to become an excellent student!
Between 1815 and 1850, Italy was in a perpetual condition of unrest. After conquering the Napoleonic France, the Vienna Congress was planned to redraw the continent of Europe. Italy was not left out and therefore the congress reinstated the pre-Napoleonic mess of self-government, either ruled directly or powerfully influenced by the existing powers of Europe, more specifically Austria. However, groups in various states of Italy started to agitate for the notion of a united state of Italy yet again, enhancing the nationalism concept. Unfortunately, the empire of Austria forcefully undermined the idea of nationalism that was emerging from the peninsula of Italy together with other Habsburg areas of Spain. The Chancellor of Austria, Franz Metternich was a prominent diplomat at the Vienna congress. He pointed out that Italy was just a geographic expression. Many revolutions turned out unsuccessful between 1815 and 1850. Carbonari began the revolutionary process in 1814 (Holt, pp. 11-77).
Two Sicilies Kingdom in 1820
The unification process of Italy faced a major blow in this kingdom. Ferdinand I reigned through an autocratic government. This drew much hatred form Carbonari. There were hopes unbounded in Italian unification through these revolutions. However, the Naples revolution turned out to be an affair of the middle-class and therefore these economic ties frustrated the efforts of becoming one Italian state. Lower classes like those of the peasants in the South for instance were left out in the government system. Despite the fact that the revolt was scary to Ferdinand I, the absence of popular support, division amongst individuals in the revolt as well as the narrow leaders’ experience was a major threat to the failure of the revolution.
The Piedmont- Sardinia revolution came up after getting the news of the Naples revolution. Yet again, the ruler, Victor Emmanuel was terrified whilst they gained support from the nobles together with the middle class open-minded revolutionaries. The revolutionary government which was set up agitated for a self-governing Italian kingdom and proclaimed war on Austria. Victor Emmanuel relinquished in favor of Charles Felix, his brother. This accelerated the downfall of the liberation process. The 1820-1821 occurrences apparently made liberalism a lost cause on the entire region of Italy and its unification made unattainable. All the same, disturbances continued in Italy in such places like Parma and Modena. Sadly, these disturbances could not help in the unification process as they entertained the middle class at the expense of the rest (Beales & Biagini, pp. 112-23).
In the States of Papal, it was only the middle-class group that was in the protest front. The troops of Austria however crushed all the three disturbances which were indicative of the ease of halting a revolt. The main reason why these revolutions turned out unsuccessful was the fact that they were all together localized. Another reason was the fact that the middle-class led revolutions could not survive violence as they were not accustomed to it. The failure of the French to intervene on the part of revolutionaries also contributed to the loss. There was no significant change realized apart from the old-fashioned secret communities like the Carbonari together with the Federati which brought the idea that a new revolutionary politics style could garner support and the main image in the new belief was Giuseppe Mazzini (Astarita, pp. 187-264).
The 1848 revolution took place in a majority of the Italian parts. Pope Pius IX in Rome ran away since there were riots in the town. Reforms were declared by the government which was left behind. This included the provision of jobs for the unemployed, unpopular tax abolishment together with the holding together of a constituent which led to the formation of the Roman Republic. Despite these efforts made in the formation of the Roman Republic, it did not exist for long for its effect to be fully felt and realized. More challenges to the unification process emerged when the French took sides in 1849. The French were committed to the restoration of the Pope. This made Rome to give in on the 29th of June the same year. Revolutions ultimately were totally crushed and both Garibaldi and Mazzini were on exile.
Leaders of the Time
In 1852, Cavour was then a prime minister and was broadminded of the western kind. Cavour was not a war fanatic but was ready to engage in war in an attempt to make Italy one under the Savoy House. He sourced support from the French military while provoking Austria to a war. Cavour also mad a secrete treaty with Napoleon III and tricked Austria into war making the French army to invade their territories. All the same, this was not a success; support came only from the Italian states in the north. However, this was a big step made towards the right direction. Cavour’s ways were harsh but made Italy better (Holt, pp. 11-77).
Garibaldi was perceived a hero who lived in the USA and attained the Uruguay independence. Garibaldi created a group of followers with 1150 individuals known as the red shirts. This group armed themselves and moved towards the south. However, the Two Sicilies government lost all their trust and collapsed. The group moved to Rome where the French military and the Pope would keep in wait for them. Garibaldi had the desire to accept monarchy as the most efficacious solution. The problem came in because some of the followers were not fully supportive. The parliament that stood as a representation of Italy apart from Venetia and Rome came together and made a choice of becoming a single nation reigned over by god. The unifying process would have made progress if both Venetia and Rome were included but only Venetia was included to assist in war. Rome was however annexed (Beales & Biagini, pp. 202-33).
1848 -1849 Italy Revolutions
The main reason as to why the revolutions of 1848-1849 did not succeed was due to the division realized in Italy as at then. More weakness was attributed to the different objectives held by the various revolutions. It was therefore hard to reach a consensus. Italy therefore existed in independent states which anticipated different things. A percentage of the states wanted a republic to run them rather than money. The Pope’s desertion in the revolution was fully backed by the catholic supporters. Not a single state consented to the idea concerning taking Austria away from Venetia and Lombardy. The Austrians was one of the major factors that made the Italian revolutions fail (Astarita, pp. 187-264).
In the beginning of 1848, people never bought tobacco or even played the lottery since it fed the assets belonging to Austria. Anger flared up in the Austrians and they ended up killing several citizens from Italy. Later on Austria took over Ferrara. The desire of the Italians was to take away from the north east of Venetia and Lombardy. The armies of Austria had superior weapons compared to the Italians. The Austrian troops were even more by 45,000 troops. Italy had only 30,000 troops. The only opportunity to success for the Italians was when Austria concentrated so much on the revolutions at home. Lack of enough troops to counteract to those of the Austrians was also a great challenge to the Italian unification. Radetzky was a very knowledgeable general and was a great advantage of the Austrians over the Italians. Austria denied Italy chance to unify. Radetzky leadership was very critical to the army of the Austrians which had superior weapons than the Italian army. Owing to the fact that the Italian states could not come to an agreement on the things they wanted, Austrian army easily stooped the Italian revolts (Holt, pp. 11-77).
Charles Albert and Pope Pius IX
Charles Albert, the Savoy king was a key hindrance to the failure in the revolutions. Charles failed by disapproving assistance from foreign countries. He asserted that Italy did not need such help from foreign powers. It was possible for Charles to attack Austria at their point of emaciation but he delayed in doing so in a week’s time and moreover, the communication lines of the Austrians were not cut. Another failure that was contributed by Charles Albert was the division he made on the western border troops since he feared that the French could invade them. Poor equipping of the Charles led troops as indicated by the lack of maps and enough men were a major setback to the unification process. Pope Pius IX supported the revolutions from the start but on realizing that Catholics actively participated through fighting, he rescinded. The opinions of the Pope as at this time owing to the beliefs of the religion downplayed the efforts made in making Italy as one nation. The revolutions failed as a result of the Pope’s stand along the way. A big number of the citizens made a choice between their political principles and their religion. The Italian army became weak consequentially (Astarita, pp. 187-264).
Division amongst Revolutions
Many revolutions experienced disunity. Despite having a common agenda of dealing with Austria, it happened to be the only thing that they held in similarity. Charles Albert yearned for the support from all other states by pledging allegiance to him to attack Austria. Not everybody was comfortable with this and thus the army was made weak. Apparently the leader’s ambitions overrode the national interests. Rome and Venetia for instance longed for a republic whilst Charles desired a monarchy. Other states however wanted rule by the Pope. As clearly seen in this context, there was no a united front that existed between the different Italian states hence the revolution to defeat Austria was weak and worked out for Austria instead.
French Policies and Napoleon III
Napoleon III brought a lot of impact on Italy although he did not affect all states in a positive way. Napoleon played a significant role in the annexation of Lombardy from Piedmont. Cavour, the Italian nationalist met with Napoleon at Plombierees which led to the formation of an agreement. This is where a war was planned between a mixture of the troops of Piedmontese and those of France and Austria. There was a hope of success for Piedmont. It was anticipated that after Piedmont’s success in the war, the territories of Austria, north of Italy would merge with Piedmont forming Upper Italy Kingdom. Provoking a war with Austria was made a success by Cavour. Piedmont’s provision of 20,000 soldiers was however a big blow to the initiated war compared to an army of almost 110,000 Austrians. Napoleon stood to his word providing 200,000 men to counteract to the Austrian forces (Holt, pp. 11-77).
The French joined forces with Napoleon and Austria apparently worried about their defeat at the Solferino and Magenta battles. Piedmontese performed a significant role at Solferino but not at Magenta. There was a lot of carnage from either side. Napoleon did not like the results of the war as many soldiers were lost. Napoleon responded by signing a peace treaty at Villafranca with Austria. The French ultimately got an opportunity to protect their borders from Prussia. The interests and the actions of Cavour in Tuscany were later controlled by France. Lombardy was later handed over to France who eventually gave Piedmont. This was a proof to all the war affiliates that Piedmont could not acquire Lombardy owing to the stability of Austria in war. Napoleon’s surrender by signing a peace treaty with Austria on this occasion slowed down the unification process (Beales & Biagini, pp. 56-123).
End of Napoleon Rule
After the end of Napoleon rule, former rulers took over and made an effort to take matters back to the traditional setting. However, this was a milestone. People had gone through great changes and experiences which were deemed disturbing. It was therefore very hard to make sense to the people on going back to the initial state in Italy. Even at this point, Italy could not unify owing to a lot of confusion that was authored by the exit of leaders and the rule of napoleon and the French policies (Davis, pp. 55-89).
Therefore, Italy was mad; this is the way the phrase of the time defined the situation. This was a high-minded nationalism of culture of Mazzini, the bravery of Garibaldi, together with the Cavour cold policy. However, unification was attained in Italy through insurrections, endorsement of common votes and armed violence. The Italians failed to surrender and were initially a bunch of independent states in the same country. The unification process was an idea to make Italy a brotherhood of Italians who hold on to the progress and duty law with convictions that the destination of Italy was in becoming one state. All this had its beginning and inspiration from the literature written by Mazzini who wrote concerning his strong convictions on unity even at a time when the Pope then did not stand up to nationalism. This movement of becoming a single state needed the Italians support otherwise it was doomed to fail.
Generally, separation and localism traditions were a key factor which frustrated the efforts of unifying Italy. The southern and the northern parts were absolutely different in the ways of living. The consciousness of same nationality was not significantly developed; neither was there a national flag. The entire Italy was a place of all against all. Geographically, the natural barriers of mountains are apparently an impendent to the unification process in Italy. The lack of co-operation between the Italian states from pre-historic times was utilized to separate existence. These states also had diverse administrative organizations. The unification process experienced another blow because there was lack of unity economically. The North Italian community together having rich resources could develop easily compared to the backward community in the South. This status of both the North and the South significantly divided the ancient Italy. Owing to these factors, it became hard to establish where the best government would emanate from. Apparently, no region would succumb to the demands of the other and this further made unification a nightmare. This was so because the South did not contribute effectively commercially, industrially and generally to the common progress of Italy (Astarita, pp. 187-264).
The Pope temporarily had authority and somehow reigned in the central Italian region. Austria support together with the assistance coming from loyal Catholics along with France made Italy a divided region. Pope stood in opposition to any lobby group that would put his authority in danger over the Papal States. Italy in this state could not unify and the unification idea was far out of reach. The Pope’s territory included a wedge between the southern and northern Italian parts. The Papal States could therefore not reform and change was made impossible throughout the entire Italy. French policies and ideas through Napoleon rule caused a number of leaders in Italy to flee. What initially were well organized states pulled apart because there were no leaders in positions previously held before the French policies were established. In fact, Mazzini and Garibaldi in 1850 fled into exile yet another time (Davis, pp. 55-89). Therefore, these Italian rulers fled or rather came out of reign consequently creating power vacuums and new political agendas and ideas. Such were the state of affairs of the unification process in Italy.
Most popular orders | <urn:uuid:26195505-707b-4964-8c9a-070861efe50b> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://essaysexperts.com/essays/history/italian-unification.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250608295.52/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123041345-20200123070345-00316.warc.gz | en | 0.982808 | 3,358 | 4.03125 | 4 | [
-0.3866926431655884,
0.42347562313079834,
0.5519895553588867,
-0.10953906178474426,
-0.45164167881011963,
0.09496276080608368,
-0.15262922644615173,
0.10840770602226257,
-0.06802579015493393,
-0.14339131116867065,
0.07890506088733673,
-0.2968482971191406,
0.14753970503807068,
0.62437605857... | 1 | Historians describe an era in Italy when the country was described as mad. This is the time of Italian unification where the country faced a lot of hurdles. Italian unification was a socio-political lobbying process that agglomerated various Italian states into a single nation of Italy. This took place in the 19th century. Many scholars apparently differ on the onset and the end of this period in history but it is mostly thought that it was between the commencements in 1815 during the Vienna congress and the end of Napoleonic reign (Beales & Biagini, pp. 2-23). It went all the way to 1871 during the Franco-Prussian war. During all this time, a lot factors contributed to Italy’s failure to unite. This essay paper seeks to highlight the most significant hindrances to the unification of Italy in its efforts of becoming one single state.
First-Class Online Research Paper Writing Service
- Your research paper is written by a PhD professor
- Your requirements and targets are always met
- You are able to control the progress of your writing assignment
- You get a chance to become an excellent student!
Between 1815 and 1850, Italy was in a perpetual condition of unrest. After conquering the Napoleonic France, the Vienna Congress was planned to redraw the continent of Europe. Italy was not left out and therefore the congress reinstated the pre-Napoleonic mess of self-government, either ruled directly or powerfully influenced by the existing powers of Europe, more specifically Austria. However, groups in various states of Italy started to agitate for the notion of a united state of Italy yet again, enhancing the nationalism concept. Unfortunately, the empire of Austria forcefully undermined the idea of nationalism that was emerging from the peninsula of Italy together with other Habsburg areas of Spain. The Chancellor of Austria, Franz Metternich was a prominent diplomat at the Vienna congress. He pointed out that Italy was just a geographic expression. Many revolutions turned out unsuccessful between 1815 and 1850. Carbonari began the revolutionary process in 1814 (Holt, pp. 11-77).
Two Sicilies Kingdom in 1820
The unification process of Italy faced a major blow in this kingdom. Ferdinand I reigned through an autocratic government. This drew much hatred form Carbonari. There were hopes unbounded in Italian unification through these revolutions. However, the Naples revolution turned out to be an affair of the middle-class and therefore these economic ties frustrated the efforts of becoming one Italian state. Lower classes like those of the peasants in the South for instance were left out in the government system. Despite the fact that the revolt was scary to Ferdinand I, the absence of popular support, division amongst individuals in the revolt as well as the narrow leaders’ experience was a major threat to the failure of the revolution.
The Piedmont- Sardinia revolution came up after getting the news of the Naples revolution. Yet again, the ruler, Victor Emmanuel was terrified whilst they gained support from the nobles together with the middle class open-minded revolutionaries. The revolutionary government which was set up agitated for a self-governing Italian kingdom and proclaimed war on Austria. Victor Emmanuel relinquished in favor of Charles Felix, his brother. This accelerated the downfall of the liberation process. The 1820-1821 occurrences apparently made liberalism a lost cause on the entire region of Italy and its unification made unattainable. All the same, disturbances continued in Italy in such places like Parma and Modena. Sadly, these disturbances could not help in the unification process as they entertained the middle class at the expense of the rest (Beales & Biagini, pp. 112-23).
In the States of Papal, it was only the middle-class group that was in the protest front. The troops of Austria however crushed all the three disturbances which were indicative of the ease of halting a revolt. The main reason why these revolutions turned out unsuccessful was the fact that they were all together localized. Another reason was the fact that the middle-class led revolutions could not survive violence as they were not accustomed to it. The failure of the French to intervene on the part of revolutionaries also contributed to the loss. There was no significant change realized apart from the old-fashioned secret communities like the Carbonari together with the Federati which brought the idea that a new revolutionary politics style could garner support and the main image in the new belief was Giuseppe Mazzini (Astarita, pp. 187-264).
The 1848 revolution took place in a majority of the Italian parts. Pope Pius IX in Rome ran away since there were riots in the town. Reforms were declared by the government which was left behind. This included the provision of jobs for the unemployed, unpopular tax abolishment together with the holding together of a constituent which led to the formation of the Roman Republic. Despite these efforts made in the formation of the Roman Republic, it did not exist for long for its effect to be fully felt and realized. More challenges to the unification process emerged when the French took sides in 1849. The French were committed to the restoration of the Pope. This made Rome to give in on the 29th of June the same year. Revolutions ultimately were totally crushed and both Garibaldi and Mazzini were on exile.
Leaders of the Time
In 1852, Cavour was then a prime minister and was broadminded of the western kind. Cavour was not a war fanatic but was ready to engage in war in an attempt to make Italy one under the Savoy House. He sourced support from the French military while provoking Austria to a war. Cavour also mad a secrete treaty with Napoleon III and tricked Austria into war making the French army to invade their territories. All the same, this was not a success; support came only from the Italian states in the north. However, this was a big step made towards the right direction. Cavour’s ways were harsh but made Italy better (Holt, pp. 11-77).
Garibaldi was perceived a hero who lived in the USA and attained the Uruguay independence. Garibaldi created a group of followers with 1150 individuals known as the red shirts. This group armed themselves and moved towards the south. However, the Two Sicilies government lost all their trust and collapsed. The group moved to Rome where the French military and the Pope would keep in wait for them. Garibaldi had the desire to accept monarchy as the most efficacious solution. The problem came in because some of the followers were not fully supportive. The parliament that stood as a representation of Italy apart from Venetia and Rome came together and made a choice of becoming a single nation reigned over by god. The unifying process would have made progress if both Venetia and Rome were included but only Venetia was included to assist in war. Rome was however annexed (Beales & Biagini, pp. 202-33).
1848 -1849 Italy Revolutions
The main reason as to why the revolutions of 1848-1849 did not succeed was due to the division realized in Italy as at then. More weakness was attributed to the different objectives held by the various revolutions. It was therefore hard to reach a consensus. Italy therefore existed in independent states which anticipated different things. A percentage of the states wanted a republic to run them rather than money. The Pope’s desertion in the revolution was fully backed by the catholic supporters. Not a single state consented to the idea concerning taking Austria away from Venetia and Lombardy. The Austrians was one of the major factors that made the Italian revolutions fail (Astarita, pp. 187-264).
In the beginning of 1848, people never bought tobacco or even played the lottery since it fed the assets belonging to Austria. Anger flared up in the Austrians and they ended up killing several citizens from Italy. Later on Austria took over Ferrara. The desire of the Italians was to take away from the north east of Venetia and Lombardy. The armies of Austria had superior weapons compared to the Italians. The Austrian troops were even more by 45,000 troops. Italy had only 30,000 troops. The only opportunity to success for the Italians was when Austria concentrated so much on the revolutions at home. Lack of enough troops to counteract to those of the Austrians was also a great challenge to the Italian unification. Radetzky was a very knowledgeable general and was a great advantage of the Austrians over the Italians. Austria denied Italy chance to unify. Radetzky leadership was very critical to the army of the Austrians which had superior weapons than the Italian army. Owing to the fact that the Italian states could not come to an agreement on the things they wanted, Austrian army easily stooped the Italian revolts (Holt, pp. 11-77).
Charles Albert and Pope Pius IX
Charles Albert, the Savoy king was a key hindrance to the failure in the revolutions. Charles failed by disapproving assistance from foreign countries. He asserted that Italy did not need such help from foreign powers. It was possible for Charles to attack Austria at their point of emaciation but he delayed in doing so in a week’s time and moreover, the communication lines of the Austrians were not cut. Another failure that was contributed by Charles Albert was the division he made on the western border troops since he feared that the French could invade them. Poor equipping of the Charles led troops as indicated by the lack of maps and enough men were a major setback to the unification process. Pope Pius IX supported the revolutions from the start but on realizing that Catholics actively participated through fighting, he rescinded. The opinions of the Pope as at this time owing to the beliefs of the religion downplayed the efforts made in making Italy as one nation. The revolutions failed as a result of the Pope’s stand along the way. A big number of the citizens made a choice between their political principles and their religion. The Italian army became weak consequentially (Astarita, pp. 187-264).
Division amongst Revolutions
Many revolutions experienced disunity. Despite having a common agenda of dealing with Austria, it happened to be the only thing that they held in similarity. Charles Albert yearned for the support from all other states by pledging allegiance to him to attack Austria. Not everybody was comfortable with this and thus the army was made weak. Apparently the leader’s ambitions overrode the national interests. Rome and Venetia for instance longed for a republic whilst Charles desired a monarchy. Other states however wanted rule by the Pope. As clearly seen in this context, there was no a united front that existed between the different Italian states hence the revolution to defeat Austria was weak and worked out for Austria instead.
French Policies and Napoleon III
Napoleon III brought a lot of impact on Italy although he did not affect all states in a positive way. Napoleon played a significant role in the annexation of Lombardy from Piedmont. Cavour, the Italian nationalist met with Napoleon at Plombierees which led to the formation of an agreement. This is where a war was planned between a mixture of the troops of Piedmontese and those of France and Austria. There was a hope of success for Piedmont. It was anticipated that after Piedmont’s success in the war, the territories of Austria, north of Italy would merge with Piedmont forming Upper Italy Kingdom. Provoking a war with Austria was made a success by Cavour. Piedmont’s provision of 20,000 soldiers was however a big blow to the initiated war compared to an army of almost 110,000 Austrians. Napoleon stood to his word providing 200,000 men to counteract to the Austrian forces (Holt, pp. 11-77).
The French joined forces with Napoleon and Austria apparently worried about their defeat at the Solferino and Magenta battles. Piedmontese performed a significant role at Solferino but not at Magenta. There was a lot of carnage from either side. Napoleon did not like the results of the war as many soldiers were lost. Napoleon responded by signing a peace treaty at Villafranca with Austria. The French ultimately got an opportunity to protect their borders from Prussia. The interests and the actions of Cavour in Tuscany were later controlled by France. Lombardy was later handed over to France who eventually gave Piedmont. This was a proof to all the war affiliates that Piedmont could not acquire Lombardy owing to the stability of Austria in war. Napoleon’s surrender by signing a peace treaty with Austria on this occasion slowed down the unification process (Beales & Biagini, pp. 56-123).
End of Napoleon Rule
After the end of Napoleon rule, former rulers took over and made an effort to take matters back to the traditional setting. However, this was a milestone. People had gone through great changes and experiences which were deemed disturbing. It was therefore very hard to make sense to the people on going back to the initial state in Italy. Even at this point, Italy could not unify owing to a lot of confusion that was authored by the exit of leaders and the rule of napoleon and the French policies (Davis, pp. 55-89).
Therefore, Italy was mad; this is the way the phrase of the time defined the situation. This was a high-minded nationalism of culture of Mazzini, the bravery of Garibaldi, together with the Cavour cold policy. However, unification was attained in Italy through insurrections, endorsement of common votes and armed violence. The Italians failed to surrender and were initially a bunch of independent states in the same country. The unification process was an idea to make Italy a brotherhood of Italians who hold on to the progress and duty law with convictions that the destination of Italy was in becoming one state. All this had its beginning and inspiration from the literature written by Mazzini who wrote concerning his strong convictions on unity even at a time when the Pope then did not stand up to nationalism. This movement of becoming a single state needed the Italians support otherwise it was doomed to fail.
Generally, separation and localism traditions were a key factor which frustrated the efforts of unifying Italy. The southern and the northern parts were absolutely different in the ways of living. The consciousness of same nationality was not significantly developed; neither was there a national flag. The entire Italy was a place of all against all. Geographically, the natural barriers of mountains are apparently an impendent to the unification process in Italy. The lack of co-operation between the Italian states from pre-historic times was utilized to separate existence. These states also had diverse administrative organizations. The unification process experienced another blow because there was lack of unity economically. The North Italian community together having rich resources could develop easily compared to the backward community in the South. This status of both the North and the South significantly divided the ancient Italy. Owing to these factors, it became hard to establish where the best government would emanate from. Apparently, no region would succumb to the demands of the other and this further made unification a nightmare. This was so because the South did not contribute effectively commercially, industrially and generally to the common progress of Italy (Astarita, pp. 187-264).
The Pope temporarily had authority and somehow reigned in the central Italian region. Austria support together with the assistance coming from loyal Catholics along with France made Italy a divided region. Pope stood in opposition to any lobby group that would put his authority in danger over the Papal States. Italy in this state could not unify and the unification idea was far out of reach. The Pope’s territory included a wedge between the southern and northern Italian parts. The Papal States could therefore not reform and change was made impossible throughout the entire Italy. French policies and ideas through Napoleon rule caused a number of leaders in Italy to flee. What initially were well organized states pulled apart because there were no leaders in positions previously held before the French policies were established. In fact, Mazzini and Garibaldi in 1850 fled into exile yet another time (Davis, pp. 55-89). Therefore, these Italian rulers fled or rather came out of reign consequently creating power vacuums and new political agendas and ideas. Such were the state of affairs of the unification process in Italy.
Most popular orders | 3,464 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states by the Congress.
What does it Mean?
The 22nd Amendment prohibits any person from being elected to the presidency more than twice (two terms). The amendment was supported by those who opposed the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt to a fourth term as president. In addition, no president who has served more than two terms of someone else's term can be elected more than once (such as in the case of the assassination of the president). | <urn:uuid:85376deb-4759-4494-bb68-296c6bfa649c> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://mrnussbaum.com/amendment-22-united-states-constitution-interactive | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250597230.18/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120023523-20200120051523-00021.warc.gz | en | 0.986544 | 267 | 3.46875 | 3 | [
-0.19397400319576263,
0.08329400420188904,
0.10351143032312393,
-0.2146976888179779,
-0.28137025237083435,
0.3979645073413849,
0.643600344657898,
-0.14919814467430115,
0.4460870623588562,
0.1887824684381485,
0.38499489426612854,
0.431181401014328,
0.12483172863721848,
0.15348799526691437,
... | 1 | Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.
Section 2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states by the Congress.
What does it Mean?
The 22nd Amendment prohibits any person from being elected to the presidency more than twice (two terms). The amendment was supported by those who opposed the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt to a fourth term as president. In addition, no president who has served more than two terms of someone else's term can be elected more than once (such as in the case of the assassination of the president). | 268 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Martellos are small defensive forts built in several countries of the British Empire during the 19th century, from the time of the Napoleonic Wars onward.
These forts stand up to 40 feet high (with two floors) and typically had a garrison of one officer and 15–25 men. Their round structure and thick walls of solid masonry made them resistant to cannon fire, while their height made them an ideal platform for a single heavy artillery piece, mounted on the flat roof and able to traverse a 360° arc. A few towers had moats for extra defence. The Martello towers were used during the first half of the 19th century, but became obsolete with the introduction of powerful rifled artillery. Many have survived to the present day, often preserved as historic monuments.
The interior of a classic British Martello tower consisted of three stories (sometimes with an additional basement). The ground floor served as the magazine and storerooms, where ammunition, stores and provisions were kept. The garrison of 24 men and one officer lived in a casemate on the first floor, which was divided into several rooms and had fireplaces built into the walls for cooking and heating. The officer and men lived in separate rooms of almost equal size. The roof or terreplein was surmounted with one or two cannons on a central pivot that enabled the guns to rotate up to 360 degrees. A well or cistern within the fort supplied the garrison with water. An internal drainage system linked to the roof enabled rainwater to refill the cistern.
Website Designed for Friends of the Key West Cemetery© 2011 | <urn:uuid:8ef8b5cb-1b18-40b2-80a5-0a71453e7e6a> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://www.friendsofthekeywestcemetery.com/Dictionary/MartelloTower.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250605075.24/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121192553-20200121221553-00016.warc.gz | en | 0.980684 | 324 | 3.796875 | 4 | [
-0.16866397857666016,
0.3950797915458679,
0.6891800165176392,
-0.2989143133163452,
-0.150274395942688,
0.0050314851105213165,
-0.276787668466568,
0.2850695252418518,
-0.47277361154556274,
-0.5376062989234924,
-0.2987201511859894,
-0.43802574276924133,
0.4051591753959656,
0.6208634376525879... | 3 | Martellos are small defensive forts built in several countries of the British Empire during the 19th century, from the time of the Napoleonic Wars onward.
These forts stand up to 40 feet high (with two floors) and typically had a garrison of one officer and 15–25 men. Their round structure and thick walls of solid masonry made them resistant to cannon fire, while their height made them an ideal platform for a single heavy artillery piece, mounted on the flat roof and able to traverse a 360° arc. A few towers had moats for extra defence. The Martello towers were used during the first half of the 19th century, but became obsolete with the introduction of powerful rifled artillery. Many have survived to the present day, often preserved as historic monuments.
The interior of a classic British Martello tower consisted of three stories (sometimes with an additional basement). The ground floor served as the magazine and storerooms, where ammunition, stores and provisions were kept. The garrison of 24 men and one officer lived in a casemate on the first floor, which was divided into several rooms and had fireplaces built into the walls for cooking and heating. The officer and men lived in separate rooms of almost equal size. The roof or terreplein was surmounted with one or two cannons on a central pivot that enabled the guns to rotate up to 360 degrees. A well or cistern within the fort supplied the garrison with water. An internal drainage system linked to the roof enabled rainwater to refill the cistern.
Website Designed for Friends of the Key West Cemetery© 2011 | 346 | ENGLISH | 1 |
For some of my students, this entire lesson (and yesterday's lesson) was just a little bit too slow. I had some idea of who these students would be, but I used today's warm-up to help suss them out. I asked my students who were already a bit advanced with respect to the day's investigation to:
Then I game them some laptops and asked them to create these graphs: Extension Graphs.
I wanted the task to be challenging, so I didn't give them any guidance on the math concepts behind the graphs. I did clarify some of the details about how to use the brackets and the notation in Desmos.com, but other than that I didn't give them much coaching.
This was an easy way to make this lesson way more effective, because these students were highly engaged in a task that was basically self-checking (the computers showed them the graphs, so they didn't need me to check their work).
Even though it was only 4 students in each of my classes, several things were accomplished as a result: (1) the students who took longer to understand the material couldn't just turn to their advanced peers and ask them for the answers and (2) the students who might have finished quickly didn't have the chance to distract others.
These exit ticket questions shift the focus of the day from the concrete to the abstract (MP2): Real World Applications of Piecewise Functions Exit Ticket. Students will be introduced to the phrase piecewise function. If they haven’t already understood the meaning of this concept, you can ask them what they think it means and how they think it relates to the functions that they explored in class today.
The goal is for students to be able to explain that the inequalities come from the domain restrictions that tell us when to use each input rule to find the desired outputs. We can find the outputs the usual way, by successfully applying the function rule. Even if students are not able to explain this right now, they can start thinking about this question.
Finally, this closing also introduces the concept of continuity or continuous piecewise functions. This is a another thing just thrown in the at the end of the lesson, but I like to do this just so that students are exposed to the word and the idea. Obviously we will keep coming back to it in future lessons. I tell them this just to make sure that they don’t worry if they don’t fully understand this so far. | <urn:uuid:74f57fd5-6dc4-446e-acd0-9c2418550034> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://betterlesson.com/lesson/442708/real-world-applications-of-piecewise-functions?from=breadcrumb_lesson | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251796127.92/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129102701-20200129132701-00407.warc.gz | en | 0.982645 | 504 | 3.34375 | 3 | [
-0.33211302757263184,
-0.3094884157180786,
0.16182953119277954,
-0.607535719871521,
-0.4273916780948639,
0.09780805557966232,
-0.017496980726718903,
0.5283136963844299,
0.368720144033432,
-0.1294059455394745,
0.18150590360164642,
0.10023768246173859,
0.3542005717754364,
0.3153699040412903,... | 7 | For some of my students, this entire lesson (and yesterday's lesson) was just a little bit too slow. I had some idea of who these students would be, but I used today's warm-up to help suss them out. I asked my students who were already a bit advanced with respect to the day's investigation to:
Then I game them some laptops and asked them to create these graphs: Extension Graphs.
I wanted the task to be challenging, so I didn't give them any guidance on the math concepts behind the graphs. I did clarify some of the details about how to use the brackets and the notation in Desmos.com, but other than that I didn't give them much coaching.
This was an easy way to make this lesson way more effective, because these students were highly engaged in a task that was basically self-checking (the computers showed them the graphs, so they didn't need me to check their work).
Even though it was only 4 students in each of my classes, several things were accomplished as a result: (1) the students who took longer to understand the material couldn't just turn to their advanced peers and ask them for the answers and (2) the students who might have finished quickly didn't have the chance to distract others.
These exit ticket questions shift the focus of the day from the concrete to the abstract (MP2): Real World Applications of Piecewise Functions Exit Ticket. Students will be introduced to the phrase piecewise function. If they haven’t already understood the meaning of this concept, you can ask them what they think it means and how they think it relates to the functions that they explored in class today.
The goal is for students to be able to explain that the inequalities come from the domain restrictions that tell us when to use each input rule to find the desired outputs. We can find the outputs the usual way, by successfully applying the function rule. Even if students are not able to explain this right now, they can start thinking about this question.
Finally, this closing also introduces the concept of continuity or continuous piecewise functions. This is a another thing just thrown in the at the end of the lesson, but I like to do this just so that students are exposed to the word and the idea. Obviously we will keep coming back to it in future lessons. I tell them this just to make sure that they don’t worry if they don’t fully understand this so far. | 490 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.