Split (1)

train · 729k rows

text string	id string	dump string	url string	file_path string	language string	language_score float64	token_count int64	score float64	int_score int64	embedding list	count int64	Content string	Tokens int64	Top_Lang string	Top_Conf float64
At Drake, books and reading are at the heart of everything we do. Enjoying books and reading stories from a very early age is crucial in the development of children. It helps with their ability to understand words, use their imagination and develop their speech, as well as being something they really enjoy. Both teachers and parents play a huge part in the development of reading skills in young children. The more children experience books the more they will gain the interest and passion for them. Reading offers so much more than just quiet time in a cosy corner (though that in itself is an important time), it helps to develop spelling, listening, writing, literacy and social skills. Young children need to be able to experience books; they need to be able to understand and enjoy stories, books, rhymes and songs and listen and respond to them with curiosity and enjoyment.This will promote the value and pleasure of reading and encourage an interest in reading throughout school and in later life.	<urn:uuid:5bdb5aec-6653-4042-bbec-c504b534087a>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.drake.norfolk.sch.uk/reading/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251783000.84/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128184745-20200128214745-00345.warc.gz	en	0.980879	194	3.328125	3	[ 0.22878386080265045, 0.17795664072036743, 0.5106430649757385, -0.3797747790813446, -0.5057888031005859, -0.06723771244287491, -0.08505041897296906, -0.06618428230285645, -0.08310836553573608, -0.07275616377592087, -0.07750630378723145, 0.13556727766990662, 0.21786698698997498, 0.5793429017...	2	At Drake, books and reading are at the heart of everything we do. Enjoying books and reading stories from a very early age is crucial in the development of children. It helps with their ability to understand words, use their imagination and develop their speech, as well as being something they really enjoy. Both teachers and parents play a huge part in the development of reading skills in young children. The more children experience books the more they will gain the interest and passion for them. Reading offers so much more than just quiet time in a cosy corner (though that in itself is an important time), it helps to develop spelling, listening, writing, literacy and social skills. Young children need to be able to experience books; they need to be able to understand and enjoy stories, books, rhymes and songs and listen and respond to them with curiosity and enjoyment.This will promote the value and pleasure of reading and encourage an interest in reading throughout school and in later life.	192	ENGLISH	1
Harry S Truman – President of US in 1945 Hairy 'S' true man (Harry S Truman). He became President in 1945 during the very last year of the war. NOTE: In Mammoth Memory number 45 is a RAIL (railway set) which can be seen on his desk. Harry S. Truman will always be remembered as the U.S.President who authorised the first use of nuclear bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, in August 1945. Truman became Vice President to Franklin D. Roosevelt when Roosevelt won a record fourth term of office at the end of 1944, taking office in January 1945. His Vice Presidency lasted just 82 days – Roosevelt died suddenly of a cerebral haemorrhage on April 12, 1945. Taking over as President, Truman initially felt ill-equipped for the role, as Roosevelt, who had not realised how ill he was, had made little effort to inform Truman about current programmes and plans. However, he began his presidency with great energy, helping to arrange Germany’s unconditional surrender and travelling to Potsdam, near Berlin, in July 1945 for a meeting with Allied leaders to discuss the fate of postwar Germany. While in Potsdam, Truman received word of the successful test of an atomic bomb back home in New Mexico, and it was from Potsdam that he sent an ultimatum to Japan to surrender or face “utter devastation”. Japan did not surrender. Truman's advisers estimated that up to 500,000 Americans might be killed in an invasion of Japan. In August 1945, he authorized the dropping of atomic bombs on the cities of Hiroshima (August 6) and Nagasaki (August 9). It is estimated that more than 100,000 men, women, and children died. A few days later, Japan announced its unconditional surrender. It remains the most controversial decision ever made by a U.S. president – one that experts continue to debate today. Truman came from humble beginnings – his father was a mule trader and farmer. One of his first jobs was as a bank clerk in Kansas City. In 1914, following his father's death, he took over management of the family's farm. When the U.S. entered World War I in 1917, Truman – then nearly 33 – immediately volunteered. He served in France as captain of a field artillery unit. The men under his command were devoted to him, admiring his bravery and even-handed leadership. He launched his political career in 1922, eventually becoming a Senator for the state of Missouri. In 1948, against the odds, and largely due to his energetic campaigning throughout America, Truman won a second term as President. He died in 1972, aged 88. Interesting fact: Truman took a firm stand against communism. In 1948, he signed the Marshall plan, which committed $15 billion for the restoration of postwar Europe – an act which helped prevent the spread of communism across the continent. The Marshall Plan was seen by many as the start of the Cold War between Eastern Europe and the West.	<urn:uuid:702cbc4a-90d0-461f-bc14-71027c0e59aa>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://mammothmemory.net/history/world-war-ii/important-people-of-world-war-ii/harry-s-truman.html	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250604397.40/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121132900-20200121161900-00551.warc.gz	en	0.983117	628	3.71875	4	[ -0.3765529990196228, 0.539386510848999, 0.3358074426651001, -0.4463407099246979, 0.03530207276344299, 0.31238728761672974, 0.3922380208969116, -0.20244014263153076, -0.05604933947324753, 0.08012261986732483, 0.8133827447891235, 0.22574970126152039, 0.5021321177482605, 0.9236751794815063, ...	14	Harry S Truman – President of US in 1945 Hairy 'S' true man (Harry S Truman). He became President in 1945 during the very last year of the war. NOTE: In Mammoth Memory number 45 is a RAIL (railway set) which can be seen on his desk. Harry S. Truman will always be remembered as the U.S.President who authorised the first use of nuclear bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, in August 1945. Truman became Vice President to Franklin D. Roosevelt when Roosevelt won a record fourth term of office at the end of 1944, taking office in January 1945. His Vice Presidency lasted just 82 days – Roosevelt died suddenly of a cerebral haemorrhage on April 12, 1945. Taking over as President, Truman initially felt ill-equipped for the role, as Roosevelt, who had not realised how ill he was, had made little effort to inform Truman about current programmes and plans. However, he began his presidency with great energy, helping to arrange Germany’s unconditional surrender and travelling to Potsdam, near Berlin, in July 1945 for a meeting with Allied leaders to discuss the fate of postwar Germany. While in Potsdam, Truman received word of the successful test of an atomic bomb back home in New Mexico, and it was from Potsdam that he sent an ultimatum to Japan to surrender or face “utter devastation”. Japan did not surrender. Truman's advisers estimated that up to 500,000 Americans might be killed in an invasion of Japan. In August 1945, he authorized the dropping of atomic bombs on the cities of Hiroshima (August 6) and Nagasaki (August 9). It is estimated that more than 100,000 men, women, and children died. A few days later, Japan announced its unconditional surrender. It remains the most controversial decision ever made by a U.S. president – one that experts continue to debate today. Truman came from humble beginnings – his father was a mule trader and farmer. One of his first jobs was as a bank clerk in Kansas City. In 1914, following his father's death, he took over management of the family's farm. When the U.S. entered World War I in 1917, Truman – then nearly 33 – immediately volunteered. He served in France as captain of a field artillery unit. The men under his command were devoted to him, admiring his bravery and even-handed leadership. He launched his political career in 1922, eventually becoming a Senator for the state of Missouri. In 1948, against the odds, and largely due to his energetic campaigning throughout America, Truman won a second term as President. He died in 1972, aged 88. Interesting fact: Truman took a firm stand against communism. In 1948, he signed the Marshall plan, which committed $15 billion for the restoration of postwar Europe – an act which helped prevent the spread of communism across the continent. The Marshall Plan was seen by many as the start of the Cold War between Eastern Europe and the West.	686	ENGLISH	1
The sentence suggested by your teacher is incorrect. This creates two independent clauses pushed together without any conjunction. A comma cannot fix this because it will create a comma splice, "Then he saw the brother, he thought he was dead." Think of this sentence: "Then he ate the cake, he enjoyed it very much." People make the mistake of joining these two sentences with a comma because they think of a comma as "a speaking pause," and in spoken language someone would say these two sentences and pause between them. But in written language it doesn't work that way. A comma could fix this (as well as a dash) by changing the last independent clause thus: "Then he saw the brother, the brother thought dead." I would use a dash: "Then he saw the brother--the brother thought dead." I would actually change the sentence to make it more clear: "Then he saw the brother believed to be dead." For the reasons John Lawler pointed out, it is not necessary to add "who was" in the sentence. That said, I still might add the "who was." Other readers can weigh in on that clarity issue. The sentence is ambiguous, though. WHO thought he was dead? Was it the speaker of the sentence, or another he? Grammatically, as Professor Lawler pointed out it is clear, however I think readers might wonder. (I think that's what your teacher was thinking.) "Then John saw the brother Bob thought was dead." (to add names to help you see the point I'm making.) I think if you change "thought" to "believe" it might be better: "Then he saw the brother he believed was dead." Speaking as a teacher, I have marked things on student papers, and then had students come back and ask "Why did you mark this wrong?" Most of the time, I was correct. However there have been times when I look and cannot see why I marked something wrong, or see that I was not considering something else. I always correct my error and say "I'm sorry. You were correct." Politely ask your teacher, "Can you help me understand why this is incorrect?" I don't know your cultural background, so possibly this is not acceptable. Remember, teachers are guides. They are not perfect. If they are good, then they realize they are students just as much as the students they teach.	<urn:uuid:251cb032-4824-439a-8fb7-0edfdc7dfaea>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/274420/subject-omission	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250606269.37/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122012204-20200122041204-00393.warc.gz	en	0.990085	490	3.515625	4	[ -0.6252657175064087, -0.546079695224762, 0.23772351443767548, -0.37952926754951477, -0.2737042307853699, -0.3800894618034363, 0.2831757068634033, 0.18337440490722656, 0.42862117290496826, -0.06634389609098434, 0.1547391563653946, -0.09403764456510544, -0.04717549309134483, 0.51847714185714...	4	The sentence suggested by your teacher is incorrect. This creates two independent clauses pushed together without any conjunction. A comma cannot fix this because it will create a comma splice, "Then he saw the brother, he thought he was dead." Think of this sentence: "Then he ate the cake, he enjoyed it very much." People make the mistake of joining these two sentences with a comma because they think of a comma as "a speaking pause," and in spoken language someone would say these two sentences and pause between them. But in written language it doesn't work that way. A comma could fix this (as well as a dash) by changing the last independent clause thus: "Then he saw the brother, the brother thought dead." I would use a dash: "Then he saw the brother--the brother thought dead." I would actually change the sentence to make it more clear: "Then he saw the brother believed to be dead." For the reasons John Lawler pointed out, it is not necessary to add "who was" in the sentence. That said, I still might add the "who was." Other readers can weigh in on that clarity issue. The sentence is ambiguous, though. WHO thought he was dead? Was it the speaker of the sentence, or another he? Grammatically, as Professor Lawler pointed out it is clear, however I think readers might wonder. (I think that's what your teacher was thinking.) "Then John saw the brother Bob thought was dead." (to add names to help you see the point I'm making.) I think if you change "thought" to "believe" it might be better: "Then he saw the brother he believed was dead." Speaking as a teacher, I have marked things on student papers, and then had students come back and ask "Why did you mark this wrong?" Most of the time, I was correct. However there have been times when I look and cannot see why I marked something wrong, or see that I was not considering something else. I always correct my error and say "I'm sorry. You were correct." Politely ask your teacher, "Can you help me understand why this is incorrect?" I don't know your cultural background, so possibly this is not acceptable. Remember, teachers are guides. They are not perfect. If they are good, then they realize they are students just as much as the students they teach.	487	ENGLISH	1
Decline of the Second Reconstruction The Second Reconstruction is broadly defined as the time period in America after the passing of the Civil rights act of 1964, which brought about the necessity for an efficient transition into racial and sociopolitical equality. During the following years this was not achieved and several movements were constituted that attempted to bring this wish into reality through enthusiastic albeit unsuccessful political, social and cultural actions. The following is a chronological narrative and sociopolitical analysis of those attempts. Prelude: Nixon Administration and the Suppression of a Revolution In the late1960’s American politics were shifting at a National level with liberalism being less supported as its politics were perceived as flawed, both by people on the left who thought that liberalism was not as effective as more radical political enterprises and by conservatives who believed that liberal politics were ostensibly crippling the American economy. This political shift was materialized with the advent of the Southern Strategy in which Democrat president Lyndon Johnson’s support of Civil Rights harmed his political power in the South, Nixon and the republican party picked up on these formerly blue states and promoted conservative politics in order to gain a larger voter representation. Nixon was elected in a year drenched in social and political unrest as race riots occurred in 118 U.S cities at the aftermath of Martin Luther King’s murder, as well as overall American bitterness due to the assassination of presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy and the extensive student-led activist opposition to the Vietnam War. The late 1960’s also saw the advent of several movements promoting Black Nationalism to unify the African-American community through the efforts of Black Power, most notably the formation of the Black Panthers in 1967 who were dedicated to oversee the protection of African-Americans against police brutality and the support of disadvantaged street children through their Free breakfast for Children program. During this time black power was politically reflected through the electorate as the 1960-70’s saw a rise in Black elected officials. In 1969 there were a total of 994 black men and 131 black women in office in the country, this figure more than tripled by 1975 when there were 2969 black men and 530 black women acting in office; more than half of these elected officials were acting in Southern States. While these politicians belonged to desegregationist organizations such as NAACP or the CORE they were not political activists and even though they had a mutual understanding for the black working class they had a different outlook mostly in concurrence to the black elite. It is also important to note that lower-educated African-Americans tended not to vote, as the black electorate was mostly composed of people who had gone through more than 5 years of formal education. The emergence of Black...	<urn:uuid:b450b332-5d74-48a3-94b0-fa699e9234c1>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://brightkite.com/essay-on/demise-of-the-second-reconstruction	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251776516.99/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128060946-20200128090946-00428.warc.gz	en	0.982335	545	3.453125	3	[ -0.35740208625793457, 0.30303966999053955, -0.04729238152503967, -0.09427370131015778, -0.09155254811048508, 0.4890865385532379, -0.4857695400714874, -0.10014209151268005, -0.21429331600666046, 0.1548708826303482, 0.38795220851898193, 0.0817425400018692, 0.2438575029373169, 0.0958594009280...	1	Decline of the Second Reconstruction The Second Reconstruction is broadly defined as the time period in America after the passing of the Civil rights act of 1964, which brought about the necessity for an efficient transition into racial and sociopolitical equality. During the following years this was not achieved and several movements were constituted that attempted to bring this wish into reality through enthusiastic albeit unsuccessful political, social and cultural actions. The following is a chronological narrative and sociopolitical analysis of those attempts. Prelude: Nixon Administration and the Suppression of a Revolution In the late1960’s American politics were shifting at a National level with liberalism being less supported as its politics were perceived as flawed, both by people on the left who thought that liberalism was not as effective as more radical political enterprises and by conservatives who believed that liberal politics were ostensibly crippling the American economy. This political shift was materialized with the advent of the Southern Strategy in which Democrat president Lyndon Johnson’s support of Civil Rights harmed his political power in the South, Nixon and the republican party picked up on these formerly blue states and promoted conservative politics in order to gain a larger voter representation. Nixon was elected in a year drenched in social and political unrest as race riots occurred in 118 U.S cities at the aftermath of Martin Luther King’s murder, as well as overall American bitterness due to the assassination of presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy and the extensive student-led activist opposition to the Vietnam War. The late 1960’s also saw the advent of several movements promoting Black Nationalism to unify the African-American community through the efforts of Black Power, most notably the formation of the Black Panthers in 1967 who were dedicated to oversee the protection of African-Americans against police brutality and the support of disadvantaged street children through their Free breakfast for Children program. During this time black power was politically reflected through the electorate as the 1960-70’s saw a rise in Black elected officials. In 1969 there were a total of 994 black men and 131 black women in office in the country, this figure more than tripled by 1975 when there were 2969 black men and 530 black women acting in office; more than half of these elected officials were acting in Southern States. While these politicians belonged to desegregationist organizations such as NAACP or the CORE they were not political activists and even though they had a mutual understanding for the black working class they had a different outlook mostly in concurrence to the black elite. It is also important to note that lower-educated African-Americans tended not to vote, as the black electorate was mostly composed of people who had gone through more than 5 years of formal education. The emergence of Black...	568	ENGLISH	1
Killing the Sea Monsters Two views on submarine versus submarine warfare were recorded after the end of the war where this type of combat was first initiated. Prior to this time, no submarines had been engaged in direct combat with each other. The challenges of the technology, the nature of the sea and the unknowns of the vessels made it nearly impossible for any such combat to have occurred. But the war brought with it many new challenges and opportunities. Man’s ability to cause new kinds of destruction was unleashed on a global stage. All of the pretenses of chivalry and fairness were obliterated in the massive killing fields on the continent and the wide ranges of the oceans. Even women and children were suddenly thrust into the danger zone. While the Germans were the first to offensively use submarines, it wasn’t long before the British and Americans would see the opportunity to answer the Central Powers in spades. The American View in 1920 The design of submarines during and after the First World War was influenced in the United States by the Naval Consulting Board. Josephus Daniels was the controversial Secretary of the Navy that formed the board. “The Naval Consulting Board was not a war organization. It was called into being in 1915, long before America entered the World War, and it gave to naval problems study and research and investigation before the stress of war laid the imperative hand upon all Americans. During the war the individual members of the board, eminent and busy men whose services were in demand by the biggest concerns in the world, forgot their private business and individual pursuits and were as fully and wholeheartedly enlisted in the service of their country as any man who fought on land or sea. The president of the board, Mr. Thomas A. Edison, left his laboratory and practically became a naval officer, spending long months in the Navy Department and extended periods of deep-sea cruising that he might be in the closest touch with the problems to be solved. Other members of the board gave themselves and their talent as fully.” SUBMARINES USED AGAINST SUBMARINES. “Submarines have very low visibility. They were primarily designed to operate against the large surface vessels, and it has been the general impression that submarines are not effective against submarines. This belief was also held by the general naval staffs of the various combatants at the beginning of the war; however, allied submarines have been successfully used in destroying enemy submarines. In operating against hostile submarines, the hunting submarine may employ one of two methods — it may remain totally submerged and take observations by thrusting up the periscope every few minutes, or it may remain on the surface and only dive when the enemy submarine is sighted. In both cases the hunting submarine maneuvers very slowly, in order to avoid attracting the attention of the enemy, and to prevent detection by means of listening devices. The method of total submergence is used in restricted waters, such as channels and lanes through which the enemy submarine must pass. Torpedoes are used when submarines fight each other, and, if possible, the extremely effective ram. All submarines can ram without specially designed devices for so doing.” Naval Consulting Board of the United States, by Lloyd N. Scott, late captain, U.S.A., and liaison officer to the Naval Consulting Board Washington, Govt. Print. Off., 1920 DUELS BETWEEN SUBMARINES Harper’s pictorial library of the world war … New York Harper & brothers, [c1920] EARLY in the war experts informed us that the submarine itself was useless for fighting the submarine because it was too blind. During the war, however, this dictum went overboard along with several other pre- war notions. Sir Henry Newbolt, in his book Submarine and Anti-Submarine, collected a number of tales of submarine duels, of which the following are examples: “Let us take first the case of E-54, Lieut. Com. Robert H. T. Raikes, which shows a record of two successes within less than four months — one obtained with comparative ease, the other with great difficulty. The first of the two needs no detailed account or comment. E-54, on passage to her patrol ground, had the good fortune to sight three U-boats in succession before she had gone far from her base. At two of these she fired without getting a hit; but the third she blew all to pieces, and picked up out of the oil and debris no less than seven prisoners. “Her next adventure was a much more arduous one. She started in mid-August on a seven-day cruise, and in the first four days saw nothing more exciting than a neutral cruiser carrying out target practice. On the morning of the fifth day, a U-boat was sighted at last; and after twenty-five minutes’ maneuvering, two torpedoes were fired at her, at a distance of 600 yards, with deflection for eleven knots. Her actual speed turned out to be more nearly six or seven knots, and both shots must have missed ahead of her. She dived immediately, and a third torpedo failed to catch her as she went down. “An hour and twenty minutes afterward she reappeared on the surface, and Lieutenant-Commander Raikes tried to cut her off, by steering close in to the bank by which she was evidently intending to pass. E-54 grounded on the bank, and her commander got her off with feelings that can be easily imagined. Less than an hour after, a U-boat — the same or another — was sighted coming down the same deep. Again Lieutenant-Commander Raikes tried to cut her off, and again he grounded in the attempt. He was forced to come to the surface when the enemy was still 2,000 yards away. To complete his ill-fortune, another U- boat was sighted within an hour and a quarter, but got away without a shot being possible. “Twenty-four hours later the luck turned, and all these disappointments were forgotten. At 2.6 p. m. Lieutenant-Commander Raikes sighted yet another U-boat in open water, on the old practice-ground of the neutral cruiser of three days before. He put E-54 to her full speed, and succeeded in overtaking the enemy. By 2.35 he had placed her in a winning position on the U-boat’s bow and at right angles to her course. At 400 yards’ range he fired two torpedoes, and had the satisfaction to see one of them detonate in a fine cloud of smoke and spray. When the smoke cleared away the U- boat had completely disappeared; there were no survivors. Next day, after dark, E-54’s time being up, she returned to her base, having had a full taste of despair and triumph. READY FOR A LIGHTNING SHOT “Earlier in the year, Lieutenant Bradshaw, in G-13, had had a somewhat similar experience. He went out to a distant patrol in cold March weather and had not been on the ground five hours when his adventures began. At 11.50 a. m. he was blinded by a snow-squall; and when he emerged from it, he immediately sighted a large hostile submarine within shot. Unfortunately the U-boat sighted G-13 at the same moment, and the two dived simultaneously. This, as may easily be imagined, is one of the most trying of all positions in the submarine game, and so difficult as to be almost insoluble. The first of the two adversaries to move will very probably be the one to fall in the duel; yet a move must be made sooner or later, and the boldest will be the first to move. “Lieutenant Bradshaw seems to have done the right thing both ways. For an hour and a half he lay quiet, listening for any sign of the U-boat’s intentions; then, at 1.30 p.m. he came to the surface, prepared for a lightning shot or an instantaneous maneuver. No more complete disappointment could be imagined. He could see no trace of the enemy — he had not even the excitement of being shot at. On the following day he was up early, and spent nearly eleven fruitless hours knocking about in a sea which grew heavier and heavier from the south-southeast. Then came another hour which made ample amends. A LONG SHOT IN ROUGH WATER “At 3.55 p.m., a large U-boat came in sight, steering due west. Lieutenant Bradshaw carried out a rapid dive and brought his tubes to the ready courses and speeds as requisite for attack. “The maneuvering which followed took over half an hour, and must have seemed interminably long to everyone in G-13. At 4.30 the enemy made the tension still greater by altering course some 35 degrees. It was not until 4:49 that Lieutenant Bradshaw found himself exactly where all commanders would wish to be, eight points on the enemy’s bow. He estimated the Q-boat’s speed at eight knots, allowed l8 degrees’ deflection accordingly, and fired twice. It was a long shot in rough water, and he had nearly a minute to wait for the result. Then came the longed-for sound of a heavy explosion. A column of water leapt up, directly under the U-boat’s conning-tower, and she disappeared instantly. Ten minutes afterward, G-13 was on the surface, and making her way through a vast lake of oil, which lay thickly upon the sea over an area of a mile. In such an oil-lake a swimmer has no margin of buoyancy, and it was not surprising there were no survivors to pick up. The only relics of the U-boat were some pieces of board from her interior fittings.” TWO “SUBS” IN A DEATH GRAPPLE In one instance two submarines caught sight of each other and charged like old time knights. The British vessel was the E-50. According to Sir Henry Newbolt: “The British commander drove straight at the enemy at full speed, and reached her before she had time to get down to a depth of complete invisibility. E-50 struck fair between the periscopes; her stem cut through the plates of the U-boat’s shell and remained embedded in her back. Then came a terrific fight, like the death-grapple of two primeval monsters. The German’s only chance, in his wounded condition, was to come to the surface before he was drowned by leakage; he blew his ballast tanks and struggled almost to the surface, bringing E-50 up with him. The English boat countered by flooding her main ballast-tanks and weighing her enemy down into the deep. This put the U-boat to the desperate necessity of freeing herself, leak or no leak. For a minute and a half she drew slowly aft, bumping E-50’s sides as she did so; then her effort seemed to cease, and her periscopes and conning-towers showed on E-50’s quarter. She was evidently filling fast; she had a list to starboard and was heavily down by the bows. As she sank, E-50 took breath and looked to her own condition. She was apparently uninjured, but she had negative buoyancy and her forward hydroplanes were jammed, so that it was a matter of great difficulty to get her to rise. After four strenuous minutes she was brought to the surface, and traversed the positions, reaching for any further sign of the U-boat or her crew. But nothing was seen beyond the inevitable lake of oil, pouring up like thick, rank, life-blood of the dead sea-monster.” This was the opening paragraph in the section of his book that talked about submarine versus submarine warfare: “Since submarines must be hunted, there is something especially attractive in the idea of setting other submarines to hunt them; it seems peculiarly just that while the pirate is lying in wait under water for his victim, he should himself be ambushed by an avenger hiding under the same waters and possessed of the same deadly weapons of offence.” As I think about the progress that would need to be made towards the ultimate goal of submarine versus submarine over the next few decades, this statement really captures the idea. The resulting Fast Attack variant of submarine was the only logical conclusion.	<urn:uuid:303140bc-e5e9-411e-af7e-1b29fb7f3674>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://theleansubmariner.com/2019/12/28/killing-the-sea-monsters/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250619323.41/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124100832-20200124125832-00532.warc.gz	en	0.98093	2,611	3.296875	3	[ -0.0777621939778328, 0.27284032106399536, -0.027315804734826088, -0.24086245894432068, 0.19488492608070374, -0.06954117119312286, -0.10226958245038986, 0.38901299238204956, -0.056942418217659, -0.366268515586853, 0.16742751002311707, 0.12781047821044922, 0.3954183757305145, 0.3816125094890...	13	Killing the Sea Monsters Two views on submarine versus submarine warfare were recorded after the end of the war where this type of combat was first initiated. Prior to this time, no submarines had been engaged in direct combat with each other. The challenges of the technology, the nature of the sea and the unknowns of the vessels made it nearly impossible for any such combat to have occurred. But the war brought with it many new challenges and opportunities. Man’s ability to cause new kinds of destruction was unleashed on a global stage. All of the pretenses of chivalry and fairness were obliterated in the massive killing fields on the continent and the wide ranges of the oceans. Even women and children were suddenly thrust into the danger zone. While the Germans were the first to offensively use submarines, it wasn’t long before the British and Americans would see the opportunity to answer the Central Powers in spades. The American View in 1920 The design of submarines during and after the First World War was influenced in the United States by the Naval Consulting Board. Josephus Daniels was the controversial Secretary of the Navy that formed the board. “The Naval Consulting Board was not a war organization. It was called into being in 1915, long before America entered the World War, and it gave to naval problems study and research and investigation before the stress of war laid the imperative hand upon all Americans. During the war the individual members of the board, eminent and busy men whose services were in demand by the biggest concerns in the world, forgot their private business and individual pursuits and were as fully and wholeheartedly enlisted in the service of their country as any man who fought on land or sea. The president of the board, Mr. Thomas A. Edison, left his laboratory and practically became a naval officer, spending long months in the Navy Department and extended periods of deep-sea cruising that he might be in the closest touch with the problems to be solved. Other members of the board gave themselves and their talent as fully.” SUBMARINES USED AGAINST SUBMARINES. “Submarines have very low visibility. They were primarily designed to operate against the large surface vessels, and it has been the general impression that submarines are not effective against submarines. This belief was also held by the general naval staffs of the various combatants at the beginning of the war; however, allied submarines have been successfully used in destroying enemy submarines. In operating against hostile submarines, the hunting submarine may employ one of two methods — it may remain totally submerged and take observations by thrusting up the periscope every few minutes, or it may remain on the surface and only dive when the enemy submarine is sighted. In both cases the hunting submarine maneuvers very slowly, in order to avoid attracting the attention of the enemy, and to prevent detection by means of listening devices. The method of total submergence is used in restricted waters, such as channels and lanes through which the enemy submarine must pass. Torpedoes are used when submarines fight each other, and, if possible, the extremely effective ram. All submarines can ram without specially designed devices for so doing.” Naval Consulting Board of the United States, by Lloyd N. Scott, late captain, U.S.A., and liaison officer to the Naval Consulting Board Washington, Govt. Print. Off., 1920 DUELS BETWEEN SUBMARINES Harper’s pictorial library of the world war … New York Harper & brothers, [c1920] EARLY in the war experts informed us that the submarine itself was useless for fighting the submarine because it was too blind. During the war, however, this dictum went overboard along with several other pre- war notions. Sir Henry Newbolt, in his book Submarine and Anti-Submarine, collected a number of tales of submarine duels, of which the following are examples: “Let us take first the case of E-54, Lieut. Com. Robert H. T. Raikes, which shows a record of two successes within less than four months — one obtained with comparative ease, the other with great difficulty. The first of the two needs no detailed account or comment. E-54, on passage to her patrol ground, had the good fortune to sight three U-boats in succession before she had gone far from her base. At two of these she fired without getting a hit; but the third she blew all to pieces, and picked up out of the oil and debris no less than seven prisoners. “Her next adventure was a much more arduous one. She started in mid-August on a seven-day cruise, and in the first four days saw nothing more exciting than a neutral cruiser carrying out target practice. On the morning of the fifth day, a U-boat was sighted at last; and after twenty-five minutes’ maneuvering, two torpedoes were fired at her, at a distance of 600 yards, with deflection for eleven knots. Her actual speed turned out to be more nearly six or seven knots, and both shots must have missed ahead of her. She dived immediately, and a third torpedo failed to catch her as she went down. “An hour and twenty minutes afterward she reappeared on the surface, and Lieutenant-Commander Raikes tried to cut her off, by steering close in to the bank by which she was evidently intending to pass. E-54 grounded on the bank, and her commander got her off with feelings that can be easily imagined. Less than an hour after, a U-boat — the same or another — was sighted coming down the same deep. Again Lieutenant-Commander Raikes tried to cut her off, and again he grounded in the attempt. He was forced to come to the surface when the enemy was still 2,000 yards away. To complete his ill-fortune, another U- boat was sighted within an hour and a quarter, but got away without a shot being possible. “Twenty-four hours later the luck turned, and all these disappointments were forgotten. At 2.6 p. m. Lieutenant-Commander Raikes sighted yet another U-boat in open water, on the old practice-ground of the neutral cruiser of three days before. He put E-54 to her full speed, and succeeded in overtaking the enemy. By 2.35 he had placed her in a winning position on the U-boat’s bow and at right angles to her course. At 400 yards’ range he fired two torpedoes, and had the satisfaction to see one of them detonate in a fine cloud of smoke and spray. When the smoke cleared away the U- boat had completely disappeared; there were no survivors. Next day, after dark, E-54’s time being up, she returned to her base, having had a full taste of despair and triumph. READY FOR A LIGHTNING SHOT “Earlier in the year, Lieutenant Bradshaw, in G-13, had had a somewhat similar experience. He went out to a distant patrol in cold March weather and had not been on the ground five hours when his adventures began. At 11.50 a. m. he was blinded by a snow-squall; and when he emerged from it, he immediately sighted a large hostile submarine within shot. Unfortunately the U-boat sighted G-13 at the same moment, and the two dived simultaneously. This, as may easily be imagined, is one of the most trying of all positions in the submarine game, and so difficult as to be almost insoluble. The first of the two adversaries to move will very probably be the one to fall in the duel; yet a move must be made sooner or later, and the boldest will be the first to move. “Lieutenant Bradshaw seems to have done the right thing both ways. For an hour and a half he lay quiet, listening for any sign of the U-boat’s intentions; then, at 1.30 p.m. he came to the surface, prepared for a lightning shot or an instantaneous maneuver. No more complete disappointment could be imagined. He could see no trace of the enemy — he had not even the excitement of being shot at. On the following day he was up early, and spent nearly eleven fruitless hours knocking about in a sea which grew heavier and heavier from the south-southeast. Then came another hour which made ample amends. A LONG SHOT IN ROUGH WATER “At 3.55 p.m., a large U-boat came in sight, steering due west. Lieutenant Bradshaw carried out a rapid dive and brought his tubes to the ready courses and speeds as requisite for attack. “The maneuvering which followed took over half an hour, and must have seemed interminably long to everyone in G-13. At 4.30 the enemy made the tension still greater by altering course some 35 degrees. It was not until 4:49 that Lieutenant Bradshaw found himself exactly where all commanders would wish to be, eight points on the enemy’s bow. He estimated the Q-boat’s speed at eight knots, allowed l8 degrees’ deflection accordingly, and fired twice. It was a long shot in rough water, and he had nearly a minute to wait for the result. Then came the longed-for sound of a heavy explosion. A column of water leapt up, directly under the U-boat’s conning-tower, and she disappeared instantly. Ten minutes afterward, G-13 was on the surface, and making her way through a vast lake of oil, which lay thickly upon the sea over an area of a mile. In such an oil-lake a swimmer has no margin of buoyancy, and it was not surprising there were no survivors to pick up. The only relics of the U-boat were some pieces of board from her interior fittings.” TWO “SUBS” IN A DEATH GRAPPLE In one instance two submarines caught sight of each other and charged like old time knights. The British vessel was the E-50. According to Sir Henry Newbolt: “The British commander drove straight at the enemy at full speed, and reached her before she had time to get down to a depth of complete invisibility. E-50 struck fair between the periscopes; her stem cut through the plates of the U-boat’s shell and remained embedded in her back. Then came a terrific fight, like the death-grapple of two primeval monsters. The German’s only chance, in his wounded condition, was to come to the surface before he was drowned by leakage; he blew his ballast tanks and struggled almost to the surface, bringing E-50 up with him. The English boat countered by flooding her main ballast-tanks and weighing her enemy down into the deep. This put the U-boat to the desperate necessity of freeing herself, leak or no leak. For a minute and a half she drew slowly aft, bumping E-50’s sides as she did so; then her effort seemed to cease, and her periscopes and conning-towers showed on E-50’s quarter. She was evidently filling fast; she had a list to starboard and was heavily down by the bows. As she sank, E-50 took breath and looked to her own condition. She was apparently uninjured, but she had negative buoyancy and her forward hydroplanes were jammed, so that it was a matter of great difficulty to get her to rise. After four strenuous minutes she was brought to the surface, and traversed the positions, reaching for any further sign of the U-boat or her crew. But nothing was seen beyond the inevitable lake of oil, pouring up like thick, rank, life-blood of the dead sea-monster.” This was the opening paragraph in the section of his book that talked about submarine versus submarine warfare: “Since submarines must be hunted, there is something especially attractive in the idea of setting other submarines to hunt them; it seems peculiarly just that while the pirate is lying in wait under water for his victim, he should himself be ambushed by an avenger hiding under the same waters and possessed of the same deadly weapons of offence.” As I think about the progress that would need to be made towards the ultimate goal of submarine versus submarine over the next few decades, this statement really captures the idea. The resulting Fast Attack variant of submarine was the only logical conclusion.	2,570	ENGLISH	1
Isabella Baumfree also considered Van Wagenen was born in 1797 and died in 1883. She was the first black to speak out to people about slavery and abolitionists. She was said to have a deep manly voice but had a quick wit and inspiring faith (Encyclpoedia, 474). It was Truth's religious faith that transformed her from Isabella to Sojourner Truth. What is difficult to tell is her actual birth date because there are two different women with different birth dates such as Isabella's is in the 1790's and Truth's is on June 1, 1843. The parents are also hard to decipher because of slavery spiting up families. Harriet Tubman and Sojourner Truth were the two most famous women of the 19th century. It was said, "New York was Truth's Egypt". In a short amount of time Truth became the national symbol for black women (Painter, 5). Truth was a slave in Ulster County, New York but was freed in 1828. That was the year that she had her command from God, it was he that told her to preach about her beliefs and equality. She told people that God was only looking for people who show love and concern for others and this is why she must continue to preach (Encyclopedia, 474). Isabella was one of 13 children from slave parents and she could only speak Dutch. She lived with her parents until the time she was 11then she was sent to a new master who mistreated her severely. This is when she learned how to speak English, but she would still have a Dutch accent the rest of her life. Her third master, the Dumonts, is where she was sent when she was thirteen and stayed for seventeen years. It is also where Isabella married her husband Thomas and continued to have five children with him. The state of New York in 1817 passed a law saying that all blacks are free but not until July 4,1827. She was waiting for her ten years to be up but she found that Dumont planned to keep her and not let her free at all.	<urn:uuid:2040763d-d60e-49ea-9b28-24ed19fd3644>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.exampleessays.com/viewpaper/80081.html	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250592636.25/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118135205-20200118163205-00131.warc.gz	en	0.995489	434	3.640625	4	[ 0.01322892028838396, 0.318573921918869, -0.06815887987613678, 0.3736179769039154, -0.39604103565216064, -0.3100842237472534, -0.16658371686935425, -0.12506814301013947, -0.27647852897644043, -0.06838411837816238, -0.28858160972595215, -0.2669917941093445, -0.5361385941505432, 0.05588309466...	2	Isabella Baumfree also considered Van Wagenen was born in 1797 and died in 1883. She was the first black to speak out to people about slavery and abolitionists. She was said to have a deep manly voice but had a quick wit and inspiring faith (Encyclpoedia, 474). It was Truth's religious faith that transformed her from Isabella to Sojourner Truth. What is difficult to tell is her actual birth date because there are two different women with different birth dates such as Isabella's is in the 1790's and Truth's is on June 1, 1843. The parents are also hard to decipher because of slavery spiting up families. Harriet Tubman and Sojourner Truth were the two most famous women of the 19th century. It was said, "New York was Truth's Egypt". In a short amount of time Truth became the national symbol for black women (Painter, 5). Truth was a slave in Ulster County, New York but was freed in 1828. That was the year that she had her command from God, it was he that told her to preach about her beliefs and equality. She told people that God was only looking for people who show love and concern for others and this is why she must continue to preach (Encyclopedia, 474). Isabella was one of 13 children from slave parents and she could only speak Dutch. She lived with her parents until the time she was 11then she was sent to a new master who mistreated her severely. This is when she learned how to speak English, but she would still have a Dutch accent the rest of her life. Her third master, the Dumonts, is where she was sent when she was thirteen and stayed for seventeen years. It is also where Isabella married her husband Thomas and continued to have five children with him. The state of New York in 1817 passed a law saying that all blacks are free but not until July 4,1827. She was waiting for her ten years to be up but she found that Dumont planned to keep her and not let her free at all.	464	ENGLISH	1
They made a notable contribution to America’s role in World War II and to the future of military aviation, yet they were not officially a part of our wartime air arm. They were the Women’s Airforce Service Pilots (WASPs), and they freed hundreds of male pilots for combat duty. The WASPs sprang from two roots that merged in August 1943. First was the Women’s Auxiliary Ferrying Squadron, approved in September 1942, and headed by Nancy Love, an experienced pilot and civilian member of the Air Transport Command Ferrying Division. Applicants to the squadron were required to have 500 hours flying time and a 200-horsepower rating. Second was the Women’s Flying Training Detachment (WFTD), created in November 1942, and headed by Jacqueline Cochran. Located at Avenger Field, Texas, the WFTD trained women with varying pilot experience, eventually down to a minimum of 35 hours, to fly “the Army way.” Over time, the curriculum went through many changes to become a virtual duplicate of the Aviation Cadet program. Both groups were under civil service, but Cochran had in mind militarization with eventual commissions for her graduates, who would serve in many domestic flying roles, including ferrying aircraft. Against the wishes of both women, WASPs initially were restricted to daylight flights in liaison aircraft and primary trainers. Nancy Love broke that barrier by wangling permission to check out in B-17s and P-51 Mustangs. Cochran did her part by convincing Gen. Henry H. “Hap” Arnold, Commanding General of US Army Air Forces, that her graduates could tow targets as well as ferry aircraft. At Camp Davis, N.C., an antiaircraft training base, the WASPs flew tired, badly maintained A-24 and A-25 dive bombers. Two women lost their lives because of engine failure, and several were hit by ground fire, but others volunteered for that risky business, which few male pilots wanted. Now that the barriers were down, the WASPs began flying every first-line fighter, bomber, trainer, and transport in USAAF’s inventory. By late 1944, half of Ferrying Division’s fighter pilots were WASPs, and they made three-quarters of all domestic fighter deliveries with a lower accident rate than male pilots had. Many WASPs became test pilots at overhaul and repair depots, another dicey and anonymous job. Others were assigned to Training Command as flying cadet navigators, bombardiers, and instrument instructors. About 100 WASPs were sent directly from AT-6s to B-26 Marauder transition. At that time, the B-26 was considered by some to be the most difficult and dangerous USAAF aircraft. The WASPs did as well as the men at flying the bomber and much better in ground school. After completing the course, many WASPs flew B-26s on tow-target missions to train aerial gunners. A few visited B-26 transition bases as a confidence-builder for male pilots who did not regard the Marauder as user-friendly. In its early days, the B-29 also had a bad reputation. Lt. Col. Paul W. Tibbets, of Enola Gay fame, checked out two WASPs, Dora Dougherty and Dorothea Johnson, in the B-29 and sent them to a heavy bomber base to reassure nervous B-29 students. The Air Staff, when it learned of Colonel Tibbets’s ploy, directed that WASPs were not to fly the B-29 again. Perhaps the most unusual WASP flying experience was that of 29-year-old Ann Baumgartner, who was sent to Wright Field, not as a pilot but as a consultant on new flying equipment. She soon persuaded the brass to let her fly P-51s, P-47 Thunderbolts, a Japanese Zero, and a Bf-109. Ms. Baumgartner also got permission to fly the experimental Bell YP-59 jet fighter, becoming the only American female jet pilot, a distinction she held for almost a decade. In December 1944, as the need for combat pilots declined, the WASPs were inactivated. In its 28-month life, the WASP organization drew 25,000 applicants; 1,830 were accepted, 1,074 won their wings, and 38 lost their lives taking part in a wide range of domestic flying duties. They ferried more than 12,000 aircraft of 78 types, served without military benefits, and were paid two-thirds as much as the male civilian ferry pilots they had replaced. The WASPs frequently endured discrimination, yet many offered to continue ferrying aircraft for a dollar a year. In 1949, the newly independent US Air Force offered commissions to former WASPs. The 121 who accepted were assigned to administrative and support duties and did not fly military aircraft again. It was not until 1977, that Congress passed a bill, introduced by Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-Ariz.), that gave the WASPs honorable discharges and declared them veterans. Their accomplishments during the war reflected courage and determination, paving the way for women to be admitted to military flying training again, but it would be more than 30 years before the road was completed. Published November 1995. For presentation on this web site, some Valor articles have been amended for accuracy.	<urn:uuid:fdba1585-e3d7-4d21-877a-81234b3eb410>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.airforcemag.com/article/valor-the-wasps-of-world-war-ii/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594662.6/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119151736-20200119175736-00185.warc.gz	en	0.984203	1,116	3.65625	4	[ -0.37834233045578003, 0.3991929888725281, 0.012147687375545502, -0.15881042182445526, -0.052255503833293915, 0.46990859508514404, -0.03615834563970566, 0.34602367877960205, -0.03040631115436554, -0.058806948363780975, 0.3014723062515259, 0.01240888424217701, 0.15384730696678162, 0.36225497...	10	They made a notable contribution to America’s role in World War II and to the future of military aviation, yet they were not officially a part of our wartime air arm. They were the Women’s Airforce Service Pilots (WASPs), and they freed hundreds of male pilots for combat duty. The WASPs sprang from two roots that merged in August 1943. First was the Women’s Auxiliary Ferrying Squadron, approved in September 1942, and headed by Nancy Love, an experienced pilot and civilian member of the Air Transport Command Ferrying Division. Applicants to the squadron were required to have 500 hours flying time and a 200-horsepower rating. Second was the Women’s Flying Training Detachment (WFTD), created in November 1942, and headed by Jacqueline Cochran. Located at Avenger Field, Texas, the WFTD trained women with varying pilot experience, eventually down to a minimum of 35 hours, to fly “the Army way.” Over time, the curriculum went through many changes to become a virtual duplicate of the Aviation Cadet program. Both groups were under civil service, but Cochran had in mind militarization with eventual commissions for her graduates, who would serve in many domestic flying roles, including ferrying aircraft. Against the wishes of both women, WASPs initially were restricted to daylight flights in liaison aircraft and primary trainers. Nancy Love broke that barrier by wangling permission to check out in B-17s and P-51 Mustangs. Cochran did her part by convincing Gen. Henry H. “Hap” Arnold, Commanding General of US Army Air Forces, that her graduates could tow targets as well as ferry aircraft. At Camp Davis, N.C., an antiaircraft training base, the WASPs flew tired, badly maintained A-24 and A-25 dive bombers. Two women lost their lives because of engine failure, and several were hit by ground fire, but others volunteered for that risky business, which few male pilots wanted. Now that the barriers were down, the WASPs began flying every first-line fighter, bomber, trainer, and transport in USAAF’s inventory. By late 1944, half of Ferrying Division’s fighter pilots were WASPs, and they made three-quarters of all domestic fighter deliveries with a lower accident rate than male pilots had. Many WASPs became test pilots at overhaul and repair depots, another dicey and anonymous job. Others were assigned to Training Command as flying cadet navigators, bombardiers, and instrument instructors. About 100 WASPs were sent directly from AT-6s to B-26 Marauder transition. At that time, the B-26 was considered by some to be the most difficult and dangerous USAAF aircraft. The WASPs did as well as the men at flying the bomber and much better in ground school. After completing the course, many WASPs flew B-26s on tow-target missions to train aerial gunners. A few visited B-26 transition bases as a confidence-builder for male pilots who did not regard the Marauder as user-friendly. In its early days, the B-29 also had a bad reputation. Lt. Col. Paul W. Tibbets, of Enola Gay fame, checked out two WASPs, Dora Dougherty and Dorothea Johnson, in the B-29 and sent them to a heavy bomber base to reassure nervous B-29 students. The Air Staff, when it learned of Colonel Tibbets’s ploy, directed that WASPs were not to fly the B-29 again. Perhaps the most unusual WASP flying experience was that of 29-year-old Ann Baumgartner, who was sent to Wright Field, not as a pilot but as a consultant on new flying equipment. She soon persuaded the brass to let her fly P-51s, P-47 Thunderbolts, a Japanese Zero, and a Bf-109. Ms. Baumgartner also got permission to fly the experimental Bell YP-59 jet fighter, becoming the only American female jet pilot, a distinction she held for almost a decade. In December 1944, as the need for combat pilots declined, the WASPs were inactivated. In its 28-month life, the WASP organization drew 25,000 applicants; 1,830 were accepted, 1,074 won their wings, and 38 lost their lives taking part in a wide range of domestic flying duties. They ferried more than 12,000 aircraft of 78 types, served without military benefits, and were paid two-thirds as much as the male civilian ferry pilots they had replaced. The WASPs frequently endured discrimination, yet many offered to continue ferrying aircraft for a dollar a year. In 1949, the newly independent US Air Force offered commissions to former WASPs. The 121 who accepted were assigned to administrative and support duties and did not fly military aircraft again. It was not until 1977, that Congress passed a bill, introduced by Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-Ariz.), that gave the WASPs honorable discharges and declared them veterans. Their accomplishments during the war reflected courage and determination, paving the way for women to be admitted to military flying training again, but it would be more than 30 years before the road was completed. Published November 1995. For presentation on this web site, some Valor articles have been amended for accuracy.	1,161	ENGLISH	1
Personal Guidebook to Grief Recovery The Civil War placed a terrible emotional burden on women on both sides of the conflict. Those who were left at home worried constantly about the safety and comfort of the husbands, fathers, and sons they had sent to battle. They followed reports of the war in the newspapers and waited anxiously for word about their loved ones. Throughout the war years, women often gathered at train stations across the country to hear the names of the dead called, and to comfort those who were grieving afterward. The endless fear and sadness took a heavy toll on them. As diarist Mary Boykin Chesnut (1823-1886) wrote, Does anybody wonder why so many women die Grief and constant anxiety kill nearly as many women as men die on the battlefield. Lee died in October 1870, after suffering a stroke. News of Lee's death triggered a tremendous outpouring of grief all across the South. Ordinary citizens and thousands of devoted soldiers who had served under him offered testimonials (public statements declaring a person's merit) about his leadership and courage. Lee's funeral service in Lexington was attended by thousands of mourners, many of whom traveled for hundreds of miles to pay their respects. Today, more than a century after his death, Lee's status as a legend of the American South remains unchanged. In 1882, Douglass published the third and final volume of his life story, The Life and Times of Frederick Douglass. In 1883, his wife of forty-four years passed away. Douglass took his wife's death very hard and seemed to have a nervous breakdown. But he managed to overcome his grief and dedicated himself once again to gaining equal rights for Americans. He wrote and spoke about the importance of helping freed slaves and the value of granting women the right to vote. During her time in Cincinnati, Harriet Beecher became close friends with Eliza Stowe, the wife of her father's colleague Calvin Ellis Stowe. When her friend died in 1834, she and Calvin Stowe shared their grief. Eventually their friendship blossomed into love, and they were married on January 6, 1836. In the years following her marriage, Stowe's main responsibility was caring for her growing family. She ended up having seven children (only six survived to adulthood). But she still made time to write articles and stories, President Abraham Lincoln's assassination by Southerner John Wilkes Booth on April 14,1865, and his death the next day shocked the citizenry. Outpourings of grief abounded, including several poems by Walt Whitman. Whitman, a great admirer of the president, first publicly mourned Lincoln with ''Hush'd Be the Camps To-Day,'' which he published on May 4,1865. He further mourned the slain president in 1865 and 1866 with his elegiac poem ''When Lilacs Last in the Dooryard Bloom'd,'' and ''O Captain My Captain '' both of which were published in Drum Taps. ''O Captain My Captain '' became one of Whitman's most popular poems. Bereavement and grief were widespread. This was mitigated somewhat for Franco loyalists, whose dead and wounded were lauded as heroes. For Republicans, the despair experienced in defeat was exacerbated by the new regime's refusal ever to recognise that those who had died or been injured fighting against it were anything more than a rabble of crazed fanatics. Hood survived the Battle of Nashville, but the destruction of his army depressed him terribly. Wracked with guilt and grief at his failures, he resigned his command on January 13, 1865. Four months later he surrendered to Union troops in Natchez, Mississippi, as the war drew to a close. During this long day's march everything indicated our coming to be unexpected, and not a shadow of opposition appeared. The truth was that their cavalry were afraid to meet us and gladly availed themselves of the pretext of not being able to find us. Up to this time the cavalry of the enemy had no more confidence in themselves than the country had in them, and whenever we got a chance at them, which was rarely, they came to grief. within our reach, and whenever they did they invariably came to grief. But why a small party should not have followed us and given information can be attributed only to bad management, for they could have gotten the information in a friendly country without ever making an attack, by means of the citizens along the roads we passed. But so it was, as appears now from their official dispatches, that up to our reaching the river on our return, they had no exact intelligence of our movements. At one point, McClellan inferred we would attempt a crossing below him.... A little before seven, I went into the room where the dying President was rapidly drawing near the closing moments. His wife soon after made her last visit to him. The death-struggle had begun. Robert, his son, stood with several others at the head of the bed. He bore himself well, but on two occasions gave way to overpowering grief and sobbed aloud, turning his head and leaning on the shoulder of Senator Sumner. The respiration of the President became suspended at intervals, and at last entirely ceased at twenty-two minutes past seven. . . . I went after breakfast to the Executive Mansion. There was a cheerless cold rain and everything seemed gloomy. On the Avenue in front of the White House were several hundred colored people, mostly women and children, weeping and wailing their loss. This crowd did not appear to diminish through the whole of that cold, wet day they seemed not to know what was to be their fate since their great benefactor was dead, and their hopeless grief affected... In fact, it was Warren's right flank that came under the greatest pressure. He lost most of two seasoned regiments as prisoners, and the situation seemed desperate for a brief interval. Reinforcements enabled Warren to hold fast on 19 August, and on 21 August he handily repulsed a series of Southern attacks. In one of them, a bullet tore through both of General John C. C. Sanders' thighs and he bled to death. He had reached his twenty-fourth birthday four months before. A few days later his sister back in Alabama wrote to a surviving brother of her wrenching loss. Fannie Sanders described dreaming of John every night, then awakening to the living nightmare of the truth. 'Why Oh why, was not my worthless life taken instead of that useful one ' Fannie cried. 'I have been blinded with tears.' Families on both sides of the Potomac had abundant cause for grief. A few days after Lee's surrender, however, Northern celebrations came to an abrupt end as one final act of violence shook the entire nation. On April 14, 1865, John Wilkes Booth (1838-1865) shot President Abraham Lincoln at a Washington theater, then escaped into the night. Lincoln died the next day. The assassination shocked the country and triggered an outpouring of grief and rage across the North. During the years of the war, the Sanitary Commission developed a number of ways to raise the large sums of money it needed to support its work. The most successful strategy devised was holding large, regional fairs. The elaborate events included children's departments designed to get children to visit and to allow them to help in the Union war effort. Youngsters took part in recreations of folk tales, concerts, and recitations. Schools displayed examples of the children's work. Girls sent examples of their handcrafts and boys loaned their collections of ''oddities'' to help bring in pennies for the cause. Some of the children even offered their own dear pets to be sold to raise money for the soldiers. Fortunately for everyone, in most cases a philanthropic relative, neighbor, or charitable stranger would purchase the animal and return it to the grieving but determined child. The fairs also provided all sorts of treats to eat. At a great fair held in Chicago, a bevy of young girls... While soldiers carrying arms under both flags faced death or maiming at the battle front, their families at home coped with a wide variety of fundamental changes and challenges. Some home-front Americans met with fabulous economic opportunities others with dire economic suffering. Millions of civilians struggled with numbing grief at the loss of loved ones, and millions more faced personal danger from scavengers -both 'friendly' troops and invaders. I cannot refrain from mingling my grief with yours It is dreadful to have our loved ones die We are utterly shaken by the uncontrollable outthrusting of our mere human grief at seeing Banks, Nathaniel Prentice (1816-1894). One of the most prominent Union political generals, he served throughout the war without achieving any distinction on the battlefield. No match for Stonewall Jackson in the Shenandoah Valley in 1862, he similarly came to grief during the 1864 Red River campaign. Commenting that Confederate General Leonidas Polk had called on all the planters along the Mississippi River to send their slaves to assist in fortifying Fort Pillow some 40 miles (64km) north of Memphis. 'Separating the old family Negroes who have lived and worked together for so many years is a great grief to them and a distress to us,' she observed. After reading a January letter from her brother, she came to the realization that 'The manner in which the North is moving her forces, now that she thinks us surrounded and can give us the annihilating blow, reminds me of a party of hunters crouched around the covert of the deer, and when the lines are drawn and there is no escape, they close in and kill.' Stonewall's death stunned his fellow rebel soldiers as well. A greater sense of loss and deeper grief never followed the death of mortal man, wrote one veteran of the Stonewall Brigade. Under him we had never suffered defeat. . . . We were the machine he needed to thresh process his grain, and the machine must be in order. We knew he would not needlessly risk our lives, and we knew that when needful to accomplish an object, our lives were as nothing, success was all that counted. We had a confidence in him that knew no bounds, and he knew and appreciated it. He was a soldier, and a great one, to our cause his loss was irreparable. From the first moment, don Marcelino's greatest preoccupation was how to subdue the demand for vengeance felt by men whose hearts are lacerated by grief or by enormous indignation, or when they are simply blinded by political passions. I was present at a conversation between a major of the Civil Guard and don Marcelino at the village of La Ribera in Navarra Truth was torn away from her family, too. When she was nine years old, her master separated her from her grieving parents by selling her to another planter (plantation owner). By 1810, when Truth was sold to John Dumont, she had been the property of several slaveowners. Her purchase by Dumont, though, brought a measure of stability to her life. She spent the next seventeen years as a slave on the Du-mont estate in New Paltz, New York. During this time she married a fellow slave named Thomas, with whom she had five children. 'The grief of the people of New York at the villainous assassination of the noble Ellsworth is universal,' ran an editorial about raising the regiment in the Albany Evening Journal. 'Eet the people of New York, his native state, mingle with their tears practical points for avenging bis death.' Dealing With Sorrow Within this audio series and guide Dealing With Sorrow you will be learning all about Hypnotherapy For Overcoming Grief, Failure And Sadness Quickly.	<urn:uuid:82167dbd-e8f1-48f3-b384-6029c92f2be2>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.minecreek.info/grief.html	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250592636.25/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118135205-20200118163205-00511.warc.gz	en	0.982545	2,434	3.703125	4	[ -0.3598189949989319, 0.30695900321006775, 0.40223854780197144, 0.11200986057519913, -0.14449089765548706, 0.30818644165992737, 0.5200254321098328, -0.10514120012521744, -0.03082510270178318, -0.2413547933101654, 0.4089762270450592, 0.14803582429885864, 0.29378849267959595, 0.14373987913131...	2	Personal Guidebook to Grief Recovery The Civil War placed a terrible emotional burden on women on both sides of the conflict. Those who were left at home worried constantly about the safety and comfort of the husbands, fathers, and sons they had sent to battle. They followed reports of the war in the newspapers and waited anxiously for word about their loved ones. Throughout the war years, women often gathered at train stations across the country to hear the names of the dead called, and to comfort those who were grieving afterward. The endless fear and sadness took a heavy toll on them. As diarist Mary Boykin Chesnut (1823-1886) wrote, Does anybody wonder why so many women die Grief and constant anxiety kill nearly as many women as men die on the battlefield. Lee died in October 1870, after suffering a stroke. News of Lee's death triggered a tremendous outpouring of grief all across the South. Ordinary citizens and thousands of devoted soldiers who had served under him offered testimonials (public statements declaring a person's merit) about his leadership and courage. Lee's funeral service in Lexington was attended by thousands of mourners, many of whom traveled for hundreds of miles to pay their respects. Today, more than a century after his death, Lee's status as a legend of the American South remains unchanged. In 1882, Douglass published the third and final volume of his life story, The Life and Times of Frederick Douglass. In 1883, his wife of forty-four years passed away. Douglass took his wife's death very hard and seemed to have a nervous breakdown. But he managed to overcome his grief and dedicated himself once again to gaining equal rights for Americans. He wrote and spoke about the importance of helping freed slaves and the value of granting women the right to vote. During her time in Cincinnati, Harriet Beecher became close friends with Eliza Stowe, the wife of her father's colleague Calvin Ellis Stowe. When her friend died in 1834, she and Calvin Stowe shared their grief. Eventually their friendship blossomed into love, and they were married on January 6, 1836. In the years following her marriage, Stowe's main responsibility was caring for her growing family. She ended up having seven children (only six survived to adulthood). But she still made time to write articles and stories, President Abraham Lincoln's assassination by Southerner John Wilkes Booth on April 14,1865, and his death the next day shocked the citizenry. Outpourings of grief abounded, including several poems by Walt Whitman. Whitman, a great admirer of the president, first publicly mourned Lincoln with ''Hush'd Be the Camps To-Day,'' which he published on May 4,1865. He further mourned the slain president in 1865 and 1866 with his elegiac poem ''When Lilacs Last in the Dooryard Bloom'd,'' and ''O Captain My Captain '' both of which were published in Drum Taps. ''O Captain My Captain '' became one of Whitman's most popular poems. Bereavement and grief were widespread. This was mitigated somewhat for Franco loyalists, whose dead and wounded were lauded as heroes. For Republicans, the despair experienced in defeat was exacerbated by the new regime's refusal ever to recognise that those who had died or been injured fighting against it were anything more than a rabble of crazed fanatics. Hood survived the Battle of Nashville, but the destruction of his army depressed him terribly. Wracked with guilt and grief at his failures, he resigned his command on January 13, 1865. Four months later he surrendered to Union troops in Natchez, Mississippi, as the war drew to a close. During this long day's march everything indicated our coming to be unexpected, and not a shadow of opposition appeared. The truth was that their cavalry were afraid to meet us and gladly availed themselves of the pretext of not being able to find us. Up to this time the cavalry of the enemy had no more confidence in themselves than the country had in them, and whenever we got a chance at them, which was rarely, they came to grief. within our reach, and whenever they did they invariably came to grief. But why a small party should not have followed us and given information can be attributed only to bad management, for they could have gotten the information in a friendly country without ever making an attack, by means of the citizens along the roads we passed. But so it was, as appears now from their official dispatches, that up to our reaching the river on our return, they had no exact intelligence of our movements. At one point, McClellan inferred we would attempt a crossing below him.... A little before seven, I went into the room where the dying President was rapidly drawing near the closing moments. His wife soon after made her last visit to him. The death-struggle had begun. Robert, his son, stood with several others at the head of the bed. He bore himself well, but on two occasions gave way to overpowering grief and sobbed aloud, turning his head and leaning on the shoulder of Senator Sumner. The respiration of the President became suspended at intervals, and at last entirely ceased at twenty-two minutes past seven. . . . I went after breakfast to the Executive Mansion. There was a cheerless cold rain and everything seemed gloomy. On the Avenue in front of the White House were several hundred colored people, mostly women and children, weeping and wailing their loss. This crowd did not appear to diminish through the whole of that cold, wet day they seemed not to know what was to be their fate since their great benefactor was dead, and their hopeless grief affected... In fact, it was Warren's right flank that came under the greatest pressure. He lost most of two seasoned regiments as prisoners, and the situation seemed desperate for a brief interval. Reinforcements enabled Warren to hold fast on 19 August, and on 21 August he handily repulsed a series of Southern attacks. In one of them, a bullet tore through both of General John C. C. Sanders' thighs and he bled to death. He had reached his twenty-fourth birthday four months before. A few days later his sister back in Alabama wrote to a surviving brother of her wrenching loss. Fannie Sanders described dreaming of John every night, then awakening to the living nightmare of the truth. 'Why Oh why, was not my worthless life taken instead of that useful one ' Fannie cried. 'I have been blinded with tears.' Families on both sides of the Potomac had abundant cause for grief. A few days after Lee's surrender, however, Northern celebrations came to an abrupt end as one final act of violence shook the entire nation. On April 14, 1865, John Wilkes Booth (1838-1865) shot President Abraham Lincoln at a Washington theater, then escaped into the night. Lincoln died the next day. The assassination shocked the country and triggered an outpouring of grief and rage across the North. During the years of the war, the Sanitary Commission developed a number of ways to raise the large sums of money it needed to support its work. The most successful strategy devised was holding large, regional fairs. The elaborate events included children's departments designed to get children to visit and to allow them to help in the Union war effort. Youngsters took part in recreations of folk tales, concerts, and recitations. Schools displayed examples of the children's work. Girls sent examples of their handcrafts and boys loaned their collections of ''oddities'' to help bring in pennies for the cause. Some of the children even offered their own dear pets to be sold to raise money for the soldiers. Fortunately for everyone, in most cases a philanthropic relative, neighbor, or charitable stranger would purchase the animal and return it to the grieving but determined child. The fairs also provided all sorts of treats to eat. At a great fair held in Chicago, a bevy of young girls... While soldiers carrying arms under both flags faced death or maiming at the battle front, their families at home coped with a wide variety of fundamental changes and challenges. Some home-front Americans met with fabulous economic opportunities others with dire economic suffering. Millions of civilians struggled with numbing grief at the loss of loved ones, and millions more faced personal danger from scavengers -both 'friendly' troops and invaders. I cannot refrain from mingling my grief with yours It is dreadful to have our loved ones die We are utterly shaken by the uncontrollable outthrusting of our mere human grief at seeing Banks, Nathaniel Prentice (1816-1894). One of the most prominent Union political generals, he served throughout the war without achieving any distinction on the battlefield. No match for Stonewall Jackson in the Shenandoah Valley in 1862, he similarly came to grief during the 1864 Red River campaign. Commenting that Confederate General Leonidas Polk had called on all the planters along the Mississippi River to send their slaves to assist in fortifying Fort Pillow some 40 miles (64km) north of Memphis. 'Separating the old family Negroes who have lived and worked together for so many years is a great grief to them and a distress to us,' she observed. After reading a January letter from her brother, she came to the realization that 'The manner in which the North is moving her forces, now that she thinks us surrounded and can give us the annihilating blow, reminds me of a party of hunters crouched around the covert of the deer, and when the lines are drawn and there is no escape, they close in and kill.' Stonewall's death stunned his fellow rebel soldiers as well. A greater sense of loss and deeper grief never followed the death of mortal man, wrote one veteran of the Stonewall Brigade. Under him we had never suffered defeat. . . . We were the machine he needed to thresh process his grain, and the machine must be in order. We knew he would not needlessly risk our lives, and we knew that when needful to accomplish an object, our lives were as nothing, success was all that counted. We had a confidence in him that knew no bounds, and he knew and appreciated it. He was a soldier, and a great one, to our cause his loss was irreparable. From the first moment, don Marcelino's greatest preoccupation was how to subdue the demand for vengeance felt by men whose hearts are lacerated by grief or by enormous indignation, or when they are simply blinded by political passions. I was present at a conversation between a major of the Civil Guard and don Marcelino at the village of La Ribera in Navarra Truth was torn away from her family, too. When she was nine years old, her master separated her from her grieving parents by selling her to another planter (plantation owner). By 1810, when Truth was sold to John Dumont, she had been the property of several slaveowners. Her purchase by Dumont, though, brought a measure of stability to her life. She spent the next seventeen years as a slave on the Du-mont estate in New Paltz, New York. During this time she married a fellow slave named Thomas, with whom she had five children. 'The grief of the people of New York at the villainous assassination of the noble Ellsworth is universal,' ran an editorial about raising the regiment in the Albany Evening Journal. 'Eet the people of New York, his native state, mingle with their tears practical points for avenging bis death.' Dealing With Sorrow Within this audio series and guide Dealing With Sorrow you will be learning all about Hypnotherapy For Overcoming Grief, Failure And Sadness Quickly.	2,485	ENGLISH	1
Japans location could be the most probable reason as to why it is the home of the most terrific and killer earthquakes and tsunamis. It is located along the pacific ring of fire which is believed to be the most active earthquake belt of the world. Here the rigid plates of the earth crust move colliding along the Pacific Ocean rim. When they stop for a period of time, they accumulate a lot of energy and when they start moving, the movement is drastic, and could explode causing earth quakes. Over a long period of years back, japan has experienced a countless number of earthquakes. The recent one was the 2011 quake which caused a deadly tsunami. It was the most terrific one among all others that had occurred in japan before as it was ranked the fifth largest earthquake worldwide, with a 9.0 magnitude.It is believed that the quake caused a vertical shift at the fault in the sea floor and displaced the water columns leading to generation of massive energy waves which were called Tsunami. The disaster being two- fold in nature, left devastating impacts on the country. The impacts were felt physically, environmentally and economically and are explored as follows: After the earthquake and the consequential tsunami, an estimate of 330,000 people, from the casualty areas of Fukushima, Iwate and Miyagi were displaced. A total of 15,800 were confirmed dead and 3000 went missing. Apart from buildings, other infrastructure like roads, bridges and railways were damage. A rough estimate of 400 roads, 75 bridges and 29 railways were damaged. The tsunami hit the Fukushima nuclear power station, causing a nuclear accident and later the melt down of the three nuclear reactors. The Fukushima accident led to release of radioactive pollutants to air, water and land. Here the effects of the double-disaster were heavily felt. First, a vast number hectares of farmland, containing mostly rice plantations were damaged by the tsunami. Also, the seawater left in the soil, was a great damage as it would render the plantations infertile and unproductive for years. The fishing industry also felt the impact where an estimate of 28,000 fishing boats were destroyed and around 400 fishermen killed. The tsunami also disrupted transportation services, and this consequently seen millions of chicken die due to lack of feeds which were to be supplied from overseas. The casualty region of Tohuku, was the home of crucial factories that manufacture cars, chemical plants and energy infrastructures which were the highest generators of GDP to the Japanese economy. The tsunami sawthousands of fish get washed ashore where they later suffocated and died. Many sea birds were buried alive while many shorebirds were left homeless as their nests were washed away by the floods. The tsunami also damaged sensitive ecosystems such as marshes, tidal plants and lagoons. Also in Iwate region, some coastal pine forests and reed beds were totally destroyed. The enormous amount of radiation released to the atmosphere by the Fukushima nuclear power plant melt down has had devastating effect on the ecology. Mostly birds and mammals decreased in population due to an upsurge in radioactive contamination levels.	<urn:uuid:aec154ba-fb18-486c-a4f9-c2280c4c085a>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	http://www.weathercity.info/?categoryId=120894&itemId=270494	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250610004.56/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123101110-20200123130110-00496.warc.gz	en	0.980254	627	3.328125	3	[ -0.20162086188793182, -0.2375258505344391, 0.18411114811897278, -0.3076901435852051, 0.5397539734840393, 0.30786073207855225, 0.019837966188788414, 0.44151943922042847, 0.13446970283985138, -0.01892559602856636, 0.2556750178337097, -0.36294320225715637, 0.20127630233764648, 0.6106103658676...	2	Japans location could be the most probable reason as to why it is the home of the most terrific and killer earthquakes and tsunamis. It is located along the pacific ring of fire which is believed to be the most active earthquake belt of the world. Here the rigid plates of the earth crust move colliding along the Pacific Ocean rim. When they stop for a period of time, they accumulate a lot of energy and when they start moving, the movement is drastic, and could explode causing earth quakes. Over a long period of years back, japan has experienced a countless number of earthquakes. The recent one was the 2011 quake which caused a deadly tsunami. It was the most terrific one among all others that had occurred in japan before as it was ranked the fifth largest earthquake worldwide, with a 9.0 magnitude.It is believed that the quake caused a vertical shift at the fault in the sea floor and displaced the water columns leading to generation of massive energy waves which were called Tsunami. The disaster being two- fold in nature, left devastating impacts on the country. The impacts were felt physically, environmentally and economically and are explored as follows: After the earthquake and the consequential tsunami, an estimate of 330,000 people, from the casualty areas of Fukushima, Iwate and Miyagi were displaced. A total of 15,800 were confirmed dead and 3000 went missing. Apart from buildings, other infrastructure like roads, bridges and railways were damage. A rough estimate of 400 roads, 75 bridges and 29 railways were damaged. The tsunami hit the Fukushima nuclear power station, causing a nuclear accident and later the melt down of the three nuclear reactors. The Fukushima accident led to release of radioactive pollutants to air, water and land. Here the effects of the double-disaster were heavily felt. First, a vast number hectares of farmland, containing mostly rice plantations were damaged by the tsunami. Also, the seawater left in the soil, was a great damage as it would render the plantations infertile and unproductive for years. The fishing industry also felt the impact where an estimate of 28,000 fishing boats were destroyed and around 400 fishermen killed. The tsunami also disrupted transportation services, and this consequently seen millions of chicken die due to lack of feeds which were to be supplied from overseas. The casualty region of Tohuku, was the home of crucial factories that manufacture cars, chemical plants and energy infrastructures which were the highest generators of GDP to the Japanese economy. The tsunami sawthousands of fish get washed ashore where they later suffocated and died. Many sea birds were buried alive while many shorebirds were left homeless as their nests were washed away by the floods. The tsunami also damaged sensitive ecosystems such as marshes, tidal plants and lagoons. Also in Iwate region, some coastal pine forests and reed beds were totally destroyed. The enormous amount of radiation released to the atmosphere by the Fukushima nuclear power plant melt down has had devastating effect on the ecology. Mostly birds and mammals decreased in population due to an upsurge in radioactive contamination levels.	655	ENGLISH	1
The Pony Express was a mail service created in the United States during the late 1850s that delivered newspapers, mail, and messages. The service was founded by William H. Russell, Alexander Majors, and William B. Waddell, who were already established in the freight industry. The purpose of the Pony Express was to provide a faster means of communication between the state of California, which was growing at a rapid rate, and the rest of the country. Significance of the Pony Express Although operational for only 18 months, the Pony Express was extremely efficient and could deliver messages between the Pacific and the Atlantic coasts of the US in about ten days. During its peak, it provided employed approximately 6,000 staff and owned thousands of oxen, wagons, warehouses, and other assets. One of its key achievements was the quick delivery of US presidential election results from Fort Kearny, Nebraska on November 7, 1860. In less than eight days, riders reached California with the results, declaring Lincoln’s victory. The Pony Express was the most popular method of communication during its time until the establishment of the transcontinental telegraph on October 24, 1861. Pony Express Route and Stations The Pony Express started in St. Joseph, Missouri and followed a route that was approximately 1,900 miles in length and included numerous stops. The route roughly followed the Oregon Trail, the California Trail, Wyoming's Fort Bridger, and the Mormon Trail to Salt Lake City, Utah. The route then passed through Carson City, Nevada and eventually reached Sacramento, California. The route had a total of 184 stations, which all had station keepers to ensure smooth and successful operation. Most stations were established in existing structures, although some new stations were built in remote areas. There were two types of stations: swing stations and home stations. Swing stations were used to switch tired animals for rested ones, while home stations provided food and overnight accommodations for riders. In a day, a rider would travel a distance of around 75 miles. At each station, riders would rest and get rested animals. Additionally, they would also collect a mail pouch, known as a mochila, which is a Spanish word for backpack or pouch. The contents of the pouch were considered to be significant, so much so that owners sometimes stated that the pouch was more important than the safety of the rider and animal. A mochila had a capacity of about 20 pounds of mail, and the horse could carry an additional 20 pounds. Riders could not weigh more than 125 pounds and were expected to ride both day and night. The riding time could be even longer in the case of an emergency. As pay, each rider received a salary of $100 each month, which was a significant amount at that time. The name "pony" came from the small horses that were used, which had a height of about 58 inches and an average weight of 900 pounds. At any given time, the service had about 80 riders moving east or west. What Was The Pony Express? The Pony Express was a mail delivery service established in the United States during the 1850s. The Pony Express started in St. Joseph, Missouri and followed a route that was approximately 1,900 miles in length and included numerous stops before reaching Sacramento, California. About the Author Ferdinand graduated in 2016 with a Bsc. Project Planning and Management. He enjoys writing about pretty much anything and has a soft spot for technology and advocating for world peace. 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:6c49302f-bba8-4028-83a1-ffe32618542d>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/what-was-the-pony-express.html	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594603.8/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119122744-20200119150744-00073.warc.gz	en	0.981452	740	4.1875	4	[ -0.25275400280952454, -0.2330213338136673, 0.2530100643634796, 0.2735655605792999, -0.5014860033988953, 0.21687662601470947, -0.2633569538593292, 0.3696950078010559, 0.05182710289955139, 0.2936275005340576, 0.1102825477719307, -0.03578763082623482, 0.3424379229545593, -0.20656895637512207,...	2	The Pony Express was a mail service created in the United States during the late 1850s that delivered newspapers, mail, and messages. The service was founded by William H. Russell, Alexander Majors, and William B. Waddell, who were already established in the freight industry. The purpose of the Pony Express was to provide a faster means of communication between the state of California, which was growing at a rapid rate, and the rest of the country. Significance of the Pony Express Although operational for only 18 months, the Pony Express was extremely efficient and could deliver messages between the Pacific and the Atlantic coasts of the US in about ten days. During its peak, it provided employed approximately 6,000 staff and owned thousands of oxen, wagons, warehouses, and other assets. One of its key achievements was the quick delivery of US presidential election results from Fort Kearny, Nebraska on November 7, 1860. In less than eight days, riders reached California with the results, declaring Lincoln’s victory. The Pony Express was the most popular method of communication during its time until the establishment of the transcontinental telegraph on October 24, 1861. Pony Express Route and Stations The Pony Express started in St. Joseph, Missouri and followed a route that was approximately 1,900 miles in length and included numerous stops. The route roughly followed the Oregon Trail, the California Trail, Wyoming's Fort Bridger, and the Mormon Trail to Salt Lake City, Utah. The route then passed through Carson City, Nevada and eventually reached Sacramento, California. The route had a total of 184 stations, which all had station keepers to ensure smooth and successful operation. Most stations were established in existing structures, although some new stations were built in remote areas. There were two types of stations: swing stations and home stations. Swing stations were used to switch tired animals for rested ones, while home stations provided food and overnight accommodations for riders. In a day, a rider would travel a distance of around 75 miles. At each station, riders would rest and get rested animals. Additionally, they would also collect a mail pouch, known as a mochila, which is a Spanish word for backpack or pouch. The contents of the pouch were considered to be significant, so much so that owners sometimes stated that the pouch was more important than the safety of the rider and animal. A mochila had a capacity of about 20 pounds of mail, and the horse could carry an additional 20 pounds. Riders could not weigh more than 125 pounds and were expected to ride both day and night. The riding time could be even longer in the case of an emergency. As pay, each rider received a salary of $100 each month, which was a significant amount at that time. The name "pony" came from the small horses that were used, which had a height of about 58 inches and an average weight of 900 pounds. At any given time, the service had about 80 riders moving east or west. What Was The Pony Express? The Pony Express was a mail delivery service established in the United States during the 1850s. The Pony Express started in St. Joseph, Missouri and followed a route that was approximately 1,900 miles in length and included numerous stops before reaching Sacramento, California. About the Author Ferdinand graduated in 2016 with a Bsc. Project Planning and Management. He enjoys writing about pretty much anything and has a soft spot for technology and advocating for world peace. Your MLA Citation Your APA Citation Your Chicago Citation Your Harvard CitationRemember to italicize the title of this article in your Harvard citation.	782	ENGLISH	1
Religious Beliefs. Just as with Tahitian society, native Religion recognized a ranked series of gods starting with one supreme deity and passing down through lesser gods and subordinates to individual family spirits of departed relatives. Religion was centered on regional, tribal, and kin tutelar deities, although a few of the gods transcended such limitations and were, in effect, supratribal deities. Gods required a wide variety of appeasements in order to ensure the continued welfare of the individual as well as the tribe. Early nineteenth century missionary activity successfully substituted Christian beliefs for the earlier traditional ones. Religious Practitioners. Aboriginally, priests were of the chiefly class and were of two kinds. There were those who conducted formal rituals during which the gods were prayed to and appeased by gifts in order to gain their favor. Others were inspirational priests through whom particular gods spoke and offered oracular advice. All priests received some sort of payment for their activities and many were believed to have powers of sorcery. With the nineteenth-century acceptance of Christianity, various Tahitians, not all necessarily of the chiefly class, were trained by the missionaries to become lay preachers. Ceremonies. Religious ceremonies were carried out in marae, most of which were tabooed to women. Some Ceremonies were seasonal affairs, while others pertained to war and peace, thanksgiving, atonement, and critical life-cycle events of chiefs. The degree of ceremonialism was dependent upon the deity and the importance of the marae, those for Commoners in districts and smaller land divisions being the least elaborate. Arts. Drums—and, in the early nineteenth century, shell trumpets—were the only musical instruments used during ceremonies. The raised platforms of certain marae were decorated with carved boards, while the god, Oro, was personified by a wickerwork cylinder enclosing sacred feathers. The culture-hero god, Maui, was represented by a large humanoid wicker figure covered with patterns of feathers. Plaited masks were worn during certain ceremonies on the Taiarapu Peninsula. Medicine. Obvious ailments such as sores and open wounds were treated with herbal medicines and poultices, and splints were applied to broken bones. Less obvious illnesses were thought to occur as a result of sorcery, contact with a sacred individual or object, or the anger of one's god. Curing was attempted through priestly prayers and offerings. Among the chiefly class, these cures were performed at the patient's marae and might include human sacrifices. Death and Afterlife. Untimely death was thought to be because of the anger of one's god, while death through aging was regarded as a natural process. Rank determined the extent of expressions of mourning and the length of time the corpse was exposed on a platform before burial. In the case of high-ranking members of the chiefly class, this time factor was greatly extended by evisceration and oiling of the body. Simple burial, secretive for those of high rank, was customary. There is some indication that cremation was employed for certain individuals on the Taiarapu Peninsula. Among the upper classes human relics were preserved. For some, the afterlife was seen as a state of nothingness, but for others it was believed to be a happy life, for rank in the spirit world remained the same as in life.	<urn:uuid:48a13531-b074-4d30-97de-6b380d2fab15>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.everyculture.com/Oceania/Tahiti-Religion-and-Expressive-Culture.html	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250597230.18/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120023523-20200120051523-00029.warc.gz	en	0.98622	691	3.921875	4	[ 0.48134490847587585, 0.7235536575317383, -0.10554492473602295, -0.30367785692214966, -0.31425607204437256, 0.03763516619801521, 0.25366640090942383, 0.10856547951698303, 0.1580871045589447, 0.044221892952919006, -0.1568150818347931, -0.21999014914035797, 0.21330592036247253, 0.362176299095...	3	Religious Beliefs. Just as with Tahitian society, native Religion recognized a ranked series of gods starting with one supreme deity and passing down through lesser gods and subordinates to individual family spirits of departed relatives. Religion was centered on regional, tribal, and kin tutelar deities, although a few of the gods transcended such limitations and were, in effect, supratribal deities. Gods required a wide variety of appeasements in order to ensure the continued welfare of the individual as well as the tribe. Early nineteenth century missionary activity successfully substituted Christian beliefs for the earlier traditional ones. Religious Practitioners. Aboriginally, priests were of the chiefly class and were of two kinds. There were those who conducted formal rituals during which the gods were prayed to and appeased by gifts in order to gain their favor. Others were inspirational priests through whom particular gods spoke and offered oracular advice. All priests received some sort of payment for their activities and many were believed to have powers of sorcery. With the nineteenth-century acceptance of Christianity, various Tahitians, not all necessarily of the chiefly class, were trained by the missionaries to become lay preachers. Ceremonies. Religious ceremonies were carried out in marae, most of which were tabooed to women. Some Ceremonies were seasonal affairs, while others pertained to war and peace, thanksgiving, atonement, and critical life-cycle events of chiefs. The degree of ceremonialism was dependent upon the deity and the importance of the marae, those for Commoners in districts and smaller land divisions being the least elaborate. Arts. Drums—and, in the early nineteenth century, shell trumpets—were the only musical instruments used during ceremonies. The raised platforms of certain marae were decorated with carved boards, while the god, Oro, was personified by a wickerwork cylinder enclosing sacred feathers. The culture-hero god, Maui, was represented by a large humanoid wicker figure covered with patterns of feathers. Plaited masks were worn during certain ceremonies on the Taiarapu Peninsula. Medicine. Obvious ailments such as sores and open wounds were treated with herbal medicines and poultices, and splints were applied to broken bones. Less obvious illnesses were thought to occur as a result of sorcery, contact with a sacred individual or object, or the anger of one's god. Curing was attempted through priestly prayers and offerings. Among the chiefly class, these cures were performed at the patient's marae and might include human sacrifices. Death and Afterlife. Untimely death was thought to be because of the anger of one's god, while death through aging was regarded as a natural process. Rank determined the extent of expressions of mourning and the length of time the corpse was exposed on a platform before burial. In the case of high-ranking members of the chiefly class, this time factor was greatly extended by evisceration and oiling of the body. Simple burial, secretive for those of high rank, was customary. There is some indication that cremation was employed for certain individuals on the Taiarapu Peninsula. Among the upper classes human relics were preserved. For some, the afterlife was seen as a state of nothingness, but for others it was believed to be a happy life, for rank in the spirit world remained the same as in life.	685	ENGLISH	1
In May, 1845, Sir John Franklin sailed from England with the ships Erebus and Terror, on an expedition to attempt the discovery of a "North-West Passage," or water-communication between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, to the north of the American Continent. No intelligence was received from him after the year following. Numerous expeditions were fitted out and despatched in search of Franklin and his brave crew, both from this country and from America. In 1854, Dr Rae returned with information that the Esquimaux had reported having seen the bodies of "forty white men," near Great Fish River, in the spring of 1850. This intelligence was not considered trustworthy, and Lady Franklin fitted out a private expedition, under the command of Captain M'Clintock, who sailed from Aberdeen in the steam-yacht Fox, July, 1857. He returned in 1859 with indisputable proofs of the death of Franklin, and the fate of the expedition under his command, - full details of which he afterwards published.	<urn:uuid:342c9539-8224-4b73-b6a1-0c736f3586bd>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://books.mondadoristore.it/The-Far-North-Elisha-Kent-Kane/eae123000128717/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251728207.68/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127205148-20200127235148-00272.warc.gz	en	0.9805	213	3.34375	3	[ -0.16587531566619873, 0.2847822606563568, 0.2042444497346878, -0.20474646985530853, -0.06909839063882828, -0.11003841459751129, 0.25497663021087646, 0.39446884393692017, -0.43722206354141235, -0.2711300849914551, 0.28999388217926025, -0.4753609895706177, -0.2839165925979614, 0.153747126460...	1	In May, 1845, Sir John Franklin sailed from England with the ships Erebus and Terror, on an expedition to attempt the discovery of a "North-West Passage," or water-communication between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, to the north of the American Continent. No intelligence was received from him after the year following. Numerous expeditions were fitted out and despatched in search of Franklin and his brave crew, both from this country and from America. In 1854, Dr Rae returned with information that the Esquimaux had reported having seen the bodies of "forty white men," near Great Fish River, in the spring of 1850. This intelligence was not considered trustworthy, and Lady Franklin fitted out a private expedition, under the command of Captain M'Clintock, who sailed from Aberdeen in the steam-yacht Fox, July, 1857. He returned in 1859 with indisputable proofs of the death of Franklin, and the fate of the expedition under his command, - full details of which he afterwards published.	226	ENGLISH	1
A new book of stereoscopic images of the Moon landing created by Brian May, the Queen Guitarist, is the closest most people will ever get to walking on the lunar surface, astronauts have claimed. May, who has produced several books using the Victorian technology, said he had spent many nights compiling the images while he was on tour with the band Queen. The technique uses photographs taken at slightly different angles which give a three-dimensional effect which leaps off the page when readers wear special glasses. However most of the Apollo shots were not captured in 3D so May spent a year painstakingly altering them to get the effect ahead of the 50th anniversary of the landing next year. “If Apollo had taken place in Victorian times, the 1850s, there is no doubt that astronauts would have been equipped with stereo cameras,” said May, “They were one of the technological marvels of the age. “But in the 1960s, even though stereoscopy would have enabled them to capture valuable extra data, it was not considered a priority. “For a lot of people alive today, 50 years ago is ancient history so we wanted to do something that would allow people to experience some of the excitement we felt. I remember my dad, who was an aeronautical engineer saying it would never happen. “I spent a lot of hours on my own up in my room at home, or when I was on tour, making the images and I think this is a great way to experience the Moon as you can be on your own, in the quiet and really feel like you’re there, which is very much how the Victorians would have done it.” At the peak of stereoscopy. In the 1960s, thousands of stereo cards were produced and sold from the Oxford Street premises of the London Stereoscopic Company (LSC), and May is an acid collector. In Victorian England it was even possible to hire a viewer for an evening, and borrow cards from a library. The majority depicted travel scenes that most people would never experience, such as the Pyramids, glaciers, and even the Crumlin Viaduct in Wales, although sentimental scenes and ghostly images were also popular. Even Queen Victoria had several hundred cards and the London Stereoscopic Company had a royal warrant. Charlie Duke, one of only four Nasa astronauts who walked on the Moon still alive said May’s new book gave readers the chance to get as close to walking on the Moon as possible without actually travelling there.’ “The three-dimensional views of the lunar surface that Brian and his team have created are amazing, and give a good approximation of what it’s really like to be there,” he said. Jim Lovell, the Apollo 13 commander portrayed by Tom Hanks in the film of that name, added: “The images carry me back strongly to the days of Apollo. Nothing has been produced like this before.” Mission Moon 3D: Reliving the Great Space Race is out now.	<urn:uuid:9eaf9ce0-b3cd-4b94-8b07-04dca9f4c13c>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2018/10/27/brian-mays-3d-book-closest-people-will-get-walking-moon/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250607314.32/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122161553-20200122190553-00259.warc.gz	en	0.981916	633	3.328125	3	[ -0.2639678418636322, -0.09378445148468018, 0.5096600651741028, 0.12427803874015808, -0.08552341908216476, 0.56351637840271, -0.45429277420043945, -0.005028497893363237, -0.33030664920806885, 0.08533179014921188, 0.13743996620178223, -0.12368092685937881, -0.11568373441696167, 0.27907198667...	3	A new book of stereoscopic images of the Moon landing created by Brian May, the Queen Guitarist, is the closest most people will ever get to walking on the lunar surface, astronauts have claimed. May, who has produced several books using the Victorian technology, said he had spent many nights compiling the images while he was on tour with the band Queen. The technique uses photographs taken at slightly different angles which give a three-dimensional effect which leaps off the page when readers wear special glasses. However most of the Apollo shots were not captured in 3D so May spent a year painstakingly altering them to get the effect ahead of the 50th anniversary of the landing next year. “If Apollo had taken place in Victorian times, the 1850s, there is no doubt that astronauts would have been equipped with stereo cameras,” said May, “They were one of the technological marvels of the age. “But in the 1960s, even though stereoscopy would have enabled them to capture valuable extra data, it was not considered a priority. “For a lot of people alive today, 50 years ago is ancient history so we wanted to do something that would allow people to experience some of the excitement we felt. I remember my dad, who was an aeronautical engineer saying it would never happen. “I spent a lot of hours on my own up in my room at home, or when I was on tour, making the images and I think this is a great way to experience the Moon as you can be on your own, in the quiet and really feel like you’re there, which is very much how the Victorians would have done it.” At the peak of stereoscopy. In the 1960s, thousands of stereo cards were produced and sold from the Oxford Street premises of the London Stereoscopic Company (LSC), and May is an acid collector. In Victorian England it was even possible to hire a viewer for an evening, and borrow cards from a library. The majority depicted travel scenes that most people would never experience, such as the Pyramids, glaciers, and even the Crumlin Viaduct in Wales, although sentimental scenes and ghostly images were also popular. Even Queen Victoria had several hundred cards and the London Stereoscopic Company had a royal warrant. Charlie Duke, one of only four Nasa astronauts who walked on the Moon still alive said May’s new book gave readers the chance to get as close to walking on the Moon as possible without actually travelling there.’ “The three-dimensional views of the lunar surface that Brian and his team have created are amazing, and give a good approximation of what it’s really like to be there,” he said. Jim Lovell, the Apollo 13 commander portrayed by Tom Hanks in the film of that name, added: “The images carry me back strongly to the days of Apollo. Nothing has been produced like this before.” Mission Moon 3D: Reliving the Great Space Race is out now.	611	ENGLISH	1
The Egyptian at the heart of the story of the Exodus is Moses, no matter who tells it. So who was he? The Torah says that his mother put him in a basket to drift down the Nile, starting just upstream of where the pharaoh's daughter was bathing, who found and adopted him.1 This was probably a renewal of the far older legend of Sargon the Great, who ruled Mesopotamia in the period of . But regardless of how Moses came to be raised at court, Josephus tells us that he rose to the rank of general in the Egyptian army.2:239 Later he fled to Midian (at the west end of the Arabian Peninsula, directly across the Gulf of Aqaba from the Sinai) to escape prosecution for killing an Egyptian who was beating a slave.3,4,5 When the plight of his followers in Egypt became desperate, Moses returned to negotiate on their behalf.6 If there is any truth to this at all, Moses would have been important enough to show up in the secular records. The name "Moses" has never been found in any Egyptian document, but that doesn't necessarily mean much. In Egyptian this would have been "-mose," which was simply a suffix meaning "son," and which followed the name of the parent god. Since the Hebrews preferred not to name the object of their worship, the omission is to be expected. But what was his full name in Egyptian, before the Hebrews sanitized it? Figure 1. Relief of Ramose in TT55, wearing an elaborate wig, a heavy heart necklace and a small bead necklace, the gold collar of a nobleman, and the loose-fitting vizier's smock. He is holding the staff of a senior official. The text reads: "Justified before Ra, the Overseer of the City (i.e., Mayor of Thebes), the Vizier Ramose, true of voice."7 Photo & description courtesy Don Ferruggia. The most interesting candidate is the general Ramose, who was the commander-in-chief of the Egyptian army under Akhenaten, and whose tomb was found at Amarna (AST11).8:390 Some authorities believe that this was the same person as one of the viziers to Amenhotep III and Akhenaten,8:385,9 whose unfinished tomb at Thebes (TT55) is among the finest in the Valley of the Nobles. It's also the earliest tomb done in the Amarna style.8:386 (See Figure 1.) The sudden disappearance of this Ramose, and the emergence of a commander-in-chief of the same name at Amarna, without prior mention in any records, is explained as the same person, whose role changed with the times.8:390 It would certainly be odd if somebody in Thebes who had commissioned a tomb to be done in the style later to dominate the artwork at Amarna wouldn't have followed Akhenaten there. In fact, this suggests that Ramose was the earliest and most ardent supporter of the cultural changes during the Amarna period, and perhaps was one of the driving forces behind it. If this vizier/general was Moses, and if the Exodus began in , he was roughly the right age. Jewish legend has Moses being born in ,10:47:1 though we have no way of knowing if this was the actual date, or if it was written in later, based simply on Moses being a wizened old man at the beginning of the 1312-Exodus. The secular records are even less specific. As vizier, Ramose was thought to have been born in , just because he was also tutor to Akhenaten (born ), and thus probably older (though not necessarily 10 years older). Since even Akhenaten's year of birth is a guess, we can't make precise calculations of ages, but we can at least check to see if they were in the right range. So if Moses was born in , he would have been 78 years old in . While this is certainly possible, it's definitely near the biological limits. It's also possible that Akhenaten and Moses were both born later, and/or that Moses was closer to Akhenaten's age. In Figure 1, Ramose is a young man, 20~25 years old. He was made vizier in the last couple of years of Amenhotep III's reign (). If he was 25 years old at that time, he would have been born in . So the present thesis splits the difference between that and the date given in the Book of Jubilees, going with as the year of Moses' birth, making him 70 years old in . He lived another 6 years, finally passing away in , at the age of 76 (see below). The key personnel also included Moses' older brother Aaron (whose name meant lofty or exalted). Jewish lore treats the two brothers as equals, and in some respects, puts Aaron first. For example, Aaron began his ministry before Moses.11 Aaron was better-spoken than Moses,12 and thus was the one who did the talking when they met with the pharaoh,13 and in other situations later.14 And Aaron was the origin of the Cohan lineage, suggesting that he had hereditary titles that were worth more than Moses'. So who was Aaron? To go higher than the senior vizier at Amarna, we have to look at royalty. There are few choices, and the only one that stands out is Prince Thutmose, Akhenaten's only older brother. There is no record of Thutmose's death, which is odd in that it would have legitimized Akhenaten's succession to Amenhotep III in the minds of the Egyptian populace. So there should have been an elaborate funeral procession, and the event should have been well-noted in public records (such as on the columns at Karnak). The fact that it wasn't opens the possibility that he didn't actually die, and everybody knew it, which could only mean that he simply deferred the throne to his younger brother, perhaps preferring his role as the high priest of Memphis.15:88 If so, Thutmose-Aaron would have been the one to do the talking when meeting with Tutankhamun and/or Horemheb, and his descendants would have been hereditary priests (i.e., kohanim), as well as possible heirs to the throne. As a prince, he would have been called lofty or exalted, the way people refer to a king as "his highness." And as high priest of Memphis, he did begin his ministry before Moses. In the Torah, Aaron is called a prophet,13 and though it doesn't say much about Aaron's religious views, what it does say is consistent with a priest from Memphis — while Moses was receiving the Ten Commandments, Aaron made a golden calf for the people to worship,16 and in Memphis, the bull-god Apis was second only to the sun-god Ra. There is also a correlation between Thutmose and Moses in that Thutmose meant "son of Thoth," which was the Egyptian equivalent of the Greek god Hermes, and who has been identified with Moses.17:9.27.6,18 All of them were associated with the invention of the alphabet.19,17:9.26 So the two key people seem to have been Thutmose-Aaron and Ramose-Moses-Hermes. The Torah states that Aaron was 3 years older than Moses.20 If Moses was born in , Aaron was born in , still within biological limits to at least embark on the Exodus at the age of 73, though he died shortly into the journey, at Mount Seir.21,22:4.7 At the other end of his lifespan, he couldn't have been born much before , if he was in fact the oldest son of Queen Tiye, who is believed to have been born in — thus she gave birth to Aaron at the age of 17, at the very beginning of her limits. This is loosely consistent with Aaron coming 14 generations before Solomon,23 who was born .24:20 If Aaron was born in , that works out to 27.5 years per generation, which is realistic for male lineages in the upper class during this period. We know very little from the secular records about Ramose the vizier. We know that he was the son of Nebi, the mayor of Memphis.25:203-205,303-305 His wife (#1) Merit-Ptah was the daughter of May, the commander of the chariotry. And Ramose was the distant relative of a very prominent Amun priest in Thebes.26:203,27:76 As vizier, he served alongside Amenhotep-Huy, though it isn't clear which vizier had which responsibilities. We know even less about Ramose the general. Titles in his tomb at Amarna include "royal scribe, commander of the soldiers of the Lord of the Two Lands, and steward of the estate of Amenhotep III."28:105-111 Elsewhere we hear that he was the wearer of the royal seal, chief prophet or sage, supervisor of public buildings, chief justice, and "sole companion to the king" on matters of state.8:385 In other words, he was second in command. But these are just titles — they don't tell us what he did. And we know nothing at all about Thutmose after Akhenaten became pharaoh. But we know a lot about Akhenaten, so this will be our way of learning about their ministry.29,30 Akhenaten is perhaps best known for his attempt to convert Egypt to monotheism. He made the worship of the Sun-god Aten the only legal religion, and forbade even the writing of the names of any of the lesser gods.31:363,32 Thus he changed his name from Amenhotep IV ("Amun is pleased") to Akhenaten ("living spirit of Aten"). Ramose ("son of Ra") would have changed his name also, since "Ra" was the pagan name for the Sun god. The most conservative change would have been simply to drop the "Ra," leaving "Mose." (In Hebrew, it's "Moshe," which in Greek becomes "Moses.") Atenism was distinctly different from the Ra cult that preceded it. As more than just the sum of the lesser cults, Atenism was more abstract. Previous gods were distinct entities, sometimes human-like, and sometimes part human and part lesser animal. The Aten wasn't a physical entity in the same sense. Rather, it was an indescribable creator force, whose manifestation could be found in all things. In other words, if Akhenaten had been Greek, he wouldn't have said that Helios was more powerful than Poseidon. Nor would he have said that Zeus was the king of the lesser gods. He would have said that all of the powers of Helios, Poseidon, and Zeus emanated from a central source, which could not be reduced to any personification. Akhenaten forbade idolatry as a vain attempt to demote Aten to something that could be conceptualized in a physical sense.33:35 He even insisted that "Aten" no longer be written in hieroglyphic form as the obvious sun-rays, but rather, that it be spelled out phonetically. In the more general sense, Atenism was an attack on superstition, and was the first clear statement of what is now called pantheism — that there is but one God, who is all things at all times, and who is synonymous simply with nature itself. In the words of Sir Flinders Petrie, If this were a new religion, invented to satisfy our modern scientific conceptions, we could not find a flaw in the correctness of this view of the energy of the solar system. How much Akhenaten understood, we cannot say, but he certainly bounded forward in his views and symbolism to a position which we cannot logically improve upon at the present day. Not a rag of superstition or of falsity can be found clinging to this new worship evolved out of the old Aton of Heliopolis, the sole Lord of the universe. The humanism of this new religion is unmistakable in the art found at Amarna. Unlike previous pharaohs, who had their family members depicted as much smaller than themselves, Akhenaten had his family rendered realistically relative to himself (if they were adults). And rather than presenting an imposing countenance, they were relaxed, and even sometimes showing affection for each other. Akhenaten and Nefertiti with 3 of their daughters. The ankh symbols at the tips of the sun-rays signified that the Sun was the source of life here on Earth. After Akhenaten repositioned himself as the sole instance of the Aten, the rays would emanate from him. Less figuratively, his emissaries would be the ordained projection of his life force. In Canaan, these would be known as "ankh-els" (i.e., godly life forces), which in Greek becomes "angels."34:35 Thus angels were just representatives of the pharaoh. They got their wings from Ma'at (see the article on Atenism & Early Judaism). While Akhenaten was alive, and during the reign of his immediate successor Smenkhare, Atenism was the only legal religion in Egypt. Then came Tutankhamun, who moved the capital back to Thebes, reinstating Amunism as the dominant religion, though still tolerating Atenism. In other words, the Aten was demoted to just a lesser member of the Egyptian pantheon of gods (even if the Atenists didn't see it that way). The pharaoh Ay continued that policy. Then Horemheb came to power in , who outlawed Atenism. Under his regime, a flight from Egypt in on religious grounds as recorded in the Seder would have been Atenists fleeing Horemheb. Senior officials from Amarna would have been put in charge of the refugees, with the top candidates being Prince Thutmose & Ramose (i.e., Aaron & Moses). Now we can bring in the Torah to fill in some of the blanks. Moses got on the bad side of the pharaoh by killing somebody who was beating a slave.3,4,5 If Moses was Ramose, he was the senior vizier at Amarna, and the only person he could have killed — important enough to incur such wrath from the pharaoh — would have been a member of the royal family. We know that Akhenaten's sister (KV35YL) was murdered, so perhaps she was the victim. Regardless, Moses had to flee for his life, settling in Midian, where he married Zipporah, and had a few kids. Then, one account of his return to Egypt makes no mention of the oppression of his followers: 18 (E) Moses went back to Jethro his father-in-law and said to him, "Please let me go back to my brothers in Egypt to see whether they are still alive." And Jethro said to Moses, "Go in peace." 19 (J) And the Lord said to Moses in Midian, "Go back to Egypt, for all the men who were seeking your life are dead." 20 (J,E) So Moses took his wife and his sons and had them ride on a donkey, and went back to the land of Egypt. And Moses took the staff of God in his hand. The pharaoh who wanted him killed would have been Akhenaten, who died in , so that's when Moses would have been free to return to Egypt. The capital was still at Amarna, and Atenism was still the only legal religion. So it was safe for him to move back to Egypt, even bringing his wife & kids. He also brought the staff of God (i.e., the kind that senior officials carried, such as in Figure 1), suggesting that he had been reinstated as senior vizier. Manetho's kings list (as preserved by Africanus) has "Rathose" as the pharaoh after Akhenaten and before Tutankhamun, with a tenure of 6 years.35,36 This could have been Moses acting as the de facto ruler of Egypt in the period of (i.e., during the 4-year reign of Smenkhare, and a couple of years into Tut's reign). The other Jahwist passage related to this move is consistent with Moses returning to become regent. On the way back, "God" was going to kill Moses, which Zipporah prevented by circumcising one of her sons.37 Since circumcision was an Egyptian custom,38,39:34 this was an act of loyalty to the pharaoh. Why would "God" be so adamant that Moses dedicate his heir to the Egyptian ruler? Perhaps "God" was that Egyptian ruler. Fragments of the Jahwist source portray God in human form, complete with human flaws, and thus curiously falling short of the all-powerful, all-knowing deity worshiped by so many people today. One interpretation is that the anthropomorphic "god" being described was actually just a pharaoh, who the Egyptians considered to be a living god, and who expected to be addressed as such, in person and in writing. So if a pharaoh were to do something, the Hebrew scribes were going to attribute the actions to "God," which everyone knew to be the pharaoh in power at the time. If we read the passage in question with this interpretation, the Lord Smenkhare was going to kill Moses if he tried to accept a powerful position without dedicating his heir to Egypt, which only would have been an issue if the position was hereditary, such as the regency, and wouldn't have been an issue for any lesser position, including senior vizier, which wasn't hereditary. As the events unfolded, heredity didn't come into play — after just 6 years, Moses was replaced by Horemheb as senior vizier, who was no friend of the Atenists. Under Horemheb's direction, Tutankhamun moved the capital back to Thebes in , and reinstated the Amun priesthood. Then came of the question of what to do with the Atenist priests. Horemheb wouldn't have wanted them to follow the royal court back to Thebes. And he wouldn't have wanted them to relocate to Memphis, where surely they'd mount on insurrection that would have costed the pharaoh control of the delta. If they were too popular to murder, the only other choice would have been to exile them. So the high priests at Amarna would have been exiled to the Egyptian frontier in . We might even know how many were involved — a total of 70 "elders" is mentioned several times.40,41,42,43 So this would have been the small but very influential group of evangelists who brought Egyptian religious practices to Canaan. The Deuteronomic History preserves a record of a new Atenist influence in Canaan at precisely this time. The following chronology begins with Joshua's "conquest" in , which agrees with the Egyptian records, and coincides with the earthquake known to archaeologists. It correctly marks the destruction of Israel in (by Merneptah), which coincides with the devastation recorded in Deborah's time.44,34:26 There is scant archaeological evidence of the Kings Saul and David, but based on synchronisms with Assyrian and Babylonian accounts, Solomon would have been crowned around the year .24:20 So this time-line is anchored to secular history in three places. It then fits the judges within that framework, to get specific dates for each tenure. And all of this was done independent of the present thesis. Interestingly, in (i.e., just when Tutankhamun abandoned Amarna), a new judge named Othniel (in the English spelling, or Othoniel in Latin,45 or Otni'el in Hebrew) was appointed. The Tanakh tells us little about Otni'el, except that he was (supposedly) the son of Kenaz, that he was given Caleb's daughter in marriage for capturing Kiriath Sepher (near Hebron),46,47 and that he delivered the Israelites from the control of the Mitannians.48 This is sparse information for a central figure at a crucial turning point for the Israelites. There are also significant disagreements on the identities of Otni'el, Kenaz, and Caleb, in the way the story was told in the Tanakh, the Talmud,49 Philo,50:26 Josephus,2:33,51:ch3 and the Qu'ran.52 (Analogously, it would be odd if there were conflicting opinions on the true identity of the 1st president of the US, the best known of them all.) This suggests that the scribes were wrestling with an awkward cover-up. So who was the real Otni'el? "Otni" is the combinatorial form of "Aten," so Otni'el = Aten-El.34:90 Note that "Elohim" was sometimes used just as a generic term for "the god(s)," and in combination with another name, "El" was more of a title than a name. So Otni'el simply meant "the Atenist god." And for somebody with an Atenist name to be put in charge, precisely when Atenist high priests were exiled from Amarna, probably wasn't a coincidence — the inescapable inference is that Otni'el was one of those priests. Since Moses was the most notable member of the troop, he was the likeliest candidate for the position of judge. The Torah itself identifies Moses as the first judge.53 And he delivered the Israelites from the control of the Mitannians, not as the son of Kenaz, son of Jephunneh, son of Judah, son of Jacob — somebody of Mitannian descent couldn't deliver anybody from Mitannian control — Otni'el had to have been from outside of that clan, which Moses the Egyptian was. Then, in , Tutankhamun died, and his wife Ankhesenamun disappeared shortly thereafter. By this time in Judges, Otni'el was taking Hebron, for which he was given Aksah's hand in marriage. Perhaps Aksah was Ankhesenamun, who had decided that she wasn't interested in Ay (or vice versa), and who opted to fall in with Moses instead, thereafter being known by her nickname. If so, the mention of "upper and lower springs" would have been references to the Upper and Lower Nile,54 inserted to identify her as a former queen of Egypt. Perhaps this was the Cushite marriage that Aaron & Miriam criticized,55 not the marriage to Zipporah, who was a Midianite (or a Mitannian — see the article on More Names for the Patriarchs), nor to Merit-Ptah, who seems to have been from Memphis.56:42 A chunk of Jewish lore first published in (i.e., before Egyptian hieroglyphics were deciphered, and before Amarna was unearthed) agreed that Moses' Cushite wife was a former queen, who married Moses after the king died,57:ch73:31 consistent with Ankhesenamun going with Moses after Tutankhamun died. It went on to give her name — Adoniya — which was an Atenist name, suggesting that she had been a queen at Amarna. If we're looking for an Amarna queen, of Ethiopian descent, whose pharaoh (also of Ethiopian descent) died after , Ankhesenamun is the only candidate. We can then set the date of the marriage of Othi'el & Aksah at , a year or so after Tut died, and identify them with Ramose-Moses-Hermes & Ankhesenamun. The 1312-Exodus contributed more people — perhaps a couple hundred or maybe even a couple thousand — to the Hebrew camp. But in , the time-line has Eglon gaining control in Moab. Moses-Otni'el would have been ~76 years old, and hardly relinquishing power except by expiring. So we can conclude that Moses' life-span was , with his tenure on the East Bank being . Eglon took Jericho,58 and perhaps other towns in Canaan, remaining in power for 18 years. Then the time-line shows Ehud deposing Eglon in , and this is precisely when secular records show Hebrews gaining a foothold in Canaan,31:409 as confirmed by archaeology.59:35 So the "conquest" of Canaan, after Moses-Otni'el and all of that generation had passed,60,61 was begun by Eglon in , and completed by Ehud in . If we consider "The Exodus" to have begun when the Atenist priests were exiled from Amarna in , and if it were completed by Ehud in , that's 41 years, similar to the 40 years quoted in the Book of Joshua.62 The same length of time was also given for the tenure of Otni'el.48 All in all, the Deuteronomic History might give a pretty detailed account of the rise of Hebrew culture. To restore the historicity, we just have to replace the brief mention of Otni'el with the entire Book of Deuteronomy. In other words, the crucial details of the establishment & organization of the emerging Hebrew nation under Moses were not deleted — they were simply moved to their own book, while Otni'el was left as a placeholder in the time-line.	<urn:uuid:c3ca59cc-d404-4cdb-bdb6-6fb4c190002c>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	http://qdl.scs-inc.us/?top=5678	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251783000.84/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128184745-20200128214745-00152.warc.gz	en	0.986906	5,390	3.59375	4	[ -0.19392129778862, 0.9448494911193848, 0.12492121756076813, 0.02205813117325306, -0.5206610560417175, -0.3285650312900543, 0.7261990904808044, -0.1734461635351181, -0.13765135407447815, 0.284532755613327, 0.029148925095796585, -0.5187225341796875, -0.15722647309303284, 0.005345241632312536...	1	The Egyptian at the heart of the story of the Exodus is Moses, no matter who tells it. So who was he? The Torah says that his mother put him in a basket to drift down the Nile, starting just upstream of where the pharaoh's daughter was bathing, who found and adopted him.1 This was probably a renewal of the far older legend of Sargon the Great, who ruled Mesopotamia in the period of . But regardless of how Moses came to be raised at court, Josephus tells us that he rose to the rank of general in the Egyptian army.2:239 Later he fled to Midian (at the west end of the Arabian Peninsula, directly across the Gulf of Aqaba from the Sinai) to escape prosecution for killing an Egyptian who was beating a slave.3,4,5 When the plight of his followers in Egypt became desperate, Moses returned to negotiate on their behalf.6 If there is any truth to this at all, Moses would have been important enough to show up in the secular records. The name "Moses" has never been found in any Egyptian document, but that doesn't necessarily mean much. In Egyptian this would have been "-mose," which was simply a suffix meaning "son," and which followed the name of the parent god. Since the Hebrews preferred not to name the object of their worship, the omission is to be expected. But what was his full name in Egyptian, before the Hebrews sanitized it? Figure 1. Relief of Ramose in TT55, wearing an elaborate wig, a heavy heart necklace and a small bead necklace, the gold collar of a nobleman, and the loose-fitting vizier's smock. He is holding the staff of a senior official. The text reads: "Justified before Ra, the Overseer of the City (i.e., Mayor of Thebes), the Vizier Ramose, true of voice."7 Photo & description courtesy Don Ferruggia. The most interesting candidate is the general Ramose, who was the commander-in-chief of the Egyptian army under Akhenaten, and whose tomb was found at Amarna (AST11).8:390 Some authorities believe that this was the same person as one of the viziers to Amenhotep III and Akhenaten,8:385,9 whose unfinished tomb at Thebes (TT55) is among the finest in the Valley of the Nobles. It's also the earliest tomb done in the Amarna style.8:386 (See Figure 1.) The sudden disappearance of this Ramose, and the emergence of a commander-in-chief of the same name at Amarna, without prior mention in any records, is explained as the same person, whose role changed with the times.8:390 It would certainly be odd if somebody in Thebes who had commissioned a tomb to be done in the style later to dominate the artwork at Amarna wouldn't have followed Akhenaten there. In fact, this suggests that Ramose was the earliest and most ardent supporter of the cultural changes during the Amarna period, and perhaps was one of the driving forces behind it. If this vizier/general was Moses, and if the Exodus began in , he was roughly the right age. Jewish legend has Moses being born in ,10:47:1 though we have no way of knowing if this was the actual date, or if it was written in later, based simply on Moses being a wizened old man at the beginning of the 1312-Exodus. The secular records are even less specific. As vizier, Ramose was thought to have been born in , just because he was also tutor to Akhenaten (born ), and thus probably older (though not necessarily 10 years older). Since even Akhenaten's year of birth is a guess, we can't make precise calculations of ages, but we can at least check to see if they were in the right range. So if Moses was born in , he would have been 78 years old in . While this is certainly possible, it's definitely near the biological limits. It's also possible that Akhenaten and Moses were both born later, and/or that Moses was closer to Akhenaten's age. In Figure 1, Ramose is a young man, 20~25 years old. He was made vizier in the last couple of years of Amenhotep III's reign (). If he was 25 years old at that time, he would have been born in . So the present thesis splits the difference between that and the date given in the Book of Jubilees, going with as the year of Moses' birth, making him 70 years old in . He lived another 6 years, finally passing away in , at the age of 76 (see below). The key personnel also included Moses' older brother Aaron (whose name meant lofty or exalted). Jewish lore treats the two brothers as equals, and in some respects, puts Aaron first. For example, Aaron began his ministry before Moses.11 Aaron was better-spoken than Moses,12 and thus was the one who did the talking when they met with the pharaoh,13 and in other situations later.14 And Aaron was the origin of the Cohan lineage, suggesting that he had hereditary titles that were worth more than Moses'. So who was Aaron? To go higher than the senior vizier at Amarna, we have to look at royalty. There are few choices, and the only one that stands out is Prince Thutmose, Akhenaten's only older brother. There is no record of Thutmose's death, which is odd in that it would have legitimized Akhenaten's succession to Amenhotep III in the minds of the Egyptian populace. So there should have been an elaborate funeral procession, and the event should have been well-noted in public records (such as on the columns at Karnak). The fact that it wasn't opens the possibility that he didn't actually die, and everybody knew it, which could only mean that he simply deferred the throne to his younger brother, perhaps preferring his role as the high priest of Memphis.15:88 If so, Thutmose-Aaron would have been the one to do the talking when meeting with Tutankhamun and/or Horemheb, and his descendants would have been hereditary priests (i.e., kohanim), as well as possible heirs to the throne. As a prince, he would have been called lofty or exalted, the way people refer to a king as "his highness." And as high priest of Memphis, he did begin his ministry before Moses. In the Torah, Aaron is called a prophet,13 and though it doesn't say much about Aaron's religious views, what it does say is consistent with a priest from Memphis — while Moses was receiving the Ten Commandments, Aaron made a golden calf for the people to worship,16 and in Memphis, the bull-god Apis was second only to the sun-god Ra. There is also a correlation between Thutmose and Moses in that Thutmose meant "son of Thoth," which was the Egyptian equivalent of the Greek god Hermes, and who has been identified with Moses.17:9.27.6,18 All of them were associated with the invention of the alphabet.19,17:9.26 So the two key people seem to have been Thutmose-Aaron and Ramose-Moses-Hermes. The Torah states that Aaron was 3 years older than Moses.20 If Moses was born in , Aaron was born in , still within biological limits to at least embark on the Exodus at the age of 73, though he died shortly into the journey, at Mount Seir.21,22:4.7 At the other end of his lifespan, he couldn't have been born much before , if he was in fact the oldest son of Queen Tiye, who is believed to have been born in — thus she gave birth to Aaron at the age of 17, at the very beginning of her limits. This is loosely consistent with Aaron coming 14 generations before Solomon,23 who was born .24:20 If Aaron was born in , that works out to 27.5 years per generation, which is realistic for male lineages in the upper class during this period. We know very little from the secular records about Ramose the vizier. We know that he was the son of Nebi, the mayor of Memphis.25:203-205,303-305 His wife (#1) Merit-Ptah was the daughter of May, the commander of the chariotry. And Ramose was the distant relative of a very prominent Amun priest in Thebes.26:203,27:76 As vizier, he served alongside Amenhotep-Huy, though it isn't clear which vizier had which responsibilities. We know even less about Ramose the general. Titles in his tomb at Amarna include "royal scribe, commander of the soldiers of the Lord of the Two Lands, and steward of the estate of Amenhotep III."28:105-111 Elsewhere we hear that he was the wearer of the royal seal, chief prophet or sage, supervisor of public buildings, chief justice, and "sole companion to the king" on matters of state.8:385 In other words, he was second in command. But these are just titles — they don't tell us what he did. And we know nothing at all about Thutmose after Akhenaten became pharaoh. But we know a lot about Akhenaten, so this will be our way of learning about their ministry.29,30 Akhenaten is perhaps best known for his attempt to convert Egypt to monotheism. He made the worship of the Sun-god Aten the only legal religion, and forbade even the writing of the names of any of the lesser gods.31:363,32 Thus he changed his name from Amenhotep IV ("Amun is pleased") to Akhenaten ("living spirit of Aten"). Ramose ("son of Ra") would have changed his name also, since "Ra" was the pagan name for the Sun god. The most conservative change would have been simply to drop the "Ra," leaving "Mose." (In Hebrew, it's "Moshe," which in Greek becomes "Moses.") Atenism was distinctly different from the Ra cult that preceded it. As more than just the sum of the lesser cults, Atenism was more abstract. Previous gods were distinct entities, sometimes human-like, and sometimes part human and part lesser animal. The Aten wasn't a physical entity in the same sense. Rather, it was an indescribable creator force, whose manifestation could be found in all things. In other words, if Akhenaten had been Greek, he wouldn't have said that Helios was more powerful than Poseidon. Nor would he have said that Zeus was the king of the lesser gods. He would have said that all of the powers of Helios, Poseidon, and Zeus emanated from a central source, which could not be reduced to any personification. Akhenaten forbade idolatry as a vain attempt to demote Aten to something that could be conceptualized in a physical sense.33:35 He even insisted that "Aten" no longer be written in hieroglyphic form as the obvious sun-rays, but rather, that it be spelled out phonetically. In the more general sense, Atenism was an attack on superstition, and was the first clear statement of what is now called pantheism — that there is but one God, who is all things at all times, and who is synonymous simply with nature itself. In the words of Sir Flinders Petrie, If this were a new religion, invented to satisfy our modern scientific conceptions, we could not find a flaw in the correctness of this view of the energy of the solar system. How much Akhenaten understood, we cannot say, but he certainly bounded forward in his views and symbolism to a position which we cannot logically improve upon at the present day. Not a rag of superstition or of falsity can be found clinging to this new worship evolved out of the old Aton of Heliopolis, the sole Lord of the universe. The humanism of this new religion is unmistakable in the art found at Amarna. Unlike previous pharaohs, who had their family members depicted as much smaller than themselves, Akhenaten had his family rendered realistically relative to himself (if they were adults). And rather than presenting an imposing countenance, they were relaxed, and even sometimes showing affection for each other. Akhenaten and Nefertiti with 3 of their daughters. The ankh symbols at the tips of the sun-rays signified that the Sun was the source of life here on Earth. After Akhenaten repositioned himself as the sole instance of the Aten, the rays would emanate from him. Less figuratively, his emissaries would be the ordained projection of his life force. In Canaan, these would be known as "ankh-els" (i.e., godly life forces), which in Greek becomes "angels."34:35 Thus angels were just representatives of the pharaoh. They got their wings from Ma'at (see the article on Atenism & Early Judaism). While Akhenaten was alive, and during the reign of his immediate successor Smenkhare, Atenism was the only legal religion in Egypt. Then came Tutankhamun, who moved the capital back to Thebes, reinstating Amunism as the dominant religion, though still tolerating Atenism. In other words, the Aten was demoted to just a lesser member of the Egyptian pantheon of gods (even if the Atenists didn't see it that way). The pharaoh Ay continued that policy. Then Horemheb came to power in , who outlawed Atenism. Under his regime, a flight from Egypt in on religious grounds as recorded in the Seder would have been Atenists fleeing Horemheb. Senior officials from Amarna would have been put in charge of the refugees, with the top candidates being Prince Thutmose & Ramose (i.e., Aaron & Moses). Now we can bring in the Torah to fill in some of the blanks. Moses got on the bad side of the pharaoh by killing somebody who was beating a slave.3,4,5 If Moses was Ramose, he was the senior vizier at Amarna, and the only person he could have killed — important enough to incur such wrath from the pharaoh — would have been a member of the royal family. We know that Akhenaten's sister (KV35YL) was murdered, so perhaps she was the victim. Regardless, Moses had to flee for his life, settling in Midian, where he married Zipporah, and had a few kids. Then, one account of his return to Egypt makes no mention of the oppression of his followers: 18 (E) Moses went back to Jethro his father-in-law and said to him, "Please let me go back to my brothers in Egypt to see whether they are still alive." And Jethro said to Moses, "Go in peace." 19 (J) And the Lord said to Moses in Midian, "Go back to Egypt, for all the men who were seeking your life are dead." 20 (J,E) So Moses took his wife and his sons and had them ride on a donkey, and went back to the land of Egypt. And Moses took the staff of God in his hand. The pharaoh who wanted him killed would have been Akhenaten, who died in , so that's when Moses would have been free to return to Egypt. The capital was still at Amarna, and Atenism was still the only legal religion. So it was safe for him to move back to Egypt, even bringing his wife & kids. He also brought the staff of God (i.e., the kind that senior officials carried, such as in Figure 1), suggesting that he had been reinstated as senior vizier. Manetho's kings list (as preserved by Africanus) has "Rathose" as the pharaoh after Akhenaten and before Tutankhamun, with a tenure of 6 years.35,36 This could have been Moses acting as the de facto ruler of Egypt in the period of (i.e., during the 4-year reign of Smenkhare, and a couple of years into Tut's reign). The other Jahwist passage related to this move is consistent with Moses returning to become regent. On the way back, "God" was going to kill Moses, which Zipporah prevented by circumcising one of her sons.37 Since circumcision was an Egyptian custom,38,39:34 this was an act of loyalty to the pharaoh. Why would "God" be so adamant that Moses dedicate his heir to the Egyptian ruler? Perhaps "God" was that Egyptian ruler. Fragments of the Jahwist source portray God in human form, complete with human flaws, and thus curiously falling short of the all-powerful, all-knowing deity worshiped by so many people today. One interpretation is that the anthropomorphic "god" being described was actually just a pharaoh, who the Egyptians considered to be a living god, and who expected to be addressed as such, in person and in writing. So if a pharaoh were to do something, the Hebrew scribes were going to attribute the actions to "God," which everyone knew to be the pharaoh in power at the time. If we read the passage in question with this interpretation, the Lord Smenkhare was going to kill Moses if he tried to accept a powerful position without dedicating his heir to Egypt, which only would have been an issue if the position was hereditary, such as the regency, and wouldn't have been an issue for any lesser position, including senior vizier, which wasn't hereditary. As the events unfolded, heredity didn't come into play — after just 6 years, Moses was replaced by Horemheb as senior vizier, who was no friend of the Atenists. Under Horemheb's direction, Tutankhamun moved the capital back to Thebes in , and reinstated the Amun priesthood. Then came of the question of what to do with the Atenist priests. Horemheb wouldn't have wanted them to follow the royal court back to Thebes. And he wouldn't have wanted them to relocate to Memphis, where surely they'd mount on insurrection that would have costed the pharaoh control of the delta. If they were too popular to murder, the only other choice would have been to exile them. So the high priests at Amarna would have been exiled to the Egyptian frontier in . We might even know how many were involved — a total of 70 "elders" is mentioned several times.40,41,42,43 So this would have been the small but very influential group of evangelists who brought Egyptian religious practices to Canaan. The Deuteronomic History preserves a record of a new Atenist influence in Canaan at precisely this time. The following chronology begins with Joshua's "conquest" in , which agrees with the Egyptian records, and coincides with the earthquake known to archaeologists. It correctly marks the destruction of Israel in (by Merneptah), which coincides with the devastation recorded in Deborah's time.44,34:26 There is scant archaeological evidence of the Kings Saul and David, but based on synchronisms with Assyrian and Babylonian accounts, Solomon would have been crowned around the year .24:20 So this time-line is anchored to secular history in three places. It then fits the judges within that framework, to get specific dates for each tenure. And all of this was done independent of the present thesis. Interestingly, in (i.e., just when Tutankhamun abandoned Amarna), a new judge named Othniel (in the English spelling, or Othoniel in Latin,45 or Otni'el in Hebrew) was appointed. The Tanakh tells us little about Otni'el, except that he was (supposedly) the son of Kenaz, that he was given Caleb's daughter in marriage for capturing Kiriath Sepher (near Hebron),46,47 and that he delivered the Israelites from the control of the Mitannians.48 This is sparse information for a central figure at a crucial turning point for the Israelites. There are also significant disagreements on the identities of Otni'el, Kenaz, and Caleb, in the way the story was told in the Tanakh, the Talmud,49 Philo,50:26 Josephus,2:33,51:ch3 and the Qu'ran.52 (Analogously, it would be odd if there were conflicting opinions on the true identity of the 1st president of the US, the best known of them all.) This suggests that the scribes were wrestling with an awkward cover-up. So who was the real Otni'el? "Otni" is the combinatorial form of "Aten," so Otni'el = Aten-El.34:90 Note that "Elohim" was sometimes used just as a generic term for "the god(s)," and in combination with another name, "El" was more of a title than a name. So Otni'el simply meant "the Atenist god." And for somebody with an Atenist name to be put in charge, precisely when Atenist high priests were exiled from Amarna, probably wasn't a coincidence — the inescapable inference is that Otni'el was one of those priests. Since Moses was the most notable member of the troop, he was the likeliest candidate for the position of judge. The Torah itself identifies Moses as the first judge.53 And he delivered the Israelites from the control of the Mitannians, not as the son of Kenaz, son of Jephunneh, son of Judah, son of Jacob — somebody of Mitannian descent couldn't deliver anybody from Mitannian control — Otni'el had to have been from outside of that clan, which Moses the Egyptian was. Then, in , Tutankhamun died, and his wife Ankhesenamun disappeared shortly thereafter. By this time in Judges, Otni'el was taking Hebron, for which he was given Aksah's hand in marriage. Perhaps Aksah was Ankhesenamun, who had decided that she wasn't interested in Ay (or vice versa), and who opted to fall in with Moses instead, thereafter being known by her nickname. If so, the mention of "upper and lower springs" would have been references to the Upper and Lower Nile,54 inserted to identify her as a former queen of Egypt. Perhaps this was the Cushite marriage that Aaron & Miriam criticized,55 not the marriage to Zipporah, who was a Midianite (or a Mitannian — see the article on More Names for the Patriarchs), nor to Merit-Ptah, who seems to have been from Memphis.56:42 A chunk of Jewish lore first published in (i.e., before Egyptian hieroglyphics were deciphered, and before Amarna was unearthed) agreed that Moses' Cushite wife was a former queen, who married Moses after the king died,57:ch73:31 consistent with Ankhesenamun going with Moses after Tutankhamun died. It went on to give her name — Adoniya — which was an Atenist name, suggesting that she had been a queen at Amarna. If we're looking for an Amarna queen, of Ethiopian descent, whose pharaoh (also of Ethiopian descent) died after , Ankhesenamun is the only candidate. We can then set the date of the marriage of Othi'el & Aksah at , a year or so after Tut died, and identify them with Ramose-Moses-Hermes & Ankhesenamun. The 1312-Exodus contributed more people — perhaps a couple hundred or maybe even a couple thousand — to the Hebrew camp. But in , the time-line has Eglon gaining control in Moab. Moses-Otni'el would have been ~76 years old, and hardly relinquishing power except by expiring. So we can conclude that Moses' life-span was , with his tenure on the East Bank being . Eglon took Jericho,58 and perhaps other towns in Canaan, remaining in power for 18 years. Then the time-line shows Ehud deposing Eglon in , and this is precisely when secular records show Hebrews gaining a foothold in Canaan,31:409 as confirmed by archaeology.59:35 So the "conquest" of Canaan, after Moses-Otni'el and all of that generation had passed,60,61 was begun by Eglon in , and completed by Ehud in . If we consider "The Exodus" to have begun when the Atenist priests were exiled from Amarna in , and if it were completed by Ehud in , that's 41 years, similar to the 40 years quoted in the Book of Joshua.62 The same length of time was also given for the tenure of Otni'el.48 All in all, the Deuteronomic History might give a pretty detailed account of the rise of Hebrew culture. To restore the historicity, we just have to replace the brief mention of Otni'el with the entire Book of Deuteronomy. In other words, the crucial details of the establishment & organization of the emerging Hebrew nation under Moses were not deleted — they were simply moved to their own book, while Otni'el was left as a placeholder in the time-line.	5,531	ENGLISH	1
Islamic Art and the Book The arts of the Islamic book, such as calligraphy and decorative drawing, developed during A.D.900 to 1500, and luxury books are some of the most characteristic examples of Islamic art produced in this period. This came about from two major developments: paper became common, replacing parchment as the major medium for writing, and rounded scripts were regularized and perfected so that they replaced the angular scripts of the previous period, which because of their angularity were uneven in height.Books became major vehicles for artistic expression, and the artists who produced them, notably calligraphers and painters, enjoyed high status, and their workshops were often sponsored by princes and their courts. Before A.D.900, manuscripts of the Koran (the book containing the teachings of the Islamic religion) seem to have been the most common type of book produced and decorated, but after that date a wide range of books were produced for a broad spectrum of patrons. These continued to include, of course, manuscripts of the Koran, which every Muslim wanted to read, but scientific works, histories, romances, and epic and lyric poetry were also copied in fine handwriting and decorated with beautiful illustrations. Most were made for sale on the open market, and cities boasted special souks (markets) where books were bought and sold. The mosque of Marrakech in Morocco is known as the Kutubiyya, or Booksellers' Mosque, after the adjacent market. Some of the most luxurious books were specific commissions made at the order of a particular prince and signed by the calligrapher and decorator. Papermaking had been introduced to the Islamic lands from China in the eighth century. It has been said that Chinese papermakers were among the prisoners captured in a battle fought near Samarqand between the Chinese and the Muslims in 751, and the technique of papermaking-in which cellulose pulp extracted from any of several plants is first suspended in water, caught on a fine screen, and then dried into flexible sheets-slowly spread westward. Within fifty years, the government in Baghdad was using paper for documents. Writing in ink on paper, unlike parchment, could not easily be erased, and therefore paper had the advantage that it was difficult to alter what was written on it. Papermaking spread quickly to Egypt-and eventually to Sicily and Spain-but it was several centuries before paper supplanted parchment for copies of the Koran, probably because of the conservative nature of religious art and its practitioners. In western Islamic lands, parchment continued to be used for manuscripts of the Koran throughout this period. The introduction of paper spurred a conceptual revolution whose consequences have barely been explored. Although paper was never as cheap as it has become today, it was far less expensive than parchment, and therefore more people could afford to buy books. Paper is thinner than parchment, so more pages could be enclosed within a single volume. At first, paper was made in relatively small sheets that were pasted together, but by the beginning of the fourteenth century, very large sheets-as much as a meter across-were available. These large sheets meant that calligraphers and artists had more space on which to work. Paintings became more complicated, giving the artist greater opportunities to depict space or emotion. The increased availability of paper, particularly after 1250, encouraged people to develop systems of representation, such as architectural plans and drawings. This in turn allowed the easy transfer of artistic ideas and motifs over great distances, from one medium to another, and in a different scale in ways that had been difficult, if not impossible, in the previous period. Rounded styles of Arabic handwriting had long been used for correspondence and documents alongside the formal angular scripts used for inscriptions and manuscripts of the Koran. Around the year 900, Ibn Muqla, who was a secretary and vizier at the Abbasid court in Baghdad, developed a system of proportioned writing. He standardized the length of alif, the first letter of the Arabic alphabet, and then determined what the size and shape of all other letters should be, based on the alif. Eventually, six round forms of handwriting, composed of three pairs of big and little scripts known collectively as the Six Pens, became the standard repertory of every calligrapher.	<urn:uuid:99499de1-3f4c-44ee-9d2e-73fe0fe1351b>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://toefl.kmf.com/reading/exercise/51epvj/158023388689084819/51epvj	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251779833.86/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128153713-20200128183713-00047.warc.gz	en	0.984876	872	3.640625	4	[ -0.06398715078830719, 0.5287025570869446, -0.03436899185180664, 0.12499897181987762, -0.11328914016485214, 0.07480227947235107, -0.4201485216617584, 0.02252926491200924, 0.05770891532301903, 0.0750446617603302, -0.07177002727985382, 0.18139539659023285, -0.26828300952911377, 0.146129190921...	5	Islamic Art and the Book The arts of the Islamic book, such as calligraphy and decorative drawing, developed during A.D.900 to 1500, and luxury books are some of the most characteristic examples of Islamic art produced in this period. This came about from two major developments: paper became common, replacing parchment as the major medium for writing, and rounded scripts were regularized and perfected so that they replaced the angular scripts of the previous period, which because of their angularity were uneven in height.Books became major vehicles for artistic expression, and the artists who produced them, notably calligraphers and painters, enjoyed high status, and their workshops were often sponsored by princes and their courts. Before A.D.900, manuscripts of the Koran (the book containing the teachings of the Islamic religion) seem to have been the most common type of book produced and decorated, but after that date a wide range of books were produced for a broad spectrum of patrons. These continued to include, of course, manuscripts of the Koran, which every Muslim wanted to read, but scientific works, histories, romances, and epic and lyric poetry were also copied in fine handwriting and decorated with beautiful illustrations. Most were made for sale on the open market, and cities boasted special souks (markets) where books were bought and sold. The mosque of Marrakech in Morocco is known as the Kutubiyya, or Booksellers' Mosque, after the adjacent market. Some of the most luxurious books were specific commissions made at the order of a particular prince and signed by the calligrapher and decorator. Papermaking had been introduced to the Islamic lands from China in the eighth century. It has been said that Chinese papermakers were among the prisoners captured in a battle fought near Samarqand between the Chinese and the Muslims in 751, and the technique of papermaking-in which cellulose pulp extracted from any of several plants is first suspended in water, caught on a fine screen, and then dried into flexible sheets-slowly spread westward. Within fifty years, the government in Baghdad was using paper for documents. Writing in ink on paper, unlike parchment, could not easily be erased, and therefore paper had the advantage that it was difficult to alter what was written on it. Papermaking spread quickly to Egypt-and eventually to Sicily and Spain-but it was several centuries before paper supplanted parchment for copies of the Koran, probably because of the conservative nature of religious art and its practitioners. In western Islamic lands, parchment continued to be used for manuscripts of the Koran throughout this period. The introduction of paper spurred a conceptual revolution whose consequences have barely been explored. Although paper was never as cheap as it has become today, it was far less expensive than parchment, and therefore more people could afford to buy books. Paper is thinner than parchment, so more pages could be enclosed within a single volume. At first, paper was made in relatively small sheets that were pasted together, but by the beginning of the fourteenth century, very large sheets-as much as a meter across-were available. These large sheets meant that calligraphers and artists had more space on which to work. Paintings became more complicated, giving the artist greater opportunities to depict space or emotion. The increased availability of paper, particularly after 1250, encouraged people to develop systems of representation, such as architectural plans and drawings. This in turn allowed the easy transfer of artistic ideas and motifs over great distances, from one medium to another, and in a different scale in ways that had been difficult, if not impossible, in the previous period. Rounded styles of Arabic handwriting had long been used for correspondence and documents alongside the formal angular scripts used for inscriptions and manuscripts of the Koran. Around the year 900, Ibn Muqla, who was a secretary and vizier at the Abbasid court in Baghdad, developed a system of proportioned writing. He standardized the length of alif, the first letter of the Arabic alphabet, and then determined what the size and shape of all other letters should be, based on the alif. Eventually, six round forms of handwriting, composed of three pairs of big and little scripts known collectively as the Six Pens, became the standard repertory of every calligrapher.	876	ENGLISH	1
The wind blows across the lone prairie, causing the golden heads of grass to sway in a synchronized motion. On the horizon stands a herd of buffalo with bowed heads silhouetted by the slowly sinking sun. In the east stands an Indian war party mounted on horseback, each individual in different multicolored attire, all with either bows or spears in hand. As they move in for the attack, the mystical scene slowly fades from vision.... This dreamlike scene was once everyday life to the American Indian before they were robbed of all that made their life real. The Indians originally came over to North America via the Bering Strait at a time when the ice age caused the gap to freeze over. They came from Asia by …show more content… Among the Blackfoot Indians, the hair was considered the "seat of the soul". Warriors combed a narrow lock of hair over the bridge of the nose, cutting it square. The Blackfoot were responsible for some of the most impressive costume on the Plains. They frequently used ermine in their clothing and decorated their war costumes with paint, beads, etc. These costumes were considered to have spiritual powers, and hence were rarely worn. However, such costumes were worn at certain special events as the "war parade", which was held to impress guests. The people formed lines or circles while featuring headdresses, shields, lances, painted ponies, and ermine fringes on clothing. They also wore animal skins from the animal they had the powers of as a symbol of a transfer of power. During moves, these "uniforms" were stored in containers that were proudly carried by the warriors' wives. For everyday attire, the men in warm weather wore a breechcloth and moccasins. In cold weather, men wore deerskin shirts, long skin leggings, and a buffalo robe. The women's attire in warm weather consisted of dresses made of deer or sheepskin. The length was below the knee and it was held on the shoulders by straps. In cold weather, sleeves could be added by tying skin	<urn:uuid:53ee3f0e-d525-4296-afa8-8c42606fb7e6>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.majortests.com/essay/The-Blackfoot-Indians-P3CUBYGQSS.html	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251778272.69/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128122813-20200128152813-00231.warc.gz	en	0.982033	423	3.703125	4	[ -0.20068511366844177, 0.28027084469795227, 0.3271479904651642, 0.18982253968715668, 0.026473281905055046, 0.08171016722917557, 0.317636102437973, -0.10004017502069473, -0.4579544961452484, 0.13472142815589905, 0.1191609799861908, 0.030600784346461296, -0.2137092500925064, 0.210038006305694...	1	The wind blows across the lone prairie, causing the golden heads of grass to sway in a synchronized motion. On the horizon stands a herd of buffalo with bowed heads silhouetted by the slowly sinking sun. In the east stands an Indian war party mounted on horseback, each individual in different multicolored attire, all with either bows or spears in hand. As they move in for the attack, the mystical scene slowly fades from vision.... This dreamlike scene was once everyday life to the American Indian before they were robbed of all that made their life real. The Indians originally came over to North America via the Bering Strait at a time when the ice age caused the gap to freeze over. They came from Asia by …show more content… Among the Blackfoot Indians, the hair was considered the "seat of the soul". Warriors combed a narrow lock of hair over the bridge of the nose, cutting it square. The Blackfoot were responsible for some of the most impressive costume on the Plains. They frequently used ermine in their clothing and decorated their war costumes with paint, beads, etc. These costumes were considered to have spiritual powers, and hence were rarely worn. However, such costumes were worn at certain special events as the "war parade", which was held to impress guests. The people formed lines or circles while featuring headdresses, shields, lances, painted ponies, and ermine fringes on clothing. They also wore animal skins from the animal they had the powers of as a symbol of a transfer of power. During moves, these "uniforms" were stored in containers that were proudly carried by the warriors' wives. For everyday attire, the men in warm weather wore a breechcloth and moccasins. In cold weather, men wore deerskin shirts, long skin leggings, and a buffalo robe. The women's attire in warm weather consisted of dresses made of deer or sheepskin. The length was below the knee and it was held on the shoulders by straps. In cold weather, sleeves could be added by tying skin	419	ENGLISH	1
Hanukkah sameach! (“Happy Hannukah” in Hebrew!) This year, the Jewish Festival of Lights begins on 22 December. The holiday was created to help remember events that took place more than 2,000 years ago, when Israel was ruled by a king of Syria. That king was named Antiochus, and his reign was brutal. Thousands of Jews were murdered in Jerusalem. Statues to Greek gods were erected in the ancient city’s Second Temple. Following Judaism was outlawed. Jews were told to worship the Greek gods instead — but a rebellion, led by the Jewish priest Mattathias and his five sons, eventually drove the Syrians out of Jerusalem. The Second Temple was rebuilt to celebrate their victory. Its menorah (a candle with seven branches that represents God’s presence) was lit. Although there was only a tiny amount of oil, the menorah burned for eight days. That miracle is why Hanukkah is now celebrated as an eight-day festival. Traditionally, Jews will light one candle of a menorah each night, as well as exchanging gifts and playing games. It is also a time to remember the struggles that Jewish people have faced throughout history — and the decision to rededicate themselves to their faith. Read Our Story A BBC Teach animation tells the story of Hanukkah. - Make a Hanukkah card to celebrate the holiday! If you are not sure what to include, try drawing a menorah. - Think of something that you would like to “rededicate” yourself to next year. This could be something you used to enjoy but have stopped doing, or something that you still do and want to do more of. Write a sentence explaining what it is and why you want to do it.	<urn:uuid:fc97698e-04cd-4764-bf8d-ad083e1709f4>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://explorer.theday.co.uk/themes/2019-12-hannukah-explorer	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250597230.18/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120023523-20200120051523-00487.warc.gz	en	0.985039	374	3.6875	4	[ 0.07999436557292938, 0.3981359601020813, -0.2530222535133362, -0.13047046959400177, -0.4148523509502411, 0.17168456315994263, 0.2350986897945404, 0.2819947898387909, -0.12454119324684143, 0.22851967811584473, -0.15523572266101837, 0.1804899275302887, -0.18131236732006073, 0.380032986402511...	3	Hanukkah sameach! (“Happy Hannukah” in Hebrew!) This year, the Jewish Festival of Lights begins on 22 December. The holiday was created to help remember events that took place more than 2,000 years ago, when Israel was ruled by a king of Syria. That king was named Antiochus, and his reign was brutal. Thousands of Jews were murdered in Jerusalem. Statues to Greek gods were erected in the ancient city’s Second Temple. Following Judaism was outlawed. Jews were told to worship the Greek gods instead — but a rebellion, led by the Jewish priest Mattathias and his five sons, eventually drove the Syrians out of Jerusalem. The Second Temple was rebuilt to celebrate their victory. Its menorah (a candle with seven branches that represents God’s presence) was lit. Although there was only a tiny amount of oil, the menorah burned for eight days. That miracle is why Hanukkah is now celebrated as an eight-day festival. Traditionally, Jews will light one candle of a menorah each night, as well as exchanging gifts and playing games. It is also a time to remember the struggles that Jewish people have faced throughout history — and the decision to rededicate themselves to their faith. Read Our Story A BBC Teach animation tells the story of Hanukkah. - Make a Hanukkah card to celebrate the holiday! If you are not sure what to include, try drawing a menorah. - Think of something that you would like to “rededicate” yourself to next year. This could be something you used to enjoy but have stopped doing, or something that you still do and want to do more of. Write a sentence explaining what it is and why you want to do it.	360	ENGLISH	1
Harriet Tubman Essay Essay written by Shawnda Fletcher Harriet Ross Tubman was an African American who escaped slavery and then showed runaway slaves the way to freedom in the North for longer than a decade before the American Civil War. During the war she was as a scout, spy, and nurse for the United States Army. After that she kept working for rights for blacks and women. Harriet Tubman was originally named Araminta Ross. She was one of 11 children born to Harriet Greene and Benjamin Ross on a plantation in Dorchester County, Maryland. She later took her mother’s first name. Harriet was working at the age of five. She was a maid and a children’s nurse before she worked in the field when she was 12. A year later, a white guy either her watcher or her master smacked her on the head with a really heavy weight. The hit was so hard it left her with permanent neurological damage. In result of the hit she had sudden blackouts during the rest of her life.Order now In 1844 she got permission from her master to marry John Tubman, a free black man. For the next five years Harriet Tubman was a semi-slave. She was still legally a slave, but her master let her live with her husband. In 1847 her master died. Followed by the death of his recipient and young son in 1849. That made Harriets status uncertain. In the middle of rumors that the family’s slaves were being sold to clear the estate, Harriet Tubman went to the North and freedom. Her husband stayed in Maryland. In 1849 Harriet Tubman moved to Pennsylvania. She returned to Maryland two years later hoping to get her husband to come to The North with her. John Tubman had remarried by then. Harriet did not marry again until after John Tubman died. In Pennsylvania, Harriet Tubman became an abolitionist. She worked to end slavery. She decided to become a conductor on the Underground Railroad (a network of antislavery activists who helped slaves escape from the South). On her first trip in 1850, Harriet Tubman brought her sister and her sister’s two children out of slavery in Maryland. In 1851 she rescued her brother, and in 1857 Harriet Tubman returned to Maryland and brought her parents to freedom. Over a time period of ten years Harriet Tubman made an estimated 19 trips into the South and brought about 300 slaves to the North. The Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 had created federal commissioners in every county to support the return of runaways. It gave harsh punishments for those convicted of helping slaves to escape. The law wanted Harriet Tubman, so in 1851 she moved to St. Catharines, a city in Ontario, Canada. That was the destination of many escaped slaves. By the late 1850s a number of Northern states passed personal liberty laws that protected the rights of fugitive slaves. Harriet Tubman was able to buy land and move with her parents to Auburn, New York. Harriet Tubman faced great danger guiding slaves to freedom. Southerners offered big rewards for her to be caught. Harriet Tubman used disguises (sometimes posing as a deranged old man and, at other times, as an old woman) to stay away from touch when traveling in slave states. She carried sleeping powder to stop babies from crying and always had a pistol to prevent the people from backing out once they started going to freedom. Harriet Tubman always changed her route and her methods of working. Though she almost always began her journeys on Saturday night for two reasons. First, many masters did not make their slaves work on Sundays and not realize they were gone until Monday, when the slaves had already traveled a full day and a half. Second, newspapers advertising the escape wouldnt be published until the beginning of the week, so by the time copies reached readers, Harriet Tubman and the fugitive slaves were likely to be near their destination in the North. Harriet Tubman never lost any of her control and had a weird ability to find food and shelter during these hard missions. Among other African Americans she came to be known as Moses .	<urn:uuid:758d397a-4511-4c4e-b7cf-7d33818adf49>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://artscolumbia.org/essays/harriet-tubman-essay-27-109404/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250616186.38/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124070934-20200124095934-00381.warc.gz	en	0.983893	863	3.921875	4	[ -0.2764434218406677, 0.21545040607452393, 0.3017951250076294, 0.14708665013313293, -0.009816780686378479, 0.005795109085738659, 0.05625595524907112, -0.08103290945291519, -0.2185719609260559, 0.28277671337127686, 0.3871917724609375, 0.2384747862815857, -0.051293086260557175, -0.01128885801...	3	Harriet Tubman Essay Essay written by Shawnda Fletcher Harriet Ross Tubman was an African American who escaped slavery and then showed runaway slaves the way to freedom in the North for longer than a decade before the American Civil War. During the war she was as a scout, spy, and nurse for the United States Army. After that she kept working for rights for blacks and women. Harriet Tubman was originally named Araminta Ross. She was one of 11 children born to Harriet Greene and Benjamin Ross on a plantation in Dorchester County, Maryland. She later took her mother’s first name. Harriet was working at the age of five. She was a maid and a children’s nurse before she worked in the field when she was 12. A year later, a white guy either her watcher or her master smacked her on the head with a really heavy weight. The hit was so hard it left her with permanent neurological damage. In result of the hit she had sudden blackouts during the rest of her life.Order now In 1844 she got permission from her master to marry John Tubman, a free black man. For the next five years Harriet Tubman was a semi-slave. She was still legally a slave, but her master let her live with her husband. In 1847 her master died. Followed by the death of his recipient and young son in 1849. That made Harriets status uncertain. In the middle of rumors that the family’s slaves were being sold to clear the estate, Harriet Tubman went to the North and freedom. Her husband stayed in Maryland. In 1849 Harriet Tubman moved to Pennsylvania. She returned to Maryland two years later hoping to get her husband to come to The North with her. John Tubman had remarried by then. Harriet did not marry again until after John Tubman died. In Pennsylvania, Harriet Tubman became an abolitionist. She worked to end slavery. She decided to become a conductor on the Underground Railroad (a network of antislavery activists who helped slaves escape from the South). On her first trip in 1850, Harriet Tubman brought her sister and her sister’s two children out of slavery in Maryland. In 1851 she rescued her brother, and in 1857 Harriet Tubman returned to Maryland and brought her parents to freedom. Over a time period of ten years Harriet Tubman made an estimated 19 trips into the South and brought about 300 slaves to the North. The Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 had created federal commissioners in every county to support the return of runaways. It gave harsh punishments for those convicted of helping slaves to escape. The law wanted Harriet Tubman, so in 1851 she moved to St. Catharines, a city in Ontario, Canada. That was the destination of many escaped slaves. By the late 1850s a number of Northern states passed personal liberty laws that protected the rights of fugitive slaves. Harriet Tubman was able to buy land and move with her parents to Auburn, New York. Harriet Tubman faced great danger guiding slaves to freedom. Southerners offered big rewards for her to be caught. Harriet Tubman used disguises (sometimes posing as a deranged old man and, at other times, as an old woman) to stay away from touch when traveling in slave states. She carried sleeping powder to stop babies from crying and always had a pistol to prevent the people from backing out once they started going to freedom. Harriet Tubman always changed her route and her methods of working. Though she almost always began her journeys on Saturday night for two reasons. First, many masters did not make their slaves work on Sundays and not realize they were gone until Monday, when the slaves had already traveled a full day and a half. Second, newspapers advertising the escape wouldnt be published until the beginning of the week, so by the time copies reached readers, Harriet Tubman and the fugitive slaves were likely to be near their destination in the North. Harriet Tubman never lost any of her control and had a weird ability to find food and shelter during these hard missions. Among other African Americans she came to be known as Moses .	897	ENGLISH	1
About this image Opened by the Lord Mayor, Alderman Sir Sidney Pearson-Hill. The Charter of King Edward I, the first charter to refer to the city fairs, makes it clear that a fair on the Feast of St. Matthew was already established in Nottingham in 1284. It is possible this occasion has come down through the ages to be today's Goose Fair particularly as, until 1752, it was always held on St. Matthew's Day (September 21). On that day there was worship at what was then the tiny church of St. Mary. The Danes had a settlement in Nottingham and it is very likely they established a market. As markets and fairs are known to have common origins, they may well have also held a fair. So, it is just possible that Goose Fair could have its roots in an event which occurred more than a thousand years ago. When the calendar was revised in 1752, omitting 11 days from September, the date of Goose Fair was switched to October 2 and this remained the starting date until 1875. The year of the calendar change was one of the few occasions Goose Fair was not held. The plague caused another cancellation in 1646 and it was suspended during the two World Wars this century. The original purpose of Nottingham's autumn fair was trade. It was held in the Old Market Square, with its sprawl of makeshift stalls and produce, and goods scattered all over the ground. Thousands of people, from beggars and pickpockets to wealthy tradesmen looking for new stocks are crowded into the square. There is a cacophony of noise as the shouts of tradesmen and farmers advertising their wares complete with the noise of farm stock and the chants and songs of minstrels and other entertainers. Jugglers, tumblers, dancers and men on stilts performed. Freak animals - a five-footed sheep, a two-headed horse - were on show for a small entrance fee. Most of the food on offer is produced locally, and it became famous for its cheeses. During the nineteenth century, the character of Goose Fair changed considerably. With the coming of the railways, transport became easier and people no longer had to stock up with goods in the autumn. Gradually, Goose Fair became just an excuse for a good time. Some people also began to question the need to continue Goose Fair, they considered in particular that eight days was much too long for what had become a largely pleasure festival. So, in 1876 it was reduced to five days and, four years later, to three. However, these changes coincided with the introduction of more sophisticated roundabouts and amusement devices. Steam and, later on, electricity played an enormous part in their development. The fair gradually spread to other streets in the vicinity and, with the growth of traffic, there were complaints about congestion and disruption to the day to day life of the city. By the 1920's the City Council had plans to develop the Market Area and in the new scheme of things there was no place for Goose Fair. On the Sunday evening before the last Fair in the Market Place, a public meeting of 12,000 people was held in the Square to protest about the move. Speakers included Pat Collins, President of the Showman's Guild, and a resolution was passed objecting to the move. Despite this public outcry, the Council stood firm and in 1928 a new site was found on The Forest Recreation Ground, a mile or so to the north of the Old Market Square. The fair continues to be nationally renowned, with newer and larger rides. By 1990, only the Snake Girl, Carousels, boxing ring and Mouse Town were left from the traditional rides and today only the carousels remain of these, replaced by high power hydraulic 'thrill' rides. The fair is, however, as popular today as it ever was.	<urn:uuid:1bbcfab6-2f46-4b33-acf2-f83ccfad290b>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://picturenottingham.co.uk/image-library/image-details/poster/ntgm002952/posterid/ntgm002952.html	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251671078.88/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125071430-20200125100430-00552.warc.gz	en	0.986091	783	3.296875	3	[ 0.14225593209266663, -0.4045364260673523, 0.18924733996391296, 0.06805094331502914, 0.19669455289840698, 0.09637942910194397, 0.28988751769065857, -0.29564231634140015, 0.12279506027698517, -0.13808616995811462, -0.18126875162124634, -0.15248262882232666, 0.0677354484796524, -0.11907912790...	3	About this image Opened by the Lord Mayor, Alderman Sir Sidney Pearson-Hill. The Charter of King Edward I, the first charter to refer to the city fairs, makes it clear that a fair on the Feast of St. Matthew was already established in Nottingham in 1284. It is possible this occasion has come down through the ages to be today's Goose Fair particularly as, until 1752, it was always held on St. Matthew's Day (September 21). On that day there was worship at what was then the tiny church of St. Mary. The Danes had a settlement in Nottingham and it is very likely they established a market. As markets and fairs are known to have common origins, they may well have also held a fair. So, it is just possible that Goose Fair could have its roots in an event which occurred more than a thousand years ago. When the calendar was revised in 1752, omitting 11 days from September, the date of Goose Fair was switched to October 2 and this remained the starting date until 1875. The year of the calendar change was one of the few occasions Goose Fair was not held. The plague caused another cancellation in 1646 and it was suspended during the two World Wars this century. The original purpose of Nottingham's autumn fair was trade. It was held in the Old Market Square, with its sprawl of makeshift stalls and produce, and goods scattered all over the ground. Thousands of people, from beggars and pickpockets to wealthy tradesmen looking for new stocks are crowded into the square. There is a cacophony of noise as the shouts of tradesmen and farmers advertising their wares complete with the noise of farm stock and the chants and songs of minstrels and other entertainers. Jugglers, tumblers, dancers and men on stilts performed. Freak animals - a five-footed sheep, a two-headed horse - were on show for a small entrance fee. Most of the food on offer is produced locally, and it became famous for its cheeses. During the nineteenth century, the character of Goose Fair changed considerably. With the coming of the railways, transport became easier and people no longer had to stock up with goods in the autumn. Gradually, Goose Fair became just an excuse for a good time. Some people also began to question the need to continue Goose Fair, they considered in particular that eight days was much too long for what had become a largely pleasure festival. So, in 1876 it was reduced to five days and, four years later, to three. However, these changes coincided with the introduction of more sophisticated roundabouts and amusement devices. Steam and, later on, electricity played an enormous part in their development. The fair gradually spread to other streets in the vicinity and, with the growth of traffic, there were complaints about congestion and disruption to the day to day life of the city. By the 1920's the City Council had plans to develop the Market Area and in the new scheme of things there was no place for Goose Fair. On the Sunday evening before the last Fair in the Market Place, a public meeting of 12,000 people was held in the Square to protest about the move. Speakers included Pat Collins, President of the Showman's Guild, and a resolution was passed objecting to the move. Despite this public outcry, the Council stood firm and in 1928 a new site was found on The Forest Recreation Ground, a mile or so to the north of the Old Market Square. The fair continues to be nationally renowned, with newer and larger rides. By 1990, only the Snake Girl, Carousels, boxing ring and Mouse Town were left from the traditional rides and today only the carousels remain of these, replaced by high power hydraulic 'thrill' rides. The fair is, however, as popular today as it ever was.	817	ENGLISH	1
James B. Covey was only fourteen years old when Josiah Gibbs found him working on the New York docks. Gibbs was one of the Connecticut abolitionists determined to free the 53 Africans, known as the Amistad prisoners, who were on trial for their lives. The captives did not speak English and no one in the state spoke Mende, their native language. Professor Gibbs desperately needed an interpreter and this young man, who had been enslaved as a child, fit the bill. On July 2, 1839 the Africans seized the schooner Amistad from Spanish slavers who who had purchased them in Cuba. In the fight to liberate themselves the Africans killed two white crew members. The ship was captured on Long Island and taken to New London. The men were wrongly classified as runaway slaves, property, and murderers. They were imprisoned in Hartford and New Haven, and had to undergo a series of court trials, including a final appeal at the U.S. Supreme Court, before they were ultimately vindicated. Because James Covey’s first language was Mende, also spoken by most of the enslaved men, he played a critical role in their eventual freedom. According to Josiah Gibbs: “My knowledge of the Mende language I have acquired from James Covey in first instance, in the same manner as I derived my knowledge of the English language from my parents. I have evidence that it is the English language from my intercourse with others. I made out a vocabulary of the Mende language from James Covey, and I am now able by means of it to converse with twenty or thirty of the Africans.” Young Covey developed a Mende/English vocabulary of 400 words and phrases for the abolitionists to use. Eventually, some of the Africans were able to speak for themselves in English. James Covey was dismissed as a “half civilized, totally ignorant African” by slavery apologists, but his record spoke louder than the slander. Cinqué (Sengbe Pieh), leader of the captives, learned to read and write English before he and the others returned to their homeland in November, 1841. In a letter to abolitionist Lewis Tappan, Cinqué wrote: “They say we are like dogs without any home. But if you will send us home you will see whether we be dogs or not… We have a great many friends here and we love them just as we love our brethren. We want to go very soon, and go to no place but Sierra Leone.” Professor Benjamin N. Lawrance, who has written extensively about the Amistad rebellion, emphasizes that Covey’s role as interpreter allowed the Africans to tell their own stories to defense attorneys and the court. Without that information, Lawrance argues, the defense would have had to rely on their captors and the documents they forged to show that the captives were Spanish slaves when in fact they were kidnapped Africans. (Lawrance also more accurately places Covey’s age at fourteen when he was enlisted to help the captives). The young interpreter’s work also uncovered a motive for the Africans’ mutiny that neither the court nor the public would have otherwise known. The Amistad’s cook taunted the captives, leading them to believe that the crew intended to kill and eat them. They had no way of knowing it was simply a cruel joke. Cinqué and his comrades, their lawyers realized, were acting in self defense. Covey’s assistance also helped Cinqué contradict the falsehoods about him that were being spread by pro-slavery newspapers. The prosecutors attempted to use his background as a way to discredit his case, including rumors that he had several wives and had been a slave trader. With the teenager’s help, Cinqué could refute the claims in court and in the press. Despite his youth, Covey provided an authentic voice for the captives. In the process, he established his own identity beyond that of an orphan and former slave. His Mende name was Kaweli. He was known as Covie in Sierra Leone after he had been liberated by a British naval ship. He later named himself James Benjamin Covey. History does not tell us why he chose Benjamin. Perhaps the name derived from the “B” burned into his flesh, Lawrance suggests, a brand that labeled him as property before he was nine years old. When the exonerated Africans finally sailed back to Sierra Leone in 1841, James Benjamin Covey went with them as a free man.	<urn:uuid:9988e1d6-640d-498f-8726-8bcf5bc0bb01>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://shoeleatherhistoryproject.com/2016/01/08/the-teenager-who-saved-the-amistad-captivea/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250606975.49/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122101729-20200122130729-00335.warc.gz	en	0.987278	942	3.96875	4	[ -0.4560910761356354, 0.07609539479017258, 0.12045153230428696, -0.37080153822898865, -0.07783210277557373, -0.2804553210735321, 0.3064156770706177, -0.22356921434402466, -0.4854279160499573, -0.14317761361598969, 0.24258148670196533, -0.020727256312966347, -0.05244273692369461, 0.284917354...	13	James B. Covey was only fourteen years old when Josiah Gibbs found him working on the New York docks. Gibbs was one of the Connecticut abolitionists determined to free the 53 Africans, known as the Amistad prisoners, who were on trial for their lives. The captives did not speak English and no one in the state spoke Mende, their native language. Professor Gibbs desperately needed an interpreter and this young man, who had been enslaved as a child, fit the bill. On July 2, 1839 the Africans seized the schooner Amistad from Spanish slavers who who had purchased them in Cuba. In the fight to liberate themselves the Africans killed two white crew members. The ship was captured on Long Island and taken to New London. The men were wrongly classified as runaway slaves, property, and murderers. They were imprisoned in Hartford and New Haven, and had to undergo a series of court trials, including a final appeal at the U.S. Supreme Court, before they were ultimately vindicated. Because James Covey’s first language was Mende, also spoken by most of the enslaved men, he played a critical role in their eventual freedom. According to Josiah Gibbs: “My knowledge of the Mende language I have acquired from James Covey in first instance, in the same manner as I derived my knowledge of the English language from my parents. I have evidence that it is the English language from my intercourse with others. I made out a vocabulary of the Mende language from James Covey, and I am now able by means of it to converse with twenty or thirty of the Africans.” Young Covey developed a Mende/English vocabulary of 400 words and phrases for the abolitionists to use. Eventually, some of the Africans were able to speak for themselves in English. James Covey was dismissed as a “half civilized, totally ignorant African” by slavery apologists, but his record spoke louder than the slander. Cinqué (Sengbe Pieh), leader of the captives, learned to read and write English before he and the others returned to their homeland in November, 1841. In a letter to abolitionist Lewis Tappan, Cinqué wrote: “They say we are like dogs without any home. But if you will send us home you will see whether we be dogs or not… We have a great many friends here and we love them just as we love our brethren. We want to go very soon, and go to no place but Sierra Leone.” Professor Benjamin N. Lawrance, who has written extensively about the Amistad rebellion, emphasizes that Covey’s role as interpreter allowed the Africans to tell their own stories to defense attorneys and the court. Without that information, Lawrance argues, the defense would have had to rely on their captors and the documents they forged to show that the captives were Spanish slaves when in fact they were kidnapped Africans. (Lawrance also more accurately places Covey’s age at fourteen when he was enlisted to help the captives). The young interpreter’s work also uncovered a motive for the Africans’ mutiny that neither the court nor the public would have otherwise known. The Amistad’s cook taunted the captives, leading them to believe that the crew intended to kill and eat them. They had no way of knowing it was simply a cruel joke. Cinqué and his comrades, their lawyers realized, were acting in self defense. Covey’s assistance also helped Cinqué contradict the falsehoods about him that were being spread by pro-slavery newspapers. The prosecutors attempted to use his background as a way to discredit his case, including rumors that he had several wives and had been a slave trader. With the teenager’s help, Cinqué could refute the claims in court and in the press. Despite his youth, Covey provided an authentic voice for the captives. In the process, he established his own identity beyond that of an orphan and former slave. His Mende name was Kaweli. He was known as Covie in Sierra Leone after he had been liberated by a British naval ship. He later named himself James Benjamin Covey. History does not tell us why he chose Benjamin. Perhaps the name derived from the “B” burned into his flesh, Lawrance suggests, a brand that labeled him as property before he was nine years old. When the exonerated Africans finally sailed back to Sierra Leone in 1841, James Benjamin Covey went with them as a free man.	920	ENGLISH	1
The Franks first appeared among Rome's enemies in northern Gaul in the later 250s. In 286 the new emperor Maximianus made a treaty with the Frankish king Gennobaudes,51 as a consequence of which many Franks entered Roman service. It was alleged at the time of the supposed revolt of the Frankish officer Silvanus in 355 that “a large number at that time had influence in the palace” (Ammianus 15.5.5, cf. 11). Such men became Christians. Silvanus was murdered as he sought sanctuary in a chapel in Cologne (Ammianus 15.5.26). Frankish foederati probably made up the largest non-Roman contingents of the fourth-century army in the Roman West.52 Meanwhile independent Franks were an established force in northeast Gaul by 350. Some of these figures preserved their status both within the Roman and the Frankish hierarchy, notably the warrior Mallobaudes, who had a military career which spanned more than twenty-five years from Constantius to Gratian, when he is described simultaneously as count of the household troops and king of the Franks, comes domesticorum et rex Francorum.53 The Franks Bauto and Arbogast, who dominated the youthful Valentinian II, played an increasingly prominent role in the western empire towards the end of the fourth century. After the middle of the fifth century, the king of the Salian Franks, Childeric, became a major power in northern Gaul.54 He supported Aegidius in his battle against the Visigoths in 463, and helped another Roman comes, Paulus, to defeat the Scirian Odoacar and an army of Saxons at Angers in 469. He was succeeded around 481 by his son Clovis. Clovis extended Frankish power by defeating Syagrius, son of Aegidius, in the neighborhood of Soissons, in the 480s, and the Alemanni and Riparian Franks along the Rhine in the following decade. The decisive moment in his career was the battle of Vouillé/Voulon near Poitiers of 507, in which he defeated the Visigoth Alaric II. Had it not been for the intervention of Theoderic the Amal with Ostrogothic forces in 508, he would have been able to extend his kingdom to the Mediterranean. The ethnography of northern Gaul in the early fifth century was a complicated matter, as Procopius recognized. In an interesting passage, he drew a clear distinction between the free Germans (his designation for the Franks), the native people called the Arborychi, which is probably a mistake for the Armorici who lived in Brittany and northwest Gaul, and the Roman military settlers in the frontier areas, who should surely be identified as Germanic, that is Frankish foederati: But as time went on, the Visigoths forced their way into the Roman Empire and seized all Spain and the portion of Gaul lying beyond the Rhone river and made them subject and tributary to themselves. By that time it so happened that the Arborychi had become soldiers of the Romans. And the Germans, wishing to make this people subject to themselves, since their territory adjoined their own and they had changed the government under which they lived from of old, began to plunder their land and, being eager to make war, marched against them with their whole people. But the Arborychi proved their valour and loyalty to the Romans and showed themselves brave men in this war, and since the Germans were not able to overcome them by force, they wished to win them over and make their two peoples kin by intermarriage. This suggestion the Arborychi received not at all unwillingly; for both, as it happened, were Christians. And in this way they were united into one people and came to have great power. Now other Roman soldiers also had been stationed at the frontiers of Gaul to guard it. And these soldiers, having no means of returning to Rome, and being unwilling to yield to their enemy who were Arians, gave themselves together with their standards and the land, which they for long had guarded for the Romans, to the Arborychi and the Germans. And they handed down to their descendants all the customs of their fathers which were thus preserved, and this people has held them in sufficient reverence to guard them up to my time. For even at the present day they are clearly recognised as belonging to the legions to which they were assigned when they served in ancient times, and they always carry their own standards when they enter battle, and always follow the customs of their fathers. And they preserve the dress of the Romans in every particular even as regards their shows. (Procopius, Bell. Goth. 5.12.12–19, trans. Dewing) Gregory of Tours implies that the Franks under Childeric had mainly been pagans. “They fashioned idols for themselves out of birds and beasts: these they worshipped in place of God and to these they made their sacrifices” (Greg. Tur., Hist. 2.10, trans. Thorpe). Excavations at the location of Childeric's tomb, which was discovered in the seventeenth century, produced evidence for horse sacrifices, but this may not be sufficient to prove that Childeric himself was a pagan. The royal burial may have been accompanied by traditional pagan practices.55 Clovis at first worshipped idols made of stone, metal or wood, not gods (Greg. Tur., Hist. 2.29). Gregory of Tours says that he adopted Catholic Christianity after his marriage to the Burgundian princess, Clotild, and as a consequence of a victory over the Alemanni around 496, which could be attributed to God's support.56 However, conversion did not come out of a blue sky, and the date is also in dispute. Clovis' and Childeric's earlier paganism had certainly been rooted in native traditions of leadership. They invented a lineage for their dynasty which went back two generations to a bull-like creature, which had mated in the sea with the wife of a Frankish noble, Clodio. She gave birth to Merovech, the eponymous founder of the Merovingian dynasty and supposed father of Childeric (Greg. Tur., Hist. 2.9). Such a lineage was better suited to tribal Germans than to successor kingdoms of the Roman Empire. On the other hand, the Franks who had reached high rank under the emperors had all been Christian, and Christianity had also made headway among the people as a whole, as Procopius indicates. At the end of the narrative of Clovis' baptism by Remigius, bishop of Reims, Gregory reveals that the king's sister Lanthechild was converted at the same time from her former Arian ways. Clovis' approach to Christianity was certainly a more gradual process than Gregory of Tours suggests. The main significance of Clovis' shift to Catholicism was political and signaled his ambition to take on the mantle of Roman power. Avitus, bishop of Vienne, underlined the aspirations of the Franks to become major players in the post-Roman world in a letter to Clovis on the occasion of his baptism: “Your faith is our victory…Let Greece, to be sure, rejoice in having an orthodox ruler, but she is no longer the only one to deserve such a gift” (Avitus, ep. 46, trans. Shantzer and Wood). The king of the Franks, this implied, could now assume the role of a western emperor. Gregory of Tours described Clovis emerging from the pool of baptism “like a new Constantine” (Greg. Tur., Hist. 2.31). By adopting Catholicism, Clovis not only appealed to the non-Arian Roman inhabitants of the Visigothic kingdom, but also attracted support from Constantinople. The eastern emperors had been aware of growing Frankish power since the mid-fifth century. Childeric's tomb contained a large hoard of gold solidi minted for eastern emperors, and Leo had summoned a Frank, Titus, to Constantinople, where he had fallen under the spell of the Stylite saint Daniel (Life of Daniel 60–3). The eastern emperor, Anastasius, awarded Clovis a consulship in 508, and Clovis himself took on the trappings of a victorious emperor:57 Letters reached Clovis from the emperor Anastasius to confer the consulate on him. In St Martin's church he stood clad in a purple tunic and the military mantle, and he crowned himself with a diadem. He then rode out on his horse, showered gold and silver coins among the people present all the way from the doorway of St Martin's church to Tours cathedral. From that day on he was called consul or Augustus. (Greg. Tur., Hist. 2.38, trans. Thorpe) Clovis died in 511, and chose to be buried, like Constantine and in striking contrast to his father Childeric, in another Church of the Holy Apostles, at Paris.58 Clovis was survived by four male children. It now became the custom for the Frankish kingdom to be divided between the previous ruler's surviving sons. The three sons of Clotild, his second wife, were involved in disputes with each other over the Burgundian kingdom, which they occupied in 524. Their power was overshadowed by Clovis' eldest son, Theoderic I, and his son Theodebert I, who succeeded him in 533. They controlled the west bank of the Rhine from the North Sea to the Alps, and Theodebert took full advantage of the situation in 536 when Justinian's Roman forces undertook the reconquest of Italy. The Franks offered their support both to the Romans and to the Ostrogoths, acquired control of Provence from the latter, who were too hard pressed to defend it themselves, and then marched into northern Italy in 539. They sacked Milan and took control of much of Liguria. Procopius offers the partisan eastern view that Theodebert and his 100,000 barbarous followers had not yet abandoned paganism and conducted human sacrifice among their captives.59 They began to sacrifice the women and children of the Goths whom they had found at hand and to throw their bodies into the river as the first fruits of war. For these barbarians, though they had become Christians, preserve the greater part of their ancient religion; for they still make human sacrifices and other sacrifices of an unholy nature, and it is in connection with these that they make their prophecies. (Procopius, Bell. Goth. 6.25.1–18, trans. Dewing) Theodebert was succeeded by Theodebald, who had to cede control of northern Italy to the Romans in 548, and who died in 555. This left the way open for the two surviving children of Clotild, Childebert I and Clothar I, to assert their claims, and after the former died in 558, Clothar I became king of all the Frankish peoples until his death in 561. His four sons, Charibert I, Sigebert I, Chilperic I, and Guntram, divided the kingdom as the sons of Clovis had done before, now basing it on four royal residences at Paris, Reims, Soissons, and Orleans.60 However, there was no corresponding territorial division of Gaul, and each leader had supporters in all areas. The nature of the Frankish kingship was not territorial. Their title to rule was based on their lineage, and the personal following that each could command both among their own people and among the post-Roman landowners (see pp. 388–9). Rulers displayed their power through royal progresses through their realms. In the patchwork political fabric of Merovingian Gaul, whose single name conceals a complex web of towns and local elites, the consensus between sixth-century ruler and ruled was constantly exemplified by the adventus ceremony. The quintessentially Merovingian institution of the “royal circuit” or circuitus regis of a wandering monarchy became so essential a trait of rulership that a seventh-century Frank assumed its roots reached into the Roman past.61 The situation was inherently unstable. Charibert I died in 567 and this led to a civil war between Sigebert and Chilperic, who both claimed the area of Tours and Poitiers. Guntram, in dispute with Sigebert, joined Chilperic, but he made his peace with Sigebert after Chilperic was defeated near Reims in 575. Chilperic's wife Fredegund hired assassins to murder Sigebert, whose kingdom now passed to his son Childebert II, while he was still a minor. Chilperic died in 584 also leaving a young son, Clothar I, to follow him. In 592 Childebert II inherited the possessions of Guntram, who had no male children, and thus emerged as the strongest of the group, but when he died aged 25 in 596, his kingdom was again divided between his two sons Theodebert II and Theoderic II.62 The historical and social fabric of sixth-century Gaul is presented in extraordinary detail by the works of Gregory of Tours, who was born in 538 into one of the major Gallo-Roman families, became bishop of Tours, like many other members of his family, in 573, and died c.594. His Book of Histories (most often translated as History of the Franks), began with a summary of biblical history and covered events of the fourth and fifth century on the basis of narrative sources available to Gregory, some of which are now lost. For the generation of Clovis' children he will have drawn on oral tradition, and the narrative becomes more detailed. The later books deal with events that happened during his own adult lifetime, and are recorded in a dense chronicle of Herodotean richness. It is evident that Gregory compiled his history as events occurred, continually updating the record until 591. He seems to have used the same process of incremental composition in other surviving works, most notably the lives of martyrs and saints, and the miracles they performed.63The huge body of Gregory's writings reflects the outlook of the Christian aristocracy of Gaul a century after Sidonius. The world had changed radically. The balance between Christian and classical allusion had shifted completely in favor of the former. The style and language of Gregory are simple and direct, contrasting with Sidonius' ornate and self-conscious sophistication. The historical world of the Roman Empire, which was still the main cultural frame of reference in fifth-century Gaul, was now no more than a background to a world in which the outlines of early medieval Europe are already clear (see Map 6.1).64 Map 6.1 Map of the western empire showing barbarian kingdoms in the west c.500 (StepMap GmbH)	<urn:uuid:cf3400fc-3da1-4133-b72d-8d352c2c8557>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://erenow.net/ancient/a-history-of-the-later-roman-empire-ad-284-ad-641/51.php	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251776516.99/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128060946-20200128090946-00439.warc.gz	en	0.982537	3,140	3.546875	4	[ -0.39932113885879517, 0.36302536725997925, 0.5007153749465942, 0.0908953920006752, -0.26619431376457214, -0.07914233207702637, -0.07668149471282959, 0.34178051352500916, 0.2512126863002777, -0.3685571551322937, -0.10397911071777344, -0.6521202325820923, -0.21255402266979218, 0.329055339097...	4	The Franks first appeared among Rome's enemies in northern Gaul in the later 250s. In 286 the new emperor Maximianus made a treaty with the Frankish king Gennobaudes,51 as a consequence of which many Franks entered Roman service. It was alleged at the time of the supposed revolt of the Frankish officer Silvanus in 355 that “a large number at that time had influence in the palace” (Ammianus 15.5.5, cf. 11). Such men became Christians. Silvanus was murdered as he sought sanctuary in a chapel in Cologne (Ammianus 15.5.26). Frankish foederati probably made up the largest non-Roman contingents of the fourth-century army in the Roman West.52 Meanwhile independent Franks were an established force in northeast Gaul by 350. Some of these figures preserved their status both within the Roman and the Frankish hierarchy, notably the warrior Mallobaudes, who had a military career which spanned more than twenty-five years from Constantius to Gratian, when he is described simultaneously as count of the household troops and king of the Franks, comes domesticorum et rex Francorum.53 The Franks Bauto and Arbogast, who dominated the youthful Valentinian II, played an increasingly prominent role in the western empire towards the end of the fourth century. After the middle of the fifth century, the king of the Salian Franks, Childeric, became a major power in northern Gaul.54 He supported Aegidius in his battle against the Visigoths in 463, and helped another Roman comes, Paulus, to defeat the Scirian Odoacar and an army of Saxons at Angers in 469. He was succeeded around 481 by his son Clovis. Clovis extended Frankish power by defeating Syagrius, son of Aegidius, in the neighborhood of Soissons, in the 480s, and the Alemanni and Riparian Franks along the Rhine in the following decade. The decisive moment in his career was the battle of Vouillé/Voulon near Poitiers of 507, in which he defeated the Visigoth Alaric II. Had it not been for the intervention of Theoderic the Amal with Ostrogothic forces in 508, he would have been able to extend his kingdom to the Mediterranean. The ethnography of northern Gaul in the early fifth century was a complicated matter, as Procopius recognized. In an interesting passage, he drew a clear distinction between the free Germans (his designation for the Franks), the native people called the Arborychi, which is probably a mistake for the Armorici who lived in Brittany and northwest Gaul, and the Roman military settlers in the frontier areas, who should surely be identified as Germanic, that is Frankish foederati: But as time went on, the Visigoths forced their way into the Roman Empire and seized all Spain and the portion of Gaul lying beyond the Rhone river and made them subject and tributary to themselves. By that time it so happened that the Arborychi had become soldiers of the Romans. And the Germans, wishing to make this people subject to themselves, since their territory adjoined their own and they had changed the government under which they lived from of old, began to plunder their land and, being eager to make war, marched against them with their whole people. But the Arborychi proved their valour and loyalty to the Romans and showed themselves brave men in this war, and since the Germans were not able to overcome them by force, they wished to win them over and make their two peoples kin by intermarriage. This suggestion the Arborychi received not at all unwillingly; for both, as it happened, were Christians. And in this way they were united into one people and came to have great power. Now other Roman soldiers also had been stationed at the frontiers of Gaul to guard it. And these soldiers, having no means of returning to Rome, and being unwilling to yield to their enemy who were Arians, gave themselves together with their standards and the land, which they for long had guarded for the Romans, to the Arborychi and the Germans. And they handed down to their descendants all the customs of their fathers which were thus preserved, and this people has held them in sufficient reverence to guard them up to my time. For even at the present day they are clearly recognised as belonging to the legions to which they were assigned when they served in ancient times, and they always carry their own standards when they enter battle, and always follow the customs of their fathers. And they preserve the dress of the Romans in every particular even as regards their shows. (Procopius, Bell. Goth. 5.12.12–19, trans. Dewing) Gregory of Tours implies that the Franks under Childeric had mainly been pagans. “They fashioned idols for themselves out of birds and beasts: these they worshipped in place of God and to these they made their sacrifices” (Greg. Tur., Hist. 2.10, trans. Thorpe). Excavations at the location of Childeric's tomb, which was discovered in the seventeenth century, produced evidence for horse sacrifices, but this may not be sufficient to prove that Childeric himself was a pagan. The royal burial may have been accompanied by traditional pagan practices.55 Clovis at first worshipped idols made of stone, metal or wood, not gods (Greg. Tur., Hist. 2.29). Gregory of Tours says that he adopted Catholic Christianity after his marriage to the Burgundian princess, Clotild, and as a consequence of a victory over the Alemanni around 496, which could be attributed to God's support.56 However, conversion did not come out of a blue sky, and the date is also in dispute. Clovis' and Childeric's earlier paganism had certainly been rooted in native traditions of leadership. They invented a lineage for their dynasty which went back two generations to a bull-like creature, which had mated in the sea with the wife of a Frankish noble, Clodio. She gave birth to Merovech, the eponymous founder of the Merovingian dynasty and supposed father of Childeric (Greg. Tur., Hist. 2.9). Such a lineage was better suited to tribal Germans than to successor kingdoms of the Roman Empire. On the other hand, the Franks who had reached high rank under the emperors had all been Christian, and Christianity had also made headway among the people as a whole, as Procopius indicates. At the end of the narrative of Clovis' baptism by Remigius, bishop of Reims, Gregory reveals that the king's sister Lanthechild was converted at the same time from her former Arian ways. Clovis' approach to Christianity was certainly a more gradual process than Gregory of Tours suggests. The main significance of Clovis' shift to Catholicism was political and signaled his ambition to take on the mantle of Roman power. Avitus, bishop of Vienne, underlined the aspirations of the Franks to become major players in the post-Roman world in a letter to Clovis on the occasion of his baptism: “Your faith is our victory…Let Greece, to be sure, rejoice in having an orthodox ruler, but she is no longer the only one to deserve such a gift” (Avitus, ep. 46, trans. Shantzer and Wood). The king of the Franks, this implied, could now assume the role of a western emperor. Gregory of Tours described Clovis emerging from the pool of baptism “like a new Constantine” (Greg. Tur., Hist. 2.31). By adopting Catholicism, Clovis not only appealed to the non-Arian Roman inhabitants of the Visigothic kingdom, but also attracted support from Constantinople. The eastern emperors had been aware of growing Frankish power since the mid-fifth century. Childeric's tomb contained a large hoard of gold solidi minted for eastern emperors, and Leo had summoned a Frank, Titus, to Constantinople, where he had fallen under the spell of the Stylite saint Daniel (Life of Daniel 60–3). The eastern emperor, Anastasius, awarded Clovis a consulship in 508, and Clovis himself took on the trappings of a victorious emperor:57 Letters reached Clovis from the emperor Anastasius to confer the consulate on him. In St Martin's church he stood clad in a purple tunic and the military mantle, and he crowned himself with a diadem. He then rode out on his horse, showered gold and silver coins among the people present all the way from the doorway of St Martin's church to Tours cathedral. From that day on he was called consul or Augustus. (Greg. Tur., Hist. 2.38, trans. Thorpe) Clovis died in 511, and chose to be buried, like Constantine and in striking contrast to his father Childeric, in another Church of the Holy Apostles, at Paris.58 Clovis was survived by four male children. It now became the custom for the Frankish kingdom to be divided between the previous ruler's surviving sons. The three sons of Clotild, his second wife, were involved in disputes with each other over the Burgundian kingdom, which they occupied in 524. Their power was overshadowed by Clovis' eldest son, Theoderic I, and his son Theodebert I, who succeeded him in 533. They controlled the west bank of the Rhine from the North Sea to the Alps, and Theodebert took full advantage of the situation in 536 when Justinian's Roman forces undertook the reconquest of Italy. The Franks offered their support both to the Romans and to the Ostrogoths, acquired control of Provence from the latter, who were too hard pressed to defend it themselves, and then marched into northern Italy in 539. They sacked Milan and took control of much of Liguria. Procopius offers the partisan eastern view that Theodebert and his 100,000 barbarous followers had not yet abandoned paganism and conducted human sacrifice among their captives.59 They began to sacrifice the women and children of the Goths whom they had found at hand and to throw their bodies into the river as the first fruits of war. For these barbarians, though they had become Christians, preserve the greater part of their ancient religion; for they still make human sacrifices and other sacrifices of an unholy nature, and it is in connection with these that they make their prophecies. (Procopius, Bell. Goth. 6.25.1–18, trans. Dewing) Theodebert was succeeded by Theodebald, who had to cede control of northern Italy to the Romans in 548, and who died in 555. This left the way open for the two surviving children of Clotild, Childebert I and Clothar I, to assert their claims, and after the former died in 558, Clothar I became king of all the Frankish peoples until his death in 561. His four sons, Charibert I, Sigebert I, Chilperic I, and Guntram, divided the kingdom as the sons of Clovis had done before, now basing it on four royal residences at Paris, Reims, Soissons, and Orleans.60 However, there was no corresponding territorial division of Gaul, and each leader had supporters in all areas. The nature of the Frankish kingship was not territorial. Their title to rule was based on their lineage, and the personal following that each could command both among their own people and among the post-Roman landowners (see pp. 388–9). Rulers displayed their power through royal progresses through their realms. In the patchwork political fabric of Merovingian Gaul, whose single name conceals a complex web of towns and local elites, the consensus between sixth-century ruler and ruled was constantly exemplified by the adventus ceremony. The quintessentially Merovingian institution of the “royal circuit” or circuitus regis of a wandering monarchy became so essential a trait of rulership that a seventh-century Frank assumed its roots reached into the Roman past.61 The situation was inherently unstable. Charibert I died in 567 and this led to a civil war between Sigebert and Chilperic, who both claimed the area of Tours and Poitiers. Guntram, in dispute with Sigebert, joined Chilperic, but he made his peace with Sigebert after Chilperic was defeated near Reims in 575. Chilperic's wife Fredegund hired assassins to murder Sigebert, whose kingdom now passed to his son Childebert II, while he was still a minor. Chilperic died in 584 also leaving a young son, Clothar I, to follow him. In 592 Childebert II inherited the possessions of Guntram, who had no male children, and thus emerged as the strongest of the group, but when he died aged 25 in 596, his kingdom was again divided between his two sons Theodebert II and Theoderic II.62 The historical and social fabric of sixth-century Gaul is presented in extraordinary detail by the works of Gregory of Tours, who was born in 538 into one of the major Gallo-Roman families, became bishop of Tours, like many other members of his family, in 573, and died c.594. His Book of Histories (most often translated as History of the Franks), began with a summary of biblical history and covered events of the fourth and fifth century on the basis of narrative sources available to Gregory, some of which are now lost. For the generation of Clovis' children he will have drawn on oral tradition, and the narrative becomes more detailed. The later books deal with events that happened during his own adult lifetime, and are recorded in a dense chronicle of Herodotean richness. It is evident that Gregory compiled his history as events occurred, continually updating the record until 591. He seems to have used the same process of incremental composition in other surviving works, most notably the lives of martyrs and saints, and the miracles they performed.63The huge body of Gregory's writings reflects the outlook of the Christian aristocracy of Gaul a century after Sidonius. The world had changed radically. The balance between Christian and classical allusion had shifted completely in favor of the former. The style and language of Gregory are simple and direct, contrasting with Sidonius' ornate and self-conscious sophistication. The historical world of the Roman Empire, which was still the main cultural frame of reference in fifth-century Gaul, was now no more than a background to a world in which the outlines of early medieval Europe are already clear (see Map 6.1).64 Map 6.1 Map of the western empire showing barbarian kingdoms in the west c.500 (StepMap GmbH)	3,233	ENGLISH	1
There once was a doctor with cool white hair. He was well known because he came up with some important ideas. He didn’t grow the cool hair until after he was done figuring that stuff out, but by the time everyone realized how good his ideas were, he had grown the hair, so that’s how everyone pictures him. He was so good at coming up with ideas that we use his name to mean “someone who’s good at thinking.” Two of his biggest ideas were about how space and time work. This thing you’re reading right now explains those ideas using only the ten hundred words people use the most often.1 The doctor figured out the first idea while he was working in an office, and he figured out the second one ten years later, while he was working at a school. That second idea was a hundred years ago this year. (He also had a few other ideas that were just as important. People have spent a lot of time trying to figure out how he was so good at thinking.) The first idea is called the special idea, because it covers only a few special parts of space and time. The other one—the big idea—covers all the stuff that is left out by the special idea. The big idea is a lot harder to understand than the special one. People who are good at numbers can use the special idea to answer questions pretty easily, but you have to know a lot about numbers to do anything with the big idea. To understand the big idea—the hard one—it helps to understand the special idea first. People have known for a long time that you can’t say how fast something is moving until you’ve said what it’s moving past. Right now, you might not be moving over the ground at all, but you (and the ground) are moving very fast around the sun. If you say that the ground is the thing sitting still, you’re not moving, but if you say that the sun is, you are. Both of these are right: it’s just a question of what you say is sitting still. Some people think that this idea about moving was the space doctor’s big idea, but it wasn’t. This idea had been around for hundreds of years before him. The space doctor’s idea came up because there was a problem with the old idea of moving. The problem was light. A few dozen years before the space doctor’s time, someone explained with numbers how waves of light and radio move through space. Everyone checked those numbers every way they could, and they seemed to be right. But there was trouble. The numbers said that the wave moved through space a certain distance every second. (The distance is about seven times around Earth.) They didn’t say what was sitting still. They just said a certain distance every second. It took people a while to realize what a huge problem this was. The numbers said that everyone will see light going that same distance every second, but what happens if you go really fast in the same direction as the light? If someone drove next to a light wave in a really fast car, wouldn’t they see the light going past them slowly? The numbers said no—they would see the light going past them just as fast as if they were standing still. The more people thought about that, the more it seemed like something must be wrong with their numbers. But every time they looked at light waves in the real world, the waves followed what the numbers said. And the numbers said that no matter how fast you move, light moves past you at a certain distance every second. It was the space doctor who figured out the answer. He said that if our ideas about light were right, then our ideas about distance and seconds must be wrong. He said that time doesn’t pass the same for everyone. When you go fast, he said, the world around you changes shape, and time outside starts moving slower. The doctor came up with some numbers for how time and space must change to make the numbers for light work. With his idea, everyone would see light moving the right distance every second. This idea is what we call his special idea. The special idea is really, really strange, and understanding it can take a lot of work. Lots of people thought it must be wrong because it’s so strange, but it turned out to be right. We know because we’ve tried it out. If you go really fast, time goes slower. If you’re in a car, you see watches outside the car go slower. They only go a little slower, so you wouldn’t notice it in your normal life; it takes the best watches in the world to even tell that it’s happening. But it really does happen.	<urn:uuid:3d1d1a75-4f7f-4fda-b3eb-32a5b7d44958>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/the-space-doctors-big-idea-einstein-general-relativity	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251788528.85/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129041149-20200129071149-00316.warc.gz	en	0.982744	1,007	3.34375	3	[ -0.34710484743118286, -0.03188555687665939, 0.23192647099494934, -0.36858224868774414, -0.4320554733276367, 0.03696945309638977, 0.48455044627189636, 0.19641739130020142, 0.24052873253822327, -0.1325291395187378, 0.19917359948158264, 0.27323830127716064, 0.03224723041057587, 0.289910256862...	2	There once was a doctor with cool white hair. He was well known because he came up with some important ideas. He didn’t grow the cool hair until after he was done figuring that stuff out, but by the time everyone realized how good his ideas were, he had grown the hair, so that’s how everyone pictures him. He was so good at coming up with ideas that we use his name to mean “someone who’s good at thinking.” Two of his biggest ideas were about how space and time work. This thing you’re reading right now explains those ideas using only the ten hundred words people use the most often.1 The doctor figured out the first idea while he was working in an office, and he figured out the second one ten years later, while he was working at a school. That second idea was a hundred years ago this year. (He also had a few other ideas that were just as important. People have spent a lot of time trying to figure out how he was so good at thinking.) The first idea is called the special idea, because it covers only a few special parts of space and time. The other one—the big idea—covers all the stuff that is left out by the special idea. The big idea is a lot harder to understand than the special one. People who are good at numbers can use the special idea to answer questions pretty easily, but you have to know a lot about numbers to do anything with the big idea. To understand the big idea—the hard one—it helps to understand the special idea first. People have known for a long time that you can’t say how fast something is moving until you’ve said what it’s moving past. Right now, you might not be moving over the ground at all, but you (and the ground) are moving very fast around the sun. If you say that the ground is the thing sitting still, you’re not moving, but if you say that the sun is, you are. Both of these are right: it’s just a question of what you say is sitting still. Some people think that this idea about moving was the space doctor’s big idea, but it wasn’t. This idea had been around for hundreds of years before him. The space doctor’s idea came up because there was a problem with the old idea of moving. The problem was light. A few dozen years before the space doctor’s time, someone explained with numbers how waves of light and radio move through space. Everyone checked those numbers every way they could, and they seemed to be right. But there was trouble. The numbers said that the wave moved through space a certain distance every second. (The distance is about seven times around Earth.) They didn’t say what was sitting still. They just said a certain distance every second. It took people a while to realize what a huge problem this was. The numbers said that everyone will see light going that same distance every second, but what happens if you go really fast in the same direction as the light? If someone drove next to a light wave in a really fast car, wouldn’t they see the light going past them slowly? The numbers said no—they would see the light going past them just as fast as if they were standing still. The more people thought about that, the more it seemed like something must be wrong with their numbers. But every time they looked at light waves in the real world, the waves followed what the numbers said. And the numbers said that no matter how fast you move, light moves past you at a certain distance every second. It was the space doctor who figured out the answer. He said that if our ideas about light were right, then our ideas about distance and seconds must be wrong. He said that time doesn’t pass the same for everyone. When you go fast, he said, the world around you changes shape, and time outside starts moving slower. The doctor came up with some numbers for how time and space must change to make the numbers for light work. With his idea, everyone would see light moving the right distance every second. This idea is what we call his special idea. The special idea is really, really strange, and understanding it can take a lot of work. Lots of people thought it must be wrong because it’s so strange, but it turned out to be right. We know because we’ve tried it out. If you go really fast, time goes slower. If you’re in a car, you see watches outside the car go slower. They only go a little slower, so you wouldn’t notice it in your normal life; it takes the best watches in the world to even tell that it’s happening. But it really does happen.	947	ENGLISH	1
A RISTIDES lived during the earlier part of the fifth century before Christ, a time when the liberties of the Greek states and cities in Europe were threatened by the vast hosts of the Persian Empire. The Persians had already conquered and enslaved the Greek cities of Ionia, that is, the coast districts and adjacent islands of western Asia Minor. Moreover, the Greeks in Europe were by no means united in opposition to the Persians. Hence it appeared almost certain that the vast forces at the disposal of the Persian king would speedily overrun the Greek states, and that their liberties and their civilisation would be destroyed, or at any rate profoundly altered, by the rule of a despotic foreign king. Had such been the event of the war, the whole subsequent history of Europe through all the ages would have been changed, since our civilisation has its roots in the glorious achievements of Ancient Greece. For this reason the great victories in which the Greeks overthrew the vast Persian armies have a direct personal meaning for every one of us to this day. In the three great battles by which Greece was saved, Marathon, Salamis and Platæa, Aristides played a distinguished part. The first of these, the battle fought in the plain between the mountains and the sea, where 'The mountains look on Marathon And Marathon looks on the sea,' showed that the Persians, who had never before been beaten by any army of Greeks, were not invincible. It proved indeed that their vast hosts could be conquered by a small number of Greeks who were inspired by staunch patriotism and dauntless courage. The chief credit for the second of the great victories belongs to Themistocles, the great rival of Aristides. Not least among the glories of Aristides, however, is the lofty patriotism with which he put aside all feelings of personal enmity, and devoted himself to second the plans of his rival by which the sea-fight at Salamis was won, the Persian navy destroyed, and King Xerxes himself driven from Europe. In the battle of Plataea the army which Xerxes had left behind was utterly destroyed and the dread of Persian conquest removed. In this battle the Spartan, Pausanias, was in chief command, but Aristides shared in the glory of the day, though, in truth, the victory was won by the valour of the Greek soldiers rather than by the skill of their generals. A RISTIDES was an Athenian by birth, but accounts vary as to his station in life. For While some say that he was always very poor, another writer contradicts this view, and endeavours to prove that his family possessed a fair estate. Some writers say that Aristides was from infancy brought up with Themistocles, who was destined to be his chief rival in the leadership of affairs at Athens. They tell us also that even in childhood the two were always at variance, not only in affairs of some importance but even in their sports and games, and that in their opposition they showed the differences in character which distinguished them throughout their careers. Themistocles was plausible, bold and artful, changeable in mood and yet impetuous in action. Aristides, on the other hand, was plain and straightforward, absolutely just and incapable of any falseness or deceit even in play. When both had grown up, Themistocles proved himself a pleasant and agreeable companion. He made many friends, and his strength in public affairs depended largely upon his popularity. He did not hesitate to favour his friends, and when some one remarked of him that he would govern the Athenians very well if he would do so without respect of persons, he exclaimed, 'May I never sit upon the seat of judgment where my friends shall not receive more favour from me than strangers.' Aristides, on the other hand, pursued an entirely different course in public affairs. He could not be persuaded to any act of injustice in order to oblige his friends, though he was willing to help them when what they requested was right and proper. He saw indeed that many, relying upon their interest with people in power, did things which could not be justified, but he, for his part, held that a good citizen should trust for his safety solely to the justice and rectitude of his actions. But, as Themistocles made many rash and dangerous proposals and always endeavoured to thwart him in every way, Aristides was, in his turn, obliged to oppose his rival similarly, partly in self-defence and partly to lessen the power of Themistocles, which was daily growing through his popularity. Indeed, with the latter purpose, he was sometimes induced to oppose proposals of Themistocles which were good in themselves. Thus, on one occasion, he strenuously and successfully opposed a motion of Themistocles which he nevertheless felt to be of advantage to the public. Conscious of the evil of this rivalry between them, he could not forbear saying as he went out of the assembly, 'Athenian affairs cannot prosper unless both Themistocles and myself are put to death.' Very often Aristides put forward his proposals by means of a third person, in order that the public welfare should not suffer through the opposition of Themistocles to him. His steadfastness amid the frequent changes of political affairs was wonderful. Honours did not elate him nor was he cast down by ill success; in either case he pursued his course, convinced that his country had a claim to the services which he rendered without thought of advantage to himself. Not only was he able to resist the promptings of favour and affection, but also the temptation to let enmity and revenge sway the scales of justice. It is said that, on one occasion, when he was prosecuting an enemy and had brought his charge against him, the people were about to give sentence against the accused without waiting to hear his defence. Thereupon Aristides came to the assistance of his enemy, and entreated that he might be heard in accordance with the laws. Another time, when Aristides was himself the judge between two private persons, one of them observed that his opponent had injured Aristides many times. 'Tell me not,' said Aristides, 'what injury he has done to me, but what harm you have suffered from him, for I am trying your cause and not my own.' Now about this time, when Aristides was in high reputation with his fellow-citizens, the Persian King Darius sent one of his generals to invade Greece. His pretext was the punishment of the Athenians for burning the city of Sardis in Asia Minor, but the real object of the invasion was the conquest of the whole of Greece. The Persian fleet arrived in the Bay of Marathon, and the invaders began to ravage the country round. The Athenians now appointed a number of generals to command their army against the Persians. Of these Miltiades was the first in dignity, while in reputation and authority with the people Aristides stood next. Miltiades, in a council of war which was held, was in favour of attacking the enemy, and Aristides by seconding him added no little weight to his advice. Now it was the custom for the generals to command in turn, each for a day. But when it came to the turn of Aristides, he surrendered his right to Miltiades. Thus he stilled the spirit of contention, and induced the other generals to follow his example, so that Miltiades had supreme and continued command, and the other generals readily submitted to his orders. In the battle of Marathon the main body of the Athenian army was the hardest pressed, for the Persians made their fiercest attacks upon the tribes which were stationed there. Themistocles and Aristides belonged to these tribes, and fought at the head of them. In the spirit of emulation which inspired them, they fought with such fury that the Persians were put to flight, and sought refuge on board their ships. The Greeks, however, saw with alarm that these vessels of the enemy, instead of sailing by way of the isles to return to Asia, were being driven in by the winds and currents towards Attica. They feared, therefore, lest Athens, left undefended in their absence, might fall an easy prey to the Persians. Nine of the tribes marched homewards at once to defend their city, and such speed did they make that they reached Athens in one day. Aristides was left behind at Marathon with his own tribe to guard the spoils and prisoners. He did not disappoint the general opinion of his probity, for though there was much treasure of gold and silver scattered about, and rich garments and other spoil of great price in the tents and in the ships which had been taken, he was neither inclined to take anything himself nor would he suffer others to do so. Notwithstanding his watchfulness, however, some enriched themselves with stolen plunder unknown to him. Among them was Callias, the torch-bearer. One of the defeated barbarians, happening to meet him in a quiet place, prostrated himself before him and, taking him by the hand, showed him a great quantity of gold that lay hidden in a well. Callias, not less cruel than unjust, took the gold, and then slew the barbarian lest he should tell others of the matter. Of all the virtues of Aristides, the people were most impressed by his justice, because that merit was of most advantage to the commonwealth. Hence, though he was a poor man and a commoner, he was given the royal and divine title of the Just. The name at first brought him love and respect, but, as time went on, envy began to arise. Themistocles was chiefly the cause of this, for he insinuated that Aristides, by drawing all cases to himself for decision, was practically abolishing the courts of law, and that he was thus insensibly gaining sovereign power, even though he was without the guards and outside show of royalty. The victory of Marathon, too, had greatly swollen the pride of the individual citizens, and they resented the fact that one of their number had risen to such extraordinary honour above them. They assembled, therefore, at Athens from all the towns of Attica, and pronounced the banishment of Aristides by the Ostracism, disguising their envy of his virtue under the pretence of guarding against tyranny. The Ostracism was wont to be conducted in the following manner. Each citizen wrote the name of the man he wanted to be banished upon a shell or a piece of a broken pot. This he deposited in a part of the market-place enclosed with a wooden rail. Afterwards the magistrates counted the shells, and if the number did not amount to six thousand the Ostracism stood for nothing. If there were that number, however, or more, the shells were sorted, and he whose name was found on the greatest number was banished for ten years, but was allowed to retain his property. It is said that while the people were writing the names on their shells a certain citizen, who could not write, came up to Aristides, whom he did not know by sight. Handing him the shell, the citizen requested that he would write the name of Aristides upon it. His hearer was greatly surprised at this, and inquired whether Aristides had ever injured him. 'No,' said the fellow, 'and I don't even know him, but it wearies me to hear everybody call him "the Just." ' Aristides made no answer, but taking the shell, wrote his own name upon it and returned it to the man. Aristides and the Citizen When, in obedience to the decree of banishment, Aristides quitted Athens, he lifted his hands to heaven and prayed that the people of his native city might never see the day when trouble would force them to remember him. That day, however, came three years afterwards when King Xerxes with his vast host was advancing by long marches upon Attica. The Athenians then reversed the decree and recalled all the exiles. Their chief inducement to do so, however, was their fear lest Aristides would join the enemy and by his influence persuade many of the citizens to side with the Persians. Those who feared this little knew the man. Before the order for his recall was issued, Aristides was already busily engaged in stirring up the Greeks to defend their liberty. And afterwards, when Themistocles was appointed to the command of the Athenian forces, Aristides supported him both in person and by his counsel, being ready in the public welfare to contribute to the glory of his greatest enemy. It was he that, sailing by night with great danger through the Persian fleet to Themistocles at Salamis, brought news that all the narrow straits were beset by the ships of the enemy. As soon as he reached the tent of Themistocles he desired to see him in private, and spoke thus to his rival: 'If you and I are wise, Themistocles, we shall now lay aside our vain and childish quarrels, and contend only as to which of us shall do most for the safety and preservation of Greece.' He approved also of the plans of Themistocles, and set himself to further them. His former rival especially begged his support in impressing upon the Spartan Eurybiades the necessity of fighting the Persian fleet at once in the narrow seas, for he knew that Aristides had more influence with the Spartan leader than he himself had. In the council of war which assembled on this occasion, a Corinthian officer who was present said to Themistocles, 'Aristides does not agree with your opinion, for he says nothing.' 'You are mistaken,' said Aristides, 'for I should not have been silent had I not considered the counsels of Themistocles the best for our situation.' Hence, it was determined to fight in accordance with this advice. Aristides then, seeing that a small island which lies in the straits over against Salamis was full of the enemy's troops, embarked a number of the bravest and most determined of his countrymen on board some small transports. With these troops he attacked the enemy upon the island so fiercely that they were all cut to pieces, except a few of the most important persons, who were made prisoners. Aristides then placed a strong guard round the island, so that, of those who were driven ashore there, none of the Greeks should perish and none of the Persians escape. For it was round about this island that the battle raged most fiercely. After the battle Xerxes, alarmed at the report that the Greeks intended to break down the bridge of boats across the Hellespont and thus cut off his retreat, hastened thither with all speed. However, he left behind him three hundred thousand of his best troops under Mardonius. With so great an army the Persians were still very formidable, and Mardonius wrote menacing letters to the Greeks in such terms as these: 'You have indeed at sea defeated landsmen unused to naval war. There remain, however, the wide plains of the mainland, where we shall meet you with horse and foot.' He wrote particularly to the Athenians, stating that he was empowered by King Xerxes to promise that their city should be rebuilt, that large sums of money should be paid the citizens, and that they should be given the sovereignty of Greece, if they would refrain from taking any further part in the war. When the Spartans heard of these proposals, they were very much alarmed lest the Athenians should accept them. They therefore sent ambassadors to offer shelter for the wives and children of the men of Athens and provision for the aged. Certainly the Athenians were in great distress, for they had lost both their city and their country. Nevertheless, by the influence of Aristides, they returned such an answer as can never be too much admired. They declared that they could forgive their enemies for thinking that they could be bought for silver and gold, since the barbarians knew of nothing more excellent. But they could not altogether forgive the Spartans for having so poor an opinion of them, as to think it was necessary to bribe them to fight in the cause of Greece by the offer of a paltry supply of provisions. Aristides, having drawn up the answer in the form of a decree, summoned the ambassadors, both of the Spartans and of Mardonius, to an audience. To the Spartans he gave this message: 'The people of Athens would not barter the liberties of Greece for all the gold that exists above or under the ground.' Then, turning to the envoys of Mardonius, he pointed to the sun and said . 'So long as the sun shines, so long will the Athenians wage war against the Persians, to avenge their country which has been laid waste, and their temples which have been profaned.' After this failure to win over the Athenians, Mardonius invaded Attica a second time, and the Athenians again retired to Salamis. Aristides was then despatched as ambassador to hasten the sending of the Spartan levies to their assistance. Afterwards he was appointed general of the Athenian forces, and, with eight thousand foot, marched to Plataea. There he was joined by the Spartans under Pausanias, who was commander-in-chief of all the allies, and by the troops of the other Greek states, who daily arrived in large numbers. The Persian army, which occupied an immense tract of ground, was encamped along the river Asopus. Within the camp they had fortified a space ten furlongs square, in which were stored their baggage and other things of value. When the posts of the allies in the order of battle came to be assigned, a great dispute arose between the Athenians and the people of another town, for both claimed to be placed upon the left wing. Aristides, however, sought to compose the quarrel. 'This is no time,' said he, 'to dispute with our allies as to our relative bravery. Let us say to the Spartans and to the rest of the Greeks, that we are ready to do honour to any position by our actions. For we are here, not to quarrel with friends, but to fight our enemies, not to boast of the courage of our ancestors, but to show forth our own valour in the cause of Greece.' The council of war, however, decided in favour of the Athenians, and gave them the command upon the left wing, the Spartans being stationed on the right. When the armies were thus encamped near one another, Mardonius, in order to test the courage of the Greeks, ordered his cavalry, in which lay his chief strength, to skirmish with the enemy. Nearly all the Greeks were encamped on the slopes of a mountain on steep and stony ground, and could not therefore be well attacked by the enemy's cavalry. The Megarensians, however, three thousand in number, were posted in the plain. They were thus exposed alone to the attack of the horsemen, who charged them on every side. The greatly superior numbers of the Persians threatened to crush them, and they were obliged to send a messenger to Pausanias beseeching assistance. Pausanias was at a loss what to do. He saw that relief was needed at once, for the camp of the Megarensians was darkened by the shower of darts and arrows rained upon it. He knew, however, that his own heavily armed Spartans were not fitted to act against cavalry. He therefore endeavoured to get the other generals and officers to volunteer to go to the aid of their distressed comrades. All declined with the exception of Aristides, who offered the services of his Athenians, and at once gave orders to one of the most active of his officers to advance to the rescue with a chosen band of three hundred men and some archers. The Athenians were ready in a moment, and hastened to the attack. The general of the Persian cavalry, a man remarkable for his strength and graceful carriage, saw them approaching, and immediately spurred his horse and charged them. The Athenians received the attack of the Persian leader and his followers firmly, and a sharp conflict ensued. At length, however, the Persian general's horse threw his rider, who was so heavily armed that he could not recover himself. Indeed, for the same reason, he could not easily be slain by the Athenians, so thickly was he covered all over with plates of gold, brass, and iron. At last, however, the visor of his helmet leaving part of his face exposed, he was despatched by a spear-thrust in the eye. The fall of their leader decided the combat, and the Persians broke and fled. Not many of the enemy were slain in this action. Nevertheless, the fight appeared important to the Greeks, for the general who was killed was second only to Mardonius himself in courage and in authority with the Persians, who loudly mourned his loss. After this engagement with the cavalry, both sides forbore from fighting for a long time, for Greeks and Persians were alike assured by their diviners that victory would rest with the side which stood upon the defensive. At last, however, Mardonius, finding that he had only a few days' provisions left, and seeing also that the Greek army was daily increased by the arrival of fresh troops, grew uneasy at the delay. He resolved to cross the river at daybreak the next day and fall upon the Greeks, whom he hoped to find unprepared. But at midnight a horseman quietly approached the Greek camp, and addressing the sentinels bade them call Aristides to him. The Athenian general came at once, and the stranger said to him: 'I am the King of Macedon, who out of friendship to you have come through great dangers to prevent your fighting under the disadvantage of a surprise. Mardonius will Aristides therefore went immediately to the tent of the commander-in-chief and laid the whole matter before him. At once the other chief officers were sent for, and were ordered to get their troops under arms and drawn up in order of battle. At the same time, Pausanias, it is said, informed Aristides that he intended to change the position of the Athenians from the left wing to the right. His object was to bring the Athenians against the Persians, because they had already had experience in fighting them, and would on this occasion fight with the more confidence because of their previous success. All the Athenian officers, except Aristides, thought that Pausanias was acting in a very high-handed manner in thus moving them up and down without consulting them, while he left the other allies in their allotted posts. Aristides, however, reproved them. 'You contended,' said he, 'for the command of the left wing, and now, when the Spartans of their own free will offer you the right wing, which is in effect the leadership of the whole army, you are dissatisfied.' Influenced by these words, the Athenians readily agreed to change places with the Spartans, and nothing was now heard among them but words of encouragement and confident anticipations of victory. 'The Persians,' said they, 'bring neither bolder hearts nor stouter bodies to battle than at Marathon. We recognise the same gay clothes and the display of gold, the same effeminate bodies and unmanly souls. And, for our part, we bring against them the same weapons and the same strength that have conquered them before. Bold in the memory of our victories, we fight them again for the trophies of Marathon and Salamis, and for the glory of the people of Athens.' But, while the change of posts was being carried out, the movement was perceived by the Thebans, who were serving with the Persians, and intelligence of it was given to Mardonius. The Persian general thereupon immediately changed the position of his wings, and this was followed by yet another change on the part of Pausanias. Thus the day passed in marchings, backwards and forwards, without the two armies coming to action at all. In the evening the Greeks held a council of war, and determined, because their water supply in the position they now occupied was disturbed and fouled by the enemy's horse, to move their camp during the night. Accordingly, when darkness had fallen, the officers began to march off their men to the new position which had been chosen. The movement, however, led to great confusion, for the men followed unwillingly, and many regardless of discipline made off to the city of Plataea. The Spartans, too, were left behind, for one of their officers, a man of undaunted courage, bluntly called the retirement a disgraceful flight, and declared that for his part he would not quit his post, but would remain where he was with his troops, and fight it out alone with Mardonius. In vain Pausanias urged that the retirement was made in agreement with the decision of all the allies. Taking up a large stone, the officer cast it at the feet of his general. 'There,' cried he, 'is my vote for battle, and I despise the timorous counsels of others.' The commander was at a loss what to do, but at length sent word to the Athenians, who by this time were advancing, to halt a while. He then set off to join them with the other troops, hoping that by doing so he should in the end induce the stubborn Spartan officer to follow him. By this time day had dawned, and Mardonius, who was aware of the movement of the Greeks, set his army in order of battle and bore down upon the unsupported Spartans. The Persians and their allies rushed to the fight with loud shouts of triumph and clanging of arms, as if they expected rather the plundering of a mob of fugitives than a battle. And indeed it seemed like to be so, for though Pausanias halted and ordered every one to his post, yet for some reason he did not give the order for battle, and hence the Greeks did not engage readily. Moreover, even after the battle was begun, the Greek forces remained scattered in small bodies. Meanwhile, Pausanias sacrificed to the gods. The omens, however, were unfavourable, and he therefore ordered his Spartans to lay down their shields at their feet and await his order. Then, while the Persian cavalry was still advancing, he offered other sacrifices. At last the enemy came within bowshot, and a number of the Spartans were wounded by their arrows. Among them was one who was held to be the tallest and finest man in the whole army. As he was on the point of dying this brave soldier exclaimed, 'I do not lament dying for Greece, but bitter it is to die without sword-stroke at the enemy.' In this trying ordeal the firmness and steadiness of the Spartans were wonderful. They stood as marks for the enemy's archers calmly awaiting the orders of their general. At length the omens for which Pausanias had waited and prayed appeared, and the diviners promised him victory. Then at once his orders to charge rang out, and the Spartan phalanx leapt into life, like some fierce animal erecting his bristles and preparing to put forth his mighty strength. Then did the barbarians see that they had to deal with men who were ready to shed their last drop of blood, and covering themselves with their targets, they shot their arrows thickly upon the advancing Spartans. Steadily, in a close compact body, the phalanx bore down upon them, their targets were thrust aside, and pike-thrusts at faces and breasts brought many of them to the ground. But even when overthrown they fought desperately, breaking the pikes with their naked hands, and leaping to their feet again they stood the quarrel out with sword and battle-axe. Meanwhile, the Athenians at a distance remained at the halt, as they had been ordered. But the tumult of battle reached them and, moreover, an officer sent by Pausanias informed them of the position of affairs. At once they hurried to the assistance of the Spartans, and as they were crossing the plain, the Greeks who fought on the Persian side came up to attack them. As soon as he saw them, Aristides advanced a long way in front of his own troops, and with a loud voice called upon them to give up this unnatural war and not to oppose their fellow-Greeks, who were risking their lives for the common country of all their race. But he found that the foe paid no heed to his words, but continued their hostile advance. He had therefore to await the attack of this body of Greeks, who were about five thousand in number, instead of going to the assistance of the Spartans as he had intended. Thus the battle resolved itself into two actions, the Spartans against the Persians, and the Athenians against the traitor Greeks, of whom the Thebans made up the chief part. The former of these two actions was the first decided, for the Persians were broken and routed and their general slain by a blow on the head with a stone, as the oracles had foretold. The barbarians then fled before the Spartans to their camp, which they had beforehand fortified with wooden walls. Soon after the Athenians routed the Thebans, killing some three hundred of their most distinguished men on the spot. Just at this time the news came that the Persians were shut up in their wooden fortifications, and the Athenians, leaving the defeated Greeks to escape, hastened to join in the siege. Their assistance was timely, for the Spartans were unskilled in the storming of walls, and therefore made but slow progress. The Athenians, however, soon took the camp, and there was made great slaughter of the enemy. It is said that out of three hundred thousand men barely forty thousand escaped. On the other hand, only one thousand three hundred and sixty of those who fought in the cause of Greece were killed. Of these fifty-two were Athenians, while the Spartans lost ninety-one. This great victory at Plataea went near to being the ruin of Greece, for the Athenians and the Spartans began to contend as to which of the two had gained the chief glory of the day, and to which should be given the honour of erecting the trophy for the victory. Indeed, it is likely that the quarrel would have been decided by arms had not Aristides exerted himself to pacify the other Athenian generals, and to persuade them to leave the matter to be decided by the general body of the allies. Accordingly a general council was called, and, in order to avoid civil war, it was decided to award the palm of valour to neither of the disputants, but to a third place. In the end Plataea, the scene of the battle, was pitched upon for this purpose, it being a place which could not excite the envy of either Athens or Sparta. To this proposal Aristides first agreed on behalf of Athens, and was followed by Pausanias, who accepted it for Sparta. Thus the allies were reconciled. Eighty talents were then set aside for the Plataeans, and with it they built a temple and set up a statue of the goddess Athene. There annually they celebrated the victory with solemn services and sacrifices, and with a libation to the memory of the men who died for the liberties of Greece. Some time after these events Aristides was sent, with Cimon as a colleague, in command of the Athenians, to continue the war against the Persians. He found that the pride and insolence of Pausanias and the other Spartan generals were making them very unpopular with the allies. For Pausanias scarcely even spoke to the officers of the forces of the other states without anger and bitterness, and he punished many of the men severely, flogging some, and ordering others to stand all day with an iron anchor upon their shoulders. In all things he gave first place to Spartans, and would not allow any of the allies to supply themselves with forage, or sleeping-straw, or drinking-water, until the Spartans had first been supplied. Indeed, he stationed servants with rods to drive off any who should attempt to take these things before it suited his pleasure. Aristides went in vain to remonstrate with him. The only answer of Pausanias was to knit his brows and say that he had no leisure to hear such complaints. Aristides, on the other hand, treated all with courtesy and kindness, and prevailed on his colleague Cimon to behave with equal affability. Hence the sea-captains and officers of the allies, particularly those from the islands, tired of the harshness and severity of the Spartans, besought Aristides to take the chief command. Two of the officers indeed boldly attacked Pausanias's galley at the head of the fleet. They told him that the best thing he could do was to retire, and that nothing but the memory of the great victory which fortune had permitted him to win at Plataea, prevented the Greeks from wreaking upon him a just vengeance for his treatment. The end of the matter was that the allies left the standards of the Spartans and ranged themselves under the ensigns of Athens. The people of Sparta took the matter in a noble and wise spirit. They saw that power had spoiled their generals, and they therefore sent no more in their place, for they thought it more important that a lesson in moderation and regard for right and justice should be given than that they should retain the chief command of the Greek forces. The allies now further begged that the Athenians would allow Aristides to fix the amounts which each state and each city should be called upon to provide for the purposes of the war. This power, which in a way made him master of Greece, was given to him. But in his hands authority was not abused. He went forth to his task poor and returned from it poor, having arranged matters with such equal justice that the allies blessed the settlement as 'the happy fortune of Greece.' Indeed, though Aristides had extended the influence of Athens over so many allied cities and states, he continued poor to the end, and gloried in his noble poverty no less than in the laurels he had won. This was clearly proved in the case of Callias, the torch-bearer, his near relation, who was prosecuted by certain enemies. When the accusers had alleged what they had to bring against him, which was nothing very serious, they brought in other matters which had nothing to do with the case, and thus addressed the judges: 'You know Aristides, who is justly the admiration of all Greece. You have seen how mean his garb is, and that his home is almost bare of necessaries. Yet this Callias, the richest man in Athens, is his own cousin. He, nevertheless, allows his noble relative, of whose influence he has availed himself, to live in utter wretchedness.' Callias perceived that the charge thus dragged into the case was likely to prejudice the judges against him. He therefore called upon Aristides, who testified in the court that Callias had many times offered him considerable sums of money, but that he had always refused the proffered gifts, with some such words as these: 'Aristides has more glory in his poverty than Callias in his riches. We see every day many who spend freely for good or ill, but it is hard to find one who bears poverty with a noble spirit. And he only is ashamed of poverty who is poor against his will.' When he had thus given evidence, there was not a man in court who did not feel that it was indeed better to be poor with Aristides than rich with Callias. His conduct with regard to Themistocles furnishes a striking instance of his uprightness. For when Themistocles was accused of crimes against the state, Aristides had the opportunity of revenging himself upon the man who had been his constant opponent and the chief cause of his banishment. But, While many others of the leading men in Athens joined in the outcry against Themistocles and aided in driving him into exile, Aristides alone made no accusation against him. As he had not envied his rival in his prosperity, so neither did he rejoice at his misfortunes. Aristides died in the year of the banishment of Themistocles. It is said that his funeral was conducted at the public charge, since he did not leave behind him enough money to defray the cost, and that the city of Athens further gave marriage portions to his daughters, and a gift of land and money to his son.	<urn:uuid:f7bc59d9-7775-44ee-9180-310bbf34082e>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	http://www.gatewaytotheclassics.com/browse/displayitem.php?item=books/weston/plutarch/aris	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250598217.23/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120081337-20200120105337-00035.warc.gz	en	0.98888	7,638	3.4375	3	[ 0.22469410300254822, 0.3183112144470215, 0.3772325813770294, -0.24424943327903748, -0.20929063856601715, -0.29906165599823, -0.06869027018547058, 0.46568018198013306, 0.0006894879043102264, -0.09784277528524399, -0.2685612440109253, -0.21511295437812805, 0.2523501515388489, 0.2742975354194...	5	A RISTIDES lived during the earlier part of the fifth century before Christ, a time when the liberties of the Greek states and cities in Europe were threatened by the vast hosts of the Persian Empire. The Persians had already conquered and enslaved the Greek cities of Ionia, that is, the coast districts and adjacent islands of western Asia Minor. Moreover, the Greeks in Europe were by no means united in opposition to the Persians. Hence it appeared almost certain that the vast forces at the disposal of the Persian king would speedily overrun the Greek states, and that their liberties and their civilisation would be destroyed, or at any rate profoundly altered, by the rule of a despotic foreign king. Had such been the event of the war, the whole subsequent history of Europe through all the ages would have been changed, since our civilisation has its roots in the glorious achievements of Ancient Greece. For this reason the great victories in which the Greeks overthrew the vast Persian armies have a direct personal meaning for every one of us to this day. In the three great battles by which Greece was saved, Marathon, Salamis and Platæa, Aristides played a distinguished part. The first of these, the battle fought in the plain between the mountains and the sea, where 'The mountains look on Marathon And Marathon looks on the sea,' showed that the Persians, who had never before been beaten by any army of Greeks, were not invincible. It proved indeed that their vast hosts could be conquered by a small number of Greeks who were inspired by staunch patriotism and dauntless courage. The chief credit for the second of the great victories belongs to Themistocles, the great rival of Aristides. Not least among the glories of Aristides, however, is the lofty patriotism with which he put aside all feelings of personal enmity, and devoted himself to second the plans of his rival by which the sea-fight at Salamis was won, the Persian navy destroyed, and King Xerxes himself driven from Europe. In the battle of Plataea the army which Xerxes had left behind was utterly destroyed and the dread of Persian conquest removed. In this battle the Spartan, Pausanias, was in chief command, but Aristides shared in the glory of the day, though, in truth, the victory was won by the valour of the Greek soldiers rather than by the skill of their generals. A RISTIDES was an Athenian by birth, but accounts vary as to his station in life. For While some say that he was always very poor, another writer contradicts this view, and endeavours to prove that his family possessed a fair estate. Some writers say that Aristides was from infancy brought up with Themistocles, who was destined to be his chief rival in the leadership of affairs at Athens. They tell us also that even in childhood the two were always at variance, not only in affairs of some importance but even in their sports and games, and that in their opposition they showed the differences in character which distinguished them throughout their careers. Themistocles was plausible, bold and artful, changeable in mood and yet impetuous in action. Aristides, on the other hand, was plain and straightforward, absolutely just and incapable of any falseness or deceit even in play. When both had grown up, Themistocles proved himself a pleasant and agreeable companion. He made many friends, and his strength in public affairs depended largely upon his popularity. He did not hesitate to favour his friends, and when some one remarked of him that he would govern the Athenians very well if he would do so without respect of persons, he exclaimed, 'May I never sit upon the seat of judgment where my friends shall not receive more favour from me than strangers.' Aristides, on the other hand, pursued an entirely different course in public affairs. He could not be persuaded to any act of injustice in order to oblige his friends, though he was willing to help them when what they requested was right and proper. He saw indeed that many, relying upon their interest with people in power, did things which could not be justified, but he, for his part, held that a good citizen should trust for his safety solely to the justice and rectitude of his actions. But, as Themistocles made many rash and dangerous proposals and always endeavoured to thwart him in every way, Aristides was, in his turn, obliged to oppose his rival similarly, partly in self-defence and partly to lessen the power of Themistocles, which was daily growing through his popularity. Indeed, with the latter purpose, he was sometimes induced to oppose proposals of Themistocles which were good in themselves. Thus, on one occasion, he strenuously and successfully opposed a motion of Themistocles which he nevertheless felt to be of advantage to the public. Conscious of the evil of this rivalry between them, he could not forbear saying as he went out of the assembly, 'Athenian affairs cannot prosper unless both Themistocles and myself are put to death.' Very often Aristides put forward his proposals by means of a third person, in order that the public welfare should not suffer through the opposition of Themistocles to him. His steadfastness amid the frequent changes of political affairs was wonderful. Honours did not elate him nor was he cast down by ill success; in either case he pursued his course, convinced that his country had a claim to the services which he rendered without thought of advantage to himself. Not only was he able to resist the promptings of favour and affection, but also the temptation to let enmity and revenge sway the scales of justice. It is said that, on one occasion, when he was prosecuting an enemy and had brought his charge against him, the people were about to give sentence against the accused without waiting to hear his defence. Thereupon Aristides came to the assistance of his enemy, and entreated that he might be heard in accordance with the laws. Another time, when Aristides was himself the judge between two private persons, one of them observed that his opponent had injured Aristides many times. 'Tell me not,' said Aristides, 'what injury he has done to me, but what harm you have suffered from him, for I am trying your cause and not my own.' Now about this time, when Aristides was in high reputation with his fellow-citizens, the Persian King Darius sent one of his generals to invade Greece. His pretext was the punishment of the Athenians for burning the city of Sardis in Asia Minor, but the real object of the invasion was the conquest of the whole of Greece. The Persian fleet arrived in the Bay of Marathon, and the invaders began to ravage the country round. The Athenians now appointed a number of generals to command their army against the Persians. Of these Miltiades was the first in dignity, while in reputation and authority with the people Aristides stood next. Miltiades, in a council of war which was held, was in favour of attacking the enemy, and Aristides by seconding him added no little weight to his advice. Now it was the custom for the generals to command in turn, each for a day. But when it came to the turn of Aristides, he surrendered his right to Miltiades. Thus he stilled the spirit of contention, and induced the other generals to follow his example, so that Miltiades had supreme and continued command, and the other generals readily submitted to his orders. In the battle of Marathon the main body of the Athenian army was the hardest pressed, for the Persians made their fiercest attacks upon the tribes which were stationed there. Themistocles and Aristides belonged to these tribes, and fought at the head of them. In the spirit of emulation which inspired them, they fought with such fury that the Persians were put to flight, and sought refuge on board their ships. The Greeks, however, saw with alarm that these vessels of the enemy, instead of sailing by way of the isles to return to Asia, were being driven in by the winds and currents towards Attica. They feared, therefore, lest Athens, left undefended in their absence, might fall an easy prey to the Persians. Nine of the tribes marched homewards at once to defend their city, and such speed did they make that they reached Athens in one day. Aristides was left behind at Marathon with his own tribe to guard the spoils and prisoners. He did not disappoint the general opinion of his probity, for though there was much treasure of gold and silver scattered about, and rich garments and other spoil of great price in the tents and in the ships which had been taken, he was neither inclined to take anything himself nor would he suffer others to do so. Notwithstanding his watchfulness, however, some enriched themselves with stolen plunder unknown to him. Among them was Callias, the torch-bearer. One of the defeated barbarians, happening to meet him in a quiet place, prostrated himself before him and, taking him by the hand, showed him a great quantity of gold that lay hidden in a well. Callias, not less cruel than unjust, took the gold, and then slew the barbarian lest he should tell others of the matter. Of all the virtues of Aristides, the people were most impressed by his justice, because that merit was of most advantage to the commonwealth. Hence, though he was a poor man and a commoner, he was given the royal and divine title of the Just. The name at first brought him love and respect, but, as time went on, envy began to arise. Themistocles was chiefly the cause of this, for he insinuated that Aristides, by drawing all cases to himself for decision, was practically abolishing the courts of law, and that he was thus insensibly gaining sovereign power, even though he was without the guards and outside show of royalty. The victory of Marathon, too, had greatly swollen the pride of the individual citizens, and they resented the fact that one of their number had risen to such extraordinary honour above them. They assembled, therefore, at Athens from all the towns of Attica, and pronounced the banishment of Aristides by the Ostracism, disguising their envy of his virtue under the pretence of guarding against tyranny. The Ostracism was wont to be conducted in the following manner. Each citizen wrote the name of the man he wanted to be banished upon a shell or a piece of a broken pot. This he deposited in a part of the market-place enclosed with a wooden rail. Afterwards the magistrates counted the shells, and if the number did not amount to six thousand the Ostracism stood for nothing. If there were that number, however, or more, the shells were sorted, and he whose name was found on the greatest number was banished for ten years, but was allowed to retain his property. It is said that while the people were writing the names on their shells a certain citizen, who could not write, came up to Aristides, whom he did not know by sight. Handing him the shell, the citizen requested that he would write the name of Aristides upon it. His hearer was greatly surprised at this, and inquired whether Aristides had ever injured him. 'No,' said the fellow, 'and I don't even know him, but it wearies me to hear everybody call him "the Just." ' Aristides made no answer, but taking the shell, wrote his own name upon it and returned it to the man. Aristides and the Citizen When, in obedience to the decree of banishment, Aristides quitted Athens, he lifted his hands to heaven and prayed that the people of his native city might never see the day when trouble would force them to remember him. That day, however, came three years afterwards when King Xerxes with his vast host was advancing by long marches upon Attica. The Athenians then reversed the decree and recalled all the exiles. Their chief inducement to do so, however, was their fear lest Aristides would join the enemy and by his influence persuade many of the citizens to side with the Persians. Those who feared this little knew the man. Before the order for his recall was issued, Aristides was already busily engaged in stirring up the Greeks to defend their liberty. And afterwards, when Themistocles was appointed to the command of the Athenian forces, Aristides supported him both in person and by his counsel, being ready in the public welfare to contribute to the glory of his greatest enemy. It was he that, sailing by night with great danger through the Persian fleet to Themistocles at Salamis, brought news that all the narrow straits were beset by the ships of the enemy. As soon as he reached the tent of Themistocles he desired to see him in private, and spoke thus to his rival: 'If you and I are wise, Themistocles, we shall now lay aside our vain and childish quarrels, and contend only as to which of us shall do most for the safety and preservation of Greece.' He approved also of the plans of Themistocles, and set himself to further them. His former rival especially begged his support in impressing upon the Spartan Eurybiades the necessity of fighting the Persian fleet at once in the narrow seas, for he knew that Aristides had more influence with the Spartan leader than he himself had. In the council of war which assembled on this occasion, a Corinthian officer who was present said to Themistocles, 'Aristides does not agree with your opinion, for he says nothing.' 'You are mistaken,' said Aristides, 'for I should not have been silent had I not considered the counsels of Themistocles the best for our situation.' Hence, it was determined to fight in accordance with this advice. Aristides then, seeing that a small island which lies in the straits over against Salamis was full of the enemy's troops, embarked a number of the bravest and most determined of his countrymen on board some small transports. With these troops he attacked the enemy upon the island so fiercely that they were all cut to pieces, except a few of the most important persons, who were made prisoners. Aristides then placed a strong guard round the island, so that, of those who were driven ashore there, none of the Greeks should perish and none of the Persians escape. For it was round about this island that the battle raged most fiercely. After the battle Xerxes, alarmed at the report that the Greeks intended to break down the bridge of boats across the Hellespont and thus cut off his retreat, hastened thither with all speed. However, he left behind him three hundred thousand of his best troops under Mardonius. With so great an army the Persians were still very formidable, and Mardonius wrote menacing letters to the Greeks in such terms as these: 'You have indeed at sea defeated landsmen unused to naval war. There remain, however, the wide plains of the mainland, where we shall meet you with horse and foot.' He wrote particularly to the Athenians, stating that he was empowered by King Xerxes to promise that their city should be rebuilt, that large sums of money should be paid the citizens, and that they should be given the sovereignty of Greece, if they would refrain from taking any further part in the war. When the Spartans heard of these proposals, they were very much alarmed lest the Athenians should accept them. They therefore sent ambassadors to offer shelter for the wives and children of the men of Athens and provision for the aged. Certainly the Athenians were in great distress, for they had lost both their city and their country. Nevertheless, by the influence of Aristides, they returned such an answer as can never be too much admired. They declared that they could forgive their enemies for thinking that they could be bought for silver and gold, since the barbarians knew of nothing more excellent. But they could not altogether forgive the Spartans for having so poor an opinion of them, as to think it was necessary to bribe them to fight in the cause of Greece by the offer of a paltry supply of provisions. Aristides, having drawn up the answer in the form of a decree, summoned the ambassadors, both of the Spartans and of Mardonius, to an audience. To the Spartans he gave this message: 'The people of Athens would not barter the liberties of Greece for all the gold that exists above or under the ground.' Then, turning to the envoys of Mardonius, he pointed to the sun and said . 'So long as the sun shines, so long will the Athenians wage war against the Persians, to avenge their country which has been laid waste, and their temples which have been profaned.' After this failure to win over the Athenians, Mardonius invaded Attica a second time, and the Athenians again retired to Salamis. Aristides was then despatched as ambassador to hasten the sending of the Spartan levies to their assistance. Afterwards he was appointed general of the Athenian forces, and, with eight thousand foot, marched to Plataea. There he was joined by the Spartans under Pausanias, who was commander-in-chief of all the allies, and by the troops of the other Greek states, who daily arrived in large numbers. The Persian army, which occupied an immense tract of ground, was encamped along the river Asopus. Within the camp they had fortified a space ten furlongs square, in which were stored their baggage and other things of value. When the posts of the allies in the order of battle came to be assigned, a great dispute arose between the Athenians and the people of another town, for both claimed to be placed upon the left wing. Aristides, however, sought to compose the quarrel. 'This is no time,' said he, 'to dispute with our allies as to our relative bravery. Let us say to the Spartans and to the rest of the Greeks, that we are ready to do honour to any position by our actions. For we are here, not to quarrel with friends, but to fight our enemies, not to boast of the courage of our ancestors, but to show forth our own valour in the cause of Greece.' The council of war, however, decided in favour of the Athenians, and gave them the command upon the left wing, the Spartans being stationed on the right. When the armies were thus encamped near one another, Mardonius, in order to test the courage of the Greeks, ordered his cavalry, in which lay his chief strength, to skirmish with the enemy. Nearly all the Greeks were encamped on the slopes of a mountain on steep and stony ground, and could not therefore be well attacked by the enemy's cavalry. The Megarensians, however, three thousand in number, were posted in the plain. They were thus exposed alone to the attack of the horsemen, who charged them on every side. The greatly superior numbers of the Persians threatened to crush them, and they were obliged to send a messenger to Pausanias beseeching assistance. Pausanias was at a loss what to do. He saw that relief was needed at once, for the camp of the Megarensians was darkened by the shower of darts and arrows rained upon it. He knew, however, that his own heavily armed Spartans were not fitted to act against cavalry. He therefore endeavoured to get the other generals and officers to volunteer to go to the aid of their distressed comrades. All declined with the exception of Aristides, who offered the services of his Athenians, and at once gave orders to one of the most active of his officers to advance to the rescue with a chosen band of three hundred men and some archers. The Athenians were ready in a moment, and hastened to the attack. The general of the Persian cavalry, a man remarkable for his strength and graceful carriage, saw them approaching, and immediately spurred his horse and charged them. The Athenians received the attack of the Persian leader and his followers firmly, and a sharp conflict ensued. At length, however, the Persian general's horse threw his rider, who was so heavily armed that he could not recover himself. Indeed, for the same reason, he could not easily be slain by the Athenians, so thickly was he covered all over with plates of gold, brass, and iron. At last, however, the visor of his helmet leaving part of his face exposed, he was despatched by a spear-thrust in the eye. The fall of their leader decided the combat, and the Persians broke and fled. Not many of the enemy were slain in this action. Nevertheless, the fight appeared important to the Greeks, for the general who was killed was second only to Mardonius himself in courage and in authority with the Persians, who loudly mourned his loss. After this engagement with the cavalry, both sides forbore from fighting for a long time, for Greeks and Persians were alike assured by their diviners that victory would rest with the side which stood upon the defensive. At last, however, Mardonius, finding that he had only a few days' provisions left, and seeing also that the Greek army was daily increased by the arrival of fresh troops, grew uneasy at the delay. He resolved to cross the river at daybreak the next day and fall upon the Greeks, whom he hoped to find unprepared. But at midnight a horseman quietly approached the Greek camp, and addressing the sentinels bade them call Aristides to him. The Athenian general came at once, and the stranger said to him: 'I am the King of Macedon, who out of friendship to you have come through great dangers to prevent your fighting under the disadvantage of a surprise. Mardonius will Aristides therefore went immediately to the tent of the commander-in-chief and laid the whole matter before him. At once the other chief officers were sent for, and were ordered to get their troops under arms and drawn up in order of battle. At the same time, Pausanias, it is said, informed Aristides that he intended to change the position of the Athenians from the left wing to the right. His object was to bring the Athenians against the Persians, because they had already had experience in fighting them, and would on this occasion fight with the more confidence because of their previous success. All the Athenian officers, except Aristides, thought that Pausanias was acting in a very high-handed manner in thus moving them up and down without consulting them, while he left the other allies in their allotted posts. Aristides, however, reproved them. 'You contended,' said he, 'for the command of the left wing, and now, when the Spartans of their own free will offer you the right wing, which is in effect the leadership of the whole army, you are dissatisfied.' Influenced by these words, the Athenians readily agreed to change places with the Spartans, and nothing was now heard among them but words of encouragement and confident anticipations of victory. 'The Persians,' said they, 'bring neither bolder hearts nor stouter bodies to battle than at Marathon. We recognise the same gay clothes and the display of gold, the same effeminate bodies and unmanly souls. And, for our part, we bring against them the same weapons and the same strength that have conquered them before. Bold in the memory of our victories, we fight them again for the trophies of Marathon and Salamis, and for the glory of the people of Athens.' But, while the change of posts was being carried out, the movement was perceived by the Thebans, who were serving with the Persians, and intelligence of it was given to Mardonius. The Persian general thereupon immediately changed the position of his wings, and this was followed by yet another change on the part of Pausanias. Thus the day passed in marchings, backwards and forwards, without the two armies coming to action at all. In the evening the Greeks held a council of war, and determined, because their water supply in the position they now occupied was disturbed and fouled by the enemy's horse, to move their camp during the night. Accordingly, when darkness had fallen, the officers began to march off their men to the new position which had been chosen. The movement, however, led to great confusion, for the men followed unwillingly, and many regardless of discipline made off to the city of Plataea. The Spartans, too, were left behind, for one of their officers, a man of undaunted courage, bluntly called the retirement a disgraceful flight, and declared that for his part he would not quit his post, but would remain where he was with his troops, and fight it out alone with Mardonius. In vain Pausanias urged that the retirement was made in agreement with the decision of all the allies. Taking up a large stone, the officer cast it at the feet of his general. 'There,' cried he, 'is my vote for battle, and I despise the timorous counsels of others.' The commander was at a loss what to do, but at length sent word to the Athenians, who by this time were advancing, to halt a while. He then set off to join them with the other troops, hoping that by doing so he should in the end induce the stubborn Spartan officer to follow him. By this time day had dawned, and Mardonius, who was aware of the movement of the Greeks, set his army in order of battle and bore down upon the unsupported Spartans. The Persians and their allies rushed to the fight with loud shouts of triumph and clanging of arms, as if they expected rather the plundering of a mob of fugitives than a battle. And indeed it seemed like to be so, for though Pausanias halted and ordered every one to his post, yet for some reason he did not give the order for battle, and hence the Greeks did not engage readily. Moreover, even after the battle was begun, the Greek forces remained scattered in small bodies. Meanwhile, Pausanias sacrificed to the gods. The omens, however, were unfavourable, and he therefore ordered his Spartans to lay down their shields at their feet and await his order. Then, while the Persian cavalry was still advancing, he offered other sacrifices. At last the enemy came within bowshot, and a number of the Spartans were wounded by their arrows. Among them was one who was held to be the tallest and finest man in the whole army. As he was on the point of dying this brave soldier exclaimed, 'I do not lament dying for Greece, but bitter it is to die without sword-stroke at the enemy.' In this trying ordeal the firmness and steadiness of the Spartans were wonderful. They stood as marks for the enemy's archers calmly awaiting the orders of their general. At length the omens for which Pausanias had waited and prayed appeared, and the diviners promised him victory. Then at once his orders to charge rang out, and the Spartan phalanx leapt into life, like some fierce animal erecting his bristles and preparing to put forth his mighty strength. Then did the barbarians see that they had to deal with men who were ready to shed their last drop of blood, and covering themselves with their targets, they shot their arrows thickly upon the advancing Spartans. Steadily, in a close compact body, the phalanx bore down upon them, their targets were thrust aside, and pike-thrusts at faces and breasts brought many of them to the ground. But even when overthrown they fought desperately, breaking the pikes with their naked hands, and leaping to their feet again they stood the quarrel out with sword and battle-axe. Meanwhile, the Athenians at a distance remained at the halt, as they had been ordered. But the tumult of battle reached them and, moreover, an officer sent by Pausanias informed them of the position of affairs. At once they hurried to the assistance of the Spartans, and as they were crossing the plain, the Greeks who fought on the Persian side came up to attack them. As soon as he saw them, Aristides advanced a long way in front of his own troops, and with a loud voice called upon them to give up this unnatural war and not to oppose their fellow-Greeks, who were risking their lives for the common country of all their race. But he found that the foe paid no heed to his words, but continued their hostile advance. He had therefore to await the attack of this body of Greeks, who were about five thousand in number, instead of going to the assistance of the Spartans as he had intended. Thus the battle resolved itself into two actions, the Spartans against the Persians, and the Athenians against the traitor Greeks, of whom the Thebans made up the chief part. The former of these two actions was the first decided, for the Persians were broken and routed and their general slain by a blow on the head with a stone, as the oracles had foretold. The barbarians then fled before the Spartans to their camp, which they had beforehand fortified with wooden walls. Soon after the Athenians routed the Thebans, killing some three hundred of their most distinguished men on the spot. Just at this time the news came that the Persians were shut up in their wooden fortifications, and the Athenians, leaving the defeated Greeks to escape, hastened to join in the siege. Their assistance was timely, for the Spartans were unskilled in the storming of walls, and therefore made but slow progress. The Athenians, however, soon took the camp, and there was made great slaughter of the enemy. It is said that out of three hundred thousand men barely forty thousand escaped. On the other hand, only one thousand three hundred and sixty of those who fought in the cause of Greece were killed. Of these fifty-two were Athenians, while the Spartans lost ninety-one. This great victory at Plataea went near to being the ruin of Greece, for the Athenians and the Spartans began to contend as to which of the two had gained the chief glory of the day, and to which should be given the honour of erecting the trophy for the victory. Indeed, it is likely that the quarrel would have been decided by arms had not Aristides exerted himself to pacify the other Athenian generals, and to persuade them to leave the matter to be decided by the general body of the allies. Accordingly a general council was called, and, in order to avoid civil war, it was decided to award the palm of valour to neither of the disputants, but to a third place. In the end Plataea, the scene of the battle, was pitched upon for this purpose, it being a place which could not excite the envy of either Athens or Sparta. To this proposal Aristides first agreed on behalf of Athens, and was followed by Pausanias, who accepted it for Sparta. Thus the allies were reconciled. Eighty talents were then set aside for the Plataeans, and with it they built a temple and set up a statue of the goddess Athene. There annually they celebrated the victory with solemn services and sacrifices, and with a libation to the memory of the men who died for the liberties of Greece. Some time after these events Aristides was sent, with Cimon as a colleague, in command of the Athenians, to continue the war against the Persians. He found that the pride and insolence of Pausanias and the other Spartan generals were making them very unpopular with the allies. For Pausanias scarcely even spoke to the officers of the forces of the other states without anger and bitterness, and he punished many of the men severely, flogging some, and ordering others to stand all day with an iron anchor upon their shoulders. In all things he gave first place to Spartans, and would not allow any of the allies to supply themselves with forage, or sleeping-straw, or drinking-water, until the Spartans had first been supplied. Indeed, he stationed servants with rods to drive off any who should attempt to take these things before it suited his pleasure. Aristides went in vain to remonstrate with him. The only answer of Pausanias was to knit his brows and say that he had no leisure to hear such complaints. Aristides, on the other hand, treated all with courtesy and kindness, and prevailed on his colleague Cimon to behave with equal affability. Hence the sea-captains and officers of the allies, particularly those from the islands, tired of the harshness and severity of the Spartans, besought Aristides to take the chief command. Two of the officers indeed boldly attacked Pausanias's galley at the head of the fleet. They told him that the best thing he could do was to retire, and that nothing but the memory of the great victory which fortune had permitted him to win at Plataea, prevented the Greeks from wreaking upon him a just vengeance for his treatment. The end of the matter was that the allies left the standards of the Spartans and ranged themselves under the ensigns of Athens. The people of Sparta took the matter in a noble and wise spirit. They saw that power had spoiled their generals, and they therefore sent no more in their place, for they thought it more important that a lesson in moderation and regard for right and justice should be given than that they should retain the chief command of the Greek forces. The allies now further begged that the Athenians would allow Aristides to fix the amounts which each state and each city should be called upon to provide for the purposes of the war. This power, which in a way made him master of Greece, was given to him. But in his hands authority was not abused. He went forth to his task poor and returned from it poor, having arranged matters with such equal justice that the allies blessed the settlement as 'the happy fortune of Greece.' Indeed, though Aristides had extended the influence of Athens over so many allied cities and states, he continued poor to the end, and gloried in his noble poverty no less than in the laurels he had won. This was clearly proved in the case of Callias, the torch-bearer, his near relation, who was prosecuted by certain enemies. When the accusers had alleged what they had to bring against him, which was nothing very serious, they brought in other matters which had nothing to do with the case, and thus addressed the judges: 'You know Aristides, who is justly the admiration of all Greece. You have seen how mean his garb is, and that his home is almost bare of necessaries. Yet this Callias, the richest man in Athens, is his own cousin. He, nevertheless, allows his noble relative, of whose influence he has availed himself, to live in utter wretchedness.' Callias perceived that the charge thus dragged into the case was likely to prejudice the judges against him. He therefore called upon Aristides, who testified in the court that Callias had many times offered him considerable sums of money, but that he had always refused the proffered gifts, with some such words as these: 'Aristides has more glory in his poverty than Callias in his riches. We see every day many who spend freely for good or ill, but it is hard to find one who bears poverty with a noble spirit. And he only is ashamed of poverty who is poor against his will.' When he had thus given evidence, there was not a man in court who did not feel that it was indeed better to be poor with Aristides than rich with Callias. His conduct with regard to Themistocles furnishes a striking instance of his uprightness. For when Themistocles was accused of crimes against the state, Aristides had the opportunity of revenging himself upon the man who had been his constant opponent and the chief cause of his banishment. But, While many others of the leading men in Athens joined in the outcry against Themistocles and aided in driving him into exile, Aristides alone made no accusation against him. As he had not envied his rival in his prosperity, so neither did he rejoice at his misfortunes. Aristides died in the year of the banishment of Themistocles. It is said that his funeral was conducted at the public charge, since he did not leave behind him enough money to defray the cost, and that the city of Athens further gave marriage portions to his daughters, and a gift of land and money to his son.	7,650	ENGLISH	1
Published Date: 06/13/19 We’ve long know about the benefits of high-quality early education on children, but now we know about the intergenerational effects of it, thanks to James Heckman, a Nobel prize-winning economist. He recently published a work paper for the University of Chicago showing the impact preschool has on your children’s children. Crazy! The Herald-Tribune reported on this and interviewed Heckman for their article. “It shows not only does pre-K have around a 12% rate of return but it is probably higher if you factor in its effects on the second generation…We found there were fewer men committing crime among the original participants, which was a major boost to family earnings. They also had more stable marriages, which translated to healthier families because of the double income,” he said. An early childhood study was conducted in 1962 called the Perry Preschool Project. The original participants are all now in their mid-50s, with adult children. The study found that among the group, there was a lower crime rate, higher full-time employment, and a significant impact on health and education. The Perry Preschool Project was developed originally to help determine if quality early childhood education could increase the IQ’s of children who have below-average intelligence and are economically disadvantaged. There were 123 black children in this study, all between the ages of 3 and 4. They were divided into two separate groups where half of them received a weekly home visit from their teachers along with attending the Perry Pre-K center for a few hours a day, while the others did not. The children who went to the Perry Preschool and received home visits spent at least three times longer with married parents, they had fewer instances of illegal drug use, arrest, school suspensions, and they were more likely to be employed full-time. Louise Derman-Sparks, who was one of the original teachers form the Perry Preschool, had an interview with Emily Hanford of American Public Media. She states that to most people observing the treated group, it looks like the children spent most of their morning just playing. The difference between normal play and the control group’s play was that it was carefully structured and all of the materials were set out intentionally by the teachers. This was all to establish a thought-provoking environment. Heckman denied the popular notion that the zip code a child lives in determines the lifelong outcomes of their life. He insists that family and home environments impact the children more than the location of where they grow up. Research backs up the notion that the children in the treated group of the Perry Preschool Project excelled in various aspects of life regardless of where they grew up, even if it was a neighborhood that was worse off than where the control group children lived. He even dismisses the idea of fadeout; which means that the benefits each child had from their early education would eventually expire as they aged. He believes that positive outcomes at an early age lead to better social-emotional skills. Heckman believes that well-intentioned people look only at test scores, but test scores only make up a small part of a successful life. The children who were sent to the Perry Preschool are more engaged in life. He also suggested that rather than focusing on universal pre-k, as many governors are doing now, efforts should be concentrated on the most at-risk children where it can be used a tool with greater impact, like helping to address poverty in the long run. We’ll quickly see if states move forward with universal pre-k, and hopefully, we see even more programs in place to bring quality early education to the most vulnerable communities, as we now know the lasting impact it has. Other articles you'll like Paper Pinecone is the best resource for finding great daycare and preschool programs in your area. Start your search today.	<urn:uuid:b2622fa3-d8d0-4cd5-8b2a-54391cb52d57>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.paperpinecone.com/blog/new-study-preschools-benefits-extend-generations	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251684146.65/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126013015-20200126043015-00498.warc.gz	en	0.985813	806	3.390625	3	[ -0.4253232181072235, -0.05541928857564926, 0.377625048160553, -0.08577562123537064, 0.13297145068645477, 0.32615208625793457, -0.19631513953208923, 0.05052400380373001, -0.15994077920913696, 0.03445497900247574, 0.2910342812538147, 0.36681345105171204, 0.2168847918510437, 0.273409754037857...	5	Published Date: 06/13/19 We’ve long know about the benefits of high-quality early education on children, but now we know about the intergenerational effects of it, thanks to James Heckman, a Nobel prize-winning economist. He recently published a work paper for the University of Chicago showing the impact preschool has on your children’s children. Crazy! The Herald-Tribune reported on this and interviewed Heckman for their article. “It shows not only does pre-K have around a 12% rate of return but it is probably higher if you factor in its effects on the second generation…We found there were fewer men committing crime among the original participants, which was a major boost to family earnings. They also had more stable marriages, which translated to healthier families because of the double income,” he said. An early childhood study was conducted in 1962 called the Perry Preschool Project. The original participants are all now in their mid-50s, with adult children. The study found that among the group, there was a lower crime rate, higher full-time employment, and a significant impact on health and education. The Perry Preschool Project was developed originally to help determine if quality early childhood education could increase the IQ’s of children who have below-average intelligence and are economically disadvantaged. There were 123 black children in this study, all between the ages of 3 and 4. They were divided into two separate groups where half of them received a weekly home visit from their teachers along with attending the Perry Pre-K center for a few hours a day, while the others did not. The children who went to the Perry Preschool and received home visits spent at least three times longer with married parents, they had fewer instances of illegal drug use, arrest, school suspensions, and they were more likely to be employed full-time. Louise Derman-Sparks, who was one of the original teachers form the Perry Preschool, had an interview with Emily Hanford of American Public Media. She states that to most people observing the treated group, it looks like the children spent most of their morning just playing. The difference between normal play and the control group’s play was that it was carefully structured and all of the materials were set out intentionally by the teachers. This was all to establish a thought-provoking environment. Heckman denied the popular notion that the zip code a child lives in determines the lifelong outcomes of their life. He insists that family and home environments impact the children more than the location of where they grow up. Research backs up the notion that the children in the treated group of the Perry Preschool Project excelled in various aspects of life regardless of where they grew up, even if it was a neighborhood that was worse off than where the control group children lived. He even dismisses the idea of fadeout; which means that the benefits each child had from their early education would eventually expire as they aged. He believes that positive outcomes at an early age lead to better social-emotional skills. Heckman believes that well-intentioned people look only at test scores, but test scores only make up a small part of a successful life. The children who were sent to the Perry Preschool are more engaged in life. He also suggested that rather than focusing on universal pre-k, as many governors are doing now, efforts should be concentrated on the most at-risk children where it can be used a tool with greater impact, like helping to address poverty in the long run. We’ll quickly see if states move forward with universal pre-k, and hopefully, we see even more programs in place to bring quality early education to the most vulnerable communities, as we now know the lasting impact it has. Other articles you'll like Paper Pinecone is the best resource for finding great daycare and preschool programs in your area. Start your search today.	788	ENGLISH	1
Narrator: In the early 1900’s child labor was was a very heavy issue in the United States. Child Labor was very common. Across the United States children were slaving away, doing jobs instead of going to school. This issue was almost a mystery. The outside world was blind to the destructive process of child labor, which is a very serious conflict. But Lewis Hine stepped up and took it on himself to expose the reality of child labor. Lewis Hine: When I first started my job teaching nature study at the Ethical Culture School in New York City, I would have never thought I would become a famous photographer. But my position as a teacher put me touch with social informers. I soon became aware of the National Child Labor committee, also known as the NCLC. Narrator: The NCLC started in 1904, with a goal to help combat child labor. By the 1900,s about 1.7 million children labored in American industries. That’s more than double the number in 1870. From children ages 10-15, 18.2 percent were employed. Lewis Hine: Once I started traveling across the United States taking pictures of child labor I really did start to see how big of an issue this was. I felt compelled to make this right. People weren’t aware of what was happening and I had to make this known, and the only way to do that was by showing them the photographs, not telling them. There was so many different kinds of labor from mining to cotton picking and oyster shucking to working in factories. It was absolutely insane. Now with the process of having to take photographs was almost like being a detective. I had to act like different people including Bible salesman and postcard salesman just to get photographs. I did this so I could go into factories and other places. When I was denied entry I would wait outside, with my 50 pounds of camera equipment, and photography the children entering and exiting the workplace. Now these children were anywhere from 5 years old to 15. Kids could be working for 10 years, never getting the chance to go to school. The Breaker boys were young boys working in mines. There job was to separate the impurities from coal. They would sit for hours on end, slouching their backs, cutting their fingers breathing dust and freezing in the winter. This was the life of a boy in the mines, and it was happening all over but yet, nobody did anything about it, nobody cared that these boys were painfully working instead of learning how to read and write. Instead what they did learn was; chewing tobacco, swearing and smoking. Death was another thing that came along with mining. Many of the boys fell into the machinery and got mangled, or fall down the chutes and got smothered. When the boys lost someone, a friend it was the saddest thing. Having funerals for boys under the age of 16 was depressing. So I said to myself; This has to stop. People asked themselves: “Is this sacrifice of youth necessary for the prosperity of the mining industry?” And still nothing changed. When I took pictures of the young boys and girls I liked asking for their age and getting details about what they did. But when a child wouldn’t tell me their age or if they didn’t know their own age I used the buttons on my shirt to calculate their age. The buttons were marks for a certain height so if I could see how tall someone is I could guess their age. Children were wanted in the workforce because they were small nimble and easy to control. They could fit into places where adults couldn’t. A huge thing was that you could pay Children a whole lot less. A child could work 12 to 18 hours a week and earn a dollar. This was straight up unfair. When I took these photos to the NCLC, they got published in posters, magazines, and elsewhere. The public would finally see the truth about this and I would be the one exposing them to this. Some of the pictures I took were so graphic that they helped pursue the change in legislative laws. The U.S. passed two laws in 1918 and 1922 but the supreme court declared that they were both unconstitutional. In 1924 Congress proposed a constitutional amendment prohibiting child labor, but the states did not ratify it.	<urn:uuid:efba602e-d218-4876-a751-1f7e1826d962>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://irvinebusinessdirectory.net/narrator-to-help-combat-child-labor-by-the-1900s/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251687725.76/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126043644-20200126073644-00359.warc.gz	en	0.990113	887	3.359375	3	[ -0.25723597407341003, 0.2148144543170929, -0.1287078708410263, -0.07297826558351517, -0.06287878751754761, 0.275905579328537, -0.19337305426597595, 0.02039424702525139, -0.528927206993103, 0.23007097840309143, 0.27990153431892395, 0.18028216063976288, 0.19472889602184296, 0.549617171287536...	1	Narrator: In the early 1900’s child labor was was a very heavy issue in the United States. Child Labor was very common. Across the United States children were slaving away, doing jobs instead of going to school. This issue was almost a mystery. The outside world was blind to the destructive process of child labor, which is a very serious conflict. But Lewis Hine stepped up and took it on himself to expose the reality of child labor. Lewis Hine: When I first started my job teaching nature study at the Ethical Culture School in New York City, I would have never thought I would become a famous photographer. But my position as a teacher put me touch with social informers. I soon became aware of the National Child Labor committee, also known as the NCLC. Narrator: The NCLC started in 1904, with a goal to help combat child labor. By the 1900,s about 1.7 million children labored in American industries. That’s more than double the number in 1870. From children ages 10-15, 18.2 percent were employed. Lewis Hine: Once I started traveling across the United States taking pictures of child labor I really did start to see how big of an issue this was. I felt compelled to make this right. People weren’t aware of what was happening and I had to make this known, and the only way to do that was by showing them the photographs, not telling them. There was so many different kinds of labor from mining to cotton picking and oyster shucking to working in factories. It was absolutely insane. Now with the process of having to take photographs was almost like being a detective. I had to act like different people including Bible salesman and postcard salesman just to get photographs. I did this so I could go into factories and other places. When I was denied entry I would wait outside, with my 50 pounds of camera equipment, and photography the children entering and exiting the workplace. Now these children were anywhere from 5 years old to 15. Kids could be working for 10 years, never getting the chance to go to school. The Breaker boys were young boys working in mines. There job was to separate the impurities from coal. They would sit for hours on end, slouching their backs, cutting their fingers breathing dust and freezing in the winter. This was the life of a boy in the mines, and it was happening all over but yet, nobody did anything about it, nobody cared that these boys were painfully working instead of learning how to read and write. Instead what they did learn was; chewing tobacco, swearing and smoking. Death was another thing that came along with mining. Many of the boys fell into the machinery and got mangled, or fall down the chutes and got smothered. When the boys lost someone, a friend it was the saddest thing. Having funerals for boys under the age of 16 was depressing. So I said to myself; This has to stop. People asked themselves: “Is this sacrifice of youth necessary for the prosperity of the mining industry?” And still nothing changed. When I took pictures of the young boys and girls I liked asking for their age and getting details about what they did. But when a child wouldn’t tell me their age or if they didn’t know their own age I used the buttons on my shirt to calculate their age. The buttons were marks for a certain height so if I could see how tall someone is I could guess their age. Children were wanted in the workforce because they were small nimble and easy to control. They could fit into places where adults couldn’t. A huge thing was that you could pay Children a whole lot less. A child could work 12 to 18 hours a week and earn a dollar. This was straight up unfair. When I took these photos to the NCLC, they got published in posters, magazines, and elsewhere. The public would finally see the truth about this and I would be the one exposing them to this. Some of the pictures I took were so graphic that they helped pursue the change in legislative laws. The U.S. passed two laws in 1918 and 1922 but the supreme court declared that they were both unconstitutional. In 1924 Congress proposed a constitutional amendment prohibiting child labor, but the states did not ratify it.	918	ENGLISH	1
== Middle life: the spolia opima == Following the end of the [[First Punic War]], in which Marcellus fought as a soldier, the [[Gauls]] of northern Italy declared war on Rome in 225 BC. In the fourth and final year of the war, Marcellus was elected consul with Gnaeus Cornelius Scipio Calvus. The previous consuls had The confrontation, as told by Plutarch, is so heavy in detail that one might question the veracity of his narration. Plutarch recounts that, prior to the battle, Viridomarus spotted Marcellus, who wore commander's insignia on his armor, and rode out to meet him. Across the battlefield, Marcellus viewed the beautiful armor on the back of the enemy riding toward him. Marcellus concluded that this was the nicest armor, which he had previously prayed would be given by him to the gods. The two engaged in combat whereupon, Marcellus, “by a thrust of his spear which pierced his adversary's breastplate, and by the impact of his horse in full career, threw him, still living, upon the ground, where, with a second and third blow, he promptly killed him.”<ref name=Plutarch/> Marcellus extracted the armor from his fallen foe, upon which he pronounced it as the ''spolia opima''. The ''spolia opima'', meaning "ultimate spoil," is known in Roman history as the most prestigious and honorable prize that a general can earn. Only a general who kills the leader of the opposing army prior to a battle may be honored with taking a ''spolia opima''.	<urn:uuid:6abca606-a0ca-4faa-82b8-0c8062389059>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	http://conceptmap.cfapps.io/wikipage?lang=en&name=Special:MobileDiff/772121062	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250604397.40/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121132900-20200121161900-00340.warc.gz	en	0.981128	351	3.78125	4	[ -0.2679380476474762, 0.4672156274318695, 0.5375165939331055, 0.08909720927476883, -0.47626665234565735, -0.238615944981575, 0.43934571743011475, 0.6236535310745239, 0.12992875277996063, -0.0489845871925354, 0.20673494040966034, -0.7927752137184143, -0.021856985986232758, 0.4218884110450744...	1	== Middle life: the spolia opima == Following the end of the [[First Punic War]], in which Marcellus fought as a soldier, the [[Gauls]] of northern Italy declared war on Rome in 225 BC. In the fourth and final year of the war, Marcellus was elected consul with Gnaeus Cornelius Scipio Calvus. The previous consuls had The confrontation, as told by Plutarch, is so heavy in detail that one might question the veracity of his narration. Plutarch recounts that, prior to the battle, Viridomarus spotted Marcellus, who wore commander's insignia on his armor, and rode out to meet him. Across the battlefield, Marcellus viewed the beautiful armor on the back of the enemy riding toward him. Marcellus concluded that this was the nicest armor, which he had previously prayed would be given by him to the gods. The two engaged in combat whereupon, Marcellus, “by a thrust of his spear which pierced his adversary's breastplate, and by the impact of his horse in full career, threw him, still living, upon the ground, where, with a second and third blow, he promptly killed him.”<ref name=Plutarch/> Marcellus extracted the armor from his fallen foe, upon which he pronounced it as the ''spolia opima''. The ''spolia opima'', meaning "ultimate spoil," is known in Roman history as the most prestigious and honorable prize that a general can earn. Only a general who kills the leader of the opposing army prior to a battle may be honored with taking a ''spolia opima''.	347	ENGLISH	1
About the Book Between the 16th and 18th centuries several European ships involved in trade with the East came to grief on the south-east African coast, the most famous being the Grosvenor. In almost all cases there were survivors, both passengers and crew, whose stories were later written down. And what stories these are. Many parties undertook epic journeys on foot from the wreck site to reach places where they might be rescued. These journeys involved great feats of endurance for the survivors, who tramped by foot for hundreds of kilometres through unknown territory inhabited by people whose European prejudices of the day regarded as hostile ‘savages’. Even more remarkably, a few parties constructed their own small ships from the wreckage and sailed off to seek rescue. About the Author Dr Gillian Vernon, who was formerly director of the East London Museum, has studied the shipwreck narratives and has herself travelled along some of the routes the survivors took.	<urn:uuid:26b2effc-8512-4e37-a3ba-0c3ae70e9bea>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.bathekgi.org.za/product/even-the-cows-were-amazed/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251783621.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129010251-20200129040251-00423.warc.gz	en	0.983829	191	3.375	3	[ 0.09588105231523514, 0.4056377708911896, 0.537930965423584, -0.24019114673137665, -0.0207712072879076, -0.38333237171173096, -0.14735330641269684, 0.06094414368271828, -0.3174957036972046, -0.15920422971248627, 0.24430903792381287, -0.2478053867816925, -0.2924375534057617, 0.21521091461181...	8	About the Book Between the 16th and 18th centuries several European ships involved in trade with the East came to grief on the south-east African coast, the most famous being the Grosvenor. In almost all cases there were survivors, both passengers and crew, whose stories were later written down. And what stories these are. Many parties undertook epic journeys on foot from the wreck site to reach places where they might be rescued. These journeys involved great feats of endurance for the survivors, who tramped by foot for hundreds of kilometres through unknown territory inhabited by people whose European prejudices of the day regarded as hostile ‘savages’. Even more remarkably, a few parties constructed their own small ships from the wreckage and sailed off to seek rescue. About the Author Dr Gillian Vernon, who was formerly director of the East London Museum, has studied the shipwreck narratives and has herself travelled along some of the routes the survivors took.	191	ENGLISH	1
The earliest recorded Polish contact with New Zealand goes back to Captain James Cook’s second voyage in 1772. On board the Resolution were two scientists, Johann Reinhold Forster and his son Georg, from Danzig (now Gdańsk). They were of Scottish descent and German speaking, but were Polish subjects by birth. Nearly a century later, a number of Poles came to New Zealand in search of gold. Few of these early arrivals settled, and many moved between Australia and New Zealand. Settlement of Poles in New Zealand began in the 1840s, although the numbers through the 19th century were small – estimates range from fewer than 500 to over 1,000. Early immigrants settled as individuals or single families who had little contact with other Poles. The Subritzky family claim to be New Zealand’s first Polish settlers. Matriarch Sophie Subritzky arrived in 1843 with her extended family, and they settled for a time with German immigrants at St Paulidorf in the Moutere valley, near Nelson. Later they moved to Australia, then returned to settle in Northland, where they intermarried with Māori tribes. In 1993, to mark the 150th anniversary of the family’s arrival, 3,000 descendants gathered at the original homestead at Houhora. Difficulties in determining how many Poles came to New Zealand in the 19th century arise from the division of Poland between 1772 and 1795 by Prussia (a German state) and the Russian and Austrian empires. Poland did not exist as an independent state again until after the First World War. There were almost certainly Poles among those recorded in censuses or on ships’ registers as Russian, German or Austrian. A number of immigrants from Poland were Jewish, but despite their ethnic and religious differences from Poles, some had feelings of loyalty to Poland. In the later 19th century, life became increasingly hard in the Prussian and Russian parts of Poland. Forced ‘Germanisation’ and ‘Russianisation’ provoked a Polish national consciousness. There was a mass exodus of Poles after the failed uprising of 1863; most went to other parts of Europe or America, but a small number came to New Zealand. These immigrants were often identified as Germans, as they were frequently German speaking and came from Prussian-dominated (western) Poland. When more Polish families arrived in the 1870s, often travelling together in the same immigrant ship, they settled in groups. During this period Poles took advantage of New Zealand Prime Minister Julius Vogel’s offer of assisted passages, to encourage agricultural labourers and others to come to New Zealand. The first description of New Zealand written in Polish, including translations of Māori songs, was by a 19th-century adventurer, Sygurd Wiśniowski. He visited New Zealand in 1864. The publisher Dennis McEldowney described his novel, Children of the Queen of Oceania (Dzieci królowej Oceanii), published in 1877, as far better than any novel about New Zealand written in English as early as this. Group migration in the Vogel years was followed by chain migration, by which others came out to join relatives and friends. Small Polish settlements developed in the South Island at Marshlands near Christchurch, and at Allanton and Waihola on Otago’s Taieri Plain. In the North Island the largest settlement was in Taranaki, around Inglewood and Midhurst. There were smaller settlements at Halcombe in the Manawatū, in the Wairarapa, and in Rangitīkei. Many of these early pioneers worked in occupations requiring little English, felling bush, draining swamps and building tracks. Eventually acquiring their own land, they turned to farming. After the First World War Poland became an independent nation. The ‘push’ factors (the harsh conditions imposed by powers dominating Poland) declined and the ‘pull’ factor (assistance from the New Zealand government) ceased. The flow of migrants slowed. The next migrants from Poland were Polish Jews who arrived in the inter-war period as refugees from European anti-Semitism. They numbered at most a few hundred. Their Jewishness did not prevent them also identifying themselves as Polish, and they formed an association of Polish Jews in Wellington in 1944. This organisation later helped non-Jewish Polish migrants who arrived during and after the Second World War. The Second World War devastated Poland, and many Poles were forced to leave. Three distinct groups with different war experiences arrived in New Zealand: children, war veterans and displaced persons. All shared the traumatic experience of being uprooted from their homeland. In 1943 New Zealand Prime Minister Peter Fraser, encouraged by Polish Consul General Kazimierz Wodzicki and his wife, invited a group of mainly orphaned Polish children to New Zealand for the duration of the war. A group of 734 children and 103 adults arrived in 1944. They had survived deportation to the Soviet Union, hard labour in Siberia, a terrible journey to the southern Soviet republics, and finally evacuation to Persia (Iran). They had witnessed the deaths of parents and siblings. At the end of the war, when Poland came under Soviet influence, the children were given the opportunity to settle in New Zealand. The Polish children’s camp near Pahīatua was called ‘Little Poland’ by locals. It was thought initially the children would return to Poland when the war was over, so they were educated in Polish. Their unusual situation – they came as temporary guests and then stayed as settlers – makes their story unique among New Zealand’s immigrant groups. ‘Little Poland’ recreated a world that they had lost, where they learnt to be patriotic Poles, although they did not return to Poland. This second group, mostly men who had children or family already in New Zealand, came immediately after the war. They numbered about 200 and had fought with the Allies, then found themselves outside Poland at the end of the war. They were given the same rights to settle in New Zealand as British ex-servicemen. Many of the displaced persons who came after the war had spent the war years in prisoner-of-war, labour or concentration camps in Nazi-controlled territory. They were often without identity papers. New Zealand belonged to the International Refugee Organisation that settled these people. More than 700 Poles were among the 4,500 displaced persons who arrived between 1949 and 1951. When Poland was in the Soviet sphere of influence at the end of the war, Poles had great difficulty obtaining passports. Polish migration virtually stopped during the Cold War period. The next mass movement of Poles from Poland occurred in the 1980s with the rise of the Solidarity movement. This began with strikes in the Gdańsk shipyards in 1980, and led to a period of turmoil in Poland. In these troubled times, people flooded out of Poland into Austrian transit camps. More than 290 came to New Zealand. In the 20th century Polish settlement was predominantly urban, but before the 1940s there were no Polish immigrant associations. The Polish Association in New Zealand was established in 1948 in Wellington. Those who founded it saw themselves as an exile community fighting for a free and independent Poland so that they could return home. Their association was geared toward charitable works for their community. At the same time they kept their language and customs alive, and passed them on to their children. In the early 1970s, a Polish scholar, Dr Jerzy Pobóg-Jaworowski, visited Taranaki to research the history of the settlers from his homeland. His visit sparked a revival of interest in Polish family history in the region. Plans were made for a centennial celebration in 1976. The organisers expected about 40 people to attend but ended up with 1,800! There are now similar associations around New Zealand. The teaching of the Polish language at Auckland University is supported by the community and the Polish Heritage Trust. The trust also has a museum and library in Howick. Catholicism has been an important focus of Polish community life. Although there is no exclusively Polish parish, the Wellington Polish Association has maintained a Polish priest attached to St Anne’s Church in Newtown. The visit of the Polish Pope to New Zealand in 1986 was of great importance to the community. Once they had arrived in New Zealand, the 19th- and 20th-century immigrants had little choice but to settle permanently, as lack of money, and political restrictions in Poland, made it difficult for them to return. In the 21st century, Poles and Polish New Zealanders can move between the two countries more freely than at any other time, and choose where they wish to settle. The New Zealand census figures listed here show the number of residents born in Poland. In the 2006 and 2013 censuses, people were asked to indicate the ethnic group or groups with which they identified. The numbers include those who indicated more than one group. Burnley, I. H. ‘The Poles.’ In Immigrants in New Zealand, edited by K. W. Thomson and A. D. Trlin, 125–151. Palmerston North: Massey University, 1970. Ducat, Michelle, David Mealing, and Theresa Sawicka, eds. Living in two worlds: the Polish community of Wellington. Lower Hutt: Hutt City Council for Petone Settlers' Museum, 1992. Ogonowska-Coates, Halina. Krystyna’s story. Wellington: Bridget Williams, 1992. Pobóg-Jaworowski, J. W. Polish settlers in New Zealand, 1876–1976. Wellington: J. Pobóg-Jaworowski, 1976.	<urn:uuid:a6663242-371e-4345-bcae-ae47fc713a41>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://teara.govt.nz/en/poles/print	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251801423.98/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129164403-20200129193403-00285.warc.gz	en	0.980774	2,028	3.859375	4	[ -0.25427964329719543, 0.5177781581878662, -0.11762941628694534, -0.09296716749668121, -0.34546491503715515, -0.1255023032426834, -0.20267188549041748, -0.061905983835458755, -0.42893272638320923, -0.1895582228899002, 0.08063068985939026, -0.21055470407009125, 0.34758302569389343, 0.4627612...	5	The earliest recorded Polish contact with New Zealand goes back to Captain James Cook’s second voyage in 1772. On board the Resolution were two scientists, Johann Reinhold Forster and his son Georg, from Danzig (now Gdańsk). They were of Scottish descent and German speaking, but were Polish subjects by birth. Nearly a century later, a number of Poles came to New Zealand in search of gold. Few of these early arrivals settled, and many moved between Australia and New Zealand. Settlement of Poles in New Zealand began in the 1840s, although the numbers through the 19th century were small – estimates range from fewer than 500 to over 1,000. Early immigrants settled as individuals or single families who had little contact with other Poles. The Subritzky family claim to be New Zealand’s first Polish settlers. Matriarch Sophie Subritzky arrived in 1843 with her extended family, and they settled for a time with German immigrants at St Paulidorf in the Moutere valley, near Nelson. Later they moved to Australia, then returned to settle in Northland, where they intermarried with Māori tribes. In 1993, to mark the 150th anniversary of the family’s arrival, 3,000 descendants gathered at the original homestead at Houhora. Difficulties in determining how many Poles came to New Zealand in the 19th century arise from the division of Poland between 1772 and 1795 by Prussia (a German state) and the Russian and Austrian empires. Poland did not exist as an independent state again until after the First World War. There were almost certainly Poles among those recorded in censuses or on ships’ registers as Russian, German or Austrian. A number of immigrants from Poland were Jewish, but despite their ethnic and religious differences from Poles, some had feelings of loyalty to Poland. In the later 19th century, life became increasingly hard in the Prussian and Russian parts of Poland. Forced ‘Germanisation’ and ‘Russianisation’ provoked a Polish national consciousness. There was a mass exodus of Poles after the failed uprising of 1863; most went to other parts of Europe or America, but a small number came to New Zealand. These immigrants were often identified as Germans, as they were frequently German speaking and came from Prussian-dominated (western) Poland. When more Polish families arrived in the 1870s, often travelling together in the same immigrant ship, they settled in groups. During this period Poles took advantage of New Zealand Prime Minister Julius Vogel’s offer of assisted passages, to encourage agricultural labourers and others to come to New Zealand. The first description of New Zealand written in Polish, including translations of Māori songs, was by a 19th-century adventurer, Sygurd Wiśniowski. He visited New Zealand in 1864. The publisher Dennis McEldowney described his novel, Children of the Queen of Oceania (Dzieci królowej Oceanii), published in 1877, as far better than any novel about New Zealand written in English as early as this. Group migration in the Vogel years was followed by chain migration, by which others came out to join relatives and friends. Small Polish settlements developed in the South Island at Marshlands near Christchurch, and at Allanton and Waihola on Otago’s Taieri Plain. In the North Island the largest settlement was in Taranaki, around Inglewood and Midhurst. There were smaller settlements at Halcombe in the Manawatū, in the Wairarapa, and in Rangitīkei. Many of these early pioneers worked in occupations requiring little English, felling bush, draining swamps and building tracks. Eventually acquiring their own land, they turned to farming. After the First World War Poland became an independent nation. The ‘push’ factors (the harsh conditions imposed by powers dominating Poland) declined and the ‘pull’ factor (assistance from the New Zealand government) ceased. The flow of migrants slowed. The next migrants from Poland were Polish Jews who arrived in the inter-war period as refugees from European anti-Semitism. They numbered at most a few hundred. Their Jewishness did not prevent them also identifying themselves as Polish, and they formed an association of Polish Jews in Wellington in 1944. This organisation later helped non-Jewish Polish migrants who arrived during and after the Second World War. The Second World War devastated Poland, and many Poles were forced to leave. Three distinct groups with different war experiences arrived in New Zealand: children, war veterans and displaced persons. All shared the traumatic experience of being uprooted from their homeland. In 1943 New Zealand Prime Minister Peter Fraser, encouraged by Polish Consul General Kazimierz Wodzicki and his wife, invited a group of mainly orphaned Polish children to New Zealand for the duration of the war. A group of 734 children and 103 adults arrived in 1944. They had survived deportation to the Soviet Union, hard labour in Siberia, a terrible journey to the southern Soviet republics, and finally evacuation to Persia (Iran). They had witnessed the deaths of parents and siblings. At the end of the war, when Poland came under Soviet influence, the children were given the opportunity to settle in New Zealand. The Polish children’s camp near Pahīatua was called ‘Little Poland’ by locals. It was thought initially the children would return to Poland when the war was over, so they were educated in Polish. Their unusual situation – they came as temporary guests and then stayed as settlers – makes their story unique among New Zealand’s immigrant groups. ‘Little Poland’ recreated a world that they had lost, where they learnt to be patriotic Poles, although they did not return to Poland. This second group, mostly men who had children or family already in New Zealand, came immediately after the war. They numbered about 200 and had fought with the Allies, then found themselves outside Poland at the end of the war. They were given the same rights to settle in New Zealand as British ex-servicemen. Many of the displaced persons who came after the war had spent the war years in prisoner-of-war, labour or concentration camps in Nazi-controlled territory. They were often without identity papers. New Zealand belonged to the International Refugee Organisation that settled these people. More than 700 Poles were among the 4,500 displaced persons who arrived between 1949 and 1951. When Poland was in the Soviet sphere of influence at the end of the war, Poles had great difficulty obtaining passports. Polish migration virtually stopped during the Cold War period. The next mass movement of Poles from Poland occurred in the 1980s with the rise of the Solidarity movement. This began with strikes in the Gdańsk shipyards in 1980, and led to a period of turmoil in Poland. In these troubled times, people flooded out of Poland into Austrian transit camps. More than 290 came to New Zealand. In the 20th century Polish settlement was predominantly urban, but before the 1940s there were no Polish immigrant associations. The Polish Association in New Zealand was established in 1948 in Wellington. Those who founded it saw themselves as an exile community fighting for a free and independent Poland so that they could return home. Their association was geared toward charitable works for their community. At the same time they kept their language and customs alive, and passed them on to their children. In the early 1970s, a Polish scholar, Dr Jerzy Pobóg-Jaworowski, visited Taranaki to research the history of the settlers from his homeland. His visit sparked a revival of interest in Polish family history in the region. Plans were made for a centennial celebration in 1976. The organisers expected about 40 people to attend but ended up with 1,800! There are now similar associations around New Zealand. The teaching of the Polish language at Auckland University is supported by the community and the Polish Heritage Trust. The trust also has a museum and library in Howick. Catholicism has been an important focus of Polish community life. Although there is no exclusively Polish parish, the Wellington Polish Association has maintained a Polish priest attached to St Anne’s Church in Newtown. The visit of the Polish Pope to New Zealand in 1986 was of great importance to the community. Once they had arrived in New Zealand, the 19th- and 20th-century immigrants had little choice but to settle permanently, as lack of money, and political restrictions in Poland, made it difficult for them to return. In the 21st century, Poles and Polish New Zealanders can move between the two countries more freely than at any other time, and choose where they wish to settle. The New Zealand census figures listed here show the number of residents born in Poland. In the 2006 and 2013 censuses, people were asked to indicate the ethnic group or groups with which they identified. The numbers include those who indicated more than one group. Burnley, I. H. ‘The Poles.’ In Immigrants in New Zealand, edited by K. W. Thomson and A. D. Trlin, 125–151. Palmerston North: Massey University, 1970. Ducat, Michelle, David Mealing, and Theresa Sawicka, eds. Living in two worlds: the Polish community of Wellington. Lower Hutt: Hutt City Council for Petone Settlers' Museum, 1992. Ogonowska-Coates, Halina. Krystyna’s story. Wellington: Bridget Williams, 1992. Pobóg-Jaworowski, J. W. Polish settlers in New Zealand, 1876–1976. Wellington: J. Pobóg-Jaworowski, 1976.	2,123	ENGLISH	1
The Odyssey Short Summary The Odyssey is a poem by Homer that describes the events that occurred after the fall of Troy A Brief Plot Overview Some years have passed after the war with Troy that involved the Trojan horse. Odysseus, a Greek hero, has not yet returned to Ithaca his home. Most of the people believe he is dead. The poet, however, informs us that Odysseus is instead held captive willingly on an island by Kalypso, the goddess. Poseidon is angry with Odysseus and does not find a reason to assist him in getting back home. In Ithaca, Penelope, the wife of Odysseus, has many suitors after her. Their son, Telemachus, currently a teenager, is visited by Athene, a goddess, and friend to Odysseus. She tells the boy to set out and look for news about his father. Telemachus goes to Pylos to King Nestor, who sends him to King Menelaus of Sparta. When he gets to Sparta, Telemachos finds out that his father is alive and in captivity on the island of Kalypso. Menelaos tells him about how his brother King Agamemnon got murdered as he was getting home from Troy by Klytaimestra who was unfaithful to him with Aigisthos. Orestes, Agamemnon’s son, kills his father’s murderers. The story brings up the question of whether on return, Odysseus will get killed and then whether his son Telemachos will have to avenge his death. In Ithaka, the suitors of Penelope hatch a plan to kill Telemachos on his return. Athene asks Zeus her father to command Calypso to release Odysseus and to have mercy on him. Zeus agrees, and later Odysseus leaves in a raft. Poseidon creates some storms that wash Odysseus in the shores of Phaiakia. Athene helps him by making Nausikaa, the princess of the landfall for him, who takes Odysseus to meet her parents. Odysseus tells the events since the Trojan War. Athene disguises him as a beggar ensure his safety against the suitors. Odysseus shows himself to his son. While he is a beggar, he tries to convince his wife that Odysseus is coming home. Penelope decides to take matters in her hands and organizes a challenge to all suitors. Anyone who could string the bow of Odysseus and shoot an arrow through heads of twelve axes would win her. Everyone fails, but Odysseus in disguise steps up and does it. He reveals himself and the suitors are all killed. He reunites with his family, including his father. The parents of the suitors are furious and want revenge, but Athene vouches for peace and Ithaca becomes peaceful again.	<urn:uuid:fa7c480b-a2b4-4ce0-84ff-3c6ef65392a8>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://summarystory.com/the-odyssey/the-odyssey-short-summary/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251687725.76/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126043644-20200126073644-00219.warc.gz	en	0.980811	632	3.4375	3	[ -0.236203134059906, 0.27657490968704224, 0.4510854184627533, 0.06942661106586456, -0.5933408141136169, -0.5089659094810486, 0.018147200345993042, 0.7831557989120483, -0.0017510598991066217, -0.40979552268981934, -0.11504444479942322, -0.3272866904735565, -0.40393203496932983, 0.58600300550...	10	The Odyssey Short Summary The Odyssey is a poem by Homer that describes the events that occurred after the fall of Troy A Brief Plot Overview Some years have passed after the war with Troy that involved the Trojan horse. Odysseus, a Greek hero, has not yet returned to Ithaca his home. Most of the people believe he is dead. The poet, however, informs us that Odysseus is instead held captive willingly on an island by Kalypso, the goddess. Poseidon is angry with Odysseus and does not find a reason to assist him in getting back home. In Ithaca, Penelope, the wife of Odysseus, has many suitors after her. Their son, Telemachus, currently a teenager, is visited by Athene, a goddess, and friend to Odysseus. She tells the boy to set out and look for news about his father. Telemachus goes to Pylos to King Nestor, who sends him to King Menelaus of Sparta. When he gets to Sparta, Telemachos finds out that his father is alive and in captivity on the island of Kalypso. Menelaos tells him about how his brother King Agamemnon got murdered as he was getting home from Troy by Klytaimestra who was unfaithful to him with Aigisthos. Orestes, Agamemnon’s son, kills his father’s murderers. The story brings up the question of whether on return, Odysseus will get killed and then whether his son Telemachos will have to avenge his death. In Ithaka, the suitors of Penelope hatch a plan to kill Telemachos on his return. Athene asks Zeus her father to command Calypso to release Odysseus and to have mercy on him. Zeus agrees, and later Odysseus leaves in a raft. Poseidon creates some storms that wash Odysseus in the shores of Phaiakia. Athene helps him by making Nausikaa, the princess of the landfall for him, who takes Odysseus to meet her parents. Odysseus tells the events since the Trojan War. Athene disguises him as a beggar ensure his safety against the suitors. Odysseus shows himself to his son. While he is a beggar, he tries to convince his wife that Odysseus is coming home. Penelope decides to take matters in her hands and organizes a challenge to all suitors. Anyone who could string the bow of Odysseus and shoot an arrow through heads of twelve axes would win her. Everyone fails, but Odysseus in disguise steps up and does it. He reveals himself and the suitors are all killed. He reunites with his family, including his father. The parents of the suitors are furious and want revenge, but Athene vouches for peace and Ithaca becomes peaceful again.	622	ENGLISH	1
Ancient Egyptian Towns There were many different towns and cities in Ancient Egypt. Many of these towns and cities were close to the Nile River because that is where food could grow and where animals and people could get water. A city in Ancient Egypt usually had two ways to get in. There would be a road that would go into the center of the city and then smaller roads would connect to the town so people could go back and forth. Some of the cities had special meaning such as a political city. A political city was usually where people that worked for the government would live. These cities would usually be close to the capital city. Some towns were used to hold temples. These were towns that people would go to so that they could worship their gods or goddesses. Some of these towns would have pyramids in them. Most of the houses in Ancient Egypt were made of bricks that were made of mud. Sometimes there would be floods and this would destroy the houses because they were not very sturdy and strong. When a house was flooded, or if it fell down, most of the time the people would just build a new house right on top of it. Some of the cities were more important than others and some of these included the capital cities. The capital cities were where everyone would come to do their business, to talk to government officials and where the people that were in charge lived. There were many different capital cities over time including Memphis, Alexandria, Amarna and Thebes. Memphis was the capital of Ancient Egypt in the years 2950 BC to the year 2180 BC. Memphis is believed to be the biggest city in the world during this time. Many temples and religious areas were located in Memphis when it was the capital. Alexandria was the capital city of Ancient Egypt from the years 332 BC to the year 641 AD. This became the capital city after Egypt was overtaken by the Greeks and especially by Alexander the Great. During this time was the Ptolemy Dynasty and Alexandria was the capital for over 1000 years. Alexandria is known for one of the Seven Wonders of the World, the Lighthouse of Alexandria. Amarna was the capital city of Ancient Egypt when Pharaoh Akhenaten was in control of the city and when he made it a law to only worship one god, god Aten. The city was built as an honor to Aten, but it was left after he died. It was a big thing for the Egyptians to worship only one god and so this capital city is a very important piece of history. It was before this time that the Ancient Egyptians worshipped many gods at one time. Thebes is probably one of the most known Ancient Egyptian capitals and it was the capital from the year 2950 BC to 2180 BC. Thebes was never the biggest city, but it was a place that was known for having many temples and many places to worship the gods. There were other cities in Ancient Egypt that were known such as Eplephantine which was important because it was the center of trade. Crocodilopolis was another known Ancient Egyptian town which was known because it was named for the god Sobek who was the crocodile god. One of the biggest trade centers in Ancient Egypt was the city Kom Ombo. It was a place where many people would travel so that they could trade things such as paper. Facts About Ancient Egyptian Towns: - Memphis remained the largest city even when Thebes became the new capital. - In Memphis, Ptah, the god of craftsmen was worshipped. There was a temple there that honored him as their god. - Alexandria had one of the largest libraries of the world. - Tanis and Sais were also the capital cities of Ancient Egypt at some time. - Kom Ombo was first called the city of Nubt because they thought that there was gold there. - Hermopolis was a city that was a place where people would go to vacation. Ancient Egyptians believed that the first sunrise happened in this town. What Did You Learn? - What was the biggest city that was the capital of Ancient Egypt? Memphis was the biggest city that was the capital of Ancient Egypt and it even stayed the biggest city even after the capital was moved out of it. - How many entrances were there to get into a town? There were two ways to get into an Ancient Egyptian town. - What town was known for the crocodile god? The town of Crocodilopolis was known for the crocodile god. - What were most of the Ancient Egyptian houses made from? Most houses were made from bricks that were made out of mud. - Why was the location of most of the Ancient Egyptian cities important? The location was important because most of the cities were close to the Nile River. The Nile River was a place where people could grow food and where animals and people could get water.	<urn:uuid:78183634-2e7d-48f4-bbe4-7ad539b7b75a>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.historyforkids.net/ancient-egyptian-towns.html	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250607596.34/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122221541-20200123010541-00062.warc.gz	en	0.994754	1,013	3.65625	4	[ 0.01068552304059267, 0.36427125334739685, 0.32832199335098267, 0.1778232753276825, -0.5103089213371277, -0.0503256693482399, 0.364810585975647, -0.208124577999115, -0.23611126840114594, 0.29935818910598755, -0.06371422111988068, -0.5240570902824402, -0.20060424506664276, -0.068578198552131...	13	Ancient Egyptian Towns There were many different towns and cities in Ancient Egypt. Many of these towns and cities were close to the Nile River because that is where food could grow and where animals and people could get water. A city in Ancient Egypt usually had two ways to get in. There would be a road that would go into the center of the city and then smaller roads would connect to the town so people could go back and forth. Some of the cities had special meaning such as a political city. A political city was usually where people that worked for the government would live. These cities would usually be close to the capital city. Some towns were used to hold temples. These were towns that people would go to so that they could worship their gods or goddesses. Some of these towns would have pyramids in them. Most of the houses in Ancient Egypt were made of bricks that were made of mud. Sometimes there would be floods and this would destroy the houses because they were not very sturdy and strong. When a house was flooded, or if it fell down, most of the time the people would just build a new house right on top of it. Some of the cities were more important than others and some of these included the capital cities. The capital cities were where everyone would come to do their business, to talk to government officials and where the people that were in charge lived. There were many different capital cities over time including Memphis, Alexandria, Amarna and Thebes. Memphis was the capital of Ancient Egypt in the years 2950 BC to the year 2180 BC. Memphis is believed to be the biggest city in the world during this time. Many temples and religious areas were located in Memphis when it was the capital. Alexandria was the capital city of Ancient Egypt from the years 332 BC to the year 641 AD. This became the capital city after Egypt was overtaken by the Greeks and especially by Alexander the Great. During this time was the Ptolemy Dynasty and Alexandria was the capital for over 1000 years. Alexandria is known for one of the Seven Wonders of the World, the Lighthouse of Alexandria. Amarna was the capital city of Ancient Egypt when Pharaoh Akhenaten was in control of the city and when he made it a law to only worship one god, god Aten. The city was built as an honor to Aten, but it was left after he died. It was a big thing for the Egyptians to worship only one god and so this capital city is a very important piece of history. It was before this time that the Ancient Egyptians worshipped many gods at one time. Thebes is probably one of the most known Ancient Egyptian capitals and it was the capital from the year 2950 BC to 2180 BC. Thebes was never the biggest city, but it was a place that was known for having many temples and many places to worship the gods. There were other cities in Ancient Egypt that were known such as Eplephantine which was important because it was the center of trade. Crocodilopolis was another known Ancient Egyptian town which was known because it was named for the god Sobek who was the crocodile god. One of the biggest trade centers in Ancient Egypt was the city Kom Ombo. It was a place where many people would travel so that they could trade things such as paper. Facts About Ancient Egyptian Towns: - Memphis remained the largest city even when Thebes became the new capital. - In Memphis, Ptah, the god of craftsmen was worshipped. There was a temple there that honored him as their god. - Alexandria had one of the largest libraries of the world. - Tanis and Sais were also the capital cities of Ancient Egypt at some time. - Kom Ombo was first called the city of Nubt because they thought that there was gold there. - Hermopolis was a city that was a place where people would go to vacation. Ancient Egyptians believed that the first sunrise happened in this town. What Did You Learn? - What was the biggest city that was the capital of Ancient Egypt? Memphis was the biggest city that was the capital of Ancient Egypt and it even stayed the biggest city even after the capital was moved out of it. - How many entrances were there to get into a town? There were two ways to get into an Ancient Egyptian town. - What town was known for the crocodile god? The town of Crocodilopolis was known for the crocodile god. - What were most of the Ancient Egyptian houses made from? Most houses were made from bricks that were made out of mud. - Why was the location of most of the Ancient Egyptian cities important? The location was important because most of the cities were close to the Nile River. The Nile River was a place where people could grow food and where animals and people could get water.	1,009	ENGLISH	1
In What Ways Did the French and India This can be proven with the provided documents. The British defeated the French in 1763, and acquired their land up to the Mississippi river. This gain of land required the British to send more troops to maintain control In the colonies. This Increase of British Involvement also meant that Britain was In debt and believed that because they protected the colonists, they should help repay Brutal, After the colonist established their own representative governments during the period of salutary select, they did not need this much British involvement.This led the colonist to believe they had no political rights or involvement of their own affairs. However on the other hand, a George Washington addresses General Edward Bradford, hoping to enroll a military career under his command. Also Reverend Thomas Bernard showed his delight of the victory over the French and stated that the colonies were now “Safe from the Enemy of the Wilderness. . ” During one of his sermons. This shows that not all colonists believed that British involvement had a negative impact, becauseWashington wanted to enlist as a ‘British’ soldier in the colonies and Bernard thought the children of New England should be grateful of “our Indulgent Mother, who has most generously rescued and protected us… ” Soon after the war the British began to strictly regulate trade and began to enact taxes such as the Stamp Act. This angered many of the colonists and they began to protest against taxation without representation’. Benjamin Franklin sent a letter to John Hugs in 1 765 stating “As to the Stamp Act, thou we propose doing our Endeavourer to get it repealed in which I am sure you would concur…Even in a newspaper masthead there was a reference to the Stamp Act by putting a skull and crossbones where a stamp should have been located. The strict trade regulation also was not favorable by the colonists. In a British Order in Council, a man had said due to the population and territory increase, it has cost more to maintain the colonies and that “proper regulation of their trade is of immediate necessity. ” The trade regulation began and the British took control over all trade and placed tariffs on many of their Items. The dislike of the taxation spread wide through the colonies and they rebelled against It.Britain was forced to remove the Stamp Act, but In turn had enacted a different tax. The colonists had become more frustrated with the British and realized that they were losing their rights as times are dreadful, doleful, dismal, dolorous, and dollar-less. ” The newspaper also stated “Adieu adieu to liberty. ” This emphasizes that the colonists are going through a bad time because of the taxes and they were losing their liberty, or freedom, that they should have as Englishmen. Tension between British and the Colonists was rising.In a Massachusetts soldier’s diary he had written “And we, being here within tone walls, are not likely to get liquors or clothes at this time of the year; and though we be Englishmen born, we are debarred Englishmen liberty. ” This diary showed that not only him, but all of the men were denied rights of Englishmen. The French and Indian war altered the political, economic, and ideological relationship between the British and its American colonies as stated above. Even though most evidence points toward a negative alteration of the relationship between Britain and its colonies, some evidence does provide a more positive relationship.	<urn:uuid:9f5183a8-38d9-48c0-a77d-88d714678a0a>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://newyorkessays.com/essay-in-what-ways-did-the-french-and-india/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250597458.22/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120052454-20200120080454-00454.warc.gz	en	0.985767	717	3.6875	4	[ -0.3381287157535553, 0.18654832243919373, 0.2243167906999588, -0.4157876968383789, 0.07124819606542587, -0.22520142793655396, 0.11438921093940735, 0.39146220684051514, -0.04651825875043869, 0.17726345360279083, -0.11535531282424927, -0.3432847261428833, 0.018139176070690155, 0.227417916059...	1	In What Ways Did the French and India This can be proven with the provided documents. The British defeated the French in 1763, and acquired their land up to the Mississippi river. This gain of land required the British to send more troops to maintain control In the colonies. This Increase of British Involvement also meant that Britain was In debt and believed that because they protected the colonists, they should help repay Brutal, After the colonist established their own representative governments during the period of salutary select, they did not need this much British involvement.This led the colonist to believe they had no political rights or involvement of their own affairs. However on the other hand, a George Washington addresses General Edward Bradford, hoping to enroll a military career under his command. Also Reverend Thomas Bernard showed his delight of the victory over the French and stated that the colonies were now “Safe from the Enemy of the Wilderness. . ” During one of his sermons. This shows that not all colonists believed that British involvement had a negative impact, becauseWashington wanted to enlist as a ‘British’ soldier in the colonies and Bernard thought the children of New England should be grateful of “our Indulgent Mother, who has most generously rescued and protected us… ” Soon after the war the British began to strictly regulate trade and began to enact taxes such as the Stamp Act. This angered many of the colonists and they began to protest against taxation without representation’. Benjamin Franklin sent a letter to John Hugs in 1 765 stating “As to the Stamp Act, thou we propose doing our Endeavourer to get it repealed in which I am sure you would concur…Even in a newspaper masthead there was a reference to the Stamp Act by putting a skull and crossbones where a stamp should have been located. The strict trade regulation also was not favorable by the colonists. In a British Order in Council, a man had said due to the population and territory increase, it has cost more to maintain the colonies and that “proper regulation of their trade is of immediate necessity. ” The trade regulation began and the British took control over all trade and placed tariffs on many of their Items. The dislike of the taxation spread wide through the colonies and they rebelled against It.Britain was forced to remove the Stamp Act, but In turn had enacted a different tax. The colonists had become more frustrated with the British and realized that they were losing their rights as times are dreadful, doleful, dismal, dolorous, and dollar-less. ” The newspaper also stated “Adieu adieu to liberty. ” This emphasizes that the colonists are going through a bad time because of the taxes and they were losing their liberty, or freedom, that they should have as Englishmen. Tension between British and the Colonists was rising.In a Massachusetts soldier’s diary he had written “And we, being here within tone walls, are not likely to get liquors or clothes at this time of the year; and though we be Englishmen born, we are debarred Englishmen liberty. ” This diary showed that not only him, but all of the men were denied rights of Englishmen. The French and Indian war altered the political, economic, and ideological relationship between the British and its American colonies as stated above. Even though most evidence points toward a negative alteration of the relationship between Britain and its colonies, some evidence does provide a more positive relationship.	702	ENGLISH	1
According to Friedan, the feminine mystique took hold after World War II, when both men and women sought the comforts of home and family. The Cold War had created uncertainty. Young men who were too old to return home to their mothers still desired nurturing affection. Young women who had felt lonely during the war were especially vulnerable to the “mystique”—and, when men returned home, had the choice of staying in careers or of having a husband and family. The baby boom took place in every country immediately after the war, but the number of American women with three or more children doubled in twenty years. The number of children born to teenagers rose 165 percent. Educated women led the race to have the greatest number of babies. To make up for their lack of a creative outlet outside of domesticity, women had children. Society, which had convinced women that having children was the most important thing they would ever do, encouraged this. After the war, women who had been able to afford household servants decided to do all the chores themselves. GIs returned to fill jobs that had been occupied by women while they were gone. Those women who continued to occupy jobs faced discrimination and opposition, which sent some of them “scurrying for the cover of marriage and home.” Women began to believe that housework was their true calling. Initially, this may have been an attempt to help returning GIs feel more secure. Women who remained at work faced anger for their unwillingness to participate in the effort to make returning soldiers feel “at home.” Friedan blames the retreat of women to the home on the “personal retreat” that both men and women seemed to make after the Second World War. Women who had stayed in jobs and fought sexual discrimination during the Great Depression preferred to retreat into sex and love just as men found it easier to forget about their war experience and retreat “into helpless conformity.” Both American men and women became more isolated in the postwar years due to the desire to conform to an ideal of suburban life. Women, who had been more politically active during the 1930s, had become more passive and less interested in engaging with the world outside of the home. Social scientists and writers found that, for many people, it was “easier and more fashionable” to think about psychology and private problems, such as sex, than to pursue public purposes. The arts, including painting and theater, became devoid of meaning. According to the playwright Tennessee Williams, it seemed that no reality existed for a man except for his sexual perversions and the fact that he both loved and hated his mother. People retreated to the private sphere and only concerned themselves with private matters, even to the point of obsession. This obsession with private life, fostered by the popularity of psychoanalysis, made people less interested in what they could offer the rest of the world. This tendency toward seclusion reinforced the feminine mystique. Clergymen and psychologists both reported a retreat into “privatism,” or concern only with one’s private life and thoughts. This explained both the popularity of Freud’s theories and the revival of popular interest in religion. These ideologies, in addition to the move to the suburbs, the five children, and the do-it yourself and “beatnik” trends signaled a collective disinterest in addressing political and social needs. This inward turn—the concern with private life and thoughts—ironically, did not inspire anyone to think outside of their socially prescribed roles. Even the “beatniks” often replicated traditional gender roles within their unconventional way of life. In repeating Freudian phrases, which many Americans had read literally, they could pretend that they had understood their problems when they had barely begun to face them. The mother was particularly to blame for problems in the child who sometimes grew into a “neurotic,” “alcoholic,” or “suicidal” adult. She was portrayed as a “nagging” wife and a mother who was simultaneously “rejecting” and “overprotecting.” Because women bore the overwhelming amount of responsibility for the rearing of children, they were also the first to blame if their children grew up to be unhappy, maladjusted adults. Freudian psychoanalysis reinforced this with its idea of the “devouring mother.” The negative view of mothers coincided with the increased independence of women during the war. American GIs returning home could see that American women were more independent than the German and Japanese women they had met. Thus, the neuroses of children “past and present” were blamed on the increased individuality and independence of these women. Returning GIs had expected women to play nurturing roles. If they were more independent, they would be less likely to conform to this role. The GIs, failing to understand key societal differences, had compared American women to those whom they had met in distressed nations—women who were dependent out of desperation. Many women, especially educated women, were frustrated and taking it out on their husbands and children. More American men, women, and children were visiting psychiatrists and mental hospitals. The Freudian rationale blamed this on women having been “masculinized” by their educations. However, the neuroses of soldiers, supposedly stemming from childhood, could not be blamed on career women. The GIs’ mothers had been “self-sacrificing, dependent” housewives. Research showed that they had little interest in anything beyond home, family, and beauty routines. Instead of examining the construction of their households, American families retreated further within and consulted psychoanalysis to uncover their problems, which merely reinforced the “mystique.” Former GIs expected their wives to play the role of their mothers, who had been constant presences when they were growing up. Evidence showed that the GIs had been raised by mothers who had never “reached or were encouraged to reach maturity” and had “devoted too much of their lives to their children.” By the mid-1940s, the feminine mystique was encouraging a new generation of women to do the same thing. The feminine mystique had encouraged a cycle in which dependent women raised boys who became men who expected dependency and self-denial from their future wives, based on the examples their mothers had set. Early research by Alfred Kinsey had linked women’s sexual frustration to education. A decade later, his research said the opposite, showing, based on 5,940 case studies, that “the number of females reaching orgasm nearly 100 percent of the time, was related to education.” The more educated a woman was, the likelier she was to be sexually fulfilled. More educated women were likelier to have greater knowledge of their bodies, as well as the confidence to express themselves in intimate moments. Women who had devoted themselves to the feminine mystique would perform for men’s pleasure while neglecting their own. Studies that suggested that children who were being neglected and rejected did not get as much publicity as those that showed that working women were happier and more mature mothers than those who did not work. Though studies showed no more delinquency or school truancy among the children of career women than among those of housewives, reports still warned that delinquency was more common among the children of working women. Some research was biased to uphold the feminine mystique. Though working mothers were often happier mothers than those who had devoted themselves full-time to their households and families—and statistics confirmed this—social scientists refuted their own research to discourage women from pursuing careers. Many studies were presented as “proof” that women could not combine the demands of work and motherhood. However, one researcher, the psychologist Lois Meek Stolz found that the children of mothers who work are less likely than housewives’ children to be “disturbed,” to “have problems in school,” or to “lack a sense of personal worth.” Work not only benefitted women, but also children, who learned to be more self-reliant. Without their mothers performing all tasks for them, children felt more confident in their abilities and developed self-esteem. Working women experienced the same benefits. In American culture, the notion of the always-present mother prevailed. It is possible that the constant presence of mothers, of women who only existed as mothers, contributed to their children’s neuroses. The famed Dr. Spock contrasted this tendency with that of Russian women who seemed to have more “stable” children while also having a purpose in their lives beyond motherhood, usually a professional pursuit. The “always-present mother” may have made children feel secure, but their mothers’ co-dependency reinforced their own co-dependency. Moreover, the constant watchful presences of their mothers created anxiety, for the children would worry about acting in ways that would displease their mothers. One study looked at strongly maternal women who had produced sons so infantile that one twelve-year-old boy had temper tantrums when his mother refused to butter his toast. The findings revealed that the mothers used the children to satisfy “an abnormal craving for love” and devoted all their attention to the children, especially if they were sons. These mothers and their husbands were also the children of domineering mothers. Women trapped in the feminine mystique had co-dependent mothers and only knew how to parent in that way. Because their spouses had had similar mothers, there was no countering influence. Thus, the children of these women expected their mothers to perform all tasks for them—even those they could perform themselves—due to being accustomed to overprotection. Researchers checked on the mothers and their “infantile” children years later and found that the pathological behavior had stopped because the mothers, “by circumstance,” had found an activity of their own, and that the children had found “an area of independence” that did not involve their mothers. Work and hobbies created outlets for individual expression, as well as the ability of mothers and children to build relationships beyond the household. This built self-sufficiency which discouraged the co-dependent behavior. The sociologist Arnold Green discovered, through his study of a predominately Polish town in Massachusetts, that children thrived with more independence and freedom from the home and parents. Neuroses arose in children whose mothers had absorbed their personalities. Green had mainly looked at these occurrences in sons, and many people had seen the son’s inability to achieve independence as tragic, but they did not feel this way about daughters. The “symbiosis” effect had not fostered healthy “togetherness” and it had not made children feel more secure. Instead, it created anxieties in children who did not have the privacy to form their own identities. Green’s finding showed that some independence from parents was essential to foster growth, but a bias against girls did not recognize their equal need for independence. No one worried over the “waste of a human self” in women, but instead “applauded” a woman’s acceptance of her “role as a woman.” Women who felt their lack of selfhood did not understand the feeling, thus, it became the problem that has no name. They sometimes looked to their children to fix the problem, which perpetuated the cycle of dependency. When women dedicated their lives to their families, people viewed them as caring and dedicated to their roles as homemakers. However, this selflessness had not created, in many of them, satisfaction with their life choice. This resulted in an unhealthy attachment to their children whom they believed gave them purpose. The pressures of American life “kept a man from feeling like a man.” He took his frustrations with “never-ceasing competition” and “purposeless work” out on his wife or mother. He rationalized his participation by saying that he was “in it for the wife and kids” and believed that his wife was lucky to be able to stay home. Men accepted the feminine mystique because it promised them mothers for the rest of their lives. Men, too, were trapped in lives they did not want and worked in jobs that did not fulfill them, due to the pressure of being good providers—that is, making enough money to afford a house in the suburbs and all of the things they believed their wives wanted to consume. Each spouse believed that the other had an advantage. Women traded in their individuality for security because freedom scared them. They were the daughters of mothers who made it hard for them to grow up and they existed in a culture that told them that they did not have to. The nation depended on “women’s passive dependence, their femininity.” Women who obeyed the feminine mystique had repeated the cycle of previous generations of women who allowed the culture to convince them that they could avoid the hardships of life through choosing to fulfill their sex role.	<urn:uuid:5edc72c4-c844-479e-a935-ea9dd0a8870d>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.litcharts.com/lit/the-feminine-mystique/chapter-8-the-mistaken-choice	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250611127.53/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123160903-20200123185903-00424.warc.gz	en	0.98999	2,729	4.03125	4	[ -0.033836886286735535, 0.4771774113178253, -0.058066971600055695, 0.13507716357707977, -0.12714126706123352, 0.41968202590942383, -0.12042197585105896, 0.011341825127601624, -0.08066059648990631, -0.3359186053276062, 0.2770490050315857, 0.29102134704589844, 0.16430851817131042, 0.100040771...	5	According to Friedan, the feminine mystique took hold after World War II, when both men and women sought the comforts of home and family. The Cold War had created uncertainty. Young men who were too old to return home to their mothers still desired nurturing affection. Young women who had felt lonely during the war were especially vulnerable to the “mystique”—and, when men returned home, had the choice of staying in careers or of having a husband and family. The baby boom took place in every country immediately after the war, but the number of American women with three or more children doubled in twenty years. The number of children born to teenagers rose 165 percent. Educated women led the race to have the greatest number of babies. To make up for their lack of a creative outlet outside of domesticity, women had children. Society, which had convinced women that having children was the most important thing they would ever do, encouraged this. After the war, women who had been able to afford household servants decided to do all the chores themselves. GIs returned to fill jobs that had been occupied by women while they were gone. Those women who continued to occupy jobs faced discrimination and opposition, which sent some of them “scurrying for the cover of marriage and home.” Women began to believe that housework was their true calling. Initially, this may have been an attempt to help returning GIs feel more secure. Women who remained at work faced anger for their unwillingness to participate in the effort to make returning soldiers feel “at home.” Friedan blames the retreat of women to the home on the “personal retreat” that both men and women seemed to make after the Second World War. Women who had stayed in jobs and fought sexual discrimination during the Great Depression preferred to retreat into sex and love just as men found it easier to forget about their war experience and retreat “into helpless conformity.” Both American men and women became more isolated in the postwar years due to the desire to conform to an ideal of suburban life. Women, who had been more politically active during the 1930s, had become more passive and less interested in engaging with the world outside of the home. Social scientists and writers found that, for many people, it was “easier and more fashionable” to think about psychology and private problems, such as sex, than to pursue public purposes. The arts, including painting and theater, became devoid of meaning. According to the playwright Tennessee Williams, it seemed that no reality existed for a man except for his sexual perversions and the fact that he both loved and hated his mother. People retreated to the private sphere and only concerned themselves with private matters, even to the point of obsession. This obsession with private life, fostered by the popularity of psychoanalysis, made people less interested in what they could offer the rest of the world. This tendency toward seclusion reinforced the feminine mystique. Clergymen and psychologists both reported a retreat into “privatism,” or concern only with one’s private life and thoughts. This explained both the popularity of Freud’s theories and the revival of popular interest in religion. These ideologies, in addition to the move to the suburbs, the five children, and the do-it yourself and “beatnik” trends signaled a collective disinterest in addressing political and social needs. This inward turn—the concern with private life and thoughts—ironically, did not inspire anyone to think outside of their socially prescribed roles. Even the “beatniks” often replicated traditional gender roles within their unconventional way of life. In repeating Freudian phrases, which many Americans had read literally, they could pretend that they had understood their problems when they had barely begun to face them. The mother was particularly to blame for problems in the child who sometimes grew into a “neurotic,” “alcoholic,” or “suicidal” adult. She was portrayed as a “nagging” wife and a mother who was simultaneously “rejecting” and “overprotecting.” Because women bore the overwhelming amount of responsibility for the rearing of children, they were also the first to blame if their children grew up to be unhappy, maladjusted adults. Freudian psychoanalysis reinforced this with its idea of the “devouring mother.” The negative view of mothers coincided with the increased independence of women during the war. American GIs returning home could see that American women were more independent than the German and Japanese women they had met. Thus, the neuroses of children “past and present” were blamed on the increased individuality and independence of these women. Returning GIs had expected women to play nurturing roles. If they were more independent, they would be less likely to conform to this role. The GIs, failing to understand key societal differences, had compared American women to those whom they had met in distressed nations—women who were dependent out of desperation. Many women, especially educated women, were frustrated and taking it out on their husbands and children. More American men, women, and children were visiting psychiatrists and mental hospitals. The Freudian rationale blamed this on women having been “masculinized” by their educations. However, the neuroses of soldiers, supposedly stemming from childhood, could not be blamed on career women. The GIs’ mothers had been “self-sacrificing, dependent” housewives. Research showed that they had little interest in anything beyond home, family, and beauty routines. Instead of examining the construction of their households, American families retreated further within and consulted psychoanalysis to uncover their problems, which merely reinforced the “mystique.” Former GIs expected their wives to play the role of their mothers, who had been constant presences when they were growing up. Evidence showed that the GIs had been raised by mothers who had never “reached or were encouraged to reach maturity” and had “devoted too much of their lives to their children.” By the mid-1940s, the feminine mystique was encouraging a new generation of women to do the same thing. The feminine mystique had encouraged a cycle in which dependent women raised boys who became men who expected dependency and self-denial from their future wives, based on the examples their mothers had set. Early research by Alfred Kinsey had linked women’s sexual frustration to education. A decade later, his research said the opposite, showing, based on 5,940 case studies, that “the number of females reaching orgasm nearly 100 percent of the time, was related to education.” The more educated a woman was, the likelier she was to be sexually fulfilled. More educated women were likelier to have greater knowledge of their bodies, as well as the confidence to express themselves in intimate moments. Women who had devoted themselves to the feminine mystique would perform for men’s pleasure while neglecting their own. Studies that suggested that children who were being neglected and rejected did not get as much publicity as those that showed that working women were happier and more mature mothers than those who did not work. Though studies showed no more delinquency or school truancy among the children of career women than among those of housewives, reports still warned that delinquency was more common among the children of working women. Some research was biased to uphold the feminine mystique. Though working mothers were often happier mothers than those who had devoted themselves full-time to their households and families—and statistics confirmed this—social scientists refuted their own research to discourage women from pursuing careers. Many studies were presented as “proof” that women could not combine the demands of work and motherhood. However, one researcher, the psychologist Lois Meek Stolz found that the children of mothers who work are less likely than housewives’ children to be “disturbed,” to “have problems in school,” or to “lack a sense of personal worth.” Work not only benefitted women, but also children, who learned to be more self-reliant. Without their mothers performing all tasks for them, children felt more confident in their abilities and developed self-esteem. Working women experienced the same benefits. In American culture, the notion of the always-present mother prevailed. It is possible that the constant presence of mothers, of women who only existed as mothers, contributed to their children’s neuroses. The famed Dr. Spock contrasted this tendency with that of Russian women who seemed to have more “stable” children while also having a purpose in their lives beyond motherhood, usually a professional pursuit. The “always-present mother” may have made children feel secure, but their mothers’ co-dependency reinforced their own co-dependency. Moreover, the constant watchful presences of their mothers created anxiety, for the children would worry about acting in ways that would displease their mothers. One study looked at strongly maternal women who had produced sons so infantile that one twelve-year-old boy had temper tantrums when his mother refused to butter his toast. The findings revealed that the mothers used the children to satisfy “an abnormal craving for love” and devoted all their attention to the children, especially if they were sons. These mothers and their husbands were also the children of domineering mothers. Women trapped in the feminine mystique had co-dependent mothers and only knew how to parent in that way. Because their spouses had had similar mothers, there was no countering influence. Thus, the children of these women expected their mothers to perform all tasks for them—even those they could perform themselves—due to being accustomed to overprotection. Researchers checked on the mothers and their “infantile” children years later and found that the pathological behavior had stopped because the mothers, “by circumstance,” had found an activity of their own, and that the children had found “an area of independence” that did not involve their mothers. Work and hobbies created outlets for individual expression, as well as the ability of mothers and children to build relationships beyond the household. This built self-sufficiency which discouraged the co-dependent behavior. The sociologist Arnold Green discovered, through his study of a predominately Polish town in Massachusetts, that children thrived with more independence and freedom from the home and parents. Neuroses arose in children whose mothers had absorbed their personalities. Green had mainly looked at these occurrences in sons, and many people had seen the son’s inability to achieve independence as tragic, but they did not feel this way about daughters. The “symbiosis” effect had not fostered healthy “togetherness” and it had not made children feel more secure. Instead, it created anxieties in children who did not have the privacy to form their own identities. Green’s finding showed that some independence from parents was essential to foster growth, but a bias against girls did not recognize their equal need for independence. No one worried over the “waste of a human self” in women, but instead “applauded” a woman’s acceptance of her “role as a woman.” Women who felt their lack of selfhood did not understand the feeling, thus, it became the problem that has no name. They sometimes looked to their children to fix the problem, which perpetuated the cycle of dependency. When women dedicated their lives to their families, people viewed them as caring and dedicated to their roles as homemakers. However, this selflessness had not created, in many of them, satisfaction with their life choice. This resulted in an unhealthy attachment to their children whom they believed gave them purpose. The pressures of American life “kept a man from feeling like a man.” He took his frustrations with “never-ceasing competition” and “purposeless work” out on his wife or mother. He rationalized his participation by saying that he was “in it for the wife and kids” and believed that his wife was lucky to be able to stay home. Men accepted the feminine mystique because it promised them mothers for the rest of their lives. Men, too, were trapped in lives they did not want and worked in jobs that did not fulfill them, due to the pressure of being good providers—that is, making enough money to afford a house in the suburbs and all of the things they believed their wives wanted to consume. Each spouse believed that the other had an advantage. Women traded in their individuality for security because freedom scared them. They were the daughters of mothers who made it hard for them to grow up and they existed in a culture that told them that they did not have to. The nation depended on “women’s passive dependence, their femininity.” Women who obeyed the feminine mystique had repeated the cycle of previous generations of women who allowed the culture to convince them that they could avoid the hardships of life through choosing to fulfill their sex role.	2,577	ENGLISH	1
Did you know that when dogs and cats are missing, chances of finding the dogs are much higher than cats. A study published in the American Veterinary Medical Association concluded that in Dayton, Ohio 71 percent of dogs were found after gone missing whereas only 53 percent of cats were sucessfully recovered. Why do dogs seem to get home easier than cats? Contact a Local Animal Shelter Dog owners tend to contact the local animal shelters much sooner than cat owners. Often time it is because many cat owners are playing the odds that their cats will return eventually. In fact, more than one-third of reunited dogs were recovered after the owners contacted a local animal shelter. Most dogs carry a tag on their collar or have implanted a microchip to identify them in case of emergency. Less cats have a chip implanted because many cat owners keep their cats indoors. However, a number of lost cats were indoor cats that slipped out of the door when their owners did not notice. Also, it is not common for cats to wear tags because they can manage to free their body from a collar. Lost cats that do not carry any identification with them are usually assumed to be strays. Some even end up being adopted by another family. Out of all the cats that eventually returned to their rightful owners, two-thirds made it back on their own.	<urn:uuid:8a00099c-5a24-4b8b-a685-8555220105a5>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.lovemeow.com/lost-fido-gets-found-missing-tabby-stays-lost-1607950840.html	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250606696.26/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122042145-20200122071145-00193.warc.gz	en	0.981039	269	3.328125	3	[ 0.06920375674962997, -0.5477975010871887, -0.0017669997178018093, 0.48195987939834595, 0.016405781731009483, 0.09237443655729294, 0.6502478122711182, 0.6288387775421143, 0.28606536984443665, 0.1510830670595169, 0.18965746462345123, -0.16151738166809082, 0.2405366748571396, 0.06864239275455...	12	Did you know that when dogs and cats are missing, chances of finding the dogs are much higher than cats. A study published in the American Veterinary Medical Association concluded that in Dayton, Ohio 71 percent of dogs were found after gone missing whereas only 53 percent of cats were sucessfully recovered. Why do dogs seem to get home easier than cats? Contact a Local Animal Shelter Dog owners tend to contact the local animal shelters much sooner than cat owners. Often time it is because many cat owners are playing the odds that their cats will return eventually. In fact, more than one-third of reunited dogs were recovered after the owners contacted a local animal shelter. Most dogs carry a tag on their collar or have implanted a microchip to identify them in case of emergency. Less cats have a chip implanted because many cat owners keep their cats indoors. However, a number of lost cats were indoor cats that slipped out of the door when their owners did not notice. Also, it is not common for cats to wear tags because they can manage to free their body from a collar. Lost cats that do not carry any identification with them are usually assumed to be strays. Some even end up being adopted by another family. Out of all the cats that eventually returned to their rightful owners, two-thirds made it back on their own.	266	ENGLISH	1
Adolf Hitler: Early Years, 1889–1913 Adolf Hitler (1889–1945) was born on April 20, 1889, in the Upper Austrian border town Braunau am Inn, located approximately 65 miles east of Munich and nearly 30 miles north of Salzburg. He was baptized a Catholic. His father, Alois Hitler (1837–1903), was a mid-level customs official. Born out of wedlock to Maria Anna Schickelgruber in 1837, Alois Schickelgruber had changed his name in 1876 to Hitler, the Christian name of the man who married his mother five years after his birth. Alois Hitler's illegitimacy would cause speculation as early as the 1920s—and still present in popular culture today—that Hitler's grandfather was Jewish. Credible evidence to support the notion of Hitler's Jewish descent has never turned up. The two most likely candidates to have been Hitler's grandfather are the man who married his grandmother and that man's brother. In 1898, the Hitler family moved to Linz, the capital of Upper Austria. Hitler wanted a career in the visual arts. He fought bitterly with his father, who wanted him to enter the Habsburg civil service. After his father's death, Hitler eventually persuaded his mother, Klara Hitler, née Pölzl, to permit him to pursue his dream of becoming an artist. As Klara was dying of breast cancer in the autumn of 1907, Hitler took the entrance exam to the Vienna Academy of the Arts. He failed to gain acceptance. In early 1908, some weeks after Klara's death in December 1907, Hitler moved to Vienna, ostensibly in the hope of renewing efforts to enter the Academy of Arts. Hitler lived in Vienna between February 1908 and May 1913. He had grown up in a middle-class family, with relatively few contacts with Jewish people, in a region of the Habsburg state in which many German nationalists had been disappointed that the German Empire founded in 1871 had not included the German-speaking regions of the Habsburg Monarchy. Yet the legacy of the Vienna years is not as clear as Hitler depicted it in his political autobiography. His impoverishment and residence in homeless shelters began only a year after his arrival and after he had frittered away a generous inheritance left by his parents and rejected all arguments of surviving relatives and family friends that he embark upon a career in the civil service. By the end of 1909, Hitler knew real poverty as his sources of income dried up. That winter, however, helped briefly by a last gift from his aunt, he began to paint watercolor scenes of Vienna for a business partner. He made enough to live on until he left for Munich in 1913. It is likely that Hitler experienced, and possibly also shared, the general antisemitism common among middle-class German nationalists. Nevertheless, he had personal and business relationships with Jews in Vienna. He was also, at times, dependent in part on Jews for his living. While this may have been a cause for discretion about his actual feelings about Jews, it was not until after World War I that Hitler can be demonstrated to have adopted an “antisemitic” ideology. Influences upon Hitler in Vienna Hitler was genuinely influenced in Vienna by two political movements. The first was the German racist nationalism propagated by the Upper Austrian Pan-German politician Georg von Schönerer. The second key influence was that of Karl Lueger, Mayor of Vienna from 1897 to his death in 1910. Lueger was still in power when Hitler arrived in Vienna. Lueger promoted an antisemitism that was more practical and organizational than ideological. Nevertheless, it reinforced anti-Jewish stereotypes and cast Jews as enemies of the German middle and lower classes. Unlike Schönerer, who was more comfortable with the elitist nationalism of the student fraternities, Lueger was comfortable with big city crowds and knew how to channel their protest into political gain. Hitler drew his ideology in large part from Schönerer, but his strategy and tactics from Lueger. Hitler moved to Munich, Germany, in May 1913. He did so to avoid arrest for evading his military service obligation to Habsburg Austria. He financed his move with the last installment of his inheritance from his father. In Munich, he continued to drift. He supported himself on his watercolors and sketches until the outbreak of World War I gave his life direction and a cause to which he could commit himself totally. Series: Adolf Hitler Critical Thinking Questions - What political and social trends and attitudes may have influenced Hitler at this time? - What personal pressures and motivations may have influenced Hitler at this time?	<urn:uuid:cba89798-9c4a-4bd4-9190-b7f5a44bdf51>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/adolf-hitler-early-years-1889-1913	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250591234.15/warc/CC-MAIN-20200117205732-20200117233732-00346.warc.gz	en	0.986607	973	3.703125	4	[ -0.1555299311876297, 0.7640616297721863, 0.017474090680480003, 0.1299748718738556, -0.14763028919696808, 0.12612807750701904, 0.2876584529876709, -0.1093854159116745, 0.007523958571255207, -0.2873385548591614, 0.23180106282234192, -0.4118318259716034, 0.09944336861371994, 0.372720181941986...	17	Adolf Hitler: Early Years, 1889–1913 Adolf Hitler (1889–1945) was born on April 20, 1889, in the Upper Austrian border town Braunau am Inn, located approximately 65 miles east of Munich and nearly 30 miles north of Salzburg. He was baptized a Catholic. His father, Alois Hitler (1837–1903), was a mid-level customs official. Born out of wedlock to Maria Anna Schickelgruber in 1837, Alois Schickelgruber had changed his name in 1876 to Hitler, the Christian name of the man who married his mother five years after his birth. Alois Hitler's illegitimacy would cause speculation as early as the 1920s—and still present in popular culture today—that Hitler's grandfather was Jewish. Credible evidence to support the notion of Hitler's Jewish descent has never turned up. The two most likely candidates to have been Hitler's grandfather are the man who married his grandmother and that man's brother. In 1898, the Hitler family moved to Linz, the capital of Upper Austria. Hitler wanted a career in the visual arts. He fought bitterly with his father, who wanted him to enter the Habsburg civil service. After his father's death, Hitler eventually persuaded his mother, Klara Hitler, née Pölzl, to permit him to pursue his dream of becoming an artist. As Klara was dying of breast cancer in the autumn of 1907, Hitler took the entrance exam to the Vienna Academy of the Arts. He failed to gain acceptance. In early 1908, some weeks after Klara's death in December 1907, Hitler moved to Vienna, ostensibly in the hope of renewing efforts to enter the Academy of Arts. Hitler lived in Vienna between February 1908 and May 1913. He had grown up in a middle-class family, with relatively few contacts with Jewish people, in a region of the Habsburg state in which many German nationalists had been disappointed that the German Empire founded in 1871 had not included the German-speaking regions of the Habsburg Monarchy. Yet the legacy of the Vienna years is not as clear as Hitler depicted it in his political autobiography. His impoverishment and residence in homeless shelters began only a year after his arrival and after he had frittered away a generous inheritance left by his parents and rejected all arguments of surviving relatives and family friends that he embark upon a career in the civil service. By the end of 1909, Hitler knew real poverty as his sources of income dried up. That winter, however, helped briefly by a last gift from his aunt, he began to paint watercolor scenes of Vienna for a business partner. He made enough to live on until he left for Munich in 1913. It is likely that Hitler experienced, and possibly also shared, the general antisemitism common among middle-class German nationalists. Nevertheless, he had personal and business relationships with Jews in Vienna. He was also, at times, dependent in part on Jews for his living. While this may have been a cause for discretion about his actual feelings about Jews, it was not until after World War I that Hitler can be demonstrated to have adopted an “antisemitic” ideology. Influences upon Hitler in Vienna Hitler was genuinely influenced in Vienna by two political movements. The first was the German racist nationalism propagated by the Upper Austrian Pan-German politician Georg von Schönerer. The second key influence was that of Karl Lueger, Mayor of Vienna from 1897 to his death in 1910. Lueger was still in power when Hitler arrived in Vienna. Lueger promoted an antisemitism that was more practical and organizational than ideological. Nevertheless, it reinforced anti-Jewish stereotypes and cast Jews as enemies of the German middle and lower classes. Unlike Schönerer, who was more comfortable with the elitist nationalism of the student fraternities, Lueger was comfortable with big city crowds and knew how to channel their protest into political gain. Hitler drew his ideology in large part from Schönerer, but his strategy and tactics from Lueger. Hitler moved to Munich, Germany, in May 1913. He did so to avoid arrest for evading his military service obligation to Habsburg Austria. He financed his move with the last installment of his inheritance from his father. In Munich, he continued to drift. He supported himself on his watercolors and sketches until the outbreak of World War I gave his life direction and a cause to which he could commit himself totally. Series: Adolf Hitler Critical Thinking Questions - What political and social trends and attitudes may have influenced Hitler at this time? - What personal pressures and motivations may have influenced Hitler at this time?	1,035	ENGLISH	1
Where Am I? In this day and age of multinational conglomerates and internet shopping, how well do we know our local area? For this experience class 3 will be exploring their local area. The children will be learning map skills, which they use to create a map of their own community. They will also be looking at measure to make sure that when scaling the map they are certain that the map is correct and they can create routes for people to follow. During the experience they will also study the role of the compass and symbols used to make sure that their map is professional. The children looked carefully at lots of different types of maps to see fi they could spot similarities, differences but most importantly features of a map that we could use in our own work. The children had to use their knowledge of mm and cm to estimate how long a meter is. They were surprised that although it is a larger unit of measure, it wasn't as big as they initially thought. They then went on to problem solve how to measure in mixed units. This week the children have been looking at many features that are specific to maps in order to develop our map reading skills including reading and identifying symbols and their associated meanings and using maps to find out about locally available amenities. Then we had our first attempt at reproducing a map of Four Elms. We had to pay very close attention to detail and make sure that our scale was accurate. We then held a silent gallery where the children looked at each others work. We gave each other feedback thinking about which images were the most effective and why. The children created some fantastic first attempts.	<urn:uuid:6c14899f-8948-4661-bf84-8ed3ab8d4329>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.four-elms.kent.sch.uk/page/?title=Where+Am+I%3F&pid=73	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250597230.18/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120023523-20200120051523-00100.warc.gz	en	0.985987	328	3.921875	4	[ 0.07581094652414322, -0.6655529141426086, 0.3481692671775818, -0.10822731256484985, -0.1617177277803421, 0.28056156635284424, 0.123358353972435, 0.10619978606700897, -0.38107746839523315, -0.2840346693992615, 0.3588973879814148, -0.4194695055484772, 0.04026004299521446, 0.1768067330121994,...	1	Where Am I? In this day and age of multinational conglomerates and internet shopping, how well do we know our local area? For this experience class 3 will be exploring their local area. The children will be learning map skills, which they use to create a map of their own community. They will also be looking at measure to make sure that when scaling the map they are certain that the map is correct and they can create routes for people to follow. During the experience they will also study the role of the compass and symbols used to make sure that their map is professional. The children looked carefully at lots of different types of maps to see fi they could spot similarities, differences but most importantly features of a map that we could use in our own work. The children had to use their knowledge of mm and cm to estimate how long a meter is. They were surprised that although it is a larger unit of measure, it wasn't as big as they initially thought. They then went on to problem solve how to measure in mixed units. This week the children have been looking at many features that are specific to maps in order to develop our map reading skills including reading and identifying symbols and their associated meanings and using maps to find out about locally available amenities. Then we had our first attempt at reproducing a map of Four Elms. We had to pay very close attention to detail and make sure that our scale was accurate. We then held a silent gallery where the children looked at each others work. We gave each other feedback thinking about which images were the most effective and why. The children created some fantastic first attempts.	324	ENGLISH	1
Who was Luke in the Bible? Question: "Who was Luke in the Bible?" Answer: Little is known about Luke, the author of the books of Luke and Acts in the Bible. We do know he was a physician and the only Gentile to write any part of the New Testament. Paul’s letter to the Colossians draws a distinction between Luke and other colleagues “of the circumcision,” meaning the Jews (Colossians 4:11). Luke is the only New Testament writer clearly identifiable as a non-Jew. Luke was the author of the gospel of Luke and the book of Acts. Luke does not name himself in either of his books, but Paul mentions him by name in three epistles. Both Luke and Acts are addressed to the same person, Theophilus (Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1). No one knows exactly who Theophilus was, but we know that Luke’s purpose in writing the two companion books was so that Theophilus would know with certainty about the person and work of Jesus Christ (Luke 1:4). Perhaps Theophilus had already received the basics of the Christian doctrine but had not as yet been completely grounded in them. Luke was a close friend of Paul, who referred to him as “the beloved physician” (Colossians 4:14). Perhaps Luke’s interest in medicine is the reason his gospel gives such a high profile to Jesus’ acts of healing. Paul also refers to Luke as a “fellow laborer” (Philemon 1:24). Luke joined Paul in Troas in Asia Minor during Paul’s second missionary journey (Acts 16:6–11). Some scholars speculate that Luke was the “man of Macedonia” whom Paul saw in his dream (Acts 16:9). Luke was left in Philippi during the second missionary journey (Acts 17:1) and picked up again to travel with Paul in the third journey (Acts 20:5). Luke accompanied Paul on his journey to Jerusalem and Rome and was with him during his imprisonment there (2 Timothy 4:11). Luke’s vivid description of his travels with Paul in Acts 27 seems to indicate that he was well-traveled and well-versed in navigation. Scholars have noted that Luke had an outstanding command of the Greek language. His vocabulary is extensive and rich, and his style at times approaches that of classical Greek, as in the preface of his gospel (Luke 1:1–4), while at other times it seems quite Semitic (Luke 1:5—2:52). He was familiar with sailing and had a special love for recording geographical details. All this would indicate that Luke was a well-educated, observant, and careful writer. Recommended Resource: The Great Lives from God’s Word Series by Chuck Swindoll More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free! Who was Timothy in the Bible? Who was Barnabas in the Bible? Who was Demas in the Bible? Who was Peter in the Bible? Who were Priscilla and Aquila? Questions about People in the Bible Who was Luke in the Bible?	<urn:uuid:a1ca4d9d-6953-4565-9b82-75c83fbd77aa>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.gotquestions.org/Luke-in-the-Bible.html	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250613416.54/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123191130-20200123220130-00272.warc.gz	en	0.985237	675	3.34375	3	[ -0.3838915228843689, -0.12065219134092331, 0.1788751482963562, 0.10606037080287933, -0.45218345522880554, -0.12155937403440475, 0.5172496438026428, 0.08267459273338318, 0.1722845733165741, 0.12361399084329605, 0.06584310531616211, -0.1975235939025879, 0.18039660155773163, -0.05407675728201...	1	Who was Luke in the Bible? Question: "Who was Luke in the Bible?" Answer: Little is known about Luke, the author of the books of Luke and Acts in the Bible. We do know he was a physician and the only Gentile to write any part of the New Testament. Paul’s letter to the Colossians draws a distinction between Luke and other colleagues “of the circumcision,” meaning the Jews (Colossians 4:11). Luke is the only New Testament writer clearly identifiable as a non-Jew. Luke was the author of the gospel of Luke and the book of Acts. Luke does not name himself in either of his books, but Paul mentions him by name in three epistles. Both Luke and Acts are addressed to the same person, Theophilus (Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1). No one knows exactly who Theophilus was, but we know that Luke’s purpose in writing the two companion books was so that Theophilus would know with certainty about the person and work of Jesus Christ (Luke 1:4). Perhaps Theophilus had already received the basics of the Christian doctrine but had not as yet been completely grounded in them. Luke was a close friend of Paul, who referred to him as “the beloved physician” (Colossians 4:14). Perhaps Luke’s interest in medicine is the reason his gospel gives such a high profile to Jesus’ acts of healing. Paul also refers to Luke as a “fellow laborer” (Philemon 1:24). Luke joined Paul in Troas in Asia Minor during Paul’s second missionary journey (Acts 16:6–11). Some scholars speculate that Luke was the “man of Macedonia” whom Paul saw in his dream (Acts 16:9). Luke was left in Philippi during the second missionary journey (Acts 17:1) and picked up again to travel with Paul in the third journey (Acts 20:5). Luke accompanied Paul on his journey to Jerusalem and Rome and was with him during his imprisonment there (2 Timothy 4:11). Luke’s vivid description of his travels with Paul in Acts 27 seems to indicate that he was well-traveled and well-versed in navigation. Scholars have noted that Luke had an outstanding command of the Greek language. His vocabulary is extensive and rich, and his style at times approaches that of classical Greek, as in the preface of his gospel (Luke 1:1–4), while at other times it seems quite Semitic (Luke 1:5—2:52). He was familiar with sailing and had a special love for recording geographical details. All this would indicate that Luke was a well-educated, observant, and careful writer. Recommended Resource: The Great Lives from God’s Word Series by Chuck Swindoll More insights from your Bible study - Get Started with Logos Bible Software for Free! Who was Timothy in the Bible? Who was Barnabas in the Bible? Who was Demas in the Bible? Who was Peter in the Bible? Who were Priscilla and Aquila? Questions about People in the Bible Who was Luke in the Bible?	658	ENGLISH	1
At Christmastime some Christian families choose to do Santa, and some do not. Regardless, of whether the big man visits your house, its undeniable that he is a major character at Christmastime in American Culture. In reality, we know much less about him than his legacy suggests, regardless, his story is larger than life. In this post, I will be sharing the process of how Saint Nicholas became Santa Claus and how Santa Claus relates to Christ. The story begins in Turkey—Yes Turkey (then called Asia Minor) where Nicholas was born around AD 280 in Patara, Lycia. Tradition teaches that his Parents died when he was young and left him a sizable inheritance. Legend states that Nicholas used his inheritance to help the poor and sick. As an adult, Nicholas became the Bishop of the church in Myra (in the same area of modern-day Turkey). We do not know much about his life and/or ministry there save for a few stories that may or may not be true. The most famous story is one where a poor man had no money to pay a dowry for his three daughters to get married and so he began to consider having them go into prostitution. When Nicholas heard of this, he put gold in a sock and at night secretly dropped it in through an open window in the home. Some versions suggest he simply put the sock of gold in the man’s garden. Either way, when it came time for the second daughter to marry, Nicholas dropped another sock of gold into his possession. When it came time for the third to marry, Nicholas did the same thing again, but this time the poor farmer saw him and thanked him for his generosity. A second well-known story is a bit different, in it an inn keeper had murdered three boys. He has just dismembered them and stuffed them in barrels when the Bishop entered the place. Sensing the crime, he resurrected the boys. As a result of these stories, Nicholas became known as a Patron Saint of children and gift giving. It is widely believed that Nicholas was imprisoned for his faith in AD 303 during the Roman persecution. It is also believed that he was released when Constantine came into power in AD 313. Nicholas is mentioned by at least one author as someone who attended the first church Council in Nicea in 325. This council was held in Turkey in the province of Bithynia. His name appears as the 151st attendee of some 300 total Bishops at the council. One story concerning his time at the council claims that he was a strong opponent of the Arians (who were teaching that Jesus was not fully God or eternal) and that he even slapped on of these men in the face. As a result of his behavior it is said that he was removed from office as a Bishop but that later was restored by Christ. While it is likely that he attended the council, it is not likely that these events occurred. They are not mentioned by any of the writers at the council and the specific story appears later in history. However, it is noted in writings that he worked to keep Arian teachings out of the churches in Myra. It is believed that Nicholas died on December 6, 343. As a result, a feast was celebrated on that day for many years until the protestant Reformation. Protestants do not venerate saints, and so after the Reformation many of the stories of Saint Nicholas morphed into the larger celebration of the Christmas Season. Between AD 1200 and 1500 Nicholas was known as the bringer of gifts. But he brought gifts on December 6. After the Reformation some groups tried to create traditions where baby Jesus would bring the gifts, but since an infant has little ability to carry gifts and is not very scary, he was often given a helper or side-kick. Some of these sidekicks were called Ru-Klaus (Rough Nicholas), Aschenklas (Ashy Nicholas) and Pelznickel (Furry Nicholas). These characters expected children to behave or be whipped or kidnapped for their bad behavior. The name of this baby Jesus that gave gifts was Christkind or “Kris Kringle.” While many groups gave up on Saint Nicholas after the 1500s, the Dutch continued to celebrate his Feast Day on December 6. When the Dutch migrated to America in the 1700s they brough their traditions with them. Their children would put their shoes out the night before to see what Sinterklaas or “Santa Claus” had left them the next morning. However, in New England the feast on December 6 was shunned by many as a wild outdoor party filled with alcohol. Gifts ceased to be given and Santa as the gift bringer had lost his appeal. This all changed in the 1800s thanks to a few poets and cartoonists. In 1809 Washington Irving portrays Santa Claus as a pipe-smoking man who soars over the rooftops in a flying wagon giving presents to good girls and boys. In 1821 a poem called “The Children’s Friend” associated him with Christmas. This is considered the first appearance of Santa as he is known today. In this poem his wagon is pulled by one reindeer. In 1822, Clement Clarke Moore wrote “A Vision from St. Nicholas.” Today it has been retitled “The Night Before Christmas.” This poem calls Santa plump and jolly. It retains the pipe-smoking and adds to the number of reindeer making it 8 (and giving them all names). Can you name all of Santa’s reindeer? Rudolf was created by Robert May in 1939 as an ad for Montgomery Ward. - Fun Fact: I learned from one website that only female reindeer keep their antlers in the winter, so depicting Santa’s reindeer with antlers suggests that they are all girls. In 1879 Thomas Nast published pictures of Saint Nicholas that for the first time had him living in the North Pole. Previously traditions had him living in Turkey, Spain, and Holland. In Finland the children say he lives in Lapland in the northern part of their country. After Santa became popular in the United States, this new version of him re-migrated back to Europe. In France his name was changed to Pere Noel or Father Christmas as he was called in Great Britain. He was banned in the Soviet Union for a time, but after the fall in 1989 he has become popular in those lands once again. Remember that story about the gold in the socks for the poor farmer’s daughters. From that story came the tradition of hanging stockings. Also, in many cultures a tangerine is placed in the bottom of the stocking as symbolic of the gold. Throughout history, Santa has been depicted wearing many colors such as red, green, blue, and brown. Some claim that Coca-Cola was the first to change his suit to red, but that is actually just an urban legend. So how does Santa relate to Christ? Christ came to the earth as a gift for humanity. Christ lived a life concerned for the poor, sick, orphaned, widowed, etc. He calls us to give of our excess to his kingdom. Saint Nicholas, is a reminder of the value of giving to the less fortunate. He reminds us through his gifts of the gift of Jesus. And while he is now attributed some deific qualities like knowing who is naughty and nice, even that list is a reminder that we all desire to have our names in the Lambs book of life. Not because we have earned our salvation, but because like Nicholas provided a dowry for the farmer’s daughters, so too Christ has paid the price of our redemption. Note: At some point the original church in Myra was destroyed. The Bones of Saint Nicholas were moved and then in the 1200s stolen and moved to Bari. At various points after that his bones were sent as relics to a number of churches. Today there are over 400 churches that have Nicholas as the patron saint. Some of the bones have been tested and show to be from the right time period and area of Turkey. Regardless, we cannot know for sure if they are his actual bones. But if they are, then this site that has done facial reconstruction on them and gives us a very interesting picture of what the real Saint Nicholas may have looked like: https://www.stnicholascenter.org/who-is-st-nicholas/real-face After Mary, Nicholas is the most commonly portrayed Saint in the world. Here is another fun site with many other Christmas Traditions explained: https://www.whychristmas.com/	<urn:uuid:8461c1b0-4290-482e-a087-e202775f95b1>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	http://thinkingthroughchristianity.com/2019/12/santa-then-and-now.html	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250628549.43/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125011232-20200125040232-00481.warc.gz	en	0.987295	1,795	3.328125	3	[ 0.45582765340805054, 0.24018710851669312, 0.38938266038894653, -0.2681903541088104, 0.029546082019805908, -0.2814757823944092, 0.3849295377731323, 0.18867307901382446, 0.3585743010044098, -0.0656449943780899, -0.07990463823080063, 0.510582685470581, 0.07854267954826355, 0.18164817988872528...	9	At Christmastime some Christian families choose to do Santa, and some do not. Regardless, of whether the big man visits your house, its undeniable that he is a major character at Christmastime in American Culture. In reality, we know much less about him than his legacy suggests, regardless, his story is larger than life. In this post, I will be sharing the process of how Saint Nicholas became Santa Claus and how Santa Claus relates to Christ. The story begins in Turkey—Yes Turkey (then called Asia Minor) where Nicholas was born around AD 280 in Patara, Lycia. Tradition teaches that his Parents died when he was young and left him a sizable inheritance. Legend states that Nicholas used his inheritance to help the poor and sick. As an adult, Nicholas became the Bishop of the church in Myra (in the same area of modern-day Turkey). We do not know much about his life and/or ministry there save for a few stories that may or may not be true. The most famous story is one where a poor man had no money to pay a dowry for his three daughters to get married and so he began to consider having them go into prostitution. When Nicholas heard of this, he put gold in a sock and at night secretly dropped it in through an open window in the home. Some versions suggest he simply put the sock of gold in the man’s garden. Either way, when it came time for the second daughter to marry, Nicholas dropped another sock of gold into his possession. When it came time for the third to marry, Nicholas did the same thing again, but this time the poor farmer saw him and thanked him for his generosity. A second well-known story is a bit different, in it an inn keeper had murdered three boys. He has just dismembered them and stuffed them in barrels when the Bishop entered the place. Sensing the crime, he resurrected the boys. As a result of these stories, Nicholas became known as a Patron Saint of children and gift giving. It is widely believed that Nicholas was imprisoned for his faith in AD 303 during the Roman persecution. It is also believed that he was released when Constantine came into power in AD 313. Nicholas is mentioned by at least one author as someone who attended the first church Council in Nicea in 325. This council was held in Turkey in the province of Bithynia. His name appears as the 151st attendee of some 300 total Bishops at the council. One story concerning his time at the council claims that he was a strong opponent of the Arians (who were teaching that Jesus was not fully God or eternal) and that he even slapped on of these men in the face. As a result of his behavior it is said that he was removed from office as a Bishop but that later was restored by Christ. While it is likely that he attended the council, it is not likely that these events occurred. They are not mentioned by any of the writers at the council and the specific story appears later in history. However, it is noted in writings that he worked to keep Arian teachings out of the churches in Myra. It is believed that Nicholas died on December 6, 343. As a result, a feast was celebrated on that day for many years until the protestant Reformation. Protestants do not venerate saints, and so after the Reformation many of the stories of Saint Nicholas morphed into the larger celebration of the Christmas Season. Between AD 1200 and 1500 Nicholas was known as the bringer of gifts. But he brought gifts on December 6. After the Reformation some groups tried to create traditions where baby Jesus would bring the gifts, but since an infant has little ability to carry gifts and is not very scary, he was often given a helper or side-kick. Some of these sidekicks were called Ru-Klaus (Rough Nicholas), Aschenklas (Ashy Nicholas) and Pelznickel (Furry Nicholas). These characters expected children to behave or be whipped or kidnapped for their bad behavior. The name of this baby Jesus that gave gifts was Christkind or “Kris Kringle.” While many groups gave up on Saint Nicholas after the 1500s, the Dutch continued to celebrate his Feast Day on December 6. When the Dutch migrated to America in the 1700s they brough their traditions with them. Their children would put their shoes out the night before to see what Sinterklaas or “Santa Claus” had left them the next morning. However, in New England the feast on December 6 was shunned by many as a wild outdoor party filled with alcohol. Gifts ceased to be given and Santa as the gift bringer had lost his appeal. This all changed in the 1800s thanks to a few poets and cartoonists. In 1809 Washington Irving portrays Santa Claus as a pipe-smoking man who soars over the rooftops in a flying wagon giving presents to good girls and boys. In 1821 a poem called “The Children’s Friend” associated him with Christmas. This is considered the first appearance of Santa as he is known today. In this poem his wagon is pulled by one reindeer. In 1822, Clement Clarke Moore wrote “A Vision from St. Nicholas.” Today it has been retitled “The Night Before Christmas.” This poem calls Santa plump and jolly. It retains the pipe-smoking and adds to the number of reindeer making it 8 (and giving them all names). Can you name all of Santa’s reindeer? Rudolf was created by Robert May in 1939 as an ad for Montgomery Ward. - Fun Fact: I learned from one website that only female reindeer keep their antlers in the winter, so depicting Santa’s reindeer with antlers suggests that they are all girls. In 1879 Thomas Nast published pictures of Saint Nicholas that for the first time had him living in the North Pole. Previously traditions had him living in Turkey, Spain, and Holland. In Finland the children say he lives in Lapland in the northern part of their country. After Santa became popular in the United States, this new version of him re-migrated back to Europe. In France his name was changed to Pere Noel or Father Christmas as he was called in Great Britain. He was banned in the Soviet Union for a time, but after the fall in 1989 he has become popular in those lands once again. Remember that story about the gold in the socks for the poor farmer’s daughters. From that story came the tradition of hanging stockings. Also, in many cultures a tangerine is placed in the bottom of the stocking as symbolic of the gold. Throughout history, Santa has been depicted wearing many colors such as red, green, blue, and brown. Some claim that Coca-Cola was the first to change his suit to red, but that is actually just an urban legend. So how does Santa relate to Christ? Christ came to the earth as a gift for humanity. Christ lived a life concerned for the poor, sick, orphaned, widowed, etc. He calls us to give of our excess to his kingdom. Saint Nicholas, is a reminder of the value of giving to the less fortunate. He reminds us through his gifts of the gift of Jesus. And while he is now attributed some deific qualities like knowing who is naughty and nice, even that list is a reminder that we all desire to have our names in the Lambs book of life. Not because we have earned our salvation, but because like Nicholas provided a dowry for the farmer’s daughters, so too Christ has paid the price of our redemption. Note: At some point the original church in Myra was destroyed. The Bones of Saint Nicholas were moved and then in the 1200s stolen and moved to Bari. At various points after that his bones were sent as relics to a number of churches. Today there are over 400 churches that have Nicholas as the patron saint. Some of the bones have been tested and show to be from the right time period and area of Turkey. Regardless, we cannot know for sure if they are his actual bones. But if they are, then this site that has done facial reconstruction on them and gives us a very interesting picture of what the real Saint Nicholas may have looked like: https://www.stnicholascenter.org/who-is-st-nicholas/real-face After Mary, Nicholas is the most commonly portrayed Saint in the world. Here is another fun site with many other Christmas Traditions explained: https://www.whychristmas.com/	1,798	ENGLISH	1
Breast Cancer in women A mastectomy involves removal of the whole breast and usually the nipple. A simple mastectomy removes only the breast tissue and nipple, while a radical mastectomy also removes the muscles on the chest wall. A radical mastectomy is almost never performed these days. The surgeon also usually removes lymph glands from under the arm to check whether any cancer cells have spread from the breast (sampling or sentinel lymph node biopsy). This helps doctors decide whether other treatment is needed. Before the operation an ultrasound scan is taken under the arm (axilla) to see if the lymph nodes look clear of cancer. If it is suspected that there are cancer cells in the lymph nodes a biopsy or fine needle aspiration is done and sent to the laboratory for checking. In most cases where the ultrasound scan or the biopsy shows cancer cells the surgeon may want to remove all the lymph nodes in the armpit. This is called an axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) and is done at the same time as the breast conserving surgery. An ALND may also be done in a second operation if sampling or the sentinel lymph node biopsy in the original operation shows there are cancer cells in the lymph nodes. Whether to do a full ALND or just use radiotherapy after surgery if cancer is found in the lymph nodes is an area of clinical uncertainty and needs more investigation. Sentinel lymph node biopsy is another way of checking just one or two of the lymph glands to see if they contain cancer. It involves injecting a tiny amount of radioactive liquid into the area of the cancer before the operation. The lymph nodes are then scanned to see which has taken up the radioactive liquid first. A blue dye is also injected into the area of the cancer during the operation. The dye stains the lymph nodes blue. The nodes that become blue or radioactive first are known as the sentinel nodes. The surgeon removes only the sentinel nodes so that they can be tested to see whether they contain cancer cells. Sentinel node biopsy reduces the chances of side effects such as arm stiffness and swelling (Lymphoedema) of the arm that can occur after sampling or ALND. It can also cause less pain and does not need a drain into the wound afterwards. In some hospitals, the surgeon can get the laboratory to check for cancer in the lymph nodes while the patient is still under anaesthetic the surgeon can then continue to remove all the other nodes if necessary and avoid a second operation. Here women describe their experiences of having a mastectomy. Women used to stay in hospital for 7 to 10 days, but now it is usually a much shorter stay, of just 1 to 2 days. Women who are having reconstructive surgery at the same time as their mastectomy will usually stay in hospital for longer. For some women a mastectomy is the best option, depending on the size of the tumour and the type of cancer. Some women explained why they were given a mastectomy and how they felt about it at the time. Describes the shock she felt about having a mastectomy. In the interim I had been told that there was no way that they could save my breast, that the tumour was quite large for a breast tumour, it was 5.2cms, that there was dottings about the back of the breast, so it just was impossible to save it. So it was decided on a radical mastectomy. I had that on the morning of 29th November with 15 lymph glands removed from under my right arm, along with the breast. I returned, I recovered rather quickly. It was a shock because then I was confronted with the fact that I really was, I was disfigured at this stage. And even though they did everything in their power to try to prepare me for that it still is a shock. Explains why she accepted that a mastectomy was the best option for her. The doctor said' "No, if we do that it may be 75% assurance, so mastectomy is the best thing." I wasn't happy with the mastectomy but anyway in the end I had to agree because my doctor also said it's better if you go ahead with the mastectomy. So I was very hesitant to have, you know, the whole breast removed. Anyway, so I had a mastectomy and I stayed in hospital I think eight to nine days. Tess preferred to have a mastectomy rather than a lumpectomy. She felt relieved after surgery and... I found out that the lump seemed to be not too big, but when I had the mammogram there was an area of calcification so they thought, having first of all thought I was going to have a lumpectomy, it then became a mastectomy. But actually psychologically I felt better with that. I think I felt that I would rather get rid of the whole breast. I didn’t like the idea of them having to monitor it and feel for lumps and, you know I didn’t, I was quite, again it was a moment when I felt much better; that I had, after the mastectomy, I felt quite relieved. I felt like something had been lifted from me and taken away from me. And this lump which I’d been living with and feeling, and even though I had had to persuade myself not to feel it or touch it even, because it was just, it would give me a kind of whole, it just felt horrible. I felt that when it was gone and my breast had gone it just felt so much better. And the doctors and the care I had was just, they were just brilliant. So I had that I suppose in two weeks maybe after the first diagnosis. And then I had the lymph nodes biopsied at the same time and they all came back negative, so again that was a moment of just feeling hopeful that it didn’t all have to be negative. One woman had Paget's disease (a rare form of cancer that affects the nipple) for which a mastectomy was the best option. Two women had inflammatory breast cancer, which is also less common, had mastectomies. A few women had their mastectomies over 15 years ago, when breast conserving surgery/lumpectomies were less common, and were pleased with their operations and recovery. Explains that she had a mastectomy 18 years ago, and this was her only treatment. And I think it was, it was definitely less than a fortnight from finding the lump to having it removed. So it was very good. I was then worried that it had gone into the lymph nodes. I don't know why but I always thought if it's gone into the lymph nodes, that's it. And it was four days before they checked up on that and said no it hadn't spread. Which I must admit I felt then, up to then I felt very much as though it was a death sentence. But knowing it hadn't gone into the lymph nodes I felt a lot better about it. And I didn't have to, at that time (because this all happened when I was 49, which was actually 18 years ago now) and I didn't have any treatment afterwards. I was actually in hospital for ten days, they kept me in for ten days which is much longer than you would be in hospital nowadays. But when I came out I had, I was teaching at the time and I had, it came up to the summer holidays fairly soon after that so that I had really nearly three months with no work And then I did go back to work in the September. And I had no after effects at all. I really kept very fit indeed. Some women discussed their experiences of double or bilateral mastectomies. Explains why she opted for a second mastectomy. So this time, with the pre-cancerous changes, I had the small area removed and that was just what they called atypical cells. But in the middle of it was something they called, they called DCIS, or ductal carcinoma in situ, which a lot of people get diagnosed with on screening. And that is very early cancer changes. So this time they agreed that I could have a mastectomy. So I had a second mastectomy just about a year ago. And I know that a lot of people would be horrified by that but for, that's my decision and I feel much safer. Tess had a family history of breast cancer. Two years after her first mastectomy, she had a... I’ve had a mastectomy and then I had actually another mastectomy and reconstruction a year when, about two years ago, which was again really I think brilliant for my kind of quality of life. And just feeling like a functional, I mean you know again its, but everyone’s very different. And I think that it was a lot about getting rid of the other breast because there was, you know, because of my family history there were lots of genetic kind of queries. I had to have lots of possible genetic investigations, which were all, came back negative. But I think they still felt that I was at risk because of the early, the sort of early time I’d got breast cancer and my family history. So I was quite keen to get rid of the other breast, and then the plastic surgeon said they could do some reconstruction at the same time and that was really, really good. And I then, I think they were amazing what they can do with what’s there. Some women described their feelings before having the operation, and one explained how she prepared herself physically for the surgery. Other women discussed aspects of the procedures involved e.g. having drains removed and post-operative exercises. Several women recommended taking painkillers whenever necessary, though one woman declined painkillers because she did not need them. Describes how she felt before the operation. They came to get me from the ward, wheeled me down and as they wheeled me into the room where they knock you out, the anaesthetic room, it just hit me what was going to happen. And I just thought' "When I wake up from this I'm only going to have one breast." And I started crying and everybody was there, the surgeon was there as well, and they were, they were absolutely marvellous. And I just said, you know' "I think it's just hit me what's going on." And the surgeon was just amazing. He reassured me, said that everything was going to be fine. They got me out as soon as they could. There was no pain. I wasn't even aware of what they were doing, they were just absolutely amazing. And yeah that was when it hit me really. Describes how she prepared herself physically for the surgery and how it helped to feel she was... During the time that I was waiting I was, I decided I'd need, I got myself as fit as possible. So I started all eating well and trying to keep fit, and trying to be as well as possible when I had my operation and whatever treatment was going to come. So I thought if I can get as fit as possible, then I'd maybe find it easier. And in fact I think that was helpful. Well I already had been going to the gym but I made sure that I went to the gym regularly. I tried to go three times a week. And then I changed my, I tried to increase the amount of fruit and vegetables, cut down maybe on the fats. I started taking like multi-vitamins and minerals. And I was already taking Evening Primrose Oil because I used to get sort of pre-menstrual things beforehand, so I was already taking that. And just generally trying to look after myself. Describes the procedure after the operation. And of course you have to get the - oh that's right, my back, you know, trying to change position. And the next thing of course you're conscious of is having two drains coming out of your side, and one drain is removed before the other. The next day they took the first drain out and that is along where the breast was. And I thought' "Well I'll watch this." And I was absolutely horrified because it went on as it came out and it went on and it went on, because it's right along the incision, with little holes in of course so it can drain. And that taught me a lesson - not to watch - because it was a most peculiar sensation. But that was a relief. But when you've got these bottles, and they have little Christmas bags, I think it had a snowman on it you know little carrier bags with these two bottles inside which you can carry around with you when you need to go to the bathroom. Explains that after the operation she felt able to start to exercise the following day. He says' "Are you sure?" I said' "Yes I'm sure. I don't want to know. Just when I wake up I know it won't be there." And they took me down. And then I had injections, and gas to put me to sleep. And then when I woke up I was in the recovery room. And then, well my children were there with me, waiting for me to wake up. And then they took me back to the ward. I didn't feel any pain until the next day when I felt, I started exercising, because one of my cousins had hers done and she sent me a leaflet with the exercises in it. So I started doing the exercises the very next morning. When the woman, the physiotherapist came, I was already sitting down there with my arms up and down, up and down. She said' "Oh good." So that was fun. My grandchildren came to visit, my daughters-in-law, everybody my family. Some family I've got, they all came to visit. For many women the operation was straightforward. However, a few women experienced complications during or after surgery. Describes a complication she had after her operation. When I went to see the consultant after I'd been discharged on the Thursday and he took off the fluid, he also said that I'd got a haematoma, which is a kind of a large blood clot. So instead of being liquid it was actually solid. So he said' "The best thing to do is come in and we'll do an operation and sort of remove it." So, and he said' "Well come in this afternoon." So there I was, back in the hospital again. They'd found a bed in a side room. And I was in overnight, and again it was the same procedure going through into the operating theatre. "Which side is it?" Well it's pretty obvious because I mean it was black and blue with bruises. Anyway, that was alright. They just did the operation. He said' "Oh, I'll do it through the same incision." Which made me sort of cringe a bit, but he did and it was alright and that was just unfortunate. Several women felt hungry after the operation or tired shortly afterwards. Many talked about how they felt about their changed body image (see 'Body image'). Some women felt a sense of loss as a result of their experience, and advised allowing time to recover physically and psychologically. Comments on the sense of loss that many women feel after having a mastectomy. But you just can't, I mean you are disfigured in your eyes, which not everybody feels like that, but at that particular time it's a loss and you've got to mourn your loss. Because it's a loss of part of your body. And let's face it there's so much in the papers, on the television, everywhere, about the body image and all the rest of it, that your body image has suddenly been taken away from you. You don't want to go topless on a beach or something like that, but you haven't got the chance to do it now. Your right to decide has gone. Meeting other patients helped some women enjoy the hospital experience as well as share their concerns. The visitors, cards and flowers they had received were also considered supportive. Some women said that the hospital care that they had been given helped them to feel looked after and protected. Other women, however, were bored in hospital and eager to go home. Explains why she enjoyed her hospital experience. I had, this lady and myself, we became friends and we had a good time. We thoroughly enjoyed ourselves. We used to have cream cakes at midnight. And one night we went down to the ground floor where they've got a machine that does chips and beef burgers, and we had that. I mean it wasn't very nice but it was a little bit of an adventure for us I suppose. And I was fine, absolutely fine in the hospital. At home, most women said they were careful not to lift anything heavy or over-exert themselves physically, including with housework. Some said they had a bit of pain or discomfort around their wound and under their arm to begin with, and took painkillers to ease it. Many said they had support from family until they felt able to do everything themselves again. Most women recovered well and were able to get on with life as normal. Some women, though, said they had problems with their arm, such as lymphoedema (see ‘Lymphoedema’). Some younger women who had children to look after often found it tiring, especially at first. It can be difficult having treatment and looking after a new baby. At first Tess was also... I think also the other thing which my doctor said, which is very helpful, was you know, “Even if it doesn’t pose any extra risk to you or the baby, it’s a lot. It’s going to be a lot and, after all this treatment, you might not want a new baby.” And I think that was really helpful because it is a lot. You almost forget that having a new baby, it feels like such a positive thing, but actually it is hard work and it is again, you know, a lonely existence in a way when the baby’s very small. Even if... Did you have a quite a bit of support, were you off work? Yeah. Yeah I was off work, but I think even so, you do forget that there’s a lot of work to having a baby. It’s not all just a bunch of flowers and I think that was, I think him having said that, it’s just as well it’s almost there’s bits of reality, because you start, it becomes a bit like a fantasy in a way that you’re going to kind of come out of this with a baby and life’s going to be all beautiful and you know fine again. And actually I think there’s sort of the moments of realising that there’s a reality of another little person to look after. And that’s quite tricky. And even just things like only having one breast and the fact that people kept asking me, in the hospital they kept coming and saying, “How are your breasts?” And in the end I just said, “I’ve only got one breast.” And she, you know, she just said, I mean they weren’t meaning to be insensitive, but you just felt that was just something that they wouldn’t even think to sort of correct themselves. More experiences of mastectomy can be found in our DCIS section. Last reviewed August 2018. Last updated May 2015.	<urn:uuid:9aa538fb-23e5-42fe-8e72-08cff33dbb79>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://healthtalk.org/breast-cancer-women/mastectomy	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251671078.88/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125071430-20200125100430-00377.warc.gz	en	0.990947	4,122	3.296875	3	[ 0.3556536138057709, -0.3502613306045532, -0.010361363179981709, -0.2232276201248169, 0.25931307673454285, -0.018225107342004776, 0.6383148431777954, 0.17759352922439575, -0.08984051644802094, -0.31975510716438293, 0.3203808665275574, -0.19899675250053406, 0.10654902458190918, 0.16427583992...	1	Breast Cancer in women A mastectomy involves removal of the whole breast and usually the nipple. A simple mastectomy removes only the breast tissue and nipple, while a radical mastectomy also removes the muscles on the chest wall. A radical mastectomy is almost never performed these days. The surgeon also usually removes lymph glands from under the arm to check whether any cancer cells have spread from the breast (sampling or sentinel lymph node biopsy). This helps doctors decide whether other treatment is needed. Before the operation an ultrasound scan is taken under the arm (axilla) to see if the lymph nodes look clear of cancer. If it is suspected that there are cancer cells in the lymph nodes a biopsy or fine needle aspiration is done and sent to the laboratory for checking. In most cases where the ultrasound scan or the biopsy shows cancer cells the surgeon may want to remove all the lymph nodes in the armpit. This is called an axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) and is done at the same time as the breast conserving surgery. An ALND may also be done in a second operation if sampling or the sentinel lymph node biopsy in the original operation shows there are cancer cells in the lymph nodes. Whether to do a full ALND or just use radiotherapy after surgery if cancer is found in the lymph nodes is an area of clinical uncertainty and needs more investigation. Sentinel lymph node biopsy is another way of checking just one or two of the lymph glands to see if they contain cancer. It involves injecting a tiny amount of radioactive liquid into the area of the cancer before the operation. The lymph nodes are then scanned to see which has taken up the radioactive liquid first. A blue dye is also injected into the area of the cancer during the operation. The dye stains the lymph nodes blue. The nodes that become blue or radioactive first are known as the sentinel nodes. The surgeon removes only the sentinel nodes so that they can be tested to see whether they contain cancer cells. Sentinel node biopsy reduces the chances of side effects such as arm stiffness and swelling (Lymphoedema) of the arm that can occur after sampling or ALND. It can also cause less pain and does not need a drain into the wound afterwards. In some hospitals, the surgeon can get the laboratory to check for cancer in the lymph nodes while the patient is still under anaesthetic the surgeon can then continue to remove all the other nodes if necessary and avoid a second operation. Here women describe their experiences of having a mastectomy. Women used to stay in hospital for 7 to 10 days, but now it is usually a much shorter stay, of just 1 to 2 days. Women who are having reconstructive surgery at the same time as their mastectomy will usually stay in hospital for longer. For some women a mastectomy is the best option, depending on the size of the tumour and the type of cancer. Some women explained why they were given a mastectomy and how they felt about it at the time. Describes the shock she felt about having a mastectomy. In the interim I had been told that there was no way that they could save my breast, that the tumour was quite large for a breast tumour, it was 5.2cms, that there was dottings about the back of the breast, so it just was impossible to save it. So it was decided on a radical mastectomy. I had that on the morning of 29th November with 15 lymph glands removed from under my right arm, along with the breast. I returned, I recovered rather quickly. It was a shock because then I was confronted with the fact that I really was, I was disfigured at this stage. And even though they did everything in their power to try to prepare me for that it still is a shock. Explains why she accepted that a mastectomy was the best option for her. The doctor said' "No, if we do that it may be 75% assurance, so mastectomy is the best thing." I wasn't happy with the mastectomy but anyway in the end I had to agree because my doctor also said it's better if you go ahead with the mastectomy. So I was very hesitant to have, you know, the whole breast removed. Anyway, so I had a mastectomy and I stayed in hospital I think eight to nine days. Tess preferred to have a mastectomy rather than a lumpectomy. She felt relieved after surgery and... I found out that the lump seemed to be not too big, but when I had the mammogram there was an area of calcification so they thought, having first of all thought I was going to have a lumpectomy, it then became a mastectomy. But actually psychologically I felt better with that. I think I felt that I would rather get rid of the whole breast. I didn’t like the idea of them having to monitor it and feel for lumps and, you know I didn’t, I was quite, again it was a moment when I felt much better; that I had, after the mastectomy, I felt quite relieved. I felt like something had been lifted from me and taken away from me. And this lump which I’d been living with and feeling, and even though I had had to persuade myself not to feel it or touch it even, because it was just, it would give me a kind of whole, it just felt horrible. I felt that when it was gone and my breast had gone it just felt so much better. And the doctors and the care I had was just, they were just brilliant. So I had that I suppose in two weeks maybe after the first diagnosis. And then I had the lymph nodes biopsied at the same time and they all came back negative, so again that was a moment of just feeling hopeful that it didn’t all have to be negative. One woman had Paget's disease (a rare form of cancer that affects the nipple) for which a mastectomy was the best option. Two women had inflammatory breast cancer, which is also less common, had mastectomies. A few women had their mastectomies over 15 years ago, when breast conserving surgery/lumpectomies were less common, and were pleased with their operations and recovery. Explains that she had a mastectomy 18 years ago, and this was her only treatment. And I think it was, it was definitely less than a fortnight from finding the lump to having it removed. So it was very good. I was then worried that it had gone into the lymph nodes. I don't know why but I always thought if it's gone into the lymph nodes, that's it. And it was four days before they checked up on that and said no it hadn't spread. Which I must admit I felt then, up to then I felt very much as though it was a death sentence. But knowing it hadn't gone into the lymph nodes I felt a lot better about it. And I didn't have to, at that time (because this all happened when I was 49, which was actually 18 years ago now) and I didn't have any treatment afterwards. I was actually in hospital for ten days, they kept me in for ten days which is much longer than you would be in hospital nowadays. But when I came out I had, I was teaching at the time and I had, it came up to the summer holidays fairly soon after that so that I had really nearly three months with no work And then I did go back to work in the September. And I had no after effects at all. I really kept very fit indeed. Some women discussed their experiences of double or bilateral mastectomies. Explains why she opted for a second mastectomy. So this time, with the pre-cancerous changes, I had the small area removed and that was just what they called atypical cells. But in the middle of it was something they called, they called DCIS, or ductal carcinoma in situ, which a lot of people get diagnosed with on screening. And that is very early cancer changes. So this time they agreed that I could have a mastectomy. So I had a second mastectomy just about a year ago. And I know that a lot of people would be horrified by that but for, that's my decision and I feel much safer. Tess had a family history of breast cancer. Two years after her first mastectomy, she had a... I’ve had a mastectomy and then I had actually another mastectomy and reconstruction a year when, about two years ago, which was again really I think brilliant for my kind of quality of life. And just feeling like a functional, I mean you know again its, but everyone’s very different. And I think that it was a lot about getting rid of the other breast because there was, you know, because of my family history there were lots of genetic kind of queries. I had to have lots of possible genetic investigations, which were all, came back negative. But I think they still felt that I was at risk because of the early, the sort of early time I’d got breast cancer and my family history. So I was quite keen to get rid of the other breast, and then the plastic surgeon said they could do some reconstruction at the same time and that was really, really good. And I then, I think they were amazing what they can do with what’s there. Some women described their feelings before having the operation, and one explained how she prepared herself physically for the surgery. Other women discussed aspects of the procedures involved e.g. having drains removed and post-operative exercises. Several women recommended taking painkillers whenever necessary, though one woman declined painkillers because she did not need them. Describes how she felt before the operation. They came to get me from the ward, wheeled me down and as they wheeled me into the room where they knock you out, the anaesthetic room, it just hit me what was going to happen. And I just thought' "When I wake up from this I'm only going to have one breast." And I started crying and everybody was there, the surgeon was there as well, and they were, they were absolutely marvellous. And I just said, you know' "I think it's just hit me what's going on." And the surgeon was just amazing. He reassured me, said that everything was going to be fine. They got me out as soon as they could. There was no pain. I wasn't even aware of what they were doing, they were just absolutely amazing. And yeah that was when it hit me really. Describes how she prepared herself physically for the surgery and how it helped to feel she was... During the time that I was waiting I was, I decided I'd need, I got myself as fit as possible. So I started all eating well and trying to keep fit, and trying to be as well as possible when I had my operation and whatever treatment was going to come. So I thought if I can get as fit as possible, then I'd maybe find it easier. And in fact I think that was helpful. Well I already had been going to the gym but I made sure that I went to the gym regularly. I tried to go three times a week. And then I changed my, I tried to increase the amount of fruit and vegetables, cut down maybe on the fats. I started taking like multi-vitamins and minerals. And I was already taking Evening Primrose Oil because I used to get sort of pre-menstrual things beforehand, so I was already taking that. And just generally trying to look after myself. Describes the procedure after the operation. And of course you have to get the - oh that's right, my back, you know, trying to change position. And the next thing of course you're conscious of is having two drains coming out of your side, and one drain is removed before the other. The next day they took the first drain out and that is along where the breast was. And I thought' "Well I'll watch this." And I was absolutely horrified because it went on as it came out and it went on and it went on, because it's right along the incision, with little holes in of course so it can drain. And that taught me a lesson - not to watch - because it was a most peculiar sensation. But that was a relief. But when you've got these bottles, and they have little Christmas bags, I think it had a snowman on it you know little carrier bags with these two bottles inside which you can carry around with you when you need to go to the bathroom. Explains that after the operation she felt able to start to exercise the following day. He says' "Are you sure?" I said' "Yes I'm sure. I don't want to know. Just when I wake up I know it won't be there." And they took me down. And then I had injections, and gas to put me to sleep. And then when I woke up I was in the recovery room. And then, well my children were there with me, waiting for me to wake up. And then they took me back to the ward. I didn't feel any pain until the next day when I felt, I started exercising, because one of my cousins had hers done and she sent me a leaflet with the exercises in it. So I started doing the exercises the very next morning. When the woman, the physiotherapist came, I was already sitting down there with my arms up and down, up and down. She said' "Oh good." So that was fun. My grandchildren came to visit, my daughters-in-law, everybody my family. Some family I've got, they all came to visit. For many women the operation was straightforward. However, a few women experienced complications during or after surgery. Describes a complication she had after her operation. When I went to see the consultant after I'd been discharged on the Thursday and he took off the fluid, he also said that I'd got a haematoma, which is a kind of a large blood clot. So instead of being liquid it was actually solid. So he said' "The best thing to do is come in and we'll do an operation and sort of remove it." So, and he said' "Well come in this afternoon." So there I was, back in the hospital again. They'd found a bed in a side room. And I was in overnight, and again it was the same procedure going through into the operating theatre. "Which side is it?" Well it's pretty obvious because I mean it was black and blue with bruises. Anyway, that was alright. They just did the operation. He said' "Oh, I'll do it through the same incision." Which made me sort of cringe a bit, but he did and it was alright and that was just unfortunate. Several women felt hungry after the operation or tired shortly afterwards. Many talked about how they felt about their changed body image (see 'Body image'). Some women felt a sense of loss as a result of their experience, and advised allowing time to recover physically and psychologically. Comments on the sense of loss that many women feel after having a mastectomy. But you just can't, I mean you are disfigured in your eyes, which not everybody feels like that, but at that particular time it's a loss and you've got to mourn your loss. Because it's a loss of part of your body. And let's face it there's so much in the papers, on the television, everywhere, about the body image and all the rest of it, that your body image has suddenly been taken away from you. You don't want to go topless on a beach or something like that, but you haven't got the chance to do it now. Your right to decide has gone. Meeting other patients helped some women enjoy the hospital experience as well as share their concerns. The visitors, cards and flowers they had received were also considered supportive. Some women said that the hospital care that they had been given helped them to feel looked after and protected. Other women, however, were bored in hospital and eager to go home. Explains why she enjoyed her hospital experience. I had, this lady and myself, we became friends and we had a good time. We thoroughly enjoyed ourselves. We used to have cream cakes at midnight. And one night we went down to the ground floor where they've got a machine that does chips and beef burgers, and we had that. I mean it wasn't very nice but it was a little bit of an adventure for us I suppose. And I was fine, absolutely fine in the hospital. At home, most women said they were careful not to lift anything heavy or over-exert themselves physically, including with housework. Some said they had a bit of pain or discomfort around their wound and under their arm to begin with, and took painkillers to ease it. Many said they had support from family until they felt able to do everything themselves again. Most women recovered well and were able to get on with life as normal. Some women, though, said they had problems with their arm, such as lymphoedema (see ‘Lymphoedema’). Some younger women who had children to look after often found it tiring, especially at first. It can be difficult having treatment and looking after a new baby. At first Tess was also... I think also the other thing which my doctor said, which is very helpful, was you know, “Even if it doesn’t pose any extra risk to you or the baby, it’s a lot. It’s going to be a lot and, after all this treatment, you might not want a new baby.” And I think that was really helpful because it is a lot. You almost forget that having a new baby, it feels like such a positive thing, but actually it is hard work and it is again, you know, a lonely existence in a way when the baby’s very small. Even if... Did you have a quite a bit of support, were you off work? Yeah. Yeah I was off work, but I think even so, you do forget that there’s a lot of work to having a baby. It’s not all just a bunch of flowers and I think that was, I think him having said that, it’s just as well it’s almost there’s bits of reality, because you start, it becomes a bit like a fantasy in a way that you’re going to kind of come out of this with a baby and life’s going to be all beautiful and you know fine again. And actually I think there’s sort of the moments of realising that there’s a reality of another little person to look after. And that’s quite tricky. And even just things like only having one breast and the fact that people kept asking me, in the hospital they kept coming and saying, “How are your breasts?” And in the end I just said, “I’ve only got one breast.” And she, you know, she just said, I mean they weren’t meaning to be insensitive, but you just felt that was just something that they wouldn’t even think to sort of correct themselves. More experiences of mastectomy can be found in our DCIS section. Last reviewed August 2018. Last updated May 2015.	3,990	ENGLISH	1
Emanuel J. Comino OAM, is the founder and Chairman of the International Organising Committee – Australia for the Restitution of the Parthenon Marbles which was formed in Australia in 1981 to work towards securing the repatriation of the famous marbles. Mr Comino has been campaigning for 30 years throughout Australia and the world for the return of the marbles. The following article is adapted from an illustrated presentation given by Mr Comino to the Macquarie Ancient History Association in 2005. It is now over 200 years since Lord Elgin, British Ambassador to Constantinople at the beginning of the 19th Century, arranged for the removal of many of the magnificent sculptures from the Parthenon in Athens to England, where they remain to this day. These sculptures, otherwise known as the Elgin Marbles, but better known today as the Parthenon Marbles – even by the British Museum and the British Government – belong to a unique building that still stands after wars, earthquake and plunder. Despite a mounting international campaign, the British government has refused to return the marbles to Greece. Their return is one of the most important cultural property disputes in the world today. When we speak of the Parthenon, we are speaking about the birth of civilisation, the birth of democracy and the symbol of Greece. The Parthenon and its sculptures The Parthenon, the Temple of Athena was built in 15 years between 447 to 432 BC by Iktinos, the architect and Phidias the sculptor. The man responsible for the project was the great Athenian statesman, Pericles who began a huge program of building works to give Athens the magnificence of a great imperial city. In these few years Greek literature, philosophy, architecture, politics – in fact the whole of the Greek civilisation – suddenly burst into flower. Those of you who have visited Greece will have your own recollections of that magic moment when you walked up the Acropolis and saw the Parthenon for the first time. It is a Doric temple built entirely of white Attic Pentelic marble with a row of 17 elegant Doric columns on either side, eight at either end and a double row of six in the porches at each end. The internal eastern chamber or cella of the temple once housed a 12 metre-high statue of the goddess Athena wrought in gold and ivory. The Parthenon sculptures featured in the triangular pediments at each end, in the 92 metopes running the length of the temple on either side outside the building, and in the magnificent 160 metre long frieze high up on the interior of the building. The pediment sculptures were huge statues in the round depicting the story of the quarrel between the goddess Athena and Poseidon over the naming of the city of Athens and the birth of Athena with all of the other gods looking on in amazement. The metopes were sculptures in high relief telling stories from Greek mythology, and the frieze, wrought in low relief, represented the ancient week-long festival of the Panathenaia. It consisted of 400 human and 200 animal figures. Most of the statues from the pediments are now in the British Museum along with fifteen of the original 92 metopes. Many others were smashed during the removal of the sculptures. Of the original 160 metre long frieze, more than half is now in the British Museum. Huge 10 metre long saws that were used to cut and slice the heavy one-metre deep marble into sections in prepaartion for their transportation to London caused irreparable damage to the building and to the sculptures. One of the most magnificent marbles is of the great sculptor Phidias himself. The details of his eyes, nose, beard, lips, robes and muscles are all rendered to perfection; including the shades on the sculptured marble which in ancient times were coloured with reds, blues and golds. After the classical period, the Parthenon became a Christian church and in AD 450 it was dedicated to the Virgin Mary. In 1204 the French occupied Athens and turned the Parthenon into a Catholic church and in 1458 when the Turks arrived, the Parthenon became a mosque. In 1674 (13 years before the explosions which damaged the building), a French artist visiting Athens made drawings of the Parthenon sculptures. These drawings provide important evidence of how well preserved the marbles were at this time and how well the Turks were looking after the Parthenon – despite later claims to the contrary. The first significant damage in 21 centuries occurred on 26 September, 1687 when the Venetian General Francesco Morosini laid siege to Athens. During the siege, a Venetian cannon hit the Parthenon and blew up part of the roof but the majority of the sculptures remained fortunately, intact. After capturing the Acropolis, Morosini attempted to remove the statue of Poseidon in his chariot which formed part of the west pediment sculptures. However, as they were being lowered to the ground, the ropes holding them broke and the figures were smashed. One hundred and fifty years later, when Elgin was removing the sculptures, he missed seeing the torso of Poseidon’s body and that is why this magnificent piece is now in the Acropolis Museum and not the British Museum.These treasures were taken between 1801 and 1803 while Greece was under Turkish rule. Elgin’s main reason for taking the marbles was to decorate his Scottish mansion, not to save them from the ‘barbaric hands of the Turks’ as was claimed by the British Museum trustees and supporters. After Elgin returned to England in 1806 and after getting into financial difficulties, he eventually sold them to the British government, who in turn placed them in the British Museum where they remain today. Lord Elgin (1766-1841) Thomas Bruce, the seventh Earl of Elgin, was a Scottish aristocrat who had served in the British army as an officer, and as a consul before being appointed British Ambassador to Constantinople in 1799. Before leaving England to take up his post he married Mary Nisbett, the only child of wealthy parents. He took his team with him including Dr Rev. Phillip Hunt, his secretary Sir William Hamilton and others. Before he left England he was renovating his mansion in Scotland. It was his architect, Thomas Harrison who suggested to Elgin that he take advantage of his position of Ambassador to Constantinople to take with him artists and painters to make architectural drawings and plaster casts ‘to improve the arts in Great Britain’.. Lord Elgin took up the idea with the enthusiasm of a crusader but there was no suggestion that the originals (of the buildings and artworks) should be removed. He even asked the government of the day, the Prime Minister Mr Pitt and the foreign secretary, Lord Grenville to provide him with qualified men to make architectural drawings but was advised that any such activity needed to be funded from his own pocket. He left England for Constantinople in August 1789 on the HMAS Phaeton. Just one year before his departure Rear Admiral Sir Horatio Nelson had destroyed the French fleet in Egypt. Elgin stopped in Italy on his way to Constantinople and hired the services of an Italian artist, Giovanni Battista Lusieri, who was initially contracted for the three-year period of Elgin’s Ambassadorship. But the association was to last for twenty years – during which time Lusieri served as Elgin’s chief accomplice in the looting of Greek antiquities which only ceased with the outbreak of the Greek War of Independence in 1821 and Lusieri’s death in the same year. Elgin was very warmly received on his arrival in Constantinople – thanks to the assistance Britain was giving to Turkey in defeating Napoleon’s forces in Egypt. His party was taken on golden chairs to the palace and lavishly entertained with two weeks of receptions and banquets during which he was served coffee in diamond cups and showered with gifts, including the use of a 200 tonne yacht for his private exploration of the Greek Islands. In August 1800, 12 months after his departure from England, his artists arrived in Athens to ‘improve the arts in Great Britain’. Athens was the 43rd city of European Turkey at this time; it was ruled by two officials, the Turkish Governor and a military governor called the Disdar. Elgin and the Parthenon Marbles In 1800 during Elgin’s term as Ambassador to Constantinople, his artist Lusieri and others were at first given permission to make drawings and casts of the Parthenon sculptures. However, they were ordered off the Acropolis by the local Turkish commandant who claimed that the British would be able to spy on the Turkish women in the nearby houses from their vantage on the Acropolis. It took a lot of persuasion (sweetened by bribes), on Lord Elgin’s part, to regain permission for his artists to resume their work which they did in February 1801. However, they were ordered out again in May 1801. Elgin’s agents, Lusieri and Rev. Hunt wrote immediately to Lord Elgin in Constantinople, begging him to obtain a firman, a letter from the Ottoman governor addressed to the local official in Athens, requiring him to grant a favour by allowing the artists to resume their work. As it turned out, events far away in Egypt conspired to deliver to Elgin exactly what he was seeking. In June 1801, the final victory of the British expedition over the French in Egypt made Elgin one of the most highly favoured men in Turkey. The Ottoman government could not do enough to show their appreciation of the country that had made this victory possible and they showered gifts on Elgin and his officials. The success in Egypt brought Elgin to the pinnacle of his diplomatic career; he now enjoyed a position of influence at Constantinople such as no other ambassador has ever approached. The government in Britain was pleased and they told him so in an official letter. Lord Elgin could never have removed the Acropolis sculptures without the following three conditions: Firstly, Greece was under Turkish rule. Secondly, it was that era when the big powers, Britain and France took whatever they wanted from the less powerful countries such as Greece and Egypt. And thirdly, Britain was the dominant power in the eastern Mediterranean at the time. Lord Elgin and the firman Back in Athens, where Elgin’s agents had in May, been ordered out of the Acropolis, Elgin was on the point of giving the whole enterprise away, such was his frustration with the Turkish officials. But who happened to be in Athens at that very time: his very rich in-laws, the Nisbets. When his father-in-law saw the magnificent work that had been done in those 3 months (February-May) by his artists, he wrote to Elgin in Constantinople, urging him to obtain the firman at all costs so the work could continue. Elgin opened negotiations with the local Pasha on the day he received his letter, 14th June 1801. Two days earlier Rev. Hunt had arrived back in Constantinople from Athens and was able to give Lord Elgin an eye-witness account of developments in Athens. It was Rev. Hunt who drew up the memorandum of 1 July 1801 for the firman. The text of the original memorandum is important because it became the text of the firman that was shortly issued. It sought permission for the following activities: It is interesting to note that no specific permission was sought to remove sculptures from the building. The removal of the sculptures only took place as a series of accidents, all of them involving Dr Rev. Phillip Hunt. Firstly, the firman would not have been drafted in the form it was had not Rev. Hunt been in Athens in May when the trouble started and back in Constantinople in June/July when the good news from Egypt came through. Secondly, the firman would not have been interpreted in the way it was, had not Rev. Hunt himself, delivered it to Athens. When he arrived in Athens on 22 July he immediately asked the Turkish governor for permission to go up on the Acropolis to start the drawings and plaster casts. The authority was given for work on the Acropolis to be carried out from sunrise to sunset within the terms of the firman. After this triumph, Rev. Hunt acted quickly. All the inscriptions lying about the Acropolis were collected and extensive excavation was begun. A few days later, Rev. Hunt made the decisive move. He asked the Turkish governor for permission to take down the metopes. But the governor hesitated, saying there was nothing in the firman that gave permission for sculptures to be removed from the building. However, with the aid of threats and bribes, Hunt managed to win the day. ‘With no great deal of difficulty, the vital twist to the firman was given on 31 July 1801’. The metope sculptures were removed in just two days – causing in the process, significant damage the building and to the sculptures themselves. Lord Elgin wrote in a letter to Lusieri and Rev. Hunt, ‘I should wish to have examples in the actual object, of each thing and architectural ornament – of each cornice, each frieze, each capital- of the decorated ceilings, of the fluted columns – specimens of the different architectural orders and of the variant forms of the orders, -of metopes and the like, as much as possible.’ It seems clear that his intention was to decorate his castle in Scotland not save the sculptures ‘from the barbaric hands of the Turks’. As the work of clearing and excavation was being carried out on the smaller adjacent temple, the Erechtheum, Hunt wrote to Elgin suggesting that the whole building could be removed and relocated in England. ‘If your Lordship would come here in a large Man of War that beautiful little model of ancient art might be transported wholly to England.’ Elgin was keen to act on this advice and wrote to Lord Keith in Britain requesting ‘a ship of war .. to stop a couple of days at Athens to get away a most valuable piece of architecture …for the Arts in England. Bonaparte’ he added, ‘has not got such a thing from all his thefts in Italy. Kindly attend to this my Lord.’ It was indeed fortunate for the future of the Erechtheum that no such ship was available at the time and so the little temple with its beautiful Caryatid Porch remains in situ although a piece of its cornice, an Ionic column and one of the Caryatid statues were taken. They are now on display in the British Museum. Once an ancient piece of art is removed from its original and historical context, it loses its aesthetic value and becomes a piece of archaeological interest and nothing else. On the Acropolis, Hunt and Lusieri had engineering problems removing sculptures from the building. The damage caused by their work was remarked upon by a number of British travellers to Athens at this time. One, Edward Dodwell, an artist who spent time sketching on the Acropolis wrote ‘ I had the inexpressible mortification of being present when the Parthenon was despoiled of its finest sculpture, and when some of its architectural members were thrown to the ground…’ Another British traveller commented in October 1801, on the damage to the building. He was Edward Daniel Clark and he noted that as one of the sculptures was being lowered to the ground the ropes holding it broke and the sculpture was smashed into a thousand pieces. In April 1802, Lord Elgin made his first visit to Greece to see the work. He was so pleased with the progress that he hired more men and architects to complete the removal of the sculptures. Elgin arranged for 22 ships to transport 220 cases of the marbles and other antiquities to England. One of the ships was sunk in a storm and the marbles it was carrying lay in twelve fathoms of salt water for three years before they were recovered and sent on to England. The Marbles in England Between their arrival in England in 1804 and their sale to the British Museum in 1816, the marbles were stored in a coal shed in the grounds of Elgin’s London home. Elgin’s marriage failed during this time and when he found himself in extreme financial difficulty he began to negotiate for the sale of the marbles to the British Government. The Government eventually acquired them for the price of £35,000 and an Act of Parliament transferred ownership of the marbles to the nation. And so they found their way into the British Museum. One of the very first to criticise Lord Elgin was none other than Lord Byron. In 1828, four years after Byron’s death, his poem ‘The Curse of Athena’, in which he refers to Elgin as a robber, was published for the first time in England. In another publication dating to 1818, we find Byron and other Englishmen – travellers and historians who have visited Greece, calling Elgin ‘a shameless thief’. Sir John Hobhouse, a friend and travelling companion of Byron noted on a chapel under the Acropolis the inscription, ‘What the crooks did not do here, the Scot did here’, an obvious reference to Elgin who was a Scotsman. In 1890, an eight-page article entitled ‘The Return of the Elgin Marbles’, by Franklin Harrison appeared in the magazine Nineteenth Century. The writer appealed to the gentle feelings of the English people and maintains that ‘even if Elgin’s looting is excused, [note the first use of the word looting], the retaining in London of parts essential to the Parthenon is no longer tolerable or convenient. Their restitution is urgent both as an act of international justice and as an act beneficial to science and the arts. In the same article, Harrison also maintained the sculptures ‘were more dear to the Greeks than to the British and that for 2,400 years they had formed an integral part of Greece and were therefore much more sacred than the Tower of London or Westminster Abbey. What would be our feelings’ he wrote, ‘if some one had deprived us of our national monuments?’ In November 1928, Phillip Sassoon, Private Secretary to the British Prime Minister of the day, wrote to The Times, saying that when he visited the Acropolis ‘I found myself wondering whether, after all, the noble ruins of the Parthenon and the glorious atmosphere of Athens would not be a better setting than Bloomsbury for the most exquisite marbles in the world.’ British Damage to the Marbles The sculptures from the pediments and frieze now on display in the British have suffered considerable damage since their removal from the Acropolis in the early 1800s. William Sinclair, the British historian has exposed the cover up by the British Museum Trustees of the enormous amount of damage they caused to the marbles. The building of a special gallery at the British Museum to house the Parthenon sculptures was funded by Lord Duveen – on condition that his name be attached to it. In the 1930s ,chemicals and wire brushes were used to scrape and ‘clean’ the marble. The only pieces that retain the natural honey colour of aged Pentelic marble are those that were not cleaned because they were considered too fragile. The Case for the return of the Marbles In 1941 Sir Winston Churchill was asked in Parliament whether Britain would consider returning the Parthenon Marbles ‘in some recognition of Greece’s magnificent stand for civilisation against the might of Hitler’s army’. Churchill neatly sidestepped the issue by replying that he would ‘look into it favorably after the war’. And that was where the matter rested for the next thirty or more years. In more recent times, during the 1980s, the former actress and later Minister of Culture in the Greek Government, Melina Mercouri, brought the issue of the return of the marbles to world attention. “More than any other manifestation of human genius, the monuments of Athens reflect a form of life and an attitude that put man in the centre of the world, that made beauty and proportion divine. The Parthenon, built by free men on the Acropolis rock, has for more than two thousand years continuously expressed the grandiosity of simplicity, the passion of wisdom, the love of beauty. The marbles define our soul. And the struggle for the return of pieces that were pillaged in the past is not cahuvinistic; it is a struggle that must be undertaken in the name of humanity, civilization and justice.” Two years later in 1983, Melina Mercouri was instrumental in establishing a British committee in London, called The British Committee for the Restitution of the Parthenon Marbles whose current Chairman is Professor Anthony Snodgrass. In the same year the International Council of Museums, including the British Museum, met in London and overwhelmingly passed a resolution to initiate dialogue with an open minded attitude concerning requests for the return of cultural property. One thousand delegates voted in favour of the motion, nil against and ten abstentions, five of which were from the British delegation. St. Clair, W. Lord Elgin and the Marbles, Oxford University Press, 1998 p. 87 Ibid., p.93 Ibid., p. 99 Ibid., p.100 Navy Records Society, The Keith Papers, 1927-1955, II. p.405, cited in St. Clair, p. 101 Op. cit., p. 102 Hitchens, Christopher, The Elgin Marbles, p 67 Ibid., p. 75	<urn:uuid:0e3005c9-04c8-4725-a51e-a89d18a8ad71>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://iocarpm.wordpress.com/publications/the-case-for-the-return-of-the-parthenon-marbles/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250608062.57/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123011418-20200123040418-00477.warc.gz	en	0.980148	4,511	3.484375	3	[ 0.18450455367565155, -0.09918564558029175, 0.48557013273239136, 0.05373555049300194, -0.6246058344841003, 0.17858383059501648, 0.03417842090129852, 0.20004822313785553, -0.4828639030456543, -0.046512432396411896, -0.2354723960161209, -0.5458664298057556, 0.0936792716383934, 0.5701236724853...	18	Emanuel J. Comino OAM, is the founder and Chairman of the International Organising Committee – Australia for the Restitution of the Parthenon Marbles which was formed in Australia in 1981 to work towards securing the repatriation of the famous marbles. Mr Comino has been campaigning for 30 years throughout Australia and the world for the return of the marbles. The following article is adapted from an illustrated presentation given by Mr Comino to the Macquarie Ancient History Association in 2005. It is now over 200 years since Lord Elgin, British Ambassador to Constantinople at the beginning of the 19th Century, arranged for the removal of many of the magnificent sculptures from the Parthenon in Athens to England, where they remain to this day. These sculptures, otherwise known as the Elgin Marbles, but better known today as the Parthenon Marbles – even by the British Museum and the British Government – belong to a unique building that still stands after wars, earthquake and plunder. Despite a mounting international campaign, the British government has refused to return the marbles to Greece. Their return is one of the most important cultural property disputes in the world today. When we speak of the Parthenon, we are speaking about the birth of civilisation, the birth of democracy and the symbol of Greece. The Parthenon and its sculptures The Parthenon, the Temple of Athena was built in 15 years between 447 to 432 BC by Iktinos, the architect and Phidias the sculptor. The man responsible for the project was the great Athenian statesman, Pericles who began a huge program of building works to give Athens the magnificence of a great imperial city. In these few years Greek literature, philosophy, architecture, politics – in fact the whole of the Greek civilisation – suddenly burst into flower. Those of you who have visited Greece will have your own recollections of that magic moment when you walked up the Acropolis and saw the Parthenon for the first time. It is a Doric temple built entirely of white Attic Pentelic marble with a row of 17 elegant Doric columns on either side, eight at either end and a double row of six in the porches at each end. The internal eastern chamber or cella of the temple once housed a 12 metre-high statue of the goddess Athena wrought in gold and ivory. The Parthenon sculptures featured in the triangular pediments at each end, in the 92 metopes running the length of the temple on either side outside the building, and in the magnificent 160 metre long frieze high up on the interior of the building. The pediment sculptures were huge statues in the round depicting the story of the quarrel between the goddess Athena and Poseidon over the naming of the city of Athens and the birth of Athena with all of the other gods looking on in amazement. The metopes were sculptures in high relief telling stories from Greek mythology, and the frieze, wrought in low relief, represented the ancient week-long festival of the Panathenaia. It consisted of 400 human and 200 animal figures. Most of the statues from the pediments are now in the British Museum along with fifteen of the original 92 metopes. Many others were smashed during the removal of the sculptures. Of the original 160 metre long frieze, more than half is now in the British Museum. Huge 10 metre long saws that were used to cut and slice the heavy one-metre deep marble into sections in prepaartion for their transportation to London caused irreparable damage to the building and to the sculptures. One of the most magnificent marbles is of the great sculptor Phidias himself. The details of his eyes, nose, beard, lips, robes and muscles are all rendered to perfection; including the shades on the sculptured marble which in ancient times were coloured with reds, blues and golds. After the classical period, the Parthenon became a Christian church and in AD 450 it was dedicated to the Virgin Mary. In 1204 the French occupied Athens and turned the Parthenon into a Catholic church and in 1458 when the Turks arrived, the Parthenon became a mosque. In 1674 (13 years before the explosions which damaged the building), a French artist visiting Athens made drawings of the Parthenon sculptures. These drawings provide important evidence of how well preserved the marbles were at this time and how well the Turks were looking after the Parthenon – despite later claims to the contrary. The first significant damage in 21 centuries occurred on 26 September, 1687 when the Venetian General Francesco Morosini laid siege to Athens. During the siege, a Venetian cannon hit the Parthenon and blew up part of the roof but the majority of the sculptures remained fortunately, intact. After capturing the Acropolis, Morosini attempted to remove the statue of Poseidon in his chariot which formed part of the west pediment sculptures. However, as they were being lowered to the ground, the ropes holding them broke and the figures were smashed. One hundred and fifty years later, when Elgin was removing the sculptures, he missed seeing the torso of Poseidon’s body and that is why this magnificent piece is now in the Acropolis Museum and not the British Museum.These treasures were taken between 1801 and 1803 while Greece was under Turkish rule. Elgin’s main reason for taking the marbles was to decorate his Scottish mansion, not to save them from the ‘barbaric hands of the Turks’ as was claimed by the British Museum trustees and supporters. After Elgin returned to England in 1806 and after getting into financial difficulties, he eventually sold them to the British government, who in turn placed them in the British Museum where they remain today. Lord Elgin (1766-1841) Thomas Bruce, the seventh Earl of Elgin, was a Scottish aristocrat who had served in the British army as an officer, and as a consul before being appointed British Ambassador to Constantinople in 1799. Before leaving England to take up his post he married Mary Nisbett, the only child of wealthy parents. He took his team with him including Dr Rev. Phillip Hunt, his secretary Sir William Hamilton and others. Before he left England he was renovating his mansion in Scotland. It was his architect, Thomas Harrison who suggested to Elgin that he take advantage of his position of Ambassador to Constantinople to take with him artists and painters to make architectural drawings and plaster casts ‘to improve the arts in Great Britain’.. Lord Elgin took up the idea with the enthusiasm of a crusader but there was no suggestion that the originals (of the buildings and artworks) should be removed. He even asked the government of the day, the Prime Minister Mr Pitt and the foreign secretary, Lord Grenville to provide him with qualified men to make architectural drawings but was advised that any such activity needed to be funded from his own pocket. He left England for Constantinople in August 1789 on the HMAS Phaeton. Just one year before his departure Rear Admiral Sir Horatio Nelson had destroyed the French fleet in Egypt. Elgin stopped in Italy on his way to Constantinople and hired the services of an Italian artist, Giovanni Battista Lusieri, who was initially contracted for the three-year period of Elgin’s Ambassadorship. But the association was to last for twenty years – during which time Lusieri served as Elgin’s chief accomplice in the looting of Greek antiquities which only ceased with the outbreak of the Greek War of Independence in 1821 and Lusieri’s death in the same year. Elgin was very warmly received on his arrival in Constantinople – thanks to the assistance Britain was giving to Turkey in defeating Napoleon’s forces in Egypt. His party was taken on golden chairs to the palace and lavishly entertained with two weeks of receptions and banquets during which he was served coffee in diamond cups and showered with gifts, including the use of a 200 tonne yacht for his private exploration of the Greek Islands. In August 1800, 12 months after his departure from England, his artists arrived in Athens to ‘improve the arts in Great Britain’. Athens was the 43rd city of European Turkey at this time; it was ruled by two officials, the Turkish Governor and a military governor called the Disdar. Elgin and the Parthenon Marbles In 1800 during Elgin’s term as Ambassador to Constantinople, his artist Lusieri and others were at first given permission to make drawings and casts of the Parthenon sculptures. However, they were ordered off the Acropolis by the local Turkish commandant who claimed that the British would be able to spy on the Turkish women in the nearby houses from their vantage on the Acropolis. It took a lot of persuasion (sweetened by bribes), on Lord Elgin’s part, to regain permission for his artists to resume their work which they did in February 1801. However, they were ordered out again in May 1801. Elgin’s agents, Lusieri and Rev. Hunt wrote immediately to Lord Elgin in Constantinople, begging him to obtain a firman, a letter from the Ottoman governor addressed to the local official in Athens, requiring him to grant a favour by allowing the artists to resume their work. As it turned out, events far away in Egypt conspired to deliver to Elgin exactly what he was seeking. In June 1801, the final victory of the British expedition over the French in Egypt made Elgin one of the most highly favoured men in Turkey. The Ottoman government could not do enough to show their appreciation of the country that had made this victory possible and they showered gifts on Elgin and his officials. The success in Egypt brought Elgin to the pinnacle of his diplomatic career; he now enjoyed a position of influence at Constantinople such as no other ambassador has ever approached. The government in Britain was pleased and they told him so in an official letter. Lord Elgin could never have removed the Acropolis sculptures without the following three conditions: Firstly, Greece was under Turkish rule. Secondly, it was that era when the big powers, Britain and France took whatever they wanted from the less powerful countries such as Greece and Egypt. And thirdly, Britain was the dominant power in the eastern Mediterranean at the time. Lord Elgin and the firman Back in Athens, where Elgin’s agents had in May, been ordered out of the Acropolis, Elgin was on the point of giving the whole enterprise away, such was his frustration with the Turkish officials. But who happened to be in Athens at that very time: his very rich in-laws, the Nisbets. When his father-in-law saw the magnificent work that had been done in those 3 months (February-May) by his artists, he wrote to Elgin in Constantinople, urging him to obtain the firman at all costs so the work could continue. Elgin opened negotiations with the local Pasha on the day he received his letter, 14th June 1801. Two days earlier Rev. Hunt had arrived back in Constantinople from Athens and was able to give Lord Elgin an eye-witness account of developments in Athens. It was Rev. Hunt who drew up the memorandum of 1 July 1801 for the firman. The text of the original memorandum is important because it became the text of the firman that was shortly issued. It sought permission for the following activities: It is interesting to note that no specific permission was sought to remove sculptures from the building. The removal of the sculptures only took place as a series of accidents, all of them involving Dr Rev. Phillip Hunt. Firstly, the firman would not have been drafted in the form it was had not Rev. Hunt been in Athens in May when the trouble started and back in Constantinople in June/July when the good news from Egypt came through. Secondly, the firman would not have been interpreted in the way it was, had not Rev. Hunt himself, delivered it to Athens. When he arrived in Athens on 22 July he immediately asked the Turkish governor for permission to go up on the Acropolis to start the drawings and plaster casts. The authority was given for work on the Acropolis to be carried out from sunrise to sunset within the terms of the firman. After this triumph, Rev. Hunt acted quickly. All the inscriptions lying about the Acropolis were collected and extensive excavation was begun. A few days later, Rev. Hunt made the decisive move. He asked the Turkish governor for permission to take down the metopes. But the governor hesitated, saying there was nothing in the firman that gave permission for sculptures to be removed from the building. However, with the aid of threats and bribes, Hunt managed to win the day. ‘With no great deal of difficulty, the vital twist to the firman was given on 31 July 1801’. The metope sculptures were removed in just two days – causing in the process, significant damage the building and to the sculptures themselves. Lord Elgin wrote in a letter to Lusieri and Rev. Hunt, ‘I should wish to have examples in the actual object, of each thing and architectural ornament – of each cornice, each frieze, each capital- of the decorated ceilings, of the fluted columns – specimens of the different architectural orders and of the variant forms of the orders, -of metopes and the like, as much as possible.’ It seems clear that his intention was to decorate his castle in Scotland not save the sculptures ‘from the barbaric hands of the Turks’. As the work of clearing and excavation was being carried out on the smaller adjacent temple, the Erechtheum, Hunt wrote to Elgin suggesting that the whole building could be removed and relocated in England. ‘If your Lordship would come here in a large Man of War that beautiful little model of ancient art might be transported wholly to England.’ Elgin was keen to act on this advice and wrote to Lord Keith in Britain requesting ‘a ship of war .. to stop a couple of days at Athens to get away a most valuable piece of architecture …for the Arts in England. Bonaparte’ he added, ‘has not got such a thing from all his thefts in Italy. Kindly attend to this my Lord.’ It was indeed fortunate for the future of the Erechtheum that no such ship was available at the time and so the little temple with its beautiful Caryatid Porch remains in situ although a piece of its cornice, an Ionic column and one of the Caryatid statues were taken. They are now on display in the British Museum. Once an ancient piece of art is removed from its original and historical context, it loses its aesthetic value and becomes a piece of archaeological interest and nothing else. On the Acropolis, Hunt and Lusieri had engineering problems removing sculptures from the building. The damage caused by their work was remarked upon by a number of British travellers to Athens at this time. One, Edward Dodwell, an artist who spent time sketching on the Acropolis wrote ‘ I had the inexpressible mortification of being present when the Parthenon was despoiled of its finest sculpture, and when some of its architectural members were thrown to the ground…’ Another British traveller commented in October 1801, on the damage to the building. He was Edward Daniel Clark and he noted that as one of the sculptures was being lowered to the ground the ropes holding it broke and the sculpture was smashed into a thousand pieces. In April 1802, Lord Elgin made his first visit to Greece to see the work. He was so pleased with the progress that he hired more men and architects to complete the removal of the sculptures. Elgin arranged for 22 ships to transport 220 cases of the marbles and other antiquities to England. One of the ships was sunk in a storm and the marbles it was carrying lay in twelve fathoms of salt water for three years before they were recovered and sent on to England. The Marbles in England Between their arrival in England in 1804 and their sale to the British Museum in 1816, the marbles were stored in a coal shed in the grounds of Elgin’s London home. Elgin’s marriage failed during this time and when he found himself in extreme financial difficulty he began to negotiate for the sale of the marbles to the British Government. The Government eventually acquired them for the price of £35,000 and an Act of Parliament transferred ownership of the marbles to the nation. And so they found their way into the British Museum. One of the very first to criticise Lord Elgin was none other than Lord Byron. In 1828, four years after Byron’s death, his poem ‘The Curse of Athena’, in which he refers to Elgin as a robber, was published for the first time in England. In another publication dating to 1818, we find Byron and other Englishmen – travellers and historians who have visited Greece, calling Elgin ‘a shameless thief’. Sir John Hobhouse, a friend and travelling companion of Byron noted on a chapel under the Acropolis the inscription, ‘What the crooks did not do here, the Scot did here’, an obvious reference to Elgin who was a Scotsman. In 1890, an eight-page article entitled ‘The Return of the Elgin Marbles’, by Franklin Harrison appeared in the magazine Nineteenth Century. The writer appealed to the gentle feelings of the English people and maintains that ‘even if Elgin’s looting is excused, [note the first use of the word looting], the retaining in London of parts essential to the Parthenon is no longer tolerable or convenient. Their restitution is urgent both as an act of international justice and as an act beneficial to science and the arts. In the same article, Harrison also maintained the sculptures ‘were more dear to the Greeks than to the British and that for 2,400 years they had formed an integral part of Greece and were therefore much more sacred than the Tower of London or Westminster Abbey. What would be our feelings’ he wrote, ‘if some one had deprived us of our national monuments?’ In November 1928, Phillip Sassoon, Private Secretary to the British Prime Minister of the day, wrote to The Times, saying that when he visited the Acropolis ‘I found myself wondering whether, after all, the noble ruins of the Parthenon and the glorious atmosphere of Athens would not be a better setting than Bloomsbury for the most exquisite marbles in the world.’ British Damage to the Marbles The sculptures from the pediments and frieze now on display in the British have suffered considerable damage since their removal from the Acropolis in the early 1800s. William Sinclair, the British historian has exposed the cover up by the British Museum Trustees of the enormous amount of damage they caused to the marbles. The building of a special gallery at the British Museum to house the Parthenon sculptures was funded by Lord Duveen – on condition that his name be attached to it. In the 1930s ,chemicals and wire brushes were used to scrape and ‘clean’ the marble. The only pieces that retain the natural honey colour of aged Pentelic marble are those that were not cleaned because they were considered too fragile. The Case for the return of the Marbles In 1941 Sir Winston Churchill was asked in Parliament whether Britain would consider returning the Parthenon Marbles ‘in some recognition of Greece’s magnificent stand for civilisation against the might of Hitler’s army’. Churchill neatly sidestepped the issue by replying that he would ‘look into it favorably after the war’. And that was where the matter rested for the next thirty or more years. In more recent times, during the 1980s, the former actress and later Minister of Culture in the Greek Government, Melina Mercouri, brought the issue of the return of the marbles to world attention. “More than any other manifestation of human genius, the monuments of Athens reflect a form of life and an attitude that put man in the centre of the world, that made beauty and proportion divine. The Parthenon, built by free men on the Acropolis rock, has for more than two thousand years continuously expressed the grandiosity of simplicity, the passion of wisdom, the love of beauty. The marbles define our soul. And the struggle for the return of pieces that were pillaged in the past is not cahuvinistic; it is a struggle that must be undertaken in the name of humanity, civilization and justice.” Two years later in 1983, Melina Mercouri was instrumental in establishing a British committee in London, called The British Committee for the Restitution of the Parthenon Marbles whose current Chairman is Professor Anthony Snodgrass. In the same year the International Council of Museums, including the British Museum, met in London and overwhelmingly passed a resolution to initiate dialogue with an open minded attitude concerning requests for the return of cultural property. One thousand delegates voted in favour of the motion, nil against and ten abstentions, five of which were from the British delegation. St. Clair, W. Lord Elgin and the Marbles, Oxford University Press, 1998 p. 87 Ibid., p.93 Ibid., p. 99 Ibid., p.100 Navy Records Society, The Keith Papers, 1927-1955, II. p.405, cited in St. Clair, p. 101 Op. cit., p. 102 Hitchens, Christopher, The Elgin Marbles, p 67 Ibid., p. 75	4,609	ENGLISH	1
Available online. Call store for local availability. Pride and Prejudice is a novel of manners by Jane Austen, first published in 1813. The story follows the main character Elizabeth Bennet as she deals with issues of manners, upbringing, morality, education, and marriage in the society of the landed gentry of early 19th-century England. Elizabeth is the second of five daughters of a country gentleman living near the fictional town of Meryton in Hertfordshire, near London. Though the story is set at the turn of the 19th century, it retains a fascination for modern readers, continuing near the top of lists of "most loved books." It has become one of the most popular novels in English literature and receives considerable attention from literary scholars. Modern interest in the book has resulted in a number of dramatic adaptations and an abundance of novels and stories imitating Austen's memorable characters or themes. To date, the book has sold some 20 million copies worldwide. Reception The novel was well received, with three favourable reviews in the first months following publication. Anne Isabella Milbanke, later to be the wife of Lord Byron, called it "the fashionable novel." Noted critic and reviewer George Henry Lewes declared that he "would rather have written Pride and Prejudice, or Tom Jones, than any of the Waverley Novels." Charlotte Bront. About the Author Jane Austen (16 December 1775 - 18 July 1817) was an English novelist whose works of romantic fiction, set among the landed gentry, earned her a place as one of the most widely read writers in English literature. Her realism, biting irony and social commentary have gained her historical importance among scholars and critics. Austen lived her entire life as part of a close-knit family located on the lower fringes of the English landed gentry. She was educated primarily by her father and older brothers as well as through her own reading. The steadfast support of her family was critical to her development as a professional writer. Her artistic apprenticeship lasted from her teenage years into her thirties. During this period, she experimented with various literary forms, including the epistolary novel which she then abandoned, and wrote and extensively revised three major novels and began a fourth. From 1811 until 1816, with the release of Sense and Sensibility (1811), Pride and Prejudice (1813), Mansfield Park (1814) and Emma (1816), she achieved success as a published writer. She wrote two additional novels, Northanger Abbey and Persuasion, both published posthumously in 1818, and began a third, which was eventually titled Sanditon, but died before completing it. Austen's works critique the novels of sensibility of the second half of the 18th century and are part of the transition to 19th-century realism. Her plots, though fundamentally comic, highlight the dependence of women on marriage to secure social standing and economic security. Her works, though usually popular, were first published anonymously and brought her little personal fame and only a few positive reviews during her lifetime, but the publication in 1869 of her nephew's A Memoir of Jane Austen introduced her to a wider public, and by the 1940s she had become widely accepted in academia as a great English writer. The second half of the 20th century saw a proliferation of Austen scholarship and the emergence of a Janeite fan culture.	<urn:uuid:c226b96a-8f9d-4cc0-97cc-f8db4cb90164>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.read-it-again.com/book/9781502302656	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250601241.42/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121014531-20200121043531-00250.warc.gz	en	0.982278	700	3.390625	3	[ 0.41869109869003296, 0.04889318719506264, 0.23447290062904358, 0.02441774308681488, -0.18443092703819275, -0.038043949753046036, -0.25916755199432373, 0.041786838322877884, 0.1741744428873062, -0.17036040127277374, 0.06844420731067657, -0.2983609437942505, 0.4349247217178345, -0.0936644226...	1	Available online. Call store for local availability. Pride and Prejudice is a novel of manners by Jane Austen, first published in 1813. The story follows the main character Elizabeth Bennet as she deals with issues of manners, upbringing, morality, education, and marriage in the society of the landed gentry of early 19th-century England. Elizabeth is the second of five daughters of a country gentleman living near the fictional town of Meryton in Hertfordshire, near London. Though the story is set at the turn of the 19th century, it retains a fascination for modern readers, continuing near the top of lists of "most loved books." It has become one of the most popular novels in English literature and receives considerable attention from literary scholars. Modern interest in the book has resulted in a number of dramatic adaptations and an abundance of novels and stories imitating Austen's memorable characters or themes. To date, the book has sold some 20 million copies worldwide. Reception The novel was well received, with three favourable reviews in the first months following publication. Anne Isabella Milbanke, later to be the wife of Lord Byron, called it "the fashionable novel." Noted critic and reviewer George Henry Lewes declared that he "would rather have written Pride and Prejudice, or Tom Jones, than any of the Waverley Novels." Charlotte Bront. About the Author Jane Austen (16 December 1775 - 18 July 1817) was an English novelist whose works of romantic fiction, set among the landed gentry, earned her a place as one of the most widely read writers in English literature. Her realism, biting irony and social commentary have gained her historical importance among scholars and critics. Austen lived her entire life as part of a close-knit family located on the lower fringes of the English landed gentry. She was educated primarily by her father and older brothers as well as through her own reading. The steadfast support of her family was critical to her development as a professional writer. Her artistic apprenticeship lasted from her teenage years into her thirties. During this period, she experimented with various literary forms, including the epistolary novel which she then abandoned, and wrote and extensively revised three major novels and began a fourth. From 1811 until 1816, with the release of Sense and Sensibility (1811), Pride and Prejudice (1813), Mansfield Park (1814) and Emma (1816), she achieved success as a published writer. She wrote two additional novels, Northanger Abbey and Persuasion, both published posthumously in 1818, and began a third, which was eventually titled Sanditon, but died before completing it. Austen's works critique the novels of sensibility of the second half of the 18th century and are part of the transition to 19th-century realism. Her plots, though fundamentally comic, highlight the dependence of women on marriage to secure social standing and economic security. Her works, though usually popular, were first published anonymously and brought her little personal fame and only a few positive reviews during her lifetime, but the publication in 1869 of her nephew's A Memoir of Jane Austen introduced her to a wider public, and by the 1940s she had become widely accepted in academia as a great English writer. The second half of the 20th century saw a proliferation of Austen scholarship and the emergence of a Janeite fan culture.	744	ENGLISH	1
The author evaluates the evolution of Thanksgiving in the US. The focus was on the adoption of Thanksgiving among the middle-class and poor families during the 19th century. The author also researches on the additional elements about Thanksgiving that were introduced in the 1930s. In the 19th century, communal celebrations were done when the poor families demanded to be treated respectably by the wealthiest people. This scenario led to the rise of domestic celebrations. The domestic celebrations were regarded as a sign of family unity. The main focus of domestic celebrations was to enable women to show how much they love their children. Mothers guided their children during the celebrations. The domestic celebrations were divided into two: private and public celebrations. The private celebrations involved the women who were perceived to be homemakers. The public celebrations involved the middle-class people who organized celebrations with the help of servants. Domestic celebrations were perceived to be special occasions that brought all family members together. During the industrial revolution, the idea of clock time evolved. People who had gone to work away from home dedicated a few hours to celebrate with other family members. The introduction of luxury gifts caused the emergence of domestic Christmas. The chaos experienced during the Christmas seasons led to the introduction of security forces during the celebrations. The history of Thanksgiving indicates that it started as early as 1621. This is the time when pilgrims held feasts. The government leaders supported the events of Thanksgiving, and a special day was proclaimed for national Thanksgiving. England was not the only country that practiced Thanksgiving in the 19th century. In this case, the Mid-Atlantic states practiced Thanksgiving during this period, but to a limited extent as compared to England. Texas and the Mid-Atlantic states adopted Thanksgiving in the 1850s. Religious and secular social systems accepted Thanksgiving. Thanksgiving events united people. In this regard, people working in the industries joined their families for this event. Abraham Lincoln encouraged people to practice nationhood during the Thanksgiving events. According to Lincoln, Thanksgiving was an event to thank God for blessing the country. During the Thanksgiving ceremonies, youths disrupted the occasions and caused chaos. The Fantastic were unruly and were considered a nuisance. With time, Thanksgiving Day was accompanied by sports and games. Christians thanked God for the blessings of a Christian home, as well as citizenship. However, in the 1910s, the Fantastic disappeared. The male homosexuals took over from the Fantastic. The gays wore different dresses during the events. Children begged and wore rags during Halloween. This culture died in the 1940s. The Thanksgiving events were commercialized in 1924 with the introduction of the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day parade. People sold gifts for the event. The school teachers opined that the immigrants should also participate during the Thanksgiving events. Thanksgiving has undergone various changes, and all economic classes have accepted the event. Also, regions and homemakers have also accepted the celebrations. Entertainment during the feasts improved the celebration. Although the Thanksgiving events were perceived to be feminine, the broadcast of the football games encouraged the participation of men. Thanksgiving has been reinvented to show the American nationalism. It has also encouraged many immigrants to accept American culture. Children have also been used as agents of change during the reinvention of Thanksgiving.	<urn:uuid:d172c61e-32a7-41fb-a74c-28ee6aff1dde>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-history-of-thanksgiving-in-the-united-states/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251776516.99/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128060946-20200128090946-00439.warc.gz	en	0.98183	658	4.15625	4	[ 0.10965000838041306, 0.5814148187637329, 0.326052188873291, -0.06312672793865204, 0.19032499194145203, 0.2519072890281677, -0.16929122805595398, 0.3063420057296753, 0.07087744027376175, 0.2444470077753067, 0.11959496140480042, 0.4819744825363159, -0.15635377168655396, 0.0008128369809128344...	1	The author evaluates the evolution of Thanksgiving in the US. The focus was on the adoption of Thanksgiving among the middle-class and poor families during the 19th century. The author also researches on the additional elements about Thanksgiving that were introduced in the 1930s. In the 19th century, communal celebrations were done when the poor families demanded to be treated respectably by the wealthiest people. This scenario led to the rise of domestic celebrations. The domestic celebrations were regarded as a sign of family unity. The main focus of domestic celebrations was to enable women to show how much they love their children. Mothers guided their children during the celebrations. The domestic celebrations were divided into two: private and public celebrations. The private celebrations involved the women who were perceived to be homemakers. The public celebrations involved the middle-class people who organized celebrations with the help of servants. Domestic celebrations were perceived to be special occasions that brought all family members together. During the industrial revolution, the idea of clock time evolved. People who had gone to work away from home dedicated a few hours to celebrate with other family members. The introduction of luxury gifts caused the emergence of domestic Christmas. The chaos experienced during the Christmas seasons led to the introduction of security forces during the celebrations. The history of Thanksgiving indicates that it started as early as 1621. This is the time when pilgrims held feasts. The government leaders supported the events of Thanksgiving, and a special day was proclaimed for national Thanksgiving. England was not the only country that practiced Thanksgiving in the 19th century. In this case, the Mid-Atlantic states practiced Thanksgiving during this period, but to a limited extent as compared to England. Texas and the Mid-Atlantic states adopted Thanksgiving in the 1850s. Religious and secular social systems accepted Thanksgiving. Thanksgiving events united people. In this regard, people working in the industries joined their families for this event. Abraham Lincoln encouraged people to practice nationhood during the Thanksgiving events. According to Lincoln, Thanksgiving was an event to thank God for blessing the country. During the Thanksgiving ceremonies, youths disrupted the occasions and caused chaos. The Fantastic were unruly and were considered a nuisance. With time, Thanksgiving Day was accompanied by sports and games. Christians thanked God for the blessings of a Christian home, as well as citizenship. However, in the 1910s, the Fantastic disappeared. The male homosexuals took over from the Fantastic. The gays wore different dresses during the events. Children begged and wore rags during Halloween. This culture died in the 1940s. The Thanksgiving events were commercialized in 1924 with the introduction of the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day parade. People sold gifts for the event. The school teachers opined that the immigrants should also participate during the Thanksgiving events. Thanksgiving has undergone various changes, and all economic classes have accepted the event. Also, regions and homemakers have also accepted the celebrations. Entertainment during the feasts improved the celebration. Although the Thanksgiving events were perceived to be feminine, the broadcast of the football games encouraged the participation of men. Thanksgiving has been reinvented to show the American nationalism. It has also encouraged many immigrants to accept American culture. Children have also been used as agents of change during the reinvention of Thanksgiving.	670	ENGLISH	1
The total number of deaths during war includes about 10 million military personnel and about 7 million civilians. The Entente Powers (also known as the Allies) lost about 6 million soldiers, while the Central Powers lost about 4 million. At least 2 million died from diseases and 6 million went missing, presumed dead. About two-thirds of military deaths in World War I were in battle. This was unlike any previous conflict during the 19th century, when the majority of deaths were due to disease. Improvements in medicine, as well as the increased lethality of military weaponry, were both factors in this development. Nevertheless disease, including the ‘Spanish flu’, still caused about one third of total military deaths for all belligerents. Britain and Commonwealth forces lost nearly 900,000 military personnel and 1.7 million men were wounded. By analysing the UK, Soldiers Died in the Great War, 1914-1919 collection and the 1911 Census, some 1.7 per cent of the total UK population at the time died in the First World War. In Britain that was about 10% of the male population killed, and 70% of these men were aged between 20-24 years old. Of the 700,000 British war dead, no fewer than 71% were between the ages of 16 and 29 years. The Commonwealth War Records reveal that 14,108 British soldiers died aged 18 years or younger. Research shows the level of loss was significantly higher in some areas than it was in others. Durham for example, tragically lost nearly eight per cent of its population during the First World War, with Derby (5.64%) and Dumfries (4.79%) also badly affected. Britain’s big cities lost most men, Glasgow, 13,740; Manchester, 3,481; Liverpool, 10,470; Birmingham, 9,842; Hull, 7,500 +, Derby, 6,952; Edinburgh, 5,281; Durham, 6,353; Leeds, 4,312; Sheffield, 4,854; and London, 41,833. But it was the Northern and Scottish towns that saw their populations hardest hit. In Durham 6,300 men lost their lives. This was equivalent to almost two in ten men in the city and nearly eight per cent of the total population. Another Country Durham town, Bishop Auckland, was also hit hard losing more than six per cent of just 13,600 people, all of them men between 18 and 50-years-old. Derby lost almost six per cent of its population and Dumfries, Scotland, five per cent, according to genealogy company Ancestry. Nine of the 10 towns and cities that lost the highest proportion of their population are in Northern England and Scotland. Scotland which traditionally provided recruits for the British army’s elite regiment’s, lost 148,000 men. This was 25% of those that volunteered and more than twice the national average rate of fatalities for the whole of Britain. Over 38,000 Irishmen and 20,000 Welshmen also died in the war. Throughout the United Kingdom, one in six families suffered a direct bereavement, 192,000 wives had lost their husbands, and nearly 400,000 children had lost their fathers. A further 500,000 children had lost one of more of their siblings. Appallingly, one in eight wives died within a year of receiving news of their husband’s death. There were also 1.7 million British wounded of which 80,000 were gas victims, 30,000 were made deaf, 80,000 had ‘shell shock’, and there were 250,000 amputees. This increased over time. At the end of 1928, nearly 2.8 million war veterans received a disability pension of some sort. While it was the big cities that lost the highest numbers of men, it was the smaller northern England and Scottish towns that saw entire generations completely wiped out. There are tens of thousands of villages and towns in the United Kingdom. In an October 2013 update, researchers identified only 53 civil parishes in England and Wales from which all serving personnel returned from WW1. These became known as “Thankful Villages”. There are no “Thankful Villages” identified in Scotland or Ireland yet all of Ireland was then part of the United Kingdom at the time. According to the research by the genealogy company Ancestry, the 10 UK towns that lost the highest percentages of their populations in the First World War are shown below: – Although the great majority of casualties in WW1 were from the working class, the social and political elite were hit disproportionately hard by WW1. Their sons provided the junior officers that were expected to lead from the front. 17% of officers were killed in WW1, compared to 12% of the British army’s ordinary soldiers The British Aristocracy was devastated by the war, with 47 Peers killed and six of these, leaving no brothers to succeed them. By 1915, 9 House of Lord Peers and 95 sons of Peers had been killed in the war and it was to get worse. Some 35,000 former public school boys died in the war. About a fifth of all those who served. Eton alone lost more than 1,157 former pupils – 20% of those who served. In all, 22 Members of Parliament and 24 Peers from the House of Lords, died in WW1. The UK wartime Prime Minister Herbert Asquith lost a son, while future Prime Minister Andrew Bonar Law lost two. Anthony Eden lost two brothers, another brother of his was terribly wounded, and an uncle was captured. In Germany, approximately 13 million Germans served in the military during the Great War; over 2 million or 15 percent of these, were killed. This was a demographic catastrophe for German society. Some 13 percent of German men born between 1880 and 1899 (prime candidates for service in the war), were killed between 1914 and 1918. For German women in the doomed cohorts born between 1880 and 1899, war losses meant transformed lives. For many young German women in the 1920’s, marriage and family were not possibilities; there were no young men available. This, to be sure, produced a kind of autonomy for the women affected, but, for those who had hoped for marriage and family, wartime deaths meant a lifetime alone. After the war, the German Government reported that approximately 763,000 German civilians died during the war because of the Allied Blockade and another 150,000 died of the war-related Spanish Influenza. Total German losses, then, military and civilian, during the Great War, thus approach 3 million. The sudden and violent death of some 2 million young men confronted Germans with that peculiar 20th century phenomenon, of mass death. The apocalyptic German experience of 1914-1918, coupled with defeat, revolution, and then civil war, engendered what Theodor Adorno (1903-1969) called “absolute despair” and that obsession with messianism, apocalypse and redemption became characteristic of Weimar Germany’s culture and politics. Jason Crouthamel has explored the psychiatric dimension of this enormous trauma. For Germans, during and after the war, simply finding the bodies of the dead, and burying them properly was a vast problem. Most of the German were either buried in mass or unmarked graves, or their graves were, after the war, in the hands of Germany’s former enemies. Germany erected innumerable local monuments in honor of their war dead, but creating a national day of mourning, with appropriate national rituals and symbols proved impossible in the politically torn Weimar Republic, and that would have devastating consequences for the legitimacy of the Weimar Republic and for German political culture. 15 Legacies of WW1 – https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/15/firstworldwar	<urn:uuid:c208559c-503b-47da-8b97-abed02e0de7b>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.ww1hull.com/the-cost-in-lives/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250619323.41/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124100832-20200124125832-00497.warc.gz	en	0.982	1,607	3.328125	3	[ -0.035398587584495544, 0.2357722818851471, 0.4898732304573059, -0.31017377972602844, 0.08747537434101105, 0.2511906921863556, 0.055465906858444214, 0.39000821113586426, 0.27051684260368347, -0.03158074989914894, 0.17804980278015137, -0.5976575613021851, 0.3313952684402466, 0.15092310309410...	2	The total number of deaths during war includes about 10 million military personnel and about 7 million civilians. The Entente Powers (also known as the Allies) lost about 6 million soldiers, while the Central Powers lost about 4 million. At least 2 million died from diseases and 6 million went missing, presumed dead. About two-thirds of military deaths in World War I were in battle. This was unlike any previous conflict during the 19th century, when the majority of deaths were due to disease. Improvements in medicine, as well as the increased lethality of military weaponry, were both factors in this development. Nevertheless disease, including the ‘Spanish flu’, still caused about one third of total military deaths for all belligerents. Britain and Commonwealth forces lost nearly 900,000 military personnel and 1.7 million men were wounded. By analysing the UK, Soldiers Died in the Great War, 1914-1919 collection and the 1911 Census, some 1.7 per cent of the total UK population at the time died in the First World War. In Britain that was about 10% of the male population killed, and 70% of these men were aged between 20-24 years old. Of the 700,000 British war dead, no fewer than 71% were between the ages of 16 and 29 years. The Commonwealth War Records reveal that 14,108 British soldiers died aged 18 years or younger. Research shows the level of loss was significantly higher in some areas than it was in others. Durham for example, tragically lost nearly eight per cent of its population during the First World War, with Derby (5.64%) and Dumfries (4.79%) also badly affected. Britain’s big cities lost most men, Glasgow, 13,740; Manchester, 3,481; Liverpool, 10,470; Birmingham, 9,842; Hull, 7,500 +, Derby, 6,952; Edinburgh, 5,281; Durham, 6,353; Leeds, 4,312; Sheffield, 4,854; and London, 41,833. But it was the Northern and Scottish towns that saw their populations hardest hit. In Durham 6,300 men lost their lives. This was equivalent to almost two in ten men in the city and nearly eight per cent of the total population. Another Country Durham town, Bishop Auckland, was also hit hard losing more than six per cent of just 13,600 people, all of them men between 18 and 50-years-old. Derby lost almost six per cent of its population and Dumfries, Scotland, five per cent, according to genealogy company Ancestry. Nine of the 10 towns and cities that lost the highest proportion of their population are in Northern England and Scotland. Scotland which traditionally provided recruits for the British army’s elite regiment’s, lost 148,000 men. This was 25% of those that volunteered and more than twice the national average rate of fatalities for the whole of Britain. Over 38,000 Irishmen and 20,000 Welshmen also died in the war. Throughout the United Kingdom, one in six families suffered a direct bereavement, 192,000 wives had lost their husbands, and nearly 400,000 children had lost their fathers. A further 500,000 children had lost one of more of their siblings. Appallingly, one in eight wives died within a year of receiving news of their husband’s death. There were also 1.7 million British wounded of which 80,000 were gas victims, 30,000 were made deaf, 80,000 had ‘shell shock’, and there were 250,000 amputees. This increased over time. At the end of 1928, nearly 2.8 million war veterans received a disability pension of some sort. While it was the big cities that lost the highest numbers of men, it was the smaller northern England and Scottish towns that saw entire generations completely wiped out. There are tens of thousands of villages and towns in the United Kingdom. In an October 2013 update, researchers identified only 53 civil parishes in England and Wales from which all serving personnel returned from WW1. These became known as “Thankful Villages”. There are no “Thankful Villages” identified in Scotland or Ireland yet all of Ireland was then part of the United Kingdom at the time. According to the research by the genealogy company Ancestry, the 10 UK towns that lost the highest percentages of their populations in the First World War are shown below: – Although the great majority of casualties in WW1 were from the working class, the social and political elite were hit disproportionately hard by WW1. Their sons provided the junior officers that were expected to lead from the front. 17% of officers were killed in WW1, compared to 12% of the British army’s ordinary soldiers The British Aristocracy was devastated by the war, with 47 Peers killed and six of these, leaving no brothers to succeed them. By 1915, 9 House of Lord Peers and 95 sons of Peers had been killed in the war and it was to get worse. Some 35,000 former public school boys died in the war. About a fifth of all those who served. Eton alone lost more than 1,157 former pupils – 20% of those who served. In all, 22 Members of Parliament and 24 Peers from the House of Lords, died in WW1. The UK wartime Prime Minister Herbert Asquith lost a son, while future Prime Minister Andrew Bonar Law lost two. Anthony Eden lost two brothers, another brother of his was terribly wounded, and an uncle was captured. In Germany, approximately 13 million Germans served in the military during the Great War; over 2 million or 15 percent of these, were killed. This was a demographic catastrophe for German society. Some 13 percent of German men born between 1880 and 1899 (prime candidates for service in the war), were killed between 1914 and 1918. For German women in the doomed cohorts born between 1880 and 1899, war losses meant transformed lives. For many young German women in the 1920’s, marriage and family were not possibilities; there were no young men available. This, to be sure, produced a kind of autonomy for the women affected, but, for those who had hoped for marriage and family, wartime deaths meant a lifetime alone. After the war, the German Government reported that approximately 763,000 German civilians died during the war because of the Allied Blockade and another 150,000 died of the war-related Spanish Influenza. Total German losses, then, military and civilian, during the Great War, thus approach 3 million. The sudden and violent death of some 2 million young men confronted Germans with that peculiar 20th century phenomenon, of mass death. The apocalyptic German experience of 1914-1918, coupled with defeat, revolution, and then civil war, engendered what Theodor Adorno (1903-1969) called “absolute despair” and that obsession with messianism, apocalypse and redemption became characteristic of Weimar Germany’s culture and politics. Jason Crouthamel has explored the psychiatric dimension of this enormous trauma. For Germans, during and after the war, simply finding the bodies of the dead, and burying them properly was a vast problem. Most of the German were either buried in mass or unmarked graves, or their graves were, after the war, in the hands of Germany’s former enemies. Germany erected innumerable local monuments in honor of their war dead, but creating a national day of mourning, with appropriate national rituals and symbols proved impossible in the politically torn Weimar Republic, and that would have devastating consequences for the legitimacy of the Weimar Republic and for German political culture. 15 Legacies of WW1 – https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/15/firstworldwar	1,824	ENGLISH	1
The German Workers' Union was conceived by Anton Drexler on the seventh of March, 1918. Drexler's union consisted of about forty members, most of whom were railwaymen, that were banded together by shared sentiments of fierce nationalism, anti-Semitism, and support for the war effort. Previous to the end of World War I, this small union carried the rather verbose title of the "Free Labor Committee for a Good Peace." At this time the organization adhered to a rather straightforward program-"Strikers, Bolsheviks, Jews, malingerers, and war profiteers were the enemy, and it was the duty of the workers to unite behind the war effort." (Payne, 135) However, after the disastrous conclusion to the war, Drexler's union, having changed its name to the "German Worker's Party," lacked any coherent program and was on the brink of collapse when Hitler inadvertently stepped into the picture. When this happened the party ceased to be Drexler's partly; it became Hitler's. The German Workers' Party (Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) became the foundation of the Nationalsozialistiche Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, commonly abbreviated as the NAZI party. Hitler's ability to transform this forty-member union into the dominant political force that it became gives us clear indication that he was an inherent leader and a master of propaganda. In fact, I believe, that without his introduction to the DAP, the Nazi party would probably never have been formed. Hitler was assigned to attend his first DAP meeting on the twelfth of September, 1919 in order to investigate the party and its activities for the military. In the course of the meeting, Hitler became actively involved in one of the arguments. He refuted one person with such force that the man left "like a wet noodle" before Hitler was even finished speaking. However, Hitler's only purpose for that meeting was to attend and then write a report. For this reason he took one of Drexler's pamphlets which detailed much of the group's political philosophy. Here he found "in Drexler a prophet after his own heart." (Payne, 137) In one chapter, "The Jew and His Activity Before and During the World War," Drexler wrote: There is a race-or perhaps we should call it a nation-which for over two thousand years has not possessed a state of its own, but has nevertheless spread over the entire earth. They are the Jews...They quickly conquered the money market, although they began in poverty, and were thereby made all the richer in vice, vermin and pestilence... Only one per cent of the total population is Jewish but for thousands of years the Jews, form the highest to the lowest, have grimly pursued the thought that this tiny people should never serve rulers but always govern them. Yet they are unable to form a state of their own. (Drexler, 29) Drexler was equally impressed with Hitler, and immediately saw his potential. Thus, Drexler invited him to attend one of the executive committee meetings. Hitler did attend the meeting; however, he was not too impressed with the organization. "This was all frightful, frightful. This was the life of a little club at the lowest possible level. Was I to join an organization like this ?" (quot. by Payne, 138) Although he did eventually become the fifty-fifth member and the seventh committee member, "in a sense he [never did] really join the party, for when he became a card carrying member it was with the intention of destroying it and re-creating it in his own image." (Payne, 138) Hitler's first step in developing the party was to take over the propaganda work. He had to advance the party's small gatherings from small to large scale. To begin, he arranged that their meetings take place in larger halls. Presently, they were held in obscure taverns like the Hofbrauhauskeller with an attendance of only about one hundred and fifty people. After his decision, they were moved to a much larger tavern named Zum Deutschen Reich. There, within four subsequent meetings, the attendance increased to over four hundred. Through these meetings Hitler established himself as a political figure and as a powerful voice of the people. In his own words, Hitler said, "To be a leader means to be able to move masses." (Hitler, 474) Thus he took it upon himself "to not only move the masses, but to create a mass movement." (Jarman, 91) At the DAP meetings, he spoke so that one would feel like he was part of some vast and powerful movement. He was able to stir the crowds into such a fervor that they would agree to whatever he said, thereby making the gatherings an exercise of mass suggestion. He welcomed the occurrence of violence at the meetings, as when his bouncers (later to become the 'Brownshirts') crushed an adversary, the power of the party and the influence of the message were seemingly enhanced. Hitler also put himself in control of making the posters and fliers that advertised the meetings. These showed a mastery of propaganda that was probably unsurpassed at that time. He used red paper as red catches a person's attention better than any other color. (Nor did he mind that the communists used the same color.) On it he wrote the information in various sizes of lettering, so that the largest letters shouted to the observer much like he might shout during a speech. As one historian wrote, "the art of propaganda was being studied by a master." When he first became involved with the workings of the party it was still in need of a program. He quickly remedied this problem. He, Drexler, and another committee member Dietrich Eckart developed twenty-five points which detailed the party's new program. I say that all three cooperated on their development simply because there is much dispute as to all of their roles in drafting the program. Drexler consistently claimed that only he and Hitler wrote it, while later drafts can be seen to be grossly rewritten by Hitler with the help of Eckart. However, much of the program was largely influenced by Hitler which can be seen by the inclusion of the categorical imperative "We demand." (This was a characteristic of his speeches since his first. The other speakers would only say "we declare" or "we ask," etc.) Nevertheless, regardless of who wrote it, it was largely a work of Hitler's influence and philosophy. The program included such points as: We demand the union of all Germans in a Great Germany on the basis of the principle of self-determination of all peoples. Only those who are our fellow countrymen can become citizens. Only those who have German blood, regardless of creed, can be our countrymen. Hence no Jew can be a countryman. All citizens must possess equal rights and duties. We demand that all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished. We demand profit-sharing in large industries. We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions. We demand that ruthless war be waged against those who work to the injury of the common welfare. Traitors, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished with death, regardless of creed or race. In order to carry out this program we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the State, the unconditional authority by the political central parliament of the whole State and all its organizations. Despite this grand program, in which many people's questions were answered, and which gave many a direction to work toward, "it never possessed the importance which it might have had in a party founded on reason and argument. The real driving force in the Party's development was... the personality of Hitler." (Jarmen, 90). The speech in which he delivered the program provides a good example. At this particular meeting there were about two thousand people present-the hall was filled to capacity. In these numbers, Hitler was pleased to see that there were a good number of communists, as that would mean that the gathering would be exciting. Even before he read the points, he had the audience in a frenzy. "The screaming and shouting were slowly drowned out by the applause." (Hitler, 405) He then began to read the program to a "people united by a new conviction, a new faith, a new will." During his speech he deliberately attacked the Berlin government, the Jews, and other parties, so that one police reporter present wrote, "Ungeheuer Tumult," translated, "Fearful Uproar." Two years later Hitler wrote in one article that he had felt as if "a wolf had been born, destined to hurl itself on the herds of seducers and deceivers of the people." (quot. by Payne, 148) It was during the development of the party's twenty-five points that Hitler decided to change the name of the party to the Nationalsozialistiche Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, abbreviated NSDAP or Nazi. To symbolize the new party and the new program, Hitler himself designed a flag as an insignia of the movement. "Whipping in the wind, the swastika flag suggested streaming blood, black pistons in violent motion, sudden flares of energy." (Payne, 153) He discussed its development with some detail in his Mein Kampf. As National Socialists we see our program in our flag. In the red we see the social idea of the movement, in the white the national idea, in the swastika the mission to struggle for the victory of Aryan man and at the same time the victory of the idea of creative work, which is eternally anti-Semitic and always will be anti-Semitic. Hitler saw to it that this party development was also solely his own. "Even the measurements of the armbands and the exact proportions of the flag were dictated by him." (Payne, 153) By this time, only a little more than one short year after his first meeting, the NSDAP had grown rapidly. By November of 1921, the meetings were normally held at the Krone Circus where crowds of more than six thousand were commonly in attendance. The number of card holding, or due paying, members had increased to three thousand, and the party published its own newspaper. Through all of this, Hitler could not have been called anything less than the party's dictator. This fact caused the older members of the party to feel increasingly isolated and without any significant role to play. (Jarmen, 92) Anton Drexler once approached Hitler to remind him to heed the advice of the executive committee. However, Hitler "totally disregarded him." In response to the growing opposition of the older members, Hitler decided to demonstrate his power the simplest way-he simply left the area for a short while. The others found that no one else was capable of carrying on the workings of the party. When they begged him to return, Hitler made them sign "an instrument of surrender." In view of your immense knowledge, the services you have rendered in the most honorable fashion and with rare self-sacrifice to the growth of the party, and your exceptional oratorical skills, the Committee is prepared to grant you dictatorial powers. If you should choose to return to the party, they will feel extremely honored if you will accept the post of First President, which Drexler has already offered you over a long period of time. In addition to this document which assured the committee's subservience to Hitler, he decided to arrange for a meeting in which the whole party would decide on the matter. The result was obvious. For another meeting shortly thereafter, Hitler invented a new term by which to describe himself. Presently he was called Unser Fuehrer-our leader; his new term dropped the Unser and in its place added Der, an article that removed the human ties represented by the former. "The invention of this word, like the invention of the swastika flag the previous year, must be included among Hitler's daemonic accomplishments." (Payne, 160) Hitler had now secured all of the resources necessary to institute a major political institution. He had a party, a program, a symbol of the party, and Der Fuehrer to lead the party. All of these he achieved by his own accord. Since his first meeting, he was the force behind the party. He made all of the decisions and had confirmed that he did indeed have all of the power. Previous to his introduction to the party, the DAP was nothing more than a small club of beer-drinking fellows. After his admission and throughout his rise to power, he never had a serious rival to challenge his power. Anton Drexler, the party's founder, was only able to stand on the side, impotently watching his organization go under the control of another. The same was true for the other five members of the original committee. And although they (and some others) made some attempts to damage Hitler's influence, all proved to be feeble against his power. Thus, Adolf Hitler was almost solely responsible for creating the Nazi party, and in fact, was the only person capable of creating it. It was through his uniquely powerful charisma and his mastery of propaganda that he was capable of such a feat. Drexler, Anton. Mein Politisches Erwachen. Munich: Hoheneichen Verlag, 1924. Feder, Gottfried. Das Program der NSDAP und seine weltanschaulichen Grundgedanken. Munich: Verlag Frz. Eher, 1932. Hitler, Adolf. Mein Kampf. trans. by Ralph Mannheim. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1942. Jarman, T.L. The Rise and Fall of Nazi Germany. New York: New York UP, 1956 Mason, Werner. Naissance du parti national-socialiste. Paris: Fayard, 1967. Payne, Robert. The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler. New York: Praeger, 1973.	<urn:uuid:4bd1f27f-dfe1-4f18-8c2f-3d991f81c5ee>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	http://ww.novelguide.com/reportessay/history/european-history/hitler-and-dap	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251700988.64/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127143516-20200127173516-00559.warc.gz	en	0.981602	2,944	3.625	4	[ -0.6281213164329529, 0.6096087098121643, -0.01631731353700161, 0.26132848858833313, -0.14520320296287537, 0.18487870693206787, -0.22279632091522217, 0.09304504841566086, -0.045275427401065826, -0.2951512336730957, 0.3438832759857178, -0.20774304866790771, 0.2652266025543213, 0.212170436978...	3	The German Workers' Union was conceived by Anton Drexler on the seventh of March, 1918. Drexler's union consisted of about forty members, most of whom were railwaymen, that were banded together by shared sentiments of fierce nationalism, anti-Semitism, and support for the war effort. Previous to the end of World War I, this small union carried the rather verbose title of the "Free Labor Committee for a Good Peace." At this time the organization adhered to a rather straightforward program-"Strikers, Bolsheviks, Jews, malingerers, and war profiteers were the enemy, and it was the duty of the workers to unite behind the war effort." (Payne, 135) However, after the disastrous conclusion to the war, Drexler's union, having changed its name to the "German Worker's Party," lacked any coherent program and was on the brink of collapse when Hitler inadvertently stepped into the picture. When this happened the party ceased to be Drexler's partly; it became Hitler's. The German Workers' Party (Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) became the foundation of the Nationalsozialistiche Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, commonly abbreviated as the NAZI party. Hitler's ability to transform this forty-member union into the dominant political force that it became gives us clear indication that he was an inherent leader and a master of propaganda. In fact, I believe, that without his introduction to the DAP, the Nazi party would probably never have been formed. Hitler was assigned to attend his first DAP meeting on the twelfth of September, 1919 in order to investigate the party and its activities for the military. In the course of the meeting, Hitler became actively involved in one of the arguments. He refuted one person with such force that the man left "like a wet noodle" before Hitler was even finished speaking. However, Hitler's only purpose for that meeting was to attend and then write a report. For this reason he took one of Drexler's pamphlets which detailed much of the group's political philosophy. Here he found "in Drexler a prophet after his own heart." (Payne, 137) In one chapter, "The Jew and His Activity Before and During the World War," Drexler wrote: There is a race-or perhaps we should call it a nation-which for over two thousand years has not possessed a state of its own, but has nevertheless spread over the entire earth. They are the Jews...They quickly conquered the money market, although they began in poverty, and were thereby made all the richer in vice, vermin and pestilence... Only one per cent of the total population is Jewish but for thousands of years the Jews, form the highest to the lowest, have grimly pursued the thought that this tiny people should never serve rulers but always govern them. Yet they are unable to form a state of their own. (Drexler, 29) Drexler was equally impressed with Hitler, and immediately saw his potential. Thus, Drexler invited him to attend one of the executive committee meetings. Hitler did attend the meeting; however, he was not too impressed with the organization. "This was all frightful, frightful. This was the life of a little club at the lowest possible level. Was I to join an organization like this ?" (quot. by Payne, 138) Although he did eventually become the fifty-fifth member and the seventh committee member, "in a sense he [never did] really join the party, for when he became a card carrying member it was with the intention of destroying it and re-creating it in his own image." (Payne, 138) Hitler's first step in developing the party was to take over the propaganda work. He had to advance the party's small gatherings from small to large scale. To begin, he arranged that their meetings take place in larger halls. Presently, they were held in obscure taverns like the Hofbrauhauskeller with an attendance of only about one hundred and fifty people. After his decision, they were moved to a much larger tavern named Zum Deutschen Reich. There, within four subsequent meetings, the attendance increased to over four hundred. Through these meetings Hitler established himself as a political figure and as a powerful voice of the people. In his own words, Hitler said, "To be a leader means to be able to move masses." (Hitler, 474) Thus he took it upon himself "to not only move the masses, but to create a mass movement." (Jarman, 91) At the DAP meetings, he spoke so that one would feel like he was part of some vast and powerful movement. He was able to stir the crowds into such a fervor that they would agree to whatever he said, thereby making the gatherings an exercise of mass suggestion. He welcomed the occurrence of violence at the meetings, as when his bouncers (later to become the 'Brownshirts') crushed an adversary, the power of the party and the influence of the message were seemingly enhanced. Hitler also put himself in control of making the posters and fliers that advertised the meetings. These showed a mastery of propaganda that was probably unsurpassed at that time. He used red paper as red catches a person's attention better than any other color. (Nor did he mind that the communists used the same color.) On it he wrote the information in various sizes of lettering, so that the largest letters shouted to the observer much like he might shout during a speech. As one historian wrote, "the art of propaganda was being studied by a master." When he first became involved with the workings of the party it was still in need of a program. He quickly remedied this problem. He, Drexler, and another committee member Dietrich Eckart developed twenty-five points which detailed the party's new program. I say that all three cooperated on their development simply because there is much dispute as to all of their roles in drafting the program. Drexler consistently claimed that only he and Hitler wrote it, while later drafts can be seen to be grossly rewritten by Hitler with the help of Eckart. However, much of the program was largely influenced by Hitler which can be seen by the inclusion of the categorical imperative "We demand." (This was a characteristic of his speeches since his first. The other speakers would only say "we declare" or "we ask," etc.) Nevertheless, regardless of who wrote it, it was largely a work of Hitler's influence and philosophy. The program included such points as: We demand the union of all Germans in a Great Germany on the basis of the principle of self-determination of all peoples. Only those who are our fellow countrymen can become citizens. Only those who have German blood, regardless of creed, can be our countrymen. Hence no Jew can be a countryman. All citizens must possess equal rights and duties. We demand that all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished. We demand profit-sharing in large industries. We demand a generous increase in old-age pensions. We demand that ruthless war be waged against those who work to the injury of the common welfare. Traitors, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished with death, regardless of creed or race. In order to carry out this program we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the State, the unconditional authority by the political central parliament of the whole State and all its organizations. Despite this grand program, in which many people's questions were answered, and which gave many a direction to work toward, "it never possessed the importance which it might have had in a party founded on reason and argument. The real driving force in the Party's development was... the personality of Hitler." (Jarmen, 90). The speech in which he delivered the program provides a good example. At this particular meeting there were about two thousand people present-the hall was filled to capacity. In these numbers, Hitler was pleased to see that there were a good number of communists, as that would mean that the gathering would be exciting. Even before he read the points, he had the audience in a frenzy. "The screaming and shouting were slowly drowned out by the applause." (Hitler, 405) He then began to read the program to a "people united by a new conviction, a new faith, a new will." During his speech he deliberately attacked the Berlin government, the Jews, and other parties, so that one police reporter present wrote, "Ungeheuer Tumult," translated, "Fearful Uproar." Two years later Hitler wrote in one article that he had felt as if "a wolf had been born, destined to hurl itself on the herds of seducers and deceivers of the people." (quot. by Payne, 148) It was during the development of the party's twenty-five points that Hitler decided to change the name of the party to the Nationalsozialistiche Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, abbreviated NSDAP or Nazi. To symbolize the new party and the new program, Hitler himself designed a flag as an insignia of the movement. "Whipping in the wind, the swastika flag suggested streaming blood, black pistons in violent motion, sudden flares of energy." (Payne, 153) He discussed its development with some detail in his Mein Kampf. As National Socialists we see our program in our flag. In the red we see the social idea of the movement, in the white the national idea, in the swastika the mission to struggle for the victory of Aryan man and at the same time the victory of the idea of creative work, which is eternally anti-Semitic and always will be anti-Semitic. Hitler saw to it that this party development was also solely his own. "Even the measurements of the armbands and the exact proportions of the flag were dictated by him." (Payne, 153) By this time, only a little more than one short year after his first meeting, the NSDAP had grown rapidly. By November of 1921, the meetings were normally held at the Krone Circus where crowds of more than six thousand were commonly in attendance. The number of card holding, or due paying, members had increased to three thousand, and the party published its own newspaper. Through all of this, Hitler could not have been called anything less than the party's dictator. This fact caused the older members of the party to feel increasingly isolated and without any significant role to play. (Jarmen, 92) Anton Drexler once approached Hitler to remind him to heed the advice of the executive committee. However, Hitler "totally disregarded him." In response to the growing opposition of the older members, Hitler decided to demonstrate his power the simplest way-he simply left the area for a short while. The others found that no one else was capable of carrying on the workings of the party. When they begged him to return, Hitler made them sign "an instrument of surrender." In view of your immense knowledge, the services you have rendered in the most honorable fashion and with rare self-sacrifice to the growth of the party, and your exceptional oratorical skills, the Committee is prepared to grant you dictatorial powers. If you should choose to return to the party, they will feel extremely honored if you will accept the post of First President, which Drexler has already offered you over a long period of time. In addition to this document which assured the committee's subservience to Hitler, he decided to arrange for a meeting in which the whole party would decide on the matter. The result was obvious. For another meeting shortly thereafter, Hitler invented a new term by which to describe himself. Presently he was called Unser Fuehrer-our leader; his new term dropped the Unser and in its place added Der, an article that removed the human ties represented by the former. "The invention of this word, like the invention of the swastika flag the previous year, must be included among Hitler's daemonic accomplishments." (Payne, 160) Hitler had now secured all of the resources necessary to institute a major political institution. He had a party, a program, a symbol of the party, and Der Fuehrer to lead the party. All of these he achieved by his own accord. Since his first meeting, he was the force behind the party. He made all of the decisions and had confirmed that he did indeed have all of the power. Previous to his introduction to the party, the DAP was nothing more than a small club of beer-drinking fellows. After his admission and throughout his rise to power, he never had a serious rival to challenge his power. Anton Drexler, the party's founder, was only able to stand on the side, impotently watching his organization go under the control of another. The same was true for the other five members of the original committee. And although they (and some others) made some attempts to damage Hitler's influence, all proved to be feeble against his power. Thus, Adolf Hitler was almost solely responsible for creating the Nazi party, and in fact, was the only person capable of creating it. It was through his uniquely powerful charisma and his mastery of propaganda that he was capable of such a feat. Drexler, Anton. Mein Politisches Erwachen. Munich: Hoheneichen Verlag, 1924. Feder, Gottfried. Das Program der NSDAP und seine weltanschaulichen Grundgedanken. Munich: Verlag Frz. Eher, 1932. Hitler, Adolf. Mein Kampf. trans. by Ralph Mannheim. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1942. Jarman, T.L. The Rise and Fall of Nazi Germany. New York: New York UP, 1956 Mason, Werner. Naissance du parti national-socialiste. Paris: Fayard, 1967. Payne, Robert. The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler. New York: Praeger, 1973.	2,959	ENGLISH	1
The women codebreakers of Bletchley Park are not the only women to have been largely forgotten in our history. Towards the end of the Second World War, just across the ocean, the ENIAC programme was launched. The aim was to build a computer that could perform a set of complicated math calculations in the matter of seconds. Those called upon to programme this machine were six incredible women from different cities and backgrounds across America. Yet, their efforts went unacknowledged when the massive new machine was unveiled to the public by the US Army on 15th February 1946. The names of these women were nowhere to be seen in the New York Times article “Electronic Computer Flashes Answers, May Speed Engineering”. The Electronic Numerical Integrator and Computer, nicknamed ENIAC, and was the first all-electronic programmable computer. It measured 80 feet long and 8 feet tall. Inside, it contained 18,000 vacuum tubes, and was covered from head to foot in more than 3,000 switches, wires and cables. The machine was built to replace the one-hundred women hired by the US Army during the war to work as “human computers”. These women would spend their working days doing repetitive math equations for missile trajectory programmes. They were needed to calculate how far missiles would go and where they would land. Normally, these calculations would take weeks of scribbling numbers on large sheets of paper to solve by hand. The US Army wanted these calculations to be completed at a much faster rate. In 1945, the US Army placed advertisements in newspapers and math journals all over the country. They read, WANTED: Women With Degrees in Mathematics. Women are being offered scientific and engineering jobs where formerly men were preferred. Now is the time to consider your job in science and engineering. Thinking the job would be easy, the engineers decided to recruit women to do the job. The selected six were Jean Jennings Bartik, Marlyn Wescoff Meltzer, Ruth Lichterman Teitelbaum, Betty Snyder Holberton, Frances Bilas Spence, and Kay Mauchly Antonelli. They became known as “the ENIAC girls” and were set the task of setting up the ENIAC. This was easier said than done as very little information was given to the girls. What the machine was and what it would be used for they did not know. The machine itself was so classified that the girls were not even allowed to see it until the nearer the time it would be unveiled to the public. Kay remembers, “Somebody gave us a whole stack of blueprints… and they said, ‘Here, figure out how the machine works and then figure out how to programme it.'” Working almost blindly, the six programmers spent the next few months programming the entire machine. What Jean, Marlyn, Ruth, Betty, Frances, and Kay did was revolutionize computer programming. They helped lead the world into the digital age. Yet, despite this amazing accomplishment, their efforts were unacknowledged until 1997. This was the year all six women were inducted into the Women in Technology International Hall of Fame. These women were the American version of the Bletchley Girls, and should be acknowledged alongside them as some of the world’s first digital programmers. You can read a short article on the ENIAC programmers by Kate Schatz here. Girl Museum Inc.	<urn:uuid:b52d3bc4-adf3-4e9f-97e5-5f66bbd1d64a>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.girlmuseum.org/the-eniac-girls-who-revolutionised-computer-programming/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250608062.57/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123011418-20200123040418-00157.warc.gz	en	0.981948	710	3.765625	4	[ -0.6791725158691406, 0.1854916214942932, -0.14068742096424103, -0.15485243499279022, 0.042626261711120605, 0.28325146436691284, -0.15966172516345978, 0.25933051109313965, 0.062237709760665894, 0.03533753752708435, 0.011741142719984055, -0.1255653202533722, 0.13867710530757904, -0.051045075...	9	The women codebreakers of Bletchley Park are not the only women to have been largely forgotten in our history. Towards the end of the Second World War, just across the ocean, the ENIAC programme was launched. The aim was to build a computer that could perform a set of complicated math calculations in the matter of seconds. Those called upon to programme this machine were six incredible women from different cities and backgrounds across America. Yet, their efforts went unacknowledged when the massive new machine was unveiled to the public by the US Army on 15th February 1946. The names of these women were nowhere to be seen in the New York Times article “Electronic Computer Flashes Answers, May Speed Engineering”. The Electronic Numerical Integrator and Computer, nicknamed ENIAC, and was the first all-electronic programmable computer. It measured 80 feet long and 8 feet tall. Inside, it contained 18,000 vacuum tubes, and was covered from head to foot in more than 3,000 switches, wires and cables. The machine was built to replace the one-hundred women hired by the US Army during the war to work as “human computers”. These women would spend their working days doing repetitive math equations for missile trajectory programmes. They were needed to calculate how far missiles would go and where they would land. Normally, these calculations would take weeks of scribbling numbers on large sheets of paper to solve by hand. The US Army wanted these calculations to be completed at a much faster rate. In 1945, the US Army placed advertisements in newspapers and math journals all over the country. They read, WANTED: Women With Degrees in Mathematics. Women are being offered scientific and engineering jobs where formerly men were preferred. Now is the time to consider your job in science and engineering. Thinking the job would be easy, the engineers decided to recruit women to do the job. The selected six were Jean Jennings Bartik, Marlyn Wescoff Meltzer, Ruth Lichterman Teitelbaum, Betty Snyder Holberton, Frances Bilas Spence, and Kay Mauchly Antonelli. They became known as “the ENIAC girls” and were set the task of setting up the ENIAC. This was easier said than done as very little information was given to the girls. What the machine was and what it would be used for they did not know. The machine itself was so classified that the girls were not even allowed to see it until the nearer the time it would be unveiled to the public. Kay remembers, “Somebody gave us a whole stack of blueprints… and they said, ‘Here, figure out how the machine works and then figure out how to programme it.'” Working almost blindly, the six programmers spent the next few months programming the entire machine. What Jean, Marlyn, Ruth, Betty, Frances, and Kay did was revolutionize computer programming. They helped lead the world into the digital age. Yet, despite this amazing accomplishment, their efforts were unacknowledged until 1997. This was the year all six women were inducted into the Women in Technology International Hall of Fame. These women were the American version of the Bletchley Girls, and should be acknowledged alongside them as some of the world’s first digital programmers. You can read a short article on the ENIAC programmers by Kate Schatz here. Girl Museum Inc.	708	ENGLISH	1
New Zealand Cross Estimated market value: The New Zealand Cross was established by the Governor of New Zealand, Sir George Bowen, on March 10, 1869. The Cross was created during the New Zealand Wars (1845-1872) to recognize local volunteers for acts of bravery who were ineligible to receive the Victoria Cross. Bowen had created the award of his own volition and only sought royal approval after the statutes had already been published. This sparked criticism in Britain, as it appeared that Bowen had been intruding on the powers of the Crown. There was however little that the Crown could do but to approve the Cross, as five had already been awarded. The Cross was conferred upon members of the local militia and armed constabulary as well as upon local volunteers in recognition of acts of bravery in the face of the enemy. The Cross could be awarded more than once to the same recipient, in which case each additional award was represented by a silver clasp worn on the ribbon, but this never occurred. The last Cross was awarded in 1910. Only 23 crosses were ever awarded. Sign in to comment and reply.	<urn:uuid:b3d25d67-0822-4053-bdb8-2f8adcb42e3d>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.medalbook.com/europe/united-kingdom/medals-decorations/gallantry-decorations/new-zealand-cross/new-zealand-cross-1/new-zealand-cross-0	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250613416.54/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123191130-20200123220130-00064.warc.gz	en	0.991671	226	3.5	4	[ -0.4370434582233429, 0.35010549426078796, 0.10928399860858917, 0.0631054937839508, -0.36548903584480286, 0.018731826916337013, 0.4674462378025055, 0.35401538014411926, 0.014719514176249504, 0.558468222618103, 0.20347647368907928, -0.8079276084899902, 0.25067850947380066, 0.3101288676261902...	3	New Zealand Cross Estimated market value: The New Zealand Cross was established by the Governor of New Zealand, Sir George Bowen, on March 10, 1869. The Cross was created during the New Zealand Wars (1845-1872) to recognize local volunteers for acts of bravery who were ineligible to receive the Victoria Cross. Bowen had created the award of his own volition and only sought royal approval after the statutes had already been published. This sparked criticism in Britain, as it appeared that Bowen had been intruding on the powers of the Crown. There was however little that the Crown could do but to approve the Cross, as five had already been awarded. The Cross was conferred upon members of the local militia and armed constabulary as well as upon local volunteers in recognition of acts of bravery in the face of the enemy. The Cross could be awarded more than once to the same recipient, in which case each additional award was represented by a silver clasp worn on the ribbon, but this never occurred. The last Cross was awarded in 1910. Only 23 crosses were ever awarded. Sign in to comment and reply.	239	ENGLISH	1
Morocco’s Berbers were previously nomadic peoples who roamed the Maghreb and have now made the mountains and desert fringes of Morocco their home. The terrain is often difficult to farm and Berber villages are often in remote destinations, sometimes with no water supply or electricity. Remote mountain communities in Morocco often lack the most basic infrastructure that is needed to progress in today’s modern world. While there are some charities that seek to make a difference, some Berber groups find themselves far removed from essential services like healthcare and education. After Morocco’s independence in 1956, the Amazigh culture was sorely overlooked, with the Arab ruling class promoting the Arab way of life. In the 1970s, for example, the Moroccan government attempted to make the entire population fit with the Arab norm. Recent years have seen huge developments in terms of equal recognition, including the addition of traditional Amazigh names to approved lists of names that can be registered after a child’s birth, official status for the language, and greater attempts to preserve and showcase Berber heritage and culture. King Mohammed VI was the first Moroccan king to openly acknowledge that Amazigh culture is as much a part of the national identity as Arab culture. Amazigh activists say that the political wins and developments of the present time would not have been conceivable just a few years ago. That’s not to say that the nation is now in a perfect state of harmony; there are still tensions and grievances from some Berber groups who feel as though there is much work still needed for all Moroccans to be treated equitably. While many Moroccan people, Arab and Berber, live amicably alongside each other, there are still social and economical hurdles to jump and bridges to build. Many activists want to see more done to protect and promote the Amazigh culture and, perhaps more importantly, for there to be greater government spending in rural mountain communities and for all Moroccans, regardless of heritage, to have equal access to public services. While tensions seem to have subsided at present, the northern coastal town of Al Hoceima was, for some time, a hotbed of politically motivated activity and angry protests. Amazigh groups around the Rif Mountains are often thought to be more outspoken and rebellious than their southern counterparts, and a series of tragic events, disappointments, and frustrations eventually bubbled over. Trouble spread to other parts of the country, with many Moroccans, both Berber and Arab, taking to the streets in a visual show of solidarity with their brothers and sisters in Al Hoceima. Problems in Al Hoceima and nearby areas led to the emergence of al-Hirak al-Shaabi, also known as the Popular Movement, Hirak Rif, and the Riffian Movement. Campaigners want to see more investment in the Rif region’s cities, towns, and villages, along with the creation of more jobs for locals to earn a fair living. They also want to ensure respect and fair treatment for Berber people and their culture. The group is also very vocal about corruption, and putting an end to corrupt practices. Other aims include securing the release of activists and other people detained for political purposes. The official response to demonstrations was swift and severe. Nasser Zefzafi is one of the most famous people involved in the movement. Jailed in May 2017, he was a key player in the Rif region’s uprisings. Charges against him included undermining state security and disrespecting the Moroccan monarchy. He is also accused of having received foreign funding to cause unrest in Morocco. The matter widely divides Moroccan opinions. Some people see his detention as unfair, though there are also those that believe he should never be released. Furthermore, some people strongly support the death penalty for Zefzazi. His trial began in October and many people wait tensely for the outcome. Approximately 100 more people were also arrested around the Rif region. Some reports do, however, suggest that the number of arrests was higher. The situation was especially delicate as it is believed that youths were also imprisoned for participating in allegedly peaceful protests, with detainees said to be as young as 16 years old. Salima Ziani, a young female singer, was among those arrested, though she was later pardoned by the king. She has implied in interviews that she sees her arrest as being against the section in the Moroccan constitution that purports to guarantee free speech. She has also said that the movement is not dead and that people will continue to fight for what they believe, though she personally will be taking a backseat for a while to heal emotionally and mentally. Many people arrested in relation to the protests in Al Hoceima still remain in jail. Some still await trials and sentencing. A journalist, Hamid Mahdaoui, is also among those imprisoned while Zefzazi’s trial is underway. Several planned projects in the Rif region were severely delayed, and many were never started. In October, the king sacked several ministers and high officials because of inefficient management of development projects. Ultimately, however, pressing social needs and demands are still not being met. There are still people with no access to hospitals, schools, work, and similar. A strong police and security presence is still maintained in the area, with any signs of trouble quickly stopped. Without such strict measures in place it is likely that the situation in Al Hoceima would be quite different from the peaceful façade that is currently presented.	<urn:uuid:f4974ff7-4581-4444-80d1-4ca553f80d6c>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://theculturetrip.com/africa/morocco/articles/are-berbers-facing-neglect-in-todays-morocco/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251802249.87/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129194333-20200129223333-00189.warc.gz	en	0.982627	1,141	3.34375	3	[ -0.12930023670196533, 0.634070873260498, 0.10856728255748749, 0.28964662551879883, 0.10466249287128448, 0.4092186689376831, -0.06861613690853119, -0.20536518096923828, -0.002606794936582446, -0.25976449251174927, 0.4555392563343048, -0.049413517117500305, 0.46905457973480225, -0.0993535295...	2	Morocco’s Berbers were previously nomadic peoples who roamed the Maghreb and have now made the mountains and desert fringes of Morocco their home. The terrain is often difficult to farm and Berber villages are often in remote destinations, sometimes with no water supply or electricity. Remote mountain communities in Morocco often lack the most basic infrastructure that is needed to progress in today’s modern world. While there are some charities that seek to make a difference, some Berber groups find themselves far removed from essential services like healthcare and education. After Morocco’s independence in 1956, the Amazigh culture was sorely overlooked, with the Arab ruling class promoting the Arab way of life. In the 1970s, for example, the Moroccan government attempted to make the entire population fit with the Arab norm. Recent years have seen huge developments in terms of equal recognition, including the addition of traditional Amazigh names to approved lists of names that can be registered after a child’s birth, official status for the language, and greater attempts to preserve and showcase Berber heritage and culture. King Mohammed VI was the first Moroccan king to openly acknowledge that Amazigh culture is as much a part of the national identity as Arab culture. Amazigh activists say that the political wins and developments of the present time would not have been conceivable just a few years ago. That’s not to say that the nation is now in a perfect state of harmony; there are still tensions and grievances from some Berber groups who feel as though there is much work still needed for all Moroccans to be treated equitably. While many Moroccan people, Arab and Berber, live amicably alongside each other, there are still social and economical hurdles to jump and bridges to build. Many activists want to see more done to protect and promote the Amazigh culture and, perhaps more importantly, for there to be greater government spending in rural mountain communities and for all Moroccans, regardless of heritage, to have equal access to public services. While tensions seem to have subsided at present, the northern coastal town of Al Hoceima was, for some time, a hotbed of politically motivated activity and angry protests. Amazigh groups around the Rif Mountains are often thought to be more outspoken and rebellious than their southern counterparts, and a series of tragic events, disappointments, and frustrations eventually bubbled over. Trouble spread to other parts of the country, with many Moroccans, both Berber and Arab, taking to the streets in a visual show of solidarity with their brothers and sisters in Al Hoceima. Problems in Al Hoceima and nearby areas led to the emergence of al-Hirak al-Shaabi, also known as the Popular Movement, Hirak Rif, and the Riffian Movement. Campaigners want to see more investment in the Rif region’s cities, towns, and villages, along with the creation of more jobs for locals to earn a fair living. They also want to ensure respect and fair treatment for Berber people and their culture. The group is also very vocal about corruption, and putting an end to corrupt practices. Other aims include securing the release of activists and other people detained for political purposes. The official response to demonstrations was swift and severe. Nasser Zefzafi is one of the most famous people involved in the movement. Jailed in May 2017, he was a key player in the Rif region’s uprisings. Charges against him included undermining state security and disrespecting the Moroccan monarchy. He is also accused of having received foreign funding to cause unrest in Morocco. The matter widely divides Moroccan opinions. Some people see his detention as unfair, though there are also those that believe he should never be released. Furthermore, some people strongly support the death penalty for Zefzazi. His trial began in October and many people wait tensely for the outcome. Approximately 100 more people were also arrested around the Rif region. Some reports do, however, suggest that the number of arrests was higher. The situation was especially delicate as it is believed that youths were also imprisoned for participating in allegedly peaceful protests, with detainees said to be as young as 16 years old. Salima Ziani, a young female singer, was among those arrested, though she was later pardoned by the king. She has implied in interviews that she sees her arrest as being against the section in the Moroccan constitution that purports to guarantee free speech. She has also said that the movement is not dead and that people will continue to fight for what they believe, though she personally will be taking a backseat for a while to heal emotionally and mentally. Many people arrested in relation to the protests in Al Hoceima still remain in jail. Some still await trials and sentencing. A journalist, Hamid Mahdaoui, is also among those imprisoned while Zefzazi’s trial is underway. Several planned projects in the Rif region were severely delayed, and many were never started. In October, the king sacked several ministers and high officials because of inefficient management of development projects. Ultimately, however, pressing social needs and demands are still not being met. There are still people with no access to hospitals, schools, work, and similar. A strong police and security presence is still maintained in the area, with any signs of trouble quickly stopped. Without such strict measures in place it is likely that the situation in Al Hoceima would be quite different from the peaceful façade that is currently presented.	1,120	ENGLISH	1
Government What societal reforms did the novel, The Jungle, purpose? What governmental reforms did the novel call for? Do you think The Jungle was effective in bringing about societal and governmental reform? The Jungle September 15, At the turn of the 20th century, many people from Europe were immigrating to America in search of a better life and to make something of themselves, to live the American dream, much like Jurgis, a character in The Jungle, by Upton Sinclair. Many struggled with the hardships of being an immigrant with unfair practices of money hungry Americans, the adjustment to a new way of life, along with staying true to their values, as described in The Jungle. Life was hard for immigrants to adjust and deal with the stereotypes attached to them along with the corruption. In the early s, America had a lot of corruption brewing, especially in that of big businesses such as the railroad and oil companies. This was also the case in the meat packing industry. Jurgis was able to have a job sweeping the slaughtered cattle, an unglamorous job, but he was able to earn money and like many immigrants, would take any job available Sinclair, Although the job didn't pay well, Jurgis was happy to be working. Many of the jobs at this time were paying its employees very little money for the work given, but due to no laws protecting them, nothing was done about it. It was here that Jurgis first noticed the unsanitary conditions of the meatpacking industry; he witnessed many animal remains go unchecked by a meat inspector Sinclair, This is an example of how unsanitary this job was and the lack of care the government had for its people. Many of the meats packed into cans were unfit for people to eat and disease ridden, and no one did anything about it. There was also corruption among the real estate industry. Jurgis' family found an ad for a house that would be perfect for the family. After signing the contract, they realized all their hidden fees and extra payments they would have to give to the realtor. The house was not their perfect dream house they were anticipating, it was smaller then expected with the basement and attic unfinished Sinclair, Many immigrants at this time would flock to the major cities and would be crammed into small living areas. Jurgis and his family had to pack themselves into this house, and barely having any leisure room. In some buildings, people would cram themselves in back-to-back buildings with three rooms for each family Armitage, Within these packed buildings, disease would carry easily Armitage,and the cost of living was very overpriced. Even the justice system had sleazy practices. When Jurgis found out about Ona's and her relations with the boss, he became angered and took his feelings out on the boss, which landed him in jail. During his arrest, he was treated less like a human and more like a rag doll. He would be kicked if he didn't walk fast enough, or cursed for looking the wrong way Sinclair, He is again treated unfairly when he is arrested the second time for assaulting a bartender who scammed him out of his money Sinclair. Even his trial was unfair, and no matter what Jurgis could have said, he would still be put in jail.The Jungle study guide contains a biography of Upton Sinclair, literature essays, a complete e-text, quiz questions, major themes, characters, and a full summary and analysis. The Jungle Essay The Jungle, by Upton Sinclair, clearly depicts the socio-economic strife and political turpitude that ushered America into the 20th century. The Jungle Book Homework Help Questions What is the theme of The Jungle Book by Rudyard Kipling (Mowgli's story) One theme is the importance of the preservation of the species. Free Upton Sinclair The Jungle papers, essays, and research papers. - The Jungle It’s a Jungle Out There Upton Sinclair’s novel The Jungle () gives an in depth look at the lives of the immigrant workers here in America. In fact the look was so in depth that the Pure Food and Drug Act was created as a result. [In the following essay, Dawson examines Winston Churchill's review of The Jungle to discover the impression, sometimes extreme, Churchill gave of Chicago to his fellow Englishmen. The celebrity of Upton Sinclair's The Jungle preceded its appearance in book form.	<urn:uuid:d724a52f-5ffd-45a3-8f4c-41618250c0bf>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://zeliresujyxefyd.heartoftexashop.com/the-jungle-essay-papers-38811uv.html	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251783342.96/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128215526-20200129005526-00556.warc.gz	en	0.986984	909	3.265625	3	[ 0.03346550092101097, 0.37104490399360657, 0.5609372854232788, -0.22509393095970154, 0.2634415030479431, 0.1951758861541748, 0.10125527530908585, 0.04343660920858383, -0.43326932191848755, 0.5621789693832397, 0.44847485423088074, 0.25788548588752747, -0.21547344326972961, 0.26153564453125, ...	1	Government What societal reforms did the novel, The Jungle, purpose? What governmental reforms did the novel call for? Do you think The Jungle was effective in bringing about societal and governmental reform? The Jungle September 15, At the turn of the 20th century, many people from Europe were immigrating to America in search of a better life and to make something of themselves, to live the American dream, much like Jurgis, a character in The Jungle, by Upton Sinclair. Many struggled with the hardships of being an immigrant with unfair practices of money hungry Americans, the adjustment to a new way of life, along with staying true to their values, as described in The Jungle. Life was hard for immigrants to adjust and deal with the stereotypes attached to them along with the corruption. In the early s, America had a lot of corruption brewing, especially in that of big businesses such as the railroad and oil companies. This was also the case in the meat packing industry. Jurgis was able to have a job sweeping the slaughtered cattle, an unglamorous job, but he was able to earn money and like many immigrants, would take any job available Sinclair, Although the job didn't pay well, Jurgis was happy to be working. Many of the jobs at this time were paying its employees very little money for the work given, but due to no laws protecting them, nothing was done about it. It was here that Jurgis first noticed the unsanitary conditions of the meatpacking industry; he witnessed many animal remains go unchecked by a meat inspector Sinclair, This is an example of how unsanitary this job was and the lack of care the government had for its people. Many of the meats packed into cans were unfit for people to eat and disease ridden, and no one did anything about it. There was also corruption among the real estate industry. Jurgis' family found an ad for a house that would be perfect for the family. After signing the contract, they realized all their hidden fees and extra payments they would have to give to the realtor. The house was not their perfect dream house they were anticipating, it was smaller then expected with the basement and attic unfinished Sinclair, Many immigrants at this time would flock to the major cities and would be crammed into small living areas. Jurgis and his family had to pack themselves into this house, and barely having any leisure room. In some buildings, people would cram themselves in back-to-back buildings with three rooms for each family Armitage, Within these packed buildings, disease would carry easily Armitage,and the cost of living was very overpriced. Even the justice system had sleazy practices. When Jurgis found out about Ona's and her relations with the boss, he became angered and took his feelings out on the boss, which landed him in jail. During his arrest, he was treated less like a human and more like a rag doll. He would be kicked if he didn't walk fast enough, or cursed for looking the wrong way Sinclair, He is again treated unfairly when he is arrested the second time for assaulting a bartender who scammed him out of his money Sinclair. Even his trial was unfair, and no matter what Jurgis could have said, he would still be put in jail.The Jungle study guide contains a biography of Upton Sinclair, literature essays, a complete e-text, quiz questions, major themes, characters, and a full summary and analysis. The Jungle Essay The Jungle, by Upton Sinclair, clearly depicts the socio-economic strife and political turpitude that ushered America into the 20th century. The Jungle Book Homework Help Questions What is the theme of The Jungle Book by Rudyard Kipling (Mowgli's story) One theme is the importance of the preservation of the species. Free Upton Sinclair The Jungle papers, essays, and research papers. - The Jungle It’s a Jungle Out There Upton Sinclair’s novel The Jungle () gives an in depth look at the lives of the immigrant workers here in America. In fact the look was so in depth that the Pure Food and Drug Act was created as a result. [In the following essay, Dawson examines Winston Churchill's review of The Jungle to discover the impression, sometimes extreme, Churchill gave of Chicago to his fellow Englishmen. The celebrity of Upton Sinclair's The Jungle preceded its appearance in book form.	894	ENGLISH	1
The Middle Ages was a time period in Europe that extended from 500 to 1400 A.D. This time period started because of the decline of the Roman Empire. During this time period there were many devastatingly horrible things that happened however there were also many cultural, technological, religious, and architectural advancements that took place. There are many labels that can describe this era, but the two that stand out the most are the labels: Age of Faith, and Age of Feudalism. Now these two labels will be further examined and explained throughout the duration of this essay. During the Middle Ages there was a lot of chaos, death, and destruction which gives enough evidence for the Middle Ages to also be called the Dark Age. Many invasions occurred in Western Europe by a series of Germanic tribes. These Germanic Tribes disrupted trade by destroying cities that stood as economic centers. As a result the cities were abandoned and left as centers of administration, and the people left the cities for rural areas. The downfall of these cities was a result from the invasion of these barbaric tribes. These towns were demolished and terrorized. The societies no longer had any form of government, and there was only violence and anarchy. The citizens were forced to hide, and take refuge in other places. (Document 1) When these cities were invaded they slaughtered the inhabitants there, and would even steal their belongings or in some cases even there loved ones. Then they would return to their own country after laying waste to these cities and burning them to the ground. (Document 3) The Goths and Vandals are only two of the early invaders that flooded Europe. These Germanic tribes migrated into Italy, Gaul, Spain, and North Africa as well as many other countries as well. Since these tribes had a strong military, and warriors who were fierce and loyal to their leaders, this made it even easier for them to destroy these multiple cities. With all this death and destruction during the time of these terrible invasions, it can be understood why the Middle Ages would also be called the Dark Ages. The Middle Ages could also be known as the Age of Faith because of the important role the Catholic Church had during this time period. During this time religion became an essential part of life. The people not only relied on the church for spiritual or religious knowledge but for also political guidance. The Catholic Church was the one true unifying force that united all of the kingdoms and monarchs. Over time though the church gained more power and was viewed differently than a church ever was in any other time period. In this time period the monarchs would occasionally even ask the pope in the church for guidance on how to rule their kingdoms. The church had so much power over the people there that in order for them to convert they would give up their worldly possessions and devote their lives to God. (Document 8) They promised to give up their parents, brothers and relatives, friends, and possessions. The church as I said before was not only a place of for religion, but also a great influence on political and economical life within the society. These churches and their faith tried to restrain people from commiting murder, arson, robbery, or assault for certain days throughout the year on every Sunday, Friday, and Saturday. They were trying to positively impact their society using the influence that they held during that time. (Document 5) The church was trying to accomplish peace throughout the land whether it was through declaring laws for others to follow, or giving advice to monarchs on how to run their kingdoms peacefully and without problem. In conclusion the labels the Dark Age and the Age of Faith that best fit the description for the Middle Ages. There is more than enough evidence that we have found throughout our history that suggest that these two labels work. The Middle Ages was a dark time that lead to a lot of death, chaos, and destruction. There were not many cultural advancements during this time period, however one aspect that had advanced a lot was religion and faith. There was a mixture of both good and bad during the span of this era and I have enclosed information on these mixtures in the essay above.	<urn:uuid:fa0190c9-6784-404d-a582-dc18208cc4b6>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://irvinebusinessdirectory.net/the-middle-ages-was-a-time-period-in-europe-that-extended-from-500-to-1400-a/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594662.6/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119151736-20200119175736-00145.warc.gz	en	0.988994	835	3.765625	4	[ -0.21453076601028442, 0.3008195757865906, -0.027906225994229317, -0.023047663271427155, 0.039868615567684174, 0.134192556142807, -0.46991419792175293, 0.25629276037216187, -0.01371429767459631, 0.0006092688417993486, 0.10369209945201874, 0.0929817408323288, 0.05129675567150116, 0.175670519...	1	The Middle Ages was a time period in Europe that extended from 500 to 1400 A.D. This time period started because of the decline of the Roman Empire. During this time period there were many devastatingly horrible things that happened however there were also many cultural, technological, religious, and architectural advancements that took place. There are many labels that can describe this era, but the two that stand out the most are the labels: Age of Faith, and Age of Feudalism. Now these two labels will be further examined and explained throughout the duration of this essay. During the Middle Ages there was a lot of chaos, death, and destruction which gives enough evidence for the Middle Ages to also be called the Dark Age. Many invasions occurred in Western Europe by a series of Germanic tribes. These Germanic Tribes disrupted trade by destroying cities that stood as economic centers. As a result the cities were abandoned and left as centers of administration, and the people left the cities for rural areas. The downfall of these cities was a result from the invasion of these barbaric tribes. These towns were demolished and terrorized. The societies no longer had any form of government, and there was only violence and anarchy. The citizens were forced to hide, and take refuge in other places. (Document 1) When these cities were invaded they slaughtered the inhabitants there, and would even steal their belongings or in some cases even there loved ones. Then they would return to their own country after laying waste to these cities and burning them to the ground. (Document 3) The Goths and Vandals are only two of the early invaders that flooded Europe. These Germanic tribes migrated into Italy, Gaul, Spain, and North Africa as well as many other countries as well. Since these tribes had a strong military, and warriors who were fierce and loyal to their leaders, this made it even easier for them to destroy these multiple cities. With all this death and destruction during the time of these terrible invasions, it can be understood why the Middle Ages would also be called the Dark Ages. The Middle Ages could also be known as the Age of Faith because of the important role the Catholic Church had during this time period. During this time religion became an essential part of life. The people not only relied on the church for spiritual or religious knowledge but for also political guidance. The Catholic Church was the one true unifying force that united all of the kingdoms and monarchs. Over time though the church gained more power and was viewed differently than a church ever was in any other time period. In this time period the monarchs would occasionally even ask the pope in the church for guidance on how to rule their kingdoms. The church had so much power over the people there that in order for them to convert they would give up their worldly possessions and devote their lives to God. (Document 8) They promised to give up their parents, brothers and relatives, friends, and possessions. The church as I said before was not only a place of for religion, but also a great influence on political and economical life within the society. These churches and their faith tried to restrain people from commiting murder, arson, robbery, or assault for certain days throughout the year on every Sunday, Friday, and Saturday. They were trying to positively impact their society using the influence that they held during that time. (Document 5) The church was trying to accomplish peace throughout the land whether it was through declaring laws for others to follow, or giving advice to monarchs on how to run their kingdoms peacefully and without problem. In conclusion the labels the Dark Age and the Age of Faith that best fit the description for the Middle Ages. There is more than enough evidence that we have found throughout our history that suggest that these two labels work. The Middle Ages was a dark time that lead to a lot of death, chaos, and destruction. There were not many cultural advancements during this time period, however one aspect that had advanced a lot was religion and faith. There was a mixture of both good and bad during the span of this era and I have enclosed information on these mixtures in the essay above.	844	ENGLISH	1
The Iranian Revolution \| Sarah Stook Second in Sarah Stook’s series on Iran. In 1979, three things occurred in Central Asian and The Middle East that changed the region, opening it up to fundamentalism, authoritarianism and fervent anti-Western thought. One was the invasion of Afghanistan by the USSR, in hopes of protecting the communist government. During their time there, we saw the rise of what would later become the Taliban. Another was the terrorist occupation of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Saudi Arabia. After several weeks of occupation that left many people dead, the Saudi Arabian government moved to make the country more conservative. Sharia law was enforced more harshly, the religious police were given more power and fundamentalist clerics had more say. The third was the Iranian Revolution. Though it officially started in 1978 (though some say 1977), it concluded in 1979 when the Shah and his family fled, the monarchy was abolished by a referendum and the Ayatollah came to power. Its occurrence has had huge repercussions for Iran, the Middle East and the entire world. As this is written, Iran is making the headlines again due to a state of active conflict between it and the United States. So let’s explore the Iranian Revolution. Originally called Persia until 1935, Iran has been a hub of civilisation and culture since pre-historic times. The first national Iranian Parliament was established in 1905, with Iran suffering heavily later because of WW1 and a huge famine. Though officially neutral during WW2, things changed after Germany invaded Russia, with the USSR and Britain later invading Iran. In 1941, the Shah gained rule after his father abdicated. The Soviets remained occupiers of Iran until 1946. In 1953, the US and UK joined together to overthrow the democratically elected Prime Minister, mainly due to his decision to nationalise the oil industry and throw foreign executives out of the country. This led to the Shah consolidating his power as an absolute monarchy. Protests, Disobedience and Strikes The 1970s revealed the cracks in Iranian society, things that will be explored later. The initial trigger of the immediate protests was the death of the Ayatollah Khomeini’s son, Mostafa Khomeini. His death was widely regarded as suspicious; though Iranian forces said it to be heart attack, and many believe he had been assassinated. As a result, protests broke out across Iranian cities. Many regard an event of early 1979 to be the official start of the revolution, when an anonymous government source criticised the Ayatollah in a popular newspaper. Religious students were enraged and a clash in the city of Qom killed two. The Ayatollah and his followers used this as a catalyst to get things moving. Forty days after the deaths, the official memorial stories were held, due to Shiite tradition. Before the forty days arrived, the radicals ensured that mosques and other religious places honoured the students who had died. Upon the arrival of the memorial services, riots broke out. Some cities became a war zone; with Western owned property and government controlled operations were broken into and set ablaze. Though the government managed to reign it in, the damage was done. Forty days after that, there were more protests, and again after another forty days. The Shah had not been aware of his own unpopularity and was therefore shocked by what occurred. Though he loosened censorship, restrictions and asked his police not to use military force, it did not work. Riots quelled and all seemed well until the Cinema Rex fire (to be discussed later). After that, the protests got larger, more violent and a lot more intense. Things came to a head when at the end of Ramadan; protestors went to the streets, demanding for the Ayatollah to return from exile. As a result, martial law was declared in major cities. An event later known as Black Friday- also to be discussed- was the breaking point, essentially ensuring the Shah could not stay. Strikes started to occur, the most crippling being from the oil industry. Aware of his image, the Ayatollah and his followers used Western media to portray the Shah badly and portray the Ayatollah as an apolitical religious man who wanted to liberate the people of Iran. Soon after, an opposition leader flew to Europe and along with the Ayatollah, signed an agreement and draft constitution that created an alliance between the fundamentalists and secular opposition. Riots continued and got worse, with Tehran essentially becoming a complete warzone. The British embassy suffered arson, with the American embassy narrowly avoiding suffering the same fate. Military government was declared, but a speech by the Shah backfired when he showed perceived weakness. The Muharram Protests signalled the beginning of the end, especially since security forces were commanded by the Shah not to be too harsh on protestors. It was after the Muharram Protests that the Shah realised the jig was up. Fall of the Monarch and a New Iran The Shah was incredibly resistant to the idea of leaving, believing he could say. He delayed for as long as possible, but was convinced that Western leaders were set to abandon him after several met at a retreat. Knowing he had no Western back up and that his countrymen did not support him, the Shah realised it was the end for him. He spoke to the Prime Minister Shapour Bakhtiar, an enemy, and an agreement was reached. On 17th January 1979, the Shah and his family left for permanent exile. He died a year later from cancer after bouncing around the globe in search of a home. His two youngest children sadly killed themselves, but his third wife and his remaining children live in the USA. After all images and memories of the Shah and his family were gotten rid of, Bakhtiar went to the Ayatollah to ask for time to prepare democratic elections and for there to be a religious unity government. To his shock, the Ayatollah refused and announced that he would head an Islamic government with himself as leader, and dismissed Bakhtiar as PM (Bakhtiar would later flee to France and after attempting a coup, he was assassinated). On February 11th, after a referendum in which 98% voted in favour of a republic, the monarchy was over and a new regime began. Reasons why it happened - Black Friday- A day after the government declared martial law, unaware protestors gathered in a square in Tehran for a religious demonstration. Officials ordered them to disperse, but the protestors continued to fight back and push back against the military. This action caused security to fire upon the crowd. It is believed that around 88 people were killed and many more were injured, some putting the figure in the thousands. This broke any chance of peace and turned many even further against the Shah. Therefore, 8th September 1978 is henceforth known as ‘Black Friday.’ - Cinema Rex Fire- In the city of Abadan, people gathered inside a cinema to watch ‘The Deer,’ an Iranian film. Though what happened is somewhat muddled, what is known that several men seized upon the place and set it alight using fuel. Those attackers blocked exits and caused chaos, as the entrance doors were where the fires started. At least 420 people died in the incident and no one was able to escape. The government blamed Islamic Marxists, but the fundamentalists stated it was the government. Later on, the Islamic government blamed a police guard and had him executed. Years later, it was discovered that a pro-Khomeini group was responsible, likely to use the government as a scapegoat and to go against ‘Western’ cinema. - Economics- Whilst Iran was prosperous, there was a huge wealth gap. This is best exemplified in 1971 when the Shah held a party celebrating 2,500 years of the Persian Empire in the historical Persepolis. Iranians were banned from the event, which was even more stinging considering many were hungry. Foreigners arrived for three days of alcohol (banned in Islam) and caviar, with the estimated cost at $100 million. The oil boom sent prices skyrocketing and many Iranians resented foreign workers coming in. - Political Deaths- In 1977, two major figures died. The first was an Islamic sociologist with socialist leanings, the popular moderate Ali Shiarati. He was imprisoned several times for going against the government, and was both a friend and rival of the Ayatollah. Shiarati eventually fled to England but died only a week later. A heart attack was reported, but others believed the Shah’s men killed him. Only a few months later, Mostafa Khomeini, the Ayatollah’s eldest son, died in Iraq. He’d also been imprisoned before going into exile with his parents, later working underground in Iraq. Government said he’d died of a heart attack, but many believe they also killed him. - Reform- The Shah’s so called ‘White Revolution’ was part of his reforms in hopes of a more liberal society. His main opponents were land lords due to his land reforms, and the conservative clergy. One main aim was the promotion of women, who were banned from marrying young, were able to gain political roles and were given suffrage- much to the anger of the clergy. They were also banned from wearing hijab, something that caused great pain- the most pious of women either stayed at home or committed suicide. Eventually, the Shah revoked the ban but hijab was still encouraged and impeded success in the workplace. - Corruption- Many believed the Shah and his government to be incredibly corrupt. He used inheritance money to create a tax-exempt foundation. Rising oil prices put money in the pockets of friends and family. Millions were raised from the confiscation of estates, some family members were in the illegal drug trade and prostitution was rumoured. The Shah’s organisation was also a tax haven, something that angered poorer Iranians. It is said that the Shah and his family were the biggest source of corruption in the country. - Oppression- Though the Shah was more moderate than his father and seen as less oppressive than the current regime, he was still not a figure who gave freedom. His main muscle was the SAVAK, the secret police of Iran. The SAVAK hunted down opposition figures, killing them without mercy and torturing brutally beforehand. Many who opposed the Shah were imprisoned, from the deeply religious to secular Marxists. Censorship was also a key theme, with the news media unable to state the truth in papers. Several mentioned in this article were imprisoned and seen as enemies of the state. - Secularism- The Shah was Muslim, but was seen as anti-religious by many, not least because of his behaviour. An early example is the crackdown on the hijab, which caused huge offense to the clergy and conservative families, which saw it was a religious necessity. Alcohol was served at the Shah’s parties and he was rumoured to receive prostitutes. Popular religious leaders, such as the Ayatollah, were either imprisoned or expelled from the country. The Shah was also pro-Western, which religious folk found offensive. An even bigger sin on the Shah’s side was his support for Israel, the Jewish nation hated by most of its neighbours. Support for Palestine is and was popular in Iran, and religious fundamentalists like the Ayatollah are enraged by the idea of Zionism. What followed the Iranian Revolution is something no one predicted, not even its proponents. Secular supporters of the Ayatollah watched as he created an Islamic republic based on Sharia law. Women who had cheered the Ayatollah supporting hijab were horrified when they were soon forced to wear it, when it was promised as a suggestion. Conservative Muslims were thrilled at the return of the values they believed in. Across Iran, you’d find no people with the same opinion. Much like Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan, this created a fundamentalist revival- though a Shia revival, not Sunni like in the aforementioned countries. Iran has few allies now, hated by the West and despised by its Sunni monarchist neighbours. There’s a lot to unpack after 41 years of Islamic fundamentalist rule. With the tensions between the USA and Iran at a boiling point, with neighbouring Iraq being dragged in the middle, we can no doubt trace this conflict back to the memorial of two religious students killed by Iranian security forces. It is my hope that this has enlightened and informed you of the Iranian Revolution and its history. With what is happening at the moment, I believe a clear image of Iran is necessary so that we can all understand what is going on and know the truth so that we may form our own opinions.	<urn:uuid:c318d1fe-4020-436c-9932-8e2c5d66a7a8>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://mallarduk.com/the-iranian-revolution-sarah-stook/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250598800.30/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120135447-20200120164447-00187.warc.gz	en	0.988097	2,606	3.34375	3	[ 0.2569807767868042, 0.6364805102348328, 0.09612736850976944, -0.09954304993152618, -0.11084598302841187, 0.3925190567970276, -0.19617444276809692, 0.18485127389431, -0.17636755108833313, 0.4504183828830719, 0.07009752839803696, 0.511978030204773, 0.09242060780525208, 0.27566254138946533, ...	8	The Iranian Revolution \| Sarah Stook Second in Sarah Stook’s series on Iran. In 1979, three things occurred in Central Asian and The Middle East that changed the region, opening it up to fundamentalism, authoritarianism and fervent anti-Western thought. One was the invasion of Afghanistan by the USSR, in hopes of protecting the communist government. During their time there, we saw the rise of what would later become the Taliban. Another was the terrorist occupation of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, Saudi Arabia. After several weeks of occupation that left many people dead, the Saudi Arabian government moved to make the country more conservative. Sharia law was enforced more harshly, the religious police were given more power and fundamentalist clerics had more say. The third was the Iranian Revolution. Though it officially started in 1978 (though some say 1977), it concluded in 1979 when the Shah and his family fled, the monarchy was abolished by a referendum and the Ayatollah came to power. Its occurrence has had huge repercussions for Iran, the Middle East and the entire world. As this is written, Iran is making the headlines again due to a state of active conflict between it and the United States. So let’s explore the Iranian Revolution. Originally called Persia until 1935, Iran has been a hub of civilisation and culture since pre-historic times. The first national Iranian Parliament was established in 1905, with Iran suffering heavily later because of WW1 and a huge famine. Though officially neutral during WW2, things changed after Germany invaded Russia, with the USSR and Britain later invading Iran. In 1941, the Shah gained rule after his father abdicated. The Soviets remained occupiers of Iran until 1946. In 1953, the US and UK joined together to overthrow the democratically elected Prime Minister, mainly due to his decision to nationalise the oil industry and throw foreign executives out of the country. This led to the Shah consolidating his power as an absolute monarchy. Protests, Disobedience and Strikes The 1970s revealed the cracks in Iranian society, things that will be explored later. The initial trigger of the immediate protests was the death of the Ayatollah Khomeini’s son, Mostafa Khomeini. His death was widely regarded as suspicious; though Iranian forces said it to be heart attack, and many believe he had been assassinated. As a result, protests broke out across Iranian cities. Many regard an event of early 1979 to be the official start of the revolution, when an anonymous government source criticised the Ayatollah in a popular newspaper. Religious students were enraged and a clash in the city of Qom killed two. The Ayatollah and his followers used this as a catalyst to get things moving. Forty days after the deaths, the official memorial stories were held, due to Shiite tradition. Before the forty days arrived, the radicals ensured that mosques and other religious places honoured the students who had died. Upon the arrival of the memorial services, riots broke out. Some cities became a war zone; with Western owned property and government controlled operations were broken into and set ablaze. Though the government managed to reign it in, the damage was done. Forty days after that, there were more protests, and again after another forty days. The Shah had not been aware of his own unpopularity and was therefore shocked by what occurred. Though he loosened censorship, restrictions and asked his police not to use military force, it did not work. Riots quelled and all seemed well until the Cinema Rex fire (to be discussed later). After that, the protests got larger, more violent and a lot more intense. Things came to a head when at the end of Ramadan; protestors went to the streets, demanding for the Ayatollah to return from exile. As a result, martial law was declared in major cities. An event later known as Black Friday- also to be discussed- was the breaking point, essentially ensuring the Shah could not stay. Strikes started to occur, the most crippling being from the oil industry. Aware of his image, the Ayatollah and his followers used Western media to portray the Shah badly and portray the Ayatollah as an apolitical religious man who wanted to liberate the people of Iran. Soon after, an opposition leader flew to Europe and along with the Ayatollah, signed an agreement and draft constitution that created an alliance between the fundamentalists and secular opposition. Riots continued and got worse, with Tehran essentially becoming a complete warzone. The British embassy suffered arson, with the American embassy narrowly avoiding suffering the same fate. Military government was declared, but a speech by the Shah backfired when he showed perceived weakness. The Muharram Protests signalled the beginning of the end, especially since security forces were commanded by the Shah not to be too harsh on protestors. It was after the Muharram Protests that the Shah realised the jig was up. Fall of the Monarch and a New Iran The Shah was incredibly resistant to the idea of leaving, believing he could say. He delayed for as long as possible, but was convinced that Western leaders were set to abandon him after several met at a retreat. Knowing he had no Western back up and that his countrymen did not support him, the Shah realised it was the end for him. He spoke to the Prime Minister Shapour Bakhtiar, an enemy, and an agreement was reached. On 17th January 1979, the Shah and his family left for permanent exile. He died a year later from cancer after bouncing around the globe in search of a home. His two youngest children sadly killed themselves, but his third wife and his remaining children live in the USA. After all images and memories of the Shah and his family were gotten rid of, Bakhtiar went to the Ayatollah to ask for time to prepare democratic elections and for there to be a religious unity government. To his shock, the Ayatollah refused and announced that he would head an Islamic government with himself as leader, and dismissed Bakhtiar as PM (Bakhtiar would later flee to France and after attempting a coup, he was assassinated). On February 11th, after a referendum in which 98% voted in favour of a republic, the monarchy was over and a new regime began. Reasons why it happened - Black Friday- A day after the government declared martial law, unaware protestors gathered in a square in Tehran for a religious demonstration. Officials ordered them to disperse, but the protestors continued to fight back and push back against the military. This action caused security to fire upon the crowd. It is believed that around 88 people were killed and many more were injured, some putting the figure in the thousands. This broke any chance of peace and turned many even further against the Shah. Therefore, 8th September 1978 is henceforth known as ‘Black Friday.’ - Cinema Rex Fire- In the city of Abadan, people gathered inside a cinema to watch ‘The Deer,’ an Iranian film. Though what happened is somewhat muddled, what is known that several men seized upon the place and set it alight using fuel. Those attackers blocked exits and caused chaos, as the entrance doors were where the fires started. At least 420 people died in the incident and no one was able to escape. The government blamed Islamic Marxists, but the fundamentalists stated it was the government. Later on, the Islamic government blamed a police guard and had him executed. Years later, it was discovered that a pro-Khomeini group was responsible, likely to use the government as a scapegoat and to go against ‘Western’ cinema. - Economics- Whilst Iran was prosperous, there was a huge wealth gap. This is best exemplified in 1971 when the Shah held a party celebrating 2,500 years of the Persian Empire in the historical Persepolis. Iranians were banned from the event, which was even more stinging considering many were hungry. Foreigners arrived for three days of alcohol (banned in Islam) and caviar, with the estimated cost at $100 million. The oil boom sent prices skyrocketing and many Iranians resented foreign workers coming in. - Political Deaths- In 1977, two major figures died. The first was an Islamic sociologist with socialist leanings, the popular moderate Ali Shiarati. He was imprisoned several times for going against the government, and was both a friend and rival of the Ayatollah. Shiarati eventually fled to England but died only a week later. A heart attack was reported, but others believed the Shah’s men killed him. Only a few months later, Mostafa Khomeini, the Ayatollah’s eldest son, died in Iraq. He’d also been imprisoned before going into exile with his parents, later working underground in Iraq. Government said he’d died of a heart attack, but many believe they also killed him. - Reform- The Shah’s so called ‘White Revolution’ was part of his reforms in hopes of a more liberal society. His main opponents were land lords due to his land reforms, and the conservative clergy. One main aim was the promotion of women, who were banned from marrying young, were able to gain political roles and were given suffrage- much to the anger of the clergy. They were also banned from wearing hijab, something that caused great pain- the most pious of women either stayed at home or committed suicide. Eventually, the Shah revoked the ban but hijab was still encouraged and impeded success in the workplace. - Corruption- Many believed the Shah and his government to be incredibly corrupt. He used inheritance money to create a tax-exempt foundation. Rising oil prices put money in the pockets of friends and family. Millions were raised from the confiscation of estates, some family members were in the illegal drug trade and prostitution was rumoured. The Shah’s organisation was also a tax haven, something that angered poorer Iranians. It is said that the Shah and his family were the biggest source of corruption in the country. - Oppression- Though the Shah was more moderate than his father and seen as less oppressive than the current regime, he was still not a figure who gave freedom. His main muscle was the SAVAK, the secret police of Iran. The SAVAK hunted down opposition figures, killing them without mercy and torturing brutally beforehand. Many who opposed the Shah were imprisoned, from the deeply religious to secular Marxists. Censorship was also a key theme, with the news media unable to state the truth in papers. Several mentioned in this article were imprisoned and seen as enemies of the state. - Secularism- The Shah was Muslim, but was seen as anti-religious by many, not least because of his behaviour. An early example is the crackdown on the hijab, which caused huge offense to the clergy and conservative families, which saw it was a religious necessity. Alcohol was served at the Shah’s parties and he was rumoured to receive prostitutes. Popular religious leaders, such as the Ayatollah, were either imprisoned or expelled from the country. The Shah was also pro-Western, which religious folk found offensive. An even bigger sin on the Shah’s side was his support for Israel, the Jewish nation hated by most of its neighbours. Support for Palestine is and was popular in Iran, and religious fundamentalists like the Ayatollah are enraged by the idea of Zionism. What followed the Iranian Revolution is something no one predicted, not even its proponents. Secular supporters of the Ayatollah watched as he created an Islamic republic based on Sharia law. Women who had cheered the Ayatollah supporting hijab were horrified when they were soon forced to wear it, when it was promised as a suggestion. Conservative Muslims were thrilled at the return of the values they believed in. Across Iran, you’d find no people with the same opinion. Much like Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan, this created a fundamentalist revival- though a Shia revival, not Sunni like in the aforementioned countries. Iran has few allies now, hated by the West and despised by its Sunni monarchist neighbours. There’s a lot to unpack after 41 years of Islamic fundamentalist rule. With the tensions between the USA and Iran at a boiling point, with neighbouring Iraq being dragged in the middle, we can no doubt trace this conflict back to the memorial of two religious students killed by Iranian security forces. It is my hope that this has enlightened and informed you of the Iranian Revolution and its history. With what is happening at the moment, I believe a clear image of Iran is necessary so that we can all understand what is going on and know the truth so that we may form our own opinions.	2,649	ENGLISH	1
The ‘fire fiend’ was the dread of every town in 19th-century Ontario. With so many wood frame buildings, every town had to be vigilant to prevent its outbreak. A fire brigade was one of the first and most essential service that a town established to ensure the safety of its citizens and to prevent the destruction of property. In March 1853, the town council considered “it absolutely necessary that one efficient engine, with all the appropriate belongings hereto should be possessed by the town.” As a result, the Goderich ire brigade was founded on July 12, 1853 when the council minutes recorded that the town purchased the steam engine and fire fighting equipment of the privately-owned fire company that had previously performed firefighting duties. In addition to acquiring the company’s property, five pounds sterling worth of guttapercha hose was purchased for the town’s new fire service. By 1864, it was called Union Fire Company No. 1 and was composed of volunteers under a captain. In 1866, Elijah Moore was hired for $12 as an engineer to operate the horse-drawn steam engine. But the town’s fire service was a ramshackle affair – it was ill-equipped, under trained and poorly trained. Indeed, it took the exertions of the HMS Cherub’s crew to contain a disastrous fire on West street in September 1868. By January 1873, the town lacked a fire fighting service as the Huron Signal reported that “steps are being taken to organize a new Fire Company in this town.” A series of major fires in 1873, set by an arsonist, forced the council into decisive action. In December, council purchased a Silsby Steam engine (on display in the Huron County Museum) and paid fire fighters 25 cents for every hour that they were fighting fires. In December 1873, Captain Thomas Dancey was engaged as fire warden (or fire chief). At age 42, Captain Dancey was known as one of the most “fearless captains on the Great Lakes.” During his nine-year tenure as fire warden, he is credited with bringing order, discipline and efficiency to the Goderich fire brigade. For his exemplary service, the Mayor and brigade presented Dancey with a silver fruit basket and butter cooler at a ceremony held in April 1881 at the firehall located in the town hall on East street. The Signal said that the brigade had the full confidence of the town. When he retired in 1883, he was rightly considered to be the town’s first fire chief. After Dancey’s resignation, the service went into a period of decline. An 1883 fire at Henning’s Mill found the fire fighters “at sixes and sevens” according to the Signal “the leading spirit was absent: as “no one appeared to be directing the efforts of the firemen.” At another major fire on the Square in February 1886, the steam engine broke down, and a lack of hose nearly destroyed the entire block before a bucket brigade contained the blaze. In response, council purchased more hose, ordered the alarm bell at the town hall on East Street where the fire department was housed rung for a longer period. Council’s most important decision was the appointment of William Byers as fire captain. Byers restored order and efficiency to the brigade so that by 1889 the Goderich Illustrated Signal-Star claimed that the town possessed “a well-organized and efficient fire company of ten paid men and a fireman.” Byers was promoted Fire Warden that year, the town’s highest fire official. Also, in 1889, a newly installed waterworks system which included fire hydrants around town was a huge leap forward in fire fighting. No longer would the fire brigade have to carry its own water supply in horse drawn wagons to a fire. In the 1890’s, the Goderich fire brigade’s effectiveness was demonstrated in two near disastrous conflagrations. A fire in 1895 which burnt the Albion Hotel (where the Bedford is now) was suppressed leaving only that building destroyed. In 1897, a devastating fire at the GTR Grain Elevators, was contained only through the heroic actions of the town’s fire brigade and ships in the harbour which pumped water onto the burning structure. Had the flames spread beyond the grain elevators, the entire waterfront would have been lost. E. C. Belcher was appointed Byers successor in 1896. Under Belcher’s command, the fire service deteriorated due to gross negligence. Belcher had performed well as a fire captain under Byers. He had been in nominal command at the grain elevator fire in 1897 but it was a Byers’ trained force that he led. Belcher proved a poor fire warden who was often in dereliction of duty. In 1909, a damning Fire Underwriters inspector report found at least one fire hydrant was out of commission; hoses and equipment were in disrepair and, astoundingly, the ladders had been loaned out for to paint the British Exchange and King Edward Hotels. The inspector found 11 hydrant keys in one wagon, yet, at a recent fire, firemen could not find any to open the hydrants. At a heated council meeting in August 1909, Belcher complained of “mean, nasty criticism.” He argued it was not his duty to check on hydrants (he may have had a point as the Water and Light commission managed the hydrants). Belcher rarely, if ever, held fire practices because he thought fighting fires was practice enough. He also claimed he did not need to know the fire regulations “because council knows all about lots of these things.” The mayor and council could no longer accept Belcher’s negligence and near insubordination. They gratefully accepted his resignation. William Thompson was appointed fire warden in April 1910 and quickly restored the service to efficiency. Thompson, a blacksmith by trade, looked the part of a fire chief. He was described as “a big stalwart man” who won first prize for being “the finest looking chief on parade” at a provincial fire competition in 1915. He diplomatically avoided a mass resignation of the brigade in 1911 over a pay dispute with council. Firemen wanted an increase in salary from $25 to $50 per year. Council refused but Thompson negotiated an annual council grant to be dispersed among fire fighters based on rank and attendance at fires so that members who were more diligent in their duties were paid more. Under Thompson’s command the fire service was modernized. Telephones were installed in fire fighters’ homes in 1917. In 1919, Thompson received complaints that the fire brigade was slow in responding to fires because the town’s horses were at work in remote parts of the town. He proposed investigating the possibility of the town purchasing a motorized fire truck. Thompson’s sudden death in 1920 at age 51 was a tremendous loss to not just the brigade but the entire town. It only took five years for council to act on Thompson’s suggestion. In October 1925, the fire brigade took possession of a six-cylinder REO-Bickle fire truck. It was the first motorized vehicle in the department’s history (and until recently, it was maintained by the Bluewater Shrine Club). The REO-Bickle was a powerful fire fighting weapon with the capability of pumping 300 gallons of water a minute through the engine’s two hoses. The 120 pounds of water pressure was considered too much for the town’s existing hoses so more durable ones were purchased. The brigade still relied on teams of horses to transport fire fighters, water and equipment but the Goderich fire brigade was on its way to becoming the modern fire fighting service that it has become today.	<urn:uuid:5a105d7e-b678-44d2-aac0-1352c3ef4886>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.goderichsignalstar.com/opinion/columnists/the-origins-of-the-goderich-fire-brigade-2	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251694908.82/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127051112-20200127081112-00049.warc.gz	en	0.982833	1,646	3.265625	3	[ -0.22915580868721008, 0.2350887656211853, 0.5455679297447205, -0.2070714682340622, 0.15510079264640808, -0.15497809648513794, 0.06398476660251617, 0.25385722517967224, -0.47514286637306213, -0.19555503129959106, 0.20984546840190887, -0.3157278299331665, -0.5126612782478333, 0.2145124673843...	1	The ‘fire fiend’ was the dread of every town in 19th-century Ontario. With so many wood frame buildings, every town had to be vigilant to prevent its outbreak. A fire brigade was one of the first and most essential service that a town established to ensure the safety of its citizens and to prevent the destruction of property. In March 1853, the town council considered “it absolutely necessary that one efficient engine, with all the appropriate belongings hereto should be possessed by the town.” As a result, the Goderich ire brigade was founded on July 12, 1853 when the council minutes recorded that the town purchased the steam engine and fire fighting equipment of the privately-owned fire company that had previously performed firefighting duties. In addition to acquiring the company’s property, five pounds sterling worth of guttapercha hose was purchased for the town’s new fire service. By 1864, it was called Union Fire Company No. 1 and was composed of volunteers under a captain. In 1866, Elijah Moore was hired for $12 as an engineer to operate the horse-drawn steam engine. But the town’s fire service was a ramshackle affair – it was ill-equipped, under trained and poorly trained. Indeed, it took the exertions of the HMS Cherub’s crew to contain a disastrous fire on West street in September 1868. By January 1873, the town lacked a fire fighting service as the Huron Signal reported that “steps are being taken to organize a new Fire Company in this town.” A series of major fires in 1873, set by an arsonist, forced the council into decisive action. In December, council purchased a Silsby Steam engine (on display in the Huron County Museum) and paid fire fighters 25 cents for every hour that they were fighting fires. In December 1873, Captain Thomas Dancey was engaged as fire warden (or fire chief). At age 42, Captain Dancey was known as one of the most “fearless captains on the Great Lakes.” During his nine-year tenure as fire warden, he is credited with bringing order, discipline and efficiency to the Goderich fire brigade. For his exemplary service, the Mayor and brigade presented Dancey with a silver fruit basket and butter cooler at a ceremony held in April 1881 at the firehall located in the town hall on East street. The Signal said that the brigade had the full confidence of the town. When he retired in 1883, he was rightly considered to be the town’s first fire chief. After Dancey’s resignation, the service went into a period of decline. An 1883 fire at Henning’s Mill found the fire fighters “at sixes and sevens” according to the Signal “the leading spirit was absent: as “no one appeared to be directing the efforts of the firemen.” At another major fire on the Square in February 1886, the steam engine broke down, and a lack of hose nearly destroyed the entire block before a bucket brigade contained the blaze. In response, council purchased more hose, ordered the alarm bell at the town hall on East Street where the fire department was housed rung for a longer period. Council’s most important decision was the appointment of William Byers as fire captain. Byers restored order and efficiency to the brigade so that by 1889 the Goderich Illustrated Signal-Star claimed that the town possessed “a well-organized and efficient fire company of ten paid men and a fireman.” Byers was promoted Fire Warden that year, the town’s highest fire official. Also, in 1889, a newly installed waterworks system which included fire hydrants around town was a huge leap forward in fire fighting. No longer would the fire brigade have to carry its own water supply in horse drawn wagons to a fire. In the 1890’s, the Goderich fire brigade’s effectiveness was demonstrated in two near disastrous conflagrations. A fire in 1895 which burnt the Albion Hotel (where the Bedford is now) was suppressed leaving only that building destroyed. In 1897, a devastating fire at the GTR Grain Elevators, was contained only through the heroic actions of the town’s fire brigade and ships in the harbour which pumped water onto the burning structure. Had the flames spread beyond the grain elevators, the entire waterfront would have been lost. E. C. Belcher was appointed Byers successor in 1896. Under Belcher’s command, the fire service deteriorated due to gross negligence. Belcher had performed well as a fire captain under Byers. He had been in nominal command at the grain elevator fire in 1897 but it was a Byers’ trained force that he led. Belcher proved a poor fire warden who was often in dereliction of duty. In 1909, a damning Fire Underwriters inspector report found at least one fire hydrant was out of commission; hoses and equipment were in disrepair and, astoundingly, the ladders had been loaned out for to paint the British Exchange and King Edward Hotels. The inspector found 11 hydrant keys in one wagon, yet, at a recent fire, firemen could not find any to open the hydrants. At a heated council meeting in August 1909, Belcher complained of “mean, nasty criticism.” He argued it was not his duty to check on hydrants (he may have had a point as the Water and Light commission managed the hydrants). Belcher rarely, if ever, held fire practices because he thought fighting fires was practice enough. He also claimed he did not need to know the fire regulations “because council knows all about lots of these things.” The mayor and council could no longer accept Belcher’s negligence and near insubordination. They gratefully accepted his resignation. William Thompson was appointed fire warden in April 1910 and quickly restored the service to efficiency. Thompson, a blacksmith by trade, looked the part of a fire chief. He was described as “a big stalwart man” who won first prize for being “the finest looking chief on parade” at a provincial fire competition in 1915. He diplomatically avoided a mass resignation of the brigade in 1911 over a pay dispute with council. Firemen wanted an increase in salary from $25 to $50 per year. Council refused but Thompson negotiated an annual council grant to be dispersed among fire fighters based on rank and attendance at fires so that members who were more diligent in their duties were paid more. Under Thompson’s command the fire service was modernized. Telephones were installed in fire fighters’ homes in 1917. In 1919, Thompson received complaints that the fire brigade was slow in responding to fires because the town’s horses were at work in remote parts of the town. He proposed investigating the possibility of the town purchasing a motorized fire truck. Thompson’s sudden death in 1920 at age 51 was a tremendous loss to not just the brigade but the entire town. It only took five years for council to act on Thompson’s suggestion. In October 1925, the fire brigade took possession of a six-cylinder REO-Bickle fire truck. It was the first motorized vehicle in the department’s history (and until recently, it was maintained by the Bluewater Shrine Club). The REO-Bickle was a powerful fire fighting weapon with the capability of pumping 300 gallons of water a minute through the engine’s two hoses. The 120 pounds of water pressure was considered too much for the town’s existing hoses so more durable ones were purchased. The brigade still relied on teams of horses to transport fire fighters, water and equipment but the Goderich fire brigade was on its way to becoming the modern fire fighting service that it has become today.	1,666	ENGLISH	1
The description of Samrat Ashoka Biography A Short Biography of Ashoka the Great of India "In the history of the world there have been thousands of kings and emperors who call themselves "their highnesses," "their majesties", and "their exalted majesties" and so on. They shone for a brief moment, and as quickly disappeared. But Ashoka shines and shines brightly like a bright star, even unto this day."Ashoka was the first ruler to unify all of India. He was also the first Buddhist King who after his conversion to Buddhism attempted to embrace nonviolence and Buddhist principles as part of royal policies Today, he is considered one of India's greatest leaders.Ashoka the Great ruled India from 273 BC until 232 BC. Despite the acclaim held by H.G. Wells, for many Americans, Ashoka is not well known. This hub is an effort to elucidate the achievements of this historical figure. This is targeted to those who are not familiar with Ashok. A Talented Military Leader Ashoka was born in 304 BC. He was the son of the Mauryan Emperor Bindusara. He had one younger brother and also older half-brothers. Early on, he showed great promise. When he started showing success as a military leader, his older brothers began to fear that Ashoka would ascend to the throne. In Kalinga, Ashoka fell in love with Kaurwaki who worked as a fisherwoman. She would later be one of his many wives.His exile was soon ended when there was an uprising in Ujjain Province. Emperor Bindusara now called Ashoka back from exile and sent him to Ujjain. This time there was a great battle and Ashoka was seriously hurt.During his recovery, he was overseen by Buddhist monks and nuns. Battle of Kalinga So, when Ashoka was in his eighth year of rule, his wife Devi gave birth two twins: Prince Mahindra and Princess Sanghamitra.He also learned that one of his brothers was hiding in Kalinga. Ashoka was outraged that any place would aid his brother. He launched a full invasion of the province. In the fighting, thousands of people were killed and large areas of land were ravaged.After the battle, Ashoka decided to look over the destruction. The place that he had once been exiled now lay in utter collapse with houses burned down and many bodies still unburied. The Death of the Emperor The year after the battle at Ujjain, the Emperor Bindusara became very sick. It was clear that he would die. Soon, a war broke out between all of his sons over who would succeed the emperor.After a series of battles, Ashoka killed many of his brothers. Conversion to Buddhism It is said that his wife Devi accompanied him at Kalinga. She was so bothered by what she saw that she left his side. She ran away and never returned.Devi was Buddhist and perhaps this in combination with Ashoka's memory of learning about Buddhist principles led him to change his ways.From this point on, he embraces Buddhism. He took on the Buddhists Radhaswami and Manjushri as his teachers. The First Buddhist King Ashoka now reversed course. He set free all of his prisoners and returned their property.There is a story that the pregnant wife of one of his brothers escaped the palace before she could be killed. The baby survived and was brought up by Buddhist monks and nuns. When the boy was 13, he was discovered by Ashoka who learned the boy's identity. Ashoka, at this time, felt so much shame that he moved the boy and his mother to live in the palace.At this time, he got a new name. Instead of Chandashoka, he became known as Dharmashoka which means "pious Ashoka."	<urn:uuid:c20320b4-83b9-4370-936d-f341e4a668cc>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://apkpure.com/samrat-ashoka-biography/com.creative.samrat.ashoka.life.history	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250620381.59/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124130719-20200124155719-00112.warc.gz	en	0.992794	802	3.609375	4	[ -0.1162475124001503, 0.5388310551643372, 0.31149542331695557, -0.2779697775840759, -0.7711138725280762, 0.00637773098424077, 0.9991289377212524, 0.09805556386709213, 0.13848832249641418, 0.0915653184056282, 0.4067728519439697, -0.19487854838371277, 0.20771023631095886, 0.33373165130615234,...	1	The description of Samrat Ashoka Biography A Short Biography of Ashoka the Great of India "In the history of the world there have been thousands of kings and emperors who call themselves "their highnesses," "their majesties", and "their exalted majesties" and so on. They shone for a brief moment, and as quickly disappeared. But Ashoka shines and shines brightly like a bright star, even unto this day."Ashoka was the first ruler to unify all of India. He was also the first Buddhist King who after his conversion to Buddhism attempted to embrace nonviolence and Buddhist principles as part of royal policies Today, he is considered one of India's greatest leaders.Ashoka the Great ruled India from 273 BC until 232 BC. Despite the acclaim held by H.G. Wells, for many Americans, Ashoka is not well known. This hub is an effort to elucidate the achievements of this historical figure. This is targeted to those who are not familiar with Ashok. A Talented Military Leader Ashoka was born in 304 BC. He was the son of the Mauryan Emperor Bindusara. He had one younger brother and also older half-brothers. Early on, he showed great promise. When he started showing success as a military leader, his older brothers began to fear that Ashoka would ascend to the throne. In Kalinga, Ashoka fell in love with Kaurwaki who worked as a fisherwoman. She would later be one of his many wives.His exile was soon ended when there was an uprising in Ujjain Province. Emperor Bindusara now called Ashoka back from exile and sent him to Ujjain. This time there was a great battle and Ashoka was seriously hurt.During his recovery, he was overseen by Buddhist monks and nuns. Battle of Kalinga So, when Ashoka was in his eighth year of rule, his wife Devi gave birth two twins: Prince Mahindra and Princess Sanghamitra.He also learned that one of his brothers was hiding in Kalinga. Ashoka was outraged that any place would aid his brother. He launched a full invasion of the province. In the fighting, thousands of people were killed and large areas of land were ravaged.After the battle, Ashoka decided to look over the destruction. The place that he had once been exiled now lay in utter collapse with houses burned down and many bodies still unburied. The Death of the Emperor The year after the battle at Ujjain, the Emperor Bindusara became very sick. It was clear that he would die. Soon, a war broke out between all of his sons over who would succeed the emperor.After a series of battles, Ashoka killed many of his brothers. Conversion to Buddhism It is said that his wife Devi accompanied him at Kalinga. She was so bothered by what she saw that she left his side. She ran away and never returned.Devi was Buddhist and perhaps this in combination with Ashoka's memory of learning about Buddhist principles led him to change his ways.From this point on, he embraces Buddhism. He took on the Buddhists Radhaswami and Manjushri as his teachers. The First Buddhist King Ashoka now reversed course. He set free all of his prisoners and returned their property.There is a story that the pregnant wife of one of his brothers escaped the palace before she could be killed. The baby survived and was brought up by Buddhist monks and nuns. When the boy was 13, he was discovered by Ashoka who learned the boy's identity. Ashoka, at this time, felt so much shame that he moved the boy and his mother to live in the palace.At this time, he got a new name. Instead of Chandashoka, he became known as Dharmashoka which means "pious Ashoka."	806	ENGLISH	1
everyday life in the warsaw ghetto warsaw, poland - 1941 Post on 17-Jan-2016 Embed Size (px) Everyday Life in theWarsaw GhettoWarsaw, Poland - 1941 A tram at the entrance to the Warsaw Ghetto was it an open ghetto?Why did the Nazis create ghettoes? What reasons did they give; what were the real reasons?To thwart the black marketTo thwart Jewish subversionTo stop the spread of diseaseWhat was the process for creating the ghetto? What were the various reactions? Why did some Polish Jews favour the ghetto? This was not an open ghetto because there were Nazi guards posted at the entrance at all times.The ghetto was formed to hold the Jews in one place to prevent the spread of Jews and their ideas.Some Jews liked the idea of being in one place because they thought they were safe. A German guard checking Jews papersWho guarded the ghetto entrance?What was the Judenrat? The Judenrat was the council of Jews who were the governing body of the ghetto. They enforced the Nazi laws.Some of their tactics have been questioned during this period, such as, sacrificing some Jews for the sake of others. Jews with armbands on a ghetto streetWhy was there so much congestion in the ghetto? The ghetto was so congested because 110,000 Jews were living in 3 square miles. An old man a on a ghetto street why is he taking off his hat? A horse-drawn cart what types of transportation were Jews forced to use? What does this tell you about their circumstances? The Jews were forced to use forms of transportation which were appropriate to their situation.Since they were living in a small area and could not leave, the horse-drawn cart was common. Jewish women on a rickshaw in the ghetto Children sitting on a ghetto street who were they? How did the other residents treat them? Children living one the streets were orphans of parents who were dead or captured.Other residents did not care for them. Selling clothes in the marketHow did this fit into the ghetto economy?What were the differences between the official and clandestine economies? These Jews were starving and did not have many possessions because the Germans took everything away.The Jews had to bribe guards for food and sell what they could. saleswomen on a ghetto streetHow are they different from the stores in the background?Did economic equality exist in the ghetto? Woman beggar in the ghettoWhy would the owners of the food store in the background not help her? The German laws of the ghetto were very strict.Store owners were not allowed to sell their products except to those German law allowed. A Jewish beggar playing the violin in the ghettoA starving woman lying in the street A woman in the ghetto eating some soup Waiting in line for a drink of waterWho were these public kitchens important? What roles did they play? A baby carriage filled with books for saleWhat does this photograph show about ghetto life?Is this a type of resistance?What is the boy selling? Was censorship used in the ghetto? The Germans did not allow any publications which had negative propaganda.Only publications which were positive were sold or circulated. A woman selling armbandsWhy did residents continue to have children? What happened to birth rates over time?What do you notice about the urban landscape? Wealthier Jews on a ghetto streetA poster advertising a nightclubWhy did this create conflict in the ghetto? How did the Nazis exploit this? The object of the Germans was to turn Jews against Jews, so the nightclub for the wealthy would make tensions rise. A Jewish policeman and a woman in the ghettoWho were these policemen? What role(s) did they play in the ghetto as time went by? The Hevra Kadisha (Jewish burial society) A funeral in the cemetery More than 6000 Jews per month died in the ghetto. Coffins and wagons of the Jewish Burial Society A man placing bodies in an open mass grave Swans on the lake in Chopin Park, Warsaw	<urn:uuid:c8d8e438-f2c2-49f9-99ef-b8e9c43f71b6>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://vdocuments.mx/everyday-life-in-the-warsaw-ghetto-warsaw-poland-1941.html	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250624328.55/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124161014-20200124190014-00160.warc.gz	en	0.980427	849	3.6875	4	[ -0.22225680947303772, 0.2481687366962433, 0.06275157630443573, 0.3768051266670227, 0.19704073667526245, 0.18627649545669556, 0.4222278892993927, 0.2861108183860779, -0.4316765069961548, -0.054945752024650574, 0.31348633766174316, 0.07252714037895203, -0.2268584668636322, 0.1638123542070388...	1	everyday life in the warsaw ghetto warsaw, poland - 1941 Post on 17-Jan-2016 Embed Size (px) Everyday Life in theWarsaw GhettoWarsaw, Poland - 1941 A tram at the entrance to the Warsaw Ghetto was it an open ghetto?Why did the Nazis create ghettoes? What reasons did they give; what were the real reasons?To thwart the black marketTo thwart Jewish subversionTo stop the spread of diseaseWhat was the process for creating the ghetto? What were the various reactions? Why did some Polish Jews favour the ghetto? This was not an open ghetto because there were Nazi guards posted at the entrance at all times.The ghetto was formed to hold the Jews in one place to prevent the spread of Jews and their ideas.Some Jews liked the idea of being in one place because they thought they were safe. A German guard checking Jews papersWho guarded the ghetto entrance?What was the Judenrat? The Judenrat was the council of Jews who were the governing body of the ghetto. They enforced the Nazi laws.Some of their tactics have been questioned during this period, such as, sacrificing some Jews for the sake of others. Jews with armbands on a ghetto streetWhy was there so much congestion in the ghetto? The ghetto was so congested because 110,000 Jews were living in 3 square miles. An old man a on a ghetto street why is he taking off his hat? A horse-drawn cart what types of transportation were Jews forced to use? What does this tell you about their circumstances? The Jews were forced to use forms of transportation which were appropriate to their situation.Since they were living in a small area and could not leave, the horse-drawn cart was common. Jewish women on a rickshaw in the ghetto Children sitting on a ghetto street who were they? How did the other residents treat them? Children living one the streets were orphans of parents who were dead or captured.Other residents did not care for them. Selling clothes in the marketHow did this fit into the ghetto economy?What were the differences between the official and clandestine economies? These Jews were starving and did not have many possessions because the Germans took everything away.The Jews had to bribe guards for food and sell what they could. saleswomen on a ghetto streetHow are they different from the stores in the background?Did economic equality exist in the ghetto? Woman beggar in the ghettoWhy would the owners of the food store in the background not help her? The German laws of the ghetto were very strict.Store owners were not allowed to sell their products except to those German law allowed. A Jewish beggar playing the violin in the ghettoA starving woman lying in the street A woman in the ghetto eating some soup Waiting in line for a drink of waterWho were these public kitchens important? What roles did they play? A baby carriage filled with books for saleWhat does this photograph show about ghetto life?Is this a type of resistance?What is the boy selling? Was censorship used in the ghetto? The Germans did not allow any publications which had negative propaganda.Only publications which were positive were sold or circulated. A woman selling armbandsWhy did residents continue to have children? What happened to birth rates over time?What do you notice about the urban landscape? Wealthier Jews on a ghetto streetA poster advertising a nightclubWhy did this create conflict in the ghetto? How did the Nazis exploit this? The object of the Germans was to turn Jews against Jews, so the nightclub for the wealthy would make tensions rise. A Jewish policeman and a woman in the ghettoWho were these policemen? What role(s) did they play in the ghetto as time went by? The Hevra Kadisha (Jewish burial society) A funeral in the cemetery More than 6000 Jews per month died in the ghetto. Coffins and wagons of the Jewish Burial Society A man placing bodies in an open mass grave Swans on the lake in Chopin Park, Warsaw	840	ENGLISH	1
Devon’s own Sir Richard Grenville, (born June 15, 1542—died September, 1591), may not be as well-known as his contemporaries Sir Francis Drake or Sir Walter Raleigh. However, his exploits at sea are no less colourful, daring and interesting. In his early career, he found himself in the midst of the imperial army fighting against the Turks in Hungary (1566–68). Shortly after he was in Ireland, suppressing an uprising in Munster in 1568–69. One of his most notable ambitions though, was between 1573 and 1575 when he made preparations for a voyage of discovery to the South Pacific, hoping to locate a northwest passage from England to China. For political reasons the expedition was never made, but Sir Francis Drake adopted the plan for his circumnavigation voyage of 1577–80. However, what the Devon naval commander will forever be celebrated in maritime legend for, was when he and his men fought heroically against overwhelming odds, in an encounter with a Spanish fleet off Flores Island in the Azores. He couldn’t have had a better companion in terms of a ship, taking to sea in the appropriately named The Revenge. At the time, it was a pioneering piece of design and one of Europe’s most famous vessels. Before fighting the battle of the Azores, The Revenge had an extraordinary career. In 1587 she had accompanied Drake when the English attacked Cadiz, ‘singeing’ the Spanish king’s beard. In 1588 she had led the line against the Armada with Drake on board. Then in 1591 under Sir Richard Grenville she was part of an English squadron that was met by the Spanish at the island of Flores in the Azores. Now to set the context of one of the most fascinating naval engagements of all time… At Flores, an English fleet of 22 ships commanded by Lord Thomas had taken rest while lying in wait for a Spanish Treasure Fleet. The English squadron, including the crew of The Revenge, had suffered heavily from a fever epidemic and were barely ready when, on 31st August, a Spanish war fleet, not treasure fleet, came into view. Oh how hearts must have sunk. The England squadron were far outnumbered. While historians’ estimates vary, it is approximated that the Spanish outweighed the English three to one. Some of the Spanish fleet’s most impressive ships such as San Felipe (1500 tons) and the San Cristóbal, would have loomed large in the distance and would have made men tremble. In the circumstances, Lord Thomas did the sensible thing: he ran. His boats cut anchor and took to the ocean as quickly as the winds would allow him. Grenville, however, would do something so unexpected, that it has echoed through the ages ever since. Indeed, historians to this day are still trying to work out what possessed him to make such a decision: He ordered The Revenge – most of whose crew were sickly below – to sail straight at the Spanish. Picture the scene: a lone English vessel, in the vast expanse of the sea, lit by the summer sunshine, sailing straight toward a whole Spanish fleet. I can only imagine what must have been going through the minds of the Spanish. The English bulldog spirit well and truly on show. The Revenge’s crew fought for fifteen hours, repelling boarder after boarder including the San Felipe, her extraordinary joinery allowing her to survive body blows from scores of Spanish cannon. The English sailors sang an evening psalm at dusk and at dawn the Spanish surveyed the ship with its masts shot away ‘a logge on the sees’. They needed to do a lot more than that, however, in order to quell the thirst for battle that Grenville, his men and The Revenge were showing. In fact, when the Devonian sea commander realised that all was lost he wanted to blow up the ship rather than allow it to fall into Spanish hands: an order his crews baulked at. Surrender was negotiated and the Spanish took possession on 1st September 1591. Despite his fighting spirit, this is one battle that Grenville could not walk away from. He was wounded during the fighting and died a few days later from the wounds inflicted on him. His ship had other ideas, however. Wrecked by the Spanish, The Revenge sank with her Spanish boarding party at the nearby island of Terceira. One could argue that it was her final act of Revenge. Her cannons were still being washed ashore in the seventeenth century. Richard Grenville’s legend lives on, in part thanks to the poem by Lord Tennyson called The Revenge, the penultimate verse of which goes: And the stately Spanish men to their flagship bore him then, Where they laid him by the mast, old Sir Richard caught at last, And they praised him to his face with their courtly foreign grace; But he rose upon their decks, and he cried: “I have fought for Queen and Faith like a valiant man and true; I have only done my duty as a man is bound to do. With a joyful spirit I Sir Richard Grenville die!” And he fell upon their decks, and he died.	<urn:uuid:99165e05-7500-4dc7-945f-1f1e7be356cf>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	http://themoorlander.co.uk/histories-mysteries-the-last-battle-of-the-revenge/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250589560.16/warc/CC-MAIN-20200117123339-20200117151339-00522.warc.gz	en	0.98519	1,103	3.40625	3	[ -0.04832381382584572, 0.09664352983236313, 0.09355857968330383, -0.43566691875457764, -0.22934609651565552, -0.24660512804985046, 0.34800517559051514, 0.113115593791008, 0.02360873855650425, -0.24944168329238892, -0.26853257417678833, -0.5902114510536194, 0.03818855062127113, 0.40746483206...	6	Devon’s own Sir Richard Grenville, (born June 15, 1542—died September, 1591), may not be as well-known as his contemporaries Sir Francis Drake or Sir Walter Raleigh. However, his exploits at sea are no less colourful, daring and interesting. In his early career, he found himself in the midst of the imperial army fighting against the Turks in Hungary (1566–68). Shortly after he was in Ireland, suppressing an uprising in Munster in 1568–69. One of his most notable ambitions though, was between 1573 and 1575 when he made preparations for a voyage of discovery to the South Pacific, hoping to locate a northwest passage from England to China. For political reasons the expedition was never made, but Sir Francis Drake adopted the plan for his circumnavigation voyage of 1577–80. However, what the Devon naval commander will forever be celebrated in maritime legend for, was when he and his men fought heroically against overwhelming odds, in an encounter with a Spanish fleet off Flores Island in the Azores. He couldn’t have had a better companion in terms of a ship, taking to sea in the appropriately named The Revenge. At the time, it was a pioneering piece of design and one of Europe’s most famous vessels. Before fighting the battle of the Azores, The Revenge had an extraordinary career. In 1587 she had accompanied Drake when the English attacked Cadiz, ‘singeing’ the Spanish king’s beard. In 1588 she had led the line against the Armada with Drake on board. Then in 1591 under Sir Richard Grenville she was part of an English squadron that was met by the Spanish at the island of Flores in the Azores. Now to set the context of one of the most fascinating naval engagements of all time… At Flores, an English fleet of 22 ships commanded by Lord Thomas had taken rest while lying in wait for a Spanish Treasure Fleet. The English squadron, including the crew of The Revenge, had suffered heavily from a fever epidemic and were barely ready when, on 31st August, a Spanish war fleet, not treasure fleet, came into view. Oh how hearts must have sunk. The England squadron were far outnumbered. While historians’ estimates vary, it is approximated that the Spanish outweighed the English three to one. Some of the Spanish fleet’s most impressive ships such as San Felipe (1500 tons) and the San Cristóbal, would have loomed large in the distance and would have made men tremble. In the circumstances, Lord Thomas did the sensible thing: he ran. His boats cut anchor and took to the ocean as quickly as the winds would allow him. Grenville, however, would do something so unexpected, that it has echoed through the ages ever since. Indeed, historians to this day are still trying to work out what possessed him to make such a decision: He ordered The Revenge – most of whose crew were sickly below – to sail straight at the Spanish. Picture the scene: a lone English vessel, in the vast expanse of the sea, lit by the summer sunshine, sailing straight toward a whole Spanish fleet. I can only imagine what must have been going through the minds of the Spanish. The English bulldog spirit well and truly on show. The Revenge’s crew fought for fifteen hours, repelling boarder after boarder including the San Felipe, her extraordinary joinery allowing her to survive body blows from scores of Spanish cannon. The English sailors sang an evening psalm at dusk and at dawn the Spanish surveyed the ship with its masts shot away ‘a logge on the sees’. They needed to do a lot more than that, however, in order to quell the thirst for battle that Grenville, his men and The Revenge were showing. In fact, when the Devonian sea commander realised that all was lost he wanted to blow up the ship rather than allow it to fall into Spanish hands: an order his crews baulked at. Surrender was negotiated and the Spanish took possession on 1st September 1591. Despite his fighting spirit, this is one battle that Grenville could not walk away from. He was wounded during the fighting and died a few days later from the wounds inflicted on him. His ship had other ideas, however. Wrecked by the Spanish, The Revenge sank with her Spanish boarding party at the nearby island of Terceira. One could argue that it was her final act of Revenge. Her cannons were still being washed ashore in the seventeenth century. Richard Grenville’s legend lives on, in part thanks to the poem by Lord Tennyson called The Revenge, the penultimate verse of which goes: And the stately Spanish men to their flagship bore him then, Where they laid him by the mast, old Sir Richard caught at last, And they praised him to his face with their courtly foreign grace; But he rose upon their decks, and he cried: “I have fought for Queen and Faith like a valiant man and true; I have only done my duty as a man is bound to do. With a joyful spirit I Sir Richard Grenville die!” And he fell upon their decks, and he died.	1,099	ENGLISH	1
Crito Short Summary Crito is an account of a conversation that Socrates had with a rich friend named Crito. It is by the great philosopher Plato. Socrates has the belief that injustice cannot be solved by injustice, and that is why he rejected Crito’s attempt to help break him out. It is one of the oldest literary works. The Plot in Detail Socrates has been handed a death sentence for the crime of heresy. Crito wants to help him escape since he believes that the sentence is unjust. He gives the argument that there cannot be justice when bowing to an unjust law. Socrates, on the other hand, believes that such injustice cannot be solved by another injustice, thereby refusing the escape. The dialogue stresses on how injustice should be answered and explores several forms of justice. It also explores the theory of social contract in a government. The belief is that a government can only be stable if the citizens follow the laws it has provided. The conversation is set in the cell of Socrates. He awaits his execution, which was to occur at dawn. Crito is wealthy and has many connections. Therefore he has made some arrangements to sneak Socrates of lock up and find him safety in exile. Socrates, however, does not seem to be interested in escaping. Crito, therefore, results in providing several arguments as to why death should be avoided. One of them is that the death of Socrates will present a bad image of his allies since they will appear to have done nothing to have prevented it. He also argues that the costs of the plans are not an issue since his friends have covered them. Crito finally uses ethics to argue that Socrates allowing his execution is helping the enemies keep ruling unjustly. Crito also mentions Socrates’s children who will be left fatherless. Socrates will only agree to an escape if Crito can provide proof that it is right and just. Socrates dives into the laws in Athens, and they are portrayed as a third character. These laws explain that they live as one, breaking one will be breaking all. The laws believe that every citizen has a social contract with the government. Socrates is convinced he should continue following the laws since he has lived a successful life under them. Socrates believes that breaking the law now will result in harsh judgment when he gets to the underworld. He finally manages to convince Crito that his decision is right. Crito agrees to let him face his fate the next morning.	<urn:uuid:5ee5d1ab-db01-4c1c-b2e2-8389f0f3d33e>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://summarystory.com/crito/crito-short-summary/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250593994.14/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118221909-20200119005909-00361.warc.gz	en	0.982996	497	4.03125	4	[ -0.6056392788887024, 0.07558559626340866, -0.1809532642364502, -0.4656112790107727, -0.6645281910896301, -0.11912530660629272, 0.3358837366104126, 0.29054784774780273, 0.16640599071979523, 0.056648820638656616, 0.06443823128938675, -0.1546342968940735, 0.2959345877170563, 0.439807802438735...	8	Crito Short Summary Crito is an account of a conversation that Socrates had with a rich friend named Crito. It is by the great philosopher Plato. Socrates has the belief that injustice cannot be solved by injustice, and that is why he rejected Crito’s attempt to help break him out. It is one of the oldest literary works. The Plot in Detail Socrates has been handed a death sentence for the crime of heresy. Crito wants to help him escape since he believes that the sentence is unjust. He gives the argument that there cannot be justice when bowing to an unjust law. Socrates, on the other hand, believes that such injustice cannot be solved by another injustice, thereby refusing the escape. The dialogue stresses on how injustice should be answered and explores several forms of justice. It also explores the theory of social contract in a government. The belief is that a government can only be stable if the citizens follow the laws it has provided. The conversation is set in the cell of Socrates. He awaits his execution, which was to occur at dawn. Crito is wealthy and has many connections. Therefore he has made some arrangements to sneak Socrates of lock up and find him safety in exile. Socrates, however, does not seem to be interested in escaping. Crito, therefore, results in providing several arguments as to why death should be avoided. One of them is that the death of Socrates will present a bad image of his allies since they will appear to have done nothing to have prevented it. He also argues that the costs of the plans are not an issue since his friends have covered them. Crito finally uses ethics to argue that Socrates allowing his execution is helping the enemies keep ruling unjustly. Crito also mentions Socrates’s children who will be left fatherless. Socrates will only agree to an escape if Crito can provide proof that it is right and just. Socrates dives into the laws in Athens, and they are portrayed as a third character. These laws explain that they live as one, breaking one will be breaking all. The laws believe that every citizen has a social contract with the government. Socrates is convinced he should continue following the laws since he has lived a successful life under them. Socrates believes that breaking the law now will result in harsh judgment when he gets to the underworld. He finally manages to convince Crito that his decision is right. Crito agrees to let him face his fate the next morning.	503	ENGLISH	1
In the primitive time, the chance to turn into a knight was, practically speaking, confined to the respectability, as it was they who normally had the riches important to claim and keep up the steed, armor, and weapons that knights expected to shield their rulers’ lands. A family could be recognized by the ruler in the event that one of its individuals played out an extraordinary help deserving of a knight. Be a male. While in present-day times, then anyone can be knighted, generally, just men were knighted as is normally done. Truth be told, “knight” gets from the Anglo-Saxon word “cniht,” signifying “kid.” There were special cases, in any case. In 1149, the Order of the Hatchet was made to respect the ladies of the town of Tortosa in Catalonia (Spain), who dressed as men to repulse the Moors who had attacked their town. They were made what might be compared to knights. The legends of Charlemagne do take note of the experiences of a female knight named Bradamante (Bradamant), who was Charlemagne’s niece. However, Bradamante at first acted like a male until meeting and becoming hopelessly enamored with Rogero (Ruggiero). Gain from your folks being a knight. For the initial seven years of his life, a kid would become familiar with the habits expected of a knight from his folks, who disclosed to him accounts of gallant deeds and took him to competitions. Playtime included taking up a wooden sword and shield against envisioned adversaries of the master. Become a page. At age 7, a kid would turn into a page (likewise called a varlet, signifying “little vassal”) in the administration of a nobleman. He would be wearing the master’s hues and set under the more established pages in the ruler’s administration. As a page, his administration would be partitioned among family unit obligations, physical exercises, and instruction. Become a squire. As a rule at age 14, however once in a while as youthful as age 10, a page would be apprenticed to a particular knight as his armiger or squire, from the French “escuyer” for “shield conveyor.” In this job, the knight-in-preparing was viewed as a youngster thus had more prominent obligations, duties, and desires than when he was a page. Be contributed as a knight. Accepting the squire gave himself deserving of his exercises, at age 21, he would be named a knight. (Now and again, for example, specific valor in battle, he may get the respect sooner, much as combat zone advancements concurred today, and with just a short custom dubbing. The formal knighting function was exceptionally ritualized and included the accompanying advances.	<urn:uuid:5e682dda-42c7-4564-b325-38a8aa3e7ed3>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://bildertonne.com/becoming-a-medieval-knight/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594603.8/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119122744-20200119150744-00085.warc.gz	en	0.984895	620	3.515625	4	[ -0.6100558042526245, 0.37644481658935547, 0.03758968785405159, -0.38913458585739136, -0.5119461417198181, -0.10925592482089996, 0.22366014122962952, 0.1256313920021057, -0.19771550595760345, -0.053512293845415115, 0.06508514285087585, 0.052601899951696396, 0.20265722274780273, 0.1541738659...	1	In the primitive time, the chance to turn into a knight was, practically speaking, confined to the respectability, as it was they who normally had the riches important to claim and keep up the steed, armor, and weapons that knights expected to shield their rulers’ lands. A family could be recognized by the ruler in the event that one of its individuals played out an extraordinary help deserving of a knight. Be a male. While in present-day times, then anyone can be knighted, generally, just men were knighted as is normally done. Truth be told, “knight” gets from the Anglo-Saxon word “cniht,” signifying “kid.” There were special cases, in any case. In 1149, the Order of the Hatchet was made to respect the ladies of the town of Tortosa in Catalonia (Spain), who dressed as men to repulse the Moors who had attacked their town. They were made what might be compared to knights. The legends of Charlemagne do take note of the experiences of a female knight named Bradamante (Bradamant), who was Charlemagne’s niece. However, Bradamante at first acted like a male until meeting and becoming hopelessly enamored with Rogero (Ruggiero). Gain from your folks being a knight. For the initial seven years of his life, a kid would become familiar with the habits expected of a knight from his folks, who disclosed to him accounts of gallant deeds and took him to competitions. Playtime included taking up a wooden sword and shield against envisioned adversaries of the master. Become a page. At age 7, a kid would turn into a page (likewise called a varlet, signifying “little vassal”) in the administration of a nobleman. He would be wearing the master’s hues and set under the more established pages in the ruler’s administration. As a page, his administration would be partitioned among family unit obligations, physical exercises, and instruction. Become a squire. As a rule at age 14, however once in a while as youthful as age 10, a page would be apprenticed to a particular knight as his armiger or squire, from the French “escuyer” for “shield conveyor.” In this job, the knight-in-preparing was viewed as a youngster thus had more prominent obligations, duties, and desires than when he was a page. Be contributed as a knight. Accepting the squire gave himself deserving of his exercises, at age 21, he would be named a knight. (Now and again, for example, specific valor in battle, he may get the respect sooner, much as combat zone advancements concurred today, and with just a short custom dubbing. The formal knighting function was exceptionally ritualized and included the accompanying advances.	581	ENGLISH	1
Legio I Italica: one of the Roman legions. Its name means "the Italian legion". According to an inscription, the emperor Nero gave this unit its eagle and other standards on 20 September 66. This is confirmed by the Greco-Roman historian Cassius Dio, who also says that this unit was founded by Nero.note[Cassius Dio, Roman Histories 55.24.2.] He had recruited this legion, which consisted only of soldiers six-foot tall, for a campaign in Armenia and the far east, as a follow-up to the succesful campaigns of the general Corbulo in the preceding years. Nero nicknamed the new unit "the phalanx of Alexander the Great", which shows what he wanted to do in the east. However, as fate would have it, a few weeks later, another legion, XII Fulminata, was defeated in Judaea, and war broke out inside the Roman empire. The projected Caspian expedition never took place. It has been assumed that the Roman navy was transporting the new soldiers to the east, when the legion received new orders and was redirected to Gaul: the governor of Gallia Lugdunensis, Gaius Julius Vindex, had revolted in the first weeks of 68. In March or April, I Italica arrived in Gaul. These dates leave us with a problem: where was the legion between September 66 and March 68? To narrow the gap, several scholars have assumed that it was not founded in 66 but 67. This seems unnecessary. A legion founded in the autumn of 66 would have marched to the east, or would have waited until spring if transport by water was preferred. We can assume that I Italica was doing additional exercises in the winter of 66/67, was sent to the east in the spring, returned in the autumn, and arrived in the spring of 68 in Gaul. It was too late to join the fighting. The governor of Germania Superior, Lucius Verginius Rufus, had already suppressed the revolt of Vindex (using XXI Rapax, IIII Macedonica and XXII Primigenia). However, in June, the Senate recognized Vindex' ally Galba as emperor, and Nero committed suicide. This caused great tensions in the Rhineland, because the army of Verginius had supported the wrong man. In January 70, they revolted under the governor of Germania Inferior, Vitellius. The soldiers of the First Italian legion immediately sided with the rebels, left the base to which Galba had sent them (Lyon), and joined the Vitellian army on its march to Italy. Its first battle was fought on 14 April. In the meantime, Galba had been lynched, and he was succeeded by a senator named Otho. Near Cremona, Vitellius' V Alaudae, I Italica and XXI Rapax defeated Otho's XIII Gemina, I Adiutrix, and the imperial guard. According to the Roman historian Tacitus, the First Italian legion was the bravest of all units involved, and its eagle was paraded proudly through the streets of Rome when Vitellius entered his capital. He did not long enjoy the empire, because in the east, the general that had been sent to suppress the Jewish revolt, Vespasian, was proclaimed emperor. The legions of the Danube sided with him, and on 24 October, a new battle was fought near Cremona. Again, I Italica fought valiantly, but this time, the Vitellians were defeated. The victorious new emperor sent the First Italian Legion to Moesia, where it was stationed at Novae (modern Svishtov in northern Bulgaria) and replaced VIII Augusta. During the winter, the Sarmatians, a tribe living on the other side of the Danube, invaded the Roman empire, because the tribesmen knew that a civil war was going on, and had learned about the successes of another tribe, the Batavians. The governor of Moesia, Fonteius Agrippa, was defeated and killed in action, and we may assume that I Italica was one of the defeated units. It was only in the course of the year 70 that a new governor, Rubrius Gallus, was able to restore order. The 5,300 six-foot tall men had finally found their base, not far from the place where Alexander the Great had once crossed the Danube. The legion stayed at Novae for centuries. There are no indications that it was ever stationed somewhere else in Moesia, although subunits were sometimes sent to unquiet parts of the empire. One of those tasks was the occupation of the Crimea, where several Greek towns were protected by Roman units. The Moesian legions were by turn responsible for this outpost. Several inscriptions attest the presence of soldiers of I Italica, and, in the second century, V Macedonica and XI Claudia. Legionaries of the First may have executed Clemens, a Christian leader from Rome who was exiled to the Crimea in c.100. From Novae, the First Italian legion took part in the Dacian wars of the emperors Domitian and Trajan. The Dacians had invaded the Roman empire in 86 and defeated the legions that were supposed to defend Moesia. In 88, a large Roman army group invaded Dacia and general Tettius defeated its king Decebalus at Tapae; the First was one of nine legions involved. Unfortunately, the revolt of the governor of Germania Superior, Lucius Antonius Saturninus, in 89, prevented the ultimate success. During Trajan's war of 101-106, I Italica guarded the bridgehead across the Danube, but subunits fought elsewhere in the Dacian heartland. Several inscriptions mention soldiers that were decorated during these campaigns, about which we have not much other information. Other inscriptions show that (subunits of) I Italica participated in Trajan's ill-fated war against the Parthian Empire (115-117). Again, we would like to know more, but our sources are sadly deficient. Whatever their role in the eastern campaign, the soldiers returned to Novae after the Roman defeat. An inscription from Delphi shows that in 125, the emperor Hadrian used soldiers of I Italica to supervise a building project. We do not know which construction can be meant; Pausanias, the author of a travel guide for ancient Greece, has nothing to say about buildings erected by Hadrian at Delphi. Another inscription seems to suggest that the same emperor employed a subunit in Judaea during the war against a Jewish Messiah named Bar Kochba (132-136), but the interpretation is surrounded by uncertainty. It is likely that at least one subunit of I Italica was moved to Britain between 139 and 142, because a centurion of this legion was in charge with the building of a part of the Antonine wall between Edinburg and Glasgow. It is possible that another subunit served in Africa to suppress a revolt of the Mauri, but again we have to admit that the inscription that may prove this, is surrounded by uncertainty. We know more about the big wars waged by the emperor Marcus Aurelius to protect Dacia and the Danube frontier. The campaigns took place, so to speak, in the legion's backyard. The first of these started in 165 and the emperor desperately needed additional troops; it may be a tribute to the courage of I Italica that the two legions that Marcus founded were called II and III Italica. After almost ten years of fighting, it seemed possible to add land on the other side of the Danube, and a young senator named Aulus Julius Pompilius Piso was placed in charge of I Italica and IIII Flavia Felix, and received a governor's powers. Unfortunately, a false report that Marcus had died provoked a rebellion in the east, where Avidius Cassius was made emperor (175). Although he was immediately assassinated, Marcus decided to visit the eastern provinces. The fighting on the Danube was interrupted, and the plans to create a new province were never executed. The northern war flared up again in 178-180, the Romans having the upper hand. The details remain a bit obscure, but it is certain that I Italica played an important role. The fighting ended with the death of Marcus Aurelius; his son and successor Commodus concluded a very advantageous peace treaty, and the region remained quiet for a long time. One of the legion's officers, in these years, was Clodius Albinus, the future emperor.note[Historia Augusta, "Clodius Albinus" 6.2.] When the governor of Pannonia Superior, Lucius Septimius Severus, was proclaimed emperor in 193, I Italica immediately joined his cause. In a lightning campaign the new ruler marched on Rome, but the First Italian legion cannot have taken part, because Novae was too far from Italy. However, it must have played a role in Severus' campaign against his eastern rival Pescennius Niger. Soldiers of I Italica and XI Claudia besieged Byzantium, forced the Cilician gate, and fought at Issus. It is also possible that they took part in Severus' campaigns against the Parthian Empire, which culminated in the sack of Ctesiphon (198). During the reign of Severus' son and successor Caracalla, the southern border of Dacia, which coincided with the rivers Olt and Danube, was pushed some fifty kilometers to the east. The Romans built a wall (the Limes Transalutanus), which began very close to Novae. It is impossible that soldiers of I Italica were not involved in the construction of this fortification. Several inscriptions prove that during the reign of Severus Alexander, (subunits of) I Italica stayed a Salonae (modern Split) on the Dalmatian coast, but the legion itself stayed at Novae. In 273, soldiers of this unit (and four other legions) were involved in road building activity in Jordan, as is attested in an inscription from Qasr el-Azraq. Generally speaking, however, I Italica stayed on the Danube. Even at the beginning of the fifth century, it was still guarding the Danube, although at this time, it had been divided into two halfs: one was still at Novae, the other at Sexaginta Prista (modern Ruse). The emblems of this legion were the boar and - less frequently - the bull.	<urn:uuid:6706c634-a0ea-4e02-bf02-70da0a2f3541>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.livius.org/articles/legion/legio-i-italica/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251696046.73/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127081933-20200127111933-00034.warc.gz	en	0.981662	2,206	3.28125	3	[ -0.5985537767410278, 0.27420949935913086, 0.610866904258728, 0.14622575044631958, -0.43052053451538086, -0.38974273204803467, -0.24044576287269592, 0.5666266679763794, 0.20628702640533447, -0.3153955936431885, 0.1622084230184555, -0.6981168985366821, -0.4391169250011444, 0.3073073029518127...	2	Legio I Italica: one of the Roman legions. Its name means "the Italian legion". According to an inscription, the emperor Nero gave this unit its eagle and other standards on 20 September 66. This is confirmed by the Greco-Roman historian Cassius Dio, who also says that this unit was founded by Nero.note[Cassius Dio, Roman Histories 55.24.2.] He had recruited this legion, which consisted only of soldiers six-foot tall, for a campaign in Armenia and the far east, as a follow-up to the succesful campaigns of the general Corbulo in the preceding years. Nero nicknamed the new unit "the phalanx of Alexander the Great", which shows what he wanted to do in the east. However, as fate would have it, a few weeks later, another legion, XII Fulminata, was defeated in Judaea, and war broke out inside the Roman empire. The projected Caspian expedition never took place. It has been assumed that the Roman navy was transporting the new soldiers to the east, when the legion received new orders and was redirected to Gaul: the governor of Gallia Lugdunensis, Gaius Julius Vindex, had revolted in the first weeks of 68. In March or April, I Italica arrived in Gaul. These dates leave us with a problem: where was the legion between September 66 and March 68? To narrow the gap, several scholars have assumed that it was not founded in 66 but 67. This seems unnecessary. A legion founded in the autumn of 66 would have marched to the east, or would have waited until spring if transport by water was preferred. We can assume that I Italica was doing additional exercises in the winter of 66/67, was sent to the east in the spring, returned in the autumn, and arrived in the spring of 68 in Gaul. It was too late to join the fighting. The governor of Germania Superior, Lucius Verginius Rufus, had already suppressed the revolt of Vindex (using XXI Rapax, IIII Macedonica and XXII Primigenia). However, in June, the Senate recognized Vindex' ally Galba as emperor, and Nero committed suicide. This caused great tensions in the Rhineland, because the army of Verginius had supported the wrong man. In January 70, they revolted under the governor of Germania Inferior, Vitellius. The soldiers of the First Italian legion immediately sided with the rebels, left the base to which Galba had sent them (Lyon), and joined the Vitellian army on its march to Italy. Its first battle was fought on 14 April. In the meantime, Galba had been lynched, and he was succeeded by a senator named Otho. Near Cremona, Vitellius' V Alaudae, I Italica and XXI Rapax defeated Otho's XIII Gemina, I Adiutrix, and the imperial guard. According to the Roman historian Tacitus, the First Italian legion was the bravest of all units involved, and its eagle was paraded proudly through the streets of Rome when Vitellius entered his capital. He did not long enjoy the empire, because in the east, the general that had been sent to suppress the Jewish revolt, Vespasian, was proclaimed emperor. The legions of the Danube sided with him, and on 24 October, a new battle was fought near Cremona. Again, I Italica fought valiantly, but this time, the Vitellians were defeated. The victorious new emperor sent the First Italian Legion to Moesia, where it was stationed at Novae (modern Svishtov in northern Bulgaria) and replaced VIII Augusta. During the winter, the Sarmatians, a tribe living on the other side of the Danube, invaded the Roman empire, because the tribesmen knew that a civil war was going on, and had learned about the successes of another tribe, the Batavians. The governor of Moesia, Fonteius Agrippa, was defeated and killed in action, and we may assume that I Italica was one of the defeated units. It was only in the course of the year 70 that a new governor, Rubrius Gallus, was able to restore order. The 5,300 six-foot tall men had finally found their base, not far from the place where Alexander the Great had once crossed the Danube. The legion stayed at Novae for centuries. There are no indications that it was ever stationed somewhere else in Moesia, although subunits were sometimes sent to unquiet parts of the empire. One of those tasks was the occupation of the Crimea, where several Greek towns were protected by Roman units. The Moesian legions were by turn responsible for this outpost. Several inscriptions attest the presence of soldiers of I Italica, and, in the second century, V Macedonica and XI Claudia. Legionaries of the First may have executed Clemens, a Christian leader from Rome who was exiled to the Crimea in c.100. From Novae, the First Italian legion took part in the Dacian wars of the emperors Domitian and Trajan. The Dacians had invaded the Roman empire in 86 and defeated the legions that were supposed to defend Moesia. In 88, a large Roman army group invaded Dacia and general Tettius defeated its king Decebalus at Tapae; the First was one of nine legions involved. Unfortunately, the revolt of the governor of Germania Superior, Lucius Antonius Saturninus, in 89, prevented the ultimate success. During Trajan's war of 101-106, I Italica guarded the bridgehead across the Danube, but subunits fought elsewhere in the Dacian heartland. Several inscriptions mention soldiers that were decorated during these campaigns, about which we have not much other information. Other inscriptions show that (subunits of) I Italica participated in Trajan's ill-fated war against the Parthian Empire (115-117). Again, we would like to know more, but our sources are sadly deficient. Whatever their role in the eastern campaign, the soldiers returned to Novae after the Roman defeat. An inscription from Delphi shows that in 125, the emperor Hadrian used soldiers of I Italica to supervise a building project. We do not know which construction can be meant; Pausanias, the author of a travel guide for ancient Greece, has nothing to say about buildings erected by Hadrian at Delphi. Another inscription seems to suggest that the same emperor employed a subunit in Judaea during the war against a Jewish Messiah named Bar Kochba (132-136), but the interpretation is surrounded by uncertainty. It is likely that at least one subunit of I Italica was moved to Britain between 139 and 142, because a centurion of this legion was in charge with the building of a part of the Antonine wall between Edinburg and Glasgow. It is possible that another subunit served in Africa to suppress a revolt of the Mauri, but again we have to admit that the inscription that may prove this, is surrounded by uncertainty. We know more about the big wars waged by the emperor Marcus Aurelius to protect Dacia and the Danube frontier. The campaigns took place, so to speak, in the legion's backyard. The first of these started in 165 and the emperor desperately needed additional troops; it may be a tribute to the courage of I Italica that the two legions that Marcus founded were called II and III Italica. After almost ten years of fighting, it seemed possible to add land on the other side of the Danube, and a young senator named Aulus Julius Pompilius Piso was placed in charge of I Italica and IIII Flavia Felix, and received a governor's powers. Unfortunately, a false report that Marcus had died provoked a rebellion in the east, where Avidius Cassius was made emperor (175). Although he was immediately assassinated, Marcus decided to visit the eastern provinces. The fighting on the Danube was interrupted, and the plans to create a new province were never executed. The northern war flared up again in 178-180, the Romans having the upper hand. The details remain a bit obscure, but it is certain that I Italica played an important role. The fighting ended with the death of Marcus Aurelius; his son and successor Commodus concluded a very advantageous peace treaty, and the region remained quiet for a long time. One of the legion's officers, in these years, was Clodius Albinus, the future emperor.note[Historia Augusta, "Clodius Albinus" 6.2.] When the governor of Pannonia Superior, Lucius Septimius Severus, was proclaimed emperor in 193, I Italica immediately joined his cause. In a lightning campaign the new ruler marched on Rome, but the First Italian legion cannot have taken part, because Novae was too far from Italy. However, it must have played a role in Severus' campaign against his eastern rival Pescennius Niger. Soldiers of I Italica and XI Claudia besieged Byzantium, forced the Cilician gate, and fought at Issus. It is also possible that they took part in Severus' campaigns against the Parthian Empire, which culminated in the sack of Ctesiphon (198). During the reign of Severus' son and successor Caracalla, the southern border of Dacia, which coincided with the rivers Olt and Danube, was pushed some fifty kilometers to the east. The Romans built a wall (the Limes Transalutanus), which began very close to Novae. It is impossible that soldiers of I Italica were not involved in the construction of this fortification. Several inscriptions prove that during the reign of Severus Alexander, (subunits of) I Italica stayed a Salonae (modern Split) on the Dalmatian coast, but the legion itself stayed at Novae. In 273, soldiers of this unit (and four other legions) were involved in road building activity in Jordan, as is attested in an inscription from Qasr el-Azraq. Generally speaking, however, I Italica stayed on the Danube. Even at the beginning of the fifth century, it was still guarding the Danube, although at this time, it had been divided into two halfs: one was still at Novae, the other at Sexaginta Prista (modern Ruse). The emblems of this legion were the boar and - less frequently - the bull.	2,274	ENGLISH	1
People live their lives not just for themselves but for others. Some give up the little possessions they have in life to help those in need within their communities. Others go out to sweat and tire not because they are after personal accomplishments but for the welfare of the society. Another group observes the injustices and malpractices of the mighty in their communities and speaks against such misgivings without fear of bitter consequences. These are people who were born with a calling to stand up for humanity. They are only a few, but they help the society realize the direction that this life needs to take. Bob Marley, and his entire life, reflects the natural gift of a man who, despite all odds, rose to the occasion and had his impact felt by the entire world in a positive way. To summarize Bob Marley’s life story, one needs to think Martin Luther King’s wise words that “We must use time creatively and forever realize that time is always hope to do great things”(Greg 1998). There are activists, scientists, researchers, writers, singers and many other people who work tirelessly for the well-being of everyone inside their society. Environmentalists advocate for protection of the environment from senseless destruction. Activists spent time fighting for the rights of their fellow human beings. Others give up their high profile jobs to join community service initiatives that serve to improve the state of societies. Many people have dedicated their lives to community service. Some of them risked dying yet they never cared about such consequences. Their passion to make the world a better place for all could never dwindle. They have passion, but unlike many people in different societies, they strive not only for their personal fulfillment but also for the improvement of everything around them, including people. Mother Teresa, in her entire lifetime, chose to work for God as a Catholic Christian who dedicated her time and efforts towards helping the destitute in society. Mahatma Gandhi, through use of non-violent means, mobilized and influenced Indians to fight against oppressive colonial rule till liberation of his country and people. Nelson, Africa’s most respected man, and the world’s most admired person, spent a whooping twenty seven years in jail while fighting for the independence of his country and against the racially, abusive apartheid rule. Booker T. Washington together with other famous American writers used their literary works to sensitize their people on their rights and potential for communal prosperity, as well individual accomplishment. Music, hugely an entertainment and leisure activity, has also served many other purposes including education, sensitization and even inspiration of others. Bob Marley came out as an extraordinary person in community at his time. People, right from his tender age, believed that Bob had a gift that could help them. That is why some of his closest friends and relatives believed that he had psychic powers. They strongly had faith in Bob Marley’s ability to foretell their future by simply looking at their palms. That could have been a mistake. However, it still showed that there was something in him that others, especially children of his age group, lacked. He was not an ordinary young man, because the things people expected of him were way beyond the capacity of an eleven year old child. At just sixteen, Bob released his first album, the lyrics and message of which were so strong that no one believed it was a composition of just a small boy in Kingston town (Farley 2007). Buy How Bob Marley Influenced the World essay paper online In spite of the difficult life of living without a biological father, Bob ventured into the scene of music. He had the intent of changing the world through his music. There is an explanation of why and how he chose to sing the way he did. This is because even when he released his first song, his listeners got a rare message that they did not expect from such a young man. This was purely a talent which was meant to transform the world (Middleton 2000). In his music, Bob Marley talked about real life situations and experiences. He talked about the injustice and oppression. He also emphasized on the need for harmonious living among folks through his constant calls for love. For instance, his song titled “One Love” is a plea for people to love one another despite their different backgrounds and status. Bob Marley’s Life Story Bob Marley, actually known as Robert Nesta Marley, was born on February 16, 1945 in the small village of Nine Miles, located in Saint Ann Parish, Jamaica. His father, Norval Marley, was a white naval Officer. Bob’s mother name was Cedella Malcolm Marley. As a family, the three never had a chance to be together. Norval Marley abandoned his son and mother as he found his own life elsewhere. In spite of having her son in wedlock, she held the burden of responsibility in bringing up Bob by herself. The sole reason for this bitter life was a result of Norval parents’ disapproval of his marriage with Cedella. At one time, Bob’s father took him to Kingston, supposedly to get him a school there. Unfortunately, that marked the last time of a relationship between father and his son. Bob never got to see his father ever again. One and a half years later, Cedilla discovered that her dear son was in Kingston, living with an elderly couple. He was not in school as she had expected. She then decided hastily to return her boy to St. Ann (Marley & Jones 2004). In St. Ann, people believed that Bob had psychic powers. They had strong faith in Bob’s ability to tell their future when he looked into the palms of their hands. Those eighteen months in Kingston had profound effect in defining who Bob really was. It is during his time with the elderly couple that Bob got his engagement with music. No one would have imagined, at that time, this introduction to music would had such prominent impact on his entire life and the entire world. After his return from Kingston, there was a shocking turn of events for people in St. Ann. When Cedella’s friends asked Bob to display his psychic powers, he denied having any of such powers. He, in turn, told them that he was a singer. This came as a huge shock to people who never expected such a response from a young man. They all believed he could tell their future by simply reading their hands. His life had taken a sharp turn and no one could change the direction Bob had chosen. At the age of eleven, Bob met Bunny Wailer in Nine Miles. As their friendship grew, so did their parents’; that is, Bob’s mother and Bunny’s father. They later moved together to Kingston and begun their new life as a united family. Cedella had decided to move in with Bunny’s father as wife and husband. In Kingston, two boys, then living as two brothers, started their venture into music in the Kingston music arena (Middleton 2000). At the age of just sixteen years, Bob recorded his first tracks called “Do You still Love Me” and “Judge Not”. At such a tender age, Bob’s songs were full of messages for the listeners, proving that this was an extraordinary sixteen year old boy. Despite his efforts as a young man, his first songs never got full success. He had to put in some extra energy and wait a little longer for his singing to capture the attention of the Jamaican population and the world’s music lovers at large. The Trench Town Singer, Joe Higgs, was Bob’s most valuable asset in the development of his music career. With his persistent and unyielding desire to succeed, Bob Marley attended lessons that Joe willingly offered him. While getting their music tidbits at Joe’s, Bob and Bunny got to meet their new friends with whom they formed the Wailers group. The Wailers group was formed in 1963. This was when Joe Higgs introduced Bob and Bunny to Junior Braithwaite and Peter Tosh. A short later, Joe organized an audition with one of Jamaica’s most renowned producer of Studio One named Clement “Sir” Coxson Dodd. Clement loved the group and helped them make a number of recordings of their songs with Studio One. Their first track, “Simmer Down”, was an instant success selling about 80,000 copies. Other hit songs at the Music power house included “One Love”, “Cry to Me”, “Rude Boy”, “I am Gonna Put It On”, and “I'm Still Waiting”. This experience with producer Clement “Sir” was just the beginning of Marley’s long, successful journey that could change hearts and souls of music lovers all across the world (Farley 2007). Bob Marley was an ardent follower of the Rastafari movement. As most people would bear witness, this movement has, till today, a very crucial role in the development of reggae music. Bob used his strong belief in the Rastafari movement, taking it upon himself to sell reggae from the remote areas of Kingston, Jamaica, to the international scene. Being a strong believer, Bob Marley observed one of the movement’s practices with full commitment, Ital, which banned members from eating meat. Consequently, he ended up a vegetarian by faith. Besides, autobiographers claim that Marley affiliated himself with the Twelve Tribes Mansion. In this group, Bob Marley became a member of the denomination known as “Tribe of Joseph” since February was his birthday month. Each of other denominations had its own month of the year, starting from January to December (Middleton 2000). Bob is well known for the famous dreadlocks, signature voice and Rastafari ethic. These are the things that all people want to associate with the great musician. Very few are aware that Bob Marley converted into Christianity a short while before his demise. In fact, some of his songs do talk badly about Christian faith, making it even more difficult for those who really love his songs to believe that he could attempt such a move. But truth be told, Bob Marley died a Christian, and not Rasta man. He had a wife, Rita, and a number of children from his marriage with Rita, others from other women and the rest were adopted. He had three children with Rita: Cedella, David “Ziggy” and Stephen. He also adopted two more children that Rita came with from her previous relationships. The two are Sharon and Stephanie. Bob had several other children from other women (Marley & Jones 2004). There are some who are claimed to be his sons and daughters though they are not found anywhere on Bob Marley’s official website, bobmarley.com. Bob Marley was a staunch Rastafari follower. In fact, he is highly acknowledged for his tremendous efforts to sell the movement’s beliefs and values. He practiced what this religion held dear and considered vital for human well-being. He followed strongly the practices as outlined in the movement and taught others the spirit of loyalty to whatever they believed in. He became the main agent of the movement through his salient efforts and total commitment that made him travel far and wide just to spread the message that he believed everyone in the entire world needed. He wanted others to believe in what he believed. To do that, he never relented in his quest to reach out to the world and display his natural character as well as his beliefs as a Rastafari follower. In one way or another, Bob Marley proved to be a largely controversial figure throughout his life. At some moment, he criticized Christianity in some of his song lyrics. This did put him at cross purpose with those who are radical Jesuits and sometimes made him unpopular in some sections of the community. Besides that, some people found it quite doubtful to believe in the messages of love and unity that Bob Marley preached owing to the fact that he was an undisputed user of marijuana, weed that is quite unpopular among other believers that Bob Marley indiscriminately reached out to with his usual calls for peace, love, unity, and the praise for Emperor Selassie. As if that was not enough, Marley’s family life portrayed an image of man who lived freely, without any strong purpose and respect of matrimony. He had many children, a few with his wife Rita, while a lot more came from other women. Inasmuch as he preached morality and advocated for social justice and fairness, his actions and general way of life triggered many questions in the minds of those who were trying to understand him. His open use of marijuana, readiness to fight for whichever course he chose, and his unclear family issues in respect of his own children and women provide reasonable grounds for people to raise eye-brows. These were his major aspects of controversy that followed him till the end of his life on earth and still follows him to date. Legacy, Awards and Honors Nesta Robert Marley held and still holds a number of international as well as local recognitions due to his music and compelling efforts to spread messages of love and unity for all people. He scooped many awards and honors during his life and even after his death. In historical records, Bob Marley is documented as the Third World’s number one pop super stocker. Jann Wenner (1994) said that Bob Marley was a rocker at heart who, as a songwriter, brought the lyrical power of Bob Dylan, the lovely vocal styling of Smokey Robinson and the charisma of John Lennon, into a single voice. This came during the posthumous introduction at Rock and Roll Hall of Fame (Goldman 2006). Times Magazine (1999) voted “The Exodus”, Bob Marley & the Wailers’ album as the album of the 20th century. He also got the Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award in 2001 besides other several accolades. They include a feature-length documentary about Marley’s life, Rebel music, which won a number of awards at the Grammys. As a proof that Bob Marley is one of Jamaica’s heroes, his statue stands next to the national stadium on Arthur Wint Drive in Kingston. In 2006, a portion of Church Avenue in the state of New York, United States, was renamed as “Bob Marley Boulevard”. In countries like Australia and United States of America, there are communities which perform some rituals in remembrance and respect for Bob Marley. These show that Marley’s impact was left in each corner of the world and his legacy will live forever. In his career as a singer/songwriter and musician, Bob Marley and his group, The Wailers, won many awards and honors. Some of them included the 1976 Band of the Year (Rolling Stone); BBC poll places “One Love” as the song of the Millennium, and the 1999 Album of the Century (Exodus). There were others like Peace Medal of the Third World by the UN, and the induction of Catch a Fire into the Grammy Hall of Fame (White 2006). He is accredited with introduction of the mystical reggae music to the international community. He used his rare talent to impact the society positively with his messages of love and unity. He wrote the music for humanity’s sake, not for personal accomplishment, although he attained it, ultimately. The last album that Bob Marley released is known as “Legend”. It was released three years after his death. It is still the highest selling album of reggae music even to the present times, many years after he passed on. Other great musicians have come and gone but none of them has ever earned the recognition and respect that Bob Marley enjoyed during his life on earth and still enjoys wherever he may be right now (Moskowtz 2007). Bob Marley was found to have a kind of malignant cancer in July, 1977. A sort of injury could have been mistaken for an accidental lesion during a match earlier that year. On the contrary, that revealed the sad news of the superstar’s terrible condition that could cut short his life. Citing his belief, Marley ignored doctor’s recommendation to have the affected toe amputated. He went on with performances and world tours with his reggae music and gospel of his Rastafari movement despite his hurting condition. Chris Blackwell produced Bob Marley’s last album, Uprising, in May 1980. This album contains the song “Redemption Song” which indicates Marley’s coming to terms with reality of losing his life, as a mortal soul. He staged several performances in Europe and America. His final concert rocked on 23 September, 1980. After his health condition deteriorated, Bob Marley was forced to get hospitalization at the Bavarian Clinic, Germany. The strong musician battled with cancer at the health care institution under some kind of cancer therapy called Issels treatment for about eight months. When his health status went from bad to worse, Marley boarded a plane to his homeland, Jamaica. His body weakened further on the way. He landed in Miami, Florida and received hospitalization at the Cedars of Lebanon Hospital where he passed away, on May11th, 1981. Bob Marley received a state funeral in Kingston, Jamaica, on May 21st, 1981. Melonama had spread to his brain and lungs, bringing about the untimely death of one of the most influential figures in not only the small town of Kingston, Jamaica, but also the world at large. His Nature, Course and Influence Bob Marley was a rare kind of musician who used his reggae music specialty to impact the entire world with positive messages of love and unity. He had a very powerful talent which he used for humanity’s sake. Unlike other artists, Bob Marley did not get all the fame due to the fancy lifestyle that comes with music career. His name soared to the highest levels because of the influence his music had on the people`s lives. He didn`t require any effort to make people love him or respect him. His music, his life and his course for humanity did all that. He earned the respect he had and even in the present times, Bob Marley remains to be many people’s highly revered idol. Marley believed in people’s freedom. He sang about this courageously and was always ready to fight for his course whenever circumstances necessitated it. He based most of his singing to the experiences and environment around him. The Jamaican culture, especially, Kingston town, had a major influence on his music. Despite his controversial living as a serious lover of marijuana, a husband and father of many children, Bob Marley lived a fulfilling life that impacted differently many people around the world. His voice alone was compelling enough to change one’s attitude towards a neighbor in a positive way. His lyrics said all that any sober mind would want to hear. He touched many people’s hearts and acted as a major agent of change for humanity through the lovely music of reggae. He remained a true agent of advocating for appreciation of African persons and used his lyrics to cement his position on this. His songs demonstrated an aspect of social consciousness and uprightness of individuals in societies around the world. Bob Marley died as symbol of nationalism to his Jamaican folks. To the international community, this was a real symbol of brotherhood and a true agent of humanity. His socially conscious mind presented a man that cared for his people and despised injustice. His love for his fellow men demonstrated a kind person worth the admiration of all people around the globe. The course he chose and the direction he took gives all people someone with a heart to live a life for others and fight for the freedom of all without fear or feeling of intimidation. His strong faith depicts a God-loving soul that believed in the existence of a superpower beyond the feeble understanding of man. People from all walks of life pay tribute to Bob Marley. Many celebrate the life he lived, and many others still enjoy his magical singing to date. Even those who never laid an eye on him can still bear true witness of his greatness by citing from the powerful messages that lie in the music he left behind. The recognitions and memoirs in honor of Bob Marley are a true indication of a single man’s inevitable potential to leave a mark in the lives of many others. His legacy is evidence of his devotion to life and commitment to humanity are revelations of powerful, extraordinary power that Bob Marley possessed. Though every human is mortal, Bob Marley is still alive (Henke 2006). Related Free Analytical Essays - Check Fraud - You Called Me Corazon by Sandra Cisneros - How Video Games Negatively Affect Children - Formal Analysis of Swing Landscape by Stuart Davis - GE's Success Story - Analysis of In Cold Blood by Truman Capote - 2012 State of the Union Address - Civil Discourse - Oil Production in Libya - Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection Applied to Languages Most popular orders	<urn:uuid:5ecce1b5-c1a3-4de8-8bfd-4a4be0262dc0>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://exclusivepapers.com/essays/analytical/how-bob-marley-influenced-the-world.php	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251789055.93/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129071944-20200129101944-00467.warc.gz	en	0.984798	4,392	3.265625	3	[ -0.12599091231822968, 0.24839282035827637, 0.26709526777267456, -0.2985687255859375, 0.18154561519622803, -0.027876339852809906, 0.3583953380584717, -0.13744589686393738, -0.15298661589622498, 0.11842232942581177, 0.35561615228652954, 0.41085124015808105, 0.3880196809768677, 0.016590032726...	1	People live their lives not just for themselves but for others. Some give up the little possessions they have in life to help those in need within their communities. Others go out to sweat and tire not because they are after personal accomplishments but for the welfare of the society. Another group observes the injustices and malpractices of the mighty in their communities and speaks against such misgivings without fear of bitter consequences. These are people who were born with a calling to stand up for humanity. They are only a few, but they help the society realize the direction that this life needs to take. Bob Marley, and his entire life, reflects the natural gift of a man who, despite all odds, rose to the occasion and had his impact felt by the entire world in a positive way. To summarize Bob Marley’s life story, one needs to think Martin Luther King’s wise words that “We must use time creatively and forever realize that time is always hope to do great things”(Greg 1998). There are activists, scientists, researchers, writers, singers and many other people who work tirelessly for the well-being of everyone inside their society. Environmentalists advocate for protection of the environment from senseless destruction. Activists spent time fighting for the rights of their fellow human beings. Others give up their high profile jobs to join community service initiatives that serve to improve the state of societies. Many people have dedicated their lives to community service. Some of them risked dying yet they never cared about such consequences. Their passion to make the world a better place for all could never dwindle. They have passion, but unlike many people in different societies, they strive not only for their personal fulfillment but also for the improvement of everything around them, including people. Mother Teresa, in her entire lifetime, chose to work for God as a Catholic Christian who dedicated her time and efforts towards helping the destitute in society. Mahatma Gandhi, through use of non-violent means, mobilized and influenced Indians to fight against oppressive colonial rule till liberation of his country and people. Nelson, Africa’s most respected man, and the world’s most admired person, spent a whooping twenty seven years in jail while fighting for the independence of his country and against the racially, abusive apartheid rule. Booker T. Washington together with other famous American writers used their literary works to sensitize their people on their rights and potential for communal prosperity, as well individual accomplishment. Music, hugely an entertainment and leisure activity, has also served many other purposes including education, sensitization and even inspiration of others. Bob Marley came out as an extraordinary person in community at his time. People, right from his tender age, believed that Bob had a gift that could help them. That is why some of his closest friends and relatives believed that he had psychic powers. They strongly had faith in Bob Marley’s ability to foretell their future by simply looking at their palms. That could have been a mistake. However, it still showed that there was something in him that others, especially children of his age group, lacked. He was not an ordinary young man, because the things people expected of him were way beyond the capacity of an eleven year old child. At just sixteen, Bob released his first album, the lyrics and message of which were so strong that no one believed it was a composition of just a small boy in Kingston town (Farley 2007). Buy How Bob Marley Influenced the World essay paper online In spite of the difficult life of living without a biological father, Bob ventured into the scene of music. He had the intent of changing the world through his music. There is an explanation of why and how he chose to sing the way he did. This is because even when he released his first song, his listeners got a rare message that they did not expect from such a young man. This was purely a talent which was meant to transform the world (Middleton 2000). In his music, Bob Marley talked about real life situations and experiences. He talked about the injustice and oppression. He also emphasized on the need for harmonious living among folks through his constant calls for love. For instance, his song titled “One Love” is a plea for people to love one another despite their different backgrounds and status. Bob Marley’s Life Story Bob Marley, actually known as Robert Nesta Marley, was born on February 16, 1945 in the small village of Nine Miles, located in Saint Ann Parish, Jamaica. His father, Norval Marley, was a white naval Officer. Bob’s mother name was Cedella Malcolm Marley. As a family, the three never had a chance to be together. Norval Marley abandoned his son and mother as he found his own life elsewhere. In spite of having her son in wedlock, she held the burden of responsibility in bringing up Bob by herself. The sole reason for this bitter life was a result of Norval parents’ disapproval of his marriage with Cedella. At one time, Bob’s father took him to Kingston, supposedly to get him a school there. Unfortunately, that marked the last time of a relationship between father and his son. Bob never got to see his father ever again. One and a half years later, Cedilla discovered that her dear son was in Kingston, living with an elderly couple. He was not in school as she had expected. She then decided hastily to return her boy to St. Ann (Marley & Jones 2004). In St. Ann, people believed that Bob had psychic powers. They had strong faith in Bob’s ability to tell their future when he looked into the palms of their hands. Those eighteen months in Kingston had profound effect in defining who Bob really was. It is during his time with the elderly couple that Bob got his engagement with music. No one would have imagined, at that time, this introduction to music would had such prominent impact on his entire life and the entire world. After his return from Kingston, there was a shocking turn of events for people in St. Ann. When Cedella’s friends asked Bob to display his psychic powers, he denied having any of such powers. He, in turn, told them that he was a singer. This came as a huge shock to people who never expected such a response from a young man. They all believed he could tell their future by simply reading their hands. His life had taken a sharp turn and no one could change the direction Bob had chosen. At the age of eleven, Bob met Bunny Wailer in Nine Miles. As their friendship grew, so did their parents’; that is, Bob’s mother and Bunny’s father. They later moved together to Kingston and begun their new life as a united family. Cedella had decided to move in with Bunny’s father as wife and husband. In Kingston, two boys, then living as two brothers, started their venture into music in the Kingston music arena (Middleton 2000). At the age of just sixteen years, Bob recorded his first tracks called “Do You still Love Me” and “Judge Not”. At such a tender age, Bob’s songs were full of messages for the listeners, proving that this was an extraordinary sixteen year old boy. Despite his efforts as a young man, his first songs never got full success. He had to put in some extra energy and wait a little longer for his singing to capture the attention of the Jamaican population and the world’s music lovers at large. The Trench Town Singer, Joe Higgs, was Bob’s most valuable asset in the development of his music career. With his persistent and unyielding desire to succeed, Bob Marley attended lessons that Joe willingly offered him. While getting their music tidbits at Joe’s, Bob and Bunny got to meet their new friends with whom they formed the Wailers group. The Wailers group was formed in 1963. This was when Joe Higgs introduced Bob and Bunny to Junior Braithwaite and Peter Tosh. A short later, Joe organized an audition with one of Jamaica’s most renowned producer of Studio One named Clement “Sir” Coxson Dodd. Clement loved the group and helped them make a number of recordings of their songs with Studio One. Their first track, “Simmer Down”, was an instant success selling about 80,000 copies. Other hit songs at the Music power house included “One Love”, “Cry to Me”, “Rude Boy”, “I am Gonna Put It On”, and “I'm Still Waiting”. This experience with producer Clement “Sir” was just the beginning of Marley’s long, successful journey that could change hearts and souls of music lovers all across the world (Farley 2007). Bob Marley was an ardent follower of the Rastafari movement. As most people would bear witness, this movement has, till today, a very crucial role in the development of reggae music. Bob used his strong belief in the Rastafari movement, taking it upon himself to sell reggae from the remote areas of Kingston, Jamaica, to the international scene. Being a strong believer, Bob Marley observed one of the movement’s practices with full commitment, Ital, which banned members from eating meat. Consequently, he ended up a vegetarian by faith. Besides, autobiographers claim that Marley affiliated himself with the Twelve Tribes Mansion. In this group, Bob Marley became a member of the denomination known as “Tribe of Joseph” since February was his birthday month. Each of other denominations had its own month of the year, starting from January to December (Middleton 2000). Bob is well known for the famous dreadlocks, signature voice and Rastafari ethic. These are the things that all people want to associate with the great musician. Very few are aware that Bob Marley converted into Christianity a short while before his demise. In fact, some of his songs do talk badly about Christian faith, making it even more difficult for those who really love his songs to believe that he could attempt such a move. But truth be told, Bob Marley died a Christian, and not Rasta man. He had a wife, Rita, and a number of children from his marriage with Rita, others from other women and the rest were adopted. He had three children with Rita: Cedella, David “Ziggy” and Stephen. He also adopted two more children that Rita came with from her previous relationships. The two are Sharon and Stephanie. Bob had several other children from other women (Marley & Jones 2004). There are some who are claimed to be his sons and daughters though they are not found anywhere on Bob Marley’s official website, bobmarley.com. Bob Marley was a staunch Rastafari follower. In fact, he is highly acknowledged for his tremendous efforts to sell the movement’s beliefs and values. He practiced what this religion held dear and considered vital for human well-being. He followed strongly the practices as outlined in the movement and taught others the spirit of loyalty to whatever they believed in. He became the main agent of the movement through his salient efforts and total commitment that made him travel far and wide just to spread the message that he believed everyone in the entire world needed. He wanted others to believe in what he believed. To do that, he never relented in his quest to reach out to the world and display his natural character as well as his beliefs as a Rastafari follower. In one way or another, Bob Marley proved to be a largely controversial figure throughout his life. At some moment, he criticized Christianity in some of his song lyrics. This did put him at cross purpose with those who are radical Jesuits and sometimes made him unpopular in some sections of the community. Besides that, some people found it quite doubtful to believe in the messages of love and unity that Bob Marley preached owing to the fact that he was an undisputed user of marijuana, weed that is quite unpopular among other believers that Bob Marley indiscriminately reached out to with his usual calls for peace, love, unity, and the praise for Emperor Selassie. As if that was not enough, Marley’s family life portrayed an image of man who lived freely, without any strong purpose and respect of matrimony. He had many children, a few with his wife Rita, while a lot more came from other women. Inasmuch as he preached morality and advocated for social justice and fairness, his actions and general way of life triggered many questions in the minds of those who were trying to understand him. His open use of marijuana, readiness to fight for whichever course he chose, and his unclear family issues in respect of his own children and women provide reasonable grounds for people to raise eye-brows. These were his major aspects of controversy that followed him till the end of his life on earth and still follows him to date. Legacy, Awards and Honors Nesta Robert Marley held and still holds a number of international as well as local recognitions due to his music and compelling efforts to spread messages of love and unity for all people. He scooped many awards and honors during his life and even after his death. In historical records, Bob Marley is documented as the Third World’s number one pop super stocker. Jann Wenner (1994) said that Bob Marley was a rocker at heart who, as a songwriter, brought the lyrical power of Bob Dylan, the lovely vocal styling of Smokey Robinson and the charisma of John Lennon, into a single voice. This came during the posthumous introduction at Rock and Roll Hall of Fame (Goldman 2006). Times Magazine (1999) voted “The Exodus”, Bob Marley & the Wailers’ album as the album of the 20th century. He also got the Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award in 2001 besides other several accolades. They include a feature-length documentary about Marley’s life, Rebel music, which won a number of awards at the Grammys. As a proof that Bob Marley is one of Jamaica’s heroes, his statue stands next to the national stadium on Arthur Wint Drive in Kingston. In 2006, a portion of Church Avenue in the state of New York, United States, was renamed as “Bob Marley Boulevard”. In countries like Australia and United States of America, there are communities which perform some rituals in remembrance and respect for Bob Marley. These show that Marley’s impact was left in each corner of the world and his legacy will live forever. In his career as a singer/songwriter and musician, Bob Marley and his group, The Wailers, won many awards and honors. Some of them included the 1976 Band of the Year (Rolling Stone); BBC poll places “One Love” as the song of the Millennium, and the 1999 Album of the Century (Exodus). There were others like Peace Medal of the Third World by the UN, and the induction of Catch a Fire into the Grammy Hall of Fame (White 2006). He is accredited with introduction of the mystical reggae music to the international community. He used his rare talent to impact the society positively with his messages of love and unity. He wrote the music for humanity’s sake, not for personal accomplishment, although he attained it, ultimately. The last album that Bob Marley released is known as “Legend”. It was released three years after his death. It is still the highest selling album of reggae music even to the present times, many years after he passed on. Other great musicians have come and gone but none of them has ever earned the recognition and respect that Bob Marley enjoyed during his life on earth and still enjoys wherever he may be right now (Moskowtz 2007). Bob Marley was found to have a kind of malignant cancer in July, 1977. A sort of injury could have been mistaken for an accidental lesion during a match earlier that year. On the contrary, that revealed the sad news of the superstar’s terrible condition that could cut short his life. Citing his belief, Marley ignored doctor’s recommendation to have the affected toe amputated. He went on with performances and world tours with his reggae music and gospel of his Rastafari movement despite his hurting condition. Chris Blackwell produced Bob Marley’s last album, Uprising, in May 1980. This album contains the song “Redemption Song” which indicates Marley’s coming to terms with reality of losing his life, as a mortal soul. He staged several performances in Europe and America. His final concert rocked on 23 September, 1980. After his health condition deteriorated, Bob Marley was forced to get hospitalization at the Bavarian Clinic, Germany. The strong musician battled with cancer at the health care institution under some kind of cancer therapy called Issels treatment for about eight months. When his health status went from bad to worse, Marley boarded a plane to his homeland, Jamaica. His body weakened further on the way. He landed in Miami, Florida and received hospitalization at the Cedars of Lebanon Hospital where he passed away, on May11th, 1981. Bob Marley received a state funeral in Kingston, Jamaica, on May 21st, 1981. Melonama had spread to his brain and lungs, bringing about the untimely death of one of the most influential figures in not only the small town of Kingston, Jamaica, but also the world at large. His Nature, Course and Influence Bob Marley was a rare kind of musician who used his reggae music specialty to impact the entire world with positive messages of love and unity. He had a very powerful talent which he used for humanity’s sake. Unlike other artists, Bob Marley did not get all the fame due to the fancy lifestyle that comes with music career. His name soared to the highest levels because of the influence his music had on the people`s lives. He didn`t require any effort to make people love him or respect him. His music, his life and his course for humanity did all that. He earned the respect he had and even in the present times, Bob Marley remains to be many people’s highly revered idol. Marley believed in people’s freedom. He sang about this courageously and was always ready to fight for his course whenever circumstances necessitated it. He based most of his singing to the experiences and environment around him. The Jamaican culture, especially, Kingston town, had a major influence on his music. Despite his controversial living as a serious lover of marijuana, a husband and father of many children, Bob Marley lived a fulfilling life that impacted differently many people around the world. His voice alone was compelling enough to change one’s attitude towards a neighbor in a positive way. His lyrics said all that any sober mind would want to hear. He touched many people’s hearts and acted as a major agent of change for humanity through the lovely music of reggae. He remained a true agent of advocating for appreciation of African persons and used his lyrics to cement his position on this. His songs demonstrated an aspect of social consciousness and uprightness of individuals in societies around the world. Bob Marley died as symbol of nationalism to his Jamaican folks. To the international community, this was a real symbol of brotherhood and a true agent of humanity. His socially conscious mind presented a man that cared for his people and despised injustice. His love for his fellow men demonstrated a kind person worth the admiration of all people around the globe. The course he chose and the direction he took gives all people someone with a heart to live a life for others and fight for the freedom of all without fear or feeling of intimidation. His strong faith depicts a God-loving soul that believed in the existence of a superpower beyond the feeble understanding of man. People from all walks of life pay tribute to Bob Marley. Many celebrate the life he lived, and many others still enjoy his magical singing to date. Even those who never laid an eye on him can still bear true witness of his greatness by citing from the powerful messages that lie in the music he left behind. The recognitions and memoirs in honor of Bob Marley are a true indication of a single man’s inevitable potential to leave a mark in the lives of many others. His legacy is evidence of his devotion to life and commitment to humanity are revelations of powerful, extraordinary power that Bob Marley possessed. Though every human is mortal, Bob Marley is still alive (Henke 2006). Related Free Analytical Essays - Check Fraud - You Called Me Corazon by Sandra Cisneros - How Video Games Negatively Affect Children - Formal Analysis of Swing Landscape by Stuart Davis - GE's Success Story - Analysis of In Cold Blood by Truman Capote - 2012 State of the Union Address - Civil Discourse - Oil Production in Libya - Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection Applied to Languages Most popular orders	4,341	ENGLISH	1
After learning of the threat upon them, Anthony Bryant contacted Gideon Ashmore and Dr. Hiram Rutherford, a well known abolitionist, to help his family escape. Rutherford and Ashmore hid the family in Ashmore's hotel. The family was later put in the Coles County jail which was actually a benefit to them as it assured they would not be taken to Kentucky and sold away. Jane Bryant and her children remained in the jail for fifty eight days while awaiting for a circuit court trial to decide if they were free people or fugitive slaves that should be returned to Matson. In response, Robert Matson, hired Abraham Lincoln, a young lawyer from Springfield, and Usher Linder of Charleston. At this time and place, a lawyer was required to take the cases he was offered. On October 16, 1847, two state Supreme Court justices ordered that the Bryants were free owing to the time they had lived in Illinois as the state did not allow slaves to be held within the state unless they were being transported. The Bryants were later provided with funds to travel to Liberia.	<urn:uuid:d9532b4f-7ab7-4663-ad5b-76b3a92551b9>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.theclio.com/entry/44454	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251802249.87/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129194333-20200129223333-00403.warc.gz	en	0.991238	220	3.328125	3	[ -0.3925243020057678, 0.041657473891973495, -0.41851502656936646, -0.2189956158399582, 0.04010322690010071, -0.3407573103904724, 0.2468104511499405, -0.3466220498085022, -0.258017897605896, -0.20134294033050537, 0.30614253878593445, 0.16246390342712402, -0.24155563116073608, 0.0971222072839...	2	After learning of the threat upon them, Anthony Bryant contacted Gideon Ashmore and Dr. Hiram Rutherford, a well known abolitionist, to help his family escape. Rutherford and Ashmore hid the family in Ashmore's hotel. The family was later put in the Coles County jail which was actually a benefit to them as it assured they would not be taken to Kentucky and sold away. Jane Bryant and her children remained in the jail for fifty eight days while awaiting for a circuit court trial to decide if they were free people or fugitive slaves that should be returned to Matson. In response, Robert Matson, hired Abraham Lincoln, a young lawyer from Springfield, and Usher Linder of Charleston. At this time and place, a lawyer was required to take the cases he was offered. On October 16, 1847, two state Supreme Court justices ordered that the Bryants were free owing to the time they had lived in Illinois as the state did not allow slaves to be held within the state unless they were being transported. The Bryants were later provided with funds to travel to Liberia.	228	ENGLISH	1
Willa Cather Composing Comparison Cather creates characters who often leave the places she so adoringly describes because she herself left her home. This kind of tendency of writing about…...Read What is slavery? Africans became slaves in numerous ways. Illustrate three (3) ways in which Africans became slaves. [10 marks] Slavery is the state to be under the power over another person which is a form of forced labor by which people are thought to be, or cured as the exact property of others. While Source B says, captivity existed in West The african continent before the Europeans went there. Black People were the slaves of other dark people. Prior to that time in Europe as well, there were white-colored people who had been slaves of other white colored people. Financial debt Bondage is a type of slavery that is an arrangement whereby a person is required to pay off financing with immediate labor rather than currency more than an arranged period of time. Chattel Slavery is a form of captivity. Chattel Slaves are real estate and they do not rights. They are expected to carry out labor at the command of the master. Chattel Slavery may be the form of captivity that was carried out in the Bahamas and the Americas. Most Africans became slaves in different techniques. Some sold themselves in slavery in Africa as a means or paying debts. A few committed crimes and were enslaved while punishment. Others voluntarily became slaves of powerful friends and neighbors to protect themselves from their enemies, but most were captured in combat between several societies. Most slaves were owned and controlled by way of a masters however they could buy freedom. By the Atlantic servant trade, Europeans enslaved Africans and got them to labor in the Americas. The slave trade was conducted simply by merchants firms. Merchants belonging to the English companies would leave from Bristol, London or perhaps Liverpool in England. They would hold trade products such as fabric, musket, knives, tools, cutlasses, brandy, nitroglycerine nitroc and iron bars, and also cheap manufactured goods. These kinds of goods would be traded intended for slaves in West The african continent....	<urn:uuid:59179e24-806e-4b01-8cb6-2148edf02ab9>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://traisaswiteadsuksaschool.com/social-studies-coursework/25652-social-studies-coursework-exploration-paper.html	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251672537.90/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125131641-20200125160641-00482.warc.gz	en	0.98503	431	3.75	4	[ -0.2754853665828705, 0.3348695933818817, -0.047939483076334, 0.2478085160255432, -0.13579586148262024, -0.06201164796948433, 0.10152629017829895, -0.5010305643081665, 0.10819655656814575, 0.15355122089385986, 0.2743549644947052, -0.1631225347518921, -0.32119986414909363, 0.2156275659799575...	1	Willa Cather Composing Comparison Cather creates characters who often leave the places she so adoringly describes because she herself left her home. This kind of tendency of writing about…...Read What is slavery? Africans became slaves in numerous ways. Illustrate three (3) ways in which Africans became slaves. [10 marks] Slavery is the state to be under the power over another person which is a form of forced labor by which people are thought to be, or cured as the exact property of others. While Source B says, captivity existed in West The african continent before the Europeans went there. Black People were the slaves of other dark people. Prior to that time in Europe as well, there were white-colored people who had been slaves of other white colored people. Financial debt Bondage is a type of slavery that is an arrangement whereby a person is required to pay off financing with immediate labor rather than currency more than an arranged period of time. Chattel Slavery is a form of captivity. Chattel Slaves are real estate and they do not rights. They are expected to carry out labor at the command of the master. Chattel Slavery may be the form of captivity that was carried out in the Bahamas and the Americas. Most Africans became slaves in different techniques. Some sold themselves in slavery in Africa as a means or paying debts. A few committed crimes and were enslaved while punishment. Others voluntarily became slaves of powerful friends and neighbors to protect themselves from their enemies, but most were captured in combat between several societies. Most slaves were owned and controlled by way of a masters however they could buy freedom. By the Atlantic servant trade, Europeans enslaved Africans and got them to labor in the Americas. The slave trade was conducted simply by merchants firms. Merchants belonging to the English companies would leave from Bristol, London or perhaps Liverpool in England. They would hold trade products such as fabric, musket, knives, tools, cutlasses, brandy, nitroglycerine nitroc and iron bars, and also cheap manufactured goods. These kinds of goods would be traded intended for slaves in West The african continent....	428	ENGLISH	1
Cox v. United States (1947) Cox v. United States was a case that took place shortly after World War II and had to do with conscientious objector laws. In 1941, just as the Second World War came to the United States, the petitioner, Cox, was a Jehovah's Witness who objected to military service. He maintained that he was a minister under the tenets of his religion, and thus was not technically a conscientious objector. The court's decision in this case would influence how it treated Jehovah's Witnesses in subsequent conflicts involving conscription under the Selective Service Act. The first war where the United States allowed people to “conscientiously object” based on a moral or religious objection to military service was World War I. People who were seen to have a genuine conscientious objection to working in combat roles were given non-combat duties instead. However, people who did not want to work for the military in any capacity were jailed. In World War II, the rules changed a bit. People like Cox (the appellant in Cox v. United States) were conscripted into doing important duties domestically rather than participating in the war if they had an objection. The Ministerial Status When the United States conscripted soldiers during war time, some classes of people were automatically exempted. For example, women have never been drafted in United States history, although recent proposals have been made to include them in Selective Service registration. People who are too old or too young to serve are also excluded. Other exclusions were based on the profession of the person being excluded. One of these exceptions is for religious ministers, and it is this exception that Cox v. United States was all about. Not conscripting people who were religious leaders was done in part because of the separation of church and state, and in part because ministers were still needed back at home and their absence would have lowered morale throughout the country. Unlike conscientious objectors, ministers did not have to serve mandatory time working on domestic projects and could simply continue with their lives as they had been. The petitioner claimed in Cox v. United States that under the tenets of his religion, all men were considered to be ministers. Therefore, Cox said, he should not have been required to perform any service whatsoever and had no military service obligation. The Court's Ruling The Supreme Court ruled in Cox v. United States that Cox and other Jehovah's Witnesses did not meet the qualifications for the ministerial exception under the law. None of them had been ordained as ministers, and the court noted that Cox had only actually requested the status after his own draft status had been changed from unfit to fit. The ruling was 5-4, with the four dissenting judges filing two different dissenting opinions. The dissents warned that the decision made it very difficult for judges at any level to reverse the decisions of the Selective Service draft board, and that there was nothing in the ministerial exception that confined it to particular types of ministers.	<urn:uuid:cb43a5ff-216c-489c-bda0-7226ba97947e>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://cases.laws.com/cox-v-united-states-1947	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250626449.79/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124221147-20200125010147-00036.warc.gz	en	0.988908	607	3.796875	4	[ -0.660468339920044, 0.2092665135860443, -0.2614308297634125, -0.583296537399292, -0.11519163846969604, 0.04335848242044449, 0.13579046726226807, 0.1306266188621521, 0.06112522631883621, -0.11361844092607498, 0.1474141776561737, 0.44777143001556396, 0.2199285477399826, 0.057928867638111115,...	14	Cox v. United States (1947) Cox v. United States was a case that took place shortly after World War II and had to do with conscientious objector laws. In 1941, just as the Second World War came to the United States, the petitioner, Cox, was a Jehovah's Witness who objected to military service. He maintained that he was a minister under the tenets of his religion, and thus was not technically a conscientious objector. The court's decision in this case would influence how it treated Jehovah's Witnesses in subsequent conflicts involving conscription under the Selective Service Act. The first war where the United States allowed people to “conscientiously object” based on a moral or religious objection to military service was World War I. People who were seen to have a genuine conscientious objection to working in combat roles were given non-combat duties instead. However, people who did not want to work for the military in any capacity were jailed. In World War II, the rules changed a bit. People like Cox (the appellant in Cox v. United States) were conscripted into doing important duties domestically rather than participating in the war if they had an objection. The Ministerial Status When the United States conscripted soldiers during war time, some classes of people were automatically exempted. For example, women have never been drafted in United States history, although recent proposals have been made to include them in Selective Service registration. People who are too old or too young to serve are also excluded. Other exclusions were based on the profession of the person being excluded. One of these exceptions is for religious ministers, and it is this exception that Cox v. United States was all about. Not conscripting people who were religious leaders was done in part because of the separation of church and state, and in part because ministers were still needed back at home and their absence would have lowered morale throughout the country. Unlike conscientious objectors, ministers did not have to serve mandatory time working on domestic projects and could simply continue with their lives as they had been. The petitioner claimed in Cox v. United States that under the tenets of his religion, all men were considered to be ministers. Therefore, Cox said, he should not have been required to perform any service whatsoever and had no military service obligation. The Court's Ruling The Supreme Court ruled in Cox v. United States that Cox and other Jehovah's Witnesses did not meet the qualifications for the ministerial exception under the law. None of them had been ordained as ministers, and the court noted that Cox had only actually requested the status after his own draft status had been changed from unfit to fit. The ruling was 5-4, with the four dissenting judges filing two different dissenting opinions. The dissents warned that the decision made it very difficult for judges at any level to reverse the decisions of the Selective Service draft board, and that there was nothing in the ministerial exception that confined it to particular types of ministers.	615	ENGLISH	1
John Fitzgerald Kennedy was a young president from a politically prominent family.He made great strides for changes for our country in three short years as president of the United States of America.Tragically all this background and promise he held came to a tragic end with the assassination that may never be finally explained or understood. In my essay you will find information on some of the main theories on the assassination of John F. Kennedy. John Fitzgerald Kennedy, was the youngest man ever to be elected to office, and was the youngest man ever to die in office.On the day of November 22, 1963, John F. Kennedy was assassinated at Dallas, Texas.John had been the President of the United States for two years and ten months.The whole world mourned as they heard that John F. Kennedy had been assassinated.Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson took over as President after John died. John Fitzgerald Kennedy was the second son of Joseph Patrick Kennedy and Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy born on May 29, 1917.The families' ancestors were Irish farmers of Wexford County in southeastern Ireland.The President's grandfather, Patrick J. Kennedy on his father's side, was a state senator and the political leader of a ward in Boston.The President's mother also came from a political family.Her father was John F. Fitzgerald, a colorful politician.Fitzgerald served in the state senate and in the House of Representatives.He also served as mayor of Boston for two terms. John F. Kennedy was born on May 29, 1917, in Brookline, Massachusetts, a suburb of Boston.John's older brother Joseph Jr., 1915-1944, was killed during WWII.Robert Kennedy, John's younger brother, was attorney general under his brother and then served as U.S. Senator for New York until his assassination in 1965.Edward M. Kennedy, John's youngest brother, has served as a U.S. Senator for Massachusetts since 1962.	<urn:uuid:5779765f-51a3-43b6-954b-5f7e29198456>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://gemmarketingsolutions.com/assassination-of-jfk/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250598726.39/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120110422-20200120134422-00192.warc.gz	en	0.982692	391	3.578125	4	[ -0.21790927648544312, 0.2839234471321106, 0.37933045625686646, -0.3549123704433441, 0.24271418154239655, 0.4487903416156769, 0.19607208669185638, 0.034318313002586365, -0.08346997946500778, -0.07570537179708481, 0.22633272409439087, 0.6727633476257324, 0.4013785123825073, 0.390405327081680...	1	John Fitzgerald Kennedy was a young president from a politically prominent family.He made great strides for changes for our country in three short years as president of the United States of America.Tragically all this background and promise he held came to a tragic end with the assassination that may never be finally explained or understood. In my essay you will find information on some of the main theories on the assassination of John F. Kennedy. John Fitzgerald Kennedy, was the youngest man ever to be elected to office, and was the youngest man ever to die in office.On the day of November 22, 1963, John F. Kennedy was assassinated at Dallas, Texas.John had been the President of the United States for two years and ten months.The whole world mourned as they heard that John F. Kennedy had been assassinated.Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson took over as President after John died. John Fitzgerald Kennedy was the second son of Joseph Patrick Kennedy and Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy born on May 29, 1917.The families' ancestors were Irish farmers of Wexford County in southeastern Ireland.The President's grandfather, Patrick J. Kennedy on his father's side, was a state senator and the political leader of a ward in Boston.The President's mother also came from a political family.Her father was John F. Fitzgerald, a colorful politician.Fitzgerald served in the state senate and in the House of Representatives.He also served as mayor of Boston for two terms. John F. Kennedy was born on May 29, 1917, in Brookline, Massachusetts, a suburb of Boston.John's older brother Joseph Jr., 1915-1944, was killed during WWII.Robert Kennedy, John's younger brother, was attorney general under his brother and then served as U.S. Senator for New York until his assassination in 1965.Edward M. Kennedy, John's youngest brother, has served as a U.S. Senator for Massachusetts since 1962.	414	ENGLISH	1
Shalom Cohen (1762-1836) was the founder of the Calcutta Jewish community in West Bengal, which today is a part of India. He had migrated there from Surat (today in another part of India) in 1798. And, he also established the East Bengal Jewish community in what has become Bangladesh today. He sent his employees to Dacca (today Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh) to trade in cloths, silks and muslins, and he himself sojourned there too. In 1817, Moses Duek, a businessman married to Cohen’s eldest daughter Lunah (at the age of 13!), left Calcutta to live for several years in Dacca and established a prayer hall there. Duek carried out his business in partnership with a non-Jew from Aleppo. In 1822, Duek finally returned to Calcutta with his family from Dacca, but kept up business contacts there. It is significant that, while the Baghdadi Jews continued to trade in Dacca, mainly in textiles, but also in pearls and opium, most of the Jews did not live there but actually resided in Calcutta, where they established multiple synagogues. At the time of the Partition of Bengal and India in 1947, when the British pulled out of India, there were some 4,000 Jews in West Bengal, primarily in Calcutta, but, according to reliable sources, there were only about 135 Jews residing in East Bengal in Dacca. The latter became part of East Pakistan, which was (for a brief time) part of the new nation of Pakistan, but separated geographically from it by 1,600 kilometers of Indian territory. The famous American Jewish architect Louis Kahn designed the largest parliament building in the world in Dacca; completed in 1974, it was actually Kahn’s last monumental project. In 1971, the Bangladesh Liberation War took place. Interestingly, it was a Jew,LieutenantGeneral (retired) JFR Jacob, who liberated East Pakistan during this war. General Jacob, as he is often known, was formerly governor of the Punjab and Goa, but today resides in New Delhi. He was born into a Baghdadi Jewish family in Calcutta, and never hid his Jewish ancestry. On the contrary, when I first reached India in the late 1970’s, Lt. General Jacob was an active member of the well-known New Delhi prayer hall, the Judah Hyam Synagogue, which celebrated its 50th anniversary in January 2007. He reached the highest ranks in India, which traditionally promoted co-existence and lived in harmony with its Indian Jewish minority. In the 1960’s, during the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, Lt. General Jacob commanded an infantry division in the Indian state of Rajasthan, which later became India’s twelfth Infantry Division. He became a Major General by 1967. But his finest hour was in 1971 when as Chief of Staff of the Indian Army’s Eastern Command, he defeated Pakistan during the Indo-Pakistani War in two weeks, and successfully liberated East Pakistan. As fighting raged, he flew to Dhaka and wrested an unconditional surrender from Pakistan’s military commander Lt. General A. A. K. Niazi. 90,000 Pakistani soldiers surrendered to the Indian Army. East Pakistan then became the independent state of Bangladesh. Bangladesh is now officially a parliamentary democracy but 90% of the population is Muslim. The Jews in East Pakistan (before it became Bangladesh) were in no way numerous and kept a very low profile in this Muslim country. Apparently today, a few Jews still remain, but they are quite assimilated. There is no synagogue today in Bangladesh, although a few expatriates do meet up on the eve of the Jewish New Year and on the Day of Atonement. Getting a portrait of this elusive community requires patience, a few of the right contacts and quite a bit of ‘digging’. A posting on Trip Advisor by a tourist asking where the synagogue is in Dhaka for Yom Kippur received no serious response and a few months later, the blog was closed “due to inactivity”. Another Jewish blogger shared that he went through a full orthodox conversion, is himself of mixed ancestry, his father being Yemenite Jewish and his mother Bangladeshi. Other people have written into the same blog saying they do business with Bangladesh, visit there and a few even reside there. As one person wrote: “The only Jews you will find in Bangladesh are those merchants with extensive business reasons to stay in Bangladesh.” But liberating military commanders, the monuments of great architects, intrepid travelers and fortune seeking businessmen do not make a community. The question still remains, who are the Jews of Bangladesh? Joseph Edward of Ontario, Canada, explained the history of his family and their unique ties to the region. Joseph’s father Rahamim David Barook and his older brother Ezra Barook, were born in Calcutta, and moved to what was then East Pakistan. They adopted the surname Edward; his brother Ezra was known as Eddy Edward. Rahamim David Edward, Joseph’s father, married a Catholic of Portuguese descent. His uncle married a tribal king’s daughter from the Chittagong Hill Tracts, and she gave birth to a son. However, his wife died during childbirth and Joseph Edward’s uncle gave the baby up to a Muslim family for adoption. Edward has been in contact with cousins living in Arad and Beersheba, Israel. Other members of the family live in Sydney, Australia, in the UK and in Toronto, Canada. Two other families of Jewish descent do in fact still live in Dhaka, but they have converted to Catholicism. Priscilla nee Jacob was married to Alfie D’Costa, who died some years back. Priscilla had her own private school in Dhaka. Her brother Henry also married locally and still resides in Dhaka as a Catholic. Likewise, there were two other Jewish brothers in East Pakistan, whom Joseph Edward knew: Enoch and Zebulon Daniels. Enoch lived in Chittagong and Zebulon lived in Dhaka. Their children now live in Canada and the UK. While the Jews in West Bengal managed to create a full community, the Jews of East Bengal largely lived there for commercial reasons. They were never numerous. Nevertheless, documentation of the Jews of Asia and specifically Pakistan is incomplete without information on the Jews of East Pakistan, or what is today Bangladesh. The full story of this elusive community remains to be written. \|COPYRIGHTWritten material and photographs in the magazine or on the website may not be used or reproduced in any form or in any way without express permission from Erica Lyons • Click to contact us\|	<urn:uuid:325e7214-58f5-45f2-a83b-084e05a507af>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	http://asianjewishlife.org/pages/articles/AJL_Issue_10_Sept2012/AJL_Feature_Unknown-Jews-Bangladesh.html	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250606975.49/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122101729-20200122130729-00419.warc.gz	en	0.981589	1,410	3.390625	3	[ -0.18858563899993896, 0.3307901918888092, -0.01951698586344719, -0.2608034908771515, -0.5152908563613892, 0.02299441024661064, 0.3589540123939514, 0.08344141393899918, -0.19858238101005554, -0.08456680178642273, 0.03873499482870102, -0.61397385597229, -0.1768190860748291, 0.337554246187210...	1	Shalom Cohen (1762-1836) was the founder of the Calcutta Jewish community in West Bengal, which today is a part of India. He had migrated there from Surat (today in another part of India) in 1798. And, he also established the East Bengal Jewish community in what has become Bangladesh today. He sent his employees to Dacca (today Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh) to trade in cloths, silks and muslins, and he himself sojourned there too. In 1817, Moses Duek, a businessman married to Cohen’s eldest daughter Lunah (at the age of 13!), left Calcutta to live for several years in Dacca and established a prayer hall there. Duek carried out his business in partnership with a non-Jew from Aleppo. In 1822, Duek finally returned to Calcutta with his family from Dacca, but kept up business contacts there. It is significant that, while the Baghdadi Jews continued to trade in Dacca, mainly in textiles, but also in pearls and opium, most of the Jews did not live there but actually resided in Calcutta, where they established multiple synagogues. At the time of the Partition of Bengal and India in 1947, when the British pulled out of India, there were some 4,000 Jews in West Bengal, primarily in Calcutta, but, according to reliable sources, there were only about 135 Jews residing in East Bengal in Dacca. The latter became part of East Pakistan, which was (for a brief time) part of the new nation of Pakistan, but separated geographically from it by 1,600 kilometers of Indian territory. The famous American Jewish architect Louis Kahn designed the largest parliament building in the world in Dacca; completed in 1974, it was actually Kahn’s last monumental project. In 1971, the Bangladesh Liberation War took place. Interestingly, it was a Jew,LieutenantGeneral (retired) JFR Jacob, who liberated East Pakistan during this war. General Jacob, as he is often known, was formerly governor of the Punjab and Goa, but today resides in New Delhi. He was born into a Baghdadi Jewish family in Calcutta, and never hid his Jewish ancestry. On the contrary, when I first reached India in the late 1970’s, Lt. General Jacob was an active member of the well-known New Delhi prayer hall, the Judah Hyam Synagogue, which celebrated its 50th anniversary in January 2007. He reached the highest ranks in India, which traditionally promoted co-existence and lived in harmony with its Indian Jewish minority. In the 1960’s, during the Indo-Pakistani War of 1965, Lt. General Jacob commanded an infantry division in the Indian state of Rajasthan, which later became India’s twelfth Infantry Division. He became a Major General by 1967. But his finest hour was in 1971 when as Chief of Staff of the Indian Army’s Eastern Command, he defeated Pakistan during the Indo-Pakistani War in two weeks, and successfully liberated East Pakistan. As fighting raged, he flew to Dhaka and wrested an unconditional surrender from Pakistan’s military commander Lt. General A. A. K. Niazi. 90,000 Pakistani soldiers surrendered to the Indian Army. East Pakistan then became the independent state of Bangladesh. Bangladesh is now officially a parliamentary democracy but 90% of the population is Muslim. The Jews in East Pakistan (before it became Bangladesh) were in no way numerous and kept a very low profile in this Muslim country. Apparently today, a few Jews still remain, but they are quite assimilated. There is no synagogue today in Bangladesh, although a few expatriates do meet up on the eve of the Jewish New Year and on the Day of Atonement. Getting a portrait of this elusive community requires patience, a few of the right contacts and quite a bit of ‘digging’. A posting on Trip Advisor by a tourist asking where the synagogue is in Dhaka for Yom Kippur received no serious response and a few months later, the blog was closed “due to inactivity”. Another Jewish blogger shared that he went through a full orthodox conversion, is himself of mixed ancestry, his father being Yemenite Jewish and his mother Bangladeshi. Other people have written into the same blog saying they do business with Bangladesh, visit there and a few even reside there. As one person wrote: “The only Jews you will find in Bangladesh are those merchants with extensive business reasons to stay in Bangladesh.” But liberating military commanders, the monuments of great architects, intrepid travelers and fortune seeking businessmen do not make a community. The question still remains, who are the Jews of Bangladesh? Joseph Edward of Ontario, Canada, explained the history of his family and their unique ties to the region. Joseph’s father Rahamim David Barook and his older brother Ezra Barook, were born in Calcutta, and moved to what was then East Pakistan. They adopted the surname Edward; his brother Ezra was known as Eddy Edward. Rahamim David Edward, Joseph’s father, married a Catholic of Portuguese descent. His uncle married a tribal king’s daughter from the Chittagong Hill Tracts, and she gave birth to a son. However, his wife died during childbirth and Joseph Edward’s uncle gave the baby up to a Muslim family for adoption. Edward has been in contact with cousins living in Arad and Beersheba, Israel. Other members of the family live in Sydney, Australia, in the UK and in Toronto, Canada. Two other families of Jewish descent do in fact still live in Dhaka, but they have converted to Catholicism. Priscilla nee Jacob was married to Alfie D’Costa, who died some years back. Priscilla had her own private school in Dhaka. Her brother Henry also married locally and still resides in Dhaka as a Catholic. Likewise, there were two other Jewish brothers in East Pakistan, whom Joseph Edward knew: Enoch and Zebulon Daniels. Enoch lived in Chittagong and Zebulon lived in Dhaka. Their children now live in Canada and the UK. While the Jews in West Bengal managed to create a full community, the Jews of East Bengal largely lived there for commercial reasons. They were never numerous. Nevertheless, documentation of the Jews of Asia and specifically Pakistan is incomplete without information on the Jews of East Pakistan, or what is today Bangladesh. The full story of this elusive community remains to be written. \|COPYRIGHTWritten material and photographs in the magazine or on the website may not be used or reproduced in any form or in any way without express permission from Erica Lyons • Click to contact us\|	1,442	ENGLISH	1
0927 GMT January 18, 2020 The condition of the wood was rare, as finds of this kind usually unearth sodden, broken-up and unanalyzable strains of material, express.co.uk wrote. This time, however, scientists were able to sample the timber and analyses it to good effect, allowing researchers to better understand and conclude previous assumptions about trading routes that existed 2,000 years ago. The site was initially found during digs between 2014 and 2016 in an excavation while planned works were carried out on the Rome Metro. In this time, researchers uncovered the villa and portico that once stood in the gardens of Via Sannio. Mauro Bernabei, from the US National Research Council, told Newsweek: "The portico was part of a rich Roman villa. "There were mosaics and columns and, as always happens in Rome, many different layers of buildings and constructions." Bernabeil said his team were particularly interested in studying 24 oak timber planks that were found at the site. These 24 timbers far exceeded the researchers’ initial hopes — that is, to identify the tree species and potentially how old they were through tree-ring dating. However, when the team compared tree ring sequences to those from other European references, they soon realized they were able to pin point the exact location of where the trees had come from. It came as a surprise when it was realized the trees hailed all the way from the Jura mountains in eastern France, over 1,000 miles from Rome. The superb condition of the timber also allowed the scientists to approximate the date the trees were felled, between 40 and 60 CE. Bernabeil said: "We were extremely excited...when we discovered the origin of the timber. “We were very, very surprised. This long transportation of timber was not known.” He explained that the wood would have had to be moved overland by animals in the first stage of its journey. It would then have had to tackle the several rivers that stood between its root location and Rome — both the Saone and Rhone rivers. These rivers were mere drops compared to when the timber came to the shores of the Mediterranean Sea, where more complex means of travel would have required the traders to transport the oak between countries. The bundle would then have reached the Tiber River, before arriving in the center of Rome. The way in which Romans constructed their buildings and the practices they used to complete such comparative momentous tasks has long interested scholars and researchers of the ancient Roman period. An abundance of research looking at how ancient Romans used concrete has been conducted, particularly where they used volcanic ash to prevent cracking. Many believe their building practices to be of a much higher standard than what exists now, despite a clear lacking in certain technology and modern infrastructure. It is why so many ancient structures, including the Pantheon and the Colosseum in Rome, have held off the weight of time. The new discovery will help researchers and Rome enthusiasts alike in understanding the Roman Empire’s vast economy, its trade routes and structural competency. The very fact that the timber was found some 1,000 miles away from its end location suggests huge administrative and logistical efforts would have been made in order to retrieve and maintain such high quality products. The researchers said: "Considering the distances, calculated to be over 1700km (1056 miles), the timber's dimensions, road transport with all the possible obstacles along the way, floating the timber down rivers and finally shipping it across the sea, the logistic organization of the Romans must have been formidable.”	<urn:uuid:13618d49-a989-433e-9e34-ad5922c2edc4>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	http://www.iran-daily.com/News/262552.html	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250592394.9/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118081234-20200118105234-00347.warc.gz	en	0.980517	754	3.75	4	[ -0.15083006024360657, 0.18436282873153687, 0.3786594867706299, -0.04187352955341339, 0.06239693611860275, -0.21251463890075684, -0.5708826184272766, -0.07177020609378815, 0.07298373430967331, -0.04013080522418022, 0.21895082294940948, -0.5796547532081604, -0.3335118293762207, 0.48564615845...	1	0927 GMT January 18, 2020 The condition of the wood was rare, as finds of this kind usually unearth sodden, broken-up and unanalyzable strains of material, express.co.uk wrote. This time, however, scientists were able to sample the timber and analyses it to good effect, allowing researchers to better understand and conclude previous assumptions about trading routes that existed 2,000 years ago. The site was initially found during digs between 2014 and 2016 in an excavation while planned works were carried out on the Rome Metro. In this time, researchers uncovered the villa and portico that once stood in the gardens of Via Sannio. Mauro Bernabei, from the US National Research Council, told Newsweek: "The portico was part of a rich Roman villa. "There were mosaics and columns and, as always happens in Rome, many different layers of buildings and constructions." Bernabeil said his team were particularly interested in studying 24 oak timber planks that were found at the site. These 24 timbers far exceeded the researchers’ initial hopes — that is, to identify the tree species and potentially how old they were through tree-ring dating. However, when the team compared tree ring sequences to those from other European references, they soon realized they were able to pin point the exact location of where the trees had come from. It came as a surprise when it was realized the trees hailed all the way from the Jura mountains in eastern France, over 1,000 miles from Rome. The superb condition of the timber also allowed the scientists to approximate the date the trees were felled, between 40 and 60 CE. Bernabeil said: "We were extremely excited...when we discovered the origin of the timber. “We were very, very surprised. This long transportation of timber was not known.” He explained that the wood would have had to be moved overland by animals in the first stage of its journey. It would then have had to tackle the several rivers that stood between its root location and Rome — both the Saone and Rhone rivers. These rivers were mere drops compared to when the timber came to the shores of the Mediterranean Sea, where more complex means of travel would have required the traders to transport the oak between countries. The bundle would then have reached the Tiber River, before arriving in the center of Rome. The way in which Romans constructed their buildings and the practices they used to complete such comparative momentous tasks has long interested scholars and researchers of the ancient Roman period. An abundance of research looking at how ancient Romans used concrete has been conducted, particularly where they used volcanic ash to prevent cracking. Many believe their building practices to be of a much higher standard than what exists now, despite a clear lacking in certain technology and modern infrastructure. It is why so many ancient structures, including the Pantheon and the Colosseum in Rome, have held off the weight of time. The new discovery will help researchers and Rome enthusiasts alike in understanding the Roman Empire’s vast economy, its trade routes and structural competency. The very fact that the timber was found some 1,000 miles away from its end location suggests huge administrative and logistical efforts would have been made in order to retrieve and maintain such high quality products. The researchers said: "Considering the distances, calculated to be over 1700km (1056 miles), the timber's dimensions, road transport with all the possible obstacles along the way, floating the timber down rivers and finally shipping it across the sea, the logistic organization of the Romans must have been formidable.”	749	ENGLISH	1
The early history of melons in unclear. However melons are probably native to western Asia. They were known in China and they were cultivated by the Arabs. In the Middle Ages they were imported into Europe. information about domain . In the 16th century melons were taken to the New World by the Spanish. Oranges are native to China and they were grown in that country as early as 2,500 BC. The Romans imported oranges but after the fall of Rome they were forgotten in Western Europe. When the Arabs conquered Spain in the 8th century they introduced oranges. Later they were introduced into Italy. In the 16th century Spaniards took oranges to the Americas. In the 17th century rich Englishmen began growing oranges. Cucumbers are native to south Asia. They were grown by the Greeks and Romans. Cucumbers were also grown in England in the Middle Ages. The Spaniards introduced cucumbers into the New World in 1494. Pumpkins are native to central America. The Native Americans used them as a staple food. Pumpkins were adopted as a food by European colonists. Meanwhile Christopher Columbus brought pumpkin seeds to Europe. In Tudor England pumpkins were called pompions.	<urn:uuid:e57478de-bf71-4e6b-8e43-8144f5c1d207>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://agricolabay.com/2012/01/19/some-history/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251689924.62/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126135207-20200126165207-00459.warc.gz	en	0.991022	245	3.46875	3	[ -0.1348133534193039, -0.09993141889572144, 0.3475656509399414, 0.20168496668338776, 0.30917179584503174, -0.2645355463027954, -0.10684683173894882, 0.20363740622997284, -0.12127275764942169, 0.14456166326999664, 0.18452605605125427, -0.7014629244804382, 0.025886282324790955, 0.128052279353...	2	The early history of melons in unclear. However melons are probably native to western Asia. They were known in China and they were cultivated by the Arabs. In the Middle Ages they were imported into Europe. information about domain . In the 16th century melons were taken to the New World by the Spanish. Oranges are native to China and they were grown in that country as early as 2,500 BC. The Romans imported oranges but after the fall of Rome they were forgotten in Western Europe. When the Arabs conquered Spain in the 8th century they introduced oranges. Later they were introduced into Italy. In the 16th century Spaniards took oranges to the Americas. In the 17th century rich Englishmen began growing oranges. Cucumbers are native to south Asia. They were grown by the Greeks and Romans. Cucumbers were also grown in England in the Middle Ages. The Spaniards introduced cucumbers into the New World in 1494. Pumpkins are native to central America. The Native Americans used them as a staple food. Pumpkins were adopted as a food by European colonists. Meanwhile Christopher Columbus brought pumpkin seeds to Europe. In Tudor England pumpkins were called pompions.	259	ENGLISH	1
Plessy v. Ferguson and its significance.? - Anonymous8 years agoFavorite Answer The case was decided on May 18, 1896, by the Supreme Court of the United States, and it established, as a matter of federal constitutional law, as principle of federal constitutional law in the United States, that a state was free to require separate accommodations for different races so long as the provisions made were substantially equal for each race. The specific context in which the case arose: Homer Plessy was a black man who boarded a train in Louisiana. He attempted to enter a car that was, by state law, set aside for members of the white race. He was arrested and charged with violating the law. He was convicted, and his conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Louisiana. The United States Supreme Court ruled against him, stating that requiring separation of the races was not unlawful, so long as equal provisions were made for both. There was no showing that the provisions were unequal. The United States Supreme Court continued with the doctrine of "separate but equal," applying in the cases of Cumming v. Board of Education, Berea College v. Kentucky, Gong Lum v. Rice, and Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, and a few others. This suited a lot of white people, and not just Southerners, just fine, because while they were willing to concede political equality to blacks, they did not necessarily care to associate with them in public places. Substantial investments were made in separate facilities, particularly after the Supreme Court and other federal courts began to get serious about the "equal" part of "separate but equal." Then, all of a sudden, without any warning, and without any change in the United States Constitution, the Supreme Court changed its mind, and held, in an elementary school case, that segregation of the races was unconstitutional. Hey, we are autocratic, dictatorial judges, and we get to change our minds.	<urn:uuid:134ae10c-da52-4f2c-a1ce-15c81c088567>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120213201353AAbr16i	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594333.5/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119064802-20200119092802-00065.warc.gz	en	0.984542	401	3.984375	4	[ -0.18156550824642181, -0.23473575711250305, 0.13471633195877075, -0.0023167221806943417, -0.4814613163471222, 0.1560511291027069, 0.20824337005615234, -0.10888254642486572, 0.40841159224510193, 0.10941539704799652, 0.2986043691635132, 0.10964726656675339, 0.026060502976179123, -0.069451101...	1	Plessy v. Ferguson and its significance.? - Anonymous8 years agoFavorite Answer The case was decided on May 18, 1896, by the Supreme Court of the United States, and it established, as a matter of federal constitutional law, as principle of federal constitutional law in the United States, that a state was free to require separate accommodations for different races so long as the provisions made were substantially equal for each race. The specific context in which the case arose: Homer Plessy was a black man who boarded a train in Louisiana. He attempted to enter a car that was, by state law, set aside for members of the white race. He was arrested and charged with violating the law. He was convicted, and his conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court of Louisiana. The United States Supreme Court ruled against him, stating that requiring separation of the races was not unlawful, so long as equal provisions were made for both. There was no showing that the provisions were unequal. The United States Supreme Court continued with the doctrine of "separate but equal," applying in the cases of Cumming v. Board of Education, Berea College v. Kentucky, Gong Lum v. Rice, and Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada, and a few others. This suited a lot of white people, and not just Southerners, just fine, because while they were willing to concede political equality to blacks, they did not necessarily care to associate with them in public places. Substantial investments were made in separate facilities, particularly after the Supreme Court and other federal courts began to get serious about the "equal" part of "separate but equal." Then, all of a sudden, without any warning, and without any change in the United States Constitution, the Supreme Court changed its mind, and held, in an elementary school case, that segregation of the races was unconstitutional. Hey, we are autocratic, dictatorial judges, and we get to change our minds.	403	ENGLISH	1
Hercules was one of the greatest heroes of Greek history. He had many achievements regardless of the fact that he was the illegitimate son of the Zeus. In one of the 12 labors, he was expected to free himself and earn his glory by Eurystheus; he was charged capturing Greyson’s cattle. Greyson was a fierce giant with three heads, three bodies, six arms, and a single leg. Hercules was expected to seize the cattle that the warrior owned and bring them back to society. It is his actions that brought civilization to the Greek society. After he captured the cattle as was expected of him, many more people started to rear animals and practice animal-related agricultural activities. He was therefore responsible for bringing back civilization in the form of animal rearing and agriculture as the cattle opened up a new type of lifestyle to the people of Greece (Bremmer, 2014). Achilles was another Greek hero who was known for his speed and strength. He was the son of King Peleus, and his mother was Thetis. Although his parents were immortal, Achilles was mortal, and this thought troubled his mother to a great extent. In one of his heroic activities, Achilles killed Hector, a soldier of the Trojan army in a competition that he was supposed to take part on behalf of his people. However, after the death of Hector, regardless of the bitterness and rivalry between them for killing his friend Patroclus, he allowed his father to have his body to prepare it for a proper burial. On the other hand, Hector had not allowed Patroclus to have an appropriate burial by dragging him through the sand in an attempt to provoke Achilles to stage a battle against his people. Achilles, therefore, brought back civilization in the war zone by allowing his enemy to have the chance to carry out a proper burial for one of them he had slain. It is from this action that in many battlefields, enemies allow the losers a chance to take up the bodies of their loved ones to accord them a proper burial like a civilized society (Bremmer, 2014). As outlined above, the role that heroes played in Greek society to bring back civilization cannot be overlooked. Achilles and Hercules are among the many heroes in Greek history known to have helped in the reestablishment of civilization in society. Their actions have helped do away with barbaric activities in the community and also resulted in the adoption of better modus operandi in society. Bremmer, J. N., & Bremmer, J. N. (2014). Interpretations of Greek Mythology (Routledge Revivals). Routledge.	<urn:uuid:e8614503-3fff-44c5-bb78-e90f6bc2da78>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://freebookessay.com/free-essay-examples/greek-mythical-heroes-and-civilization-essay/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250591763.20/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118023429-20200118051429-00517.warc.gz	en	0.988989	533	3.40625	3	[ -0.4990885555744171, 0.3713170289993286, 0.3556399941444397, 0.07564733922481537, -0.4275079369544983, -0.5355813503265381, 0.15011759102344513, 0.7650187611579895, -0.10636119544506073, 0.18215855956077576, -0.2532121241092682, -0.4926866590976715, -0.06216582655906677, 0.5126060247421265...	2	Hercules was one of the greatest heroes of Greek history. He had many achievements regardless of the fact that he was the illegitimate son of the Zeus. In one of the 12 labors, he was expected to free himself and earn his glory by Eurystheus; he was charged capturing Greyson’s cattle. Greyson was a fierce giant with three heads, three bodies, six arms, and a single leg. Hercules was expected to seize the cattle that the warrior owned and bring them back to society. It is his actions that brought civilization to the Greek society. After he captured the cattle as was expected of him, many more people started to rear animals and practice animal-related agricultural activities. He was therefore responsible for bringing back civilization in the form of animal rearing and agriculture as the cattle opened up a new type of lifestyle to the people of Greece (Bremmer, 2014). Achilles was another Greek hero who was known for his speed and strength. He was the son of King Peleus, and his mother was Thetis. Although his parents were immortal, Achilles was mortal, and this thought troubled his mother to a great extent. In one of his heroic activities, Achilles killed Hector, a soldier of the Trojan army in a competition that he was supposed to take part on behalf of his people. However, after the death of Hector, regardless of the bitterness and rivalry between them for killing his friend Patroclus, he allowed his father to have his body to prepare it for a proper burial. On the other hand, Hector had not allowed Patroclus to have an appropriate burial by dragging him through the sand in an attempt to provoke Achilles to stage a battle against his people. Achilles, therefore, brought back civilization in the war zone by allowing his enemy to have the chance to carry out a proper burial for one of them he had slain. It is from this action that in many battlefields, enemies allow the losers a chance to take up the bodies of their loved ones to accord them a proper burial like a civilized society (Bremmer, 2014). As outlined above, the role that heroes played in Greek society to bring back civilization cannot be overlooked. Achilles and Hercules are among the many heroes in Greek history known to have helped in the reestablishment of civilization in society. Their actions have helped do away with barbaric activities in the community and also resulted in the adoption of better modus operandi in society. Bremmer, J. N., & Bremmer, J. N. (2014). Interpretations of Greek Mythology (Routledge Revivals). Routledge.	543	ENGLISH	1
In Ohio’s early years it lacked a facility to treat those with mental illnesses. Unfortunately, anyone with mental illness who couldn’t be cared for at home were housed in local jails or in the Ohio Penitentiary, probably exacerbating their illness. Thankfully in 1835 the Ohio Lunatic Asylum was established through a bill passed by the Ohio General Assembly. This was the first state-supported hospital in Ohio. And was the first facility west of the Allegheny Mountains established to treat mental illness. The asylum was built in the state capital of Columbus on a plot of 30 acres on East Broad Street. At the time it cost $61,000 to complete. In 1838 it opened and quickly became home to more than 100 patients. The asylum was unique in that it did not turn away patients based on their family’s ability to pay for treatment and housing. As other facilities were built throughout the state the facility renamed itself the Central Ohio Lunatic Asylum and for several years housed and treated more than three-hundred patients. In November of 1868 the majority of the facility was destroyed by fire. Surviving patients were re-homed at the Ohio School for the Deaf but these patients were quickly sent home or to prisons. The asylum was rebuilt on West Broad Street on 300 acres of land and was completed in 1877 (after seven years of construction). It cost 1.5 million dollars and was the largest structure in the US until the Pentagon was built in the 1940s. The renamed Columbus Hospital for the Insane (eventually renamed to the kinder title of Columbus State Hospital in 1894) it followed the teachings of Thomas Kirkbride. By 1935 the hospital would be called home by almost 3,000 patients. The building had troubles with fluctuations in state funding and was demolished in the 1990’s to make space for office buildings. Ohio has its own special place in sports history–here are some brief highlights of just a few female Ohioans who made their name in sports. From Loveland, Ohio: Maude Bechdolt Detro competed in the Summer Olympics, 1972, in archery. She came in 28th. Grove City, Ohio: Ann Grossman was a nationally ranked tennis player at just the age of 9. In 1988, she qualified to play at the US Open (she was just 16) and went pro just two years later in 1988 (at the age of 18). In 1998 after an impressive career she retired. 60 Years before the WNBA would even exist, the girls of Elmore High School (1931) took home the Ottawa County Championship. Commercial Point, Ohio: Sarah Fisher found herself the 3rd youngest driver and, overall, the youngest woman to compete in the Indianapolis 500 at the turn of the century in 2000. She also became the youngest woman to place, coming in at an impressive 3rd. Formed in 1971 the Toledo Troopers formed to play in the Women’s Professional Football League. They went on to become one of the most-winning teams in all of professional football history. These highlights capture just some of Ohio’s famous female athletes. At the National Road and Zane Grey Museum you can learn about US 40 which is the old National Road once known as the Main Street of America. At the museum you can explore the Westerns and novels of famous Ohioan author Zane Grey (of Zanesville, Ohio) and see the artful pottery that this region of Ohio is famous for. Learn about the history of the road from construction to transportation, wagons to cars and more. The exhibit demonstrates with period objects what is would have been to like to travel on the Main Street of America during the early 19th century to the mid 20th century. The 136 foot long exhibit is quite educational. The Main Street of America was the busiest route west and traveled from Cumberland, Maryland to Vandalia, Illinois. Construction on the road began in 1806 and in the early 19th century was the only significant link between the coasts of America. This route, the brainchild of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson was the vein which fed crops and goods back and forth between East and West and aided greatly in immigration. Mr. Zane Grey was born in Zanesville, Ohio in 1872. He authored over eighty books but is best known for his novels about the old West. Grey wrote sixty some Westerns, 9 novels about fishing, 3 books tracing the lineage and history of the Ohio Zanes, a biography of young George Washington and plenty of short stories—somewhat of a literary heavyweight. Zane’s novels remain popular in the present day. The museum has recreated the study in which Zane penned many of these work and includes many original manuscripts and personal items of Zane’s. MSN recently rated the “most haunted” hotel in every state. So, what spooky spot did they pick for Ohio? The beautifully appointed Lafayette Hotel in Marietta, OH. Those who believe the hotel to be haunted often say it is the old owner and that he likes to play tricks on guests by moving around items in their rooms, overturning their suit cases and emptying shampoo bottles. Yet the real history of the hotel is far more fascinating. Marietta was established as the first permanent settlement in 1788. The hotel was named for the Marquis de Lafayette who was the French hero of the American Revolution who visited Marietta in 1825. Today locals still like to boast that Lafayette was the first tourist to visit Marietta. A plaque near the hotel marks where he came ashore. Before the Lafayette Hotel was built stood the Bellevue Hotel, built in 1892. It had fifty-five steam heated rooms and was four stories tall. It also included a bar and call bell system in all rooms. Their marketing promised hot and cold baths and the rate was only about two dollars a night. The Bellevue was taken by fire in 1916, Lafayette guests can view pictures of the fire in Gunroom Restaurant. A Marietta man rebuilt the hotel in 1918 and named it the Lafayette. Today the rooms still have many artifacts from the hotel’s past bringing together this wonderful story from Ohio history. Hallie Quinn Brown was born in 1850 in Pittsburgh, PA. Brown’s parents were former slaves. The family moved to Canada first before settling in Wilberforce, OH. Here Brown would attend Wilberforce College. She received a degree in 1873. Brown would go on to teach at Allen University and even serve as Dean for the University. She would become Dean of Women at Tuskegee Institute. Brown eventually comes back to Ohio where she taught in the Dayton public school system. Brown had a long-time interest in public speaking. In 1895 she would address a large audience at the Women’s Christian Temperance Union Conference in London. Serving as one of the US representatives in 1899 she spoke at the International Congress of Women in London, UK. Brown also had the honor of speaking before Queen Victoria. Brown became involved in the suffrage campaign for women’s right to vote. Not slowing down, Brown helped organize the Colored Women’s League in Washington, D.C.. This organization would ally with others to become the National Association of Colored Women. Brown would become president of NACW and in the last year of her position spoke at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, OH. Hallie Q. Brown wrote and published several notable books. The most well know was her Homespun Heroines and Other Women of Distinction. In which Brown documented the lives of African American women of the time. She died in Wilberforce, Ohio in 1949.	<urn:uuid:289bc25d-ac37-4c11-b112-13e1aefc9202>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://jodyvictor.blogcreek.com/page/2/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250606226.29/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121222429-20200122011429-00494.warc.gz	en	0.982089	1,595	3.296875	3	[ -0.15228453278541565, -0.015522206202149391, 0.040042296051979065, 0.02286582812666893, -0.18683382868766785, 0.44066405296325684, 0.05177164822816849, 0.06538752466440201, -0.21245507895946503, -0.13856369256973267, 0.1787896752357483, -0.31819725036621094, -0.29310089349746704, 0.0269735...	1	In Ohio’s early years it lacked a facility to treat those with mental illnesses. Unfortunately, anyone with mental illness who couldn’t be cared for at home were housed in local jails or in the Ohio Penitentiary, probably exacerbating their illness. Thankfully in 1835 the Ohio Lunatic Asylum was established through a bill passed by the Ohio General Assembly. This was the first state-supported hospital in Ohio. And was the first facility west of the Allegheny Mountains established to treat mental illness. The asylum was built in the state capital of Columbus on a plot of 30 acres on East Broad Street. At the time it cost $61,000 to complete. In 1838 it opened and quickly became home to more than 100 patients. The asylum was unique in that it did not turn away patients based on their family’s ability to pay for treatment and housing. As other facilities were built throughout the state the facility renamed itself the Central Ohio Lunatic Asylum and for several years housed and treated more than three-hundred patients. In November of 1868 the majority of the facility was destroyed by fire. Surviving patients were re-homed at the Ohio School for the Deaf but these patients were quickly sent home or to prisons. The asylum was rebuilt on West Broad Street on 300 acres of land and was completed in 1877 (after seven years of construction). It cost 1.5 million dollars and was the largest structure in the US until the Pentagon was built in the 1940s. The renamed Columbus Hospital for the Insane (eventually renamed to the kinder title of Columbus State Hospital in 1894) it followed the teachings of Thomas Kirkbride. By 1935 the hospital would be called home by almost 3,000 patients. The building had troubles with fluctuations in state funding and was demolished in the 1990’s to make space for office buildings. Ohio has its own special place in sports history–here are some brief highlights of just a few female Ohioans who made their name in sports. From Loveland, Ohio: Maude Bechdolt Detro competed in the Summer Olympics, 1972, in archery. She came in 28th. Grove City, Ohio: Ann Grossman was a nationally ranked tennis player at just the age of 9. In 1988, she qualified to play at the US Open (she was just 16) and went pro just two years later in 1988 (at the age of 18). In 1998 after an impressive career she retired. 60 Years before the WNBA would even exist, the girls of Elmore High School (1931) took home the Ottawa County Championship. Commercial Point, Ohio: Sarah Fisher found herself the 3rd youngest driver and, overall, the youngest woman to compete in the Indianapolis 500 at the turn of the century in 2000. She also became the youngest woman to place, coming in at an impressive 3rd. Formed in 1971 the Toledo Troopers formed to play in the Women’s Professional Football League. They went on to become one of the most-winning teams in all of professional football history. These highlights capture just some of Ohio’s famous female athletes. At the National Road and Zane Grey Museum you can learn about US 40 which is the old National Road once known as the Main Street of America. At the museum you can explore the Westerns and novels of famous Ohioan author Zane Grey (of Zanesville, Ohio) and see the artful pottery that this region of Ohio is famous for. Learn about the history of the road from construction to transportation, wagons to cars and more. The exhibit demonstrates with period objects what is would have been to like to travel on the Main Street of America during the early 19th century to the mid 20th century. The 136 foot long exhibit is quite educational. The Main Street of America was the busiest route west and traveled from Cumberland, Maryland to Vandalia, Illinois. Construction on the road began in 1806 and in the early 19th century was the only significant link between the coasts of America. This route, the brainchild of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson was the vein which fed crops and goods back and forth between East and West and aided greatly in immigration. Mr. Zane Grey was born in Zanesville, Ohio in 1872. He authored over eighty books but is best known for his novels about the old West. Grey wrote sixty some Westerns, 9 novels about fishing, 3 books tracing the lineage and history of the Ohio Zanes, a biography of young George Washington and plenty of short stories—somewhat of a literary heavyweight. Zane’s novels remain popular in the present day. The museum has recreated the study in which Zane penned many of these work and includes many original manuscripts and personal items of Zane’s. MSN recently rated the “most haunted” hotel in every state. So, what spooky spot did they pick for Ohio? The beautifully appointed Lafayette Hotel in Marietta, OH. Those who believe the hotel to be haunted often say it is the old owner and that he likes to play tricks on guests by moving around items in their rooms, overturning their suit cases and emptying shampoo bottles. Yet the real history of the hotel is far more fascinating. Marietta was established as the first permanent settlement in 1788. The hotel was named for the Marquis de Lafayette who was the French hero of the American Revolution who visited Marietta in 1825. Today locals still like to boast that Lafayette was the first tourist to visit Marietta. A plaque near the hotel marks where he came ashore. Before the Lafayette Hotel was built stood the Bellevue Hotel, built in 1892. It had fifty-five steam heated rooms and was four stories tall. It also included a bar and call bell system in all rooms. Their marketing promised hot and cold baths and the rate was only about two dollars a night. The Bellevue was taken by fire in 1916, Lafayette guests can view pictures of the fire in Gunroom Restaurant. A Marietta man rebuilt the hotel in 1918 and named it the Lafayette. Today the rooms still have many artifacts from the hotel’s past bringing together this wonderful story from Ohio history. Hallie Quinn Brown was born in 1850 in Pittsburgh, PA. Brown’s parents were former slaves. The family moved to Canada first before settling in Wilberforce, OH. Here Brown would attend Wilberforce College. She received a degree in 1873. Brown would go on to teach at Allen University and even serve as Dean for the University. She would become Dean of Women at Tuskegee Institute. Brown eventually comes back to Ohio where she taught in the Dayton public school system. Brown had a long-time interest in public speaking. In 1895 she would address a large audience at the Women’s Christian Temperance Union Conference in London. Serving as one of the US representatives in 1899 she spoke at the International Congress of Women in London, UK. Brown also had the honor of speaking before Queen Victoria. Brown became involved in the suffrage campaign for women’s right to vote. Not slowing down, Brown helped organize the Colored Women’s League in Washington, D.C.. This organization would ally with others to become the National Association of Colored Women. Brown would become president of NACW and in the last year of her position spoke at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, OH. Hallie Q. Brown wrote and published several notable books. The most well know was her Homespun Heroines and Other Women of Distinction. In which Brown documented the lives of African American women of the time. She died in Wilberforce, Ohio in 1949.	1,668	ENGLISH	1
Mackenzie Bowell facts for kids Sir Mackenzie Bowell \|5th Prime Minister of Canada\| 21 December 1894 – 27 April 1896 \|Preceded by\|\|Sir John Thompson\| \|Succeeded by\|\|Sir Charles Tupper\| 27 December 1823\| \|Died\|\|10 December 1917 \|Alma mater\|\|None (no post-secondary schooling)\| \|Occupation\|\|Newspaperman: printer, editor and, later, owner\| Bowell was born in Rickinghall, Suffolk, England to John Bowell and Elizabeth Marshall. In 1832 his family moved to Belleville, Ontario. He started work helping the printer at the town newspaper, The Intelligencer. He became printer and editor with that newspaper, and later its owner. He was a Freemason and an Orangeman, becoming Grandmaster of the Orange Order of British North America, 1870 – 1878. In 1847 he married Harriet Moore (1829 – 1884). He had four sons and five daughters. Bowell was elected to the House of Commons in 1867, as a Conservative, for North Hastings, Ontario. In 1878 he became Minister of Customs. In 1892 he became Minister of Militia and Defence. He was a skilled and hardworking administrator. He later became Minister of Trade and Commerce. He was elected to the Senate. His visit to Australia in 1893 led to the first meeting of British colonies and territories. It was held in Ottawa in 1894. He became Leader of the Government in the Senate on October 31 1893. In December 1894 the Prime Minister Sir John Thompson died suddenly. Bowell was the most senior Cabinet minister and was appointed Prime Minister by the Governor General. Bowell was the second of two Canadian Prime Ministers to serve in the Senate rather than the House of Commons. (The first was John Abbott.) Manitoba Schools Question As Prime Minister, Bowell faced the difficult Manitoba Schools Question. In 1890 Manitoba stopped giving money to Catholic schools. This was the opposite of an earlier law called in the Manitoba Act of 1870. Bowell other political leaders could not solve the problem. It had divided the country, the government, and even Bowell's own Cabinet. He could not make up his own mind on how to fix the problem. As a Senator he could not speak in the arguments in the House of Commons. Bowell supported a law that would have forced Manitoba to restore funding the Catholic schools. His Cabinet did not agree. Normal government activities stopped. His Cabinet decided he did not have the ability to be Prime Minister and he was forced to resign. Seven government ministers resigned and stopped new people from being appointed. Bowell called them "a nest of traitors". After ten days, the Governor General stepped in and the problem was solved. Six of the ministers went back to their jobs. Charles Tupper was the person who was seen as the real leader. Tupper had been Canadian High Commissioner to the United Kingdom. He had been asked to come back and taker over from Bowell. Bowell resigned at the end of the parliamentary session. Bowell was the Conservative leader until 1906. He stayed in the Senate until his death. He died of pneumonia in Bellville, just before he turned 94. He was buried in the Belleville Cemetery. His funeral was attended by a full group of the Orange Order. Bowell's descendants live in Hertfordshire, England. Supreme Court appointments Mackenzie Bowell Facts for Kids. Kiddle Encyclopedia.	<urn:uuid:a938be96-9d55-4673-b551-5bfdcdf19da2>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://kids.kiddle.co/Mackenzie_Bowell	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250614880.58/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124011048-20200124040048-00438.warc.gz	en	0.984778	726	3.265625	3	[ -0.006497409660369158, -0.057340290397405624, 0.40528613328933716, -0.4363102316856384, -0.037216220051050186, 0.036962077021598816, -0.25172150135040283, 0.09575263410806656, -0.06052058935165405, -0.17866098880767822, 0.3487864136695862, -0.31789630651474, 0.37527623772621155, 0.09304673...	1	Mackenzie Bowell facts for kids Sir Mackenzie Bowell \|5th Prime Minister of Canada\| 21 December 1894 – 27 April 1896 \|Preceded by\|\|Sir John Thompson\| \|Succeeded by\|\|Sir Charles Tupper\| 27 December 1823\| \|Died\|\|10 December 1917 \|Alma mater\|\|None (no post-secondary schooling)\| \|Occupation\|\|Newspaperman: printer, editor and, later, owner\| Bowell was born in Rickinghall, Suffolk, England to John Bowell and Elizabeth Marshall. In 1832 his family moved to Belleville, Ontario. He started work helping the printer at the town newspaper, The Intelligencer. He became printer and editor with that newspaper, and later its owner. He was a Freemason and an Orangeman, becoming Grandmaster of the Orange Order of British North America, 1870 – 1878. In 1847 he married Harriet Moore (1829 – 1884). He had four sons and five daughters. Bowell was elected to the House of Commons in 1867, as a Conservative, for North Hastings, Ontario. In 1878 he became Minister of Customs. In 1892 he became Minister of Militia and Defence. He was a skilled and hardworking administrator. He later became Minister of Trade and Commerce. He was elected to the Senate. His visit to Australia in 1893 led to the first meeting of British colonies and territories. It was held in Ottawa in 1894. He became Leader of the Government in the Senate on October 31 1893. In December 1894 the Prime Minister Sir John Thompson died suddenly. Bowell was the most senior Cabinet minister and was appointed Prime Minister by the Governor General. Bowell was the second of two Canadian Prime Ministers to serve in the Senate rather than the House of Commons. (The first was John Abbott.) Manitoba Schools Question As Prime Minister, Bowell faced the difficult Manitoba Schools Question. In 1890 Manitoba stopped giving money to Catholic schools. This was the opposite of an earlier law called in the Manitoba Act of 1870. Bowell other political leaders could not solve the problem. It had divided the country, the government, and even Bowell's own Cabinet. He could not make up his own mind on how to fix the problem. As a Senator he could not speak in the arguments in the House of Commons. Bowell supported a law that would have forced Manitoba to restore funding the Catholic schools. His Cabinet did not agree. Normal government activities stopped. His Cabinet decided he did not have the ability to be Prime Minister and he was forced to resign. Seven government ministers resigned and stopped new people from being appointed. Bowell called them "a nest of traitors". After ten days, the Governor General stepped in and the problem was solved. Six of the ministers went back to their jobs. Charles Tupper was the person who was seen as the real leader. Tupper had been Canadian High Commissioner to the United Kingdom. He had been asked to come back and taker over from Bowell. Bowell resigned at the end of the parliamentary session. Bowell was the Conservative leader until 1906. He stayed in the Senate until his death. He died of pneumonia in Bellville, just before he turned 94. He was buried in the Belleville Cemetery. His funeral was attended by a full group of the Orange Order. Bowell's descendants live in Hertfordshire, England. Supreme Court appointments Mackenzie Bowell Facts for Kids. Kiddle Encyclopedia.	791	ENGLISH	1
The following memory of Chanukah, written by Yehoshua Rotman and translated by Jerrold Landau, is included in the Yizkor book: Memorial Book of the Martyrs of Lezajsk who Perished in the Holocaust (Leżajsk, Poland). Many Chanukah Menorahs of various types were displayed in the windows. Children accompanied their parents to purchase candles, and they chose the type that they prefer. There was no house that did not have a Chanukah Menorah burning. The Menorahs were all different and of various forms; they were heirlooms passed on from father to son to grandchild. The gentiles knew the time of the festival, and they came to town in the days prior to the festival with flax wicks and flasks of oil for sale. Fathers would stand and unwind the wicks from the flax bundles. At the time of candle lighting they would recite the benediction with enthusiasm, as well as chapters of Psalms, and particularly they would sing the “Maoz Tzur” hymn which was the height of the celebration. This was a very joyous holiday for the children. The lessons stopped at the eve of the festival. They were free from Cheder, and they went together with their parents to the synagogues, frolicked about and enjoyed the miracle of the Maccabees in their own way. The first candle in the great synagogue glowed from the burnished brass candelabra and spread the light of joy to the children who were gathered around its base. Reb Yosef the shammas sung the benedictions with his sweet voice. It was pleasant to hear, and if the day was snowy, the festivities would be doubled. The children would throw snowballs at each other during the time of candle lighting. In the house, everyone was patient until the end of the ceremony, at which time they would receive their Chanukah money (Gelt), spread out on the floor and to spin their homemade tops (Dreidels) made of wood or lead. The older children would wander around the women’s gallery and they would play cards. On Chanukah it was permissible to play cards. Outside it was frozen and icy, and inside the house there was warmth of the soul. The home was pleasant on Chanukah nights, which left impressions of light and pleasantness for many days On the next day, they slaughtered geese, and prepared fat for the whole year. The smell of the fat was strong. Granite bells were displayed from every Jewish window and door. On the long nights of Kislev, women sat around with their heads covered with large kerchiefs, and softened feathers to make down for the pillows of the girls about to be married, so that they should remember their mothers as they put their heads down on their warm, soft pillow. The house was white from the flying feathers, and the street from the snow and ice; this was a white world in the darkness of the exile.	<urn:uuid:eeb23ede-54c1-47a5-a8d1-5039f4d73a2c>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.jewishgen.org/new/blog/chanukah-in-lezajsk-poland/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250601040.47/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120224950-20200121013950-00404.warc.gz	en	0.985866	638	3.34375	3	[ -0.1524692177772522, 0.6548088192939758, -0.14425323903560638, 0.08054356276988983, -0.4365938901901245, 0.15529461205005646, 0.19480165839195251, 0.1581813395023346, -0.10045444220304489, -0.2681087255477905, -0.20262876152992249, 0.11011478304862976, 0.4656102657318115, 0.678383946418762...	7	The following memory of Chanukah, written by Yehoshua Rotman and translated by Jerrold Landau, is included in the Yizkor book: Memorial Book of the Martyrs of Lezajsk who Perished in the Holocaust (Leżajsk, Poland). Many Chanukah Menorahs of various types were displayed in the windows. Children accompanied their parents to purchase candles, and they chose the type that they prefer. There was no house that did not have a Chanukah Menorah burning. The Menorahs were all different and of various forms; they were heirlooms passed on from father to son to grandchild. The gentiles knew the time of the festival, and they came to town in the days prior to the festival with flax wicks and flasks of oil for sale. Fathers would stand and unwind the wicks from the flax bundles. At the time of candle lighting they would recite the benediction with enthusiasm, as well as chapters of Psalms, and particularly they would sing the “Maoz Tzur” hymn which was the height of the celebration. This was a very joyous holiday for the children. The lessons stopped at the eve of the festival. They were free from Cheder, and they went together with their parents to the synagogues, frolicked about and enjoyed the miracle of the Maccabees in their own way. The first candle in the great synagogue glowed from the burnished brass candelabra and spread the light of joy to the children who were gathered around its base. Reb Yosef the shammas sung the benedictions with his sweet voice. It was pleasant to hear, and if the day was snowy, the festivities would be doubled. The children would throw snowballs at each other during the time of candle lighting. In the house, everyone was patient until the end of the ceremony, at which time they would receive their Chanukah money (Gelt), spread out on the floor and to spin their homemade tops (Dreidels) made of wood or lead. The older children would wander around the women’s gallery and they would play cards. On Chanukah it was permissible to play cards. Outside it was frozen and icy, and inside the house there was warmth of the soul. The home was pleasant on Chanukah nights, which left impressions of light and pleasantness for many days On the next day, they slaughtered geese, and prepared fat for the whole year. The smell of the fat was strong. Granite bells were displayed from every Jewish window and door. On the long nights of Kislev, women sat around with their heads covered with large kerchiefs, and softened feathers to make down for the pillows of the girls about to be married, so that they should remember their mothers as they put their heads down on their warm, soft pillow. The house was white from the flying feathers, and the street from the snow and ice; this was a white world in the darkness of the exile.	627	ENGLISH	1
Baruch Spinoza (born November 24, 1632, Amsterdam, Dutch Republic – died February 21, 1677, The Hague, Dutch Republic) was a Dutch philosopher and one of the key figures of the 17th-century Dutch and European Enlightenment. He is famous for the development of monist philosophy, which is known as Spinozism. Spinoza’s magnum opus, the Ethics, was written in Latin and first published posthumously in 1677. The work earned him recognition as one of the foremost thinkers of Western philosophy. The significance of Spinoza’s work was not fully understood many years after his death. Today, Spinoza is considered one of the great rationalists of the 17th-century philosophy.	<urn:uuid:30a6f805-f041-476a-9add-c00fd61d44f1>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.magicalquote.com/30-reasonable-baruch-spinoza-quotes/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250606269.37/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122012204-20200122041204-00313.warc.gz	en	0.990516	158	3.640625	4	[ -0.1291758269071579, 0.1749734729528427, 0.03135451301932335, -0.44130247831344604, -0.5108829736709595, 0.23626120388507843, 0.5996259450912476, 0.4626030921936035, -0.12229953706264496, -0.2527286410331726, -0.5459966659545898, -0.34993770718574524, -0.3691090941429138, 0.438276708126068...	4	Baruch Spinoza (born November 24, 1632, Amsterdam, Dutch Republic – died February 21, 1677, The Hague, Dutch Republic) was a Dutch philosopher and one of the key figures of the 17th-century Dutch and European Enlightenment. He is famous for the development of monist philosophy, which is known as Spinozism. Spinoza’s magnum opus, the Ethics, was written in Latin and first published posthumously in 1677. The work earned him recognition as one of the foremost thinkers of Western philosophy. The significance of Spinoza’s work was not fully understood many years after his death. Today, Spinoza is considered one of the great rationalists of the 17th-century philosophy.	167	ENGLISH	1
Paper type: Reflection Pages: 2 (460 words) As all civilizations do, Athens and Sparta have provided many things for the modern world. And as everything else, both have their strengths and weaknesses. Athens focused more on education and the arts while Sparta revolved around military strength and battle. Because Sparta had such a massively influential military, we use tactics and strategies derived from them even today. They invented the Phalanx; a military formation of standing closely packed and moving forward slowly to break enemy lines. Spartans also conceived the idea of militaristic schools. They were also the first to enforce conscription. The Spartans would also train their women to fight for themselves so they would be prepared to defend their homes and lives if there was ever an invasion. They also had many more rights than in the other city-states. They could own property, talk to other men aside from their husbands, and be physically educated. Women were not useless. This ideal planted the seed for our way of society today. Athens, on the other hand, dedicated itself to the arts and architecture. Which we do see traces of in the works of the modern world. The Athenians also practiced the first notion of democracy. Although, only men could vote. Women, children, nor slaves had that privilege. They were not citizens. Girls were educated (cleaning, cooking, and sewing) until the age of 15, when they were married off to an older man. Before Athens, Greece had no large architecture; only what was necessary. They developed the idea of having large, ornate building built from mud, clay, terra-cotta, marble, and eventually stone. Many of which still stand today. The Athenians used a system of terra-cotta tubing underground to distribute water throughout the city. This led to a boost in the economy and the workings of plumbing today. They used trial by jury and produced some of the best philosophers of both their and our time. Despite being rivals, both Athens and Sparta (and the rest of the city-states in ancient Greece) came together for the Olympics. They put aside their differences for that short time and honed their dislike for each other into beating them at the games. The tradition of the Olympics has carried on for about 2700 years from ancient Greece. In conclusion, both were colossally important. They both have their pros and cons. They’re so enormously different but both prospered because of totally different reasons. Sparta: strong, fierce, striving for absolute perfection in their citizens and warfare. And then Athens: philosophical, educated, and artistic. Their economy was largely different. As was their government, gender roles, social structure, education, and many other things. If they had put aside their differences and worked together, they would have been able to achieve far more than they did separately. Cite this page Athens vs. Sparta Reflection Essay. (2016, Jul 05). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/athens-vs-sparta-reflection-essay	<urn:uuid:bd91758d-0ddf-4ab3-a946-3a50c0d84741>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://studymoose.com/athens-vs-sparta-reflection-essay	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250606269.37/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122012204-20200122041204-00319.warc.gz	en	0.982518	635	3.875	4	[ -0.43545281887054443, 0.39386117458343506, 0.3753266930580139, -0.20576998591423035, -0.4719812870025635, -0.04121861606836319, -0.11511446535587311, 0.8070446252822876, -0.22902506589889526, -0.15795421600341797, -0.3284687101840973, 0.02307538315653801, 0.12808820605278015, 0.33534610271...	1	Paper type: Reflection Pages: 2 (460 words) As all civilizations do, Athens and Sparta have provided many things for the modern world. And as everything else, both have their strengths and weaknesses. Athens focused more on education and the arts while Sparta revolved around military strength and battle. Because Sparta had such a massively influential military, we use tactics and strategies derived from them even today. They invented the Phalanx; a military formation of standing closely packed and moving forward slowly to break enemy lines. Spartans also conceived the idea of militaristic schools. They were also the first to enforce conscription. The Spartans would also train their women to fight for themselves so they would be prepared to defend their homes and lives if there was ever an invasion. They also had many more rights than in the other city-states. They could own property, talk to other men aside from their husbands, and be physically educated. Women were not useless. This ideal planted the seed for our way of society today. Athens, on the other hand, dedicated itself to the arts and architecture. Which we do see traces of in the works of the modern world. The Athenians also practiced the first notion of democracy. Although, only men could vote. Women, children, nor slaves had that privilege. They were not citizens. Girls were educated (cleaning, cooking, and sewing) until the age of 15, when they were married off to an older man. Before Athens, Greece had no large architecture; only what was necessary. They developed the idea of having large, ornate building built from mud, clay, terra-cotta, marble, and eventually stone. Many of which still stand today. The Athenians used a system of terra-cotta tubing underground to distribute water throughout the city. This led to a boost in the economy and the workings of plumbing today. They used trial by jury and produced some of the best philosophers of both their and our time. Despite being rivals, both Athens and Sparta (and the rest of the city-states in ancient Greece) came together for the Olympics. They put aside their differences for that short time and honed their dislike for each other into beating them at the games. The tradition of the Olympics has carried on for about 2700 years from ancient Greece. In conclusion, both were colossally important. They both have their pros and cons. They’re so enormously different but both prospered because of totally different reasons. Sparta: strong, fierce, striving for absolute perfection in their citizens and warfare. And then Athens: philosophical, educated, and artistic. Their economy was largely different. As was their government, gender roles, social structure, education, and many other things. If they had put aside their differences and worked together, they would have been able to achieve far more than they did separately. Cite this page Athens vs. Sparta Reflection Essay. (2016, Jul 05). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/athens-vs-sparta-reflection-essay	626	ENGLISH	1
By Jonathan G. Utley , University of Illinois at Chicago As congressman, U.S. secretary of state, and Nobel Laureate, Cordell Hull had a remarkable career. Born to a poor family in the isolated "Mountain Section" of upper Middle Tennessee, he was educated first at home, then free schools, and, as the family income increased, at private schools. Education took him to law and law to politics. As a politician, Hull was a staunch Democrat and opponent of the protective tariff. When he made his first political speech at age sixteen, it was against the tariff. Twenty years later, he delivered his maiden speech in the House of Representatives on the evils of the protective tariff. Between those events, Hull served his party, won election to the Tennessee General Assembly, practiced law, and became a circuit court judge. Elected to Congress in 1906, Hull earned a footnote in history in 1913 when the Democrats lowered tariffs and turned to this moderate progressive to write an income tax law that was progressive but not too radical. This parochial, hardworking party man changed during World War I. He had always seen the tariff as a local issue, but the Great War changed his perspective, and he came to believe that world peace and progress depended upon nations having free access to the raw materials and markets of the world. He twice urged his government to host an international conference to establish a postwar economic order. But he was one World War ahead of his time; he would not get his conference until World War II. Defeated in the Republican landslide of 1920, Hull learned that global issues would not win votes. He turned his attention to his party, becoming Democratic National Committee chairman, and his constituents. He was reelected in 1922 and watched his influence within the Democratic Party grow during the years of the Republican ascendancy. In 1930 he was elected to the Senate and became a supporter of Franklin Roosevelt. In 1933 President-elect Roosevelt asked him to be secretary of state. Hull agreed, seeing an opportunity to establish his free trade principles. During the first half of Hull's eleven-year tenure as secretary of state, he fostered free trade and promoted the Good Neighbor Policy toward Latin America. He spent the second half of his secretaryship seeking to avoid war and then helping to create a postwar system that would avoid another war. For his efforts in establishing the United Nations, he received the Nobel Peace Prize, but his greatest impact on American policy came from his work on free trade. In 1933 Americans did not support free trade. The economic nationalists who comprised Roosevelt's "Brain Trust" sought to restore prosperity by managing an economy isolated from the world. Their success in 1933 led to a humiliating experience for Hull at the London Economic Conference. But Hull had survived for a quarter of a century in Washington politics, and he knew how to fight. Through deft political moves, he triumphed over his opposition and escorted through Congress a reciprocal trade agreements program that moved the nation away from its high tariff tradition. Tariff issues are pretty dull stuff. What won Hull popular acclaim was his work with Latin American nations. At the Montevideo conference in the winter of 1933-34, Hull disarmed South American critics and won popular support for the United States by adopting an egalitarian style, flattering the other foreign ministers, and pledging that the United States would not intervene in the internal affairs of other nations. These successes and the highly principled position he took in dealing with Japan so enhanced Hull's popularity with the American people that he would have been the likely Democratic candidate for president had FDR decided not to seek a third term in 1940. Though popular, Hull's dealing with Japan was notably unsuccessful in avoiding war. When Japan invaded China in 1937, the secretary lamented the violation of treaties and principles, but believing no vital American interests were at stake, refused to confront Japan. He waited for Japan to crumble under the weight of its war in China. But Japan did not crumble. Instead it sought to expand its control over Southeast Asia and the South Pacific. Japan's objectives were antithetical to the liberal commercial world order Hull so passionately believed in. To Hull this was no petty squabble over trade. He believed that if great powers were allowed to establish exclusive control over the markets and raw materials of large sections of the world, it would destroy the political and economic progress achieved over the last five centuries. Hull urged Japan to abandon its world view. But the Japanese were no more willing to accept Hull's world order than Hull was prepared to accept theirs. When diplomacy failed, war resulted. During the war, Hull played a marginal role in foreign policy management; Roosevelt personally handled matters of state and ignored Hull. In addition, Hull's health deteriorated. For years, he had been suffering from tuberculosis (a closely guarded secret), and as the disease advanced, the secretary spent longer and longer vacations recuperating. He was not without influence in Washington, however. He forced out Under Secretary of State Sumner Welles, whom Hull believed had been disloyal to him; he kept foreign policy out of the 1944 presidential election; and he played an important role in creating bipartisan support in Congress for the United Nations. Ill and exhausted by the summer of 1944, Hull remained in office only long enough to see FDR elected to his fourth term. After he retired, his medical condition teetered between serious and stable, but he recovered enough so he could oversee the ghostwriting of his memoirs. Though he kept well informed about international affairs, Hull played no role as an elder statesman. He lived out his years in his comfortable apartment in Washington, never returning to his native Tennessee or to the mountains from which he had sprung. He died on July 23, 1955, and was interred in the crypt of the National Cathedral. Cordell Hull, with Andrew H. T. Berding, The Memoirs of Cordell Hull (1948); Cooper Milner, "The Public Life of Cordell Hull: 1907-1924" (Ph.D. diss., Vanderbilt University, 1960). Copyrighted material from The Tennessee Encyclopedia of History and Culture, courtesy of the Tennessee Historical Society.	<urn:uuid:eb112836-eee5-4f53-a2c3-3db1d2f4bbff>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	http://tnhalloffame.org/cordellhull.html	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251689924.62/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126135207-20200126165207-00512.warc.gz	en	0.981824	1,252	3.53125	4	[ -0.3138747215270996, 0.13439205288887024, 0.2641589641571045, -0.20247477293014526, 0.08650816977024078, -0.08549917489290237, 0.10440893471240997, 0.4473402500152588, -0.24775999784469604, -0.005276154726743698, 0.5634896159172058, 0.2580385208129883, -0.22463099658489227, 0.1679666340351...	4	By Jonathan G. Utley , University of Illinois at Chicago As congressman, U.S. secretary of state, and Nobel Laureate, Cordell Hull had a remarkable career. Born to a poor family in the isolated "Mountain Section" of upper Middle Tennessee, he was educated first at home, then free schools, and, as the family income increased, at private schools. Education took him to law and law to politics. As a politician, Hull was a staunch Democrat and opponent of the protective tariff. When he made his first political speech at age sixteen, it was against the tariff. Twenty years later, he delivered his maiden speech in the House of Representatives on the evils of the protective tariff. Between those events, Hull served his party, won election to the Tennessee General Assembly, practiced law, and became a circuit court judge. Elected to Congress in 1906, Hull earned a footnote in history in 1913 when the Democrats lowered tariffs and turned to this moderate progressive to write an income tax law that was progressive but not too radical. This parochial, hardworking party man changed during World War I. He had always seen the tariff as a local issue, but the Great War changed his perspective, and he came to believe that world peace and progress depended upon nations having free access to the raw materials and markets of the world. He twice urged his government to host an international conference to establish a postwar economic order. But he was one World War ahead of his time; he would not get his conference until World War II. Defeated in the Republican landslide of 1920, Hull learned that global issues would not win votes. He turned his attention to his party, becoming Democratic National Committee chairman, and his constituents. He was reelected in 1922 and watched his influence within the Democratic Party grow during the years of the Republican ascendancy. In 1930 he was elected to the Senate and became a supporter of Franklin Roosevelt. In 1933 President-elect Roosevelt asked him to be secretary of state. Hull agreed, seeing an opportunity to establish his free trade principles. During the first half of Hull's eleven-year tenure as secretary of state, he fostered free trade and promoted the Good Neighbor Policy toward Latin America. He spent the second half of his secretaryship seeking to avoid war and then helping to create a postwar system that would avoid another war. For his efforts in establishing the United Nations, he received the Nobel Peace Prize, but his greatest impact on American policy came from his work on free trade. In 1933 Americans did not support free trade. The economic nationalists who comprised Roosevelt's "Brain Trust" sought to restore prosperity by managing an economy isolated from the world. Their success in 1933 led to a humiliating experience for Hull at the London Economic Conference. But Hull had survived for a quarter of a century in Washington politics, and he knew how to fight. Through deft political moves, he triumphed over his opposition and escorted through Congress a reciprocal trade agreements program that moved the nation away from its high tariff tradition. Tariff issues are pretty dull stuff. What won Hull popular acclaim was his work with Latin American nations. At the Montevideo conference in the winter of 1933-34, Hull disarmed South American critics and won popular support for the United States by adopting an egalitarian style, flattering the other foreign ministers, and pledging that the United States would not intervene in the internal affairs of other nations. These successes and the highly principled position he took in dealing with Japan so enhanced Hull's popularity with the American people that he would have been the likely Democratic candidate for president had FDR decided not to seek a third term in 1940. Though popular, Hull's dealing with Japan was notably unsuccessful in avoiding war. When Japan invaded China in 1937, the secretary lamented the violation of treaties and principles, but believing no vital American interests were at stake, refused to confront Japan. He waited for Japan to crumble under the weight of its war in China. But Japan did not crumble. Instead it sought to expand its control over Southeast Asia and the South Pacific. Japan's objectives were antithetical to the liberal commercial world order Hull so passionately believed in. To Hull this was no petty squabble over trade. He believed that if great powers were allowed to establish exclusive control over the markets and raw materials of large sections of the world, it would destroy the political and economic progress achieved over the last five centuries. Hull urged Japan to abandon its world view. But the Japanese were no more willing to accept Hull's world order than Hull was prepared to accept theirs. When diplomacy failed, war resulted. During the war, Hull played a marginal role in foreign policy management; Roosevelt personally handled matters of state and ignored Hull. In addition, Hull's health deteriorated. For years, he had been suffering from tuberculosis (a closely guarded secret), and as the disease advanced, the secretary spent longer and longer vacations recuperating. He was not without influence in Washington, however. He forced out Under Secretary of State Sumner Welles, whom Hull believed had been disloyal to him; he kept foreign policy out of the 1944 presidential election; and he played an important role in creating bipartisan support in Congress for the United Nations. Ill and exhausted by the summer of 1944, Hull remained in office only long enough to see FDR elected to his fourth term. After he retired, his medical condition teetered between serious and stable, but he recovered enough so he could oversee the ghostwriting of his memoirs. Though he kept well informed about international affairs, Hull played no role as an elder statesman. He lived out his years in his comfortable apartment in Washington, never returning to his native Tennessee or to the mountains from which he had sprung. He died on July 23, 1955, and was interred in the crypt of the National Cathedral. Cordell Hull, with Andrew H. T. Berding, The Memoirs of Cordell Hull (1948); Cooper Milner, "The Public Life of Cordell Hull: 1907-1924" (Ph.D. diss., Vanderbilt University, 1960). Copyrighted material from The Tennessee Encyclopedia of History and Culture, courtesy of the Tennessee Historical Society.	1,318	ENGLISH	1
The Kite and the Doves The Kite and the Doves is a political fable ascribed to Aesop that is numbered 486 in the Perry Index. During the Middle Ages the fable was modified by the introduction of a hawk as an additional character, followed by a change in the moral drawn from it. The Phaedrus versionEdit The first appearance of the fable is in the collection of Phaedrus (Book 1.31). It is an illustration of political foolishness and tells how doves are so terrified by attacks on them by a kite that they agree to its suggestion that he should be elected their king and protector. They only realise their mistake when the kite begins to prey on them as its royal prerogative. After Phaedrus’ work was lost sight of during the Middle Ages, a new version of the fable was created and it was not until after rediscovery of his original text during the Renaissance that some later collections followed his telling. Samuel Croxall, harking back to a series of recent changes of regime, commented on how “many, with the Doves in the Fable, are so silly that they would admit of a Kite rather than be without a king”.. Two pages later, Croxall goes on to mention that he has followed the sense of Phaedrus “in every fable of which he has made a version” (p.32). The hawk, the kite and the pigeonsEdit During the Middle Ages new versions of the fable developed in Latin, of which Odo of Cheriton recorded several at the end of the 12th century. One of these is a variant of The Frogs Who Desired a King in which the frogs have elected a log to rule over them and, when that is perceived as of no value, choose a snake instead and are eaten by it. Another concerns chickens, or else birds generally, who elect a dove to be their ruler because it is mild and will do them no harm; but when it is perceived as lacking authority, they choose a kite in its place and are then preyed upon by it. In the version of Romulus Anglicus, doves who are living in a state of general threat elect a falcon as their protector, while according to Walter of England the doves are at war with the kites and choose a hawk to defend them. The latter story ends with the detail that the hawk kills many more of them than had perished formerly and concludes with the advice that the remedy should not make a bad situation worse. Versions of Walter’s story were perpetuated in English by William Caxton and Roger L'Estrange. Elsewhere in Europe it formed the basis of Neo-Latin poems by Hieronymus Osius and Pantaleon Candidus. The fable was also adapted by John Hawkesworth into his reflective political poem, "The Danger of trusting Individuals with exorbitant Power". In that, the king of the doves prays to Jove for help against a marauding kite and is changed in form to a more powerful bird of prey. After his victory, however, the king becomes an even worse tyrant in his turn. The political moral that Hawkesworth drew from this was similar to Croxall's in requiring a democratic system of checks and balances: - Wrongs to redress, ne’er arm alone your friend, - But cloth’d in equal Might his steps attend.	<urn:uuid:5d957151-e22b-4fdd-b24b-b112958de392>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kite_and_the_Doves	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594333.5/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119064802-20200119092802-00344.warc.gz	en	0.981117	726	3.3125	3	[ -0.22136323153972626, 0.33309227228164673, 0.12916633486747742, 0.34717273712158203, -0.15430209040641785, 0.0026853750459849834, 0.057327546179294586, 0.20691125094890594, 0.2125914841890335, 0.16943693161010742, 0.08426560461521149, -0.4387185573577881, -0.02837497740983963, 0.1016163006...	1	The Kite and the Doves The Kite and the Doves is a political fable ascribed to Aesop that is numbered 486 in the Perry Index. During the Middle Ages the fable was modified by the introduction of a hawk as an additional character, followed by a change in the moral drawn from it. The Phaedrus versionEdit The first appearance of the fable is in the collection of Phaedrus (Book 1.31). It is an illustration of political foolishness and tells how doves are so terrified by attacks on them by a kite that they agree to its suggestion that he should be elected their king and protector. They only realise their mistake when the kite begins to prey on them as its royal prerogative. After Phaedrus’ work was lost sight of during the Middle Ages, a new version of the fable was created and it was not until after rediscovery of his original text during the Renaissance that some later collections followed his telling. Samuel Croxall, harking back to a series of recent changes of regime, commented on how “many, with the Doves in the Fable, are so silly that they would admit of a Kite rather than be without a king”.. Two pages later, Croxall goes on to mention that he has followed the sense of Phaedrus “in every fable of which he has made a version” (p.32). The hawk, the kite and the pigeonsEdit During the Middle Ages new versions of the fable developed in Latin, of which Odo of Cheriton recorded several at the end of the 12th century. One of these is a variant of The Frogs Who Desired a King in which the frogs have elected a log to rule over them and, when that is perceived as of no value, choose a snake instead and are eaten by it. Another concerns chickens, or else birds generally, who elect a dove to be their ruler because it is mild and will do them no harm; but when it is perceived as lacking authority, they choose a kite in its place and are then preyed upon by it. In the version of Romulus Anglicus, doves who are living in a state of general threat elect a falcon as their protector, while according to Walter of England the doves are at war with the kites and choose a hawk to defend them. The latter story ends with the detail that the hawk kills many more of them than had perished formerly and concludes with the advice that the remedy should not make a bad situation worse. Versions of Walter’s story were perpetuated in English by William Caxton and Roger L'Estrange. Elsewhere in Europe it formed the basis of Neo-Latin poems by Hieronymus Osius and Pantaleon Candidus. The fable was also adapted by John Hawkesworth into his reflective political poem, "The Danger of trusting Individuals with exorbitant Power". In that, the king of the doves prays to Jove for help against a marauding kite and is changed in form to a more powerful bird of prey. After his victory, however, the king becomes an even worse tyrant in his turn. The political moral that Hawkesworth drew from this was similar to Croxall's in requiring a democratic system of checks and balances: - Wrongs to redress, ne’er arm alone your friend, - But cloth’d in equal Might his steps attend.	713	ENGLISH	1
Parmelia was built in Quebec, Canada in 1825, and registered on 31 May of that year. She was 117 feet (36m) long, 29 feet (8.8m) wide and 20 feet (6.1m) deep in the hold; and she was rated at 443 tons. Johnson (1987) writes that she was more of a plain working girl than the great and beautiful lady of the sea.Parmelia was sent to London, and on 17 November she was transferred from the Quebec to the London register. In 1826 she was used as a troop carrier. Some time in the first half of 1827, Parmelia was sold to Joseph Somes, who was also a director of the British East India Company. For the next year, she operated under charter to the British East India Company, carrying goods and passengers between London and Bengal. In 1828 the British government, at the urging of Captain James Stirling, decided to establish a colony at the Swan River in Western Australia. HMSChallenger was despatched under Charles Fremantle to annex the colony, and it was arranged that a contingent of soldiers, officials and settlers would follow on HMSSulphur. Stirling however argued that the passengers and goods to be carried exceeded the capacity of HMS Sulphur, and asked for an additional ship to be chartered. The government reluctantly agreed to the extra cost, chartering the Parmelia in December 1828. It was then arranged that HMS Sulphur would carry the military personnel, with the Parmelia responsible for carriage of the civilian officials and settlers.	<urn:uuid:ae368fcf-6439-4866-bd23-2fa9a580e554>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://wn.com/Parmelia_(barque)	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250624328.55/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124161014-20200124190014-00514.warc.gz	en	0.982229	325	3.34375	3	[ 0.4417075216770172, 0.08327284455299377, 0.05510430037975311, -0.08317452669143677, -0.1780168116092682, -0.4530818462371826, -0.012042992748320103, 0.2594325542449951, 0.04643278568983078, 0.04090152680873871, 0.14081552624702454, -0.8619474172592163, -0.012490857392549515, 0.196643188595...	1	Parmelia was built in Quebec, Canada in 1825, and registered on 31 May of that year. She was 117 feet (36m) long, 29 feet (8.8m) wide and 20 feet (6.1m) deep in the hold; and she was rated at 443 tons. Johnson (1987) writes that she was more of a plain working girl than the great and beautiful lady of the sea.Parmelia was sent to London, and on 17 November she was transferred from the Quebec to the London register. In 1826 she was used as a troop carrier. Some time in the first half of 1827, Parmelia was sold to Joseph Somes, who was also a director of the British East India Company. For the next year, she operated under charter to the British East India Company, carrying goods and passengers between London and Bengal. In 1828 the British government, at the urging of Captain James Stirling, decided to establish a colony at the Swan River in Western Australia. HMSChallenger was despatched under Charles Fremantle to annex the colony, and it was arranged that a contingent of soldiers, officials and settlers would follow on HMSSulphur. Stirling however argued that the passengers and goods to be carried exceeded the capacity of HMS Sulphur, and asked for an additional ship to be chartered. The government reluctantly agreed to the extra cost, chartering the Parmelia in December 1828. It was then arranged that HMS Sulphur would carry the military personnel, with the Parmelia responsible for carriage of the civilian officials and settlers.	357	ENGLISH	1
Local parish records reveal that William Shakespeare was baptized on April 26, 1564, in the town of Stratford, in the English midlands. He was probably born just a few days earlier, but the exact date is not known. His father was John Shakespeare, a glove-maker and trader in farm commodities; his mother was Mary Arden, the daughter of a wealthy landowner. Although no records exist to prove it, as a boy Shakespeare probably attended Stratford grammar school where he would have received a sound education in the classics. In November 1582, Shakespeare married Anne Hathaway, who was eight years his senior. The couple had three children: Susanna, born May 26, 1583, and the twins, Judith and Hamnet, who were born February 2, 1585. Nothing is known about why or when Shakespeare left Stratford for London. It may have been in the late 1580s, since in 1592 there is a hostile reference to Shakespeare as a prominent actor and playwright by Robert Greene, a rival playwright. Shakespeare was a dramatist through and through. Although he also wrote two long narrative poems, Venus and Adonis and The Rape of Lucrece, and over 150 sonnets, his main work was writing plays for the theater. In 1594 Shakespeare became a charter member of a theatrical company called the Lord Chamberlain's Men, which became the King's Men in 1603. Shakespeare held a one-tenth interest in the company, which meant that he shared the profits. The company's home after 1599 was the famous Globe Theatre, on the south bank of the River Thames. Shakespeare prospered well enough in London to make investments in real estate in Stratford, including the purchase in 1597 of the second-largest house in town. In his entire career, Shakespeare wrote thirty-seven plays, including comedies, tragedies, histories, and romances. Scholars dispute the exact date on which each play was written, but it is possible that Shakespeare's first play was The Comedy of Errors or Love's Labor's Lost, written sometime between 1588 and the early 1590s. His last plays were The Tempest (1612) and Henry VIII (1612-13). The Life of Timon of Athens is a tragedy, possibly written near the time of the composition of King Lear (around 1603 to 1606), judging by similarity of themes. However, the play is not thought to be the equal of the other great tragedies written around this period. There are no records of it being performed during Shakespeare’s lifetime, and the text was published for the first time in the First Folio in 1623. Some scholars believe that the play is unfinished. Others believe that another dramatist, Thomas Middleton, wrote sizable portions of the play in a collaboration with Shakespeare. Shakespeare retired from the theater around 1612, and returned to live in Stratford. He died on April 23, 1616, and was buried within the chancel of the church at Stratford.	<urn:uuid:687867b8-51c9-4d9e-8b98-e93265d008ff>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	http://www.novelguide.com/timon-of-athens/character-profiles	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251788528.85/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129041149-20200129071149-00156.warc.gz	en	0.988209	625	3.5	4	[ 0.40794476866722107, -0.13039255142211914, 0.6709455251693726, -0.2199854552745819, -0.36708909273147583, -0.39902156591415405, 0.06766657531261444, 0.1027861088514328, 0.021332308650016785, -0.21668465435504913, -0.23939628899097443, -0.2586207091808319, -0.036012131720781326, 0.247892215...	11	Local parish records reveal that William Shakespeare was baptized on April 26, 1564, in the town of Stratford, in the English midlands. He was probably born just a few days earlier, but the exact date is not known. His father was John Shakespeare, a glove-maker and trader in farm commodities; his mother was Mary Arden, the daughter of a wealthy landowner. Although no records exist to prove it, as a boy Shakespeare probably attended Stratford grammar school where he would have received a sound education in the classics. In November 1582, Shakespeare married Anne Hathaway, who was eight years his senior. The couple had three children: Susanna, born May 26, 1583, and the twins, Judith and Hamnet, who were born February 2, 1585. Nothing is known about why or when Shakespeare left Stratford for London. It may have been in the late 1580s, since in 1592 there is a hostile reference to Shakespeare as a prominent actor and playwright by Robert Greene, a rival playwright. Shakespeare was a dramatist through and through. Although he also wrote two long narrative poems, Venus and Adonis and The Rape of Lucrece, and over 150 sonnets, his main work was writing plays for the theater. In 1594 Shakespeare became a charter member of a theatrical company called the Lord Chamberlain's Men, which became the King's Men in 1603. Shakespeare held a one-tenth interest in the company, which meant that he shared the profits. The company's home after 1599 was the famous Globe Theatre, on the south bank of the River Thames. Shakespeare prospered well enough in London to make investments in real estate in Stratford, including the purchase in 1597 of the second-largest house in town. In his entire career, Shakespeare wrote thirty-seven plays, including comedies, tragedies, histories, and romances. Scholars dispute the exact date on which each play was written, but it is possible that Shakespeare's first play was The Comedy of Errors or Love's Labor's Lost, written sometime between 1588 and the early 1590s. His last plays were The Tempest (1612) and Henry VIII (1612-13). The Life of Timon of Athens is a tragedy, possibly written near the time of the composition of King Lear (around 1603 to 1606), judging by similarity of themes. However, the play is not thought to be the equal of the other great tragedies written around this period. There are no records of it being performed during Shakespeare’s lifetime, and the text was published for the first time in the First Folio in 1623. Some scholars believe that the play is unfinished. Others believe that another dramatist, Thomas Middleton, wrote sizable portions of the play in a collaboration with Shakespeare. Shakespeare retired from the theater around 1612, and returned to live in Stratford. He died on April 23, 1616, and was buried within the chancel of the church at Stratford.	675	ENGLISH	1
King William’s administration came up with a novel answer: borrow a huge sum of money, and use taxes to pay back the interest over time. In 1694, the English government borrowed 1.2 million pounds at a rate of eight per cent, paid for by taxes on ships’ cargoes, beer, and spirits. In return, the lenders were allowed to incorporate themselves as a new company, the Bank of England. The bank had the right to take in deposits of gold from the public and—a second big innovation—to print “Bank notes” as receipts for the deposits. These new deposits were then lent to the King. The banknotes, being guaranteed by the deposits, were as good as gold money, and rapidly became a generally accepted new currency. This system is still with us, and not just in England. The more general adoption of the scheme, however, was not a story of uninterrupted success. Some of the difficulties are recounted in James Buchan’s fascinating “John Law: A Scottish Adventurer of the Eighteenth Century.” Law was the Edinburgh-born son of a goldsmith turned banker. He moved to London in 1692, where he observed the wondrous new scheme of government paid for by long-term debt and paper money. One of the most significant effects of the paper money was the way it stimulated borrowing and lending—and trading. Law had an instinctive understanding of finance and a love of risk, and it is tempting to wonder what would have happened if he had lent his services to the English government. Instead, on April 9, 1694, a different fate was set in motion. He killed a man in a duel, or brawl—the distinction, as Buchan explains, was not all that clear. “Duels then were not the tournaments of the Middle Ages or the affairs of honour of later years, governed by written codes of conduct and discharged at dawn with pistols in some snowy forest clearing,” he writes. They might be conducted “with rapiers or short swords in hot or barely cooling blood, sometimes with seconds drawn and fighting, and shading away into assassination and armed robbery.” Law was sent to prison to await a murder trial. He used his connections to get out, as prisoners of means did, and fled abroad as an outlaw. Law spent the next few years knocking around Europe, learning about gambling and finance, and writing a short book, “Money and Trade Considered,” which in many respects foreshadows modern theories about money. He became rich; like Littlefinger in “Game of Thrones,” Law seems to have been one of those men who had the knack of “rubbing two golden dragons together and breeding a third.” He bought a fancy house in The Hague and made a close study of the many Dutch innovations in finance, such as options trading and short selling. In 1713, he arrived in France, which was beset by a problem he was well suited to tackle. The King of France, Louis XIV, was the preëminent monarch in Europe, but his government was crippled by debt. The usual costs of warfare were added to a huge bill for annuities—lifelong interest payments made in settlement of old loans. By 1715, the King had a hundred and sixty-five million livres in revenue from taxes and customs. Buchan does the math: “Spending on the army, the palaces and court and the public administration left just 48 million livres to meet interest payments on the debts accumulated by the illustrious kings who had gone before.” Unfortunately, the annual bill for annuities and wages of lifetime offices came to ninety million livres. There were also outstanding promissory notes, amounting to nine hundred million livres, left over from various wars; the King wouldn’t be able to borrow any more money unless he paid interest on those notes, and that would cost an additional fifty million livres a year. The government of France was broke. In September of 1715, Louis XIV died, and his nephew the Duke of Orleans was left in charge of the country, as regent to the child king Louis XV. The Duke was quite something. “He was born bored,” the great diarist Saint-Simon, a friend of the Duke’s since childhood, observed. “He could not live except in a sort of torrent of business, at the head of an army, or in managing its supply, or in the blare and sparkle of a debauch.” Facing the financial crisis of the French state, the Duke started listening to the ideas of John Law. Those ideas—more or less orthodox policy today—were wildly original by the standards of the eighteenth century. Law thought that the important thing about money wasn’t its inherent value; he didn’t believe it had any. “Money is not the value for which goods are exchanged, but the value by which they are exchanged,” he wrote. That is, money is the means by which you swap one set of stuff for another set of stuff. The crucial thing, Law thought, was to get money moving around the economy and to use it to stimulate trade and business. As Buchan writes, “Money must be turned to the service of trade, and lie at the discretion of the prince or parliament to vary according to the needs of trade. Such an idea, orthodox and even tedious for the past fifty years, was thought in the seventeenth century to be diabolical.” This idea of Law’s led him to the idea of a new national French bank that took in gold and silver from the public and lent it back out in the form of paper money. The bank also took deposits in the form of government debt, cleverly allowing people to claim the full value of debts that were trading at heavy discounts: if you had a piece of paper saying the king owed you a thousand livres, you could get only, say, four hundred livres in the open market for it, but Law’s bank would credit you with the full thousand livres in paper money. This meant that the bank’s paper assets far outstripped the actual gold it had in store, making it a precursor of the “fractional-reserve banking” that’s normal today. Law’s bank had, by one estimate, about four times as much paper money in circulation as its gold and silver reserves. That is conservative by modern banking standards. A U.S. bank with assets under a hundred and twenty-four million dollars is obliged to keep a cash reserve of only three per cent. The new paper money had an attractive feature: it was guaranteed to trade for a specific weight of silver, and, unlike coins, could not be melted down or devalued. Before long, the banknotes were trading at more than their value in silver, and Law was made Controller General of Finances, in charge of the entire French economy. He also persuaded the government to grant him a monopoly of trade with the French settlements in North America, in the form of the Mississippi Company. He funded the company the same way he had funded the bank, with deposits from the public swapped for shares. He then used the value of those shares, which rocketed from five hundred livres to ten thousand livres, to buy up the debts of the French King. The French economy, based on all those rents and annuities and wages, was swept away and replaced by what Law called his “new System of Finance.” The use of gold and silver was banned. Paper money was now “fiat” currency, underpinned by the authority of the bank and nothing else. At its peak, the company was priced at twice the entire productive capacity of France. As Buchan points out, that is the highest valuation any company has ever achieved anywhere in the world. It ended in disaster. People started to wonder whether these suddenly lucrative investments were worth what they were supposed to be worth; then they started to worry, then to panic, then to demand their money back, then to riot when they couldn’t get it. Gold and silver were reinstated as money, the company was dissolved, and Law was fired, after a hundred and forty-five days in office. In 1720, he fled the country, ruined. He moved from Brussels to Copenhagen to Venice to London and back to Venice, where he died, broke, in 1729.	<urn:uuid:848721a5-4b32-40df-9ae7-3db35dce458f>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/08/05/the-invention-of-money?source=techstories.org	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251783000.84/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128184745-20200128214745-00179.warc.gz	en	0.985499	1,767	3.375	3	[ -0.3991086483001709, 0.06602691113948822, 0.24046435952186584, 0.07165493071079254, 0.12389897555112839, -0.41720014810562134, 0.21421590447425842, -0.3165005147457123, 0.1947222352027893, 0.027924668043851852, 0.13977015018463135, 0.42241090536117554, -0.1205519363284111, 0.14590467512607...	5	King William’s administration came up with a novel answer: borrow a huge sum of money, and use taxes to pay back the interest over time. In 1694, the English government borrowed 1.2 million pounds at a rate of eight per cent, paid for by taxes on ships’ cargoes, beer, and spirits. In return, the lenders were allowed to incorporate themselves as a new company, the Bank of England. The bank had the right to take in deposits of gold from the public and—a second big innovation—to print “Bank notes” as receipts for the deposits. These new deposits were then lent to the King. The banknotes, being guaranteed by the deposits, were as good as gold money, and rapidly became a generally accepted new currency. This system is still with us, and not just in England. The more general adoption of the scheme, however, was not a story of uninterrupted success. Some of the difficulties are recounted in James Buchan’s fascinating “John Law: A Scottish Adventurer of the Eighteenth Century.” Law was the Edinburgh-born son of a goldsmith turned banker. He moved to London in 1692, where he observed the wondrous new scheme of government paid for by long-term debt and paper money. One of the most significant effects of the paper money was the way it stimulated borrowing and lending—and trading. Law had an instinctive understanding of finance and a love of risk, and it is tempting to wonder what would have happened if he had lent his services to the English government. Instead, on April 9, 1694, a different fate was set in motion. He killed a man in a duel, or brawl—the distinction, as Buchan explains, was not all that clear. “Duels then were not the tournaments of the Middle Ages or the affairs of honour of later years, governed by written codes of conduct and discharged at dawn with pistols in some snowy forest clearing,” he writes. They might be conducted “with rapiers or short swords in hot or barely cooling blood, sometimes with seconds drawn and fighting, and shading away into assassination and armed robbery.” Law was sent to prison to await a murder trial. He used his connections to get out, as prisoners of means did, and fled abroad as an outlaw. Law spent the next few years knocking around Europe, learning about gambling and finance, and writing a short book, “Money and Trade Considered,” which in many respects foreshadows modern theories about money. He became rich; like Littlefinger in “Game of Thrones,” Law seems to have been one of those men who had the knack of “rubbing two golden dragons together and breeding a third.” He bought a fancy house in The Hague and made a close study of the many Dutch innovations in finance, such as options trading and short selling. In 1713, he arrived in France, which was beset by a problem he was well suited to tackle. The King of France, Louis XIV, was the preëminent monarch in Europe, but his government was crippled by debt. The usual costs of warfare were added to a huge bill for annuities—lifelong interest payments made in settlement of old loans. By 1715, the King had a hundred and sixty-five million livres in revenue from taxes and customs. Buchan does the math: “Spending on the army, the palaces and court and the public administration left just 48 million livres to meet interest payments on the debts accumulated by the illustrious kings who had gone before.” Unfortunately, the annual bill for annuities and wages of lifetime offices came to ninety million livres. There were also outstanding promissory notes, amounting to nine hundred million livres, left over from various wars; the King wouldn’t be able to borrow any more money unless he paid interest on those notes, and that would cost an additional fifty million livres a year. The government of France was broke. In September of 1715, Louis XIV died, and his nephew the Duke of Orleans was left in charge of the country, as regent to the child king Louis XV. The Duke was quite something. “He was born bored,” the great diarist Saint-Simon, a friend of the Duke’s since childhood, observed. “He could not live except in a sort of torrent of business, at the head of an army, or in managing its supply, or in the blare and sparkle of a debauch.” Facing the financial crisis of the French state, the Duke started listening to the ideas of John Law. Those ideas—more or less orthodox policy today—were wildly original by the standards of the eighteenth century. Law thought that the important thing about money wasn’t its inherent value; he didn’t believe it had any. “Money is not the value for which goods are exchanged, but the value by which they are exchanged,” he wrote. That is, money is the means by which you swap one set of stuff for another set of stuff. The crucial thing, Law thought, was to get money moving around the economy and to use it to stimulate trade and business. As Buchan writes, “Money must be turned to the service of trade, and lie at the discretion of the prince or parliament to vary according to the needs of trade. Such an idea, orthodox and even tedious for the past fifty years, was thought in the seventeenth century to be diabolical.” This idea of Law’s led him to the idea of a new national French bank that took in gold and silver from the public and lent it back out in the form of paper money. The bank also took deposits in the form of government debt, cleverly allowing people to claim the full value of debts that were trading at heavy discounts: if you had a piece of paper saying the king owed you a thousand livres, you could get only, say, four hundred livres in the open market for it, but Law’s bank would credit you with the full thousand livres in paper money. This meant that the bank’s paper assets far outstripped the actual gold it had in store, making it a precursor of the “fractional-reserve banking” that’s normal today. Law’s bank had, by one estimate, about four times as much paper money in circulation as its gold and silver reserves. That is conservative by modern banking standards. A U.S. bank with assets under a hundred and twenty-four million dollars is obliged to keep a cash reserve of only three per cent. The new paper money had an attractive feature: it was guaranteed to trade for a specific weight of silver, and, unlike coins, could not be melted down or devalued. Before long, the banknotes were trading at more than their value in silver, and Law was made Controller General of Finances, in charge of the entire French economy. He also persuaded the government to grant him a monopoly of trade with the French settlements in North America, in the form of the Mississippi Company. He funded the company the same way he had funded the bank, with deposits from the public swapped for shares. He then used the value of those shares, which rocketed from five hundred livres to ten thousand livres, to buy up the debts of the French King. The French economy, based on all those rents and annuities and wages, was swept away and replaced by what Law called his “new System of Finance.” The use of gold and silver was banned. Paper money was now “fiat” currency, underpinned by the authority of the bank and nothing else. At its peak, the company was priced at twice the entire productive capacity of France. As Buchan points out, that is the highest valuation any company has ever achieved anywhere in the world. It ended in disaster. People started to wonder whether these suddenly lucrative investments were worth what they were supposed to be worth; then they started to worry, then to panic, then to demand their money back, then to riot when they couldn’t get it. Gold and silver were reinstated as money, the company was dissolved, and Law was fired, after a hundred and forty-five days in office. In 1720, he fled the country, ruined. He moved from Brussels to Copenhagen to Venice to London and back to Venice, where he died, broke, in 1729.	1,713	ENGLISH	1
Carolyn Cash on the history of the Sutherland Shire. Lieutenant (later Captain) James Cook was credited for definitely putting Australia on the map, especially the east coast. He himself never made this claim, he knew other Europeans had visited, he used their incomplete charts and maps. This unknown southern land was known as Terra Australis, since Roman times, although Aboriginal people lived in Australia for about 70,000 years. According to the Captain Cook Encyclopædia, it is possible Malay, Chinese or even Arab ships visited the north and west costs, as well as Dutch explorers who named the continent “New Holland”. William Janszoon discovered the west coast of Cape York Peninsula (near Weipa) in 1606; Luis Váez de Torres discovered the most northern tip of Cape York (with the Torres Strait named after him). No evidence the Dutch ever reached the east coast has survived. Cook sailed north up Australia’s east coast, and he landed in Botany Bay on 29 April 1770. He noticed the local people were different from the Tahitians and Maoris. The indigenous people made no effort to make contact with the British. The Gweagal clan (Dharawal tribe) were the original inhabitants. They called the point Cunnel (Kurnell). They were self-sufficient, hunting, fathering and fishing around Botany Bay. The Gweagal watched the British arrival and viewed them with suspicion. The Endeavour anchored just off the bay’s southern point. The British rowed ashore in longboats and, as they landed, most of the Gweagal ran away. The remaining two waved spears and shouted at the strangers. The British tried talking to them, but no one could understand or be understood. The Gweagal clan (Dharawal tribe) was the original inhabitants. They called the point Cunnel (Kurnell). The British fired their guns and the Gweagal men threw their spears. No further direct contact took place during the remainder of their stay. The Gweagal watched and followed at a distance. The Endeavour remained anchored for eight days. Cook and his team of scientists explored and mapped the area. The British made several excursions around the way, including one up a river on the north-side (Cooks River). One crewman Forby Sutherland died on 1 May and was buried near the landing point. (The inner point was named after him.) On 6 May, Cook took the Endeavour out of Botany Bay and headed north. The landing area at Kurnell is commemorated as an important historic site. Cook claimed the land for Britain and named it New South Wales, before sailing for Jakarta in September. This article was originally published on 16 January 2012 on the 2ssr997fm blog, which has now been deleted.	<urn:uuid:2de97d0e-813f-4b47-a94b-b15b17a12250>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	http://carolynmcash.com.au/2012/01/16/james-cook-puts-sutherland-shire-on-the-map/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250591234.15/warc/CC-MAIN-20200117205732-20200117233732-00550.warc.gz	en	0.980216	607	3.734375	4	[ 0.20961111783981323, 0.41455718874931335, 0.1500658094882965, -0.23109588027000427, 0.08843110501766205, -0.05629192292690277, 0.16501948237419128, -0.15079107880592346, -0.5936036109924316, -0.06503568589687347, 0.2836160361766815, -0.8970627188682556, -0.2245221734046936, 0.3826659917831...	2	Carolyn Cash on the history of the Sutherland Shire. Lieutenant (later Captain) James Cook was credited for definitely putting Australia on the map, especially the east coast. He himself never made this claim, he knew other Europeans had visited, he used their incomplete charts and maps. This unknown southern land was known as Terra Australis, since Roman times, although Aboriginal people lived in Australia for about 70,000 years. According to the Captain Cook Encyclopædia, it is possible Malay, Chinese or even Arab ships visited the north and west costs, as well as Dutch explorers who named the continent “New Holland”. William Janszoon discovered the west coast of Cape York Peninsula (near Weipa) in 1606; Luis Váez de Torres discovered the most northern tip of Cape York (with the Torres Strait named after him). No evidence the Dutch ever reached the east coast has survived. Cook sailed north up Australia’s east coast, and he landed in Botany Bay on 29 April 1770. He noticed the local people were different from the Tahitians and Maoris. The indigenous people made no effort to make contact with the British. The Gweagal clan (Dharawal tribe) were the original inhabitants. They called the point Cunnel (Kurnell). They were self-sufficient, hunting, fathering and fishing around Botany Bay. The Gweagal watched the British arrival and viewed them with suspicion. The Endeavour anchored just off the bay’s southern point. The British rowed ashore in longboats and, as they landed, most of the Gweagal ran away. The remaining two waved spears and shouted at the strangers. The British tried talking to them, but no one could understand or be understood. The Gweagal clan (Dharawal tribe) was the original inhabitants. They called the point Cunnel (Kurnell). The British fired their guns and the Gweagal men threw their spears. No further direct contact took place during the remainder of their stay. The Gweagal watched and followed at a distance. The Endeavour remained anchored for eight days. Cook and his team of scientists explored and mapped the area. The British made several excursions around the way, including one up a river on the north-side (Cooks River). One crewman Forby Sutherland died on 1 May and was buried near the landing point. (The inner point was named after him.) On 6 May, Cook took the Endeavour out of Botany Bay and headed north. The landing area at Kurnell is commemorated as an important historic site. Cook claimed the land for Britain and named it New South Wales, before sailing for Jakarta in September. This article was originally published on 16 January 2012 on the 2ssr997fm blog, which has now been deleted.	601	ENGLISH	1
Edward Teach (1680 – 22 November 1718) was a pirate, often called "Blackbeard the Pirate". (It is not clear what his real name actually was; some historians think that his last name may really have been Thatch.) He attacked ships in the Caribbean and the American colonies. His flagship ship was the captured French slave ship La Concorde which Blackbeard renamed Queen Anne's Revenge. About 1718 it ran aground near Beaufort Inlet, North Carolina and was abandoned. Blackbeard often fought wearing a big feathered tricorn hat, and with lots of swords, knives, and pistols. Some pictures show him with lighted rope matches woven into his enormous black beard during battle. The matches burned slowly and gave of lots of smoke. They were designed to make him look frightening. He probably got the idea from seeing the burning rope was used to light the gunpowder in cannons and guns. (These old fashioned guns were called matchlocks, later a flint was used to make a spark, these were called flintlock guns). No one knows how many wives Blackbeard had. The book A General History of the Pyrates says that he had as many as fourteen wives, but he was not legally married to most of them. Blackbeard is thought to have been born in Bristol, England. Teach went to sea when he was very young. He served on an English ship in the War of the Spanish Succession, privateering in the Spanish West Indies and along the Spanish Main. At the war's end in 1713, Teach, like many other privateers, turned to piracy. Blackbeard was born in a trade epicenter and he grew up knowing about sailing. many merchant ships landed and traded there. Blackbeard the PirateEdit Teach began as a pirate under Benjamin Hornigold. In 1716, Hornigold retired, taking advantage of an amnesty offered to former privateers by the British government. Teach then took command of his own ship. During the next two years Blackbeard attacked merchant ships, forcing them to allow his crew to board their ship. The pirates would seize all of the valuables, food, liquor, and weapons. Ironically, despite his ferocious reputation, there are no verified accounts of him actually killing anyone. Capture and deathEdit The Lieutenant-Governor of Virginia, Alexander Spotswood sent two ships after Blackbeard. On 18 November 1718, Lt. Robert Maynard sailed from Hampton, Virginia to Ocracoke Inlet, North Carolina. On 22 November 1718, Maynard and his men defeated Blackbeard and the pirates. The most complete account of the following events comes from the Boston News-Letter: \|“\|\|Maynard and Teach themselves begun the fight with their swords, Maynard making a thrust, the point of his sword against Teach's cartridge box, and bent it to the hilt. Teach broke the guard of it, and wounded Maynard's fingers but did not disable him, whereupon he jumped back and threw away his sword and fired his pistol which wounded Teach. Demelt struck in between them with his sword and cut Teach's face pretty much; in the interim both companies engaged in Maynard's sloop. Later during the battle, while Teach was loading his pistol he finally died from blood loss. Maynard then cut off his head and hung it from his bow.\|\|”\| Teach was said to have been shot five times and stabbed more than twenty times before he died and was decapitated. Legends about his death immediately sprang up. His headless body, was thrown overboard, but swam three times around the ship before sinking. Teach's head was placed as a trophy on the bowsprit of the ship. Captain Maynard had to keep the head to claim his prize when he returned home. Later, Teach's head hung from a pike in Bath, Somerset. - Perry, Dan. Blackbeard: The Real Pirate of the Caribbean. Thunder's Mouth Press. p. 14. ISBN 1-56025-885-3. - "NC Maritime Museums : One historic coast. Three unique museums. :: Hatteras, Beaufort & Southport". - "Blackbeard: History of the Dreaded Pirate". Queen Anne's Revenge Project. East Carolina University. Retrieved 11 October 2016. - Cordingly, David. Under the Black Flag: The Romance and the Reality of Life Among the Pirates. p. 198. ISBN 0-15-600549-2.	<urn:uuid:b1127e91-1af0-44c2-a36c-4d0bc444f747>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Teach	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250592636.25/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118135205-20200118163205-00193.warc.gz	en	0.983444	925	3.671875	4	[ -0.21134337782859802, 0.04734637215733528, 0.2925085127353668, -0.2808780074119568, -0.046740151941776276, -0.6600711345672607, 0.028136542066931725, 0.02948632650077343, -0.23945340514183044, 0.11140715330839157, 0.2964562177658081, -0.44758322834968567, -0.37930169701576233, 0.1659794151...	4	Edward Teach (1680 – 22 November 1718) was a pirate, often called "Blackbeard the Pirate". (It is not clear what his real name actually was; some historians think that his last name may really have been Thatch.) He attacked ships in the Caribbean and the American colonies. His flagship ship was the captured French slave ship La Concorde which Blackbeard renamed Queen Anne's Revenge. About 1718 it ran aground near Beaufort Inlet, North Carolina and was abandoned. Blackbeard often fought wearing a big feathered tricorn hat, and with lots of swords, knives, and pistols. Some pictures show him with lighted rope matches woven into his enormous black beard during battle. The matches burned slowly and gave of lots of smoke. They were designed to make him look frightening. He probably got the idea from seeing the burning rope was used to light the gunpowder in cannons and guns. (These old fashioned guns were called matchlocks, later a flint was used to make a spark, these were called flintlock guns). No one knows how many wives Blackbeard had. The book A General History of the Pyrates says that he had as many as fourteen wives, but he was not legally married to most of them. Blackbeard is thought to have been born in Bristol, England. Teach went to sea when he was very young. He served on an English ship in the War of the Spanish Succession, privateering in the Spanish West Indies and along the Spanish Main. At the war's end in 1713, Teach, like many other privateers, turned to piracy. Blackbeard was born in a trade epicenter and he grew up knowing about sailing. many merchant ships landed and traded there. Blackbeard the PirateEdit Teach began as a pirate under Benjamin Hornigold. In 1716, Hornigold retired, taking advantage of an amnesty offered to former privateers by the British government. Teach then took command of his own ship. During the next two years Blackbeard attacked merchant ships, forcing them to allow his crew to board their ship. The pirates would seize all of the valuables, food, liquor, and weapons. Ironically, despite his ferocious reputation, there are no verified accounts of him actually killing anyone. Capture and deathEdit The Lieutenant-Governor of Virginia, Alexander Spotswood sent two ships after Blackbeard. On 18 November 1718, Lt. Robert Maynard sailed from Hampton, Virginia to Ocracoke Inlet, North Carolina. On 22 November 1718, Maynard and his men defeated Blackbeard and the pirates. The most complete account of the following events comes from the Boston News-Letter: \|“\|\|Maynard and Teach themselves begun the fight with their swords, Maynard making a thrust, the point of his sword against Teach's cartridge box, and bent it to the hilt. Teach broke the guard of it, and wounded Maynard's fingers but did not disable him, whereupon he jumped back and threw away his sword and fired his pistol which wounded Teach. Demelt struck in between them with his sword and cut Teach's face pretty much; in the interim both companies engaged in Maynard's sloop. Later during the battle, while Teach was loading his pistol he finally died from blood loss. Maynard then cut off his head and hung it from his bow.\|\|”\| Teach was said to have been shot five times and stabbed more than twenty times before he died and was decapitated. Legends about his death immediately sprang up. His headless body, was thrown overboard, but swam three times around the ship before sinking. Teach's head was placed as a trophy on the bowsprit of the ship. Captain Maynard had to keep the head to claim his prize when he returned home. Later, Teach's head hung from a pike in Bath, Somerset. - Perry, Dan. Blackbeard: The Real Pirate of the Caribbean. Thunder's Mouth Press. p. 14. ISBN 1-56025-885-3. - "NC Maritime Museums : One historic coast. Three unique museums. :: Hatteras, Beaufort & Southport". - "Blackbeard: History of the Dreaded Pirate". Queen Anne's Revenge Project. East Carolina University. Retrieved 11 October 2016. - Cordingly, David. Under the Black Flag: The Romance and the Reality of Life Among the Pirates. p. 198. ISBN 0-15-600549-2.	978	ENGLISH	1
The Susquehanna River is a shallow river that flows about 440 miles, from Cooperstown to the Chesapeake Bay. Nearly 200 years ago, canals were used to transport goods and people instead of the river. Canal boats would use the river where it was deeper, or where dams had raised the water level. The Susquehanna, stretching approximately 440 miles from New York to Maryland, is the longest river on the East Coast. Its North Branch, which begins at Otsego Lake in Cooperstown, N.Y., often is regarded as an extension of the main branch. Its primary tributary, the West Branch, rises in western Pennsylvania and joins the North Branch near Sunbury. The river drains into in the Chesapeake Bay. The ancient river is possibly the oldest major system in the world, far older than the mountains through which it flows. Geologists believe that the mighty Susquehanna cut through the mountains even as they were forming nearly 300 million years ago. If so, the river predates the Atlantic Ocean. Time, however, has reduced the river to a shallow waterway. Early settlers lamented that the Susquehanna was “a mile wide, a foot deep.” The West Branch of the Susquehanna River, when navigable, afforded an economical and ready means of transporting articles down river, but to push a large boat or even a canoe against the rapid current, or over the shoals and rifts, was a formidable undertaking. The first attempt to navigate the river by steamboat worked. The “Codorus” was 60-feet long, 9-feet wide, had a sheet-iron hull. Unloaded, its draft was 7 inches. The boat made a successful trip up the Susquehanna from Harrisburg in March and April 1826, reaching Binghamton, N.Y. The second attempt, however, ended in disaster. The “Susquehanna,” at 80-feet with a beam of 14 feet, carried nearly 200 people. On May 3, 1826, the ship attempted to pass Nescopeck Falls (also called Nescopeck rapids). There, the river’s high ridge and shallow water forces the water into a narrow channel, creating a whirlpool. Navigation there is normally impossible, but the captain thought that the high water would permit it. The steamboat went aground on the rocks near the shore. A crew was holding down the safety valve, and the strain caused a boiler to explode. Although the boat was not seriously damaged, two men were killed by escaping steam. Many others were scalded. The accident put an end to steamship navigation of the Susquehanna and led to renewed interest in building the Pennsylvania Canal. Dug by men whose tools were picks, shovels and wheelbarrows, the local canals measured 28-feet wide on the bottom, 40-feet wide at the top and 8- to 10-feet deep. The West Branch Canal was constructed between 1828 and 1834, formally opening on July 4, 1834. At this time, the canal only reached the mouth of Loyalsock Creek. The first packet boat to navigate the West Branch Canal was the “James Madison.”	<urn:uuid:72631fa7-38cc-440e-8b1f-25bcd0eb68b5>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://handsonheritage.com/mighty-susquehanna/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251687958.71/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126074227-20200126104227-00136.warc.gz	en	0.980575	679	3.875	4	[ -0.23067739605903625, -0.07859435677528381, 0.2995375096797943, 0.20389536023139954, -0.1892375946044922, -0.11806055158376694, 0.0033612772822380066, -0.09686770290136337, -0.5367253422737122, -0.4092252850532532, 0.16104082763195038, 0.024989407509565353, -0.38410520553588867, 0.08498182...	2	The Susquehanna River is a shallow river that flows about 440 miles, from Cooperstown to the Chesapeake Bay. Nearly 200 years ago, canals were used to transport goods and people instead of the river. Canal boats would use the river where it was deeper, or where dams had raised the water level. The Susquehanna, stretching approximately 440 miles from New York to Maryland, is the longest river on the East Coast. Its North Branch, which begins at Otsego Lake in Cooperstown, N.Y., often is regarded as an extension of the main branch. Its primary tributary, the West Branch, rises in western Pennsylvania and joins the North Branch near Sunbury. The river drains into in the Chesapeake Bay. The ancient river is possibly the oldest major system in the world, far older than the mountains through which it flows. Geologists believe that the mighty Susquehanna cut through the mountains even as they were forming nearly 300 million years ago. If so, the river predates the Atlantic Ocean. Time, however, has reduced the river to a shallow waterway. Early settlers lamented that the Susquehanna was “a mile wide, a foot deep.” The West Branch of the Susquehanna River, when navigable, afforded an economical and ready means of transporting articles down river, but to push a large boat or even a canoe against the rapid current, or over the shoals and rifts, was a formidable undertaking. The first attempt to navigate the river by steamboat worked. The “Codorus” was 60-feet long, 9-feet wide, had a sheet-iron hull. Unloaded, its draft was 7 inches. The boat made a successful trip up the Susquehanna from Harrisburg in March and April 1826, reaching Binghamton, N.Y. The second attempt, however, ended in disaster. The “Susquehanna,” at 80-feet with a beam of 14 feet, carried nearly 200 people. On May 3, 1826, the ship attempted to pass Nescopeck Falls (also called Nescopeck rapids). There, the river’s high ridge and shallow water forces the water into a narrow channel, creating a whirlpool. Navigation there is normally impossible, but the captain thought that the high water would permit it. The steamboat went aground on the rocks near the shore. A crew was holding down the safety valve, and the strain caused a boiler to explode. Although the boat was not seriously damaged, two men were killed by escaping steam. Many others were scalded. The accident put an end to steamship navigation of the Susquehanna and led to renewed interest in building the Pennsylvania Canal. Dug by men whose tools were picks, shovels and wheelbarrows, the local canals measured 28-feet wide on the bottom, 40-feet wide at the top and 8- to 10-feet deep. The West Branch Canal was constructed between 1828 and 1834, formally opening on July 4, 1834. At this time, the canal only reached the mouth of Loyalsock Creek. The first packet boat to navigate the West Branch Canal was the “James Madison.”	700	ENGLISH	1
\|Papacy began\|\|31 July 432\| \|Papacy ended\|\|18 August 440\| Rome, Roman Empire \|Died\|\|18 August 440 (aged 50)\| Gaul, Western Roman Empire \|Feast day\|\|28 March\| \|Other popes named Sixtus\| \|Papal styles of\| Pope Sixtus III \|Reference style\|\|His Holiness\| \|Spoken style\|\|Your Holiness\| \|Religious style\|\|Holy Father\| Pope Sixtus III (died 18 August 440) was Pope of the Catholic Church from 31 July 432 to his death in 440.His ascension to the papacy is associated with a period of increased construction in the city of Rome. His feast day is celebrated by Catholics on March 28th. The pope, also known as the supreme pontiff, is the bishop of Rome and leader of the worldwide Catholic Church. Since 1929, the pope has also been head of state of Vatican City, a city-state enclaved within Rome, Italy. The current pope is Francis, who was elected on 13 March 2013, succeeding Benedict XVI. The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church, is the largest Christian church, with approximately 1.3 billion baptised Catholics worldwide as of 2017. As the world's oldest and largest continuously functioning international institution, it has played a prominent role in the history and development of Western civilisation. The church is headed by the Bishop of Rome, known as the pope. Its central administration is the Holy See. Rome is the capital city and a special comune of Italy. Rome also serves as the capital of the Lazio region. With 2,872,800 residents in 1,285 km2 (496.1 sq mi), it is also the country's most populated comune. It is the fourth most populous city in the European Union by population within city limits. It is the centre of the Metropolitan City of Rome, which has a population of 4,355,725 residents, thus making it the most populous metropolitan city in Italy. Rome is located in the central-western portion of the Italian Peninsula, within Lazio (Latium), along the shores of the Tiber. The Vatican City is an independent country inside the city boundaries of Rome, the only existing example of a country within a city: for this reason Rome has been often defined as capital of two states. Sixtus was born in Rome and before his accession he was prominent among the Roman clergy,and frequently corresponded with Augustine of Hippo. Augustine of Hippo was a Roman African, early Christian theologian and Neoplatonic philosopher from Numidia whose writings influenced the development of the Western Church and Western philosophy, and indirectly all of Western Christianity. He was the bishop of Hippo Regius in North Africa and is viewed as one of the most important Church Fathers of the Latin Church for his writings in the Patristic Period. Among his most important works are The City of God, De doctrina Christiana, and Confessions. Peter Brown says that prior to being made Pope, Sixtus was a patron of Pelagius, who was later condemned as a heretic,although Butler disagrees and attributes the charge to Garnier. Nicholas Weber also disputes this, "...it was probably owing to his conciliatory disposition that he was falsely accused of leanings towards these heresies." Alban Butler was an English Roman Catholic priest and hagiographer. Sixtus was consecrated Pope on 31 July, 432. He attempted to restore peace between Cyril of Alexandria and John of Antioch. He also defended the rights of the Pope over Illyria and the position of the archbishop of Thessalonica as head of the local Illyrian church against the ambition of Proclus of Constantinople. Cyril of Alexandria was the Patriarch of Alexandria from 412 to 444. He was enthroned when the city was at the height of its influence and power within the Roman Empire. Cyril wrote extensively and was a leading protagonist in the Christological controversies of the late-4th and 5th centuries. He was a central figure in the Council of Ephesus in 431, which led to the deposition of Nestorius as Patriarch of Constantinople. John I of Antioch was Patriarch of Antioch (429–441) and led a group of moderate Eastern bishops during the Nestorian controversy. He is sometimes confused with John Chrysostom, who is occasionally also referred to as John of Antioch. John gave active support to his friend Nestorius in the latter's dispute with Cyril of Alexandria. In the year 431, he arrived too late for the opening meeting of the First Council of Ephesus. Cyril, suspecting John of using procrastinating tactics to support Nestorius, decided not to wait and convened the council without John and his supporters, condemning Nestorius. When John reached Ephesus a few days after the council had begun, he convened a counter-council which condemned Cyril and vindicated Nestorius. In classical antiquity, Illyria was a region in the western part of the Balkan Peninsula inhabited by numerous tribes of people collectively known as the Illyrians. Besides them, this region was also settled, in various times, by some tribes of Celts, Goths and Thracians. Illyrians spoke Illyrian languages, a group of Indo-European languages, which in ancient times perhaps had speakers in some parts in Southern Italy. The Roman term Illyris was sometimes used to define an area north of the Aous valley, most notably Illyris proper. His name is often connected with a great building boom in Rome: Santa Sabina on the Aventine Hill was dedicated during his pontificate. He built the Liberian Basilica as Santa Maria Maggiore, whose dedication to Mary the Mother of God reflected his acceptance of the Ecumenical council of Ephesus which closed in 431. At that council, the debate over Christ's human and divine natures turned on whether Mary could legitimately be called the "Mother of God" or only "Mother of Christ". The council gave her the Greek title Theotokos (literally "God-bearer", or "Mother of God"), and the dedication of the large church in Rome is a response to that. The Basilica of Saint Sabina is a historic church on the Aventine Hill in Rome, Italy. It is a titular minor basilica and mother church of the Roman Catholic Order of Preachers, better known as the Dominicans. Santa Sabina is perched high above the Tiber river to the north and the Circus Maximus to the east. It is next to the small public park of Giardino degli Aranci, which has a scenic terrace overlooking Rome. It is a short distance from the headquarters of the Knights of Malta. The Aventine Hill is one of the Seven Hills on which ancient Rome was built. It belongs to Ripa, the twelfth rione, or ward, of Rome. The part of the city that stands on it is sometimes referred to as Reme, or Ream. The Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore, or church of Santa Maria Maggiore, is a Papal major basilica and the largest Catholic Marian church in Rome, Italy. His feast is kept on 28 March. Pope Adrian II was Pope from 14 December 867 to his death in 872. He was a member of a noble Roman family who became pope at an advanced age, despite his objections. Pope Adrian III or Hadrian III was Pope from 17 May 884 to his death. According to Jean Mabillon, his birth name was Agapitus. He served for little more than a year, during which he worked to help the people of Italy in a very troubled time of famine and war. Pope Anastasius I served as Pope from 27 November 399 to his death in 401. He was successor to Pope Siricius and was succeeded by his son Pope Innocent I. Pope Boniface I was Pope from 28 December 418 to his death in 422. His election was disputed by the supporters of Eulalius, until the dispute was settled by the Emperor. Boniface was active maintaining church discipline and he restored certain privileges to the metropolitical sees of Narbonne and Vienne, exempting them from any subjection to the primacy of Arles. He was a contemporary of Saint Augustine of Hippo, who dedicated to him some of his works. Pope Callixtus I, also called Callistus I, Hijazi Arabic: كاليكطس(Kaliktus), was the Bishop of Rome from c. 218 to his death c. 222 or 223. He lived during the reigns of the Roman Emperors Elagabalus and Alexander Severus. Eusebius and the Liberian catalogue gave him five years of episcopate (217–222). He was martyred for his Christian faith and is venerated as a saint by the Catholic Church. Pope Sixtus I, a Roman of Greek descent, was the Bishop of Rome from c. 115 to his death c. 124. He succeeded Pope Alexander I and was in turn succeeded by Pope Telesphorus. His feast is celebrated on 6 April. Pope Sixtus II was the Pope or Bishop of Rome from 31 August 257 until his death on 6 August 258. He was martyred along with seven deacons, including Lawrence of Rome during the persecution of the Catholic Church by Emperor Valerian. According to the Liber Pontificalis, he was born in Greece and was a philosopher; however, this is uncertain, and is disputed by modern western historians arguing that the authors of Liber Pontificalis confused him with that of the contemporary author Xystus, who was a Greek student of Pythagoreanism. He restored the relations with the African and Eastern churches which had been broken off by his predecessor on the question of heretical baptism raised by the heresy Novatianism. Pope Victor I was Bishop of Rome and hence a pope, in the late second century. He was of Berber origin. The dates of his tenure are uncertain, but one source states he became pope in 189 and gives the year of his death as 199. He was the first bishop of Rome born in the Roman Province of Africa—probably in Leptis Magna. He was later considered a saint. His feast day was celebrated on 28 July as "St Victor I, Pope and Martyr". Pope Leo VII was Pope from 3 January 936 to his death in 939. He was preceded by Pope John XI and followed by Pope Stephen VIII. Leo VII's election to the papacy was secured by Alberic II of Spoleto, the ruler of Rome at the time. Alberic wanted to choose the pope so that the papacy would continue to yield to his authority. Leo was the priest of the church of St. Sixtus in Rome, thought to be a Benedictine monk. He had little ambition towards the papacy, but consented under pressure. Pope Leo I, also known as Saint Leo the Great, was Bishop of Rome from 29 September 440 and died in 461. Pope Benedict XVI said that Leo's papacy "...was undoubtedly one of the most important in the Church's history." Pope Anicetus was the Bishop of Rome from c. 157 to his death in 168. According to the Annuario Pontificio, the start of his papacy may have been 153. Anicetus actively opposed Gnosticism and Marcionism. He welcomed Polycarp of Smyrna to Rome, to discuss the controversy over the date for the celebration of Easter. Pope Dionysius served as the Bishop of Rome or Pope from 22 July 259 to his death in 268. His task was to reorganize the Roman church, after the persecutions of the Emperor Valerian I and the edict of toleration by his successor Gallienus. He also helped rebuild the churches of Cappadocia, devastated by the marauding Goths. Pope Saint Gelasius I was the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church from 1 March AD 492 to his death on 19 November 496. He was probably the third and final Bishop of Rome of Berber descent. Gelasius was a prolific author whose style placed him on the cusp between Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. His predecessor Felix III employed him especially in drafting Papal documents. During his pontificate he called for strict Catholic orthodoxy, more assertively demanded obedience to Papal authority, and, consequently, increased the tension between the Western and Eastern Churches. Pope Felix IV (III) served as the Pope of the Catholic Church from 12 July 526 to his death in 530. He was the chosen candidate of Ostrogoth King Theodoric, who had imprisoned Felix's predecessor. Pope Leo IX, born Bruno of Egisheim-Dagsburg, was Pope of the Catholic Church from 12 February 1049 to his death in 1054. He was a German aristocrat and a powerful ruler of central Italy while holding the papacy. He is regarded as a saint by the Catholic Church, his feast day celebrated on 19 April. Saint Hilary of Arles, also known by his Latin name Hilarius, was a bishop of Arles in Southern France. He is recognized as a saint by the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, with his feast day celebrated on 5 May. While a papal oath can be any oath taken by a pope, such as that which Pope Leo III took on 23 December 800 at a council held in Rome in the presence of Charlemagne declaring himself innocent of the charges brought against him, the term is used in particular for the "Papal Oath" that some Traditionalist Catholics say was taken by the popes of the Catholic Church, starting with Pope Saint Agatho who was elected on 27 June 678. They claim that over 180 popes, down to and including Pope Paul VI, swore this oath during their papal coronations. Pope John Paul I, Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, and Pope Francis who had no coronation ceremonies, did not take the oath, and some Traditionalists interpret this fact negatively, even to the point of declaring them to be false popes. John IV, also known as John Nesteutes, was the 33rd bishop or Patriarch of Constantinople. He was the first to assume the title Ecumenical Patriarch. He is regarded as a saint by the Eastern Orthodox Church which holds a feast on September 2. Julian of Eclanum was bishop of Eclanum, near today's Benevento (Italy). He was a distinguished leader of the Pelagians of 5th century. \|Wikimedia Commons has media related to Sixtus III .\| \|Titles of the Great Christian Church\| \| Pope \|	<urn:uuid:24eb624e-46ba-489d-82d8-e29cd9792c50>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://wikimili.com/en/Pope_Sixtus_III	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251776516.99/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128060946-20200128090946-00498.warc.gz	en	0.985689	3,112	3.34375	3	[ 0.018155094236135483, 0.2680589556694031, 0.2621381878852844, -0.10668361186981201, -0.5213142037391663, 0.11836030334234238, -0.3146371841430664, 0.3032875061035156, 0.5220956802368164, -0.2161814421415329, -0.14557063579559326, -0.3882165551185608, -0.1403399258852005, 0.2020059376955032...	1	\|Papacy began\|\|31 July 432\| \|Papacy ended\|\|18 August 440\| Rome, Roman Empire \|Died\|\|18 August 440 (aged 50)\| Gaul, Western Roman Empire \|Feast day\|\|28 March\| \|Other popes named Sixtus\| \|Papal styles of\| Pope Sixtus III \|Reference style\|\|His Holiness\| \|Spoken style\|\|Your Holiness\| \|Religious style\|\|Holy Father\| Pope Sixtus III (died 18 August 440) was Pope of the Catholic Church from 31 July 432 to his death in 440.His ascension to the papacy is associated with a period of increased construction in the city of Rome. His feast day is celebrated by Catholics on March 28th. The pope, also known as the supreme pontiff, is the bishop of Rome and leader of the worldwide Catholic Church. Since 1929, the pope has also been head of state of Vatican City, a city-state enclaved within Rome, Italy. The current pope is Francis, who was elected on 13 March 2013, succeeding Benedict XVI. The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church, is the largest Christian church, with approximately 1.3 billion baptised Catholics worldwide as of 2017. As the world's oldest and largest continuously functioning international institution, it has played a prominent role in the history and development of Western civilisation. The church is headed by the Bishop of Rome, known as the pope. Its central administration is the Holy See. Rome is the capital city and a special comune of Italy. Rome also serves as the capital of the Lazio region. With 2,872,800 residents in 1,285 km2 (496.1 sq mi), it is also the country's most populated comune. It is the fourth most populous city in the European Union by population within city limits. It is the centre of the Metropolitan City of Rome, which has a population of 4,355,725 residents, thus making it the most populous metropolitan city in Italy. Rome is located in the central-western portion of the Italian Peninsula, within Lazio (Latium), along the shores of the Tiber. The Vatican City is an independent country inside the city boundaries of Rome, the only existing example of a country within a city: for this reason Rome has been often defined as capital of two states. Sixtus was born in Rome and before his accession he was prominent among the Roman clergy,and frequently corresponded with Augustine of Hippo. Augustine of Hippo was a Roman African, early Christian theologian and Neoplatonic philosopher from Numidia whose writings influenced the development of the Western Church and Western philosophy, and indirectly all of Western Christianity. He was the bishop of Hippo Regius in North Africa and is viewed as one of the most important Church Fathers of the Latin Church for his writings in the Patristic Period. Among his most important works are The City of God, De doctrina Christiana, and Confessions. Peter Brown says that prior to being made Pope, Sixtus was a patron of Pelagius, who was later condemned as a heretic,although Butler disagrees and attributes the charge to Garnier. Nicholas Weber also disputes this, "...it was probably owing to his conciliatory disposition that he was falsely accused of leanings towards these heresies." Alban Butler was an English Roman Catholic priest and hagiographer. Sixtus was consecrated Pope on 31 July, 432. He attempted to restore peace between Cyril of Alexandria and John of Antioch. He also defended the rights of the Pope over Illyria and the position of the archbishop of Thessalonica as head of the local Illyrian church against the ambition of Proclus of Constantinople. Cyril of Alexandria was the Patriarch of Alexandria from 412 to 444. He was enthroned when the city was at the height of its influence and power within the Roman Empire. Cyril wrote extensively and was a leading protagonist in the Christological controversies of the late-4th and 5th centuries. He was a central figure in the Council of Ephesus in 431, which led to the deposition of Nestorius as Patriarch of Constantinople. John I of Antioch was Patriarch of Antioch (429–441) and led a group of moderate Eastern bishops during the Nestorian controversy. He is sometimes confused with John Chrysostom, who is occasionally also referred to as John of Antioch. John gave active support to his friend Nestorius in the latter's dispute with Cyril of Alexandria. In the year 431, he arrived too late for the opening meeting of the First Council of Ephesus. Cyril, suspecting John of using procrastinating tactics to support Nestorius, decided not to wait and convened the council without John and his supporters, condemning Nestorius. When John reached Ephesus a few days after the council had begun, he convened a counter-council which condemned Cyril and vindicated Nestorius. In classical antiquity, Illyria was a region in the western part of the Balkan Peninsula inhabited by numerous tribes of people collectively known as the Illyrians. Besides them, this region was also settled, in various times, by some tribes of Celts, Goths and Thracians. Illyrians spoke Illyrian languages, a group of Indo-European languages, which in ancient times perhaps had speakers in some parts in Southern Italy. The Roman term Illyris was sometimes used to define an area north of the Aous valley, most notably Illyris proper. His name is often connected with a great building boom in Rome: Santa Sabina on the Aventine Hill was dedicated during his pontificate. He built the Liberian Basilica as Santa Maria Maggiore, whose dedication to Mary the Mother of God reflected his acceptance of the Ecumenical council of Ephesus which closed in 431. At that council, the debate over Christ's human and divine natures turned on whether Mary could legitimately be called the "Mother of God" or only "Mother of Christ". The council gave her the Greek title Theotokos (literally "God-bearer", or "Mother of God"), and the dedication of the large church in Rome is a response to that. The Basilica of Saint Sabina is a historic church on the Aventine Hill in Rome, Italy. It is a titular minor basilica and mother church of the Roman Catholic Order of Preachers, better known as the Dominicans. Santa Sabina is perched high above the Tiber river to the north and the Circus Maximus to the east. It is next to the small public park of Giardino degli Aranci, which has a scenic terrace overlooking Rome. It is a short distance from the headquarters of the Knights of Malta. The Aventine Hill is one of the Seven Hills on which ancient Rome was built. It belongs to Ripa, the twelfth rione, or ward, of Rome. The part of the city that stands on it is sometimes referred to as Reme, or Ream. The Basilica di Santa Maria Maggiore, or church of Santa Maria Maggiore, is a Papal major basilica and the largest Catholic Marian church in Rome, Italy. His feast is kept on 28 March. Pope Adrian II was Pope from 14 December 867 to his death in 872. He was a member of a noble Roman family who became pope at an advanced age, despite his objections. Pope Adrian III or Hadrian III was Pope from 17 May 884 to his death. According to Jean Mabillon, his birth name was Agapitus. He served for little more than a year, during which he worked to help the people of Italy in a very troubled time of famine and war. Pope Anastasius I served as Pope from 27 November 399 to his death in 401. He was successor to Pope Siricius and was succeeded by his son Pope Innocent I. Pope Boniface I was Pope from 28 December 418 to his death in 422. His election was disputed by the supporters of Eulalius, until the dispute was settled by the Emperor. Boniface was active maintaining church discipline and he restored certain privileges to the metropolitical sees of Narbonne and Vienne, exempting them from any subjection to the primacy of Arles. He was a contemporary of Saint Augustine of Hippo, who dedicated to him some of his works. Pope Callixtus I, also called Callistus I, Hijazi Arabic: كاليكطس(Kaliktus), was the Bishop of Rome from c. 218 to his death c. 222 or 223. He lived during the reigns of the Roman Emperors Elagabalus and Alexander Severus. Eusebius and the Liberian catalogue gave him five years of episcopate (217–222). He was martyred for his Christian faith and is venerated as a saint by the Catholic Church. Pope Sixtus I, a Roman of Greek descent, was the Bishop of Rome from c. 115 to his death c. 124. He succeeded Pope Alexander I and was in turn succeeded by Pope Telesphorus. His feast is celebrated on 6 April. Pope Sixtus II was the Pope or Bishop of Rome from 31 August 257 until his death on 6 August 258. He was martyred along with seven deacons, including Lawrence of Rome during the persecution of the Catholic Church by Emperor Valerian. According to the Liber Pontificalis, he was born in Greece and was a philosopher; however, this is uncertain, and is disputed by modern western historians arguing that the authors of Liber Pontificalis confused him with that of the contemporary author Xystus, who was a Greek student of Pythagoreanism. He restored the relations with the African and Eastern churches which had been broken off by his predecessor on the question of heretical baptism raised by the heresy Novatianism. Pope Victor I was Bishop of Rome and hence a pope, in the late second century. He was of Berber origin. The dates of his tenure are uncertain, but one source states he became pope in 189 and gives the year of his death as 199. He was the first bishop of Rome born in the Roman Province of Africa—probably in Leptis Magna. He was later considered a saint. His feast day was celebrated on 28 July as "St Victor I, Pope and Martyr". Pope Leo VII was Pope from 3 January 936 to his death in 939. He was preceded by Pope John XI and followed by Pope Stephen VIII. Leo VII's election to the papacy was secured by Alberic II of Spoleto, the ruler of Rome at the time. Alberic wanted to choose the pope so that the papacy would continue to yield to his authority. Leo was the priest of the church of St. Sixtus in Rome, thought to be a Benedictine monk. He had little ambition towards the papacy, but consented under pressure. Pope Leo I, also known as Saint Leo the Great, was Bishop of Rome from 29 September 440 and died in 461. Pope Benedict XVI said that Leo's papacy "...was undoubtedly one of the most important in the Church's history." Pope Anicetus was the Bishop of Rome from c. 157 to his death in 168. According to the Annuario Pontificio, the start of his papacy may have been 153. Anicetus actively opposed Gnosticism and Marcionism. He welcomed Polycarp of Smyrna to Rome, to discuss the controversy over the date for the celebration of Easter. Pope Dionysius served as the Bishop of Rome or Pope from 22 July 259 to his death in 268. His task was to reorganize the Roman church, after the persecutions of the Emperor Valerian I and the edict of toleration by his successor Gallienus. He also helped rebuild the churches of Cappadocia, devastated by the marauding Goths. Pope Saint Gelasius I was the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church from 1 March AD 492 to his death on 19 November 496. He was probably the third and final Bishop of Rome of Berber descent. Gelasius was a prolific author whose style placed him on the cusp between Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. His predecessor Felix III employed him especially in drafting Papal documents. During his pontificate he called for strict Catholic orthodoxy, more assertively demanded obedience to Papal authority, and, consequently, increased the tension between the Western and Eastern Churches. Pope Felix IV (III) served as the Pope of the Catholic Church from 12 July 526 to his death in 530. He was the chosen candidate of Ostrogoth King Theodoric, who had imprisoned Felix's predecessor. Pope Leo IX, born Bruno of Egisheim-Dagsburg, was Pope of the Catholic Church from 12 February 1049 to his death in 1054. He was a German aristocrat and a powerful ruler of central Italy while holding the papacy. He is regarded as a saint by the Catholic Church, his feast day celebrated on 19 April. Saint Hilary of Arles, also known by his Latin name Hilarius, was a bishop of Arles in Southern France. He is recognized as a saint by the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches, with his feast day celebrated on 5 May. While a papal oath can be any oath taken by a pope, such as that which Pope Leo III took on 23 December 800 at a council held in Rome in the presence of Charlemagne declaring himself innocent of the charges brought against him, the term is used in particular for the "Papal Oath" that some Traditionalist Catholics say was taken by the popes of the Catholic Church, starting with Pope Saint Agatho who was elected on 27 June 678. They claim that over 180 popes, down to and including Pope Paul VI, swore this oath during their papal coronations. Pope John Paul I, Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, and Pope Francis who had no coronation ceremonies, did not take the oath, and some Traditionalists interpret this fact negatively, even to the point of declaring them to be false popes. John IV, also known as John Nesteutes, was the 33rd bishop or Patriarch of Constantinople. He was the first to assume the title Ecumenical Patriarch. He is regarded as a saint by the Eastern Orthodox Church which holds a feast on September 2. Julian of Eclanum was bishop of Eclanum, near today's Benevento (Italy). He was a distinguished leader of the Pelagians of 5th century. \|Wikimedia Commons has media related to Sixtus III .\| \|Titles of the Great Christian Church\| \| Pope \|	3,296	ENGLISH	1
Although it has been revealed in recent years that plants are capable of seeing, hearing and smelling, they are still usually thought of as silent. But now, for the first time, they have been recorded making airborne sounds when stressed, which researchers say could open up a new field of precision agriculture where farmers listen for water-starved crops. Itzhak Khait and his colleagues at Tel Aviv University in Israel found that tomato and tobacco plants made sounds at frequencies humans cannot hear when stressed by a lack of water or when their stem is cut. Microphones placed 10 centimetres from the plants picked up sounds in the ultrasonic range of 20 to 100 kilohertz, which the team says insects and some mammals would be capable of hearing and responding to from as far as 5 metres away. A moth may decide against laying eggs on a plant that sounds water-stressed, the researchers suggest. Plants could even hear that other plants are short of water and react accordingly, they speculate. “These findings can alter the way we think about the plant kingdom, which has been considered to be almost silent until now,” they write in their study, which has not yet been published in a journal.	<urn:uuid:8d155aeb-013e-41b6-bd84-1df4a840f53b>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.floraldaily.com/article/9171161/recordings-reveal-that-plants-make-ultrasonic-squeals-when-stressed/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594603.8/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119122744-20200119150744-00186.warc.gz	en	0.981547	247	3.65625	4	[ 0.27016133069992065, -0.2008667290210724, 0.2695419490337372, -0.057151295244693756, 0.41846734285354614, 0.13272999227046967, 0.2121279239654541, -0.030872991308569908, 0.08029714226722717, 0.12664245069026947, -0.09998373687267303, -0.31904155015945435, 0.2685777246952057, 0.190393090248...	2	Although it has been revealed in recent years that plants are capable of seeing, hearing and smelling, they are still usually thought of as silent. But now, for the first time, they have been recorded making airborne sounds when stressed, which researchers say could open up a new field of precision agriculture where farmers listen for water-starved crops. Itzhak Khait and his colleagues at Tel Aviv University in Israel found that tomato and tobacco plants made sounds at frequencies humans cannot hear when stressed by a lack of water or when their stem is cut. Microphones placed 10 centimetres from the plants picked up sounds in the ultrasonic range of 20 to 100 kilohertz, which the team says insects and some mammals would be capable of hearing and responding to from as far as 5 metres away. A moth may decide against laying eggs on a plant that sounds water-stressed, the researchers suggest. Plants could even hear that other plants are short of water and react accordingly, they speculate. “These findings can alter the way we think about the plant kingdom, which has been considered to be almost silent until now,” they write in their study, which has not yet been published in a journal.	244	ENGLISH	1
On the other hand, Israel, Jordan, and the United States were allied in their support of the Israeli state and Israels land acquisitions during the Six-Day War. Eventually, the Sudan dropped out of the proposal, but, “By the end of 1971 the two leaders had taken soundings in Moscow, had appointed Egypts war minister, General Muhammad Sadiq, supreme commander of both armies, and had reached agreement on broad strategy” (Rabil 22). They continued to gain support from the Soviet Union, knowing they needed support of a superpower to offset the military might Israel wielded in the area. After the war, “Six Arab states, including Egypt, broke off diplomatic relations with Washington, and were subsequently drawn closer to the Soviet Union.28 Additionally, the 1967 war created another 200,000 Palestinian Arab refugees, and more than one million Arabs from this point on lived within Israeli borders” (Mork 21). This really changed the face of diplomacy in the area, and began to alter worldwide political and diplomatic relationships, as well. It is important to remember that the Cold War was in full swing at this time, and the battle lines in the Middle East were continuing to change. Writer Mork continues, “By 1967, the Soviet Union held considerable influence in Egypt, Syria, and Iraq. As opposed to earlier, the Arab-Israeli conflict had become intertwined with the East-West conflict” (Mork 22). Earlier, both the superpowers remained largely absent from the conflict, leaving it to the Arabs and Israelis to sort out their problems, but that changed after the Six-Day War. The United States became heavily involved in the negotiations after the Six-Day War for a number of reasons. They openly supported Israel and the creation of the Israeli state. They did not support the fact that Israel had acquired disputed territories during the war, but they did support negotiation that would lead to the return of the territories in return for some Arab concessions toward Israel, something that had not occurred during previous conflicts. The U.S. hoped that Israel could trade the territories astutely and use them to create a long lasting peace in the region, but obviously, that has not occurred. In December 1969, U.S. Secretary of State William Rogers developed the Rogers Plan, another attempt at Middle Eastern diplomacy. His plan was quite “middle of the road,” hoping to create a balance between Arab needs and the Israeli desire for formal negotiations, rather than simply approving the UN resolution. The Rogers Plan would also essentially return the borders to their pre-1967 status, before the Six-Day War and Israeli occupation. That ensured that Israel would not approve of the plan almost instantly. The plan also called for a cease-fire, and in mid-1970, Egypt announced it was ready to agree to the Rogers Plan. These negations were held through Gunnar Jarring, and after learning Egypt would support the plan, Israel said they would too, but they would not return to the pre-1967 boundaries the plan called for. The plan for peace was short lived, however. Historian Cossali continues, “However, after a single meeting with Dr. Jarring in New York, the Israeli representative was recalled and the Israeli Government protested that the cease-fire had been violated by the movement of Soviet missiles behind the Egyptian lines” (Cossali 42). Talks broke down, and then, Palestine resistance efforts brought the process to a complete halt. Palestine guerillas were at work in Jordan, and when Jordan supported the Rogers Plan, they threatened civil war inside the country. In mid-September 1970, the Jordanian leader, King Hussein, created a military government in charge of exterminating the resistance. Within 10 days, Egypts President Nasser and other Arab governments mediated a truce between the guerillas and the government, bypassing a long and bloody civil war. However, the next day President Nasser suffered a heart attack, and he died a few days later. The new President of Egypt, Anwar Sadat, seemed eager for settlement, and for a time, it seemed Israel was, as well. However, when talks began again, both sides refused to back down on the border issues. Israel refused to give up any territory, and Egypt refused to accept this. They were losing revenue due to the Suez Canals closure and the loss of their oil fields to Israel, and so, the talks broke down again. Attempts (called a “partial resolution”) to get Israel to withdraw back from the Sinai, so the Canal could reopen, also failed. Finally, the Rogers Plan was dropped altogether, and the situation showed no signs of rectifying itself. In December, the UN also reaffirmed its position and in another resolution, asked Israel to give up the occupied territories, but again it refused. This was an extremely important time in the negotiations, because for the first time, the United States did not support Israels position, and let them know it. When a vote was taken, only seven states including Israel had voted against the resolution, and the United States abstained, indicating its displeasure with Israels refusal to budge on the occupied territories. Later on, the European members of the UN created a resolution that strongly criticized Israel, and then voted on it. The United States again abstained, a clear message to Israel (Cossali 45). Still, the diplomacy continued, and Israel continued to defy growing public opinion against it, and for peace. Another supreme blow to diplomacy in the impasse came at the 1972 Summer Olympics in Munich Germany. Palestinian terrorists captured 11 members of the Israeli Olympic Team and took them hostage in return for Palestinian prisoners held in Israel. The West German police promised them safe passage, but opened fire on the group at the Munich Airport. All of the Israeli team members were killed, and all of the terrorists were killed or captured (Cossali 45). This event led to more sympathy for Israel around the world, and a quick Israeli retaliation on Lebanon, home to the terrorists. This led to another stalemate in the diplomatic efforts to create a lasting peace in the country. By 1973, the Israelis had received even more military planes and equipment from the United States, and they knew their military position was far superior to the Arab nations surrounding them. They had no intention of giving up territory when they had the military advantage. Egypt and Jordan had weakened their position, and through intermediaries, they let Israel know they would be willing to negotiate with them. However, Israel was in no mood to negotiate, and their support had dwindled mainly to the United States. However, the United States was becoming increasingly dependent on Arabian oil to fuel its automobiles and industry, and so, the United States was attempting to negotiate with the Arabs for oil while supporting the Israelis, and something had to give. Where did the Soviets fit into the peace picture? They supported UN Resolutions that would bring the conflict to an end, and they supported the Arabs over the Israelis. They also sent military equipment (notably Russian MIG fighters) to the Arab states so they could defend themselves from the Israeli U.S.-provided Phantoms. In addition, they attempted (along with several Arab nations) to draw up a UN Resolution that would allow withdrawal from the Occupied Territories even before a formal peace was announced, but the U.S. blocked that resolution in favor of Resolution 242, the resolution that finally passed in the UN. The Soviets were not as involved in the peace process as the Americans, but they were a key figure in many areas, and it was clear they had little support for Israel in their own political agenda. It must also be remembered that the Arabs who were so mightily defeated in the Six-Day War were outfitted primarily with Soviet weapons, and there were Soviet military advisors in at least some of the countries (such as Egypt), so the Arab defeat was also a Soviet defeat in many ways. Thus, the Soviets were ripe for a peace process that supported their allies in the area, and they urged the resolution of diplomacy that would help their allies, just as the United States wanted agreements that would support the Israelis and create a lasting peace and acceptance of them throughout the region. As this diplomatic process indicates, tempers run high in the Middle East, and the participants in the Arab-Israeli Conflict are both quite sure of their position and their needs. There are still tensions in the area, Israel has not conceded all the territory it took in the Six-Day War, although it has conceded the Gaza Strip, the Sinai, and there have been peace agreements with Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon. Israel itself was distrustful of many of the diplomatic techniques and resolutions used in an attempt to maintain peace in the region. They were especially suspicious of the UN, and its ability to remain impartial.	<urn:uuid:dbcc34c5-e25e-4287-a152-4c8c5d7f0b8e>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://cardinalburns.com/all-essays/arab/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251681625.83/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125222506-20200126012506-00104.warc.gz	en	0.984572	1,807	3.265625	3	[ -0.5939722657203674, 0.41350001096725464, 0.11201337724924088, -0.04518524557352066, -0.2756137251853943, 0.34831637144088745, -0.2694193422794342, 0.1048702746629715, -0.15348395705223083, 0.2686702013015747, 0.5052899122238159, 0.10069109499454498, 0.44533735513687134, 0.1627485007047653...	1	On the other hand, Israel, Jordan, and the United States were allied in their support of the Israeli state and Israels land acquisitions during the Six-Day War. Eventually, the Sudan dropped out of the proposal, but, “By the end of 1971 the two leaders had taken soundings in Moscow, had appointed Egypts war minister, General Muhammad Sadiq, supreme commander of both armies, and had reached agreement on broad strategy” (Rabil 22). They continued to gain support from the Soviet Union, knowing they needed support of a superpower to offset the military might Israel wielded in the area. After the war, “Six Arab states, including Egypt, broke off diplomatic relations with Washington, and were subsequently drawn closer to the Soviet Union.28 Additionally, the 1967 war created another 200,000 Palestinian Arab refugees, and more than one million Arabs from this point on lived within Israeli borders” (Mork 21). This really changed the face of diplomacy in the area, and began to alter worldwide political and diplomatic relationships, as well. It is important to remember that the Cold War was in full swing at this time, and the battle lines in the Middle East were continuing to change. Writer Mork continues, “By 1967, the Soviet Union held considerable influence in Egypt, Syria, and Iraq. As opposed to earlier, the Arab-Israeli conflict had become intertwined with the East-West conflict” (Mork 22). Earlier, both the superpowers remained largely absent from the conflict, leaving it to the Arabs and Israelis to sort out their problems, but that changed after the Six-Day War. The United States became heavily involved in the negotiations after the Six-Day War for a number of reasons. They openly supported Israel and the creation of the Israeli state. They did not support the fact that Israel had acquired disputed territories during the war, but they did support negotiation that would lead to the return of the territories in return for some Arab concessions toward Israel, something that had not occurred during previous conflicts. The U.S. hoped that Israel could trade the territories astutely and use them to create a long lasting peace in the region, but obviously, that has not occurred. In December 1969, U.S. Secretary of State William Rogers developed the Rogers Plan, another attempt at Middle Eastern diplomacy. His plan was quite “middle of the road,” hoping to create a balance between Arab needs and the Israeli desire for formal negotiations, rather than simply approving the UN resolution. The Rogers Plan would also essentially return the borders to their pre-1967 status, before the Six-Day War and Israeli occupation. That ensured that Israel would not approve of the plan almost instantly. The plan also called for a cease-fire, and in mid-1970, Egypt announced it was ready to agree to the Rogers Plan. These negations were held through Gunnar Jarring, and after learning Egypt would support the plan, Israel said they would too, but they would not return to the pre-1967 boundaries the plan called for. The plan for peace was short lived, however. Historian Cossali continues, “However, after a single meeting with Dr. Jarring in New York, the Israeli representative was recalled and the Israeli Government protested that the cease-fire had been violated by the movement of Soviet missiles behind the Egyptian lines” (Cossali 42). Talks broke down, and then, Palestine resistance efforts brought the process to a complete halt. Palestine guerillas were at work in Jordan, and when Jordan supported the Rogers Plan, they threatened civil war inside the country. In mid-September 1970, the Jordanian leader, King Hussein, created a military government in charge of exterminating the resistance. Within 10 days, Egypts President Nasser and other Arab governments mediated a truce between the guerillas and the government, bypassing a long and bloody civil war. However, the next day President Nasser suffered a heart attack, and he died a few days later. The new President of Egypt, Anwar Sadat, seemed eager for settlement, and for a time, it seemed Israel was, as well. However, when talks began again, both sides refused to back down on the border issues. Israel refused to give up any territory, and Egypt refused to accept this. They were losing revenue due to the Suez Canals closure and the loss of their oil fields to Israel, and so, the talks broke down again. Attempts (called a “partial resolution”) to get Israel to withdraw back from the Sinai, so the Canal could reopen, also failed. Finally, the Rogers Plan was dropped altogether, and the situation showed no signs of rectifying itself. In December, the UN also reaffirmed its position and in another resolution, asked Israel to give up the occupied territories, but again it refused. This was an extremely important time in the negotiations, because for the first time, the United States did not support Israels position, and let them know it. When a vote was taken, only seven states including Israel had voted against the resolution, and the United States abstained, indicating its displeasure with Israels refusal to budge on the occupied territories. Later on, the European members of the UN created a resolution that strongly criticized Israel, and then voted on it. The United States again abstained, a clear message to Israel (Cossali 45). Still, the diplomacy continued, and Israel continued to defy growing public opinion against it, and for peace. Another supreme blow to diplomacy in the impasse came at the 1972 Summer Olympics in Munich Germany. Palestinian terrorists captured 11 members of the Israeli Olympic Team and took them hostage in return for Palestinian prisoners held in Israel. The West German police promised them safe passage, but opened fire on the group at the Munich Airport. All of the Israeli team members were killed, and all of the terrorists were killed or captured (Cossali 45). This event led to more sympathy for Israel around the world, and a quick Israeli retaliation on Lebanon, home to the terrorists. This led to another stalemate in the diplomatic efforts to create a lasting peace in the country. By 1973, the Israelis had received even more military planes and equipment from the United States, and they knew their military position was far superior to the Arab nations surrounding them. They had no intention of giving up territory when they had the military advantage. Egypt and Jordan had weakened their position, and through intermediaries, they let Israel know they would be willing to negotiate with them. However, Israel was in no mood to negotiate, and their support had dwindled mainly to the United States. However, the United States was becoming increasingly dependent on Arabian oil to fuel its automobiles and industry, and so, the United States was attempting to negotiate with the Arabs for oil while supporting the Israelis, and something had to give. Where did the Soviets fit into the peace picture? They supported UN Resolutions that would bring the conflict to an end, and they supported the Arabs over the Israelis. They also sent military equipment (notably Russian MIG fighters) to the Arab states so they could defend themselves from the Israeli U.S.-provided Phantoms. In addition, they attempted (along with several Arab nations) to draw up a UN Resolution that would allow withdrawal from the Occupied Territories even before a formal peace was announced, but the U.S. blocked that resolution in favor of Resolution 242, the resolution that finally passed in the UN. The Soviets were not as involved in the peace process as the Americans, but they were a key figure in many areas, and it was clear they had little support for Israel in their own political agenda. It must also be remembered that the Arabs who were so mightily defeated in the Six-Day War were outfitted primarily with Soviet weapons, and there were Soviet military advisors in at least some of the countries (such as Egypt), so the Arab defeat was also a Soviet defeat in many ways. Thus, the Soviets were ripe for a peace process that supported their allies in the area, and they urged the resolution of diplomacy that would help their allies, just as the United States wanted agreements that would support the Israelis and create a lasting peace and acceptance of them throughout the region. As this diplomatic process indicates, tempers run high in the Middle East, and the participants in the Arab-Israeli Conflict are both quite sure of their position and their needs. There are still tensions in the area, Israel has not conceded all the territory it took in the Six-Day War, although it has conceded the Gaza Strip, the Sinai, and there have been peace agreements with Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon. Israel itself was distrustful of many of the diplomatic techniques and resolutions used in an attempt to maintain peace in the region. They were especially suspicious of the UN, and its ability to remain impartial.	1,838	ENGLISH	1
Contributions to the World By: Jenna Kate Mchechnie and Samantha Joan Montes The Italian Renaissance first began in Florence, Italy in the 14th century. Florence, Italy had been said to be the heart of the Renaissance. The Renaissance had changed almost all facets of European culture and society, the Medieval Cultures were now being changed and evolving. During that time it was where the thoughts and focus on the afterlife were now being traded to the thoughts of living, and how human needs more were important and that is where humanism began to grow. The people who impacted the Renaissance helped create change through the Government, Economy and the Arts. The Medici family ruled over Italy as one of the most richest families in Florence during the Renaissance. They helped create one of the biggest banks during the 1500 and develop many great banking strategies still used today. Leonardo helped impact the Renaissance by creating the art that educated people about humanism, he also created amazing plans for new machines that were far too advanced for that era, leading them to be actually created by others in a later time. But without him there was no chance of those ideas to actually have been created. Because of the wealth they had in Italy the Medici family helped sponsor much of the art and artists during this era. Through art, innovations created by Da Vinci, and techniques and support given by the Medici family, the Renaissance helped contribute to the world today. A family that helped contribute to the Renaissance in many ways was the Medici family. The Medici family came from the Mugello Valley in Tuscany around the 12th century to Florence. The Medici Banks founding is dated to 1397 because that was the year Giovanni di Bicci de' Medici had separated from his nephew Averardo's bank (which had been acting like a branch in Rome). Giovanni had moved his bank to Florence and raised at least 10,000 gold florins, to found the bank in Florence. But the Medici bank had helped and gave a few successes during the Renaissance. The Medici family while in power had made a very important and successful contribution to the general ledger system with the development of the double entry system of tracking debits and credits also known as deposits and withdrawals. They were successful for many years, being the only major bank in Florence. The Medici family's wealth isn’t easily estimated, since they owned a lot of land, gold, and art created by the artists they founded to help share the new ideas of humanism. The Medici family had so much monetary wealth that it helped them gain most of the political power in the Florentine Republic, and later spreading through Italy and Europe. In italy during this time period, families were not subject to princely rules. The amount of money you had determined your status and amount of power you had over the city. There for the Medici family's power began to grow towards the end of the 14th century. During the Renaissance, Italy was separated into many citystates rather than it being one unified country as it is today, each citystate was run on their own form of Government. Florence was a Republic, run by the people, but the Medici were appointed those in charge. During the time they were in charge, the Medici family began to help Florence expand on the ideas of humanism. The Medici Family helped fund artists and innovators like Michelangelo and Leonardo Da Vinci who were the most successful artists, scientists, sculptors, philosophers, and mathematicians of their time. During the 15 century Lorenzo de Medici began to gain a fascination involving humanism. Lorenzo’s court was made up of artists like Piero, Andrea del Leonardo da Vinci Domenico Ghirlandaio and . All of these artists were greatly involved…	<urn:uuid:3a053766-221e-4f95-ae7a-3c98ceccfbd3>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.majortests.com/essay/Sam-Jenna-s-World-Culture-Day-617458.html	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594662.6/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119151736-20200119175736-00053.warc.gz	en	0.988816	793	3.875	4	[ -0.33871835470199585, 0.22797605395317078, 0.19887079298496246, -0.13803730905056, -0.5568453073501587, -0.015613273717463017, 0.1212761402130127, 0.40117716789245605, 0.014473486691713333, -0.03435613587498665, 0.31292182207107544, -0.13347244262695312, 0.14988404512405396, 0.074657186865...	1	Contributions to the World By: Jenna Kate Mchechnie and Samantha Joan Montes The Italian Renaissance first began in Florence, Italy in the 14th century. Florence, Italy had been said to be the heart of the Renaissance. The Renaissance had changed almost all facets of European culture and society, the Medieval Cultures were now being changed and evolving. During that time it was where the thoughts and focus on the afterlife were now being traded to the thoughts of living, and how human needs more were important and that is where humanism began to grow. The people who impacted the Renaissance helped create change through the Government, Economy and the Arts. The Medici family ruled over Italy as one of the most richest families in Florence during the Renaissance. They helped create one of the biggest banks during the 1500 and develop many great banking strategies still used today. Leonardo helped impact the Renaissance by creating the art that educated people about humanism, he also created amazing plans for new machines that were far too advanced for that era, leading them to be actually created by others in a later time. But without him there was no chance of those ideas to actually have been created. Because of the wealth they had in Italy the Medici family helped sponsor much of the art and artists during this era. Through art, innovations created by Da Vinci, and techniques and support given by the Medici family, the Renaissance helped contribute to the world today. A family that helped contribute to the Renaissance in many ways was the Medici family. The Medici family came from the Mugello Valley in Tuscany around the 12th century to Florence. The Medici Banks founding is dated to 1397 because that was the year Giovanni di Bicci de' Medici had separated from his nephew Averardo's bank (which had been acting like a branch in Rome). Giovanni had moved his bank to Florence and raised at least 10,000 gold florins, to found the bank in Florence. But the Medici bank had helped and gave a few successes during the Renaissance. The Medici family while in power had made a very important and successful contribution to the general ledger system with the development of the double entry system of tracking debits and credits also known as deposits and withdrawals. They were successful for many years, being the only major bank in Florence. The Medici family's wealth isn’t easily estimated, since they owned a lot of land, gold, and art created by the artists they founded to help share the new ideas of humanism. The Medici family had so much monetary wealth that it helped them gain most of the political power in the Florentine Republic, and later spreading through Italy and Europe. In italy during this time period, families were not subject to princely rules. The amount of money you had determined your status and amount of power you had over the city. There for the Medici family's power began to grow towards the end of the 14th century. During the Renaissance, Italy was separated into many citystates rather than it being one unified country as it is today, each citystate was run on their own form of Government. Florence was a Republic, run by the people, but the Medici were appointed those in charge. During the time they were in charge, the Medici family began to help Florence expand on the ideas of humanism. The Medici Family helped fund artists and innovators like Michelangelo and Leonardo Da Vinci who were the most successful artists, scientists, sculptors, philosophers, and mathematicians of their time. During the 15 century Lorenzo de Medici began to gain a fascination involving humanism. Lorenzo’s court was made up of artists like Piero, Andrea del Leonardo da Vinci Domenico Ghirlandaio and . All of these artists were greatly involved…	798	ENGLISH	1
February is the shortest month of the year, but many people have no idea why that is. It is the only month to have fewer than 30 days, but there is no scientific reason behind that distinction, though there have been various changes to the calendar throughout the centuries, and eventually became what it is today. February: Fun Facts The Romans developed a 10 month calendar that began with the Spring equinox in March and ended in December. There is belief that what is now February was overlooked when this calendar was created, as winter weather had little to do with the harvest in the northern hemisphere, where Rome is located. Romans essentially considered the winter a period of time with no distinctive months.The Romans developed a 10 month calendar that began with the Spring equinox in March and ended in December. Click To Tweet calendar more accurate When the second king of Rome, Numa Pompilius, took to the throne in 713 BC, he had plans to make the calendar more accurate by synchronizing it with the actual lunar year, which is roughly 354 days long. Thus, two new months, January and February, were added to the end of the calendar. Both January and February had 28 days.Two new months, January and February, were added to the end of the calendar. Both January and February had 28 days. Click To Tweet At the time, even numbers were considered bad luck, and these months were not looked upon favorably by the king. So he decided to make changes once more and added a day to January to make it 29 days long. February was left untouched, remaining an “unlucky” month and one devoted to honoring the dead and performing rites of purification, as the word February comes from februare, which means “to purify.” February remained the last month of the year for roughly 200 years until the calendar was reevaluated and February was reassigned as the second month, with January being the start of the new year.February remained the last month of the year for roughly 200 years until the calendar was reevaluated and … Click To Tweet This new 355-day calendar simply could not stay in sync with the seasons because it did not account for the amount of time it takes the Earth to orbit the sun. Therefore, an extra “month” of 27 days was added after February 23 each year to play catch-up. Sometimes this extra month was overlooked or not scheduled in time, continuing the calendar conundrum.This new 355-day calendar simply could not stay in sync with the seasons because it did not account for … Click To Tweet Julius Caesar was responsible for tackling calendar problems further when he was in power. He wished to make the calendar solar-based, like the one Egyptians used, instead of the older lunar-based calendar. This led to the creation of the Julian calendar. Ten days were added to the calendar year in various months, and February was increased every four years (leap year) to 29 days (Leap Day) to coordinate the calendar year to the solar cycle of roughly 365.2425 days.Julius Caesar was responsible for tackling calendar problems further when he was in power. Click To Tweet People born on a leap year, which would be Leap Day, the 29th, technically celebrate their birthday only once every four years, but most observe it on the 28th. Celebrities born on Leap Day the 29th include Tony Robbins, Antonio Sabato, Jr., Mervyn Warren, and Dennis Farina. Shortest Month of the Year February remains the shortest month of the year. Through the years there has been no widespread attempt to reorganize the calendar once more to even out the months and give extra time to February. As a result of the shorter number of days, February has some unique attributes. In common years, February can pass without a single full moon. The next time this will happen is in 2018. Once every six years, February is the only month that has four, full seven-day weeks.February remains the shortest month of the year. Click To Tweet Months that Start on the Same Day February starts on the same day of the week as March and November in common years, and on the same day of the week as August on leap years. February ends on the same day of the week as October every year. In leap years, it is the only month that begins and ends on the same weekday. Packed with many events Despite its status of being shortest month, this short month is packed with many events, including Valentine’s Day and Groundhog Day. Americans celebrate the birth of two presidents in February, as well as Black History Month. Mexicans celebrate Flag Day in this shortest month of the year. While residents of St. Lucia celebrate their Independence Day. February is also a time for families, especially in Canada, where Family Day is celebrated on the third Monday of the month in many provinces. No one really knows No one really knows for certain why February was relegated to the shortest month. However, with so much trivia and special events surrounding the month, it is still a special time of year. However it is an important month for sports fans, as two teams will face each other in the Super Bowl on the first Sunday of the month. Article & Graphic Compliments of Metro Creative. TF142952 First published February 12, 2016. Last Republished or updated January 28, 2020. I enjoy listening to nothing but Christian Music. Camping and hiking is something that I enjoy. I guess that is because I am an Eagle Scout. Blogging is something I enjoy doing too. I have been blogging since 2004. However, I have been blogging on Courageous Christian Father since 2012. I am married with 1 daughter and 2 step-sons and a step daughter.	<urn:uuid:fe94ff9d-a585-48d6-ba80-8aef474c467a>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.courageouschristianfather.com/fun-facts-about-february/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251783621.89/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129010251-20200129040251-00436.warc.gz	en	0.984831	1,196	3.515625	4	[ -0.5869998335838318, 0.24917668104171753, 0.7942180633544922, -0.16371794044971466, -0.32616132497787476, 0.2108374685049057, -0.6677252650260925, 0.18753178417682648, 0.16251271963119507, 0.04690935090184212, 0.37750470638275146, 0.08614570647478104, 0.45857274532318115, 0.304873526096344...	1	February is the shortest month of the year, but many people have no idea why that is. It is the only month to have fewer than 30 days, but there is no scientific reason behind that distinction, though there have been various changes to the calendar throughout the centuries, and eventually became what it is today. February: Fun Facts The Romans developed a 10 month calendar that began with the Spring equinox in March and ended in December. There is belief that what is now February was overlooked when this calendar was created, as winter weather had little to do with the harvest in the northern hemisphere, where Rome is located. Romans essentially considered the winter a period of time with no distinctive months.The Romans developed a 10 month calendar that began with the Spring equinox in March and ended in December. Click To Tweet calendar more accurate When the second king of Rome, Numa Pompilius, took to the throne in 713 BC, he had plans to make the calendar more accurate by synchronizing it with the actual lunar year, which is roughly 354 days long. Thus, two new months, January and February, were added to the end of the calendar. Both January and February had 28 days.Two new months, January and February, were added to the end of the calendar. Both January and February had 28 days. Click To Tweet At the time, even numbers were considered bad luck, and these months were not looked upon favorably by the king. So he decided to make changes once more and added a day to January to make it 29 days long. February was left untouched, remaining an “unlucky” month and one devoted to honoring the dead and performing rites of purification, as the word February comes from februare, which means “to purify.” February remained the last month of the year for roughly 200 years until the calendar was reevaluated and February was reassigned as the second month, with January being the start of the new year.February remained the last month of the year for roughly 200 years until the calendar was reevaluated and … Click To Tweet This new 355-day calendar simply could not stay in sync with the seasons because it did not account for the amount of time it takes the Earth to orbit the sun. Therefore, an extra “month” of 27 days was added after February 23 each year to play catch-up. Sometimes this extra month was overlooked or not scheduled in time, continuing the calendar conundrum.This new 355-day calendar simply could not stay in sync with the seasons because it did not account for … Click To Tweet Julius Caesar was responsible for tackling calendar problems further when he was in power. He wished to make the calendar solar-based, like the one Egyptians used, instead of the older lunar-based calendar. This led to the creation of the Julian calendar. Ten days were added to the calendar year in various months, and February was increased every four years (leap year) to 29 days (Leap Day) to coordinate the calendar year to the solar cycle of roughly 365.2425 days.Julius Caesar was responsible for tackling calendar problems further when he was in power. Click To Tweet People born on a leap year, which would be Leap Day, the 29th, technically celebrate their birthday only once every four years, but most observe it on the 28th. Celebrities born on Leap Day the 29th include Tony Robbins, Antonio Sabato, Jr., Mervyn Warren, and Dennis Farina. Shortest Month of the Year February remains the shortest month of the year. Through the years there has been no widespread attempt to reorganize the calendar once more to even out the months and give extra time to February. As a result of the shorter number of days, February has some unique attributes. In common years, February can pass without a single full moon. The next time this will happen is in 2018. Once every six years, February is the only month that has four, full seven-day weeks.February remains the shortest month of the year. Click To Tweet Months that Start on the Same Day February starts on the same day of the week as March and November in common years, and on the same day of the week as August on leap years. February ends on the same day of the week as October every year. In leap years, it is the only month that begins and ends on the same weekday. Packed with many events Despite its status of being shortest month, this short month is packed with many events, including Valentine’s Day and Groundhog Day. Americans celebrate the birth of two presidents in February, as well as Black History Month. Mexicans celebrate Flag Day in this shortest month of the year. While residents of St. Lucia celebrate their Independence Day. February is also a time for families, especially in Canada, where Family Day is celebrated on the third Monday of the month in many provinces. No one really knows No one really knows for certain why February was relegated to the shortest month. However, with so much trivia and special events surrounding the month, it is still a special time of year. However it is an important month for sports fans, as two teams will face each other in the Super Bowl on the first Sunday of the month. Article & Graphic Compliments of Metro Creative. TF142952 First published February 12, 2016. Last Republished or updated January 28, 2020. I enjoy listening to nothing but Christian Music. Camping and hiking is something that I enjoy. I guess that is because I am an Eagle Scout. Blogging is something I enjoy doing too. I have been blogging since 2004. However, I have been blogging on Courageous Christian Father since 2012. I am married with 1 daughter and 2 step-sons and a step daughter.	1,245	ENGLISH	1
Every war may pass after a long or short period, but its pain will last forever with thousands of survivors and family. In the atmosphere of April 30 (Reunification Day) which is approaching, let’s discover the past: What caused the Vietnam War? Some information about The Vietnam War The Vietnam War (Vietnamese: Chiến tranh Việt Nam), also known as the Second Indochina War and in Vietnam as the Resistance War Against America or simply the American War, was an undeclared war in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. It began from 1 November 1955 and came to the end with the fall of Saigon on 30 April 1975. It was the second of the Indochina Wars and was officially fought between North Vietnam and South Vietnam. North Vietnam was supported by the Soviet Union, China and other communist allies meanwhile South Vietnam was supported by the United States, South Korea, the Philippines, Australia, Thailand and other anti-communist allies. The war is considered a Cold War-era proxy war from some US perspectives. It lasted some 19 years with direct U.S. involvement ending in 1973 following the Paris Peace Accords, and included the Laotian Civil War and the Cambodian Civil War, resulting in all three countries becoming communist states in 1975. What caused the Vietnam War? The cause of Vietnam War The causes of the Vietnam War were derived from the symptoms, components and consequences of the Cold War. The causes of the Vietnam War revolve around the simple belief held by America that communism was threatening to expand all over south-east Asia. In short, the Vietnam War started as a result of the U.S.’s strategy of containment during the Cold War, which aimed to prevent the spread of communism throughout the world. Neither the Soviet Union nor the United States could risk an all-out war against each other, such was the nuclear military might of both. However, when it suited both, they had client states that could carry on the fight for them. In Vietnam, the Americans actually fought – therefore in the Cold War ‘game’, the USSR could not. However, to support the Communist cause, the Soviet Union armed its fellow Communist state, China, who would, in turn, arm and equip the North Vietnamese who fought the Americans. The domino theory was a Cold War era belief popular within the United States from the 1950’s until the end of the Cold War. Based on the Truman Doctrine, the theory held the idea that if Soviet communism was able to spread into a single country, then it had the potential to spread to all of the other surrounding countries. The basic idea was that the American’s needed to prevent the first domino from falling (country turning to communism) so as to prevent the spread of communism. As such, historians now argue that the United States used the Domino Theory to justify its involvement in Vietnam, just as it did in the earlier War in Korea. The war in Vietnam was the result of years and decades of tensions within the country. For example, in the late 19th century France controlled the country as part of its colonial empire. This colonial history angered many in Vietnam and caused a growing sense of mistrust towards foreign powers. Next, Japan dominated the region in the years during World War II. After the war ended and Japan was defeated by the United States, France, with the aid of the United States, attempted to regain control over Vietnam. However, this attempt led to the rise to power of Ho Chi Minh, a communist revolutionary and the Viet Minh independence movement. As such, France was defeated at the battle of Dien Bien Phu in 1954 and North Vietnam came under the control of Ho Chi Minh and his communist forces. As well, in 1954, at a conference in Geneva, the country of Vietnam was officially divided along the 17th parallel. The northern half came under the control of communists and Ho Chi Minh. South Vietnam was controlled by Ngo Dinh Diem and was supported by western democracies such as the United States. When Lyndon Johnson became president, he was determined to prevent communism from spreading into Vietnam. In fact, Robert McNamara, his Secretary of Defense, advised Johnson to try to overwhelm the communist forces of North Vietnam in order to cause their retreat. The Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 would ultimately see the tensions in the region rapidly increase and cause the United States to take an increased role. The Gulf of Tonkin incident was two separate events in August, 1964 where the United States claimed that it’s naval forces operating in the waters of the gulf had been attacked by Vietnamese torpedo boats. - The first was on August 2nd, when the USS Maddox was patrolling the Gulf of Tonkin and was followed by three Vietnamese torpedo boats. The ships engaged in a short firefight in which the USS Maddox damaged the torpedo boats, while escaping with only a single bullet hole. - The second incident was said to have occurred two days later on August 4th. Again, it was suggested that Vietnamese ships and United States ships engaged in sea battle. However, both Gulf of Tonkin incidents have been called into question by historians. For example, it is now generally understood that the August 4th incident did not take place and was the result of a false radar reading by the Americans. Regardless, these incidents would be pivotal in the escalation of American involvement in Vietnam and the eventual Golf of Tonkin Resolution, which was passed by Congress, and allowed Lyndon Johnson to begin delivering American forces into the country. Vietnam before World War Two Before World War Two, Vietnam had been part of the French Empire. During the war, the country had been overrun by the Japanese. When the Japanese retreated, the people of Vietnam took the opportunity to establish their own government lead by Ho Chi Minh. However, after the end of the war, the Allies gave back South Vietnam to the French while the north was left in the hands of the non-communist Chinese. The Nationalist Chinese treated the North Vietnamese very badly and support for Ho Chi Minh grew. He had been removed from power at the end of the war. The Chinese pulled out of North Vietnam in 1946 and the party of Ho Chi Minh took over – the Viet Minh. Vietnam after World War Two In October 1946, the French announced their intention of reclaiming the north which meant that the Viet Minh would have to fight for it. The war started in November 1946, when the French bombarded the port of Haiphong and killed 6,000 people. The French tried to win over the people of the North by offering them ‘independence’. However, the people would not be allowed to do anything without French permission. A new leader of the country was appointed called Bao Dai. The Russians and Eastern Europe refused to recognize his rule but they claimed that Ho Chi Minh was the real ruler of Vietnam. The French had got themselves into a difficult military position. In spite of huge American help, the French could not cope with the Viet Minh’s guerrilla tactics. The Viet Minh were by now receiving help from Communist China – Mao Zedong had taken power of China in 1949. The fact that two opposing sides had developed was classic Cold War history. The country was meant to be ruled by Bao Dai who was supported by the west. Ho Chi Minh was supported by the Russians, Chinese and Eastern Europe – all communist. In November 1953, the French sent men from their crack Parachute Regiment to Vietnam. It was naturally assumed by the French that this unit would defeat the untrained Viet Minh guerrillas. They were sent to Dien Bien Phu in the north. In May 1954, the regiment was attacked by the North Vietnamese and surrendered, which came as a terrible blow to the French people. The French pulled out of Vietnam in the same month. Vietnam divides into North and South In April 1954, the world’s powers had met at Geneva to discuss Vietnam. In July 1954, it was decided to divide the country in two at the 17th parallel. Bao Dai was to lead the south and Ho Chi Minh the north. The meeting also decided that in 1956, there would be an election in both the north and south to decide who would rule the whole country. The election would be supervised by neutral countries. This election did not take place and the split had become permanent by 1956. North Vietnam had a population of 16 million. It was an agricultural nation. The Viet Minh trained guerrillas to go to the south to spread the word of communism. Their weapons mostly came from communist China. To the surprise of the South Vietnamese, those Viet Minh who went to the south helped them on their farms and did not abuse them. They had become used to fearing soldiers. Instead, the Viet Minh were courteous and helpful. South Vietnam also had a population of 16 million. Its first proper leader was Ngo Dinh Diem who was a fanatical Catholic. As communism hated religion, Diem hated all that communism stood for. This is why he got America’s support – he had a poor record on human rights but his rule was in the era of the “Domino Theory” and anybody who was anti-communist in the Far East was likely to receive American backing – regardless of their less than savoury background. Ngo ruled as a dictator along with his brother – Ngo Dinh Nhu. Their government was corrupt and brutal but it was also backed by America. After the non-election of 1956, the Viet Minh became more active militarily. Their guerrillas – now called the Viet Cong – attacked soft targets in the south. They used the Ho Chi Minh Trail which was a 1000 mile trail along the border with Laos with heavy jungle coverage so that detection from the air was very difficult. The Viet Cong were trained by their commander Giap who learned from the tactics used by the Chinese communists in their fight against the Nationalist Chinese forces. He expected his troops to fight and to help those in the south. He introduced a “hearts and minds” policy long before the Americans got militarily involved in Vietnam. April 30th anniversary April 30th, 1975 is the day that marks the fall of Saigon government, ending the Vietnam War and leading to the liberation of Vietnam’s southern part. To celebrate the victory of Vietnam in Vietnam War, and the liberation of South Vietnam, Vietnamese people held Vietnam Reunification Day celebration. This is one of important holidays of Vietnam, which recalls victorious history of Vietnamese people. All Vietnamese people are off from work to celebrate the important national event. Great music shows are performed with victorious songs. All houses are required to hang Vietnamese flag in front of their door and city streets are lighted up with red banners and flags. Ho Chi Minh City (also called Sai Gon) officials have announced the City will hold firework exhibitions in four venues for fifteen minutes beginning at 9pm on April 30 to celebrate Reunification Day.	<urn:uuid:6825fae6-8c33-4a43-91b3-c12a3c41329e>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://vietnamembassy-pyongyang.org/what-caused-the-vietnam-war/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250620381.59/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124130719-20200124155719-00013.warc.gz	en	0.983518	2,294	3.390625	3	[ -0.4441223740577698, 0.4035269618034363, 0.18148739635944366, -0.05237850174307823, 0.3633285164833069, 0.18921218812465668, 0.21470093727111816, -0.07446625083684921, -0.22708800435066223, 0.01300274021923542, 0.4469202160835266, 0.004022412933409214, 0.13592946529388428, 0.46355140209198...	1	Every war may pass after a long or short period, but its pain will last forever with thousands of survivors and family. In the atmosphere of April 30 (Reunification Day) which is approaching, let’s discover the past: What caused the Vietnam War? Some information about The Vietnam War The Vietnam War (Vietnamese: Chiến tranh Việt Nam), also known as the Second Indochina War and in Vietnam as the Resistance War Against America or simply the American War, was an undeclared war in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. It began from 1 November 1955 and came to the end with the fall of Saigon on 30 April 1975. It was the second of the Indochina Wars and was officially fought between North Vietnam and South Vietnam. North Vietnam was supported by the Soviet Union, China and other communist allies meanwhile South Vietnam was supported by the United States, South Korea, the Philippines, Australia, Thailand and other anti-communist allies. The war is considered a Cold War-era proxy war from some US perspectives. It lasted some 19 years with direct U.S. involvement ending in 1973 following the Paris Peace Accords, and included the Laotian Civil War and the Cambodian Civil War, resulting in all three countries becoming communist states in 1975. What caused the Vietnam War? The cause of Vietnam War The causes of the Vietnam War were derived from the symptoms, components and consequences of the Cold War. The causes of the Vietnam War revolve around the simple belief held by America that communism was threatening to expand all over south-east Asia. In short, the Vietnam War started as a result of the U.S.’s strategy of containment during the Cold War, which aimed to prevent the spread of communism throughout the world. Neither the Soviet Union nor the United States could risk an all-out war against each other, such was the nuclear military might of both. However, when it suited both, they had client states that could carry on the fight for them. In Vietnam, the Americans actually fought – therefore in the Cold War ‘game’, the USSR could not. However, to support the Communist cause, the Soviet Union armed its fellow Communist state, China, who would, in turn, arm and equip the North Vietnamese who fought the Americans. The domino theory was a Cold War era belief popular within the United States from the 1950’s until the end of the Cold War. Based on the Truman Doctrine, the theory held the idea that if Soviet communism was able to spread into a single country, then it had the potential to spread to all of the other surrounding countries. The basic idea was that the American’s needed to prevent the first domino from falling (country turning to communism) so as to prevent the spread of communism. As such, historians now argue that the United States used the Domino Theory to justify its involvement in Vietnam, just as it did in the earlier War in Korea. The war in Vietnam was the result of years and decades of tensions within the country. For example, in the late 19th century France controlled the country as part of its colonial empire. This colonial history angered many in Vietnam and caused a growing sense of mistrust towards foreign powers. Next, Japan dominated the region in the years during World War II. After the war ended and Japan was defeated by the United States, France, with the aid of the United States, attempted to regain control over Vietnam. However, this attempt led to the rise to power of Ho Chi Minh, a communist revolutionary and the Viet Minh independence movement. As such, France was defeated at the battle of Dien Bien Phu in 1954 and North Vietnam came under the control of Ho Chi Minh and his communist forces. As well, in 1954, at a conference in Geneva, the country of Vietnam was officially divided along the 17th parallel. The northern half came under the control of communists and Ho Chi Minh. South Vietnam was controlled by Ngo Dinh Diem and was supported by western democracies such as the United States. When Lyndon Johnson became president, he was determined to prevent communism from spreading into Vietnam. In fact, Robert McNamara, his Secretary of Defense, advised Johnson to try to overwhelm the communist forces of North Vietnam in order to cause their retreat. The Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 would ultimately see the tensions in the region rapidly increase and cause the United States to take an increased role. The Gulf of Tonkin incident was two separate events in August, 1964 where the United States claimed that it’s naval forces operating in the waters of the gulf had been attacked by Vietnamese torpedo boats. - The first was on August 2nd, when the USS Maddox was patrolling the Gulf of Tonkin and was followed by three Vietnamese torpedo boats. The ships engaged in a short firefight in which the USS Maddox damaged the torpedo boats, while escaping with only a single bullet hole. - The second incident was said to have occurred two days later on August 4th. Again, it was suggested that Vietnamese ships and United States ships engaged in sea battle. However, both Gulf of Tonkin incidents have been called into question by historians. For example, it is now generally understood that the August 4th incident did not take place and was the result of a false radar reading by the Americans. Regardless, these incidents would be pivotal in the escalation of American involvement in Vietnam and the eventual Golf of Tonkin Resolution, which was passed by Congress, and allowed Lyndon Johnson to begin delivering American forces into the country. Vietnam before World War Two Before World War Two, Vietnam had been part of the French Empire. During the war, the country had been overrun by the Japanese. When the Japanese retreated, the people of Vietnam took the opportunity to establish their own government lead by Ho Chi Minh. However, after the end of the war, the Allies gave back South Vietnam to the French while the north was left in the hands of the non-communist Chinese. The Nationalist Chinese treated the North Vietnamese very badly and support for Ho Chi Minh grew. He had been removed from power at the end of the war. The Chinese pulled out of North Vietnam in 1946 and the party of Ho Chi Minh took over – the Viet Minh. Vietnam after World War Two In October 1946, the French announced their intention of reclaiming the north which meant that the Viet Minh would have to fight for it. The war started in November 1946, when the French bombarded the port of Haiphong and killed 6,000 people. The French tried to win over the people of the North by offering them ‘independence’. However, the people would not be allowed to do anything without French permission. A new leader of the country was appointed called Bao Dai. The Russians and Eastern Europe refused to recognize his rule but they claimed that Ho Chi Minh was the real ruler of Vietnam. The French had got themselves into a difficult military position. In spite of huge American help, the French could not cope with the Viet Minh’s guerrilla tactics. The Viet Minh were by now receiving help from Communist China – Mao Zedong had taken power of China in 1949. The fact that two opposing sides had developed was classic Cold War history. The country was meant to be ruled by Bao Dai who was supported by the west. Ho Chi Minh was supported by the Russians, Chinese and Eastern Europe – all communist. In November 1953, the French sent men from their crack Parachute Regiment to Vietnam. It was naturally assumed by the French that this unit would defeat the untrained Viet Minh guerrillas. They were sent to Dien Bien Phu in the north. In May 1954, the regiment was attacked by the North Vietnamese and surrendered, which came as a terrible blow to the French people. The French pulled out of Vietnam in the same month. Vietnam divides into North and South In April 1954, the world’s powers had met at Geneva to discuss Vietnam. In July 1954, it was decided to divide the country in two at the 17th parallel. Bao Dai was to lead the south and Ho Chi Minh the north. The meeting also decided that in 1956, there would be an election in both the north and south to decide who would rule the whole country. The election would be supervised by neutral countries. This election did not take place and the split had become permanent by 1956. North Vietnam had a population of 16 million. It was an agricultural nation. The Viet Minh trained guerrillas to go to the south to spread the word of communism. Their weapons mostly came from communist China. To the surprise of the South Vietnamese, those Viet Minh who went to the south helped them on their farms and did not abuse them. They had become used to fearing soldiers. Instead, the Viet Minh were courteous and helpful. South Vietnam also had a population of 16 million. Its first proper leader was Ngo Dinh Diem who was a fanatical Catholic. As communism hated religion, Diem hated all that communism stood for. This is why he got America’s support – he had a poor record on human rights but his rule was in the era of the “Domino Theory” and anybody who was anti-communist in the Far East was likely to receive American backing – regardless of their less than savoury background. Ngo ruled as a dictator along with his brother – Ngo Dinh Nhu. Their government was corrupt and brutal but it was also backed by America. After the non-election of 1956, the Viet Minh became more active militarily. Their guerrillas – now called the Viet Cong – attacked soft targets in the south. They used the Ho Chi Minh Trail which was a 1000 mile trail along the border with Laos with heavy jungle coverage so that detection from the air was very difficult. The Viet Cong were trained by their commander Giap who learned from the tactics used by the Chinese communists in their fight against the Nationalist Chinese forces. He expected his troops to fight and to help those in the south. He introduced a “hearts and minds” policy long before the Americans got militarily involved in Vietnam. April 30th anniversary April 30th, 1975 is the day that marks the fall of Saigon government, ending the Vietnam War and leading to the liberation of Vietnam’s southern part. To celebrate the victory of Vietnam in Vietnam War, and the liberation of South Vietnam, Vietnamese people held Vietnam Reunification Day celebration. This is one of important holidays of Vietnam, which recalls victorious history of Vietnamese people. All Vietnamese people are off from work to celebrate the important national event. Great music shows are performed with victorious songs. All houses are required to hang Vietnamese flag in front of their door and city streets are lighted up with red banners and flags. Ho Chi Minh City (also called Sai Gon) officials have announced the City will hold firework exhibitions in four venues for fifteen minutes beginning at 9pm on April 30 to celebrate Reunification Day.	2,315	ENGLISH	1
Note: This is part of a series. Read part one here. At the onset World War I, there was very little in the way of hand-to-hand training, or special operations forces for that matter. The only notable guerrilla forces during the war were led by T.E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia) and the German, Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck, and both of them commanded indigenous forces whose only hand-to-hand skills were those they acquired in their indigenous cultures. From the outset, the only hand-to-hand training given to most soldiers on both sides of the trenches involved the bayonet and the trench knife. Industrialized warfare promised to deliver us from the need for hand-to-hand combat. As the war wore on, the U.S. Army began training some of its three million recruits in hand-to-hand fighting in the U.S., especially those heading over to France as part of the AEF. But that training was heavily reliant on boxing, one of the most popular sports of that time, making it very impractical for the battlefield. Some units were taught some judo throws and joint locks to disarm an enemy. But these could only be taught if the unit had cadres or practitioners who could act as instructors. And thus, such training was on a unit-by-unit basis and not at all standardized. In other words, there was no FM or training manual. There never was a more intense CQB environment than the trenches of World War I. When attacking troops did manage to make it across No Man’s Land, through the hail of machine gun fire, artillery, and gas, and into the enemy’s trenches, fighting became very intimate, very close—a throwback to days long past, when men fought with clubs and short blades. If a bayonet charge made it across No Man’s Land and into the enemy’s trenches, the bayonet became useless and the rifle became a club. Combatants were too close, the trenches too tight. Troops on both sides began innovating special weapons and tactics to adapt to this new and intimate combat. By 1915, trench raids became a tactic used by both sides to disrupt the stalemate of the trenches, to capture prisoners, and gain intelligence on the enemy. Raiders would slip across No Man’s Land at night, by squads, platoons, and sometimes entire companies, and into the enemy’s trenches. Raids required special weapons and skills. Raiders left behind kit and gear that would slow them down or make noise and give away their presence. Often they did not take rifles, or not everyone did. CQB weapons were found to be more pragmatic. At first, those weapons were knives and pistols. But that grew to include other innovations such as brass knuckles, trench knives, spiked clubs, sawed-off shotguns, even tomahawks and hatchets, hammers, entrenching tools, and, of course, hand-to-hand skills. So, the trench raiders were the special operators of that war, even though they were rarely organized into special units. German generals first became aware of the needs of increased hand-to-hand training for the trenches following an analysis of the Russo-Japanese War. The advantage of Japanese troops over Russian troops in CQB situations was a clear lesson in that war. Germany began a few years prior to the war experimenting with training German troops in jiu-jitsu. Around 1916, U.S. generals also tried ordering American combat troops to be trained in jiu-jitsu, but that was abandoned in favor of boxing and wrestling, which were much more agreeable to American and Army culture at the time. Judo training was also offered to some units, depending on commanders and if units had a judo practitioner. Judo had more popularity and acceptance in the U.S. at that time, as a sport and as an exotic martial art. At this same time, the British ignored martial arts entirely and remained focused on the bayonet. They even began training troops in fencing. The French developed their own jiu-jitsu-derived system known as savate. The Russians developed Samooborona Bez Oruzhiya, more commonly known as sambo, which was derived from judo and various folk-wrestling styles throughout the Russian empire. The British eventually came around and began training in jiu-jitsu and judo, most likely to the chagrin of the more traditionalist and conservative British generals who likely longed for the days of cavalry and cutlass. The Canadians, widely considered to be the best trench raiders of that war, devised their own hand-to-hand system. It was a blend of boxing, wrestling, savate, jiu-jitsu, and judo, and was more standardized and adaptable than any of the other belligerent militaries. It is key to note that judo and jiu-jitsu are closely related. Judo, which originated in the 19th century, is the sport derivative of jiu-jitsu, which originated sometime around the 13th century. Brazilian jiu-jitsu, BJJ, originated in Brazil in the early 20th century. John O’Brien was a key figure in the development of U.S. hand-to-hand fighting in World War I. He had lived and worked for 10 years in Japan, where he worked as a police detective and learned Japanese martial arts, in particular, jiu-jitsu. He returned to the U.S. in 1902 and even taught jiu-jitsu to President Theodore Roosevelt. He eventually found his way into the U.S. Army and was put in charge of developing a hand-to-hand program for the Army. O’Brien’s system combined boxing, wrestling, and jiu-jitsu. Boxing was included because it complemented bayonet training and Army culture. But O’Brien told his instructors and students, “Never use your fists, as the fist is the least effective of nature’s weapons. Especially without gloves, it is practically impossible to put an enemy hors de combat with the fist. Nature’s best weapons are: the feet, the knees, the head, and the elbows.” Millions of troops in that war were trained in traditional martial arts, hand-to-hand combat, and what could be considered the vanguard of modern combatives. But so many did not survive that war, and the military and societal exhaustion that resulted from that war wiped clean the slate of lessons learned from it in terms of CQB and much else. (Featured image courtesy of remitchelljr.com)	<urn:uuid:5bf88606-f6f9-4f86-9d75-c08909c4ffa8>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://sofrep.com/news/sof-hand-hand-combat-pt-2-world-war/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251700675.78/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127112805-20200127142805-00131.warc.gz	en	0.982219	1,398	3.5625	4	[ -0.44546782970428467, 0.45934292674064636, 0.1741420477628708, -0.020151952281594276, 0.15456032752990723, -0.013458427041769028, -0.03771192952990532, 0.14977258443832397, -0.000969036016613245, -0.27681827545166016, 0.18432188034057617, -0.09620831906795502, 0.027362821623682976, 0.51994...	9	Note: This is part of a series. Read part one here. At the onset World War I, there was very little in the way of hand-to-hand training, or special operations forces for that matter. The only notable guerrilla forces during the war were led by T.E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia) and the German, Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck, and both of them commanded indigenous forces whose only hand-to-hand skills were those they acquired in their indigenous cultures. From the outset, the only hand-to-hand training given to most soldiers on both sides of the trenches involved the bayonet and the trench knife. Industrialized warfare promised to deliver us from the need for hand-to-hand combat. As the war wore on, the U.S. Army began training some of its three million recruits in hand-to-hand fighting in the U.S., especially those heading over to France as part of the AEF. But that training was heavily reliant on boxing, one of the most popular sports of that time, making it very impractical for the battlefield. Some units were taught some judo throws and joint locks to disarm an enemy. But these could only be taught if the unit had cadres or practitioners who could act as instructors. And thus, such training was on a unit-by-unit basis and not at all standardized. In other words, there was no FM or training manual. There never was a more intense CQB environment than the trenches of World War I. When attacking troops did manage to make it across No Man’s Land, through the hail of machine gun fire, artillery, and gas, and into the enemy’s trenches, fighting became very intimate, very close—a throwback to days long past, when men fought with clubs and short blades. If a bayonet charge made it across No Man’s Land and into the enemy’s trenches, the bayonet became useless and the rifle became a club. Combatants were too close, the trenches too tight. Troops on both sides began innovating special weapons and tactics to adapt to this new and intimate combat. By 1915, trench raids became a tactic used by both sides to disrupt the stalemate of the trenches, to capture prisoners, and gain intelligence on the enemy. Raiders would slip across No Man’s Land at night, by squads, platoons, and sometimes entire companies, and into the enemy’s trenches. Raids required special weapons and skills. Raiders left behind kit and gear that would slow them down or make noise and give away their presence. Often they did not take rifles, or not everyone did. CQB weapons were found to be more pragmatic. At first, those weapons were knives and pistols. But that grew to include other innovations such as brass knuckles, trench knives, spiked clubs, sawed-off shotguns, even tomahawks and hatchets, hammers, entrenching tools, and, of course, hand-to-hand skills. So, the trench raiders were the special operators of that war, even though they were rarely organized into special units. German generals first became aware of the needs of increased hand-to-hand training for the trenches following an analysis of the Russo-Japanese War. The advantage of Japanese troops over Russian troops in CQB situations was a clear lesson in that war. Germany began a few years prior to the war experimenting with training German troops in jiu-jitsu. Around 1916, U.S. generals also tried ordering American combat troops to be trained in jiu-jitsu, but that was abandoned in favor of boxing and wrestling, which were much more agreeable to American and Army culture at the time. Judo training was also offered to some units, depending on commanders and if units had a judo practitioner. Judo had more popularity and acceptance in the U.S. at that time, as a sport and as an exotic martial art. At this same time, the British ignored martial arts entirely and remained focused on the bayonet. They even began training troops in fencing. The French developed their own jiu-jitsu-derived system known as savate. The Russians developed Samooborona Bez Oruzhiya, more commonly known as sambo, which was derived from judo and various folk-wrestling styles throughout the Russian empire. The British eventually came around and began training in jiu-jitsu and judo, most likely to the chagrin of the more traditionalist and conservative British generals who likely longed for the days of cavalry and cutlass. The Canadians, widely considered to be the best trench raiders of that war, devised their own hand-to-hand system. It was a blend of boxing, wrestling, savate, jiu-jitsu, and judo, and was more standardized and adaptable than any of the other belligerent militaries. It is key to note that judo and jiu-jitsu are closely related. Judo, which originated in the 19th century, is the sport derivative of jiu-jitsu, which originated sometime around the 13th century. Brazilian jiu-jitsu, BJJ, originated in Brazil in the early 20th century. John O’Brien was a key figure in the development of U.S. hand-to-hand fighting in World War I. He had lived and worked for 10 years in Japan, where he worked as a police detective and learned Japanese martial arts, in particular, jiu-jitsu. He returned to the U.S. in 1902 and even taught jiu-jitsu to President Theodore Roosevelt. He eventually found his way into the U.S. Army and was put in charge of developing a hand-to-hand program for the Army. O’Brien’s system combined boxing, wrestling, and jiu-jitsu. Boxing was included because it complemented bayonet training and Army culture. But O’Brien told his instructors and students, “Never use your fists, as the fist is the least effective of nature’s weapons. Especially without gloves, it is practically impossible to put an enemy hors de combat with the fist. Nature’s best weapons are: the feet, the knees, the head, and the elbows.” Millions of troops in that war were trained in traditional martial arts, hand-to-hand combat, and what could be considered the vanguard of modern combatives. But so many did not survive that war, and the military and societal exhaustion that resulted from that war wiped clean the slate of lessons learned from it in terms of CQB and much else. (Featured image courtesy of remitchelljr.com)	1,333	ENGLISH	1
The Royal Mail Steamer Titanic also was known as the Titanic was a ship that sank in the bright morning of the fateful day of April 15, 1912. The idea of the Titanic was created by the White Star Line, a steamship company. The White Star Line was competing with one of its only rivals of the time, Cunard, a premier company that had already released many ships that were ahead of their time. From the start, the Titanic was considered to be "unsinkable" because of the design that people considered to be state of the art. There were many fatal flaws that were not caught but instead lauded. The watertight compartment design had a flaw in its design and the sparse amount of lifeboats were the main flaws. With the mere number of 16 lifeboats, only a third of the people on board would survive. The Titanic got a lot of popularity and fame by calling it the Unsinkable Ship. Many important politicians, industrialists, and businessmen would depart on the Titanic's maiden voyage on April 10, 1912, from Southampton, England en route to New York. Almost 2,240 passengers, including crew, left for a search for a new beginning on the "Unsinkable" Titanic. Some notable passengers were John Jacob Astor IV, Isidor Straus, Benjamin Guggenheim, and Margaret Brown. While the Titanic had a great awaited departure, there weren't many things normal, there was a fire in one of the bunkers that were ignored. Another terrible event that took place was when the Titanic almost got in a wreck with America Line's S.S. New York, some superstitions say that an event as such is a bad omen for a ship on her maiden voyage. The Titanic was smooth sailing for four days but was getting some reports from other ships talking about ice. At about midnight, a lookout saw a big iceberg that was right ahead of the Titanic. The engines were reversed and the ship had turned away sharply. Seeing that there was no collision the crew was relieved and restored duties, what they didn't know was that there was a 300-foot gash in the hull under the water's surface. By the time the crew realized what had really happened, about 5 compartments were flooded already and the bow of the ship was pitched downward. The crew calculated that the ship would remain afloat for only about another hour and a half. The crew decided that it was time to start preparing the lifeboats. The lifeboats were created so that they could carry 65 people, but the disorganized procedures made the lifeboats leave underfilled. Longer than the prediction, the Titanic was afloat for about three hours. These hours showed cowardice and also extraordinary bravery. The Titanic finally sank at about 2:20 am. Many families bid each other goodbye and many stories ended on the fateful day of April 15, 1912.	<urn:uuid:f95f4cca-94e1-4e71-a93e-53fd1427f5e3>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.wattpad.com/443948206-the-fate-of-the-titanic	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250614086.44/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123221108-20200124010108-00512.warc.gz	en	0.992126	584	3.4375	3	[ -0.13505905866622925, -0.22165775299072266, 0.028441451489925385, -0.5395361185073853, -0.2374216765165329, -0.02279255911707878, -0.04247689247131348, 0.14619746804237366, -0.18186871707439423, -0.10215480625629425, 0.3029915690422058, 0.2128179669380188, -0.0492982491850853, 0.0905272364...	1	The Royal Mail Steamer Titanic also was known as the Titanic was a ship that sank in the bright morning of the fateful day of April 15, 1912. The idea of the Titanic was created by the White Star Line, a steamship company. The White Star Line was competing with one of its only rivals of the time, Cunard, a premier company that had already released many ships that were ahead of their time. From the start, the Titanic was considered to be "unsinkable" because of the design that people considered to be state of the art. There were many fatal flaws that were not caught but instead lauded. The watertight compartment design had a flaw in its design and the sparse amount of lifeboats were the main flaws. With the mere number of 16 lifeboats, only a third of the people on board would survive. The Titanic got a lot of popularity and fame by calling it the Unsinkable Ship. Many important politicians, industrialists, and businessmen would depart on the Titanic's maiden voyage on April 10, 1912, from Southampton, England en route to New York. Almost 2,240 passengers, including crew, left for a search for a new beginning on the "Unsinkable" Titanic. Some notable passengers were John Jacob Astor IV, Isidor Straus, Benjamin Guggenheim, and Margaret Brown. While the Titanic had a great awaited departure, there weren't many things normal, there was a fire in one of the bunkers that were ignored. Another terrible event that took place was when the Titanic almost got in a wreck with America Line's S.S. New York, some superstitions say that an event as such is a bad omen for a ship on her maiden voyage. The Titanic was smooth sailing for four days but was getting some reports from other ships talking about ice. At about midnight, a lookout saw a big iceberg that was right ahead of the Titanic. The engines were reversed and the ship had turned away sharply. Seeing that there was no collision the crew was relieved and restored duties, what they didn't know was that there was a 300-foot gash in the hull under the water's surface. By the time the crew realized what had really happened, about 5 compartments were flooded already and the bow of the ship was pitched downward. The crew calculated that the ship would remain afloat for only about another hour and a half. The crew decided that it was time to start preparing the lifeboats. The lifeboats were created so that they could carry 65 people, but the disorganized procedures made the lifeboats leave underfilled. Longer than the prediction, the Titanic was afloat for about three hours. These hours showed cowardice and also extraordinary bravery. The Titanic finally sank at about 2:20 am. Many families bid each other goodbye and many stories ended on the fateful day of April 15, 1912.	612	ENGLISH	1
In the Movie “Mississippi Burning” we witness various typed of discrimination, civil rights movement, and many over issues that were reflected on and ignored. Firstly we see many ways that coloured people’s civil rights were rejected and abused by everyone including the law enforcement themselves. Throughout this essay I will explain and reflect all the different typed of issues and how they are applied throught the film and how they relate to people today. Inalienable rights are proclaimed to be “natural rights” by nations. These are rights that are given to us and cannot be taken away, removed, or denied. Some examples of these are the right of your free speech, the right of assembly, the right to the integrity of one’s person and the right to life. The personal rights to life, speech and liberty are guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. Human rights belong to each person as an individual. Wherever the person lives or works, the rights are applied. These rights are a part of every individual. No one may revoke them, unless it’s due to an extraordinary circumstance. Human rights are fundamental rights, especially the ones that are believed to belong to a certain person and in whose exercise a government is not allowed to get in the way of. This includes the right to speak, associate, work, along with a variety of others. A human right is a claim that is based exclusively on the dignity of being human. Legal or civil rights are entitlements or claims that have come up from the need to set up parameters which will allow people to live without harm in a state or community and to live cooperatively. Civil rights are the rights to full social, legal and economic equality. These rights are recognized by governments, which allow each citizen to participate in government, with certain obligations and to a varying degree. Human rights and legal rights are not the same thing, although many times they do overlap, they also can sometimes stand to be complete opposites. These rights are the rights that form the content of government constitutions and charters of freedom. In society, we have numerous types of issues and concerns. These include personal or individual concerns and social or communal concerns. Personal or individual concerns involve a person themself and the things that involve them. They are issues that do not involve others and the community, but involve exclusively one’s own personal concerns. For example, a personal or individual concern can include someone’s husband cheating on them. This issue strictly involves the people in the relationship. In no way is the community or society needed to deal with this situation. Another type of concerns are social or communal concerns. These concerns involve more than just a person, but look at the bigger picture. These types of concerns move away from small personal issues, and move towards greater issues that can have an effect on a community and the people living within it. Social concerns also include the interactions between people within a community, and are controversial issues. Examples of social concerns are racism, immigration, gay rights, and censorship. These issues would involve more than just a single person and their concerns. These issues would involve communities in their entirety. These are the types of issue that get groups of citizens together to voice their concerns and discuss issues. Person or individual issues are exactly what their name says; they belong to a person or an individual. Social or communal issues, as their name states, involve a society or community. Although these two types of issues may be difficult to distinguish between at times, they are still two separate issues. Majority of situations and concerns in our lives will be personal or individual concerns, but there may come a time when we must deal with a social or communal concern. An issue is a matter of personal/ individual concern vs. social/communal concern when you’re personal faith, ethics and values that society can’t tell you what to think. A personal/ individual concern is when there’s a personal connection involving the issue due to a person experience or deeply held belief. A social/ communal concern is when the issue has an impact on the society and involves the community and society as a whole. There are many laws out there that limit and/or remove the rights of individuals. Laws are created to protect the people of nations from harm and to try to keep everyone content. Although we have the right to keep our rights and freedoms, they are sometimes removed or revoked temporarily in order to support the common good of all. These rights can be small, almost insignificant rights or they can be more prominent rights that people are opposed to the removal of. The smaller rights include such things as areas where smoking is prohibited, a legal drinking age, and a legal age at which someone is able to obtain their license. Many of these laws are placed into action in favor of supporting the common good. This would mean in favor of keeping individuals in our community healthier, safer, responsible, etc. Some of these laws that are limiting the rights of people in our society to support the common good are. In the movie Mississippi Burning that was watched during class there were a few human rights that were upheld. Most of these rights that were being upheld were associated with the white people more so than the black people in that community. The freedom of speech is upheld as it shows when the community came together for a “political debate” which seemed to be a lot like a Ku Klux Klan meeting without the costumes as the FBI agents mentioned. There was a stage and people were up on stage stating their opinions and thoughts to the rest of the crowd. The ability to do that shows that they still have a right of speech. Another human right that is upheld is the right to religion. The white people in that community do not have respect for the black people living within it but they continue to allow them to have their own church where they can worship their Lord. The white people of the community have their own church as well so that’s a sign that they are upholding the citizen’s rights to religion. In the movie there were a few legal rights that were being upheld as well. But these rights were not being upheld by their community, rather the two FBI agents that came to that community to solve the case of the 3 missing boys were supporting them. These FBI agents did not care what the colour of the persons skin was, or the way they looked, they just wanted to find out about the truth and solve the case. These agents did not look upon murder as a right in any way, no matter what the colour of the victims skin, they saw it as it was with the law, which is wrong, and against the law. For the black part of the community, many of their human rights were being ignored. They got treated horribly and there was nothing they could do about it in that time. Their right to live free was ignored, and they were being ill-treated and tortured. Their freedom for thought and expression were ignored because the people in the black community were scared and knew that if they expressed themselves they’d get beat because of the colour of their skin. A main legal right during the movie that was shown is towards the black people as well. Their right to a fair trial was not taken into consideration from the community and they never had a chance to be treated fairly during trails. The white citizens of the Jessup County, Mississippi had all of their human rights upheld. They were able to live their lives without any worry of having their life threatened, being free from torture, free from slavery, and many more human rights. This is the same of the legal rights of white people. The white citizens did not have to worry about their legal rights being challenged, especially for no reason. It is a whole different story for the black citizens of Jessup County. Practically all of their human rights and legal rights were stripped from them simply because they were not white. The human rights that were stripped include the right to life, freedom from torture, freedom from slavery, the right to a fair trial, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion. The white citizens felt that they were above the black people and decided it was the right thing to do by taking the lives of the black citizens for no reason at all. The black people were put through terrible torture, such as having their private parts cut off, being beaten, and being hung from trees. When the white people were confronted by the FBI, it seems as though the black people will get back their rights. Instead, the black people are stripped of their right to a fair trial and the white people who have been doing all the arbitrary killing walk away with no consequences. With all of the violence occurring in Jessup County, the black citizens in turn lose their freedom of speech and eventually lose their freedom of religion. The black citizens are brutally beaten and killed as they leave their church and are persecuted for worshipping. The rights and freedoms of the white citizens are upheld and honoured, unlike the rights and freedoms of the black citizens which are stripped from them with an arbitrary power, leaving them with no human or legal rights. Some of the white citizens in this country are very traditional to their history and don’t believe in the present change of the world today. They like to try and follow after their parent’s, grandparent and great-grandparent’s footprints. Due to this factor, some white citizens of this country believe that it is okay to treat the black citizens this way. In history, black people were the white people’s slaves and were thought to be no good at anything. They were treated very poorly and did not have half the amount of rights the white citizens did then, nor did they have half the rights they have today. Many of the white citizens in this country have been brainwashed to think that black people are the cause to the problems in the community and that they are no good. These white people don’t chose to be racist but it just sort of comes upon them a lot of the time because of the way they were raised. If an individual is raised with racist parents, they sub-consciously become the same way most of the time. If that was all they were ever taught when they were growing up, that black people are bad and only cause problems, then that is most likely what they are going to believe for the rest of their life. No matter if that is true or not, they already grew up with that thought and it’s hard to change that. Some of the white citizens in Jessup County thought that it was right to treat the black citizens this way because they believed that they were an inferior race. They believed that the black citizens were below them and did not deserve to have to the same rights and freedoms as the white citizens. The white citizens looked down upon them and treated them incredibly poorly simply because they were not white. They were given slave jobs, such as working in fields and cleaning, and yet were still not appreciated for their hard work and suffering. The white citizens did not consider the black citizens to even be called ‘people’ and that they were not equals in the society. The black people were considered to be the cause of all the problems and issues in Jessup County and were therefore treated in a manner that was a sort of punishment. As if the thoughts of the white citizens were bad enough, there were political figures in the county speaking out against blacks and that they should be kept out of their county. With this sort of influence being seen by all of the citizens, their actions and behavior towards the blacks was encouraged and ultimately seen as the right thing to do. If a political figure had stood up and spoke against the poor treatment of the black citizens, maybe the outcome of the county would have been different and many innocent lives could have been spared. Another reason why some white citizens thought that it was okay to treat the black citizens that way was because that was all they knew since they were born. With parents that have a certain mentality when it comes to black people there is no way for a child to know anything else. Children are taught to act the same way their parents did towards black people, for no reason at all, but simply because that was what everyone else around them was doing. The children were just following the example that was showed to them. Freedom comes with responsibilities and with freedom comes rights. When we get our freedoms and rights taken away from us, it is not uncommon to be resentful and that alone takes away from our ability to act according to our will, to be authentic. When there is loss of freedom, there is also a loss of responsibility, which means that we won’t have to worry as much about being the best person we can be, especially if the freedom is taken away from us for unnecessary means. When you lose your freedom you may become less able to act to be an authentic person because in a way loosing your freedom is closely connected to loosing you sense of safety. For example, if you go to jail, and you’re a flamboyant person, you will feel uncomfortable with every body else around you because you are not like the way they are and you feel like you are being judged and looked at weird. Losing your freedom can also cause a person to lose their sense of individuality. Losing your individuality can cause someone a mass amount of confusion and has the ability to make them a less authentic person. An example of where this might happen could be maybe if a person is switching schools or moving to a school from a different country. The style, atmosphere, and attitudes are all super different than what the individual is used to and may overwhelm them and scare them. The person may feel threatened by the other kids who are used to the style, atmosphere, and attitudes and could essentially feel as if their style doesn’t work there, and are afraid of what people may thing of this person. They then decide to change their style that they are used to, which is like taking a part of yourself away and hiding it from others. That is considered loosing parts of your individuality, because you don’t feel as if you have the right to be yourself. Losing our freedom limits our ability to act according to our will because it restricts our actions. If we were to lose our rights to life and a fair trial or our freedom of speech or religion, we would not be able to live our lives to their full potential and with the most happiness. As we were able to see in the movie Mississippi Burning, the black citizens of Jessup County had their freedoms stripped from them for no reason other than the fact that they were not white, and they were not capable of living their lives to be authentic people. They had to base their lives around the actions of white people and their beliefs, even though they were wrong and negative. The loss of freedom limited the ability of the black citizens to act according to their will because they were afraid to practice their rights and freedoms in fear of being murdered. Even though the white citizens tried to take away the freedoms of the black citizens, they still stayed strong as a community. There was one young black boy in particular who stood his ground when it came to his freedoms. He did not allow the limits put on his rights and freedoms to change the person he was and continued to act in a way that promoted the good. He will let the events of his life shape him and the man that he will one day become. With the situation that he lived through, he will help people in the future when it comes to discrimination based on a reason that is no one’s fault, including being black rather than white. This young boy maintained his belief in his freedoms and did not give his consent, in any way, shape or form, to the white citizens of Jessup County. People and situations cannot fundamentally change the person we are without our consent or agreement even though they can take away our physical and/or emotional freedom. This is an accurate statement because our mind is our own and no body can control that. In order to change the person they are, it has to be a choice made by the person him or herself. Not one person, or situation can make a person change just like that. Although, situations and specific people can make an individual question themselves as a person, and make them want to change who they are, but even with that, there is a consent from the person him or herself that they are going to change, it will not just happen against their will, the human mind does not work like that. Each and every one of us is free to decide how the events of our lives will shape us, and control whom we become as a person. Although, we are not always free to do what we know we must or should, or what would be for the good. This statement is accurate because we are our own controllers of how our lives are going to turn out. We can control this simply by the way we react to certain situations and our attitudes towards them and on them afterwards. Situations and experiences that we go through growing up makes us stronger as a person and individual and it gives us more character, the way we react to these experiences and situations show who we are as a person and how strong we are.	<urn:uuid:8d2ff9aa-f303-4401-864f-0b745c2d21b9>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://ameliahensley.com/mississippi-burning/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250610919.33/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123131001-20200123160001-00453.warc.gz	en	0.987737	3,544	3.3125	3	[ -0.434315025806427, 0.18448656797409058, -0.3034766912460327, -0.22931692004203796, 0.16885673999786377, 0.4108678698539734, 0.6146953701972961, -0.3132224380970001, -0.5127036571502686, 0.17001639306545258, 0.13701650500297546, 0.012246189638972282, 0.16194023191928864, 0.2668688297271728...	1	In the Movie “Mississippi Burning” we witness various typed of discrimination, civil rights movement, and many over issues that were reflected on and ignored. Firstly we see many ways that coloured people’s civil rights were rejected and abused by everyone including the law enforcement themselves. Throughout this essay I will explain and reflect all the different typed of issues and how they are applied throught the film and how they relate to people today. Inalienable rights are proclaimed to be “natural rights” by nations. These are rights that are given to us and cannot be taken away, removed, or denied. Some examples of these are the right of your free speech, the right of assembly, the right to the integrity of one’s person and the right to life. The personal rights to life, speech and liberty are guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. Human rights belong to each person as an individual. Wherever the person lives or works, the rights are applied. These rights are a part of every individual. No one may revoke them, unless it’s due to an extraordinary circumstance. Human rights are fundamental rights, especially the ones that are believed to belong to a certain person and in whose exercise a government is not allowed to get in the way of. This includes the right to speak, associate, work, along with a variety of others. A human right is a claim that is based exclusively on the dignity of being human. Legal or civil rights are entitlements or claims that have come up from the need to set up parameters which will allow people to live without harm in a state or community and to live cooperatively. Civil rights are the rights to full social, legal and economic equality. These rights are recognized by governments, which allow each citizen to participate in government, with certain obligations and to a varying degree. Human rights and legal rights are not the same thing, although many times they do overlap, they also can sometimes stand to be complete opposites. These rights are the rights that form the content of government constitutions and charters of freedom. In society, we have numerous types of issues and concerns. These include personal or individual concerns and social or communal concerns. Personal or individual concerns involve a person themself and the things that involve them. They are issues that do not involve others and the community, but involve exclusively one’s own personal concerns. For example, a personal or individual concern can include someone’s husband cheating on them. This issue strictly involves the people in the relationship. In no way is the community or society needed to deal with this situation. Another type of concerns are social or communal concerns. These concerns involve more than just a person, but look at the bigger picture. These types of concerns move away from small personal issues, and move towards greater issues that can have an effect on a community and the people living within it. Social concerns also include the interactions between people within a community, and are controversial issues. Examples of social concerns are racism, immigration, gay rights, and censorship. These issues would involve more than just a single person and their concerns. These issues would involve communities in their entirety. These are the types of issue that get groups of citizens together to voice their concerns and discuss issues. Person or individual issues are exactly what their name says; they belong to a person or an individual. Social or communal issues, as their name states, involve a society or community. Although these two types of issues may be difficult to distinguish between at times, they are still two separate issues. Majority of situations and concerns in our lives will be personal or individual concerns, but there may come a time when we must deal with a social or communal concern. An issue is a matter of personal/ individual concern vs. social/communal concern when you’re personal faith, ethics and values that society can’t tell you what to think. A personal/ individual concern is when there’s a personal connection involving the issue due to a person experience or deeply held belief. A social/ communal concern is when the issue has an impact on the society and involves the community and society as a whole. There are many laws out there that limit and/or remove the rights of individuals. Laws are created to protect the people of nations from harm and to try to keep everyone content. Although we have the right to keep our rights and freedoms, they are sometimes removed or revoked temporarily in order to support the common good of all. These rights can be small, almost insignificant rights or they can be more prominent rights that people are opposed to the removal of. The smaller rights include such things as areas where smoking is prohibited, a legal drinking age, and a legal age at which someone is able to obtain their license. Many of these laws are placed into action in favor of supporting the common good. This would mean in favor of keeping individuals in our community healthier, safer, responsible, etc. Some of these laws that are limiting the rights of people in our society to support the common good are. In the movie Mississippi Burning that was watched during class there were a few human rights that were upheld. Most of these rights that were being upheld were associated with the white people more so than the black people in that community. The freedom of speech is upheld as it shows when the community came together for a “political debate” which seemed to be a lot like a Ku Klux Klan meeting without the costumes as the FBI agents mentioned. There was a stage and people were up on stage stating their opinions and thoughts to the rest of the crowd. The ability to do that shows that they still have a right of speech. Another human right that is upheld is the right to religion. The white people in that community do not have respect for the black people living within it but they continue to allow them to have their own church where they can worship their Lord. The white people of the community have their own church as well so that’s a sign that they are upholding the citizen’s rights to religion. In the movie there were a few legal rights that were being upheld as well. But these rights were not being upheld by their community, rather the two FBI agents that came to that community to solve the case of the 3 missing boys were supporting them. These FBI agents did not care what the colour of the persons skin was, or the way they looked, they just wanted to find out about the truth and solve the case. These agents did not look upon murder as a right in any way, no matter what the colour of the victims skin, they saw it as it was with the law, which is wrong, and against the law. For the black part of the community, many of their human rights were being ignored. They got treated horribly and there was nothing they could do about it in that time. Their right to live free was ignored, and they were being ill-treated and tortured. Their freedom for thought and expression were ignored because the people in the black community were scared and knew that if they expressed themselves they’d get beat because of the colour of their skin. A main legal right during the movie that was shown is towards the black people as well. Their right to a fair trial was not taken into consideration from the community and they never had a chance to be treated fairly during trails. The white citizens of the Jessup County, Mississippi had all of their human rights upheld. They were able to live their lives without any worry of having their life threatened, being free from torture, free from slavery, and many more human rights. This is the same of the legal rights of white people. The white citizens did not have to worry about their legal rights being challenged, especially for no reason. It is a whole different story for the black citizens of Jessup County. Practically all of their human rights and legal rights were stripped from them simply because they were not white. The human rights that were stripped include the right to life, freedom from torture, freedom from slavery, the right to a fair trial, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion. The white citizens felt that they were above the black people and decided it was the right thing to do by taking the lives of the black citizens for no reason at all. The black people were put through terrible torture, such as having their private parts cut off, being beaten, and being hung from trees. When the white people were confronted by the FBI, it seems as though the black people will get back their rights. Instead, the black people are stripped of their right to a fair trial and the white people who have been doing all the arbitrary killing walk away with no consequences. With all of the violence occurring in Jessup County, the black citizens in turn lose their freedom of speech and eventually lose their freedom of religion. The black citizens are brutally beaten and killed as they leave their church and are persecuted for worshipping. The rights and freedoms of the white citizens are upheld and honoured, unlike the rights and freedoms of the black citizens which are stripped from them with an arbitrary power, leaving them with no human or legal rights. Some of the white citizens in this country are very traditional to their history and don’t believe in the present change of the world today. They like to try and follow after their parent’s, grandparent and great-grandparent’s footprints. Due to this factor, some white citizens of this country believe that it is okay to treat the black citizens this way. In history, black people were the white people’s slaves and were thought to be no good at anything. They were treated very poorly and did not have half the amount of rights the white citizens did then, nor did they have half the rights they have today. Many of the white citizens in this country have been brainwashed to think that black people are the cause to the problems in the community and that they are no good. These white people don’t chose to be racist but it just sort of comes upon them a lot of the time because of the way they were raised. If an individual is raised with racist parents, they sub-consciously become the same way most of the time. If that was all they were ever taught when they were growing up, that black people are bad and only cause problems, then that is most likely what they are going to believe for the rest of their life. No matter if that is true or not, they already grew up with that thought and it’s hard to change that. Some of the white citizens in Jessup County thought that it was right to treat the black citizens this way because they believed that they were an inferior race. They believed that the black citizens were below them and did not deserve to have to the same rights and freedoms as the white citizens. The white citizens looked down upon them and treated them incredibly poorly simply because they were not white. They were given slave jobs, such as working in fields and cleaning, and yet were still not appreciated for their hard work and suffering. The white citizens did not consider the black citizens to even be called ‘people’ and that they were not equals in the society. The black people were considered to be the cause of all the problems and issues in Jessup County and were therefore treated in a manner that was a sort of punishment. As if the thoughts of the white citizens were bad enough, there were political figures in the county speaking out against blacks and that they should be kept out of their county. With this sort of influence being seen by all of the citizens, their actions and behavior towards the blacks was encouraged and ultimately seen as the right thing to do. If a political figure had stood up and spoke against the poor treatment of the black citizens, maybe the outcome of the county would have been different and many innocent lives could have been spared. Another reason why some white citizens thought that it was okay to treat the black citizens that way was because that was all they knew since they were born. With parents that have a certain mentality when it comes to black people there is no way for a child to know anything else. Children are taught to act the same way their parents did towards black people, for no reason at all, but simply because that was what everyone else around them was doing. The children were just following the example that was showed to them. Freedom comes with responsibilities and with freedom comes rights. When we get our freedoms and rights taken away from us, it is not uncommon to be resentful and that alone takes away from our ability to act according to our will, to be authentic. When there is loss of freedom, there is also a loss of responsibility, which means that we won’t have to worry as much about being the best person we can be, especially if the freedom is taken away from us for unnecessary means. When you lose your freedom you may become less able to act to be an authentic person because in a way loosing your freedom is closely connected to loosing you sense of safety. For example, if you go to jail, and you’re a flamboyant person, you will feel uncomfortable with every body else around you because you are not like the way they are and you feel like you are being judged and looked at weird. Losing your freedom can also cause a person to lose their sense of individuality. Losing your individuality can cause someone a mass amount of confusion and has the ability to make them a less authentic person. An example of where this might happen could be maybe if a person is switching schools or moving to a school from a different country. The style, atmosphere, and attitudes are all super different than what the individual is used to and may overwhelm them and scare them. The person may feel threatened by the other kids who are used to the style, atmosphere, and attitudes and could essentially feel as if their style doesn’t work there, and are afraid of what people may thing of this person. They then decide to change their style that they are used to, which is like taking a part of yourself away and hiding it from others. That is considered loosing parts of your individuality, because you don’t feel as if you have the right to be yourself. Losing our freedom limits our ability to act according to our will because it restricts our actions. If we were to lose our rights to life and a fair trial or our freedom of speech or religion, we would not be able to live our lives to their full potential and with the most happiness. As we were able to see in the movie Mississippi Burning, the black citizens of Jessup County had their freedoms stripped from them for no reason other than the fact that they were not white, and they were not capable of living their lives to be authentic people. They had to base their lives around the actions of white people and their beliefs, even though they were wrong and negative. The loss of freedom limited the ability of the black citizens to act according to their will because they were afraid to practice their rights and freedoms in fear of being murdered. Even though the white citizens tried to take away the freedoms of the black citizens, they still stayed strong as a community. There was one young black boy in particular who stood his ground when it came to his freedoms. He did not allow the limits put on his rights and freedoms to change the person he was and continued to act in a way that promoted the good. He will let the events of his life shape him and the man that he will one day become. With the situation that he lived through, he will help people in the future when it comes to discrimination based on a reason that is no one’s fault, including being black rather than white. This young boy maintained his belief in his freedoms and did not give his consent, in any way, shape or form, to the white citizens of Jessup County. People and situations cannot fundamentally change the person we are without our consent or agreement even though they can take away our physical and/or emotional freedom. This is an accurate statement because our mind is our own and no body can control that. In order to change the person they are, it has to be a choice made by the person him or herself. Not one person, or situation can make a person change just like that. Although, situations and specific people can make an individual question themselves as a person, and make them want to change who they are, but even with that, there is a consent from the person him or herself that they are going to change, it will not just happen against their will, the human mind does not work like that. Each and every one of us is free to decide how the events of our lives will shape us, and control whom we become as a person. Although, we are not always free to do what we know we must or should, or what would be for the good. This statement is accurate because we are our own controllers of how our lives are going to turn out. We can control this simply by the way we react to certain situations and our attitudes towards them and on them afterwards. Situations and experiences that we go through growing up makes us stronger as a person and individual and it gives us more character, the way we react to these experiences and situations show who we are as a person and how strong we are.	3,462	ENGLISH	1
Question 1) Due to writing and communicating with writing we have changed the way we think critically. Only because of writing Plato, for example, was able to convey his critique. Question 2) Writing without the eventual need for print forced early writers to write with the idea of how their words would sound if read out loud. Question 3) Writing changes our relationship with time because we obtain our ability to keep accurate records and we become forced to view our lives in relationship to time. Question 4) We become more aware of time, place, people, languages, structure of writing, composition. Question 5) The way in which writing relates to rhetoric and learned Latin is that the only people who wrote were educated males that were taught in Latin which had its sole base academia. Question 6) The novel and literature is not an effect of rhetoric but is an effect of vernacular languages because of the popularity of the literary style of females authors who did not receive formal rhetoric training. (109) Question 7) Poetry is a subset of rhetoric because Question 8) Rhetoric is male due to the fact that men were formally in rhetoric	<urn:uuid:46e12c2a-ae3f-4367-aacb-16a20df16694>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://openlab.citytech.cuny.edu/1710/2015/02/24/team-blog-mariah-spencer-pamela/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250605075.24/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121192553-20200121221553-00169.warc.gz	en	0.985196	233	3.8125	4	[ -0.10415631532669067, 0.324392169713974, 0.31757938861846924, 0.24370077252388, -0.2616336941719055, 0.03610312193632126, -0.23515869677066803, 0.44708672165870667, 0.16803720593452454, -0.38872647285461426, -0.005724224727600813, 0.19101205468177795, 0.09009327739477158, 0.280999153852462...	3	Question 1) Due to writing and communicating with writing we have changed the way we think critically. Only because of writing Plato, for example, was able to convey his critique. Question 2) Writing without the eventual need for print forced early writers to write with the idea of how their words would sound if read out loud. Question 3) Writing changes our relationship with time because we obtain our ability to keep accurate records and we become forced to view our lives in relationship to time. Question 4) We become more aware of time, place, people, languages, structure of writing, composition. Question 5) The way in which writing relates to rhetoric and learned Latin is that the only people who wrote were educated males that were taught in Latin which had its sole base academia. Question 6) The novel and literature is not an effect of rhetoric but is an effect of vernacular languages because of the popularity of the literary style of females authors who did not receive formal rhetoric training. (109) Question 7) Poetry is a subset of rhetoric because Question 8) Rhetoric is male due to the fact that men were formally in rhetoric	235	ENGLISH	1
The politics of the US originated from ideas and theories that were developed a long time ago. In that respects, Thomas Jefferson is one of the personalities that may never be forgotten in the history of America. His theories came to be in action between in the late 70 and the early 80s. Jeffersonian politics were the basis of the formation of the Republican Party, one that was formed to oppose the federalists, led by Hamilton. Basically, the Jeffersonian politics opposed aristocracy which they accused with things such as corruption and inequality. Jefferson advocated for equal rights for all the male white citizens in the US. In this paper, different aspects and issues on Jeffersonian politics have been discussed. Ideological differences between Federalists and Jeffersonian Republicans There were major ideological differences that existed between the federalists and the Jeffersonian Republicans. The first major difference in their ideologies was brought about by their beliefs on the national government. Jefferson came to oppose the federalists, since they are the ones who were, already, in government. Therefore the understanding of this difference would start with an analysis of the beliefs by federalists. For the federalists, aristocracy was the order of the day. In this, they believed that the brightest people in the society are the ones that should lead the nation. Therefore, they believed that when these bright people were in the government, the decisions that would be made for the country were the best. Therefore, there was no need to incorporate the ideas and thoughts of other citizens in America. In their ideology, they believed that all the activities and decisions of the state should be decided by the national government. They, thus, decided that the government should be an expansive entity. This was an ideology that was highly opposed by the republicans. The Democratic - Republican Party believed that the federal government had been bestowed with much power and roles in the nation. For this reason, they advocated for local governments. They believed that these could be more instrumental in the delivery of services to the citizens. In such a system, more common people could be involved, considering that they were more that those who controlled the country under the federalists. Hamilton’s government favored the wealthy individuals, since they could influence the few individuals, upon whom power had been bestowed. Jefferson believed that power had to be taken to the people. Leadership had to be taken to the local government, where local leaders would take charge. These are leaders who had closer touch to the American citizens, including the poor farmers. Therefore, the perspective that each of these two parties had on the national government was a major source of their ideological differences. According to the democratic republicans, the states should have had more power than the federal government. He explained a fault that existed from the system that was being used by the federalists. Before he came to power, there was a huge national debt, which had been obtained to suit the interests of the richer individuals. This is why the Federalist Party was supported by lawyers, doctors and businessmen. Their system favored their activities and ambitions. On the other hand, Jefferson believed that the best way to boost the economy of the country was not favoring the rich people. He believed that agriculture would be the major contributor to the economy of America. In this view, agriculture would favor the plantation owners and the farmers who depended on it for their livelihood. This explains why one of his major agendas and achievements in the period he reigned was the significant reduction of the national debt. This conflict of ideologies caused the differences that existed between these two parties. The effects of this conflict were positive, in the sense that it gave America a choice, on which was the best system of government. Most of the virtues and ideologies that exist in Americans originate from this important time in the history of the country. Achievements and Failures of Jefferson’s Administration Advocating for certain virtues, beliefs and ideas is never enough, for any politician. With his ideology, Jefferson won the hearts of most Americans. However, the true test on his abilities and competency was tested when he got into power. There were a few achievements that he made, based on his ideologies. This saw him become one of the most important presidents in America. This did not come without hardships and difficulty. There were some failures that Jefferson experienced, while in power. These have been, extensively discussed in this part of the paper. The first achievement of the Jefferson administration was the writing of the declaration of independence. Along with four other individuals, Robert Livingston, Roger Sherman, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin, Jefferson wrote the first draft of this declaration. This happened in the first 17 days and a presentation done to the congress. In connection to this, Jefferson made a huge step towards the achievement of religious freedom in America. He achieved this through writing the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom in 1777. Apart from these drafts he made, Jefferson looked into the territorial factors of the United States. In a bid to expand the territories of America, Jefferson was the man responsible for the purchase of Louisiana. Before that, this land was owned by France. At a price of 15 million dollars, he was able to purchase 800,000 square miles of this territory. The library of the congress can be said to have had multiple founders. However, if a single individual was to be picked in this list, Jefferson would be the man. He advocated for this library and supported its founding. History records that he sold his personal library to the federal government. They were a major contribution to this library. In his quest to increase the education levels of Americans, he founded the University of Virginia. In this endeavor, he argued that there was need for the state to educate leaders. The next major achievement for Jefferson was in agriculture. He helped to improve the agricultural practices by the farmers, through the introduction of different techniques. He is credited for helping farmers to understand, adopt and implement sustainable agriculture. These were the major achievements made by this leader in America. Even with the brilliance of Jefferson, perfection is difficult to achieve. There were some failures that were observed and experienced during his administration. Without any doubt, the biggest failure in the administration of Jefferson was in the fight against slavery. Jefferson was not able to fight slavery in America, since his ideologies and administration favored the while citizens. However, this does not mean that he supported slave trade. As a matter of fact, he publicly denounced it, especially in the declaration of independence. However, his attempts kept failing. He did not persevere and push on with the fight, which resulted to his failure. Some argue that he was just using his instincts, as a politician. He was, only, ready to fight battles for which he could foresee victory. There were other leaders who had started freeing their slaves. Even though, Jefferson did not free his own slaves, during his administration. The other huge failure by Jefferson was in education. Before he got to power, Jefferson also wanted power to be transferred to the people, through education. True to his belief, he advocated for free public education, when he came to power. He presented this bill to the state legislature. Unfortunately, there were many factors that he had not considered. Therefore, the state legislature rejected it, which counted as a failure of his part. The Irony of Jefferson’s Policies The policies by Jefferson were ironic, in different ways. First, he claimed that he advocated and supported equality in America. However, he, specifically, stated that this was equality for all white males. Therefore, his policies did not show any gender, or racial equality. This was one of the major flaws that caused some people to lose trust in his ideologies. Additionally, he advocated for better agricultural methods, in a bid to raise the standards of living in America. However, he was unable to fight the slave trade that was in the South. As a president, he had the power to carry out major steps in ending slavery. However, he could not enact his policies, causing the identification of irony in their mentioning. Effects of the War of 1812 have on the Politics Parties The War of 1812 had significant effects on these two major parties in America. The first effect was the collapse of the Federalist Party. This was a party whose beliefs, practices and ideologies were pro-British. This caused them to be less supportive of the war. As a result of the war, the federalists met in 1814, where they aired their opinion on the war. They mentioned the three-fifths compromise, as well as succession. These were issues that caused people to lose trust in the party, due to their unpatriotic beliefs. On the other hand, republicans gained more power, with their major opposition eliminated. These effects would, later, shape the direction taken by American politics. The description above is a summary of the different ideas held by democratic republicans. From the comparison that has been made between them and the federalists, there has been a clear statement of the advantages and disadvantages of the republican politics. Some of the ideologies and beliefs that they held can be observed, even, in today’s America. The transformation that they brought to American politics can never be ignored. Jeffersonian politics were the major reason for the consideration of common citizens in the constitution. They are the major reason as to why the federal government does not have overreaching abilities, which can be abused by a few individuals. Despite the shortcomings of Jefferson’s administration, it was one of the most important ones in America’s history.	<urn:uuid:095b9d64-8e10-4e6c-a560-00801001f744>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://best-writing-service.com/essays/informative/jeffersonian-politics	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250598217.23/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120081337-20200120105337-00471.warc.gz	en	0.986891	1,935	3.96875	4	[ -0.31881648302078247, 0.13277971744537354, 0.03598148748278618, -0.41250690817832947, -0.20643512904644012, 0.501573920249939, 0.3623107075691223, 0.2599790096282959, -0.057760145515203476, 0.09503381699323654, 0.2415052354335785, 0.5895853042602539, -0.11978451907634735, -0.06924247741699...	8	The politics of the US originated from ideas and theories that were developed a long time ago. In that respects, Thomas Jefferson is one of the personalities that may never be forgotten in the history of America. His theories came to be in action between in the late 70 and the early 80s. Jeffersonian politics were the basis of the formation of the Republican Party, one that was formed to oppose the federalists, led by Hamilton. Basically, the Jeffersonian politics opposed aristocracy which they accused with things such as corruption and inequality. Jefferson advocated for equal rights for all the male white citizens in the US. In this paper, different aspects and issues on Jeffersonian politics have been discussed. Ideological differences between Federalists and Jeffersonian Republicans There were major ideological differences that existed between the federalists and the Jeffersonian Republicans. The first major difference in their ideologies was brought about by their beliefs on the national government. Jefferson came to oppose the federalists, since they are the ones who were, already, in government. Therefore the understanding of this difference would start with an analysis of the beliefs by federalists. For the federalists, aristocracy was the order of the day. In this, they believed that the brightest people in the society are the ones that should lead the nation. Therefore, they believed that when these bright people were in the government, the decisions that would be made for the country were the best. Therefore, there was no need to incorporate the ideas and thoughts of other citizens in America. In their ideology, they believed that all the activities and decisions of the state should be decided by the national government. They, thus, decided that the government should be an expansive entity. This was an ideology that was highly opposed by the republicans. The Democratic - Republican Party believed that the federal government had been bestowed with much power and roles in the nation. For this reason, they advocated for local governments. They believed that these could be more instrumental in the delivery of services to the citizens. In such a system, more common people could be involved, considering that they were more that those who controlled the country under the federalists. Hamilton’s government favored the wealthy individuals, since they could influence the few individuals, upon whom power had been bestowed. Jefferson believed that power had to be taken to the people. Leadership had to be taken to the local government, where local leaders would take charge. These are leaders who had closer touch to the American citizens, including the poor farmers. Therefore, the perspective that each of these two parties had on the national government was a major source of their ideological differences. According to the democratic republicans, the states should have had more power than the federal government. He explained a fault that existed from the system that was being used by the federalists. Before he came to power, there was a huge national debt, which had been obtained to suit the interests of the richer individuals. This is why the Federalist Party was supported by lawyers, doctors and businessmen. Their system favored their activities and ambitions. On the other hand, Jefferson believed that the best way to boost the economy of the country was not favoring the rich people. He believed that agriculture would be the major contributor to the economy of America. In this view, agriculture would favor the plantation owners and the farmers who depended on it for their livelihood. This explains why one of his major agendas and achievements in the period he reigned was the significant reduction of the national debt. This conflict of ideologies caused the differences that existed between these two parties. The effects of this conflict were positive, in the sense that it gave America a choice, on which was the best system of government. Most of the virtues and ideologies that exist in Americans originate from this important time in the history of the country. Achievements and Failures of Jefferson’s Administration Advocating for certain virtues, beliefs and ideas is never enough, for any politician. With his ideology, Jefferson won the hearts of most Americans. However, the true test on his abilities and competency was tested when he got into power. There were a few achievements that he made, based on his ideologies. This saw him become one of the most important presidents in America. This did not come without hardships and difficulty. There were some failures that Jefferson experienced, while in power. These have been, extensively discussed in this part of the paper. The first achievement of the Jefferson administration was the writing of the declaration of independence. Along with four other individuals, Robert Livingston, Roger Sherman, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin, Jefferson wrote the first draft of this declaration. This happened in the first 17 days and a presentation done to the congress. In connection to this, Jefferson made a huge step towards the achievement of religious freedom in America. He achieved this through writing the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom in 1777. Apart from these drafts he made, Jefferson looked into the territorial factors of the United States. In a bid to expand the territories of America, Jefferson was the man responsible for the purchase of Louisiana. Before that, this land was owned by France. At a price of 15 million dollars, he was able to purchase 800,000 square miles of this territory. The library of the congress can be said to have had multiple founders. However, if a single individual was to be picked in this list, Jefferson would be the man. He advocated for this library and supported its founding. History records that he sold his personal library to the federal government. They were a major contribution to this library. In his quest to increase the education levels of Americans, he founded the University of Virginia. In this endeavor, he argued that there was need for the state to educate leaders. The next major achievement for Jefferson was in agriculture. He helped to improve the agricultural practices by the farmers, through the introduction of different techniques. He is credited for helping farmers to understand, adopt and implement sustainable agriculture. These were the major achievements made by this leader in America. Even with the brilliance of Jefferson, perfection is difficult to achieve. There were some failures that were observed and experienced during his administration. Without any doubt, the biggest failure in the administration of Jefferson was in the fight against slavery. Jefferson was not able to fight slavery in America, since his ideologies and administration favored the while citizens. However, this does not mean that he supported slave trade. As a matter of fact, he publicly denounced it, especially in the declaration of independence. However, his attempts kept failing. He did not persevere and push on with the fight, which resulted to his failure. Some argue that he was just using his instincts, as a politician. He was, only, ready to fight battles for which he could foresee victory. There were other leaders who had started freeing their slaves. Even though, Jefferson did not free his own slaves, during his administration. The other huge failure by Jefferson was in education. Before he got to power, Jefferson also wanted power to be transferred to the people, through education. True to his belief, he advocated for free public education, when he came to power. He presented this bill to the state legislature. Unfortunately, there were many factors that he had not considered. Therefore, the state legislature rejected it, which counted as a failure of his part. The Irony of Jefferson’s Policies The policies by Jefferson were ironic, in different ways. First, he claimed that he advocated and supported equality in America. However, he, specifically, stated that this was equality for all white males. Therefore, his policies did not show any gender, or racial equality. This was one of the major flaws that caused some people to lose trust in his ideologies. Additionally, he advocated for better agricultural methods, in a bid to raise the standards of living in America. However, he was unable to fight the slave trade that was in the South. As a president, he had the power to carry out major steps in ending slavery. However, he could not enact his policies, causing the identification of irony in their mentioning. Effects of the War of 1812 have on the Politics Parties The War of 1812 had significant effects on these two major parties in America. The first effect was the collapse of the Federalist Party. This was a party whose beliefs, practices and ideologies were pro-British. This caused them to be less supportive of the war. As a result of the war, the federalists met in 1814, where they aired their opinion on the war. They mentioned the three-fifths compromise, as well as succession. These were issues that caused people to lose trust in the party, due to their unpatriotic beliefs. On the other hand, republicans gained more power, with their major opposition eliminated. These effects would, later, shape the direction taken by American politics. The description above is a summary of the different ideas held by democratic republicans. From the comparison that has been made between them and the federalists, there has been a clear statement of the advantages and disadvantages of the republican politics. Some of the ideologies and beliefs that they held can be observed, even, in today’s America. The transformation that they brought to American politics can never be ignored. Jeffersonian politics were the major reason for the consideration of common citizens in the constitution. They are the major reason as to why the federal government does not have overreaching abilities, which can be abused by a few individuals. Despite the shortcomings of Jefferson’s administration, it was one of the most important ones in America’s history.	1,940	ENGLISH	1
- The Russian Orthodox Old-Believer Church, which preserves apostolic continuity and purity of the Orthodox faith - Nikon’s reforms — the beginning of schism - The council of 1666-1667 - The spiritual centers of old-believers - Divisions among old-believers The status of old-believers in 17th century Russia was in many ways similar to that of Christians in the Roman Empire, who were forced to hide in catacombs. Russian Orthodox old-believers, likewise, hid from both state and church authorities. All Russians were required to believe the way the sovereign commanded. On the behest of Patriarch Ioachim, Tsarevna Sophia, in 1685, issued her 12 articles against old-believers, pronouncing: - If one secretly confesses the old faith, one must be whipped and exiled. - Those who show mercy to old-believers, providing them with food or water to drink, must be whipped. - Those who shelter old-believers are to be exiled and whipped. - All old-believer property is to be confiscated to the Sovereign. (Even apostasy could not safeguard one from persecution:) - If an old-believer re-baptizes someone and then repents, confessing to his spiritual father, sincerely wanting to receive Communion, then he, after confessing and communing, must be executed without mercy. Myriads of Christians were burned, tongues were excoriated, heads were severed, ribs were crushed and people were quartered. Prisons and monastery dungeons were full of sufferers for the Faith of Christ. The clergy and the civil government mercilessly exterminated their own brethren. Even women and children were eradicated. So persecuted Christians fled to deserted places, but therein, too, they were sought out. Their dwellings were ruined, while they were arrested and tortured. Fleeing elaborate torture and having no refuge or harbor some started immolating themselves. Emperor Peter I was more tolerant. He legally recognized Catholics, Protestants, Muslims and Jews, only old-believers had no freedom in their native country. Under Peter, they were no longer burned en mass, but sporadic burnings were not uncommon. He allowed them to live in towns and villages, but imposed a double tax on them. However, they had no civil rights. Under Peter’s successors, their position changed little. Only in the reign of Catherine II (1762-1796) did old-believers sigh in relief. Yet under Alexander I and Nicholas I, they were once more persecuted, not only in Russia, but also abroad. Only at the beginning of the twentieth century, after the Manifesto of Toleration published by Nicholas II, did the persecutions stop. From 1905 to 1917 over a thousand churches were built! But old-believers in Imperial Russia never received full religious freedom; the legality of their priesthood was never recognized; the articles of the criminal law punishing mainstream Christians for joining old-believers (“seduction into schism”) were not abolished; it was forbidden to preach openly. They could not occupy high administrative positions and had not the right to teach in public school.	<urn:uuid:40cd4fbe-da05-40d1-9e7a-2ff9bb9fceb7>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://nashavera.com/publikacii/old-believers-in-the-18th-and-19th-centuries/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250601628.36/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121074002-20200121103002-00389.warc.gz	en	0.982618	668	3.515625	4	[ 0.11508204787969589, 0.09696980565786362, -0.18120279908180237, 0.10091859102249146, -0.1460953801870346, -0.08596095442771912, -0.09401065111160278, 0.4553173780441284, -0.26148509979248047, 0.4888240098953247, -0.29932311177253723, 0.12606200575828552, -0.0294511616230011, 0.242321163415...	8	- The Russian Orthodox Old-Believer Church, which preserves apostolic continuity and purity of the Orthodox faith - Nikon’s reforms — the beginning of schism - The council of 1666-1667 - The spiritual centers of old-believers - Divisions among old-believers The status of old-believers in 17th century Russia was in many ways similar to that of Christians in the Roman Empire, who were forced to hide in catacombs. Russian Orthodox old-believers, likewise, hid from both state and church authorities. All Russians were required to believe the way the sovereign commanded. On the behest of Patriarch Ioachim, Tsarevna Sophia, in 1685, issued her 12 articles against old-believers, pronouncing: - If one secretly confesses the old faith, one must be whipped and exiled. - Those who show mercy to old-believers, providing them with food or water to drink, must be whipped. - Those who shelter old-believers are to be exiled and whipped. - All old-believer property is to be confiscated to the Sovereign. (Even apostasy could not safeguard one from persecution:) - If an old-believer re-baptizes someone and then repents, confessing to his spiritual father, sincerely wanting to receive Communion, then he, after confessing and communing, must be executed without mercy. Myriads of Christians were burned, tongues were excoriated, heads were severed, ribs were crushed and people were quartered. Prisons and monastery dungeons were full of sufferers for the Faith of Christ. The clergy and the civil government mercilessly exterminated their own brethren. Even women and children were eradicated. So persecuted Christians fled to deserted places, but therein, too, they were sought out. Their dwellings were ruined, while they were arrested and tortured. Fleeing elaborate torture and having no refuge or harbor some started immolating themselves. Emperor Peter I was more tolerant. He legally recognized Catholics, Protestants, Muslims and Jews, only old-believers had no freedom in their native country. Under Peter, they were no longer burned en mass, but sporadic burnings were not uncommon. He allowed them to live in towns and villages, but imposed a double tax on them. However, they had no civil rights. Under Peter’s successors, their position changed little. Only in the reign of Catherine II (1762-1796) did old-believers sigh in relief. Yet under Alexander I and Nicholas I, they were once more persecuted, not only in Russia, but also abroad. Only at the beginning of the twentieth century, after the Manifesto of Toleration published by Nicholas II, did the persecutions stop. From 1905 to 1917 over a thousand churches were built! But old-believers in Imperial Russia never received full religious freedom; the legality of their priesthood was never recognized; the articles of the criminal law punishing mainstream Christians for joining old-believers (“seduction into schism”) were not abolished; it was forbidden to preach openly. They could not occupy high administrative positions and had not the right to teach in public school.	675	ENGLISH	1
"Fuente Did It": The Tale of Fuenteovejuna ~ Legend Stories for Kids This is the true story of one of the earliest uprisings in the European feudal system - a peasant rebellion almost 500 years ago at a Spanish village called Fuente Ovejuna. In this story, the village is known as Fuente. "If we're to be married, let's not waste a second," urged Camila to her beloved fiancé, Lonzo. "Sooner is just fine," said Lonzo, stroking her hair. "But why the rush?" "You know as well as I do the Commander has his eye on me," said Camila. "His servants already tried to tempt me by giving me a new blouse, a necklace, and fine shoes, too. As if I could be bought! He's already done enough damage to the women here at Fuente before. He takes whatever woman he wants. When he's done with her, he throws her back to us like a chewed bone. And we all do nothing!" "No one will take you away from me," cried Lonzo, gripping her arm. "If only it were true!" said Camila. "Tell that to poor Olivia, or to Maria, or Inez!" "Or Hector's wife," Lonzo added, grimly. Camila sighed. "None of us here at our village Fuente is safe. No one knows what is going on here. Not even King Ferdinand or Queen Isabella." It so happened that Camila's father, Salvadore, was the mayor of Fuente. Later that day, Lonzo went to her father, the Mayor to ask his for permission to marry his daughter, and to marry her that very week. You probably know that today, young men usually don't need to ask permission from the parents of the young woman they wish to marry. Yet even today, many times young men still do this and parents are often glad to be asked. But this story happened nearly 500 years ago. And those were the days when parents had to say "yes" for a marriage to go ahead. Of this match Camila's father, the Mayor Salvadore, was glad to agree. Lonzo was a fine young man and he knew his daughter Camila was much in love with him. And so the wedding was quickly planned. Musicians wrote special songs and the village square was decorated with garlands of roses. On the wedding day, when the two lovers were about to exchange their vows, in marched the Commander with his servants. The Commander was returning triumphant from battle. But he had not fought for his own king and queen of Spain, Ferdinard and Isabella, to whom he had pledged his loyalty. Instead, the Commander chose to fight for their enemy, King of Portugal. The sly Commander knew that if he could help the Portuguese king defeat King Ferdinand and Queen Isabela and throw them off the throne, the Commander would be rewarded with a large track of land to rule - perhaps even Castile, the largest region in Spain. It seemed that day was sooner than ever, since his forces had just captured an important border town for the Portuguese king. Fresh from his victory, the Commander knew how he wanted to celebrate. He looked around at the stunned wedding guests. Said the Commander in a smooth, steely voice, "Don't let me interrupt the ceremony. No one need be alarmed - unless they have done me any harm, or plan to." Mayor Salvadore frantically motioned to his daughter Camila and Lonzo to escape out the back door, but the door was locked. Then the Mayor turned to the Commander and said in an even voice, "Whatever you say, my lord. Won't you sit down? Did your soldiers defeat the enemy? How can we honor your victory?" "Stupid old fool!" snapped the Commander. "You know very well why I'm here." Facing Camila, he said with a twisted smile, "Minx, come here." "Sir!" said the mayor. "Today is my daughter's wedding day!" "What insolence!" yelled the Commander. "How dare you - or anyone else in this miserable village - have the nerve to act as if you were my equal!" To his servants, the Commander directed, "This wretch is Mayor no more. Take away his staff of office!" "You can have it!" said Salvadore, thrusting out his staff. A servant snatched the mayor's staff and handed it to the Commander. Furious, he broke the staff in two over the mayor's head. "And I shall do with it as I wish!" Salvadore saw that all was lost. He was no longer mayor, and spoke in a small voice. "Very well then. If that is what you wish. You are our master." "Father, no!" cried Camila, as the Commander's servants separated her from Lonzo, and dragged them both away. That day, Salvadore spread the word to the other men of Fuente to meet him at the village square that night. Gathered at the square as the moon rose, he said, "My daughter Camila is in such danger now I will surely go mad!" he moaned. "And Lonzo is locked in the tower." "Not so loud," urged his brother. "We must keep this meeting secret." "But we must do something!" The father paced back and forth. "There isn't a single person among us who hasn't been insulted by that savage lord. And now look what he has done!" "We should go to King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella," suggested one villager. "We can march to their castle with a petition of all our names." "We haven't time to gather names!" cried Salvadore. "And why would the King and Queen even believe us? They could still believe the Commander is loyal to them. Then they might wipe out our whole village for being disloyal and complaining to them about him." "We have no choice," said one farmer. "We must abandon the village. We'll carry our grain into the mountains and live in caves from now on." "Is that how we're going to live?" cried another. "Something must be done!" cried Salvadore. "What are we afraid of?" Suddenly Camila staggered in. Her face was cut and bruised, and her hair was rumpled. "Oh my daughter!" Salvadore rushed toward her. "How did you manage to escape?" "With no help from you!" Camila pulled back from her father. She stared at all the men with a crazed look. "The Commander dragged me away and not one of you tried to prevent it. You all just stood there. As if the Commander were a man with more arms and more legs than you have, or has more than human strength. He is only a man! - an ordinary, human, a small man, even. All we need are weapons. Give ME weapons - I'll avenge myself and all your wives. You cowards stand around and do nothing but talk, talk, talk. Keep sitting around and talking, for all I care. We women will kill these tyrants, even if we have to stone them ourselves!" She drew in her breath. "The Commander ordered Lonzo to be hung without trial. Next, he'll do the same to all of you. I can't say I'll miss you!" "Daughter," whispered Salvadore, "we don't deserve such vile talk. I'll go alone to face the Commander." "I'll go with you!" said another man. "Me, too!" said yet another. Calling "Death to the Tyrant!" the men charged off. Quickly Camila gathered the women. "Every man and boy is looking for weapons to fight with. But why leave the work to them? Aren't we women the one who have been outraged the most?" "Of course!" they all agreed. "But what can we do?" "We must attack his castle," she said. "Whatever comes of it, so be it!" As the men stormed the Commander's castle, an army of women came close behind. In short order, the Commander was killed, and all his servants taken prisoner. "What do we do now?" whispered one. "Surely we will die for what we have done!" said another with fear in his voice. "Listen to me," said Salvadore. "I speak in the interests of all the village. The king and queen will learn what happened here in Fuente. They are bound to send a judge to find out who is to blame. We must consider what we are going to say." "What is your advice?" said Lonzo, who had been freed in the storming of the Commander's castle. "We must all say, 'Fuente killed the Commander' and name no single person." "You mean, our entire village killed the Commander?" said one, confused. "Yes," said Salvadore. "For that is what happened. Our village of Fuente did it. Everyone, do you agree?" "Yes," said one and all. They would say, "Fuente did it." As predicted, King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella sent a judge to enact justice for the unexpected killing of the Commander and his men. But when the villagers were interrogated, even whipped, they did not say who killed the Commander. All they said, one and all, was, "Fuente did it." The judge had no choice but to return to court with this report. "I came to Fuente, your Majesties, as you ordered, and set about my investigations. I have not one word of proof. The whole village behaved in a most stubborn manner. Each and every one of them answered my questions as to who had killed the Commander by saying, ' Fuente did it.' The very name of the town! I can assure you, my lord, that I exercised all the vigor the law allows me, but neither threats, pain nor promises had any success. Therefore the only judgement I can recommend is that you order the entire village to be executed - or that you forgive all of them. They are all here to be questioned if you wish." King Ferdinand nodded. "Let them come in." And so all the men and women of Fuente crowded into the royal court. "Are these the murderers?" said Queen Isabella, scanning the cluster of farmers and peasants gathering nervously before her. Camila's father stepped forward. "Your Majesties, we are the people of Fuente who come to seek protection, and to serve you. We were oppressed and subjected by the Commander, as if we were not villagers but slaves who must suffer in silence. Now we appeal to you for mercy so that we may restore our dignity and honor. The cause of the Commander's death was his own tyranny. He stole our lands and produce, he ravished our women, and he showed us no mercy." "It's true, Your Majesties," said Lonzo. "You see this girl who has made me the most fortunate man in the world? On our wedding night he took her from me to his own house." Salvadore bowed low. "Your Majesties, we appeal to you for mercy. You are our King and Queen. We already put your coat of arms in our marketplace." "Well," said the King. "We have no written evidence against you, for no one has confessed. Your crime was indeed grave. But perhaps your sufferings justified it." "I agree," said Queen Isabella. "Such hardy villagers will make fine soldiers for our armies to fight the Moors." She opened her arms before the group. "We pardon you. Your village of Fuente is under our direct protection from now on. Be ready to be called upon to fight in service of the Spanish crown." And so the people of Fuente were forgiven by King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella. Overjoyed, they returned to their village to go on with their lives. Question 1: Do you think the people of Fuente Ovejuna were justified in rising up against the Commander and his men? Say YES or NO and explain why. WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU! This retelling of Lope de Vega's play script Fuente Ovejuna by Elaine L. Lindy, ©2007 is based upon a translation by Ruth Fainlight and Alan Sillitoe published by Dufour Editions, Inc. in 1969. This story is based upon an actual historical incident that took place in the village of Fuente Ovejuna in Castile in 1476. While under the command of the Order of Calatrava, a commander, Fernán Gómez de Guzmán, mistreated the villagers who later banded together and killed him. When a magistrate was sent by King Ferdinand II of Aragon arrived to investigate, even under the pain of torture, the villagers only responded by saying: "Fuente Ovejuna did it." The play Fuente Ovejuna was written by Spanish playwright Lope de Vega. First published in Madrid in 1619 as part of Docena Parte de las Comedias de Lope de Vega (Volume 12 of the Collected plays of Lope de Vega), the play is believed to have been written between 1612 and 1614. Lope de Vega was extremely prolific. He claimed to have written 1500 plays of which 450 survived (Shakespeare is credited with 38 plays).	<urn:uuid:23e20d48-8c66-4d4d-a9f1-5276288caeca>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.storiestogrowby.org/story/fuente-ovejuna/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251700988.64/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127143516-20200127173516-00421.warc.gz	en	0.984188	2,854	3.40625	3	[ -0.03785410523414612, 0.2158534973859787, -0.035625625401735306, -0.11315266788005829, -0.005435737315565348, 0.009471849538385868, -0.06971068680286407, 0.1608383059501648, 0.1851004958152771, -0.26437103748321533, -0.1642172634601593, 0.07368175685405731, 0.019065897911787033, 0.19899788...	3	"Fuente Did It": The Tale of Fuenteovejuna ~ Legend Stories for Kids This is the true story of one of the earliest uprisings in the European feudal system - a peasant rebellion almost 500 years ago at a Spanish village called Fuente Ovejuna. In this story, the village is known as Fuente. "If we're to be married, let's not waste a second," urged Camila to her beloved fiancé, Lonzo. "Sooner is just fine," said Lonzo, stroking her hair. "But why the rush?" "You know as well as I do the Commander has his eye on me," said Camila. "His servants already tried to tempt me by giving me a new blouse, a necklace, and fine shoes, too. As if I could be bought! He's already done enough damage to the women here at Fuente before. He takes whatever woman he wants. When he's done with her, he throws her back to us like a chewed bone. And we all do nothing!" "No one will take you away from me," cried Lonzo, gripping her arm. "If only it were true!" said Camila. "Tell that to poor Olivia, or to Maria, or Inez!" "Or Hector's wife," Lonzo added, grimly. Camila sighed. "None of us here at our village Fuente is safe. No one knows what is going on here. Not even King Ferdinand or Queen Isabella." It so happened that Camila's father, Salvadore, was the mayor of Fuente. Later that day, Lonzo went to her father, the Mayor to ask his for permission to marry his daughter, and to marry her that very week. You probably know that today, young men usually don't need to ask permission from the parents of the young woman they wish to marry. Yet even today, many times young men still do this and parents are often glad to be asked. But this story happened nearly 500 years ago. And those were the days when parents had to say "yes" for a marriage to go ahead. Of this match Camila's father, the Mayor Salvadore, was glad to agree. Lonzo was a fine young man and he knew his daughter Camila was much in love with him. And so the wedding was quickly planned. Musicians wrote special songs and the village square was decorated with garlands of roses. On the wedding day, when the two lovers were about to exchange their vows, in marched the Commander with his servants. The Commander was returning triumphant from battle. But he had not fought for his own king and queen of Spain, Ferdinard and Isabella, to whom he had pledged his loyalty. Instead, the Commander chose to fight for their enemy, King of Portugal. The sly Commander knew that if he could help the Portuguese king defeat King Ferdinand and Queen Isabela and throw them off the throne, the Commander would be rewarded with a large track of land to rule - perhaps even Castile, the largest region in Spain. It seemed that day was sooner than ever, since his forces had just captured an important border town for the Portuguese king. Fresh from his victory, the Commander knew how he wanted to celebrate. He looked around at the stunned wedding guests. Said the Commander in a smooth, steely voice, "Don't let me interrupt the ceremony. No one need be alarmed - unless they have done me any harm, or plan to." Mayor Salvadore frantically motioned to his daughter Camila and Lonzo to escape out the back door, but the door was locked. Then the Mayor turned to the Commander and said in an even voice, "Whatever you say, my lord. Won't you sit down? Did your soldiers defeat the enemy? How can we honor your victory?" "Stupid old fool!" snapped the Commander. "You know very well why I'm here." Facing Camila, he said with a twisted smile, "Minx, come here." "Sir!" said the mayor. "Today is my daughter's wedding day!" "What insolence!" yelled the Commander. "How dare you - or anyone else in this miserable village - have the nerve to act as if you were my equal!" To his servants, the Commander directed, "This wretch is Mayor no more. Take away his staff of office!" "You can have it!" said Salvadore, thrusting out his staff. A servant snatched the mayor's staff and handed it to the Commander. Furious, he broke the staff in two over the mayor's head. "And I shall do with it as I wish!" Salvadore saw that all was lost. He was no longer mayor, and spoke in a small voice. "Very well then. If that is what you wish. You are our master." "Father, no!" cried Camila, as the Commander's servants separated her from Lonzo, and dragged them both away. That day, Salvadore spread the word to the other men of Fuente to meet him at the village square that night. Gathered at the square as the moon rose, he said, "My daughter Camila is in such danger now I will surely go mad!" he moaned. "And Lonzo is locked in the tower." "Not so loud," urged his brother. "We must keep this meeting secret." "But we must do something!" The father paced back and forth. "There isn't a single person among us who hasn't been insulted by that savage lord. And now look what he has done!" "We should go to King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella," suggested one villager. "We can march to their castle with a petition of all our names." "We haven't time to gather names!" cried Salvadore. "And why would the King and Queen even believe us? They could still believe the Commander is loyal to them. Then they might wipe out our whole village for being disloyal and complaining to them about him." "We have no choice," said one farmer. "We must abandon the village. We'll carry our grain into the mountains and live in caves from now on." "Is that how we're going to live?" cried another. "Something must be done!" cried Salvadore. "What are we afraid of?" Suddenly Camila staggered in. Her face was cut and bruised, and her hair was rumpled. "Oh my daughter!" Salvadore rushed toward her. "How did you manage to escape?" "With no help from you!" Camila pulled back from her father. She stared at all the men with a crazed look. "The Commander dragged me away and not one of you tried to prevent it. You all just stood there. As if the Commander were a man with more arms and more legs than you have, or has more than human strength. He is only a man! - an ordinary, human, a small man, even. All we need are weapons. Give ME weapons - I'll avenge myself and all your wives. You cowards stand around and do nothing but talk, talk, talk. Keep sitting around and talking, for all I care. We women will kill these tyrants, even if we have to stone them ourselves!" She drew in her breath. "The Commander ordered Lonzo to be hung without trial. Next, he'll do the same to all of you. I can't say I'll miss you!" "Daughter," whispered Salvadore, "we don't deserve such vile talk. I'll go alone to face the Commander." "I'll go with you!" said another man. "Me, too!" said yet another. Calling "Death to the Tyrant!" the men charged off. Quickly Camila gathered the women. "Every man and boy is looking for weapons to fight with. But why leave the work to them? Aren't we women the one who have been outraged the most?" "Of course!" they all agreed. "But what can we do?" "We must attack his castle," she said. "Whatever comes of it, so be it!" As the men stormed the Commander's castle, an army of women came close behind. In short order, the Commander was killed, and all his servants taken prisoner. "What do we do now?" whispered one. "Surely we will die for what we have done!" said another with fear in his voice. "Listen to me," said Salvadore. "I speak in the interests of all the village. The king and queen will learn what happened here in Fuente. They are bound to send a judge to find out who is to blame. We must consider what we are going to say." "What is your advice?" said Lonzo, who had been freed in the storming of the Commander's castle. "We must all say, 'Fuente killed the Commander' and name no single person." "You mean, our entire village killed the Commander?" said one, confused. "Yes," said Salvadore. "For that is what happened. Our village of Fuente did it. Everyone, do you agree?" "Yes," said one and all. They would say, "Fuente did it." As predicted, King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella sent a judge to enact justice for the unexpected killing of the Commander and his men. But when the villagers were interrogated, even whipped, they did not say who killed the Commander. All they said, one and all, was, "Fuente did it." The judge had no choice but to return to court with this report. "I came to Fuente, your Majesties, as you ordered, and set about my investigations. I have not one word of proof. The whole village behaved in a most stubborn manner. Each and every one of them answered my questions as to who had killed the Commander by saying, ' Fuente did it.' The very name of the town! I can assure you, my lord, that I exercised all the vigor the law allows me, but neither threats, pain nor promises had any success. Therefore the only judgement I can recommend is that you order the entire village to be executed - or that you forgive all of them. They are all here to be questioned if you wish." King Ferdinand nodded. "Let them come in." And so all the men and women of Fuente crowded into the royal court. "Are these the murderers?" said Queen Isabella, scanning the cluster of farmers and peasants gathering nervously before her. Camila's father stepped forward. "Your Majesties, we are the people of Fuente who come to seek protection, and to serve you. We were oppressed and subjected by the Commander, as if we were not villagers but slaves who must suffer in silence. Now we appeal to you for mercy so that we may restore our dignity and honor. The cause of the Commander's death was his own tyranny. He stole our lands and produce, he ravished our women, and he showed us no mercy." "It's true, Your Majesties," said Lonzo. "You see this girl who has made me the most fortunate man in the world? On our wedding night he took her from me to his own house." Salvadore bowed low. "Your Majesties, we appeal to you for mercy. You are our King and Queen. We already put your coat of arms in our marketplace." "Well," said the King. "We have no written evidence against you, for no one has confessed. Your crime was indeed grave. But perhaps your sufferings justified it." "I agree," said Queen Isabella. "Such hardy villagers will make fine soldiers for our armies to fight the Moors." She opened her arms before the group. "We pardon you. Your village of Fuente is under our direct protection from now on. Be ready to be called upon to fight in service of the Spanish crown." And so the people of Fuente were forgiven by King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella. Overjoyed, they returned to their village to go on with their lives. Question 1: Do you think the people of Fuente Ovejuna were justified in rising up against the Commander and his men? Say YES or NO and explain why. WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU! This retelling of Lope de Vega's play script Fuente Ovejuna by Elaine L. Lindy, ©2007 is based upon a translation by Ruth Fainlight and Alan Sillitoe published by Dufour Editions, Inc. in 1969. This story is based upon an actual historical incident that took place in the village of Fuente Ovejuna in Castile in 1476. While under the command of the Order of Calatrava, a commander, Fernán Gómez de Guzmán, mistreated the villagers who later banded together and killed him. When a magistrate was sent by King Ferdinand II of Aragon arrived to investigate, even under the pain of torture, the villagers only responded by saying: "Fuente Ovejuna did it." The play Fuente Ovejuna was written by Spanish playwright Lope de Vega. First published in Madrid in 1619 as part of Docena Parte de las Comedias de Lope de Vega (Volume 12 of the Collected plays of Lope de Vega), the play is believed to have been written between 1612 and 1614. Lope de Vega was extremely prolific. He claimed to have written 1500 plays of which 450 survived (Shakespeare is credited with 38 plays).	2,806	ENGLISH	1
This article was first published in the April 2011 issue of BBC History Magazine The population would have absolutely stunk. They did not wash very often. They often didn’t have more than one set of clothes. There was very little idea of personal sanitation, and in the summer they would all have been hot and sweaty. The only source of water for washing was the river and we know gong farmers, people that emptied the latrines, would have gone and washed there. But of course the river was also the receptacle for all the mess. We think people would have avoided washing in the winter. After a period of warmer weather from about the 10th to the 13th centuries, it got quite cool again and so sometimes the Thames would have been frozen for weeks on end, so there would have been limited opportunities to bathe there. I think you’d probably avoid bathing in the river if it was cold. Given how much perfume the richer people wore, I think it’s fair to assume that some of the slummy areas, the overcrowded areas, were pretty stinking, partly thanks to the inhabitants. Nonetheless, our information is that people did regard washing as rather effete. Bathing just wasn’t that regular – it’s a total inversion of our modern obsession with daily washing. The river was basically the only means of getting sewage, certainly liquid waste, out of the city. The river was the way they got drinking water but also where they dumped all their waste. No wonder the fish died – it would have been absolutely foul. The off-cuts, the various bits of offal, things that weren’t going to be eaten from the butchers, these were wheeled down in wheelbarrows to the Thames and dumped off a specially constructed pier in an attempt to put them in the middle of the river, the fastest-flowing part. Corpses would have been knocking about in the river too. Dick Whittington built public privies over the river, suspended on wooden piles where you could go and excrete straight in the water. It was seen as a handy way to get rid of human waste. One advantage that London had over Paris is that at least the river was very tidal, so there is relatively fresh water coming in twice a day – it’s acting as a huge flushing system for London. The Seine is not tidal – it’s very placid, gently flowing – so it would have been absolutely filthy. The sewers and the streets were virtually indistinguishable. There really wasn’t much of a sewerage system, there would just be gutters running down the edge of some streets. And indeed ditches that were dug down the middle of the street with a slight camber on them as well. The streets were the receptacles for all waste. There were chamber pots being emptied into them. There were the entrails of slaughtered animals, the dead cats, the dogs. Barber-surgeons were obsessed by letting blood and that would have been drained off in the street as well. We know that in the summer, when the rain didn’t come, the streets would have just piled high with the detritus of the city. The street would have been so disgusting that the people wore pattens. These were worn over a normal shoe and were effectively wooden clogs raising you off the ground. They would elevate you above the human effluent and the mess that was in the streets. ‘Pattens’ comes from patt, meaning animal hoof. In fact, the guild for shoemakers in Britain is still called the Worshipful Company of Pattenmakers. They made me a pair and I attempted to walk around on fish entrails, cow poo, mud and stuff – it was great fun. Tanning was an incredibly important process. It turns animal hides into leather, which is obviously hugely useful. I went through the tanning process and it was a totally rancid thing to do. There are huge amounts of waste products at every stage. There’s alkali run-off from the initial process of soaking the hides. There’s the urine and dog poo that you use to treat the hides. You have to separate the subcutaneous fat from the animal skin with a big knife, to shave all the residual fat off the hide. That is basically a waste product. Tanning was an absolutely foul process, which stank, and also created chemical compounds sometimes that were actually very, very dangerous – they’d burn your mouth. The authorities tried to regulate where the tanneries and the slaughterhouses could be. As the medieval period went on, there was an attempt to regulate London more. Wealthy families would have had a private latrine in the back garden and obviously that had to be cleaned out, by gong farmers or muckrackers. Otherwise, latrines were communal. One man called Richard the Raker famously drowned in one of these cesspits. Gong farmers and muckrakers were well paid. They would come in at night and shovel the waste out, using carts to carry it away. There’s no way of controlling the smell but you could try to keep on top of it by emptying the cesspits. As you can imagine, if there was torrential rain they’d overflow and just join the mess in the streets. Thanks to the Books of Assizes, which contain records of complaints by neighbours, we know about two dodgy plumbers who built a toilet over the street with an overhang so that the waste would just drop down into the street. We also know about a woman who used guttering to carry away her waste. Her neighbours complained because when it rained their gutters became full of her excrement. Dan Snow is an author and historian who has written, researched and presented many TV documentaries. He spoke to Jonathan Wright about his BBC Two series Filthy Cities, which he presented in 2011.	<urn:uuid:2285de18-a569-47f7-b69b-ac852c206519>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.historyextra.com/period/medieval/medieval-londons-worst-smells/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250601040.47/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120224950-20200121013950-00016.warc.gz	en	0.986368	1,254	3.375	3	[ -0.180317685008049, -0.17361828684806824, 0.5893934965133667, -0.11020355671644211, 0.3354313373565674, -0.3281015157699585, 0.2774696350097656, -0.0882795974612236, -0.16884735226631165, -0.09010066837072372, -0.05380590632557869, -0.48535215854644775, 0.11391270160675049, -0.123402073979...	3	This article was first published in the April 2011 issue of BBC History Magazine The population would have absolutely stunk. They did not wash very often. They often didn’t have more than one set of clothes. There was very little idea of personal sanitation, and in the summer they would all have been hot and sweaty. The only source of water for washing was the river and we know gong farmers, people that emptied the latrines, would have gone and washed there. But of course the river was also the receptacle for all the mess. We think people would have avoided washing in the winter. After a period of warmer weather from about the 10th to the 13th centuries, it got quite cool again and so sometimes the Thames would have been frozen for weeks on end, so there would have been limited opportunities to bathe there. I think you’d probably avoid bathing in the river if it was cold. Given how much perfume the richer people wore, I think it’s fair to assume that some of the slummy areas, the overcrowded areas, were pretty stinking, partly thanks to the inhabitants. Nonetheless, our information is that people did regard washing as rather effete. Bathing just wasn’t that regular – it’s a total inversion of our modern obsession with daily washing. The river was basically the only means of getting sewage, certainly liquid waste, out of the city. The river was the way they got drinking water but also where they dumped all their waste. No wonder the fish died – it would have been absolutely foul. The off-cuts, the various bits of offal, things that weren’t going to be eaten from the butchers, these were wheeled down in wheelbarrows to the Thames and dumped off a specially constructed pier in an attempt to put them in the middle of the river, the fastest-flowing part. Corpses would have been knocking about in the river too. Dick Whittington built public privies over the river, suspended on wooden piles where you could go and excrete straight in the water. It was seen as a handy way to get rid of human waste. One advantage that London had over Paris is that at least the river was very tidal, so there is relatively fresh water coming in twice a day – it’s acting as a huge flushing system for London. The Seine is not tidal – it’s very placid, gently flowing – so it would have been absolutely filthy. The sewers and the streets were virtually indistinguishable. There really wasn’t much of a sewerage system, there would just be gutters running down the edge of some streets. And indeed ditches that were dug down the middle of the street with a slight camber on them as well. The streets were the receptacles for all waste. There were chamber pots being emptied into them. There were the entrails of slaughtered animals, the dead cats, the dogs. Barber-surgeons were obsessed by letting blood and that would have been drained off in the street as well. We know that in the summer, when the rain didn’t come, the streets would have just piled high with the detritus of the city. The street would have been so disgusting that the people wore pattens. These were worn over a normal shoe and were effectively wooden clogs raising you off the ground. They would elevate you above the human effluent and the mess that was in the streets. ‘Pattens’ comes from patt, meaning animal hoof. In fact, the guild for shoemakers in Britain is still called the Worshipful Company of Pattenmakers. They made me a pair and I attempted to walk around on fish entrails, cow poo, mud and stuff – it was great fun. Tanning was an incredibly important process. It turns animal hides into leather, which is obviously hugely useful. I went through the tanning process and it was a totally rancid thing to do. There are huge amounts of waste products at every stage. There’s alkali run-off from the initial process of soaking the hides. There’s the urine and dog poo that you use to treat the hides. You have to separate the subcutaneous fat from the animal skin with a big knife, to shave all the residual fat off the hide. That is basically a waste product. Tanning was an absolutely foul process, which stank, and also created chemical compounds sometimes that were actually very, very dangerous – they’d burn your mouth. The authorities tried to regulate where the tanneries and the slaughterhouses could be. As the medieval period went on, there was an attempt to regulate London more. Wealthy families would have had a private latrine in the back garden and obviously that had to be cleaned out, by gong farmers or muckrackers. Otherwise, latrines were communal. One man called Richard the Raker famously drowned in one of these cesspits. Gong farmers and muckrakers were well paid. They would come in at night and shovel the waste out, using carts to carry it away. There’s no way of controlling the smell but you could try to keep on top of it by emptying the cesspits. As you can imagine, if there was torrential rain they’d overflow and just join the mess in the streets. Thanks to the Books of Assizes, which contain records of complaints by neighbours, we know about two dodgy plumbers who built a toilet over the street with an overhang so that the waste would just drop down into the street. We also know about a woman who used guttering to carry away her waste. Her neighbours complained because when it rained their gutters became full of her excrement. Dan Snow is an author and historian who has written, researched and presented many TV documentaries. He spoke to Jonathan Wright about his BBC Two series Filthy Cities, which he presented in 2011.	1,207	ENGLISH	1
Some of the most painful and torturous of all illnesses are those of the mind. There are many of instances of insanity among humans throughout history, some dating back to around 400 B.C. (PBS). These people were not considered human, but instead they were looked at as animals. There were several attempts to “cure” people of this kind, yet most were inhumane and brutal forms of torture. Many times, especially in early history, these people would be locked away and treated as if they had no purpose but to waste space. The way mentally insane people were treated throughout history was brutal and horrific. In the early years dating back to 400 B.C. In ancient Egypt, Greece, India, and Rome there are writings of mentally ill people being described as “demonically possessed” ("Greeks & Romans."). For example, in the stone age, they believed people to be possessed with demons and they would drill a hole into the affected persons skull to give the demons a way of passage out of the body. The ancient Egyptians felt the same way about mentally ill being demonically possessed, but instead of drilling a hole in the skull they would treat them physically with herbal medicines and things such as that. ("Ancient Egypt.") Yet in the Greek civilizations, disorders of the mind would be considered dishonorable and the affected would more than likely be shunned. There was, though, one mind who thought differently. Hippocrates was a well known philosopher. He believed that mentally ill people had a disease of the brain rather than the popular belief that they had insulted and brought anger to the gods. He disagreed completely with the treatment of the mental and the punishments they were given, mostly because he believed they had no control over their mental stability. ("Greeks & Romans.") This was a very drastic difference in thought during that time. During the middle ages, christianity was becoming increasingly influential throughout the world. Because of this influence, new theories about mental illness were surfacing. Thus including the idea that the body is ruled by the soul and a person who was acting without their soul was possessed by a demon. When a person was believed to be possessed, there were many ways people would attempt to be rid of them. One more popular treatment was that of an exorcism. Exorcisms are the more popular and well known treatments, even to this day. Also, they would do minor treatments such as shaving a cross into the hair of the person affected or making them drink ice cold water or listen in on a church service. (web citation). A more vulgar way of treating the mentally ill was to make the demon “uncomfortable” by placing the affected under hot water or sulphur fumes. Many of the mentally ill were placed into dungeons and given little to no food and water, little clothing, and were beaten regularly. (cite) Because of these things, many of the ill would not last very long. During the 1800’s mental illness...	<urn:uuid:a9c97f8a-9c25-4b4b-9fb0-8709292e95db>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://brightkite.com/essay-on/treatment-of-this-mentally-ill	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251671078.88/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125071430-20200125100430-00365.warc.gz	en	0.9903	613	3.421875	3	[ -0.043846145272254944, 0.5386568307876587, 0.45152634382247925, 0.06327034533023834, 0.05615523084998131, 0.12176794558763504, 0.45947521924972534, 0.13726454973220825, -0.013393227010965347, -0.11757611483335495, 0.22270216047763824, 0.013932796195149422, -0.12766778469085693, 0.040866263...	1	Some of the most painful and torturous of all illnesses are those of the mind. There are many of instances of insanity among humans throughout history, some dating back to around 400 B.C. (PBS). These people were not considered human, but instead they were looked at as animals. There were several attempts to “cure” people of this kind, yet most were inhumane and brutal forms of torture. Many times, especially in early history, these people would be locked away and treated as if they had no purpose but to waste space. The way mentally insane people were treated throughout history was brutal and horrific. In the early years dating back to 400 B.C. In ancient Egypt, Greece, India, and Rome there are writings of mentally ill people being described as “demonically possessed” ("Greeks & Romans."). For example, in the stone age, they believed people to be possessed with demons and they would drill a hole into the affected persons skull to give the demons a way of passage out of the body. The ancient Egyptians felt the same way about mentally ill being demonically possessed, but instead of drilling a hole in the skull they would treat them physically with herbal medicines and things such as that. ("Ancient Egypt.") Yet in the Greek civilizations, disorders of the mind would be considered dishonorable and the affected would more than likely be shunned. There was, though, one mind who thought differently. Hippocrates was a well known philosopher. He believed that mentally ill people had a disease of the brain rather than the popular belief that they had insulted and brought anger to the gods. He disagreed completely with the treatment of the mental and the punishments they were given, mostly because he believed they had no control over their mental stability. ("Greeks & Romans.") This was a very drastic difference in thought during that time. During the middle ages, christianity was becoming increasingly influential throughout the world. Because of this influence, new theories about mental illness were surfacing. Thus including the idea that the body is ruled by the soul and a person who was acting without their soul was possessed by a demon. When a person was believed to be possessed, there were many ways people would attempt to be rid of them. One more popular treatment was that of an exorcism. Exorcisms are the more popular and well known treatments, even to this day. Also, they would do minor treatments such as shaving a cross into the hair of the person affected or making them drink ice cold water or listen in on a church service. (web citation). A more vulgar way of treating the mentally ill was to make the demon “uncomfortable” by placing the affected under hot water or sulphur fumes. Many of the mentally ill were placed into dungeons and given little to no food and water, little clothing, and were beaten regularly. (cite) Because of these things, many of the ill would not last very long. During the 1800’s mental illness...	613	ENGLISH	1
It has been a puzzle to many economists for long time why Korean economy has grown faster than most of other devel oping countries. The experience of Korean economic growth has now become a classic example of a successful story of dev elopment and industrialization. It is very often said that the rapid economic growth and industrialization of Korea since the early 1960s is primarily attributable to its people, not only diligent but also well-educated. When Korean economy initiated its mode ization and development in the early 1960s, it had almost nothing but human resources as meaningful factors of economic growth and development. Arable land accounted for less than a quarter of the total area. The country had one of the highest population density in the world. It had significantly limited natural resource. In addition, due to its historical reasons, Korea had all of the disadvantages of underdevelopment: a lack of accumulated capital and technology and a scarcity of appropriate institutions and enterprises. The only asset that Korea could rely on for its economic growth and development was its abundant human resources with a relatively high level of education, motivation, trainability, and ability to work together.	<urn:uuid:3945f45f-b36b-423e-8e74-511e9216cb4b>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.happycampus.com/report-doc/1026621/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250609478.50/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123071220-20200123100220-00137.warc.gz	en	0.982518	228	3.328125	3	[ -0.3223091959953308, 0.15448406338691711, 0.5232235789299011, -0.09781716018915176, 0.5182784199714661, -0.19670721888542175, 0.05029208958148956, 0.1555677056312561, -0.341671884059906, -0.17647232115268707, 0.45965147018432617, 0.19465285539627075, 0.5805813670158386, 0.11738835275173187...	1	It has been a puzzle to many economists for long time why Korean economy has grown faster than most of other devel oping countries. The experience of Korean economic growth has now become a classic example of a successful story of dev elopment and industrialization. It is very often said that the rapid economic growth and industrialization of Korea since the early 1960s is primarily attributable to its people, not only diligent but also well-educated. When Korean economy initiated its mode ization and development in the early 1960s, it had almost nothing but human resources as meaningful factors of economic growth and development. Arable land accounted for less than a quarter of the total area. The country had one of the highest population density in the world. It had significantly limited natural resource. In addition, due to its historical reasons, Korea had all of the disadvantages of underdevelopment: a lack of accumulated capital and technology and a scarcity of appropriate institutions and enterprises. The only asset that Korea could rely on for its economic growth and development was its abundant human resources with a relatively high level of education, motivation, trainability, and ability to work together.	233	ENGLISH	1
Between 1206 and 1526, the Delhi Sultanate fought many battles to expand its region. The administration and integration of such a vast kingdom required reliable administrators. Earlier rulers appointed their heirs, chieftains and aristocrats as governors, but Sultan Iltutmish started appointing special slaves called bandagan for administration and military services. The Khaljis and Tughluqs along with using the slaves raised ordinary people to high positions like governors and generals. The loyalty of these administrators to their masters led to political instability in the region. The rulers assigned military commanders the job of regional governors. Each region was called iqta, and the governor was called iqtadar or muqti. The muqti were appointed for a period of time and were responsible for maintaining law and order in their region, leading military campaigns, and collecting tax. Alauddin Khalji and Muhammad Tughluq brought the hinterland of the cities under their control, and imposed their authority on the local chieftains and rich landlords called samanthas. The land was reassessed and collection of land revenue was brought under the control of the state. Now, the local chieftains could not impose tax on the subjects, and were themselves forced to pay tax. The rights of the local chieftains to impose tax were revoked, and they were forced to pay tax. As per the state law taxes were imposed on cultivation, known as Kharaj, cattle and houses. However, the region under the Sultan was continuously increasing, but many areas faced instability as the newly conquered regions would soon gain independence after being conquered.	<urn:uuid:c6e56bfd-6e4f-4f2a-8896-ed4250a9aece>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://www.nextgurukul.in/wiki/concept/cbse/class-7/history/the-delhi-sultans/administration-and-consolidation/3959624	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250608295.52/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123041345-20200123070345-00121.warc.gz	en	0.985441	331	3.921875	4	[ -0.32829225063323975, 0.4646809995174408, 0.43425652384757996, -0.1700630933046341, -0.32340943813323975, -0.18679021298885345, 0.2593526840209961, -0.3176226317882538, -0.36709076166152954, 0.21796509623527527, 0.2207270711660385, -0.39297014474868774, -0.11339917778968811, 0.093758516013...	2	Between 1206 and 1526, the Delhi Sultanate fought many battles to expand its region. The administration and integration of such a vast kingdom required reliable administrators. Earlier rulers appointed their heirs, chieftains and aristocrats as governors, but Sultan Iltutmish started appointing special slaves called bandagan for administration and military services. The Khaljis and Tughluqs along with using the slaves raised ordinary people to high positions like governors and generals. The loyalty of these administrators to their masters led to political instability in the region. The rulers assigned military commanders the job of regional governors. Each region was called iqta, and the governor was called iqtadar or muqti. The muqti were appointed for a period of time and were responsible for maintaining law and order in their region, leading military campaigns, and collecting tax. Alauddin Khalji and Muhammad Tughluq brought the hinterland of the cities under their control, and imposed their authority on the local chieftains and rich landlords called samanthas. The land was reassessed and collection of land revenue was brought under the control of the state. Now, the local chieftains could not impose tax on the subjects, and were themselves forced to pay tax. The rights of the local chieftains to impose tax were revoked, and they were forced to pay tax. As per the state law taxes were imposed on cultivation, known as Kharaj, cattle and houses. However, the region under the Sultan was continuously increasing, but many areas faced instability as the newly conquered regions would soon gain independence after being conquered.	334	ENGLISH	1
The North Atlantic Treaty was signed in 1949. However, Article 5 was neither triggered in 1961 when the Portuguese Colonial War started in Angola, nor after the Gulf of Tonkin Incident (1964) that started the (overt) U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. Portugal, as a founding member nation of NATO, could have activated Article 5 for U.S. and U.K. engagement in the war, and perhaps they could have kept their African colonies till today. Instead, the long lasting war triggered the April 1974 coup d'état in mainland Portugal, led to the collapse of the Estado Novo (the 2nd Republic) and its African colonial empire. The U.S. was attacked by North Vietnam, and Portugal suffered from Cuba's intervention in Angola. Both NATO members were attacked by sovereign nations. Why, in these circumstances, was not only Article 5 not triggered, but also NATO as a military alliance did nothing to help?	<urn:uuid:d9bebe5f-8059-4a80-8be6-42f83a3ef6d8>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/16763/why-was-the-north-atlantic-treatys-article-5-not-triggered-in-the-60s-and-70s	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250589861.0/warc/CC-MAIN-20200117152059-20200117180059-00444.warc.gz	en	0.983518	197	3.671875	4	[ -0.6057655215263367, 0.4247909188270569, 0.24636836349964142, -0.1420048177242279, 0.029235364869236946, 0.08381427824497223, -0.11774513125419617, 0.034431714564561844, 0.02949908748269081, -0.06388042122125626, 0.6767595410346985, -0.1122271940112114, -0.2763584852218628, 0.5869932770729...	5	The North Atlantic Treaty was signed in 1949. However, Article 5 was neither triggered in 1961 when the Portuguese Colonial War started in Angola, nor after the Gulf of Tonkin Incident (1964) that started the (overt) U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War. Portugal, as a founding member nation of NATO, could have activated Article 5 for U.S. and U.K. engagement in the war, and perhaps they could have kept their African colonies till today. Instead, the long lasting war triggered the April 1974 coup d'état in mainland Portugal, led to the collapse of the Estado Novo (the 2nd Republic) and its African colonial empire. The U.S. was attacked by North Vietnam, and Portugal suffered from Cuba's intervention in Angola. Both NATO members were attacked by sovereign nations. Why, in these circumstances, was not only Article 5 not triggered, but also NATO as a military alliance did nothing to help?	208	ENGLISH	1
Meudon – André Kertész – 1928 1. What is photography’s “true genius”? ‘How can something that reveals so much, keep so much to itself?’ This quotation taken from the documentary, states that although photography is able to capture a moment in time, not all is seen. The true genius of Photography is, to make us think; something that evokes a feeling or a thought that is then spoken about and shared. ‘Shellshocked US Marine’ – Don McCullin – 1968 The way that this photograph was perceived by a nation changed history, the thoughts that were evoked when seeing this image shocked the world. As an audience we cannot begin to fathom what the soldier has been through, the photo ‘keeping so much to itself’ yet at the same time we are able to see that the soldier has gone through so much trauma he looks almost lifeless, this ‘revealing so much’ as it’s effects changed history and helped to end the war. 2. Name a proto-photographer. Henry-Fox Talbot. His experimentations with silver salt covered paper led him to invent the Calotype process – the process that used the idea of positive and negative prints. 3. In the 19th century, what term was associated with the daguerreotype? ‘Mirror with a memory’ – the daguerreotype, was one of the earliest examples of a time and place that had been frozen for eternity. 4. What is the vernacular? Vernacular in photography is a type of photography created for purposes that are outside of art. It is a genre of photography that contains journalistic, touristic, scientific, forensic, legal and every day family and friend photographs; basically all things except art. 5. How do you “Fix the Shadows”? It was found that in the 1830’s there were certain chemicals that were light sensitive, for example silver chloride and silver nitrate. What was needed was to find a way of ‘fixing’ the image to stop the exposure; however it was something that proved to be difficult. Henry Fox Talbot had a method of fixing the shadows, it was through camera obscura; he had a mouse trap camera set up that held the negative and the paper but it only exposed for a short amount of time. Louis Daguerre also had a method of fixing the shadows; he created the daguerreotype in order to stop the shadows. The basic process of this was to fix his images on a mirrored metal plate. 6. What is the “carte de visite”? Carte de visite are small photos printed on pieces of card, their purpose to exchange between family and friends. Due to their size it was easy to send through post, and a lot cheaper than large format prints. 7. Who was Nadar and why was he so successful? Gaspard Felix Tournachon , also known as Nadar was a successful artist turned photographer. The name Nadar was created as his ‘franchise’ – with a personal touch of red lettering it became his own brand, this making him one of the most well-known commercial photographers. Nadar – Self Portrait In the studio, Nadar had mastered the ‘natural expression’ within portraits, something that was unknown in the 1800’s. Nadar photographed upcoming artists and celebrities, the way he photographed them, was to make them seem as natural as possible – photographing them to be equals. Without the conventional mock up settings other photographers used, Nadar was able to capture his clients in an authentic and beautiful manner, capturing the real them. This method of his created the best portraits of the time. Nadar – Franz Lisztn 8. What is pictorialism? Pictorialism is the genre of photography that was created by fine art artists, to use against the Vernacular photography that was becoming ever so popular. The Pictorialism artists focused on the style of photography as oppose to the content; they created fictional words making situations that didn’t exist. The photographs projected an emotional intent into the viewer’s imagination. This genre of photography was a visual appealing movement and it lead photography in the late 19th/early 20th century. Elias Goldensky – Portrait of Three Women	<urn:uuid:6719f613-4023-4340-abcc-a06ad3b8ff9d>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://thisisnishaparmarsblog.wordpress.com/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251700675.78/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127112805-20200127142805-00290.warc.gz	en	0.980039	932	3.359375	3	[ -0.3644114136695862, 0.3394600749015808, 0.06840714812278748, -0.011681517586112022, 0.28934991359710693, -0.026395762339234352, 0.24431949853897095, 0.14527881145477295, -0.7439172863960266, -0.2394966185092926, 0.18916547298431396, -0.35963761806488037, -0.041749320924282074, 0.575802922...	1	Meudon – André Kertész – 1928 1. What is photography’s “true genius”? ‘How can something that reveals so much, keep so much to itself?’ This quotation taken from the documentary, states that although photography is able to capture a moment in time, not all is seen. The true genius of Photography is, to make us think; something that evokes a feeling or a thought that is then spoken about and shared. ‘Shellshocked US Marine’ – Don McCullin – 1968 The way that this photograph was perceived by a nation changed history, the thoughts that were evoked when seeing this image shocked the world. As an audience we cannot begin to fathom what the soldier has been through, the photo ‘keeping so much to itself’ yet at the same time we are able to see that the soldier has gone through so much trauma he looks almost lifeless, this ‘revealing so much’ as it’s effects changed history and helped to end the war. 2. Name a proto-photographer. Henry-Fox Talbot. His experimentations with silver salt covered paper led him to invent the Calotype process – the process that used the idea of positive and negative prints. 3. In the 19th century, what term was associated with the daguerreotype? ‘Mirror with a memory’ – the daguerreotype, was one of the earliest examples of a time and place that had been frozen for eternity. 4. What is the vernacular? Vernacular in photography is a type of photography created for purposes that are outside of art. It is a genre of photography that contains journalistic, touristic, scientific, forensic, legal and every day family and friend photographs; basically all things except art. 5. How do you “Fix the Shadows”? It was found that in the 1830’s there were certain chemicals that were light sensitive, for example silver chloride and silver nitrate. What was needed was to find a way of ‘fixing’ the image to stop the exposure; however it was something that proved to be difficult. Henry Fox Talbot had a method of fixing the shadows, it was through camera obscura; he had a mouse trap camera set up that held the negative and the paper but it only exposed for a short amount of time. Louis Daguerre also had a method of fixing the shadows; he created the daguerreotype in order to stop the shadows. The basic process of this was to fix his images on a mirrored metal plate. 6. What is the “carte de visite”? Carte de visite are small photos printed on pieces of card, their purpose to exchange between family and friends. Due to their size it was easy to send through post, and a lot cheaper than large format prints. 7. Who was Nadar and why was he so successful? Gaspard Felix Tournachon , also known as Nadar was a successful artist turned photographer. The name Nadar was created as his ‘franchise’ – with a personal touch of red lettering it became his own brand, this making him one of the most well-known commercial photographers. Nadar – Self Portrait In the studio, Nadar had mastered the ‘natural expression’ within portraits, something that was unknown in the 1800’s. Nadar photographed upcoming artists and celebrities, the way he photographed them, was to make them seem as natural as possible – photographing them to be equals. Without the conventional mock up settings other photographers used, Nadar was able to capture his clients in an authentic and beautiful manner, capturing the real them. This method of his created the best portraits of the time. Nadar – Franz Lisztn 8. What is pictorialism? Pictorialism is the genre of photography that was created by fine art artists, to use against the Vernacular photography that was becoming ever so popular. The Pictorialism artists focused on the style of photography as oppose to the content; they created fictional words making situations that didn’t exist. The photographs projected an emotional intent into the viewer’s imagination. This genre of photography was a visual appealing movement and it lead photography in the late 19th/early 20th century. Elias Goldensky – Portrait of Three Women	887	ENGLISH	1
General Robert E. Lee was up before dawn on the fateful morning of July 3, 1863. Over a “meager” breakfast, he discussed his plan for a frontal assault on Union forces entrenched on the higher ground on Cemetery Ridge. His inner circle of Field Generals was openly skeptical. He is said to have told them, “The enemy is here and I intend to strike him.” The previous two days of intense fighting just south of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania had proven inconclusive. Perhaps Lee was brimming with overconfidence. Or maybe he knew that in a long war of attrition, the Union had the advantage. Either way, he believed that his forces could break the center of the Union line. Robert E. Lee owned a plantation just across the Potomac from the District of Columbia. He was attuned to Washington politics and its press. A decisive victory on Northern soil would be a serious blow for Union resolve and their political will to fight on. General George Pickett and his forces had arrived only the day before and had been ordered to stay in the rear. Since his men were fresh, they were chosen to lead the assault. George Pickett was a native Virginian. He shared an interesting factoid with another famous General named George…Custer. They both graduated dead last in their class. Pickett assembled his forces in a magnificent line stretching over a mile long. Before the attack began, Lee ordered all of his cannons to fire, focusing their guns on a clump of trees at the center of the Union line. Union guns began to return fire. Union Generals, sensing the attack was coming, ordered their artillery to hold their fire. Lee could not have known, but much of the massive Confederate cannonade had overshot its targets and done little damage to Union guns or fortifications. Pickett never questioned the order. His Corp Commander, Lt. General James Longstreet believed the assault would be suicidal. When Pickett asked Longstreet for the order to begin the advance, Longstreet only nodded and looked away. Longstreet’s worst fears were realized. As the Confederate forces marched out into the open, the Union guns opened up. As surviving soldiers advanced closer to the Union line, the Union cannons were ordered to “lower the guns to deck level and load with grape shot!” The small steel shot ripped through the rebel ranks coming up the hill. It was a bloodbath. Confederates who did breach the rock wall were either killed or captured. It was the high-water mark of the Confederacy. They had lost thousands of their best soldiers. For the balance of the war, it was a slow retreat for Lee. Grant would chase him all the way to Appomattox. Today, a similar story is playing out. A group of overconfident Democrats, cheered on by their deranged base (and some tortured English from Mr. Mueller) are demanding that their colleagues advance the cause of impeachment. Their fawning followers in the Washington press are egging them on with their daily sniping of the duly elected President. Perhaps they believe that they can break the will of this President and his party to fight on. They willfully ignore the facts. They seriously underestimate this President. They now confront a steely Attorney General in William Barr who has truth, the law and the Mueller Report on his side. Democrats are foolishly demanding a modern day Pickett’s charge into the teeth of an entrenched adversary who occupies the high ground. Unlike Lee, they must know that their loud, nonstop cannonade has missed the mark. They must somehow argue that President Trump’s frustration over an investigation built on a false narrative amounted to obstruction of justice. The public rightly asks how he could obstruct an investigation into a fictional crime? To make matters worse, the coming IG Report and the investigations into the origins of the investigation are just over the hill. Some of their star witnesses are even now being measured for orange jump suits. For now, save your ammunition. When (if) they move on this suicidal assault, wait until they are out in the open. Then lower the (rhetorical) guns to deck level and show no mercy. It will be a bloodbath for their freshmen. Chase them all the way to November. Gil Gutknecht served six terms each in the Minnesota and the U.S. House of Representatives. He writes about healthcare and political issues of the day.	<urn:uuid:776c04ef-5301-43f1-85aa-ba117529a3bd>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	https://townhall.com/columnists/gilgutknecht/2019/06/02/a-modernday-picketts-charge-n2547260	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251801423.98/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129164403-20200129193403-00325.warc.gz	en	0.980231	914	3.421875	3	[ -0.5750996470451355, 0.261625736951828, 0.36202651262283325, 0.26082032918930054, 0.20243483781814575, 0.10971080511808395, 0.17100223898887634, -0.13364700973033905, -0.31862083077430725, -0.008691663853824139, 0.057097308337688446, 0.15594637393951416, 0.3466287851333618, 0.2619583904743...	3	General Robert E. Lee was up before dawn on the fateful morning of July 3, 1863. Over a “meager” breakfast, he discussed his plan for a frontal assault on Union forces entrenched on the higher ground on Cemetery Ridge. His inner circle of Field Generals was openly skeptical. He is said to have told them, “The enemy is here and I intend to strike him.” The previous two days of intense fighting just south of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania had proven inconclusive. Perhaps Lee was brimming with overconfidence. Or maybe he knew that in a long war of attrition, the Union had the advantage. Either way, he believed that his forces could break the center of the Union line. Robert E. Lee owned a plantation just across the Potomac from the District of Columbia. He was attuned to Washington politics and its press. A decisive victory on Northern soil would be a serious blow for Union resolve and their political will to fight on. General George Pickett and his forces had arrived only the day before and had been ordered to stay in the rear. Since his men were fresh, they were chosen to lead the assault. George Pickett was a native Virginian. He shared an interesting factoid with another famous General named George…Custer. They both graduated dead last in their class. Pickett assembled his forces in a magnificent line stretching over a mile long. Before the attack began, Lee ordered all of his cannons to fire, focusing their guns on a clump of trees at the center of the Union line. Union guns began to return fire. Union Generals, sensing the attack was coming, ordered their artillery to hold their fire. Lee could not have known, but much of the massive Confederate cannonade had overshot its targets and done little damage to Union guns or fortifications. Pickett never questioned the order. His Corp Commander, Lt. General James Longstreet believed the assault would be suicidal. When Pickett asked Longstreet for the order to begin the advance, Longstreet only nodded and looked away. Longstreet’s worst fears were realized. As the Confederate forces marched out into the open, the Union guns opened up. As surviving soldiers advanced closer to the Union line, the Union cannons were ordered to “lower the guns to deck level and load with grape shot!” The small steel shot ripped through the rebel ranks coming up the hill. It was a bloodbath. Confederates who did breach the rock wall were either killed or captured. It was the high-water mark of the Confederacy. They had lost thousands of their best soldiers. For the balance of the war, it was a slow retreat for Lee. Grant would chase him all the way to Appomattox. Today, a similar story is playing out. A group of overconfident Democrats, cheered on by their deranged base (and some tortured English from Mr. Mueller) are demanding that their colleagues advance the cause of impeachment. Their fawning followers in the Washington press are egging them on with their daily sniping of the duly elected President. Perhaps they believe that they can break the will of this President and his party to fight on. They willfully ignore the facts. They seriously underestimate this President. They now confront a steely Attorney General in William Barr who has truth, the law and the Mueller Report on his side. Democrats are foolishly demanding a modern day Pickett’s charge into the teeth of an entrenched adversary who occupies the high ground. Unlike Lee, they must know that their loud, nonstop cannonade has missed the mark. They must somehow argue that President Trump’s frustration over an investigation built on a false narrative amounted to obstruction of justice. The public rightly asks how he could obstruct an investigation into a fictional crime? To make matters worse, the coming IG Report and the investigations into the origins of the investigation are just over the hill. Some of their star witnesses are even now being measured for orange jump suits. For now, save your ammunition. When (if) they move on this suicidal assault, wait until they are out in the open. Then lower the (rhetorical) guns to deck level and show no mercy. It will be a bloodbath for their freshmen. Chase them all the way to November. Gil Gutknecht served six terms each in the Minnesota and the U.S. House of Representatives. He writes about healthcare and political issues of the day.	904	ENGLISH	1
MAG is a FREE publication product by AEG Corporation Limited Uk – International Advice. MAG can be downloaded for free in PDF. Many great churches and cathedrals have suffered catastrophic fires over their long histories and medieval chronicles are full of stories of devastation and ruin as a result – but they also tell of how the buildings were reconstructed and made better than ever. The devastating fire that destroyed the roofs and spire of Notre Dame in Paris demonstrated the vulnerabilities of medieval cathedrals and great churches, but also revealed the skills of their master masons. The lead-covered wooden roof structure burned so fast because the fire was able to take hold under the lead and increase in intensity before it was visible from the outside, and it then spread easily to all the other sections of the roof. Notre Dame was saved from total destruction because the medieval builders gave it a stone vault over all the main spaces, and also on the tops of the aisles which meant that the burning timbers and molten lead couldn’t break through easily. But French churches and cathedrals are more at risk than ones in Britain because they don’t usually have a stone tower in the centre to act as a firebreak – this is what saved York Minster in 1984 when the transept roof caught fire but the tower stopped it spreading further. Turning to Britain, medieval chronicles provide fascinating reading for historians as we can find eyewitness accounts of the unfolding disasters when fires occurred in the past. At Croyland Abbey in Lincolnshire, the monk who found the fire in the 12th century rushed to the cloister to wake the sleeping monks in their dormitory, but was burned by the red-hot lead falling from the roof and had to be taken to the infirmary for treatment. Swift action by the other monks saved the building, and the next abbot restored it to its former glory, although the loss of precious manuscripts and documents, “caused them much sorrow”. The canons of the great priory church of Gisborough in north-east England were very unlucky: the masons had just completed a very splendid, and expensive, rebuilding project when they had to start all over again. On May 16, 1289, so the chronicles tell us, a plumber – in medieval times, someone who worked with lead – and his two assistants went up onto the roof to make a few final repairs to the leads. Unfortunately, the plumber left a fire pan on the roof beams when he went down for his lunch, leaving his assistants to put out the fire. This they failed to do, and the whole roof went up in flames, followed by the building and all its contents. Traces of the fire can still be found at the west end of the church, which is virtually all that they were able to save, and a new building arose from the ashes over the next hundred years. Plumbers had to be very careful, they were the only ones who needed to have fires burning close to where they were working, and at Ely Cathedral you can still see where a plumber used the hollow between two arches high up on the back of the west front as a makeshift chimney for his fire. Fortunately, nothing dreadful happened there. At Lincoln cathedral, we can see where the fire in the west front in the 12th century damaged the staircases because these acted as chimneys and spread the fire quickly up into the rest of the building. The building’s limestone turned pink in the extreme heat and it’s clear that the masons had to take down the more damaged parts of the west front to repair the stonework that had been closer to the fire and had cracked. One fascinating detail remains: the masons had to check how deeply the fire damage had penetrated the stone and the marks they cut into the stone are still there. Canterbury Cathedral was struggling to cope with all the pilgrims drawn to the shrine of the murdered Thomas Becket and a fire of 1174 gave the monks the chance to build a fine new building to house his shrine. The eyewitness account has details of the heroic monks rushing into the building to save all its treasures, and it’s even been suggested that this fire wasn’t an accident and was started by the monks themselves as it brought so many benefits in its wake. The master mason gave them a superb new building in the Gothic style and with all the funds pouring in, the monks were able to move back into their church within five years of the fire, although completing the building work took a little longer. For Sir Christopher Wren, the Great Fire of London in 1666 gave him the opportunity he’d been waiting for: to give London the cathedral it needed for the modern age. The medieval cathedral had been falling into disrepair for years and various attempts to patch it up had left it weakened and muddled in appearance. Wandering among the ruins after the fire, Wren was handed a piece of stone from a tomb monument with the word “Resurgam” – I will rise again – carved on it, and this encouraged him to press on with his plans for a whole new building. It took 50 years, but it gave us the St Paul’s Cathedral that we know today. Coventry also rose from the ashes of despair after the firebombing of November 1940 in World War II. The cathedral had been built as one of the city’s great medieval churches and became the city’s cathedral in 1918. It was a fine late-medieval building with a huge timber roof, and this was no match for the fire bombs that rained down on it during Coventry’s blitz. Burning timbers fell straight down into the building and caused a huge bonfire that cracked the slender stone work supports and brought them crashing down. By morning, the building was a devastated shell. Basil Spence, the architect of the new Coventry Cathedral in the 1950s, sensitively integrated the ruins into the design of his new building where they stand as a memorial to the events of the 1940s. The 20th century has seen a few serious fires. York Minster’s huge 1984 fire was believed to have been caused by either lightning, or an electrical fault. York has been very unlucky over the years, it’s had a succession of fires and without stone vaults over the building, the minster has been very vulnerable. After the last restoration, York had the inspired idea of asking school students to design some of the carvings on the new transept vault. The threat of fire in historic buildings is a constant one, and the people who look after the buildings, on a day-to-day basis, or in response to disaster, are unsung heroes who deserve gratitude and support. Notre Dame, Paris will be restored and made glorious once again – fires have always been a risk, and restorations have always been a part of church history. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.	<urn:uuid:dfd13f9d-c68a-4a13-84da-fa5e0d744bf4>	CC-MAIN-2020-05	http://www.aeg-corporation.co.uk/tag/aeg/	s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250601628.36/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121074002-20200121103002-00368.warc.gz	en	0.98243	1,457	3.296875	3	[ -0.23315954208374023, 0.25520849227905273, 0.07738269865512848, 0.22112233936786652, 0.517564058303833, -0.020361490547657013, -0.3671168088912964, 0.057277340441942215, -0.12088073045015335, -0.3064834475517273, -0.6054109930992126, -0.32883310317993164, 0.27762264013290405, 0.13644403219...	3	MAG is a FREE publication product by AEG Corporation Limited Uk – International Advice. MAG can be downloaded for free in PDF. Many great churches and cathedrals have suffered catastrophic fires over their long histories and medieval chronicles are full of stories of devastation and ruin as a result – but they also tell of how the buildings were reconstructed and made better than ever. The devastating fire that destroyed the roofs and spire of Notre Dame in Paris demonstrated the vulnerabilities of medieval cathedrals and great churches, but also revealed the skills of their master masons. The lead-covered wooden roof structure burned so fast because the fire was able to take hold under the lead and increase in intensity before it was visible from the outside, and it then spread easily to all the other sections of the roof. Notre Dame was saved from total destruction because the medieval builders gave it a stone vault over all the main spaces, and also on the tops of the aisles which meant that the burning timbers and molten lead couldn’t break through easily. But French churches and cathedrals are more at risk than ones in Britain because they don’t usually have a stone tower in the centre to act as a firebreak – this is what saved York Minster in 1984 when the transept roof caught fire but the tower stopped it spreading further. Turning to Britain, medieval chronicles provide fascinating reading for historians as we can find eyewitness accounts of the unfolding disasters when fires occurred in the past. At Croyland Abbey in Lincolnshire, the monk who found the fire in the 12th century rushed to the cloister to wake the sleeping monks in their dormitory, but was burned by the red-hot lead falling from the roof and had to be taken to the infirmary for treatment. Swift action by the other monks saved the building, and the next abbot restored it to its former glory, although the loss of precious manuscripts and documents, “caused them much sorrow”. The canons of the great priory church of Gisborough in north-east England were very unlucky: the masons had just completed a very splendid, and expensive, rebuilding project when they had to start all over again. On May 16, 1289, so the chronicles tell us, a plumber – in medieval times, someone who worked with lead – and his two assistants went up onto the roof to make a few final repairs to the leads. Unfortunately, the plumber left a fire pan on the roof beams when he went down for his lunch, leaving his assistants to put out the fire. This they failed to do, and the whole roof went up in flames, followed by the building and all its contents. Traces of the fire can still be found at the west end of the church, which is virtually all that they were able to save, and a new building arose from the ashes over the next hundred years. Plumbers had to be very careful, they were the only ones who needed to have fires burning close to where they were working, and at Ely Cathedral you can still see where a plumber used the hollow between two arches high up on the back of the west front as a makeshift chimney for his fire. Fortunately, nothing dreadful happened there. At Lincoln cathedral, we can see where the fire in the west front in the 12th century damaged the staircases because these acted as chimneys and spread the fire quickly up into the rest of the building. The building’s limestone turned pink in the extreme heat and it’s clear that the masons had to take down the more damaged parts of the west front to repair the stonework that had been closer to the fire and had cracked. One fascinating detail remains: the masons had to check how deeply the fire damage had penetrated the stone and the marks they cut into the stone are still there. Canterbury Cathedral was struggling to cope with all the pilgrims drawn to the shrine of the murdered Thomas Becket and a fire of 1174 gave the monks the chance to build a fine new building to house his shrine. The eyewitness account has details of the heroic monks rushing into the building to save all its treasures, and it’s even been suggested that this fire wasn’t an accident and was started by the monks themselves as it brought so many benefits in its wake. The master mason gave them a superb new building in the Gothic style and with all the funds pouring in, the monks were able to move back into their church within five years of the fire, although completing the building work took a little longer. For Sir Christopher Wren, the Great Fire of London in 1666 gave him the opportunity he’d been waiting for: to give London the cathedral it needed for the modern age. The medieval cathedral had been falling into disrepair for years and various attempts to patch it up had left it weakened and muddled in appearance. Wandering among the ruins after the fire, Wren was handed a piece of stone from a tomb monument with the word “Resurgam” – I will rise again – carved on it, and this encouraged him to press on with his plans for a whole new building. It took 50 years, but it gave us the St Paul’s Cathedral that we know today. Coventry also rose from the ashes of despair after the firebombing of November 1940 in World War II. The cathedral had been built as one of the city’s great medieval churches and became the city’s cathedral in 1918. It was a fine late-medieval building with a huge timber roof, and this was no match for the fire bombs that rained down on it during Coventry’s blitz. Burning timbers fell straight down into the building and caused a huge bonfire that cracked the slender stone work supports and brought them crashing down. By morning, the building was a devastated shell. Basil Spence, the architect of the new Coventry Cathedral in the 1950s, sensitively integrated the ruins into the design of his new building where they stand as a memorial to the events of the 1940s. The 20th century has seen a few serious fires. York Minster’s huge 1984 fire was believed to have been caused by either lightning, or an electrical fault. York has been very unlucky over the years, it’s had a succession of fires and without stone vaults over the building, the minster has been very vulnerable. After the last restoration, York had the inspired idea of asking school students to design some of the carvings on the new transept vault. The threat of fire in historic buildings is a constant one, and the people who look after the buildings, on a day-to-day basis, or in response to disaster, are unsung heroes who deserve gratitude and support. Notre Dame, Paris will be restored and made glorious once again – fires have always been a risk, and restorations have always been a part of church history. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.	1,447	ENGLISH	1

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

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