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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
In this week’s interview, we find out about the importance of language and about learning languages and how this fits into the school curriculum.
To find out more about this important topic, we talk with April Lawrie who is the Director of Aboriginal Education in the South Australia Department of Education and Child Development.
Throughout history, there were times when people were not allowed to speak or learn their own language and were forced to learn the language of the people or the government that ruled their country. Many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages stopped being used for everyday communication because people were forced to stop speaking their languages as a result of government policies aimed at assimilating communities into the non-Aboriginal population. April talks about the importance of language and what language means for each person’s sense of who they are and where they belong and the importance of language for identity and culture.
There have been times when communities across Australia worked actively towards getting languages back into everyday use, and schools played an important role in keeping languages alive. Until about the late 1980s, bilingual education was a central part of Anangu education. In the first few years of school, teaching in most Anangu schools was done in Pitjantjatjara, with English being introduced once students had begun to develop literacy in their first language. After the 1980s, there was a move away from bilingual education and children were taught in English from the first day they started at school. April talks about how this change has affected children and how they learn.
Over the years, a lot of work has gone into developing the Framework for Aboriginal Languages and Torres Strait Islander Languages. We ask April to tell us about the Framework for Aboriginal Languages and Torres Strait Islander Languages and what this Framework means at a practical everyday level for how and what students learn at school. | <urn:uuid:193993a4-dc8a-473b-a6c5-834180b7ea99> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.papertracker.com.au/radio/april-lawrie-talks-about-language-framework/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251669967.70/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125041318-20200125070318-00013.warc.gz | en | 0.981065 | 373 | 3.328125 | 3 | [
-0.24537818133831024,
0.1358046680688858,
0.13948287069797516,
-0.436204731464386,
-0.017865389585494995,
0.2649211287498474,
0.04835215583443642,
-0.045474372804164886,
-0.5449481010437012,
-0.1216285228729248,
-0.18292033672332764,
-0.14474016427993774,
-0.036646321415901184,
0.706811070... | 2 | In this week’s interview, we find out about the importance of language and about learning languages and how this fits into the school curriculum.
To find out more about this important topic, we talk with April Lawrie who is the Director of Aboriginal Education in the South Australia Department of Education and Child Development.
Throughout history, there were times when people were not allowed to speak or learn their own language and were forced to learn the language of the people or the government that ruled their country. Many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages stopped being used for everyday communication because people were forced to stop speaking their languages as a result of government policies aimed at assimilating communities into the non-Aboriginal population. April talks about the importance of language and what language means for each person’s sense of who they are and where they belong and the importance of language for identity and culture.
There have been times when communities across Australia worked actively towards getting languages back into everyday use, and schools played an important role in keeping languages alive. Until about the late 1980s, bilingual education was a central part of Anangu education. In the first few years of school, teaching in most Anangu schools was done in Pitjantjatjara, with English being introduced once students had begun to develop literacy in their first language. After the 1980s, there was a move away from bilingual education and children were taught in English from the first day they started at school. April talks about how this change has affected children and how they learn.
Over the years, a lot of work has gone into developing the Framework for Aboriginal Languages and Torres Strait Islander Languages. We ask April to tell us about the Framework for Aboriginal Languages and Torres Strait Islander Languages and what this Framework means at a practical everyday level for how and what students learn at school. | 372 | ENGLISH | 1 |
On December 7, 1941, the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor in Honolulu, Hawaii was devastated by a surprise attack perpetrated by Japanese fighter planes. The attack destroyed the Pacific fleet of American battleships and took the lives of around 2,400 Americans, both servicemen and civilians. As a result, the American public would rally around the war effort as President Franklin Roosevelt declared war on Japan the next day, finally bringing the United States into the fray of WWII.
The United States and Japan had been escalating towards a conflict with each other since the 1920’s, twenty years before Pearl Harbor. As Japan became increasingly aggressive toward China and eventually declared war on them in 1937, the United States responded with various sanctions and embargoes to punish them. Instead of these sanctions working to successfully lessen Japanese aggression, they merely solidified Japan’s position. Tokyo and Washington D.C. negotiated for months to try and find a solution to the rising tensions, but nothing came of it. Therefore, American military and government officials did suspect that an attack from Japan was not far off, but they did not believe it would occur in Hawaii. The Hawaiian Islands are 4,000 miles away from Japan, much farther than holdings in the South Pacific where it was suspected an attack would take place. Because of this mindset, Pearl Harbor was not prepared to defend an attack, and the Pacific naval fleet and a significant number of American aircraft were extremely vulnerable.
The goal of the Japanese attackers was to destroy the Pacific fleet, rendering the United States unable to fight the Japanese in the South Pacific. At 8:00 AM the Japanese began bombing Pearl Harbor, and within ten minutes the battleship USS Arizona exploded and sunk, taking 1,000 men with it. The USS Oklahoma was the next to sink, and the remaining battleships stationed at Pearl Harbor all suffered serious damage. Japanese bombers also took out almost 300 American airplanes, as well as several docks and airfields. Although the damage was significant, there was a critical missing factor: the American aircraft carriers were off base. This meant that despite the loss of battleships, the United States would still be able to fight Japan in the Pacific, as its most vital ships were safe. The Japanese also failed to hit crucial facilities at Pearl Harbor such as the shipyards, repair shops, oil storages, and submarine docks. This allowed for all but two of the battleships damaged to be salvaged and repaired quickly. Overall, Japan failed at its goal of taking out the Pacific fleet to the degree they had planned.
The next day President Roosevelt addressed a joint session of Congress and proclaimed that December 7, 1941 “would be a date which will live in infamy”. He went on to say that the American people would fight for absolute victory in order to never experience such an event ever again. The United States thus declared war on Japan, leading Germany and Italy to declare war on the U.S. subsequently after, to which the U.S. responded by declaring war on them as well. After several years of only indirect involvement the U.S. had officially joined the fighting of WWII.
John Toland, Infamy: Pearl Harbor and its Aftermath (Knopf Doubleday Publishing, 1982) | <urn:uuid:7c21b8a4-8968-48af-af71-671202096d97> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.themightyendeavor.com/battles/pearl-harbor-40 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250592261.1/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118052321-20200118080321-00532.warc.gz | en | 0.981887 | 662 | 3.859375 | 4 | [
-0.1327180564403534,
0.16239075362682343,
-0.01193222776055336,
-0.4304090440273285,
0.26857879757881165,
0.3594765067100525,
-0.06700597703456879,
0.4326477646827698,
0.014583040028810501,
0.12152966856956482,
0.5240282416343689,
-0.08260973542928696,
0.31514522433280945,
0.70433765649795... | 9 | On December 7, 1941, the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor in Honolulu, Hawaii was devastated by a surprise attack perpetrated by Japanese fighter planes. The attack destroyed the Pacific fleet of American battleships and took the lives of around 2,400 Americans, both servicemen and civilians. As a result, the American public would rally around the war effort as President Franklin Roosevelt declared war on Japan the next day, finally bringing the United States into the fray of WWII.
The United States and Japan had been escalating towards a conflict with each other since the 1920’s, twenty years before Pearl Harbor. As Japan became increasingly aggressive toward China and eventually declared war on them in 1937, the United States responded with various sanctions and embargoes to punish them. Instead of these sanctions working to successfully lessen Japanese aggression, they merely solidified Japan’s position. Tokyo and Washington D.C. negotiated for months to try and find a solution to the rising tensions, but nothing came of it. Therefore, American military and government officials did suspect that an attack from Japan was not far off, but they did not believe it would occur in Hawaii. The Hawaiian Islands are 4,000 miles away from Japan, much farther than holdings in the South Pacific where it was suspected an attack would take place. Because of this mindset, Pearl Harbor was not prepared to defend an attack, and the Pacific naval fleet and a significant number of American aircraft were extremely vulnerable.
The goal of the Japanese attackers was to destroy the Pacific fleet, rendering the United States unable to fight the Japanese in the South Pacific. At 8:00 AM the Japanese began bombing Pearl Harbor, and within ten minutes the battleship USS Arizona exploded and sunk, taking 1,000 men with it. The USS Oklahoma was the next to sink, and the remaining battleships stationed at Pearl Harbor all suffered serious damage. Japanese bombers also took out almost 300 American airplanes, as well as several docks and airfields. Although the damage was significant, there was a critical missing factor: the American aircraft carriers were off base. This meant that despite the loss of battleships, the United States would still be able to fight Japan in the Pacific, as its most vital ships were safe. The Japanese also failed to hit crucial facilities at Pearl Harbor such as the shipyards, repair shops, oil storages, and submarine docks. This allowed for all but two of the battleships damaged to be salvaged and repaired quickly. Overall, Japan failed at its goal of taking out the Pacific fleet to the degree they had planned.
The next day President Roosevelt addressed a joint session of Congress and proclaimed that December 7, 1941 “would be a date which will live in infamy”. He went on to say that the American people would fight for absolute victory in order to never experience such an event ever again. The United States thus declared war on Japan, leading Germany and Italy to declare war on the U.S. subsequently after, to which the U.S. responded by declaring war on them as well. After several years of only indirect involvement the U.S. had officially joined the fighting of WWII.
John Toland, Infamy: Pearl Harbor and its Aftermath (Knopf Doubleday Publishing, 1982) | 681 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Evolution of Human Culture
Evolution is a process of modifications occurring in the inherited materials of certain population due to its interaction with the surrounding environment. It results in the ability of the population’s representatives to adapt as well as continue advancing and developing. This occurrence is the key force of progress.
It is obvious that we are very different from the inhabitants that were here a while ago: our anatomy, chemistry, physiology have changed, as well as our psychosocial and mental traits and characteristics. In order to comprehend the force of adaptation and evolution, it is important to research history of the human race in general. During the past few decades significantly more information became widely available and it is facile to trace which triggers made it possible for humans to evolve.
Evolution of Culture
It is important to realize that evolution of culture took quiet a lot of time before significant noticeable changes took place. The initiation of this process occurred alongside advancements in physiological features. Ancestors of humans used to be a lot like animals in the way they lived and behaved; their anatomical features were a lot different from people in the modern days. This is especially true for the nervous system, as it was much less developed. The trigger that seems to be the most important one in both the formation of culture and advances of physical was the invention of the tools and generally the ability to utilize and rely on technology.
The tools that were made and utilized initially were primitive and simple, however, they provided a great additional advantage over other species, which could never be obtained by them. Since the invention of these tools the process of improvement and invention of newer and better ones was initiated; developing tools became a very important part and aspect of life.
This contributed to the development of interest areas of interest. These advances provided more chances for success in hunting and fishing, as well as being safe and, therefore, surviving not only due to the natural selection as we know and comprehend it, but due to a symbiosis of the physical qualities and the awakening mental abilities. This occurrence has a considerable underlying meaning, as it became the setting stone in the formation of diverse human culture.
The creation of tools could be considered an innovation that opened up new opportunities and lead to overcoming the limitations of the anatomical disadvantages, especially in the structure of nervous system, and more specifically the brain, which did not allow a lot of functions that we obtain today, one of which - precise hand and finger movement that are required for work on and with the tools. It is possible to say that the utilization of the simplest technologies provoked stimulation and training of numerous centers in the brain, which has probably lead to development of thoughts, process of thinking, which lead to creation of culture.
This has ultimately resulted in the ability of solving environmental challenges and problems not with biological animalistic instincts, programmed in the DNA, but with non-biological answers. As a result, the essential genetic evolution, as a physical response to environment, was slowed down a little, giving the mind a chance to develop to its potential.
Among other occurrences, living in tribes, creating communities and certain set of rules and order in them is a very significant step in formation of social aspects of the culture as it brought individuals together. They divided the duties to make the work easier and each individual had a certain function that he had to perform. With that, another significant step was the emerging of speech and language abilities. Living in communities made it possible for these centers of the brain to develop as well. This resulted in sharing information, techniques and experiences. Stories and legends could be made up and shared as well.
Around the same time period the first tools were invented and the first steps were taken towards the development of the process of thinking and creating, human ancestors could manage essentially occurring fire, which gave them an obvious benefit and advantage over other species. Beliefs and traditions were also developing, slowly but steadily: our ancestors performed acts of burying the dead, caring for the ill ones. All of the small and slow steps resulted in the huge leap forward and with the first standardized more advanced tools the first works of art (jewelry, paintings).
Therefore, human beings are the result of biological evolution, however, in general sense we have created the culture that makes it possible for us to rise above the barriers and limitations of our physical bodies, stimulating the process of thinking that leads to achievement of spiritual satisfaction. As a result, humans are able to live in nearly every climate and environment, we created and live in unnatural environments, and the process of both physical and cultural evolution does not stop there. Our culture obtains numerous features and aspects and it keeps developing as well. The progression that has been happening to the human race is a complex occurrence that could only be referred to as biocultural evolution, as human beings are successfully containing both their biological features as well as the fairly new culturally influenced ones.
- Social Rights USA
- Race in Our Everyday Lives
- Discrimination against Women
- Subculture Theory and the American Society
Big thanks to your writing team for coming through for me with my last order. I didn’t give them a lot of notice, but they were able to come up with a superb paper for me. This is the kind of service that I love. Sometimes, I get forgetful, and I forget when my paper due dates are. It is so comforting to know that I can be in a rush and contact Essays-Writer.net and that you will deliver a great paper for me, no matter what. The fact that you include an anti-plagiarism report is great, too. I appreciate knowing that my work is totally original. Essays-Writer.net rocks!
Your writers are masters at time management. I turned in an order for four very difficult papers, and they were all written perfectly, even with the short deadline notice. Thanks, Essays-Writer.net!
Your writing company delivers for me every time. I have never been disappointed.
I was happy with the two essays that your writers did for me. Even though the subject matter was quite dense, they managed to come up with high quality work. This has been my experience with Essays-Writer.net, over the long haul. Each and every time I have needed a high quality paper, you have come through with outstanding writing examples for me. I am pleased to recommend your writing service to my friends and colleagues.
The work I received from your writers was much better than expected, especially considering the affordability of your services! This is so impressive! I wasn’t aware, previously, that companies like Essays-Writer.net even existed, but then again, I’m pretty sure you are the only one that is this good. I have heard a lot of bad things about other writing companies, but never a negative word about Essays-Writer.net. You are reputed as being the best, and I, for one, am convinced that this is true.Thank you for the outstanding job you did on my essay and research papers.
Thank you for the great paper! My professor gave me a high mark for it.
As always, your writers have completed another impressive paper. This time, the subject matter required a lot of research. They not only completed the research. They also documented it absolutely perfectly. It would have taken me months to write a paper this thorough and of this high quality. Thank you so much for your diligence. It was greatly appreciated.
I find your writing service to be staffed with serious professionals who understand the urgency of turning out great writing for your customers. I have ordered papers from you for a year and a half now, and each time, I have been given superb papers that were error free and interesting to read. I truly appreciate your efforts, and hope to continue to do business with you from this point forward. You deserve my loyalty, because you are certainly loyal to your customers! Wishing you all the best.
Once again, I have sat down at my computer, because I feel I owe you big thanks. There is just no way to express how grateful I am for everything you did to make my research paper as good as it was. My professor gave me an A+ on it, which is the first A+ I have received during my entire college career.
Now I know where to go when I need an excellent paper written on a short notice. I am very happy with the paper your writers just produced for me. It was absolutely perfect. Please thank the ones who handled my order and let them know that I will definitely do business with Essays-Writer.net again.
Dear Writers #0019, Thank you for taking such a good care of me. I apologize for being as picky as I was, but I was only reflecting the professor’s requirements. I couldn’t believe my eyes when I got my grades back. He gave me an A+ on the paper, which is almost unheard. The paper you produced for me included each and every thing that the professor had required. He is notorious for giving us next-to-impossible tasks to perform in his class, but you managed to pull it off. I don’t know if any other student has received an A+ in this guy’s class, but he simply could not find a single thing wrong with my paper! Yay! Thanks so much.
My professor told me that the essay you wrote for me was the best one in the whole class! Thanks for doing such a good job. Compliments from this professor are rare!
Dear Essays-Writer.net, You handled my rush order beautifully. I am still amazed by the quality of the term paper, because your writers didn’t have a whole lot of time to write it. Still, they did a great job and I’m happy that I chose Essays-Writer.net. Thank you for taking care of this in such an eloquent way.
Dear Madam or Sir, Thank you for your competence and high standards. My paper was wonderful! I shall recommend your writing services highly. You are far and above better than other writing services that I have used. Your professionalism, attention to detail, high quality writing and great prices are a few of the reasons why I will never use any other writing service. Thanks again.
I am getting ready to graduate in another week, but had to take a minute to jot this line because I want you to know what a help your writing service has been to me, especially during my junior and senior years. The work has been hard, and I have had to study virtually all the time. With you helping me out with my more challenging writing projects, I have been able to move forward and do well on my tests and other school projects. I will be forever grateful to you for your help, and I wish you continued success with your fantastic writing service. All the best! | <urn:uuid:671c42ac-5f57-482c-9e20-13b7aceeb57a> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://essays-writer.net/essays/sociology/evolution-of-human-culture.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251687725.76/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126043644-20200126073644-00175.warc.gz | en | 0.980257 | 2,235 | 3.5 | 4 | [
-0.3466603457927704,
0.434226930141449,
0.4545215964317322,
0.07161717861890793,
-0.08931846171617508,
0.21594947576522827,
0.32016897201538086,
0.16211597621440887,
-0.002888750284910202,
0.13092677295207977,
0.29391995072364807,
-0.33337780833244324,
0.07183750718832016,
-0.0521084889769... | 2 | Evolution of Human Culture
Evolution is a process of modifications occurring in the inherited materials of certain population due to its interaction with the surrounding environment. It results in the ability of the population’s representatives to adapt as well as continue advancing and developing. This occurrence is the key force of progress.
It is obvious that we are very different from the inhabitants that were here a while ago: our anatomy, chemistry, physiology have changed, as well as our psychosocial and mental traits and characteristics. In order to comprehend the force of adaptation and evolution, it is important to research history of the human race in general. During the past few decades significantly more information became widely available and it is facile to trace which triggers made it possible for humans to evolve.
Evolution of Culture
It is important to realize that evolution of culture took quiet a lot of time before significant noticeable changes took place. The initiation of this process occurred alongside advancements in physiological features. Ancestors of humans used to be a lot like animals in the way they lived and behaved; their anatomical features were a lot different from people in the modern days. This is especially true for the nervous system, as it was much less developed. The trigger that seems to be the most important one in both the formation of culture and advances of physical was the invention of the tools and generally the ability to utilize and rely on technology.
The tools that were made and utilized initially were primitive and simple, however, they provided a great additional advantage over other species, which could never be obtained by them. Since the invention of these tools the process of improvement and invention of newer and better ones was initiated; developing tools became a very important part and aspect of life.
This contributed to the development of interest areas of interest. These advances provided more chances for success in hunting and fishing, as well as being safe and, therefore, surviving not only due to the natural selection as we know and comprehend it, but due to a symbiosis of the physical qualities and the awakening mental abilities. This occurrence has a considerable underlying meaning, as it became the setting stone in the formation of diverse human culture.
The creation of tools could be considered an innovation that opened up new opportunities and lead to overcoming the limitations of the anatomical disadvantages, especially in the structure of nervous system, and more specifically the brain, which did not allow a lot of functions that we obtain today, one of which - precise hand and finger movement that are required for work on and with the tools. It is possible to say that the utilization of the simplest technologies provoked stimulation and training of numerous centers in the brain, which has probably lead to development of thoughts, process of thinking, which lead to creation of culture.
This has ultimately resulted in the ability of solving environmental challenges and problems not with biological animalistic instincts, programmed in the DNA, but with non-biological answers. As a result, the essential genetic evolution, as a physical response to environment, was slowed down a little, giving the mind a chance to develop to its potential.
Among other occurrences, living in tribes, creating communities and certain set of rules and order in them is a very significant step in formation of social aspects of the culture as it brought individuals together. They divided the duties to make the work easier and each individual had a certain function that he had to perform. With that, another significant step was the emerging of speech and language abilities. Living in communities made it possible for these centers of the brain to develop as well. This resulted in sharing information, techniques and experiences. Stories and legends could be made up and shared as well.
Around the same time period the first tools were invented and the first steps were taken towards the development of the process of thinking and creating, human ancestors could manage essentially occurring fire, which gave them an obvious benefit and advantage over other species. Beliefs and traditions were also developing, slowly but steadily: our ancestors performed acts of burying the dead, caring for the ill ones. All of the small and slow steps resulted in the huge leap forward and with the first standardized more advanced tools the first works of art (jewelry, paintings).
Therefore, human beings are the result of biological evolution, however, in general sense we have created the culture that makes it possible for us to rise above the barriers and limitations of our physical bodies, stimulating the process of thinking that leads to achievement of spiritual satisfaction. As a result, humans are able to live in nearly every climate and environment, we created and live in unnatural environments, and the process of both physical and cultural evolution does not stop there. Our culture obtains numerous features and aspects and it keeps developing as well. The progression that has been happening to the human race is a complex occurrence that could only be referred to as biocultural evolution, as human beings are successfully containing both their biological features as well as the fairly new culturally influenced ones.
- Social Rights USA
- Race in Our Everyday Lives
- Discrimination against Women
- Subculture Theory and the American Society
Big thanks to your writing team for coming through for me with my last order. I didn’t give them a lot of notice, but they were able to come up with a superb paper for me. This is the kind of service that I love. Sometimes, I get forgetful, and I forget when my paper due dates are. It is so comforting to know that I can be in a rush and contact Essays-Writer.net and that you will deliver a great paper for me, no matter what. The fact that you include an anti-plagiarism report is great, too. I appreciate knowing that my work is totally original. Essays-Writer.net rocks!
Your writers are masters at time management. I turned in an order for four very difficult papers, and they were all written perfectly, even with the short deadline notice. Thanks, Essays-Writer.net!
Your writing company delivers for me every time. I have never been disappointed.
I was happy with the two essays that your writers did for me. Even though the subject matter was quite dense, they managed to come up with high quality work. This has been my experience with Essays-Writer.net, over the long haul. Each and every time I have needed a high quality paper, you have come through with outstanding writing examples for me. I am pleased to recommend your writing service to my friends and colleagues.
The work I received from your writers was much better than expected, especially considering the affordability of your services! This is so impressive! I wasn’t aware, previously, that companies like Essays-Writer.net even existed, but then again, I’m pretty sure you are the only one that is this good. I have heard a lot of bad things about other writing companies, but never a negative word about Essays-Writer.net. You are reputed as being the best, and I, for one, am convinced that this is true.Thank you for the outstanding job you did on my essay and research papers.
Thank you for the great paper! My professor gave me a high mark for it.
As always, your writers have completed another impressive paper. This time, the subject matter required a lot of research. They not only completed the research. They also documented it absolutely perfectly. It would have taken me months to write a paper this thorough and of this high quality. Thank you so much for your diligence. It was greatly appreciated.
I find your writing service to be staffed with serious professionals who understand the urgency of turning out great writing for your customers. I have ordered papers from you for a year and a half now, and each time, I have been given superb papers that were error free and interesting to read. I truly appreciate your efforts, and hope to continue to do business with you from this point forward. You deserve my loyalty, because you are certainly loyal to your customers! Wishing you all the best.
Once again, I have sat down at my computer, because I feel I owe you big thanks. There is just no way to express how grateful I am for everything you did to make my research paper as good as it was. My professor gave me an A+ on it, which is the first A+ I have received during my entire college career.
Now I know where to go when I need an excellent paper written on a short notice. I am very happy with the paper your writers just produced for me. It was absolutely perfect. Please thank the ones who handled my order and let them know that I will definitely do business with Essays-Writer.net again.
Dear Writers #0019, Thank you for taking such a good care of me. I apologize for being as picky as I was, but I was only reflecting the professor’s requirements. I couldn’t believe my eyes when I got my grades back. He gave me an A+ on the paper, which is almost unheard. The paper you produced for me included each and every thing that the professor had required. He is notorious for giving us next-to-impossible tasks to perform in his class, but you managed to pull it off. I don’t know if any other student has received an A+ in this guy’s class, but he simply could not find a single thing wrong with my paper! Yay! Thanks so much.
My professor told me that the essay you wrote for me was the best one in the whole class! Thanks for doing such a good job. Compliments from this professor are rare!
Dear Essays-Writer.net, You handled my rush order beautifully. I am still amazed by the quality of the term paper, because your writers didn’t have a whole lot of time to write it. Still, they did a great job and I’m happy that I chose Essays-Writer.net. Thank you for taking care of this in such an eloquent way.
Dear Madam or Sir, Thank you for your competence and high standards. My paper was wonderful! I shall recommend your writing services highly. You are far and above better than other writing services that I have used. Your professionalism, attention to detail, high quality writing and great prices are a few of the reasons why I will never use any other writing service. Thanks again.
I am getting ready to graduate in another week, but had to take a minute to jot this line because I want you to know what a help your writing service has been to me, especially during my junior and senior years. The work has been hard, and I have had to study virtually all the time. With you helping me out with my more challenging writing projects, I have been able to move forward and do well on my tests and other school projects. I will be forever grateful to you for your help, and I wish you continued success with your fantastic writing service. All the best! | 2,173 | ENGLISH | 1 |
One of the most important and interesting questions about an old house museum is, “How was it originally constructed and what changes were made over the years?” Old photographs help, but these are rare and can’t account for work done in pre-photographic times.
Many features, interior and exterior, can be carefully examined, inner walls and other layers removed, and exterior changes and old rooflines seen when shingles are stripped for replacement. A lot can be learned by examining the timber frame of a building, though this can be difficult because much of the typical frame is hidden by boxing or other coverings. Usually the attic and root cellar is a good place to begin.
Rosanna Cullity and others first got a look at the Benjamin Nye house in the late 1950s when the process of preservation was begun, and several features indicated that the house had been enlarged from an early version.
Gunstock posts (typically a 17th century feature) were found exposed in the upstairs hall or landing, and at the stairway leading up to the attic. In the attic, it could be clearly seen that the house sheathing consisted of vertical boards, an early feature. At each end, an earlier roofline could be clearly seen, the seam covered with a plank.
This suggested that the house could have originally been built as a double house, so called, one room deep, two rooms wide, two rooms high. Rosanna had been told by her aunt, Delia Nye Blake (1869-1959) who was born in the house, that her grandfather Silvanus Nye (1744-1820) “had a big family and had to raise the roof up from a saltbox” or words to that effect. For many years we have thought then, that the house was rebuilt at least twice.
One puzzling feature was that each old roofline cut seemed to overhang the back plate, meaning the attic level lengthwise timber that rests on the gunstock posts and supports the roof rafters. Also, what appeared to be boarded up attic window openings existed, but curiously off center from what we thought was the peak of the original house.
In 1983 an account book belonging to Silvanus Nye and his son Samuel (1789-1867) was given to the Association by Lois Howland, a Nye descendant and Rosanna’s cousin. Close examination of this indicated that the house was substantially rebuilt, including a new chimney, in 1816. We accept this as the date for change from a saltbox to its current full colonial shape. This was progress in understanding.
In 1985 when we had antique house craftsman John Mackensie restore the keeping room, he and I spent some time trying to figure house framing. A conclusion was not reached because important points of investigation were covered by trim, etc. When John took up the keeping room floor, however, he did find several of the original 17th century roof rafters, with purlin notches, which had been pressed into service as floor joists. In length they roughly matched up to the earlier line and angle of the front roof. The mortises (holes chiseled out of a timber) for these rafters could be seen in the front plate; the 1816 rafters sat on the corner of the front plate and were held there by a large trunnel (wooden peg) through each.
Unfortunately, during repairs done in either the 1920s or the 1960s, the rear roof, plate, and the timber sitting on top of the back gunstock posts had been completely replaced, removing many useful clues.
John and I also tried to find evidence of how an early double house could have had lean-to rafters added to the rear gunstock posts to form a salt box house, but we could not find such evidence.
In January 2012 I set about measuring and drawing the parts of the frame that could be seen. There were three useful areas: the attic, the stair area leading down to the root cellar, and the cellar itself (rectangular, 10 by 23 feet, of fieldstone).
In the attic, the front plate to me has all the appearance of an original timber, with the tie beams (8” by 8” oak beams running from the front to the back of the house) dovetailed into it, sitting on the gunstock posts. It does not run the full length of the building, an additional five feet was spliced on to reach the corner post. Most puzzling was the west end girt (similar to the tie beams, but simply at the ends of the building), which also appeared to be original in every way, yet it projected about a foot north of where the old back timber or plate would have been, and was fashioned into a lap splice. This overhang seemed to correspond with the overhanging roof line mentioned earlier, but I couldn’t figure out how it figured into the framing of either an early double house or a saltbox.
A breakthrough came while reading the classic by Abbott Lowell Cummings, The Framed Houses of Massachusetts Bay 1625-1725 (1979). He began describing what he called the integral lean-to house, in other words, a dwelling built originally as a salt box, not a “lean-to added” type. These used cantilevered end-girts and tie beams, extending back from the plate several feet, in order to support the long lean-to rafters, which were often also spliced at that point.
It is my opinion that the one remnant of this – the one foot projection of the west end girt, originally extended out several feet as Cummings described, but it (and the others, sawn off during repairs long ago) had been formed into splices to connect to and support the timber running to the new (in 1816) back plate of the rebuilt house. Strangely, this west end connecting timber was not re-installed during 20th century repairs. There is only a small board there now, as workmen must have found it too involved to properly replace it, nail the vertical sheathing to it from the outside, etc.
Finally, I believe I figured out the odd placement of what seemed to be boarded up 17th century attic windows or shutters. These old openings were each filled with 21” of board width, which was centered over the 18 foot distance between the end posts of the front part of the house. Guessing, I drew the conjectural early frame as if the peak were centered over these blocked openings, and the resulting saltbox roofline appeared more sensible and pleasing. This suggested that during the 1816 rebuild, when the old front end rafters were removed, a few inches were sawn off the tops of the vertical sheathing boards to achieve the new roof angle.
The opinion I am led to by all this is that the house was built as a saltbox, or integral lean-to. This fits well with the results of last year’s dendrochronology (tree ring based) study by Cornell professor Carol Griggs, who placed the date of construction at 1677 or 78. (The sample was from a white oak floor joist removed during the parlor restoration in 2009). From my recent study of numerous antique house books, especially Cummings, this time, 1680, plus or minus, was a time when many such houses were built in southern New England.
An interesting side note is that I found a deed in the Registry in which Silvanus purchased the house across the street (82 Old County Rd) in 1811 from the estate of Gideon Allen. In 1816, the old Nye House was substantially taken apart, as we’ve seen, and the family had to move furniture and live somewhere during the process. I believe they lived in the Gideon Allen house across the street for the duration. In his 1820 will, Silvanus left that house to his son Joseph, who is described as being a merchant. He soon died at age 36, however, and his widow Betsy and children lived on there for some years. The Nyes owned an interest in that house until 1868, when that interest was sold to Joseph Hoxie.
By John Nye Cullity | <urn:uuid:b2755935-c319-4c84-96ed-9ab7ac4ef763> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.capecodmuseumtrail.com/investigating-how-the-benjamin-nye-homestead-was-built-2/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251690095.81/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126165718-20200126195718-00469.warc.gz | en | 0.984007 | 1,704 | 3.578125 | 4 | [
-0.11381322890520096,
0.21918651461601257,
0.460071861743927,
0.029993847012519836,
0.4382956326007843,
-0.10509451478719711,
-0.22116056084632874,
-0.08984699100255966,
-0.5071234703063965,
0.007921324111521244,
0.17812424898147583,
0.21781456470489502,
-0.22503480315208435,
0.49110874533... | 9 | One of the most important and interesting questions about an old house museum is, “How was it originally constructed and what changes were made over the years?” Old photographs help, but these are rare and can’t account for work done in pre-photographic times.
Many features, interior and exterior, can be carefully examined, inner walls and other layers removed, and exterior changes and old rooflines seen when shingles are stripped for replacement. A lot can be learned by examining the timber frame of a building, though this can be difficult because much of the typical frame is hidden by boxing or other coverings. Usually the attic and root cellar is a good place to begin.
Rosanna Cullity and others first got a look at the Benjamin Nye house in the late 1950s when the process of preservation was begun, and several features indicated that the house had been enlarged from an early version.
Gunstock posts (typically a 17th century feature) were found exposed in the upstairs hall or landing, and at the stairway leading up to the attic. In the attic, it could be clearly seen that the house sheathing consisted of vertical boards, an early feature. At each end, an earlier roofline could be clearly seen, the seam covered with a plank.
This suggested that the house could have originally been built as a double house, so called, one room deep, two rooms wide, two rooms high. Rosanna had been told by her aunt, Delia Nye Blake (1869-1959) who was born in the house, that her grandfather Silvanus Nye (1744-1820) “had a big family and had to raise the roof up from a saltbox” or words to that effect. For many years we have thought then, that the house was rebuilt at least twice.
One puzzling feature was that each old roofline cut seemed to overhang the back plate, meaning the attic level lengthwise timber that rests on the gunstock posts and supports the roof rafters. Also, what appeared to be boarded up attic window openings existed, but curiously off center from what we thought was the peak of the original house.
In 1983 an account book belonging to Silvanus Nye and his son Samuel (1789-1867) was given to the Association by Lois Howland, a Nye descendant and Rosanna’s cousin. Close examination of this indicated that the house was substantially rebuilt, including a new chimney, in 1816. We accept this as the date for change from a saltbox to its current full colonial shape. This was progress in understanding.
In 1985 when we had antique house craftsman John Mackensie restore the keeping room, he and I spent some time trying to figure house framing. A conclusion was not reached because important points of investigation were covered by trim, etc. When John took up the keeping room floor, however, he did find several of the original 17th century roof rafters, with purlin notches, which had been pressed into service as floor joists. In length they roughly matched up to the earlier line and angle of the front roof. The mortises (holes chiseled out of a timber) for these rafters could be seen in the front plate; the 1816 rafters sat on the corner of the front plate and were held there by a large trunnel (wooden peg) through each.
Unfortunately, during repairs done in either the 1920s or the 1960s, the rear roof, plate, and the timber sitting on top of the back gunstock posts had been completely replaced, removing many useful clues.
John and I also tried to find evidence of how an early double house could have had lean-to rafters added to the rear gunstock posts to form a salt box house, but we could not find such evidence.
In January 2012 I set about measuring and drawing the parts of the frame that could be seen. There were three useful areas: the attic, the stair area leading down to the root cellar, and the cellar itself (rectangular, 10 by 23 feet, of fieldstone).
In the attic, the front plate to me has all the appearance of an original timber, with the tie beams (8” by 8” oak beams running from the front to the back of the house) dovetailed into it, sitting on the gunstock posts. It does not run the full length of the building, an additional five feet was spliced on to reach the corner post. Most puzzling was the west end girt (similar to the tie beams, but simply at the ends of the building), which also appeared to be original in every way, yet it projected about a foot north of where the old back timber or plate would have been, and was fashioned into a lap splice. This overhang seemed to correspond with the overhanging roof line mentioned earlier, but I couldn’t figure out how it figured into the framing of either an early double house or a saltbox.
A breakthrough came while reading the classic by Abbott Lowell Cummings, The Framed Houses of Massachusetts Bay 1625-1725 (1979). He began describing what he called the integral lean-to house, in other words, a dwelling built originally as a salt box, not a “lean-to added” type. These used cantilevered end-girts and tie beams, extending back from the plate several feet, in order to support the long lean-to rafters, which were often also spliced at that point.
It is my opinion that the one remnant of this – the one foot projection of the west end girt, originally extended out several feet as Cummings described, but it (and the others, sawn off during repairs long ago) had been formed into splices to connect to and support the timber running to the new (in 1816) back plate of the rebuilt house. Strangely, this west end connecting timber was not re-installed during 20th century repairs. There is only a small board there now, as workmen must have found it too involved to properly replace it, nail the vertical sheathing to it from the outside, etc.
Finally, I believe I figured out the odd placement of what seemed to be boarded up 17th century attic windows or shutters. These old openings were each filled with 21” of board width, which was centered over the 18 foot distance between the end posts of the front part of the house. Guessing, I drew the conjectural early frame as if the peak were centered over these blocked openings, and the resulting saltbox roofline appeared more sensible and pleasing. This suggested that during the 1816 rebuild, when the old front end rafters were removed, a few inches were sawn off the tops of the vertical sheathing boards to achieve the new roof angle.
The opinion I am led to by all this is that the house was built as a saltbox, or integral lean-to. This fits well with the results of last year’s dendrochronology (tree ring based) study by Cornell professor Carol Griggs, who placed the date of construction at 1677 or 78. (The sample was from a white oak floor joist removed during the parlor restoration in 2009). From my recent study of numerous antique house books, especially Cummings, this time, 1680, plus or minus, was a time when many such houses were built in southern New England.
An interesting side note is that I found a deed in the Registry in which Silvanus purchased the house across the street (82 Old County Rd) in 1811 from the estate of Gideon Allen. In 1816, the old Nye House was substantially taken apart, as we’ve seen, and the family had to move furniture and live somewhere during the process. I believe they lived in the Gideon Allen house across the street for the duration. In his 1820 will, Silvanus left that house to his son Joseph, who is described as being a merchant. He soon died at age 36, however, and his widow Betsy and children lived on there for some years. The Nyes owned an interest in that house until 1868, when that interest was sold to Joseph Hoxie.
By John Nye Cullity | 1,768 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The first stable communities
Text by Paola Maggi.
The area was intensely populated around 5500 BC, when numerous villages were established that were inhabited by farming communities for centuries. One of these settlements was also to be found in Marano, in the area of the Fishing Valleys along today’s “Ara del Gorgo” canal. Significant evidence also comes from the Muzzana reclamation ground, in an area that is today above water thanks to drainage work.
However, it is the information gathered from the excavation site in Piancada, in the area of Palazzolo dello Stella, that allows us to reconstruct what life was like in the Neolithic villages. The settlements would normally be situated on raised ground along the river, a few metres higher than the plain and, even back then, they would have a network of artificial canals allowing them to drain the ground. Cows, sheep, goats and pigs were reared and legumes and grain were also grown, which were then stored in holes in the ground/silos; settlers would also hunt occasionally. There were areas specialised in the processing of flint, which was sourced by communities some hundred kilometres away, in the area of Monti Lessini, in the Veneto region. This raw material was probably exchanged for products such as cattle and grain, and was then sorted and sent to the villages further inland.
Villages during the Bronze Age
During the Bronze Age defined as the “Recent Bronze Age”, between 1400 and 1250 BC, settlements multiplied in the low plains, along the Zellina and Corno rivers and in the two areas of environmental transition: the area of springs and the area around the lagoon.
Around the lagoon, the settlements would often be situated on raised ground along the river, which made it easier to defend them and watch over the local area. However, the existence of wetlands with pile dwellings is uncertain. Normally, the settlements were not surrounded by defensive embankments, unlike the springs area, where this type of settlement, defined as lowland “castelliere” (“fortified boroughs”), is well documented. The distribution of the sites seems to reflect a structured system of settlements: the largest ones were approximately 7.5 km apart and, for each large settlement, we can estimate an area of influence of 40-50 km2.
Based on archaeological findings, coming from research on the surface and not from excavation work, the settlement identified in the area of the Muzzana reclamation ground seems to be of particular importance, so much so that it can be considered the largest in the area and one of the biggest in southern Friuli. Today, this settlement can be found near to the coast whereas, at the time, it was 5 km from the shoreline. It was probably surrounded by a moat, which can be seen from aerial photographs. It included a metal processing area for the production of bronze tools.
The settlement in the area of Marano’s fishing valleys (Ara del Gorgo) must also have been rather large, as a considerable quantity of ceramics have been found here. | <urn:uuid:8b8b58e2-60fc-4de9-afe7-4e4cd17b4ae9> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://visitmaranolagunare.it/en/destinations/preistoria/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251700988.64/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127143516-20200127173516-00012.warc.gz | en | 0.984914 | 653 | 3.453125 | 3 | [
-0.21053510904312134,
0.08004911988973618,
0.2617124319076538,
0.12040659785270691,
-0.1357766091823578,
-0.4813750982284546,
-0.2978267967700958,
-0.0206797793507576,
-0.43663108348846436,
0.08101599663496017,
0.06882496178150177,
-0.9135648608207703,
0.22350294888019562,
0.56455981731414... | 10 | The first stable communities
Text by Paola Maggi.
The area was intensely populated around 5500 BC, when numerous villages were established that were inhabited by farming communities for centuries. One of these settlements was also to be found in Marano, in the area of the Fishing Valleys along today’s “Ara del Gorgo” canal. Significant evidence also comes from the Muzzana reclamation ground, in an area that is today above water thanks to drainage work.
However, it is the information gathered from the excavation site in Piancada, in the area of Palazzolo dello Stella, that allows us to reconstruct what life was like in the Neolithic villages. The settlements would normally be situated on raised ground along the river, a few metres higher than the plain and, even back then, they would have a network of artificial canals allowing them to drain the ground. Cows, sheep, goats and pigs were reared and legumes and grain were also grown, which were then stored in holes in the ground/silos; settlers would also hunt occasionally. There were areas specialised in the processing of flint, which was sourced by communities some hundred kilometres away, in the area of Monti Lessini, in the Veneto region. This raw material was probably exchanged for products such as cattle and grain, and was then sorted and sent to the villages further inland.
Villages during the Bronze Age
During the Bronze Age defined as the “Recent Bronze Age”, between 1400 and 1250 BC, settlements multiplied in the low plains, along the Zellina and Corno rivers and in the two areas of environmental transition: the area of springs and the area around the lagoon.
Around the lagoon, the settlements would often be situated on raised ground along the river, which made it easier to defend them and watch over the local area. However, the existence of wetlands with pile dwellings is uncertain. Normally, the settlements were not surrounded by defensive embankments, unlike the springs area, where this type of settlement, defined as lowland “castelliere” (“fortified boroughs”), is well documented. The distribution of the sites seems to reflect a structured system of settlements: the largest ones were approximately 7.5 km apart and, for each large settlement, we can estimate an area of influence of 40-50 km2.
Based on archaeological findings, coming from research on the surface and not from excavation work, the settlement identified in the area of the Muzzana reclamation ground seems to be of particular importance, so much so that it can be considered the largest in the area and one of the biggest in southern Friuli. Today, this settlement can be found near to the coast whereas, at the time, it was 5 km from the shoreline. It was probably surrounded by a moat, which can be seen from aerial photographs. It included a metal processing area for the production of bronze tools.
The settlement in the area of Marano’s fishing valleys (Ara del Gorgo) must also have been rather large, as a considerable quantity of ceramics have been found here. | 646 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Einstein, the Nazis and the German Academies
Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of the German Reich on 30 January 1930. At this time Albert Einstein was in the United States visiting the California Institute of Technology. Max Planck was Secretary of the Mathematics and Natural Science Section of the Prussian Academy of Sciences and president of the Kaiser Wilhelm Gesellschaft, the main German research organisation. On 23 February 1933, the Reichstag Fire gave Hitler the excuse to suspend all civil liberties in Germany. On 10 March 1933 Einstein reacted to the situation in Germany declaring that he could not live in a country where such liberties were not upheld:
As long as I have any choice, I will only stay in a country where political liberty, toleration, and equality of all citizens before the law are the rule. Political liberty implies liberty to express one's political views orally and in writing, toleration, respect for any and every individual opinion.Einstein and the Prussian Academy
These conditions do not obtain in Germany at the present time. Those who have done most for the cause of international understanding, among them some of the leading artists, are being persecuted there.
Any social organism can become psychically distempered just as any individual can, especially in times of difficulty. Nations usually survive these distempers. I hope that healthy conditions will soon supervene in Germany, and that in future her great men like Kant and Goethe will not merely be commemorated from time to time, but that the principles which they inculcated will also prevail in public life and in the general consciousness.
The Prussian Academy of Sciences asked Max Plank, as secretary, to write to Einstein condemning Einstein's statement. He did so, choosing to emphasise that Einstein's statement would make life harder for Jews in Germany:
By your efforts, your racial and religious brethren will not get relief from their situation, which is already difficult enough, but rather they will be pressed the more.Planck urged Einstein to resign from the Prussian Academy of Sciences but Einstein had got in first and had sent a letter of resignation to the Prussian Academy of Sciences on 28 March before Planck's letter had reached him. On 1 April 1933 there was the so-called "boycott day" when Jewish shops were boycotted and Jewish lecturers were not allowed to enter the university. On the same day (almost certainly deliberate), since Planck was by this time on holiday in Sicily, another of the Academy's secretaries, Professor Dr Ernst Heymann, wrote to Einstein:
The Prussian Academy of Sciences heard with indignation from the newspapers of Albert Einstein's participation in atrocity-mongering in France and America. It immediately demanded an explanation. In the meantime Einstein has announced his withdrawal from the Academy, giving as his reason that he cannot continue to serve the Prussian State under its present Government. Being a Swiss citizen, he also, it seems, intends to resign the Prussian nationality which he acquired in 1913 simply by becoming a full member of the Academy.Einstein replied to the Prussian Academy of Sciences' accusations, writing from Le Coq, near Ostende, on 5 April 1933:
The Prussian Academy of Sciences is particularly distressed by Einstein's activities as an agitator in foreign countries, as it and its members have always felt themselves bound by the closest ties to the Prussian State and, while abstaining strictly from all political partisanship, have always stressed and remained faithful to the national idea. It has, therefore, no reason to regret Einstein's withdrawal.
I have received information from a thoroughly reliable source that the Academy of Sciences has spoken in an official statement of "Einstein's participation in atrocity-mongering in America and France."On 6 April, the day after he had written to the Academy, Einstein wrote a private letter to Planck:
I hereby declare that I have never taken any part in atrocity-mongering, and I must add that I have seen nothing of any such mongering anywhere. In general people have contented themselves with reproducing and commenting on the official statements and orders of responsible members of the German Government, together with the programme for the annihilation of the German Jews by economic methods.
The statements I have issued to the Press were concerned with my intention to resign my position in the Academy and renounce my Prussian citizenship; I gave as my reason for these steps that I did not wish to live in a country where the individual does not enjoy equality before the law and freedom to say and teach what he likes.
Further, I described the present state of affairs in Germany as a state of psychic distemper in the masses and also made some remarks about its causes.
In a written document which I allowed the International League for combating Anti-Semitism to make use of for the purpose of enlisting support, and which was not intended for the Press at all, I also called upon all sensible people, who are still faithful to the ideals of a civilization in peril, to do their utmost to prevent this mass-psychosis, which is exhibiting itself in such terrible symptoms in Germany to-day, from spreading further.
It would have been an easy matter for the Academy to get hold of a correct version of my words before issuing the sort of statement about me that it has. The German Press has reproduced a deliberately distorted version of my words, as indeed was only to be expected with the Press muzzled as it is to-day.
I am ready to stand by every word I have published. In return, I expect the Academy to communicate this statement of mine to its members and also to the German public before which I have been slandered, especially as it has itself had a hand in slandering me before that public.
... I have never taken part in any "atrocity-mongering." I will give the Academy the benefit of assuming it made these slanderous statements only under outside pressure. But even if that should be so, its conduct will hardly be to its credit; some of its more decent members will certainly feel a sense of shame even today.On 7 April 1933, Heinrich von Ficker, on behalf of the Prussian Academy of Sciences, wrote to Einstein c/o Professor Ehrenfest at Leyden. This letter was the reply to Einstein's resignation letter sent on 28 March 1933:
You have probably learned that these false accusations were used as an excuse for the confiscation of my property in Germany. My Dutch colleagues joined in an effort to help me over the initial financial difficulties. It was fortunately not necessary for me to accept their help since I have been careful to prepare for such an emergency. It will certainly be easy for you to imagine how the public outside Germany feels about the tactics employed against me. Surely there will come a time when decent Germans will be ashamed of the ignominious way in which I have been treated.
I cannot help but remind you that, in all these years, I have only enhanced Germany's prestige and have never allowed myself to be alienated by the systematic attacks on me in the rightist press, especially those of recent years when no one took the trouble to stand up for me. Now, however, the war of annihilation against my defenseless fellow Jews compels me to employ, on their behalf. whatever influence I may possess in the eyes of the world.
That you may better appreciate my feeling, I ask you to imagine yourself for the moment in this situation: assume that you were a university professor in Prague and that a government came into power which would deprive the Czechs of German origin of their livelihood and at the same time employ crude methods to prevent them from leaving the country. Assume further that guards were posted at the frontiers to shoot all those who, without permission, attempted to leave the country that waged a bloodless war of annihilation against them. Would you then deem it decent to remain a silent witness to such developments without raising your voice in support of those who are being persecuted? And is not the destruction of the German Jews by starvation the official programme of the present German government?
If you were to read what I actually said (not distorted accounts), you would doubtless realise that I expressed myself in a thoughtful and moderate way. I say this not to apologise but to demonstrate vividly the ignoble and ignominious manner in which the German authorities have behaved towards me.
I am happy that you have nevertheless approached me as an old friend and that, in spite of severe pressures from without, the relationship between us has not been affected. It remains as fine and as genuine as ever, regardless of what has taken place. "on a lower level," so to speak. The same holds for Laue, for whom I have the very highest respect ...
As the present Principal Secretary of the Prussian Academy I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your communication dated 28 March announcing your resignation of your membership of the Academy. The Academy took cognizance of your resignation in its plenary session of 30 March 1933.On 11 April 1933, Heinrich von Ficker and Ernst Heymann, replied on behalf of the Academy to Einstein's letter of 6 April 1933:
While the Academy profoundly regrets the turn events have taken, this regret is inspired by the thought that a man of the highest scientific authority, whom many years of work among Germans and many years of membership of our society must have made familiar with the German character and German habits of thought, should have chosen this moment to associate himself with a body of people abroad who - partly no doubt through ignorance of actual conditions and events - have done much damage to our German people by disseminating erroneous views and unfounded rumours. We had confidently expected that one who had belonged to our Academy for so long would have ranged himself, irrespective of his own political sympathies, on the side of the defenders of our nation against the flood of lies which has been let loose upon it. In these days of mud- slinging, some of it vile, some of it ridiculous, a good word for the German people from you in particular might have produced a great effect, especially abroad. Instead of which your testimony has served as a handle to the enemies not merely of the present Government but of the German people. This has come as a bitter and grievous disappointment to us, which would no doubt have led inevitably to a parting of the ways even if we had not received your resignation.
The Academy would like to point out that its statement of 1 April 1933 was based not merely on German but principally on foreign, particularly French and Belgian, newspaper reports which Herr Einstein has not contradicted; in addition, it had before it his much-canvassed statement to the League for combating anti-Semitism, in which he deplores Germany's relapse into the barbarism of long-passed ages. Moreover, the Academy has reason to know that Herr Einstein, who according to his own statement has taken no part in atrocity mongering, has at least done nothing to counteract unjust suspicions and slanders, which, in the opinion of the Academy, it was his duty as one of its senior members to do. Instead of that Herr Einstein has made statements, and in foreign countries at that, such as coming from a man of world-wide reputation, were bound to be exploited and abused by the enemies not merely of the present German Government but of the whole German people.On 12 April 1933, writing from Le Coq-sur-Mer, Belgium, Einstein replied to the Academy's letter of 7 April written by Heinrich von Ficker:
To the Prussian Academy of Sciences, Berlin.Einstein and the Bavarian Academy
I have received your communication of the seventh instant and deeply deplore the mental attitude displayed in it.
As regards the fact, I can only reply as follows: What you say about my behaviour is, at bottom, merely another form of the statement you have already published, in which you accuse me of having taken part in atrocity-mongering against the German nation. I have already, in my last letter, characterized this accusation as slanderous.
You have also remarked that a "good word" on my part for "the German people" would have produced a great effect abroad. To this I must reply that such a testimony as you suggest would have been equivalent to a repudiation of all those notions of justice and liberty for which I have all my life stood. Such a testimony would not be, as you put it, a good word for the German nation; on the contrary, it would only have helped the cause of those who are seeking to undermine the ideas and principles which have won for the German nation a place of honour in the civilized world. By giving such a testimony in the present circumstances I should have been contributing, even if only indirectly, to the barbarization of manners and the destruction of all existing cultural values.
It was for this reason that I felt compelled to resign from the Academy, and your letter only shows me how right I was to do so.
Einstein's resignation from the Prussian Academy on 28 March 1933 prompted the Bavarian Academy of Sciences, based in Munich, of which Einstein was also a member, to write to him on 8 April 1933:
In your letter to the Prussian Academy of Sciences you have given the present state of affairs in Germany as the reason for your resignation. The Bavarian Academy of Sciences, which some years ago elected you a corresponding member, is also a German Academy, closely allied to the Prussian and other German Academies; hence your withdrawal from the Prussian Academy of Sciences is bound to affect your relations with our Academy.Einstein replied to the Bavarian Academy of Sciences, Munich, on 21 April 1933, writing from Le Coq-sur-Mer:
We must therefore ask you how you envisage your relations with our Academy after what has passed between yourself and the Prussian Academy.
I have given it as the reason for my resignation from the Prussian Academy that in the present circumstances I have no wish either to be a German citizen or to remain in a position of quasi-dependence on the Prussian Ministry of Education.Einstein and the German Physical Society
These reasons would not, in themselves, involve the severing of my relations with the Bavarian Academy. If I nevertheless desire my name to be removed from the list of members, it is for a different reason.
The primary duty of an Academy is to encourage and protect the scientific life of a country. The learned societies of Germany have, however - to the best of knowledge - stood by and said nothing while a not inconsiderable proportion of German savants and students, and also of professional men of university education, have been deprived of all chance of getting employment or earning their livings in Germany. I would rather not belong to any society which behaves in such a manner, even if it does so under external pressure.
In June 1933, having resigned from the Prussian Academy of Sciences and the Bavarian Academy of Sciences, Einstein wrote to Max von Laue:
I have learned that my unclear relationship to those German organisations which still include my name in their list of members could cause problems for my friends in Germany. For this reason, I would like to ask you to make sure that my name is removed from the membership lists of these organisations. These include, for example, the German Physical Society. ... I am explicitly empowering you to do this for me.Max von Laue replied:
Although I am very thankful that you are trying to make things as easy as possible for us, I nevertheless could not do these ... things without the deepest sadness.Einstein received no reply from the German Physical Society who removed his name from their list of members without comment.
French manifesto against Anti-Semitism in Germany
Einstein was invited to add his name to a French manifesto against Anti-Semitism in Germany. He declined, giving his reasons in the following reply:
I have considered this most important proposal, which has a bearing on several things that I have nearly at heart, carefully from every angle. As a result I have come to the conclusion that I cannot take a personal part in this extremely important affair, for two reasons:
In the first place I am, after all, still a German citizen, and in the second I am a Jew. As regards the first point I must add that I have worked in German institutions and have always been treated with full confidence in Germany. However deeply I may regret the things that are being done there, however strongly I am bound to condemn the terrible mistakes that are being made with the approval of the Government; it is impossible for me to take part personally in an enterprise set on foot by responsible members of a foreign Government. In order that you may appreciate this fully, suppose that a French citizen in a more or less analogous situation had got up a protest against the French Government's action in conjunction with prominent German statesmen. Even if you fully admitted that the protest was amply warranted by the facts, you would still, I expect, regard the behaviour of your fellow-citizen as an act of treachery. If Zola had felt it necessary to leave France at the time of the Dreyfus case, he would still certainly not have associated himself with a protest by German official personages, however much he might have approved of their action. He would have confined himself to blushing for his countrymen. In the second place, a protest against injustice and violence is incomparably more valuable if it comes entirely from people who have been prompted to it purely by sentiments of humanity and a love of Pew This cannot be said of a man like me, a few who regards other Jews as his brothers. For him, an injustice done to the Jews is the same as an injustice done to himself. He must not be the judge in his own case, but wait for the judgment of impartial outsiders.
These are my reasons. But I should like to add that I have always honoured and admired that highly developed sense of justice which is one of the noblest features of the French tradition. | <urn:uuid:d40517b7-bd49-4e92-bc89-bc3ad9e58df7> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Extras/Einstein_German_Academies.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251694176.67/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127020458-20200127050458-00071.warc.gz | en | 0.981343 | 3,687 | 3.3125 | 3 | [
-0.13530853390693665,
0.5810584425926208,
-0.07813318073749542,
0.017370205372571945,
0.10160068422555923,
-0.14123977720737457,
0.1723737269639969,
0.2128283679485321,
0.0725482702255249,
-0.37182188034057617,
0.41372865438461304,
-0.4879942536354065,
-0.009922555647790432,
0.380920976400... | 2 | Einstein, the Nazis and the German Academies
Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of the German Reich on 30 January 1930. At this time Albert Einstein was in the United States visiting the California Institute of Technology. Max Planck was Secretary of the Mathematics and Natural Science Section of the Prussian Academy of Sciences and president of the Kaiser Wilhelm Gesellschaft, the main German research organisation. On 23 February 1933, the Reichstag Fire gave Hitler the excuse to suspend all civil liberties in Germany. On 10 March 1933 Einstein reacted to the situation in Germany declaring that he could not live in a country where such liberties were not upheld:
As long as I have any choice, I will only stay in a country where political liberty, toleration, and equality of all citizens before the law are the rule. Political liberty implies liberty to express one's political views orally and in writing, toleration, respect for any and every individual opinion.Einstein and the Prussian Academy
These conditions do not obtain in Germany at the present time. Those who have done most for the cause of international understanding, among them some of the leading artists, are being persecuted there.
Any social organism can become psychically distempered just as any individual can, especially in times of difficulty. Nations usually survive these distempers. I hope that healthy conditions will soon supervene in Germany, and that in future her great men like Kant and Goethe will not merely be commemorated from time to time, but that the principles which they inculcated will also prevail in public life and in the general consciousness.
The Prussian Academy of Sciences asked Max Plank, as secretary, to write to Einstein condemning Einstein's statement. He did so, choosing to emphasise that Einstein's statement would make life harder for Jews in Germany:
By your efforts, your racial and religious brethren will not get relief from their situation, which is already difficult enough, but rather they will be pressed the more.Planck urged Einstein to resign from the Prussian Academy of Sciences but Einstein had got in first and had sent a letter of resignation to the Prussian Academy of Sciences on 28 March before Planck's letter had reached him. On 1 April 1933 there was the so-called "boycott day" when Jewish shops were boycotted and Jewish lecturers were not allowed to enter the university. On the same day (almost certainly deliberate), since Planck was by this time on holiday in Sicily, another of the Academy's secretaries, Professor Dr Ernst Heymann, wrote to Einstein:
The Prussian Academy of Sciences heard with indignation from the newspapers of Albert Einstein's participation in atrocity-mongering in France and America. It immediately demanded an explanation. In the meantime Einstein has announced his withdrawal from the Academy, giving as his reason that he cannot continue to serve the Prussian State under its present Government. Being a Swiss citizen, he also, it seems, intends to resign the Prussian nationality which he acquired in 1913 simply by becoming a full member of the Academy.Einstein replied to the Prussian Academy of Sciences' accusations, writing from Le Coq, near Ostende, on 5 April 1933:
The Prussian Academy of Sciences is particularly distressed by Einstein's activities as an agitator in foreign countries, as it and its members have always felt themselves bound by the closest ties to the Prussian State and, while abstaining strictly from all political partisanship, have always stressed and remained faithful to the national idea. It has, therefore, no reason to regret Einstein's withdrawal.
I have received information from a thoroughly reliable source that the Academy of Sciences has spoken in an official statement of "Einstein's participation in atrocity-mongering in America and France."On 6 April, the day after he had written to the Academy, Einstein wrote a private letter to Planck:
I hereby declare that I have never taken any part in atrocity-mongering, and I must add that I have seen nothing of any such mongering anywhere. In general people have contented themselves with reproducing and commenting on the official statements and orders of responsible members of the German Government, together with the programme for the annihilation of the German Jews by economic methods.
The statements I have issued to the Press were concerned with my intention to resign my position in the Academy and renounce my Prussian citizenship; I gave as my reason for these steps that I did not wish to live in a country where the individual does not enjoy equality before the law and freedom to say and teach what he likes.
Further, I described the present state of affairs in Germany as a state of psychic distemper in the masses and also made some remarks about its causes.
In a written document which I allowed the International League for combating Anti-Semitism to make use of for the purpose of enlisting support, and which was not intended for the Press at all, I also called upon all sensible people, who are still faithful to the ideals of a civilization in peril, to do their utmost to prevent this mass-psychosis, which is exhibiting itself in such terrible symptoms in Germany to-day, from spreading further.
It would have been an easy matter for the Academy to get hold of a correct version of my words before issuing the sort of statement about me that it has. The German Press has reproduced a deliberately distorted version of my words, as indeed was only to be expected with the Press muzzled as it is to-day.
I am ready to stand by every word I have published. In return, I expect the Academy to communicate this statement of mine to its members and also to the German public before which I have been slandered, especially as it has itself had a hand in slandering me before that public.
... I have never taken part in any "atrocity-mongering." I will give the Academy the benefit of assuming it made these slanderous statements only under outside pressure. But even if that should be so, its conduct will hardly be to its credit; some of its more decent members will certainly feel a sense of shame even today.On 7 April 1933, Heinrich von Ficker, on behalf of the Prussian Academy of Sciences, wrote to Einstein c/o Professor Ehrenfest at Leyden. This letter was the reply to Einstein's resignation letter sent on 28 March 1933:
You have probably learned that these false accusations were used as an excuse for the confiscation of my property in Germany. My Dutch colleagues joined in an effort to help me over the initial financial difficulties. It was fortunately not necessary for me to accept their help since I have been careful to prepare for such an emergency. It will certainly be easy for you to imagine how the public outside Germany feels about the tactics employed against me. Surely there will come a time when decent Germans will be ashamed of the ignominious way in which I have been treated.
I cannot help but remind you that, in all these years, I have only enhanced Germany's prestige and have never allowed myself to be alienated by the systematic attacks on me in the rightist press, especially those of recent years when no one took the trouble to stand up for me. Now, however, the war of annihilation against my defenseless fellow Jews compels me to employ, on their behalf. whatever influence I may possess in the eyes of the world.
That you may better appreciate my feeling, I ask you to imagine yourself for the moment in this situation: assume that you were a university professor in Prague and that a government came into power which would deprive the Czechs of German origin of their livelihood and at the same time employ crude methods to prevent them from leaving the country. Assume further that guards were posted at the frontiers to shoot all those who, without permission, attempted to leave the country that waged a bloodless war of annihilation against them. Would you then deem it decent to remain a silent witness to such developments without raising your voice in support of those who are being persecuted? And is not the destruction of the German Jews by starvation the official programme of the present German government?
If you were to read what I actually said (not distorted accounts), you would doubtless realise that I expressed myself in a thoughtful and moderate way. I say this not to apologise but to demonstrate vividly the ignoble and ignominious manner in which the German authorities have behaved towards me.
I am happy that you have nevertheless approached me as an old friend and that, in spite of severe pressures from without, the relationship between us has not been affected. It remains as fine and as genuine as ever, regardless of what has taken place. "on a lower level," so to speak. The same holds for Laue, for whom I have the very highest respect ...
As the present Principal Secretary of the Prussian Academy I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your communication dated 28 March announcing your resignation of your membership of the Academy. The Academy took cognizance of your resignation in its plenary session of 30 March 1933.On 11 April 1933, Heinrich von Ficker and Ernst Heymann, replied on behalf of the Academy to Einstein's letter of 6 April 1933:
While the Academy profoundly regrets the turn events have taken, this regret is inspired by the thought that a man of the highest scientific authority, whom many years of work among Germans and many years of membership of our society must have made familiar with the German character and German habits of thought, should have chosen this moment to associate himself with a body of people abroad who - partly no doubt through ignorance of actual conditions and events - have done much damage to our German people by disseminating erroneous views and unfounded rumours. We had confidently expected that one who had belonged to our Academy for so long would have ranged himself, irrespective of his own political sympathies, on the side of the defenders of our nation against the flood of lies which has been let loose upon it. In these days of mud- slinging, some of it vile, some of it ridiculous, a good word for the German people from you in particular might have produced a great effect, especially abroad. Instead of which your testimony has served as a handle to the enemies not merely of the present Government but of the German people. This has come as a bitter and grievous disappointment to us, which would no doubt have led inevitably to a parting of the ways even if we had not received your resignation.
The Academy would like to point out that its statement of 1 April 1933 was based not merely on German but principally on foreign, particularly French and Belgian, newspaper reports which Herr Einstein has not contradicted; in addition, it had before it his much-canvassed statement to the League for combating anti-Semitism, in which he deplores Germany's relapse into the barbarism of long-passed ages. Moreover, the Academy has reason to know that Herr Einstein, who according to his own statement has taken no part in atrocity mongering, has at least done nothing to counteract unjust suspicions and slanders, which, in the opinion of the Academy, it was his duty as one of its senior members to do. Instead of that Herr Einstein has made statements, and in foreign countries at that, such as coming from a man of world-wide reputation, were bound to be exploited and abused by the enemies not merely of the present German Government but of the whole German people.On 12 April 1933, writing from Le Coq-sur-Mer, Belgium, Einstein replied to the Academy's letter of 7 April written by Heinrich von Ficker:
To the Prussian Academy of Sciences, Berlin.Einstein and the Bavarian Academy
I have received your communication of the seventh instant and deeply deplore the mental attitude displayed in it.
As regards the fact, I can only reply as follows: What you say about my behaviour is, at bottom, merely another form of the statement you have already published, in which you accuse me of having taken part in atrocity-mongering against the German nation. I have already, in my last letter, characterized this accusation as slanderous.
You have also remarked that a "good word" on my part for "the German people" would have produced a great effect abroad. To this I must reply that such a testimony as you suggest would have been equivalent to a repudiation of all those notions of justice and liberty for which I have all my life stood. Such a testimony would not be, as you put it, a good word for the German nation; on the contrary, it would only have helped the cause of those who are seeking to undermine the ideas and principles which have won for the German nation a place of honour in the civilized world. By giving such a testimony in the present circumstances I should have been contributing, even if only indirectly, to the barbarization of manners and the destruction of all existing cultural values.
It was for this reason that I felt compelled to resign from the Academy, and your letter only shows me how right I was to do so.
Einstein's resignation from the Prussian Academy on 28 March 1933 prompted the Bavarian Academy of Sciences, based in Munich, of which Einstein was also a member, to write to him on 8 April 1933:
In your letter to the Prussian Academy of Sciences you have given the present state of affairs in Germany as the reason for your resignation. The Bavarian Academy of Sciences, which some years ago elected you a corresponding member, is also a German Academy, closely allied to the Prussian and other German Academies; hence your withdrawal from the Prussian Academy of Sciences is bound to affect your relations with our Academy.Einstein replied to the Bavarian Academy of Sciences, Munich, on 21 April 1933, writing from Le Coq-sur-Mer:
We must therefore ask you how you envisage your relations with our Academy after what has passed between yourself and the Prussian Academy.
I have given it as the reason for my resignation from the Prussian Academy that in the present circumstances I have no wish either to be a German citizen or to remain in a position of quasi-dependence on the Prussian Ministry of Education.Einstein and the German Physical Society
These reasons would not, in themselves, involve the severing of my relations with the Bavarian Academy. If I nevertheless desire my name to be removed from the list of members, it is for a different reason.
The primary duty of an Academy is to encourage and protect the scientific life of a country. The learned societies of Germany have, however - to the best of knowledge - stood by and said nothing while a not inconsiderable proportion of German savants and students, and also of professional men of university education, have been deprived of all chance of getting employment or earning their livings in Germany. I would rather not belong to any society which behaves in such a manner, even if it does so under external pressure.
In June 1933, having resigned from the Prussian Academy of Sciences and the Bavarian Academy of Sciences, Einstein wrote to Max von Laue:
I have learned that my unclear relationship to those German organisations which still include my name in their list of members could cause problems for my friends in Germany. For this reason, I would like to ask you to make sure that my name is removed from the membership lists of these organisations. These include, for example, the German Physical Society. ... I am explicitly empowering you to do this for me.Max von Laue replied:
Although I am very thankful that you are trying to make things as easy as possible for us, I nevertheless could not do these ... things without the deepest sadness.Einstein received no reply from the German Physical Society who removed his name from their list of members without comment.
French manifesto against Anti-Semitism in Germany
Einstein was invited to add his name to a French manifesto against Anti-Semitism in Germany. He declined, giving his reasons in the following reply:
I have considered this most important proposal, which has a bearing on several things that I have nearly at heart, carefully from every angle. As a result I have come to the conclusion that I cannot take a personal part in this extremely important affair, for two reasons:
In the first place I am, after all, still a German citizen, and in the second I am a Jew. As regards the first point I must add that I have worked in German institutions and have always been treated with full confidence in Germany. However deeply I may regret the things that are being done there, however strongly I am bound to condemn the terrible mistakes that are being made with the approval of the Government; it is impossible for me to take part personally in an enterprise set on foot by responsible members of a foreign Government. In order that you may appreciate this fully, suppose that a French citizen in a more or less analogous situation had got up a protest against the French Government's action in conjunction with prominent German statesmen. Even if you fully admitted that the protest was amply warranted by the facts, you would still, I expect, regard the behaviour of your fellow-citizen as an act of treachery. If Zola had felt it necessary to leave France at the time of the Dreyfus case, he would still certainly not have associated himself with a protest by German official personages, however much he might have approved of their action. He would have confined himself to blushing for his countrymen. In the second place, a protest against injustice and violence is incomparably more valuable if it comes entirely from people who have been prompted to it purely by sentiments of humanity and a love of Pew This cannot be said of a man like me, a few who regards other Jews as his brothers. For him, an injustice done to the Jews is the same as an injustice done to himself. He must not be the judge in his own case, but wait for the judgment of impartial outsiders.
These are my reasons. But I should like to add that I have always honoured and admired that highly developed sense of justice which is one of the noblest features of the French tradition. | 3,731 | ENGLISH | 1 |
In our Bible study, this week, we focussed on the second chapter of the book of Matthew. You may know of this chapter as being part of the Christmas story. In Matthew 1, we are told the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah - from Abraham to Joseph. “Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Messiah.” (Matt 1:17) Briefly, in verses 18-25, Matthew explains that Mary, the chosen mother of Jesus was found to be pregnant, although she and Joseph were not yet married and had not yet come together. The pregnancy was through the Holy Spirit. Following the instructions from an angel, they do not consummate their marriage until after the baby is born, and they call him Jesus.
Matthew 2 begins, “After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”
So, about that star - from how far did the Magi travel? Why didn’t Herod notice the star? The Bible does not tell us exactly how many miles the Magi traveled, but we know they were from a land east of Jerusalem and Bethlehem, and the gifts they brought - gold, frankincense, and myrrh - were products of Arabia, so that was likely their home. This trip would have been anywhere from 400 to 700 miles. They may have come on foot, or they may have ridden on the backs of camels. The trip would have taken 2 to 6 weeks.
We read in Matthew 2:7-8, “Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared. 8He sent them to Bethlehem and said, ‘Go and search carefully for the child. As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship him.’” It appears that Herod, had not noticed the star, himself, although it was closer to him than it was the Magi. According to Google, the distance from Jerusalem to Bethlehem is 5.52 miles. This means the Magi were almost there when they stopped to speak with Herod. Herod did not go with them, but sent them along, and requested that they return and tell him the location of the young king. “When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi.” (v.16) The star could have been there for two years!
Why didn’t Herod notice the star? Why didn’t Herod go to worship the newborn king who was only a short distance away? The simple answer is that he did not want to. He chose to ignore the light. Luke’s gospel tells us, “8And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night.” Could it have been the light of the star that made it possible to keep watch over their flocks - at night? Being that the star was the sign God, the Creator of the universe determined would be His sign to all of the world, that His one and only Son was born, it had to be unimaginably bright - so bright that it would not easily go unnoticed.
We are all given free will. God gives us the right to choose for ourselves how we will live, and what we will believe. “Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me.” (Rev. 3:20) Jesus does not force us to believe in Him. He makes himself available. It must be our choice to believe. Salvation is a free gift, given only to those who choose to believe.
Jesus is not far away. You don’t have to travel 500 miles on foot. He is here, right now, waiting for someone reading this blog, to make their decision. Don’t you see His star? Don’t you hear His knock? He is waiting for someone, today, to make the decision to have their sins forgiven and have everlasting life. 2020 is not promised. You have held out long enough. Make today the day you receive your salvation.
For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.
Amen! Merry Christmas to all!
If this post was not for you, please share it with someone who needs to take notice of the light.
The Bible study I referred to is an online Bible study though a
Facebook group called Educators in the Word (Rock Hill). In
January we will begin with Matthew 3, it is not too late to join us!
I am a wife, mother, educator, and author who, between other duties, enjoys writing. My name is actually Kimberly Griffith Massey. In this blog, I will share some sighting of God's light each week.
Author Photo by
Heather G. Rollings, 2017
Cover photo by Carlton Griffith Photography | <urn:uuid:1ae71946-9608-457f-ab60-3657c013c8a1> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.kimberlyga.com/blog2019/previous/2 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251669967.70/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125041318-20200125070318-00003.warc.gz | en | 0.983683 | 1,238 | 3.609375 | 4 | [
-0.277281790971756,
0.1830805242061615,
-0.08049184083938599,
-0.12353776395320892,
-0.09597008675336838,
0.0064334021881222725,
0.12190230935811996,
0.343314528465271,
0.08190436661243439,
-0.0784219354391098,
-0.05496913194656372,
0.13920554518699646,
0.25080350041389465,
0.0798081085085... | 20 | In our Bible study, this week, we focussed on the second chapter of the book of Matthew. You may know of this chapter as being part of the Christmas story. In Matthew 1, we are told the genealogy of Jesus the Messiah - from Abraham to Joseph. “Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Messiah.” (Matt 1:17) Briefly, in verses 18-25, Matthew explains that Mary, the chosen mother of Jesus was found to be pregnant, although she and Joseph were not yet married and had not yet come together. The pregnancy was through the Holy Spirit. Following the instructions from an angel, they do not consummate their marriage until after the baby is born, and they call him Jesus.
Matthew 2 begins, “After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, “Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.”
So, about that star - from how far did the Magi travel? Why didn’t Herod notice the star? The Bible does not tell us exactly how many miles the Magi traveled, but we know they were from a land east of Jerusalem and Bethlehem, and the gifts they brought - gold, frankincense, and myrrh - were products of Arabia, so that was likely their home. This trip would have been anywhere from 400 to 700 miles. They may have come on foot, or they may have ridden on the backs of camels. The trip would have taken 2 to 6 weeks.
We read in Matthew 2:7-8, “Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared. 8He sent them to Bethlehem and said, ‘Go and search carefully for the child. As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship him.’” It appears that Herod, had not noticed the star, himself, although it was closer to him than it was the Magi. According to Google, the distance from Jerusalem to Bethlehem is 5.52 miles. This means the Magi were almost there when they stopped to speak with Herod. Herod did not go with them, but sent them along, and requested that they return and tell him the location of the young king. “When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi.” (v.16) The star could have been there for two years!
Why didn’t Herod notice the star? Why didn’t Herod go to worship the newborn king who was only a short distance away? The simple answer is that he did not want to. He chose to ignore the light. Luke’s gospel tells us, “8And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night.” Could it have been the light of the star that made it possible to keep watch over their flocks - at night? Being that the star was the sign God, the Creator of the universe determined would be His sign to all of the world, that His one and only Son was born, it had to be unimaginably bright - so bright that it would not easily go unnoticed.
We are all given free will. God gives us the right to choose for ourselves how we will live, and what we will believe. “Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me.” (Rev. 3:20) Jesus does not force us to believe in Him. He makes himself available. It must be our choice to believe. Salvation is a free gift, given only to those who choose to believe.
Jesus is not far away. You don’t have to travel 500 miles on foot. He is here, right now, waiting for someone reading this blog, to make their decision. Don’t you see His star? Don’t you hear His knock? He is waiting for someone, today, to make the decision to have their sins forgiven and have everlasting life. 2020 is not promised. You have held out long enough. Make today the day you receive your salvation.
For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.
Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.
Amen! Merry Christmas to all!
If this post was not for you, please share it with someone who needs to take notice of the light.
The Bible study I referred to is an online Bible study though a
Facebook group called Educators in the Word (Rock Hill). In
January we will begin with Matthew 3, it is not too late to join us!
I am a wife, mother, educator, and author who, between other duties, enjoys writing. My name is actually Kimberly Griffith Massey. In this blog, I will share some sighting of God's light each week.
Author Photo by
Heather G. Rollings, 2017
Cover photo by Carlton Griffith Photography | 1,229 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Sen no Rikyū(千利休, 1522 – April 21, 1591), also known simply as Rikyū, is considered the historical figure with the most profound influence on chanoyu, the Japanese "Way of Tea", particularly the tradition of wabi-cha. He was also the first to emphasize several key aspects of the ceremony, including rustic simplicity, directness of approach and honesty of self. Originating from the Sengoku period and the Azuchi–Momoyama period, these aspects of the tea ceremony persist. Rikyū is known by many names; for convenience this article will refer to him as Rikyū throughout.
There are three iemoto (sōke), or "head houses", of the Japanese Way of Tea, that are directly descended from Rikyū: the Omotesenke, Urasenke, and Mushakōjisenke, all three of which are dedicated to passing forward the teachings of their mutual family founder, Rikyū.
Rikyū was born in Sakai, present-day Osaka prefecture. His father was a warehouse owner named Tanaka Yohei(田中与兵衛), who later in life also used the family name Sen, and his mother was Gesshin Myōchin(月岑妙珎). His childhood name was Yoshiro. | <urn:uuid:c254d9f6-afa9-4a6a-bb2f-9205e2106293> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://wn.com/Sen_no_Riky%C5%AB | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250598726.39/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120110422-20200120134422-00378.warc.gz | en | 0.980145 | 289 | 3.53125 | 4 | [
0.04100273177027702,
-0.002223898656666279,
0.18945401906967163,
-0.09353075921535492,
0.039268508553504944,
0.24398313462734222,
0.9404779076576233,
-0.21767979860305786,
-0.29615455865859985,
-0.16570955514907837,
0.14555124938488007,
-0.27062132954597473,
0.6091951727867126,
0.464358568... | 1 | Sen no Rikyū(千利休, 1522 – April 21, 1591), also known simply as Rikyū, is considered the historical figure with the most profound influence on chanoyu, the Japanese "Way of Tea", particularly the tradition of wabi-cha. He was also the first to emphasize several key aspects of the ceremony, including rustic simplicity, directness of approach and honesty of self. Originating from the Sengoku period and the Azuchi–Momoyama period, these aspects of the tea ceremony persist. Rikyū is known by many names; for convenience this article will refer to him as Rikyū throughout.
There are three iemoto (sōke), or "head houses", of the Japanese Way of Tea, that are directly descended from Rikyū: the Omotesenke, Urasenke, and Mushakōjisenke, all three of which are dedicated to passing forward the teachings of their mutual family founder, Rikyū.
Rikyū was born in Sakai, present-day Osaka prefecture. His father was a warehouse owner named Tanaka Yohei(田中与兵衛), who later in life also used the family name Sen, and his mother was Gesshin Myōchin(月岑妙珎). His childhood name was Yoshiro. | 289 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Lal Bahadur Shastri
The struggle for freedom was intensifield all over the country in 1930. Mahatma Gandhi started the Salt Satyagraha. Lal Bahadur took a leading role in it.At the age of seventeen Lal Bahadur had participated in a procession against the British Government. The government had arrested him and then freed him. But this time it did not let him off easily. He had been calling on people not to pay land revenue and taxes to the government and the government had been keeping a wary eye on him. Now he was sent to prison for two and a half years.From this time onwards prison became his second home. He was sent to prison seven times and was forced to spend nine long years in various prisons on different occasions.His going to prison was a blessing in disguise. He had time to read a number of good books. He became familiar with the works of western philosophers, revolutionaries and social reformers. He translated the autobiography of Madam Curie (a French scientist who discovered radium) into Hindi.Lal Bahadurs virtues shone even in the prison. He was a ideal prisoner. He was a model to others in discipline and restraint. Many political prisoners used to quarrel among themselves for small things. They used to cringe for small favors before the officials of the prison. But Lal Bahadur used to give up his comforts for others. | <urn:uuid:ee449cba-ad95-44ef-93dc-516689af97a6> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://cexams.com/Reasoning-Quiz/353 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594101.10/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119010920-20200119034920-00448.warc.gz | en | 0.989083 | 288 | 3.890625 | 4 | [
0.07566516846418381,
0.39514660835266113,
-0.02701307274401188,
-0.08264154940843582,
-0.316262811422348,
0.1476457118988037,
0.7828525304794312,
-0.15283752977848053,
-0.030371971428394318,
0.0638355016708374,
0.3461546301841736,
-0.22167743742465973,
0.41394394636154175,
0.37226039171218... | 1 | Lal Bahadur Shastri
The struggle for freedom was intensifield all over the country in 1930. Mahatma Gandhi started the Salt Satyagraha. Lal Bahadur took a leading role in it.At the age of seventeen Lal Bahadur had participated in a procession against the British Government. The government had arrested him and then freed him. But this time it did not let him off easily. He had been calling on people not to pay land revenue and taxes to the government and the government had been keeping a wary eye on him. Now he was sent to prison for two and a half years.From this time onwards prison became his second home. He was sent to prison seven times and was forced to spend nine long years in various prisons on different occasions.His going to prison was a blessing in disguise. He had time to read a number of good books. He became familiar with the works of western philosophers, revolutionaries and social reformers. He translated the autobiography of Madam Curie (a French scientist who discovered radium) into Hindi.Lal Bahadurs virtues shone even in the prison. He was a ideal prisoner. He was a model to others in discipline and restraint. Many political prisoners used to quarrel among themselves for small things. They used to cringe for small favors before the officials of the prison. But Lal Bahadur used to give up his comforts for others. | 292 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The Albigensian Crusade was started by the Roman Catholic Church under the order of Pope Innocent III as what was actually a travesty of a religious movement, as it had hardly any religious impact. It did, however, lead to immense political, pecuniary, and sociocultural alteration in the Holy Roman Empire and France in the 13th Century AD because it really wasn’t about religion; it was about power. Wealth was spread and lost throughout the Holy Roman Empire and France as the fighting raged on. Southern France’s political power was abolished and replaced as a result of the attacks on Languedoc, a powerhouse for beliefs contrary to Roman Catholicism. A cultured was razed and a society was forever changed.
Languedoc was home to many trade towns on the Mediterranean Sea as well as the Atlantic Ocean (Tyerman 576). It had been very prosperous and had become a fairly wealthy region; however the destructive nature of the crusade’s campaigns including: looting and burning cities, and decimating its residents led to the atrophy of Languedocs economy.The Albigensian crusade was a sumptuous endeavour (Tyerman 97) meaning that the Church, who sponsored the crusade, would need to acquire the funds necessary to support the crusaders. Which wasn’t too difficult, as the Church actually controlled most of the wealth in the Holy Roman Empire (Roberts 124) through taxing its members. Taxation of citizens of the empire and donations from the more affluent and pious aristocrats financed the | <urn:uuid:84c1fcba-23fe-4a8c-9e4c-c2b94af5a79b> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.bartleby.com/essay/The-Travesty-of-the-Albigensian-Crusade-P3SN3C44C8B6A | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250606872.19/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122071919-20200122100919-00137.warc.gz | en | 0.980693 | 316 | 3.5625 | 4 | [
-0.2381037324666977,
0.5572876334190369,
-0.10682986676692963,
-0.4846595823764801,
-0.3707379996776581,
-0.037998612970113754,
-0.3833262026309967,
0.34202420711517334,
0.33017590641975403,
0.09077488631010056,
0.09006870537996292,
-0.35421180725097656,
-0.0335804745554924,
0.116192214190... | 2 | The Albigensian Crusade was started by the Roman Catholic Church under the order of Pope Innocent III as what was actually a travesty of a religious movement, as it had hardly any religious impact. It did, however, lead to immense political, pecuniary, and sociocultural alteration in the Holy Roman Empire and France in the 13th Century AD because it really wasn’t about religion; it was about power. Wealth was spread and lost throughout the Holy Roman Empire and France as the fighting raged on. Southern France’s political power was abolished and replaced as a result of the attacks on Languedoc, a powerhouse for beliefs contrary to Roman Catholicism. A cultured was razed and a society was forever changed.
Languedoc was home to many trade towns on the Mediterranean Sea as well as the Atlantic Ocean (Tyerman 576). It had been very prosperous and had become a fairly wealthy region; however the destructive nature of the crusade’s campaigns including: looting and burning cities, and decimating its residents led to the atrophy of Languedocs economy.The Albigensian crusade was a sumptuous endeavour (Tyerman 97) meaning that the Church, who sponsored the crusade, would need to acquire the funds necessary to support the crusaders. Which wasn’t too difficult, as the Church actually controlled most of the wealth in the Holy Roman Empire (Roberts 124) through taxing its members. Taxation of citizens of the empire and donations from the more affluent and pious aristocrats financed the | 323 | ENGLISH | 1 |
A robot is a machine that does work for people. The word ‘robot’ appeared in the 1920s and it was first used in a science fiction story. In real life, the robot was invented later, in 1954. There are different kinds of robots which are used in different industries. Most of them are operated with the help of a computer program. Instead of humans, robots do hard and boring work in unpleasant or dangerous environments. They usually work faster and more accurately than people. They never get tired and do not make mistakes. Nowadays robots are often used for domestic needs – to clean houses or to look after sick and elderly people. Scientists say that soon robots will become a normal part of our life, like mobiles and computers today. | <urn:uuid:efce8d88-7fec-4015-9b3d-7129883616cf> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://american-center-krasnodar.ru/q5105/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250610919.33/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123131001-20200123160001-00282.warc.gz | en | 0.98219 | 153 | 3.421875 | 3 | [
-0.1382983922958374,
-0.15745341777801514,
0.24022915959358215,
-0.0032342695631086826,
-0.32446444034576416,
-0.059556540101766586,
0.4696185290813446,
0.6083202362060547,
-0.27377328276634216,
0.30234235525131226,
0.3934096395969391,
0.1038367971777916,
0.38326892256736755,
0.06234681978... | 6 | A robot is a machine that does work for people. The word ‘robot’ appeared in the 1920s and it was first used in a science fiction story. In real life, the robot was invented later, in 1954. There are different kinds of robots which are used in different industries. Most of them are operated with the help of a computer program. Instead of humans, robots do hard and boring work in unpleasant or dangerous environments. They usually work faster and more accurately than people. They never get tired and do not make mistakes. Nowadays robots are often used for domestic needs – to clean houses or to look after sick and elderly people. Scientists say that soon robots will become a normal part of our life, like mobiles and computers today. | 157 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The German military pioneered some revolutionary concepts and technology during the Second World War. Weapons like the STG 44, the Me 262 jet fighter and the V1 and V2 missiles all proved concepts that would go on to have huge impacts on military – and even human – society.
But with the successes there were, naturally, plenty of failures.
A great deal of technical effort was squandered on a range of projects, from those that ignored the realities of Germany’s situation – such as the King Tiger – to utterly ridiculous concepts like the Maus super heavy tank.
It is amongst this “probably should have cancelled this sooner” pile, we can find the Me 328.
A product of the Messerschmitt company, the Me 328 was part of a triumvirate of aircraft that were designed to exploit the German advances in new rocket and jet technologies. The other two designs would evolve into the famous Me 262 jet fighter and the Me 163 Rocket interceptor.
Unlike it’s siblings, the 328 proved to be a dead duck. It was initially intended to be a parasite fighter that would be carried or towed by a bomber and be launched to provide protection from fighters.
This concept was not new, with most countries experimenting with the idea over a fifty year period. It was never a particularly successful idea, despite the effort, though some designs were probably practical.
But it wasn’t just the fact its initial design concept was flawed that alone doomed the Me 328. On paper, the idea had a lot going for it. The aircraft would largely be constructed of wood, making it far cheaper and easier to build than conventional, metal designs.
Design work began in 1941 and by March 1942, three basic versions of the fighter were submitted for consideration: the Me 328 A-1, armed with two 20 mm MG151 guns; Me 328 A-2, armed with two MG151 and two 30 mm MK 103 cannons and having a larger wing; and the Me 328 A-3, which had equipment for aerial refuelling.
Additionally three bomber variants were proposed; the Me 328 B-1, B-2 and B-3, armed with bombs weighing up to 500, 1000 and 1400 kg respectively.
Proposals were also made to build folding winged versions that could be launched from U-Boats and parasite bombers to go along with the Amerika bomber that could be used to attack New York.
Sources are unclear whether two or three prototype manned gliders were built to test the design, but experimental flights of these models began near Linz in 1943. These initial test flights proved the airframe to be capable of flight. They also proved that the aircraft was able to detach from its carrier aircraft, as well as being launched from the ground by both catapult and rocket-propelled sledge.
As already mentioned, the main advantage of the machine was its cheap construction. The wings were made of wood, the fuselage had a metal frame only in the areas of the centre section, the cabin and the landing ski. The rest of the structure was made of plywood and pine laths. Only the stabilizer was all-metal, since it was taken unchanged from the Bf 109 fighter.
With this, authorisation to build seven pre-production models with the proposed engine was given to find the best configuration, with wing and fuselage mounted designs built and tested.
It was here that the problems became apparent.
The engine chosen was the Argus 014 pulse jet. A simple and cheap design, the pulse jet was the same engine used on the V1 flying bomb. As such it fitted perfectly in with the aircraft’s design principle of cheap simplicity.
Unfortunately, the Argus was loud. As in so loud, and with so much vibration, that it actually would damage the -328’s wooden structure when run. There are reports of prototypes actually coming apart during testing. This is before one considers just what it must have been like for the pilots who were trying to fly these things!
There is also the problem that the Argus did not perform well at attitude, which considering its purpose of bomber defence, meant that it was not going to prove of much use in that role.
With the failure of the parasite program, attention switched to the possibility of using the Me 328 as a manned missile, with Jacob Schweyer given the task of building a Me 328 B-0.
This aircraft still had a wooden fuselage, but was heavily armoured. The pilot had a 15-mm thick armoured plate in front of him, as well a 80-mm frontal armoured glass. Another 15-mm plate was mounted in the pilots headrest.
This variant was intended to have a pyrotechnic charge that would blow the tail off the aircraft as it began it suicide dive into the target, allowing the pilot to bail out.
None of these ideas ever got close to service as the problems with the Argus were insurmountable. A proposed Me 328C was to have a Jumo 004 turbojet, which was being used in the Me 262 and Arado 234 bomber. But it was recognised that the -328 was a marginal design for use of such an expensive commodity and priority given to the Heinkel He 162 design instead.
The program ultimately finished in mid-1944 with either nine or ten aircraft produced. It was an interesting idea, and one can understand the Germans wish to get such a cheap design into use. Exploiting revolutionary technology paid dividends with the German rocket and jet weapon programs.
But, quite frankly, the failings of the pulse jet for manned aircraft should have been recognised earlier. Though not the worst example, the Me 328 program is indicative of the waste that beset the German development programs during the Second World War, something their Allied counterparts were much better at dealing with.
Ed Nash has spent years traveling around the world. Between June 2015 and July 2016 he volunteered with the Kurdish YPG in its battle against ISIS in Syria; his book on his experiences, Desert Sniper, was published in the UK by Little, Brown in September 2018. | <urn:uuid:5a2a4f42-58e7-4219-900d-3e587b3bdab7> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://militarymatters.online/the-me-328-the-wunderwaffe-parasite-fighter/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250601628.36/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121074002-20200121103002-00302.warc.gz | en | 0.982683 | 1,253 | 3.328125 | 3 | [
-0.5701154470443726,
0.514441728591919,
-0.17357495427131653,
-0.10065222531557083,
-0.16752147674560547,
0.05472901836037636,
-0.41112220287323,
0.5765422582626343,
-0.11662673205137253,
-0.06422881782054901,
-0.10723000764846802,
-0.3104124665260315,
0.1402488648891449,
0.076505348086357... | 2 | The German military pioneered some revolutionary concepts and technology during the Second World War. Weapons like the STG 44, the Me 262 jet fighter and the V1 and V2 missiles all proved concepts that would go on to have huge impacts on military – and even human – society.
But with the successes there were, naturally, plenty of failures.
A great deal of technical effort was squandered on a range of projects, from those that ignored the realities of Germany’s situation – such as the King Tiger – to utterly ridiculous concepts like the Maus super heavy tank.
It is amongst this “probably should have cancelled this sooner” pile, we can find the Me 328.
A product of the Messerschmitt company, the Me 328 was part of a triumvirate of aircraft that were designed to exploit the German advances in new rocket and jet technologies. The other two designs would evolve into the famous Me 262 jet fighter and the Me 163 Rocket interceptor.
Unlike it’s siblings, the 328 proved to be a dead duck. It was initially intended to be a parasite fighter that would be carried or towed by a bomber and be launched to provide protection from fighters.
This concept was not new, with most countries experimenting with the idea over a fifty year period. It was never a particularly successful idea, despite the effort, though some designs were probably practical.
But it wasn’t just the fact its initial design concept was flawed that alone doomed the Me 328. On paper, the idea had a lot going for it. The aircraft would largely be constructed of wood, making it far cheaper and easier to build than conventional, metal designs.
Design work began in 1941 and by March 1942, three basic versions of the fighter were submitted for consideration: the Me 328 A-1, armed with two 20 mm MG151 guns; Me 328 A-2, armed with two MG151 and two 30 mm MK 103 cannons and having a larger wing; and the Me 328 A-3, which had equipment for aerial refuelling.
Additionally three bomber variants were proposed; the Me 328 B-1, B-2 and B-3, armed with bombs weighing up to 500, 1000 and 1400 kg respectively.
Proposals were also made to build folding winged versions that could be launched from U-Boats and parasite bombers to go along with the Amerika bomber that could be used to attack New York.
Sources are unclear whether two or three prototype manned gliders were built to test the design, but experimental flights of these models began near Linz in 1943. These initial test flights proved the airframe to be capable of flight. They also proved that the aircraft was able to detach from its carrier aircraft, as well as being launched from the ground by both catapult and rocket-propelled sledge.
As already mentioned, the main advantage of the machine was its cheap construction. The wings were made of wood, the fuselage had a metal frame only in the areas of the centre section, the cabin and the landing ski. The rest of the structure was made of plywood and pine laths. Only the stabilizer was all-metal, since it was taken unchanged from the Bf 109 fighter.
With this, authorisation to build seven pre-production models with the proposed engine was given to find the best configuration, with wing and fuselage mounted designs built and tested.
It was here that the problems became apparent.
The engine chosen was the Argus 014 pulse jet. A simple and cheap design, the pulse jet was the same engine used on the V1 flying bomb. As such it fitted perfectly in with the aircraft’s design principle of cheap simplicity.
Unfortunately, the Argus was loud. As in so loud, and with so much vibration, that it actually would damage the -328’s wooden structure when run. There are reports of prototypes actually coming apart during testing. This is before one considers just what it must have been like for the pilots who were trying to fly these things!
There is also the problem that the Argus did not perform well at attitude, which considering its purpose of bomber defence, meant that it was not going to prove of much use in that role.
With the failure of the parasite program, attention switched to the possibility of using the Me 328 as a manned missile, with Jacob Schweyer given the task of building a Me 328 B-0.
This aircraft still had a wooden fuselage, but was heavily armoured. The pilot had a 15-mm thick armoured plate in front of him, as well a 80-mm frontal armoured glass. Another 15-mm plate was mounted in the pilots headrest.
This variant was intended to have a pyrotechnic charge that would blow the tail off the aircraft as it began it suicide dive into the target, allowing the pilot to bail out.
None of these ideas ever got close to service as the problems with the Argus were insurmountable. A proposed Me 328C was to have a Jumo 004 turbojet, which was being used in the Me 262 and Arado 234 bomber. But it was recognised that the -328 was a marginal design for use of such an expensive commodity and priority given to the Heinkel He 162 design instead.
The program ultimately finished in mid-1944 with either nine or ten aircraft produced. It was an interesting idea, and one can understand the Germans wish to get such a cheap design into use. Exploiting revolutionary technology paid dividends with the German rocket and jet weapon programs.
But, quite frankly, the failings of the pulse jet for manned aircraft should have been recognised earlier. Though not the worst example, the Me 328 program is indicative of the waste that beset the German development programs during the Second World War, something their Allied counterparts were much better at dealing with.
Ed Nash has spent years traveling around the world. Between June 2015 and July 2016 he volunteered with the Kurdish YPG in its battle against ISIS in Syria; his book on his experiences, Desert Sniper, was published in the UK by Little, Brown in September 2018. | 1,335 | ENGLISH | 1 |
IN 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue.
He had three ships and left from Spain;
He sailed through sunshine, wind and rain.
He sailed by night; he sailed by day;
He used the stars to find his way.
A compass also helped him know
How to find the way to go.
Ninety sailors were on board;
Some men worked while others snored.
Then the workers went to sleep;
And others watched the ocean deep.
Day after day they looked for land;
They dreamed of trees and rocks and sand.
October 12 their dream came true,
You never saw a happier crew!
“Indians! Indians!” Columbus cried;
His heart was filled with joyful pride.
But “India” the land was not;
It was the Bahamas, and it was hot.
The Arakawa natives were very nice;
They gave the sailors food and spice.
Columbus sailed on to find some gold
To bring back home, as he’d been told.
He made the trip again and again,
Trading gold to bring to Spain.
The first American? No, not quite.
But Columbus was brave, and he was bright. | <urn:uuid:34ce7319-f5ca-4dd9-a209-132c322fb11d> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.nhorizon.net/american-history-2/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250593994.14/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118221909-20200119005909-00343.warc.gz | en | 0.983561 | 260 | 3.5625 | 4 | [
-0.2697977125644684,
0.11273100972175598,
-0.1294708251953125,
0.03688199445605278,
-0.5540549159049988,
-0.13800673186779022,
0.4048786461353302,
0.179939866065979,
-0.13419421017169952,
-0.500204861164093,
0.3489241898059845,
-0.3444617986679077,
-0.3743356466293335,
0.34566935896873474,... | 4 | IN 1492 Columbus sailed the ocean blue.
He had three ships and left from Spain;
He sailed through sunshine, wind and rain.
He sailed by night; he sailed by day;
He used the stars to find his way.
A compass also helped him know
How to find the way to go.
Ninety sailors were on board;
Some men worked while others snored.
Then the workers went to sleep;
And others watched the ocean deep.
Day after day they looked for land;
They dreamed of trees and rocks and sand.
October 12 their dream came true,
You never saw a happier crew!
“Indians! Indians!” Columbus cried;
His heart was filled with joyful pride.
But “India” the land was not;
It was the Bahamas, and it was hot.
The Arakawa natives were very nice;
They gave the sailors food and spice.
Columbus sailed on to find some gold
To bring back home, as he’d been told.
He made the trip again and again,
Trading gold to bring to Spain.
The first American? No, not quite.
But Columbus was brave, and he was bright. | 235 | ENGLISH | 1 |
At the Council of Clermont in 1095, Adhemar showed great zeal for the crusade, and having been named apostolic legate by Pope Urban II, he accompanied Raymond IV, count of Toulouse, to the east. While Raymond and the other leaders often conflicted with each other over the leadership of the Crusade, Urban felt that Adhemar was the true leader, reflecting what Urban believed to be a spiritual campaign.
Adhemar negotiated with Alexius I Comnenus at Constantinople, re-established at Nicaea some discipline among the crusaders, and was largely responsible for the successes at Antioch. During the Crusaders' siege of that city, Adhemar organized a barefoot procession around the walls, as Joshua had done at Jericho in the Bible. After the capture of the city in June, 1098, and the subsequent siege led by Kerbogha, Adhemar organized another procession through the streets. He also had the gates locked so that the Crusaders, many of whom had begun to panic, would be unable to desert the city. He was extremely skeptical of Peter Bartholomew's discovery in Antioch of the Holy Lance, especially because he knew such a relic already existed in Constantinople; however, he was willing to let the Crusader army believe it was real if it raised their morale.
When Kerbogha was defeated, Adhemar organized a council in an attempt to settle the leadership disputes, but he died of the plague on August 1, 1098. The disputes among the higher nobles went unsolved, and the march to Jerusalem was delayed for months. However, the lower class foot soldiers continued to think of Adhemar as a leader; some of them claimed to have been visited by his ghost outside Jerusalem, and reported that Adhemar instructed them to hold another procession around the walls. This was done, and Jerusalem was taken by the Crusaders in 1099. | <urn:uuid:9f710a81-ea18-497e-a1fe-b752d9051e55> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://www.fact-index.com/a/ad/adhemar_of_le_puy.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251672440.80/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125101544-20200125130544-00143.warc.gz | en | 0.986196 | 387 | 3.28125 | 3 | [
-0.4914351999759674,
0.404771089553833,
-0.11197049170732498,
0.04370567202568054,
-0.6444970369338989,
-0.2501504421234131,
-0.1856842041015625,
0.3365943729877472,
-0.1354377716779709,
0.11039099097251892,
-0.059762343764305115,
-0.29538798332214355,
-0.1862015575170517,
0.11517649888992... | 4 | At the Council of Clermont in 1095, Adhemar showed great zeal for the crusade, and having been named apostolic legate by Pope Urban II, he accompanied Raymond IV, count of Toulouse, to the east. While Raymond and the other leaders often conflicted with each other over the leadership of the Crusade, Urban felt that Adhemar was the true leader, reflecting what Urban believed to be a spiritual campaign.
Adhemar negotiated with Alexius I Comnenus at Constantinople, re-established at Nicaea some discipline among the crusaders, and was largely responsible for the successes at Antioch. During the Crusaders' siege of that city, Adhemar organized a barefoot procession around the walls, as Joshua had done at Jericho in the Bible. After the capture of the city in June, 1098, and the subsequent siege led by Kerbogha, Adhemar organized another procession through the streets. He also had the gates locked so that the Crusaders, many of whom had begun to panic, would be unable to desert the city. He was extremely skeptical of Peter Bartholomew's discovery in Antioch of the Holy Lance, especially because he knew such a relic already existed in Constantinople; however, he was willing to let the Crusader army believe it was real if it raised their morale.
When Kerbogha was defeated, Adhemar organized a council in an attempt to settle the leadership disputes, but he died of the plague on August 1, 1098. The disputes among the higher nobles went unsolved, and the march to Jerusalem was delayed for months. However, the lower class foot soldiers continued to think of Adhemar as a leader; some of them claimed to have been visited by his ghost outside Jerusalem, and reported that Adhemar instructed them to hold another procession around the walls. This was done, and Jerusalem was taken by the Crusaders in 1099. | 412 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Suicide as the Best Option in Kate Chopin's Awakening
The Awakening, written by Kate Chopin, was considered controversial at the time it was first published in 1892 because of its intense sexual context. In fact, the critics of that era wrote in newspapers and magazines about the novel "it’s not a healthy book," "sex fiction," "we are well satisfied when Ms. Pontellier deliberately swims to her death," "an essential vulgar story," and "unhealthy introspective and morbid" (Wyatt). Edna, the main character, engages in sexual relationships outside of marriage. These encounters reveal true sexual passion to Edna, which she did not receive at home with her husband. As a result of these experiences Edna’s ability to continue living in a loveless marriage dwindles, and she eventually commits suicide. Although Edna had other options such as divorce, remaining in a loveless marriage, or simply deserting her family, suicide is most viable.
One alternative, a separation, could have been hard to accomplish for Edna because of the male-dominated society that she lived in. However, it was a possibility. In fact, an author by the name of Charlotte Perkins Gilman received a divorce from her husband, Walter Stetson, prior to the creation of The Awakening. Through serious bouts with depression Gilman’s marriage to Stetson became a struggle, and her divorce was granted in 1894. Stetson received custody of their daughter Katherine. Similarly, Edna would have probably lost custody of her children, but she said it herself that she is not a mother woman ("About Charlotte Gilman"). Gilman eventually moved on and remarried in June 1900. Edna’s aspirations of marrying Robert could have possibly come true.
With this possibility in mind, suicide still remained most feasible because of a number of reasons. The most important one was the Louisiana civil code. This code was derived from the Napoleonic Code, a set of 2,281 articles located in three books that were endorsed in 1804 by the ruler of the French empire, Napoleon Bonaparte. Originally, the Louisiana civil code was set up to protect the family unit. For example, it was harder to obtain a divorce and dissolve a family unit in Louisiana than most other states ("Differences Fading Over Time"). In addition to the Louisiana civil code, Edna’s financial status subsequent to marriage was another reason why suicide seemed more viable for her.
Edna would not have been able to survive without her husband supporting her financially. When Edna departed from her home and moved into the pigeon house, she desperately needed money from her father, from her mother’s inheritance, combined with the money she received from her paintings in order for her to purchase the house. Selling paintings was not sufficient enough to provide the funds for the pigeon house. Few female painters were highly acclaimed in that era. Mary Cassatt was part of the minute group of successful female painters. ("About Mary Cassatt"). Edna’s... | <urn:uuid:05778b23-c5c4-491b-a454-4b28735ae1a0> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://brightkite.com/essay-on/suicide-as-the-most-effective-option-in-kate-chopin-s-awakeningsuicide-as-the-best-option-in-kate-chopin-s-awakening | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250590107.3/warc/CC-MAIN-20200117180950-20200117204950-00500.warc.gz | en | 0.985859 | 632 | 3.328125 | 3 | [
-0.6221965551376343,
0.1047191321849823,
0.3345668315887451,
0.24920478463172913,
-0.05379527434706688,
0.4100297689437866,
0.03180870786309242,
0.37706586718559265,
0.41292017698287964,
-0.23542800545692444,
0.22625315189361572,
0.6134309768676758,
-0.027435891330242157,
0.178242757916450... | 1 | Suicide as the Best Option in Kate Chopin's Awakening
The Awakening, written by Kate Chopin, was considered controversial at the time it was first published in 1892 because of its intense sexual context. In fact, the critics of that era wrote in newspapers and magazines about the novel "it’s not a healthy book," "sex fiction," "we are well satisfied when Ms. Pontellier deliberately swims to her death," "an essential vulgar story," and "unhealthy introspective and morbid" (Wyatt). Edna, the main character, engages in sexual relationships outside of marriage. These encounters reveal true sexual passion to Edna, which she did not receive at home with her husband. As a result of these experiences Edna’s ability to continue living in a loveless marriage dwindles, and she eventually commits suicide. Although Edna had other options such as divorce, remaining in a loveless marriage, or simply deserting her family, suicide is most viable.
One alternative, a separation, could have been hard to accomplish for Edna because of the male-dominated society that she lived in. However, it was a possibility. In fact, an author by the name of Charlotte Perkins Gilman received a divorce from her husband, Walter Stetson, prior to the creation of The Awakening. Through serious bouts with depression Gilman’s marriage to Stetson became a struggle, and her divorce was granted in 1894. Stetson received custody of their daughter Katherine. Similarly, Edna would have probably lost custody of her children, but she said it herself that she is not a mother woman ("About Charlotte Gilman"). Gilman eventually moved on and remarried in June 1900. Edna’s aspirations of marrying Robert could have possibly come true.
With this possibility in mind, suicide still remained most feasible because of a number of reasons. The most important one was the Louisiana civil code. This code was derived from the Napoleonic Code, a set of 2,281 articles located in three books that were endorsed in 1804 by the ruler of the French empire, Napoleon Bonaparte. Originally, the Louisiana civil code was set up to protect the family unit. For example, it was harder to obtain a divorce and dissolve a family unit in Louisiana than most other states ("Differences Fading Over Time"). In addition to the Louisiana civil code, Edna’s financial status subsequent to marriage was another reason why suicide seemed more viable for her.
Edna would not have been able to survive without her husband supporting her financially. When Edna departed from her home and moved into the pigeon house, she desperately needed money from her father, from her mother’s inheritance, combined with the money she received from her paintings in order for her to purchase the house. Selling paintings was not sufficient enough to provide the funds for the pigeon house. Few female painters were highly acclaimed in that era. Mary Cassatt was part of the minute group of successful female painters. ("About Mary Cassatt"). Edna’s... | 624 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Although some religious orders considered that visits to worldly markets were dangerous for their members, many monasteries owed their wealth to the trade in the surpluses they produced.
Monasteries were not only religious centres but also important commercial enterprises. There were many monasteries that were located on important trade routes; as employers they attracted craftsmen and traders and had close links with the economic life of towns. Many of them even had their own trading enterprises in nearby towns. Many religious orders, for example the Cistercians, had committed themselves to being self-sufficent and thus ran agricultural businesses and workshops in which raw materials were processed and craftsmen made their products. The Cistercians employed lay brothers who were responsible for running the monastery’s commercial business. In spite of aiming to be economically independent and organizing themselves accordingly, the monasteries were not completely self-sufficient: in most cases they still had to buy certain products such as salt from outside sources. This meant that the monks and nuns had to visit local markets, an activity that attracted a great deal of ciriticism, since such visits were considered to represent a threat to the soul’s salvation. Hence the Cistercians stipulated in their statutes that the markets visited should not be more than a three- or four-day journey away and that not more than two monks at a time should go to them – and that they should comport themselves in a decent manner while doing so.
The Cistercians organized matters so that there were lay brothers whose special responsibility was to buy items that were needed and to sell the monastery’s surplus goods – clothing, household equipment, agricultural produce. Such brisk trading activity made some monasteries wealthy, with the result that the tax privileges and customs exemptions that they enjoyed aroused the envy of merchants in the towns. | <urn:uuid:beb4a458-3887-457e-85b2-69fc8ca014a0> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.habsburger.net/en/chapter/monastery-business-matters-monasteries-and-trade-middle-ages | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250606872.19/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122071919-20200122100919-00033.warc.gz | en | 0.992039 | 375 | 3.9375 | 4 | [
0.3377663493156433,
-0.14891766011714935,
-0.24807022511959076,
-0.2859041094779968,
0.3444348871707916,
0.011454897001385689,
0.1511024832725525,
0.05791200324892998,
0.05670926719903946,
-0.07759270071983337,
-0.18826618790626526,
-0.17459318041801453,
0.2111322432756424,
0.2217494845390... | 1 | Although some religious orders considered that visits to worldly markets were dangerous for their members, many monasteries owed their wealth to the trade in the surpluses they produced.
Monasteries were not only religious centres but also important commercial enterprises. There were many monasteries that were located on important trade routes; as employers they attracted craftsmen and traders and had close links with the economic life of towns. Many of them even had their own trading enterprises in nearby towns. Many religious orders, for example the Cistercians, had committed themselves to being self-sufficent and thus ran agricultural businesses and workshops in which raw materials were processed and craftsmen made their products. The Cistercians employed lay brothers who were responsible for running the monastery’s commercial business. In spite of aiming to be economically independent and organizing themselves accordingly, the monasteries were not completely self-sufficient: in most cases they still had to buy certain products such as salt from outside sources. This meant that the monks and nuns had to visit local markets, an activity that attracted a great deal of ciriticism, since such visits were considered to represent a threat to the soul’s salvation. Hence the Cistercians stipulated in their statutes that the markets visited should not be more than a three- or four-day journey away and that not more than two monks at a time should go to them – and that they should comport themselves in a decent manner while doing so.
The Cistercians organized matters so that there were lay brothers whose special responsibility was to buy items that were needed and to sell the monastery’s surplus goods – clothing, household equipment, agricultural produce. Such brisk trading activity made some monasteries wealthy, with the result that the tax privileges and customs exemptions that they enjoyed aroused the envy of merchants in the towns. | 367 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The Enclosure Acts of the 18th and 19th century in England
The ‘Enclosure Acts’ passed between 1760 and 1840 had a significant effect on society and the rural landscape of England. Even today reference is made to them as a significant turning point in the history of agriculture, developments of 19th century society and horse racing.
The ‘Enclosures’ refer to claims to land – open fields, common and waste land – made by big farmers and estate holder. These ‘land grabs’ were given legal status in thousands of very public and sometimes controversial private Acts of Parliament. This was only possible because both Houses of Parliament were largely composed of landowning classes and clergy.
To put this time into a broader setting: It was a momentous time. It started with the reign of George III, the American war of Independence, the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars. The Industrial Revolution was well underway and the Enclosures boosted the developing Agricultural Revolution.
This article looks at the changes the Enclosures brought about and how their effects are still with us today.
Before the Enclosures
In 1765 England was very much a rural society with a population of 7 million. Subsistence agriculture with its ‘open fields’ system was still the way of life in the country. There were few roads of sufficient quality to transport goods any distance, no canals and no railways.
In this system of open field agriculture, the village collaborated and tried to produce everything it would need to support its population. Farmers were assigned strips of land for cultivation each year; allocated by the village council according to old property rights and customs. These strips were often scattered across the local area in order to ensure that no one got more of the good land than anyone else. Crops were grown according to age old rules and fields lay fallow every third year. There was no room for experimentation.
Uncultivated and waste land, ‘the common’, could be used by villagers on the basis of legal or customary rights to collect fuel, graze cows or sheep, or let pigs or fowl forage. This provided up to half their income. Much good agricultural land was still uncultivated.
Most villagers also participated in cottage industries, such as weaving, spinning, carpentry, etc, and all the family had work to do: men, women and children.
Although life under this system was hard, it did give the labourer and small farmer some independence and standards to maintain. They had a sense of being in control of their lives and forming part of a community and a place where they belonged.
Before 1760 the ‘open field’ system had already been abandoned in Kent, Devon, Cornwall, Sussex, Suffolk and Essex and much common land had been enclosed. At that time, however, farmers and labourers had been given a sensible form of compensation and small tenant farmers still had a living.
The new enclosures which took place between 1760 and 1840 focused on the consolidation of agricultural land and more efficient use of of it. This development was promoted by ‘improving landlords’, people who were well educated, loved the countryside and were dependent on their estates to generate wealth. These landlords invested a great deal in the cultivation of waste land, drainage and of course fencing, thereby able to raise rents substantially.
Increasing corn production and generally making agriculture more productive was necessary to keep pace with the growing population, but it meant doing away with the open field system and access to common land.
Little regard was paid to the effect this would have on small farmers and labourers, although many landowners were quite glad to see the yeoman freeholders (tenant farmers and peasant proprietors) disappear. Because they were answerable to no one they, the yeomanry, were perceived as troublemakers and a potential threat to the landowners’.
The Effects of the Enclosures
The impact the Enclosures had on labourers and small farmers meant that they lost their rights to fields and the ability to grow crops – as well as access to open land to graze their livestock or collect fuel. The financial compensation given to them was generally not enough to buy or maintain a small plot of land, let alone fence it off. Tenant farmers could no longer pay their rent in kind, they had to pay cash.
To add to this misfortune, many cottage industries also disappeared, as machines were able to produce these goods more efficiently.
This left labourers and small farmers dependent on big landowners for employment. As there was no shortage of such labour the wages were kept very low. The alternative was to go to the towns and cities to find employment in a factory, however the arrival of a lot of workers from the countryside ended up depressing wages in factories as well.
The harvests of 1792 to 1813 were very bad and the price of bread was rising rapidly, because of the Napoleonic wars not enough additional corn could be imported. The authorities realised they had to come up with some solution to avoid wide spread famine.
They tried to get the big landowners to pay their labourers a living wage, but this fell on deaf ears. So in 1795 they came up with the ‘Speenhamland’ system, which was a form of wage supplement paid out of the parish rates, just like the help given to the poor. This was adopted across most of England and effectively meant that labourers became ‘pauperised’.
This supplement was paid to working people to make each labourer’s wage equal to 3s per week plus 1s 6d a week for every other member of his family. This was also paid to factory workers and working women with illegitimate children. As the cost of bread rose so would the supplements.
Some of the increase in the population to around 11 million by the early 1800s can be put down to this form of payment for every child. Other factors were the use of child labour in factories and the declining mortality rate.
The Agricultural Revolution and the Agrarian Ideal
On the positive side, the enclosures were a benefit to the nation. Land could be used for its most appropriate purpose rather than geared to subsistence farming. New crops could be tried out and innovation in crop rotation (grain, clover, turnips) meant no more need to leave fields fallow every third year.
Fencing cattle and sheep in meant better control over their feed and their breeding and thus higher quality meat and dairy products. By products could also be used more effectively.
As canals and turnpikes were completed, all by private enterprise, transporting and trading goods became a lot easier.
The effect of the enclosures on the countryside was the introduction of hedgerows, mainly hawthorn, or dry stone walls. Woodlands were planted and meadows and wetlands drained. It became the countryside we are familiar with today.
It was also the time of the great landscape gardeners. Land was used to create beautiful vistas or showcase monuments. Other areas were maintained for leisure pursuits, like hunting and fishing. Hedgerows and drainage channels gave riders and their horses something to jump over, providing ideas for what would become the National Hunt.
For the displaced farmers and labourers, the fact that some of ‘their’ farmland had been turned into landscapes for aesthetic purposes only supported their increasing suspicion that land was now the exclusive property of the rich.
An agrarian ideal developed, which suggested that the land belonged to the people and that its abundance could and should support them. This idea was taken up by many great thinkers at the time.
Thomas Paine, revered for his ‘Rights of Man’ (1791) recommended ‘establishing a fund to compensate every person for the loss of his or her natural inheritance by creating an inheritance tax that would allocate a fixed percentage to this fund.’ Everyone assumed that the people had a right to a portion of the wealth that was created from the land even if not the land itself.
Longer term Impacts
Arthur Young, once a practical and literary proponent of making better use of land and enclosures, admitted in 1801 ‘by nineteen out of twenty Enclosure bills the poor are injured and most grossly’.
Many small farmers and labourers, or even tenant farmers who could not pay their rent, were displaced by the enclosures. It had destroyed their sense of belonging to a place, being self-reliant and able to support a family. Others, too, were forced to move as rights of ways were closed off and land on which beggars, poachers and highwaymen had survived was enclosed and guarded closely.
Wage labour was a different way of life. It often meant moving between towns and villages in search of work and living in badly built and overcrowded housing.
For many it felt like being dispossessed and ending up as refugees in their own country, and there was no one interested in their plight.
By the late 18th century, there was already a working class in England, a pre-requisite for the success of the industrial revolution. The agricultural population now migrating to towns and cities added to this very rapidly. Urban areas grew without planning or control and conditions were appalling.
As G M Trevelyan, a historian, commented on the ensuing moral decline of the working class: ‘The net result of the enclosures and of Speenhamland was that the labourer had small economic motive for industry, sobriety, independence, or thrift. … In every way it was made as hard as possible for the poor to be self-supporting.’
The landowning classes felt no responsibility for the social changes their enclosures brought with them. It was the time of ‘laissez faire’..
Public authorities were equally reluctant to step in. All they managed to do was introduce bills and measures to quash any dissent and to stop, by force if necessary, any attempts at a united movement of the lower classes.
From the supportive and inclusive society of subsistence farming, it was now very much a ‘them and us’. The end of an era.
Much has changed since then and yet we still face the same questions.
Even in relatively wealthy countries, the gap between the super rich and the working poor continues to widen and the debate about redistribution of wealth rages on.
Since ‘Speenhamland’ the controversy continues over whether employers should pay their employees a living wage or whether the state should provide additional support funded through general taxation.
As one technological revolution after another reduces the need for human labour, we are now debating the universal basic income.
Will we eventually find the right answers? What do you think?
GM Trevelyan – British History in the Nineteenth Century and After
Juergen Kuczynski – The Rise of the Working Class
Ellen Rosenmann – On Enclosure Acts and the Commons
BBC radio programmes – In Our Time – the Enclosures of the 18th Century & Against the Grain, the history of farming
Harvesting – Alexander Anderson
Hedgerows – Hedge Britannia by pete c
Stowe – Univox Ltd
Streetscene – Jessie Lansdel from casebook.org | <urn:uuid:d4634fa7-1594-4275-8a19-0e0530ae37c5> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://www.univoxmarketing.co.uk/2017/05/the-end-of-an-era/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250608295.52/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123041345-20200123070345-00104.warc.gz | en | 0.981396 | 2,332 | 3.859375 | 4 | [
0.35497361421585083,
-0.29953545331954956,
0.580341100692749,
0.19572566449642181,
0.342040479183197,
-0.3168366551399231,
-0.07475236058235168,
-0.19523972272872925,
-0.14541462063789368,
0.11174952983856201,
-0.1474897861480713,
-0.6618789434432983,
0.13092634081840515,
0.171600192785263... | 2 | The Enclosure Acts of the 18th and 19th century in England
The ‘Enclosure Acts’ passed between 1760 and 1840 had a significant effect on society and the rural landscape of England. Even today reference is made to them as a significant turning point in the history of agriculture, developments of 19th century society and horse racing.
The ‘Enclosures’ refer to claims to land – open fields, common and waste land – made by big farmers and estate holder. These ‘land grabs’ were given legal status in thousands of very public and sometimes controversial private Acts of Parliament. This was only possible because both Houses of Parliament were largely composed of landowning classes and clergy.
To put this time into a broader setting: It was a momentous time. It started with the reign of George III, the American war of Independence, the French Revolution and Napoleonic Wars. The Industrial Revolution was well underway and the Enclosures boosted the developing Agricultural Revolution.
This article looks at the changes the Enclosures brought about and how their effects are still with us today.
Before the Enclosures
In 1765 England was very much a rural society with a population of 7 million. Subsistence agriculture with its ‘open fields’ system was still the way of life in the country. There were few roads of sufficient quality to transport goods any distance, no canals and no railways.
In this system of open field agriculture, the village collaborated and tried to produce everything it would need to support its population. Farmers were assigned strips of land for cultivation each year; allocated by the village council according to old property rights and customs. These strips were often scattered across the local area in order to ensure that no one got more of the good land than anyone else. Crops were grown according to age old rules and fields lay fallow every third year. There was no room for experimentation.
Uncultivated and waste land, ‘the common’, could be used by villagers on the basis of legal or customary rights to collect fuel, graze cows or sheep, or let pigs or fowl forage. This provided up to half their income. Much good agricultural land was still uncultivated.
Most villagers also participated in cottage industries, such as weaving, spinning, carpentry, etc, and all the family had work to do: men, women and children.
Although life under this system was hard, it did give the labourer and small farmer some independence and standards to maintain. They had a sense of being in control of their lives and forming part of a community and a place where they belonged.
Before 1760 the ‘open field’ system had already been abandoned in Kent, Devon, Cornwall, Sussex, Suffolk and Essex and much common land had been enclosed. At that time, however, farmers and labourers had been given a sensible form of compensation and small tenant farmers still had a living.
The new enclosures which took place between 1760 and 1840 focused on the consolidation of agricultural land and more efficient use of of it. This development was promoted by ‘improving landlords’, people who were well educated, loved the countryside and were dependent on their estates to generate wealth. These landlords invested a great deal in the cultivation of waste land, drainage and of course fencing, thereby able to raise rents substantially.
Increasing corn production and generally making agriculture more productive was necessary to keep pace with the growing population, but it meant doing away with the open field system and access to common land.
Little regard was paid to the effect this would have on small farmers and labourers, although many landowners were quite glad to see the yeoman freeholders (tenant farmers and peasant proprietors) disappear. Because they were answerable to no one they, the yeomanry, were perceived as troublemakers and a potential threat to the landowners’.
The Effects of the Enclosures
The impact the Enclosures had on labourers and small farmers meant that they lost their rights to fields and the ability to grow crops – as well as access to open land to graze their livestock or collect fuel. The financial compensation given to them was generally not enough to buy or maintain a small plot of land, let alone fence it off. Tenant farmers could no longer pay their rent in kind, they had to pay cash.
To add to this misfortune, many cottage industries also disappeared, as machines were able to produce these goods more efficiently.
This left labourers and small farmers dependent on big landowners for employment. As there was no shortage of such labour the wages were kept very low. The alternative was to go to the towns and cities to find employment in a factory, however the arrival of a lot of workers from the countryside ended up depressing wages in factories as well.
The harvests of 1792 to 1813 were very bad and the price of bread was rising rapidly, because of the Napoleonic wars not enough additional corn could be imported. The authorities realised they had to come up with some solution to avoid wide spread famine.
They tried to get the big landowners to pay their labourers a living wage, but this fell on deaf ears. So in 1795 they came up with the ‘Speenhamland’ system, which was a form of wage supplement paid out of the parish rates, just like the help given to the poor. This was adopted across most of England and effectively meant that labourers became ‘pauperised’.
This supplement was paid to working people to make each labourer’s wage equal to 3s per week plus 1s 6d a week for every other member of his family. This was also paid to factory workers and working women with illegitimate children. As the cost of bread rose so would the supplements.
Some of the increase in the population to around 11 million by the early 1800s can be put down to this form of payment for every child. Other factors were the use of child labour in factories and the declining mortality rate.
The Agricultural Revolution and the Agrarian Ideal
On the positive side, the enclosures were a benefit to the nation. Land could be used for its most appropriate purpose rather than geared to subsistence farming. New crops could be tried out and innovation in crop rotation (grain, clover, turnips) meant no more need to leave fields fallow every third year.
Fencing cattle and sheep in meant better control over their feed and their breeding and thus higher quality meat and dairy products. By products could also be used more effectively.
As canals and turnpikes were completed, all by private enterprise, transporting and trading goods became a lot easier.
The effect of the enclosures on the countryside was the introduction of hedgerows, mainly hawthorn, or dry stone walls. Woodlands were planted and meadows and wetlands drained. It became the countryside we are familiar with today.
It was also the time of the great landscape gardeners. Land was used to create beautiful vistas or showcase monuments. Other areas were maintained for leisure pursuits, like hunting and fishing. Hedgerows and drainage channels gave riders and their horses something to jump over, providing ideas for what would become the National Hunt.
For the displaced farmers and labourers, the fact that some of ‘their’ farmland had been turned into landscapes for aesthetic purposes only supported their increasing suspicion that land was now the exclusive property of the rich.
An agrarian ideal developed, which suggested that the land belonged to the people and that its abundance could and should support them. This idea was taken up by many great thinkers at the time.
Thomas Paine, revered for his ‘Rights of Man’ (1791) recommended ‘establishing a fund to compensate every person for the loss of his or her natural inheritance by creating an inheritance tax that would allocate a fixed percentage to this fund.’ Everyone assumed that the people had a right to a portion of the wealth that was created from the land even if not the land itself.
Longer term Impacts
Arthur Young, once a practical and literary proponent of making better use of land and enclosures, admitted in 1801 ‘by nineteen out of twenty Enclosure bills the poor are injured and most grossly’.
Many small farmers and labourers, or even tenant farmers who could not pay their rent, were displaced by the enclosures. It had destroyed their sense of belonging to a place, being self-reliant and able to support a family. Others, too, were forced to move as rights of ways were closed off and land on which beggars, poachers and highwaymen had survived was enclosed and guarded closely.
Wage labour was a different way of life. It often meant moving between towns and villages in search of work and living in badly built and overcrowded housing.
For many it felt like being dispossessed and ending up as refugees in their own country, and there was no one interested in their plight.
By the late 18th century, there was already a working class in England, a pre-requisite for the success of the industrial revolution. The agricultural population now migrating to towns and cities added to this very rapidly. Urban areas grew without planning or control and conditions were appalling.
As G M Trevelyan, a historian, commented on the ensuing moral decline of the working class: ‘The net result of the enclosures and of Speenhamland was that the labourer had small economic motive for industry, sobriety, independence, or thrift. … In every way it was made as hard as possible for the poor to be self-supporting.’
The landowning classes felt no responsibility for the social changes their enclosures brought with them. It was the time of ‘laissez faire’..
Public authorities were equally reluctant to step in. All they managed to do was introduce bills and measures to quash any dissent and to stop, by force if necessary, any attempts at a united movement of the lower classes.
From the supportive and inclusive society of subsistence farming, it was now very much a ‘them and us’. The end of an era.
Much has changed since then and yet we still face the same questions.
Even in relatively wealthy countries, the gap between the super rich and the working poor continues to widen and the debate about redistribution of wealth rages on.
Since ‘Speenhamland’ the controversy continues over whether employers should pay their employees a living wage or whether the state should provide additional support funded through general taxation.
As one technological revolution after another reduces the need for human labour, we are now debating the universal basic income.
Will we eventually find the right answers? What do you think?
GM Trevelyan – British History in the Nineteenth Century and After
Juergen Kuczynski – The Rise of the Working Class
Ellen Rosenmann – On Enclosure Acts and the Commons
BBC radio programmes – In Our Time – the Enclosures of the 18th Century & Against the Grain, the history of farming
Harvesting – Alexander Anderson
Hedgerows – Hedge Britannia by pete c
Stowe – Univox Ltd
Streetscene – Jessie Lansdel from casebook.org | 2,299 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Christmas is a Pagan Holiday
No one knows what day Jesus Christ was born on. From the biblical description, most historians believe that his birth probably occurred in September, approximately six months after Passover. One thing they agree on is that it is very unlikely that Jesus was born in December, since the bible records shepherds tending their sheep in the fields on that night. This is quite unlikely to have happened during a cold Judean winter. So why do we celebrate Christ’s birthday as Christmas, on December the 25th?
The answer lies in the pagan origins of Christmas. In ancient Babylon, the feast of the Son of Isis (Goddess of Nature) was celebrated on December 25. Raucous partying, gluttonous eating and drinking, and gift-giving were traditions of this feast.
In Rome, the Winter Solstice was celebrated many years before the birth of Christ. The Romans called their winter holiday Saturnalia, honoring Saturn, the God of Agriculture. In January, they observed the Kalends of January, which represented the triumph of life over death. This whole season was called Dies Natalis Invicti Solis, the Birthday of the Unconquered Sun. The festival season was marked by much merrymaking. It is in ancient Rome that the tradition of the Mummers was born. The Mummers were groups of costumed singers and dancers who traveled from house to house entertaining their neighbors. From this, the Christmas tradition of caroling was born.
In northern Europe, many other traditions that we now consider part of Christian worship were begun long before the participants had ever heard of Christ. The pagans of northern Europe celebrated the their own winter solstice, known as Yule. Yule was symbolic of the pagan Sun God, Mithras, being born, and was observed on the shortest day of the year. As the Sun God grew and matured, the days became longer and warmer. It was customary to light a candle to encourage Mithras, and the sun, to reappear next year.
Huge Yule logs were burned in honor of the sun. The word Yule itself means “wheel,” the wheel being a pagan symbol for the sun. Mistletoe was considered a sacred plant, and the custom of kissing under the mistletoe began as a fertility ritual. Hollyberries were thought to be a food of the gods.
The tree is the one symbol that unites almost all the northern European winter solstices. Live evergreen trees were often brought into homes during the harsh winters as a reminder to inhabitants that soon their crops would grow again. Evergreen boughs were sometimes carried as totems of good luck and were often present at weddings, representing fertility. The Druids used the tree as a religious symbol, holding their sacred ceremonies while surrounding and worshipping huge trees.
In 350, Pope Julius I declared that Christ’s birth would be celebrated on December 25. There is little doubt that he was trying to make it as painless as possible for pagan Romans (who remained a majority at that time) to convert to Christianity. The new religion went down a bit easier, knowing that their feasts would not be taken away from them.
Christmas (Christ-Mass) as we know it today, most historians agree, began in Germany, though Catholics and Lutherans still disagree about which church celebrated it first. The earliest record of an evergreen being decorated in a Christian celebration was in 1521 in the Alsace region of Germany. A prominent Lutheran minister of the day cried blasphemy: “Better that they should look to the true tree of life, Christ.”
The controversy continues even today in some fundamentalist sects. | <urn:uuid:61880182-a6e1-44d8-ad79-13a571cbda6e> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://sharenator.com/christmas_is_a_pagan_holiday/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251690379.95/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126195918-20200126225918-00386.warc.gz | en | 0.985946 | 757 | 3.890625 | 4 | [
0.20878072082996368,
0.5599735975265503,
0.5665602087974548,
-0.19421932101249695,
-0.10981857031583786,
-0.010548925027251244,
0.032165780663490295,
0.05298718810081482,
0.20057612657546997,
0.07836292684078217,
0.10161293298006058,
0.2659783959388733,
0.009048929437994957,
0.237538143992... | 3 | Christmas is a Pagan Holiday
No one knows what day Jesus Christ was born on. From the biblical description, most historians believe that his birth probably occurred in September, approximately six months after Passover. One thing they agree on is that it is very unlikely that Jesus was born in December, since the bible records shepherds tending their sheep in the fields on that night. This is quite unlikely to have happened during a cold Judean winter. So why do we celebrate Christ’s birthday as Christmas, on December the 25th?
The answer lies in the pagan origins of Christmas. In ancient Babylon, the feast of the Son of Isis (Goddess of Nature) was celebrated on December 25. Raucous partying, gluttonous eating and drinking, and gift-giving were traditions of this feast.
In Rome, the Winter Solstice was celebrated many years before the birth of Christ. The Romans called their winter holiday Saturnalia, honoring Saturn, the God of Agriculture. In January, they observed the Kalends of January, which represented the triumph of life over death. This whole season was called Dies Natalis Invicti Solis, the Birthday of the Unconquered Sun. The festival season was marked by much merrymaking. It is in ancient Rome that the tradition of the Mummers was born. The Mummers were groups of costumed singers and dancers who traveled from house to house entertaining their neighbors. From this, the Christmas tradition of caroling was born.
In northern Europe, many other traditions that we now consider part of Christian worship were begun long before the participants had ever heard of Christ. The pagans of northern Europe celebrated the their own winter solstice, known as Yule. Yule was symbolic of the pagan Sun God, Mithras, being born, and was observed on the shortest day of the year. As the Sun God grew and matured, the days became longer and warmer. It was customary to light a candle to encourage Mithras, and the sun, to reappear next year.
Huge Yule logs were burned in honor of the sun. The word Yule itself means “wheel,” the wheel being a pagan symbol for the sun. Mistletoe was considered a sacred plant, and the custom of kissing under the mistletoe began as a fertility ritual. Hollyberries were thought to be a food of the gods.
The tree is the one symbol that unites almost all the northern European winter solstices. Live evergreen trees were often brought into homes during the harsh winters as a reminder to inhabitants that soon their crops would grow again. Evergreen boughs were sometimes carried as totems of good luck and were often present at weddings, representing fertility. The Druids used the tree as a religious symbol, holding their sacred ceremonies while surrounding and worshipping huge trees.
In 350, Pope Julius I declared that Christ’s birth would be celebrated on December 25. There is little doubt that he was trying to make it as painless as possible for pagan Romans (who remained a majority at that time) to convert to Christianity. The new religion went down a bit easier, knowing that their feasts would not be taken away from them.
Christmas (Christ-Mass) as we know it today, most historians agree, began in Germany, though Catholics and Lutherans still disagree about which church celebrated it first. The earliest record of an evergreen being decorated in a Christian celebration was in 1521 in the Alsace region of Germany. A prominent Lutheran minister of the day cried blasphemy: “Better that they should look to the true tree of life, Christ.”
The controversy continues even today in some fundamentalist sects. | 761 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Malwa gained independence from the Dihli sultanate at the time that Timur invaded India and captured Dihli in 801 H/1398 CE. The reigning Tughluqid Sultan, Mahmud ibn Muhammad, fled to Malwa and was given asylum by the governor of the town, Dilaver Khan Husayn Ghuri, until he felt safe enough to return. The damage done to the Dihli Sultanate by Timur’s invasion gave Dilaver Khan the chance to declare his independence, but he did not assume a royal title or strike coins in his name. He established his capital in the heavily fortified city of Mandu, which became known as Shadiabad, and was renowned for the magnificent buildings that were constructed within its walls. In 808 H/1405 CE Dilaver Khan’s son, Hushang Shah, had his father poisoned, replaced him on the throne and asserted full independence. The reigns of Hushang and his successors were spent in campaigning against neighbouring states and internal dissent. However, in 839 H/1436 CE the last of the Ghuri sultans, Mas‘ud Khan, fled to Gujarat, and his chief minister, Mahmud Khalji, seized power for himself and became Malwa’s greatest ruler. Mahmud’s son Ghiyath Shah, who was made heir apparent in 861 H/1457 CE, issued coinage in his own name as wali ‘ahd and then as Sultan after Mahmud’s death in 873/1469. He inherited a prosperous and stable state, and did not mount any military campaigns, preferring to consolidate his father’s achievements rather than make new conquests. | <urn:uuid:90469c5f-78ed-4356-9e81-367c06437365> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.dynastycollection.co.uk/portfolio-item/93-khalji-sultans-of-malwa/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594603.8/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119122744-20200119150744-00518.warc.gz | en | 0.985257 | 357 | 3.484375 | 3 | [
-0.2739250063896179,
0.5677413940429688,
-0.14816032350063324,
-0.010772560723125935,
-0.46100836992263794,
-0.2174328863620758,
0.3867317736148834,
0.20941178500652313,
-0.39136824011802673,
-0.09104027599096298,
-0.027828266844153404,
-0.6051142811775208,
0.3866567313671112,
0.0537452809... | 3 | Malwa gained independence from the Dihli sultanate at the time that Timur invaded India and captured Dihli in 801 H/1398 CE. The reigning Tughluqid Sultan, Mahmud ibn Muhammad, fled to Malwa and was given asylum by the governor of the town, Dilaver Khan Husayn Ghuri, until he felt safe enough to return. The damage done to the Dihli Sultanate by Timur’s invasion gave Dilaver Khan the chance to declare his independence, but he did not assume a royal title or strike coins in his name. He established his capital in the heavily fortified city of Mandu, which became known as Shadiabad, and was renowned for the magnificent buildings that were constructed within its walls. In 808 H/1405 CE Dilaver Khan’s son, Hushang Shah, had his father poisoned, replaced him on the throne and asserted full independence. The reigns of Hushang and his successors were spent in campaigning against neighbouring states and internal dissent. However, in 839 H/1436 CE the last of the Ghuri sultans, Mas‘ud Khan, fled to Gujarat, and his chief minister, Mahmud Khalji, seized power for himself and became Malwa’s greatest ruler. Mahmud’s son Ghiyath Shah, who was made heir apparent in 861 H/1457 CE, issued coinage in his own name as wali ‘ahd and then as Sultan after Mahmud’s death in 873/1469. He inherited a prosperous and stable state, and did not mount any military campaigns, preferring to consolidate his father’s achievements rather than make new conquests. | 365 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Get help with any kind of project - from a high school essay to a PhD dissertation
|Subject area||Arts Entertainment|
In the late 19th century, transportation took tremendous time and effort, and it was frequently dangerous. With this being said, it was time for somebody to glow. The imaginative minds in world began to come out, and, eventually, the world met a breakthrough. At Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, an alarming innovation would change the way humans transport forever. In 1903, Wilbur and Orville Wright had triumphed in a lifelong adventure of producing a flying machine. The Wright brothers grew up in West Dayton, Ohio, and ever since they were children they were yearning for greatness. Wilbur Wright was born on April 16, 1867, at Millville, Indiana, and Orville had been created four decades later in Dayton, Ohio, on August 19 (Kelly 5). The brothers' parents were both Milton and Susan Wright, along with their siblings consisted of two elderly brothers and one younger sister (Weir 5). Nearly as quickly as they were aware of having their own pursuits, Wilbur and Orville were extremely intrigued in mechanics (Kelly 5). In actuality, among Orville's most obvious memories from his youth was his fifth birthday where he received a gyroscopic top which would keep its balance while at the identical time spinning on the edge of a knife blade (Kelly 5). In addition to this, one day when Mr. Wright returned home from a brief church business excursion (Mr. Wright was a Bishop), he'd attracted toy helicopters, made from a Frenchman called Alphonse Pénaud, that were assembled from cork, bamboo, thin paper, also twisted rubber bands, where the boys wildly admired (Kelly 8). Later on when the boys were older they both dropped from high school, Orville because he wanted to start up his own printing business, and Wilbur--though dreaming of moving to Yale--because of an injury for his fa... | <urn:uuid:cce81e5e-f5e5-47ea-8454-1fa67b83cab4> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://studybay.com/example-works/essay/arts_entertainment/1003761/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251690095.81/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126165718-20200126195718-00328.warc.gz | en | 0.984904 | 406 | 3.390625 | 3 | [
-0.17892982065677643,
0.19648219645023346,
0.2659994959831238,
-0.033194538205862045,
-0.2917443811893463,
0.2088794708251953,
0.17656183242797852,
0.5359105467796326,
-0.4421951472759247,
-0.1254972219467163,
0.268485963344574,
0.18377283215522766,
0.40576043725013733,
0.08156729489564896... | 1 | Get help with any kind of project - from a high school essay to a PhD dissertation
|Subject area||Arts Entertainment|
In the late 19th century, transportation took tremendous time and effort, and it was frequently dangerous. With this being said, it was time for somebody to glow. The imaginative minds in world began to come out, and, eventually, the world met a breakthrough. At Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, an alarming innovation would change the way humans transport forever. In 1903, Wilbur and Orville Wright had triumphed in a lifelong adventure of producing a flying machine. The Wright brothers grew up in West Dayton, Ohio, and ever since they were children they were yearning for greatness. Wilbur Wright was born on April 16, 1867, at Millville, Indiana, and Orville had been created four decades later in Dayton, Ohio, on August 19 (Kelly 5). The brothers' parents were both Milton and Susan Wright, along with their siblings consisted of two elderly brothers and one younger sister (Weir 5). Nearly as quickly as they were aware of having their own pursuits, Wilbur and Orville were extremely intrigued in mechanics (Kelly 5). In actuality, among Orville's most obvious memories from his youth was his fifth birthday where he received a gyroscopic top which would keep its balance while at the identical time spinning on the edge of a knife blade (Kelly 5). In addition to this, one day when Mr. Wright returned home from a brief church business excursion (Mr. Wright was a Bishop), he'd attracted toy helicopters, made from a Frenchman called Alphonse Pénaud, that were assembled from cork, bamboo, thin paper, also twisted rubber bands, where the boys wildly admired (Kelly 8). Later on when the boys were older they both dropped from high school, Orville because he wanted to start up his own printing business, and Wilbur--though dreaming of moving to Yale--because of an injury for his fa... | 420 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Kent State Shootings
The Kent State Shootings, also called the Kent State Massacre, occurred on May 4, 1970 on the campus of Kent State University in the city of Kent, Ohio. Members of the Ohio National Guard, called out to restore order, fired on university students protesting the American invasion of the Asian nation of Cambodia. Four students were killed and 9 were wounded. Arguably, not since the Boston Massacre, prior to the American Revolution, when British regulars fired into an unarmed crowd in Boston, Massachusetts, have Americans been witness to such official repression. During the period leading up to the attack the United States was undergoing protests over the Viet Nam War and young people were taking to the streets in defiance of the government. The protests were peaceful and marked by candlelight vigils and singing for the most part. However, at Kent State the student violence had accelerated. On the night of May 2, two days before the shootings, the university ROTC building was burned. At this the governor of Ohio called out the National Guard and they arrived with riot gear and tanks, according to Professor Walter Adams, an eyewitness to the on-campus events of the third and fourth (Adams 1990). Not only were the students unarmed, they were little threat to the armed Guard, arrayed in full military combat dress. The Guard fired not only at those protesting the war but also fired upon bystanders and students walking past the demonstration. It was noon. The Guard had no combat training and many, it was reported, did not know how to load their weapons. Individually they were little more than frightened boys, however, in a unit, armed and organized, trained to obey, they were a deadly instrument in the hand of Governor James Rhodes, who had summoned them to do his bidding. The Ohio National Gueardsmen cannot be blamed for their actions that day any more than the sabre can be blamed for the fencing wound
The massacre galvanized the nation, and millions of students closed high schools, colleges and universities across the country in protests and walkouts. The actions of Governor James Rhodes, who came to the campus on the night of May 3 were called into question since, of course, it was his order which activated the Ohio National Guard. The nation demanded an explanation and the Nixon administration came under fire. Grand juries were demanded and they were convened but the findings pleased no one. The cry of cover-up rang out and more investigations were demanded. From the guard commanders to the governor and up to the president, officials went into survival mode. The actual events of those two days are subject to a variety of interpretations. No one in any position of authority was ever indicted and no one ever accepted the responsibility for the actions of the guard. What is known for certain is that their lives were not in danger and there was no legal basis for them to fire on unarmed American citizens exercising their right to assemble. This paper will examine the background against which this American tragedy played out. It will examine the facts of the case in an attempt to determine how the authorities came to the conclusions which they reached, and it will attempt to determine the long term effects of the shooting, and what it has come to mean to Americans. The findings of the Presidential Commission on the Kent State tragedy, which ruled that the ‘violent and criminal’ actions by students was the principal cause of the violence and that the blame for the students’ deathes lay at their doorstep were not totally correct. It it was, in fact, the over-reaction of politicians such as the Kent mayor Leroy Satrom and Ohio governor James Rhodes, coupled with student violence, which led directly to the death and the wounding of the Kent State students.
The Kent State Shootings occurred in a nation which has long prided itself on being the land of the free. America is perceived as a land of opportunity as well as a land of freedoms unique in the world. For that reason middle America was stunned and did not know what to make of the protests which began in the halls of academia and quickly spread to the streets during the decade of the 60s, spreading over into the 1970s. Bob Dylan had rung in the decade with his wistful rhetorical, Blowin’ in the Wind, asking how many times the cannon balls had to fly before war was finally banned. Young people wanted to believe that they would see an end to war in their lifetime. Instead what they saw was the continuous escalation of a war they did not understand or believe in. They saw no danger to their home and they saw not reason to have their friends and brothers come home, as the poet Rod McKuen said, in boxes made of steel. How many times, Dylan asked, can a man turn his head and pretend that he just doesn’t see? By decade’s end Buffalo Springfield was screaming, “Battle lines being drawn, nobody’s right, if everybody’s wrong.” And then, “ There’s a man with a gun over there, telling me I got to beware. It’s time we stop, children, what’s that sound? Everybody look what’s going round.” America heard Pete Seeger sing Waist Deep in the Big Muddy (And the Big Fool Says Push On). The naiveté of Youth, that they believed they could actually effect change. The older generation simply did not get it. Dylan, called the spokesman of his generation, told the parents, ‘your sons and your daughters are beyond your command…get out of the old road if you can’t lend a hand,” as he assured America’s youth that ‘the times, they are a’changin”. In 1969 Dennis Hopper and Peter Fonda defined the youth version of the American dream in the landmark film, Easy Rider. Dylan was right, the times were changing, and American youth bought into it as each generation tends to do, believing they can actually make a difference. They organized voter registration drives and opened free clinics. It was a time when youth believed that the world could be changed by the power of love and peace. Those high hopes, wistful dreams, and the season of love ran headlong into the realities of an uneasy government, led by a man perceived by his National Security Advisor as both paranoid and visionary (Greenberg 2003 291), willing to use force to prevent its policies from being questioned in a public forum. It was in this climate of confrontation and vitriolic diatribes that Kent State began to witness activism on its Ohio campus. The Anti-War movement was reaching its zenith in 1969 when Nixon approved a counter attack of media blitz and speeches denouncing the movement participants, in a ploy still used today, calling them unpatriotic for daring to question American war policy. However, America was beginning to shed the rose-colored glasses and look at their government in a new light by 1970. They began to understand that they had been deceived and some of the information given them by the government was less than forthright. It had come to light that President Lyndon Johnson had not been totally honest concerning the very cause of the war, and the Gulf of Tonkin incident had not happened in the way that he had said (Ohiohistorycentral.org 2008).
It was on November 3, 1969 that Nixon went on television to denounce the New Left as traitors, calling on the “great silent-majority” of Americans to support him (Greenberg 2003 291), Peace activist David Mixner called the speech “ugly, belligerent,” and a veiled threat to “crack down on dissent “ (Ibid). Nixon, it was believed, was warning the New Left that his patience was not inexhaustible. The situation remained relatively calm until April 30, 1970, when Nixon announced plans to enlarge the war, invading the apparently neutral nation of Cambodia. In a coordinated response, almost simultaneously students at five hundred universities struck the schools. After the May 4, 1970 shootings at Kent State, Nixon remarked, “This should remind us…that when dissent turns to violence it invites tragedy” (Ibid). He did not spell out exactly what violence the dissenters had committed. The Ohio National Guard perpetrated the only fatal violence that day. The fuse was lit. By the next weekend students were rallying across the nation. In Washington the crowds chanted, “Fuck Nixon” between speeches. Washington developed a bunker mentality. Thousands of soldiers were called out to protect the government from we the people. Middle America joined parents and educators across the nation and demanded an investigation into the attack, unparalleled in modern American history. Americans split in their perception of the attack. Joe Citizen believed that the hippies got what they had coming to them. Even citizens of the town of Kent, Ohio fled their homes, having heard that the militant unwashed hippy masses were going to counter-attack the town (Adams 1990). No one seemed to be in charge and no one wanted to assume any authority.
Students for a Democratic Society, a group considered radical even by other peace activists of the era, had been active on the Kent State campus in the weeks before the shooting but had been banned by the university for advocating and suborning violence. Though banned, they were still operating on campus, distributing posters and information. One poster they had distributed at Kent State showed a long haired student carrying a gun and bore the lyrics to a Doors song, saying, “The old get older and the young get stronger… they got the guns but we got the numbers, gonna win—yeah—we’re takin’ over.” The university website states that, “Although suspended, many S.D.S. members continued activities on campus that may have contributed to the tragedy of May 4, 1970” (omp.ohiolink.edu n.d.). Immediately after the shootings the university was closed and students were sent home. University President Dr. Robert White then called for a federal commission to investigate the shooting. Ohio governor James Rhodes called for an investigation by the FBI and President Richard Nixon invited six Kent State University students to meet with him in Washington. Conspiracy buffs believe that the cover-up began immediately and reached all the way into the Nixon Administration’s Justice Department. Approximately 100 FBI agents descended on the town of Kent. It should be remembered that at this point in American history, Watergate had not occurred. Middle America was not used to seeing a president lie. They were not accustomed to anyone questioning the integrity of such American institutions as the FBI and the Department of Justice. The American Attorney General was respected. A Gallup Poll conducted for Newsweek Magazine a week after the Kent State Shootings showed that 58 % of the American public blamed the students who were killed, and only 11 % blamed the National Guardsmen who shot them down (Newsweek Poll 1970 30). Adult Americans of the 60s and 70s grew up respecting authority. They were torn between wanting their sons to come home from a bloody foreign war that was broadcast into their homes daily with their evening meal, and Nixon, their law and order president, who had sworn during his 1968 campaign that he had a secret plan to end the war. Not only had he not kept his promise of Peace with Honor, he had escalated the war and widened its boundaries. The younger generation, the ones called upon to serve in the jungles and rice paddies of a war torn Asian nation for a reasons that were only vague at best, had no illusions about their government. The body count was in the tens of thousands, with no end in sight.
The public, driven by student activists and educators, wanted someone to take the blame for Kent State. They wanted those in authority, those ultimately responsible for the senseless deaths of four young Americans on a college campus, to step forward, to do the American thing and accept ultimate responsibility. This not only did not happen, the sound of authorities running to cover their backsides rose to a din.
Secretary Robert Finch of Health, Education and Welfare was the first Administration official to visit the campus, calling upon Dr. White. After the visit he “adds his voice to those calling for a presidential commission to study campus violence. After the meeting with White, Finch sends the following to Washington D.C.: ‘President Richard M. Nixon: Respectfully but urgently I renew plea for high level investigating commission to delve into KSU events to clarify evidence, furnish perspective and do so in a way fully credible publicly. In this I join with Congressman Stanton and Senators Mansfield and Scott ‘” (Kent.edu 1970). The Ohio State Legislature rushed to enact laws to make it more difficult to legally demonstrate on college campuses. The bill was designed to take swift action against students and faculty causing disturbances on Ohio college campuses. Besides the FBI investigation there were Grand Jury proceedings and a presidential commission begun. In September 1970, The President’s Commission on Campus Unrest issued its general report, which found “the National Guard shootings “unwarranted. The report also found that the ‘violent and criminal’ actions by students contributed to the tragedy and caused them to bear responsibility for deaths and injuries of fellow students” (Law.jrank.org ),
Though there had been demonstrations on the Kent State campus earlier than May 1, the night which began the countdown to the shootings, they were not violent. Kent State was not Berkeley. It was middle Amercan and conformist and not what could be considered a hot-bed of subversion and violence. Black students had been demanding that more African Americans be admitted the following year and the Viet Nam War was the cause of much angst. Still, on the night of May 1 the violence began not over war or race, but rather over time-honored traditions of American collegians, beer and basketball. The mayor of Kent, LeRoy Satrom, had called for a midnight curfew, which few citizens of Kent had even heard. At midnight police arrived at local bars, packed with students, some dancing and some waching the Knicks-Lakers game, and turned off power to the bars. The dancing spilled out into the streets. This began what was to become a bloody chapter in American history. A townie driving past the young people is said to have raced her car engine in what was thought to be an attempt to drive over or past the revelers. Students jumped on the roof of the car and spontaneously began a chant, ‘One, two, three, four, we don’t want your war’. Time Magazine reported that someone on a nearby balcony threw a bottle. The crowd erupted. The glass was broken out of the car and the crowd tried to overturn it. More police were summoned. Fires were ignited and rioting began. The mayor had tried to stifle dissent with ordinances which the students believed were unlawful and they responded with demonstrations. It would only take a tiny spark to cause those crowds to turn ugly. Police managed to herd the crowd of over 2,000 back to the campus with tear gas. The mood had darkened. Still, even with what had occurred, the university did not consider itself under siege. The faculty were not policians, but rather educators; they understood students and student needs far better then any elected officials. They considered the events of Friday night to be over. The black students received permission to demonstrate on campus. It seemed to be business as usual. The faculty did not think that the situation was out of hand. That evening, however, a group of militants reportedly took control the of the 800 strong crowd and led them in a violent spree across the campus, culminating in the torching of the ROTC building, a symbol of the military presence on campus. Arriving firemen were attacked and their hoses were cut to prevent them from dousing the fire. The situation was beginning to spiral out of control, but it was still salvagable. Yet without bothering to consult the president of the university, the politician cum mayor of Kent took it upon himself to call for the National Guard.
Then came James Rhodes. The old style Ohio politico was in a hotly contested Republican primary race for the U.S. Senate. The mood of the nation was still pro-Viet Nam War and pro-Richard Nixon. His plumbers and the Watergate scandal were still on the horizon. The prevailing attitude was that the hippies were out to topple the government. Law and Order was the catch phrase used by the Repulicans in that era, much the same as their contemporary mantra of Family Values. Assuredly, if a citizen protested a just war he was not a patriot, ergo, he was against law and the ensuing order that law brings. American governors control the National Guard of their states. Rhodes wanted to appear tough on crime. He pulled a unit of the Ohio National Guard from duty at a tense Teamsters’ strike situation and brought them into the town of Kent. They were tired and sleepless. They were in full battle gear. They brought their tanks. Their M-1s and semi-automatic Colt pistols were fully loaded. The law is clear that Rhodes did not need permission from the president of Kent State University to call out the military. Unless they are federalized for a particular need they are under control of the governors of the individual states in which they serve. However, possibly had Rhodes consulted with Dr. White, and the Guard not been called out, the situation could have been resolved without loss of life. Yet instead of any attempt at negotiating with the student leaders, Rhodes summoned these weary Guardsmen to a situation in which their mission was unclear. They arrived within an hour of being called. The Guard was effective. Together with the police they restored order. Then began Rhodes’ posturing, politicizing the event. “[Governor Rhodes] told newsmen that campus troublemakers were “worse than Brown Shirts and Communists and vigilantes — they’re the worst type of people that we harbor in America” (Time 1970). He seems to have plagiarized Vice President Agnew, who had earlier said, “Just imagine they are wearing brown shirts and white robes and act accordingly” (Caputo 2005 105). He was speaking, for the most part, of America’s sons and daughters, most of whom had done no more than exercise their right to peaceably assemble. Such was the attitude of the Nixon Administration and Rhodes was following the party line. He was quoted as saying, “I think that we’re up against the strongest, well-trained, militant, revolutionary group that has ever assembled in America” (Rhodes 2005). He said this to the media, within earshot of the Guardsmen. If he truly believed what he said then he should have called for reenforcements, it has been argued. If it was simply campaign rhetoric designed to garner votes and support in a tight election, he perhaps should be charged with inciting riot, it is also argued. Whichever is the truth, Rhodes lost the Republican primary election two days after the shootings.
One thousand students had assembled on the commons with perhaps two thousand ringing them to watch. Ironically, many of the Guardsmen at Kent State that day were young men who wanted no part of war, and had joined the Guard in an effort to keep from being drafted by the army and being sent to Viet Nam.
A fighting force must obey its commanders or it is little more than a mob. Eye witness accounts seem to agree on several points. The Guardsmen tried to retreat to a point, then lost cohesion. They appeared to be frightened and the crowd, by now a mob, was assaulting them with stones, though none of the Guardsmen had been severely injured. They finally stood their ground and faced the students from a vantage point on a hill and in one coordinated move they lowered their weapons and began to fire indiscriminately into the crowd. They killed four outright and wounded another nine, with one of those nine left paralyzed. They ignored the wounded and advanced to finish the job of clearing the common. They did not negotiate, they did not compromise. They obeyed their orders. Eyewitnesses seem certain that it was not a random act but rather a coordinated and orderly command to fire that set them to shooting into the crowd, though the military commanders denied it. Kent State Journalism Professor Charles Brill, a veteran of Korea, who saw combat action, watched the proceedings and said later that the Guardsmen had been ordered to fire. It was not random. His statement was unequivocal, saying, “They were organized. It was not scattered. They all waited and they all pointed their rifles at the same time. It looked like a firing squad. The shooting stopped — as if on signal” (Time 1970). This group of Guardsmen contained about 100 men from various units. They had run out of tear gas and seemed lost, according to eyewitness reports. Brigadier General Robert Canterbury, highest-ranking officer at Kent State was present, but not in uniform. He said, “I was there — but I was not in command of any unit” (ibid). He was, nonetheless, still the highest-ranking officer present and certainly had the authority to overrule any orders given by lower echelon commanders. Further, in the immediate aftermath, groups of students were willing to charge the Guardsmen. The negotiating skills of the faculty marshals, without doubt, prevented a further blood bath (Lewis & Hensley n.d.). There is ample blame to be spread but no one at the time was willing to accept any of it. To the contrary, anyone in a position of authority fled the onus of responsibility. Students who had been throwing rocks at men with guns for days or weeks with impugnity did not dream that they were in mortal danger. They assumed it was to be business as usual. They would throw rocks and the authoritites would chase them. It would prove to be a fatal error in judgment. The Presidential Commission exonerated the Guardsmen, as they likely should have. But rather than looking for responsibility among those in authority, those men who gave the orders and set the chain of events in motion, they found no one at fault.
There were three main fact finding commissions convened in the aftermath. The American people were virtually up in arms over the incident. No white students had ever been slain on campus by military personnel. These three, the President’s Commission on Campus Unrest, called the Scranton Commission, The FBI investigation and the Ohio Highway Patrol investigation arrived at three different conclusions, making them all suspect. The Scranton Commission was succinct in its findings. It said in part that the killings were, “unnecessary, unwarranted, and inexcusable” (Hensley 1981 5). The FBI report differed and found that there was criminal fault and the Justice Department moved to indict up to six of the Guardsmen. The Ohio Highway Patrol report was diametrically opposed to the FBI’s findings and suggested a list of student protesters numbering into the hundreds should be indicted. None of the three suggested that the decision to bring in tanks and armed soldiers to quell a civil disturbance was not the best solution. None of the three found that the Governor might have been at fault for not exercising his options and sitting down for an open dialogue with the militant student leaders.
Finally, on October 16, 1970 the Portage County, Ohio grand jury handed down indictments against twenty-five people, most them being Kent State students. The jury also issued a report condemning the actions of the students, faculty and the administration of Kent State University for actions taken during the tragedy, placing sole responsibility for the killings on them. The report was so incendiary that within a few months a federal district court judge ordered the report expunged on the grounds that it was prejudicial to the defendants’ rights. By September of 1971 the state’s case had broken down, and the cases against most of the defendants were dropped (ibid 6). In what was obviously a case of overreaching, the state, having backed down, unable to make its case, opened the door to the grieving families, allowing them to attack the murderers of their children in criminal and civil courts at a federal level. Criminal charges were brought against eight Ohio National Guardsmen in 1974. The charges against them were later dismissed by Federal District Court judge Frank Battisti. In 1975 the plaintiffs lost their bid for damages against the state of Ohio in Federal Civil Court and the matter seemed to be over. On appeal the plaintiffs received one more bite at the apple, and won a judgment of $675,000 against the state (ibid 7). The defendants in the case each signed a letter regretting their actions during the confrontation on May 4, 1970. James Rhodes never admitted regretting anything.
Me Generation music told boomers that the world would change to fit their needs. It told them that the world was in chaos and must be put right by them. Buffy Saint Marie sang of the universal soldier and the band, Coven, sang of the bloody morning after one tin soldier rides away. But gradually they realized that nothing came of their best efforts. No one was willing to give peace a chance. No one could imagine. They felt trapped on that “darkling plain, swept by confused alarms of struggle and flight, where ignorant armies clash by night” (Arnold 1867 35-37). And as they changed tactics and become more militant their parents did not understand. They blamed drugs and rock and roll music. They expected their children’s angst in the form of Holden Caulfield but they got Johnny Rotten. In a very real way Kent State was a wakeup call to child and parent. Not everything was sunshine and lollypops. The government was capable of deception. From the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution to the body counts on the evening news Americans slowly began to perceive they were being had. Kent State became a turning point. Gradually they began to see the war was wrong, and they saw just how bad a government could turn. From Agnew to the break-in at DNC, the cover-up, Daniel Ellsberg, etc. ad infinitum, they began to see that little was too bizarre to be true. Kent State allowed the scales to fall from their eyes. It had the effect of jarring the Me Generation with the realities of life. The Boomers had been tempted and they did eat.
Those who were at Kent State understood that the mistake was in ever allowing the military to come armed to a college demonstration. They began to believe that James Rhodes’ judgment was clouded by his attempt to survive politically. They understood that negotiation had not been an option and they watched Rhodes attempt to turn a tragedy to his political advantage.
It cannot be said that the world is a better place for having experienced Kent State. No one can say what would have become of those lives cut short by bullets in the Spring of 1970, or what the world may have lost. But Americans learned that it’s a dangerous world. There is nostalgia some times for what should have been. Mary Hopkin sang to the generation, wistfully saying, “Those were the days, my friend, we thought they’d never end, we’d sing and dance forever and a day. We’d live the live we choose, we’d fight and never lose, for we were young and sure to have our way” (Hopkin 1968). Individually the Guardsmen were little more than frightened boys, in a unit, armed and organized, trained to obey, they were a deadly instrument in the hand of Governor James Rhodes, who had summoned them to do his bidding. The students did not understand the rules of engagement. In the real world there are penalties for throwing rocks at armed men. In hindsight it was a fatal mistake on their part. The honorable governor of Ohio missed his opportunity to stand up and account for his actions. By all accounts there was an order issued to fire, but the Ohio National Guardsmen who obeyed that order cannot be blamed for their actions anymore than the sabre can be blamed for the fencing wound. The blame lies elsewhere, and there are ample amounts to go around.
Adams, W. 1990 Kent State Shootings: Oral History Retrieved 4-24-08
From: http://dmc.ohiolink.edu/cgi/i/image/image-idx?c=kentmay4;rgn1=kentmay4_su;q1=Schroeder%2C%20Willia m%2C%20d.%201970;back=back1209079375;size=20;subview=detail;resnum=1;view=entry;lastview=thumbnail;cc=kentmay4;entryid=x-90-walter-c-adams-tape8-9-side-ba48464;viewid=90-WALTER-C-ADAMS-TAPE8-9-SIDE-BA48464.MP3
Arnold, M. 1867 Dover Beach Retrieved 4-22-08 from:
Caputo, 2005 13 Seconds: A Look Back at the Kent State Shootings
New York: The Penguin Group
Greenberg, D. 2003 Nixon’s Shadow: The History of an Image. New
York: W.W. Norton and Company
Hensley, T. 1981 The Kent State Incident: Impact of
Judicial Process on Public Attitudes (Contributions in
Political Science Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press
Hopkin, M. 1968 Those Were the Days comp. Gene Raskin Apple
Keegan, L. 1987 in From Camelot to Kent State: The Sixties Experience
In the Words of Those Who Lived It Morrison, J. & Morrison, R.
(ed). Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press
Kent.edu 1970 Legal Chronology May 5, 1970 – January 4, 1979
Retrieved 4-19-08 from:
Law.jrank.org no date Kent State Student Killings Retrieved 4-20-08
Lewis, J. & Hensley, T. The May 4th Shootings at Kent State University
Retrieved 4-21-08 from: http://dept.kent.edu/sociology/lewis/lewihen.htm
Omp.ohiolink.edu no date Students for a Democratic Society Rally
Poster Retrieved 4-19-08 from:
Ohiohistorycentral.org 2008 Kent State Shootings Retrieved 4-19-08
Newsweek Poll 1970 Mr. Nixon Holds Up: Gallup Poll Newsweek,
May 18, 1970
Rhodes, J. 2005 Ohio History Central Retrieved 4-19-08 from:
Time 1970 Kent State: Martyrdom that Shook the Country Retrieved
4-18-08 from: http://cgi.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/analysis/back.time/9605/20/ | <urn:uuid:57fb313a-3dc6-4925-8f71-0d4597a865eb> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://tbf-sa.co.za/kent-state-shootings/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250614880.58/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124011048-20200124040048-00007.warc.gz | en | 0.980607 | 6,411 | 3.265625 | 3 | [
-0.12621381878852844,
0.24964946508407593,
0.05099587142467499,
-0.02811526134610176,
0.18671010434627533,
0.4399183988571167,
0.0833888053894043,
0.006876495201140642,
-0.1540328562259674,
0.28036147356033325,
-0.11432720720767975,
-0.13135017454624176,
-0.2623124122619629,
0.286529004573... | 3 | Kent State Shootings
The Kent State Shootings, also called the Kent State Massacre, occurred on May 4, 1970 on the campus of Kent State University in the city of Kent, Ohio. Members of the Ohio National Guard, called out to restore order, fired on university students protesting the American invasion of the Asian nation of Cambodia. Four students were killed and 9 were wounded. Arguably, not since the Boston Massacre, prior to the American Revolution, when British regulars fired into an unarmed crowd in Boston, Massachusetts, have Americans been witness to such official repression. During the period leading up to the attack the United States was undergoing protests over the Viet Nam War and young people were taking to the streets in defiance of the government. The protests were peaceful and marked by candlelight vigils and singing for the most part. However, at Kent State the student violence had accelerated. On the night of May 2, two days before the shootings, the university ROTC building was burned. At this the governor of Ohio called out the National Guard and they arrived with riot gear and tanks, according to Professor Walter Adams, an eyewitness to the on-campus events of the third and fourth (Adams 1990). Not only were the students unarmed, they were little threat to the armed Guard, arrayed in full military combat dress. The Guard fired not only at those protesting the war but also fired upon bystanders and students walking past the demonstration. It was noon. The Guard had no combat training and many, it was reported, did not know how to load their weapons. Individually they were little more than frightened boys, however, in a unit, armed and organized, trained to obey, they were a deadly instrument in the hand of Governor James Rhodes, who had summoned them to do his bidding. The Ohio National Gueardsmen cannot be blamed for their actions that day any more than the sabre can be blamed for the fencing wound
The massacre galvanized the nation, and millions of students closed high schools, colleges and universities across the country in protests and walkouts. The actions of Governor James Rhodes, who came to the campus on the night of May 3 were called into question since, of course, it was his order which activated the Ohio National Guard. The nation demanded an explanation and the Nixon administration came under fire. Grand juries were demanded and they were convened but the findings pleased no one. The cry of cover-up rang out and more investigations were demanded. From the guard commanders to the governor and up to the president, officials went into survival mode. The actual events of those two days are subject to a variety of interpretations. No one in any position of authority was ever indicted and no one ever accepted the responsibility for the actions of the guard. What is known for certain is that their lives were not in danger and there was no legal basis for them to fire on unarmed American citizens exercising their right to assemble. This paper will examine the background against which this American tragedy played out. It will examine the facts of the case in an attempt to determine how the authorities came to the conclusions which they reached, and it will attempt to determine the long term effects of the shooting, and what it has come to mean to Americans. The findings of the Presidential Commission on the Kent State tragedy, which ruled that the ‘violent and criminal’ actions by students was the principal cause of the violence and that the blame for the students’ deathes lay at their doorstep were not totally correct. It it was, in fact, the over-reaction of politicians such as the Kent mayor Leroy Satrom and Ohio governor James Rhodes, coupled with student violence, which led directly to the death and the wounding of the Kent State students.
The Kent State Shootings occurred in a nation which has long prided itself on being the land of the free. America is perceived as a land of opportunity as well as a land of freedoms unique in the world. For that reason middle America was stunned and did not know what to make of the protests which began in the halls of academia and quickly spread to the streets during the decade of the 60s, spreading over into the 1970s. Bob Dylan had rung in the decade with his wistful rhetorical, Blowin’ in the Wind, asking how many times the cannon balls had to fly before war was finally banned. Young people wanted to believe that they would see an end to war in their lifetime. Instead what they saw was the continuous escalation of a war they did not understand or believe in. They saw no danger to their home and they saw not reason to have their friends and brothers come home, as the poet Rod McKuen said, in boxes made of steel. How many times, Dylan asked, can a man turn his head and pretend that he just doesn’t see? By decade’s end Buffalo Springfield was screaming, “Battle lines being drawn, nobody’s right, if everybody’s wrong.” And then, “ There’s a man with a gun over there, telling me I got to beware. It’s time we stop, children, what’s that sound? Everybody look what’s going round.” America heard Pete Seeger sing Waist Deep in the Big Muddy (And the Big Fool Says Push On). The naiveté of Youth, that they believed they could actually effect change. The older generation simply did not get it. Dylan, called the spokesman of his generation, told the parents, ‘your sons and your daughters are beyond your command…get out of the old road if you can’t lend a hand,” as he assured America’s youth that ‘the times, they are a’changin”. In 1969 Dennis Hopper and Peter Fonda defined the youth version of the American dream in the landmark film, Easy Rider. Dylan was right, the times were changing, and American youth bought into it as each generation tends to do, believing they can actually make a difference. They organized voter registration drives and opened free clinics. It was a time when youth believed that the world could be changed by the power of love and peace. Those high hopes, wistful dreams, and the season of love ran headlong into the realities of an uneasy government, led by a man perceived by his National Security Advisor as both paranoid and visionary (Greenberg 2003 291), willing to use force to prevent its policies from being questioned in a public forum. It was in this climate of confrontation and vitriolic diatribes that Kent State began to witness activism on its Ohio campus. The Anti-War movement was reaching its zenith in 1969 when Nixon approved a counter attack of media blitz and speeches denouncing the movement participants, in a ploy still used today, calling them unpatriotic for daring to question American war policy. However, America was beginning to shed the rose-colored glasses and look at their government in a new light by 1970. They began to understand that they had been deceived and some of the information given them by the government was less than forthright. It had come to light that President Lyndon Johnson had not been totally honest concerning the very cause of the war, and the Gulf of Tonkin incident had not happened in the way that he had said (Ohiohistorycentral.org 2008).
It was on November 3, 1969 that Nixon went on television to denounce the New Left as traitors, calling on the “great silent-majority” of Americans to support him (Greenberg 2003 291), Peace activist David Mixner called the speech “ugly, belligerent,” and a veiled threat to “crack down on dissent “ (Ibid). Nixon, it was believed, was warning the New Left that his patience was not inexhaustible. The situation remained relatively calm until April 30, 1970, when Nixon announced plans to enlarge the war, invading the apparently neutral nation of Cambodia. In a coordinated response, almost simultaneously students at five hundred universities struck the schools. After the May 4, 1970 shootings at Kent State, Nixon remarked, “This should remind us…that when dissent turns to violence it invites tragedy” (Ibid). He did not spell out exactly what violence the dissenters had committed. The Ohio National Guard perpetrated the only fatal violence that day. The fuse was lit. By the next weekend students were rallying across the nation. In Washington the crowds chanted, “Fuck Nixon” between speeches. Washington developed a bunker mentality. Thousands of soldiers were called out to protect the government from we the people. Middle America joined parents and educators across the nation and demanded an investigation into the attack, unparalleled in modern American history. Americans split in their perception of the attack. Joe Citizen believed that the hippies got what they had coming to them. Even citizens of the town of Kent, Ohio fled their homes, having heard that the militant unwashed hippy masses were going to counter-attack the town (Adams 1990). No one seemed to be in charge and no one wanted to assume any authority.
Students for a Democratic Society, a group considered radical even by other peace activists of the era, had been active on the Kent State campus in the weeks before the shooting but had been banned by the university for advocating and suborning violence. Though banned, they were still operating on campus, distributing posters and information. One poster they had distributed at Kent State showed a long haired student carrying a gun and bore the lyrics to a Doors song, saying, “The old get older and the young get stronger… they got the guns but we got the numbers, gonna win—yeah—we’re takin’ over.” The university website states that, “Although suspended, many S.D.S. members continued activities on campus that may have contributed to the tragedy of May 4, 1970” (omp.ohiolink.edu n.d.). Immediately after the shootings the university was closed and students were sent home. University President Dr. Robert White then called for a federal commission to investigate the shooting. Ohio governor James Rhodes called for an investigation by the FBI and President Richard Nixon invited six Kent State University students to meet with him in Washington. Conspiracy buffs believe that the cover-up began immediately and reached all the way into the Nixon Administration’s Justice Department. Approximately 100 FBI agents descended on the town of Kent. It should be remembered that at this point in American history, Watergate had not occurred. Middle America was not used to seeing a president lie. They were not accustomed to anyone questioning the integrity of such American institutions as the FBI and the Department of Justice. The American Attorney General was respected. A Gallup Poll conducted for Newsweek Magazine a week after the Kent State Shootings showed that 58 % of the American public blamed the students who were killed, and only 11 % blamed the National Guardsmen who shot them down (Newsweek Poll 1970 30). Adult Americans of the 60s and 70s grew up respecting authority. They were torn between wanting their sons to come home from a bloody foreign war that was broadcast into their homes daily with their evening meal, and Nixon, their law and order president, who had sworn during his 1968 campaign that he had a secret plan to end the war. Not only had he not kept his promise of Peace with Honor, he had escalated the war and widened its boundaries. The younger generation, the ones called upon to serve in the jungles and rice paddies of a war torn Asian nation for a reasons that were only vague at best, had no illusions about their government. The body count was in the tens of thousands, with no end in sight.
The public, driven by student activists and educators, wanted someone to take the blame for Kent State. They wanted those in authority, those ultimately responsible for the senseless deaths of four young Americans on a college campus, to step forward, to do the American thing and accept ultimate responsibility. This not only did not happen, the sound of authorities running to cover their backsides rose to a din.
Secretary Robert Finch of Health, Education and Welfare was the first Administration official to visit the campus, calling upon Dr. White. After the visit he “adds his voice to those calling for a presidential commission to study campus violence. After the meeting with White, Finch sends the following to Washington D.C.: ‘President Richard M. Nixon: Respectfully but urgently I renew plea for high level investigating commission to delve into KSU events to clarify evidence, furnish perspective and do so in a way fully credible publicly. In this I join with Congressman Stanton and Senators Mansfield and Scott ‘” (Kent.edu 1970). The Ohio State Legislature rushed to enact laws to make it more difficult to legally demonstrate on college campuses. The bill was designed to take swift action against students and faculty causing disturbances on Ohio college campuses. Besides the FBI investigation there were Grand Jury proceedings and a presidential commission begun. In September 1970, The President’s Commission on Campus Unrest issued its general report, which found “the National Guard shootings “unwarranted. The report also found that the ‘violent and criminal’ actions by students contributed to the tragedy and caused them to bear responsibility for deaths and injuries of fellow students” (Law.jrank.org ),
Though there had been demonstrations on the Kent State campus earlier than May 1, the night which began the countdown to the shootings, they were not violent. Kent State was not Berkeley. It was middle Amercan and conformist and not what could be considered a hot-bed of subversion and violence. Black students had been demanding that more African Americans be admitted the following year and the Viet Nam War was the cause of much angst. Still, on the night of May 1 the violence began not over war or race, but rather over time-honored traditions of American collegians, beer and basketball. The mayor of Kent, LeRoy Satrom, had called for a midnight curfew, which few citizens of Kent had even heard. At midnight police arrived at local bars, packed with students, some dancing and some waching the Knicks-Lakers game, and turned off power to the bars. The dancing spilled out into the streets. This began what was to become a bloody chapter in American history. A townie driving past the young people is said to have raced her car engine in what was thought to be an attempt to drive over or past the revelers. Students jumped on the roof of the car and spontaneously began a chant, ‘One, two, three, four, we don’t want your war’. Time Magazine reported that someone on a nearby balcony threw a bottle. The crowd erupted. The glass was broken out of the car and the crowd tried to overturn it. More police were summoned. Fires were ignited and rioting began. The mayor had tried to stifle dissent with ordinances which the students believed were unlawful and they responded with demonstrations. It would only take a tiny spark to cause those crowds to turn ugly. Police managed to herd the crowd of over 2,000 back to the campus with tear gas. The mood had darkened. Still, even with what had occurred, the university did not consider itself under siege. The faculty were not policians, but rather educators; they understood students and student needs far better then any elected officials. They considered the events of Friday night to be over. The black students received permission to demonstrate on campus. It seemed to be business as usual. The faculty did not think that the situation was out of hand. That evening, however, a group of militants reportedly took control the of the 800 strong crowd and led them in a violent spree across the campus, culminating in the torching of the ROTC building, a symbol of the military presence on campus. Arriving firemen were attacked and their hoses were cut to prevent them from dousing the fire. The situation was beginning to spiral out of control, but it was still salvagable. Yet without bothering to consult the president of the university, the politician cum mayor of Kent took it upon himself to call for the National Guard.
Then came James Rhodes. The old style Ohio politico was in a hotly contested Republican primary race for the U.S. Senate. The mood of the nation was still pro-Viet Nam War and pro-Richard Nixon. His plumbers and the Watergate scandal were still on the horizon. The prevailing attitude was that the hippies were out to topple the government. Law and Order was the catch phrase used by the Repulicans in that era, much the same as their contemporary mantra of Family Values. Assuredly, if a citizen protested a just war he was not a patriot, ergo, he was against law and the ensuing order that law brings. American governors control the National Guard of their states. Rhodes wanted to appear tough on crime. He pulled a unit of the Ohio National Guard from duty at a tense Teamsters’ strike situation and brought them into the town of Kent. They were tired and sleepless. They were in full battle gear. They brought their tanks. Their M-1s and semi-automatic Colt pistols were fully loaded. The law is clear that Rhodes did not need permission from the president of Kent State University to call out the military. Unless they are federalized for a particular need they are under control of the governors of the individual states in which they serve. However, possibly had Rhodes consulted with Dr. White, and the Guard not been called out, the situation could have been resolved without loss of life. Yet instead of any attempt at negotiating with the student leaders, Rhodes summoned these weary Guardsmen to a situation in which their mission was unclear. They arrived within an hour of being called. The Guard was effective. Together with the police they restored order. Then began Rhodes’ posturing, politicizing the event. “[Governor Rhodes] told newsmen that campus troublemakers were “worse than Brown Shirts and Communists and vigilantes — they’re the worst type of people that we harbor in America” (Time 1970). He seems to have plagiarized Vice President Agnew, who had earlier said, “Just imagine they are wearing brown shirts and white robes and act accordingly” (Caputo 2005 105). He was speaking, for the most part, of America’s sons and daughters, most of whom had done no more than exercise their right to peaceably assemble. Such was the attitude of the Nixon Administration and Rhodes was following the party line. He was quoted as saying, “I think that we’re up against the strongest, well-trained, militant, revolutionary group that has ever assembled in America” (Rhodes 2005). He said this to the media, within earshot of the Guardsmen. If he truly believed what he said then he should have called for reenforcements, it has been argued. If it was simply campaign rhetoric designed to garner votes and support in a tight election, he perhaps should be charged with inciting riot, it is also argued. Whichever is the truth, Rhodes lost the Republican primary election two days after the shootings.
One thousand students had assembled on the commons with perhaps two thousand ringing them to watch. Ironically, many of the Guardsmen at Kent State that day were young men who wanted no part of war, and had joined the Guard in an effort to keep from being drafted by the army and being sent to Viet Nam.
A fighting force must obey its commanders or it is little more than a mob. Eye witness accounts seem to agree on several points. The Guardsmen tried to retreat to a point, then lost cohesion. They appeared to be frightened and the crowd, by now a mob, was assaulting them with stones, though none of the Guardsmen had been severely injured. They finally stood their ground and faced the students from a vantage point on a hill and in one coordinated move they lowered their weapons and began to fire indiscriminately into the crowd. They killed four outright and wounded another nine, with one of those nine left paralyzed. They ignored the wounded and advanced to finish the job of clearing the common. They did not negotiate, they did not compromise. They obeyed their orders. Eyewitnesses seem certain that it was not a random act but rather a coordinated and orderly command to fire that set them to shooting into the crowd, though the military commanders denied it. Kent State Journalism Professor Charles Brill, a veteran of Korea, who saw combat action, watched the proceedings and said later that the Guardsmen had been ordered to fire. It was not random. His statement was unequivocal, saying, “They were organized. It was not scattered. They all waited and they all pointed their rifles at the same time. It looked like a firing squad. The shooting stopped — as if on signal” (Time 1970). This group of Guardsmen contained about 100 men from various units. They had run out of tear gas and seemed lost, according to eyewitness reports. Brigadier General Robert Canterbury, highest-ranking officer at Kent State was present, but not in uniform. He said, “I was there — but I was not in command of any unit” (ibid). He was, nonetheless, still the highest-ranking officer present and certainly had the authority to overrule any orders given by lower echelon commanders. Further, in the immediate aftermath, groups of students were willing to charge the Guardsmen. The negotiating skills of the faculty marshals, without doubt, prevented a further blood bath (Lewis & Hensley n.d.). There is ample blame to be spread but no one at the time was willing to accept any of it. To the contrary, anyone in a position of authority fled the onus of responsibility. Students who had been throwing rocks at men with guns for days or weeks with impugnity did not dream that they were in mortal danger. They assumed it was to be business as usual. They would throw rocks and the authoritites would chase them. It would prove to be a fatal error in judgment. The Presidential Commission exonerated the Guardsmen, as they likely should have. But rather than looking for responsibility among those in authority, those men who gave the orders and set the chain of events in motion, they found no one at fault.
There were three main fact finding commissions convened in the aftermath. The American people were virtually up in arms over the incident. No white students had ever been slain on campus by military personnel. These three, the President’s Commission on Campus Unrest, called the Scranton Commission, The FBI investigation and the Ohio Highway Patrol investigation arrived at three different conclusions, making them all suspect. The Scranton Commission was succinct in its findings. It said in part that the killings were, “unnecessary, unwarranted, and inexcusable” (Hensley 1981 5). The FBI report differed and found that there was criminal fault and the Justice Department moved to indict up to six of the Guardsmen. The Ohio Highway Patrol report was diametrically opposed to the FBI’s findings and suggested a list of student protesters numbering into the hundreds should be indicted. None of the three suggested that the decision to bring in tanks and armed soldiers to quell a civil disturbance was not the best solution. None of the three found that the Governor might have been at fault for not exercising his options and sitting down for an open dialogue with the militant student leaders.
Finally, on October 16, 1970 the Portage County, Ohio grand jury handed down indictments against twenty-five people, most them being Kent State students. The jury also issued a report condemning the actions of the students, faculty and the administration of Kent State University for actions taken during the tragedy, placing sole responsibility for the killings on them. The report was so incendiary that within a few months a federal district court judge ordered the report expunged on the grounds that it was prejudicial to the defendants’ rights. By September of 1971 the state’s case had broken down, and the cases against most of the defendants were dropped (ibid 6). In what was obviously a case of overreaching, the state, having backed down, unable to make its case, opened the door to the grieving families, allowing them to attack the murderers of their children in criminal and civil courts at a federal level. Criminal charges were brought against eight Ohio National Guardsmen in 1974. The charges against them were later dismissed by Federal District Court judge Frank Battisti. In 1975 the plaintiffs lost their bid for damages against the state of Ohio in Federal Civil Court and the matter seemed to be over. On appeal the plaintiffs received one more bite at the apple, and won a judgment of $675,000 against the state (ibid 7). The defendants in the case each signed a letter regretting their actions during the confrontation on May 4, 1970. James Rhodes never admitted regretting anything.
Me Generation music told boomers that the world would change to fit their needs. It told them that the world was in chaos and must be put right by them. Buffy Saint Marie sang of the universal soldier and the band, Coven, sang of the bloody morning after one tin soldier rides away. But gradually they realized that nothing came of their best efforts. No one was willing to give peace a chance. No one could imagine. They felt trapped on that “darkling plain, swept by confused alarms of struggle and flight, where ignorant armies clash by night” (Arnold 1867 35-37). And as they changed tactics and become more militant their parents did not understand. They blamed drugs and rock and roll music. They expected their children’s angst in the form of Holden Caulfield but they got Johnny Rotten. In a very real way Kent State was a wakeup call to child and parent. Not everything was sunshine and lollypops. The government was capable of deception. From the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution to the body counts on the evening news Americans slowly began to perceive they were being had. Kent State became a turning point. Gradually they began to see the war was wrong, and they saw just how bad a government could turn. From Agnew to the break-in at DNC, the cover-up, Daniel Ellsberg, etc. ad infinitum, they began to see that little was too bizarre to be true. Kent State allowed the scales to fall from their eyes. It had the effect of jarring the Me Generation with the realities of life. The Boomers had been tempted and they did eat.
Those who were at Kent State understood that the mistake was in ever allowing the military to come armed to a college demonstration. They began to believe that James Rhodes’ judgment was clouded by his attempt to survive politically. They understood that negotiation had not been an option and they watched Rhodes attempt to turn a tragedy to his political advantage.
It cannot be said that the world is a better place for having experienced Kent State. No one can say what would have become of those lives cut short by bullets in the Spring of 1970, or what the world may have lost. But Americans learned that it’s a dangerous world. There is nostalgia some times for what should have been. Mary Hopkin sang to the generation, wistfully saying, “Those were the days, my friend, we thought they’d never end, we’d sing and dance forever and a day. We’d live the live we choose, we’d fight and never lose, for we were young and sure to have our way” (Hopkin 1968). Individually the Guardsmen were little more than frightened boys, in a unit, armed and organized, trained to obey, they were a deadly instrument in the hand of Governor James Rhodes, who had summoned them to do his bidding. The students did not understand the rules of engagement. In the real world there are penalties for throwing rocks at armed men. In hindsight it was a fatal mistake on their part. The honorable governor of Ohio missed his opportunity to stand up and account for his actions. By all accounts there was an order issued to fire, but the Ohio National Guardsmen who obeyed that order cannot be blamed for their actions anymore than the sabre can be blamed for the fencing wound. The blame lies elsewhere, and there are ample amounts to go around.
Adams, W. 1990 Kent State Shootings: Oral History Retrieved 4-24-08
From: http://dmc.ohiolink.edu/cgi/i/image/image-idx?c=kentmay4;rgn1=kentmay4_su;q1=Schroeder%2C%20Willia m%2C%20d.%201970;back=back1209079375;size=20;subview=detail;resnum=1;view=entry;lastview=thumbnail;cc=kentmay4;entryid=x-90-walter-c-adams-tape8-9-side-ba48464;viewid=90-WALTER-C-ADAMS-TAPE8-9-SIDE-BA48464.MP3
Arnold, M. 1867 Dover Beach Retrieved 4-22-08 from:
Caputo, 2005 13 Seconds: A Look Back at the Kent State Shootings
New York: The Penguin Group
Greenberg, D. 2003 Nixon’s Shadow: The History of an Image. New
York: W.W. Norton and Company
Hensley, T. 1981 The Kent State Incident: Impact of
Judicial Process on Public Attitudes (Contributions in
Political Science Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press
Hopkin, M. 1968 Those Were the Days comp. Gene Raskin Apple
Keegan, L. 1987 in From Camelot to Kent State: The Sixties Experience
In the Words of Those Who Lived It Morrison, J. & Morrison, R.
(ed). Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press
Kent.edu 1970 Legal Chronology May 5, 1970 – January 4, 1979
Retrieved 4-19-08 from:
Law.jrank.org no date Kent State Student Killings Retrieved 4-20-08
Lewis, J. & Hensley, T. The May 4th Shootings at Kent State University
Retrieved 4-21-08 from: http://dept.kent.edu/sociology/lewis/lewihen.htm
Omp.ohiolink.edu no date Students for a Democratic Society Rally
Poster Retrieved 4-19-08 from:
Ohiohistorycentral.org 2008 Kent State Shootings Retrieved 4-19-08
Newsweek Poll 1970 Mr. Nixon Holds Up: Gallup Poll Newsweek,
May 18, 1970
Rhodes, J. 2005 Ohio History Central Retrieved 4-19-08 from:
Time 1970 Kent State: Martyrdom that Shook the Country Retrieved
4-18-08 from: http://cgi.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/analysis/back.time/9605/20/ | 6,509 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The Provisional Government
Queen Liliuokalani took the throne at a turbulent time in Hawaii’s history. An economic depression was caused by the passage of the McKinley bill in the U.S. This bill made the price of Hawaiian sugar uncompetitive with sugar grown in the U.S. The sugar growers were very often prominent foreign businessmen, and they were often involved in the Hawaiian government for the specific purpose of protecting their own interests. Most of these businessmen favored annexation to the U.S. for economic reasons.
When the queen attempted to put her own constitution into effect, some businessmen formed an annexation club. This later became the Committee of Safety. The changes to her constitution were considered revolutionary. The most radical of these were: cabinet ministers were to serve “during the queen’s pleasure,” only male Hawaiian-born or naturalized subjects were allowed to vote, and nobles were appointed for life by the queen. If this constitution had passed the queen would have almost total control over the political affairs of the country, and the legislators’ powers would be severely limited. Haoles, or white men, had become accustomed to running the Hawaiian government under the previous sovereigns.
The queen’s actions caused a panic among the businessmen in the community. The Committee of Safety was formed, mainly made up of annexationists opposing the queen. The Committee of Safety determined that the queen’s actions were a detriment to society, and called upon the United States for assistance in securing the public well-being.
Members of the committee obtained U.S. authority to set up a provisional government, and they wasted no time in doing so. A U.S. ship called the Boston was in Honolulu’s harbor at the time. Troops from the Boston took possession of the government office building, the Aliiolani Hale, on January 17, 1892. The provisional government was in place the next day.
On May 20, 1893, the stamps of the Kingdom of Hawaii went on sale with the overprint of “Provisional GOVT. 1893.” The newly appointed Postmaster General was Joseph M. Oat. Oat’s predecessor, Walter Hill, was ousted from his position. Overprinting of the stamps was done with great haste by the Hawaiian Gazette Co. There was a strong demand for the overprinted stamps, and the 2¢ bright vermillion sold out on the first day it was placed on sale. | <urn:uuid:93dc1424-e9e3-42a9-95b6-52a1880a1615> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.mysticstamp.com/Products/Worldwide/H70/Hawaii/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250592394.9/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118081234-20200118105234-00080.warc.gz | en | 0.985071 | 508 | 3.671875 | 4 | [
-0.5348412394523621,
0.1841660887002945,
0.49765631556510925,
-0.15832199156284332,
0.14737839996814728,
0.3984220623970032,
0.0771985575556755,
-0.06247370317578316,
-0.22001081705093384,
0.621391773223877,
0.009881928563117981,
-0.020972225815057755,
0.26427629590034485,
0.36994773149490... | 7 | The Provisional Government
Queen Liliuokalani took the throne at a turbulent time in Hawaii’s history. An economic depression was caused by the passage of the McKinley bill in the U.S. This bill made the price of Hawaiian sugar uncompetitive with sugar grown in the U.S. The sugar growers were very often prominent foreign businessmen, and they were often involved in the Hawaiian government for the specific purpose of protecting their own interests. Most of these businessmen favored annexation to the U.S. for economic reasons.
When the queen attempted to put her own constitution into effect, some businessmen formed an annexation club. This later became the Committee of Safety. The changes to her constitution were considered revolutionary. The most radical of these were: cabinet ministers were to serve “during the queen’s pleasure,” only male Hawaiian-born or naturalized subjects were allowed to vote, and nobles were appointed for life by the queen. If this constitution had passed the queen would have almost total control over the political affairs of the country, and the legislators’ powers would be severely limited. Haoles, or white men, had become accustomed to running the Hawaiian government under the previous sovereigns.
The queen’s actions caused a panic among the businessmen in the community. The Committee of Safety was formed, mainly made up of annexationists opposing the queen. The Committee of Safety determined that the queen’s actions were a detriment to society, and called upon the United States for assistance in securing the public well-being.
Members of the committee obtained U.S. authority to set up a provisional government, and they wasted no time in doing so. A U.S. ship called the Boston was in Honolulu’s harbor at the time. Troops from the Boston took possession of the government office building, the Aliiolani Hale, on January 17, 1892. The provisional government was in place the next day.
On May 20, 1893, the stamps of the Kingdom of Hawaii went on sale with the overprint of “Provisional GOVT. 1893.” The newly appointed Postmaster General was Joseph M. Oat. Oat’s predecessor, Walter Hill, was ousted from his position. Overprinting of the stamps was done with great haste by the Hawaiian Gazette Co. There was a strong demand for the overprinted stamps, and the 2¢ bright vermillion sold out on the first day it was placed on sale. | 496 | ENGLISH | 1 |
FREE Catholic Classes
(TITUS FLAVIUS VESPASIANUS).
Roman Emperor, b. at Reate (now Rieti ), the ancient capital of the Sabines, 18 Nov., A.D. 9; d. there, 23 June, 79. His father was a prosperous tax-gatherer and moneylender, while the fact that his mother's brother was a senator may have at least encouraged him to enter the public service. Early in his career he had opportunities to become familiar with conditions in the Levant, where he served as quaestor; before entering his thirty-fourth year he had filled still more important magistracies. After serving with the army in Germany, he made a successful expedition into Southern Britain in command of the Second Legion, and attained consular rank in A.D. 51. Ten years later he was proconsul in Africa. He first appears in history as a member of the imperial suite when he accompanied Nero on a tour through Greece ; but Vespasian was evidently a very poor courtier, for it is said that he fell asleep in Nero's presence while the emperor was reciting one of his own poems. In spite of this offensive conduct, and either because Nero could be sensible enough to forget personal animosities when reasons of state demanded, or because no one else could be found who was not still more objectionable, Vespasian was appointed to conduct the war against the Jews -an appointment which proved the immediate cause of his elevation to the purple.
Brutal oppression by successive Roman governors, culminating in the atrocities of Gessius Florus, had stirred the Jews to an insurrection in which the Roman garrison of Jerusalem was slaughtered. Many considerations obliged the Roman Court to take a serious view of this disturbance, not the least being the widespread belief that a new power originating in Judea was destined to supplant Rome in the mastery of the world. Taking with him his son Titus, Vespasian, in 66, invaded Judea, entering upon the last war in which the Jews were to take part as a nation. The siege of Jerusalem, in which more than half a million of the inhabitants perished, was conducted by Titus, and ended in the fall of the city (2 Sept., 70), and the final destruction of the Temple. In the meantime Nero's career had ended in suicide, his successor, Galba, had been killed by Otho, and Otho, in his turn dethroned by partisans of Vitellius, had followed Nero's last example. While the Jewish war was still in progress the soldiers in Egypt proclaimed Vespasian emperor (1 July, 69), and their comrades in Judea confirmed the choice. Ostensibly, at least, he had made no bid for the diadem, but his soldiers were sincerely attached to him, and the debauchee Vitellius, Nero's parasite and favourite, whom the legions in Germany had proclaimed, was as unpromising from a military point of view as he was morally worthless. Vespasian remained at his post in Judea, while his lieutenant, Antonius Primus, with the armies of Pannonia and the Balkan Peninsula, invaded Italy, routed the Vitellian forces near Cremona, and stormed Rome, which was defended by the Praetorian Guard and the populace (20 Dec., 69). It was not until the following summer that the new emperor left the conduct of affairs in Palestine to his son Titus and entered the city to receive confirmation at the hands of the Senate.
Vespasian's assumption of the imperial authority ended one of those spasms of civil war which had shaken Rome at intervals ever since the days of Marius and Sulla. His reign was distinctly an era of reform. Titus, who was to become one of the most beneficent pagan rulers in history, was associated as Caesar in his father's administration. The dignity of the Roman Senate was revived, largely by elimination of the disreputable elements; the law of treason, an odious legal cloak for tyranny, was abrogated; the courts of law were reformed; military discipline was placed upon a fairly secure basis. Vespasian, who was a master of financial administration, knew how to lavish his wealth in adding to the splendour of the imperial city, and it was in his reign that the Colosseum was begun. Abroad, the final conquest of Judea was followed by the suppression of a serious rising in Gaul and the consolidation of Roman authority in Britain by Cneius Agricola, who built the chain of forts between the Firths of Clyde and Forth. Still more important to the subsequent progress of civilization was the period of tranquility for the infant Church which began in this reign. The official classes of Rome then regarded the Christians vaguely as a Jewish sect, and as such the latter was subject to the impost of half a shekel for rebuilding the Capitoline temple, which had been destroyed when Rome was stormed for Vespasian; but this tax does not seem to have been the occasion of any general harsh treatment. Tertullian (Apologia) and Eusebius (Hist. eccl.) agree in acquitting Vespasian of persecution. St. Linus, the pope whose death occurred during this period, cannot be proved to have suffered martyrdom, while St. Apollaris of Ravenna, though a martyr, may very well have suffered at the hands of a local mob.
The character of this emperor showed very little, if anything, of the pagan tyrant. Though himself a man of no literary culture, he became the protector of his prisoner of war, the Jewish historian Josephus, a worshipper of the One God, and even permitted him the use of his own family name (Flavius). While this generosity may have been in some degree prompted by Josephus's shrewd prophecy of Vespasian's elevation to the purple, there are other instances of his disposition to reward merit in those with whom he was by no means personally sympathetic. Vespasian has the distinction of being the first Roman Emperor to transmit the purple to his own son; he is also noteworthy in Roman imperial history as having very nearly completed his seventieth year and died a natural death: being in feeble health, he had withdrawn to benefit by the purer air of his native Reate, in the "dewy fields" ( rosei campi ) of the Sabine country. By his wife, Flavia Domitilla, he left two sons, Titus and Domitian, and a daughter, Domitilla, through whom the name of Vespasian's empress was passed on to a granddaughter who is revered as a confessor of the Faith.
FREE Catholic Classes Pick a class, you can learn anything
Copyright 2020 Catholic Online. All materials contained on this site, whether written, audible or visual are the exclusive property of Catholic Online and are protected under U.S. and International copyright laws, © Copyright 2020 Catholic Online. Any unauthorized use, without prior written consent of Catholic Online is strictly forbidden and prohibited.
Catholic Online is a Project of Your Catholic Voice Foundation, a Not-for-Profit Corporation. Your Catholic Voice Foundation has been granted a recognition of tax exemption under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Federal Tax Identification Number: 81-0596847. Your gift is tax-deductible as allowed by law. | <urn:uuid:db3ee4a4-8b2b-4538-8ef8-19a421306695> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=12006 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250595282.35/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119205448-20200119233448-00333.warc.gz | en | 0.984111 | 1,539 | 3.28125 | 3 | [
-0.12420263141393661,
0.13853830099105835,
0.3819703161716461,
-0.04569154977798462,
-0.08156998455524445,
-0.5832279324531555,
-0.1256827414035797,
0.3979019522666931,
0.16865050792694092,
-0.48050475120544434,
-0.21999609470367432,
-0.5322514772415161,
-0.15537211298942566,
0.33306962251... | 1 | FREE Catholic Classes
(TITUS FLAVIUS VESPASIANUS).
Roman Emperor, b. at Reate (now Rieti ), the ancient capital of the Sabines, 18 Nov., A.D. 9; d. there, 23 June, 79. His father was a prosperous tax-gatherer and moneylender, while the fact that his mother's brother was a senator may have at least encouraged him to enter the public service. Early in his career he had opportunities to become familiar with conditions in the Levant, where he served as quaestor; before entering his thirty-fourth year he had filled still more important magistracies. After serving with the army in Germany, he made a successful expedition into Southern Britain in command of the Second Legion, and attained consular rank in A.D. 51. Ten years later he was proconsul in Africa. He first appears in history as a member of the imperial suite when he accompanied Nero on a tour through Greece ; but Vespasian was evidently a very poor courtier, for it is said that he fell asleep in Nero's presence while the emperor was reciting one of his own poems. In spite of this offensive conduct, and either because Nero could be sensible enough to forget personal animosities when reasons of state demanded, or because no one else could be found who was not still more objectionable, Vespasian was appointed to conduct the war against the Jews -an appointment which proved the immediate cause of his elevation to the purple.
Brutal oppression by successive Roman governors, culminating in the atrocities of Gessius Florus, had stirred the Jews to an insurrection in which the Roman garrison of Jerusalem was slaughtered. Many considerations obliged the Roman Court to take a serious view of this disturbance, not the least being the widespread belief that a new power originating in Judea was destined to supplant Rome in the mastery of the world. Taking with him his son Titus, Vespasian, in 66, invaded Judea, entering upon the last war in which the Jews were to take part as a nation. The siege of Jerusalem, in which more than half a million of the inhabitants perished, was conducted by Titus, and ended in the fall of the city (2 Sept., 70), and the final destruction of the Temple. In the meantime Nero's career had ended in suicide, his successor, Galba, had been killed by Otho, and Otho, in his turn dethroned by partisans of Vitellius, had followed Nero's last example. While the Jewish war was still in progress the soldiers in Egypt proclaimed Vespasian emperor (1 July, 69), and their comrades in Judea confirmed the choice. Ostensibly, at least, he had made no bid for the diadem, but his soldiers were sincerely attached to him, and the debauchee Vitellius, Nero's parasite and favourite, whom the legions in Germany had proclaimed, was as unpromising from a military point of view as he was morally worthless. Vespasian remained at his post in Judea, while his lieutenant, Antonius Primus, with the armies of Pannonia and the Balkan Peninsula, invaded Italy, routed the Vitellian forces near Cremona, and stormed Rome, which was defended by the Praetorian Guard and the populace (20 Dec., 69). It was not until the following summer that the new emperor left the conduct of affairs in Palestine to his son Titus and entered the city to receive confirmation at the hands of the Senate.
Vespasian's assumption of the imperial authority ended one of those spasms of civil war which had shaken Rome at intervals ever since the days of Marius and Sulla. His reign was distinctly an era of reform. Titus, who was to become one of the most beneficent pagan rulers in history, was associated as Caesar in his father's administration. The dignity of the Roman Senate was revived, largely by elimination of the disreputable elements; the law of treason, an odious legal cloak for tyranny, was abrogated; the courts of law were reformed; military discipline was placed upon a fairly secure basis. Vespasian, who was a master of financial administration, knew how to lavish his wealth in adding to the splendour of the imperial city, and it was in his reign that the Colosseum was begun. Abroad, the final conquest of Judea was followed by the suppression of a serious rising in Gaul and the consolidation of Roman authority in Britain by Cneius Agricola, who built the chain of forts between the Firths of Clyde and Forth. Still more important to the subsequent progress of civilization was the period of tranquility for the infant Church which began in this reign. The official classes of Rome then regarded the Christians vaguely as a Jewish sect, and as such the latter was subject to the impost of half a shekel for rebuilding the Capitoline temple, which had been destroyed when Rome was stormed for Vespasian; but this tax does not seem to have been the occasion of any general harsh treatment. Tertullian (Apologia) and Eusebius (Hist. eccl.) agree in acquitting Vespasian of persecution. St. Linus, the pope whose death occurred during this period, cannot be proved to have suffered martyrdom, while St. Apollaris of Ravenna, though a martyr, may very well have suffered at the hands of a local mob.
The character of this emperor showed very little, if anything, of the pagan tyrant. Though himself a man of no literary culture, he became the protector of his prisoner of war, the Jewish historian Josephus, a worshipper of the One God, and even permitted him the use of his own family name (Flavius). While this generosity may have been in some degree prompted by Josephus's shrewd prophecy of Vespasian's elevation to the purple, there are other instances of his disposition to reward merit in those with whom he was by no means personally sympathetic. Vespasian has the distinction of being the first Roman Emperor to transmit the purple to his own son; he is also noteworthy in Roman imperial history as having very nearly completed his seventieth year and died a natural death: being in feeble health, he had withdrawn to benefit by the purer air of his native Reate, in the "dewy fields" ( rosei campi ) of the Sabine country. By his wife, Flavia Domitilla, he left two sons, Titus and Domitian, and a daughter, Domitilla, through whom the name of Vespasian's empress was passed on to a granddaughter who is revered as a confessor of the Faith.
FREE Catholic Classes Pick a class, you can learn anything
Copyright 2020 Catholic Online. All materials contained on this site, whether written, audible or visual are the exclusive property of Catholic Online and are protected under U.S. and International copyright laws, © Copyright 2020 Catholic Online. Any unauthorized use, without prior written consent of Catholic Online is strictly forbidden and prohibited.
Catholic Online is a Project of Your Catholic Voice Foundation, a Not-for-Profit Corporation. Your Catholic Voice Foundation has been granted a recognition of tax exemption under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Federal Tax Identification Number: 81-0596847. Your gift is tax-deductible as allowed by law. | 1,577 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Is history written by the winners? Not always. The history of life in the Jewish ghetto in Warsaw was written by those who lost - at least in the struggle for life. Out of the 60 people who collected the so-called “secret archive of Ringelblum”, only three survived, but they left invaluable testimonies of thousands of people doomed to death. Recently, the UN presented the film "Who will write our history," based on the book with the same name by the American historian with the Polish origin Samuel Kassov. Helen Vapnichnaya talked to him.
“It was the only person who knew where they had buried all these documents: under the Jewish school on Novolipka street 68.
They searched, searched, searched, but it was a very complicated matter, because Warsaw was destroyed. It was not easy even to know where the street was, because the whole ghetto territory was completely destroyed. ”
A historian, a professor at Triniti Samuil Kassov, author of the book Who Will Write Our Story, talks about the process of looking for the Ringelblum Archive, an amazing, unique collection of several thousand testimonies of everyday - and monstrous - life in the ghetto, which the Nazi group of Polish intellectuals gathered led by historian Emmanuel Ringelblum. On his initiative, several dozens of people step by step recreated the world of the Warsaw ghetto, realizing that with their inevitable death this page of the war would be lost. Everything was important: diaries, poems, posters, orders of the Wehrmacht and Nazi propaganda, children's drawings, receipts and even tram tickets. The members of the group known as the “Oineg Shabas” kept the strictest secrecy, many did not even know each other. When Jews from the ghetto began to be sent to Treblinka, Ringelblum and his comrades secretly packed their documents in iron boxes and huge milk cans and buried in three places. But about where they are, literally 5-6 people knew. Ringelblum was very worried that the archive might be gone.
“On March 1, 1944, in one of his last letters he wrote to another friend:“ What will happen if none of us remain alive, if we fail to survive the war, what will happen to our archive?
Professor Kassov himself is from Polish Jews, and the history of his family is also evidence of the Holocaust. True, as he says, his father was lucky - in 1940, the Soviet military, during the occupation of Poland for some unknown reason, arrested him and exiled him to Siberia. Lucky - because otherwise he would surely end up in the Nazi death camp. Mom, too, we can say, was lucky: she managed to escape twice - to run literally in the last minutes before the execution - only because the German had a pistol stuck. The second time she was hid by a Pole - a former classmate.
The parents met in a camp for displaced persons, where Samuel was born, and in 1949 the family moved to America. And although they all deeply felt their Jewishness, being a student, Samuel did not seek to push him out and did not want to dive at all into the past of his parents and into the history of the Holocaust.
“When I decided that I would be a historian, I decided that I would not study Jewish history, I didn’t want to study Holocaust history, because it was very painful, I felt it very closely and I didn’t want to think about it. This very often reminded me of the sufferings of my mother and the rest of the family. So I wanted to study Russian history and decided that I would write a book about Russian universities in Tsarist Russia. ”
So he spent six months in Russia at Moscow State University and worked in very different archives. And yet the Holocaust theme did not leave him.
“First, I noticed that historians in America and in Europe when they wrote about the Holocaust ... And, of course, I tried not to be interested in this topic, but still it attracted me, but I noticed that they do not own Jewish languages. Since they could not read the sources in Yiddish and even in Polish, they could not write about Jews as people, they wrote about them as victims and these victims did not have an identity, they did not have names, they were only objects of German barbarous politician. "
But it is known that even in inhuman conditions, even in concentration camps, the Jews steadfastly resisted - as they could: they put on performances, organized orchestras, wrote, painted ...
“There were literary works, there was poetry, there was a spiritual struggle against German attempts to insult and humiliate them. And they fought — not with guns and pistols, but they fought in other ways. ”
When the parents died, after much hesitation, Samuel Kassov decided it was time to take up this topic. Why precisely Emmanuel Ringelblum?
"Because he was a historian and he showed and proved how historical documents can turn into a powerful weapon of struggle."
Yes, when they are not buried in an unknown place. If you look at the post-war photographs of the Warsaw ghetto, then it is actually not there, it's just ruins. It is impossible to believe that once there were streets, houses, shops, schools. Of the 60 people who worked together on the archive, only three survived the war. Ringelblum was shot with his wife and children. And the exact address of the cache of the survivors knew only one of them - Gersh Wasser. With the support of the Jewish Labor Committee, a group of engineers was able to calculate the right place.
“They began to dig and on September 18, 1946, they found the first part of the archive, which they hid in August, in the beginning of August of the 42nd year - at the height of the mass deportation to Treblinka. This part of the archive described the entire history of the ghetto, starting in November of the 40th year until August of the 42nd year. ”
But it was known that another part of the leaders of "Oneig Shabas" hid in February 43rd year. But it could not be found - until in December 50, the builders did not stumble upon milk cans buried in the ground.
“But they thought that - well, everyone knows that all Jews are rich people, that there should be gold, dollars and diamonds. And when they saw that there were only documents, they wanted to throw it all away. But the forman - the head of the brigade - said: "No, these must be important documents and they must be handed over to the Jewish Historical Society."
However, there was still a third part, which was hidden in April 43, a week before the uprising in the Warsaw ghetto. Gersh Wasser remembered the address, but could not find the documents. Today, the Chinese Embassy is in this place and 10-15 years ago, researchers from Israel received permission to search for the lost archive, but again it was a failure.
That which was saved was kept in the Emmanuel Ringelblum Jewish Historical Institute. These are 36 volumes - 35 thousand pages that store the living voices of the dead.
“It was an incredible feeling - when I saw these documents, when I knew in what circumstances they were written, how they hoped that some day they would find this archive and they were hoping that this archive would affect humanity, that when people read these documents will then realize that it is embarrassing that such horrible crimes can occur in the world and that you need to be sure that this will never happen again. ”
David Graber, one of those who hid the archive, wrote in his will: “What we could not shout to the whole world, we hid under the ground. Let this treasure be in good hands, let it wait for better times. And let it be a warning to the world. ”
In 1999, the Ringelblum Archive was entered into the Memory of the World Register by UNESCO - a list of the most important historical documents. He also posted on the Internet. | <urn:uuid:0a64ab24-1e77-42b4-8b35-2803030d864a> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://un.by/en/un-news/v-mire/4605-it-was-an-incredible-feeling-as-found-the-ringelblum-archive | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251728207.68/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127205148-20200127235148-00025.warc.gz | en | 0.983342 | 1,697 | 3.28125 | 3 | [
-0.41915059089660645,
0.701207160949707,
0.17896682024002075,
0.5167820453643799,
0.0974457785487175,
0.48747700452804565,
0.05731021612882614,
0.2034616619348526,
-0.3702782392501831,
-0.24841617047786713,
0.08775980025529861,
0.21189597249031067,
-0.10793788731098175,
0.10587117075920105... | 3 | Is history written by the winners? Not always. The history of life in the Jewish ghetto in Warsaw was written by those who lost - at least in the struggle for life. Out of the 60 people who collected the so-called “secret archive of Ringelblum”, only three survived, but they left invaluable testimonies of thousands of people doomed to death. Recently, the UN presented the film "Who will write our history," based on the book with the same name by the American historian with the Polish origin Samuel Kassov. Helen Vapnichnaya talked to him.
“It was the only person who knew where they had buried all these documents: under the Jewish school on Novolipka street 68.
They searched, searched, searched, but it was a very complicated matter, because Warsaw was destroyed. It was not easy even to know where the street was, because the whole ghetto territory was completely destroyed. ”
A historian, a professor at Triniti Samuil Kassov, author of the book Who Will Write Our Story, talks about the process of looking for the Ringelblum Archive, an amazing, unique collection of several thousand testimonies of everyday - and monstrous - life in the ghetto, which the Nazi group of Polish intellectuals gathered led by historian Emmanuel Ringelblum. On his initiative, several dozens of people step by step recreated the world of the Warsaw ghetto, realizing that with their inevitable death this page of the war would be lost. Everything was important: diaries, poems, posters, orders of the Wehrmacht and Nazi propaganda, children's drawings, receipts and even tram tickets. The members of the group known as the “Oineg Shabas” kept the strictest secrecy, many did not even know each other. When Jews from the ghetto began to be sent to Treblinka, Ringelblum and his comrades secretly packed their documents in iron boxes and huge milk cans and buried in three places. But about where they are, literally 5-6 people knew. Ringelblum was very worried that the archive might be gone.
“On March 1, 1944, in one of his last letters he wrote to another friend:“ What will happen if none of us remain alive, if we fail to survive the war, what will happen to our archive?
Professor Kassov himself is from Polish Jews, and the history of his family is also evidence of the Holocaust. True, as he says, his father was lucky - in 1940, the Soviet military, during the occupation of Poland for some unknown reason, arrested him and exiled him to Siberia. Lucky - because otherwise he would surely end up in the Nazi death camp. Mom, too, we can say, was lucky: she managed to escape twice - to run literally in the last minutes before the execution - only because the German had a pistol stuck. The second time she was hid by a Pole - a former classmate.
The parents met in a camp for displaced persons, where Samuel was born, and in 1949 the family moved to America. And although they all deeply felt their Jewishness, being a student, Samuel did not seek to push him out and did not want to dive at all into the past of his parents and into the history of the Holocaust.
“When I decided that I would be a historian, I decided that I would not study Jewish history, I didn’t want to study Holocaust history, because it was very painful, I felt it very closely and I didn’t want to think about it. This very often reminded me of the sufferings of my mother and the rest of the family. So I wanted to study Russian history and decided that I would write a book about Russian universities in Tsarist Russia. ”
So he spent six months in Russia at Moscow State University and worked in very different archives. And yet the Holocaust theme did not leave him.
“First, I noticed that historians in America and in Europe when they wrote about the Holocaust ... And, of course, I tried not to be interested in this topic, but still it attracted me, but I noticed that they do not own Jewish languages. Since they could not read the sources in Yiddish and even in Polish, they could not write about Jews as people, they wrote about them as victims and these victims did not have an identity, they did not have names, they were only objects of German barbarous politician. "
But it is known that even in inhuman conditions, even in concentration camps, the Jews steadfastly resisted - as they could: they put on performances, organized orchestras, wrote, painted ...
“There were literary works, there was poetry, there was a spiritual struggle against German attempts to insult and humiliate them. And they fought — not with guns and pistols, but they fought in other ways. ”
When the parents died, after much hesitation, Samuel Kassov decided it was time to take up this topic. Why precisely Emmanuel Ringelblum?
"Because he was a historian and he showed and proved how historical documents can turn into a powerful weapon of struggle."
Yes, when they are not buried in an unknown place. If you look at the post-war photographs of the Warsaw ghetto, then it is actually not there, it's just ruins. It is impossible to believe that once there were streets, houses, shops, schools. Of the 60 people who worked together on the archive, only three survived the war. Ringelblum was shot with his wife and children. And the exact address of the cache of the survivors knew only one of them - Gersh Wasser. With the support of the Jewish Labor Committee, a group of engineers was able to calculate the right place.
“They began to dig and on September 18, 1946, they found the first part of the archive, which they hid in August, in the beginning of August of the 42nd year - at the height of the mass deportation to Treblinka. This part of the archive described the entire history of the ghetto, starting in November of the 40th year until August of the 42nd year. ”
But it was known that another part of the leaders of "Oneig Shabas" hid in February 43rd year. But it could not be found - until in December 50, the builders did not stumble upon milk cans buried in the ground.
“But they thought that - well, everyone knows that all Jews are rich people, that there should be gold, dollars and diamonds. And when they saw that there were only documents, they wanted to throw it all away. But the forman - the head of the brigade - said: "No, these must be important documents and they must be handed over to the Jewish Historical Society."
However, there was still a third part, which was hidden in April 43, a week before the uprising in the Warsaw ghetto. Gersh Wasser remembered the address, but could not find the documents. Today, the Chinese Embassy is in this place and 10-15 years ago, researchers from Israel received permission to search for the lost archive, but again it was a failure.
That which was saved was kept in the Emmanuel Ringelblum Jewish Historical Institute. These are 36 volumes - 35 thousand pages that store the living voices of the dead.
“It was an incredible feeling - when I saw these documents, when I knew in what circumstances they were written, how they hoped that some day they would find this archive and they were hoping that this archive would affect humanity, that when people read these documents will then realize that it is embarrassing that such horrible crimes can occur in the world and that you need to be sure that this will never happen again. ”
David Graber, one of those who hid the archive, wrote in his will: “What we could not shout to the whole world, we hid under the ground. Let this treasure be in good hands, let it wait for better times. And let it be a warning to the world. ”
In 1999, the Ringelblum Archive was entered into the Memory of the World Register by UNESCO - a list of the most important historical documents. He also posted on the Internet. | 1,703 | ENGLISH | 1 |
*This film contains disturbing images* Between 1877 and 1950 more than 4,000 African-Americans were lynched. Their deaths are still having an impact on voting patterns today. Read more here:
Click here to subscribe to The Economist on YouTube:
Many people know about the terror of lynchings. But one of the reasons why blacks were lynched was to suppress the black vote which is still happening today.
I’m black. I’m from the South and so this means a lot to me because my ancestors were lynched. My research examines the extent to which historical lynchings are correlated with voter registration rates of blacks today.
And what I find is that blacks who currently reside in counties that were exposed to a higher number of lynchings are less likely to register to vote and they are less likely to indicate that they voted in a recent election compared to their white counterparts.
Voting is a social norm. Why are you voting? Because the people around you are voting. But what happens if their parents didn’t vote? And their parents didn’t vote? All of this is rooted in historical racial animus.
What happens if you can walk outside and see a body hanging from a tree?
Emmett Till’s lynching is very iconic in American history
He was a 14-year-old boy from Chicago who supposedly whistled at a white woman and was kidnapped, tortured, beaten, killed and body was dumped in a river.
When one of his killers was interviewed the first reason he gave for killing Emmett Till was voting. That as long as he lived and as long as he could do anything about it, “Niggers weren’t gonna vote in his area”
Because if they did, they control the government.
Lynching sends the signal you vote, you die. You have no protection, you have no rights. We will kill you.
That’s the power of lynching.
The rise of lynching was after slavery.
Now African-Americans were no longer property and now they had to be put back in their subjugated place
“Oldest southern problem, born 300 years ago with the introduction of slavery is that of the negro. Today in Dixie there are almost nine million coloured”
Blacks were actually seen as a political threat
In a lot of southern counties blacks were the majority
And so when black men were given a right to vote if they voted a certain way they could actually change the political structure of the South
This outraged many white southerners
In particular, the KKK
And the way that they responded to this was with lynchings
From 1890 to 1920 we had a lynching on average one every other day
Lynchings were a show. They were a public spectacle
You have this festival of violence
You’ve got community involvement
You’ve got the person being tortured before the crowd and dismembered
They even sold people’s body parts as souvenirs for individuals to purchase
And they would bring their children to these lynchings
You had judges, police officers, politicians sometimes standing by or even participating
The impact of lynching in black communities was profound
You really do not trust local officials because in fact they were engaged in the domestic terrorism reigned down on your community
This mistrust of local officials has been passed down culturally among blacks
Lynching was a method for voter suppression
Although we don’t have the bodies hanging in the trees the past is never the past.
I believe that empowering black people to vote is actually a way of saying that their ancestors died for a reason.
So that we could have the right to vote.
And we’re actually voting today.
For more from Economist Films visit:
Check out The Economist’s full video catalogue:
Like The Economist on Facebook:
Follow The Economist on Twitter:
Follow us on Instagram:
Follow us on Medium: | <urn:uuid:b3162a3f-e67b-4316-9a0c-42af67498b88> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://keepup101.com/how-lynching-still-affects-american-politics-the-economist/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594603.8/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119122744-20200119150744-00537.warc.gz | en | 0.982371 | 830 | 3.46875 | 3 | [
-0.08288843929767609,
0.14727471768856049,
-0.017574965953826904,
0.03693102300167084,
0.24403786659240723,
0.27810370922088623,
0.0714537650346756,
-0.15221163630485535,
-0.0875764787197113,
0.009399740025401115,
0.6136354804039001,
-0.0921740010380745,
-0.1105928122997284,
0.183578133583... | 1 | *This film contains disturbing images* Between 1877 and 1950 more than 4,000 African-Americans were lynched. Their deaths are still having an impact on voting patterns today. Read more here:
Click here to subscribe to The Economist on YouTube:
Many people know about the terror of lynchings. But one of the reasons why blacks were lynched was to suppress the black vote which is still happening today.
I’m black. I’m from the South and so this means a lot to me because my ancestors were lynched. My research examines the extent to which historical lynchings are correlated with voter registration rates of blacks today.
And what I find is that blacks who currently reside in counties that were exposed to a higher number of lynchings are less likely to register to vote and they are less likely to indicate that they voted in a recent election compared to their white counterparts.
Voting is a social norm. Why are you voting? Because the people around you are voting. But what happens if their parents didn’t vote? And their parents didn’t vote? All of this is rooted in historical racial animus.
What happens if you can walk outside and see a body hanging from a tree?
Emmett Till’s lynching is very iconic in American history
He was a 14-year-old boy from Chicago who supposedly whistled at a white woman and was kidnapped, tortured, beaten, killed and body was dumped in a river.
When one of his killers was interviewed the first reason he gave for killing Emmett Till was voting. That as long as he lived and as long as he could do anything about it, “Niggers weren’t gonna vote in his area”
Because if they did, they control the government.
Lynching sends the signal you vote, you die. You have no protection, you have no rights. We will kill you.
That’s the power of lynching.
The rise of lynching was after slavery.
Now African-Americans were no longer property and now they had to be put back in their subjugated place
“Oldest southern problem, born 300 years ago with the introduction of slavery is that of the negro. Today in Dixie there are almost nine million coloured”
Blacks were actually seen as a political threat
In a lot of southern counties blacks were the majority
And so when black men were given a right to vote if they voted a certain way they could actually change the political structure of the South
This outraged many white southerners
In particular, the KKK
And the way that they responded to this was with lynchings
From 1890 to 1920 we had a lynching on average one every other day
Lynchings were a show. They were a public spectacle
You have this festival of violence
You’ve got community involvement
You’ve got the person being tortured before the crowd and dismembered
They even sold people’s body parts as souvenirs for individuals to purchase
And they would bring their children to these lynchings
You had judges, police officers, politicians sometimes standing by or even participating
The impact of lynching in black communities was profound
You really do not trust local officials because in fact they were engaged in the domestic terrorism reigned down on your community
This mistrust of local officials has been passed down culturally among blacks
Lynching was a method for voter suppression
Although we don’t have the bodies hanging in the trees the past is never the past.
I believe that empowering black people to vote is actually a way of saying that their ancestors died for a reason.
So that we could have the right to vote.
And we’re actually voting today.
For more from Economist Films visit:
Check out The Economist’s full video catalogue:
Like The Economist on Facebook:
Follow The Economist on Twitter:
Follow us on Instagram:
Follow us on Medium: | 801 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The train-plane that almost changed the fate of transport
George Benny wanted to revolutionize the way people were moving until then.
And so by 1920, inspecting an early engine of the era, he concluded that trains would be much more efficient if they left coal for the sake of propeller.
But why should rails be screwed into the ground, affecting the movement of cities? Of course it shouldn’t and that’s what made life worth doing!
Nine years later, he was ready to advertise with what he had and did not have in his pocket what he called Railplane (something like a “rail plane”) and even gave him his name (George Bennie Railplane). A series of electric motors gave life to his creation, which hung on raised rails. To brake even, the propellers would willingly turn direction and neither cat nor damage.
Suddenly Glasgow looked completely different. Although the length of the trajectory heading into the city sky was too short for high speeds, Benny estimated that his invention would run comfortably at 195 km / h, transporting passengers from Glasgow to Edinburgh in 20 minutes. Not bad considering that even today the train takes 50 minutes!
The inventor dreamed of expanding his underground network to London and beyond, why not to Paris? London-Glasgow would be a 3.5 hour journey, two hours faster than it is today.
And while he was a demon, he intended to build his Railplane infrastructure just above the existing rail network, reducing both costs and environmental impact. Even Benny promised luxury, as his wagons had carpets, adjustable chairs, curtains, and even window glass.
And where everything looked like perfect, came the catastrophe! The project never found the funding it needed to take off. The railway companies who feared that Beni’s invention was still effective in preventing it from being caught commercially had an important role to play. And in order to get them the job, they were ready to slander her wherever she goes, exhausting all their influence on propaganda.
By 1937, the inventor had spent every penny he had on the bank to promote his ambitious plan, going bankrupt somewhere along the way. And while the rails he had laid out were eventually sold for scrap metal, the roof on which Railplane was originally built remains lively to this day, with a commemorative plaque for the man who could have changed the way we travel. | <urn:uuid:417d2634-88cf-4628-9511-910b33691b81> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://theowl.press/2019/08/13/the-train-plane-that-almost-changed-the-fate-of-transport/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250614880.58/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124011048-20200124040048-00547.warc.gz | en | 0.985571 | 488 | 3.328125 | 3 | [
-0.14147906005382538,
0.12250823527574539,
0.5620960593223572,
-0.03132285177707672,
-0.32566574215888977,
0.224735289812088,
-0.028635118156671524,
0.2498524785041809,
-0.22693650424480438,
0.18768364191055298,
0.12013522535562515,
0.03373919054865837,
-0.0031789778731763363,
0.3474258482... | 3 | The train-plane that almost changed the fate of transport
George Benny wanted to revolutionize the way people were moving until then.
And so by 1920, inspecting an early engine of the era, he concluded that trains would be much more efficient if they left coal for the sake of propeller.
But why should rails be screwed into the ground, affecting the movement of cities? Of course it shouldn’t and that’s what made life worth doing!
Nine years later, he was ready to advertise with what he had and did not have in his pocket what he called Railplane (something like a “rail plane”) and even gave him his name (George Bennie Railplane). A series of electric motors gave life to his creation, which hung on raised rails. To brake even, the propellers would willingly turn direction and neither cat nor damage.
Suddenly Glasgow looked completely different. Although the length of the trajectory heading into the city sky was too short for high speeds, Benny estimated that his invention would run comfortably at 195 km / h, transporting passengers from Glasgow to Edinburgh in 20 minutes. Not bad considering that even today the train takes 50 minutes!
The inventor dreamed of expanding his underground network to London and beyond, why not to Paris? London-Glasgow would be a 3.5 hour journey, two hours faster than it is today.
And while he was a demon, he intended to build his Railplane infrastructure just above the existing rail network, reducing both costs and environmental impact. Even Benny promised luxury, as his wagons had carpets, adjustable chairs, curtains, and even window glass.
And where everything looked like perfect, came the catastrophe! The project never found the funding it needed to take off. The railway companies who feared that Beni’s invention was still effective in preventing it from being caught commercially had an important role to play. And in order to get them the job, they were ready to slander her wherever she goes, exhausting all their influence on propaganda.
By 1937, the inventor had spent every penny he had on the bank to promote his ambitious plan, going bankrupt somewhere along the way. And while the rails he had laid out were eventually sold for scrap metal, the roof on which Railplane was originally built remains lively to this day, with a commemorative plaque for the man who could have changed the way we travel. | 485 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The Navies’ role
Short notes on the Great War
Britain was the great sea power of the day, outstripping all others by some distance. Yet its great achievement lay in negatives. Barring the inconclusive Battle of Jutland in May 1916 and a few skirmishes, it acted as a great deterrent—locking away the German High Seas Fleet in their North Sea harbours behind minefields. British trade on the seas thus went on unhindered—not a single troopship was sunk in the channel—while German trade was swept from the seas. But British and Allied shipping did lose millions of tonnes every month to German U-boats, which rampaged in the Atlantic. Things reached alarming proportions in 1917, influencing the British offensive in Ypres and scaring the Americans. Matters improved when the Admiralty adopted the ‘convoy’ system of escorting merchant ships. The reason was a curious contradiction—the determination to have as many modern warships as possible, but coupled with a deep fear of exposing them to unknown, unseen new weapons (submarines, torpedo boats, and the new threat from the air).
It was on the waters between England and France, inside a boat called Kilfauns Castle, that Gandhi, then 44 and heading for London, heard of the start of what would become the Great War. He had boarded the ship in Cape Town on July 18, 1914, after a 20-year spell in South Africa which was climaxed by a fair if limited victory for Indian rights in that African land which British and other European whites ruled.
Accompanying Gandhi on the Kilfauns Castle were wife Kasturba and close friend and ally Hermann Kallenbach, a Jewish architect of German origin.
India was Gandhi’s destination. He was longing to give a new turn to India’s efforts for self-rule. But he first wished to consult with his political guru, Gopal Krishna Gokhale, who was in London for reasons of health.
It was eight years previously, in 1906, while Gandhi was leading an Indian ambulance unit in the hills of Natal, where white rulers were trying to suppress a Zulu rebellion, that he had hit upon non-violent resistance or satyagraha as the strategy for oppressed people facing difficult odds.
Finding himself in England when the War commenced, Gandhi offered to raise an ambulance corps of young Indians to assist Britain and its allies in the Great War. Officials in London accepted Gandhi’s offer, and a number of Indians, most of them students, signed up.
Among them was Sorabji Adajania, a Parsi law student who had worked under Gandhi in South Africa. Gandhi had sent Adajania to law school in London with a scholarship provided by Pranjivan Mehta, a Gandhi backer from the late 1880s, when both he and Gandhi studied law in London.
But from South Africa, Henry Polak, like Kallenbach a close ally of European origin, cabled Gandhi with a protest. Backing a war did not sound like non-violence, argued Polak, who like Kallenbach was a Jew.
Gandhi answered that when much of humanity was trapped in a conflagration, some compromise with violence was inescapable. In his 1914 view, Indians had to back Britain in the War if they wanted to move towards self-rule in India.
In London, about 80 Indians received training for six weeks. It was not a smooth exercise. The commanding officer in charge of the corps did not consult any Indian, even Gandhi, during this training, and resentment was caused when English undergraduates also being trained bossed over the Indians in the corps. Adajania led a mini-satyagraha and a solution was reached.
Gandhi noticed that London’s Muslims, many of whom were from India, were troubled when Turkey chose to throw in its lot with Germany. Could they back the Empire against Turkey, the world’s premier Muslim state at the time?
Kallenbach’s knowledge of Germany and its geography was considerable, and Gokhale probed him on how the War was likely to proceed. Unable, however, to cope with the British weather, Gokhale left for India soon after Gandhi’s arrival in England.
Gandhi’s wish to be part of the corps he had raised in England was denied. Exertions before leaving South Africa and an experimental diet wholly restricted to fruits and nuts had damaged his health. The pleurisy afflicting him was not going away. Lord Roberts, the under-secretary of state for India, and his wife, Lady Cecilia, tried to look after Gandhi, but after it became clear that he was in no position to do ambulance work, Gandhi too left for India.
Kallenbach was to sail with Gandhi but he held a German passport and needed an Indian visa, which Gandhi tried hard to procure for his friend. However, word came from Viceroy Hardinge (who had supported Gandhi’s last satyagraha in South Africa) that because of the War all German nationals were being barred from India and an exception would not be made for Kallenbach. In 1914, when Britain’s Balfour Declaration in favour of a Jewish state in Palestine lay three years into the future, Kallenbach was seen as a German rather than a Jew.
On December 19, 1914, the Gandhis sailed for Bombay by the Arabia.
Huge, numerous and in some ways contradictory longings resided in the Gandhi returning to his homeland after his long South African stint. He wanted to win India over to non-violent satyagraha. He wanted British rule expelled while holding that support for the War would advance the cause of self-rule.
But the War was not the only thing on Gandhi’s mind. He wanted Hindu-Muslim unity. He hoped to empower the weakest Indian with the spinning wheel. He wanted caste Hindus to recognise the offence of high and low.
He declared in Madras on February 16, 1916: “Every affliction that we labour under in this sacred land is a fit and proper punishment for this great and indelible crime that we are committing.” (Collected Works, 15: 173).
Gandhi’s fellow-ashramites in Ahmedabad, including wife Kasturba, grew restive when Gandhi had admitted a young ‘untouchable’ couple, Dudabhai Dafda and his wife, into the ashram. Donors withdrew, forcing Gandhi to think of moving the ashram into a Dalit settlement when a young industrialist in his 20s named Ambalal Sarabhai saved the situation with a gift of `13,000. The tide turned and Dudabhai and his wife were accepted within the ashram and in its neighbourhood.
When in 1917 Gandhi defied the Raj and, despite an order to leave, stayed put in Bihar, where he had gone to defend indigo farmers, many in India were thrilled. They were again thrilled when at a public meeting in Gujarat he tore up the customary resolution of loyalty to the Empire with which every public gathering in India began. Loyalty, he said, could be presumed, as it was in England.
Addressing militant students in Calcutta, Gandhi described assassinations as “absolutely a foreign growth” and said that those wanting to promote that approach should know that he, Gandhi, would “rise against them”. On the other hand, if ever he chose sedition, he would openly advocate it; if the students were prepared to die, he would die with them (Collected Works 14: 396).
In early 1918, Gandhi asked peasants in Kheda district to non-violently defy what they saw as an unjust land tax.
But the Great War had posed tough questions for him. Could he oppose the politics of assassination being advocated by some, while simultaneously asking Indians to support the War?
Should he wage non-violent war against the Empire or back the Empire in its violent war?
His dilemma was revealed in his remark in June 1918 to a young new associate, 25-year-old Mahadev Desai: “We stand on the threshold of a twilight, whether morning or evening we do not know.”
The Empire was in need of soldiers from India. When, for the sake of Hindu-Muslim unity, Gandhi asked the Viceroy to release the Ali Brothers (Shaukat and Muhammad) who had been detained for their pro-Turkey speeches, Gandhi was asked what he had done to recruit soldiers for the War.
He decided he would recruit. And he asked three major political figures in the India of 1918 to support recruitment: Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Annie Besant and Mohammed Ali Jinnah. In 1916, these three had produced the Lucknow Pact between the Congress and the Muslim League in which the Congress agreed to separate Muslim electorates in return for the League’s acceptance of a joint demand for Indian self-rule.
Tilak, Besant and Jinnah demurred. What, they asked, would the Empire give in return for political India’s support for the War? Gandhi continued to claim that unilateral backing would gain British goodwill and hasten self-rule.
During 1918’s hot summer, Gandhi (supported by Vallabhbhai Patel, Mahadev Desai and others) personally tried to recruit soldiers from Kheda district for the war that was continuing in Europe. He made this bid disregarding the departure from Ahimsa that the effort seemed to involve.
This Kheda bid was barely successful. Its peasants were baffled that Gandhi first encouraged them to defy the Raj over land tax, and then asked them to provide sons for the Empire’s war.
Even so, Gandhi raised 100 soldiers from Gujarat, including many ashramites. All had to overcome the tension between non-violence and war.
The conflict was severe inside Gandhi himself. On August 11, 1918, when he was in Nadiad, Gandhi collapsed. The heat, his lack of success in Kheda and, above all, the clash between his recruiting activity and the non-violence that he saw as the message of his life, contributed to the breakdown. Rajendra Prasad, visiting from Bihar and introduced by Gandhi to Gujarat as a ‘brother’ who helped him forget the recent deaths of his brothers Laxmidas and Karsandas, noticed that at this time Gandhi “often wept” and said, “I do not know what God’s will is.” (Collected Works, 16: 387.)
After a few agonising weeks, Gandhi’s internal conflict ended. Germany’s defeat took place and the soldiers he had recruited were not called upon to fight.
However, Gandhi’s health remained serious for some time. He even thought he might die, especially since, troubled by how cows were being treated, he had taken a vow not to take milk. Kasturba found a way out, reminding Gandhi that in taking the vow he had cows, not goats, in mind. The vow left him free, she insisted, to drink goat’s milk. Gandhi accepted his wife’s solution and recovered on the strength of goat’s milk.
This was at the start of 1919. Within weeks, he would launch the stir against the Rowlatt Act which in the name of fighting sedition curbed free speech. Jallianwala Bagh and the Non-Cooperation movement followed. Gandhi’s dilemma was behind him; the non-violent war against the Empire was on.
Rajmohan Gandhi is the Mahatma’s grandson and author of Mohandas: A True Story of a Man, His People and an Empire | <urn:uuid:d71314fd-a8d5-46c4-b16c-a3f59c4e6199> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.outlookindia.com/magazine/story/war-within-gandhi/289862 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250605075.24/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121192553-20200121221553-00220.warc.gz | en | 0.982316 | 2,479 | 3.625 | 4 | [
0.17430557310581207,
0.5002780556678772,
0.16979992389678955,
-0.43221062421798706,
-0.025900352746248245,
-0.42924216389656067,
0.24131903052330017,
-0.11284928768873215,
-0.18387433886528015,
-0.25933533906936646,
0.10939981043338776,
-0.4737362265586853,
0.12262175232172012,
0.523085713... | 3 | The Navies’ role
Short notes on the Great War
Britain was the great sea power of the day, outstripping all others by some distance. Yet its great achievement lay in negatives. Barring the inconclusive Battle of Jutland in May 1916 and a few skirmishes, it acted as a great deterrent—locking away the German High Seas Fleet in their North Sea harbours behind minefields. British trade on the seas thus went on unhindered—not a single troopship was sunk in the channel—while German trade was swept from the seas. But British and Allied shipping did lose millions of tonnes every month to German U-boats, which rampaged in the Atlantic. Things reached alarming proportions in 1917, influencing the British offensive in Ypres and scaring the Americans. Matters improved when the Admiralty adopted the ‘convoy’ system of escorting merchant ships. The reason was a curious contradiction—the determination to have as many modern warships as possible, but coupled with a deep fear of exposing them to unknown, unseen new weapons (submarines, torpedo boats, and the new threat from the air).
It was on the waters between England and France, inside a boat called Kilfauns Castle, that Gandhi, then 44 and heading for London, heard of the start of what would become the Great War. He had boarded the ship in Cape Town on July 18, 1914, after a 20-year spell in South Africa which was climaxed by a fair if limited victory for Indian rights in that African land which British and other European whites ruled.
Accompanying Gandhi on the Kilfauns Castle were wife Kasturba and close friend and ally Hermann Kallenbach, a Jewish architect of German origin.
India was Gandhi’s destination. He was longing to give a new turn to India’s efforts for self-rule. But he first wished to consult with his political guru, Gopal Krishna Gokhale, who was in London for reasons of health.
It was eight years previously, in 1906, while Gandhi was leading an Indian ambulance unit in the hills of Natal, where white rulers were trying to suppress a Zulu rebellion, that he had hit upon non-violent resistance or satyagraha as the strategy for oppressed people facing difficult odds.
Finding himself in England when the War commenced, Gandhi offered to raise an ambulance corps of young Indians to assist Britain and its allies in the Great War. Officials in London accepted Gandhi’s offer, and a number of Indians, most of them students, signed up.
Among them was Sorabji Adajania, a Parsi law student who had worked under Gandhi in South Africa. Gandhi had sent Adajania to law school in London with a scholarship provided by Pranjivan Mehta, a Gandhi backer from the late 1880s, when both he and Gandhi studied law in London.
But from South Africa, Henry Polak, like Kallenbach a close ally of European origin, cabled Gandhi with a protest. Backing a war did not sound like non-violence, argued Polak, who like Kallenbach was a Jew.
Gandhi answered that when much of humanity was trapped in a conflagration, some compromise with violence was inescapable. In his 1914 view, Indians had to back Britain in the War if they wanted to move towards self-rule in India.
In London, about 80 Indians received training for six weeks. It was not a smooth exercise. The commanding officer in charge of the corps did not consult any Indian, even Gandhi, during this training, and resentment was caused when English undergraduates also being trained bossed over the Indians in the corps. Adajania led a mini-satyagraha and a solution was reached.
Gandhi noticed that London’s Muslims, many of whom were from India, were troubled when Turkey chose to throw in its lot with Germany. Could they back the Empire against Turkey, the world’s premier Muslim state at the time?
Kallenbach’s knowledge of Germany and its geography was considerable, and Gokhale probed him on how the War was likely to proceed. Unable, however, to cope with the British weather, Gokhale left for India soon after Gandhi’s arrival in England.
Gandhi’s wish to be part of the corps he had raised in England was denied. Exertions before leaving South Africa and an experimental diet wholly restricted to fruits and nuts had damaged his health. The pleurisy afflicting him was not going away. Lord Roberts, the under-secretary of state for India, and his wife, Lady Cecilia, tried to look after Gandhi, but after it became clear that he was in no position to do ambulance work, Gandhi too left for India.
Kallenbach was to sail with Gandhi but he held a German passport and needed an Indian visa, which Gandhi tried hard to procure for his friend. However, word came from Viceroy Hardinge (who had supported Gandhi’s last satyagraha in South Africa) that because of the War all German nationals were being barred from India and an exception would not be made for Kallenbach. In 1914, when Britain’s Balfour Declaration in favour of a Jewish state in Palestine lay three years into the future, Kallenbach was seen as a German rather than a Jew.
On December 19, 1914, the Gandhis sailed for Bombay by the Arabia.
Huge, numerous and in some ways contradictory longings resided in the Gandhi returning to his homeland after his long South African stint. He wanted to win India over to non-violent satyagraha. He wanted British rule expelled while holding that support for the War would advance the cause of self-rule.
But the War was not the only thing on Gandhi’s mind. He wanted Hindu-Muslim unity. He hoped to empower the weakest Indian with the spinning wheel. He wanted caste Hindus to recognise the offence of high and low.
He declared in Madras on February 16, 1916: “Every affliction that we labour under in this sacred land is a fit and proper punishment for this great and indelible crime that we are committing.” (Collected Works, 15: 173).
Gandhi’s fellow-ashramites in Ahmedabad, including wife Kasturba, grew restive when Gandhi had admitted a young ‘untouchable’ couple, Dudabhai Dafda and his wife, into the ashram. Donors withdrew, forcing Gandhi to think of moving the ashram into a Dalit settlement when a young industrialist in his 20s named Ambalal Sarabhai saved the situation with a gift of `13,000. The tide turned and Dudabhai and his wife were accepted within the ashram and in its neighbourhood.
When in 1917 Gandhi defied the Raj and, despite an order to leave, stayed put in Bihar, where he had gone to defend indigo farmers, many in India were thrilled. They were again thrilled when at a public meeting in Gujarat he tore up the customary resolution of loyalty to the Empire with which every public gathering in India began. Loyalty, he said, could be presumed, as it was in England.
Addressing militant students in Calcutta, Gandhi described assassinations as “absolutely a foreign growth” and said that those wanting to promote that approach should know that he, Gandhi, would “rise against them”. On the other hand, if ever he chose sedition, he would openly advocate it; if the students were prepared to die, he would die with them (Collected Works 14: 396).
In early 1918, Gandhi asked peasants in Kheda district to non-violently defy what they saw as an unjust land tax.
But the Great War had posed tough questions for him. Could he oppose the politics of assassination being advocated by some, while simultaneously asking Indians to support the War?
Should he wage non-violent war against the Empire or back the Empire in its violent war?
His dilemma was revealed in his remark in June 1918 to a young new associate, 25-year-old Mahadev Desai: “We stand on the threshold of a twilight, whether morning or evening we do not know.”
The Empire was in need of soldiers from India. When, for the sake of Hindu-Muslim unity, Gandhi asked the Viceroy to release the Ali Brothers (Shaukat and Muhammad) who had been detained for their pro-Turkey speeches, Gandhi was asked what he had done to recruit soldiers for the War.
He decided he would recruit. And he asked three major political figures in the India of 1918 to support recruitment: Bal Gangadhar Tilak, Annie Besant and Mohammed Ali Jinnah. In 1916, these three had produced the Lucknow Pact between the Congress and the Muslim League in which the Congress agreed to separate Muslim electorates in return for the League’s acceptance of a joint demand for Indian self-rule.
Tilak, Besant and Jinnah demurred. What, they asked, would the Empire give in return for political India’s support for the War? Gandhi continued to claim that unilateral backing would gain British goodwill and hasten self-rule.
During 1918’s hot summer, Gandhi (supported by Vallabhbhai Patel, Mahadev Desai and others) personally tried to recruit soldiers from Kheda district for the war that was continuing in Europe. He made this bid disregarding the departure from Ahimsa that the effort seemed to involve.
This Kheda bid was barely successful. Its peasants were baffled that Gandhi first encouraged them to defy the Raj over land tax, and then asked them to provide sons for the Empire’s war.
Even so, Gandhi raised 100 soldiers from Gujarat, including many ashramites. All had to overcome the tension between non-violence and war.
The conflict was severe inside Gandhi himself. On August 11, 1918, when he was in Nadiad, Gandhi collapsed. The heat, his lack of success in Kheda and, above all, the clash between his recruiting activity and the non-violence that he saw as the message of his life, contributed to the breakdown. Rajendra Prasad, visiting from Bihar and introduced by Gandhi to Gujarat as a ‘brother’ who helped him forget the recent deaths of his brothers Laxmidas and Karsandas, noticed that at this time Gandhi “often wept” and said, “I do not know what God’s will is.” (Collected Works, 16: 387.)
After a few agonising weeks, Gandhi’s internal conflict ended. Germany’s defeat took place and the soldiers he had recruited were not called upon to fight.
However, Gandhi’s health remained serious for some time. He even thought he might die, especially since, troubled by how cows were being treated, he had taken a vow not to take milk. Kasturba found a way out, reminding Gandhi that in taking the vow he had cows, not goats, in mind. The vow left him free, she insisted, to drink goat’s milk. Gandhi accepted his wife’s solution and recovered on the strength of goat’s milk.
This was at the start of 1919. Within weeks, he would launch the stir against the Rowlatt Act which in the name of fighting sedition curbed free speech. Jallianwala Bagh and the Non-Cooperation movement followed. Gandhi’s dilemma was behind him; the non-violent war against the Empire was on.
Rajmohan Gandhi is the Mahatma’s grandson and author of Mohandas: A True Story of a Man, His People and an Empire | 2,452 | ENGLISH | 1 |
George Mason IV (December 11, 1725 [O.S. November 30, 1725] – October 7, 1792) was an American planter, politician and delegate to the U.S. Constitutional Convention of 1787, one of three delegates who refused to sign the Constitution. His writings, including substantial portions of the Fairfax Resolves of 1774, the Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776, and his Objections to this Constitution of Government (1787) opposing ratification, have exercised a significant influence on American political thought and events. The Virginia Declaration of Rights, which Mason principally authored, served as a basis for the United States Bill of Rights, of which he has been deemed the father.
Mason was born in 1725, most likely in what is now Fairfax County, Virginia. His father died when he was young and his mother managed the family estates until he came of age. He married in 1750, built Gunston Hall and lived the life of a country squire, supervising his lands, family and slaves. He briefly served in the House of Burgesses and involved himself in community affairs, sometimes serving with his neighbor George Washington. As tensions grew between Britain and the American colonies, Mason came to support the colonial side, using his knowledge and experience to help the revolutionary cause, finding ways to work around the Stamp Act of 1765 and serving in the pro-independence Fourth Virginia Convention in 1775 and the Fifth Virginia Convention in 1776.
Mason prepared the first draft of the Virginia Declaration of Rights in 1776, and his words formed much of the text adopted by the final Revolutionary Virginia Convention. He also wrote a constitution for the state; Thomas Jefferson and others sought to have the convention adopt their ideas, but they found that Mason’s version could not be stopped. During the American Revolutionary War, Mason was a member of the powerful House of Delegates of the Virginia General Assembly but, to the irritation of Washington and others, he refused to serve in the Continental Congress in Philadelphia, citing health and family commitments.
In 1787, Mason was named one of his state’s delegates to the Constitutional Convention and traveled to Philadelphia, his only lengthy trip outside Virginia. Many clauses in the Constitution bear his stamp, as he was active in the convention for months before deciding that he could not sign same. He cited the lack of a bill of rights most prominently in his Objections, but also wanted an immediate end to the slave trade and a supermajority for navigation acts, which might force exporters of tobacco to use more expensive American ships. He failed to attain these objectives, and again at the Virginia Ratifying Convention of 1788, but his prominent fight for a bill of rights led fellow Virginian James Madison to introduce same during the First Congress in 1789; these amendments were ratified in 1791, a year before Mason died. Obscure after his death, Mason has come to be recognized, in the 20th and 21st centuries, for his contributions to the early United States and to Virginia. | <urn:uuid:5d3aecbd-ccba-400d-aa3c-a9de7557e982> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://goodquotes.me/authors/george-mason/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250592636.25/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118135205-20200118163205-00139.warc.gz | en | 0.982826 | 617 | 3.515625 | 4 | [
-0.041464611887931824,
0.009469935670495033,
0.45227259397506714,
0.020741458982229233,
-0.25067347288131714,
0.07401562482118607,
0.1412326693534851,
0.09650610387325287,
-0.675844669342041,
0.5013116002082825,
-0.10833728313446045,
0.15190577507019043,
0.03450920432806015,
0.107063412666... | 2 | George Mason IV (December 11, 1725 [O.S. November 30, 1725] – October 7, 1792) was an American planter, politician and delegate to the U.S. Constitutional Convention of 1787, one of three delegates who refused to sign the Constitution. His writings, including substantial portions of the Fairfax Resolves of 1774, the Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776, and his Objections to this Constitution of Government (1787) opposing ratification, have exercised a significant influence on American political thought and events. The Virginia Declaration of Rights, which Mason principally authored, served as a basis for the United States Bill of Rights, of which he has been deemed the father.
Mason was born in 1725, most likely in what is now Fairfax County, Virginia. His father died when he was young and his mother managed the family estates until he came of age. He married in 1750, built Gunston Hall and lived the life of a country squire, supervising his lands, family and slaves. He briefly served in the House of Burgesses and involved himself in community affairs, sometimes serving with his neighbor George Washington. As tensions grew between Britain and the American colonies, Mason came to support the colonial side, using his knowledge and experience to help the revolutionary cause, finding ways to work around the Stamp Act of 1765 and serving in the pro-independence Fourth Virginia Convention in 1775 and the Fifth Virginia Convention in 1776.
Mason prepared the first draft of the Virginia Declaration of Rights in 1776, and his words formed much of the text adopted by the final Revolutionary Virginia Convention. He also wrote a constitution for the state; Thomas Jefferson and others sought to have the convention adopt their ideas, but they found that Mason’s version could not be stopped. During the American Revolutionary War, Mason was a member of the powerful House of Delegates of the Virginia General Assembly but, to the irritation of Washington and others, he refused to serve in the Continental Congress in Philadelphia, citing health and family commitments.
In 1787, Mason was named one of his state’s delegates to the Constitutional Convention and traveled to Philadelphia, his only lengthy trip outside Virginia. Many clauses in the Constitution bear his stamp, as he was active in the convention for months before deciding that he could not sign same. He cited the lack of a bill of rights most prominently in his Objections, but also wanted an immediate end to the slave trade and a supermajority for navigation acts, which might force exporters of tobacco to use more expensive American ships. He failed to attain these objectives, and again at the Virginia Ratifying Convention of 1788, but his prominent fight for a bill of rights led fellow Virginian James Madison to introduce same during the First Congress in 1789; these amendments were ratified in 1791, a year before Mason died. Obscure after his death, Mason has come to be recognized, in the 20th and 21st centuries, for his contributions to the early United States and to Virginia. | 668 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Katlin Camp2nd PeriodCoach Moody The Underground Railroad During 1700s-1865, free African Americans and white abolitionists who were against slavery, developed a secret network of people who helped fugitive slaves in their escape from slavery. The people who aided the slaves were known as “conductors”. The fugitive slaves hid in private homes, churches, and schoolhouses. They would hide fugitives in secret tunnels and false cupboards. They also provided them with food and some clothing and then directed them to the next house, or “station”. The people who operated them were called “stationmasters”. The network then became known as the Underground Railroad. Nobody knows exactly when the Underground Railroad began. “The earliest mention of the Underground Railroad came in 1831 when slave Tice Davids escaped from Kentucky to Ohio and his owner blamed an “underground railroad” for helping Davids to freedom” (History). Once slaves who were aided by the Underground Railroad were free, they would escape to border states such as Maryland, Kentucky, and Virginia. With the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793, that had allowed the local law enforcement to capture escaped slaves within the free state borders, and then send them back to where they had escaped, then punish anyone who aided in their rescue. Most slaves had to escape to Canada, where slavery was prohibited, to escape slave bounty hunters who sought to track down runaway slaves. Many different types of people helped free African Americans through the Underground Railroad. They varied from white abolitionists to free slaves who have previously escaped from enslavement. One of the free slaves who aided in freeing African slaves was Harriet Tubman. Harriet Tubman was one of the most famous conductors of the Underground Railroad.”Tubman risked her life to lead hundreds of family members and other slaves from the plantation system to freedom on this elaborate secret network of safe houses” (Biography.com). Her original name was Araminta Ross, but then changed it when she escaped a plantation in Maryland with two of her brothers. Tubman was born into slavery. In her early childhood, Harriet suffered a traumatic head wound from the blow of a heavy metal weight. Her injury caused her to suffer from dizziness, pain, and sleeping spells. She was said to have had visions and weird dreams , said to have been premonitions from God. She also worked as a spy for the Union Army during the Civil War. Harriet Tubman also went by the nickname “Moses” because of the bounty on her head for helping rescue the slaves. Tubman risked her life to help lead hundreds of African Americans slaves to freedom. In total, she made over 19 trips to the South and saved over 300 slaves from slavery. The Underground Railroad then ceased to exist around 1863, right around the Civil War. Once again, Harriet Tubman played a significant role in helping the Union efforts against the Confederacy. She helped in the Union Army operations to free the emancipated slaves that were yet to be set free. | <urn:uuid:1acb81f4-e02b-41ca-b23c-93a7697e068d> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://westvirginiaangerclass.com/katlin-network-then-became-known-as-the-underground/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594209.12/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119035851-20200119063851-00279.warc.gz | en | 0.984039 | 620 | 4.09375 | 4 | [
-0.25382182002067566,
0.1680966466665268,
0.3015587627887726,
0.2269391119480133,
-0.11191082745790482,
-0.20231327414512634,
0.1349177360534668,
-0.403068482875824,
-0.43087711930274963,
0.18846845626831055,
0.46525245904922485,
0.22651733458042145,
0.06853323429822922,
0.0643011480569839... | 1 | Katlin Camp2nd PeriodCoach Moody The Underground Railroad During 1700s-1865, free African Americans and white abolitionists who were against slavery, developed a secret network of people who helped fugitive slaves in their escape from slavery. The people who aided the slaves were known as “conductors”. The fugitive slaves hid in private homes, churches, and schoolhouses. They would hide fugitives in secret tunnels and false cupboards. They also provided them with food and some clothing and then directed them to the next house, or “station”. The people who operated them were called “stationmasters”. The network then became known as the Underground Railroad. Nobody knows exactly when the Underground Railroad began. “The earliest mention of the Underground Railroad came in 1831 when slave Tice Davids escaped from Kentucky to Ohio and his owner blamed an “underground railroad” for helping Davids to freedom” (History). Once slaves who were aided by the Underground Railroad were free, they would escape to border states such as Maryland, Kentucky, and Virginia. With the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793, that had allowed the local law enforcement to capture escaped slaves within the free state borders, and then send them back to where they had escaped, then punish anyone who aided in their rescue. Most slaves had to escape to Canada, where slavery was prohibited, to escape slave bounty hunters who sought to track down runaway slaves. Many different types of people helped free African Americans through the Underground Railroad. They varied from white abolitionists to free slaves who have previously escaped from enslavement. One of the free slaves who aided in freeing African slaves was Harriet Tubman. Harriet Tubman was one of the most famous conductors of the Underground Railroad.”Tubman risked her life to lead hundreds of family members and other slaves from the plantation system to freedom on this elaborate secret network of safe houses” (Biography.com). Her original name was Araminta Ross, but then changed it when she escaped a plantation in Maryland with two of her brothers. Tubman was born into slavery. In her early childhood, Harriet suffered a traumatic head wound from the blow of a heavy metal weight. Her injury caused her to suffer from dizziness, pain, and sleeping spells. She was said to have had visions and weird dreams , said to have been premonitions from God. She also worked as a spy for the Union Army during the Civil War. Harriet Tubman also went by the nickname “Moses” because of the bounty on her head for helping rescue the slaves. Tubman risked her life to help lead hundreds of African Americans slaves to freedom. In total, she made over 19 trips to the South and saved over 300 slaves from slavery. The Underground Railroad then ceased to exist around 1863, right around the Civil War. Once again, Harriet Tubman played a significant role in helping the Union efforts against the Confederacy. She helped in the Union Army operations to free the emancipated slaves that were yet to be set free. | 633 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Being the son of the famous Oda Nobutada, Oda Hidenobu had lived during the Azuchi Momoyama period of feudal Japan. He was also part of the well-known Oda clan which was a family of prominent Japanese Daimyos.
The clan played an important role in the unification of Japan during the mid-16th century. Oda Hidenobu was the grandson of Oda Nobunaga. He proclaimed himself as the official heir of his grandfather.
Ruler of the Oda Clan
Even when Oda Hidenobu was at the peak of his fame, he eventually fell out of grace. However, some of the Oda family branches continued their service under the Meiji Restoration.
There was an issue of who will succeed the head of the clan after the Honno-ji Incident in 1582. The choice was between Nobunaga’s second and third songs – Oda Nobukatsu and Oda Nobutaka.
It was Toyotomi Hideyoshi that made a decision to settle this dispute by supporting Oda Hidenobu.
Create Your Custom Samurai Sword
Oda Hidenobu As Apparent Heir
Even if Oda Hidenobu was still as young as one year old, he was declared the heir. He was officially proclaimed as heir to his grandfather’s throne. When he grew up, he was the one who joined a faction of the Ishida clan.
He was part of the army that defended the Gifu castle versus Tokugawa. He was advised by counselors who were supporters of Tokugawa Ieyasu.
As for Tokugawa Ieyasu, he was the first shogun of the Tokugawa Shogunate during the Edo period. He fought in the Battle of Sekigahara to claim his rule over Japan.
Oda Hidenobu In The Battle of Sekigahara
Oda Hidenobu was on the losing side when he lost the Battle of Sekigahara. They attacked Gifu Castle and battled against Fukushima Masanori and Ikeda Terumasa.
As warriors who wanted to leave with honor and dignity when they lost in battle, Oda Hidenobu’s underlings committed seppuku or ritual suicide in Gifu Castle.
The floorboards were drenched with blood. As a result, this place became known as the Blood Ceiling in Sofuku-ji in Gifu.
Swords for Sale
This castle was first built by the Nikaido clan during the Kamakura period from 1201 to 1204. This castle was once known as Inabayama Castle. Several generations of Samurai had come and left, and each generation made an effort to repair this castle.
What made Oda Hidenobu famous was the Buddhist Temple located in Gifu Prefecture of Japan. The Sofuku-ji Temple was built in the Kamakura Period. This temple was famous for establishing close ties both with Oda Nobunaga and Saito Dosan.
Aside from the infamous Blood Ceiling, this temple was also famous for having a lot of monks. After it was founded, its name was later changed into Kosai-ji.
Later on, the temple suffered from deterioration. Oda Nobunaga head of the Oda Clan considers this temple as his family temple.
Death Of Oda Hidenobu
It took a while for the effect of the battle to sink in. Before the death of Oda Hidenonu, he retired at Mount Koya. This was five years after the defeat at Sekigahara. Oda Hidenobu was only 25 years old when he died.
Image Source: 東京大学史料編纂所 [Public domain] | <urn:uuid:b6d4d8b8-483a-48f8-be15-6e416c67b1ae> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://samuraiswords.store/oda-hidenobu/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250599789.45/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120195035-20200120224035-00054.warc.gz | en | 0.985743 | 802 | 3.453125 | 3 | [
-0.10010118037462234,
0.4100571274757385,
0.3765752613544464,
-0.21800735592842102,
0.17174085974693298,
-0.2779175639152527,
0.41324207186698914,
0.16381804645061493,
-0.19625131785869598,
-0.0663127601146698,
-0.14400291442871094,
-0.5180680155754089,
0.17331120371818542,
0.7407500743865... | 4 | Being the son of the famous Oda Nobutada, Oda Hidenobu had lived during the Azuchi Momoyama period of feudal Japan. He was also part of the well-known Oda clan which was a family of prominent Japanese Daimyos.
The clan played an important role in the unification of Japan during the mid-16th century. Oda Hidenobu was the grandson of Oda Nobunaga. He proclaimed himself as the official heir of his grandfather.
Ruler of the Oda Clan
Even when Oda Hidenobu was at the peak of his fame, he eventually fell out of grace. However, some of the Oda family branches continued their service under the Meiji Restoration.
There was an issue of who will succeed the head of the clan after the Honno-ji Incident in 1582. The choice was between Nobunaga’s second and third songs – Oda Nobukatsu and Oda Nobutaka.
It was Toyotomi Hideyoshi that made a decision to settle this dispute by supporting Oda Hidenobu.
Create Your Custom Samurai Sword
Oda Hidenobu As Apparent Heir
Even if Oda Hidenobu was still as young as one year old, he was declared the heir. He was officially proclaimed as heir to his grandfather’s throne. When he grew up, he was the one who joined a faction of the Ishida clan.
He was part of the army that defended the Gifu castle versus Tokugawa. He was advised by counselors who were supporters of Tokugawa Ieyasu.
As for Tokugawa Ieyasu, he was the first shogun of the Tokugawa Shogunate during the Edo period. He fought in the Battle of Sekigahara to claim his rule over Japan.
Oda Hidenobu In The Battle of Sekigahara
Oda Hidenobu was on the losing side when he lost the Battle of Sekigahara. They attacked Gifu Castle and battled against Fukushima Masanori and Ikeda Terumasa.
As warriors who wanted to leave with honor and dignity when they lost in battle, Oda Hidenobu’s underlings committed seppuku or ritual suicide in Gifu Castle.
The floorboards were drenched with blood. As a result, this place became known as the Blood Ceiling in Sofuku-ji in Gifu.
Swords for Sale
This castle was first built by the Nikaido clan during the Kamakura period from 1201 to 1204. This castle was once known as Inabayama Castle. Several generations of Samurai had come and left, and each generation made an effort to repair this castle.
What made Oda Hidenobu famous was the Buddhist Temple located in Gifu Prefecture of Japan. The Sofuku-ji Temple was built in the Kamakura Period. This temple was famous for establishing close ties both with Oda Nobunaga and Saito Dosan.
Aside from the infamous Blood Ceiling, this temple was also famous for having a lot of monks. After it was founded, its name was later changed into Kosai-ji.
Later on, the temple suffered from deterioration. Oda Nobunaga head of the Oda Clan considers this temple as his family temple.
Death Of Oda Hidenobu
It took a while for the effect of the battle to sink in. Before the death of Oda Hidenonu, he retired at Mount Koya. This was five years after the defeat at Sekigahara. Oda Hidenobu was only 25 years old when he died.
Image Source: 東京大学史料編纂所 [Public domain] | 778 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Aristocles (later known as Plato)
In 428 B. C. Aristocles (later known as Plato) was born in Athens. He was born on the island of Aegina, which lies just twelve miles off shore from Athens in the Saronic Gulf (Havelock 3). Aristocles was born into a great political family (Friedlander 14). His father being the descendant of Codrus, the last king of Athens, and his mother was descendant from the great Athenian law maker Solon (Friedlander 15). Like most adolescent children his ambitions were far from anything his parents had ever done. Aristocles wanted to be a wrestler. Aristocles attained the name Plato from his wrestling experiences (Havelock 4).
Twice he carried the wrestling prize at the Isthmian games but seemingly never made it to the Olympics at Olympia. Plato then decided that he might want to be a poet (OConner). He failed to go anywhere with this dream also. Having not won an Olympic metal or anything for his poetry Plato thought he was going to simply become a mere statesman. As a last fling he decided to take a go at philosophy (Havelock 4). For Plato this was love at first sight. Plato began his studies under his master also known as Socrates. For nine years Socrates taught Plato through conversational methods also known as dialectic method (Friedlander 17).
Plato spent all of this time learning about himself. Plato learned his weaknesses, strengths, qualifications, and so forth. Plato spent many years under the instruction of Socrates yet still had a yearning for politics (Havelock 6). After viewing the behavior of the Athenian Politicians and the way they acted in the prosecution of Socrates, Plato was disgusted and quickly lost the desire to become part of the political world. Platos close relationship with Socrates caused the need for Plato to leave Athens. Plato went on to Megara where he stayed with Euclid for three years (Havelock 10).
The years directly after Plato had been separated from Socrates he spent most of his time doing works heavily influenced by Socrates. In fact three of Platos earliest dialogues, (The Apology, Crito, and Euthyphron), were devoted entirely to the trial, prison days, and the ultimate death of Socrates (Friedlander 13). Plato traveled to many different philosophers that lived throughout the Greek colonies (OConner). One of which had a great impact on Platos philosophy and beliefs. Pythagorass theory that numbers held the understanding to the universe intrigued Plato (Friedlander 24).
Plato explained life in the form of an image. Plato explains that most humans live as if in a dim cave. We are chained, he says, and facing a blank wall, with a fire at our backs. All we see are flickering shadows playing across the cave wall and this we take to be reality (Friedlander 30). Only if we learn to turn away from the wall and the shadows, and escape from the cave, can we hope to see the true light of reality (OConner). Many criticize that this philosophy that Plato suggests is unrealistic. It has been said that his idea of the world is just that, merely an idea instead of the world itself (Havelock 32).
Later in Platos life he became good friends with the powerful and well known Dionysius. Dionysius gained very high ranks in the army and was a large figure in the turning of Syracuse into the most powerful Greek city. Dionysius was a very proud man who did not like to be questioned or proven wrong by any means (OConner). He and Plato began discussing philosophy. Plato found himself questioning a flaw in Dionysiuss thinking. At this point Platos life was said to be in danger! Dionysius sold Plato as a slave in Aegina. (Havelock 27) Luckily Plato was bought for a mere twenty mina by his old friend Anniceris.
Anniceris sent Plato back to Athens with enough money to set up a school. Plato bought land for his school in 386 B. C. (Friedlander 32-35) Plato then opened his Academy, which it later became known as, gathering a group of followers with him. Many of which were women. This was not very commonly found. This Academy was recognizable as the first university (Friedlander 32-35). One of Platos best works was The Republic in which he asks, What is Justice? In this work Plato discusses a wide variety of topics in society ranging from feminism, public and private mortality, to birth control.
Plato attempts to find a just republic or a Utopia (Havelock 45). In this Utopia children would be removed from their mothers at birth and educated all together until the age of twenty. At the age of twenty the insufficient children would be given menial tasks to do such as farmers. The superior students would go on to more education. The rest of the failures would be sent off to the army. This tactic would leave you with only the elite. This batch would be destined to rule and live in complete equality of men and women. (Friedlander 82-117) Platos views obviously were a recipe for disaster (Havelock 34).
Plato soon heard that his old friend Dionysus had past away from Dion. Dion felt that this was the perfect opportunity for Plato to return to Sicily and take Dionysiuss place and set up his utopia. Plato soon found himself prisoner in Syracuse (OConner). Pythagorean from Toranto saved him and returned Plato back to Athens (Havelock 110). Dion was to carry out Platos Republic. He did not. At the young age of eighty-one Plato died and was buried in the Academy. The Academy was closed in 529 A. D. by the Emperor of Justinian (Havelock 123).
Many of Platos theories have grown with our society and many have since been diminished due to impossibility. In my opinion Platos ideas and philosophies are completely unrealistic and contradicting. His view on love really intrigued me. I dont like the idea of platonic love. I think that it is ridiculous that he would think of such an idea to be so great. I can not comprehend having a marriage without romance or sexual desire. Plato to my understanding really had no feelings or value for emotions. There are many other works and ideas of Platos’ that I did not touch on in this paper. I could probably proceed for pages and pages. | <urn:uuid:0a5281b3-39fd-4003-8ecb-c8e26a8e5699> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://benjaminbarber.org/aristocles-later-known-as-plato/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250620381.59/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124130719-20200124155719-00012.warc.gz | en | 0.981495 | 1,348 | 3.8125 | 4 | [
-0.14841026067733765,
0.3704844117164612,
-0.012813021428883076,
-0.11287868022918701,
-0.6515074968338013,
-0.2553989887237549,
0.2761954665184021,
0.4096256196498871,
-0.0691777840256691,
-0.2000257968902588,
-0.11773679405450821,
-0.41876524686813354,
0.18228818476200104,
0.200785905122... | 1 | Aristocles (later known as Plato)
In 428 B. C. Aristocles (later known as Plato) was born in Athens. He was born on the island of Aegina, which lies just twelve miles off shore from Athens in the Saronic Gulf (Havelock 3). Aristocles was born into a great political family (Friedlander 14). His father being the descendant of Codrus, the last king of Athens, and his mother was descendant from the great Athenian law maker Solon (Friedlander 15). Like most adolescent children his ambitions were far from anything his parents had ever done. Aristocles wanted to be a wrestler. Aristocles attained the name Plato from his wrestling experiences (Havelock 4).
Twice he carried the wrestling prize at the Isthmian games but seemingly never made it to the Olympics at Olympia. Plato then decided that he might want to be a poet (OConner). He failed to go anywhere with this dream also. Having not won an Olympic metal or anything for his poetry Plato thought he was going to simply become a mere statesman. As a last fling he decided to take a go at philosophy (Havelock 4). For Plato this was love at first sight. Plato began his studies under his master also known as Socrates. For nine years Socrates taught Plato through conversational methods also known as dialectic method (Friedlander 17).
Plato spent all of this time learning about himself. Plato learned his weaknesses, strengths, qualifications, and so forth. Plato spent many years under the instruction of Socrates yet still had a yearning for politics (Havelock 6). After viewing the behavior of the Athenian Politicians and the way they acted in the prosecution of Socrates, Plato was disgusted and quickly lost the desire to become part of the political world. Platos close relationship with Socrates caused the need for Plato to leave Athens. Plato went on to Megara where he stayed with Euclid for three years (Havelock 10).
The years directly after Plato had been separated from Socrates he spent most of his time doing works heavily influenced by Socrates. In fact three of Platos earliest dialogues, (The Apology, Crito, and Euthyphron), were devoted entirely to the trial, prison days, and the ultimate death of Socrates (Friedlander 13). Plato traveled to many different philosophers that lived throughout the Greek colonies (OConner). One of which had a great impact on Platos philosophy and beliefs. Pythagorass theory that numbers held the understanding to the universe intrigued Plato (Friedlander 24).
Plato explained life in the form of an image. Plato explains that most humans live as if in a dim cave. We are chained, he says, and facing a blank wall, with a fire at our backs. All we see are flickering shadows playing across the cave wall and this we take to be reality (Friedlander 30). Only if we learn to turn away from the wall and the shadows, and escape from the cave, can we hope to see the true light of reality (OConner). Many criticize that this philosophy that Plato suggests is unrealistic. It has been said that his idea of the world is just that, merely an idea instead of the world itself (Havelock 32).
Later in Platos life he became good friends with the powerful and well known Dionysius. Dionysius gained very high ranks in the army and was a large figure in the turning of Syracuse into the most powerful Greek city. Dionysius was a very proud man who did not like to be questioned or proven wrong by any means (OConner). He and Plato began discussing philosophy. Plato found himself questioning a flaw in Dionysiuss thinking. At this point Platos life was said to be in danger! Dionysius sold Plato as a slave in Aegina. (Havelock 27) Luckily Plato was bought for a mere twenty mina by his old friend Anniceris.
Anniceris sent Plato back to Athens with enough money to set up a school. Plato bought land for his school in 386 B. C. (Friedlander 32-35) Plato then opened his Academy, which it later became known as, gathering a group of followers with him. Many of which were women. This was not very commonly found. This Academy was recognizable as the first university (Friedlander 32-35). One of Platos best works was The Republic in which he asks, What is Justice? In this work Plato discusses a wide variety of topics in society ranging from feminism, public and private mortality, to birth control.
Plato attempts to find a just republic or a Utopia (Havelock 45). In this Utopia children would be removed from their mothers at birth and educated all together until the age of twenty. At the age of twenty the insufficient children would be given menial tasks to do such as farmers. The superior students would go on to more education. The rest of the failures would be sent off to the army. This tactic would leave you with only the elite. This batch would be destined to rule and live in complete equality of men and women. (Friedlander 82-117) Platos views obviously were a recipe for disaster (Havelock 34).
Plato soon heard that his old friend Dionysus had past away from Dion. Dion felt that this was the perfect opportunity for Plato to return to Sicily and take Dionysiuss place and set up his utopia. Plato soon found himself prisoner in Syracuse (OConner). Pythagorean from Toranto saved him and returned Plato back to Athens (Havelock 110). Dion was to carry out Platos Republic. He did not. At the young age of eighty-one Plato died and was buried in the Academy. The Academy was closed in 529 A. D. by the Emperor of Justinian (Havelock 123).
Many of Platos theories have grown with our society and many have since been diminished due to impossibility. In my opinion Platos ideas and philosophies are completely unrealistic and contradicting. His view on love really intrigued me. I dont like the idea of platonic love. I think that it is ridiculous that he would think of such an idea to be so great. I can not comprehend having a marriage without romance or sexual desire. Plato to my understanding really had no feelings or value for emotions. There are many other works and ideas of Platos’ that I did not touch on in this paper. I could probably proceed for pages and pages. | 1,402 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The arched chambers in the grass were where the Bay of Naples once was and where the skeletons were discovered
In 1709, a local resident was digging a well 50 feet deep and discovered the roof of a building in the forgotten city of Herculaneum. The city had been covered in a thick molten lava since 79 AD.
This photo shows the height of the volcanic stone that had to be excavated to uncover the city within
Around noon on August 24th, 79 AD, Mount Vesuvius erupted, shooting boiling gas, ash and pumice high into the sky.
It was this deadly cloud of noxious gas that killed most residents of nearby Pompeii. At the time, the residents of the seaside town of Herculaneum had thought Mount Vesuvius was just a beautiful mountain to the east. They were still rebuilding from an earthquake 15 years earlier.
The volcanic mud soon flowed slowly down into the streets of Herculaneum completely preserving it until that day in 1709.
Excavation soon began and continued on and off over the next hundred years. Looters dug holes and snuck away with valuable jewels and paintings. Because few human remains were found during these early excavations, it was believed most of the inhabitants had escaped.
In the 1980's however, while excavating the shoreline of the Bay of Naples, they uncovered more than 120 human skeletons. They were discovered in arched chambers that were most likely used to store their fishing boats and may have being used to try and escape the boiling mud.
The skeletons show signs of thermal shock due to temperatures close to a thousand degrees fahrenheit. One skeleton found is believed to be a mother bending over to protect her child. They also found remains of a fetus, indicating she was pregnant.
Mount Vesuvius has had 8 major eruptions in the past 17,000 years. The most famous being the eruption of 79 AD. The most recent eruption was on March 17, 1944. For a week and a half, it rained down rocks the size of basketballs.
Since then, there has been no activity. Today 3,000,000 people live on or nearby the mountain, mostly because the soil is perfect for planting their crops.
Scientists monitor Mount Vesuvius for future volcanic activity and the odds are likely it will erupt again.
I think the residents of Herculaneum are crazy to be living anywhere near this active volcano,
but then again, who I am I to judge,
I live in California with the threat of an earthquake everyday. | <urn:uuid:a4df5b6e-71b4-4786-9fa3-46b655356ac5> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.lovecortona.com/single-post/2017/10/10/The-Skeletons-of-Herculaneum | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250616186.38/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124070934-20200124095934-00536.warc.gz | en | 0.981493 | 525 | 3.6875 | 4 | [
-0.2958059310913086,
0.038900990039110184,
0.513893723487854,
0.1954730600118637,
-0.3888762891292572,
0.2015846073627472,
-0.1956508457660675,
0.04385059326887131,
-0.11447196453809738,
0.2574138939380646,
0.10357122868299484,
-0.5221275687217712,
0.07216164469718933,
0.4229746460914612,
... | 11 | The arched chambers in the grass were where the Bay of Naples once was and where the skeletons were discovered
In 1709, a local resident was digging a well 50 feet deep and discovered the roof of a building in the forgotten city of Herculaneum. The city had been covered in a thick molten lava since 79 AD.
This photo shows the height of the volcanic stone that had to be excavated to uncover the city within
Around noon on August 24th, 79 AD, Mount Vesuvius erupted, shooting boiling gas, ash and pumice high into the sky.
It was this deadly cloud of noxious gas that killed most residents of nearby Pompeii. At the time, the residents of the seaside town of Herculaneum had thought Mount Vesuvius was just a beautiful mountain to the east. They were still rebuilding from an earthquake 15 years earlier.
The volcanic mud soon flowed slowly down into the streets of Herculaneum completely preserving it until that day in 1709.
Excavation soon began and continued on and off over the next hundred years. Looters dug holes and snuck away with valuable jewels and paintings. Because few human remains were found during these early excavations, it was believed most of the inhabitants had escaped.
In the 1980's however, while excavating the shoreline of the Bay of Naples, they uncovered more than 120 human skeletons. They were discovered in arched chambers that were most likely used to store their fishing boats and may have being used to try and escape the boiling mud.
The skeletons show signs of thermal shock due to temperatures close to a thousand degrees fahrenheit. One skeleton found is believed to be a mother bending over to protect her child. They also found remains of a fetus, indicating she was pregnant.
Mount Vesuvius has had 8 major eruptions in the past 17,000 years. The most famous being the eruption of 79 AD. The most recent eruption was on March 17, 1944. For a week and a half, it rained down rocks the size of basketballs.
Since then, there has been no activity. Today 3,000,000 people live on or nearby the mountain, mostly because the soil is perfect for planting their crops.
Scientists monitor Mount Vesuvius for future volcanic activity and the odds are likely it will erupt again.
I think the residents of Herculaneum are crazy to be living anywhere near this active volcano,
but then again, who I am I to judge,
I live in California with the threat of an earthquake everyday. | 552 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Before the invention of the tractor, horses were the main force in agriculture. They were first domesticated in 4000 BC. By 2400 BC, horses were put in harnesses, similar to those used for oxen. However, these early harnesses were not ideal for horses. During the 5th century, a harness called a full collar was developed in China. The new device conformed to the animal’s body and allowed them to breathe easier. The harness could be attached to plows and carts to harness the horse’s power to do the work of 50 men, giving us the origin of the term “horsepower”.
While oxen were previously used in the fields, horses eventually became the preferred choice since they were much faster than oxen. Oxen were also seen more valuable as food, while the majority did not eat horse meat. This made horses more useful in the field or hauling carts.
The invention of the horse harness allowed farmers to cultivate more land more quickly. The strength and speed of these animals made farming more efficient. Horses could pull plows through the fields and carts to transport crops. With their assistance and the improvements made to other tools on the farm, crops had better results.
Horses were the driving power in agriculture until the tractor was invented in the late 1800’s. In 1920, more than 25 million horses and mules were working the fields. By the 1960’s, that number was cut to about one-tenth that number, which is where we remain at today. The change in horsepower from a four-legged animal to machinery also caused a change in crops. Farmers no longer needed millions of hectares of oats to feed horses and began planting new crops, such as soybeans, which weren’t widely planted in the U.S. before the tractor.
Today, horses may not be used to cultivate the fields, but they are still useful on the farm. They help to herd large groups of animals as well as can help with other daily tasks on the farm.
Other horse facts:
- There are over 300 different breeds.
- Horses can live about 25 years.
- It’s estimated that there are about 60 million horses in the world.
- The 3 main breeds are hot bloods, cold bloods, and warm bloods.
- Hot bloods are fast and just used for racing, while cold bloods are strong and used for heavy work. Warm bloods are a combination of the two. | <urn:uuid:6925bf22-a52e-429f-a7ff-05c562c5b421> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://aghires.com/history-of-horses/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250605075.24/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121192553-20200121221553-00047.warc.gz | en | 0.982146 | 514 | 3.890625 | 4 | [
-0.31518125534057617,
-0.10776087641716003,
0.2569015622138977,
0.1426268368959427,
-0.05898246541619301,
0.12084642052650452,
-0.13163971900939941,
0.02636895887553692,
0.26225242018699646,
0.2034660130739212,
-0.018598848953843117,
-0.2747229039669037,
0.24062137305736542,
0.100297369062... | 7 | Before the invention of the tractor, horses were the main force in agriculture. They were first domesticated in 4000 BC. By 2400 BC, horses were put in harnesses, similar to those used for oxen. However, these early harnesses were not ideal for horses. During the 5th century, a harness called a full collar was developed in China. The new device conformed to the animal’s body and allowed them to breathe easier. The harness could be attached to plows and carts to harness the horse’s power to do the work of 50 men, giving us the origin of the term “horsepower”.
While oxen were previously used in the fields, horses eventually became the preferred choice since they were much faster than oxen. Oxen were also seen more valuable as food, while the majority did not eat horse meat. This made horses more useful in the field or hauling carts.
The invention of the horse harness allowed farmers to cultivate more land more quickly. The strength and speed of these animals made farming more efficient. Horses could pull plows through the fields and carts to transport crops. With their assistance and the improvements made to other tools on the farm, crops had better results.
Horses were the driving power in agriculture until the tractor was invented in the late 1800’s. In 1920, more than 25 million horses and mules were working the fields. By the 1960’s, that number was cut to about one-tenth that number, which is where we remain at today. The change in horsepower from a four-legged animal to machinery also caused a change in crops. Farmers no longer needed millions of hectares of oats to feed horses and began planting new crops, such as soybeans, which weren’t widely planted in the U.S. before the tractor.
Today, horses may not be used to cultivate the fields, but they are still useful on the farm. They help to herd large groups of animals as well as can help with other daily tasks on the farm.
Other horse facts:
- There are over 300 different breeds.
- Horses can live about 25 years.
- It’s estimated that there are about 60 million horses in the world.
- The 3 main breeds are hot bloods, cold bloods, and warm bloods.
- Hot bloods are fast and just used for racing, while cold bloods are strong and used for heavy work. Warm bloods are a combination of the two. | 521 | ENGLISH | 1 |
How to Write a Summary of an Article?
Press enter to begin your search Similarities and Differences 0 John Smith,William Bradford, and Mary Rowlandson encountered numerous dangerous and fatal events due to the new lives they wanted to start in this new world, because of this they have many similarities and differences in their writings.
One big similarity was Death, they were surrounded by it. It was as if Death was playing a sick joke with them taking away friends and family, slowly eating at what little hope they had left. When it was his turn to be killed by these Indians he escapes Death, this happens once again while still in Indian custody.
Death tried twice to kill John Smith and according to John it was God who saved him.
Most people were killed by sickness and disease but there were also other people that died by random events. Need essay sample on Similarities and Differences? Some people were captured as prisoners such as Mary Rowlandson and died while being dragged through these thick forests only to be sold as slaves if they made it to their destination, many prisoners were unfortunate and died on the way.
That was only one of the tragic things they had in common, but there are also things such as their faith in God. At this point John Smith believes that god saved him because God has plans for him and he has much more to accomplish with his life.
Also when they get to Plymouth Plantation and start looking for food but have difficulties and they are starving, the Indians come out from the woods and give them food. At this point William believes that God has played a big part on their success on making it their and making a living. Also Mary quotes phrases from the bible to help her get through the pain and difficulties of her life.
One other similarity they all had was encounters with people from the new world, the Native Americans. His men were killed and then he was used to gain knowledge of their technologies that the Indians had never seen in their lives.
After this scenario ended a new one began and John and these Indians were now friendly and at peace.
Eventually when William and his people are at their weakest state the Indians come out of the forest with food, in a act of peace. After all of the bad things that had occurred they eventually started a center of the trade with the Indians from the help of Squanto who was a Indian that could speak English due to him being a slave on a pilgrim boat.
Squanto was cause of this alliance between Indians and Pilgrims so this Encounter was a great one. The Indians had come from out of the forests destroying this town as swiftly as possible killing or capturing anyone they could and burning down the small settlement.
Although the life she had known and loved had been destroyed do to these Indians she still felt sympathy for these Indians and tried to understand why they did the things they did.
All three of these authors shared these three similarities and struggled to survive on this new world full of endless opportunities and all the three of them will for ever be embedded in our culture forever.Bradford spent a great portion of his story talking about God whereas Smith was very selfish.
Even though Smith and Bradford were in the same time period, merited the same bias, and religion, whet on similar journeys, and had somewhat similar experiences, they are very two different men.
Bradford and Smith protein assays using different protein standards and protein isolated from the marine diatom A Comparison Between Captain John Smith and William Bradford captain john smith. Murder mystery essay "A Description of New lord of the flies book review essay free England. Access to over , complete essays and term papers; Bradford, and Smith.
Equiano was an African American that was kidnapped and forced into slavery. Bradford was a white who was against bad people and was very religious.
Smith was an arrogant self- centered man who stretched the truth and tried to make himself look like a hero. ” (93) Throughout Bradford and Smith’s accounts both write about the hardships of the rip and the life in the colonies.
The two writers face many of the same events; such as running out of food, facing sickness, and dealing with the Native Americans. John Smith vs. William Bradford Laura Ward To many Europeans in the early 17th century the Americas seemed as a new land of opportunity.
John Smith and William Bradford were two of the first men who left England seeking adventure and freedom in the New World. Perhaps no better writers existed during that time than John Smith, William Byrd and William Bradford. In this essay, the writings, beliefs and philosophies of these three men will be presented, universal themes in their works will be discussed, and a conclusion to the paper will bring all of the research into proper prospective. | <urn:uuid:6f27e90b-7fff-4e01-a4ff-690bc5caaca4> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://lebofug.metin2sell.com/bradford-and-smith-essay-14488ld.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250624328.55/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124161014-20200124190014-00146.warc.gz | en | 0.989985 | 966 | 3.296875 | 3 | [
-0.2731606364250183,
0.32405585050582886,
0.1070018857717514,
0.13359925150871277,
-0.012945392169058323,
-0.034707337617874146,
0.2527168393135071,
0.05226973444223404,
0.15705838799476624,
-0.38370832800865173,
-0.1784110963344574,
-0.08707518875598907,
0.1703963577747345,
-0.13746210932... | 1 | How to Write a Summary of an Article?
Press enter to begin your search Similarities and Differences 0 John Smith,William Bradford, and Mary Rowlandson encountered numerous dangerous and fatal events due to the new lives they wanted to start in this new world, because of this they have many similarities and differences in their writings.
One big similarity was Death, they were surrounded by it. It was as if Death was playing a sick joke with them taking away friends and family, slowly eating at what little hope they had left. When it was his turn to be killed by these Indians he escapes Death, this happens once again while still in Indian custody.
Death tried twice to kill John Smith and according to John it was God who saved him.
Most people were killed by sickness and disease but there were also other people that died by random events. Need essay sample on Similarities and Differences? Some people were captured as prisoners such as Mary Rowlandson and died while being dragged through these thick forests only to be sold as slaves if they made it to their destination, many prisoners were unfortunate and died on the way.
That was only one of the tragic things they had in common, but there are also things such as their faith in God. At this point John Smith believes that god saved him because God has plans for him and he has much more to accomplish with his life.
Also when they get to Plymouth Plantation and start looking for food but have difficulties and they are starving, the Indians come out from the woods and give them food. At this point William believes that God has played a big part on their success on making it their and making a living. Also Mary quotes phrases from the bible to help her get through the pain and difficulties of her life.
One other similarity they all had was encounters with people from the new world, the Native Americans. His men were killed and then he was used to gain knowledge of their technologies that the Indians had never seen in their lives.
After this scenario ended a new one began and John and these Indians were now friendly and at peace.
Eventually when William and his people are at their weakest state the Indians come out of the forest with food, in a act of peace. After all of the bad things that had occurred they eventually started a center of the trade with the Indians from the help of Squanto who was a Indian that could speak English due to him being a slave on a pilgrim boat.
Squanto was cause of this alliance between Indians and Pilgrims so this Encounter was a great one. The Indians had come from out of the forests destroying this town as swiftly as possible killing or capturing anyone they could and burning down the small settlement.
Although the life she had known and loved had been destroyed do to these Indians she still felt sympathy for these Indians and tried to understand why they did the things they did.
All three of these authors shared these three similarities and struggled to survive on this new world full of endless opportunities and all the three of them will for ever be embedded in our culture forever.Bradford spent a great portion of his story talking about God whereas Smith was very selfish.
Even though Smith and Bradford were in the same time period, merited the same bias, and religion, whet on similar journeys, and had somewhat similar experiences, they are very two different men.
Bradford and Smith protein assays using different protein standards and protein isolated from the marine diatom A Comparison Between Captain John Smith and William Bradford captain john smith. Murder mystery essay "A Description of New lord of the flies book review essay free England. Access to over , complete essays and term papers; Bradford, and Smith.
Equiano was an African American that was kidnapped and forced into slavery. Bradford was a white who was against bad people and was very religious.
Smith was an arrogant self- centered man who stretched the truth and tried to make himself look like a hero. ” (93) Throughout Bradford and Smith’s accounts both write about the hardships of the rip and the life in the colonies.
The two writers face many of the same events; such as running out of food, facing sickness, and dealing with the Native Americans. John Smith vs. William Bradford Laura Ward To many Europeans in the early 17th century the Americas seemed as a new land of opportunity.
John Smith and William Bradford were two of the first men who left England seeking adventure and freedom in the New World. Perhaps no better writers existed during that time than John Smith, William Byrd and William Bradford. In this essay, the writings, beliefs and philosophies of these three men will be presented, universal themes in their works will be discussed, and a conclusion to the paper will bring all of the research into proper prospective. | 950 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Eamonn de Valera played a key role in Ireland’s recent history. De Valera was one of the leaders in the failed 1916 Easter Uprising. He was also president of Sinn Fein from 1917 to 1926 and was to become prime minister and president of an independent Ireland. Eamonn de Valera was born in 1882 in New York. His mother was Irish and his father was Spanish. Though de Valera was born in America, he was educated in Ireland and became a mathematics lecturer at Maynooth.
De Valera developed a passionate love of Ireland and hated what he considered to be the English domination and control of the island. He joined Sinn Fein and as a battalion commander for the Irish Volunteers fought at Boland’s Hill in the Easter Uprising of 1916. He was captured and put on trial. De Valera was sentenced to death but this was commuted to imprisonment on account of the fact that he was born in America. He served one year in Lewes Prison in Sussex. De Valera returned to Ireland in 1917 and he became president of Sinn Fein. He immediately started to resist the rule of London and as a result he was arrested. De Valera was sent to Lincoln Prison. He escaped from jail in 1919 and went to America. Here he spent a year and a half touring the country in an attempt to raise money for Sinn Fein and what he considered to be the issue of Irish independence. His efforts were very successful and de Valera raised over £1 million for the cause. A lot of this money went into the newly formed Irish Republican Army (IRA – formed in January 1919).
By 1922, Ireland had effective independence but this was not enough for de Valera. He objected to the way Michael Collins had accepted dominion status for the Free State believing that this did not give Ireland true independence. De Valera believed that Collins and all those who had accepted the 1921 agreement had betrayed all those who had died fighting for true independence. There were many who supported de Valera and the newly created Free State descended into civil war that lasted into 1923.
In 1926, de Valera decided that it was in the interests of Ireland to accept the new Irish parliament (the Dáil) and he founded a new political party called Fianna Fáil which served as an opposition party from 1926 to 1932. In 1932, Fianna Fáil was elected to power in a coalition with Labour politicians. De Valera was to remain Ireland’s prime minister for 16 years. During this time he did what he could to totally cut Ireland from any form of British linkage. In June 1937, Ireland introduced a new constitution which introduced a new democratic and sovereign state of Eire. After years of internal turmoil, de Valera kept Eire neutral during World War Two. Fianna Fáil lost the 1948 general election but won the 1951 one. De Valera was returned to the prime minister’s office until 1954. He was prime minister again from 1957 to 1959. In 1959, he stood for and won Eire’s presidential election – an election he won again in 1966. De Valera was the first Irish leader to address America’s Congress (June 1964) and he gained considerable prestige abroad. De Valera retired from politics aged 90 in 1973. He died in 1975. | <urn:uuid:525a24ab-1951-4709-81b3-1182371e4a2b> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/ireland-1845-to-1922/eamonn-de-valera/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250595787.7/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119234426-20200120022426-00302.warc.gz | en | 0.988691 | 681 | 3.421875 | 3 | [
-0.28126049041748047,
0.1968408226966858,
-0.12527531385421753,
-0.12012432515621185,
-0.06421484053134918,
0.43593737483024597,
0.1262378990650177,
-0.10270950198173523,
0.036334507167339325,
-0.0381343811750412,
-0.23553600907325745,
-0.33872824907302856,
0.15672728419303894,
0.237119212... | 10 | Eamonn de Valera played a key role in Ireland’s recent history. De Valera was one of the leaders in the failed 1916 Easter Uprising. He was also president of Sinn Fein from 1917 to 1926 and was to become prime minister and president of an independent Ireland. Eamonn de Valera was born in 1882 in New York. His mother was Irish and his father was Spanish. Though de Valera was born in America, he was educated in Ireland and became a mathematics lecturer at Maynooth.
De Valera developed a passionate love of Ireland and hated what he considered to be the English domination and control of the island. He joined Sinn Fein and as a battalion commander for the Irish Volunteers fought at Boland’s Hill in the Easter Uprising of 1916. He was captured and put on trial. De Valera was sentenced to death but this was commuted to imprisonment on account of the fact that he was born in America. He served one year in Lewes Prison in Sussex. De Valera returned to Ireland in 1917 and he became president of Sinn Fein. He immediately started to resist the rule of London and as a result he was arrested. De Valera was sent to Lincoln Prison. He escaped from jail in 1919 and went to America. Here he spent a year and a half touring the country in an attempt to raise money for Sinn Fein and what he considered to be the issue of Irish independence. His efforts were very successful and de Valera raised over £1 million for the cause. A lot of this money went into the newly formed Irish Republican Army (IRA – formed in January 1919).
By 1922, Ireland had effective independence but this was not enough for de Valera. He objected to the way Michael Collins had accepted dominion status for the Free State believing that this did not give Ireland true independence. De Valera believed that Collins and all those who had accepted the 1921 agreement had betrayed all those who had died fighting for true independence. There were many who supported de Valera and the newly created Free State descended into civil war that lasted into 1923.
In 1926, de Valera decided that it was in the interests of Ireland to accept the new Irish parliament (the Dáil) and he founded a new political party called Fianna Fáil which served as an opposition party from 1926 to 1932. In 1932, Fianna Fáil was elected to power in a coalition with Labour politicians. De Valera was to remain Ireland’s prime minister for 16 years. During this time he did what he could to totally cut Ireland from any form of British linkage. In June 1937, Ireland introduced a new constitution which introduced a new democratic and sovereign state of Eire. After years of internal turmoil, de Valera kept Eire neutral during World War Two. Fianna Fáil lost the 1948 general election but won the 1951 one. De Valera was returned to the prime minister’s office until 1954. He was prime minister again from 1957 to 1959. In 1959, he stood for and won Eire’s presidential election – an election he won again in 1966. De Valera was the first Irish leader to address America’s Congress (June 1964) and he gained considerable prestige abroad. De Valera retired from politics aged 90 in 1973. He died in 1975. | 774 | ENGLISH | 1 |
A Definite Difference of Opinions During the development of the young country of the United States of America, everyone had the ability to include their opinions on any subject. But many times, only a few voices were actually listened to. In this case Thomas Jefferson, a Republican, and Alexander Hamilton, a Federalist, were two of the most prominent people in the production of this government. Although disagreement was very common with these two, their contradictions definitely attributed to the development of America. During the first term of presidency Alexander Hamilton had the advantage over Jefferson since he was a great ally with the president George Washington.
At this time Hamilton was chosen as the Secretary of Treasury, which was an important job. Hamilton created financial plans that would supposedly clear the debt of the United States. During one situation, Hamilton produced a deal with Jefferson and his Republican friends that moved the nations capitol to Philadelphia. But that was one of the very few agreements between the two. One very popular debate occurred soon after the nations capitol moved. It is referred to as the debate between a “broad” and a “strict” construction of the new Constitution. Hamilton came up with a bank proposal that would produce banks around the country.
Hamiltons idea was to keep the current of commerce flowing, and to keep business leaders happy by building a bank capitol. Thomas Jefferson was in great opposition to this idea. He and his friends explained that they did not want a country fill with cities, mills, mines, and factories; they would much rather see the farming production prosper in this country. Jefferson and his colleagues had bent their ideas with the national and state debts, but in no way would they receive the bank proposal lying down. They complained that the Constitution did not give Congress power to build banks; therefore, they should not be permitted.
Hamilton, on the hand, explained that the Constitution stated that the government would pr! oduce a proper way of managing money, which the bank was for. George Washington believed arguments by both Hamilton and Jefferson, but he decided to sign the bill. As a result, economy was greatly affected in Americas development. Another great disagreement between the two was the whole idea of foreign affairs. The Federalists, led by Hamilton, supposedly believed that they should have never broken from the great empire.
In times of war they repeatedly showed favoritism to Great Britain, the supposed enemies. The Republicans, led by Jefferson and Madison, favored the country of France and the common citizens of the country. They influenced the common people of France to overthrow the French Nobility. A third difference of opinion centered around life styles of the American people. Basically Jefferson despised the idea of a New York City kind of country, he believed it would bring crime and other consequences. Jefferson wanted a more of a Wisconsin type of country, where everyone owned their own land and had their own type of freedom. Hamilton and the Federalists had totally different beliefs, wanting cities and factories in the country.
After the election of John Adams in 1796 differences between the ideas of Jefferson and Hamilton grew larger. The acts produced by the Federalist party deeply troubled Jefferson and the Republicans. Although a little harsh, the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798, produced a way for the Federalists to revolt against Republican opposition and to increase power for themselves. These acts did not permit anyone to criticize the government at all, through writing, or any other way. It also extended the time to become an American citizen, since the Federalists believed that most of the foreigners would become Republicans. This deeply troubled Jefferson and Madison, but they had to find a way to fight back for the Republicans.
Jefferson reacted with the production of the Kentucky Resolutions, which permitted states the power to judge a bill or law, unconstitutional, or invalid. This allowed the states to control the laws that would circulate their area. This, and other reactions ! by the Republicans contradicted the acts produced by the Federalists and almost equalized power on both sides. As you can see, Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson argued about many subjects to argue about. Since they were from different parties of government, new arguments would arise all the time.
Only when Jefferson became president did these continual arguments cease. During the election, Hamilton finally admitted that Jefferson was “not such a bad guy after all”. There might have been many differences of opinion, but there was certainly a respect for each other. | <urn:uuid:298d3965-7941-424c-b414-ac8ae40a8d12> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://rvinginfo.com/a-definite-difference-of-opinions/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251728207.68/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127205148-20200127235148-00103.warc.gz | en | 0.98167 | 900 | 3.640625 | 4 | [
-0.1850758045911789,
-0.07055813074111938,
0.22446194291114807,
0.016154104843735695,
-0.312408983707428,
0.03232237696647644,
0.14900311827659607,
0.3634191155433655,
0.0766676515340805,
0.049088239669799805,
0.01001570001244545,
0.3939225375652313,
-0.21112075448036194,
0.254992663860321... | 2 | A Definite Difference of Opinions During the development of the young country of the United States of America, everyone had the ability to include their opinions on any subject. But many times, only a few voices were actually listened to. In this case Thomas Jefferson, a Republican, and Alexander Hamilton, a Federalist, were two of the most prominent people in the production of this government. Although disagreement was very common with these two, their contradictions definitely attributed to the development of America. During the first term of presidency Alexander Hamilton had the advantage over Jefferson since he was a great ally with the president George Washington.
At this time Hamilton was chosen as the Secretary of Treasury, which was an important job. Hamilton created financial plans that would supposedly clear the debt of the United States. During one situation, Hamilton produced a deal with Jefferson and his Republican friends that moved the nations capitol to Philadelphia. But that was one of the very few agreements between the two. One very popular debate occurred soon after the nations capitol moved. It is referred to as the debate between a “broad” and a “strict” construction of the new Constitution. Hamilton came up with a bank proposal that would produce banks around the country.
Hamiltons idea was to keep the current of commerce flowing, and to keep business leaders happy by building a bank capitol. Thomas Jefferson was in great opposition to this idea. He and his friends explained that they did not want a country fill with cities, mills, mines, and factories; they would much rather see the farming production prosper in this country. Jefferson and his colleagues had bent their ideas with the national and state debts, but in no way would they receive the bank proposal lying down. They complained that the Constitution did not give Congress power to build banks; therefore, they should not be permitted.
Hamilton, on the hand, explained that the Constitution stated that the government would pr! oduce a proper way of managing money, which the bank was for. George Washington believed arguments by both Hamilton and Jefferson, but he decided to sign the bill. As a result, economy was greatly affected in Americas development. Another great disagreement between the two was the whole idea of foreign affairs. The Federalists, led by Hamilton, supposedly believed that they should have never broken from the great empire.
In times of war they repeatedly showed favoritism to Great Britain, the supposed enemies. The Republicans, led by Jefferson and Madison, favored the country of France and the common citizens of the country. They influenced the common people of France to overthrow the French Nobility. A third difference of opinion centered around life styles of the American people. Basically Jefferson despised the idea of a New York City kind of country, he believed it would bring crime and other consequences. Jefferson wanted a more of a Wisconsin type of country, where everyone owned their own land and had their own type of freedom. Hamilton and the Federalists had totally different beliefs, wanting cities and factories in the country.
After the election of John Adams in 1796 differences between the ideas of Jefferson and Hamilton grew larger. The acts produced by the Federalist party deeply troubled Jefferson and the Republicans. Although a little harsh, the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798, produced a way for the Federalists to revolt against Republican opposition and to increase power for themselves. These acts did not permit anyone to criticize the government at all, through writing, or any other way. It also extended the time to become an American citizen, since the Federalists believed that most of the foreigners would become Republicans. This deeply troubled Jefferson and Madison, but they had to find a way to fight back for the Republicans.
Jefferson reacted with the production of the Kentucky Resolutions, which permitted states the power to judge a bill or law, unconstitutional, or invalid. This allowed the states to control the laws that would circulate their area. This, and other reactions ! by the Republicans contradicted the acts produced by the Federalists and almost equalized power on both sides. As you can see, Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson argued about many subjects to argue about. Since they were from different parties of government, new arguments would arise all the time.
Only when Jefferson became president did these continual arguments cease. During the election, Hamilton finally admitted that Jefferson was “not such a bad guy after all”. There might have been many differences of opinion, but there was certainly a respect for each other. | 893 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Basketball is a sport that is loved and played in many different countries, including the UK. It is interesting to learn about the history of this game and how it influenced sports in the UK.
Contrary to what some may believe the game of basketball was discovered in Canada. It was a Canadian teacher by the name of Dt. James Naismith, who is responsible for this amazing game. The reason for developing the game is blamed on the cold Canadian winters. As a teacher, he had the task of keeping his students occupied during the winter months. It was too cold to enjoy any outdoor sports, so he came up with basketball.
The rules were written, and the first hoop was a fruit basket that got nailed on to a ten-foot pole. The problem was that the fruit basket had a bottom to it which would not allow the ball to drop through. Every time someone landed a ball into the basket, the game would have to come to a halt so somebody could retrieve the ball. Finally, somebody caught on to cutting out the bottom of the basket.
The sport grew in its popularity up until 1914. Then because of the war, there were not many men left to participate in the game. This changed when, in 1917, America joined the war efforts. The British learned more about the game from the Americans. Post-war the game took on new meaning, and interest began to grow in it again.
Paris Olympic Games
In 1924 the game was demonstrated as a game at these Olympics. Great Britain participated with a team that had been put together by the YMCA. They ended up being the victors of all the games played. From this point on interest in the game flourished. | <urn:uuid:1b854603-9736-4c2a-87d9-00800792e8d7> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://majicjungle.co.nz/history-of-basketball-in-the-uk/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250614880.58/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124011048-20200124040048-00547.warc.gz | en | 0.990294 | 347 | 3.328125 | 3 | [
-0.21240177750587463,
0.19952914118766785,
0.6035647392272949,
-0.4652920663356781,
0.30519941449165344,
-0.09526095539331436,
0.7575283646583557,
0.2486550360918045,
0.06632286310195923,
0.3016144633293152,
0.08209744840860367,
-0.6079795360565186,
0.09759556502103806,
-0.0685647353529930... | 7 | Basketball is a sport that is loved and played in many different countries, including the UK. It is interesting to learn about the history of this game and how it influenced sports in the UK.
Contrary to what some may believe the game of basketball was discovered in Canada. It was a Canadian teacher by the name of Dt. James Naismith, who is responsible for this amazing game. The reason for developing the game is blamed on the cold Canadian winters. As a teacher, he had the task of keeping his students occupied during the winter months. It was too cold to enjoy any outdoor sports, so he came up with basketball.
The rules were written, and the first hoop was a fruit basket that got nailed on to a ten-foot pole. The problem was that the fruit basket had a bottom to it which would not allow the ball to drop through. Every time someone landed a ball into the basket, the game would have to come to a halt so somebody could retrieve the ball. Finally, somebody caught on to cutting out the bottom of the basket.
The sport grew in its popularity up until 1914. Then because of the war, there were not many men left to participate in the game. This changed when, in 1917, America joined the war efforts. The British learned more about the game from the Americans. Post-war the game took on new meaning, and interest began to grow in it again.
Paris Olympic Games
In 1924 the game was demonstrated as a game at these Olympics. Great Britain participated with a team that had been put together by the YMCA. They ended up being the victors of all the games played. From this point on interest in the game flourished. | 352 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The word evokes images of football, family reunions, roasted turkey with stuffing, pumpkin pie and, of course, the Pilgrims and Wampanoag, the acknowledged founders of the feast.
In a group of Pilgrims left England for the religious Pilgrims first thanksgiving in Holland where they lived and prospered. After a few years their children were speaking Dutch and had become attached to the dutch way of life. This worried the Pilgrims. So they decided to leave Holland and travel to the New World.
Their trip was financed by a group of English investors, the Merchant Adventurers. It was agreed that the Pilgrims would be given passage and supplies in exchange for their working for their backers for 7 years.
Since there was the danger of fire on the wooden ship, the food had to be eaten cold. Many passengers became sick and one person died by the time land was Pilgrims first thanksgiving on November 10th.
After land was sighted a meeting was held and an agreement was worked out, called the Mayflower Compact, which guaranteed equality and unified the two groups. It was there that the Pilgrims decide to settle.
Plymouth offered an excellent harbor. A large brook offered a resource for fish. The Pilgrims biggest concern was attack by the local Native American Indians.
But the Patuxets were a peaceful group and did not prove to be a threat. The first winter was devastating to the Pilgrims. The cold, snow and sleet was exceptionally heavy, interfering with the workers as they tried to construct their settlement.
March brought warmer weather and the health of the Pilgrims improved, but many had died during the long winter. Of the Pilgrims and crew who left England, less that 50 survived the first winter. On March 16,what was to become an important event took place, an Indian brave walked into the Plymouth settlement.
His name was Samoset and he was an Abnaki Indian. He had learned English from the captains of fishing boats that had sailed off the coast. After staying the night Samoset left the next day. He soon returned with another Indian named Squanto who spoke better English than Samoset. Squanto told the Pilgrims of his voyages across the ocean and his visits to England and Spain.
It was in England where he had learned English. It was Squanto who taught the Pilgrims how to tap the maple trees for sap. He taught them which plants were poisonous and which had medicinal powers.
He taught them how to plant the Indian corn by heaping the earth into low mounds with several seeds and fish in each mound. The decaying fish fertilized the corn. He also taught them to plant other crops with the corn.
The harvest in October was very successful and the Pilgrims found themselves with enough food to put away for the winter. There was corn, fruits and vegetables, fish to be packed in salt, and meat to be cured over smoky fires.
The Pilgrims had much to celebrate, they had built homes in the wilderness, they had raised enough crops to keep them alive during the long coming winter, they were at peace with their Indian neighbors. They had beaten the odds and it was time to celebrate. The Pilgrim Governor William Bradford proclaimed a day of thanksgiving to be shared by all the colonists and the neighboring Native Americans.
They invited Squanto and the other Indians to join them in their celebration.The first Thanksgiving was a harvest celebration held by the pilgrims of Plymouth colony in the 17th century..
Many myths surround the first Thanksgiving. Very little is actually known about the event because only two firsthand accounts of the feast were ever written.
Sing 'The First Thanksgiving' The First Thanksgiving (Tune:The Muffin Man) The Pilgrims came to America America, America. The Pilgrims came to America a long, long time ago. They sailed on the Mayflower the Mayflower, the Mayflower. They sailed on the Mayflower a long, long time ago.
They made friends with the Indians The Indians, the Indians. The Pilgrims did not call this harvest festival a "Thanksgiving," although they did give thanks to God. To them, a Day of Thanksgiving was purely religious. The first recorded religious Day of Thanksgiving was held in in response to a providential rainfall.
Thanksgiving Each year on the fourth Thursday in November, Americans gather for a day of feasting, football and family. While today’s Thanksgiving celebrations would likely be unrecognizable to attendees of the original harvest meal, it continues to be a day for Americans to come together around the table—albeit with some updates to pilgrim’s menu.
Nov 18, · Turkey or no turkey, the first Thanksgiving’s attendees almost certainly got their fill of meat. Winslow wrote that the Wampanoag guests arrived with an offering of five deer. After , representations of the Pilgrims and the Wampanoag began to reflect a shift of interest to the harvest celebration.
By the beginning of the 20th century, the Pilgrims and the Thanksgiving holiday were used to teach children about American freedom and how to be good citizens. | <urn:uuid:8d986b24-c381-41f3-b70c-2e130cbf9236> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://buqefomaqefa.tranceformingnlp.com/pilgrims-first-thanksgiving-26232cs.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250595787.7/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119234426-20200120022426-00489.warc.gz | en | 0.984985 | 1,075 | 3.75 | 4 | [
0.3461710512638092,
0.1991308629512787,
0.3655661642551422,
-0.25373202562332153,
0.13740462064743042,
-0.20061464607715607,
0.12307672202587128,
0.21394672989845276,
-0.11135904490947723,
-0.04624101519584656,
-0.2383398711681366,
-0.2123822271823883,
-0.09881222993135452,
0.3670567572116... | 1 | The word evokes images of football, family reunions, roasted turkey with stuffing, pumpkin pie and, of course, the Pilgrims and Wampanoag, the acknowledged founders of the feast.
In a group of Pilgrims left England for the religious Pilgrims first thanksgiving in Holland where they lived and prospered. After a few years their children were speaking Dutch and had become attached to the dutch way of life. This worried the Pilgrims. So they decided to leave Holland and travel to the New World.
Their trip was financed by a group of English investors, the Merchant Adventurers. It was agreed that the Pilgrims would be given passage and supplies in exchange for their working for their backers for 7 years.
Since there was the danger of fire on the wooden ship, the food had to be eaten cold. Many passengers became sick and one person died by the time land was Pilgrims first thanksgiving on November 10th.
After land was sighted a meeting was held and an agreement was worked out, called the Mayflower Compact, which guaranteed equality and unified the two groups. It was there that the Pilgrims decide to settle.
Plymouth offered an excellent harbor. A large brook offered a resource for fish. The Pilgrims biggest concern was attack by the local Native American Indians.
But the Patuxets were a peaceful group and did not prove to be a threat. The first winter was devastating to the Pilgrims. The cold, snow and sleet was exceptionally heavy, interfering with the workers as they tried to construct their settlement.
March brought warmer weather and the health of the Pilgrims improved, but many had died during the long winter. Of the Pilgrims and crew who left England, less that 50 survived the first winter. On March 16,what was to become an important event took place, an Indian brave walked into the Plymouth settlement.
His name was Samoset and he was an Abnaki Indian. He had learned English from the captains of fishing boats that had sailed off the coast. After staying the night Samoset left the next day. He soon returned with another Indian named Squanto who spoke better English than Samoset. Squanto told the Pilgrims of his voyages across the ocean and his visits to England and Spain.
It was in England where he had learned English. It was Squanto who taught the Pilgrims how to tap the maple trees for sap. He taught them which plants were poisonous and which had medicinal powers.
He taught them how to plant the Indian corn by heaping the earth into low mounds with several seeds and fish in each mound. The decaying fish fertilized the corn. He also taught them to plant other crops with the corn.
The harvest in October was very successful and the Pilgrims found themselves with enough food to put away for the winter. There was corn, fruits and vegetables, fish to be packed in salt, and meat to be cured over smoky fires.
The Pilgrims had much to celebrate, they had built homes in the wilderness, they had raised enough crops to keep them alive during the long coming winter, they were at peace with their Indian neighbors. They had beaten the odds and it was time to celebrate. The Pilgrim Governor William Bradford proclaimed a day of thanksgiving to be shared by all the colonists and the neighboring Native Americans.
They invited Squanto and the other Indians to join them in their celebration.The first Thanksgiving was a harvest celebration held by the pilgrims of Plymouth colony in the 17th century..
Many myths surround the first Thanksgiving. Very little is actually known about the event because only two firsthand accounts of the feast were ever written.
Sing 'The First Thanksgiving' The First Thanksgiving (Tune:The Muffin Man) The Pilgrims came to America America, America. The Pilgrims came to America a long, long time ago. They sailed on the Mayflower the Mayflower, the Mayflower. They sailed on the Mayflower a long, long time ago.
They made friends with the Indians The Indians, the Indians. The Pilgrims did not call this harvest festival a "Thanksgiving," although they did give thanks to God. To them, a Day of Thanksgiving was purely religious. The first recorded religious Day of Thanksgiving was held in in response to a providential rainfall.
Thanksgiving Each year on the fourth Thursday in November, Americans gather for a day of feasting, football and family. While today’s Thanksgiving celebrations would likely be unrecognizable to attendees of the original harvest meal, it continues to be a day for Americans to come together around the table—albeit with some updates to pilgrim’s menu.
Nov 18, · Turkey or no turkey, the first Thanksgiving’s attendees almost certainly got their fill of meat. Winslow wrote that the Wampanoag guests arrived with an offering of five deer. After , representations of the Pilgrims and the Wampanoag began to reflect a shift of interest to the harvest celebration.
By the beginning of the 20th century, the Pilgrims and the Thanksgiving holiday were used to teach children about American freedom and how to be good citizens. | 1,069 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Christmas Poinsettia is one of the beautiful plants that spread their soothing fragrances across Mexico. This beautiful plant of red and green foliage is widely used in Christmas Floral. He was Joel Roberts Poinsett, the first Minister to Mexico from the United States, who proposed this name in around 1825 for this plant.
Since the Christmas season is going to start, this “Christmas Plant” can be seen everywhere in Mexico and other countries as well. The plant is particularly used to decorate a Christmas Floral and for other type of decorations done for Christmas parties and events. If you are a lover of this plant, you should read the following history and origin of it.
It was not a plant related person or a horticulturist who invented this beautiful name for this amazing plant, but he was a famous American physician and congressmen, Joel Roberts Poinsett who came up with this name. In the early 1820s, the U.S’s president of that time, John Quincy Adams appointed Mr. Poinsett as the Ambassador to Mexico. Since Mr. Poinsett had a deep interest in Botany, he remained involved in introducing different flowers and plants in Mexico. So many times, he would wander in the country in search of new plant species.
Once, when he was walking on a road having some shrub along the side of the road, he saw some large beautiful red flowers and got attracted by the beauty of that plant. He just took some cuttings from that red plant and took them to the South Carolina, in his greenhouse. It was the first time when the world came to know about this plant and for this, this dutiful and notorious US Ambassador to Mexico will always be remembered by those, who love flowers.
During the 14th to the 16th century, the Poinsettia was a famous and important plant to the Aztecs, but they called it as “Cuetlaxochitl” that means “Flower that grows in residues or soil”. The plant was used for medicines, design, and for different other multiple purposes. The red colored leaves were also used for a dye in clothing. Since the plant has lacking of hardiness in the cold weather and couldn’t grow in the high altitudes of Mexico, the famous Aztec King Montezuma brought this plant in the Mexico City using caravans.
After some hundreds of years, a famous botanist, Juan Balme also discussed about Poinsettia in many of his writings. He was Carl Ludwig, who assigned the botanical name “Euphorbia Pulcherrima” to the Poinsettia. He was stunned to see the beauty of this plant and gave this botany name that means “very beautiful”.
The Botany Department of the University of Illinois confirms that the world famous botanist, William Prescott also published a book about this plant and named the book as “Conquest of Mexico”. The book was written to give honor to John Poinsett, who discovered the plant at his time.
The Poinsettia was used as a cut flower first in the early 1900s by a horticultural family from San Diego. The family also introduced it as a landscape plant. Shortly after the introduction as a landscape plant, people also started to use it as an indoor plant and within some years after this, the plant was adopted as “The Christmas Plant” because of its immense beauty and red and green colors.
The plant of Poinsettias is certainly not poisonous and there are also no such harmful effects if someone even eats it. At study done by Ohio State University claims that if a child whose weight is 50-pound eats more than 5000 leaves of the plant, there will be some chances that it will provide some harmful effects. Just because its leaves have an awful taste, your pets will also prefer not to eat them.
Today, the Poinsettias is the most famous plant not only in Mexico, but in many countries of the world. It is widely known as the “Flower of the Holy Night (Christmas Night)”. Thousands of people come from the United States and other countries to celebrate the Christmas in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico and they prefer to stay only such rental villas in Puerto Vllarta where they could easily find the Poinsettias.
In Mexico, 12th December is considered as the day of the Poinsettia because on this day, its discoverer, Joel Robert Poinsett passed away from this world. While you are buying a Poinsettia plant, better buy that one in which the “Cyathia” is still closed. | <urn:uuid:1e40cbca-2761-427b-97fb-313f87f0597a> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.trionds.com/christmas-poinsettia-story-beautiful-plant/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251788528.85/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129041149-20200129071149-00466.warc.gz | en | 0.981193 | 981 | 3.453125 | 3 | [
0.19273725152015686,
0.1901407092809677,
0.8252899050712585,
-0.1988469958305359,
0.3279200792312622,
-0.35274285078048706,
0.5135013461112976,
0.08803214877843857,
-0.18378397822380066,
0.24115502834320068,
0.23983296751976013,
0.04779514670372009,
-0.036269448697566986,
0.028838464990258... | 6 | Christmas Poinsettia is one of the beautiful plants that spread their soothing fragrances across Mexico. This beautiful plant of red and green foliage is widely used in Christmas Floral. He was Joel Roberts Poinsett, the first Minister to Mexico from the United States, who proposed this name in around 1825 for this plant.
Since the Christmas season is going to start, this “Christmas Plant” can be seen everywhere in Mexico and other countries as well. The plant is particularly used to decorate a Christmas Floral and for other type of decorations done for Christmas parties and events. If you are a lover of this plant, you should read the following history and origin of it.
It was not a plant related person or a horticulturist who invented this beautiful name for this amazing plant, but he was a famous American physician and congressmen, Joel Roberts Poinsett who came up with this name. In the early 1820s, the U.S’s president of that time, John Quincy Adams appointed Mr. Poinsett as the Ambassador to Mexico. Since Mr. Poinsett had a deep interest in Botany, he remained involved in introducing different flowers and plants in Mexico. So many times, he would wander in the country in search of new plant species.
Once, when he was walking on a road having some shrub along the side of the road, he saw some large beautiful red flowers and got attracted by the beauty of that plant. He just took some cuttings from that red plant and took them to the South Carolina, in his greenhouse. It was the first time when the world came to know about this plant and for this, this dutiful and notorious US Ambassador to Mexico will always be remembered by those, who love flowers.
During the 14th to the 16th century, the Poinsettia was a famous and important plant to the Aztecs, but they called it as “Cuetlaxochitl” that means “Flower that grows in residues or soil”. The plant was used for medicines, design, and for different other multiple purposes. The red colored leaves were also used for a dye in clothing. Since the plant has lacking of hardiness in the cold weather and couldn’t grow in the high altitudes of Mexico, the famous Aztec King Montezuma brought this plant in the Mexico City using caravans.
After some hundreds of years, a famous botanist, Juan Balme also discussed about Poinsettia in many of his writings. He was Carl Ludwig, who assigned the botanical name “Euphorbia Pulcherrima” to the Poinsettia. He was stunned to see the beauty of this plant and gave this botany name that means “very beautiful”.
The Botany Department of the University of Illinois confirms that the world famous botanist, William Prescott also published a book about this plant and named the book as “Conquest of Mexico”. The book was written to give honor to John Poinsett, who discovered the plant at his time.
The Poinsettia was used as a cut flower first in the early 1900s by a horticultural family from San Diego. The family also introduced it as a landscape plant. Shortly after the introduction as a landscape plant, people also started to use it as an indoor plant and within some years after this, the plant was adopted as “The Christmas Plant” because of its immense beauty and red and green colors.
The plant of Poinsettias is certainly not poisonous and there are also no such harmful effects if someone even eats it. At study done by Ohio State University claims that if a child whose weight is 50-pound eats more than 5000 leaves of the plant, there will be some chances that it will provide some harmful effects. Just because its leaves have an awful taste, your pets will also prefer not to eat them.
Today, the Poinsettias is the most famous plant not only in Mexico, but in many countries of the world. It is widely known as the “Flower of the Holy Night (Christmas Night)”. Thousands of people come from the United States and other countries to celebrate the Christmas in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico and they prefer to stay only such rental villas in Puerto Vllarta where they could easily find the Poinsettias.
In Mexico, 12th December is considered as the day of the Poinsettia because on this day, its discoverer, Joel Robert Poinsett passed away from this world. While you are buying a Poinsettia plant, better buy that one in which the “Cyathia” is still closed. | 958 | ENGLISH | 1 |
This week, Year 5 made and cooked Pasties as part of our World War 2 focus on rations and making use of food that was available at that time. We used the recipe and ingredients below, ensuring that we were hygienic and safe in preparing the food. In particular, Mrs Jude (our cooking expert!) wanted children to focus on the key skill of cutting with a knife safely and using ‘the arch’ correctly to cut with fluency and precision.
Ingredients (Makes 2):
3oz/75g plain flour
2 small/1 medium/1/2 large cooked potato, cut in to small cubes - see below
2”/5cm piece of leek, finely chopped
1 teaspoon oil
1/4 teaspoon of vegetable stock powder
1 pinch of dried thyme
1oz/30 grated mature cheddar cheese or
10z/30g of cooked chicken
1 tablespoon double cream
We would like to thank Mrs Jude for helping us through this process and teaching us vital skills in cooking hygiene, measuring accurately and following a set of instructions. We don’t know what we would do without her fantastic expertise!
See the pictures of us cooking and eating our pasties on our Year 5 area of the website!
This week, Year 5 invited Parents and Carers into a ‘World War 2 Carousel’ of activities, which helped display the learning we have done throughout the term. Children decided and planned the carousel as a group, agreeing on stations including:
• An Art area (drawing and colouring using numerous implements), drawing propaganda posters, fighter planes, landscapes and silhouettes
• Laptop research area
• Purple Mash activities
• Anderson shelter showcase
• Tour of the classroom
• Show, tell and look in books, showing off what they have produced in their leanring
• Reading area
In the middle of the session, an air-raid siren happened to go off, where children quickly scrambled underneath tables for safety, leaving adults standing bewildered as to what was happening! Additionally, children showcased two excellent dances that they had learnt in PE, which can be seen on the website in the Year 5 area. We even got together to sing two songs that kept spirits high during World War 2: Vera Lynn (We’ll meet again) and Hey Mr Miller.
To finish off, Some children also wanted to show some drama/role play of World War 2 scenes, which showed how much they’d enjoyed learning about the 1939-1945 era. We hope Parents and Carers enjoyed the experience as much as we did!
Year 5 have been learning a variety of movements and put them together into a World War 2 dance. The children have loved being creative to input their own elements and have produced an excellent combined dance; take a look yourself!
As part of our learning in Earth and Space, we have been investigating about how we have night and day and what causes this effect. We worked together to create our own night and day scenes to demonstrate this as you can see below and showed how the Earth spinning on it's axis creates night and day and that the sun appears to move in the sky, but is stationary in our Solar System.
Within our Earth and Space Science focus, we all wanted to create our own planets and our own Solar System, so we decided to blow up balloons and create paper mache planets. It all got very sticky and awkward, but we've now created our planets, watch this space for the finished products when we paint them!
Year 5 have been learning about the Sun and Earth recently and conducted their own investigation by creating their own Solar Systems, focusing on 'relative distances' between planets, as well as relative sizes of planets. In order to help us with this learning, we used the following Youtube clip to help us understand and make notes on: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97Ob0xR0Ut8. Take a look at our solar systems that we were very proud of and stay tuned for some non-chronological reports about an area of space of our choice!
As part of their World War Two focus, children have been learning about air-raids and different ways of keeping safe during air-raids. One way that people did this was to get into Anderson Shelters. For this reason, children in Year 5 had a project of designing their own Anderson Shelters and making them in their own way. As you can see, children had a choice of how they wanted to design their shelters, as well as make them, from making cakes, using Lego, using corrugated card/metal, astroturf and many more creative and engaging ways! They also showed excellent teamwork by some of them combining to work collaboratively in pairs or more. We hope you enjoy looking at them – come and see in Year 5, you’ll be blown away!
Here’s what some of the children had to say:
Christian – ‘I tried to achieve an Anderson shelter, because we made our shelter out of gingerbread – I loved it!’
Grace – ‘Year 5 had three weeks to make a World War 2 Anderson shelter, with the design project first. My favourite part was making it. I enjoyed fake grass on to the metal.’
Jess B – ‘I most enjoyed being creative. Phoebe and I had a good laugh and had lots of fun and at the same time we could be serious and get on. I would love to do it again!’
Kara – ‘I really enjoyed making the Anderson shelters because I could use my creative skills in a variety of ways.’
On Monday 7th October 2019, Year 5 went on their ‘Home Front’ trip as part of their World War Two focus. We learnt lots, ranging from experiences of evacuees, women’s jobs and rationing, to general way of life during the war times, as well as various facts about the war itself. Throughout the day, the whole class represented the school impeccably, showing excellent behaviour, but also willingly showing to the leaders how much they already knew about World War Two. The leaders were very impressed at the knowledge the children were giving and the eagerness they had with answering and asking questions.
Children got right into character for the day, coming into school dressed as evacuees, with their identity cards, ration books and labels attached to them, showing who they were and where they came from. Throughout the day, children were straight in role conducting usual jobs expected from children and adults during the 1939-1945 era. The jobs ranged from cleaning and drying clothes, making flapjacks, putting out fire-bombs as fire-guards and putting up the blast tape to ensure the glass was secure if we were bombed! Having said this, we did have a real life air-raid, where we ‘pulled together’ and shared Anderson shelters to keep us safe. We also did a World War Two dance workshop, along with songs which kept spirits high.
It really was a pleasure to see such great learning first hand, with handling such artefacts as ‘gas masks’, different bombs used in the war, helmets etc; as well as viewing what was a week’s ration for an adult would be…..we all agreed it was absolutely nothing- what do you think…?
Here is what some of us thought of the day:
Jess B – ‘I enjoyed Murton Park because MRs W and Mr T were very funny and silly. I’m sure everyone in class would agree that it was excellent, as we took turns to do different activities such as: washing clothes, cleaning the saddles, dancing and learning how to be a Fire Guard (FG). It was very fun!’
Christian – ‘I very much enjoyed the trip to Murton Park (it was my favourite of all!). I most enjoyed the amazing World War Two gallery!’
Lucas – ‘I enjoyed putting out the fire and Mr T (who showed us around) let us look at three different types of bombs used. Then we enjoyed it in the dance activity.’
Grace – ‘My favourite bit of Murton Park was washing the clothes. We put out a fire, did cooking, washed clothes, danced and tried out some gas masks. I would give it a ten out of ten!’.
Immogen – ‘I loved doing the ironing as it felt as though I was actually in World War Two life! I also enjoyed the experience in the Anderson shelter.’
In English, we had a choice of a setting to describe using various Year 5 skills (including figurative language, relative clauses and Alan Peat sentence types) and then to create a story around this setting. Additionally, we have made a huge effort to use alliteration, personification, adjectives, adverbs, similes and metaphors, ensuring that we make regular use of common exception words, as well as using a thesaurus to extend our vocabulary. What do you think of our stories?
In our topic learning of World War 2, we have been looking at 'Propaganda' and what it means. We studied some posters from that time and decided to create our own artwork for display in the shared area. We hope you enjoy our own designs of propaganda posters and come and see them in our Key Stage 2 Shared Area. We focused on giving people information or warnings of things that are happening or may happen. We wanted to present purposeful artwork and express our beliefs and feelings. Which is your favourite and why?
In Science, we have created our own investigations to test the germination of plants. We have already discussed and understand what plants need to germinate (which we found easy.....although we din't know what 'germinate' meant at the start!), but initially, we didn't delve into 'exactly' what a plant needs to grow 'well'. For this reason, in groups, we set up a variety of different investigations to test 'how much light' a plant needs, 'what environment is best for a plant', 'what amount of water is appropriate', 'what position of seed is best' etc. As you can see, some plants have grown well and healthy, whereas others have grown a little and some not at all. We are measuring and recording our results each day and will end this half term by producing our own line graphs in our books, as well as on Microsoft Excel to check for patterns and interpret the data. We will upload these here for you to see!
We were fortunate to have a visit from Judith Rhodes in Year 5 last Friday. Judith shared her mother’s experiences as a refugee in World War 2. Her mother, Ursula, left her family behind in Nazi Germany at the age of 15 and came to London as part of the Kinder transport programme prior the outbreak of the war. The rest of her family were unable to leave and later perished in concentration camps during the Holocaust. We really appreciated Judith sharing her powerful and moving story which really helped the children to understand the impact of these events on individual families. In the photo you can see the suitcase that Ursula took with her and one of the very few items of clothing she was able to fit into it.
We made notes throughout her presentation of key questions, as well as key points to help us with our follow up reports about her visit and what we learnt. There were some excellent enquiry questions from the children, as well as our class Governor (Mr Kurring) who joined us for the visit. Questions asked included:
‘What’s the Iron Cross that was mentioned?’ (Finley)
‘Your Grandad fought for Germany as a Jew – why is that?’ (Mr Kurring)
‘Why did your Grandad get arrested?’ (Maria)
‘Didn’t Hitler like people to have blonde hair and blue eyes, even though he didn’t have those?’ (Florence)
Here are some of our thoughts:
“I really enjoyed Judith’s visit. The thing I found most interesting was opening the ‘Little Suitcase’, everything in there was from World War 2.’ – Immogen
‘’I found Judith very interesting as she answered all my questions. She told us what happened in Germany during the war, which I enjoyed.’’
‘’I liked it that Judith told us that her grandma sewed jewellery into her skirt so that it wasn’t taken off her.’’ – Kodee
‘’I found the ‘story of Ursula’ very interesting, and I also liked it when we found out what was inside the suitcase, because it is difficult to think that the contents have been around all of those years.’’
This week, Reception welcomed their ‘Year 5 Buddies’ to their classroom for the first time. Now Reception children have settled into Primrose Lane school life, our wonderful Year 5 children offer a generous, helping hand to settle them in further. This is one of the ‘responsibilities’ expected by a Year 5 child at the beginning of the year, which they always look forward to! In WORKING TOGETHER, they become better people. Year 5 become role models, leaders and supportive of their new younger friends. The Reception children learn lots of skills and behaviours from their role models, but teach Year 5 about empathy, tolerance and patience, just by being their lovely selves!
The role of the Year 5 child is important to make their Reception Buddy feel comfortable, learn how to make new friends, play, feel safe and become more independent. They have got to know each other this week, eaten together and played together outside. As you can see, the Year 5 children model how to behave in the dining area when eating at school, as well as support their Buddies with cutting food and their manners. Reception children and staff would like to thank Year 5 for being such fantastic buddies, the effort and care are really appreciated! Equally, we would like to thank the Reception children for being polite, understanding and learning well from their Buddies. We are sure these relationships will continue to blossom over the coming year.
Here's what some of them have said:
“ I played hide and seek with my buddy, it was so much fun!” – Maisie
“My buddy showed me some new football skills.” - Oliver V
“I liked it when my buddy helped me with my dinner.” - Oliver S
‘’I like the Buddies because you get to look after them and play with them.’’ – Ellie
‘’My buddy is Oliver and I could not have asked for anyone else! Oliver is very enthusiastic and loves to run around. My favourite time is lunch time with him as he impresses me using his manners.’’ – Grace
‘’I really like the buddy system. I think it is a good idea and it is really fun. My buddy is Bethany and I like showing her around the playground and eating lunch with her.’’ - Florence | <urn:uuid:c0e3f5e7-62e4-4bcf-b8f9-1bc7885855a5> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://primroselane.leeds.sch.uk/page.php?id=9321 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251728207.68/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127205148-20200127235148-00312.warc.gz | en | 0.980141 | 3,184 | 3.484375 | 3 | [
-0.2691609859466553,
-0.05716930329799652,
0.29000324010849,
-0.5062427520751953,
0.029549017548561096,
0.12556111812591553,
-0.470583975315094,
0.22027374804019928,
-0.458428293466568,
-0.2991320490837097,
0.15035715699195862,
-0.34522613883018494,
0.07400058954954147,
0.4300421476364136,... | 1 | This week, Year 5 made and cooked Pasties as part of our World War 2 focus on rations and making use of food that was available at that time. We used the recipe and ingredients below, ensuring that we were hygienic and safe in preparing the food. In particular, Mrs Jude (our cooking expert!) wanted children to focus on the key skill of cutting with a knife safely and using ‘the arch’ correctly to cut with fluency and precision.
Ingredients (Makes 2):
3oz/75g plain flour
2 small/1 medium/1/2 large cooked potato, cut in to small cubes - see below
2”/5cm piece of leek, finely chopped
1 teaspoon oil
1/4 teaspoon of vegetable stock powder
1 pinch of dried thyme
1oz/30 grated mature cheddar cheese or
10z/30g of cooked chicken
1 tablespoon double cream
We would like to thank Mrs Jude for helping us through this process and teaching us vital skills in cooking hygiene, measuring accurately and following a set of instructions. We don’t know what we would do without her fantastic expertise!
See the pictures of us cooking and eating our pasties on our Year 5 area of the website!
This week, Year 5 invited Parents and Carers into a ‘World War 2 Carousel’ of activities, which helped display the learning we have done throughout the term. Children decided and planned the carousel as a group, agreeing on stations including:
• An Art area (drawing and colouring using numerous implements), drawing propaganda posters, fighter planes, landscapes and silhouettes
• Laptop research area
• Purple Mash activities
• Anderson shelter showcase
• Tour of the classroom
• Show, tell and look in books, showing off what they have produced in their leanring
• Reading area
In the middle of the session, an air-raid siren happened to go off, where children quickly scrambled underneath tables for safety, leaving adults standing bewildered as to what was happening! Additionally, children showcased two excellent dances that they had learnt in PE, which can be seen on the website in the Year 5 area. We even got together to sing two songs that kept spirits high during World War 2: Vera Lynn (We’ll meet again) and Hey Mr Miller.
To finish off, Some children also wanted to show some drama/role play of World War 2 scenes, which showed how much they’d enjoyed learning about the 1939-1945 era. We hope Parents and Carers enjoyed the experience as much as we did!
Year 5 have been learning a variety of movements and put them together into a World War 2 dance. The children have loved being creative to input their own elements and have produced an excellent combined dance; take a look yourself!
As part of our learning in Earth and Space, we have been investigating about how we have night and day and what causes this effect. We worked together to create our own night and day scenes to demonstrate this as you can see below and showed how the Earth spinning on it's axis creates night and day and that the sun appears to move in the sky, but is stationary in our Solar System.
Within our Earth and Space Science focus, we all wanted to create our own planets and our own Solar System, so we decided to blow up balloons and create paper mache planets. It all got very sticky and awkward, but we've now created our planets, watch this space for the finished products when we paint them!
Year 5 have been learning about the Sun and Earth recently and conducted their own investigation by creating their own Solar Systems, focusing on 'relative distances' between planets, as well as relative sizes of planets. In order to help us with this learning, we used the following Youtube clip to help us understand and make notes on: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97Ob0xR0Ut8. Take a look at our solar systems that we were very proud of and stay tuned for some non-chronological reports about an area of space of our choice!
As part of their World War Two focus, children have been learning about air-raids and different ways of keeping safe during air-raids. One way that people did this was to get into Anderson Shelters. For this reason, children in Year 5 had a project of designing their own Anderson Shelters and making them in their own way. As you can see, children had a choice of how they wanted to design their shelters, as well as make them, from making cakes, using Lego, using corrugated card/metal, astroturf and many more creative and engaging ways! They also showed excellent teamwork by some of them combining to work collaboratively in pairs or more. We hope you enjoy looking at them – come and see in Year 5, you’ll be blown away!
Here’s what some of the children had to say:
Christian – ‘I tried to achieve an Anderson shelter, because we made our shelter out of gingerbread – I loved it!’
Grace – ‘Year 5 had three weeks to make a World War 2 Anderson shelter, with the design project first. My favourite part was making it. I enjoyed fake grass on to the metal.’
Jess B – ‘I most enjoyed being creative. Phoebe and I had a good laugh and had lots of fun and at the same time we could be serious and get on. I would love to do it again!’
Kara – ‘I really enjoyed making the Anderson shelters because I could use my creative skills in a variety of ways.’
On Monday 7th October 2019, Year 5 went on their ‘Home Front’ trip as part of their World War Two focus. We learnt lots, ranging from experiences of evacuees, women’s jobs and rationing, to general way of life during the war times, as well as various facts about the war itself. Throughout the day, the whole class represented the school impeccably, showing excellent behaviour, but also willingly showing to the leaders how much they already knew about World War Two. The leaders were very impressed at the knowledge the children were giving and the eagerness they had with answering and asking questions.
Children got right into character for the day, coming into school dressed as evacuees, with their identity cards, ration books and labels attached to them, showing who they were and where they came from. Throughout the day, children were straight in role conducting usual jobs expected from children and adults during the 1939-1945 era. The jobs ranged from cleaning and drying clothes, making flapjacks, putting out fire-bombs as fire-guards and putting up the blast tape to ensure the glass was secure if we were bombed! Having said this, we did have a real life air-raid, where we ‘pulled together’ and shared Anderson shelters to keep us safe. We also did a World War Two dance workshop, along with songs which kept spirits high.
It really was a pleasure to see such great learning first hand, with handling such artefacts as ‘gas masks’, different bombs used in the war, helmets etc; as well as viewing what was a week’s ration for an adult would be…..we all agreed it was absolutely nothing- what do you think…?
Here is what some of us thought of the day:
Jess B – ‘I enjoyed Murton Park because MRs W and Mr T were very funny and silly. I’m sure everyone in class would agree that it was excellent, as we took turns to do different activities such as: washing clothes, cleaning the saddles, dancing and learning how to be a Fire Guard (FG). It was very fun!’
Christian – ‘I very much enjoyed the trip to Murton Park (it was my favourite of all!). I most enjoyed the amazing World War Two gallery!’
Lucas – ‘I enjoyed putting out the fire and Mr T (who showed us around) let us look at three different types of bombs used. Then we enjoyed it in the dance activity.’
Grace – ‘My favourite bit of Murton Park was washing the clothes. We put out a fire, did cooking, washed clothes, danced and tried out some gas masks. I would give it a ten out of ten!’.
Immogen – ‘I loved doing the ironing as it felt as though I was actually in World War Two life! I also enjoyed the experience in the Anderson shelter.’
In English, we had a choice of a setting to describe using various Year 5 skills (including figurative language, relative clauses and Alan Peat sentence types) and then to create a story around this setting. Additionally, we have made a huge effort to use alliteration, personification, adjectives, adverbs, similes and metaphors, ensuring that we make regular use of common exception words, as well as using a thesaurus to extend our vocabulary. What do you think of our stories?
In our topic learning of World War 2, we have been looking at 'Propaganda' and what it means. We studied some posters from that time and decided to create our own artwork for display in the shared area. We hope you enjoy our own designs of propaganda posters and come and see them in our Key Stage 2 Shared Area. We focused on giving people information or warnings of things that are happening or may happen. We wanted to present purposeful artwork and express our beliefs and feelings. Which is your favourite and why?
In Science, we have created our own investigations to test the germination of plants. We have already discussed and understand what plants need to germinate (which we found easy.....although we din't know what 'germinate' meant at the start!), but initially, we didn't delve into 'exactly' what a plant needs to grow 'well'. For this reason, in groups, we set up a variety of different investigations to test 'how much light' a plant needs, 'what environment is best for a plant', 'what amount of water is appropriate', 'what position of seed is best' etc. As you can see, some plants have grown well and healthy, whereas others have grown a little and some not at all. We are measuring and recording our results each day and will end this half term by producing our own line graphs in our books, as well as on Microsoft Excel to check for patterns and interpret the data. We will upload these here for you to see!
We were fortunate to have a visit from Judith Rhodes in Year 5 last Friday. Judith shared her mother’s experiences as a refugee in World War 2. Her mother, Ursula, left her family behind in Nazi Germany at the age of 15 and came to London as part of the Kinder transport programme prior the outbreak of the war. The rest of her family were unable to leave and later perished in concentration camps during the Holocaust. We really appreciated Judith sharing her powerful and moving story which really helped the children to understand the impact of these events on individual families. In the photo you can see the suitcase that Ursula took with her and one of the very few items of clothing she was able to fit into it.
We made notes throughout her presentation of key questions, as well as key points to help us with our follow up reports about her visit and what we learnt. There were some excellent enquiry questions from the children, as well as our class Governor (Mr Kurring) who joined us for the visit. Questions asked included:
‘What’s the Iron Cross that was mentioned?’ (Finley)
‘Your Grandad fought for Germany as a Jew – why is that?’ (Mr Kurring)
‘Why did your Grandad get arrested?’ (Maria)
‘Didn’t Hitler like people to have blonde hair and blue eyes, even though he didn’t have those?’ (Florence)
Here are some of our thoughts:
“I really enjoyed Judith’s visit. The thing I found most interesting was opening the ‘Little Suitcase’, everything in there was from World War 2.’ – Immogen
‘’I found Judith very interesting as she answered all my questions. She told us what happened in Germany during the war, which I enjoyed.’’
‘’I liked it that Judith told us that her grandma sewed jewellery into her skirt so that it wasn’t taken off her.’’ – Kodee
‘’I found the ‘story of Ursula’ very interesting, and I also liked it when we found out what was inside the suitcase, because it is difficult to think that the contents have been around all of those years.’’
This week, Reception welcomed their ‘Year 5 Buddies’ to their classroom for the first time. Now Reception children have settled into Primrose Lane school life, our wonderful Year 5 children offer a generous, helping hand to settle them in further. This is one of the ‘responsibilities’ expected by a Year 5 child at the beginning of the year, which they always look forward to! In WORKING TOGETHER, they become better people. Year 5 become role models, leaders and supportive of their new younger friends. The Reception children learn lots of skills and behaviours from their role models, but teach Year 5 about empathy, tolerance and patience, just by being their lovely selves!
The role of the Year 5 child is important to make their Reception Buddy feel comfortable, learn how to make new friends, play, feel safe and become more independent. They have got to know each other this week, eaten together and played together outside. As you can see, the Year 5 children model how to behave in the dining area when eating at school, as well as support their Buddies with cutting food and their manners. Reception children and staff would like to thank Year 5 for being such fantastic buddies, the effort and care are really appreciated! Equally, we would like to thank the Reception children for being polite, understanding and learning well from their Buddies. We are sure these relationships will continue to blossom over the coming year.
Here's what some of them have said:
“ I played hide and seek with my buddy, it was so much fun!” – Maisie
“My buddy showed me some new football skills.” - Oliver V
“I liked it when my buddy helped me with my dinner.” - Oliver S
‘’I like the Buddies because you get to look after them and play with them.’’ – Ellie
‘’My buddy is Oliver and I could not have asked for anyone else! Oliver is very enthusiastic and loves to run around. My favourite time is lunch time with him as he impresses me using his manners.’’ – Grace
‘’I really like the buddy system. I think it is a good idea and it is really fun. My buddy is Bethany and I like showing her around the playground and eating lunch with her.’’ - Florence | 3,049 | ENGLISH | 1 |
How Credit Scoring Came into Being
The question remains: How did one little number come to have such an outsized effect on our lives?
Credit scoring has been in widespread use by lenders for several decades. By the end of the 1970s, most major lenders used some kind of credit-scoring formulas to decide whether to accept or reject applications.
Many were introduced to credit scoring by two pioneers in the field: engineer Bill Fair and mathematician Earl Isaac, who founded the firm Fair Isaac in 1956. Over the years, the pair convinced lenders that mathematical formulas could do a better job of predicting whether an applicant would default than even the most experienced loan officers.
A formula wasn't as subject to human whims and biases. It wouldn't turn down a potentially good credit risk because the applicant was the "wrong" race, religion, or gender, and it wouldn't accept a bad risk because the applicant was a friend.
Credit scoring, aided by ever more powerful computers, was also fast. Lending decisions could be made in a matter of minutes, rather than days or weeks.
Early on, each company had its own credit-scoring formula, tailored to the amount of risk it wanted to take, its history with various types of borrowers, and the kind of people it attracted as customers. The factors that fed into the formula varied, but many took into account the applicant's income, occupation, length of time with an employer, length of time at an address, and some of the information available on his or her credit report, such as the longest time that a payment was ever overdue.
These calculations took place behind the scenes, invisible to the consumer and understood by a relatively small number of experts and loan executives.
The cost to develop and implement these custom formulas wasand still isconsiderable. It was not unusual to spend $100,000 or more and take 12 months just to set one up. In addition, not every creditor had a big enough database to work with, especially if the company wanted to branch out into a new line of lending. A credit card lender that wanted to start offering car loans, for example, might find that its database couldn't adequately predict risk in vehicle lending.
That led to credit scores that are based on the biggest lending databases of allthose that are held at the major credit bureaus, which include Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion. Fair Isaac developed the first credit bureau-based scoring system in the mid-1980s, and the idea quickly caught on.
Instead of basing their calculations on any single lender's experience, this type of scoring factored in the behavior of literally millions of borrowers. The model looked for patterns of behavior that indicated a borrower might default, as well as patterns that indicated a borrower was likely to pay as agreed. The score evaluated the consumer's history of paying bills, the number and type of credit accounts, how much available credit the customer was using, and other factors.
This credit-scoring model was useful for more than just accepting or rejecting applicants. Some lenders decided to accept higher-risk clients but to charge them more to compensate for the greater chance that they might default. Lenders also used scores to screen vast numbers of borrowers to find potential future customers. Instead of waiting for people to apply, credit card companies and other lenders could send out reams of preapproved offers to likely prospects. | <urn:uuid:654a2ec2-844e-447d-9aec-b0bafdb9538c> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=357928&seqNum=3 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250606226.29/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121222429-20200122011429-00337.warc.gz | en | 0.980884 | 687 | 3.625 | 4 | [
-0.29610466957092285,
-0.39351826906204224,
-0.10432253777980804,
-0.2787744998931885,
-0.1577787548303604,
-0.1753319650888443,
0.14109614491462708,
0.21730345487594604,
0.4241511821746826,
-0.09456067532300949,
0.499050498008728,
0.04310120642185211,
0.002183295553550124,
-0.068973004817... | 2 | How Credit Scoring Came into Being
The question remains: How did one little number come to have such an outsized effect on our lives?
Credit scoring has been in widespread use by lenders for several decades. By the end of the 1970s, most major lenders used some kind of credit-scoring formulas to decide whether to accept or reject applications.
Many were introduced to credit scoring by two pioneers in the field: engineer Bill Fair and mathematician Earl Isaac, who founded the firm Fair Isaac in 1956. Over the years, the pair convinced lenders that mathematical formulas could do a better job of predicting whether an applicant would default than even the most experienced loan officers.
A formula wasn't as subject to human whims and biases. It wouldn't turn down a potentially good credit risk because the applicant was the "wrong" race, religion, or gender, and it wouldn't accept a bad risk because the applicant was a friend.
Credit scoring, aided by ever more powerful computers, was also fast. Lending decisions could be made in a matter of minutes, rather than days or weeks.
Early on, each company had its own credit-scoring formula, tailored to the amount of risk it wanted to take, its history with various types of borrowers, and the kind of people it attracted as customers. The factors that fed into the formula varied, but many took into account the applicant's income, occupation, length of time with an employer, length of time at an address, and some of the information available on his or her credit report, such as the longest time that a payment was ever overdue.
These calculations took place behind the scenes, invisible to the consumer and understood by a relatively small number of experts and loan executives.
The cost to develop and implement these custom formulas wasand still isconsiderable. It was not unusual to spend $100,000 or more and take 12 months just to set one up. In addition, not every creditor had a big enough database to work with, especially if the company wanted to branch out into a new line of lending. A credit card lender that wanted to start offering car loans, for example, might find that its database couldn't adequately predict risk in vehicle lending.
That led to credit scores that are based on the biggest lending databases of allthose that are held at the major credit bureaus, which include Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion. Fair Isaac developed the first credit bureau-based scoring system in the mid-1980s, and the idea quickly caught on.
Instead of basing their calculations on any single lender's experience, this type of scoring factored in the behavior of literally millions of borrowers. The model looked for patterns of behavior that indicated a borrower might default, as well as patterns that indicated a borrower was likely to pay as agreed. The score evaluated the consumer's history of paying bills, the number and type of credit accounts, how much available credit the customer was using, and other factors.
This credit-scoring model was useful for more than just accepting or rejecting applicants. Some lenders decided to accept higher-risk clients but to charge them more to compensate for the greater chance that they might default. Lenders also used scores to screen vast numbers of borrowers to find potential future customers. Instead of waiting for people to apply, credit card companies and other lenders could send out reams of preapproved offers to likely prospects. | 693 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Up to the middle of the 19th century, the means of transport in India were backward.
They were confined to bullock-cart, camel, and packhorse.
The British rulers soon realized that a cheap and easy system of transport was a necessity if British manufactures were to flow into India on a large scale and her raw materials secured for British industries.
The British rulers introduced steamships on the rivers and set about improving the roads.
Work on the Grand Trunk Road from Calcutta to Delhi began in 1839 and completed in the 1850’s.
Efforts were also made to link by road the major cities, ports, and markets of the country.
Development of Railway
The first railway engine designed by George Stephenson was put on the rail in England in 1814.
Railways developed rapidly during the 1830s and 1840s.
The earliest suggestion to build a railway in India was made in Madras in 1831.
But the wagons of this railway were to be drawn by horses.
Construction of steam-driven railways in India was first proposed in 1834 in England.
It was given strong political support by England’s railway promoters, financiers, and mercantile houses trading with India, and textile manufacturers.
It was decided that the Indian railways were to be constructed and operated by private companies who were guaranteed a minimum of five per cent return on their capital by the Government of India.
The first railway line running from Bombay to Thane was opened to traffic in 1853.
Lord Dalhousie, who became Governor-General of India in 1849, was an ardent advocate of rapid railway construction.
Dalhousie proposed a network of four main trunk lines which would link the interior of the country with the big ports and inter-connect the different parts of the country.
By the end of 1869, more than 4,000 miles of railways had been built by the guaranteed companies; but this system proved very costly and slow, and so in 1869 the Government of India decided to build new railways as state enterprises.
But the speed of railway extension still did not satisfy officials in India and businessmen in Britain.
After 1880, railways were built through private enterprises as well as state agency.
By 1905, nearly 28,000 miles of railways had been built.
The railway lines were laid primarily with a view to link India’s raw material producing areas in the interior with the ports of export.
The needs of Indian industries regarding their markets and their sources of raw materials were neglected.
Moreover, the railway rates were fixed in a manner so as to favor imports and exports and to discriminate against internal movement of goods.
Several railway lines in Burma and North-Western India were built at high cost to serve British imperial interests.
Postal & Telegraph System
The British also established an efficient and modern postal system and introduced the telegraph.
The first telegraph line from Calcutta to Agra was opened in 1853.
Lord Dalhousie introduced postage stamps.
Previously cash payment had to be made when a letter was posted.
He also cut down postal rates and charged a uniform rates.
Transport And Communication – Transport And Communication | <urn:uuid:e9a1cc66-8bc3-4a66-9e82-c407181b1fab> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.brainyias.com/transport-and-communication/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251687725.76/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126043644-20200126073644-00094.warc.gz | en | 0.986305 | 666 | 4.25 | 4 | [
0.13268351554870605,
-0.03470316156744957,
0.5663391351699829,
0.012615982443094254,
-0.31696033477783203,
-0.13713598251342773,
-0.20632396638393402,
0.007168203126639128,
-0.21279138326644897,
-0.32956960797309875,
0.05077841877937317,
-0.46622586250305176,
0.030486436560750008,
0.289891... | 1 | Up to the middle of the 19th century, the means of transport in India were backward.
They were confined to bullock-cart, camel, and packhorse.
The British rulers soon realized that a cheap and easy system of transport was a necessity if British manufactures were to flow into India on a large scale and her raw materials secured for British industries.
The British rulers introduced steamships on the rivers and set about improving the roads.
Work on the Grand Trunk Road from Calcutta to Delhi began in 1839 and completed in the 1850’s.
Efforts were also made to link by road the major cities, ports, and markets of the country.
Development of Railway
The first railway engine designed by George Stephenson was put on the rail in England in 1814.
Railways developed rapidly during the 1830s and 1840s.
The earliest suggestion to build a railway in India was made in Madras in 1831.
But the wagons of this railway were to be drawn by horses.
Construction of steam-driven railways in India was first proposed in 1834 in England.
It was given strong political support by England’s railway promoters, financiers, and mercantile houses trading with India, and textile manufacturers.
It was decided that the Indian railways were to be constructed and operated by private companies who were guaranteed a minimum of five per cent return on their capital by the Government of India.
The first railway line running from Bombay to Thane was opened to traffic in 1853.
Lord Dalhousie, who became Governor-General of India in 1849, was an ardent advocate of rapid railway construction.
Dalhousie proposed a network of four main trunk lines which would link the interior of the country with the big ports and inter-connect the different parts of the country.
By the end of 1869, more than 4,000 miles of railways had been built by the guaranteed companies; but this system proved very costly and slow, and so in 1869 the Government of India decided to build new railways as state enterprises.
But the speed of railway extension still did not satisfy officials in India and businessmen in Britain.
After 1880, railways were built through private enterprises as well as state agency.
By 1905, nearly 28,000 miles of railways had been built.
The railway lines were laid primarily with a view to link India’s raw material producing areas in the interior with the ports of export.
The needs of Indian industries regarding their markets and their sources of raw materials were neglected.
Moreover, the railway rates were fixed in a manner so as to favor imports and exports and to discriminate against internal movement of goods.
Several railway lines in Burma and North-Western India were built at high cost to serve British imperial interests.
Postal & Telegraph System
The British also established an efficient and modern postal system and introduced the telegraph.
The first telegraph line from Calcutta to Agra was opened in 1853.
Lord Dalhousie introduced postage stamps.
Previously cash payment had to be made when a letter was posted.
He also cut down postal rates and charged a uniform rates.
Transport And Communication – Transport And Communication | 679 | ENGLISH | 1 |
What would have happened if World War II had ended in 1941? How would it have altered the course of history? And, more pertinently, how would it have affected us in India?
The question is not as arbitrary as it seems. Night Flight to Dungavel is a scholarly investigation into the top-secret visit of Rudolf Hess, Hitler’s second-in-command, to Britain in 1941. The British authorities have guarded its secrets tightly, and destroyed many of the relevant documents. But historian Peter Padfield has now accessed hitherto unavailable papers and spoken to various survivors of the drama. What emerges is a thought-provoking story.
According to Padfield, there was a powerful political faction in Britain which believed that it could never win a war against Germany, and that Churchill was a foolish warmonger. It, moreover, considered Communist Russia to be a greater menace anyway. The German leadership, meanwhile, couldn’t understand why Churchill chose to pursue an unnecessary war against them, and wanted to make peace with Britain urgently before attacking Russia. Hess was an emissary in a complicated plot, orchestrated by both countries’ heads of intelligence, whereby a peace deal was to be brokered. But the plot went badly awry; Hess was arrested; Hitler denounced him as a lunatic; and the war continued with increased ferocity. Night Flight to Dungavel is interesting, but what is even more so is the ideas it suggests, but does not itself address: in other words, what would have happened if World War II had ended in 1941?
Our world would have looked so very different. To speculate, for starters, Germany would have surely defeated Russia, and Communism would have been extinguished (which means China would not have turned Communist in 1949). The Holocaust would not have happened; the shape of the Middle East would have been very different. But what would such a counterfactual have meant for India?
One thing is for sure: a Britain that had not been bled dry by six years of war would have never granted independence in 1947; it would have been delayed by at least another ten years. But India’s political leadership would have changed significantly by then. Jinnah would have died in 1948, and without his leadership the Muslim League, and its demand for Pakistan, would have died a natural death too. Moreover, by 1957, Nehru would have been nearly 70; Subhas Chandra Bose—alive and an energetic 60 years old—would have been much better positioned to be India’s first PM. And, as we know, he’d have had a very different vision for India’s future.
On the other hand, in a world where Britain still retained its global might (and with Fascism in the ascendant), it might have made a much more determined effort to hold on to its empire. What then? Without the non-violent influence of Gandhi (who’d probably have died a peaceful death), and an aggressive Bose at the helm, would India have been drawn into another bloody 1857? And with what results? Moreover, what would be the geopolitics of a Fascist-dominated world? Would there be an inevitable Cold War between the US, upholding its democratic values, and Europe fighting for some hybrid form of Fascism? Or would the US, too, slowly succumb? Night Flight to Dungavel opens up a whole host of fascinating questions. | <urn:uuid:5615bc47-eb6b-4d50-9cbb-83bfdd8030b7> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.outlookindia.com/magazine/story/last-man-in-the-tower/291732/?next | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250604397.40/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121132900-20200121161900-00201.warc.gz | en | 0.987605 | 705 | 3.640625 | 4 | [
-0.08827365934848785,
0.3000659942626953,
0.12631627917289734,
-0.037589237093925476,
0.1628616452217102,
0.2337760627269745,
0.04524961858987808,
0.1083543598651886,
0.17711761593818665,
-0.31226426362991333,
0.18833278119564056,
0.05071396753191948,
0.25376540422439575,
0.527157664299011... | 3 | What would have happened if World War II had ended in 1941? How would it have altered the course of history? And, more pertinently, how would it have affected us in India?
The question is not as arbitrary as it seems. Night Flight to Dungavel is a scholarly investigation into the top-secret visit of Rudolf Hess, Hitler’s second-in-command, to Britain in 1941. The British authorities have guarded its secrets tightly, and destroyed many of the relevant documents. But historian Peter Padfield has now accessed hitherto unavailable papers and spoken to various survivors of the drama. What emerges is a thought-provoking story.
According to Padfield, there was a powerful political faction in Britain which believed that it could never win a war against Germany, and that Churchill was a foolish warmonger. It, moreover, considered Communist Russia to be a greater menace anyway. The German leadership, meanwhile, couldn’t understand why Churchill chose to pursue an unnecessary war against them, and wanted to make peace with Britain urgently before attacking Russia. Hess was an emissary in a complicated plot, orchestrated by both countries’ heads of intelligence, whereby a peace deal was to be brokered. But the plot went badly awry; Hess was arrested; Hitler denounced him as a lunatic; and the war continued with increased ferocity. Night Flight to Dungavel is interesting, but what is even more so is the ideas it suggests, but does not itself address: in other words, what would have happened if World War II had ended in 1941?
Our world would have looked so very different. To speculate, for starters, Germany would have surely defeated Russia, and Communism would have been extinguished (which means China would not have turned Communist in 1949). The Holocaust would not have happened; the shape of the Middle East would have been very different. But what would such a counterfactual have meant for India?
One thing is for sure: a Britain that had not been bled dry by six years of war would have never granted independence in 1947; it would have been delayed by at least another ten years. But India’s political leadership would have changed significantly by then. Jinnah would have died in 1948, and without his leadership the Muslim League, and its demand for Pakistan, would have died a natural death too. Moreover, by 1957, Nehru would have been nearly 70; Subhas Chandra Bose—alive and an energetic 60 years old—would have been much better positioned to be India’s first PM. And, as we know, he’d have had a very different vision for India’s future.
On the other hand, in a world where Britain still retained its global might (and with Fascism in the ascendant), it might have made a much more determined effort to hold on to its empire. What then? Without the non-violent influence of Gandhi (who’d probably have died a peaceful death), and an aggressive Bose at the helm, would India have been drawn into another bloody 1857? And with what results? Moreover, what would be the geopolitics of a Fascist-dominated world? Would there be an inevitable Cold War between the US, upholding its democratic values, and Europe fighting for some hybrid form of Fascism? Or would the US, too, slowly succumb? Night Flight to Dungavel opens up a whole host of fascinating questions. | 718 | ENGLISH | 1 |
John Keynes and Karl Marx are two of the most influential and notorious economists of our time. Their views on the economy are very different. Marx was a radical communist while Keynes was a Capitalist and a brilliant intellectual. Their views stem from their upbringing. Marx was born into a Jewish, middle class family and Keynes was born into a comfortable English social class that considered itself born to rule. Their writings brought their beliefs about the economy lead them into the public eye. Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital.. Both writings sought social upheaval and attacked the capitalist system.
Keynes writings include The Economic Consequences of the Peace and The General Theory which revolutionized the way the world thinks about economic problems. Marx and Keynes views were and remain widely acknowledged to economists throughout the world through their writings. John Keynes thought there was no necessity for public or government ownership. Instead, he believed that government action was essential. Rather than government ownership, Keynes supported private ownership of the means of production. Karl Marx identified private productive property as the real source of evil.
He believed that possession of economic resources gave power to the owners who then oppressed the workers, who have only their labor to sell. He believed that ownership of capital forces human beings into unequal relationships as capitalists and laborers. Marx concluded that envy, greed and personal ego are direct outcomes of private property. Keynes dwelt on the overall economy rather than individual markets. He did not direct his attention to what should be produced and how, but did speculate about the possibility that relative scarcity would cease to be a problem.
Keynes considered that one day the world would be free from its fixation with want. Marx was far more candid on this issue of resource allocation. The increasing misery and unemployment for workers, and falling profits for capitalists meant to Marx that the system had to be destroyed. Marx believed that something had to be done to prevent workers from being exploited, dehumanized and alienated from their work. John Keynes believed that the failure to provide full employment and the arbitrary and inequitable distribution of wealth and incomes were the outstanding faults in the economic system.
He believed that there is social and psychological justification for significant inequalities of incomes and wealth. They can be justified because there are valuable activities that require the motive of money making and the environment of private wealth ownership. Keynes argued that some inequality is necessary to provide sufficient incentives to entrepreneurs to undertake investment. Karl Marx was critical of capitalism and thought that under capitalism, inequalities would only worsen. He believed that inequalities would result in an increase in unemployment. Marx was however, very supportive of communism.
He believed that income distinctions would disappear and goods and services would be distributed according to need if there were pure communism. Marx summed up his views by saying that economic life would be governed by the rule from each according to his abilities; to each according to his needs. John Keynes believed that government action is essential to stabilize an unstable economy, end economic recessions and depressions, and produce full employment. He recognized that his solution to the unemployment problem of the 1930s would come as a shock to those who believed in a laissez-faire economy.
Keynes rejected a laissez-faire economy because market based economies do not produce full employment immediately; he said there will always be unemployment. He believed there was an inherent weakness in the market system. To overcome this he believed that government action was essential. He said the government should monitor the economy, and introduce policies that run counter to the trade cycle. He fundamentally believed that the governments role was to fine-tune the economy. Marx believed there was no role for the government. He said that capitalist governments do not serve the interests of the whole population.
Marx wanted private property to be eliminated and for a socialist government to come into existence. In the transformation from a capitalist government to a socialist one, Marx recognized that there would be government ownership of the means of production early on. But as the focus went on social commitment, rather than the idea of self-importance, there would be less need for central control. He believed that the government would whither away as communism-replaced socialism. Marxs ideal community would then emerge: a community of self-governing human beings living in harmony.
Keynes believed that adding to government functions was necessary to avoid the eradication of the economic system, therefore allowing the individual to display initiative and flourish. Keynes focus lay with groups of individuals in the economy. He focused on a way to achieve full employment of labor. He said the level of activity in the economy was crucial to the amount of employment. Keynes believed that private investors played a decisive role by their decisions to add or to postpone investment. He said this was the reason why the market economy was unstable.
Keynes viewed private investment as being volatile. He was aware that investors plans could change quickly. He saw aggregate demand as being a reflection of investors decisions. He believed that the right of individuals to work could be protected if government spent money to maintain aggregate demand whenever private investment was low. Marx believed that the role of the individual in society was of fundamental importance. He presented a communist society as being a paradise on earth where individuals can break free of restrictions imposed by the division of labor.
He ultimately saw it as being freedom for the individual. Marx believed that individuals were trapped within social classes. He saw the workers and the capitalists being opposed to each other in the production process. He firmly believed that their differences and divisions could not be reconciled. Marx believed that suffering and conflict took place because the ruling class had power over the rest of society. The ruling class power depended on private productive property and if there were communism, the conflict would subside because private property would end.
Marx believed that communism represented individual freedom and equality and under communism, human conflict would cease. Keynes views that government action is essential to produce full employment have been applied in Australia recently with the governments job network, which has tried to create jobs for the unemployed. Keynes believed that the government should have a key role in the economy. The Australian government is improving its economic performance and is creating a new tax system through the GST.
Marx and Keynes views on ownership, resource allocation, income distribution, and their views on the role of individuals and government in the economy have gained them worldwide acclaim from capitalists and communists. Their views have been disputed and praised by economists for over 180 years. Marxs Communist Manifesto, about the need for workers to overthrow their rulers, resulted in him not being able to enter Europe again. Keynes, however, was praised by capitalists and was allowed to preach his economic theories throughout the world. Both Marx and Keynes were essential to developing what today is our economic system. | <urn:uuid:de741589-407f-444d-89c1-b4f409b1e026> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://gazetteactuartistes.com/views-of-marx-and-keynes-essay-2/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250597230.18/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120023523-20200120051523-00215.warc.gz | en | 0.981336 | 1,355 | 4.15625 | 4 | [
0.03855933994054794,
0.2496667355298996,
-0.0873388797044754,
0.20644226670265198,
0.22815752029418945,
0.16895878314971924,
0.21897801756858826,
0.25350475311279297,
0.06126825138926506,
-0.006053420249372721,
-0.13503241539001465,
0.11655744910240173,
0.40192711353302,
0.0954041928052902... | 3 | John Keynes and Karl Marx are two of the most influential and notorious economists of our time. Their views on the economy are very different. Marx was a radical communist while Keynes was a Capitalist and a brilliant intellectual. Their views stem from their upbringing. Marx was born into a Jewish, middle class family and Keynes was born into a comfortable English social class that considered itself born to rule. Their writings brought their beliefs about the economy lead them into the public eye. Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital.. Both writings sought social upheaval and attacked the capitalist system.
Keynes writings include The Economic Consequences of the Peace and The General Theory which revolutionized the way the world thinks about economic problems. Marx and Keynes views were and remain widely acknowledged to economists throughout the world through their writings. John Keynes thought there was no necessity for public or government ownership. Instead, he believed that government action was essential. Rather than government ownership, Keynes supported private ownership of the means of production. Karl Marx identified private productive property as the real source of evil.
He believed that possession of economic resources gave power to the owners who then oppressed the workers, who have only their labor to sell. He believed that ownership of capital forces human beings into unequal relationships as capitalists and laborers. Marx concluded that envy, greed and personal ego are direct outcomes of private property. Keynes dwelt on the overall economy rather than individual markets. He did not direct his attention to what should be produced and how, but did speculate about the possibility that relative scarcity would cease to be a problem.
Keynes considered that one day the world would be free from its fixation with want. Marx was far more candid on this issue of resource allocation. The increasing misery and unemployment for workers, and falling profits for capitalists meant to Marx that the system had to be destroyed. Marx believed that something had to be done to prevent workers from being exploited, dehumanized and alienated from their work. John Keynes believed that the failure to provide full employment and the arbitrary and inequitable distribution of wealth and incomes were the outstanding faults in the economic system.
He believed that there is social and psychological justification for significant inequalities of incomes and wealth. They can be justified because there are valuable activities that require the motive of money making and the environment of private wealth ownership. Keynes argued that some inequality is necessary to provide sufficient incentives to entrepreneurs to undertake investment. Karl Marx was critical of capitalism and thought that under capitalism, inequalities would only worsen. He believed that inequalities would result in an increase in unemployment. Marx was however, very supportive of communism.
He believed that income distinctions would disappear and goods and services would be distributed according to need if there were pure communism. Marx summed up his views by saying that economic life would be governed by the rule from each according to his abilities; to each according to his needs. John Keynes believed that government action is essential to stabilize an unstable economy, end economic recessions and depressions, and produce full employment. He recognized that his solution to the unemployment problem of the 1930s would come as a shock to those who believed in a laissez-faire economy.
Keynes rejected a laissez-faire economy because market based economies do not produce full employment immediately; he said there will always be unemployment. He believed there was an inherent weakness in the market system. To overcome this he believed that government action was essential. He said the government should monitor the economy, and introduce policies that run counter to the trade cycle. He fundamentally believed that the governments role was to fine-tune the economy. Marx believed there was no role for the government. He said that capitalist governments do not serve the interests of the whole population.
Marx wanted private property to be eliminated and for a socialist government to come into existence. In the transformation from a capitalist government to a socialist one, Marx recognized that there would be government ownership of the means of production early on. But as the focus went on social commitment, rather than the idea of self-importance, there would be less need for central control. He believed that the government would whither away as communism-replaced socialism. Marxs ideal community would then emerge: a community of self-governing human beings living in harmony.
Keynes believed that adding to government functions was necessary to avoid the eradication of the economic system, therefore allowing the individual to display initiative and flourish. Keynes focus lay with groups of individuals in the economy. He focused on a way to achieve full employment of labor. He said the level of activity in the economy was crucial to the amount of employment. Keynes believed that private investors played a decisive role by their decisions to add or to postpone investment. He said this was the reason why the market economy was unstable.
Keynes viewed private investment as being volatile. He was aware that investors plans could change quickly. He saw aggregate demand as being a reflection of investors decisions. He believed that the right of individuals to work could be protected if government spent money to maintain aggregate demand whenever private investment was low. Marx believed that the role of the individual in society was of fundamental importance. He presented a communist society as being a paradise on earth where individuals can break free of restrictions imposed by the division of labor.
He ultimately saw it as being freedom for the individual. Marx believed that individuals were trapped within social classes. He saw the workers and the capitalists being opposed to each other in the production process. He firmly believed that their differences and divisions could not be reconciled. Marx believed that suffering and conflict took place because the ruling class had power over the rest of society. The ruling class power depended on private productive property and if there were communism, the conflict would subside because private property would end.
Marx believed that communism represented individual freedom and equality and under communism, human conflict would cease. Keynes views that government action is essential to produce full employment have been applied in Australia recently with the governments job network, which has tried to create jobs for the unemployed. Keynes believed that the government should have a key role in the economy. The Australian government is improving its economic performance and is creating a new tax system through the GST.
Marx and Keynes views on ownership, resource allocation, income distribution, and their views on the role of individuals and government in the economy have gained them worldwide acclaim from capitalists and communists. Their views have been disputed and praised by economists for over 180 years. Marxs Communist Manifesto, about the need for workers to overthrow their rulers, resulted in him not being able to enter Europe again. Keynes, however, was praised by capitalists and was allowed to preach his economic theories throughout the world. Both Marx and Keynes were essential to developing what today is our economic system. | 1,352 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Which detail from "The Monkey's Paw" is the most clearly an example of foreshadowing?
The Whites are warned against using the monkey's paw early on in the story, when Sergeant-Major Morris visits them and tells him about the find. He says it came from India where it had been enchanted by a holy man, who had sought to prove the power that fate holds in shaping human life. Morris tells them that the monkey's paw has the power to grant three wishes to three different people.
However, Morris is more than simply a source of exposition - Morris himself is a victim of the Monkey's Paw. He refuses to tell them what he wished for, but he does allude to the person had used the monkey's paw before him, and whose last wish had been to die. In their...
(The entire section contains 2 answers and 360 words.)
check Approved by eNotes Editorial | <urn:uuid:64297274-71a9-4c85-ac5c-20bced7c05b4> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.enotes.com/homework-help/which-detail-from-monkeys-paw-most-clearly-an-1229304?en_action=hh-question_click&en_label=topics_related_hh_questions&en_category=internal_campaign | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250614086.44/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123221108-20200124010108-00036.warc.gz | en | 0.982959 | 185 | 3.3125 | 3 | [
-0.36039936542510986,
0.35849618911743164,
0.038102321326732635,
0.03674726560711861,
0.21935661137104034,
0.16849060356616974,
0.850663959980011,
0.27916762232780457,
0.01486008707433939,
0.16390947997570038,
0.33710384368896484,
-0.06585798412561417,
0.2631177008152008,
0.319768935441970... | 1 | Which detail from "The Monkey's Paw" is the most clearly an example of foreshadowing?
The Whites are warned against using the monkey's paw early on in the story, when Sergeant-Major Morris visits them and tells him about the find. He says it came from India where it had been enchanted by a holy man, who had sought to prove the power that fate holds in shaping human life. Morris tells them that the monkey's paw has the power to grant three wishes to three different people.
However, Morris is more than simply a source of exposition - Morris himself is a victim of the Monkey's Paw. He refuses to tell them what he wished for, but he does allude to the person had used the monkey's paw before him, and whose last wish had been to die. In their...
(The entire section contains 2 answers and 360 words.)
check Approved by eNotes Editorial | 184 | ENGLISH | 1 |
In1940, there were pockets of religious persecution in Thailand. In the village of Songkhon, seven Catholics were martyred .
Summary:The Seven Thai Martyrs of Songkhon. In 1940 before the Japanese invasion of Thailand there was a reaction against things Western and foreign. In this atmosphere there were pockets of persecution of Christians. This led to the martyrdom of seven Catholics in the village of Songkhon in north-east Thailand. They were beatified by Pope John Paul II in 1989.
Here Patrick Duffy tells their story.
The first missionaries to Thailand were Portuguese Dominicans who in 1554 arrived in Siam, as it was then known. Siam was a Buddhist kingdom, but Christians were welcomed as bringing new knowledge. By the 19th century most Catholic missionaries were from the Paris Foreign Missions Society (Société des Missions Étrangères de Paris – MEP), living in enclaves and exempt from national jurisdiction and taxation. During the 1930s Western influence decreased, and there was a growing sense of crisis as Japan invaded China and threatened south-east Asia. The country’s name was changed to Thailand in 1939. The government adopted a nationalistic and anti-western stance, and Christianity was branded “the foreign religion”. Churches and schools were requisitioned, and Thai Christians were put under pressure. The Vichy Government established after the fall of France in 1940 allowed the Japanese to set up bases in northern Vietnam, and the Thai government responded by invading French Indo-China (present-day Laos and Cambodia). Japan invaded Thailand in 1941 to secure bases to advance into Malaya and Singapore, and the Thai government signed an alliance that lasted until the Japanese were defeated in 1945.
The village of Songkhon
In this tense atmosphere preceding the Japanese invasion the usually tolerant Thais found “the foreign religion” an easy scapegoat, although Catholicism had been in Thailand for over three hundred and fifty years. In the winter of 1940 the police moved into the village of Songkhon in the north-east, near the Mekong River, which formed the border with Laos and Cambodia. All the people in this village were Catholics. The police banished and deported the parish priest. Then, shooting guns in the air, they went from door to door intimidating the people, ordering them to abandon their faith in Christ. Naturally the people were nervous and frightened, but they remained quiet and continued to practise.
Local catechist Philip Siphong gave moral and physical support, visiting each family, praying with and encouraging them. He received a letter asking him to go to meet to the Sheriff of Mukdahan. On his way, as he passed through a forest, he was ambushed, tortured and shot. It was 16th December 1940. Villagers recovered his body. The two nuns of the Congregation of Lovers of the Holy Cross, Agnes Phila and Lucia Khambang, continued catechising in the village school, telling their pupils that Philip was a martyr. Police continued harrassment, firing guns in the air and shouting insults. They told the Sisters to dress as proper Thai women and to stop teaching Christianity.
Christmas Day confrontation
On Christmas Day, Mr. Lue, the police officer in charge of Songkhon, came to the Sisters’ house and found they were still instructing the children in the Catholic faith. The officer told the Sisters: “I’ve told you many times not to speak about Jesus. You must not mention God in Thailand, otherwise I’ll kill you all.” Sister Agnes, conscious of her role as community leader, was annoyed. She said to the police officer: “Sir, do you really mean that you will kill us all because we are Catholics and loyal to our Catholic faith?” He replied: “I do, I will kill all of you, if you continue to talk about God like this.” Sister Agnes replied: “Be sure you have enough guns and bullets.”
That same night, Sister Agnes Phila wrote a letter in the name of all who lived in the convent:
To the Chief of Police in Songkhon:
Yesterday evening you received your order to wipe out, definitely, the name of God, the Only Lord of our lives and minds. We adore Him only, Sir. A few days earlier, you had mentioned to us that you would not wipe out the name of God and we were rather pleased with that in such a way that we put away our religious habits which showed that we were His handmaids. But it is not so today. We do profess that the religion of Christ is the only true religion. Therefore, we would like to give our answer to your question, asked yesterday evening which we did not have a chance to respond to because we were unprepared for it. Now we would like to give you our answer. We are asking you to carry out your order with us. Please do not delay any longer. Please carry out your order: We are ready to give back our lives to God who has given them to us. We do not wish to be the prey of the devils. Please carry out your order. Please open the door of heaven to us so that we can confirm that outside the religion of Christ no one can go to heaven. Please do it. We are well prepared. When we will be gone, we will remember you. Please take pity on our souls. We will be thankful to you and will be grateful to you for it. And on the last day we will see each other face to face. Do wait and see, please. We keep your commands, oh God, we wish to be witnesses to You; dear God. We are: Agnes, Lucia, Phuttha, Budsi, Buakhai, Suwan. We would like to bring little Phuma along with us because we love her so much. We have already made up our minds, dear Sir.
Next day, on the feast of St Stephen, the first martyr, 26th December 1940, the police arrived at the convent and shouted: “When you are ready, Sisters, go straight to the bank of the Mekong River.” But Sister Agnes objected, “No, that is not the place for us to die for Christ. We must go to the cemetery, the holy place.” The two sisters with some women and girls walked in line to the cemetery, singing hymns. They called to the people, saying: “Good bye, we are going to heaven, we are going to become martyrs for Christ.”
A young girl in the line named Suwan was willing to become one of the martyrs. But her father, hearing what was happening, rushed to the scene and rescued his daughter, despite her pleas and her clinging to Sister Agnes. The others continued singing hymns and praying. When they arrived at the cemetery, the police shot them.
The villagers, watching the scene from the bushes, rushed in. Sister Agnes and Phorn were still alive, but badly wounded. She called back the police and they shot them dead.
Another young girl called Sorn saw that her clothes were splashed with blood, but had no bullet wounds. The bystanders told her: “You’d better run home”. So she did, and lived on in Songkhon into the late 1990s. She was an excellent catechist.
The only punishment the Chief of Police received was to be transferred to another station.
Investigation and beatification
After a canonical investigation into the case of these seven Servants of God, reports for consideration of their beatification and canonisation as martyrs of the Church were sent to the Sacred Congregation for the Causes of Saints in Rome. In a great ceremony in 1986 in the Church of the Holy Redeemer in the village of Songkhon the remains of all seven were re-interred. Pope John Paul II beatified them in Rome on Mission Sunday, 22nd October 1989.
The full names of the Seven Blessed Martyrs of Songkhon are: | <urn:uuid:746fa78b-5fd3-4d4a-8b79-d9cb53bbff52> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.catholicireland.net/saintoftheday/the-thai-martyrs-of-songkhon-d-1940/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250606975.49/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122101729-20200122130729-00179.warc.gz | en | 0.98294 | 1,677 | 3.390625 | 3 | [
0.20518486201763153,
0.3175086975097656,
0.13220654428005219,
-0.19108569622039795,
-0.30917370319366455,
0.5965048670768738,
0.07808200269937515,
0.007625151891261339,
-0.035147249698638916,
-0.28971385955810547,
0.03138098865747452,
-0.04947688430547714,
0.17770931124687195,
0.5388636589... | 2 | In1940, there were pockets of religious persecution in Thailand. In the village of Songkhon, seven Catholics were martyred .
Summary:The Seven Thai Martyrs of Songkhon. In 1940 before the Japanese invasion of Thailand there was a reaction against things Western and foreign. In this atmosphere there were pockets of persecution of Christians. This led to the martyrdom of seven Catholics in the village of Songkhon in north-east Thailand. They were beatified by Pope John Paul II in 1989.
Here Patrick Duffy tells their story.
The first missionaries to Thailand were Portuguese Dominicans who in 1554 arrived in Siam, as it was then known. Siam was a Buddhist kingdom, but Christians were welcomed as bringing new knowledge. By the 19th century most Catholic missionaries were from the Paris Foreign Missions Society (Société des Missions Étrangères de Paris – MEP), living in enclaves and exempt from national jurisdiction and taxation. During the 1930s Western influence decreased, and there was a growing sense of crisis as Japan invaded China and threatened south-east Asia. The country’s name was changed to Thailand in 1939. The government adopted a nationalistic and anti-western stance, and Christianity was branded “the foreign religion”. Churches and schools were requisitioned, and Thai Christians were put under pressure. The Vichy Government established after the fall of France in 1940 allowed the Japanese to set up bases in northern Vietnam, and the Thai government responded by invading French Indo-China (present-day Laos and Cambodia). Japan invaded Thailand in 1941 to secure bases to advance into Malaya and Singapore, and the Thai government signed an alliance that lasted until the Japanese were defeated in 1945.
The village of Songkhon
In this tense atmosphere preceding the Japanese invasion the usually tolerant Thais found “the foreign religion” an easy scapegoat, although Catholicism had been in Thailand for over three hundred and fifty years. In the winter of 1940 the police moved into the village of Songkhon in the north-east, near the Mekong River, which formed the border with Laos and Cambodia. All the people in this village were Catholics. The police banished and deported the parish priest. Then, shooting guns in the air, they went from door to door intimidating the people, ordering them to abandon their faith in Christ. Naturally the people were nervous and frightened, but they remained quiet and continued to practise.
Local catechist Philip Siphong gave moral and physical support, visiting each family, praying with and encouraging them. He received a letter asking him to go to meet to the Sheriff of Mukdahan. On his way, as he passed through a forest, he was ambushed, tortured and shot. It was 16th December 1940. Villagers recovered his body. The two nuns of the Congregation of Lovers of the Holy Cross, Agnes Phila and Lucia Khambang, continued catechising in the village school, telling their pupils that Philip was a martyr. Police continued harrassment, firing guns in the air and shouting insults. They told the Sisters to dress as proper Thai women and to stop teaching Christianity.
Christmas Day confrontation
On Christmas Day, Mr. Lue, the police officer in charge of Songkhon, came to the Sisters’ house and found they were still instructing the children in the Catholic faith. The officer told the Sisters: “I’ve told you many times not to speak about Jesus. You must not mention God in Thailand, otherwise I’ll kill you all.” Sister Agnes, conscious of her role as community leader, was annoyed. She said to the police officer: “Sir, do you really mean that you will kill us all because we are Catholics and loyal to our Catholic faith?” He replied: “I do, I will kill all of you, if you continue to talk about God like this.” Sister Agnes replied: “Be sure you have enough guns and bullets.”
That same night, Sister Agnes Phila wrote a letter in the name of all who lived in the convent:
To the Chief of Police in Songkhon:
Yesterday evening you received your order to wipe out, definitely, the name of God, the Only Lord of our lives and minds. We adore Him only, Sir. A few days earlier, you had mentioned to us that you would not wipe out the name of God and we were rather pleased with that in such a way that we put away our religious habits which showed that we were His handmaids. But it is not so today. We do profess that the religion of Christ is the only true religion. Therefore, we would like to give our answer to your question, asked yesterday evening which we did not have a chance to respond to because we were unprepared for it. Now we would like to give you our answer. We are asking you to carry out your order with us. Please do not delay any longer. Please carry out your order: We are ready to give back our lives to God who has given them to us. We do not wish to be the prey of the devils. Please carry out your order. Please open the door of heaven to us so that we can confirm that outside the religion of Christ no one can go to heaven. Please do it. We are well prepared. When we will be gone, we will remember you. Please take pity on our souls. We will be thankful to you and will be grateful to you for it. And on the last day we will see each other face to face. Do wait and see, please. We keep your commands, oh God, we wish to be witnesses to You; dear God. We are: Agnes, Lucia, Phuttha, Budsi, Buakhai, Suwan. We would like to bring little Phuma along with us because we love her so much. We have already made up our minds, dear Sir.
Next day, on the feast of St Stephen, the first martyr, 26th December 1940, the police arrived at the convent and shouted: “When you are ready, Sisters, go straight to the bank of the Mekong River.” But Sister Agnes objected, “No, that is not the place for us to die for Christ. We must go to the cemetery, the holy place.” The two sisters with some women and girls walked in line to the cemetery, singing hymns. They called to the people, saying: “Good bye, we are going to heaven, we are going to become martyrs for Christ.”
A young girl in the line named Suwan was willing to become one of the martyrs. But her father, hearing what was happening, rushed to the scene and rescued his daughter, despite her pleas and her clinging to Sister Agnes. The others continued singing hymns and praying. When they arrived at the cemetery, the police shot them.
The villagers, watching the scene from the bushes, rushed in. Sister Agnes and Phorn were still alive, but badly wounded. She called back the police and they shot them dead.
Another young girl called Sorn saw that her clothes were splashed with blood, but had no bullet wounds. The bystanders told her: “You’d better run home”. So she did, and lived on in Songkhon into the late 1990s. She was an excellent catechist.
The only punishment the Chief of Police received was to be transferred to another station.
Investigation and beatification
After a canonical investigation into the case of these seven Servants of God, reports for consideration of their beatification and canonisation as martyrs of the Church were sent to the Sacred Congregation for the Causes of Saints in Rome. In a great ceremony in 1986 in the Church of the Holy Redeemer in the village of Songkhon the remains of all seven were re-interred. Pope John Paul II beatified them in Rome on Mission Sunday, 22nd October 1989.
The full names of the Seven Blessed Martyrs of Songkhon are: | 1,687 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Until the First World War, when motor vehicles became more widely available, New Zealand’s development largely relied on the power of horses. While early economic development was based on income from meat and wool, it has been said that ‘New Zealand was built as much on the horse’s as the sheep’s back’. 1
In the early 2000s, New Zealanders’ involvement with horses is still widespread, but is more often recreational than utilitarian.
The first horses in New Zealand were a stallion and two mares brought from Australia by the missionary Samuel Marsden. They arrived at Rangihoua in the Bay of Islands on 22 December 1814, on board the Active. Also on board was Ngāpuhi leader Ruatara, who had been visiting Sydney. He had been gifted one of the mares by the governor of New South Wales.
Marsden’s companion J. L. Nicholas believed the settlers would benefit greatly from ‘so serviceable and necessary an animal as the horse’. According to Nicholas, the local Māori, who had never seen such animals, ‘appeared perfectly bewildered with amazement’, and regarded them as ‘stupendous prodigies’. 2
Another account, possibly apocryphal, tells of the first time a group of Māori in the Wellington region saw a horse. It was swimming ashore from a ship. ‘We who were gathered on the beach immediately ran for our lives, for we knew a great taniwha [water monster] was making straight for us.’ After the chief Tāringa Kurī rode the horse, the tribe bought it and ‘all the members of the tribe … took a ride on the taniwha.’ 3
The importation of horses, mainly from Australia and to a lesser extent from Britain, really began in the 1840s.
By 1900 there were more than 260,000 horses in New Zealand. At its peak in 1911 the horse population reached 404,284 – about one horse for every three people. By 2004, horse numbers had reduced to 76,918.
Draught horses (or heavy horses) were used for heavy tasks such as hauling and ploughing. They were the main type in New Zealand until about 1950.
Scottish Clydesdales were imported from the 1860s. They became the main draught breed because of their strength and easy temperament. Other draught breeds included the Shire and Suffolk Punch, but their numbers remained low.
After motorised vehicles and machinery began to replace working horses in the early 20th century, horse numbers declined.
Unlike countries such as Australia and Canada, which have their own national horses (the Australian Stock Horse and the Canadian), New Zealand has not developed an official national breed.
Light horse breeds are more active, and were used mainly for riding or pulling lighter loads.
Hackneys were imported in the 1880s to pull carriages. Cleveland Bays were another carriage type, but were also used for riding and carting. Arabians and Thoroughbreds are specialist riding horses, and Thoroughbreds are the most popular racing breed. The Standardbred is used in harness racing.
A bridle is the bit, chin-strap, headpiece and reins used to control a horse. Bucking is when a horse jumps up, arching its back. A canter is a three-beat step – faster than a trot and slower than a gallop. A gelding is a castrated male horse. Hands are 4 inches, and are used to measure a horse’s height. A mare is a female horse. A stallion is an uncastrated male horse.
Cobs, which were popular riding horses, are a type rather than a breed. They are between 14 hands (1.4 metres) and 15 hands (1.5 metres) in height, stocky and strong, with a steady disposition. Crossing different breeds was very common when horses were the main means of transportation. Often a Thoroughbred would be bred with a draught horse to produce a strong and less highly strung horse, which would be useful for a variety of tasks.
In recent years some American breeds, such as the Palomino, Appaloosa and Quarter horse, have become popular sport horses.
A pony is less than 14.2 hands (1.44 metres) at the withers (between the shoulder blades), while horses are taller. Ponies often have thicker manes, tails and coats than horses. They also tend to be heavily built, with thicker necks, proportionately shorter legs and stouter bodies.
Ponies are able to thrive on poorer quality pasture and were bred for driving and hauling. They are now popular for children to ride, and for cart competitions.
There are many different breeds of ponies. The two most well-known in New Zealand are Shetland and Welsh ponies.
Horses were essential for trade and communication, carrying people, freight and mail all over the country, until the advent of trucks, cars and trains. When mechanical engines were introduced, their power was measured in terms of horsepower – the power to lift 33,000 pounds (15 tonnes) one foot (30 centimetres) high for one minute.
Horses made travel easier and faster through the rugged New Zealand landscape. Before their arrival, people travelled on foot or by water.
Until proper roads were constructed, settlers relied on bridle paths and packhorses to transport their goods. Packhorses carried everything imaginable – all kinds of equipment, household items, and even babies in their cradles.
Horses made it easier to cross waterways – a rider could cling to the mane or tail of their horse as it swam across deep or flooded rivers.
Before there were school buses to take children to school, they walked or rode ponies or horses. Some children rode up to 30 kilometres to get to school. School ponies rarely had just one rider – the whole family would clamber aboard. Ponies waited in a paddock by the school until the end of the day, and then took the children home.
Wagons or drays were wooden carts without springs, which were used by farmers and general carriers to transport a wide variety of goods. At first, heavy four-wheeled wagons pulled by bullock teams were used on untracked country. As road surfaces improved, horses took over from bullocks, cutting travel time in half.
Two-wheeled wooden carts sometimes had sprung suspension. They had many uses – carrying rubbish, night soil or mail, or as ambulances, police vans and fire engines. Butchers, bakers, grocers and milkmen all made deliveries with horse-drawn carts.
Carriages were more lightly constructed than wagons and carts, and were used for transporting people and light loads.
There was a wide variety of carriage types.
Sarah Courage describes her rough coach journey from Kaiapoi to Leithfield in 1862: ‘My arms and shoulders for days after testified to the severity of the journey, and they were all the colours of the rainbow; while my vital organs felt as if they were getting mixed up and entangled together, the coach creaking and rolling for all the world like a ship at sea.’ 1
On steep and winding routes women often carried brandy and smelling salts.
The first coach services started in the 1860s. Travelling across country by coach was slow and uncomfortable. It could sometimes be dangerous, especially on mountain roads or when attempting to ford rivers. Punts were later developed to transport coaches and horses across rivers. In the 1920s coaches still operated in areas not yet reached by the railway.
In towns, horse-drawn omnibuses (buses) appeared from the 1870s. They were replaced by horse-drawn trams in the 1880s. Those who could afford it could hire horse-drawn cabs.
Horses were indispensable on farms until the introduction of motor-driven machinery and tractors from the 1910s. By the mid-1950s, farmers’ transition from horse power to tractor power was almost complete.
Teams of draught horses, usually Clydesdales, were busy on farms throughout the year.
In spring they were hitched to ploughs, discs, grubbers and harrows, which were dragged across the soil to prepare it for planting crops. Horses pulled the seed drill for planting, and hauled the bags of seed and the fertiliser.
In summer they pulled the mower, tedder and hay rake for haymaking, and hauled hay to the stack. When the grain was ready, horse teams pulled the reaper-binder and transported the sheaves. After harvest, they were used again to lightly work the ground and sow it in pasture or a greenfeed crop.
In winter horse teams were busy carting hay for stock feed, or hauling firewood from the bush. They carted wool bales and bags of grain to town, and brought back supplies.
Many horses were required on large farms – some Canterbury and Otago estates had hundreds.
The work of Clydesdales in the development of agriculture in the Waimate area is commemorated by a statue of a white horse on the hillside overlooking the town. It was built in the late 1960s, made from 1,220 concrete slabs. Its head weighs more than 2.5 tonnes.
Compared to maintaining a tractor, looking after a team of working horses was a big job, and teamsters (people who drove the horses) worked hard. They started early in the morning to feed, groom and harness the horses, which took two hours, before heading to work. There were another two hours of feeding and grooming again at night.
Horses also had to be shod regularly. Some big stations kept their own blacksmiths, while others used a smith from the local township.
Horses ate as much as eight men or four sheep, so large amounts of valuable farmland were taken up in growing oats for them. Not surprisingly, the advent of the tractor was a great relief to farmers.
Packhorses were often the only means of getting goods and stores to remote places. For example, fencing material had to be carried to the fenceline, as did materials for mustering huts, which were built in remote places on high country stations.
When it was time to gather the sheep for shearing or to bring them down off the high country for the winter, a packman, or packy, and his team carted out supplies for the musterers. In the morning the packy cooked breakfast for the men and, once they had left to muster the sheep, he packed up camp and moved on to the next hut or campsite to prepare the evening meal. Musters could last a month or more.
Horses are rarely used on modern farms, except on a few stations where the terrain is too difficult for four-wheel-drive vehicles or motorbikes, or where the farmer prefers working with horses rather than noisy machines.
Horses are particularly useful when working large mobs of cattle. On the country’s largest station, Molesworth, the property is so vast and the stock so widespread that horses are trucked to wherever they are needed.
In the 1990s there was a revival of draught-horse breeding. Today, several teams are maintained by enthusiasts throughout the country and feature in demonstration ploughing matches at events such as A & P (agricultural and pastoral) shows.
New Zealand women appear to have had a more progressive experience with horses than women in Britain. They had more freedom and independence when it came to riding horses, and often learned to ride as children.
At first women rode, and in some cases raced, their horses with side saddles. These required sitting with both legs on the same side of the horse, with one leg secured around a padded peg. Side saddles were restrictive – women generally needed assistance mounting and dismounting, and they wore flowing, cumbersome clothing.
Around 1900 women began to ride cross saddle, at first wearing divided skirts, and later breeches under a knee-length jacket. By 1910 most women were riding astride.
An English newspaper reported on the experiences of a Miss Shaw riding horses on her visit to New Zealand: ‘[T]he great majority ride cross-saddle, and personally, out there I am convinced it is best, as it makes one more independent, and one has a chance of getting on again if one falls off … New Zealand … must be the jolliest country in the world to ride in.’ 1
Māori women also took up riding and participated in races, where they were the first women in the country to ride astride. In a ‘wahines race’ held in Waikato during the 1890s, the women rode cross saddle, tying their gowns to their ankles.
Horses were used by both sides fighting in the conflicts of the 19th century. During the first four months of 1864, 1,000 horses were shipped to New Zealand for use by the New Zealand colonial defence force.
Māori prophet and military leader Te Kooti Arikirangi Te Turuki and his men rode horses, and in the late 1860s captured many of their enemies’ mounts. When Te Kooti was defeated and fled, the horses were abandoned. It is possible that these, and other abandoned and escaped horses, are the origin of the wild horses found in the Kaimanawa Mountains.
Of the 18,000 New Zealand horses that were involved in the South African War and the First World War, no more than five or six came home. Major, belonging to Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Porter, returned to New Zealand after serving all over South Africa. Colonel C. G. Powles’ horse Bess served in the First World War, and a memorial to her stands near Flock House in Manawatū.
About 8,000 horses were sent to the South African War (1899–1902) also known as the Boer War), the first overseas conflict involving New Zealand soldiers. This campaign was notorious for the demands it placed upon horses. Once they reached South Africa, after a stressful sea journey, the horses were constantly on the move. After the war, it was thought to be too difficult to transport the battle-weary animals home, so they were sold to local farmers and foreign armies.
During the First World War, New Zealand horses were used mainly in desert campaigns in Sinai, Palestine and Egypt. Although shipping conditions had improved from the time of South African War, the horses arrived in poor health. Again, they were not brought home at the end of the war. Some were given to the British Army. There was the option of selling them to local Egyptian and Arab farmers, but they were infamous for treating animals badly, and the troops decided it would be more humane to destroy the horses.
In the mid-1950s Charles Upham, double Victoria Cross winner, established a herd of horses on his North Canterbury property. There was a variety of horses, including ex-racehorses and retired stockhorses. Within a few years the herd became feral, and when Upham’s property was sold in the 1980s there were an estimated 120 horses, running in five separate herds.
In overseas conflicts horses were used to haul heavy artillery, and as transport or pack animals. The horses worked extremely hard, carrying their riders and equipment on long marches, often with little food or water.
The horses suffered greatly from exhaustion, starvation, dehydration, and the extremes of heat and cold. Some died from disease, injury, and wounds. The companionship of the horses, and the job of caring for them, helped soldiers cope with the pressures of war.
New Zealand horses gained an excellent international reputation during the South African War, proving to be superior to British and Australian horses. The Rough Riders, as the soldiers of the Third Contingent were known, were well-known as good horsemen and marksmen.
Action in the First World War further strengthened the reputation of New Zealand horses as being some of the best bred in the world.
Horses played a vital part in transforming New Zealand’s landscape in the 19th century.
Millions of acres of forest, tussocklands and swamp were converted into pasture with the help of horse power. Horses were used for stumping (pulling out tree roots) and hauling away logs so the area could be grassed.
Horses carted settlers and their supplies, and provided the power for ploughing and cultivation. They also carted wool and grain to ports and, later, to the railway.
There have been wild horses in the central North Island since about the 1870s. They are thought to originate from both military and Māori horses, as well as some released or escaped from local sheep stations.
In 1979 there were 174 horses recorded in the southern Kaimanawa area. Official monitoring began in 1981, and a protected area for the horses was established. Since then, horse numbers have increased, and in April 1997 there were about 1,700.
The large number and range of the horses caused concern about their effects on rare native plants in the area. In August 1997 the herd was mustered and many were sold at auction. Musters have continued to control the size of the herd.
Boy racers, who race their cars around the streets of cities and towns, are seen as a modern problem, but the phenomenon is not new. In colonial New Zealand young men from farms would come to town on a weekend and gallop their horses up and down the main street. Many were charged with ‘furious riding’ in the Monday sessions of the magistrate’s court.
Many early settlements developed around 16 miles (26 kilometres) apart – the distance a horse could travel in a day. Towns such as Cust in Canterbury and Havelock North in Hawke’s Bay developed from places where stage coaches stopped, and some settlements grew up around blacksmiths and farriers (who care for horses’ hooves).
Until the early 20th century, towns usually had stables and horse paddocks in the suburbs. There were water troughs on the street, and hitching posts on hotel verandahs and shop fronts. Heavy horse-drawn traffic often turned the streets to mud. In summer they dried out, and the problem was dust blowing about.
Horses have always been a part of the recreational activities of many New Zealanders. In the early 2000s participation in horse sports was common and activities such as horse trekking formed an important part of New Zealand’s tourism industry.
The battle scenes in the third instalment of Peter Jackson’s Lord of the rings trilogy used 250 horses. Filming took place on Ben Ohau Station, near Twizel, in 2000. Horses and riders were well looked after on set, and one rider said of his experience: ‘I wouldn’t miss this for anything. I’m putting on weight, and so is my horse.’ 1
Horse racing was one of the earliest organised sports in New Zealand. The first horse race was probably in the Bay of Islands in 1835, and a military garrison organised to race their troop horses in 1840. Other official meetings were held in 1841 in Auckland and Wellington. In that same year, a race along Petone beach featured Figaro, New Zealand’s first Thoroughbred horse.
Horse racing flourished throughout the country, attracting many participants, both Māori and Pākehā. It quickly became a highly organised and lucrative industry, producing some of the best bloodstock in the world.
In 1846, Scotsman Alexander Marjoribanks bemoaned the English settlers’ love of horse racing: ‘It is curious that the English cannot settle down quietly, even in a new country, without wasting their time and money on these two most absurd of all absurdities, namely horse races, and public dinners.’ He thought it especially ludicrous ‘in a wilderness’ such as New Zealand, where ‘a couple of working bullocks are intrinsically more valuable … than all the race horses in the world.’ 2
In winter racing often includes steeplechases, in which the horses jump over obstacles such as fences or water hazards. The first New Zealand Grand National Steeplechase was held at Waimate in 1875, but is now held annually at Riccarton, Christchurch.
Harness racing was a later addition to the horse racing calendar. The Auckland Trotting Club was established in 1890 and the first New Zealand Trotting Cup was run at Addington, Christchurch, in 1904. The inter-dominion series, competed for between Australian and New Zealand horses, is one of the world’s great harness racing competitions. It began as the Australasian Championship in 1935–36.
Although harness races are colloquially known as the trots, there are races for both trotters and pacers, which have different gaits or running styles. Trotters have a diagonal gait (they move their front leg and opposite rear leg together), whereas pacers have a lateral gait (they move the front and rear legs on the same side at the same time). Most harness races involve handicapping with staggered starts, but in free-for-alls all horses start from the same mark.
New Zealand equestrian activities have been largely modelled on British traditions, and have been important events at A & P (agricultural and pastoral) shows. In 1950 the New Zealand Horse Society (now known as Equestrian Sports New Zealand) was established to administer the sport, following Fédération Equestre Internationale rules. Equestrian events include dressage, cross-country, and show jumping, at which several New Zealand riders have found Olympic success.
Other horse sports include polo and hunting. Polo clubs were formed from 1890, and the New Zealand Polo Association was established in 1891. New Zealand hunts are modelled after British fox hunting, but instead the quarry is a hare and the horses jump over wire fences. The first was the Pakuranga Hunt, in 1872.
New Zealand’s first pony club was established in Heretaunga, Hawke’s Bay, in 1946, modelled closely on English pony clubs. Pony clubs provide instruction in riding and pony handling, and hold gymkhanas – multi-game equestrian events. Today, with over 8,500 members, the New Zealand Pony Club Association is one of the largest sporting organisations for young people in the country.
Organised rodeo did not appear in New Zealand until the early 1960s, and a national championship began in 1973. In the early 2000s, rodeos were held all over the country, and some New Zealand riders were successful on the American and Australian rodeo circuits.
Events involving horses include the bareback and saddle bronc ride, barrel race, rope and tie, and steer wrestling (or bulldogging).
Brooking, Tom. ‘The equine factor: the powerhouse of the colonisation of New Zealand to 1945.’ In On the horse’s back: proceedings of the 2004 conference of the New Zealand Society of Genealogists, edited by Lily Baker, 53–60. Auckland: New Zealand Society of Genealogists, 2004.
Holden, Duncan, ed. The New Zealand horseman. Wellington: A. H. & A. W. Reed, 1967.
Macfarlane, L. R. C. Eighty years with horses. Wellington: A. H. & A. W. Reed, 1973.
McClelland, Len. The horse in New Zealand. Auckland: Collins, 1975.
Wilson, Marcus. The good steed : the experience of New Zealand’s military horse during the Anglo-Boer War and World War One. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag, 2008. | <urn:uuid:decbcb44-92f0-4bf2-8356-d46cb070b0d1> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://teara.govt.nz/mi/horses/print | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251689924.62/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126135207-20200126165207-00237.warc.gz | en | 0.980857 | 5,021 | 3.40625 | 3 | [
0.010316997766494751,
0.279880553483963,
0.22115346789360046,
0.16380757093429565,
-0.5950459241867065,
0.23944896459579468,
-0.22560875117778778,
0.2626122236251831,
0.11641737073659897,
0.39444059133529663,
0.09034062922000885,
-0.31692805886268616,
0.4558880925178528,
0.6313021779060364... | 5 | Until the First World War, when motor vehicles became more widely available, New Zealand’s development largely relied on the power of horses. While early economic development was based on income from meat and wool, it has been said that ‘New Zealand was built as much on the horse’s as the sheep’s back’. 1
In the early 2000s, New Zealanders’ involvement with horses is still widespread, but is more often recreational than utilitarian.
The first horses in New Zealand were a stallion and two mares brought from Australia by the missionary Samuel Marsden. They arrived at Rangihoua in the Bay of Islands on 22 December 1814, on board the Active. Also on board was Ngāpuhi leader Ruatara, who had been visiting Sydney. He had been gifted one of the mares by the governor of New South Wales.
Marsden’s companion J. L. Nicholas believed the settlers would benefit greatly from ‘so serviceable and necessary an animal as the horse’. According to Nicholas, the local Māori, who had never seen such animals, ‘appeared perfectly bewildered with amazement’, and regarded them as ‘stupendous prodigies’. 2
Another account, possibly apocryphal, tells of the first time a group of Māori in the Wellington region saw a horse. It was swimming ashore from a ship. ‘We who were gathered on the beach immediately ran for our lives, for we knew a great taniwha [water monster] was making straight for us.’ After the chief Tāringa Kurī rode the horse, the tribe bought it and ‘all the members of the tribe … took a ride on the taniwha.’ 3
The importation of horses, mainly from Australia and to a lesser extent from Britain, really began in the 1840s.
By 1900 there were more than 260,000 horses in New Zealand. At its peak in 1911 the horse population reached 404,284 – about one horse for every three people. By 2004, horse numbers had reduced to 76,918.
Draught horses (or heavy horses) were used for heavy tasks such as hauling and ploughing. They were the main type in New Zealand until about 1950.
Scottish Clydesdales were imported from the 1860s. They became the main draught breed because of their strength and easy temperament. Other draught breeds included the Shire and Suffolk Punch, but their numbers remained low.
After motorised vehicles and machinery began to replace working horses in the early 20th century, horse numbers declined.
Unlike countries such as Australia and Canada, which have their own national horses (the Australian Stock Horse and the Canadian), New Zealand has not developed an official national breed.
Light horse breeds are more active, and were used mainly for riding or pulling lighter loads.
Hackneys were imported in the 1880s to pull carriages. Cleveland Bays were another carriage type, but were also used for riding and carting. Arabians and Thoroughbreds are specialist riding horses, and Thoroughbreds are the most popular racing breed. The Standardbred is used in harness racing.
A bridle is the bit, chin-strap, headpiece and reins used to control a horse. Bucking is when a horse jumps up, arching its back. A canter is a three-beat step – faster than a trot and slower than a gallop. A gelding is a castrated male horse. Hands are 4 inches, and are used to measure a horse’s height. A mare is a female horse. A stallion is an uncastrated male horse.
Cobs, which were popular riding horses, are a type rather than a breed. They are between 14 hands (1.4 metres) and 15 hands (1.5 metres) in height, stocky and strong, with a steady disposition. Crossing different breeds was very common when horses were the main means of transportation. Often a Thoroughbred would be bred with a draught horse to produce a strong and less highly strung horse, which would be useful for a variety of tasks.
In recent years some American breeds, such as the Palomino, Appaloosa and Quarter horse, have become popular sport horses.
A pony is less than 14.2 hands (1.44 metres) at the withers (between the shoulder blades), while horses are taller. Ponies often have thicker manes, tails and coats than horses. They also tend to be heavily built, with thicker necks, proportionately shorter legs and stouter bodies.
Ponies are able to thrive on poorer quality pasture and were bred for driving and hauling. They are now popular for children to ride, and for cart competitions.
There are many different breeds of ponies. The two most well-known in New Zealand are Shetland and Welsh ponies.
Horses were essential for trade and communication, carrying people, freight and mail all over the country, until the advent of trucks, cars and trains. When mechanical engines were introduced, their power was measured in terms of horsepower – the power to lift 33,000 pounds (15 tonnes) one foot (30 centimetres) high for one minute.
Horses made travel easier and faster through the rugged New Zealand landscape. Before their arrival, people travelled on foot or by water.
Until proper roads were constructed, settlers relied on bridle paths and packhorses to transport their goods. Packhorses carried everything imaginable – all kinds of equipment, household items, and even babies in their cradles.
Horses made it easier to cross waterways – a rider could cling to the mane or tail of their horse as it swam across deep or flooded rivers.
Before there were school buses to take children to school, they walked or rode ponies or horses. Some children rode up to 30 kilometres to get to school. School ponies rarely had just one rider – the whole family would clamber aboard. Ponies waited in a paddock by the school until the end of the day, and then took the children home.
Wagons or drays were wooden carts without springs, which were used by farmers and general carriers to transport a wide variety of goods. At first, heavy four-wheeled wagons pulled by bullock teams were used on untracked country. As road surfaces improved, horses took over from bullocks, cutting travel time in half.
Two-wheeled wooden carts sometimes had sprung suspension. They had many uses – carrying rubbish, night soil or mail, or as ambulances, police vans and fire engines. Butchers, bakers, grocers and milkmen all made deliveries with horse-drawn carts.
Carriages were more lightly constructed than wagons and carts, and were used for transporting people and light loads.
There was a wide variety of carriage types.
Sarah Courage describes her rough coach journey from Kaiapoi to Leithfield in 1862: ‘My arms and shoulders for days after testified to the severity of the journey, and they were all the colours of the rainbow; while my vital organs felt as if they were getting mixed up and entangled together, the coach creaking and rolling for all the world like a ship at sea.’ 1
On steep and winding routes women often carried brandy and smelling salts.
The first coach services started in the 1860s. Travelling across country by coach was slow and uncomfortable. It could sometimes be dangerous, especially on mountain roads or when attempting to ford rivers. Punts were later developed to transport coaches and horses across rivers. In the 1920s coaches still operated in areas not yet reached by the railway.
In towns, horse-drawn omnibuses (buses) appeared from the 1870s. They were replaced by horse-drawn trams in the 1880s. Those who could afford it could hire horse-drawn cabs.
Horses were indispensable on farms until the introduction of motor-driven machinery and tractors from the 1910s. By the mid-1950s, farmers’ transition from horse power to tractor power was almost complete.
Teams of draught horses, usually Clydesdales, were busy on farms throughout the year.
In spring they were hitched to ploughs, discs, grubbers and harrows, which were dragged across the soil to prepare it for planting crops. Horses pulled the seed drill for planting, and hauled the bags of seed and the fertiliser.
In summer they pulled the mower, tedder and hay rake for haymaking, and hauled hay to the stack. When the grain was ready, horse teams pulled the reaper-binder and transported the sheaves. After harvest, they were used again to lightly work the ground and sow it in pasture or a greenfeed crop.
In winter horse teams were busy carting hay for stock feed, or hauling firewood from the bush. They carted wool bales and bags of grain to town, and brought back supplies.
Many horses were required on large farms – some Canterbury and Otago estates had hundreds.
The work of Clydesdales in the development of agriculture in the Waimate area is commemorated by a statue of a white horse on the hillside overlooking the town. It was built in the late 1960s, made from 1,220 concrete slabs. Its head weighs more than 2.5 tonnes.
Compared to maintaining a tractor, looking after a team of working horses was a big job, and teamsters (people who drove the horses) worked hard. They started early in the morning to feed, groom and harness the horses, which took two hours, before heading to work. There were another two hours of feeding and grooming again at night.
Horses also had to be shod regularly. Some big stations kept their own blacksmiths, while others used a smith from the local township.
Horses ate as much as eight men or four sheep, so large amounts of valuable farmland were taken up in growing oats for them. Not surprisingly, the advent of the tractor was a great relief to farmers.
Packhorses were often the only means of getting goods and stores to remote places. For example, fencing material had to be carried to the fenceline, as did materials for mustering huts, which were built in remote places on high country stations.
When it was time to gather the sheep for shearing or to bring them down off the high country for the winter, a packman, or packy, and his team carted out supplies for the musterers. In the morning the packy cooked breakfast for the men and, once they had left to muster the sheep, he packed up camp and moved on to the next hut or campsite to prepare the evening meal. Musters could last a month or more.
Horses are rarely used on modern farms, except on a few stations where the terrain is too difficult for four-wheel-drive vehicles or motorbikes, or where the farmer prefers working with horses rather than noisy machines.
Horses are particularly useful when working large mobs of cattle. On the country’s largest station, Molesworth, the property is so vast and the stock so widespread that horses are trucked to wherever they are needed.
In the 1990s there was a revival of draught-horse breeding. Today, several teams are maintained by enthusiasts throughout the country and feature in demonstration ploughing matches at events such as A & P (agricultural and pastoral) shows.
New Zealand women appear to have had a more progressive experience with horses than women in Britain. They had more freedom and independence when it came to riding horses, and often learned to ride as children.
At first women rode, and in some cases raced, their horses with side saddles. These required sitting with both legs on the same side of the horse, with one leg secured around a padded peg. Side saddles were restrictive – women generally needed assistance mounting and dismounting, and they wore flowing, cumbersome clothing.
Around 1900 women began to ride cross saddle, at first wearing divided skirts, and later breeches under a knee-length jacket. By 1910 most women were riding astride.
An English newspaper reported on the experiences of a Miss Shaw riding horses on her visit to New Zealand: ‘[T]he great majority ride cross-saddle, and personally, out there I am convinced it is best, as it makes one more independent, and one has a chance of getting on again if one falls off … New Zealand … must be the jolliest country in the world to ride in.’ 1
Māori women also took up riding and participated in races, where they were the first women in the country to ride astride. In a ‘wahines race’ held in Waikato during the 1890s, the women rode cross saddle, tying their gowns to their ankles.
Horses were used by both sides fighting in the conflicts of the 19th century. During the first four months of 1864, 1,000 horses were shipped to New Zealand for use by the New Zealand colonial defence force.
Māori prophet and military leader Te Kooti Arikirangi Te Turuki and his men rode horses, and in the late 1860s captured many of their enemies’ mounts. When Te Kooti was defeated and fled, the horses were abandoned. It is possible that these, and other abandoned and escaped horses, are the origin of the wild horses found in the Kaimanawa Mountains.
Of the 18,000 New Zealand horses that were involved in the South African War and the First World War, no more than five or six came home. Major, belonging to Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Porter, returned to New Zealand after serving all over South Africa. Colonel C. G. Powles’ horse Bess served in the First World War, and a memorial to her stands near Flock House in Manawatū.
About 8,000 horses were sent to the South African War (1899–1902) also known as the Boer War), the first overseas conflict involving New Zealand soldiers. This campaign was notorious for the demands it placed upon horses. Once they reached South Africa, after a stressful sea journey, the horses were constantly on the move. After the war, it was thought to be too difficult to transport the battle-weary animals home, so they were sold to local farmers and foreign armies.
During the First World War, New Zealand horses were used mainly in desert campaigns in Sinai, Palestine and Egypt. Although shipping conditions had improved from the time of South African War, the horses arrived in poor health. Again, they were not brought home at the end of the war. Some were given to the British Army. There was the option of selling them to local Egyptian and Arab farmers, but they were infamous for treating animals badly, and the troops decided it would be more humane to destroy the horses.
In the mid-1950s Charles Upham, double Victoria Cross winner, established a herd of horses on his North Canterbury property. There was a variety of horses, including ex-racehorses and retired stockhorses. Within a few years the herd became feral, and when Upham’s property was sold in the 1980s there were an estimated 120 horses, running in five separate herds.
In overseas conflicts horses were used to haul heavy artillery, and as transport or pack animals. The horses worked extremely hard, carrying their riders and equipment on long marches, often with little food or water.
The horses suffered greatly from exhaustion, starvation, dehydration, and the extremes of heat and cold. Some died from disease, injury, and wounds. The companionship of the horses, and the job of caring for them, helped soldiers cope with the pressures of war.
New Zealand horses gained an excellent international reputation during the South African War, proving to be superior to British and Australian horses. The Rough Riders, as the soldiers of the Third Contingent were known, were well-known as good horsemen and marksmen.
Action in the First World War further strengthened the reputation of New Zealand horses as being some of the best bred in the world.
Horses played a vital part in transforming New Zealand’s landscape in the 19th century.
Millions of acres of forest, tussocklands and swamp were converted into pasture with the help of horse power. Horses were used for stumping (pulling out tree roots) and hauling away logs so the area could be grassed.
Horses carted settlers and their supplies, and provided the power for ploughing and cultivation. They also carted wool and grain to ports and, later, to the railway.
There have been wild horses in the central North Island since about the 1870s. They are thought to originate from both military and Māori horses, as well as some released or escaped from local sheep stations.
In 1979 there were 174 horses recorded in the southern Kaimanawa area. Official monitoring began in 1981, and a protected area for the horses was established. Since then, horse numbers have increased, and in April 1997 there were about 1,700.
The large number and range of the horses caused concern about their effects on rare native plants in the area. In August 1997 the herd was mustered and many were sold at auction. Musters have continued to control the size of the herd.
Boy racers, who race their cars around the streets of cities and towns, are seen as a modern problem, but the phenomenon is not new. In colonial New Zealand young men from farms would come to town on a weekend and gallop their horses up and down the main street. Many were charged with ‘furious riding’ in the Monday sessions of the magistrate’s court.
Many early settlements developed around 16 miles (26 kilometres) apart – the distance a horse could travel in a day. Towns such as Cust in Canterbury and Havelock North in Hawke’s Bay developed from places where stage coaches stopped, and some settlements grew up around blacksmiths and farriers (who care for horses’ hooves).
Until the early 20th century, towns usually had stables and horse paddocks in the suburbs. There were water troughs on the street, and hitching posts on hotel verandahs and shop fronts. Heavy horse-drawn traffic often turned the streets to mud. In summer they dried out, and the problem was dust blowing about.
Horses have always been a part of the recreational activities of many New Zealanders. In the early 2000s participation in horse sports was common and activities such as horse trekking formed an important part of New Zealand’s tourism industry.
The battle scenes in the third instalment of Peter Jackson’s Lord of the rings trilogy used 250 horses. Filming took place on Ben Ohau Station, near Twizel, in 2000. Horses and riders were well looked after on set, and one rider said of his experience: ‘I wouldn’t miss this for anything. I’m putting on weight, and so is my horse.’ 1
Horse racing was one of the earliest organised sports in New Zealand. The first horse race was probably in the Bay of Islands in 1835, and a military garrison organised to race their troop horses in 1840. Other official meetings were held in 1841 in Auckland and Wellington. In that same year, a race along Petone beach featured Figaro, New Zealand’s first Thoroughbred horse.
Horse racing flourished throughout the country, attracting many participants, both Māori and Pākehā. It quickly became a highly organised and lucrative industry, producing some of the best bloodstock in the world.
In 1846, Scotsman Alexander Marjoribanks bemoaned the English settlers’ love of horse racing: ‘It is curious that the English cannot settle down quietly, even in a new country, without wasting their time and money on these two most absurd of all absurdities, namely horse races, and public dinners.’ He thought it especially ludicrous ‘in a wilderness’ such as New Zealand, where ‘a couple of working bullocks are intrinsically more valuable … than all the race horses in the world.’ 2
In winter racing often includes steeplechases, in which the horses jump over obstacles such as fences or water hazards. The first New Zealand Grand National Steeplechase was held at Waimate in 1875, but is now held annually at Riccarton, Christchurch.
Harness racing was a later addition to the horse racing calendar. The Auckland Trotting Club was established in 1890 and the first New Zealand Trotting Cup was run at Addington, Christchurch, in 1904. The inter-dominion series, competed for between Australian and New Zealand horses, is one of the world’s great harness racing competitions. It began as the Australasian Championship in 1935–36.
Although harness races are colloquially known as the trots, there are races for both trotters and pacers, which have different gaits or running styles. Trotters have a diagonal gait (they move their front leg and opposite rear leg together), whereas pacers have a lateral gait (they move the front and rear legs on the same side at the same time). Most harness races involve handicapping with staggered starts, but in free-for-alls all horses start from the same mark.
New Zealand equestrian activities have been largely modelled on British traditions, and have been important events at A & P (agricultural and pastoral) shows. In 1950 the New Zealand Horse Society (now known as Equestrian Sports New Zealand) was established to administer the sport, following Fédération Equestre Internationale rules. Equestrian events include dressage, cross-country, and show jumping, at which several New Zealand riders have found Olympic success.
Other horse sports include polo and hunting. Polo clubs were formed from 1890, and the New Zealand Polo Association was established in 1891. New Zealand hunts are modelled after British fox hunting, but instead the quarry is a hare and the horses jump over wire fences. The first was the Pakuranga Hunt, in 1872.
New Zealand’s first pony club was established in Heretaunga, Hawke’s Bay, in 1946, modelled closely on English pony clubs. Pony clubs provide instruction in riding and pony handling, and hold gymkhanas – multi-game equestrian events. Today, with over 8,500 members, the New Zealand Pony Club Association is one of the largest sporting organisations for young people in the country.
Organised rodeo did not appear in New Zealand until the early 1960s, and a national championship began in 1973. In the early 2000s, rodeos were held all over the country, and some New Zealand riders were successful on the American and Australian rodeo circuits.
Events involving horses include the bareback and saddle bronc ride, barrel race, rope and tie, and steer wrestling (or bulldogging).
Brooking, Tom. ‘The equine factor: the powerhouse of the colonisation of New Zealand to 1945.’ In On the horse’s back: proceedings of the 2004 conference of the New Zealand Society of Genealogists, edited by Lily Baker, 53–60. Auckland: New Zealand Society of Genealogists, 2004.
Holden, Duncan, ed. The New Zealand horseman. Wellington: A. H. & A. W. Reed, 1967.
Macfarlane, L. R. C. Eighty years with horses. Wellington: A. H. & A. W. Reed, 1973.
McClelland, Len. The horse in New Zealand. Auckland: Collins, 1975.
Wilson, Marcus. The good steed : the experience of New Zealand’s military horse during the Anglo-Boer War and World War One. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag, 2008. | 5,141 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Excavations in an ancient Roman cemetery turned eerie last summer. The remains of a roughly 10-year-old child lay in one grave. This youngster may have been the victim of malaria. But the odd part was that, as part of a funeral ritual, someone had inserted a stone into the child’s mouth. Such a ritual was meant to prevent the body from rising like a zombie and spreading disease to the living, researchers say.
The discovery of this “vampire burial” occurred at the Cemetery of the Babies. It’s a mid-fifth-century site in central Italy. Archaeologist David Pickel of Stanford University in California led the excavation.
A malaria outbreak in the region killed many babies and young children around the time of the child’s burial. There were more than 50 previously excavated graves at the cemetery. Of those, the oldest remains were those of a 3-year-old child. Bones of several kids buried there have yielded DNA of malaria parasites.
Several other vampire burials had been found before this one. These included a 16th century woman from Venice, Italy. She had been buried with a brick in her mouth. And a man from third or fourth century England was found with his tongue cut out and replaced with a stone. Vampire burials display signs of a belief that the dead could come back to life, archaeologists say.
Many infants and toddlers at the Italian site were buried with objects linked with beliefs in witchcraft and magic. These include raven talons and toad bones. And stones had been placed on the hands and feet of the 3-year-old. This was another practice used by various cultures to hold the dead down in their graves.
Such rituals attempted to keep the bodies from getting out and spreading whatever evil had led to their deaths, says David Soren. He is an archaeologist at the University of Arizona in Tucson. He participated in the new dig.
The results were announced in an October 11 statement. They will be presented in January at the Archaeological Institute of America’s annual meeting in San Diego, Calif. | <urn:uuid:07b104de-7b00-4efa-bbdc-5e1ba8557e92> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/ancient-childs-vampire-burial-suggests-romans-feared-walking-dead | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250595787.7/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119234426-20200120022426-00548.warc.gz | en | 0.983891 | 432 | 3.53125 | 4 | [
-0.5482977032661438,
0.4787581264972687,
0.4947170615196228,
0.29210513830184937,
-0.3384050726890564,
0.09351673722267151,
-0.22829224169254303,
0.09659633785486221,
-0.08578556030988693,
0.012815752997994423,
0.38115525245666504,
-0.09318723529577255,
-0.05816156789660454,
0.736361205577... | 10 | Excavations in an ancient Roman cemetery turned eerie last summer. The remains of a roughly 10-year-old child lay in one grave. This youngster may have been the victim of malaria. But the odd part was that, as part of a funeral ritual, someone had inserted a stone into the child’s mouth. Such a ritual was meant to prevent the body from rising like a zombie and spreading disease to the living, researchers say.
The discovery of this “vampire burial” occurred at the Cemetery of the Babies. It’s a mid-fifth-century site in central Italy. Archaeologist David Pickel of Stanford University in California led the excavation.
A malaria outbreak in the region killed many babies and young children around the time of the child’s burial. There were more than 50 previously excavated graves at the cemetery. Of those, the oldest remains were those of a 3-year-old child. Bones of several kids buried there have yielded DNA of malaria parasites.
Several other vampire burials had been found before this one. These included a 16th century woman from Venice, Italy. She had been buried with a brick in her mouth. And a man from third or fourth century England was found with his tongue cut out and replaced with a stone. Vampire burials display signs of a belief that the dead could come back to life, archaeologists say.
Many infants and toddlers at the Italian site were buried with objects linked with beliefs in witchcraft and magic. These include raven talons and toad bones. And stones had been placed on the hands and feet of the 3-year-old. This was another practice used by various cultures to hold the dead down in their graves.
Such rituals attempted to keep the bodies from getting out and spreading whatever evil had led to their deaths, says David Soren. He is an archaeologist at the University of Arizona in Tucson. He participated in the new dig.
The results were announced in an October 11 statement. They will be presented in January at the Archaeological Institute of America’s annual meeting in San Diego, Calif. | 421 | ENGLISH | 1 |
9 Gardiner’s Quarry
Thomas Gardiner ran this quarry in the late 19th century. It was at its peak during WW1, but closed in the 1930s. It is now maintained as a geological feature and car park by the Malvern Hills Trust, assisted by volunteers from the Earth Heritage Trust. The quarry is notable for showing a ‘shear zone’ typical of a large fault in the Precambrian rock of the Malverns Complex. The shear zone is the area in which the rock has become crushed and altered as the fault has moved. There are many other similar quarries in the Malverns, none now working.
The main body of rock in the quarry is diorite, a coarse-grained, grey-coloured igneous rock. Much of the rock face is fractured, a result of immense forces that have been exerted on the rock since it was formed. About 30m to the left of the Interpretation Board, you will see a small scree slope at the foot of the rock face. Above, a block of highly fractured rock sits between two faults, in what is called a shear zone. The rocks here have a lighter, pinkish colour compared to the diorite, and have moved against each other to become crushed and shattered. You can easily examine these individual rock fragments by picking one up from the foot of the scree. The fault is thought to continue downslope in a north-westerly direction through the parish of Colwall.
Quarrying in the Malverns
Until the 19th century, quarrying of the hard Precambrian rocks was small scale and very localised. (see photo). However, in the surrounding limestone hills, quarrying for lime for agricultural purposes was much more widespread. The need for hard roadstone in the early 20th century led to considerable demand for crushed Malvern stone, including here at Gardiner’s quarry. The stone was also used to a limited extent for buildings, but was difficult to work as building stone. Widespread protests about the impact of quarrying eventually led to total closure.
Battle of the quarries
With the expansion of quarries in the 20th century, considerable concerns were expressed by local residents and others about the impact of the industry on the Hills. Noise, danger, visual impact, and erosion were among the issues. Some quarries became quite large, notably Tank, North, Earnslaw and Gullet quarries. When the Malvern Hills Conservators were established to look after the Hills in 1884, landowners were guaranteed their ancient quarrying rights. The struggle between quarry owners and the Conservators reached a climax in the 1930’s. Eventually, after the second World War, the problem was settled and quarrying rights were gradually bought out by the Conservators. All quarrying finally ceased in the 1970’s. Most of these old quarries have now become partly overgrown. Many people regard them as picturesque and very much part of the scenic attraction of the Malverns.
Task Site 9 Question
Why is there now no active quarrying on the Malverns?
a) They ran out of rock
b) Concern about environmental impact
c) It became uneconomic | <urn:uuid:acc4b114-5c1e-408f-80d9-88c6dc92e2ab> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://deeptime.voyage/mh9/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250626449.79/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124221147-20200125010147-00332.warc.gz | en | 0.98279 | 667 | 3.609375 | 4 | [
-0.23535393178462982,
-0.4015999734401703,
0.27289682626724243,
0.3763469159603119,
-0.47737282514572144,
0.4240609407424927,
-0.03386196494102478,
0.04467816650867462,
-0.45655393600463867,
-0.031778134405612946,
0.14729222655296326,
-0.4538280963897705,
0.27128249406814575,
0.41807448863... | 10 | 9 Gardiner’s Quarry
Thomas Gardiner ran this quarry in the late 19th century. It was at its peak during WW1, but closed in the 1930s. It is now maintained as a geological feature and car park by the Malvern Hills Trust, assisted by volunteers from the Earth Heritage Trust. The quarry is notable for showing a ‘shear zone’ typical of a large fault in the Precambrian rock of the Malverns Complex. The shear zone is the area in which the rock has become crushed and altered as the fault has moved. There are many other similar quarries in the Malverns, none now working.
The main body of rock in the quarry is diorite, a coarse-grained, grey-coloured igneous rock. Much of the rock face is fractured, a result of immense forces that have been exerted on the rock since it was formed. About 30m to the left of the Interpretation Board, you will see a small scree slope at the foot of the rock face. Above, a block of highly fractured rock sits between two faults, in what is called a shear zone. The rocks here have a lighter, pinkish colour compared to the diorite, and have moved against each other to become crushed and shattered. You can easily examine these individual rock fragments by picking one up from the foot of the scree. The fault is thought to continue downslope in a north-westerly direction through the parish of Colwall.
Quarrying in the Malverns
Until the 19th century, quarrying of the hard Precambrian rocks was small scale and very localised. (see photo). However, in the surrounding limestone hills, quarrying for lime for agricultural purposes was much more widespread. The need for hard roadstone in the early 20th century led to considerable demand for crushed Malvern stone, including here at Gardiner’s quarry. The stone was also used to a limited extent for buildings, but was difficult to work as building stone. Widespread protests about the impact of quarrying eventually led to total closure.
Battle of the quarries
With the expansion of quarries in the 20th century, considerable concerns were expressed by local residents and others about the impact of the industry on the Hills. Noise, danger, visual impact, and erosion were among the issues. Some quarries became quite large, notably Tank, North, Earnslaw and Gullet quarries. When the Malvern Hills Conservators were established to look after the Hills in 1884, landowners were guaranteed their ancient quarrying rights. The struggle between quarry owners and the Conservators reached a climax in the 1930’s. Eventually, after the second World War, the problem was settled and quarrying rights were gradually bought out by the Conservators. All quarrying finally ceased in the 1970’s. Most of these old quarries have now become partly overgrown. Many people regard them as picturesque and very much part of the scenic attraction of the Malverns.
Task Site 9 Question
Why is there now no active quarrying on the Malverns?
a) They ran out of rock
b) Concern about environmental impact
c) It became uneconomic | 675 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Machiavelli: The Prince. Translated and edited by Quentin Skinner & Russell Price. Takes place from 1469-1532.
II. Synopsis The Prince was written by Niccolò Machiavelli, who lived in Italy at a time where there was much political conflict and turmoil. Many city-states fought for Italy’s control, along with outside countries like Spain, France, and Rome. Machiavelli lived in Florence, which was a city-state in Italy looking to come into control of the country. Machiavelli had many motives to write The Prince, but his main reason came after many French invasions on Italy. Machiavelli’s attitudes towards government were formed through these events and influenced him to write his thought and advice in a book. Machiavelli composed The Prince as a practical guide for ruling a government. He dedicated the book to Lorenzo de’ Medici, the ruler of Florence at that time. Machiavelli’s intentions are to give practical and logical advice to the current ruler regarding free will, virtue, and war strategies. Machiavelli’s book distinguishes itself on these very important principles in order to have a successful and unified city-state. Machiavelli particularly focuses on free will and how we have the human power to control our outcome and destiny. Most people looked at disasters, famines, and plagues as divine destiny and out of the scope of human power. In The Prince, Machiavelli argues that free will, as opposed to divine destiny, is the ability to have prowess over fortune and the self-determination to be prepared for anything and achieve desired outcomes. “Prowess” refers to an individual’s talents, while “fortune” implies chance or luck. Machiavelli investigates the success of a ruler through his free will and prowess compared to his fortune and the environment in which he lives. He spoke many times of prosperous Italian rulers that fell because they became too comfortable and were not prepared for perilous times. QUOTE. He reiterated the importance of consistency in how a prince should treat his subjects, making sure to abide by the traditions and laws of the people. Strong states are built off strong foundations, which are established from two basic components; good laws and good armies. Good laws cannot exist without good armies, and having good armies indicates the presence of good laws.
III. Author’s Purpose
The Prince was dedicated to the current ruler of Florence, Lorenzo de’ Medici, and was intended as a practical guide for rulers of states, which can be classified as either republics or principalities. Each has its own obstacles but the purpose of Machiavelli’s writings is to allow any ruler to be able to prosper and gain the respect of his subjects by following the principles found in The Prince. Machiavelli’s writings were meant to be taken seriously; however, the public did not receive the book as he had hoped. The Prince was criticized as being immoral and unethical by the public, and was later criticized by the man to whom it was dedicated, Lorenzo de’ Medici.
One of the rather intriguing analogies that Niccolò Machiavelli gives in his book is the analogy of a mountain. When a man is standing on top of a mountain, he has a great view of everything below him. However, a man standing at the bottom of a mountain has a better view of the mountain itself. Both point of views are important to understand the beauty of the mountain. That is why Machiavelli decided to write The Prince; simply to give a perspective of the government from a different standpoint; from the people. Princes and rulers already know what it is like at the top, but what Machiavelli did in his book was show the importance of understanding the interests and needs of the people as well. He emphasized the importance of having a solid structure and foundation in having a successful government for the people. A foundation built upon a strong military unit means that the laws of the… | <urn:uuid:ab634204-3c4a-4351-8dd3-152d53f54b25> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.majortests.com/essay/World-Civilization-Primary-Source-Paper-534854.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250601040.47/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120224950-20200121013950-00114.warc.gz | en | 0.982278 | 840 | 3.640625 | 4 | [
-0.33125388622283936,
0.39276617765426636,
0.4782984256744385,
0.023364700376987457,
-0.45478296279907227,
0.0570281520485878,
0.3739355802536011,
0.3432770371437073,
-0.21490445733070374,
0.2664968967437744,
0.308300256729126,
-0.09698593616485596,
0.45207393169403076,
-0.0395036153495311... | 1 | Machiavelli: The Prince. Translated and edited by Quentin Skinner & Russell Price. Takes place from 1469-1532.
II. Synopsis The Prince was written by Niccolò Machiavelli, who lived in Italy at a time where there was much political conflict and turmoil. Many city-states fought for Italy’s control, along with outside countries like Spain, France, and Rome. Machiavelli lived in Florence, which was a city-state in Italy looking to come into control of the country. Machiavelli had many motives to write The Prince, but his main reason came after many French invasions on Italy. Machiavelli’s attitudes towards government were formed through these events and influenced him to write his thought and advice in a book. Machiavelli composed The Prince as a practical guide for ruling a government. He dedicated the book to Lorenzo de’ Medici, the ruler of Florence at that time. Machiavelli’s intentions are to give practical and logical advice to the current ruler regarding free will, virtue, and war strategies. Machiavelli’s book distinguishes itself on these very important principles in order to have a successful and unified city-state. Machiavelli particularly focuses on free will and how we have the human power to control our outcome and destiny. Most people looked at disasters, famines, and plagues as divine destiny and out of the scope of human power. In The Prince, Machiavelli argues that free will, as opposed to divine destiny, is the ability to have prowess over fortune and the self-determination to be prepared for anything and achieve desired outcomes. “Prowess” refers to an individual’s talents, while “fortune” implies chance or luck. Machiavelli investigates the success of a ruler through his free will and prowess compared to his fortune and the environment in which he lives. He spoke many times of prosperous Italian rulers that fell because they became too comfortable and were not prepared for perilous times. QUOTE. He reiterated the importance of consistency in how a prince should treat his subjects, making sure to abide by the traditions and laws of the people. Strong states are built off strong foundations, which are established from two basic components; good laws and good armies. Good laws cannot exist without good armies, and having good armies indicates the presence of good laws.
III. Author’s Purpose
The Prince was dedicated to the current ruler of Florence, Lorenzo de’ Medici, and was intended as a practical guide for rulers of states, which can be classified as either republics or principalities. Each has its own obstacles but the purpose of Machiavelli’s writings is to allow any ruler to be able to prosper and gain the respect of his subjects by following the principles found in The Prince. Machiavelli’s writings were meant to be taken seriously; however, the public did not receive the book as he had hoped. The Prince was criticized as being immoral and unethical by the public, and was later criticized by the man to whom it was dedicated, Lorenzo de’ Medici.
One of the rather intriguing analogies that Niccolò Machiavelli gives in his book is the analogy of a mountain. When a man is standing on top of a mountain, he has a great view of everything below him. However, a man standing at the bottom of a mountain has a better view of the mountain itself. Both point of views are important to understand the beauty of the mountain. That is why Machiavelli decided to write The Prince; simply to give a perspective of the government from a different standpoint; from the people. Princes and rulers already know what it is like at the top, but what Machiavelli did in his book was show the importance of understanding the interests and needs of the people as well. He emphasized the importance of having a solid structure and foundation in having a successful government for the people. A foundation built upon a strong military unit means that the laws of the… | 815 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Martin Luther King Jr Essay
A Discussion and Analysis Of some of his Contributions As Well as their Social, Political and Economic Impacts Since the Thirteen Colonies first united, the United States has had one of the strongest economies in the world. Over the years, many theorists have had varying opinions concerning the reason for this nation’s strong economic standing. One reason that has often been overlooked is that a great many of this nation’s workers have been influenced by the Protestant work ethic. The philosophy behind this work ethic has driven many workers to attain as much as possible at their jobs during their lifetimes. If one man were to be given credit for the development of the Protestant work ethic it would have to be Martin Luther.Order now
In the course of the next several pages this researcher will examine the ethic that has had such a great impact on the United State’s economy and on the economies of other nations. It has been suggested by such writers as Weber and Smith that the Protestant work ethic first developed around the word “calling.” Basically, this term has a religious connotation which is a task set by God. However, gradually this term was expanded to the point where it covered many of man’s activities. During the Protestant Reformation, the term “calling” started to take on a new meaning. Fulfilling one’s duty in worldly affairs became a task of extreme importance.
gradually, fulfilling one’s duty was not only important but it became the moral obligation of every individual (the highest form of moral activity). Before the Reformation, the Catholic Church did not believe that everyday world activities had a religious significance. As a result of Luther these world activities were quite important in adhering to God’s wishes. Rather than devote one’s life to worshipping God through prayer, and instead of sacrificing all worldly goods to follow Christ, the Protestants believed that the task of every person is to fulfill (to the best of his/her ability) their tasks on earth. This unique conception of the word “calling” was developed by Luther during his first active decade as a reformer. At first he believed, like many other theologians, that everyday world activities were activities of the flesh.
Although these activities were willed by God, they were nonetheless morally neutral. However, gradually Luther began to protest against the life of the monks. He criticized them as leading a life “devoid of value as a means of justification before God, but he also looks upon its renunciation of the duties of this world as a product of selfishness, withdrawing from temporal obligations.” This was in direct contrast to the everyday labors of man. These worldly activities were outward expressions of man’s love for others and for God. Thus, according to Luther, the only way to live up to the expectations God has for us is to fulfill our worldly duties.
A very important point that Luther makes in reference to callings is that each calling has the same worth in the eyes of God. The effect of the Reformation that was initiated by Luther was that worldly labor was given religious sanction. This stands opposed to the Catholic tradition which did not give such worldly matters any moral emphasis. Luther stated that people may attain salvation in any walk of life. it did not matter what a person did during their lifetime as long as they worked as hard as possible. In hard work and dedication to one’s calling, salvation could be achieved.
Before Luther professed these beliefs, people placed little emphasis on the daily tasks they had to complete. Jobs had little meaning except that they placed bread on the table to eat. However, with Luther’s concept of the “calling” people now had a moral reasons to work as hard as they could. The jobs of people were given religious sanction and this lead to workers striving to attain more in their jobs. Thus, there can be no doubt that Luther changed the attitudes of people toward their roles in society. People placed a new emphasis on their work roles.
In the following pages the effect that this had on the economy . | <urn:uuid:6585edbc-38d9-45a7-ad37-f1785798c21b> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://artscolumbia.org/essays/martin-luther-king-jr-essay-13-110858/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250589861.0/warc/CC-MAIN-20200117152059-20200117180059-00411.warc.gz | en | 0.987933 | 847 | 3.5625 | 4 | [
-0.10113027691841125,
0.20349419116973877,
0.18846720457077026,
-0.41448774933815,
-0.11672919988632202,
-0.019578902050852776,
0.28539618849754333,
0.4567931890487671,
0.04335746169090271,
0.25467848777770996,
-0.18012557923793793,
0.33548304438591003,
0.11714500188827515,
-0.131419628858... | 4 | Martin Luther King Jr Essay
A Discussion and Analysis Of some of his Contributions As Well as their Social, Political and Economic Impacts Since the Thirteen Colonies first united, the United States has had one of the strongest economies in the world. Over the years, many theorists have had varying opinions concerning the reason for this nation’s strong economic standing. One reason that has often been overlooked is that a great many of this nation’s workers have been influenced by the Protestant work ethic. The philosophy behind this work ethic has driven many workers to attain as much as possible at their jobs during their lifetimes. If one man were to be given credit for the development of the Protestant work ethic it would have to be Martin Luther.Order now
In the course of the next several pages this researcher will examine the ethic that has had such a great impact on the United State’s economy and on the economies of other nations. It has been suggested by such writers as Weber and Smith that the Protestant work ethic first developed around the word “calling.” Basically, this term has a religious connotation which is a task set by God. However, gradually this term was expanded to the point where it covered many of man’s activities. During the Protestant Reformation, the term “calling” started to take on a new meaning. Fulfilling one’s duty in worldly affairs became a task of extreme importance.
gradually, fulfilling one’s duty was not only important but it became the moral obligation of every individual (the highest form of moral activity). Before the Reformation, the Catholic Church did not believe that everyday world activities had a religious significance. As a result of Luther these world activities were quite important in adhering to God’s wishes. Rather than devote one’s life to worshipping God through prayer, and instead of sacrificing all worldly goods to follow Christ, the Protestants believed that the task of every person is to fulfill (to the best of his/her ability) their tasks on earth. This unique conception of the word “calling” was developed by Luther during his first active decade as a reformer. At first he believed, like many other theologians, that everyday world activities were activities of the flesh.
Although these activities were willed by God, they were nonetheless morally neutral. However, gradually Luther began to protest against the life of the monks. He criticized them as leading a life “devoid of value as a means of justification before God, but he also looks upon its renunciation of the duties of this world as a product of selfishness, withdrawing from temporal obligations.” This was in direct contrast to the everyday labors of man. These worldly activities were outward expressions of man’s love for others and for God. Thus, according to Luther, the only way to live up to the expectations God has for us is to fulfill our worldly duties.
A very important point that Luther makes in reference to callings is that each calling has the same worth in the eyes of God. The effect of the Reformation that was initiated by Luther was that worldly labor was given religious sanction. This stands opposed to the Catholic tradition which did not give such worldly matters any moral emphasis. Luther stated that people may attain salvation in any walk of life. it did not matter what a person did during their lifetime as long as they worked as hard as possible. In hard work and dedication to one’s calling, salvation could be achieved.
Before Luther professed these beliefs, people placed little emphasis on the daily tasks they had to complete. Jobs had little meaning except that they placed bread on the table to eat. However, with Luther’s concept of the “calling” people now had a moral reasons to work as hard as they could. The jobs of people were given religious sanction and this lead to workers striving to attain more in their jobs. Thus, there can be no doubt that Luther changed the attitudes of people toward their roles in society. People placed a new emphasis on their work roles.
In the following pages the effect that this had on the economy . | 805 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Although struggles for supremacy had been going on for many decades between France and England in the New World, hostilities intensified in the early 1750's as both English and French settlers had attempted to colonize land in the Ohio River Valley, near present day Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The English settlers, who had moved northwest from Virginia, and French settlers, who had moved east from the Great Lakes, or south from Canada, each thought they owned the rights to the land.
In 1754, English forces under George Washington had begun their march to Fort Duquesne for the purposes of ousting the French from the region by force. On the way, they encountered a French scouting party near present-day Uniontown, Pennsylvania. Washington's men massacred the party in what came to be known as The Battle of Jumonville Glen. Washington soon took camp at Great Meadows, a large natural clearing, and ordered the construction of Fort Necessity in anticipation of a French response. The French did respond, as 600 soldiers forced Washington to surrender the fort. The French and Indian War had begun. | <urn:uuid:94ce4e96-2dfb-4aa8-9f43-aaac0f5fd7d3> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://mrnussbaum.com/uploads/activities/fiwar/causes.htm | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251737572.61/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127235617-20200128025617-00083.warc.gz | en | 0.981351 | 219 | 4.21875 | 4 | [
-0.3363972008228302,
0.2557009160518646,
0.1496034562587738,
-0.1646377444267273,
-0.36586514115333557,
0.12118197232484818,
-0.06080394610762596,
0.35503047704696655,
-0.0994601845741272,
-0.08677773177623749,
0.24728386104106903,
-0.11848805099725723,
0.15328487753868103,
0.4401913285255... | 2 | Although struggles for supremacy had been going on for many decades between France and England in the New World, hostilities intensified in the early 1750's as both English and French settlers had attempted to colonize land in the Ohio River Valley, near present day Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The English settlers, who had moved northwest from Virginia, and French settlers, who had moved east from the Great Lakes, or south from Canada, each thought they owned the rights to the land.
In 1754, English forces under George Washington had begun their march to Fort Duquesne for the purposes of ousting the French from the region by force. On the way, they encountered a French scouting party near present-day Uniontown, Pennsylvania. Washington's men massacred the party in what came to be known as The Battle of Jumonville Glen. Washington soon took camp at Great Meadows, a large natural clearing, and ordered the construction of Fort Necessity in anticipation of a French response. The French did respond, as 600 soldiers forced Washington to surrender the fort. The French and Indian War had begun. | 228 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Moses's name appears 814 times in the Bible (KJV), third-most of any one character (Jesus at 961 actually trails David at 991). He himself wrote more of the Bible than any other one person, and his life dominates four of the five books he wrote. So to say he's significant is understating things.
Fittingly, his spiritual meaning is complex and important, and evolves throughout the course of his life. To understand it, it helps to understand the meaning of the events in which he was involved.
On an external level, of course, Moses led the people of Israel out of Egypt through 40 years in the wilderness to the border of the homeland God had promised them. Along the way, he established and codified their religious system, and oversaw the creation of its most holy objects.
At the inmost level, this story – like all of the Bible – is about the Lord and his spiritual development during his human life as Jesus. Swedenborg only offers glimpses of that meaning, however.
At a less-deep level, Moses's story deals with the establishment of the third church to serve as a container of knowledge of the Lord.
The first such church – the Most Ancient Church, represented by Adam and centered on love of the Lord – had fallen prey to human pride and was destroyed, a destruction represented by the flood. The second – the Ancient Church, represented by Noah and the generations that followed him – was centered on love of the neighbor, wisdom from the Lord and knowledge of the correspondences between natural and spiritual things. It fell prey to the pride of intelligence, however – represented by the Tower of Babel – and at the time of Moses was in scattered pockets that were sliding into idolatry.
Through Moses the Lord esablished a third church, one more external than its predecessors but one that could preserve some knowledge of the Lord and could, through worship that represented spiritual things, make it possible for the Bible to be written and passed to future generations. That church was among the people of Israel.
Moses's role, then, was to establish those forms of worship and to make the people obedient. As such, his primary representation is as what Swedenborg calls "the Law of God," the rules God gave the people of Israel to follow in order to represent spiritual things. This can be interpreted narrowly as the Ten Commandments, more broadly as the books of Moses, or most broadly as the entire Bible.
Those rules and the forms of worship they created were given as containers for deeper ideas about the Lord, deeper truth, and at some points – especially when he was first leading his people away from Egypt, a time before the rules had been written down – Moses takes on the deeper representation of Divine Truth itself, truth from the Lord. At other times – especially after Mount Sinai – he has a less exalted meaning, representing the people of Israel themselves due to his position as their leader. | <urn:uuid:957e3f91-418e-4c6b-bcd1-2d5839886318> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://newchristianbiblestudy.org/cs/multi/bible_chinese-union_ezekiel_16_42/bible_chinese-union_daniel_9_13/explanation_moses?wep=2 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250589560.16/warc/CC-MAIN-20200117123339-20200117151339-00521.warc.gz | en | 0.987991 | 601 | 3.375 | 3 | [
-0.07883040606975555,
0.4332904517650604,
0.056367598474025726,
-0.024677248671650887,
-0.17674490809440613,
-0.16520169377326965,
0.32839933037757874,
-0.20947036147117615,
0.17010465264320374,
0.42633092403411865,
-0.02122722938656807,
-0.19678962230682373,
0.07551951706409454,
-0.212829... | 1 | Moses's name appears 814 times in the Bible (KJV), third-most of any one character (Jesus at 961 actually trails David at 991). He himself wrote more of the Bible than any other one person, and his life dominates four of the five books he wrote. So to say he's significant is understating things.
Fittingly, his spiritual meaning is complex and important, and evolves throughout the course of his life. To understand it, it helps to understand the meaning of the events in which he was involved.
On an external level, of course, Moses led the people of Israel out of Egypt through 40 years in the wilderness to the border of the homeland God had promised them. Along the way, he established and codified their religious system, and oversaw the creation of its most holy objects.
At the inmost level, this story – like all of the Bible – is about the Lord and his spiritual development during his human life as Jesus. Swedenborg only offers glimpses of that meaning, however.
At a less-deep level, Moses's story deals with the establishment of the third church to serve as a container of knowledge of the Lord.
The first such church – the Most Ancient Church, represented by Adam and centered on love of the Lord – had fallen prey to human pride and was destroyed, a destruction represented by the flood. The second – the Ancient Church, represented by Noah and the generations that followed him – was centered on love of the neighbor, wisdom from the Lord and knowledge of the correspondences between natural and spiritual things. It fell prey to the pride of intelligence, however – represented by the Tower of Babel – and at the time of Moses was in scattered pockets that were sliding into idolatry.
Through Moses the Lord esablished a third church, one more external than its predecessors but one that could preserve some knowledge of the Lord and could, through worship that represented spiritual things, make it possible for the Bible to be written and passed to future generations. That church was among the people of Israel.
Moses's role, then, was to establish those forms of worship and to make the people obedient. As such, his primary representation is as what Swedenborg calls "the Law of God," the rules God gave the people of Israel to follow in order to represent spiritual things. This can be interpreted narrowly as the Ten Commandments, more broadly as the books of Moses, or most broadly as the entire Bible.
Those rules and the forms of worship they created were given as containers for deeper ideas about the Lord, deeper truth, and at some points – especially when he was first leading his people away from Egypt, a time before the rules had been written down – Moses takes on the deeper representation of Divine Truth itself, truth from the Lord. At other times – especially after Mount Sinai – he has a less exalted meaning, representing the people of Israel themselves due to his position as their leader. | 603 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Thomas Conlan, in his book, the State of War, shows how the political and military changes through war in a country or region, greatly affects a society. The widely held concept in the world is that only technological innovations, class struggle or demographic fluctuations are the only events that can cause society transformations. Thomas Conlan explores the battles fought in Japan in the fourteenth century to show how the war greatly influenced the Japanese society. He highlights the life of the warriors at that time in the history of Japan. Book Exploration of the State of War In today’s culture praise is given to the many nameless soldiers who have participated in the World War 1 and 2. The fourteenth century Japanese warrior would be greatly shocked since the essence of participating in the war for him was the recognition he would receive. He reasons that there should be rewards, honour and fame for participating in a battle. Secondly, in the Japanese culture in the fourteenth century, the warriors would be flamboyant in the way they dressed. Those who dressed extremely well stood out in the battlefield and were expected to be outstanding performers. Another difference that Thomas Conlan notes with the present world is that in the wars fought in the history of Japan, women participated as warriors on horseback. There were even armours designed for the female body. There are records at that time showing that there were women soldiers who used to do the work of verifying the petitions of the warriors. This shows the extent of authority the women had as the verification of petitions was the work of military leaders. There were several social classes in Japan before the fourteenth century war broke out.
The social class known as the courtiers dismissed the women warriors. This attitude has continued in many people even today. There was war in the 1180’s in Japan and the Kumakura Bakafu clan emerged as the political leaders. They solved judicial conflicts and as result helped maintain stability in the country. Japan at this time was divided into three social strata. There were the courtiers and the warriors. The warriors owned enough land and had authority to mobilise the country’s resources. The rest of the people had the duty to fight for their warrior Lord. However in this period there was no trace of class hostility. In fact the lower class people looked to the others as examples and role models. In the fourteenth century, Japan found itself in chaos. There were several reasons why war erupted in the fourteenth century. First of all there arose a succession conflict among two royal lineages, the Daikakuji and Jimyoin. The Kumakura Bakafu decided that the two lineages would take the throne in successive order. One king from one tribe would take control then later the King from the other tribe. Hearing the solution, the citizens, both from the lower and upper classes immediately began to take sides and the country was divided into two groups. This occurred in the year 1331. The Kamakura bakafu, started being hated by both centres of power for coming up with the succession solution. An emperor from the Daikaku lineage rejected the proposal and overthrew the Bakufu. This was in 1333 and the action led to war. The warriors saw how weak each political party was therefore they were unable to respect and obey their masters. The act of war did not lead to punishment. The way war was regarded at that time is different from the way it is regarded now. The fact that lives were lost did not escape them however despite their divergent view. The one who succeeded in a feud and killed the other was regarded as a hero. The state tried to condemn the feuds however when the civil war broke out, they could not control the people anymore and actually started to mediate the feuds. The state ceased as there arose powerful wealthy people with great personal interests. Once the war erupted, the regimes had to get warriors to fight on their side. Invitations were sent to the warriors and they had a partial obligation to be loyal to their commanders. Before the war, the warriors had been wealthy, owning a lot of land and operated independently. The war changed this causing them to be dependent on the regional leaders. . The warriors, in fighting for their status, lost their autonomy due to the costs of war. They lost most of their wealth. The warriors at the beginning, made a mistake in modelling their behaviour to the twelfth century warriors while fighting in the battlefield. The battlefield became tough for them. There was also an interesting culture that used to be practised in the twelfth century where the warriors laughed in battle and maintained a farce. At that time there had been an aspect of playfulness in the war. The fourteenth century warriors laughed at the reality of lost lives trying to emulate the twelfth century warriors but eventually they discarded this practice. There were no armies as such and the fighting groups would split after a battle.
If there were no rewards or land to conquer the warriors lacked motivation to fight. Society changed in that a person’s status was now determined by his wealth rather than appointment by authority. The state also had no power any more to engage in coercive violence solely. After the war, fighting was integrated into the political and judicial system. Violence became the norm rather than the exception. It was part of everyday life. There were different political viewpoints at this time. Daigo had the belief all power came from the leader. There were those on the other hand who believed that the people had political rights. The war continued for three centuries and affected the state and society greatly.
The warriors were no longer autonomous although they were able to secure a degree of political independence. The regional lords had great authority that previously had been concentrated at the centre.
In the war there were archers on foot or horses and there were also warriors. Long swords were used to attack the enemies and also break the legs of horses. The two intense periods of the war were between 1333-1338 and 1350-1355(Conlan, 2007). There are certain myths that Thomas seeks to address in his book. First of all it is the myth that people fought the war without a desire for personal glory or gain. In movies and books today, the current portrayal of the samurai is that he was a soldier who was bound to his master by great loyalty. This is a fallacy since at the time there was no loyalty demanded as the warriors had no lords who they had to follow to death. In fact the warriors could die for anyone and any who did so was regarded as a hero. The regional wealthy were able to impose a tax system and control small armies. The warriors demanded for some level of compensation for their acts. In fact the warriors submitted petitions to their commanders after a battle.
The warriors would state clearly what happened in the battle even where they had fled due to innumerable casualties. Boasting was also common where they had been great victory. The petitions were analysed very thoroughly. The generals would sign the petition papers which the warriors would use to claim for remuneration. The warriors would leave a commander and go to the rival where they felt the compensation given was not adequate.
Another interesting aspect of the war in the fourteenth century was the way the warriors would cut off the heads of people during the war as proof of winning the battle. There were orders by generals to the warriors not to cut the heads. Once there were witnesses to prove the other party was dead that was enough.
Despite the orders the practice had already taken root and it continued to be done. Though the act right now may be deemed to be barbaric, it became the custom. The warriors took the heads of anyone in the battle. In the later years the act became a subject of ridicule and in the sixteenth century mutilating the dead was considered a criminal offence. There was also a superstition that heads could be used to curse people as they had supernatural power. The divine was highly considered by the society and used to explain why certain things happened. The divine impacted the political and social lives of people. Events such as dreams, omens and occurrence of star constellations were recorded as it could be having a certain meaning or important clues. Religion was so crucial it was part of the political and social system. Furthermore the priests at that time petitioned for rewards. They could either mutter curses or fight in the war. Both acts were considered to be comparable and equal. As time went on though there arose Zen Monks who criticized the curses uttered by other priests.
In studying how war was carried out in a society one understands the people and the societal transformations that took place. War was what changed everything in the Japanese culture and politics. At the time, the war was everything and nothing existed outside the war. The war transformed how things were carried out. There were new attitudes and a ways of thinking that arose at that time.
Conlan, Thomas. “The State of War: The Violent Order of Fourteenth Century Japan”. Michigan University: Centre for Japanese Studies. 2003. Print. | <urn:uuid:0204a1ef-4e49-47b5-98c0-2cf3de9c80c1> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.wowessays.com/free-samples/book-review-on-book-exploration-of-the-state-of-war/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250613416.54/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123191130-20200123220130-00281.warc.gz | en | 0.988256 | 1,841 | 3.59375 | 4 | [
-0.22840192914009094,
0.4766080975532532,
0.4340117275714874,
-0.19498156011104584,
-0.15307776629924774,
0.19474466145038605,
0.09848664700984955,
0.47446519136428833,
0.05553904175758362,
-0.3014075458049774,
0.12236630171537399,
-0.16914527118206024,
0.18413619697093964,
0.7042085528373... | 2 | Thomas Conlan, in his book, the State of War, shows how the political and military changes through war in a country or region, greatly affects a society. The widely held concept in the world is that only technological innovations, class struggle or demographic fluctuations are the only events that can cause society transformations. Thomas Conlan explores the battles fought in Japan in the fourteenth century to show how the war greatly influenced the Japanese society. He highlights the life of the warriors at that time in the history of Japan. Book Exploration of the State of War In today’s culture praise is given to the many nameless soldiers who have participated in the World War 1 and 2. The fourteenth century Japanese warrior would be greatly shocked since the essence of participating in the war for him was the recognition he would receive. He reasons that there should be rewards, honour and fame for participating in a battle. Secondly, in the Japanese culture in the fourteenth century, the warriors would be flamboyant in the way they dressed. Those who dressed extremely well stood out in the battlefield and were expected to be outstanding performers. Another difference that Thomas Conlan notes with the present world is that in the wars fought in the history of Japan, women participated as warriors on horseback. There were even armours designed for the female body. There are records at that time showing that there were women soldiers who used to do the work of verifying the petitions of the warriors. This shows the extent of authority the women had as the verification of petitions was the work of military leaders. There were several social classes in Japan before the fourteenth century war broke out.
The social class known as the courtiers dismissed the women warriors. This attitude has continued in many people even today. There was war in the 1180’s in Japan and the Kumakura Bakafu clan emerged as the political leaders. They solved judicial conflicts and as result helped maintain stability in the country. Japan at this time was divided into three social strata. There were the courtiers and the warriors. The warriors owned enough land and had authority to mobilise the country’s resources. The rest of the people had the duty to fight for their warrior Lord. However in this period there was no trace of class hostility. In fact the lower class people looked to the others as examples and role models. In the fourteenth century, Japan found itself in chaos. There were several reasons why war erupted in the fourteenth century. First of all there arose a succession conflict among two royal lineages, the Daikakuji and Jimyoin. The Kumakura Bakafu decided that the two lineages would take the throne in successive order. One king from one tribe would take control then later the King from the other tribe. Hearing the solution, the citizens, both from the lower and upper classes immediately began to take sides and the country was divided into two groups. This occurred in the year 1331. The Kamakura bakafu, started being hated by both centres of power for coming up with the succession solution. An emperor from the Daikaku lineage rejected the proposal and overthrew the Bakufu. This was in 1333 and the action led to war. The warriors saw how weak each political party was therefore they were unable to respect and obey their masters. The act of war did not lead to punishment. The way war was regarded at that time is different from the way it is regarded now. The fact that lives were lost did not escape them however despite their divergent view. The one who succeeded in a feud and killed the other was regarded as a hero. The state tried to condemn the feuds however when the civil war broke out, they could not control the people anymore and actually started to mediate the feuds. The state ceased as there arose powerful wealthy people with great personal interests. Once the war erupted, the regimes had to get warriors to fight on their side. Invitations were sent to the warriors and they had a partial obligation to be loyal to their commanders. Before the war, the warriors had been wealthy, owning a lot of land and operated independently. The war changed this causing them to be dependent on the regional leaders. . The warriors, in fighting for their status, lost their autonomy due to the costs of war. They lost most of their wealth. The warriors at the beginning, made a mistake in modelling their behaviour to the twelfth century warriors while fighting in the battlefield. The battlefield became tough for them. There was also an interesting culture that used to be practised in the twelfth century where the warriors laughed in battle and maintained a farce. At that time there had been an aspect of playfulness in the war. The fourteenth century warriors laughed at the reality of lost lives trying to emulate the twelfth century warriors but eventually they discarded this practice. There were no armies as such and the fighting groups would split after a battle.
If there were no rewards or land to conquer the warriors lacked motivation to fight. Society changed in that a person’s status was now determined by his wealth rather than appointment by authority. The state also had no power any more to engage in coercive violence solely. After the war, fighting was integrated into the political and judicial system. Violence became the norm rather than the exception. It was part of everyday life. There were different political viewpoints at this time. Daigo had the belief all power came from the leader. There were those on the other hand who believed that the people had political rights. The war continued for three centuries and affected the state and society greatly.
The warriors were no longer autonomous although they were able to secure a degree of political independence. The regional lords had great authority that previously had been concentrated at the centre.
In the war there were archers on foot or horses and there were also warriors. Long swords were used to attack the enemies and also break the legs of horses. The two intense periods of the war were between 1333-1338 and 1350-1355(Conlan, 2007). There are certain myths that Thomas seeks to address in his book. First of all it is the myth that people fought the war without a desire for personal glory or gain. In movies and books today, the current portrayal of the samurai is that he was a soldier who was bound to his master by great loyalty. This is a fallacy since at the time there was no loyalty demanded as the warriors had no lords who they had to follow to death. In fact the warriors could die for anyone and any who did so was regarded as a hero. The regional wealthy were able to impose a tax system and control small armies. The warriors demanded for some level of compensation for their acts. In fact the warriors submitted petitions to their commanders after a battle.
The warriors would state clearly what happened in the battle even where they had fled due to innumerable casualties. Boasting was also common where they had been great victory. The petitions were analysed very thoroughly. The generals would sign the petition papers which the warriors would use to claim for remuneration. The warriors would leave a commander and go to the rival where they felt the compensation given was not adequate.
Another interesting aspect of the war in the fourteenth century was the way the warriors would cut off the heads of people during the war as proof of winning the battle. There were orders by generals to the warriors not to cut the heads. Once there were witnesses to prove the other party was dead that was enough.
Despite the orders the practice had already taken root and it continued to be done. Though the act right now may be deemed to be barbaric, it became the custom. The warriors took the heads of anyone in the battle. In the later years the act became a subject of ridicule and in the sixteenth century mutilating the dead was considered a criminal offence. There was also a superstition that heads could be used to curse people as they had supernatural power. The divine was highly considered by the society and used to explain why certain things happened. The divine impacted the political and social lives of people. Events such as dreams, omens and occurrence of star constellations were recorded as it could be having a certain meaning or important clues. Religion was so crucial it was part of the political and social system. Furthermore the priests at that time petitioned for rewards. They could either mutter curses or fight in the war. Both acts were considered to be comparable and equal. As time went on though there arose Zen Monks who criticized the curses uttered by other priests.
In studying how war was carried out in a society one understands the people and the societal transformations that took place. War was what changed everything in the Japanese culture and politics. At the time, the war was everything and nothing existed outside the war. The war transformed how things were carried out. There were new attitudes and a ways of thinking that arose at that time.
Conlan, Thomas. “The State of War: The Violent Order of Fourteenth Century Japan”. Michigan University: Centre for Japanese Studies. 2003. Print. | 1,858 | ENGLISH | 1 |
How did Nazi Germany finance itself during the war? They produced a large amount of war material during 1939-1945, but how was this production financed? What were Germany's revenue streams that enabled them to purchase and transport the raw materials of war and pay the workers? I doubt they were exporting goods during the war, so any revenue was likely internal to the country. Given the Depression was still going on in 1939, how did they pay for the war?
I think the Great Depression was quite irrelevant for Germany in 1939 similarly to for other countries that took measures at state regulation.
As for the income, Germany was a well-developed industrial country with advanced technology. It was a pioneering country at chemistry, electrical engineering, machine-tool construction, railroads and transportation, metallurgy and mining. Its industry was known for exceptional quality.
Germany had extensive exports, which did not stop throughout the war mostly through the neutral countries.
With the German conquests German firms earned numerous advantages that maximized their income:
- They replaced or adsorbed the local businesses in many occupied countries
- They earned the ability to use cheap forced labour of the conquered peoples
Also prior to the war any strikes were outlawed in Germany so that the firms could operate without risking with workers' protests.
The recent book Hitler's Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State by Götz Aly offers a new and very important look at this question. It is the subject of an ongoing academic debate but many of the factual findings seem to be indisputable, if I understand correctly (haven't read it but read very detailed reviews).
Very brief summary:
The Nazis borrowed prodigious sums to finance the re-armament of Germany, the Autobahns and the social benefits the Germans received. "Fortunately", at the very moment the chips were due to fall and they would have had to face insolvency, they started the war and turned it into a great expopriation scheme. That the Nazis looted all Europe and made it pay and work for the war machine is quite well-known;
Ali goes into great detail showing the mechanics of the process and showing that the German was effort was to a large degree a financial pyramid, where the conquered countries and the murdered Jews were looted to pay off the deficits the Nazis had kept accruing.
He posits that the common German people were quite aware of this, grosso modo, and claims that this partly explains the tenacity with which the Germans fought to the bitter end (a claim that may not immediately follow from his economic data, as other factors, e.g. ideology, are involved).
One detail for example: they herded hundreds of thousands of Russians to work as labourers, industrial workers and domestic help in Germany; they were ostensibly paid (very low) salaries - but these salaries were stashed into a fund which nobody ever saw.
Another example: the Germans paid for goods in the countries they conquered (at least in the East) with "occupation marks" - an artificial currency whose exchange rate they loaded heavily in their own favour.
According to a recent study commissioned by the German Finance Ministry, looting of German Jewish wealth amounted to 120 billion reich marks and financed about 1/3 of the expenditure of the German armed forces during WWII.
Germany conquered and occupied a number of countries, and stripped them of their gold reserves (except in those instances where the countries were able to ship the gold abroad).
They sometimes paid in either marks, or more often, local currency, since they effectively controlled those countries' banking systems.
And in a pinch, they could requisition the supplies and labor that needed, basically at the point of a gun.
And Germany was one of the first countries to "exit" the Depression. That was a major result of the rearmament program, which had a "pump priming" effect on the economy.
Nazis got there money by kicking out the privately owned central bank. (Just like the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank of USA, aka Central Bank). After that Hitler printed their own money which was interest free. within a few years Germany was the richest nation in the world while the rest of the nation were in a depression from the privately owned central banks greed.
Some US Bank and large US Companies funded the Germans in World War 2. One of these banks,The Union Bank run by Prescott Bush owned by George Herbert Walker was seized by the U.S in 1942 for trading with the Germans. Under The trading with the enemy act. Mr Julius Silverstein and Mr. Gingold sued the Bush family and the United States in 2001 for profiting from the Auschwits concentration camps. One of the reason the United States didn't get involved in World War 2 was because of US companys profits. One company was Ford Motor Company.
I think the true answer is: money is a fiction, useful for bookkeeping, but ultimately meaningless. What truly matters is control of resources, infrastructure and labor. Using money is the "civilized" method of gaining that control, but if you're prepared to resort to uncivilized methods (forced labor, seizing privat property, outright conquest), you can pretty much ignore it.
Not sure if it's already mentioned here, but not many people know that Nazi Germany was on the verge of bankruptcy in the years 1936-1938. Uncontrolled investments in weaponry, social plans plus the build up of an extensive police- and army apparatus where too much for the state, which just was coming out of the deepest recession in German history until then. After 1938 this changed of course, as occupying other countries, hence robbing their gold reserves and access to massive private (mainly Jewish) capital, meant a big boost for for them. And let's also not forget that Germany was financially supported by very rich Americans of German and Irish (Henry Ford!) descend. Although this proved to be a drop on a boiling plate. German economy only SEEMED strong, but in fact was still very weak in the 30's. That's why I don't agree with the answer chosen as the correct one as it's not a correct answer.
Nazi Germany was a command economy run via expropriation. Nothing was "paid for" in the rational sense of a physical currency but instead was basically looted from occupied countries. That included labor.
The Nazi economy had a very serious inflation problem going into 1939 and in fact 1938 as well. (Just read up on your Albert Speer...both his testimony before the Nuremberg Tribunal and his biography.) Everything was rationed in Nazi Germany once the Polish Campaign began. Anything could be requisitioned by the State at will...which normally meant your kid.
All POW's were to be put to work either producing armaments, building the Atlantic Wall, manning anti-aircraft towers or sent to France to defend against an Anglo-American invasion.
I believe the theory behind the "death camps" was Jews to the East "to fight the communists" and "undermenschen" to the West to the support The Reich.
Obviously this did not prove popular with the Undermenschen so they either fought for their "SSR", fought with the Nazi's to defeat Stalin's Russia or fought "for the Revolution" against the entrenched "establishment." Either way your odds of survival were pretty slim. There were Jews who fought ferociously for Nazi Germany as many had had their property expropriated by Stalin's Russia. The "future Nazi mayor of Moscow" was to be a Jew actually.
The whole process was very inefficient and basically unworkable. There was an emphasis on engineering but little in the way of mass production or interchangeable parts. The losses on the Eastern Front simply couldn't be made up by any sources of labor or forced production. As German positions in the East were over run the Nazi economy simply ceased functioning.
When the collapse finally came in 1945 the only thing of value were US dollars.
The Russians loved watches actually...can't really explain that one. | <urn:uuid:61d07157-e3d7-4f80-bae9-bd3560fc554d> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/1851/how-did-nazi-germany-finance-itself-during-ww2?noredirect=1 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250601628.36/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121074002-20200121103002-00210.warc.gz | en | 0.982473 | 1,647 | 3.53125 | 4 | [
-0.16736561059951782,
0.4736395478248596,
-0.1761123239994049,
-0.009206604212522507,
0.37742963433265686,
-0.08379718661308289,
0.05907001718878746,
0.09131970256567001,
-0.3204248547554016,
-0.32528048753738403,
0.4288201630115509,
0.051424454897642136,
-0.005077436100691557,
0.324921578... | 16 | How did Nazi Germany finance itself during the war? They produced a large amount of war material during 1939-1945, but how was this production financed? What were Germany's revenue streams that enabled them to purchase and transport the raw materials of war and pay the workers? I doubt they were exporting goods during the war, so any revenue was likely internal to the country. Given the Depression was still going on in 1939, how did they pay for the war?
I think the Great Depression was quite irrelevant for Germany in 1939 similarly to for other countries that took measures at state regulation.
As for the income, Germany was a well-developed industrial country with advanced technology. It was a pioneering country at chemistry, electrical engineering, machine-tool construction, railroads and transportation, metallurgy and mining. Its industry was known for exceptional quality.
Germany had extensive exports, which did not stop throughout the war mostly through the neutral countries.
With the German conquests German firms earned numerous advantages that maximized their income:
- They replaced or adsorbed the local businesses in many occupied countries
- They earned the ability to use cheap forced labour of the conquered peoples
Also prior to the war any strikes were outlawed in Germany so that the firms could operate without risking with workers' protests.
The recent book Hitler's Beneficiaries: Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State by Götz Aly offers a new and very important look at this question. It is the subject of an ongoing academic debate but many of the factual findings seem to be indisputable, if I understand correctly (haven't read it but read very detailed reviews).
Very brief summary:
The Nazis borrowed prodigious sums to finance the re-armament of Germany, the Autobahns and the social benefits the Germans received. "Fortunately", at the very moment the chips were due to fall and they would have had to face insolvency, they started the war and turned it into a great expopriation scheme. That the Nazis looted all Europe and made it pay and work for the war machine is quite well-known;
Ali goes into great detail showing the mechanics of the process and showing that the German was effort was to a large degree a financial pyramid, where the conquered countries and the murdered Jews were looted to pay off the deficits the Nazis had kept accruing.
He posits that the common German people were quite aware of this, grosso modo, and claims that this partly explains the tenacity with which the Germans fought to the bitter end (a claim that may not immediately follow from his economic data, as other factors, e.g. ideology, are involved).
One detail for example: they herded hundreds of thousands of Russians to work as labourers, industrial workers and domestic help in Germany; they were ostensibly paid (very low) salaries - but these salaries were stashed into a fund which nobody ever saw.
Another example: the Germans paid for goods in the countries they conquered (at least in the East) with "occupation marks" - an artificial currency whose exchange rate they loaded heavily in their own favour.
According to a recent study commissioned by the German Finance Ministry, looting of German Jewish wealth amounted to 120 billion reich marks and financed about 1/3 of the expenditure of the German armed forces during WWII.
Germany conquered and occupied a number of countries, and stripped them of their gold reserves (except in those instances where the countries were able to ship the gold abroad).
They sometimes paid in either marks, or more often, local currency, since they effectively controlled those countries' banking systems.
And in a pinch, they could requisition the supplies and labor that needed, basically at the point of a gun.
And Germany was one of the first countries to "exit" the Depression. That was a major result of the rearmament program, which had a "pump priming" effect on the economy.
Nazis got there money by kicking out the privately owned central bank. (Just like the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank of USA, aka Central Bank). After that Hitler printed their own money which was interest free. within a few years Germany was the richest nation in the world while the rest of the nation were in a depression from the privately owned central banks greed.
Some US Bank and large US Companies funded the Germans in World War 2. One of these banks,The Union Bank run by Prescott Bush owned by George Herbert Walker was seized by the U.S in 1942 for trading with the Germans. Under The trading with the enemy act. Mr Julius Silverstein and Mr. Gingold sued the Bush family and the United States in 2001 for profiting from the Auschwits concentration camps. One of the reason the United States didn't get involved in World War 2 was because of US companys profits. One company was Ford Motor Company.
I think the true answer is: money is a fiction, useful for bookkeeping, but ultimately meaningless. What truly matters is control of resources, infrastructure and labor. Using money is the "civilized" method of gaining that control, but if you're prepared to resort to uncivilized methods (forced labor, seizing privat property, outright conquest), you can pretty much ignore it.
Not sure if it's already mentioned here, but not many people know that Nazi Germany was on the verge of bankruptcy in the years 1936-1938. Uncontrolled investments in weaponry, social plans plus the build up of an extensive police- and army apparatus where too much for the state, which just was coming out of the deepest recession in German history until then. After 1938 this changed of course, as occupying other countries, hence robbing their gold reserves and access to massive private (mainly Jewish) capital, meant a big boost for for them. And let's also not forget that Germany was financially supported by very rich Americans of German and Irish (Henry Ford!) descend. Although this proved to be a drop on a boiling plate. German economy only SEEMED strong, but in fact was still very weak in the 30's. That's why I don't agree with the answer chosen as the correct one as it's not a correct answer.
Nazi Germany was a command economy run via expropriation. Nothing was "paid for" in the rational sense of a physical currency but instead was basically looted from occupied countries. That included labor.
The Nazi economy had a very serious inflation problem going into 1939 and in fact 1938 as well. (Just read up on your Albert Speer...both his testimony before the Nuremberg Tribunal and his biography.) Everything was rationed in Nazi Germany once the Polish Campaign began. Anything could be requisitioned by the State at will...which normally meant your kid.
All POW's were to be put to work either producing armaments, building the Atlantic Wall, manning anti-aircraft towers or sent to France to defend against an Anglo-American invasion.
I believe the theory behind the "death camps" was Jews to the East "to fight the communists" and "undermenschen" to the West to the support The Reich.
Obviously this did not prove popular with the Undermenschen so they either fought for their "SSR", fought with the Nazi's to defeat Stalin's Russia or fought "for the Revolution" against the entrenched "establishment." Either way your odds of survival were pretty slim. There were Jews who fought ferociously for Nazi Germany as many had had their property expropriated by Stalin's Russia. The "future Nazi mayor of Moscow" was to be a Jew actually.
The whole process was very inefficient and basically unworkable. There was an emphasis on engineering but little in the way of mass production or interchangeable parts. The losses on the Eastern Front simply couldn't be made up by any sources of labor or forced production. As German positions in the East were over run the Nazi economy simply ceased functioning.
When the collapse finally came in 1945 the only thing of value were US dollars.
The Russians loved watches actually...can't really explain that one. | 1,672 | ENGLISH | 1 |
This hypothesis suggests that Children who grow up in too clean of an environment do not develop the natural antibodies they need so they are more prone to becoming allergic to common bacteria. These children are supposedly more susceptible to microorganisms because they have never been exposed to common bacteria that would have promoted their own antibody growth.
A home that is too clean is one that uses nothing but antibacterial soaps, detergents, and cleaning agents. The children from these homes do not play with animals, they do not play in bare-feet, and they are not generally allowed to get dirty.
Children who never have an exposure to the normal bacteria we come in contact with on a regular basis are more prone to allergies and to both eczema and asthma. This suggests that children who are allowed to get dirty are often healthier than the cleaner children are.
Dishwasher washes dishes using water that is hotter than the water that is used by people washing their dishes by hand. Naturally, a human cannot put their hands into water that is as hot as what can be run through a machine. For this reason, it is surmised that dishes cleaned in a dishwasher have fewer germs on them than dishes that are cleansed by hand. The germs are the less exposure to common bacteria and the increased number of allergies.
Children that live in households that do not own dishwashers are exposed to more bacteria, and therefore, their antibodies are more capable of fighting off allergies, and microorganisms that would make them sick. The children from these households also have fewer colds, and other common childhood ailments than the children who live in homes with dishwashers.
Fermented and farm fresh foods
To prove the hypothesis parents of children who ate few fermented or farm fresh foods and parents of children who ate fermented and farm fresh foods on a regular basis were polled. The children who were eating more of the fermented and farm fresh foods have fewer allergies than the other children.
This information suggests that the hypothesis that children eating foods that were pollinated with local flower nectar were exposed to the local pollutants and this reduced the number of allergies that the children had because they grew immune to the local pollutants through their repeated exposure.
The healthiest children were reportedly living in homes that ate locally grown fresh fruits and produce, ate fermented foods regularly, and washed their dishes by hand. The majority of these homes also allowed the children to play freely out of doors, and often opened the windows of their homes to provide fresh air to the interior portions of the house.
More research is needed
The correlation between a home being too clean and the allergies the children suffer is only a hypothesis, even though it is an interesting one. More research will be needed before pediatricians begin to suggest that you get your child dirty to keep them healthy.
This post first appeared on Online CPR Certification Blog | World News In Medi, please read the originial post: here | <urn:uuid:24b3a713-6357-47d8-9605-de2045d2c9f1> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.blogarama.com/health-fitness-blogs/256788-online-cpr-certification-blog-world-news-medi/10191016-homes-without-dishwasher-kids-less-allergies | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250599789.45/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120195035-20200120224035-00404.warc.gz | en | 0.981755 | 595 | 3.296875 | 3 | [
0.049078695476055145,
-0.11319348216056824,
0.305550754070282,
0.06667934358119965,
0.1734175682067871,
-0.25652015209198,
0.19724556803703308,
0.25722694396972656,
-0.1931595504283905,
-0.010426368564367294,
-0.21160638332366943,
-0.7984956502914429,
0.26121172308921814,
0.149895161390304... | 1 | This hypothesis suggests that Children who grow up in too clean of an environment do not develop the natural antibodies they need so they are more prone to becoming allergic to common bacteria. These children are supposedly more susceptible to microorganisms because they have never been exposed to common bacteria that would have promoted their own antibody growth.
A home that is too clean is one that uses nothing but antibacterial soaps, detergents, and cleaning agents. The children from these homes do not play with animals, they do not play in bare-feet, and they are not generally allowed to get dirty.
Children who never have an exposure to the normal bacteria we come in contact with on a regular basis are more prone to allergies and to both eczema and asthma. This suggests that children who are allowed to get dirty are often healthier than the cleaner children are.
Dishwasher washes dishes using water that is hotter than the water that is used by people washing their dishes by hand. Naturally, a human cannot put their hands into water that is as hot as what can be run through a machine. For this reason, it is surmised that dishes cleaned in a dishwasher have fewer germs on them than dishes that are cleansed by hand. The germs are the less exposure to common bacteria and the increased number of allergies.
Children that live in households that do not own dishwashers are exposed to more bacteria, and therefore, their antibodies are more capable of fighting off allergies, and microorganisms that would make them sick. The children from these households also have fewer colds, and other common childhood ailments than the children who live in homes with dishwashers.
Fermented and farm fresh foods
To prove the hypothesis parents of children who ate few fermented or farm fresh foods and parents of children who ate fermented and farm fresh foods on a regular basis were polled. The children who were eating more of the fermented and farm fresh foods have fewer allergies than the other children.
This information suggests that the hypothesis that children eating foods that were pollinated with local flower nectar were exposed to the local pollutants and this reduced the number of allergies that the children had because they grew immune to the local pollutants through their repeated exposure.
The healthiest children were reportedly living in homes that ate locally grown fresh fruits and produce, ate fermented foods regularly, and washed their dishes by hand. The majority of these homes also allowed the children to play freely out of doors, and often opened the windows of their homes to provide fresh air to the interior portions of the house.
More research is needed
The correlation between a home being too clean and the allergies the children suffer is only a hypothesis, even though it is an interesting one. More research will be needed before pediatricians begin to suggest that you get your child dirty to keep them healthy.
This post first appeared on Online CPR Certification Blog | World News In Medi, please read the originial post: here | 585 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Africa was certainly not the most popular colonial destination for the European powers in the 17th century. Only some African harbours were under their control, used mostly as slave markets or entrepots for the ships that sailed between Europe and India.
There was, however, a single exception. The territory surrounding the Cape of Good Hope in the South was settled by a group of Dutch immigrants in the 17th century. Their main occupation was farming, and that was how they called themselves: the Boers (“farmers” in Dutch). Years of fight against the black-skinned tribes inhabiting the area fostered an exceptional sense of solidarity among the Boers, and a one of uniqueness, too. They began to consider themselves the chosen ones. They soon became the most powerful ethnic group in the area, enslaved the locals and made them work at their farms. Their presence in the Cape Colony was of no great significance for the Netherlands, so the Dutch authorities granted them self-government. The Boer authorities were located in Kaapstad (Dutch for Cape Town).
This steady state was ended by the revolutionary wave that flooded Europe in the end of the 18th century. The Netherlands were conquered by the French army in 1795. In response, Britain, France’s main enemy, seized the Dutch overseas territories, including the Cape Colony. The Anglo-Dutch treaty of 1814, signed after the Netherlands regained independence, confirmed the British rule of the territory.
British settlers, then, to the Boers’ discomfort, started to migrate to the new colony. Slavery had already been abolished in the UK by then, which made the Boers feel even more uncomfortable. They were not the masters of their land any more, and their self-government was limited by the British. Finally, in 1834, slavery was abolished in the entire British Empire. The Boers, whose farms could not exist without slave labour, decided to leave the Cape Colony. Led by Andries Pretorius, they embarked on the Groot Trek, the Great March. They moved East and, having beaten several local tribes, founded two new republics: Natalia and Orange (Oranje). When the former was seized by the British in 1840s, its citizens moved north and founded another one, called Transvaal. Of course, only the Boers could enjoy all the civic rights in the new republics. The Black were, again, enslaved and forced to work at the farms.
At first, the British were not interested in seizing the remote republics of Transvaal and Orange. This changed, however, in 1870, when diamond fields were discovered in the Orange Free State. Foreign explorers rushed to the western part of the country, and the Orange authorities, unable to control that, gave their consent to the British annexation of the region. In 1875, the British took over the Suez Canal Company, then established an informal control over the Egyptian government and a formal protectorate over Sudan. Suggestions that the UK could try to establish a range of colonies from Cape in the South of Africa to Cairo in the North were expressed for the first time. Soon after that, in 1877, a war broke out between the Boers of Transvaal and the neighbouring tribal state of the Swazis. The British decided to benefit from that and successfully attacked Transvaal. Then, they moved on to attack the Zulus. In 1880, once the Zululand was conquered by the Brits, the Boers in Transvaal started their fight. The British army suffered heavy losses and was defeated by the Boer Kommandos, using better camouflage and less tight battle formations. The Boers were given autonomy in 1881, and full independence in 1884. Paul Kruger, a leading figure in the war, was elected president. The British army, following the defeat, decided to give up its legendary red uniforms and introduce the less visible khaki-colour ones. The word commando was introduced into the English language.
It was not long after Kruger signed the independence treaty with the British that the rich gold reefs were discovered in Witwatersrand, in western Transvaal. The Boers, however, were not interested in them, as their main occupation was farming (and, of course, enslaving the locals). As a result, thousands of foreign prospectors, called uitlanders (outlanders) in Afrikaans, the language of the Boers, came to Transvaal to search for gold, and settled there, to the Boers’ discomfort. Meanwhile, a British entrepreneur Cecil Rhodes (the founder of De Beers, a leading diamond company until today) initiated the British conquest of the territories lying north of the Cape Colony. Three new colonies were created: Bechuanaland (now Botswana), Southern Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) and Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia). Still in the 1880s, the British established their rule in Kenya, south-east of Sudan. Their “Cape to Cairo” plan could not, however, be accomplished, as the Germans had conquered the area between Northern Rhodesia and the British East Africa (Kenya).
Anyway, Cecil Rhodes became prime minister of the Cape Colony in 1890. His main goal was to annex the rich Witwatersrand. He intended to inspire a uitlander uprising in Transvaal, which would then be supported by an armed unit sent from the Cape Colony. The unit, led by Leander Jameson, marched into Transvaal on 29 December 1895, but was soon captured by the Boer soldiers. The failure of the Jameson raid forced Rhodes to stand down as PM. The British, however, did not give up in their struggle to annex the Boer republic. They started to concentrate their army at the borders. In 1899, Kruger demanded that the military units be withdrawn. When the British refused, he declared war on the Britain. The Boer units, supplied partly by the Germans, using high-quality German weapons and supported by the Orange Free State, attacked the Cape Colony. After a few major victories, they were beaten at the battle of Paardeberg in February 1900 and withdrew to Transvaal. There, they changed their tactics from an open war to guerrilla. The Kommandos would trap the British units in ambushes and then run away. This worked quite well for the Boers, and the Brits were suffering heavy losses. They took radical measures to deal with the problem. Wherever the Boer Kommandos were causing troubles, the civilians were put into concentration camps and kept there, in very difficult conditions. Such camps had previously been used in the American civil war in 1860s, or in Cuba in 1890s. Horatio Kitchener, the British commander-in-chief, also ordered his soldiers to build a blockhouse system so that the Boer warriors could not penetrate the country so easily.
Finally, in 1902, the Boers gave up. Four years later, Transvaal and Orange became British colonies. In 1910, the Cape Colony, Transvaal, Orange, and Natalia all became parts of the newly formed Union of South Africa, a British dominion. Louis Botha, one of the Boer commanders, was elected president. The Boers, who dominated the politics of the new country, implemented a race-segregation policy, later called the Apartheid.
In 1961, the Union of South Africa changed its name into the Republic of South Africa and, unlike Canada or Australia, dropped the British dominion status. The Apartheid was there to stay, as we know today, for much longer. | <urn:uuid:81eeaa04-ad05-4d5d-acfb-f360f88c6207> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://embcwarsaw.com/2020/01/08/south-africa-origins/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251688806.91/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126104828-20200126134828-00011.warc.gz | en | 0.980047 | 1,565 | 3.8125 | 4 | [
0.009554799646139145,
0.7760865688323975,
0.058290936052799225,
-0.20327918231487274,
-0.016746852546930313,
-0.5474532842636108,
0.02909150719642639,
-0.1616867184638977,
-0.19953905045986176,
0.3157719075679779,
0.3770594596862793,
-0.4428960084915161,
-0.3523221015930176,
0.161313101649... | 1 | Africa was certainly not the most popular colonial destination for the European powers in the 17th century. Only some African harbours were under their control, used mostly as slave markets or entrepots for the ships that sailed between Europe and India.
There was, however, a single exception. The territory surrounding the Cape of Good Hope in the South was settled by a group of Dutch immigrants in the 17th century. Their main occupation was farming, and that was how they called themselves: the Boers (“farmers” in Dutch). Years of fight against the black-skinned tribes inhabiting the area fostered an exceptional sense of solidarity among the Boers, and a one of uniqueness, too. They began to consider themselves the chosen ones. They soon became the most powerful ethnic group in the area, enslaved the locals and made them work at their farms. Their presence in the Cape Colony was of no great significance for the Netherlands, so the Dutch authorities granted them self-government. The Boer authorities were located in Kaapstad (Dutch for Cape Town).
This steady state was ended by the revolutionary wave that flooded Europe in the end of the 18th century. The Netherlands were conquered by the French army in 1795. In response, Britain, France’s main enemy, seized the Dutch overseas territories, including the Cape Colony. The Anglo-Dutch treaty of 1814, signed after the Netherlands regained independence, confirmed the British rule of the territory.
British settlers, then, to the Boers’ discomfort, started to migrate to the new colony. Slavery had already been abolished in the UK by then, which made the Boers feel even more uncomfortable. They were not the masters of their land any more, and their self-government was limited by the British. Finally, in 1834, slavery was abolished in the entire British Empire. The Boers, whose farms could not exist without slave labour, decided to leave the Cape Colony. Led by Andries Pretorius, they embarked on the Groot Trek, the Great March. They moved East and, having beaten several local tribes, founded two new republics: Natalia and Orange (Oranje). When the former was seized by the British in 1840s, its citizens moved north and founded another one, called Transvaal. Of course, only the Boers could enjoy all the civic rights in the new republics. The Black were, again, enslaved and forced to work at the farms.
At first, the British were not interested in seizing the remote republics of Transvaal and Orange. This changed, however, in 1870, when diamond fields were discovered in the Orange Free State. Foreign explorers rushed to the western part of the country, and the Orange authorities, unable to control that, gave their consent to the British annexation of the region. In 1875, the British took over the Suez Canal Company, then established an informal control over the Egyptian government and a formal protectorate over Sudan. Suggestions that the UK could try to establish a range of colonies from Cape in the South of Africa to Cairo in the North were expressed for the first time. Soon after that, in 1877, a war broke out between the Boers of Transvaal and the neighbouring tribal state of the Swazis. The British decided to benefit from that and successfully attacked Transvaal. Then, they moved on to attack the Zulus. In 1880, once the Zululand was conquered by the Brits, the Boers in Transvaal started their fight. The British army suffered heavy losses and was defeated by the Boer Kommandos, using better camouflage and less tight battle formations. The Boers were given autonomy in 1881, and full independence in 1884. Paul Kruger, a leading figure in the war, was elected president. The British army, following the defeat, decided to give up its legendary red uniforms and introduce the less visible khaki-colour ones. The word commando was introduced into the English language.
It was not long after Kruger signed the independence treaty with the British that the rich gold reefs were discovered in Witwatersrand, in western Transvaal. The Boers, however, were not interested in them, as their main occupation was farming (and, of course, enslaving the locals). As a result, thousands of foreign prospectors, called uitlanders (outlanders) in Afrikaans, the language of the Boers, came to Transvaal to search for gold, and settled there, to the Boers’ discomfort. Meanwhile, a British entrepreneur Cecil Rhodes (the founder of De Beers, a leading diamond company until today) initiated the British conquest of the territories lying north of the Cape Colony. Three new colonies were created: Bechuanaland (now Botswana), Southern Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) and Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia). Still in the 1880s, the British established their rule in Kenya, south-east of Sudan. Their “Cape to Cairo” plan could not, however, be accomplished, as the Germans had conquered the area between Northern Rhodesia and the British East Africa (Kenya).
Anyway, Cecil Rhodes became prime minister of the Cape Colony in 1890. His main goal was to annex the rich Witwatersrand. He intended to inspire a uitlander uprising in Transvaal, which would then be supported by an armed unit sent from the Cape Colony. The unit, led by Leander Jameson, marched into Transvaal on 29 December 1895, but was soon captured by the Boer soldiers. The failure of the Jameson raid forced Rhodes to stand down as PM. The British, however, did not give up in their struggle to annex the Boer republic. They started to concentrate their army at the borders. In 1899, Kruger demanded that the military units be withdrawn. When the British refused, he declared war on the Britain. The Boer units, supplied partly by the Germans, using high-quality German weapons and supported by the Orange Free State, attacked the Cape Colony. After a few major victories, they were beaten at the battle of Paardeberg in February 1900 and withdrew to Transvaal. There, they changed their tactics from an open war to guerrilla. The Kommandos would trap the British units in ambushes and then run away. This worked quite well for the Boers, and the Brits were suffering heavy losses. They took radical measures to deal with the problem. Wherever the Boer Kommandos were causing troubles, the civilians were put into concentration camps and kept there, in very difficult conditions. Such camps had previously been used in the American civil war in 1860s, or in Cuba in 1890s. Horatio Kitchener, the British commander-in-chief, also ordered his soldiers to build a blockhouse system so that the Boer warriors could not penetrate the country so easily.
Finally, in 1902, the Boers gave up. Four years later, Transvaal and Orange became British colonies. In 1910, the Cape Colony, Transvaal, Orange, and Natalia all became parts of the newly formed Union of South Africa, a British dominion. Louis Botha, one of the Boer commanders, was elected president. The Boers, who dominated the politics of the new country, implemented a race-segregation policy, later called the Apartheid.
In 1961, the Union of South Africa changed its name into the Republic of South Africa and, unlike Canada or Australia, dropped the British dominion status. The Apartheid was there to stay, as we know today, for much longer. | 1,622 | ENGLISH | 1 |
This source was a cartoon published in Punch, a satirical British magazine, so therefore this source would have been over-exaggerated to make to poke fun at the situation but not meant to be taken very seriously. Also as it is British, they would want to support the US in this context as they are an ally of theirs and received the most help from the Marshall Aid and Truman Doctrine. It was also written in 1947 around the time of the Marshall plan for educated people who would read this magazine, so its purpose would have most likely been to re-assure the people that Western Europe is being defended from communism. This source depicts Truman hammering down a line of dollars to defend Western Europe from communism as there are stormy clouds coming from Eastern Europe, showing the takeover of communism. Also in the Truman doctrine, the main aim was to defend Western Europe with American dollars as they instilled a policy of containment, meaning that communism would not spread and remain within its existing boundaries. To do this, the congress granted $400 million to support Greece and Turkey as Turkey was in charge of the Dardanelles and if they came under the influence of the USSR Greece would be surrounded by communism and fall too – this is a domino effect which was prevented in 1949. However when it comes to the Marshall Plan one may say that that was his main aim. This is because the aim of the Marshall Plan was to help restore normal economic activity in Europe so that they would not turn to communism for help in desperate measures. To do this the congress granted $13 billion to aid fuel, raw materials, goods, loans and food, machinery and advisers. Therefore I agree with this source as by using US dollars Truman was able to defend Western Europe from communism as they did not turn to the USSR for help and managed to jump start their economies. Furthermore the only way Truman defended Western Europe against communism with the Truman Doctrine was with American dollars as if they did not use American arms and money, Britain could not have stayed in the Greek civil war and they could not help Turkey. If turkey had been surrounded so would have Greece and a domino effect would have taken place so the USSR could take over Europe. If it wasn’t for the US dollars Truman would have been able to defend Western Europe. | <urn:uuid:e83c0e4d-1a1d-487f-b1af-f3af18fcf0f1> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.studymode.com/essays/Truman-Line-6-Mark-Question-48460233.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250606696.26/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122042145-20200122071145-00370.warc.gz | en | 0.987818 | 463 | 3.296875 | 3 | [
-0.790938675403595,
-0.08319859951734543,
0.11175049096345901,
0.07466533780097961,
0.44584301114082336,
0.09405525773763657,
-0.1353350430727005,
0.3311697840690613,
-0.4314137399196625,
-0.18612410128116608,
0.1547914743423462,
-0.04759519174695015,
0.20427319407463074,
0.137381434440612... | 2 | This source was a cartoon published in Punch, a satirical British magazine, so therefore this source would have been over-exaggerated to make to poke fun at the situation but not meant to be taken very seriously. Also as it is British, they would want to support the US in this context as they are an ally of theirs and received the most help from the Marshall Aid and Truman Doctrine. It was also written in 1947 around the time of the Marshall plan for educated people who would read this magazine, so its purpose would have most likely been to re-assure the people that Western Europe is being defended from communism. This source depicts Truman hammering down a line of dollars to defend Western Europe from communism as there are stormy clouds coming from Eastern Europe, showing the takeover of communism. Also in the Truman doctrine, the main aim was to defend Western Europe with American dollars as they instilled a policy of containment, meaning that communism would not spread and remain within its existing boundaries. To do this, the congress granted $400 million to support Greece and Turkey as Turkey was in charge of the Dardanelles and if they came under the influence of the USSR Greece would be surrounded by communism and fall too – this is a domino effect which was prevented in 1949. However when it comes to the Marshall Plan one may say that that was his main aim. This is because the aim of the Marshall Plan was to help restore normal economic activity in Europe so that they would not turn to communism for help in desperate measures. To do this the congress granted $13 billion to aid fuel, raw materials, goods, loans and food, machinery and advisers. Therefore I agree with this source as by using US dollars Truman was able to defend Western Europe from communism as they did not turn to the USSR for help and managed to jump start their economies. Furthermore the only way Truman defended Western Europe against communism with the Truman Doctrine was with American dollars as if they did not use American arms and money, Britain could not have stayed in the Greek civil war and they could not help Turkey. If turkey had been surrounded so would have Greece and a domino effect would have taken place so the USSR could take over Europe. If it wasn’t for the US dollars Truman would have been able to defend Western Europe. | 470 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Zheng He was born in 1371, a couple years later his country got invaded by Ming dynasties army and was transported to Nanjing.
After being captured by the Ming dynasty, Zheng was in difficult circumstances being treated like a slave
Once Zheng He developed and grew up. He decided to turn to the muslim community and share his creative thoughts and ideas with others.
Zheng started working for the Muslim community and started bringing them back gold, ivory, and sometimes horses on his voyage(s)
Zheng started conquering more and more countries and islands with the motivation to help hisMuslim community.
After trading and making 11+ great historic voyages on boat, Zheng He decided to alternate and help spread the Muslim culture and ideas.Extra Note : Died - 1421 and Muslim community wanted to forget who he was, and turn Confucianism. | <urn:uuid:af536a36-0978-44da-a14e-67bca4e6f180> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.storyboardthat.com/storyboards/2880a404/zheng-he | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251669967.70/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125041318-20200125070318-00218.warc.gz | en | 0.981026 | 176 | 3.46875 | 3 | [
-0.23550647497177124,
0.3880128264427185,
-0.0007782260654494166,
-0.08655530214309692,
-0.31719809770584106,
-0.2850363254547119,
0.16332699358463287,
0.24713189899921417,
-0.0743347704410553,
-0.08329359441995621,
0.396817147731781,
-0.687532901763916,
0.12502838671207428,
0.359757095575... | 1 | Zheng He was born in 1371, a couple years later his country got invaded by Ming dynasties army and was transported to Nanjing.
After being captured by the Ming dynasty, Zheng was in difficult circumstances being treated like a slave
Once Zheng He developed and grew up. He decided to turn to the muslim community and share his creative thoughts and ideas with others.
Zheng started working for the Muslim community and started bringing them back gold, ivory, and sometimes horses on his voyage(s)
Zheng started conquering more and more countries and islands with the motivation to help hisMuslim community.
After trading and making 11+ great historic voyages on boat, Zheng He decided to alternate and help spread the Muslim culture and ideas.Extra Note : Died - 1421 and Muslim community wanted to forget who he was, and turn Confucianism. | 179 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Immigration has played a huge role in the creation of the United States as we know it today. The arrival of people from other countries around the world is a hot topic that affects the lives of Americans, and opinions differ greatly on the matter. To understand the culture of the U.S., it’s important to examine how immigration has shaped the nation.
Christopher Columbus is credited with discovering America, but when he sailed to the New World in 1492, the land was already occupied. About 15,000 years earlier, the first settlers found this land by crossing the Bering Land Bridge that connects Alaska and Siberia; their descendants are now known as Native Americans. Since then, the Home of the Brave and the Land of the Free has become a region for many to explore and make into a home.
America was built and populated by immigrants seeking a better life. In 1620, around 100 people left England aboard the Mayflower and landed in Massachusetts. These travelers were looking for freedom to practice their religion. They faced difficult times living in a foreign land and starting a new way of life. If it had not have been for the indigenous people, the Pilgrims might not have survived the harsh winter. The way the two peoples came together and celebrated their first harvest is still celebrated on Thanksgiving Day.
More people came to the New World looking not only for religious freedom, but also hoping to strike it rich or at least make a decent living for their families. England had staked its claim on the land, and the citizens were under the monarchy’s rule, which many fought since they had left Europe to escape such control. In 1776, the United States of America won its independence. The call went out to populate the land, and hopeful travelers, among them the weary, sick, hungry, and persecuted, made their way to the Colonies. It was a time of open borders.
Restrictions came 14 years later, in 1790, when Congress passed the Naturalization Act. This law allowed free white persons of “good character” to apply for citizenship, as long as they had been living in the U.S. for two or more years. Since then, lawmakers have continued to work on regulating immigration.
The most famous port for arriving immigrants has been Ellis Island, located in the water off New York City. As people arrived on boats, they were greeted by the sight of the Statue of Liberty, which became a symbol of what people hoped to find during their new life in the United States. In 1892, Annie Moore, a 15-year-old girl from Ireland, was the first person to arrive on Ellis Island as an official immigrant. Although there wasn’t much in the way of celebration on the first day the immigration center opened, Annie was given a coin as a gift for being the first migrant to be registered. Until the center closed in 1954, more than 12 million people came through Ellis Island.
Today, thousands of migrants continue to travel to America seeking a new life. People come for different reasons, but all hope to find a better life than the one they left behind. Some ask for refugee status because their lives are at risk in their home countries, while others wish to escape poverty and poor living conditions.
Illegal immigration is a controversial issue in the U.S. and other parts of the world. While Americans wish to welcome migrants, laws need to be followed to make the process successful. These regulations have been constantly changed and updated since the immigration system was put into place nearly 200 years ago. | <urn:uuid:33c4ed86-04c3-4573-969a-93e1600d0cea> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://lngenz.com/the-story-of-immigration-and-america-middle/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-story-of-immigration-and-america-middle | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594101.10/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119010920-20200119034920-00520.warc.gz | en | 0.982846 | 725 | 3.75 | 4 | [
0.05873022973537445,
-0.038660917431116104,
0.382454514503479,
-0.04340171068906784,
-0.0763942152261734,
0.10885349661111832,
0.021548135206103325,
0.0008771338034421206,
-0.08286145329475403,
0.2586832046508789,
0.3066244125366211,
0.30021190643310547,
-0.22080010175704956,
0.08930892497... | 5 | Immigration has played a huge role in the creation of the United States as we know it today. The arrival of people from other countries around the world is a hot topic that affects the lives of Americans, and opinions differ greatly on the matter. To understand the culture of the U.S., it’s important to examine how immigration has shaped the nation.
Christopher Columbus is credited with discovering America, but when he sailed to the New World in 1492, the land was already occupied. About 15,000 years earlier, the first settlers found this land by crossing the Bering Land Bridge that connects Alaska and Siberia; their descendants are now known as Native Americans. Since then, the Home of the Brave and the Land of the Free has become a region for many to explore and make into a home.
America was built and populated by immigrants seeking a better life. In 1620, around 100 people left England aboard the Mayflower and landed in Massachusetts. These travelers were looking for freedom to practice their religion. They faced difficult times living in a foreign land and starting a new way of life. If it had not have been for the indigenous people, the Pilgrims might not have survived the harsh winter. The way the two peoples came together and celebrated their first harvest is still celebrated on Thanksgiving Day.
More people came to the New World looking not only for religious freedom, but also hoping to strike it rich or at least make a decent living for their families. England had staked its claim on the land, and the citizens were under the monarchy’s rule, which many fought since they had left Europe to escape such control. In 1776, the United States of America won its independence. The call went out to populate the land, and hopeful travelers, among them the weary, sick, hungry, and persecuted, made their way to the Colonies. It was a time of open borders.
Restrictions came 14 years later, in 1790, when Congress passed the Naturalization Act. This law allowed free white persons of “good character” to apply for citizenship, as long as they had been living in the U.S. for two or more years. Since then, lawmakers have continued to work on regulating immigration.
The most famous port for arriving immigrants has been Ellis Island, located in the water off New York City. As people arrived on boats, they were greeted by the sight of the Statue of Liberty, which became a symbol of what people hoped to find during their new life in the United States. In 1892, Annie Moore, a 15-year-old girl from Ireland, was the first person to arrive on Ellis Island as an official immigrant. Although there wasn’t much in the way of celebration on the first day the immigration center opened, Annie was given a coin as a gift for being the first migrant to be registered. Until the center closed in 1954, more than 12 million people came through Ellis Island.
Today, thousands of migrants continue to travel to America seeking a new life. People come for different reasons, but all hope to find a better life than the one they left behind. Some ask for refugee status because their lives are at risk in their home countries, while others wish to escape poverty and poor living conditions.
Illegal immigration is a controversial issue in the U.S. and other parts of the world. While Americans wish to welcome migrants, laws need to be followed to make the process successful. These regulations have been constantly changed and updated since the immigration system was put into place nearly 200 years ago. | 739 | ENGLISH | 1 |
if that means anything:-)
It means nothing. The Neanderthals as a species originated in Europe. At a certain time of their history they started to migrate out of Europe and at roughly the same moment modern humans (Homo sapiens) started to migrate out of Africa (not sure which 'out-of-Africa' migration it was as there was more than one). The two species met in the Middle East and subsequently they interbred. And as both were not so genetically distant from one another at the time of that first encounter, the results of the interbreeding was rather efficient.
The interbreeding that took place much later on in Europe (in today's Roumania, for example) was still possible, but less fruitful in the long run as the two species diverged even more genetically down to that time. Thus, the location of the cave where the remains of the Neaderthal people were first discovered in 1856 does not matter that much to the fact that Europeans have less Neanderthal ancestry than people in the Middle East. Anyway, the percentages of Neanderthal ancestry vary across Europe as well. | <urn:uuid:2084d964-352e-458b-afd7-e7bb6ac7faab> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://polishforums.com/genealogy/mongolian-golden-horde-poles-25558/9/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250607314.32/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122161553-20200122190553-00065.warc.gz | en | 0.982971 | 227 | 3.359375 | 3 | [
-0.26600679755210876,
0.07011701911687851,
0.04738587141036987,
0.2664029598236084,
-0.134664386510849,
-0.3742896318435669,
0.346247136592865,
0.04925943911075592,
-0.0338040329515934,
0.15910504758358002,
0.6077833771705627,
-0.49287915229797363,
0.255312442779541,
0.27645692229270935,
... | 4 | if that means anything:-)
It means nothing. The Neanderthals as a species originated in Europe. At a certain time of their history they started to migrate out of Europe and at roughly the same moment modern humans (Homo sapiens) started to migrate out of Africa (not sure which 'out-of-Africa' migration it was as there was more than one). The two species met in the Middle East and subsequently they interbred. And as both were not so genetically distant from one another at the time of that first encounter, the results of the interbreeding was rather efficient.
The interbreeding that took place much later on in Europe (in today's Roumania, for example) was still possible, but less fruitful in the long run as the two species diverged even more genetically down to that time. Thus, the location of the cave where the remains of the Neaderthal people were first discovered in 1856 does not matter that much to the fact that Europeans have less Neanderthal ancestry than people in the Middle East. Anyway, the percentages of Neanderthal ancestry vary across Europe as well. | 230 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The term gay (ɡeɪ) was originally used, until well into the mid-20th century, primarily to refer to feelings of being "carefree", "happy", or "bright and showy"; it had also come to acquire some connotations of "immorality" as early as 1637.
The term later began to be used in reference to homosexuality, in particular, from the early 20th century, a usage that may have dated prior to the 19th century. In modern English, gay has come to be used as an adjective, and occasionally as a noun, that refers to the people, practices, and culture associated with homosexuality. By the end of the 20th century the word gay was recommended by major style guides to describe people attracted to members of the same sex. At about the same time, a new, pejorative use was visible in some parts of the world. In the UK, U.S., and Australia, this connotation, among younger generations of speakers, has a derisive meaning equivalent to rubbish or stupid (as in "That's so gay."). In this use the word does not mean "homosexual", so that it can be used, for example, of an inanimate object or abstract concept of which one disapproves, but the extent to which it still retains connotations of homosexuality has been debated. | <urn:uuid:8ed7f562-b832-4a03-a945-2527152add0f> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://medicalxpress.com/tags/gay/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251776516.99/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128060946-20200128090946-00038.warc.gz | en | 0.982222 | 279 | 3.484375 | 3 | [
0.18015985190868378,
0.27092239260673523,
-0.10587721318006516,
-0.2654913663864136,
-0.18130238354206085,
0.31936153769493103,
0.6092120409011841,
0.04202901944518089,
0.1775560975074768,
-0.114488385617733,
0.31813615560531616,
-0.19800280034542084,
0.11740442365407944,
-0.37311872839927... | 3 | The term gay (ɡeɪ) was originally used, until well into the mid-20th century, primarily to refer to feelings of being "carefree", "happy", or "bright and showy"; it had also come to acquire some connotations of "immorality" as early as 1637.
The term later began to be used in reference to homosexuality, in particular, from the early 20th century, a usage that may have dated prior to the 19th century. In modern English, gay has come to be used as an adjective, and occasionally as a noun, that refers to the people, practices, and culture associated with homosexuality. By the end of the 20th century the word gay was recommended by major style guides to describe people attracted to members of the same sex. At about the same time, a new, pejorative use was visible in some parts of the world. In the UK, U.S., and Australia, this connotation, among younger generations of speakers, has a derisive meaning equivalent to rubbish or stupid (as in "That's so gay."). In this use the word does not mean "homosexual", so that it can be used, for example, of an inanimate object or abstract concept of which one disapproves, but the extent to which it still retains connotations of homosexuality has been debated. | 286 | ENGLISH | 1 |
General John Burgoyne’s play The Blockade of Boston is interrupted
On this day in history, January 8, 1776, General John Burgoyne’s play The Blockade of Boston is interrupted when colonists attack Charlestown. Unbeknownst to most, General John Burgoyne, the famous British General who surrendered his army at Saratoga, changing the course of the American Revolution, was also a mildly successful playwright.
Burgoyne published his first play, The Maid of the Oaks, in 1774. It was well received and soon opened at the Drury Lane Theater for a run of several nights to both good and bad reviews, but Burgoyne had established his name as a playwright. When Burgoyne was sent to Boston in May, 1775, he used his influence to have Faneuil Hall converted into a theater. One way bored British soldiers trapped in Boston spent their time was in producing plays twice a week on the upper level of Faneuil Hall, to the complete consternation of Boston’s Puritan population, which had outlawed theater performances since 1750, believing them to be instigators of "immorality, impiety and contempt of religion.
While in Boston, Burgoyne wrote The Blockade of Boston, a satirical play making fun of the colonists. No complete copy of the play has survived, but one diary account says George Washington was portrayed as an "uncouth countryman; dressed shabbily, with a large wig and long rusty sword." One line from an American character in the play reveals how the Americans were portrayed: "Ye tarbarrell’d Lawgivers, yankified Prigs, Who are Tyrants in Custom, yet call yourselves Whigs; In return for the Favours you’ve lavish’d on me, May I see you all hang’d upon Liberty Tree."
The Blockade of Boston was set to be performed at 9pm on January 8, 1776. Burgoyne was not even in town anymore, having left for London in December. Just as the play was about to begin, a group of 100 colonists under the command of Major Thomas Knowlton staged a raid on the British outpost in Charlestown, across the water from Boston. Several homes were burned and five soldiers were captured in the raid.
As shots rang out from the Fort on Bunker Hill, the soldiers back in Boston heard the commotion. One soldier, dressed in a costume and about to perform, rushed onto the stage and yelled out that the rebels were attacking. The audience of mostly soldiers believed the outburst was part of the performance and stayed in their seats. After some more pleading by the officer/actor, the crowd realized they were truly under attack and began to scramble to their posts.
Eyewitness accounts have the soldiers tripping over each other, jumping over the orchestra pit, stomping on violins, rushing to change from their costumes and wipe the makeup off their faces in order to get to their posts. The Americans had quite a laugh at the scene when it was reported in newspapers a few days later.
John Burgoyne would go on to publish 3 more successful plays in London, but would never become a well-known playwright. He is most remembered for his surrender at the Battle of Saratoga in October, 1777, the event that encouraged France to join the war on the side of the Americans.
National Society Sons of the American Revolution
"A right to property is founded in our natural wants, in the means with which we are endowed to satisfy these wants, and the right to what we acquire by those means without violating the similar rights of other sensible beings." | <urn:uuid:2453357b-7abf-4773-8c56-86123571e192> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://blog.alssar.org/uncategorized/general-john-burgoynes-play-the-blockade-of-boston-is-interrupted-5/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250624328.55/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124161014-20200124190014-00074.warc.gz | en | 0.980692 | 764 | 3.484375 | 3 | [
0.3165520429611206,
-0.04751396179199219,
0.5615932941436768,
-0.4419211447238922,
-0.4004414677619934,
-0.028612827882170677,
0.036189351230859756,
-0.28488510847091675,
-0.09088846296072006,
-0.22025525569915771,
-0.34878331422805786,
0.173198863863945,
0.017927590757608414,
0.1257848292... | 2 | General John Burgoyne’s play The Blockade of Boston is interrupted
On this day in history, January 8, 1776, General John Burgoyne’s play The Blockade of Boston is interrupted when colonists attack Charlestown. Unbeknownst to most, General John Burgoyne, the famous British General who surrendered his army at Saratoga, changing the course of the American Revolution, was also a mildly successful playwright.
Burgoyne published his first play, The Maid of the Oaks, in 1774. It was well received and soon opened at the Drury Lane Theater for a run of several nights to both good and bad reviews, but Burgoyne had established his name as a playwright. When Burgoyne was sent to Boston in May, 1775, he used his influence to have Faneuil Hall converted into a theater. One way bored British soldiers trapped in Boston spent their time was in producing plays twice a week on the upper level of Faneuil Hall, to the complete consternation of Boston’s Puritan population, which had outlawed theater performances since 1750, believing them to be instigators of "immorality, impiety and contempt of religion.
While in Boston, Burgoyne wrote The Blockade of Boston, a satirical play making fun of the colonists. No complete copy of the play has survived, but one diary account says George Washington was portrayed as an "uncouth countryman; dressed shabbily, with a large wig and long rusty sword." One line from an American character in the play reveals how the Americans were portrayed: "Ye tarbarrell’d Lawgivers, yankified Prigs, Who are Tyrants in Custom, yet call yourselves Whigs; In return for the Favours you’ve lavish’d on me, May I see you all hang’d upon Liberty Tree."
The Blockade of Boston was set to be performed at 9pm on January 8, 1776. Burgoyne was not even in town anymore, having left for London in December. Just as the play was about to begin, a group of 100 colonists under the command of Major Thomas Knowlton staged a raid on the British outpost in Charlestown, across the water from Boston. Several homes were burned and five soldiers were captured in the raid.
As shots rang out from the Fort on Bunker Hill, the soldiers back in Boston heard the commotion. One soldier, dressed in a costume and about to perform, rushed onto the stage and yelled out that the rebels were attacking. The audience of mostly soldiers believed the outburst was part of the performance and stayed in their seats. After some more pleading by the officer/actor, the crowd realized they were truly under attack and began to scramble to their posts.
Eyewitness accounts have the soldiers tripping over each other, jumping over the orchestra pit, stomping on violins, rushing to change from their costumes and wipe the makeup off their faces in order to get to their posts. The Americans had quite a laugh at the scene when it was reported in newspapers a few days later.
John Burgoyne would go on to publish 3 more successful plays in London, but would never become a well-known playwright. He is most remembered for his surrender at the Battle of Saratoga in October, 1777, the event that encouraged France to join the war on the side of the Americans.
National Society Sons of the American Revolution
"A right to property is founded in our natural wants, in the means with which we are endowed to satisfy these wants, and the right to what we acquire by those means without violating the similar rights of other sensible beings." | 769 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Chesapeake History: Sharps Island
Prop Talk Magazine
March 30, 2017
Once assessed at around 600 acres, Sharps Island is now completely lost from view, no more than an underwater shoal marked by a small sign and a nearby lighthouse. The former island lies just west of the mouth of the Choptank River, off Talbot County, MD.
For much of its short history, Sharps Island was used primarily for farming. Wheat, tobacco, corn, potatoes, and produce were raised on its shores. By the 1830s, the island had been reduced to nearly half its original size. It was around this time that the federal government began drafting plans for the first of three Sharps Island lighthouses.
Built in 1838 using a $5000 appropriation from Congress, the light quickly became a welcome aid to boaters navigating the dangerous shoals of the Eastern Shore. It was erected on a small frame house 30 feet above sea level. But despite its height, wind and waves continued to batter the island and erode away its shoreline. In 1848, additional acreage had to be purchased and the lighthouse was moved inland, but this was only a temporary fix. In 1866, when the base of the structure was compromised, it was replaced with a screwpile lighthouse and placed a third of a mile off the northern tip of the island. That structure did not fare much better than its predecessor, lasting only 15 years.
The Screwpile light remained in operation until the winter of 1881, when ice floes dislodged its supports and carried the house away. The lighthouse keepers were on duty at the time and became trapped inside the structure. They were carried nearly five miles until the light ran aground and they were able to escape unharmed, with the lighthouse’s lens.
The third (and current) Sharps Island Lighthouse in July, 1885. Photo courtesy U.S. Coast Guard.
After the closing of the hotel, Bay waters continued their advance on the remaining land at an alarming rate. By 1960, Sharps Island had been reduced to a shoal, completely lost from view. Now all that remains is the third lighthouse, currently featuring a 15-degree list after it was damaged by ice in 1977, and a small warning buoy. On charts it is simply known as “Sharps Island Obstruction.”
By 1900, the island had shrunk to only 94 acres, and the steamboat pier was completely gone. Within 10 years the Sharps Island Hotel was closed and torn down. The only remnant of the once thriving resort was its lumber, which was allegedly used to build homes on the nearby Tilghman Island.
Toward the end of the nineteenth century, Miller R. Creighton purchased Sharps Island and built a three-story hotel, along with a boardwalk and steamboat landing on its shores. Given the popularity of Victorian-era bayside resorts, the hotel was a great success, with wealthy Baltimoreans flocking to its shores in the summer months. Unfortunately, that idyllic atmosphere could not last.
The Lighthouse Board was soon granted $35,000 in funds to build a replacement light, completed in 1882. It was attached to an underwater plot and featured a concrete caisson foundation and a 35-foot tower. The light was manned until 1938 when it was automated by the U.S. Coast Guard. It marks both the entrance to the Choptank River and the main shipping channel of the Chesapeake Bay. | <urn:uuid:3c175ab1-3982-44df-afca-994939f89489> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.neeldestate.com/misc | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250613416.54/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123191130-20200123220130-00093.warc.gz | en | 0.983161 | 724 | 3.359375 | 3 | [
-0.0727638304233551,
-0.12066464126110077,
0.36079278588294983,
-0.05185101181268692,
-0.03800307959318161,
0.2172110229730606,
-0.15723970532417297,
-0.06768926978111267,
-0.4056856334209442,
0.1197962611913681,
0.38405728340148926,
-0.34958139061927795,
-0.12512725591659546,
0.1681746095... | 5 | Chesapeake History: Sharps Island
Prop Talk Magazine
March 30, 2017
Once assessed at around 600 acres, Sharps Island is now completely lost from view, no more than an underwater shoal marked by a small sign and a nearby lighthouse. The former island lies just west of the mouth of the Choptank River, off Talbot County, MD.
For much of its short history, Sharps Island was used primarily for farming. Wheat, tobacco, corn, potatoes, and produce were raised on its shores. By the 1830s, the island had been reduced to nearly half its original size. It was around this time that the federal government began drafting plans for the first of three Sharps Island lighthouses.
Built in 1838 using a $5000 appropriation from Congress, the light quickly became a welcome aid to boaters navigating the dangerous shoals of the Eastern Shore. It was erected on a small frame house 30 feet above sea level. But despite its height, wind and waves continued to batter the island and erode away its shoreline. In 1848, additional acreage had to be purchased and the lighthouse was moved inland, but this was only a temporary fix. In 1866, when the base of the structure was compromised, it was replaced with a screwpile lighthouse and placed a third of a mile off the northern tip of the island. That structure did not fare much better than its predecessor, lasting only 15 years.
The Screwpile light remained in operation until the winter of 1881, when ice floes dislodged its supports and carried the house away. The lighthouse keepers were on duty at the time and became trapped inside the structure. They were carried nearly five miles until the light ran aground and they were able to escape unharmed, with the lighthouse’s lens.
The third (and current) Sharps Island Lighthouse in July, 1885. Photo courtesy U.S. Coast Guard.
After the closing of the hotel, Bay waters continued their advance on the remaining land at an alarming rate. By 1960, Sharps Island had been reduced to a shoal, completely lost from view. Now all that remains is the third lighthouse, currently featuring a 15-degree list after it was damaged by ice in 1977, and a small warning buoy. On charts it is simply known as “Sharps Island Obstruction.”
By 1900, the island had shrunk to only 94 acres, and the steamboat pier was completely gone. Within 10 years the Sharps Island Hotel was closed and torn down. The only remnant of the once thriving resort was its lumber, which was allegedly used to build homes on the nearby Tilghman Island.
Toward the end of the nineteenth century, Miller R. Creighton purchased Sharps Island and built a three-story hotel, along with a boardwalk and steamboat landing on its shores. Given the popularity of Victorian-era bayside resorts, the hotel was a great success, with wealthy Baltimoreans flocking to its shores in the summer months. Unfortunately, that idyllic atmosphere could not last.
The Lighthouse Board was soon granted $35,000 in funds to build a replacement light, completed in 1882. It was attached to an underwater plot and featured a concrete caisson foundation and a 35-foot tower. The light was manned until 1938 when it was automated by the U.S. Coast Guard. It marks both the entrance to the Choptank River and the main shipping channel of the Chesapeake Bay. | 777 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Perry County War of 1881
The Perry County War is the common name given to a brief period of violence that erupted in Perryville (Perry County) in the summer of 1881. The general lawlessness, including the murder of the local newspaper editor, resulted in the governor sending the militia to calm the situation. In actuality, the 1881 events were a second eruption of an ongoing settling of political differences in Perry County dating back to the Civil War.
Like many counties in Arkansas during the Civil War, Perry County was divided by conflicting loyalties. The mountainous western sections of the county aligned with the Union, while whites in the eastern half, where most of the enslaved people lived, held Confederate sympathies. These philosophical differences continued after the Civil War, often erupting into political violence, as was the case in the summer of 1881.
One of the major political players in Perry County during these tumultuous years was John L. W. Mathews, who identified himself alternately as a Republican and Democrat throughout his life. Mathews, a native of Tennessee, moved to Arkansas before the Civil War and mustered into service with the Third Arkansas Cavalry (US) in Lewisburg (Conway County) in October 1864. After the war, Mathews moved back to Lewisburg, where he opened a hotel. In December 1868, violence aimed at African Americans by the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) roiled Conway County to such an extent that Governor Powell Clayton imposed martial law and sent the state militia to Lewisburg.
During the violence, Mathews’s hotel and other buildings in Lewisburg were destroyed by fire, although the cause could not be attributed to the KKK or any other specific group. Mathews, however, believed that the fire was the work of the Klan and the Democrats, and he attempted to avenge his loss. In mid-December, Mathews and his men stopped Robert Perry and Joe Jackson on a road outside of Lewisburg and interrogated them as to their knowledge of the Klan. The situation quickly became deadly, with Mathews’s men shooting off Perry’s ear and killing Jackson. The group marched on to the home of Thomas Hooper, a member of the Klan, to arrest him in connection with an earlier murder of Wash Lewis. Lewis, a black man, had been killed in early December, supposedly for living with a white woman. Later, Hooper’s body was discovered on the road to Springfield (Conway County), then the county seat. Mathews returned to Lewisburg to arrest three prominent Democrats but was rebuffed by a group of citizens. Thwarted, Mathews and his men returned to Springfield. By 1872, Mathews had moved to Perryville, the seat of Perry County.
During the fall of 1872, Mathews, who was identified as a Republican in the statewide newspaper during this time, was involved in the case of County Clerk George W. Manes, a fellow Republican. Manes had been arrested, along with the county sheriff, in the murder of Dallas Lillard during an ambush in July of that year, and Mathews was tapped to serve as prosecuting attorney for the case. While there was not enough evidence to send the case to trial, Manes later accused Mathews of conspiracy to murder him while he was in custody and publicly blamed Mathews for the death of Lillard. Mathews was arrested but was not tried in court.
The animosity became so pronounced that Governor Ozro A. Hadley ordered General Daniel P. Upham to Perryville to ascertain the climate. In his report to Hadley in late September 1872, Upham stated that he did not believe that politics were the root of the problem. He noted that the general desire of the county was for peace, but the disturbances could be traced to a “few bad men…in constant fear of each other.” The environment settled down after Manes was voted out of office at the November election.
Around 1880, Mathews established the Fourche Valley Times newspaper, for which he was editor and publisher.
On May 25, 1881, County Judge L. M. Harris, who was a Democrat, and Mathews—who declared himself a Republican at this time—received threatening letters, signed by the Ku Klux Klan, warning them to leave the county in fifteen days or be murdered. Five days later, the offices of the newspaper were set on fire, although it was extinguished before any major damage occurred.
On June 8, a group of armed men rode into Perryville looking for Harris and Mathews. Harris, who was holding court at the time, fled to Morrilton (Conway County). From Morrilton, the judge took the train to Little Rock (Pulaski County) and appealed to Governor Thomas J. Churchill for military help. Mathews, however, did not leave Perryville, and it was reported that, even though he greeted the band of armed men, he was not accosted. According to newspaper accounts, the troubles arose after many incidents of Harris angering certain citizens.
One of these incidents involved Harris accusing Green Smyers and James Isom, both former sheriffs of Perry County, of embezzling tax revenues. Mathews wrote editorials on the matter in the Fourche Valley Times and was considered by many to be a supporter of the judge. While some voiced support for Harris in the statewide newspapers, Mathews was almost universally reviled in the papers. One Perry County resident alluded to Mathews’s unscrupulous behavior toward his fellow citizens during Reconstruction. According to the unidentified man, Mathews illegally acquired the land on which “New Perryville” (about a mile from Old Perryville) and the county courthouse were located. While Mathews profited from the sale of this land, others suffered loss. Others accused Mathews of being an opportunist and using his newspaper to further his ambition, switching parties and his support of local politicians to benefit himself, while offending people on both ends of the political spectrum. It is apparent from the newspaper accounts that Mathews was despised and distrusted in the county.
Gov. Churchill was averse to sending the militia to Perry County and hoped that the troubles could be quelled through the law. To assist, the governor sent Major General R. C. Newton, former head of the state militia, to accompany Judge Harris back to Perryville and evaluate the situation in the county. Newton discovered in his assessment that many believed that Mathews was the instigator in county politics and Harris was his tool.
Major General Newton recommended to Governor Churchill that Jabez Smith, the circuit judge, and J. B. Wood, the prosecuting attorney, be sent to Perryville to impose order by arresting and trying those suspected of committing the offenses during the last few weeks. Newton, with the agreement of some of the leading citizens in the county, believed that this would calm the situation.
Because of scheduling conflicts, Smith and Wood never made it to Perryville. On the night of July 21, Mathews was shot and killed at his office by unknown assailants. On the same night, a note left on Judge Harris’s door ordered him to leave Perry County or suffer the same fate as Mathews. This incident exacerbated the already tense atmosphere in Perry County; even the New York Times reported on the assassination.
The murder of Mathews spurred Gov. Churchill to send Wood to assess the climate in Perryville immediately, and he reported that the situation was the same as when Major Gen. Newton visited the county, save for the murder of Mathews. Wood noted that no one had yet been arrested for sending the threatening letters to Harris and Mathews, the burning of the Fourche Valley Times office, or the killing of Mathews.
Gov. Churchill delayed interfering in the county affairs until he received a letter from Perry County sheriff J. L. Vann, imploring the governor to send troops, as he was powerless to arrest those responsible for the murder of Mathews or to stop the violence. In response to Vann, Churchill ordered the Quapaw Guards, a militia company headquartered in Little Rock and led by Newton, to Perryville on July 31. The governor also sent William Leake Terry, Little Rock city attorney and state senator representing the Tenth District (which included Perry County), to Perryville to lead the legal proceedings once those responsible for the recent crimes were identified and arrested. Arkansas Gazette correspondent Opie Read also accompanied the military unit to Perryville, and he provided humorous reports from what he called the “seat of wah” for the duration of the occupation.
The Quapaw Guards’ trip to Perryville was indeed troubled. They left Little Rock via the Arkansas River on the steamboat Roseville, but within five miles the vessel had become stuck on a log. After the log was removed, the steamboat made its way to Brown’s Landing, located at the confluence of the Arkansas and Fourche La Fave rivers about fifteen miles from Perryville. Because of the low level of the Fourche La Fave, the men were forced to disembark at Brown’s Landing and march to the county seat, a trek which, according to newspaper accounts, took about two and a half hours. Upon their arrival in Perryville on August 1, the guard members were enthusiastically received, especially by Harris.
On August 4, William L. Payton and ex-sheriff Isom were arrested without incident by the county sheriff for the assassination of Mathews. Although Sheriff Vann requested the assistance of Maj. Gen. Newton in executing the arrest orders, the military leader declined until there was an indication of resistance. Isom and Payton were arraigned in the Perry County Court on the charges of threatening Harris and Mathews, attempted arson of the Fourche Valley Times office, and the murder of Mathews.
The two were brought before Judge W. C. Langford on August 5, with Terry representing the state and J. F. Sellers, a Mr. Cryer, and Colonel Eugene B. Henry serving as the defense team. None of the soldiers from the Quapaw Guards were allowed in the courthouse during the proceedings, as it was feared that their presence would influence the jurors. Instead, to ensure calm during the trail, about fifty Perry County citizens were sworn in to serve in a county militia and stand guard around the courthouse and Judge Harris’s house. Fifty-eight witnesses were called during the course of the investigative trial, which lasted until August 12. The judge determined that there was enough evidence for Isom and Payton to stand trial, which was to take place during the next term of the circuit court in October. Both were released on bond; Isom’s bail was set at $5,000, and Payton’s at $3,000.
When the Quapaw Guards returned to Little Rock, they were welcomed with a reception at Alexander Park. During the two weeks the soldiers were in Perryville, they did not do much except drill. At one point, they took over the office of the Fourche Valley Times and printed one issue of the Quapaw Times, a four-page newspaper mainly filled with musings and gossip. The Arkansas State Archives holds the only known remaining copy of this paper printed in Perryville during the Perry County War.
In October 1881, a jury declined to convict the two men, but according to the October 29, 1881, Arkansas Gazette, the case would be considered again in the future. However, there were no further reports in the newspaper about the case. The county remained calm after the trial, and Harris was not threatened again. On December 20, 1881, the Perry County courthouse was burned, perhaps to destroy the court records related to the Isom and Payton trial. With the records lost in the courthouse fire, it is assumed the cases were dismissed.
Isom established a newspaper in neighboring Yell County in March 1882 but died of dysentery in November of that year. It is unknown what happened to Payton. The political climate in Perry County settled, and there was little violence noted after the trial of Isom and Payton ended.
For additional information:
Perry County Historical & Genealogical Society. Perry County, Arkansas: Its Land & People. Marceline, MO: Walsworth Publishing Company, 2004.
Message of Thos. J. Churchill, Governor of the State of Arkansas to the General Assembly, January 1883. Little Rock: Mitchell & Bettis, State Printers, 1883.
“From the Seat of ‘Wah.’” Arkansas Gazette, June 14, 1881, p. 1.
“The ‘State’ of Perry.” Arkansas Gazette, August 4, 1881, p. 4.
Timothy G. Nutt
University of Arkansas Libraries
Last Updated: 06/08/2016 | <urn:uuid:f7a97697-67d0-426e-8286-bcc273e53f24> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://encyclopediaofarkansas.net/entries/perry-county-war-of-1881-3638/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251705142.94/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127174507-20200127204507-00059.warc.gz | en | 0.982417 | 2,661 | 3.4375 | 3 | [
-0.39450564980506897,
0.1255308985710144,
0.14010736346244812,
-0.01763380691409111,
0.12302858382463455,
-0.38818085193634033,
-0.015381602570414543,
-0.11990986764431,
-0.36107614636421204,
0.327287882566452,
0.31532084941864014,
0.0025670023169368505,
-0.2882843613624573,
0.181055024266... | 5 | Perry County War of 1881
The Perry County War is the common name given to a brief period of violence that erupted in Perryville (Perry County) in the summer of 1881. The general lawlessness, including the murder of the local newspaper editor, resulted in the governor sending the militia to calm the situation. In actuality, the 1881 events were a second eruption of an ongoing settling of political differences in Perry County dating back to the Civil War.
Like many counties in Arkansas during the Civil War, Perry County was divided by conflicting loyalties. The mountainous western sections of the county aligned with the Union, while whites in the eastern half, where most of the enslaved people lived, held Confederate sympathies. These philosophical differences continued after the Civil War, often erupting into political violence, as was the case in the summer of 1881.
One of the major political players in Perry County during these tumultuous years was John L. W. Mathews, who identified himself alternately as a Republican and Democrat throughout his life. Mathews, a native of Tennessee, moved to Arkansas before the Civil War and mustered into service with the Third Arkansas Cavalry (US) in Lewisburg (Conway County) in October 1864. After the war, Mathews moved back to Lewisburg, where he opened a hotel. In December 1868, violence aimed at African Americans by the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) roiled Conway County to such an extent that Governor Powell Clayton imposed martial law and sent the state militia to Lewisburg.
During the violence, Mathews’s hotel and other buildings in Lewisburg were destroyed by fire, although the cause could not be attributed to the KKK or any other specific group. Mathews, however, believed that the fire was the work of the Klan and the Democrats, and he attempted to avenge his loss. In mid-December, Mathews and his men stopped Robert Perry and Joe Jackson on a road outside of Lewisburg and interrogated them as to their knowledge of the Klan. The situation quickly became deadly, with Mathews’s men shooting off Perry’s ear and killing Jackson. The group marched on to the home of Thomas Hooper, a member of the Klan, to arrest him in connection with an earlier murder of Wash Lewis. Lewis, a black man, had been killed in early December, supposedly for living with a white woman. Later, Hooper’s body was discovered on the road to Springfield (Conway County), then the county seat. Mathews returned to Lewisburg to arrest three prominent Democrats but was rebuffed by a group of citizens. Thwarted, Mathews and his men returned to Springfield. By 1872, Mathews had moved to Perryville, the seat of Perry County.
During the fall of 1872, Mathews, who was identified as a Republican in the statewide newspaper during this time, was involved in the case of County Clerk George W. Manes, a fellow Republican. Manes had been arrested, along with the county sheriff, in the murder of Dallas Lillard during an ambush in July of that year, and Mathews was tapped to serve as prosecuting attorney for the case. While there was not enough evidence to send the case to trial, Manes later accused Mathews of conspiracy to murder him while he was in custody and publicly blamed Mathews for the death of Lillard. Mathews was arrested but was not tried in court.
The animosity became so pronounced that Governor Ozro A. Hadley ordered General Daniel P. Upham to Perryville to ascertain the climate. In his report to Hadley in late September 1872, Upham stated that he did not believe that politics were the root of the problem. He noted that the general desire of the county was for peace, but the disturbances could be traced to a “few bad men…in constant fear of each other.” The environment settled down after Manes was voted out of office at the November election.
Around 1880, Mathews established the Fourche Valley Times newspaper, for which he was editor and publisher.
On May 25, 1881, County Judge L. M. Harris, who was a Democrat, and Mathews—who declared himself a Republican at this time—received threatening letters, signed by the Ku Klux Klan, warning them to leave the county in fifteen days or be murdered. Five days later, the offices of the newspaper were set on fire, although it was extinguished before any major damage occurred.
On June 8, a group of armed men rode into Perryville looking for Harris and Mathews. Harris, who was holding court at the time, fled to Morrilton (Conway County). From Morrilton, the judge took the train to Little Rock (Pulaski County) and appealed to Governor Thomas J. Churchill for military help. Mathews, however, did not leave Perryville, and it was reported that, even though he greeted the band of armed men, he was not accosted. According to newspaper accounts, the troubles arose after many incidents of Harris angering certain citizens.
One of these incidents involved Harris accusing Green Smyers and James Isom, both former sheriffs of Perry County, of embezzling tax revenues. Mathews wrote editorials on the matter in the Fourche Valley Times and was considered by many to be a supporter of the judge. While some voiced support for Harris in the statewide newspapers, Mathews was almost universally reviled in the papers. One Perry County resident alluded to Mathews’s unscrupulous behavior toward his fellow citizens during Reconstruction. According to the unidentified man, Mathews illegally acquired the land on which “New Perryville” (about a mile from Old Perryville) and the county courthouse were located. While Mathews profited from the sale of this land, others suffered loss. Others accused Mathews of being an opportunist and using his newspaper to further his ambition, switching parties and his support of local politicians to benefit himself, while offending people on both ends of the political spectrum. It is apparent from the newspaper accounts that Mathews was despised and distrusted in the county.
Gov. Churchill was averse to sending the militia to Perry County and hoped that the troubles could be quelled through the law. To assist, the governor sent Major General R. C. Newton, former head of the state militia, to accompany Judge Harris back to Perryville and evaluate the situation in the county. Newton discovered in his assessment that many believed that Mathews was the instigator in county politics and Harris was his tool.
Major General Newton recommended to Governor Churchill that Jabez Smith, the circuit judge, and J. B. Wood, the prosecuting attorney, be sent to Perryville to impose order by arresting and trying those suspected of committing the offenses during the last few weeks. Newton, with the agreement of some of the leading citizens in the county, believed that this would calm the situation.
Because of scheduling conflicts, Smith and Wood never made it to Perryville. On the night of July 21, Mathews was shot and killed at his office by unknown assailants. On the same night, a note left on Judge Harris’s door ordered him to leave Perry County or suffer the same fate as Mathews. This incident exacerbated the already tense atmosphere in Perry County; even the New York Times reported on the assassination.
The murder of Mathews spurred Gov. Churchill to send Wood to assess the climate in Perryville immediately, and he reported that the situation was the same as when Major Gen. Newton visited the county, save for the murder of Mathews. Wood noted that no one had yet been arrested for sending the threatening letters to Harris and Mathews, the burning of the Fourche Valley Times office, or the killing of Mathews.
Gov. Churchill delayed interfering in the county affairs until he received a letter from Perry County sheriff J. L. Vann, imploring the governor to send troops, as he was powerless to arrest those responsible for the murder of Mathews or to stop the violence. In response to Vann, Churchill ordered the Quapaw Guards, a militia company headquartered in Little Rock and led by Newton, to Perryville on July 31. The governor also sent William Leake Terry, Little Rock city attorney and state senator representing the Tenth District (which included Perry County), to Perryville to lead the legal proceedings once those responsible for the recent crimes were identified and arrested. Arkansas Gazette correspondent Opie Read also accompanied the military unit to Perryville, and he provided humorous reports from what he called the “seat of wah” for the duration of the occupation.
The Quapaw Guards’ trip to Perryville was indeed troubled. They left Little Rock via the Arkansas River on the steamboat Roseville, but within five miles the vessel had become stuck on a log. After the log was removed, the steamboat made its way to Brown’s Landing, located at the confluence of the Arkansas and Fourche La Fave rivers about fifteen miles from Perryville. Because of the low level of the Fourche La Fave, the men were forced to disembark at Brown’s Landing and march to the county seat, a trek which, according to newspaper accounts, took about two and a half hours. Upon their arrival in Perryville on August 1, the guard members were enthusiastically received, especially by Harris.
On August 4, William L. Payton and ex-sheriff Isom were arrested without incident by the county sheriff for the assassination of Mathews. Although Sheriff Vann requested the assistance of Maj. Gen. Newton in executing the arrest orders, the military leader declined until there was an indication of resistance. Isom and Payton were arraigned in the Perry County Court on the charges of threatening Harris and Mathews, attempted arson of the Fourche Valley Times office, and the murder of Mathews.
The two were brought before Judge W. C. Langford on August 5, with Terry representing the state and J. F. Sellers, a Mr. Cryer, and Colonel Eugene B. Henry serving as the defense team. None of the soldiers from the Quapaw Guards were allowed in the courthouse during the proceedings, as it was feared that their presence would influence the jurors. Instead, to ensure calm during the trail, about fifty Perry County citizens were sworn in to serve in a county militia and stand guard around the courthouse and Judge Harris’s house. Fifty-eight witnesses were called during the course of the investigative trial, which lasted until August 12. The judge determined that there was enough evidence for Isom and Payton to stand trial, which was to take place during the next term of the circuit court in October. Both were released on bond; Isom’s bail was set at $5,000, and Payton’s at $3,000.
When the Quapaw Guards returned to Little Rock, they were welcomed with a reception at Alexander Park. During the two weeks the soldiers were in Perryville, they did not do much except drill. At one point, they took over the office of the Fourche Valley Times and printed one issue of the Quapaw Times, a four-page newspaper mainly filled with musings and gossip. The Arkansas State Archives holds the only known remaining copy of this paper printed in Perryville during the Perry County War.
In October 1881, a jury declined to convict the two men, but according to the October 29, 1881, Arkansas Gazette, the case would be considered again in the future. However, there were no further reports in the newspaper about the case. The county remained calm after the trial, and Harris was not threatened again. On December 20, 1881, the Perry County courthouse was burned, perhaps to destroy the court records related to the Isom and Payton trial. With the records lost in the courthouse fire, it is assumed the cases were dismissed.
Isom established a newspaper in neighboring Yell County in March 1882 but died of dysentery in November of that year. It is unknown what happened to Payton. The political climate in Perry County settled, and there was little violence noted after the trial of Isom and Payton ended.
For additional information:
Perry County Historical & Genealogical Society. Perry County, Arkansas: Its Land & People. Marceline, MO: Walsworth Publishing Company, 2004.
Message of Thos. J. Churchill, Governor of the State of Arkansas to the General Assembly, January 1883. Little Rock: Mitchell & Bettis, State Printers, 1883.
“From the Seat of ‘Wah.’” Arkansas Gazette, June 14, 1881, p. 1.
“The ‘State’ of Perry.” Arkansas Gazette, August 4, 1881, p. 4.
Timothy G. Nutt
University of Arkansas Libraries
Last Updated: 06/08/2016 | 2,697 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Melqart was the son of El the supreme deity of the Phoenicians. He was the principal god of the city of Tyre and was sometimes known as Baal. As Tyre gained supremacy throughout the Phoenician world, Melqart also gained prominence. Melqart is the only Phoenician god mentioned in the Hebrew Bible. The Temple of Melqart in Tyre was similar to that built for Solomon in Jerusalem. This is understandable as craftsmen from Tyre built the temple in Jerusalem and there would have had a natural exchange of religious ideas, as they were neighbours. Herodotus describes the main entrance to the sanctuary as being flanked by two columns or pillars known as ‘betyls’, one made of gold and the other of ‘smaragdus’— often translated as ‘emerald.’
The cult of Melqart was brought to Carthage, the most successful Tyrian colony, and temples dedicated to Melqart are found in at least three sites in Spain; Gades (modern Cadiz), Ebusus, and Carthago Nova. Near to Gades, at the Strait of Gibraltar, the mountains on either side were first known as the Pillars of Melqart, and then later changed to the Pillars of Heracles. Across the Strait of Gibraltar, at the Atlantic coast of Morocco was the Phoenician colony of Lixus, where there was another temple of Melqart.
In classical literature, Melqart and Heracles have been referred to interchangeably, by many historians such as Josephus Flavius.
It is thought that the city of Cadiz was originally founded as Gadir (walled city) by the Phoenicians around 1100 BC, although hard evidence does not prove a date earlier than the 9th century BC. In his 2011 book, Ancient Phoenicia, Mark Woolmer has claimed [1053.46] that the archaeological evidence indicates a date around the middle of the 8th century BC.
It is regarded as the most ancient functioning city in Western Europe. Gadir had a temple that was dedicated to the Phoenician god Melqart. Some consider that the columns of this temple were the origin of the reference of the Columns of Heracles. Commentators on Plato’s Atlantis story have linked Cadiz (formerly Gades) with the second son of Poseidon, Gadirus. | <urn:uuid:161b8606-c69d-4aa6-9a96-7d2ce05520e5> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://atlantipedia.ie/samples/melqart/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250592261.1/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118052321-20200118080321-00433.warc.gz | en | 0.980736 | 497 | 3.28125 | 3 | [
0.3229259252548218,
0.25250959396362305,
0.2745778262615204,
-0.11169958114624023,
-0.06017560884356499,
-0.24643322825431824,
0.09376399219036102,
0.36005499958992004,
-0.13776534795761108,
-0.21419797837734222,
-0.30672386288642883,
-0.9007285833358765,
-0.12919239699840546,
0.3139920234... | 14 | Melqart was the son of El the supreme deity of the Phoenicians. He was the principal god of the city of Tyre and was sometimes known as Baal. As Tyre gained supremacy throughout the Phoenician world, Melqart also gained prominence. Melqart is the only Phoenician god mentioned in the Hebrew Bible. The Temple of Melqart in Tyre was similar to that built for Solomon in Jerusalem. This is understandable as craftsmen from Tyre built the temple in Jerusalem and there would have had a natural exchange of religious ideas, as they were neighbours. Herodotus describes the main entrance to the sanctuary as being flanked by two columns or pillars known as ‘betyls’, one made of gold and the other of ‘smaragdus’— often translated as ‘emerald.’
The cult of Melqart was brought to Carthage, the most successful Tyrian colony, and temples dedicated to Melqart are found in at least three sites in Spain; Gades (modern Cadiz), Ebusus, and Carthago Nova. Near to Gades, at the Strait of Gibraltar, the mountains on either side were first known as the Pillars of Melqart, and then later changed to the Pillars of Heracles. Across the Strait of Gibraltar, at the Atlantic coast of Morocco was the Phoenician colony of Lixus, where there was another temple of Melqart.
In classical literature, Melqart and Heracles have been referred to interchangeably, by many historians such as Josephus Flavius.
It is thought that the city of Cadiz was originally founded as Gadir (walled city) by the Phoenicians around 1100 BC, although hard evidence does not prove a date earlier than the 9th century BC. In his 2011 book, Ancient Phoenicia, Mark Woolmer has claimed [1053.46] that the archaeological evidence indicates a date around the middle of the 8th century BC.
It is regarded as the most ancient functioning city in Western Europe. Gadir had a temple that was dedicated to the Phoenician god Melqart. Some consider that the columns of this temple were the origin of the reference of the Columns of Heracles. Commentators on Plato’s Atlantis story have linked Cadiz (formerly Gades) with the second son of Poseidon, Gadirus. | 502 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The Apology “Gentlemen, I am your very grateful and devoted servant, but I owe a greater obedience to God than to you; and so long as I draw breath and have my faculties, I shall never stop practising philosophy and exhorting you and elucidating the truth for everyone that I meet. ” This particular quote was used by Socrates in his defense in the Apology by Plato. Socrates was the first philosopher to go against society and the beliefs of the general community, which he was punished for. In the Apology Socrates is on trial for believing in a higher god and becoming a prophesy to him and his beliefs, virtues and morals.
Need Help with Your Essay?
Leave your essay topic in comments and get a free help
While reading this story and this quote the terms or phrases that caught my attention were “obedience to God” and “truth. ” “Obedience is the act or practice of obeying; dutiful or submissive compliance” (Dictionary). By saying that he owes a greater obedience to God than to you shows that Socrates believes that he is not guilty because he considers himself a preacher of God’s beliefs and virtues. Socrates believes that living a moral life is how everyone should live and that everyone should follow and refuses to stop his teachings because he feels it would be disobeying and disgracing God.
Socrates believes that God has given him the gift and the duty to inform the people of Athens and to make them think more in depth about their lives and their values. He considers himself the gadfly of the city and refuses to stop his practices. His practicing of philosophy Socrates knew that duty to the Gods and to his duty to moralize society may cause him to have to go against everyone else’s beliefs and pay for the consequences. “Truth is a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle that is told or expressed” (Dictionary).
Socrates is in the pursuit of the good, which in this case is the virtue of truth. The virtue of truth helps to build ones character. Socrates had the opportunity to take back everything he has taught or to lie about not believing in a high power but the fact that he stood by his beliefs and told the truth about his actions shows that he has the ability to act in the right way even though he may have to suffer consequences. He lives an ethical life and without obeying virtues you cannot be ethical.
Although he is being tried for not believing in the Gods and corrupting the moral of minors, all he has to do is take back everything he has taught and spoken and he would be acquitted. However, Socrates is willing to die for his love for truth, wisdom and knowledge. Truth, wisdom, and knowledge are a few of the many virtues that he lives his life by and inclined to act by these virtues no matter what. Work Cited Dictionary. com | Find the Meanings and Definitions of Words at Dictionary. com. Web. 08 Oct. 2009. . Class discussions | <urn:uuid:559ceed1-4944-4678-87cf-281ed5d66ab7> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://benjaminbarber.org/the-apology/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250606226.29/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121222429-20200122011429-00339.warc.gz | en | 0.981896 | 625 | 3.28125 | 3 | [
-0.1381818950176239,
0.3262433707714081,
-0.11370556056499481,
-0.4941974878311157,
-0.4133918881416321,
-0.4873618483543396,
0.5260187983512878,
0.24770720303058624,
0.24474602937698364,
0.04269866645336151,
-0.0840761661529541,
-0.34225958585739136,
0.348358690738678,
-0.0355608575046062... | 1 | The Apology “Gentlemen, I am your very grateful and devoted servant, but I owe a greater obedience to God than to you; and so long as I draw breath and have my faculties, I shall never stop practising philosophy and exhorting you and elucidating the truth for everyone that I meet. ” This particular quote was used by Socrates in his defense in the Apology by Plato. Socrates was the first philosopher to go against society and the beliefs of the general community, which he was punished for. In the Apology Socrates is on trial for believing in a higher god and becoming a prophesy to him and his beliefs, virtues and morals.
Need Help with Your Essay?
Leave your essay topic in comments and get a free help
While reading this story and this quote the terms or phrases that caught my attention were “obedience to God” and “truth. ” “Obedience is the act or practice of obeying; dutiful or submissive compliance” (Dictionary). By saying that he owes a greater obedience to God than to you shows that Socrates believes that he is not guilty because he considers himself a preacher of God’s beliefs and virtues. Socrates believes that living a moral life is how everyone should live and that everyone should follow and refuses to stop his teachings because he feels it would be disobeying and disgracing God.
Socrates believes that God has given him the gift and the duty to inform the people of Athens and to make them think more in depth about their lives and their values. He considers himself the gadfly of the city and refuses to stop his practices. His practicing of philosophy Socrates knew that duty to the Gods and to his duty to moralize society may cause him to have to go against everyone else’s beliefs and pay for the consequences. “Truth is a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle that is told or expressed” (Dictionary).
Socrates is in the pursuit of the good, which in this case is the virtue of truth. The virtue of truth helps to build ones character. Socrates had the opportunity to take back everything he has taught or to lie about not believing in a high power but the fact that he stood by his beliefs and told the truth about his actions shows that he has the ability to act in the right way even though he may have to suffer consequences. He lives an ethical life and without obeying virtues you cannot be ethical.
Although he is being tried for not believing in the Gods and corrupting the moral of minors, all he has to do is take back everything he has taught and spoken and he would be acquitted. However, Socrates is willing to die for his love for truth, wisdom and knowledge. Truth, wisdom, and knowledge are a few of the many virtues that he lives his life by and inclined to act by these virtues no matter what. Work Cited Dictionary. com | Find the Meanings and Definitions of Words at Dictionary. com. Web. 08 Oct. 2009. . Class discussions | 617 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The space race, a competition to see who will make it to space first. It possessed origins ties to the hands race between America and the Soviet Union. The purpose of this research newspaper will be to get home elevators just what the area contest was. Along with this, the following questions will be responded to: What occurrences lead up prior to the space race? What was America's and the Soviet Union's participation in it? And finally, what were marketing campaign results of the area Race?
What was the space race? It had been a competition to see which of the two nations could improve the quickest in aeronautics. It were only available in 1957 when the Soviet Union launched the first unnatural satellite. It was called Sputnik. Both United States and the Soviet Union leaders presumed that conquering space was important. This might not only show their methodical superiority but it would also show how much their armed service strength had produced. The final vacation spot for each nation was the moon. To make it happen first meant that it could bring the united states immense media coverage. As a result, the researchers and federal government would under a lot of pressure.
There were a whole lot that led up before the space race. One of which was a Russian known as Konstantin Tsiolkovsky. He set up the fundamentals of rocket knowledge. He made a rocket equation which decides the velocity of airfare. That equation continues to be used today in modern rockets. Along start, he also had written the first theoretical information of an man-made satellite. The Germans also made a rocket called the A-4 rocket. It had been first launched in 1942 and was the first rocket to attain space. It had been also in a position to bring 2, 200 lbs of weight. Though it was designed for use in the military services, the technology behind managed to get useful to develop shuttles and rockets to attain the moon. The Cool War was a large event that led to the space competition. AMERICA arrived of Wold Warfare II with a huge amount of strategic bomber power and also acquired advanced bases in countries that were close to the Soviet Union. Because the Soviet Union didn't have similar amount weapons and bases, they started producing rockets and ballistic missiles capable of intercontinental range. They made this a top priority for these people. The development in rockets acquired a dual purpose. If they will make a rocket to attain the moon, said rocket could also be used to transport an atomic bomb to a specific city. Thus, the progress in rockets could be used peacefully or they could be used for military actions.
Both countries had huge involvements in the space race. Around the Soviet aspect, the ICBM created the world's first satellite launcher. It then sent the first man-made satellite called Sputnik into orbit on October 4, 1957. Then in November of this same yr, the soviets launched Sputnik 2. That one possessed a dog up to speed with it. Both of these satellite launches declared to the earth that if indeed they could build a rocket which could reach earth orbit, they may possibly also release an intercontinental missile from orbit to any American city. Because of this, Eisenhower started to step up ideas for america first satellite. It was scheduled to start in 1958. On December 6, the first make an effort at starting a booster called Vanguard concluded in failing. It rose just a few feet off the ground before falling back again to Globe and exploded. Expectation then rested in the U. S. Army's rocket team. This team was headed by the German who led the introduction of the V 2 missile. His name was Wernher von Braun. He previously success at introducing America's first satellite, Explorer 1, on January 31, 1958. The rocket that launched the satellite was called Jupiter C. The Soviets however, were still in the lead at the moment. After several kick off failures, these were able to fire a little probe, called Luna 1, at night moon. They missed the moon by 3, 100 miles. This all occurred in January 1959. On Sept 14, Luna 2 struck the lunar surface. This was the first man-made object to attain another celestial body. Then in early on October, Luna 3 was able to swing about the moon. It went back the first pictures of the hidden aspect of the moon. North american in the mean time was troubled a series of humiliating failures. The failures were from the Pioneer spacecraft which was designed to explore the moon's environment. Most of the launches had failed to reach Earth orbit. Several of those that were able to achieve orbit blew up before making it to space. Pioneer 4 was able to make it to space. Launched in March 1959, it achieved lunar distance. It overlooked the moon by 37, 500 a long way. In Apr of 1959, seven pilots were selected by NASA to provide as astronauts for Project Mercury. This reason for this task was to put man in orbit. NASA engineers chosen a little cone-shaped capsule as the look for the objective. The engineers were led by Robert Gilruth. The capsule weighed only 1 1. 94 metric lots. The Soviet's Vostok weighed 5 metric lots. NASA planned to consider several suborbital flights. In these flights, the astronaut would only maintain space for a few momemts of the 15 minute ride. The trip down would comprise with the capsule parachuting its way down completely to Earth's surface. It would make its getting in the ocean and would be recovered by navy ships. The capsule was designed to allow the astronaut to have some control over the airfare. NASA used chimpanzees rather than pups as their test things. The final planned test airfare before human introduction was on January 31, 1961. It was powered by the Redstone rocket that originated by Braun's team. The flight had experienced slight problems. As a result of this, Braun wanted to do one more unoccupied test airfare. If the initial schedule have been followed, america would have been the first to put a human in space. The Soviets experienced a plan to place the first man in space as well. They were building a spacecraft which could have a dual purpose. One goal was to conduct image reconnaissance missions and would come back the exposed film to Globe. The other purpose was to really have the vehicle be used for the first human being spaceflight missions. The vehicle was known has Thing K. However it was called Vostok with it taken a individual to space. The build had two parts. The passenger compartment was a spherical capsule and a conical component that experienced all the musical instruments. The team capsule was protected with a thermal layer for cover during reentry. The build was designed so that the passenger could not touch any control from introduction to the landing. He would not land with the build either. It would eject him at an altitude of 4. 3 a long way and parachute down to dried out land. The art would land close by using its own parachutes. The Soviets used pups and human dummies as test topics in their test flights. The first person in space was Yury Gagarin. He rode up in Vostok 1 on Apr 12, 1961, which was atop a changed R-7 rocket. The United States next goal was to plan a vacation to the moon. The Gemini project was made to provide more research on the capabilities of space journey and also to find out whether a human being could reside in space for extended periods of time. The Gemini spacecraft was made up of two components. One was a reentry module. This housed the two astronauts. The other was an adapter that possessed a retrorocket section and an equipment section. The art appeared as if a scaled-up version of Mercury. It however was a lot more sophisticated. The Gemini astronauts were, for the very first time, able to change their orbit with thrusters. The rocket that taken the Gemini build into space was the Air Force's Titan 2 ballistic missile. The many Gemini space plane tickets could actually show many key factors that would make a lunar voyage possible. It proved that a individuals could survive fourteen days in space, could actually make a rendezvous in space, and were also able to make an area docking. The Soviet's project that attemptedto go to the moon was known as Zond. It was canceled however and since that time the Soyuz art was used to take cosmonauts to space channels in Earth orbit. AMERICA however furthered their attempts to make it to the moon. Following the success of the Gemini project, the Apollo program was created. The NASA engineers decided to design a lunar orbit rendezvous technique. This required two spacecraft. You might ferry three astronauts to and from the moon and the other one would take two of these to the lunar surface. The rocket they selected was the Saturn V. This was the greatest rocket ever effectively flown. There were eleven manned Apollo missions. Six of those missions landed successfully on the lunar surface. They conducted scientific explorations and required samples. In addition they set up equipment that directed data back to Earth.
What are the final results of the area race? America acquired the race to the moon which was the principal goal of the contest. The Soviets had been ahead initially. They were the first ones to access space and were also the first ones to send a man to space. AMERICA were the first ever to put one in orbit and did the first space walk. Once they got ahead, they were able to continue in front of the Soviet Union. We've space exploration and devices on the moon because of this. We might have had these without the area race, but it could have taken much longer for the quantity of progress to be achieved minus the pressure. Another result is that both United States and the Soviet Union could actually develop long range intercontinental missiles. The capability to release a satellite is space allowed mankind to create relay stations in the sky to transfer a myriad of information about the world.
The space contest was a competition to see what region would make it the farthest in rocket development to be used for space travel and armed forces use. It experienced ties to the forearms race that was also occurring. The Cold Conflict was also occurring at the moment. We now know what it was, the participation of each country, and marketing campaign results that arrived than it. | <urn:uuid:d7ad4040-3d4f-48f1-9e87-e8d0b4532b50> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://studybayhelp.co.uk/blog/what-may-be-the-space-race-record-essay/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251705142.94/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127174507-20200127204507-00088.warc.gz | en | 0.984176 | 2,093 | 3.59375 | 4 | [
-0.3540560305118561,
0.04007421061396599,
-0.2322968989610672,
-0.1433895081281662,
-0.3253020644187927,
0.30989235639572144,
-0.0495062917470932,
0.293365478515625,
0.01900484412908554,
-0.044182803481817245,
0.26782339811325073,
-0.04630160331726074,
0.0538567379117012,
0.222906500101089... | 8 | The space race, a competition to see who will make it to space first. It possessed origins ties to the hands race between America and the Soviet Union. The purpose of this research newspaper will be to get home elevators just what the area contest was. Along with this, the following questions will be responded to: What occurrences lead up prior to the space race? What was America's and the Soviet Union's participation in it? And finally, what were marketing campaign results of the area Race?
What was the space race? It had been a competition to see which of the two nations could improve the quickest in aeronautics. It were only available in 1957 when the Soviet Union launched the first unnatural satellite. It was called Sputnik. Both United States and the Soviet Union leaders presumed that conquering space was important. This might not only show their methodical superiority but it would also show how much their armed service strength had produced. The final vacation spot for each nation was the moon. To make it happen first meant that it could bring the united states immense media coverage. As a result, the researchers and federal government would under a lot of pressure.
There were a whole lot that led up before the space race. One of which was a Russian known as Konstantin Tsiolkovsky. He set up the fundamentals of rocket knowledge. He made a rocket equation which decides the velocity of airfare. That equation continues to be used today in modern rockets. Along start, he also had written the first theoretical information of an man-made satellite. The Germans also made a rocket called the A-4 rocket. It had been first launched in 1942 and was the first rocket to attain space. It had been also in a position to bring 2, 200 lbs of weight. Though it was designed for use in the military services, the technology behind managed to get useful to develop shuttles and rockets to attain the moon. The Cool War was a large event that led to the space competition. AMERICA arrived of Wold Warfare II with a huge amount of strategic bomber power and also acquired advanced bases in countries that were close to the Soviet Union. Because the Soviet Union didn't have similar amount weapons and bases, they started producing rockets and ballistic missiles capable of intercontinental range. They made this a top priority for these people. The development in rockets acquired a dual purpose. If they will make a rocket to attain the moon, said rocket could also be used to transport an atomic bomb to a specific city. Thus, the progress in rockets could be used peacefully or they could be used for military actions.
Both countries had huge involvements in the space race. Around the Soviet aspect, the ICBM created the world's first satellite launcher. It then sent the first man-made satellite called Sputnik into orbit on October 4, 1957. Then in November of this same yr, the soviets launched Sputnik 2. That one possessed a dog up to speed with it. Both of these satellite launches declared to the earth that if indeed they could build a rocket which could reach earth orbit, they may possibly also release an intercontinental missile from orbit to any American city. Because of this, Eisenhower started to step up ideas for america first satellite. It was scheduled to start in 1958. On December 6, the first make an effort at starting a booster called Vanguard concluded in failing. It rose just a few feet off the ground before falling back again to Globe and exploded. Expectation then rested in the U. S. Army's rocket team. This team was headed by the German who led the introduction of the V 2 missile. His name was Wernher von Braun. He previously success at introducing America's first satellite, Explorer 1, on January 31, 1958. The rocket that launched the satellite was called Jupiter C. The Soviets however, were still in the lead at the moment. After several kick off failures, these were able to fire a little probe, called Luna 1, at night moon. They missed the moon by 3, 100 miles. This all occurred in January 1959. On Sept 14, Luna 2 struck the lunar surface. This was the first man-made object to attain another celestial body. Then in early on October, Luna 3 was able to swing about the moon. It went back the first pictures of the hidden aspect of the moon. North american in the mean time was troubled a series of humiliating failures. The failures were from the Pioneer spacecraft which was designed to explore the moon's environment. Most of the launches had failed to reach Earth orbit. Several of those that were able to achieve orbit blew up before making it to space. Pioneer 4 was able to make it to space. Launched in March 1959, it achieved lunar distance. It overlooked the moon by 37, 500 a long way. In Apr of 1959, seven pilots were selected by NASA to provide as astronauts for Project Mercury. This reason for this task was to put man in orbit. NASA engineers chosen a little cone-shaped capsule as the look for the objective. The engineers were led by Robert Gilruth. The capsule weighed only 1 1. 94 metric lots. The Soviet's Vostok weighed 5 metric lots. NASA planned to consider several suborbital flights. In these flights, the astronaut would only maintain space for a few momemts of the 15 minute ride. The trip down would comprise with the capsule parachuting its way down completely to Earth's surface. It would make its getting in the ocean and would be recovered by navy ships. The capsule was designed to allow the astronaut to have some control over the airfare. NASA used chimpanzees rather than pups as their test things. The final planned test airfare before human introduction was on January 31, 1961. It was powered by the Redstone rocket that originated by Braun's team. The flight had experienced slight problems. As a result of this, Braun wanted to do one more unoccupied test airfare. If the initial schedule have been followed, america would have been the first to put a human in space. The Soviets experienced a plan to place the first man in space as well. They were building a spacecraft which could have a dual purpose. One goal was to conduct image reconnaissance missions and would come back the exposed film to Globe. The other purpose was to really have the vehicle be used for the first human being spaceflight missions. The vehicle was known has Thing K. However it was called Vostok with it taken a individual to space. The build had two parts. The passenger compartment was a spherical capsule and a conical component that experienced all the musical instruments. The team capsule was protected with a thermal layer for cover during reentry. The build was designed so that the passenger could not touch any control from introduction to the landing. He would not land with the build either. It would eject him at an altitude of 4. 3 a long way and parachute down to dried out land. The art would land close by using its own parachutes. The Soviets used pups and human dummies as test topics in their test flights. The first person in space was Yury Gagarin. He rode up in Vostok 1 on Apr 12, 1961, which was atop a changed R-7 rocket. The United States next goal was to plan a vacation to the moon. The Gemini project was made to provide more research on the capabilities of space journey and also to find out whether a human being could reside in space for extended periods of time. The Gemini spacecraft was made up of two components. One was a reentry module. This housed the two astronauts. The other was an adapter that possessed a retrorocket section and an equipment section. The art appeared as if a scaled-up version of Mercury. It however was a lot more sophisticated. The Gemini astronauts were, for the very first time, able to change their orbit with thrusters. The rocket that taken the Gemini build into space was the Air Force's Titan 2 ballistic missile. The many Gemini space plane tickets could actually show many key factors that would make a lunar voyage possible. It proved that a individuals could survive fourteen days in space, could actually make a rendezvous in space, and were also able to make an area docking. The Soviet's project that attemptedto go to the moon was known as Zond. It was canceled however and since that time the Soyuz art was used to take cosmonauts to space channels in Earth orbit. AMERICA however furthered their attempts to make it to the moon. Following the success of the Gemini project, the Apollo program was created. The NASA engineers decided to design a lunar orbit rendezvous technique. This required two spacecraft. You might ferry three astronauts to and from the moon and the other one would take two of these to the lunar surface. The rocket they selected was the Saturn V. This was the greatest rocket ever effectively flown. There were eleven manned Apollo missions. Six of those missions landed successfully on the lunar surface. They conducted scientific explorations and required samples. In addition they set up equipment that directed data back to Earth.
What are the final results of the area race? America acquired the race to the moon which was the principal goal of the contest. The Soviets had been ahead initially. They were the first ones to access space and were also the first ones to send a man to space. AMERICA were the first ever to put one in orbit and did the first space walk. Once they got ahead, they were able to continue in front of the Soviet Union. We've space exploration and devices on the moon because of this. We might have had these without the area race, but it could have taken much longer for the quantity of progress to be achieved minus the pressure. Another result is that both United States and the Soviet Union could actually develop long range intercontinental missiles. The capability to release a satellite is space allowed mankind to create relay stations in the sky to transfer a myriad of information about the world.
The space contest was a competition to see what region would make it the farthest in rocket development to be used for space travel and armed forces use. It experienced ties to the forearms race that was also occurring. The Cold Conflict was also occurring at the moment. We now know what it was, the participation of each country, and marketing campaign results that arrived than it. | 2,167 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Clay figurines of this type were found in settlements throughout Judah, mainly in private dwellings. Their upper parts were designed in the shape of a woman's body with ample breasts, often supported by the hands. The heads of many of the figurines were made in a mold, some with wig-like headdresses and others with conical hats. In the so-called bird-faced Astarte figurines, the noses were formed by pinching the soft clay between the fingers. The figurines were regarded as having magical properties and were kept as household cultic amulets to enhance fertility. They are commonly identified with the well-known Canaanite deities Astarte or Ashera. The use of such objects was vehemently condemned by the prophets of Israel. In excavations of the City of David in Jerusalem, more than two thousand cultic figurines were found, all of which had been smashed to bits. This may have been connected with the religious reform of Josiah in the late seventh century BCE, described in II Kings 22-23, the primary aim of which was the abolition of idolatry and the establishment of the centrality of the Temple in Jerusalem.
The Israel Museum, Publisher: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 2005
3x50@50: IMJ Collection Highlights, The Israel Museum, Jerusalem, 2015 | <urn:uuid:7d17cc91-16b8-4a60-b98e-bc5e7a0ff0f8> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.imj.org.il/en/collections/198066 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251681412.74/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125191854-20200125221854-00269.warc.gz | en | 0.987096 | 271 | 3.375 | 3 | [
0.1678963154554367,
0.3275761306285858,
0.4956921935081482,
0.12039399892091751,
-0.2935881018638611,
0.31507885456085205,
0.4450458586215973,
0.18118931353092194,
-0.2377878576517105,
0.1457352638244629,
-0.27632826566696167,
-0.7135877013206482,
0.399312287569046,
0.3199377954006195,
0... | 4 | Clay figurines of this type were found in settlements throughout Judah, mainly in private dwellings. Their upper parts were designed in the shape of a woman's body with ample breasts, often supported by the hands. The heads of many of the figurines were made in a mold, some with wig-like headdresses and others with conical hats. In the so-called bird-faced Astarte figurines, the noses were formed by pinching the soft clay between the fingers. The figurines were regarded as having magical properties and were kept as household cultic amulets to enhance fertility. They are commonly identified with the well-known Canaanite deities Astarte or Ashera. The use of such objects was vehemently condemned by the prophets of Israel. In excavations of the City of David in Jerusalem, more than two thousand cultic figurines were found, all of which had been smashed to bits. This may have been connected with the religious reform of Josiah in the late seventh century BCE, described in II Kings 22-23, the primary aim of which was the abolition of idolatry and the establishment of the centrality of the Temple in Jerusalem.
The Israel Museum, Publisher: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 2005
3x50@50: IMJ Collection Highlights, The Israel Museum, Jerusalem, 2015 | 284 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Name of the inventor:
The steam engine had many people contribute to its making but was invented by James Savery. He was an English military engineer. In England, 1698 he created the first steam engine.
Where it was created:
The steam engine was created in England.
When it was created:
Background information: A steam engine may seem useless nowadays but it actually has contributed a lot and inspired many new and great inventions. The steam engine was used to pump water out of mines which made work easier and less risky. Upon the development of the steam engine immense amounts of work did not have to be done by human or animal labour. A steam engine is a machine that changes the heat energy of steam into motorised energy.
Steam is produced by boiling water the pressure of the expanding steam is used to push a piston back and forth in a tube called a cylinder, the piston fits tightly inside the cylinder. The piston is attached to the piston rod, as the piston rod goes in and out it drives another rod called the driving rod. The driving rod turns a wheel called the fly wheel which turns steadily even when the piston is at the end of its stroke and is not pushing. A condenser is an instrument used for cooling air. A piston is a short cylinder fitting closely within a tube in which it moves up and down against a liquid or gas.
Impact of the steam engine:
The steam engine had a great… | <urn:uuid:c9c711f9-f786-4b59-b533-57b2d0601b95> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.majortests.com/essay/The-Steam-Engine-550811.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251684146.65/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126013015-20200126043015-00318.warc.gz | en | 0.981625 | 293 | 3.546875 | 4 | [
-0.2655074894428253,
0.01006289105862379,
0.5631980895996094,
-0.018038177862763405,
-0.3935473561286926,
0.02991488203406334,
0.38665568828582764,
0.0005803692038170993,
-0.1146189346909523,
0.04727211967110634,
-0.3015415072441101,
-0.39593666791915894,
0.07226594537496567,
-0.1327660381... | 1 | Name of the inventor:
The steam engine had many people contribute to its making but was invented by James Savery. He was an English military engineer. In England, 1698 he created the first steam engine.
Where it was created:
The steam engine was created in England.
When it was created:
Background information: A steam engine may seem useless nowadays but it actually has contributed a lot and inspired many new and great inventions. The steam engine was used to pump water out of mines which made work easier and less risky. Upon the development of the steam engine immense amounts of work did not have to be done by human or animal labour. A steam engine is a machine that changes the heat energy of steam into motorised energy.
Steam is produced by boiling water the pressure of the expanding steam is used to push a piston back and forth in a tube called a cylinder, the piston fits tightly inside the cylinder. The piston is attached to the piston rod, as the piston rod goes in and out it drives another rod called the driving rod. The driving rod turns a wheel called the fly wheel which turns steadily even when the piston is at the end of its stroke and is not pushing. A condenser is an instrument used for cooling air. A piston is a short cylinder fitting closely within a tube in which it moves up and down against a liquid or gas.
Impact of the steam engine:
The steam engine had a great… | 287 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Pssst… we can write an original essay just for you.
Any subject. Any type of essay.
We’ll even meet a 3-hour deadline.Get your price
121 writers online
In 1066, King Edward the Confessor died, which opened up a chance for four individuals to take the throne of England. William of Normandy, Harold Godwinson, Harald Hadrada, and Edgar the Atheling. All knew that this was their one-time opportunity, seeing that Edward had no clear heir. William claimed that Harold had promised the throne to him, but Harold denied it, saying that, before Edward died, he had asked him to be king. Harald Hadrada’s claim was that he was a very powerful warlord and one of his ancestors was King Canute of England. Edgar the Atheling was the closest ancestor to Edward, but was still a boy.
The study of the period of 1066 has proved problematic for historians, due to the scarcity of contemporary sources. Although few, if any, historical sources are totally impartial, the surviving documents concerning the Battle of Hastings are particularly biased. This bias results, in no small part, from the attempt made by the Normans after the conquesjustify William’s actions. Therefore, much ofthe surviving material is No rman in focus and written some time after 1066.A second problem with the study of this period relates to the traditional ideas that are held by many concerning the Battle of Hastings. Perhaps most notably, the surviving assumption that Harold was shot in the eye. These pre-held misconceptions make many later sources fundamentally unreliable.
The circumstances which led to the Battle of Hastings are varied, yet all agree that Harold swore to support William’s claim to the throne of England. If this is true it offers William some justification for his assault, and does not lead to the necessary conclusion that he was simply a war-mongerer who was hungry for more power. However, contemporary historian Ian W. Walker, in his book ‘Harold: The Last Anglo-Saxon King of England’ notes that such an oath is unlikely. At the very least the oath must have been given under duress because in England at the time was the rightful heir Atheling Edgar, who had a much closer blood claim to the throne than William of Normandy. King Edward certainly either knew of no oath or did not regard it as binding for he named Harold as his successor (an event which even staunch Norman supporter such as William of Poitiers acknowledge to have occurred) in his recognition that England needed a man of strong military might to govern.
This faith that the King placed in Harold must not be disregarded when one considers whether Harold or William was the more skilful in battle.William was victorious at the Battle of Hastings due to his excellent leadership skills. William won the Battle of Hastings because of his superior strategy and tactics. William was able to defeat Harold and his army because Harold made some mistakes. William was helped to victory by Harold being unlucky on a number of occasions. It is very hard to say if he would have won if Harold did not bad luck, but in my personal opinion I do believe that his victory was mainly luck.
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:
Sorry, copying is not allowed on our website. If you’d like this or any other sample, we’ll happily email it to you.
Your essay sample has been sent.
Want us to write one just for you? We can custom edit this essay into an original, 100% plagiarism free essay.Order now
Are you interested in getting a customized paper?Check it out! | <urn:uuid:d7189bb8-68f4-4e37-afd2-4cb1dd84690a> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://gradesfixer.com/free-essay-examples/the-period-of-1066-in-the-history-of-england/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251799918.97/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129133601-20200129163601-00076.warc.gz | en | 0.981408 | 763 | 3.515625 | 4 | [
-0.5241177678108215,
0.47540852427482605,
0.07972286641597748,
-0.2837408781051636,
0.032324813306331635,
0.03692653030157089,
-0.06916273385286331,
0.04553138092160225,
0.18707939982414246,
-0.15468081831932068,
-0.03252384811639786,
-0.1671692132949829,
0.2064061462879181,
0.175458699464... | 1 | Pssst… we can write an original essay just for you.
Any subject. Any type of essay.
We’ll even meet a 3-hour deadline.Get your price
121 writers online
In 1066, King Edward the Confessor died, which opened up a chance for four individuals to take the throne of England. William of Normandy, Harold Godwinson, Harald Hadrada, and Edgar the Atheling. All knew that this was their one-time opportunity, seeing that Edward had no clear heir. William claimed that Harold had promised the throne to him, but Harold denied it, saying that, before Edward died, he had asked him to be king. Harald Hadrada’s claim was that he was a very powerful warlord and one of his ancestors was King Canute of England. Edgar the Atheling was the closest ancestor to Edward, but was still a boy.
The study of the period of 1066 has proved problematic for historians, due to the scarcity of contemporary sources. Although few, if any, historical sources are totally impartial, the surviving documents concerning the Battle of Hastings are particularly biased. This bias results, in no small part, from the attempt made by the Normans after the conquesjustify William’s actions. Therefore, much ofthe surviving material is No rman in focus and written some time after 1066.A second problem with the study of this period relates to the traditional ideas that are held by many concerning the Battle of Hastings. Perhaps most notably, the surviving assumption that Harold was shot in the eye. These pre-held misconceptions make many later sources fundamentally unreliable.
The circumstances which led to the Battle of Hastings are varied, yet all agree that Harold swore to support William’s claim to the throne of England. If this is true it offers William some justification for his assault, and does not lead to the necessary conclusion that he was simply a war-mongerer who was hungry for more power. However, contemporary historian Ian W. Walker, in his book ‘Harold: The Last Anglo-Saxon King of England’ notes that such an oath is unlikely. At the very least the oath must have been given under duress because in England at the time was the rightful heir Atheling Edgar, who had a much closer blood claim to the throne than William of Normandy. King Edward certainly either knew of no oath or did not regard it as binding for he named Harold as his successor (an event which even staunch Norman supporter such as William of Poitiers acknowledge to have occurred) in his recognition that England needed a man of strong military might to govern.
This faith that the King placed in Harold must not be disregarded when one considers whether Harold or William was the more skilful in battle.William was victorious at the Battle of Hastings due to his excellent leadership skills. William won the Battle of Hastings because of his superior strategy and tactics. William was able to defeat Harold and his army because Harold made some mistakes. William was helped to victory by Harold being unlucky on a number of occasions. It is very hard to say if he would have won if Harold did not bad luck, but in my personal opinion I do believe that his victory was mainly luck.
To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:
Sorry, copying is not allowed on our website. If you’d like this or any other sample, we’ll happily email it to you.
Your essay sample has been sent.
Want us to write one just for you? We can custom edit this essay into an original, 100% plagiarism free essay.Order now
Are you interested in getting a customized paper?Check it out! | 749 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Raising Children in the Victorian Times You are here:
Given their catastrophic population decline after white contact whites assumed that the full-blood tribal Aboriginal population would be unable to sustain itself, and was doomed to extinction. The idea expressed by A. Nevillethe Chief Protector of Aborigines for Western Australiaand others as late as was that mixed-race children could be trained to work in white society, and over generations would marry white and be assimilated into the society.
Cecil Cookargued that "everything necessary [must be done] to convert the half-caste into a white citizen". This was a response to public concern over the increase in the number of mixed-descent children and sexual exploitation of young Aboriginal women by non-Indigenous men, as well as fears among non-indigenous people of being outnumbered by a mixed-descent population.
After the Commonwealth took control of the Territory, under the Aborigines Ordinancethe Chief Protector was given total control of all Indigenous women regardless of their age, unless married to a man who was "substantially of European origin", and his approval was required for any marriage of an indigenous woman to a non-indigenous man.
The Central Board for the Protection of Aborigines had been advocating such powers since Passage of the Act gave the colony of Victoria a wide suite of powers over Aboriginal and "half-caste" persons, including the forcible removal of children, especially "at risk" girls.
In addition, appointed Aboriginal protectors in each state exercised wide-ranging guardianship powers over Aborigines up to the age of 16 or 21, often determining where they could live or work.
Policemen or other agents of the state some designated as "Aboriginal Protection Officers" were given the power to locate and transfer babies and children of mixed descent from their mothers, families, and communities into institutions for care.
In these Australian states and territories, institutions both government and missionary for half-caste children were established in the early decades of the 20th century to care and educate the mixed-race children taken from their families.
Estimates of numbers have been widely disputed. The Bringing Them Home report says that "at least ," children were removed from their parents. This figure was estimated by multiplying the Aboriginal population in, by the report's maximum estimate of "one in three" Aboriginal persons separated from their families.
The report stated that "between one in three and one in ten" children were separated from their families.
Given differing populations over a long period of time, different policies at different times in different states which also resulted in different definitions of target childrenand incomplete records, accurate figures are difficult to establish. In certain regions and in certain periods the figure was undoubtedly much greater than one in ten.
In that time not one Indigenous family has escaped the effects of forcible removal confirmed by representatives of the Queensland and WA [Western Australia] Governments in evidence to the Inquiry. Most families have been affected, in one or more generations, by the forcible removal of one or more children.
In some cases, families were required to sign legal documents to relinquish care to the state. It made all their children legal wards of the state, so the government did not require parental permission to relocate the mixed-race children to institutions. This designated his position as the legal guardian of every Aboriginal child in South Australia, not only the so-called "half-castes".
In other instances, parents were told by government officials that their child or children had died, even though this was not the case. One first-hand account referring to events in stated: I was at the post office with my Mum and Auntie [and cousin].
They put us in the police ute and said they were taking us to Broome. They put the mums in there as well. We jumped on our mothers' backs, crying, trying not to be left behind.
But the policemen pulled us off and threw us back in the car. They pushed the mothers away and drove off, while our mothers were chasing the car, running and crying after us.View Notes - Child Rearing in the Victorian Era from ENG at Borough of Manhattan Community College, CUNY.
Child rearing in the Victorian times was not at all similar to child rearing today.
Child Rearing in Victorian Times. 3 pages. Life for Victorian Children in Victorian times ( to ) was nothing like childhood in today’s world. For the wealthy there was an overwhelming sense of boredom and the constant prodding to be proper and polite with very little parent to child communication.
Victorian homes offered children a large network of various caregivers built in to the family structure. and author of many child-rearing guides which were translated into many languages, explains his solution for dealing with the "willful" child and the reasons for his treatment: The Psychohistory Press: An overview of the.
Such children could be and often were dangerous, especially when exploited by hardened criminals; they were a threat to law and order, their wretched lives a blot on the scutcheon of the times. Highly emotive figures are useful in literature, and, proportionately, there are even more orphans on the pages of Victorian fiction than there were on.
Corporal punishment in early education and child care settings. In , the Education and Care Services National Law was introduced by way of an applied law system where the host jurisdiction (Victoria) passed the law (Education and Care Service National Law Act ) and other jurisdictions adopted that law or passed corresponding legislation (Australian Children’s Education & Care Quality.
Child rearing in the Victorian times was not at all similar to child rearing today. There were of course two different categories on how the child was brought up. They went from one extreme to the other. They were the difference of the classes. The life of an upper class child during the Victorian era, was as one may put it, stuffy /5(2). | <urn:uuid:e17dc0f0-9f69-4627-a51b-b57e80441ed8> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://piqyjonifacysij.regardbouddhiste.com/an-overview-of-the-child-rearing-in-the-victorian-times-18876zd.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250601040.47/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120224950-20200121013950-00288.warc.gz | en | 0.980448 | 1,229 | 3.28125 | 3 | [
-0.3516692817211151,
0.2621120810508728,
0.19102013111114502,
0.4015222489833832,
-0.1119866669178009,
0.49334558844566345,
-0.37516337633132935,
0.2421444058418274,
-0.24218915402889252,
0.4338390529155731,
0.23476512730121613,
-0.5433381795883179,
0.17861945927143097,
0.20389701426029205... | 3 | Raising Children in the Victorian Times You are here:
Given their catastrophic population decline after white contact whites assumed that the full-blood tribal Aboriginal population would be unable to sustain itself, and was doomed to extinction. The idea expressed by A. Nevillethe Chief Protector of Aborigines for Western Australiaand others as late as was that mixed-race children could be trained to work in white society, and over generations would marry white and be assimilated into the society.
Cecil Cookargued that "everything necessary [must be done] to convert the half-caste into a white citizen". This was a response to public concern over the increase in the number of mixed-descent children and sexual exploitation of young Aboriginal women by non-Indigenous men, as well as fears among non-indigenous people of being outnumbered by a mixed-descent population.
After the Commonwealth took control of the Territory, under the Aborigines Ordinancethe Chief Protector was given total control of all Indigenous women regardless of their age, unless married to a man who was "substantially of European origin", and his approval was required for any marriage of an indigenous woman to a non-indigenous man.
The Central Board for the Protection of Aborigines had been advocating such powers since Passage of the Act gave the colony of Victoria a wide suite of powers over Aboriginal and "half-caste" persons, including the forcible removal of children, especially "at risk" girls.
In addition, appointed Aboriginal protectors in each state exercised wide-ranging guardianship powers over Aborigines up to the age of 16 or 21, often determining where they could live or work.
Policemen or other agents of the state some designated as "Aboriginal Protection Officers" were given the power to locate and transfer babies and children of mixed descent from their mothers, families, and communities into institutions for care.
In these Australian states and territories, institutions both government and missionary for half-caste children were established in the early decades of the 20th century to care and educate the mixed-race children taken from their families.
Estimates of numbers have been widely disputed. The Bringing Them Home report says that "at least ," children were removed from their parents. This figure was estimated by multiplying the Aboriginal population in, by the report's maximum estimate of "one in three" Aboriginal persons separated from their families.
The report stated that "between one in three and one in ten" children were separated from their families.
Given differing populations over a long period of time, different policies at different times in different states which also resulted in different definitions of target childrenand incomplete records, accurate figures are difficult to establish. In certain regions and in certain periods the figure was undoubtedly much greater than one in ten.
In that time not one Indigenous family has escaped the effects of forcible removal confirmed by representatives of the Queensland and WA [Western Australia] Governments in evidence to the Inquiry. Most families have been affected, in one or more generations, by the forcible removal of one or more children.
In some cases, families were required to sign legal documents to relinquish care to the state. It made all their children legal wards of the state, so the government did not require parental permission to relocate the mixed-race children to institutions. This designated his position as the legal guardian of every Aboriginal child in South Australia, not only the so-called "half-castes".
In other instances, parents were told by government officials that their child or children had died, even though this was not the case. One first-hand account referring to events in stated: I was at the post office with my Mum and Auntie [and cousin].
They put us in the police ute and said they were taking us to Broome. They put the mums in there as well. We jumped on our mothers' backs, crying, trying not to be left behind.
But the policemen pulled us off and threw us back in the car. They pushed the mothers away and drove off, while our mothers were chasing the car, running and crying after us.View Notes - Child Rearing in the Victorian Era from ENG at Borough of Manhattan Community College, CUNY.
Child rearing in the Victorian times was not at all similar to child rearing today.
Child Rearing in Victorian Times. 3 pages. Life for Victorian Children in Victorian times ( to ) was nothing like childhood in today’s world. For the wealthy there was an overwhelming sense of boredom and the constant prodding to be proper and polite with very little parent to child communication.
Victorian homes offered children a large network of various caregivers built in to the family structure. and author of many child-rearing guides which were translated into many languages, explains his solution for dealing with the "willful" child and the reasons for his treatment: The Psychohistory Press: An overview of the.
Such children could be and often were dangerous, especially when exploited by hardened criminals; they were a threat to law and order, their wretched lives a blot on the scutcheon of the times. Highly emotive figures are useful in literature, and, proportionately, there are even more orphans on the pages of Victorian fiction than there were on.
Corporal punishment in early education and child care settings. In , the Education and Care Services National Law was introduced by way of an applied law system where the host jurisdiction (Victoria) passed the law (Education and Care Service National Law Act ) and other jurisdictions adopted that law or passed corresponding legislation (Australian Children’s Education & Care Quality.
Child rearing in the Victorian times was not at all similar to child rearing today. There were of course two different categories on how the child was brought up. They went from one extreme to the other. They were the difference of the classes. The life of an upper class child during the Victorian era, was as one may put it, stuffy /5(2). | 1,198 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Britain and the Home Front during the First World War
On Monday 4th August 1914, Britain declared war on Germany. The date was a sunny bank holiday Monday and people were enjoying the sunshine on the beaches, in parks and at the pub. Few realised the impact and horrors that lay ahead. Most believed it would be a short war; ‘over by Christmas.’ This war was to involve millions of fighting men and touch every home in the country.
When war broke out, the professional army of Britain was a small fighting force of around 250,000 men. Lord Kitchener, Secretary of State for War, informed the government that a fighting force of nearly one million men would be needed. A massive recruitment drive followed: offices were set up in every town, posters encouraged men to enlist and women were encouraged to allow their men to go off to fight. The campaign was a roaring success; so much so that there were not enough uniforms for all of the new men! Men joined up as part of football teams, work places and school groups. These became known as ‘Pals’ battalions. By March 1916, 2.5 million men had volunteered.
It soon became clear that the war would not be over by Christmas – Kitchener himself predicted it would take three years. Casualties increased and had to be replaced. The government saw that volunteers would not be enough to make up the losses. In January 1916 Parliament passed the first Conscription Act. This made military service compulsory for all single men between the ages of 18 and 41. In April 1916 this was extended to include all married men. Many regarded conscription as fair: all men, in all sections of society had to share the burden of fighting. Some men, however, were excluded from conscription: for example, those in vital industries of munitions and mining.
Some men opposed conscription and became known as ‘conchies.’ These men, for religious or humanitarian reasons, could not contemplate killing another human. These men had to convince a tribunal that these reasons were genuine and not simple cowardice. Once convinced, a tribunal could order a conchie to take part in non-combatant service at the front.
War on the Home Front
The First World War saw the first total war: not only was the war fought on the battlefields of France, Belgium and Turkey but the violence of war was also bought home to mainland Britain. The destruction began early in the war: in December 1914 German battleships shelled coastal towns along the north-east of Britain. In Scarborough, Whitby and Hartlepool a total of 119 men, women and children were killed. The event was used in propaganda posters to stir up anti-German feeling on the Home Front. Zeppelin attacks also delivered devastating results. Starting in Great Yarmouth and Kings Lynn in Norfolk, in January 1915 these huge, cigar-shaped airships started the first of 57 raids on British towns, killing a total of 564 people and injuring 1370.
The death caused by the enemy on mainland Britain highlighted the fact that everyone was involved, and at risk, from the war. The attacks along the east coast instilled a fear in the public that there was a strong possibility that the Germans were preparing an invasion force. The attacks along the east coast took the government by surprise – they responded by installing searchlights and setting up anti-aircraft guns.
How was Britain organised for ‘total war’?
Ensuring there were enough men to fight in the war was only part of the challenge the government faced during the four years of war. They had to find ways of keeping the country’s economy growing so that the war effort could be continued. On 8 August 1914 Parliament passed the Defence of the Realm Act, nicknamed DORA. These acts gave the government powers to bypass Parliament in this time of war. It meant that the government could now control almost every element of people’s lives.
One of the first things the government took control of was the coal industry so that mines could be run for the benefit of the war effort and not the mine owners. Under DORA the miners were not conscripted into the armed forces as they were classed as performing vital work. By 1915 the munitions industry simply could not keep up with the demand for shells, bullets and guns from the Western Front. This crisis was exposed in the Daily Mail newspaper as a national scandal. In response the government established the Ministry of Munitions, headed by Lloyd George. New National Shell factories were built in which the latest machinery was installed into.
One vital industry during the war was the railways. Vital for transporting troops, the government took control of the railways and ran them as a unified system.
Controlling food production and distribution
A year before the war broke out, in 1913, Britain was already reliant upon foreign food. 40% of its meat, 80% of wheat and 50% of milk, fruit and vegetables and all of its sugar! As an island nation, all of these imports had to come by sea. From the outset of the war it was understood that an enemy with effective sea power could starve Britain to death and defeat in the war. However, British sea power was still strong and supplies continued to arrive from the Empire and the US. The situation, however, did become serious in 1917 when German U-boats were sinking one in four merchant ships. By April 1917 Britain was down to just nine weeks’ supply of wheat and four days’ supply of sugar. As food ran short, prices shot up. The rich hoarded food whilst the poorest people could not even afford basics such as bread.
Lloyd George, the Prime Minister, tackled the problem by persuading farmers to turn their pasture into arable land; by 1918 an additional 3 million acres had been bought into cultivation. The government subsided the price of bread so that even the poorest families could afford a ‘nine penny loaf’. Posters were published to encourage people to eat less bread. Compulsory rationing was also introduced. In 1918, sugar, jam, meat, butter and margarine were all rationed. This continued after the war, with sugar only coming off ration in November 1920!
Business as usual?
In the early years of the war there was a feeling to carry on as usual. On one hand this kept peoples morale high. But on the other hand, it was a disastrous attitude. ‘Business as usual’ meant eating whatever you wanted, getting drunk, not working to your full ability at work or complaining about wartime wages. It could have been disastrous for the war effort. In 1915 Lloyd George attacked the idea and persuaded the King to set an example by giving up alcohol. Using the powers of DORA, Lloyd George cancelled Guy Fawkes’ night, the football league, horse race meetings and the Oxford and Cambridge boat race.
The effectiveness of propaganda during the war
During the war years the purpose of propaganda was to keep up morale, encourage people to support the war effort and to create hatred of the enemy. Propaganda also included the control of information and censorship. The role of the press and newspapers was vital was this was the publics main source of information. At the start of the war newspaper reporters were not allowed at the Front at all – the government gave newspapers a summary of what was happening. There was a policy of printing no bad news – the first casualty list did not appear until May 1915. Words were also carefully chosen – not many people were killed: they ‘fell’. Nor did they suffer from shell shock – they were simply ‘broken heroes.’ The problem with such reports was that soldiers knew they were wrong. A gap was created between the people at home and the soldiers, the soldiers who knew the truth about the war. Many soldiers went home after the war unable to talk about their experiences, as there was a feeling that the people at home had believed the lies too easily.
The government used the visual impact of posters and postcards to the full. In the first year of the war alone between two and five million copies of 110 posters were issued. There were many official films produced during the war that usually mocked the Germans and praised the efforts of the British. The most famous film was The Battle of the Somme, which was shown in cinemas before the actual battle had ended! Many scenes from the film were actually staged. | <urn:uuid:70938ada-9779-49f3-9533-2dfa500df5b4> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://flashback-history.fandom.com/wiki/The_homefront | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250607596.34/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122221541-20200123010541-00458.warc.gz | en | 0.987603 | 1,727 | 3.984375 | 4 | [
0.07855246216058731,
0.5802005529403687,
0.2847360372543335,
-0.3385201692581177,
0.2146807461977005,
-0.037322767078876495,
-0.143388032913208,
0.1380421221256256,
0.3906973600387573,
-0.2924729287624359,
0.026654548943042755,
-0.36050695180892944,
-0.0723578929901123,
0.47061437368392944... | 4 | Britain and the Home Front during the First World War
On Monday 4th August 1914, Britain declared war on Germany. The date was a sunny bank holiday Monday and people were enjoying the sunshine on the beaches, in parks and at the pub. Few realised the impact and horrors that lay ahead. Most believed it would be a short war; ‘over by Christmas.’ This war was to involve millions of fighting men and touch every home in the country.
When war broke out, the professional army of Britain was a small fighting force of around 250,000 men. Lord Kitchener, Secretary of State for War, informed the government that a fighting force of nearly one million men would be needed. A massive recruitment drive followed: offices were set up in every town, posters encouraged men to enlist and women were encouraged to allow their men to go off to fight. The campaign was a roaring success; so much so that there were not enough uniforms for all of the new men! Men joined up as part of football teams, work places and school groups. These became known as ‘Pals’ battalions. By March 1916, 2.5 million men had volunteered.
It soon became clear that the war would not be over by Christmas – Kitchener himself predicted it would take three years. Casualties increased and had to be replaced. The government saw that volunteers would not be enough to make up the losses. In January 1916 Parliament passed the first Conscription Act. This made military service compulsory for all single men between the ages of 18 and 41. In April 1916 this was extended to include all married men. Many regarded conscription as fair: all men, in all sections of society had to share the burden of fighting. Some men, however, were excluded from conscription: for example, those in vital industries of munitions and mining.
Some men opposed conscription and became known as ‘conchies.’ These men, for religious or humanitarian reasons, could not contemplate killing another human. These men had to convince a tribunal that these reasons were genuine and not simple cowardice. Once convinced, a tribunal could order a conchie to take part in non-combatant service at the front.
War on the Home Front
The First World War saw the first total war: not only was the war fought on the battlefields of France, Belgium and Turkey but the violence of war was also bought home to mainland Britain. The destruction began early in the war: in December 1914 German battleships shelled coastal towns along the north-east of Britain. In Scarborough, Whitby and Hartlepool a total of 119 men, women and children were killed. The event was used in propaganda posters to stir up anti-German feeling on the Home Front. Zeppelin attacks also delivered devastating results. Starting in Great Yarmouth and Kings Lynn in Norfolk, in January 1915 these huge, cigar-shaped airships started the first of 57 raids on British towns, killing a total of 564 people and injuring 1370.
The death caused by the enemy on mainland Britain highlighted the fact that everyone was involved, and at risk, from the war. The attacks along the east coast instilled a fear in the public that there was a strong possibility that the Germans were preparing an invasion force. The attacks along the east coast took the government by surprise – they responded by installing searchlights and setting up anti-aircraft guns.
How was Britain organised for ‘total war’?
Ensuring there were enough men to fight in the war was only part of the challenge the government faced during the four years of war. They had to find ways of keeping the country’s economy growing so that the war effort could be continued. On 8 August 1914 Parliament passed the Defence of the Realm Act, nicknamed DORA. These acts gave the government powers to bypass Parliament in this time of war. It meant that the government could now control almost every element of people’s lives.
One of the first things the government took control of was the coal industry so that mines could be run for the benefit of the war effort and not the mine owners. Under DORA the miners were not conscripted into the armed forces as they were classed as performing vital work. By 1915 the munitions industry simply could not keep up with the demand for shells, bullets and guns from the Western Front. This crisis was exposed in the Daily Mail newspaper as a national scandal. In response the government established the Ministry of Munitions, headed by Lloyd George. New National Shell factories were built in which the latest machinery was installed into.
One vital industry during the war was the railways. Vital for transporting troops, the government took control of the railways and ran them as a unified system.
Controlling food production and distribution
A year before the war broke out, in 1913, Britain was already reliant upon foreign food. 40% of its meat, 80% of wheat and 50% of milk, fruit and vegetables and all of its sugar! As an island nation, all of these imports had to come by sea. From the outset of the war it was understood that an enemy with effective sea power could starve Britain to death and defeat in the war. However, British sea power was still strong and supplies continued to arrive from the Empire and the US. The situation, however, did become serious in 1917 when German U-boats were sinking one in four merchant ships. By April 1917 Britain was down to just nine weeks’ supply of wheat and four days’ supply of sugar. As food ran short, prices shot up. The rich hoarded food whilst the poorest people could not even afford basics such as bread.
Lloyd George, the Prime Minister, tackled the problem by persuading farmers to turn their pasture into arable land; by 1918 an additional 3 million acres had been bought into cultivation. The government subsided the price of bread so that even the poorest families could afford a ‘nine penny loaf’. Posters were published to encourage people to eat less bread. Compulsory rationing was also introduced. In 1918, sugar, jam, meat, butter and margarine were all rationed. This continued after the war, with sugar only coming off ration in November 1920!
Business as usual?
In the early years of the war there was a feeling to carry on as usual. On one hand this kept peoples morale high. But on the other hand, it was a disastrous attitude. ‘Business as usual’ meant eating whatever you wanted, getting drunk, not working to your full ability at work or complaining about wartime wages. It could have been disastrous for the war effort. In 1915 Lloyd George attacked the idea and persuaded the King to set an example by giving up alcohol. Using the powers of DORA, Lloyd George cancelled Guy Fawkes’ night, the football league, horse race meetings and the Oxford and Cambridge boat race.
The effectiveness of propaganda during the war
During the war years the purpose of propaganda was to keep up morale, encourage people to support the war effort and to create hatred of the enemy. Propaganda also included the control of information and censorship. The role of the press and newspapers was vital was this was the publics main source of information. At the start of the war newspaper reporters were not allowed at the Front at all – the government gave newspapers a summary of what was happening. There was a policy of printing no bad news – the first casualty list did not appear until May 1915. Words were also carefully chosen – not many people were killed: they ‘fell’. Nor did they suffer from shell shock – they were simply ‘broken heroes.’ The problem with such reports was that soldiers knew they were wrong. A gap was created between the people at home and the soldiers, the soldiers who knew the truth about the war. Many soldiers went home after the war unable to talk about their experiences, as there was a feeling that the people at home had believed the lies too easily.
The government used the visual impact of posters and postcards to the full. In the first year of the war alone between two and five million copies of 110 posters were issued. There were many official films produced during the war that usually mocked the Germans and praised the efforts of the British. The most famous film was The Battle of the Somme, which was shown in cinemas before the actual battle had ended! Many scenes from the film were actually staged. | 1,779 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Robert Clive was a British military officer and British official important to the history of British imperialism in India. More specifically, he was a significant historical figure during the time of the British East India Company and its rise to prominence in India.
ROBERT CLIVE EARLY YEARS
Robert Clive was born on September 29th, 1725 in Shropshire, England. His father worked as a lawyer and government parliamentarian. Historians have noted that as a young man, Robert Clive was supposedly a bit of a troublemaker. For instance, he was known to fight with other students at school and harass local shops. This troublesome streak caused him to struggle early with his schooling, but as a teenager he apparently began to focus on his education much more and received a basic education from Hertfordshire.
BRITISH EAST INDIA COMPANY
As stated above, the British East India Company played a significant role in the in the history of India and British imperialism in India. The British East India Company was first established on December 31st, 1600 as a company that aimed at promoting British trade in the Far East, which included India, China and Japan. Throughout its history, the British East India Company worked to establish an economic foothold in the Far East that benefited the company and Britain. By the mid-1700s, the British East India Company had begun to exert considerable influence in India. For example, By 1720, approximately 15% of all imports into England came from India and the British East India Company was responsible for almost all of this trade. Furthermore, the British East India Company grew so large and influential that by the 18th century it faced almost no competition for trade between England and India, that it was effectively a monopoly. This situation gained the company not only influence in India, but also in the political and economic circles in England.
ROBERT CLIVE'S FIRST TRIP TO INDIA
Robert Clive first visited the Far East from 1744 until 1753 as a company agent for the British East India Company. In fact, he first arrived at Fort Saint George, which was the first English fort in India, on the coast of eastern India. At the time, India was still under the control of the Mughal Empire, but it had slowly been lessening in power due to the arrival of European merchants and companies, including the British East India Company. Clive worked in Fort Saint George for about two years as a shopkeeper for the company, until hostilities in India pushed him to take a more active role militarily. For instance, he participated in skirmishes with the French in India, including the First and Second Carnatic Wars. These wars also involved the British East India Company fighting against local India rulers for economic control over the region. Clive worked his way up through the army of the British East India Company, and became known as a successful commander. In fact, his actions in the Siege of Arcot gained him fame back in England, and British Prime Minister William Pitt called him the ‘heaven-born general’. Clive returned to England in 1753, after first marrying Margaret Maskelyne.
ROBERT CLIVE'S SECOND TRIP TO INDIA
Clive returned to India in 1755, after shortly serving as a Member of Parliament in England from 1754 and 1755. He went to India, again for the British East India Company, to serve as a deputy governor of Fort Saint David. By this point, the British East India Company had used its extensive wealth and influence to recruit ever more ships and sepoy soldiers. Indian soldiers who fought for European companies were referred to as ‘sepoys’. The British East India Company carried out the practise of recruiting sepoys regularly and amassed a large army of Indian soldiers. This was vitally important to the expansion of the British East India Company in the 18th century and allowed it to gain control over huge sections of the Indian subcontinent, which expanded its wealth and influence. For instance, in 1750 the company had only about 3,000 soldiers, but by 1778 it had over 67,000. It used this army to fight battles to further its expansion into India from the areas it controlled in Bengal, Madras and Bombay. In fact, by the mid-1700s, the company faced less resistance from European competitors and more from local Indian rulers. This eventually led to a major conflict for the British East India Company in 1757 called the Battle of Plassey, which was also significant to the life and history of Robert Clive.
BATTLE OF PLASSEY
The Battle of Plassey was a major conflict between the British East India Company and Muslim rulers (Nawab) in Bengal. At the time the Nawab were supported by the French and had overrun a British trading post, causing the British East India Company to send Robert Clive and British soldiers to fight. The actual fighting took place in western India along the shores of the Hooghly River. It is estimated that the Nawab had as many as 30,000 infantry soldiers and another 20,000 cavalry. In contrast, Clive and the British were vastly outnumbered. By this point Clive held the rank of lieutenant-colonel in the British Army and led approximately 1,100 British soldiers and another 2,100 sepoys for the British East India Company during the Battle of Plassey. The Battle of Plassey began early on the morning of June 23rd, 1757 as French artillery launched shells towards Clive’s soldiers. The Nawab infantry began to move in on the British in continuous waves. Clive ordered his British soldiers and sepoys to retreat a bit to find cover, where they dug in against the advancing Nawab. The situation for the British improved as a rainstorm hit the battlefield. Clive had prepared for this situation, because he protected the British gunpowder stores with ‘tarpaulins’. The tarpaulins, which were large cloths made waterproof by tar, were used to keep the gunpowder dry and usable even during the rain. Whereas, the Nawab made no such protections, and as a result were unable to use their firearms in the wet conditions. This caused the Nawab commander, Mir Madan Khan, to attack the British with the Nawab cavalry, because he believed that the British were no longer able to use their firearms. However, when the Nawab cavalry advanced on the British position, they realized their error as the British opened fire and devastated the Nawab. In the chaos of the attack, Mir Madan Khan was wounded and later died. The loss of the Nawab commander proved significant, as it caused the Nawab to order a retreat from the battlefield. The British, recognizing their opportunity, attacked the retreating Nawab and were able to capture several key pieces of French artillery, which were put into action for the British. As a result, Clive led the British to victory over the Nawab and its French Allies on June 23rd, 1757. Historians estimate that the British lost 22 sepoy soldiers with another 50 wounded in the Battle of Plassey while the Nawab lost approximately 500. At the end of the battle, Clive installed Mir Jafar as the new leader of the Nawab.
Mir Jafar was a supporter of the British and the British East India Company. The victory in the Battle of Plassey was important for the British East India Company because it gave it a foothold in Bengal that it used to expand throughout the rest of India. For example, Clive is credited with expanding the military capabilities of the British East India Company in the region around Bengal. In fact, many historians credit the Battle of Plassey as being the major turning point when the British East India Company gained a stronghold in India. In fact, the Battle of Plassey was likely the most significant event in Clive’s career in India and the one for which he is best remembered today.
Throughout the late 1700s, the British East India Company expanded its control over large sections of eastern India from its main base in Bengal. For example, by the mid-1800s, the company had come to control all of the Indian subcontinent and ruled over the country through direct administration. This transformed the British East India Company from having a focus on trade to directly ruling and controlling India as a possession. It did this by expanding its military strength in the region. In fact, by 1857, the British East India Company had several armies that totaled as much as 267,000 soldiers.
Following his success in the Battle of Plassey, Clive carried out more campaigns in western India to further strengthen the position of the British East India Company. When he returned to England, in 1760, he was a fairly wealthy man. During this time in England, he worked to gain political influence over the policy decisions that impacted India. At the same time, stories of corruption began to emerge about the British East India Company, which caused Clive to return to India in 1765, at the age of 40.
ROBERT CLIVE'S FINAL TRIP TO INDIA
Clive landed back in India in May of 1765. He went to work quickly, by forging new alliances with local rulers and establishing the rule of the British East India Company in Bengal. For instance, Clive was essentially granted the ruling title of Bengal in 1765. This is important because it made Bengal, the stronghold from which the British East India Company would rule over India for the next several decades. He used his influence in the region to bring in several administrative reforms. For instance, he instituted several policies aimed at ending the corruption that had plagued the company in earlier years. For example, he forbid company officials from receiving ‘gifts’ from local Indian rulers. These policies had mixed results, as corruption in India remained an ever present problem. However, his military reform were more successful and helped establish the British control over India for decades to come.
ROBERT CLIVE'S LATER YEARS AND DEATH
Clive returned to England in 1767 where lived out his remaining years. In his final years, some British parliamentarians began to question his legacy and argued that his actions in India led to the corruption of the British East India Company. In particular, he was accused of benefiting personally at the expense of both the Indians and the company. He defended himself by arguing that he always acted within the then current rules of the British East India Company, and famously stated “I stand astonished at my own moderation”.
Robert Clive died at the age of 49 on November 22nd, 1774 from an apparent heart attack. Today, Clive is viewed as a significant figure in the history of the British East India Company and the growth of British imperialism in India. | <urn:uuid:4f16377e-64d0-4a1b-9cff-dc871959b86c> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.historycrunch.com/robert-clive.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250592565.2/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118110141-20200118134141-00323.warc.gz | en | 0.98197 | 2,202 | 3.546875 | 4 | [
0.03646751493215561,
-0.13365937769412994,
0.6311005353927612,
-0.3961072564125061,
0.012726456858217716,
-0.4229065477848053,
0.4391310214996338,
-0.2104363739490509,
-0.11071256548166275,
0.16473853588104248,
0.4605519473552704,
-0.6798497438430786,
0.05171114206314087,
0.449745476245880... | 14 | Robert Clive was a British military officer and British official important to the history of British imperialism in India. More specifically, he was a significant historical figure during the time of the British East India Company and its rise to prominence in India.
ROBERT CLIVE EARLY YEARS
Robert Clive was born on September 29th, 1725 in Shropshire, England. His father worked as a lawyer and government parliamentarian. Historians have noted that as a young man, Robert Clive was supposedly a bit of a troublemaker. For instance, he was known to fight with other students at school and harass local shops. This troublesome streak caused him to struggle early with his schooling, but as a teenager he apparently began to focus on his education much more and received a basic education from Hertfordshire.
BRITISH EAST INDIA COMPANY
As stated above, the British East India Company played a significant role in the in the history of India and British imperialism in India. The British East India Company was first established on December 31st, 1600 as a company that aimed at promoting British trade in the Far East, which included India, China and Japan. Throughout its history, the British East India Company worked to establish an economic foothold in the Far East that benefited the company and Britain. By the mid-1700s, the British East India Company had begun to exert considerable influence in India. For example, By 1720, approximately 15% of all imports into England came from India and the British East India Company was responsible for almost all of this trade. Furthermore, the British East India Company grew so large and influential that by the 18th century it faced almost no competition for trade between England and India, that it was effectively a monopoly. This situation gained the company not only influence in India, but also in the political and economic circles in England.
ROBERT CLIVE'S FIRST TRIP TO INDIA
Robert Clive first visited the Far East from 1744 until 1753 as a company agent for the British East India Company. In fact, he first arrived at Fort Saint George, which was the first English fort in India, on the coast of eastern India. At the time, India was still under the control of the Mughal Empire, but it had slowly been lessening in power due to the arrival of European merchants and companies, including the British East India Company. Clive worked in Fort Saint George for about two years as a shopkeeper for the company, until hostilities in India pushed him to take a more active role militarily. For instance, he participated in skirmishes with the French in India, including the First and Second Carnatic Wars. These wars also involved the British East India Company fighting against local India rulers for economic control over the region. Clive worked his way up through the army of the British East India Company, and became known as a successful commander. In fact, his actions in the Siege of Arcot gained him fame back in England, and British Prime Minister William Pitt called him the ‘heaven-born general’. Clive returned to England in 1753, after first marrying Margaret Maskelyne.
ROBERT CLIVE'S SECOND TRIP TO INDIA
Clive returned to India in 1755, after shortly serving as a Member of Parliament in England from 1754 and 1755. He went to India, again for the British East India Company, to serve as a deputy governor of Fort Saint David. By this point, the British East India Company had used its extensive wealth and influence to recruit ever more ships and sepoy soldiers. Indian soldiers who fought for European companies were referred to as ‘sepoys’. The British East India Company carried out the practise of recruiting sepoys regularly and amassed a large army of Indian soldiers. This was vitally important to the expansion of the British East India Company in the 18th century and allowed it to gain control over huge sections of the Indian subcontinent, which expanded its wealth and influence. For instance, in 1750 the company had only about 3,000 soldiers, but by 1778 it had over 67,000. It used this army to fight battles to further its expansion into India from the areas it controlled in Bengal, Madras and Bombay. In fact, by the mid-1700s, the company faced less resistance from European competitors and more from local Indian rulers. This eventually led to a major conflict for the British East India Company in 1757 called the Battle of Plassey, which was also significant to the life and history of Robert Clive.
BATTLE OF PLASSEY
The Battle of Plassey was a major conflict between the British East India Company and Muslim rulers (Nawab) in Bengal. At the time the Nawab were supported by the French and had overrun a British trading post, causing the British East India Company to send Robert Clive and British soldiers to fight. The actual fighting took place in western India along the shores of the Hooghly River. It is estimated that the Nawab had as many as 30,000 infantry soldiers and another 20,000 cavalry. In contrast, Clive and the British were vastly outnumbered. By this point Clive held the rank of lieutenant-colonel in the British Army and led approximately 1,100 British soldiers and another 2,100 sepoys for the British East India Company during the Battle of Plassey. The Battle of Plassey began early on the morning of June 23rd, 1757 as French artillery launched shells towards Clive’s soldiers. The Nawab infantry began to move in on the British in continuous waves. Clive ordered his British soldiers and sepoys to retreat a bit to find cover, where they dug in against the advancing Nawab. The situation for the British improved as a rainstorm hit the battlefield. Clive had prepared for this situation, because he protected the British gunpowder stores with ‘tarpaulins’. The tarpaulins, which were large cloths made waterproof by tar, were used to keep the gunpowder dry and usable even during the rain. Whereas, the Nawab made no such protections, and as a result were unable to use their firearms in the wet conditions. This caused the Nawab commander, Mir Madan Khan, to attack the British with the Nawab cavalry, because he believed that the British were no longer able to use their firearms. However, when the Nawab cavalry advanced on the British position, they realized their error as the British opened fire and devastated the Nawab. In the chaos of the attack, Mir Madan Khan was wounded and later died. The loss of the Nawab commander proved significant, as it caused the Nawab to order a retreat from the battlefield. The British, recognizing their opportunity, attacked the retreating Nawab and were able to capture several key pieces of French artillery, which were put into action for the British. As a result, Clive led the British to victory over the Nawab and its French Allies on June 23rd, 1757. Historians estimate that the British lost 22 sepoy soldiers with another 50 wounded in the Battle of Plassey while the Nawab lost approximately 500. At the end of the battle, Clive installed Mir Jafar as the new leader of the Nawab.
Mir Jafar was a supporter of the British and the British East India Company. The victory in the Battle of Plassey was important for the British East India Company because it gave it a foothold in Bengal that it used to expand throughout the rest of India. For example, Clive is credited with expanding the military capabilities of the British East India Company in the region around Bengal. In fact, many historians credit the Battle of Plassey as being the major turning point when the British East India Company gained a stronghold in India. In fact, the Battle of Plassey was likely the most significant event in Clive’s career in India and the one for which he is best remembered today.
Throughout the late 1700s, the British East India Company expanded its control over large sections of eastern India from its main base in Bengal. For example, by the mid-1800s, the company had come to control all of the Indian subcontinent and ruled over the country through direct administration. This transformed the British East India Company from having a focus on trade to directly ruling and controlling India as a possession. It did this by expanding its military strength in the region. In fact, by 1857, the British East India Company had several armies that totaled as much as 267,000 soldiers.
Following his success in the Battle of Plassey, Clive carried out more campaigns in western India to further strengthen the position of the British East India Company. When he returned to England, in 1760, he was a fairly wealthy man. During this time in England, he worked to gain political influence over the policy decisions that impacted India. At the same time, stories of corruption began to emerge about the British East India Company, which caused Clive to return to India in 1765, at the age of 40.
ROBERT CLIVE'S FINAL TRIP TO INDIA
Clive landed back in India in May of 1765. He went to work quickly, by forging new alliances with local rulers and establishing the rule of the British East India Company in Bengal. For instance, Clive was essentially granted the ruling title of Bengal in 1765. This is important because it made Bengal, the stronghold from which the British East India Company would rule over India for the next several decades. He used his influence in the region to bring in several administrative reforms. For instance, he instituted several policies aimed at ending the corruption that had plagued the company in earlier years. For example, he forbid company officials from receiving ‘gifts’ from local Indian rulers. These policies had mixed results, as corruption in India remained an ever present problem. However, his military reform were more successful and helped establish the British control over India for decades to come.
ROBERT CLIVE'S LATER YEARS AND DEATH
Clive returned to England in 1767 where lived out his remaining years. In his final years, some British parliamentarians began to question his legacy and argued that his actions in India led to the corruption of the British East India Company. In particular, he was accused of benefiting personally at the expense of both the Indians and the company. He defended himself by arguing that he always acted within the then current rules of the British East India Company, and famously stated “I stand astonished at my own moderation”.
Robert Clive died at the age of 49 on November 22nd, 1774 from an apparent heart attack. Today, Clive is viewed as a significant figure in the history of the British East India Company and the growth of British imperialism in India. | 2,317 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Home Sociology Human rights and social justice in a global perspective : an introduction to international social work
In countries in the Global North, the process of obtaining asylum is a long and difficult one. In the United States, when persons are found to have entered the country without the proper documents, they are supposed to be asked if they fear being sent home. Those who say yes are to be given a hearing before a judge to assess if this is a credible fear that would qualify that person for asylum. However, “expedited removal” is typical, where those who do not evidence fear are immediately returned and those who do are housed in detention facilities. Additionally, the UNHCR (2013 c) states that who is determined to be a “member of a particular social group” is inconsistent throughout the country and the government has not issued any guidelines to correct this.
A 2005 federal study found extreme variation in the treatment of asylum seekers between US airports and concluded that a person’s chance of obtaining asylum may depend on where he or she entered the country. Kennedy Airport was the most difficult; personal interviews assessing fear of return were typically conducted at public counters (inhibiting disclosure) and shackles were routinely used on asylum seekers. The study found that in general the question-and-answer forms used during these preliminary interviews were “unreliable and incomplete” and were later used by immigration judges to impeach the testimony of the asylum seeker. In some cases, although the person stated he or she had a fear of returning to his or her country, the immigration officer recorded on the interview form that the person stated no fear. In approximately half of all cases, the officers did not inform the person of the protections afforded them by US law, although it is mandatory to do so. The study found that asylum seekers were typically treated in the same manner as criminals: being strip-searched, shackled, and put in detention centers while their claims were evaluated was common (United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, 2005).
The commission made five recommendations to improve the process, but while improvements have been made, they have yet to be fully implemented. Even when an asylum seeker is granted a hearing before a judge, there is no guarantee of a fair hearing. Federal appeals judges, who review the asylum decisions upon appeal, state there is a pattern of biased and incoherent decisions in asylum cases (Liptak, 2005). The courts are regarded as swamped, with each judge having up to 70 cases scheduled at a time without law clerks, stenographers, or sufficient competent lawyers (Bernstein, 2006; Wasem, 2011).
Approval rates of asylum claims have been found to vary markedly between asylum officers, between judges, and between regions. For example, in Atlanta, only 7% of asylum seekers from China received asylum, but in Orlando, the rate was 76% (Wasem, 2011). The US Government Accountability Office stated that applicants in San Francisco were 12 times more likely to be granted asylum than in Atlanta Wasem, 2011). A 2008 study found that the majority of judges appointed under the Bush administration’s illegal political litmus test were much more likely to reject asylum claims than their peers. This litmus test, conducted from 2004 to 2007, was designed to assure that judges were sufficiently conservative and screened out Democrats and those deemed too liberal. Of the 31 immigration judges appointed, 16 had a sufficient record for analysis. Nine were significantly more likely to reject claims, three were more likely to accept them, and four were in line with their peers (Savage, 2008). Thus, there are significant legal barriers to being granted asylum within the United States as demonstrated by the following case study:
Joseph is an Egyptian man, but does not follow the religion of the majority in Egypt; rather, he is Christian. Muslim fundamentalists, with the full cooperation of Egypt's secret police, tried to forcefully convert him and members of his family, including trying to force him to marry a Muslim woman. Due to his refusal to convert and accept the forced marriage, he was detained and tortured. Due to the injuries sustained during the torture, they had to seek treatment for him at a hospital. At this time, Joseph was able to escape from them and flee the country. However, upon landing in the United States, he found that Egyptian authorities had declared him wanted for murder and he was detained upon arrival. During his detention, he came to the attention of Kathleen Lucas, founder of CIRCLE, an agency to assist refugees and asylum seekers. Kathleen helped lead an effort to prevent him from being deported and to obtain his release from prison, including research missions which found the woman Joseph was accused of murdering to be alive. Yet despite this evidence, Joseph remained detained. They secretly flew Joseph’s mother to the United States so that she could testify as to the persecution they had faced in Egypt due to their religion at a hearing under the Convention Against Torture. Joseph was granted relief under the Convention Against Torture and his mother was granted asylum due to her testimony, yet still Joseph remained in prison. Finally, after over 8 years of detention, Joseph was allowed to move into the community. However, he remains ineligible for permanent residency due to the false murder accusation, even after his marriage to a US citizen.
The conditions under which most asylum seekers are held continue to be jail-like, although some improvements have been made. The controversial Hutto Family Detention Center in Texas has been closed. This was a former state prison run by a for-profit correctional company to house families of asylum seekers. Children were housed there with their families in a cell with an open toilet. They received only an hour of schooling each day and were threatened by guards with separation from their families. Only judicial intervention permitted them such freedoms as changing into pajamas at night and taking crayons into their cell (Bernstein, 2009).
Those held in detention had great difficulty accessing legal representation because even if they located a person to defend them, they could be transferred to a facility across the country with no warning and were unable to be tracked. To reduce this issue, in 2010, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) established a locater system on the Internet to allow detainees to be located and, in 2012, issued a new policy establishing criteria for transfers in order to reduce arbitrary decisions (ICE, 2012).
However, conditions for those held in immigration detention remain controversial. The number of those held in immigration detention has exploded to 400,000 in 2012; the majority of them are undocumented immigrants but include asylum seekers as well. More than half of them are held in private, for-profit facilities, increased from 10% only a decade previously. These for-profit facilities are not bound to follow the ICE standards and do not have the same transparency of reporting as is required in the governmental facilities (“Private prisons,” 2012). These private companies, also located in Britain and Australia, have been found to commit abuse, as well as lethal neglect, but do not lose their contracts, worth billions of dollars (Bernstein, 2011).
|< Prev||CONTENTS||Next >| | <urn:uuid:3fd51588-4660-4917-82bb-7c54a0586a79> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://m.ebrary.net/94910/sociology/united_states | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250624328.55/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124161014-20200124190014-00387.warc.gz | en | 0.984769 | 1,456 | 3.3125 | 3 | [
0.12422560155391693,
-0.21830734610557556,
0.03427765518426895,
-0.3491109609603882,
0.2778184413909912,
0.1458141952753067,
0.3346143960952759,
-0.18304580450057983,
0.07694905996322632,
-0.07033094763755798,
0.05550255626440048,
0.6603828072547913,
-0.06752750277519226,
0.236038088798522... | 1 | Home Sociology Human rights and social justice in a global perspective : an introduction to international social work
In countries in the Global North, the process of obtaining asylum is a long and difficult one. In the United States, when persons are found to have entered the country without the proper documents, they are supposed to be asked if they fear being sent home. Those who say yes are to be given a hearing before a judge to assess if this is a credible fear that would qualify that person for asylum. However, “expedited removal” is typical, where those who do not evidence fear are immediately returned and those who do are housed in detention facilities. Additionally, the UNHCR (2013 c) states that who is determined to be a “member of a particular social group” is inconsistent throughout the country and the government has not issued any guidelines to correct this.
A 2005 federal study found extreme variation in the treatment of asylum seekers between US airports and concluded that a person’s chance of obtaining asylum may depend on where he or she entered the country. Kennedy Airport was the most difficult; personal interviews assessing fear of return were typically conducted at public counters (inhibiting disclosure) and shackles were routinely used on asylum seekers. The study found that in general the question-and-answer forms used during these preliminary interviews were “unreliable and incomplete” and were later used by immigration judges to impeach the testimony of the asylum seeker. In some cases, although the person stated he or she had a fear of returning to his or her country, the immigration officer recorded on the interview form that the person stated no fear. In approximately half of all cases, the officers did not inform the person of the protections afforded them by US law, although it is mandatory to do so. The study found that asylum seekers were typically treated in the same manner as criminals: being strip-searched, shackled, and put in detention centers while their claims were evaluated was common (United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, 2005).
The commission made five recommendations to improve the process, but while improvements have been made, they have yet to be fully implemented. Even when an asylum seeker is granted a hearing before a judge, there is no guarantee of a fair hearing. Federal appeals judges, who review the asylum decisions upon appeal, state there is a pattern of biased and incoherent decisions in asylum cases (Liptak, 2005). The courts are regarded as swamped, with each judge having up to 70 cases scheduled at a time without law clerks, stenographers, or sufficient competent lawyers (Bernstein, 2006; Wasem, 2011).
Approval rates of asylum claims have been found to vary markedly between asylum officers, between judges, and between regions. For example, in Atlanta, only 7% of asylum seekers from China received asylum, but in Orlando, the rate was 76% (Wasem, 2011). The US Government Accountability Office stated that applicants in San Francisco were 12 times more likely to be granted asylum than in Atlanta Wasem, 2011). A 2008 study found that the majority of judges appointed under the Bush administration’s illegal political litmus test were much more likely to reject asylum claims than their peers. This litmus test, conducted from 2004 to 2007, was designed to assure that judges were sufficiently conservative and screened out Democrats and those deemed too liberal. Of the 31 immigration judges appointed, 16 had a sufficient record for analysis. Nine were significantly more likely to reject claims, three were more likely to accept them, and four were in line with their peers (Savage, 2008). Thus, there are significant legal barriers to being granted asylum within the United States as demonstrated by the following case study:
Joseph is an Egyptian man, but does not follow the religion of the majority in Egypt; rather, he is Christian. Muslim fundamentalists, with the full cooperation of Egypt's secret police, tried to forcefully convert him and members of his family, including trying to force him to marry a Muslim woman. Due to his refusal to convert and accept the forced marriage, he was detained and tortured. Due to the injuries sustained during the torture, they had to seek treatment for him at a hospital. At this time, Joseph was able to escape from them and flee the country. However, upon landing in the United States, he found that Egyptian authorities had declared him wanted for murder and he was detained upon arrival. During his detention, he came to the attention of Kathleen Lucas, founder of CIRCLE, an agency to assist refugees and asylum seekers. Kathleen helped lead an effort to prevent him from being deported and to obtain his release from prison, including research missions which found the woman Joseph was accused of murdering to be alive. Yet despite this evidence, Joseph remained detained. They secretly flew Joseph’s mother to the United States so that she could testify as to the persecution they had faced in Egypt due to their religion at a hearing under the Convention Against Torture. Joseph was granted relief under the Convention Against Torture and his mother was granted asylum due to her testimony, yet still Joseph remained in prison. Finally, after over 8 years of detention, Joseph was allowed to move into the community. However, he remains ineligible for permanent residency due to the false murder accusation, even after his marriage to a US citizen.
The conditions under which most asylum seekers are held continue to be jail-like, although some improvements have been made. The controversial Hutto Family Detention Center in Texas has been closed. This was a former state prison run by a for-profit correctional company to house families of asylum seekers. Children were housed there with their families in a cell with an open toilet. They received only an hour of schooling each day and were threatened by guards with separation from their families. Only judicial intervention permitted them such freedoms as changing into pajamas at night and taking crayons into their cell (Bernstein, 2009).
Those held in detention had great difficulty accessing legal representation because even if they located a person to defend them, they could be transferred to a facility across the country with no warning and were unable to be tracked. To reduce this issue, in 2010, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE) established a locater system on the Internet to allow detainees to be located and, in 2012, issued a new policy establishing criteria for transfers in order to reduce arbitrary decisions (ICE, 2012).
However, conditions for those held in immigration detention remain controversial. The number of those held in immigration detention has exploded to 400,000 in 2012; the majority of them are undocumented immigrants but include asylum seekers as well. More than half of them are held in private, for-profit facilities, increased from 10% only a decade previously. These for-profit facilities are not bound to follow the ICE standards and do not have the same transparency of reporting as is required in the governmental facilities (“Private prisons,” 2012). These private companies, also located in Britain and Australia, have been found to commit abuse, as well as lethal neglect, but do not lose their contracts, worth billions of dollars (Bernstein, 2011).
|< Prev||CONTENTS||Next >| | 1,518 | ENGLISH | 1 |
In the late Victorian era grammar schools were reorganised for secondary education throughout England and Wales. Scotland had developed a different system. Grammar schools were also established in British territories overseas, where they have evolved in different ways.
They were described as "the selective tier of state-funded secondary education in England and Wales". Grammar schools became "selective" in the mid-20th century, after World War II. This means they selected applicants whom they thought would get the most out of that kind of education. The selection was done by means of an 11+ test which included an IQ test. This was designed so that it was more based on native ability, rather than taught learning.
Labour governments in the 1960s and 70s made efforts to replace grammar schools with comprehensive schools. Comprehensive schools were open to children of all abilities, similar to high schools in the United States.
As a result, in the 1960s and 1970s some grammar schools became fully independent and charged fees. Many others were abolished or became comprehensive. In both cases, many of these schools kept "grammar school" in their names. There are still 164 state-run grammar schools in existence.
- House of Commons Hansard, 16 July 2007: Columns 104W-107W, UK Parliament Publications & Records. | <urn:uuid:487e442b-7cea-44bd-b5d2-f63bd7a60691> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammar_school | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251778272.69/warc/CC-MAIN-20200128122813-20200128152813-00540.warc.gz | en | 0.990245 | 264 | 3.265625 | 3 | [
-0.4781251549720764,
-0.21220622956752777,
0.33032283186912537,
-0.06529009342193604,
-0.23587632179260254,
-0.06845147907733917,
-0.43978381156921387,
0.02663256786763668,
0.049700796604156494,
0.0279537420719862,
0.23530162870883942,
-0.2763119041919708,
0.10089658945798874,
0.1537449508... | 7 | In the late Victorian era grammar schools were reorganised for secondary education throughout England and Wales. Scotland had developed a different system. Grammar schools were also established in British territories overseas, where they have evolved in different ways.
They were described as "the selective tier of state-funded secondary education in England and Wales". Grammar schools became "selective" in the mid-20th century, after World War II. This means they selected applicants whom they thought would get the most out of that kind of education. The selection was done by means of an 11+ test which included an IQ test. This was designed so that it was more based on native ability, rather than taught learning.
Labour governments in the 1960s and 70s made efforts to replace grammar schools with comprehensive schools. Comprehensive schools were open to children of all abilities, similar to high schools in the United States.
As a result, in the 1960s and 1970s some grammar schools became fully independent and charged fees. Many others were abolished or became comprehensive. In both cases, many of these schools kept "grammar school" in their names. There are still 164 state-run grammar schools in existence.
- House of Commons Hansard, 16 July 2007: Columns 104W-107W, UK Parliament Publications & Records. | 286 | ENGLISH | 1 |
October 3rd is the day the Orthodox Christian Church commemorates Saint Dionysius the Areopagite, the patron saint of the city of Athens, who is also known as the protector of judges and the judiciary.
Who was Dionysius?
Born during the first century AD, Dionysius grew up in a wealthy Athenian family. Before his conversion to Christianity, he was known to have studied both in Greece and abroad.
According to written sources, Dionysius was married, and he and his wife and had several children.
His broad knowledge and the great success he had in his studies gave him the opportunity to join ancient Greece’s most prestigious court of law, that of the Areopagus.
At the time of Jesus’ crucifixion, Dionysius was in Egypt in a town called Heliopolis (the City of the Sun) near today’s capital of Cairo.
According to Christian tradition, that Good Friday, the very day Jesus Christ died, ”darkness came over all the land.”
Dionysius noticed that day that the sun had disappeared, and he wrote down the exact hour that this peculiar phenomenon took place.
Tradition says that Dionysius was so amazed and disturbed by the disappearance of the sun that he uttered the words ”God suffers, or everything is lost.”
His conversion to Christianity
However, for years after this phenomenon, Dionysius didn’t know for sure what the sudden eclipse meant, and whether or not it was actually a sign from heaven.
Years later, he heard a man named Paul preaching on Athens’ Areopagus Hill, close to where his court was located.
Dionysius heard St. Paul explaining that when Jesus died, the daylight completely disappeared and darkness embraced the world. This immediately reminded him of the peculiar phenomenon he had noticed and recorded in Egypt, years ago.
Convinced that Paul was telling the truth and that his teaching was that of the true faith, Dionysius decided to become baptized in 54 AD.
Dionysius was so passionate about Christ and His revolutionary message that he eventually abandoned his family and judicial career and dedicated himself completely to God.
When the former judge learned that the mother of Jesus was still alive and living in Jerusalem, he decided to visit her there.
Dionysius indeed met Mary there in the Holy Land, and enjoyed many discussions with her. He was also there when she finally passed away, a witness to her Dormition.
The former Greek judge even attended her funeral.
Years later, Dionysius wrote a book in which he explained his belief that the woman he had met and spoken with had indeed been the Mother of God, something that he believed was certain only by the way she had appeared.
In the meantime, Saint Paul had named Dionysius the first Bishop of Athens, which in effect boldly established Christianity as an entity in the very center of the pagan world’s idolatry.
When Dionysius learned the news that Saint Paul had been executed by beheading outside Rome, he wholeheartedly desired to sacrifice his own life to honor Jesus.
Along with his friends Eleutherius and Rusticus, Dionysius made the courageous decision to go and preach Jesus’ Gospel openly in public.
After managing to convert many pagans to Christianity, Dionysius, the former judge, along with Eleutherius and Rusticus, was finally beheaded during the reign of Emperor Domitian, in 96 AD.
Some believe that the Greek St. Dionysius actually died in Paris, but in all likelihood that was another martyr, from Gaul, who had the same name, and each St. Dionysius is commemorated on the day of their martyrdom.
The Veneration of the Hieromartyr
Saint Dionysius the Areopagite is venerated by both the Orthodox and the Catholic Christian Churches.
The Orthodox Church honors his memory on October 3 every year, while the Catholic Church does so on October 9.
Additionally, the Greek Orthodox Church also celebrates his memory on October 12, the day when all the Athenian saints are celebrated together.
The Catholic Cathedral of Athens is dedicated to Saint Dionysius the Areopagite and an Orthodox church dedicated to his memory also still stands in Kolonaki, downtown Athens.
The construction of the Catholic shrine began in the mid 1840s and it was consecrated in 1853. The Orthodox church dedicated to the saint was consecrated 78 years later, in 1931, after eight years of construction.
Before that, a smaller and more humble church, also dedicated to the same saint, stood at the exact spot where the new temple stands. It was originally built at approximately the same time as the Catholic cathedral of St. Dionysius. | <urn:uuid:46bf3bf8-0597-4563-af28-91e487b48784> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://greece.greekreporter.com/2019/10/03/the-history-of-dionysius-the-areopagite-the-patron-saint-of-athens/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251672440.80/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125101544-20200125130544-00189.warc.gz | en | 0.986466 | 998 | 3.3125 | 3 | [
0.18416187167167664,
0.369051069021225,
0.07478579878807068,
0.24163109064102173,
-0.3669247627258301,
-0.5684341192245483,
0.2859385311603546,
0.2918325662612915,
0.06570518761873245,
0.2909378409385681,
-0.22459597885608673,
0.06347867101430893,
0.02363995462656021,
0.2597641348838806,
... | 2 | October 3rd is the day the Orthodox Christian Church commemorates Saint Dionysius the Areopagite, the patron saint of the city of Athens, who is also known as the protector of judges and the judiciary.
Who was Dionysius?
Born during the first century AD, Dionysius grew up in a wealthy Athenian family. Before his conversion to Christianity, he was known to have studied both in Greece and abroad.
According to written sources, Dionysius was married, and he and his wife and had several children.
His broad knowledge and the great success he had in his studies gave him the opportunity to join ancient Greece’s most prestigious court of law, that of the Areopagus.
At the time of Jesus’ crucifixion, Dionysius was in Egypt in a town called Heliopolis (the City of the Sun) near today’s capital of Cairo.
According to Christian tradition, that Good Friday, the very day Jesus Christ died, ”darkness came over all the land.”
Dionysius noticed that day that the sun had disappeared, and he wrote down the exact hour that this peculiar phenomenon took place.
Tradition says that Dionysius was so amazed and disturbed by the disappearance of the sun that he uttered the words ”God suffers, or everything is lost.”
His conversion to Christianity
However, for years after this phenomenon, Dionysius didn’t know for sure what the sudden eclipse meant, and whether or not it was actually a sign from heaven.
Years later, he heard a man named Paul preaching on Athens’ Areopagus Hill, close to where his court was located.
Dionysius heard St. Paul explaining that when Jesus died, the daylight completely disappeared and darkness embraced the world. This immediately reminded him of the peculiar phenomenon he had noticed and recorded in Egypt, years ago.
Convinced that Paul was telling the truth and that his teaching was that of the true faith, Dionysius decided to become baptized in 54 AD.
Dionysius was so passionate about Christ and His revolutionary message that he eventually abandoned his family and judicial career and dedicated himself completely to God.
When the former judge learned that the mother of Jesus was still alive and living in Jerusalem, he decided to visit her there.
Dionysius indeed met Mary there in the Holy Land, and enjoyed many discussions with her. He was also there when she finally passed away, a witness to her Dormition.
The former Greek judge even attended her funeral.
Years later, Dionysius wrote a book in which he explained his belief that the woman he had met and spoken with had indeed been the Mother of God, something that he believed was certain only by the way she had appeared.
In the meantime, Saint Paul had named Dionysius the first Bishop of Athens, which in effect boldly established Christianity as an entity in the very center of the pagan world’s idolatry.
When Dionysius learned the news that Saint Paul had been executed by beheading outside Rome, he wholeheartedly desired to sacrifice his own life to honor Jesus.
Along with his friends Eleutherius and Rusticus, Dionysius made the courageous decision to go and preach Jesus’ Gospel openly in public.
After managing to convert many pagans to Christianity, Dionysius, the former judge, along with Eleutherius and Rusticus, was finally beheaded during the reign of Emperor Domitian, in 96 AD.
Some believe that the Greek St. Dionysius actually died in Paris, but in all likelihood that was another martyr, from Gaul, who had the same name, and each St. Dionysius is commemorated on the day of their martyrdom.
The Veneration of the Hieromartyr
Saint Dionysius the Areopagite is venerated by both the Orthodox and the Catholic Christian Churches.
The Orthodox Church honors his memory on October 3 every year, while the Catholic Church does so on October 9.
Additionally, the Greek Orthodox Church also celebrates his memory on October 12, the day when all the Athenian saints are celebrated together.
The Catholic Cathedral of Athens is dedicated to Saint Dionysius the Areopagite and an Orthodox church dedicated to his memory also still stands in Kolonaki, downtown Athens.
The construction of the Catholic shrine began in the mid 1840s and it was consecrated in 1853. The Orthodox church dedicated to the saint was consecrated 78 years later, in 1931, after eight years of construction.
Before that, a smaller and more humble church, also dedicated to the same saint, stood at the exact spot where the new temple stands. It was originally built at approximately the same time as the Catholic cathedral of St. Dionysius. | 974 | ENGLISH | 1 |
How marriage has changed over centuries
Has marriage always had the same definition?
Actually, the institution has been in a process of constant evolution. Pair-bonding began in the Stone Age as a way of organizing and controlling sexual conduct and providing a stable structure for child-rearing and the tasks of daily life. But that basic concept has taken many forms across different cultures and eras. "Whenever people talk about traditional marriage or traditional families, historians throw up their hands," said Steven Mintz, a history professor at Columbia University. "We say, 'When and where?'" The ancient Hebrews, for instance, engaged in polygamy — according to the Bible, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines — and men have taken multiple wives in cultures throughout the world, including China, Africa, and among American Mormons in the 19th century. Polygamy is still common across much of the Muslim world. The idea of marriage as a sexually exclusive, romantic union between one man and one woman is a relatively recent development. Until two centuries ago, said Harvard historian Nancy Cott, "monogamous households were a tiny, tiny portion" of the world population, found in "just Western Europe and little settlements in North America."
When did people start marrying?
The first recorded evidence of marriage contracts and ceremonies dates to 4,000 years ago, in Mesopotamia. In the ancient world, marriage served primarily as a means of preserving power, with kings and other members of the ruling class marrying off daughters to forge alliances, acquire land, and produce legitimate heirs. Even in the lower classes, women had little say over whom they married. The purpose of marriage was the production of heirs, as implied by the Latin word matrimonium, which is derived from mater (mother).
When did the church get involved?
In ancient Rome, marriage was a civil affair governed by imperial law. But when the empire collapsed, in the 5th century, church courts took over and elevated marriage to a holy union. As the church's power grew through the Middle Ages, so did its influence over marriage. In 1215, marriage was declared one of the church's seven sacraments, alongside rites like baptism and penance. But it was only in the 16th century that the church decreed that weddings be performed in public, by a priest, and before witnesses.
What role did love play?
For most of human history, almost none at all. Marriage was considered too serious a matter to be based on such a fragile emotion. "If love could grow out of it, that was wonderful," said Stephanie Coontz, author of Marriage, a History. "But that was gravy." In fact, love and marriage were once widely regarded as incompatible with one another. A Roman politician was expelled from the Senate in the 2nd century B.C. for kissing his wife in public — behavior the essayist Plutarch condemned as "disgraceful." In the 12th and 13th centuries, the European aristocracy viewed extramarital affairs as the highest form of romance, untainted by the gritty realities of daily life. And as late as the 18th century, the French philosopher Montesquieu wrote that any man who was in love with his wife was probably too dull to be loved by another woman.
When did romance enter the picture?
In the 17th and 18th centuries, when Enlightenment thinkers pioneered the idea that life was about the pursuit of happiness. They advocated marrying for love rather than wealth or status. This trend was augmented by the Industrial Revolution and the growth of the middle class in the 19th century, which enabled young men to select a spouse and pay for a wedding, regardless of parental approval. As people took more control of their love lives, they began to demand the right to end unhappy unions. Divorce became much more commonplace.
Did marriage change in the 20th century?
Dramatically. For thousands of years, law and custom enforced the subordination of wives to husbands. But as the women's-rights movement gained strength in the late 19th and 20th centuries, wives slowly began to insist on being regarded as their husbands' equals, rather than their property. "By 1970," said Marilyn Yalom, author of A History of the Wife, "marriage law had become gender-neutral in Western democracy." At the same time, the rise of effective contraception fundamentally transformed marriage: Couples could choose how many children to have, and even to have no children at all. If they were unhappy with each other, they could divorce — and nearly half of all couples did. Marriage had become primarily a personal contract between two equals seeking love, stability, and happiness. This new definition opened the door to gays and lesbians claiming a right to be married, too. "We now fit under the Western philosophy of marriage," said E.J. Graff, a lesbian and the author of What Is Marriage For? In one very real sense, Coontz says, opponents of gay marriage are correct when they say traditional marriage has been undermined. "But, for better and for worse, traditional marriage has already been destroyed," she says, "and the process began long before anyone even dreamed of legalizing same-sex marriage."
Gay 'marriage' in medieval Europe
Same-sex unions aren't a recent invention. Until the 13th century, male-bonding ceremonies were common in churches across the Mediterranean. Apart from the couples' gender, these events were almost indistinguishable from other marriages of the era. Twelfth-century liturgies for same-sex unions — also known as "spiritual brotherhoods" — included the recital of marriage prayers, the joining of hands at the altar, and a ceremonial kiss. Some historians believe these unions were merely a way to seal alliances and business deals. But Eric Berkowitz, author of Sex and Punishment, says it is "difficult to believe that these rituals did not contemplate erotic contact. In fact, it was the sex between the men involved that later caused same-sex unions to be banned." That happened in 1306, when the Byzantine Emperor Andronicus II declared such ceremonies, along with sorcery and incest, to be unchristian. | <urn:uuid:17eb7baa-224e-45a9-a0fd-1b912e62b1d0> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://theweek.com/articles/475141/marriage-changed-over-centuries | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250616186.38/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124070934-20200124095934-00109.warc.gz | en | 0.98111 | 1,270 | 3.3125 | 3 | [
-0.2059326171875,
0.5471172332763672,
0.0555831678211689,
-0.1276329904794693,
-0.34650754928588867,
0.20772303640842438,
-0.19853505492210388,
-0.11206461489200592,
0.5226138830184937,
-0.020829495042562485,
0.17508859932422638,
0.42888277769088745,
0.5078327655792236,
-0.1863329708576202... | 5 | How marriage has changed over centuries
Has marriage always had the same definition?
Actually, the institution has been in a process of constant evolution. Pair-bonding began in the Stone Age as a way of organizing and controlling sexual conduct and providing a stable structure for child-rearing and the tasks of daily life. But that basic concept has taken many forms across different cultures and eras. "Whenever people talk about traditional marriage or traditional families, historians throw up their hands," said Steven Mintz, a history professor at Columbia University. "We say, 'When and where?'" The ancient Hebrews, for instance, engaged in polygamy — according to the Bible, King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines — and men have taken multiple wives in cultures throughout the world, including China, Africa, and among American Mormons in the 19th century. Polygamy is still common across much of the Muslim world. The idea of marriage as a sexually exclusive, romantic union between one man and one woman is a relatively recent development. Until two centuries ago, said Harvard historian Nancy Cott, "monogamous households were a tiny, tiny portion" of the world population, found in "just Western Europe and little settlements in North America."
When did people start marrying?
The first recorded evidence of marriage contracts and ceremonies dates to 4,000 years ago, in Mesopotamia. In the ancient world, marriage served primarily as a means of preserving power, with kings and other members of the ruling class marrying off daughters to forge alliances, acquire land, and produce legitimate heirs. Even in the lower classes, women had little say over whom they married. The purpose of marriage was the production of heirs, as implied by the Latin word matrimonium, which is derived from mater (mother).
When did the church get involved?
In ancient Rome, marriage was a civil affair governed by imperial law. But when the empire collapsed, in the 5th century, church courts took over and elevated marriage to a holy union. As the church's power grew through the Middle Ages, so did its influence over marriage. In 1215, marriage was declared one of the church's seven sacraments, alongside rites like baptism and penance. But it was only in the 16th century that the church decreed that weddings be performed in public, by a priest, and before witnesses.
What role did love play?
For most of human history, almost none at all. Marriage was considered too serious a matter to be based on such a fragile emotion. "If love could grow out of it, that was wonderful," said Stephanie Coontz, author of Marriage, a History. "But that was gravy." In fact, love and marriage were once widely regarded as incompatible with one another. A Roman politician was expelled from the Senate in the 2nd century B.C. for kissing his wife in public — behavior the essayist Plutarch condemned as "disgraceful." In the 12th and 13th centuries, the European aristocracy viewed extramarital affairs as the highest form of romance, untainted by the gritty realities of daily life. And as late as the 18th century, the French philosopher Montesquieu wrote that any man who was in love with his wife was probably too dull to be loved by another woman.
When did romance enter the picture?
In the 17th and 18th centuries, when Enlightenment thinkers pioneered the idea that life was about the pursuit of happiness. They advocated marrying for love rather than wealth or status. This trend was augmented by the Industrial Revolution and the growth of the middle class in the 19th century, which enabled young men to select a spouse and pay for a wedding, regardless of parental approval. As people took more control of their love lives, they began to demand the right to end unhappy unions. Divorce became much more commonplace.
Did marriage change in the 20th century?
Dramatically. For thousands of years, law and custom enforced the subordination of wives to husbands. But as the women's-rights movement gained strength in the late 19th and 20th centuries, wives slowly began to insist on being regarded as their husbands' equals, rather than their property. "By 1970," said Marilyn Yalom, author of A History of the Wife, "marriage law had become gender-neutral in Western democracy." At the same time, the rise of effective contraception fundamentally transformed marriage: Couples could choose how many children to have, and even to have no children at all. If they were unhappy with each other, they could divorce — and nearly half of all couples did. Marriage had become primarily a personal contract between two equals seeking love, stability, and happiness. This new definition opened the door to gays and lesbians claiming a right to be married, too. "We now fit under the Western philosophy of marriage," said E.J. Graff, a lesbian and the author of What Is Marriage For? In one very real sense, Coontz says, opponents of gay marriage are correct when they say traditional marriage has been undermined. "But, for better and for worse, traditional marriage has already been destroyed," she says, "and the process began long before anyone even dreamed of legalizing same-sex marriage."
Gay 'marriage' in medieval Europe
Same-sex unions aren't a recent invention. Until the 13th century, male-bonding ceremonies were common in churches across the Mediterranean. Apart from the couples' gender, these events were almost indistinguishable from other marriages of the era. Twelfth-century liturgies for same-sex unions — also known as "spiritual brotherhoods" — included the recital of marriage prayers, the joining of hands at the altar, and a ceremonial kiss. Some historians believe these unions were merely a way to seal alliances and business deals. But Eric Berkowitz, author of Sex and Punishment, says it is "difficult to believe that these rituals did not contemplate erotic contact. In fact, it was the sex between the men involved that later caused same-sex unions to be banned." That happened in 1306, when the Byzantine Emperor Andronicus II declared such ceremonies, along with sorcery and incest, to be unchristian. | 1,300 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Regarding to tap of labor from the Caribbean,that will be for another research.After the ban on Indian Indentured Labor,Immigrants was sought from the coast of Africa.
1. British West Indian sugar DECLINED everywhere as it took time for the planters to adjust to having a paid work force and to having a work force which advocated for their rights.
In addition the UK no longer protected sugar from its colonies as it could have sourced it more cheaply from Brazil, Cuba as well as from beet sugar from Europe. Even Jamaica, then one of the world's largest sugarcane producers under went decline which led to the development of the banana industry. Labor shortages were NOT an issue on that island and in fact Jamaica was sourced as a labor source by US corporate interests who had projects in various Latin America nations.
2. There was NO attempt to source labor from Africa in the 20th century as such attempted HAD ALREADY FAILED. After slavery ended attempts were made to source labor from Sierra Leone. Africans were leery based on the fears of being enslaved. In fact the British were over taxing African subsistence farmers to force them to become laborers in the export crop sectors, which needed labor!
3. The planters sourced labor from the overcrowded Barbados as their plot was to have a divided labor force that they could exploit. Their apprehensions with Islanders is that they assimilated rapidly into the local black populations, and so weren't easily exploitable.
By the time the BGEIA advocated its attempt to turn the then British Guiana into a "colony" of India large numbers of Indian indentures had already been sourced. By then there was no evidence that BG had a labor shortage in its plantation sectors.
The point isn't about indentures bring brought to Guyana and Trinidad. The point was about the plot of the BGEIA to bring in people from India SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF POLITICAL DOMINATION. The BGEIA lied about the conditions of indentures in Guyana in order to refute fears by India of abuse. They described BG as a paradise for Indians, which you know fully well was a LIE. But they did so to head off attempts by India to end that country as a source of indentures. | <urn:uuid:10eddffb-9107-42a9-9d61-7108ff1bda31> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://guyana.hoop.la/printer-friendly-topic/the-ppp-and-guyanese-indians-malcolm-harripaul-s-masterpiece-of-political-analysis?forReply=589035863221130927 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251694176.67/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127020458-20200127050458-00405.warc.gz | en | 0.986472 | 466 | 3.625 | 4 | [
-0.023183511570096016,
0.12582793831825256,
0.08093394339084625,
-0.024038147181272507,
0.580575704574585,
-0.4198039770126343,
-0.11796633154153824,
-0.051487088203430176,
-0.3650107681751251,
0.16979512572288513,
0.01731223240494728,
-0.3821556270122528,
-0.46632468700408936,
0.223761796... | 2 | Regarding to tap of labor from the Caribbean,that will be for another research.After the ban on Indian Indentured Labor,Immigrants was sought from the coast of Africa.
1. British West Indian sugar DECLINED everywhere as it took time for the planters to adjust to having a paid work force and to having a work force which advocated for their rights.
In addition the UK no longer protected sugar from its colonies as it could have sourced it more cheaply from Brazil, Cuba as well as from beet sugar from Europe. Even Jamaica, then one of the world's largest sugarcane producers under went decline which led to the development of the banana industry. Labor shortages were NOT an issue on that island and in fact Jamaica was sourced as a labor source by US corporate interests who had projects in various Latin America nations.
2. There was NO attempt to source labor from Africa in the 20th century as such attempted HAD ALREADY FAILED. After slavery ended attempts were made to source labor from Sierra Leone. Africans were leery based on the fears of being enslaved. In fact the British were over taxing African subsistence farmers to force them to become laborers in the export crop sectors, which needed labor!
3. The planters sourced labor from the overcrowded Barbados as their plot was to have a divided labor force that they could exploit. Their apprehensions with Islanders is that they assimilated rapidly into the local black populations, and so weren't easily exploitable.
By the time the BGEIA advocated its attempt to turn the then British Guiana into a "colony" of India large numbers of Indian indentures had already been sourced. By then there was no evidence that BG had a labor shortage in its plantation sectors.
The point isn't about indentures bring brought to Guyana and Trinidad. The point was about the plot of the BGEIA to bring in people from India SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF POLITICAL DOMINATION. The BGEIA lied about the conditions of indentures in Guyana in order to refute fears by India of abuse. They described BG as a paradise for Indians, which you know fully well was a LIE. But they did so to head off attempts by India to end that country as a source of indentures. | 458 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Russian winning Nobel Prize winners for Literature
Ivan Bunin in 1933
“for the strict artistry with which he has carried on the classical Russian traditions in prose writing”.
It was the first time a Nobel Prize had been awarded to someone in exile, in essence honouring the value of literature as a median distinct from politics. Bunin, like may other Russians at the time, was living in France following the advent of the USSR. As immigrants in Europe, they had previously felt at the bottom of the ladder, but then one of their own was recognised with the most prestigious of internationally acclaimed literary awards. Moreover, it was not for mere political grumblings but for real prose. Although it was not Bunin’s wish to become involved in politics, he inadvertently became the poster boy for non-Bolshevik Russian values and traditions and remained a talisman for the Russian class ostracised by the USSR.
Boris Pasternak in 1958
“for his important achievement both in contemporary lyrical poetry and in the field of the great Russian epic tradition”.
The citation, taken from the Nobel Prize website, is in fact rather empty. The gravity of awarding Pasternak the award was immense. Pasternak’s novel Doctor Zhivago was regarded as inherently anti-Soviet; criticising Stalin, the Great Purge and the Gulags. The novel also became a valuable western weapon, both the MI6 and the CIA undertaking a propaganda campaign to spread the novel and allow for a maximisation of ‘free world discussion’. The CIA bought thousands of copies and spread the novel at the World Fair, held in Brussels that year. They even designed a miniature lightweight edition which could be hidden in coat pockets and smuggled back into the Soviet Union.
In response to this, the Soviet Union undertook an anti-Pasternak campaign, which laid bare the ugliest elements of soviet tradition. He was publicly denounced and former friends were forced to speak out against him. Pasternak was brought to the brink of suicide when in a speech in front of 14,000 people, he was compared to a pig who “spat in the face of the people”. Although delivered by Vladimir Semichastny, the words were written by Khrushchev himself. Pasternak was informed that if he travelled to Stockholm to collect the prize he would not be allowed back into the Soviet Union. As a result, Pasternak was forced to decline the award, not wanting to cause greater harm to his family and friends.
Mikhail Sholokhov in 1965
“for the artistic power and integrity with which, in his epic of the Don, he has given expression to a historic phase in the life of the Russian people”
Sholokhov really did ‘give expression to a historic phase in the life of the Russian people’; he was a champion of soviet ideals. At the height of his career he even became the Vice-President of the Association of Soviet Writers. His epic novel And Quiet Flows the Don, became one of the most-read pieces of Soviet fiction and was a prime example of the Socialist Realist genre. A genre which glorified communist values. Sholokhov blended the style of Tolstoy with the ideology of Gorky to produce a work which orientated itself around human destiny amid the turbulent period of war at the beginning of the twentieth century.
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in 1970
“for the ethical force with which he has pursued the indispensable traditions of Russian literature”
Solzhenitsyn can certainly be portrayed as an ‘ethical force’ who attempted to hold the Soviet regime to account. Following eight years in Gulags, he was released after Stalin’s death and was able to begin writing in earnest. His work One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich (1963), was heavily critical of the soviet system and even in the less restrictive time of Khrushchev, officials began to clamp down on his writings. Expelled from the Union of Writers, he had to depend on a method of publishing called ‘samizdat’, which involved the copying of works by hand. When he was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1970, he had to decline travelling to Stockholm to receive it, for fear he would be prevented from returning to the Soviet Union. Though, a mere four years later he was expelled anyway for treason. He settled in America and despite his clear anti-communist views also became a prominent critic of America’s incessant materialism.
Joseph Brodsky in 1987
“for an all-embracing authorship, imbued with clarity of thought and poetic intensity”
At the time of his award Brodsky was referred to as the ‘best living Russian writer bar none’. Yet until 1987 all his works were banned in the Soviet Union. Although born in Russia and writing in Russian, he did not live there and his works were not able to be read by Russians. In response to a question on this topic Brodsky responded, ‘I’m Jewish; a Russian poet…and of course, an American citizen”. Although the ‘Swedish Academy’ responsible for awarding the Nobel Prize, maintained that it had no underlining political motives for the award, it nevertheless raised eyebrows in the Soviet Union. In a century characterised by competition between the Soviet Union and the United States a Russian-born Nobel prize winner, who identified as an American, may have been a difficult pill to swallow.
Svetlana Alexievich in 2015
“for her polyphonic writings, a monument to suffering and courage in our time”
Alexievich employed a fascinating technique of blending together interviews in order to trace the emotional history of the Soviet world. She used testimonies of witnesses to more accurately portray the struggles experienced by individuals. Although Belorussian in origin, she writes in Russian as her work centred on Soviet and post-Soviet history. She refers to the period as an ‘eternal dialogue between executioners and victims’ and maintains human suffering to be a collective experience. Hard-hitting and leaving no stoned unturned, she was duly awarded the Nobel Prize for literature and although identifies as an author, was unofficially named the first journalist to win the prize, due to her unorthodox verbatim style.
Differing in origin, residence and ideology; the above writers are united only by their contribution to and inevitably their love for the Russian literature tradition.
Do you want to get more inspired by Russian literature? Find out some iconic routes that inspired Russian writers and artists and follow Liden & Denz on Facebook for new interesting articles about this topic! | <urn:uuid:31f3711e-3fe0-43ef-a33e-e90ec6061933> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://lidenz.ru/russian-literature-nobel-prize/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250595787.7/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119234426-20200120022426-00396.warc.gz | en | 0.981039 | 1,398 | 3.3125 | 3 | [
-0.16116046905517578,
0.3476974368095398,
0.16892823576927185,
0.17791308462619781,
-0.16644048690795898,
-0.34011921286582947,
0.23060999810695648,
0.6100410223007202,
-0.10242534428834915,
0.18608826398849487,
0.019354376941919327,
-0.07036586850881577,
0.10105374455451965,
0.23188440501... | 7 | Russian winning Nobel Prize winners for Literature
Ivan Bunin in 1933
“for the strict artistry with which he has carried on the classical Russian traditions in prose writing”.
It was the first time a Nobel Prize had been awarded to someone in exile, in essence honouring the value of literature as a median distinct from politics. Bunin, like may other Russians at the time, was living in France following the advent of the USSR. As immigrants in Europe, they had previously felt at the bottom of the ladder, but then one of their own was recognised with the most prestigious of internationally acclaimed literary awards. Moreover, it was not for mere political grumblings but for real prose. Although it was not Bunin’s wish to become involved in politics, he inadvertently became the poster boy for non-Bolshevik Russian values and traditions and remained a talisman for the Russian class ostracised by the USSR.
Boris Pasternak in 1958
“for his important achievement both in contemporary lyrical poetry and in the field of the great Russian epic tradition”.
The citation, taken from the Nobel Prize website, is in fact rather empty. The gravity of awarding Pasternak the award was immense. Pasternak’s novel Doctor Zhivago was regarded as inherently anti-Soviet; criticising Stalin, the Great Purge and the Gulags. The novel also became a valuable western weapon, both the MI6 and the CIA undertaking a propaganda campaign to spread the novel and allow for a maximisation of ‘free world discussion’. The CIA bought thousands of copies and spread the novel at the World Fair, held in Brussels that year. They even designed a miniature lightweight edition which could be hidden in coat pockets and smuggled back into the Soviet Union.
In response to this, the Soviet Union undertook an anti-Pasternak campaign, which laid bare the ugliest elements of soviet tradition. He was publicly denounced and former friends were forced to speak out against him. Pasternak was brought to the brink of suicide when in a speech in front of 14,000 people, he was compared to a pig who “spat in the face of the people”. Although delivered by Vladimir Semichastny, the words were written by Khrushchev himself. Pasternak was informed that if he travelled to Stockholm to collect the prize he would not be allowed back into the Soviet Union. As a result, Pasternak was forced to decline the award, not wanting to cause greater harm to his family and friends.
Mikhail Sholokhov in 1965
“for the artistic power and integrity with which, in his epic of the Don, he has given expression to a historic phase in the life of the Russian people”
Sholokhov really did ‘give expression to a historic phase in the life of the Russian people’; he was a champion of soviet ideals. At the height of his career he even became the Vice-President of the Association of Soviet Writers. His epic novel And Quiet Flows the Don, became one of the most-read pieces of Soviet fiction and was a prime example of the Socialist Realist genre. A genre which glorified communist values. Sholokhov blended the style of Tolstoy with the ideology of Gorky to produce a work which orientated itself around human destiny amid the turbulent period of war at the beginning of the twentieth century.
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in 1970
“for the ethical force with which he has pursued the indispensable traditions of Russian literature”
Solzhenitsyn can certainly be portrayed as an ‘ethical force’ who attempted to hold the Soviet regime to account. Following eight years in Gulags, he was released after Stalin’s death and was able to begin writing in earnest. His work One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich (1963), was heavily critical of the soviet system and even in the less restrictive time of Khrushchev, officials began to clamp down on his writings. Expelled from the Union of Writers, he had to depend on a method of publishing called ‘samizdat’, which involved the copying of works by hand. When he was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1970, he had to decline travelling to Stockholm to receive it, for fear he would be prevented from returning to the Soviet Union. Though, a mere four years later he was expelled anyway for treason. He settled in America and despite his clear anti-communist views also became a prominent critic of America’s incessant materialism.
Joseph Brodsky in 1987
“for an all-embracing authorship, imbued with clarity of thought and poetic intensity”
At the time of his award Brodsky was referred to as the ‘best living Russian writer bar none’. Yet until 1987 all his works were banned in the Soviet Union. Although born in Russia and writing in Russian, he did not live there and his works were not able to be read by Russians. In response to a question on this topic Brodsky responded, ‘I’m Jewish; a Russian poet…and of course, an American citizen”. Although the ‘Swedish Academy’ responsible for awarding the Nobel Prize, maintained that it had no underlining political motives for the award, it nevertheless raised eyebrows in the Soviet Union. In a century characterised by competition between the Soviet Union and the United States a Russian-born Nobel prize winner, who identified as an American, may have been a difficult pill to swallow.
Svetlana Alexievich in 2015
“for her polyphonic writings, a monument to suffering and courage in our time”
Alexievich employed a fascinating technique of blending together interviews in order to trace the emotional history of the Soviet world. She used testimonies of witnesses to more accurately portray the struggles experienced by individuals. Although Belorussian in origin, she writes in Russian as her work centred on Soviet and post-Soviet history. She refers to the period as an ‘eternal dialogue between executioners and victims’ and maintains human suffering to be a collective experience. Hard-hitting and leaving no stoned unturned, she was duly awarded the Nobel Prize for literature and although identifies as an author, was unofficially named the first journalist to win the prize, due to her unorthodox verbatim style.
Differing in origin, residence and ideology; the above writers are united only by their contribution to and inevitably their love for the Russian literature tradition.
Do you want to get more inspired by Russian literature? Find out some iconic routes that inspired Russian writers and artists and follow Liden & Denz on Facebook for new interesting articles about this topic! | 1,386 | ENGLISH | 1 |
To modern societies, werewolves remain the mythical creatures, and the closest they come to reality is in Hollywood productions. However, not so long ago people believed in their existence and even took precautions not to encounter or turn into the creatures. People believed that werewolves acted as the real wolves do, they attacked at night killing sheep, livestock, and in some case even humans. The difference is that at some point the werewolves changed back to their human forms.
History of Werewolf Mythology
A werewolf or a lycanthrope is a mythological creature that could change from a human to a wolf. Folklores told a story about humans who could shape shift to werewolves because of a curse or affliction from a bite from a scratch from another werewolf. The mythology of werewolves became widespread in Europe. It is believed werewolves developed alongside beliefs of witches in the 15th century in Switzerland. By the 16th century, it had spread across Europe and peaked in the 17th century before subsiding in the 18th century.
According to Folklorist Carol Rose, Ancient Greeks believed that one could transform into a werewolf by consuming the flesh of a wolf that had been mixed with that of a human and that the condition was irreversible. Other European societies believed that werewolves were people who were cursed during the full moon, eating certain herbs, sleeping under the full moon on Friday, or by drinking water touched by a werewolf. Although the full moon was one of the many causes of lycanthropy, it stuck to many and became the most accepted method. To date, a lot of people still associate the full moon with bad luck.
Lycanthropy as a Medical Condition
Several medical conditions mimic the appearance of werewolves and might have contributed to the ancient beliefs of their existence. One of the conditions is hypertrichosis which leads to unusually long hair on the body and the face. Porphyria is a medical condition that results in extreme sensitivity to light and patients are only comfortable leaving their houses at night. Seizures and anxiety also contributed to the beliefs. None of these medical conditions could turn anyone into a werewolf, but centuries ago, such conditions were uncommon, and those affected were considered extraordinary humans. The existence of dark magic compounded the belief that such people were cursed and could turn into werewolves.
Citing of Werewolves
In 1589 a German man known as Peter Stubbe claimed that he owned a belt of wolfskin that allowed him to transform into a wolf. He claimed that his teeth could multiply to simulate those of a wolf and his body would change to that of a wolf that could stand on two legs. He claimed that he had killed more than a dozen men in 25 years. On the Halloween of 1589, Stubbe was decapitated on allegations of being a werewolf although there was no evidence of him being one except his confession. It was later revealed that Stubbe was of unsound mind. Even today, several people claim to have sighted werewolves across Europe and the US but no werewolves have ever been captured on camera or documented.
Are werewolves real?
"Although werewolves are not real, Lycanthropy, the ability to transform from a human to a werewolf, is a widespread concept in European folklore. Werewolf folklore peaked in the 16th and 17th centuries in Europe."
About the Author
Victor Kiprop is a writer from Kenya. When he's not writing he spends time watching soccer and documentaries, visiting friends, or working in the farm.
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:c528492e-eaff-4e36-ac88-70980ce35265> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/are-werewolves-real.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250593295.11/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118164132-20200118192132-00382.warc.gz | en | 0.982706 | 755 | 3.328125 | 3 | [
0.06849037855863571,
0.07155469805002213,
0.1581844985485077,
0.3395724296569824,
-0.3191553056240082,
-0.007385096047073603,
0.05203257501125336,
0.042503565549850464,
-0.08720770478248596,
-0.0717819482088089,
0.12620224058628082,
-0.04949355125427246,
-0.3173123598098755,
-0.05748678743... | 2 | To modern societies, werewolves remain the mythical creatures, and the closest they come to reality is in Hollywood productions. However, not so long ago people believed in their existence and even took precautions not to encounter or turn into the creatures. People believed that werewolves acted as the real wolves do, they attacked at night killing sheep, livestock, and in some case even humans. The difference is that at some point the werewolves changed back to their human forms.
History of Werewolf Mythology
A werewolf or a lycanthrope is a mythological creature that could change from a human to a wolf. Folklores told a story about humans who could shape shift to werewolves because of a curse or affliction from a bite from a scratch from another werewolf. The mythology of werewolves became widespread in Europe. It is believed werewolves developed alongside beliefs of witches in the 15th century in Switzerland. By the 16th century, it had spread across Europe and peaked in the 17th century before subsiding in the 18th century.
According to Folklorist Carol Rose, Ancient Greeks believed that one could transform into a werewolf by consuming the flesh of a wolf that had been mixed with that of a human and that the condition was irreversible. Other European societies believed that werewolves were people who were cursed during the full moon, eating certain herbs, sleeping under the full moon on Friday, or by drinking water touched by a werewolf. Although the full moon was one of the many causes of lycanthropy, it stuck to many and became the most accepted method. To date, a lot of people still associate the full moon with bad luck.
Lycanthropy as a Medical Condition
Several medical conditions mimic the appearance of werewolves and might have contributed to the ancient beliefs of their existence. One of the conditions is hypertrichosis which leads to unusually long hair on the body and the face. Porphyria is a medical condition that results in extreme sensitivity to light and patients are only comfortable leaving their houses at night. Seizures and anxiety also contributed to the beliefs. None of these medical conditions could turn anyone into a werewolf, but centuries ago, such conditions were uncommon, and those affected were considered extraordinary humans. The existence of dark magic compounded the belief that such people were cursed and could turn into werewolves.
Citing of Werewolves
In 1589 a German man known as Peter Stubbe claimed that he owned a belt of wolfskin that allowed him to transform into a wolf. He claimed that his teeth could multiply to simulate those of a wolf and his body would change to that of a wolf that could stand on two legs. He claimed that he had killed more than a dozen men in 25 years. On the Halloween of 1589, Stubbe was decapitated on allegations of being a werewolf although there was no evidence of him being one except his confession. It was later revealed that Stubbe was of unsound mind. Even today, several people claim to have sighted werewolves across Europe and the US but no werewolves have ever been captured on camera or documented.
Are werewolves real?
"Although werewolves are not real, Lycanthropy, the ability to transform from a human to a werewolf, is a widespread concept in European folklore. Werewolf folklore peaked in the 16th and 17th centuries in Europe."
About the Author
Victor Kiprop is a writer from Kenya. When he's not writing he spends time watching soccer and documentaries, visiting friends, or working in the farm.
Your MLA Citation
Your APA Citation
Your Chicago Citation
Your Harvard CitationRemember to italicize the title of this article in your Harvard citation. | 784 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The Columbian Exchange The Columbian exchange began one of the largest exchanges of many different varieties of food, animals and disease. Many which were different and from different regions of the world that had never been transported before. We take for granted that everything we have is from here and it has always been here. But through "The Columbian Exchange" for example, the potato that had not been grown outside South America became Ireland's main staple by the 1800's. The horse which was an import from Europe changed the Great Plains and the lifestyle of Native Americans, before the horse they had had to stalk bison and run them off cliffs or trap them. Tomatoes which were exchanged became an Italian trademark. Coffee and sugarcane which came from Asia became extensive Latin American crops.
Before the exchange there were no oranges in Florida, no bananas in Ecuador, no rubber trees in Africa, no cattle in Texas, no burros in Mexico, no chocolate in Switzerland and even the Dandelion was brought by theEuropeans. For almost every purpose the Europeans brought their baggage meat, milk, leather, fiber, power, speed, and even manure, they brought everything!
Disease was another dimension of the Columbian Exchange, with catastrophic consequences for Native Americans who for centuries were an isolated population and thus lacked adequate immunities for diseases introduced by Europeans. Eruptive fevers, like smallpox and measles, proved deadly and often wiped out over half of entire tribes.
"Deadly epidemics, or rapid spreading of diseases, swept over the Caribbean islands. Smallpox wiped out whole villages in a matter of months. . . . In thefirst century of Spanish rule (1500-1600), Indians in Central and … | <urn:uuid:b1cf5316-a689-4970-93ad-56a3d4ec168a> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://gemmarketingsolutions.com/columbian-exchange-2/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251681412.74/warc/CC-MAIN-20200125191854-20200125221854-00269.warc.gz | en | 0.982636 | 347 | 3.5625 | 4 | [
-0.05727227404713631,
-0.30634284019470215,
0.7125661969184875,
0.3565358519554138,
0.137848362326622,
-0.7784297466278076,
0.3417496383190155,
0.3093349039554596,
-0.24234382808208466,
-0.16746631264686584,
0.2015918642282486,
-0.6218616962432861,
-0.3946462869644165,
0.04811520874500275,... | 1 | The Columbian Exchange The Columbian exchange began one of the largest exchanges of many different varieties of food, animals and disease. Many which were different and from different regions of the world that had never been transported before. We take for granted that everything we have is from here and it has always been here. But through "The Columbian Exchange" for example, the potato that had not been grown outside South America became Ireland's main staple by the 1800's. The horse which was an import from Europe changed the Great Plains and the lifestyle of Native Americans, before the horse they had had to stalk bison and run them off cliffs or trap them. Tomatoes which were exchanged became an Italian trademark. Coffee and sugarcane which came from Asia became extensive Latin American crops.
Before the exchange there were no oranges in Florida, no bananas in Ecuador, no rubber trees in Africa, no cattle in Texas, no burros in Mexico, no chocolate in Switzerland and even the Dandelion was brought by theEuropeans. For almost every purpose the Europeans brought their baggage meat, milk, leather, fiber, power, speed, and even manure, they brought everything!
Disease was another dimension of the Columbian Exchange, with catastrophic consequences for Native Americans who for centuries were an isolated population and thus lacked adequate immunities for diseases introduced by Europeans. Eruptive fevers, like smallpox and measles, proved deadly and often wiped out over half of entire tribes.
"Deadly epidemics, or rapid spreading of diseases, swept over the Caribbean islands. Smallpox wiped out whole villages in a matter of months. . . . In thefirst century of Spanish rule (1500-1600), Indians in Central and … | 356 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Jacqueline de Montbel was a self-professed French Protestant aligned with French nobility opposed to the duke of Savoy. This was more by association as she had married into this alliance. Several times she was taken into Savoy custody and twice she abjured her Protestant profession - but ultimately she remained part of the 'Huguenot' faction. She died imprisoned under cruel terms in the Castle of Ivrea in 1599. It's been said that she received the Catholic Last Rites, yet this has never really been supported by evidence. Even her place of burial is a mystery.
Her life is well described in this wikipedia entry.
Allart covers the history of the Huguenot/Catholic conflict known as the Wars of Religion associated with this painting. The description of the term Huguenot is useful:
Huguenot. French Protestant - any of the Protestants in France in the 16th and 17th centuries, many of whom suffered severe persecution for their faith.
The origin of the name is uncertain, but it appears to have come the word aignos, derived the German Eidgenossen (confederates bound together by oath), which used to describe, between 1520 and 1524, the patriots of Geneva hostile to the duke of Savoy. The spelling Huguenot may have been influenced by the personal name Hugues, “Hugh”; a leader of the Geneva movement was one Besançon Hugues (d. 1532).
It was a time of horror in France - the worst being The St. Bartholomew's Day massacre, when thousands were murdered in a social/religious rampage led by Catholic enthusiasts.
Jacqueline de Montbel dEtremont's troubled story can be seen as a allegory for the entire period. | <urn:uuid:8e4a26f4-f6ba-4410-b8d8-8b56fe319ab3> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://arthive.com/groups/82/blog/13230 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251687958.71/warc/CC-MAIN-20200126074227-20200126104227-00131.warc.gz | en | 0.981104 | 377 | 3.40625 | 3 | [
-0.5354778170585632,
0.21526919305324554,
0.013567683286964893,
-0.31031063199043274,
0.2286069095134735,
-0.22974613308906555,
0.36828672885894775,
0.11146968603134155,
0.4233993887901306,
-0.2735802233219147,
-0.07725956290960312,
-0.5100061297416687,
0.17595285177230835,
0.1291019916534... | 1 | Jacqueline de Montbel was a self-professed French Protestant aligned with French nobility opposed to the duke of Savoy. This was more by association as she had married into this alliance. Several times she was taken into Savoy custody and twice she abjured her Protestant profession - but ultimately she remained part of the 'Huguenot' faction. She died imprisoned under cruel terms in the Castle of Ivrea in 1599. It's been said that she received the Catholic Last Rites, yet this has never really been supported by evidence. Even her place of burial is a mystery.
Her life is well described in this wikipedia entry.
Allart covers the history of the Huguenot/Catholic conflict known as the Wars of Religion associated with this painting. The description of the term Huguenot is useful:
Huguenot. French Protestant - any of the Protestants in France in the 16th and 17th centuries, many of whom suffered severe persecution for their faith.
The origin of the name is uncertain, but it appears to have come the word aignos, derived the German Eidgenossen (confederates bound together by oath), which used to describe, between 1520 and 1524, the patriots of Geneva hostile to the duke of Savoy. The spelling Huguenot may have been influenced by the personal name Hugues, “Hugh”; a leader of the Geneva movement was one Besançon Hugues (d. 1532).
It was a time of horror in France - the worst being The St. Bartholomew's Day massacre, when thousands were murdered in a social/religious rampage led by Catholic enthusiasts.
Jacqueline de Montbel dEtremont's troubled story can be seen as a allegory for the entire period. | 382 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was defeated because of its popularity throughout its ratification and women opposing the Amendment itself. The ERA was an Amendment introduced to the United States that gave equal rights to every gender. This meant that there would be no differences between a male and a female in terms of a divorce, work, etc. This Amendment was seen as the only way to eliminate gender discrimination. In 1923 the idea was first brought to Congress by a group called the National Women’s Party. However, amending the Constitution is a very difficult process. Congress gives the Amendment to the House and the Senate and get two-thirds of the House and the Senate to vote in their favor. After the Amendment gains a majority vote it must be ratified by three-fourths of the states. Even though Congress passed the ERA and the future seemed bright. The states did not ratify the Amendment. Therefore, the Amendment died off by 1982.The ERA failed for multiple reasons, however, one of the main reasons that it failed was due to its popularity in every population. According to Document A, Thomas J. Reese felt that is was very hard to get a majority of a population’s vote and pass an Amendment. He believed that the tactics present were enough to destroy the ERA. This is because the tactics prevented the movement from getting the support it needed to become ratified. What is ironic is that the tactics of the pro-ERA groups that basically hurt themselves. Their protests included bra burning, showing their breasts, and language not allowed in public. These things sure did bring a lot of attention, however, it lost them votes and overall the whole Amendment because people feared their actions. The movement was not considered to be a minority whatsoever in fact, during the period of ratification the numbers were doubling. According to Document H, this movement spoke more to the younger generation. At 81% the age range from 18-25 was substantially higher. As people age their concern for issues goes down. The youth see what is happening around them today and do not want to grow up in an environment where women are treated as lower than men. Women of this day and age did not want to be treated as the lesser gender and hence by the 1970’s they began to push the ratification hard. In this era, women felt like they had something to prove. The region was also a great factor the East and West coast at 79% supported the movement more than any other region. This is predictable because where you live most likely determines your outlook and views on life. It was not surprising that the south had the lowest percent out of all the regions. This is because the south pushes the idea of superiority. This can be seen continuously throughout history. Just one example of this is slaves, for so long they disobeyed the United States and kept slaves because they didn’t see them as an equal person. This can be directly related to the ratification of this Amendment for these women. Nonetheless, this doesn’t mean everyone woman supported this movement. Phyllis Schlafly was a leader of the Stop ERA campaign that went against the ERA. Phyllis along believed that the ERA would bring unwanted changes to the women of America. She mocked the feminists that supported the ERA because most of them were divorced. Numberless amounts of women backed Phyllis and her beliefs up. This can be seen in Document B written by Ann Giordano in Ms. Magazine. She was a community member that the ERA was ruining family values since a lot of the women in the movement were divorced or unmarried. She couldn’t comprehend how they were speaking out for the married since they couldn’t understand the married people’s lives. She didn’t know why these women were pushing so hard for gender equality. She thought a man’s job should remain a man’s job and vice versa. To prove her point she uses her husband’s past heritage and says that for him to be doing housework or any jobs that were considered to be for female then he would have lost his manhood. Another example of this is found in Document C. This document is talking about the draft, if the ERA was to be passed, then that would mean that the men only draft would become immediately unconstitutional. The Stop ERA advocates did not want to be drafted so they knew they had to protest peacefully. One way they protested against the draft was that they hung signs around baby girl’s necks that said, “Please don’t draft me.” This protested work. The states became hesitant to ratify the Amendment and so the ratification slowly came to a stop. Killing the Amendment in 1982. In conclusion, Amendment 27 is still not in effect today due to the failure of the ERA. The ERA failed because of during the ratifying process the tides quickly sifted and states were no longer voting in its favor. Another reason is that many women opposed it. Many states saw this Amendment as useless because it was supposed to make an equal society for every gender especially women. This Amendment was brought to Congress by a woman who wanted a change. However, when so many women go against this change, it can be seen as not important. This is why the Equal Right Amendment ultimately failed. | <urn:uuid:c06bcd8f-69c3-49e5-b964-8213de662408> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://graceplaceofwillmar.org/the-protests-included-bra-burning-showing-their-breasts/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250619323.41/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124100832-20200124125832-00305.warc.gz | en | 0.990288 | 1,070 | 3.734375 | 4 | [
-0.4656704366207123,
-0.11210929602384567,
0.08492685854434967,
-0.09197451919317245,
-0.38127732276916504,
0.7385040521621704,
-0.1160944253206253,
0.10928256064653397,
0.051508404314517975,
0.0917249545454979,
0.3806855380535126,
0.31568431854248047,
0.39187872409820557,
-0.1235776096582... | 1 | The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was defeated because of its popularity throughout its ratification and women opposing the Amendment itself. The ERA was an Amendment introduced to the United States that gave equal rights to every gender. This meant that there would be no differences between a male and a female in terms of a divorce, work, etc. This Amendment was seen as the only way to eliminate gender discrimination. In 1923 the idea was first brought to Congress by a group called the National Women’s Party. However, amending the Constitution is a very difficult process. Congress gives the Amendment to the House and the Senate and get two-thirds of the House and the Senate to vote in their favor. After the Amendment gains a majority vote it must be ratified by three-fourths of the states. Even though Congress passed the ERA and the future seemed bright. The states did not ratify the Amendment. Therefore, the Amendment died off by 1982.The ERA failed for multiple reasons, however, one of the main reasons that it failed was due to its popularity in every population. According to Document A, Thomas J. Reese felt that is was very hard to get a majority of a population’s vote and pass an Amendment. He believed that the tactics present were enough to destroy the ERA. This is because the tactics prevented the movement from getting the support it needed to become ratified. What is ironic is that the tactics of the pro-ERA groups that basically hurt themselves. Their protests included bra burning, showing their breasts, and language not allowed in public. These things sure did bring a lot of attention, however, it lost them votes and overall the whole Amendment because people feared their actions. The movement was not considered to be a minority whatsoever in fact, during the period of ratification the numbers were doubling. According to Document H, this movement spoke more to the younger generation. At 81% the age range from 18-25 was substantially higher. As people age their concern for issues goes down. The youth see what is happening around them today and do not want to grow up in an environment where women are treated as lower than men. Women of this day and age did not want to be treated as the lesser gender and hence by the 1970’s they began to push the ratification hard. In this era, women felt like they had something to prove. The region was also a great factor the East and West coast at 79% supported the movement more than any other region. This is predictable because where you live most likely determines your outlook and views on life. It was not surprising that the south had the lowest percent out of all the regions. This is because the south pushes the idea of superiority. This can be seen continuously throughout history. Just one example of this is slaves, for so long they disobeyed the United States and kept slaves because they didn’t see them as an equal person. This can be directly related to the ratification of this Amendment for these women. Nonetheless, this doesn’t mean everyone woman supported this movement. Phyllis Schlafly was a leader of the Stop ERA campaign that went against the ERA. Phyllis along believed that the ERA would bring unwanted changes to the women of America. She mocked the feminists that supported the ERA because most of them were divorced. Numberless amounts of women backed Phyllis and her beliefs up. This can be seen in Document B written by Ann Giordano in Ms. Magazine. She was a community member that the ERA was ruining family values since a lot of the women in the movement were divorced or unmarried. She couldn’t comprehend how they were speaking out for the married since they couldn’t understand the married people’s lives. She didn’t know why these women were pushing so hard for gender equality. She thought a man’s job should remain a man’s job and vice versa. To prove her point she uses her husband’s past heritage and says that for him to be doing housework or any jobs that were considered to be for female then he would have lost his manhood. Another example of this is found in Document C. This document is talking about the draft, if the ERA was to be passed, then that would mean that the men only draft would become immediately unconstitutional. The Stop ERA advocates did not want to be drafted so they knew they had to protest peacefully. One way they protested against the draft was that they hung signs around baby girl’s necks that said, “Please don’t draft me.” This protested work. The states became hesitant to ratify the Amendment and so the ratification slowly came to a stop. Killing the Amendment in 1982. In conclusion, Amendment 27 is still not in effect today due to the failure of the ERA. The ERA failed because of during the ratifying process the tides quickly sifted and states were no longer voting in its favor. Another reason is that many women opposed it. Many states saw this Amendment as useless because it was supposed to make an equal society for every gender especially women. This Amendment was brought to Congress by a woman who wanted a change. However, when so many women go against this change, it can be seen as not important. This is why the Equal Right Amendment ultimately failed. | 1,068 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Jane Frazier was born January 1, 1735. Her life is an example of the hardships endured by the early settlers to the Cumberland area.
The Maryland Gazette of October 9, 1755, reported that Indians had carried off a woman from Frazier’s Plantation, near the mouth of Evitts Creek.
The woman was Jane Frazier, wife of the Plantation, John Frazier.
Jane was 20 years old and pregnant when she was taken by braves of the Miami tribe to their village on the Miami River in what is now Ohio.
She was adopted by one of the families of the tribe and birthed her baby. Tragically, her child died at three months.
About a year after her capture, Jane and some other prisoners took advantage of the absence of the warriors from the village and escaped.
In the meantime, her husband John Frazier had remarried. Fortunately, John’s new wife accepted that her marriage had been null and returned to her family. John and Jane went on to have three children and lived out their lives on the Plantation.
A housing complex on Memorial Ave., Cumberland, is named Jane Frazier Village in Jane’s honor. | <urn:uuid:9dc94808-56b7-4507-a347-c7220dc149a7> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://alleganymuseum.org/jane-frazier-frontiers-woman/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250603761.28/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121103642-20200121132642-00289.warc.gz | en | 0.991502 | 246 | 3.28125 | 3 | [
-0.0725119486451149,
0.7019306421279907,
0.4616716206073761,
0.1097385510802269,
-0.24404624104499817,
0.018632328137755394,
0.4549681842327118,
-0.2361864149570465,
-0.2919404208660126,
-0.12207196652889252,
0.13934478163719177,
-0.18412838876247406,
-0.4418962597846985,
0.266015112400054... | 16 | Jane Frazier was born January 1, 1735. Her life is an example of the hardships endured by the early settlers to the Cumberland area.
The Maryland Gazette of October 9, 1755, reported that Indians had carried off a woman from Frazier’s Plantation, near the mouth of Evitts Creek.
The woman was Jane Frazier, wife of the Plantation, John Frazier.
Jane was 20 years old and pregnant when she was taken by braves of the Miami tribe to their village on the Miami River in what is now Ohio.
She was adopted by one of the families of the tribe and birthed her baby. Tragically, her child died at three months.
About a year after her capture, Jane and some other prisoners took advantage of the absence of the warriors from the village and escaped.
In the meantime, her husband John Frazier had remarried. Fortunately, John’s new wife accepted that her marriage had been null and returned to her family. John and Jane went on to have three children and lived out their lives on the Plantation.
A housing complex on Memorial Ave., Cumberland, is named Jane Frazier Village in Jane’s honor. | 246 | ENGLISH | 1 |
There was gold in Asia, it was thought, and certainly silks and spices, for Marco Polo and others had brought back marvelous things from their overland expeditions centuries before. Now that the Turks had conquered Constantinople and the eastern Mediterranean, and controlled the land routes to Asia, a sea route was needed. Portuguese sailors were working their way around the southern tip of Africa. Spain decided to gamble on a long sail across an unknown ocean.
In return for bringing back gold and spices, they promised Columbus 10 percent of the profits, governorship over new-found lands, and the fame that would go with a new title: Admiral of the Ocean Sea. He was a merchant's clerk from the Italian city of Genoa, part-time weaver (the son of a skilled weaver), and expert sailor. He set out with three sailing ships, the largest of which was the Santa Maria, perhaps 100 feet long, and thirty-nine crew members.
Columbus would never have made it to Asia, which was thousands of miles farther away than he had calculated, imagining a smaller world. He would have been doomed by that great expanse of sea. But he was lucky. One-fourth of the way there he came upon an unknown, uncharted land that lay between Europe and Asia-the Americas. It was early October 1492, and thirty-three days since he and his crew had left the Canary Islands, off the Atlantic coast of Africa. Now they saw branches and sticks floating in the water. They saw flocks of birds.
These were signs of land. Then, on October 12, a sailor called Rodrigo saw the early morning moon shining on white sands, and cried out. It was an island in the Bahamas, the Caribbean sea. The first man to sight land was supposed to get a yearly pension of 10,000 maravedis for life, but Rodrigo never got it. Columbus claimed he had seen a light the evening before. He got the reward.
So, approaching land, they were met by the Arawak Indians, who swam out to greet them. The Arawaks lived in village communes, had a developed agriculture of corn, yams, cassava. They could spin and weave, but they had no horses or… | <urn:uuid:be897e2a-ac83-4f03-950a-be7de0e398b7> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.majortests.com/essay/Research-Christopher-Columbus-And-New-Modern-541295.html | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251799918.97/warc/CC-MAIN-20200129133601-20200129163601-00190.warc.gz | en | 0.989618 | 461 | 3.5 | 4 | [
-0.004396975971758366,
0.09174685925245285,
0.09438328444957733,
0.19428537786006927,
-0.09398587048053741,
-0.3626021444797516,
0.22062872350215912,
0.17913632094860077,
-0.05983814224600792,
-0.28878968954086304,
0.4259665012359619,
-0.27934935688972473,
-0.22718124091625214,
0.520556867... | 1 | There was gold in Asia, it was thought, and certainly silks and spices, for Marco Polo and others had brought back marvelous things from their overland expeditions centuries before. Now that the Turks had conquered Constantinople and the eastern Mediterranean, and controlled the land routes to Asia, a sea route was needed. Portuguese sailors were working their way around the southern tip of Africa. Spain decided to gamble on a long sail across an unknown ocean.
In return for bringing back gold and spices, they promised Columbus 10 percent of the profits, governorship over new-found lands, and the fame that would go with a new title: Admiral of the Ocean Sea. He was a merchant's clerk from the Italian city of Genoa, part-time weaver (the son of a skilled weaver), and expert sailor. He set out with three sailing ships, the largest of which was the Santa Maria, perhaps 100 feet long, and thirty-nine crew members.
Columbus would never have made it to Asia, which was thousands of miles farther away than he had calculated, imagining a smaller world. He would have been doomed by that great expanse of sea. But he was lucky. One-fourth of the way there he came upon an unknown, uncharted land that lay between Europe and Asia-the Americas. It was early October 1492, and thirty-three days since he and his crew had left the Canary Islands, off the Atlantic coast of Africa. Now they saw branches and sticks floating in the water. They saw flocks of birds.
These were signs of land. Then, on October 12, a sailor called Rodrigo saw the early morning moon shining on white sands, and cried out. It was an island in the Bahamas, the Caribbean sea. The first man to sight land was supposed to get a yearly pension of 10,000 maravedis for life, but Rodrigo never got it. Columbus claimed he had seen a light the evening before. He got the reward.
So, approaching land, they were met by the Arawak Indians, who swam out to greet them. The Arawaks lived in village communes, had a developed agriculture of corn, yams, cassava. They could spin and weave, but they had no horses or… | 468 | ENGLISH | 1 |
|Battle of Anzio|
|Part of the Winter Line and the battle for Rome of the Italian Campaign of World War II|
Men of the U.S. 3rd Infantry Division landing in late January 1944.
Italian Social Republic
|Commanders and leaders|
Mark W. Clark
John P. Lucas
Lucian K. Truscott
Eberhard von Mackensen
Army Group C|
Breakout: 150,000 soldiers and 1,500 guns
Breakout: 135,000 German soldiers + two Italian battalions
|Casualties and losses|
43,000 men |
(7,000 killed, 36,000 wounded or missing)
40,000 men |
(5,000 killed, 30,500 wounded or missing, 4,500 prisoner)
The Battle of Anzio was a battle of the Italian Campaign of World War II that took place from January 22, 1944 (beginning with the Allied amphibious landing known as Operation Shingle) to June 5, 1944 (ending with the capture of Rome). The operation was opposed by German forces in the area of Anzio and Nettuno. The operation was initially commanded by Major General John P. Lucas, of the U.S. Army, commanding U.S. VI Corps with the intention being to outflank German forces at the Winter Line and enable an attack on Rome.
The success of an amphibious landing at that location, in a basin consisting substantially of reclaimed marshland and surrounded by mountains, depended on the element of surprise and the swiftness with which the invaders could build up strength and move inland relative to the reaction time and strength of the defenders. Any delay could result in the occupation of the mountains by the defenders and the consequent entrapment of the invaders. Lieutenant General Mark W. Clark, commander of the U.S. Fifth Army, understood that risk, but he did not pass on his appreciation of the situation to his subordinate, Lucas, who preferred to take time to entrench against an expected counterattack. The initial landing achieved complete surprise with no opposition and a jeep patrol even made it as far as the outskirts of Rome. However, Lucas, who had little confidence in the operation as planned, failed to capitalize on the element of surprise and delayed his advance until he judged his position was sufficiently consolidated and he had sufficient strength.
While Lucas consolidated, Field Marshal Albert Kesselring, the German commander in the Italian theatre, moved every unit he could spare into a defensive ring around the beachhead. His artillery units had a clear view of every Allied position. The Germans also stopped the drainage pumps and flooded the reclaimed marsh with salt water, planning to entrap the Allies and destroy them by epidemic. For weeks a rain of shells fell on the beach, the marsh, the harbour, and on anything else observable from the hills, with little distinction between forward and rear positions.
After a month of heavy but inconclusive fighting, Lucas was relieved and sent home. His replacement was Major General Lucian K. Truscott, who had previously commanded the U.S. 3rd Infantry Division. The Allies broke out in May. But, instead of striking inland to cut lines of communication of the German Tenth Army's units fighting at Monte Cassino, Truscott, on Clark's orders, reluctantly turned his forces north-west towards Rome, which was captured on June 4, 1944. As a result, the forces of the German Tenth Army fighting at Cassino were able to withdraw and rejoin the rest of Kesselring's forces north of Rome, regroup, and make a fighting withdrawal to his next major prepared defensive position on the Gothic Line.
At the end of 1943, following the Allied invasion of Italy, Allied forces were bogged down at the Gustav Line, a defensive line across Italy south of the strategic objective of Rome. The terrain of central Italy had proved ideally suited to defense, and Field Marshal Albert Kesselring took full advantage.
Operation Shingle was originally conceived by British Prime Minister Winston Churchill in December 1943, as he lay recovering from pneumonia in Marrakesh. His concept was to land two divisions at Anzio, bypassing German forces in central Italy, and take Rome, the strategic objective of the current Battle of Rome. By January he had recovered and was badgering his commanders for a plan of attack, accusing them of not wanting to fight but of being interested only in drawing pay and eating rations.General Harold Alexander, commander of the Allied Armies in Italy, had already considered such a plan since October using five divisions. However, the 5th Army did not have the troops nor the means to transport them. Clark proposed landing a reinforced division to divert German troops from Monte Cassino. This second landing, however, instead of failing similarly[clarification needed], would hold "the shingle" for a week in expectation of a breakthrough at Cassino, and so the operation was named Shingle.
The Anzio beachhead is at the northwestern end of a tract of reclaimed marshland, formerly the Pontine Marshes, now the Pontine Fields (Agro Pontino). Previously uninhabitable due to mosquitoes carrying malaria, in Roman times armies marched as quickly as possible across it on the military road, the Via Appia. The marsh was bounded on one side by the sea and on others by mountains: the Monti Albani, the Monti Lepini, the Monti Ausoni and further south the Monti Aurunci (where the allies had been brought to a halt before Monte Cassino). Overall these mountains are referenced by the name Monti Laziali, the mountains of Lazio, the ancient Latium. Invading armies from the south had the choice of crossing the marsh or taking the only other road to Rome, the Via Latina, running along the eastern flanks of the Monti Laziali, risking entrapment. The marshes were turned into cultivatable land in the 1930s under Benito Mussolini. Canals and pumping stations were built to remove the brackish water from the land. These canals divided the land into personal tracts with new stone houses for colonists from north Italy. Mussolini also founded the five cities destroyed by the battle.
When Lucian Truscott's 3rd Division was first selected for the operation, he pointed out to Clark that the position was a death trap and there would be no survivors. Agreeing, Clark canceled the operation, but Prime Minister Churchill revived it. Apparently the two allies had different concepts: the Americans viewed such a landing as another distraction from Cassino, but if they could not break through at Cassino, the men at Anzio would be trapped. Churchill and the British high command envisioned an outflanking movement ending with the capture of Rome. Mediterranean Theatre commander General Dwight D. Eisenhower, leaving to take command of Operation Overlord, left the decision up to Churchill with a warning about German unpredictability.
The final plan called for Lucas to lead the US VI Corps in a landing in the Anzio area, followed by an advance into the Alban Hills, to cut German communications and "threaten the rear of the German XIV Panzer Corps" (under Fridolin von Senger und Etterlin). It was hoped that such an advance would draw German forces away from the Monte Cassino area and facilitate an Allied breakthrough there.
Planners argued that if Kesselring (in charge of German forces in Italy) pulled troops out of the Gustav Line to defend against the Allied assault, then Allied forces would be able to break through the line; if Kesselring didn't pull troops out of the Gustav Line, then Operation Shingle would threaten to capture Rome and cut off the German units defending the Gustav Line. Should Germany have adequate reinforcements available to defend both Rome and the Gustav Line, the Allies felt that the operation would nevertheless be useful in engaging forces which could otherwise be committed on another front. The operation was officially canceled on December 18, 1943. However, it was later reselected.
Clark did not feel he had the numbers on the southern front to exploit any breakthrough. His plan therefore was relying on the southern offensive drawing Kesselring's reserves in and providing the Anzio force the opportunity to break inland quickly. This would also reflect the orders he had received from Alexander to "...carry out an assault landing on the beaches in the vicinity of Rome with the object of cutting the enemy lines of communication and threatening the rear of the German XIV Corps [on the Gustav Line]." However, his written orders to Lucas did not really reflect this. Initially Lucas had received orders to "1. Seize and secure a beachhead in the vicinity of Anzio 2. Advance and secure Colli Laziali [the Alban Hills] 3. Be prepared to advance on Rome". However, Clark's final orders stated "...2. Advance on Colli Laziali" giving Lucas considerable flexibility as to the timing of any advance on the Alban Hills. It is likely that the caution displayed by both Clark and Lucas was to some extent a product of Clark's experiences at the tough battle for the Salerno beach head and Lucas' natural caution stemming from his lack of experience in battle.
Neither Clark nor Lucas had full confidence in either their superiors or the operational plan. Along with most of the Fifth Army staff they felt that Shingle was properly a two corps or even a full army task. A few days prior to the attack, Lucas wrote in his diary, "They will end up putting me ashore with inadequate forces and get me in a serious jam... Then, who will get the blame?" and "[The operation] has a strong odour of Gallipoli and apparently the same amateur was still on the coach's bench." The "amateur" can only have referred to Winston Churchill, architect of the disastrous Gallipoli landings of World War I and personal advocate of Shingle.
One of the problems with the plan was the availability of landing ships. The American commanders in particular were determined that nothing should delay the Normandy invasion and the supporting landings in southern France. Operation Shingle would require the use of landing ships necessary for these operations. Initially Shingle was to release these assets by January 15. However, this being deemed problematic, President Roosevelt granted permission for the craft to remain until February 5.
Only enough tank landing ships (LSTs) to land a single division were initially available to Shingle. Later, at Churchill's personal insistence, enough were made available to land two divisions. Allied intelligence thought that five or six German divisions were in the area, although U.S. 5th Army intelligence severely underestimated the German 10th Army's fighting capacity at the time, believing many of their units would be worn out after the defensive battles fought since September.
Task Force 81
The Fifth Army's attack on the Gustav Line began on January 16, 1944, at Monte Cassino. The operation failed to break through, but it partly succeeded in its primary objective. Heinrich von Vietinghoff, commanding the Gustav Line, called for reinforcements, and Kesselring transferred the 29th and 90th Panzergrenadier Divisions from Rome.
The landings began on January 22, 1944.
By midnight, 36,000 soldiers and 3,200 vehicles had landed on the beaches. Thirteen Allied troops were killed, and 97 wounded; about 200 Germans had been taken as POWs. The 1st Division penetrated 2 miles (3 km) inland, the Rangers captured Anzio's port, the 509th PIB captured Nettuno, and the 3rd Division penetrated 3 miles (5 km) inland.
In the first days of operations, the command of the Italian resistance movement had a meeting with the Allied General Headquarters: it offered to guide the Allied Force through the Alban Hills territory, but the Allied Command refused the proposal.
It is clear that Lucas' superiors expected some kind of offensive action from him. The point of the landing was to turn the German defences on the Winter Line, taking advantage of their exposed rear and hopefully panicking them into retreating northwards past Rome. However, Lucas instead poured more men and material into his tiny bridgehead, and strengthened his defences.
Winston Churchill was clearly displeased with this action. He said: "I had hoped we were hurling a wildcat into the shore, but all we got was a stranded whale".
Lucas' decision remains a controversial one. Noted military historian John Keegan wrote, "Had Lucas risked rushing at Rome the first day, his spearheads would probably have arrived, though they would have soon been crushed. Nevertheless he might have 'staked out claims well inland.' "However, Lucas did not have confidence in the strategic planning of the operation. Also, he could certainly argue that his interpretation of his orders from Clark was not an unreasonable one. With two divisions landed, and facing two or three times that many Germans, it would have been reasonable for Lucas to consider the beachhead insecure. But according to Keegan, Lucas's actions "achieved the worst of both worlds, exposing his forces to risk without imposing any on the enemy."
Kesselring was informed of the landings at 3 a.m. January 22. Although the landings came as a surprise, Kesselring had made contingency plans to deal with possible landings at all the likely locations. All the plans relied on his divisions each having previously organised a motorized rapid reaction unit (Kampfgruppe) which could move speedily to meet the threat and buy time for the rest of the defenses to get in place. At 5 a.m. he initiated Operation "Richard" and ordered the Kampfgruppe of 4th Parachute Division and the Hermann Göring Panzer Division to defend the roads leading from Anzio to the Alban Hills via Campoleone and Cisterna whilst his plans expected some 20,000 defending troops to have arrived by the end of the first day. In addition, he requested that OKW send reinforcements, and in response to this they ordered the equivalent of more than three divisions from France, Yugoslavia, and Germany whilst at the same time releasing to Kesselring a further three divisions in Italy which had been under OKW's direct command. Later that morning, he ordered General Eberhard von Mackensen (Fourteenth Army) and General Heinrich von Vietinghoff (Tenth Army - Gustav Line) to send him additional reinforcements.
The German units in the immediate vicinity had in fact been dispatched to reinforce the Gustav Line only a few days earlier. All available reserves from the southern front or on their way to it were rushed toward Anzio and Nettuno; these included the 3rd Panzer Grenadier and 71st Infantry Divisions, and the bulk of the Luftwaffe's Hermann Göring Panzer Division. Kesselring initially considered that a successful defence could not be made if the Allies launched a major attack on January 23 or January 24. However, by the end of January 22, the lack of aggressive action convinced him that a defence could be made. Nevertheless, few additional defenders arrived on January 23, although the arrival on the evening of January 22 of Lieutenant General Alfred Schlemm and his 1st Parachute Corps headquarters brought greater organisation and purpose to the German defensive preparations. By January 24, however, the Germans had over 40,000 troops in prepared defensive positions.
Three days after the landings, the beachhead was surrounded by a defence line consisting of three divisions: The 4th Parachute Division to the west, the 3rd Panzer Grenadier Division to the center in front of Alban Hills, the Hermann Göring Panzer Division to the east.
Von Mackensen's 14th Army assumed overall control of the defence on January 25. Elements of eight German divisions were employed in the defence line around the beachhead, and five more divisions were on their way to the Anzio area. Kesselring ordered an attack on the beachhead for January 28, though it was postponed to February 1.
Liberty ships, which were never intended as warships, were involved in some fighting during the battle of Anzio. On 22 to 30 January 1944 the SS Lawton B. Evans was under repeated bombardment from shore batteries and aircraft throughout an eight-day period. It endured a prolonged barrage of shrapnel, machine-gun fire and bombs. The gun crew fought back with shellfire and shot down five German planes.
Further troop movements including the arrival of U.S. 45th Infantry Division and U.S. 1st Armored Division, brought Allied forces total on the beachhead to 69,000 men, 508 guns and 208 tanks by January 29, whilst the total defending Germans had risen to 71,500. Lucas initiated a two-pronged attack on January 30. While one force was to cut Highway 7 at Cisterna before moving east into the Alban Hills, a second was to advance northeast up the Via Anziate towards Campoleone.
By early February, German forces in Fourteenth Army numbered some 100,000 troops organised into two Army Corps, the 1st Parachute Corps under Schlemm and the LXXVI Panzer Corps under Lieutenant General Traugott Herr. Allied forces by this time totalled 76,400 (including the recently arrived British 56th Infantry Division, under Major-General Gerald Templer, which arrived complete on February 16). After making exploratory probes on the Campoleone salient on the afternoon of February 3 the German forces launched a full counterattack at 23:00 in order to reduce the salient and "iron out" the front line. Von Mackensen had planned for the salient to be ground away rather than employing a rapid, focused thrust to cut it off. Some hours after the attack started the coherence of the front line had been completely shattered, and the fighting for the salient had given way to small unit actions, swaying back and forth through the gullies. In the morning of February 4 the situation was becoming more serious, with the 1st Battalion, Irish Guards (of 24th Guards Brigade), only having one cohesive rifle company left and on the opposite side of the salient, the 6th Battalion, Gordon Highlanders (of 2nd Brigade) was beginning to crumble and later lost three complete companies as prisoners.
Even though the base of the salient was nearly broken, Lucas was able to bolster the British 1st Division's defenses with the newly arrived 168th Brigade (from the 56th Division, containing 1st Battalion, London Irish Rifles, 1st Battalion, London Scottish, 10th Battalion, Royal Berkshire Regiment). The 3rd Brigade had been tasked with holding the tip of the salient 2 miles long and 1,000 yards wide on the road going north of Campoleone, but after the German attacks in the early hours of 4 February, the 2nd Battalion, Sherwood Foresters, 1st Battalion, King's Shropshire Light Infantry and 1st Battalion, Duke of Wellington's Regiment (all of 3rd Brigade) had been cut off and were surrounded in the pocket. They held the line all day, taking heavy casualties, but were eventually ordered to pull back and made a fighting retreat at 5pm to the Factory with the aid of artillery, and a successful assault launched by the London Scottish, of 168th Brigade, supported by the 46th Royal Tank Regiment (46 RTR). From February 5 to February 7 both sides employed heavy artillery concentrations and bombers to disrupt the other side and at 21:00 on February 7 the Germans renewed their attack. Once more the fighting was fierce and they managed to infiltrate between the 5th Battalion, Grenadier Guards (24th Guards Brigade) and the 2nd Battalion, North Staffordshire Regiment (2nd Brigade) and nearly surrounded them; it was during this period that Major William Sidney, a company commander in the 5th Grenadier Guards, was awarded the Victoria Cross. Slowly the Allies were forced to give ground and by February 10 they had been pushed out of the salient. Lucas ordered attacks on February 11 to regain the lost ground but the Germans, forewarned by a radio intercept, repelled the Allies' poorly coordinated attack.
On February 16, the Germans launched a new offensive (Operation Fischfang) down the line of the Via Anziate, supported by Tiger tanks. They overran the 167th Brigade, of the recently arrived 56th (London) Division, and virtually destroyed X Company of the 8th Battalion, Royal Fusiliers, which was reduced from around 125 down to a single officer and 10 other ranks and Y Company was down to one officer and 10 men. One of the men killed was Second Lieutenant Eric Waters, whose son Roger Waters of Pink Floyd, created a song (When the Tigers Broke Free) in memory of his father and describes his death. By February 18, after desperate fighting, the Allies' Final Beachhead Line (prepared defenses more or less on the line of the original beachhead) was under attack. Numerous attacks were launched on 1st Battalion, Loyal Regiment (2nd Brigade) and they lost a company, overrun, and the day after had suffered 200 casualties. On the same day Major-General Ronald Penney, General Officer Commanding (GOC) British 1st Division, had been wounded by shellfire and the division was temporarily commanded by Major-General Templer, GOC 56th (London) Division, which had arrived complete. However, a counterattack using VI Corps' reserves halted the German advance, and on February 20, Fischfang petered out with both sides exhausted. During Fischfang the Germans had sustained some 5,400 casualties, the Allies 3,500. Both had suffered nearly 20,000 casualties each since the first landings, and it was "far the highest density of destruction in the Italian campaign, perhaps in the whole war". Also on February 18 while returning to Anzio the light cruiser HMS Penelope was struck by two torpedoes and sunk with a loss of 417 men. Despite the exhausted state of the troops, Hitler insisted that 14th Army should continue to attack. Despite the misgivings of both Kesselring and von Mackensen, a further assault was mounted on February 29, this time on LXXVI Panzer Corps' front around Cisterna. This push achieved little except to generate a further 2,500 casualties for the 14th Army.
Some RSI Italian units fought in the Anzio-Nettuno area, especially since March; the land units were part of the German 14th Army: only the paratroopers of the "Nembo" Battalion were there since February, participating in the German counterattack. In March the infantrymen of the "Barbarigo" Battalion (from Decima Flottiglia MAS) joined the frontline along the Canale Mussolini.
Churchill had continued to bridle at Lucas' perceived passivity. He had written on February 10 to General Alexander encouraging him to exert his authority and Alexander had visited the beachhead on February 14 to tell Lucas he wished for a breakout as soon as the tactical situation allowed. After his visit Alexander wrote to the Chief of the Imperial General Staff, Alan Brooke, saying:
I am disappointed with VI Corps Headquarters. They are negative and lacking in the necessary drive and enthusiasm to get things done. They appeared to have become depressed by events.
Lucas wrote in his diary on February 15:
I am afraid that the top side is not completely satisfied with my work... They are naturally disappointed that I failed to chase the Hun out of Italy but there was no military reason why I should have been able to do so. In fact there is no military reason for Shingle.
On February 16 at a high level conference hosted by Alexander and attended by Clark and Wilson, commander AFHQ it was decided to appoint two deputies under Lucas, Lucian Truscott and the British Major-General Vyvyan Evelegh. On February 22, Clark replaced Lucas with Truscott, appointing Lucas deputy commander Fifth Army until such time as a suitable job could be found for him back in the United States.
Both sides had realised that no decisive result could be achieved until the spring and reverted to a defensive posture involving aggressive patrolling and artillery duels whilst they worked to rebuild their fighting capabilities. In anticipation of the following spring, Kesselring ordered the preparation of a new defence line, the Caesar C line, behind the line of beachhead running from the mouth of the river Tiber just south of Rome through Albano, skirting south of the Alban Hills to Valmontone and across Italy to the Adriatic coast at Pescara, behind which 14th Army and, to their left, 10th Army might withdraw when the need arose. Meanwhile, Lucian Truscott, who had been promoted from the command of U.S. 3rd Infantry Division to replace Lucas as commander of VI Corps on February 22, worked with his staff on the plans for a decisive attack as part of a general offensive which Alexander was planning for May and which would include a major offensive on the Gustav Line, Operation Diadem. The objective of the plan was to fully engage Kesselring's armies with a major offensive and remove any prospect of the Germans withdrawing forces from Italy to redeploy elsewhere. It was also intended to trap the bulk of the German 10th Army between the Allied forces advancing through the Gustav Line and VI Corps thrusting inland from Anzio.
In March, the 2nd Italian SS "Vendetta" Battalion and 29th Italian SS Rifle Battalion were sent to fight against the Anglo-American forces at the Anzio beachhead. Dispersed among German battalions, the German commanding officers later gave the Italians companies favourable reports. Members of former Blackshirt Lieutenant-Colonel Degli Oddi's "Vendetta" helped defeat a determined effort by the U.S. 3rd Infantry Division to overrun their positions and captured a number of prisoners. Their performance at Anzio led to designation as units of the Waffen-SS, with all the duties and rights that that entailed.
The next few weeks saw many changes in divisions on both sides. The U.S. 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment, which had fought with distinction but suffered heavy losses, was withdrawn to England on 23 March 1944. Also in March the U.S. 34th Infantry Division and in early May, U.S. 36th Infantry Division, had arrived at Anzio. On the British side the 24th Guards Brigade of British 1st Infantry Division was replaced in the first week of March by 18th Infantry Brigade (from British 1st Armoured Division in North Africa). The Guards Brigade had suffered devastating casualties (nearly 2,000 of an initial strength of over 2,500) in just less than two months at Anzio. In late March the 56th (London) Infantry Division had also been relieved, after sustaining very heavy losses (one of its battalions -- 7th Ox and Bucks of 167th (London) Brigade -- had been reduced from 1,000 to 60), by British 5th Infantry Division. By late May, there were some 150,000 Allied troops in the bridgehead, including five U.S. and two British divisions, facing five German divisions. The Germans were well dug into prepared defenses, but were weak in numbers of officers and NCOs and, by the time of the late May offensive, lacked any reserves (which had all been sent south to the Gustav fighting).
Despite Alexander's overall plan for Diadem requiring VI Corps to strike inland and cut Route 6, Clark asked Truscott to prepare alternatives and to be ready to switch from one to another at 48 hours' notice. Of the four scenarios prepared by Truscott, Operation Buffalo called for an attack through Cisterna, into the gap in the hills and to cut Route 6 at Valmontone. Operation Turtle on the other hand foresaw a main thrust to the left of the Alban Hills taking Campoleone, Albano and on to Rome. On May 5, Alexander selected Buffalo and issued Clark with orders to this effect.
However, Clark was determined that VI Corps should strike directly for Rome as evidenced in his later writing: "We not only wanted the honor of capturing Rome, but felt that we deserved it... Not only did we intend to become the first army to seize Rome from the south, but we intended to see that people at home knew that it was the Fifth Army that did the job, and knew the price that had been paid for it." He argued to Alexander that VI Corps did not have the strength to trap the German 10th Army and Alexander, instead of making his requirements clear, was conciliatory and gave the impression that a push on Rome was still a possibility if Buffalo ran into difficulties. On May 6, Clark informed Truscott that "..the capture of Rome is the only important objective and to be ready to execute Turtle as well as Buffalo".
Truscott's planning for Buffalo was meticulous: British 5th Division and 1st Division on the left were to attack along the coast and up the Via Anziate to pin the German 4th Parachute, 65th Infantry and 3rd Panzergrenadier in place whilst the U.S. 45th Infantry, 1st Armored and 3rd Infantry Divisions would launch the main assault, engaging the German 362nd and 715th Infantry Divisions and striking towards Campoleone, Velletri and Cisterna respectively. On the Allies' far right, the 1st Special Service Force would protect the American assault's flank.
At 5:45 a.m. May 23, 1944, 1,500 Allied artillery pieces commenced bombardment. Forty minutes later the guns paused as attacks were made by close air support and then resumed as the infantry and armour moved forward. The first day's fighting was intense: the 1st Armored Division lost 100 tanks and 3rd Infantry Division suffered 955 casualties, the highest single day figure for any U.S. division during World War II. The Germans suffered too, with the 362nd Infantry Division estimated to have lost 50% of its fighting strength.
Mackensen had been convinced that the Allies' main thrust would be up the Via Anziate, and the ferocity of the British feint on May 23 and 24 did nothing to persuade him otherwise. Kesselring, however, was convinced that the Allies' intentions were to gain Route 6 and ordered the Hermann Göring Panzer Division, resting 150 miles (240 km) away at Livorno,[nb 2] to Valmontone to hold open Route 6 for the Tenth Army, which was retreating up this road from Cassino.
In the afternoon of May 25, Cisterna finally fell to 3rd Division who had to go house to house winkling out the German 362nd Infantry which had refused to withdraw and, as a consequence, had virtually ceased to exist by the end of the day. By the end of May 25, 3rd Infantry were heading into the Velletri gap near Cori, and elements of 1st Armored had reached within 3 miles (4.8 km) of Valmontone and were in contact with units of the Herman Göring Division which were just starting to arrive from Leghorn.[nb 2] Although VI Corps had suffered over 3,300 casualties in the three days fighting, Operation Buffalo was going to plan, and Truscott was confident that a concerted attack by 1st Armored and 3rd Infantry Divisions the next day would get his troops astride Route 6.
On the evening of May 25, Truscott received new orders from Clark via his Operations Officer, Brigadier General Don Brand. These were, in effect, to implement Operation Turtle and turn the main line of attack 90 degrees to the left. Most importantly, although the attack towards Valmontone and Route 6 would continue, 1st Armored were to withdraw to prepare to exploit the planned breakthrough along the new line of attack leaving 3rd Division to continue towards Valmontone with 1st Special Service Force in support. Clark informed Alexander of these developments late in the morning of May 26 by which time the change of orders was a fait accompli.
At the time, Truscott was shocked, writing later
...I was dumbfounded. This was no time to drive to the north-west where the enemy was still strong; we should pour our maximum power into the Valmontone Gap to insure the destruction of the retreating German Army. I would not comply with the order without first talking to General Clark in person. ... [However] he was not on the beachhead and could not be reached even by radio... such was the order that turned the main effort of the beachhead forces from the Valmontone Gap and prevented destruction of the German Tenth Army. On the 26th the order was put into effect.
He went on to write
There has never been any doubt in my mind that had General Clark held loyally to General Alexander's instructions, had he not changed the direction of my attack to the north-west on May 26, the strategic objectives of Anzio would have been accomplished in full. To be first in Rome was a poor compensation for this lost opportunity.
On May 26, while the VI Corps was initiating its difficult maneuver, Kesselring threw elements of four divisions into the Velletri gap to stall the advance on Route 6. For four days they slugged it out against 3rd Division until finally withdrawing on May 30, having kept Route 6 open and allowed seven divisions from 10th Army to withdraw and head north of Rome.
On the new axis of attack little progress was made until 1st Armored were in position on May 29, when the front advanced to the main Caesar C Line defences. Nevertheless, an early breakthrough seemed unlikely until on May 30 Major General Fred Walker's 36th Division found a gap in the Caesar Line at the join between 1st Parachute Corps and LXXVI Panzer Corps. Climbing the steep slopes of Monte Artemisio they threatened Velletri from the rear and obliged the defenders to withdraw. This was a key turning point, and von Mackensen offered his resignation which Kesselring accepted.
Raising the pressure further, Clark assigned U.S. II Corps which, fighting its way along the coast from the Gustav Line, had joined up with VI Corps on May 25 to attack around the right hand side of the Alban Hills and advance along the line of Route 6 to Rome.
On June 2 the Caesar Line collapsed under the mounting pressure, and 14th Army commenced a fighting withdrawal through Rome. On the same day Hitler, fearing another Battle of Stalingrad, had ordered Kesslering that there should be "no defence of Rome". Over the next day, the rearguards were gradually overwhelmed, and Rome was entered in the early hours of June 4 with Clark holding an impromptu press conference on the steps of the Town Hall on the Capitoline Hill that morning. He ensured the event was a strictly American affair by stationing military police at road junctions to refuse entry to the city by British military personnel.
Although controversy continues regarding what might have happened if Lucas had been more aggressive from the start, most commentators agree that the initial plan for Anzio was flawed. They question whether the initial landing of just over two infantry divisions, with no supporting armour, had the strength to achieve the objectives: of cutting Route 6 and then holding off the inevitable counterattacks that would come, as Kesselring redeployed his forces.
Volume 5 of Churchill's The Second World War is riddled with implied criticism of Lucas blaming the failure on his caution. After the war, Kesselring gave his evaluation:
It would have been the Anglo-American doom to overextend themselves. The landing force was initially weak, only a division or so of infantry, and without armour. It was a halfway measure of an offensive; that was your basic error.
Churchill defended the operation and believed that sufficient forces were available. He had clearly made great political efforts to procure certain resources, especially the extra LSTs needed to deliver a second division to shore, but also specific units useful to the attack such as with the 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment. He argued that even regardless of the tactical outcome of the operation, there was immediate strategic benefit with regard to the wider war. After the landings, the German High Command (OKW) dropped its plans to transfer five of Kesselring's best divisions to Northwestern Europe. That obviously benefited the upcoming Operation Overlord. Churchill also had to ensure the British-dominated forces in Italy were contributing to the war at a time when the Soviet Red Army were suffering tremendous losses on the Eastern Front.
Because of Clark's change of plan, Operation Diadem (during which the U.S. Fifth Army and the British Eighth Army sustained 44,000 casualties) failed in its objective of destroying the German 10th Army. It also condemned the Allies to another year of bloody combat in Italy, notably around the Gothic Line from August 1944 through March 1945.
The greatest loss was that if the U.S. Army VI Corps main effort had continued on the Valmontone axis from May 26, Clark could probably have reached Rome more quickly than by the route northwest from Cisterna. The VI Corps could also have cut Highway 6 and then put much more pressure on the 10th Army than it actually did.
Alan Whicker who as a war correspondent with the British Army's Film and Photo Unit, and who was present during the fighting, later said:
After breaking out of Anzio, Alexander's plan was for the Fifth Army to drive east to cut Kesselring's escape route to the north and trap much of his Tenth and Fourteenth Armies. The operation started well, but then suddenly, when leading troops were only six kilometers from closing their trap at Frosinone, the Fifth Army was re-directed and sent north towards Rome. The trap was left open. General Mark Clark was so eager that the world should see pictures showing him as the liberator of Rome, that he allowed the armies of a delighted Kesselring to escape.
He had ignored the orders of Field Marshall Alexander in a decision as militarily stupid as it was insubordinate.
This, vain-glorious blunder, the worst of the entire war, lost us a stunning victory, lengthened the war by many months and earned Mark Clark the contempt of other American and British generals. They saw an operation that could have won the war in Italy, thrown away at the cost of many Allied lives, because of the obsession and vanity of one man.
If General Mark Clark had been in the German Army, Hitler would have had him shot.-- Alan Whicker | <urn:uuid:9158092a-100d-48df-9d1d-61156851fb1e> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://popflock.com/learn?s=Battle_of_Anzio | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594333.5/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119064802-20200119092802-00002.warc.gz | en | 0.981066 | 7,986 | 3.28125 | 3 | [
-0.40512651205062866,
0.5013266801834106,
0.19089823961257935,
-0.2538561224937439,
-0.4263613820075989,
-0.03260841593146324,
0.14318372309207916,
0.526265561580658,
-0.33361735939979553,
-0.41898810863494873,
-0.26563507318496704,
-0.2168481945991516,
0.4709901809692383,
0.67896884679794... | 1 | |Battle of Anzio|
|Part of the Winter Line and the battle for Rome of the Italian Campaign of World War II|
Men of the U.S. 3rd Infantry Division landing in late January 1944.
Italian Social Republic
|Commanders and leaders|
Mark W. Clark
John P. Lucas
Lucian K. Truscott
Eberhard von Mackensen
Army Group C|
Breakout: 150,000 soldiers and 1,500 guns
Breakout: 135,000 German soldiers + two Italian battalions
|Casualties and losses|
43,000 men |
(7,000 killed, 36,000 wounded or missing)
40,000 men |
(5,000 killed, 30,500 wounded or missing, 4,500 prisoner)
The Battle of Anzio was a battle of the Italian Campaign of World War II that took place from January 22, 1944 (beginning with the Allied amphibious landing known as Operation Shingle) to June 5, 1944 (ending with the capture of Rome). The operation was opposed by German forces in the area of Anzio and Nettuno. The operation was initially commanded by Major General John P. Lucas, of the U.S. Army, commanding U.S. VI Corps with the intention being to outflank German forces at the Winter Line and enable an attack on Rome.
The success of an amphibious landing at that location, in a basin consisting substantially of reclaimed marshland and surrounded by mountains, depended on the element of surprise and the swiftness with which the invaders could build up strength and move inland relative to the reaction time and strength of the defenders. Any delay could result in the occupation of the mountains by the defenders and the consequent entrapment of the invaders. Lieutenant General Mark W. Clark, commander of the U.S. Fifth Army, understood that risk, but he did not pass on his appreciation of the situation to his subordinate, Lucas, who preferred to take time to entrench against an expected counterattack. The initial landing achieved complete surprise with no opposition and a jeep patrol even made it as far as the outskirts of Rome. However, Lucas, who had little confidence in the operation as planned, failed to capitalize on the element of surprise and delayed his advance until he judged his position was sufficiently consolidated and he had sufficient strength.
While Lucas consolidated, Field Marshal Albert Kesselring, the German commander in the Italian theatre, moved every unit he could spare into a defensive ring around the beachhead. His artillery units had a clear view of every Allied position. The Germans also stopped the drainage pumps and flooded the reclaimed marsh with salt water, planning to entrap the Allies and destroy them by epidemic. For weeks a rain of shells fell on the beach, the marsh, the harbour, and on anything else observable from the hills, with little distinction between forward and rear positions.
After a month of heavy but inconclusive fighting, Lucas was relieved and sent home. His replacement was Major General Lucian K. Truscott, who had previously commanded the U.S. 3rd Infantry Division. The Allies broke out in May. But, instead of striking inland to cut lines of communication of the German Tenth Army's units fighting at Monte Cassino, Truscott, on Clark's orders, reluctantly turned his forces north-west towards Rome, which was captured on June 4, 1944. As a result, the forces of the German Tenth Army fighting at Cassino were able to withdraw and rejoin the rest of Kesselring's forces north of Rome, regroup, and make a fighting withdrawal to his next major prepared defensive position on the Gothic Line.
At the end of 1943, following the Allied invasion of Italy, Allied forces were bogged down at the Gustav Line, a defensive line across Italy south of the strategic objective of Rome. The terrain of central Italy had proved ideally suited to defense, and Field Marshal Albert Kesselring took full advantage.
Operation Shingle was originally conceived by British Prime Minister Winston Churchill in December 1943, as he lay recovering from pneumonia in Marrakesh. His concept was to land two divisions at Anzio, bypassing German forces in central Italy, and take Rome, the strategic objective of the current Battle of Rome. By January he had recovered and was badgering his commanders for a plan of attack, accusing them of not wanting to fight but of being interested only in drawing pay and eating rations.General Harold Alexander, commander of the Allied Armies in Italy, had already considered such a plan since October using five divisions. However, the 5th Army did not have the troops nor the means to transport them. Clark proposed landing a reinforced division to divert German troops from Monte Cassino. This second landing, however, instead of failing similarly[clarification needed], would hold "the shingle" for a week in expectation of a breakthrough at Cassino, and so the operation was named Shingle.
The Anzio beachhead is at the northwestern end of a tract of reclaimed marshland, formerly the Pontine Marshes, now the Pontine Fields (Agro Pontino). Previously uninhabitable due to mosquitoes carrying malaria, in Roman times armies marched as quickly as possible across it on the military road, the Via Appia. The marsh was bounded on one side by the sea and on others by mountains: the Monti Albani, the Monti Lepini, the Monti Ausoni and further south the Monti Aurunci (where the allies had been brought to a halt before Monte Cassino). Overall these mountains are referenced by the name Monti Laziali, the mountains of Lazio, the ancient Latium. Invading armies from the south had the choice of crossing the marsh or taking the only other road to Rome, the Via Latina, running along the eastern flanks of the Monti Laziali, risking entrapment. The marshes were turned into cultivatable land in the 1930s under Benito Mussolini. Canals and pumping stations were built to remove the brackish water from the land. These canals divided the land into personal tracts with new stone houses for colonists from north Italy. Mussolini also founded the five cities destroyed by the battle.
When Lucian Truscott's 3rd Division was first selected for the operation, he pointed out to Clark that the position was a death trap and there would be no survivors. Agreeing, Clark canceled the operation, but Prime Minister Churchill revived it. Apparently the two allies had different concepts: the Americans viewed such a landing as another distraction from Cassino, but if they could not break through at Cassino, the men at Anzio would be trapped. Churchill and the British high command envisioned an outflanking movement ending with the capture of Rome. Mediterranean Theatre commander General Dwight D. Eisenhower, leaving to take command of Operation Overlord, left the decision up to Churchill with a warning about German unpredictability.
The final plan called for Lucas to lead the US VI Corps in a landing in the Anzio area, followed by an advance into the Alban Hills, to cut German communications and "threaten the rear of the German XIV Panzer Corps" (under Fridolin von Senger und Etterlin). It was hoped that such an advance would draw German forces away from the Monte Cassino area and facilitate an Allied breakthrough there.
Planners argued that if Kesselring (in charge of German forces in Italy) pulled troops out of the Gustav Line to defend against the Allied assault, then Allied forces would be able to break through the line; if Kesselring didn't pull troops out of the Gustav Line, then Operation Shingle would threaten to capture Rome and cut off the German units defending the Gustav Line. Should Germany have adequate reinforcements available to defend both Rome and the Gustav Line, the Allies felt that the operation would nevertheless be useful in engaging forces which could otherwise be committed on another front. The operation was officially canceled on December 18, 1943. However, it was later reselected.
Clark did not feel he had the numbers on the southern front to exploit any breakthrough. His plan therefore was relying on the southern offensive drawing Kesselring's reserves in and providing the Anzio force the opportunity to break inland quickly. This would also reflect the orders he had received from Alexander to "...carry out an assault landing on the beaches in the vicinity of Rome with the object of cutting the enemy lines of communication and threatening the rear of the German XIV Corps [on the Gustav Line]." However, his written orders to Lucas did not really reflect this. Initially Lucas had received orders to "1. Seize and secure a beachhead in the vicinity of Anzio 2. Advance and secure Colli Laziali [the Alban Hills] 3. Be prepared to advance on Rome". However, Clark's final orders stated "...2. Advance on Colli Laziali" giving Lucas considerable flexibility as to the timing of any advance on the Alban Hills. It is likely that the caution displayed by both Clark and Lucas was to some extent a product of Clark's experiences at the tough battle for the Salerno beach head and Lucas' natural caution stemming from his lack of experience in battle.
Neither Clark nor Lucas had full confidence in either their superiors or the operational plan. Along with most of the Fifth Army staff they felt that Shingle was properly a two corps or even a full army task. A few days prior to the attack, Lucas wrote in his diary, "They will end up putting me ashore with inadequate forces and get me in a serious jam... Then, who will get the blame?" and "[The operation] has a strong odour of Gallipoli and apparently the same amateur was still on the coach's bench." The "amateur" can only have referred to Winston Churchill, architect of the disastrous Gallipoli landings of World War I and personal advocate of Shingle.
One of the problems with the plan was the availability of landing ships. The American commanders in particular were determined that nothing should delay the Normandy invasion and the supporting landings in southern France. Operation Shingle would require the use of landing ships necessary for these operations. Initially Shingle was to release these assets by January 15. However, this being deemed problematic, President Roosevelt granted permission for the craft to remain until February 5.
Only enough tank landing ships (LSTs) to land a single division were initially available to Shingle. Later, at Churchill's personal insistence, enough were made available to land two divisions. Allied intelligence thought that five or six German divisions were in the area, although U.S. 5th Army intelligence severely underestimated the German 10th Army's fighting capacity at the time, believing many of their units would be worn out after the defensive battles fought since September.
Task Force 81
The Fifth Army's attack on the Gustav Line began on January 16, 1944, at Monte Cassino. The operation failed to break through, but it partly succeeded in its primary objective. Heinrich von Vietinghoff, commanding the Gustav Line, called for reinforcements, and Kesselring transferred the 29th and 90th Panzergrenadier Divisions from Rome.
The landings began on January 22, 1944.
By midnight, 36,000 soldiers and 3,200 vehicles had landed on the beaches. Thirteen Allied troops were killed, and 97 wounded; about 200 Germans had been taken as POWs. The 1st Division penetrated 2 miles (3 km) inland, the Rangers captured Anzio's port, the 509th PIB captured Nettuno, and the 3rd Division penetrated 3 miles (5 km) inland.
In the first days of operations, the command of the Italian resistance movement had a meeting with the Allied General Headquarters: it offered to guide the Allied Force through the Alban Hills territory, but the Allied Command refused the proposal.
It is clear that Lucas' superiors expected some kind of offensive action from him. The point of the landing was to turn the German defences on the Winter Line, taking advantage of their exposed rear and hopefully panicking them into retreating northwards past Rome. However, Lucas instead poured more men and material into his tiny bridgehead, and strengthened his defences.
Winston Churchill was clearly displeased with this action. He said: "I had hoped we were hurling a wildcat into the shore, but all we got was a stranded whale".
Lucas' decision remains a controversial one. Noted military historian John Keegan wrote, "Had Lucas risked rushing at Rome the first day, his spearheads would probably have arrived, though they would have soon been crushed. Nevertheless he might have 'staked out claims well inland.' "However, Lucas did not have confidence in the strategic planning of the operation. Also, he could certainly argue that his interpretation of his orders from Clark was not an unreasonable one. With two divisions landed, and facing two or three times that many Germans, it would have been reasonable for Lucas to consider the beachhead insecure. But according to Keegan, Lucas's actions "achieved the worst of both worlds, exposing his forces to risk without imposing any on the enemy."
Kesselring was informed of the landings at 3 a.m. January 22. Although the landings came as a surprise, Kesselring had made contingency plans to deal with possible landings at all the likely locations. All the plans relied on his divisions each having previously organised a motorized rapid reaction unit (Kampfgruppe) which could move speedily to meet the threat and buy time for the rest of the defenses to get in place. At 5 a.m. he initiated Operation "Richard" and ordered the Kampfgruppe of 4th Parachute Division and the Hermann Göring Panzer Division to defend the roads leading from Anzio to the Alban Hills via Campoleone and Cisterna whilst his plans expected some 20,000 defending troops to have arrived by the end of the first day. In addition, he requested that OKW send reinforcements, and in response to this they ordered the equivalent of more than three divisions from France, Yugoslavia, and Germany whilst at the same time releasing to Kesselring a further three divisions in Italy which had been under OKW's direct command. Later that morning, he ordered General Eberhard von Mackensen (Fourteenth Army) and General Heinrich von Vietinghoff (Tenth Army - Gustav Line) to send him additional reinforcements.
The German units in the immediate vicinity had in fact been dispatched to reinforce the Gustav Line only a few days earlier. All available reserves from the southern front or on their way to it were rushed toward Anzio and Nettuno; these included the 3rd Panzer Grenadier and 71st Infantry Divisions, and the bulk of the Luftwaffe's Hermann Göring Panzer Division. Kesselring initially considered that a successful defence could not be made if the Allies launched a major attack on January 23 or January 24. However, by the end of January 22, the lack of aggressive action convinced him that a defence could be made. Nevertheless, few additional defenders arrived on January 23, although the arrival on the evening of January 22 of Lieutenant General Alfred Schlemm and his 1st Parachute Corps headquarters brought greater organisation and purpose to the German defensive preparations. By January 24, however, the Germans had over 40,000 troops in prepared defensive positions.
Three days after the landings, the beachhead was surrounded by a defence line consisting of three divisions: The 4th Parachute Division to the west, the 3rd Panzer Grenadier Division to the center in front of Alban Hills, the Hermann Göring Panzer Division to the east.
Von Mackensen's 14th Army assumed overall control of the defence on January 25. Elements of eight German divisions were employed in the defence line around the beachhead, and five more divisions were on their way to the Anzio area. Kesselring ordered an attack on the beachhead for January 28, though it was postponed to February 1.
Liberty ships, which were never intended as warships, were involved in some fighting during the battle of Anzio. On 22 to 30 January 1944 the SS Lawton B. Evans was under repeated bombardment from shore batteries and aircraft throughout an eight-day period. It endured a prolonged barrage of shrapnel, machine-gun fire and bombs. The gun crew fought back with shellfire and shot down five German planes.
Further troop movements including the arrival of U.S. 45th Infantry Division and U.S. 1st Armored Division, brought Allied forces total on the beachhead to 69,000 men, 508 guns and 208 tanks by January 29, whilst the total defending Germans had risen to 71,500. Lucas initiated a two-pronged attack on January 30. While one force was to cut Highway 7 at Cisterna before moving east into the Alban Hills, a second was to advance northeast up the Via Anziate towards Campoleone.
By early February, German forces in Fourteenth Army numbered some 100,000 troops organised into two Army Corps, the 1st Parachute Corps under Schlemm and the LXXVI Panzer Corps under Lieutenant General Traugott Herr. Allied forces by this time totalled 76,400 (including the recently arrived British 56th Infantry Division, under Major-General Gerald Templer, which arrived complete on February 16). After making exploratory probes on the Campoleone salient on the afternoon of February 3 the German forces launched a full counterattack at 23:00 in order to reduce the salient and "iron out" the front line. Von Mackensen had planned for the salient to be ground away rather than employing a rapid, focused thrust to cut it off. Some hours after the attack started the coherence of the front line had been completely shattered, and the fighting for the salient had given way to small unit actions, swaying back and forth through the gullies. In the morning of February 4 the situation was becoming more serious, with the 1st Battalion, Irish Guards (of 24th Guards Brigade), only having one cohesive rifle company left and on the opposite side of the salient, the 6th Battalion, Gordon Highlanders (of 2nd Brigade) was beginning to crumble and later lost three complete companies as prisoners.
Even though the base of the salient was nearly broken, Lucas was able to bolster the British 1st Division's defenses with the newly arrived 168th Brigade (from the 56th Division, containing 1st Battalion, London Irish Rifles, 1st Battalion, London Scottish, 10th Battalion, Royal Berkshire Regiment). The 3rd Brigade had been tasked with holding the tip of the salient 2 miles long and 1,000 yards wide on the road going north of Campoleone, but after the German attacks in the early hours of 4 February, the 2nd Battalion, Sherwood Foresters, 1st Battalion, King's Shropshire Light Infantry and 1st Battalion, Duke of Wellington's Regiment (all of 3rd Brigade) had been cut off and were surrounded in the pocket. They held the line all day, taking heavy casualties, but were eventually ordered to pull back and made a fighting retreat at 5pm to the Factory with the aid of artillery, and a successful assault launched by the London Scottish, of 168th Brigade, supported by the 46th Royal Tank Regiment (46 RTR). From February 5 to February 7 both sides employed heavy artillery concentrations and bombers to disrupt the other side and at 21:00 on February 7 the Germans renewed their attack. Once more the fighting was fierce and they managed to infiltrate between the 5th Battalion, Grenadier Guards (24th Guards Brigade) and the 2nd Battalion, North Staffordshire Regiment (2nd Brigade) and nearly surrounded them; it was during this period that Major William Sidney, a company commander in the 5th Grenadier Guards, was awarded the Victoria Cross. Slowly the Allies were forced to give ground and by February 10 they had been pushed out of the salient. Lucas ordered attacks on February 11 to regain the lost ground but the Germans, forewarned by a radio intercept, repelled the Allies' poorly coordinated attack.
On February 16, the Germans launched a new offensive (Operation Fischfang) down the line of the Via Anziate, supported by Tiger tanks. They overran the 167th Brigade, of the recently arrived 56th (London) Division, and virtually destroyed X Company of the 8th Battalion, Royal Fusiliers, which was reduced from around 125 down to a single officer and 10 other ranks and Y Company was down to one officer and 10 men. One of the men killed was Second Lieutenant Eric Waters, whose son Roger Waters of Pink Floyd, created a song (When the Tigers Broke Free) in memory of his father and describes his death. By February 18, after desperate fighting, the Allies' Final Beachhead Line (prepared defenses more or less on the line of the original beachhead) was under attack. Numerous attacks were launched on 1st Battalion, Loyal Regiment (2nd Brigade) and they lost a company, overrun, and the day after had suffered 200 casualties. On the same day Major-General Ronald Penney, General Officer Commanding (GOC) British 1st Division, had been wounded by shellfire and the division was temporarily commanded by Major-General Templer, GOC 56th (London) Division, which had arrived complete. However, a counterattack using VI Corps' reserves halted the German advance, and on February 20, Fischfang petered out with both sides exhausted. During Fischfang the Germans had sustained some 5,400 casualties, the Allies 3,500. Both had suffered nearly 20,000 casualties each since the first landings, and it was "far the highest density of destruction in the Italian campaign, perhaps in the whole war". Also on February 18 while returning to Anzio the light cruiser HMS Penelope was struck by two torpedoes and sunk with a loss of 417 men. Despite the exhausted state of the troops, Hitler insisted that 14th Army should continue to attack. Despite the misgivings of both Kesselring and von Mackensen, a further assault was mounted on February 29, this time on LXXVI Panzer Corps' front around Cisterna. This push achieved little except to generate a further 2,500 casualties for the 14th Army.
Some RSI Italian units fought in the Anzio-Nettuno area, especially since March; the land units were part of the German 14th Army: only the paratroopers of the "Nembo" Battalion were there since February, participating in the German counterattack. In March the infantrymen of the "Barbarigo" Battalion (from Decima Flottiglia MAS) joined the frontline along the Canale Mussolini.
Churchill had continued to bridle at Lucas' perceived passivity. He had written on February 10 to General Alexander encouraging him to exert his authority and Alexander had visited the beachhead on February 14 to tell Lucas he wished for a breakout as soon as the tactical situation allowed. After his visit Alexander wrote to the Chief of the Imperial General Staff, Alan Brooke, saying:
I am disappointed with VI Corps Headquarters. They are negative and lacking in the necessary drive and enthusiasm to get things done. They appeared to have become depressed by events.
Lucas wrote in his diary on February 15:
I am afraid that the top side is not completely satisfied with my work... They are naturally disappointed that I failed to chase the Hun out of Italy but there was no military reason why I should have been able to do so. In fact there is no military reason for Shingle.
On February 16 at a high level conference hosted by Alexander and attended by Clark and Wilson, commander AFHQ it was decided to appoint two deputies under Lucas, Lucian Truscott and the British Major-General Vyvyan Evelegh. On February 22, Clark replaced Lucas with Truscott, appointing Lucas deputy commander Fifth Army until such time as a suitable job could be found for him back in the United States.
Both sides had realised that no decisive result could be achieved until the spring and reverted to a defensive posture involving aggressive patrolling and artillery duels whilst they worked to rebuild their fighting capabilities. In anticipation of the following spring, Kesselring ordered the preparation of a new defence line, the Caesar C line, behind the line of beachhead running from the mouth of the river Tiber just south of Rome through Albano, skirting south of the Alban Hills to Valmontone and across Italy to the Adriatic coast at Pescara, behind which 14th Army and, to their left, 10th Army might withdraw when the need arose. Meanwhile, Lucian Truscott, who had been promoted from the command of U.S. 3rd Infantry Division to replace Lucas as commander of VI Corps on February 22, worked with his staff on the plans for a decisive attack as part of a general offensive which Alexander was planning for May and which would include a major offensive on the Gustav Line, Operation Diadem. The objective of the plan was to fully engage Kesselring's armies with a major offensive and remove any prospect of the Germans withdrawing forces from Italy to redeploy elsewhere. It was also intended to trap the bulk of the German 10th Army between the Allied forces advancing through the Gustav Line and VI Corps thrusting inland from Anzio.
In March, the 2nd Italian SS "Vendetta" Battalion and 29th Italian SS Rifle Battalion were sent to fight against the Anglo-American forces at the Anzio beachhead. Dispersed among German battalions, the German commanding officers later gave the Italians companies favourable reports. Members of former Blackshirt Lieutenant-Colonel Degli Oddi's "Vendetta" helped defeat a determined effort by the U.S. 3rd Infantry Division to overrun their positions and captured a number of prisoners. Their performance at Anzio led to designation as units of the Waffen-SS, with all the duties and rights that that entailed.
The next few weeks saw many changes in divisions on both sides. The U.S. 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment, which had fought with distinction but suffered heavy losses, was withdrawn to England on 23 March 1944. Also in March the U.S. 34th Infantry Division and in early May, U.S. 36th Infantry Division, had arrived at Anzio. On the British side the 24th Guards Brigade of British 1st Infantry Division was replaced in the first week of March by 18th Infantry Brigade (from British 1st Armoured Division in North Africa). The Guards Brigade had suffered devastating casualties (nearly 2,000 of an initial strength of over 2,500) in just less than two months at Anzio. In late March the 56th (London) Infantry Division had also been relieved, after sustaining very heavy losses (one of its battalions -- 7th Ox and Bucks of 167th (London) Brigade -- had been reduced from 1,000 to 60), by British 5th Infantry Division. By late May, there were some 150,000 Allied troops in the bridgehead, including five U.S. and two British divisions, facing five German divisions. The Germans were well dug into prepared defenses, but were weak in numbers of officers and NCOs and, by the time of the late May offensive, lacked any reserves (which had all been sent south to the Gustav fighting).
Despite Alexander's overall plan for Diadem requiring VI Corps to strike inland and cut Route 6, Clark asked Truscott to prepare alternatives and to be ready to switch from one to another at 48 hours' notice. Of the four scenarios prepared by Truscott, Operation Buffalo called for an attack through Cisterna, into the gap in the hills and to cut Route 6 at Valmontone. Operation Turtle on the other hand foresaw a main thrust to the left of the Alban Hills taking Campoleone, Albano and on to Rome. On May 5, Alexander selected Buffalo and issued Clark with orders to this effect.
However, Clark was determined that VI Corps should strike directly for Rome as evidenced in his later writing: "We not only wanted the honor of capturing Rome, but felt that we deserved it... Not only did we intend to become the first army to seize Rome from the south, but we intended to see that people at home knew that it was the Fifth Army that did the job, and knew the price that had been paid for it." He argued to Alexander that VI Corps did not have the strength to trap the German 10th Army and Alexander, instead of making his requirements clear, was conciliatory and gave the impression that a push on Rome was still a possibility if Buffalo ran into difficulties. On May 6, Clark informed Truscott that "..the capture of Rome is the only important objective and to be ready to execute Turtle as well as Buffalo".
Truscott's planning for Buffalo was meticulous: British 5th Division and 1st Division on the left were to attack along the coast and up the Via Anziate to pin the German 4th Parachute, 65th Infantry and 3rd Panzergrenadier in place whilst the U.S. 45th Infantry, 1st Armored and 3rd Infantry Divisions would launch the main assault, engaging the German 362nd and 715th Infantry Divisions and striking towards Campoleone, Velletri and Cisterna respectively. On the Allies' far right, the 1st Special Service Force would protect the American assault's flank.
At 5:45 a.m. May 23, 1944, 1,500 Allied artillery pieces commenced bombardment. Forty minutes later the guns paused as attacks were made by close air support and then resumed as the infantry and armour moved forward. The first day's fighting was intense: the 1st Armored Division lost 100 tanks and 3rd Infantry Division suffered 955 casualties, the highest single day figure for any U.S. division during World War II. The Germans suffered too, with the 362nd Infantry Division estimated to have lost 50% of its fighting strength.
Mackensen had been convinced that the Allies' main thrust would be up the Via Anziate, and the ferocity of the British feint on May 23 and 24 did nothing to persuade him otherwise. Kesselring, however, was convinced that the Allies' intentions were to gain Route 6 and ordered the Hermann Göring Panzer Division, resting 150 miles (240 km) away at Livorno,[nb 2] to Valmontone to hold open Route 6 for the Tenth Army, which was retreating up this road from Cassino.
In the afternoon of May 25, Cisterna finally fell to 3rd Division who had to go house to house winkling out the German 362nd Infantry which had refused to withdraw and, as a consequence, had virtually ceased to exist by the end of the day. By the end of May 25, 3rd Infantry were heading into the Velletri gap near Cori, and elements of 1st Armored had reached within 3 miles (4.8 km) of Valmontone and were in contact with units of the Herman Göring Division which were just starting to arrive from Leghorn.[nb 2] Although VI Corps had suffered over 3,300 casualties in the three days fighting, Operation Buffalo was going to plan, and Truscott was confident that a concerted attack by 1st Armored and 3rd Infantry Divisions the next day would get his troops astride Route 6.
On the evening of May 25, Truscott received new orders from Clark via his Operations Officer, Brigadier General Don Brand. These were, in effect, to implement Operation Turtle and turn the main line of attack 90 degrees to the left. Most importantly, although the attack towards Valmontone and Route 6 would continue, 1st Armored were to withdraw to prepare to exploit the planned breakthrough along the new line of attack leaving 3rd Division to continue towards Valmontone with 1st Special Service Force in support. Clark informed Alexander of these developments late in the morning of May 26 by which time the change of orders was a fait accompli.
At the time, Truscott was shocked, writing later
...I was dumbfounded. This was no time to drive to the north-west where the enemy was still strong; we should pour our maximum power into the Valmontone Gap to insure the destruction of the retreating German Army. I would not comply with the order without first talking to General Clark in person. ... [However] he was not on the beachhead and could not be reached even by radio... such was the order that turned the main effort of the beachhead forces from the Valmontone Gap and prevented destruction of the German Tenth Army. On the 26th the order was put into effect.
He went on to write
There has never been any doubt in my mind that had General Clark held loyally to General Alexander's instructions, had he not changed the direction of my attack to the north-west on May 26, the strategic objectives of Anzio would have been accomplished in full. To be first in Rome was a poor compensation for this lost opportunity.
On May 26, while the VI Corps was initiating its difficult maneuver, Kesselring threw elements of four divisions into the Velletri gap to stall the advance on Route 6. For four days they slugged it out against 3rd Division until finally withdrawing on May 30, having kept Route 6 open and allowed seven divisions from 10th Army to withdraw and head north of Rome.
On the new axis of attack little progress was made until 1st Armored were in position on May 29, when the front advanced to the main Caesar C Line defences. Nevertheless, an early breakthrough seemed unlikely until on May 30 Major General Fred Walker's 36th Division found a gap in the Caesar Line at the join between 1st Parachute Corps and LXXVI Panzer Corps. Climbing the steep slopes of Monte Artemisio they threatened Velletri from the rear and obliged the defenders to withdraw. This was a key turning point, and von Mackensen offered his resignation which Kesselring accepted.
Raising the pressure further, Clark assigned U.S. II Corps which, fighting its way along the coast from the Gustav Line, had joined up with VI Corps on May 25 to attack around the right hand side of the Alban Hills and advance along the line of Route 6 to Rome.
On June 2 the Caesar Line collapsed under the mounting pressure, and 14th Army commenced a fighting withdrawal through Rome. On the same day Hitler, fearing another Battle of Stalingrad, had ordered Kesslering that there should be "no defence of Rome". Over the next day, the rearguards were gradually overwhelmed, and Rome was entered in the early hours of June 4 with Clark holding an impromptu press conference on the steps of the Town Hall on the Capitoline Hill that morning. He ensured the event was a strictly American affair by stationing military police at road junctions to refuse entry to the city by British military personnel.
Although controversy continues regarding what might have happened if Lucas had been more aggressive from the start, most commentators agree that the initial plan for Anzio was flawed. They question whether the initial landing of just over two infantry divisions, with no supporting armour, had the strength to achieve the objectives: of cutting Route 6 and then holding off the inevitable counterattacks that would come, as Kesselring redeployed his forces.
Volume 5 of Churchill's The Second World War is riddled with implied criticism of Lucas blaming the failure on his caution. After the war, Kesselring gave his evaluation:
It would have been the Anglo-American doom to overextend themselves. The landing force was initially weak, only a division or so of infantry, and without armour. It was a halfway measure of an offensive; that was your basic error.
Churchill defended the operation and believed that sufficient forces were available. He had clearly made great political efforts to procure certain resources, especially the extra LSTs needed to deliver a second division to shore, but also specific units useful to the attack such as with the 504th Parachute Infantry Regiment. He argued that even regardless of the tactical outcome of the operation, there was immediate strategic benefit with regard to the wider war. After the landings, the German High Command (OKW) dropped its plans to transfer five of Kesselring's best divisions to Northwestern Europe. That obviously benefited the upcoming Operation Overlord. Churchill also had to ensure the British-dominated forces in Italy were contributing to the war at a time when the Soviet Red Army were suffering tremendous losses on the Eastern Front.
Because of Clark's change of plan, Operation Diadem (during which the U.S. Fifth Army and the British Eighth Army sustained 44,000 casualties) failed in its objective of destroying the German 10th Army. It also condemned the Allies to another year of bloody combat in Italy, notably around the Gothic Line from August 1944 through March 1945.
The greatest loss was that if the U.S. Army VI Corps main effort had continued on the Valmontone axis from May 26, Clark could probably have reached Rome more quickly than by the route northwest from Cisterna. The VI Corps could also have cut Highway 6 and then put much more pressure on the 10th Army than it actually did.
Alan Whicker who as a war correspondent with the British Army's Film and Photo Unit, and who was present during the fighting, later said:
After breaking out of Anzio, Alexander's plan was for the Fifth Army to drive east to cut Kesselring's escape route to the north and trap much of his Tenth and Fourteenth Armies. The operation started well, but then suddenly, when leading troops were only six kilometers from closing their trap at Frosinone, the Fifth Army was re-directed and sent north towards Rome. The trap was left open. General Mark Clark was so eager that the world should see pictures showing him as the liberator of Rome, that he allowed the armies of a delighted Kesselring to escape.
He had ignored the orders of Field Marshall Alexander in a decision as militarily stupid as it was insubordinate.
This, vain-glorious blunder, the worst of the entire war, lost us a stunning victory, lengthened the war by many months and earned Mark Clark the contempt of other American and British generals. They saw an operation that could have won the war in Italy, thrown away at the cost of many Allied lives, because of the obsession and vanity of one man.
If General Mark Clark had been in the German Army, Hitler would have had him shot.-- Alan Whicker | 8,415 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Your Guide to the
and the Greater
January 23, 2020
History - Frontier Forts
The Story of Fort Pitt
Blockhouse at Point State Park as it appears today.
In 1758, this point of land which had been the cause of the loss of many lives and of much treasure, fell into the hands of the English; and again the cross of St. George flew over the spot where the fleur-de-lis of St. Louis had floated for four tempestuous years. General Forbes in reporting to Governor Denny immediately after his taking possession, says:
"As the conquest of this country is of the greatest consequence to the adjacent provinces, by securing the Indians our friends for their own advantage, I have therefore sent for their head people to come to me, when I think, in few words and a few days to make everything easy."
The chief reason why the French abandoned Fort Duquesne, was because their Indian allies who had been instrumental in defeating Braddock in 1755 removed from the area. By the time the army of General Forbes had reached within striking distance all of the Indian allies had deserted Fort Duquesne.
"I shall be obliged to leave about two hundred men of your provincial troops to join a proportion of Virginians and Marylanders, in order to protect this country during winter, by which time I hope the provinces will be sensible of the great benefit of this new acquisition, as to enable me to fix this noble, fine country to all perpetuity under the dominion of Great Britain.
"I beg the barracks may be put in good repair and proper lodging for the officers, and that you will send me with the greatest dispatch, your opinion how I am to dispose of the rest of your provincial troops; for the ease and convenience of the provinces and inhabitants. You must also remember. that Col. Montgomery's battalion of one thousand three hundred men and four companies of Royal Americans, are, after so long and tedious campaign, to be taken care of in some winter quarters."
The name for the fortification which it was intended to build after the place was secured, had been determined upon before that event occurred. With one accord the name of Fort Pitt was applied to the intended fort. Pittsburgh, as the name of the place, appeared the next day after its occupancy. On November the 26th, Forbes in reporting the capture of the place to Lieutenant-Gov. Denny, in the letter which we have already quoted, dated it from Fort Duquesne, "or now Pitts-Bourgh."
Gen. Forbes immediately began the erection of a new fort near the site of the old one. The work was proceeded in with all possible activity. It was getting late in the season. The enemy had withdrawn, it is true, but their whereabouts were not definitely known. Most of them had gone up the river to Fort Machault; some of them had gathered at the stronghold at Loggstown, down the Ohio. The post was watched by spies and Indians, and thus the situation was not one of absolute confidence or security.
The character of the structure and the location of the new fort were probably determined upon before Forbes left on his return for Philadelphia, which he did on the 3d of December. The work was located on the bank of the Monongahela at the south end of what, later, was West street in the city of Pittsburgh, and between West street and Liberty, within two hundred yards of Fort Duquesne. It has been described as "a small square stockade, with bastions." It was intended only for temporary use, and for the present accommodation of a garrison of two hundred men. With this number, when it was completed, Col. Hugh Mercer, was placed in command; and the army marched back to the settlements.
The fort, so called, was completed probably about the first of January, 1759. Col. Mercer, under date of January 8, 1759, reported the garrison to consist then of about two hundred and eighty men, and that the "works" were capable of some defense, though huddled up in a very hasty manner, the weather being extremely severe.
On March the 17th, 1759, the garrison is reported as follows: Royal artillery,
eight; Royal Americans, twenty; Highlanders, eighty; Virginia regiment, ninety-nine; First Batt'n Penna., one hundred and thirty-six; Second Batt'n Penna., eighty-five.
This structure, as stated, was intended for temporary use only. The one to succeed it was intended to be an imposing fortress and such as would last for all time. Work was expected to be begun upon it within the coming year. General Forbes having died, March 13th, 1759, shortly after his return to Philadelphia, was succeeded by General John Stanwix as commander of His Majesty's regular troops, and those to be raised by the Provinces, for the Southern Department. The announcement of the appointment of Stanwix and of the death of Forbes, was made by Gen. Amherst, Commander-in-Chief, on the 15th of March, 1759.
During the early summer of 1759, the greatest apprehension was felt on account of the project which the French had in view, of descending from Fort Machault for an attack on Fort Pitt. A large force was collected there, which, if circumstances had not intervened to divert their operations, would probably have been adequate to capture the place. But the urgent necessity of the French at Niagara, which place was invested by the English, compelled them to abandon their project.
Around the garrison at this time many Indians had collected who were now the dependents of the English, being brought thither upon invitations to attend conferences and councils, of which there had been several since the English occupancy of the place. The treaty of July, 1759, was attended by great numbers. These had to be fed, nor did they show indication of departing so long as there was a sufficiency of provisions.
General Stanwix arrived at Pittsburgh, late in August, 1759, with materials, skilled workmen and laborers, for the purpose, and on the 3d day of September, the work of building a formidable fortification commenced, in obedience to the orders of William Pitt, Secretary of State.
Gen. Stanwix remained at Fort Pitt until the spring of 1760. In the fall of 1759 was held a conference with the Indians which was most satisfactory in its results. It was the policy of the English Government, in which it was seconded by the Provinces of Pennsylvania and Virginia, that the officers of the army as well as the authorities of the Provinces should use every effort to conciliate the Indians and keep them on good terms. Accordingly, Colonel Bouquet, representing Forbes, with Col. Armstrong and several officers, George Croghan, Deputy agent to Sir Wm. Johnson, with Henry Montour, as interpreter met with the chiefs of the Delaware Indians, at Pittsburgh, on December 4th, 1758, after their occupancy of the post. At this meeting the Indians were assured of the peaceful intentions of the King of England and his people toward them.
Although Fort Pitt was occupied in 1760, it was not finished until the summer of 1761 under Col. Bouquet. It occupied all the ground between the rivers. Its stone bomb-proof magazine was removed when the Penna. Railway Company built its freight depot in 1852.
"The work," says Neville B. Craig, "Was five sided, though not all equal, as Washington erroneously stated in his journal in 1770. The earth around the proposed work was dug and thrown up so as to enclose the selected position with a rampart of earth. On the two sides facing the country, this rampart was supported by what military men call a revetment-a brick work, nearly perpendicular supporting the rampart on the outside, and thus presenting an obstacle to the enemy not easily overcome. On the other three sides, the earth.in the rampart had no support, and, of course, it presented a more inclined surface to the enemy-one which could be readily ascended. To remedy, in some degree, this defect in the work, a line of pickets was fixed on the outside of the foot of the slope of the rampart. Around the whole work was a wide ditch which would, of course, be filled with water when the river was at a moderate stage.
In summer, however, when the river was low the ditch was dry and perfectly smooth, so that the officers and men had a ball-alley in the ditch, and against the revetments.
"The redoubt, which still remains near the point, the last relic of British labor at this place, was not erected until 1764. The other redoubt, which stood at the mouth of Redoubt Alley, was erected by Col. Wm. Grant; and our recollection is, that the year mentioned on the stone tablet was 1765, but we are not positive on that point."
Gen. Stanwix remained at Pittsburgh until March 21st, 1760. From a communication dated from the fort at Pittsburgh, on that date, and printed in the Penna. Gazette as a part of the current news, the following information is obtained:
"When Gen. Stanwix left Fort Pitt there were present as a garrison seven hundred, namely, one hundred and fifty Virginians, one hundred and fifty Pennsylvanians and four hundred of the First Battalion of Royal Americans."
The war between England and France having terminated to the advantage of the English by the surrender of Montreal, the last post held by the French, on 8th of September, 1759, the English in the fall of 1759 and in 1760 took possession of the
The town of Pittsburgh began, in all probability, with the occupancy of the place by the English in the fall of 1758. That is to say that from the first there was, near the fort, a collection of rude cabins occupied by traders, purveyors of the army and settlers. The name of the town, we have seen, was contemporary with the name of the fort. The mention made of the town by Col. James Burd in his Journal is probably the first authentic mention with regard to its inhabitants, available. Col. Burd in command of the Augusta Regiment-as the Penna. Regiment under his command was then called-
arrived at Pittsburgh on Sunday, 6th July, 1760, and remained there on duty until November following. In his Journal is the following :
21st, Monday. [July, 1760.]
To-day numbered the Houses at Pittsburg, and made a Return of the number of People-men, women & children-that do not belong to the army:
|Number of houses||146|
|Number of unfinished houses||19|
|Number of Hutts||36|
|Number of Men||88|
|Number of Women||29|
|Number of Male Children||14|
|Number of Female Children||18| | <urn:uuid:42f78a7b-f43c-4edc-b5b3-07bf654239b1> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://akvalley.com/history/forts/fortpitt/fortpitt.shtml | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250610919.33/warc/CC-MAIN-20200123131001-20200123160001-00539.warc.gz | en | 0.982426 | 2,293 | 3.359375 | 3 | [
-0.22747351229190826,
0.3692130744457245,
0.7465550899505615,
-0.224120631814003,
0.11622974276542664,
-0.24586039781570435,
0.3795805275440216,
0.019979912787675858,
-0.27799296379089355,
0.10456474125385284,
0.5187475681304932,
-0.45238828659057617,
0.1958993673324585,
0.4326993227005005... | 1 | Your Guide to the
and the Greater
January 23, 2020
History - Frontier Forts
The Story of Fort Pitt
Blockhouse at Point State Park as it appears today.
In 1758, this point of land which had been the cause of the loss of many lives and of much treasure, fell into the hands of the English; and again the cross of St. George flew over the spot where the fleur-de-lis of St. Louis had floated for four tempestuous years. General Forbes in reporting to Governor Denny immediately after his taking possession, says:
"As the conquest of this country is of the greatest consequence to the adjacent provinces, by securing the Indians our friends for their own advantage, I have therefore sent for their head people to come to me, when I think, in few words and a few days to make everything easy."
The chief reason why the French abandoned Fort Duquesne, was because their Indian allies who had been instrumental in defeating Braddock in 1755 removed from the area. By the time the army of General Forbes had reached within striking distance all of the Indian allies had deserted Fort Duquesne.
"I shall be obliged to leave about two hundred men of your provincial troops to join a proportion of Virginians and Marylanders, in order to protect this country during winter, by which time I hope the provinces will be sensible of the great benefit of this new acquisition, as to enable me to fix this noble, fine country to all perpetuity under the dominion of Great Britain.
"I beg the barracks may be put in good repair and proper lodging for the officers, and that you will send me with the greatest dispatch, your opinion how I am to dispose of the rest of your provincial troops; for the ease and convenience of the provinces and inhabitants. You must also remember. that Col. Montgomery's battalion of one thousand three hundred men and four companies of Royal Americans, are, after so long and tedious campaign, to be taken care of in some winter quarters."
The name for the fortification which it was intended to build after the place was secured, had been determined upon before that event occurred. With one accord the name of Fort Pitt was applied to the intended fort. Pittsburgh, as the name of the place, appeared the next day after its occupancy. On November the 26th, Forbes in reporting the capture of the place to Lieutenant-Gov. Denny, in the letter which we have already quoted, dated it from Fort Duquesne, "or now Pitts-Bourgh."
Gen. Forbes immediately began the erection of a new fort near the site of the old one. The work was proceeded in with all possible activity. It was getting late in the season. The enemy had withdrawn, it is true, but their whereabouts were not definitely known. Most of them had gone up the river to Fort Machault; some of them had gathered at the stronghold at Loggstown, down the Ohio. The post was watched by spies and Indians, and thus the situation was not one of absolute confidence or security.
The character of the structure and the location of the new fort were probably determined upon before Forbes left on his return for Philadelphia, which he did on the 3d of December. The work was located on the bank of the Monongahela at the south end of what, later, was West street in the city of Pittsburgh, and between West street and Liberty, within two hundred yards of Fort Duquesne. It has been described as "a small square stockade, with bastions." It was intended only for temporary use, and for the present accommodation of a garrison of two hundred men. With this number, when it was completed, Col. Hugh Mercer, was placed in command; and the army marched back to the settlements.
The fort, so called, was completed probably about the first of January, 1759. Col. Mercer, under date of January 8, 1759, reported the garrison to consist then of about two hundred and eighty men, and that the "works" were capable of some defense, though huddled up in a very hasty manner, the weather being extremely severe.
On March the 17th, 1759, the garrison is reported as follows: Royal artillery,
eight; Royal Americans, twenty; Highlanders, eighty; Virginia regiment, ninety-nine; First Batt'n Penna., one hundred and thirty-six; Second Batt'n Penna., eighty-five.
This structure, as stated, was intended for temporary use only. The one to succeed it was intended to be an imposing fortress and such as would last for all time. Work was expected to be begun upon it within the coming year. General Forbes having died, March 13th, 1759, shortly after his return to Philadelphia, was succeeded by General John Stanwix as commander of His Majesty's regular troops, and those to be raised by the Provinces, for the Southern Department. The announcement of the appointment of Stanwix and of the death of Forbes, was made by Gen. Amherst, Commander-in-Chief, on the 15th of March, 1759.
During the early summer of 1759, the greatest apprehension was felt on account of the project which the French had in view, of descending from Fort Machault for an attack on Fort Pitt. A large force was collected there, which, if circumstances had not intervened to divert their operations, would probably have been adequate to capture the place. But the urgent necessity of the French at Niagara, which place was invested by the English, compelled them to abandon their project.
Around the garrison at this time many Indians had collected who were now the dependents of the English, being brought thither upon invitations to attend conferences and councils, of which there had been several since the English occupancy of the place. The treaty of July, 1759, was attended by great numbers. These had to be fed, nor did they show indication of departing so long as there was a sufficiency of provisions.
General Stanwix arrived at Pittsburgh, late in August, 1759, with materials, skilled workmen and laborers, for the purpose, and on the 3d day of September, the work of building a formidable fortification commenced, in obedience to the orders of William Pitt, Secretary of State.
Gen. Stanwix remained at Fort Pitt until the spring of 1760. In the fall of 1759 was held a conference with the Indians which was most satisfactory in its results. It was the policy of the English Government, in which it was seconded by the Provinces of Pennsylvania and Virginia, that the officers of the army as well as the authorities of the Provinces should use every effort to conciliate the Indians and keep them on good terms. Accordingly, Colonel Bouquet, representing Forbes, with Col. Armstrong and several officers, George Croghan, Deputy agent to Sir Wm. Johnson, with Henry Montour, as interpreter met with the chiefs of the Delaware Indians, at Pittsburgh, on December 4th, 1758, after their occupancy of the post. At this meeting the Indians were assured of the peaceful intentions of the King of England and his people toward them.
Although Fort Pitt was occupied in 1760, it was not finished until the summer of 1761 under Col. Bouquet. It occupied all the ground between the rivers. Its stone bomb-proof magazine was removed when the Penna. Railway Company built its freight depot in 1852.
"The work," says Neville B. Craig, "Was five sided, though not all equal, as Washington erroneously stated in his journal in 1770. The earth around the proposed work was dug and thrown up so as to enclose the selected position with a rampart of earth. On the two sides facing the country, this rampart was supported by what military men call a revetment-a brick work, nearly perpendicular supporting the rampart on the outside, and thus presenting an obstacle to the enemy not easily overcome. On the other three sides, the earth.in the rampart had no support, and, of course, it presented a more inclined surface to the enemy-one which could be readily ascended. To remedy, in some degree, this defect in the work, a line of pickets was fixed on the outside of the foot of the slope of the rampart. Around the whole work was a wide ditch which would, of course, be filled with water when the river was at a moderate stage.
In summer, however, when the river was low the ditch was dry and perfectly smooth, so that the officers and men had a ball-alley in the ditch, and against the revetments.
"The redoubt, which still remains near the point, the last relic of British labor at this place, was not erected until 1764. The other redoubt, which stood at the mouth of Redoubt Alley, was erected by Col. Wm. Grant; and our recollection is, that the year mentioned on the stone tablet was 1765, but we are not positive on that point."
Gen. Stanwix remained at Pittsburgh until March 21st, 1760. From a communication dated from the fort at Pittsburgh, on that date, and printed in the Penna. Gazette as a part of the current news, the following information is obtained:
"When Gen. Stanwix left Fort Pitt there were present as a garrison seven hundred, namely, one hundred and fifty Virginians, one hundred and fifty Pennsylvanians and four hundred of the First Battalion of Royal Americans."
The war between England and France having terminated to the advantage of the English by the surrender of Montreal, the last post held by the French, on 8th of September, 1759, the English in the fall of 1759 and in 1760 took possession of the
The town of Pittsburgh began, in all probability, with the occupancy of the place by the English in the fall of 1758. That is to say that from the first there was, near the fort, a collection of rude cabins occupied by traders, purveyors of the army and settlers. The name of the town, we have seen, was contemporary with the name of the fort. The mention made of the town by Col. James Burd in his Journal is probably the first authentic mention with regard to its inhabitants, available. Col. Burd in command of the Augusta Regiment-as the Penna. Regiment under his command was then called-
arrived at Pittsburgh on Sunday, 6th July, 1760, and remained there on duty until November following. In his Journal is the following :
21st, Monday. [July, 1760.]
To-day numbered the Houses at Pittsburg, and made a Return of the number of People-men, women & children-that do not belong to the army:
|Number of houses||146|
|Number of unfinished houses||19|
|Number of Hutts||36|
|Number of Men||88|
|Number of Women||29|
|Number of Male Children||14|
|Number of Female Children||18| | 2,357 | ENGLISH | 1 |
King George 111 was the leader of Britain and the powerful empire in the world. The king had a strong belief of defeating the Americans in war. There was anticipation on the part f the king that the Americans would be submissive in the event they are defeated. There was invincible power among the British for a long period of time. There was a piece of believe that some Americans were loyal to the king thus guaranteed of their support in the war. There was a silent plan to take over American through the efforts of the king loyalties.
Buy "England's Vietnam”: How King George III Lost an Empire essay paper online
The British did support the kind’s decision. They saw it wise to put the country where it is rightfully supposed to be. It was right to rule over the Americans. The first incidence was the Bunker Hill battle. This was not enough to settle conflict between the British and the Americans.
There was fear on the part of the king that failure to win over the Americans would set a bad precedence. The other strong empires would also fallow suit. The British Empire was believed to be the strongest f al kingdoms in the world. There was a dominant problem facing the king in his fight. The geographical separation between the battleground and the source of machinery was the biggest headache. The desire to destroy colonists faced the challenge of distance. The distance was 3,000 miles apart. The Americans had relatively good equipment. The British had to ship all their equipment to the battleground (Ketchum 6).
The application of the guerilla tactics made the fears of the British to escalate. Some of the Englishmen were fearful to the extent they were ready to withdrawal at the first instance. There was widespread information of the impossibility of the British conquering the Americans. The Americans were invincible in their fights. There was a high standard of tactic on the part of the Americans. This is a major challenge for the king (Zinn 78).
There was poor application of tactic on the part of the king machinery. The parliamentary support in decision making was also poor. The tactic of fighting and subsequent retreats was futile. The loyalists to the king were mere men in this war. They did play a minimal role.
The entry of the France and Spain was another major blow to the king. There was strength on the part of warfare tools. They did supply American troops with navy and army. Another major drawback for the king was the opposition from parliament not to enter the war. This was a clear sign that they were a divided house in regard to the war. The execution of the war did lie in the hands of parliament. This was detrimental on the part of the king (Ketchum 6).
The declaration of independence by the Americans was the biggest blow to the empire. Slogans did condemn the empire. This is a sign of ushering in a new dawn to the world. This led to fall of the empire. As the Americans did continue to appear to win the war, there was nothing noble about the war to the British people. This was the end of everything.
Most popular orders | <urn:uuid:2150e0b6-2663-49ea-8375-4866a5ca69b0> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://exclusivepapers.com/essays/analytical/england-s-vietnam-how-king-george-iii-lost-an.php | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579251737572.61/warc/CC-MAIN-20200127235617-20200128025617-00431.warc.gz | en | 0.985531 | 631 | 3.78125 | 4 | [
-0.16929581761360168,
0.5770952701568604,
0.45199349522590637,
-0.020577970892190933,
-0.27100512385368347,
-0.025628026574850082,
-0.010011091828346252,
0.23345547914505005,
-0.14960336685180664,
0.020329490303993225,
-0.09765929728746414,
-0.28728824853897095,
0.046163447201251984,
0.216... | 1 | King George 111 was the leader of Britain and the powerful empire in the world. The king had a strong belief of defeating the Americans in war. There was anticipation on the part f the king that the Americans would be submissive in the event they are defeated. There was invincible power among the British for a long period of time. There was a piece of believe that some Americans were loyal to the king thus guaranteed of their support in the war. There was a silent plan to take over American through the efforts of the king loyalties.
Buy "England's Vietnam”: How King George III Lost an Empire essay paper online
The British did support the kind’s decision. They saw it wise to put the country where it is rightfully supposed to be. It was right to rule over the Americans. The first incidence was the Bunker Hill battle. This was not enough to settle conflict between the British and the Americans.
There was fear on the part of the king that failure to win over the Americans would set a bad precedence. The other strong empires would also fallow suit. The British Empire was believed to be the strongest f al kingdoms in the world. There was a dominant problem facing the king in his fight. The geographical separation between the battleground and the source of machinery was the biggest headache. The desire to destroy colonists faced the challenge of distance. The distance was 3,000 miles apart. The Americans had relatively good equipment. The British had to ship all their equipment to the battleground (Ketchum 6).
The application of the guerilla tactics made the fears of the British to escalate. Some of the Englishmen were fearful to the extent they were ready to withdrawal at the first instance. There was widespread information of the impossibility of the British conquering the Americans. The Americans were invincible in their fights. There was a high standard of tactic on the part of the Americans. This is a major challenge for the king (Zinn 78).
There was poor application of tactic on the part of the king machinery. The parliamentary support in decision making was also poor. The tactic of fighting and subsequent retreats was futile. The loyalists to the king were mere men in this war. They did play a minimal role.
The entry of the France and Spain was another major blow to the king. There was strength on the part of warfare tools. They did supply American troops with navy and army. Another major drawback for the king was the opposition from parliament not to enter the war. This was a clear sign that they were a divided house in regard to the war. The execution of the war did lie in the hands of parliament. This was detrimental on the part of the king (Ketchum 6).
The declaration of independence by the Americans was the biggest blow to the empire. Slogans did condemn the empire. This is a sign of ushering in a new dawn to the world. This led to fall of the empire. As the Americans did continue to appear to win the war, there was nothing noble about the war to the British people. This was the end of everything.
Most popular orders | 636 | ENGLISH | 1 |
At a Glance
Homer: Who is he? To this day, there is continuing debate over whether or not the ancient poet actually existed. And if he did, there are serious doubts about his authorship. Some contend that there is artistic unity within each of his epic poems, yet others believe the works to be the effort of multiple contributors. The style of the poetry has its roots in oral tradition, and some liken Homer’s writings to the Sanskrit epic the Mahabharata, a poetic work that was edited, expanded, and rewritten by many hands over its lengthy history. Although these issues of authorship can never be resolved conclusively, the man known as Homer—whether fiction, legend, or flesh-and-blood poet—is still revered for his epic and highly influential works, the Iliad and the Odyssey.
Facts and Trivia
- Although there are multiple accounts of Homer’s origins and life, scholars have been unable to validate the historical accuracy of any of them.
- Most sources suggest that Homer was part of a tradition of blind epic poets.
- Homer’s reputation in the classical period reached its apex when a religious following of the poet emerged. These followers believed Homer to have been divinely inspired in his writing.
- For many centuries, Homer’s work remained somewhat obscure. It was only during the neoclassical movement of the Renaissance that his writing regained prominence.
- The Trojan War, which provides the basis for the Iliad, may not have happened. While it is probably based on an actual war, many believe Homer’s account of it to be a fictionalization.
- The Coen Brothers’ 2000 film, O Brother, Where Art Thou, is a retelling of Homer’s Odyssey set in 1930s America.
Very little is known about the author of the Iliad (c. 800 b.c.e.; English translation, 1616) and the Odyssey (c. 800 b.c.e.; English translation, 1616). The ancient Greeks attributed both to Homer, a bard who probably lived late in the ninth century b.c.e. Both long-standing tradition and linguistic analysis of the two epics indicate that their author was a native of Ionia in western Asia Minor. A number of cities claimed to be Homer’s birthplace, but he was probably a native either of the coastal city Smyrna, now Izmir in Turkey, or of nearby Chios, an island in the eastern Aegean Sea. Homer was said to be blind, like the bard Demodocus in the Odyssey, and to have earned a meager living by performing at one court after another. Supposedly he died and was buried on the Aegean island Ios.
Those scholars who believe that Homer was responsible for shaping the two great epics admit that he must have begun either with incomplete narratives that had been handed down in the oral tradition or with a number of songs, some of which could have dated back almost as far as the central historical event in both poems, the fall of Troy in 1250 b.c.e. However, Homer was no mere editor; he provided the unifying vision that is essential to the creation of great art. Moreover, even though excerpts from the epics were recited long after his time, the fact that the text changed very little indicates that Homer had his poems preserved in written form, perhaps by dictating them to a scribe.
Various theories have been advanced to explain the fact that the two works are very dissimilar in tone and outlook. One was that the Iliad was written in Homer’s youth and the Odyssey, in his later years; another, that the two poems had two different authors. Nineteenth century scholars debating the “Homeric question” concluded that each epic was produced by a group of writers. At the end of the twentieth century, that idea still had many adherents, but there was new evidence that the two epics were the work of one genius, thus demonstrating once again that tradition is often quite reliable.
Homer established the epic as a genre in Western literature and set the standards by which later works would be judged. Moreover, the values reflected in the Iliad and the Odyssey not only shaped Greek culture but also...
(The entire section is 2,347 words.) | <urn:uuid:2e9d4ee8-2398-4aa1-99f0-e3438b4c105d> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.enotes.com/topics/homer?en_action=hh_answer_body_click&en_label=%2Fhomework-help%2Fwhat-quotes-from-the-odyssey-illustrate-how-636144%23answer-731261&en_category=internal_campaign | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250606975.49/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122101729-20200122130729-00081.warc.gz | en | 0.982684 | 903 | 3.78125 | 4 | [
0.04418814554810524,
0.0005998550914227962,
0.2310313880443573,
0.25179147720336914,
-0.44786742329597473,
-0.43919920921325684,
0.0072969128377735615,
0.6519663333892822,
-0.029657311737537384,
-0.05618676915764809,
0.03563841059803963,
-0.2516457438468933,
-0.462477445602417,
0.411437094... | 1 | At a Glance
Homer: Who is he? To this day, there is continuing debate over whether or not the ancient poet actually existed. And if he did, there are serious doubts about his authorship. Some contend that there is artistic unity within each of his epic poems, yet others believe the works to be the effort of multiple contributors. The style of the poetry has its roots in oral tradition, and some liken Homer’s writings to the Sanskrit epic the Mahabharata, a poetic work that was edited, expanded, and rewritten by many hands over its lengthy history. Although these issues of authorship can never be resolved conclusively, the man known as Homer—whether fiction, legend, or flesh-and-blood poet—is still revered for his epic and highly influential works, the Iliad and the Odyssey.
Facts and Trivia
- Although there are multiple accounts of Homer’s origins and life, scholars have been unable to validate the historical accuracy of any of them.
- Most sources suggest that Homer was part of a tradition of blind epic poets.
- Homer’s reputation in the classical period reached its apex when a religious following of the poet emerged. These followers believed Homer to have been divinely inspired in his writing.
- For many centuries, Homer’s work remained somewhat obscure. It was only during the neoclassical movement of the Renaissance that his writing regained prominence.
- The Trojan War, which provides the basis for the Iliad, may not have happened. While it is probably based on an actual war, many believe Homer’s account of it to be a fictionalization.
- The Coen Brothers’ 2000 film, O Brother, Where Art Thou, is a retelling of Homer’s Odyssey set in 1930s America.
Very little is known about the author of the Iliad (c. 800 b.c.e.; English translation, 1616) and the Odyssey (c. 800 b.c.e.; English translation, 1616). The ancient Greeks attributed both to Homer, a bard who probably lived late in the ninth century b.c.e. Both long-standing tradition and linguistic analysis of the two epics indicate that their author was a native of Ionia in western Asia Minor. A number of cities claimed to be Homer’s birthplace, but he was probably a native either of the coastal city Smyrna, now Izmir in Turkey, or of nearby Chios, an island in the eastern Aegean Sea. Homer was said to be blind, like the bard Demodocus in the Odyssey, and to have earned a meager living by performing at one court after another. Supposedly he died and was buried on the Aegean island Ios.
Those scholars who believe that Homer was responsible for shaping the two great epics admit that he must have begun either with incomplete narratives that had been handed down in the oral tradition or with a number of songs, some of which could have dated back almost as far as the central historical event in both poems, the fall of Troy in 1250 b.c.e. However, Homer was no mere editor; he provided the unifying vision that is essential to the creation of great art. Moreover, even though excerpts from the epics were recited long after his time, the fact that the text changed very little indicates that Homer had his poems preserved in written form, perhaps by dictating them to a scribe.
Various theories have been advanced to explain the fact that the two works are very dissimilar in tone and outlook. One was that the Iliad was written in Homer’s youth and the Odyssey, in his later years; another, that the two poems had two different authors. Nineteenth century scholars debating the “Homeric question” concluded that each epic was produced by a group of writers. At the end of the twentieth century, that idea still had many adherents, but there was new evidence that the two epics were the work of one genius, thus demonstrating once again that tradition is often quite reliable.
Homer established the epic as a genre in Western literature and set the standards by which later works would be judged. Moreover, the values reflected in the Iliad and the Odyssey not only shaped Greek culture but also...
(The entire section is 2,347 words.) | 887 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Told from the perspective of the tree outside Anne Frank’s window—and illustrated by a Caldecott Honor artist—this book introduces her story in a gentle and incredibly powerful way to a young audience.
The tree in the courtyard was a horse chestnut. Her leaves were green stars; her flowers foaming cones of white and pink. Seagulls flocked to her shade. She spread roots and reached skyward in peace.
The tree watched a little girl, who played and laughed and wrote in a diary. When strangers invaded the city and warplanes roared overhead, the tree watched the girl peek out of the curtained window of the annex. It watched as she and her family were taken away—and when her father returned after the war, alone.
The tree died the summer Anne Frank would have turned eighty-one, but its seeds and saplings have been planted around the world as a symbol of peace. Its story, and Anne’s story, are beautifully told and illustrated in this powerful picture book.
You bet it did. Check it out below! | <urn:uuid:eb919579-7977-42a8-ba8e-16ab8f38f648> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://bookroo.com/books/the-tree-in-the-courtyard-looking-through-anne-franks-window | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250593295.11/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118164132-20200118192132-00438.warc.gz | en | 0.981826 | 223 | 3.265625 | 3 | [
0.1202087253332138,
0.16364777088165283,
0.4657295346260071,
0.0017040822422131896,
-0.04547872021794319,
0.6047868728637695,
0.02414410375058651,
0.05132247135043144,
0.23164990544319153,
0.21772632002830505,
0.12586571276187897,
-0.09142449498176575,
-0.24536551535129547,
0.2054706662893... | 1 | Told from the perspective of the tree outside Anne Frank’s window—and illustrated by a Caldecott Honor artist—this book introduces her story in a gentle and incredibly powerful way to a young audience.
The tree in the courtyard was a horse chestnut. Her leaves were green stars; her flowers foaming cones of white and pink. Seagulls flocked to her shade. She spread roots and reached skyward in peace.
The tree watched a little girl, who played and laughed and wrote in a diary. When strangers invaded the city and warplanes roared overhead, the tree watched the girl peek out of the curtained window of the annex. It watched as she and her family were taken away—and when her father returned after the war, alone.
The tree died the summer Anne Frank would have turned eighty-one, but its seeds and saplings have been planted around the world as a symbol of peace. Its story, and Anne’s story, are beautifully told and illustrated in this powerful picture book.
You bet it did. Check it out below! | 212 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Topic cards are similar to scripts in that they can help students engage in a variety of topics, beyond their own interests. They are different in that they include just a few words that describe a topic that launch a student or group students in a particular direction.
A teacher had created a special lunch group to help a student at the middle school level engage in appropriate teen conversations. She had one main interest and it would dominate every conversation. Her interest was in princesses and everything having to do with them. For most young teen girls, princesses were not much of an interesting topic for them.
This narrow conversational topic had also narrowed her circle of friends to almost none. While the teacher had good intentions, simply creating a lunch group to help her engage in other topics had not been successful. The students needed some supports to be effective in their role as peer teachers. The teacher chose topic cards as the best strategy for this situation.
Instead of just choosing different topics from her own repertoire, the teacher recruited ideas from the typical peers. She asked them what kinds of things they liked to talk about and the first thing they said was “drama.” The teacher thought they were referring to the arts and when she asked for further explanation, they described drama as “who likes who”, “who is in an argument” and “who is in trouble”. You know, drama.
From this conversation with the typical peers, the teacher compiled the topic cards with pictures. The topics included:
- the weekend
- favorite things
- school work
Once the topic cards were compiled, then the teacher sat with them at lunch one day to teach how to use them effectively. The cards were piled in the middle of the table and the students took turns as they turned the cards over, much like a game. The topic cards guided their conversation as a group and served to help the student with Autism stay focused on the topic at hand.
The students should feel comfortable in referring to them during conversations as a positive support. By practicing the use of the topic cards in a safe setting, the students are more likely to use them in new and different situations. This lunch group became very effective in using the topic cards at lunch time and at other times throughout the day.
by Lisa Rogers
Latest posts by Lisa Rogers (see all)
- Asperger Syndrome and School-Age Bullying - December 30, 2019
- How to cope with Anxiety and Fear - December 13, 2019
- Using Topic Cards to Develop Social Skills in ASD Youth - December 5, 2019
- Preventing Meltdowns - November 20, 2019
- Using Scripts to Develop Conversational Skills for Students with ASD - October 25, 2019 | <urn:uuid:0670faef-2d7d-4726-9e2a-f848694992f8> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://aspergers101.com/using-topic-cards-develop-social-skills/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594209.12/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119035851-20200119063851-00194.warc.gz | en | 0.986122 | 558 | 3.875 | 4 | [
-0.21892505884170532,
-0.08921045064926147,
-0.08638153970241547,
-0.35063832998275757,
-0.3925737738609314,
-0.018159672617912292,
0.11684615910053253,
0.36253949999809265,
-0.23654574155807495,
-0.36910077929496765,
0.0030155403073877096,
0.4572662115097046,
0.21587219834327698,
0.279423... | 9 | Topic cards are similar to scripts in that they can help students engage in a variety of topics, beyond their own interests. They are different in that they include just a few words that describe a topic that launch a student or group students in a particular direction.
A teacher had created a special lunch group to help a student at the middle school level engage in appropriate teen conversations. She had one main interest and it would dominate every conversation. Her interest was in princesses and everything having to do with them. For most young teen girls, princesses were not much of an interesting topic for them.
This narrow conversational topic had also narrowed her circle of friends to almost none. While the teacher had good intentions, simply creating a lunch group to help her engage in other topics had not been successful. The students needed some supports to be effective in their role as peer teachers. The teacher chose topic cards as the best strategy for this situation.
Instead of just choosing different topics from her own repertoire, the teacher recruited ideas from the typical peers. She asked them what kinds of things they liked to talk about and the first thing they said was “drama.” The teacher thought they were referring to the arts and when she asked for further explanation, they described drama as “who likes who”, “who is in an argument” and “who is in trouble”. You know, drama.
From this conversation with the typical peers, the teacher compiled the topic cards with pictures. The topics included:
- the weekend
- favorite things
- school work
Once the topic cards were compiled, then the teacher sat with them at lunch one day to teach how to use them effectively. The cards were piled in the middle of the table and the students took turns as they turned the cards over, much like a game. The topic cards guided their conversation as a group and served to help the student with Autism stay focused on the topic at hand.
The students should feel comfortable in referring to them during conversations as a positive support. By practicing the use of the topic cards in a safe setting, the students are more likely to use them in new and different situations. This lunch group became very effective in using the topic cards at lunch time and at other times throughout the day.
by Lisa Rogers
Latest posts by Lisa Rogers (see all)
- Asperger Syndrome and School-Age Bullying - December 30, 2019
- How to cope with Anxiety and Fear - December 13, 2019
- Using Topic Cards to Develop Social Skills in ASD Youth - December 5, 2019
- Preventing Meltdowns - November 20, 2019
- Using Scripts to Develop Conversational Skills for Students with ASD - October 25, 2019 | 568 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Clay pipes had appeared in London by 1573, but little is known about those that were brought to England in 1586 by the colonists from Virginia. Late sixteenth-century documentary sources refer to Elizabethan dandies smoking long-stemmed pipes, which were either made of silver, or else of gem-studded clay. On the other hand, the lower classes made do with a straw fixed to a walnut shell. It is always difficult to reconstruct the origins of these pipes, as there is a dearth of available information and the risk of over-simplifying. However, in this case soon the pipe-making process itself was simplified, thanks to the introduction of mass production, and clay pipes swiftly spread all over Europe, clay remaining the primary material for a long time. In next to no time simple pipes for the common man were produced alongside luxury models, although the raw material and techniques were essentially almost the same. A material which was particularly suitable for smoking achieved through increasingly refined processes, a functional and pleasing design adapted to economical, mass-made models meant that the poor gave up their homemade pipes and the rich replaced their luxury metal pipes with much more satisfactory clay models.
Trying to piece together the origins of pipes in the Far East is an equally difficult task. It is generally well known how tobacco gradually spread and eventually caught on, but far less so as to the nature of the initial tools used to smoke it. The Portuguese, who were the first Europeans to ply the Asian seas, preferred cigars to pipes, like the Spanish. They were certainly aware of the pipes used by English sailors, but were probably more familiar with the simple model used in Brazil, a straw fixed to a walnut shell. Thus, an object that was not so dissimilar to the rudimentary pipes used in London in the same period. Information about the first Chinese pipes can be gleaned from contemporary sources: the tobacco leaves were burned and the smoke was inhaled through a “long tube held between the lips”. This does not provide much information, but if one views the traditional pipes in use in the vast area between China, Japan and Korea, it can be assumed that the material used for the long tube would have been a common material such as bamboo. Indeed, a late eighteenth-century essay confirms this as the ideal material for pipes, whereas ebony and ivory tended to crack when the pipe was hot. It is generally believed that the first oriental pipes were made entirely of bamboo, and that subsequently bamboo became an integral part of the pipe.
Similarly, it seems that the first Japanese models were simple and made of bamboo, but soon the kiseru were introduced, which were pipes divided into three parts. The central tube was long and straight, usually made of bamboo or another type of wood, while the mouthpiece and bowl were in metal. They were highly refined and often luxurious objects, and compared to the one-piece clay European counterparts in the seventeenth century were more solid and of superior craftsmanship. However, where smoking properties are concerned it is a different matter, as we shall see, but first it should be said that the kiseru could only be afforded by the upper classes, as well as the traders who had money to spend even though they belonged to a lower class. The rest of the population went on for centuries using rough, simple pipes that were thrown away when they start to deteriorate. This is why when referring to Japanese pipes only the luxury ones come to mind and not the disposable ones. On the other hand, in Europe the clay pipe, which was functional and mass made, was largely available to everyone with variations in quality. If we compare them to the kiseru we see that there is a great difference in shape, which is heightened by the difference in aesthetic sensibility of the two civilizations. However, this type of comparison may not be appropriate, as it could be better to say that the splendid Japanese pipes were equal to the rare, gem-studded European models.
Going back to the kiseru, the main problem the modern smoker perceives is that burning tobacco in metal is not exactly the best thing to do. So how did the Japanese smoke these pipes? They would take a small plug of finely-cut tobacco which they would then proceed to work with two fingers until it became a small ball that was then inserted into the tiny, acorn-shaped bowl. Then they would light the pipe with an ember and after one or two puffs they had finished smoking the pipe. If they were not satisfied with this they would take another small quantity of tobacco and start the whole process all over again. Smoking is still a ritual for modern pipes and smoking a kiseru was even more so. This particular process of using a small quantity of tobacco and constantly lighting up may have been the result of trying to prevent the metal from over-heating, giving the tobacco a metallic taste and also trying to avoid unpleasant build up of condensation. Then again a slight metallic taste may not have bothered the smokers at all.
Apart from the practical aspects, the kiseru was an extremely refined object that its users held in high esteem. The mouthpiece and bowl could be made of copper, silver, gold, pewter and other metal alloys, or even of Damascus steel, which was used to forge blades and sheaths. This is not as bizarre as it sounds, as the same craftsman would produce both pipes and swords. Indeed, the mouthpiece, bowl and stem (which could also be in metal) provided craftsmen with the occasion to demonstrate their superb decorative skills. The traditional kiseru was slim and light, and could measure between 15 and 20 cm in length. In other cases, the pipe was thicker and more solid with some sharp edges, rather like a weapon, and in fact was also used as an effective weapon. The kenka-kiseru (“brawl” pipes), were still used for smoking, and hung from the users’ belts, as the code of that time prohibited men from carrying weapons, so in a way they were still protected and could also attack if necessary.
If we now look at China we may find the same pipes entirely made of bamboo for the lower classes, whereas the more wealthy smokers smoked a pipe that was divided into three parts, like the kiseru. However, these were larger and had more capacious bowls, almost double the Japanese ones, but still much less compared to modern European models. However, the art of smoking tobacco in small doses frequently was just as common as in Japan. The bowls were also made of metal, and a common alloy that was used was a mixture of copper, zinc, nickel and iron known as “white copper”, which was in use at that time in Japan. However, examples of wooden pipes also exist. Mouthpieces were often made of stone, ivory and transparent jade. Some pipes were even made entirely out of ivory, and in this case copper stems were inserted in order to prevent the material from cracking. So far we have described varieties of “dry” pipes, but as we are talking about China, then we must also explore opium and water pipes, which preceded the discovery of tobacco and its use and which were (and still are) smoked in vast areas of Asia and Africa.
The water pipe consists of a jar partially filled with water which is then covered. The jar has two holes through which are inserted two tubes. One end of the first tube is immersed in the water jar and the other end is connected to a bowl above the jar. The second tube is also inserted in the jar, but above the water level and the other end is connected to an external mouthpiece. The tobacco in the bowl is lit and then drawn in. As the smoker inhales, the air pressure in the jar compared to the pressure in the atmosphere is reduced and in order to compensate for this the same atmospheric pressure pushes the air through the tube from the bowl. This smoke-filled air reaches the water and bubbles up through it. The smoker inhales the smoke through the other tube and mouthpiece. This is the water pipe, also known as a narghilé, hookah, arghila, qalyan, shisha and other names, according to the country of origin. It is likely that the water pipe dates back to before the arrival of tobacco from America, although it is hard to say where it was first used. It may have been in South Africa, Ethiopia, in Persia or India. Initially, it was used to smoke herbs and then refined and perfected with the introduction of tobacco, and gradually evolved into a variety of styles according to the country in which it is used.
The type of water pipe used in China in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries is especially interesting, as it was extremely small and thus easy to carry around. It was made entirely of alloyed metal that was also remarkable for its fine craftwork and elaborate decoration. Quite a few water pipes featured a design that recalls bamboo canes. Moving on from China to India, Arabia, Persia and Egypt from the seventeenth century onwards, we can see that the water pipe became highly popular. This may have been because the tubes and water (often with added flavours) cool the smoke as it passes through, which could only be welcome in a hot climate. However, countries outside China used larger, more cumbersome pipes, as they were designed to be smoked at home, or more often in public places which would also serve coffee. In this case the water pipe was (and still is) a way to meet socially, as more than one smoker could smoke from a communal pipe, each with their own personal mouthpiece. Water pipes vary according to time, place, public or private use, and may range from being simple, attractive objects to unique models of rare craftsmanship. They are familiar even to the non-smoker, being one of the most common symbols of the Orient. However, besides the wet pipe system there have always been the more familiar “dry” smoking systems.
These pipes, which spread from India to Persia, and then on to the Mediterranean, bore features faintly reminiscent of European models, and at the same time still retained some of the features that distinguished Chinese and Japanese pipes. In the vast region of the Ottoman Empire (and not only) the most common model was the chibouk. Like the Japanese kiseru it consisted of three parts: the bowl, mouthpiece and a long stem connecting the two. However, the similarities end here. For instance, the bowl was much larger, and made of clay like its European counterpart, and not of metal. The first models that were produced in the early 1600s may have been white or grey, taking after the models that were imported, but the traditional clay chibouk as seen today was in various shades of terracotta red. An endless variety of shapes and patterns could be obtained when adding different colours of clay, or else other materials. The mouthpiece, which was often the most expensive part of the pipe, would be made of finely wrought amber, whereas the stem connecting bowl and mouthpiece would be in special wood, such as jasmine, marasca or bois de rose. In this case the plants were grown to produce single, straight, flawless twigs, and sometimes more than one twig would be put together to produce stems that ranged from 1.5 to 2 or even 3 metres long. The common chibouk was quite simple and rather short, whereas the luxury version was much longer and finely decorated with precious stones. Some pipes were wrapped in refined fabric that was moistened before use, which was an ingenious way to cool the smoke. This tendency to cool down the smoke can be seen to be common to almost every pipe produced in Asia, and elsewhere, and the water pipes confirm this tendency.
Continuing on our journey along the Mediterranean region of coastal North Africa southwards beyond the Sahara dunes, we may observe countless pipes with wooden and clay bowls and sometimes those in metal. In such a continent divided up into relatively autonomous tribes, where prior to the introduction of tobacco various herbs had been smoked which led to the creation of different styles of pipes, where until the nineteenth century the influence of Europeans had been limited to a few areas, human creativity was expressed in countless ways through shape, size and material. Traditional African pipes are the most wide-ranging in styles and symbols that served a variety of purposes, often beyond that of smoking.
What about America? This is where tobacco pipe-smoking started and spread all over the world. Now, pipes that were rediscovered and reworked in Europe invaded America, either indirectly through northernmost Asia, or else directly to the North American subcontinent, first as imports and subsequently as local manufactured items. Obviously, the Native Americans continued to use their long, ceremonial pipes for a long time, whose bowls were often made of greenstone, or red stone called catlinite. Yet, the pipe tomahawk, a particular pipe that served the dual purpose of chopping and smoking, was manufactured by Europeans and sold to the Indians. It could be interesting to compare these blends of tobacco pipes and weapons with the Japanese kenka-kiseru which hung from the owner’s belt.
In Central and South America tobacco smoking varied according to the context. In some regions smoking was almost unheard of, while in others cigars were largely smoked, and yet other regions reveal pipes of different sizes and decorations depending on their purpose, ranging from a simple straw fixed to a walnut shell to pipes with bowls made of stone, wood or clay.
Thus, the world of pipes in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries was extremely varied. The following centuries would see a constant expansion and gradual uniformity of the pipe model, owing to geopolitical events, improved communication systems and trade, which culminated in the twentieth century. Therefore, the model for pipes that was almost universally adopted was European, or rather certain styles that had succeeded in establishing themselves above others, thanks to a centuries-old process of selection and refinement of shapes and materials.
The pipes shown in this article are part of the Al Pascià collection
We suggest a well illustrated book about the history and fabrication of opium pipes and their accessories: Armero & Rapaport, The Arts of an Addiction. Qing Dynasty Opium Pipes and Accessories (2005), a limited edition (500 copies) available from Ben Rapaport (firstname.lastname@example.org). | <urn:uuid:8f7f82c3-9958-4503-9091-a4d7cb7ddf7a> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.alpascia.com/moments/en/detail/86/a-world-of-pipes-part-vii | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250592261.1/warc/CC-MAIN-20200118052321-20200118080321-00295.warc.gz | en | 0.983092 | 2,966 | 3.4375 | 3 | [
0.1394665241241455,
0.2832118570804596,
0.5347667932510376,
-0.5692429542541504,
0.004230737220495939,
-0.018353331834077835,
-0.17870596051216125,
-0.15678536891937256,
-0.18115967512130737,
0.3404102921485901,
-0.4993762969970703,
-0.6685395836830139,
-0.24435994029045105,
0.297068744897... | 5 | Clay pipes had appeared in London by 1573, but little is known about those that were brought to England in 1586 by the colonists from Virginia. Late sixteenth-century documentary sources refer to Elizabethan dandies smoking long-stemmed pipes, which were either made of silver, or else of gem-studded clay. On the other hand, the lower classes made do with a straw fixed to a walnut shell. It is always difficult to reconstruct the origins of these pipes, as there is a dearth of available information and the risk of over-simplifying. However, in this case soon the pipe-making process itself was simplified, thanks to the introduction of mass production, and clay pipes swiftly spread all over Europe, clay remaining the primary material for a long time. In next to no time simple pipes for the common man were produced alongside luxury models, although the raw material and techniques were essentially almost the same. A material which was particularly suitable for smoking achieved through increasingly refined processes, a functional and pleasing design adapted to economical, mass-made models meant that the poor gave up their homemade pipes and the rich replaced their luxury metal pipes with much more satisfactory clay models.
Trying to piece together the origins of pipes in the Far East is an equally difficult task. It is generally well known how tobacco gradually spread and eventually caught on, but far less so as to the nature of the initial tools used to smoke it. The Portuguese, who were the first Europeans to ply the Asian seas, preferred cigars to pipes, like the Spanish. They were certainly aware of the pipes used by English sailors, but were probably more familiar with the simple model used in Brazil, a straw fixed to a walnut shell. Thus, an object that was not so dissimilar to the rudimentary pipes used in London in the same period. Information about the first Chinese pipes can be gleaned from contemporary sources: the tobacco leaves were burned and the smoke was inhaled through a “long tube held between the lips”. This does not provide much information, but if one views the traditional pipes in use in the vast area between China, Japan and Korea, it can be assumed that the material used for the long tube would have been a common material such as bamboo. Indeed, a late eighteenth-century essay confirms this as the ideal material for pipes, whereas ebony and ivory tended to crack when the pipe was hot. It is generally believed that the first oriental pipes were made entirely of bamboo, and that subsequently bamboo became an integral part of the pipe.
Similarly, it seems that the first Japanese models were simple and made of bamboo, but soon the kiseru were introduced, which were pipes divided into three parts. The central tube was long and straight, usually made of bamboo or another type of wood, while the mouthpiece and bowl were in metal. They were highly refined and often luxurious objects, and compared to the one-piece clay European counterparts in the seventeenth century were more solid and of superior craftsmanship. However, where smoking properties are concerned it is a different matter, as we shall see, but first it should be said that the kiseru could only be afforded by the upper classes, as well as the traders who had money to spend even though they belonged to a lower class. The rest of the population went on for centuries using rough, simple pipes that were thrown away when they start to deteriorate. This is why when referring to Japanese pipes only the luxury ones come to mind and not the disposable ones. On the other hand, in Europe the clay pipe, which was functional and mass made, was largely available to everyone with variations in quality. If we compare them to the kiseru we see that there is a great difference in shape, which is heightened by the difference in aesthetic sensibility of the two civilizations. However, this type of comparison may not be appropriate, as it could be better to say that the splendid Japanese pipes were equal to the rare, gem-studded European models.
Going back to the kiseru, the main problem the modern smoker perceives is that burning tobacco in metal is not exactly the best thing to do. So how did the Japanese smoke these pipes? They would take a small plug of finely-cut tobacco which they would then proceed to work with two fingers until it became a small ball that was then inserted into the tiny, acorn-shaped bowl. Then they would light the pipe with an ember and after one or two puffs they had finished smoking the pipe. If they were not satisfied with this they would take another small quantity of tobacco and start the whole process all over again. Smoking is still a ritual for modern pipes and smoking a kiseru was even more so. This particular process of using a small quantity of tobacco and constantly lighting up may have been the result of trying to prevent the metal from over-heating, giving the tobacco a metallic taste and also trying to avoid unpleasant build up of condensation. Then again a slight metallic taste may not have bothered the smokers at all.
Apart from the practical aspects, the kiseru was an extremely refined object that its users held in high esteem. The mouthpiece and bowl could be made of copper, silver, gold, pewter and other metal alloys, or even of Damascus steel, which was used to forge blades and sheaths. This is not as bizarre as it sounds, as the same craftsman would produce both pipes and swords. Indeed, the mouthpiece, bowl and stem (which could also be in metal) provided craftsmen with the occasion to demonstrate their superb decorative skills. The traditional kiseru was slim and light, and could measure between 15 and 20 cm in length. In other cases, the pipe was thicker and more solid with some sharp edges, rather like a weapon, and in fact was also used as an effective weapon. The kenka-kiseru (“brawl” pipes), were still used for smoking, and hung from the users’ belts, as the code of that time prohibited men from carrying weapons, so in a way they were still protected and could also attack if necessary.
If we now look at China we may find the same pipes entirely made of bamboo for the lower classes, whereas the more wealthy smokers smoked a pipe that was divided into three parts, like the kiseru. However, these were larger and had more capacious bowls, almost double the Japanese ones, but still much less compared to modern European models. However, the art of smoking tobacco in small doses frequently was just as common as in Japan. The bowls were also made of metal, and a common alloy that was used was a mixture of copper, zinc, nickel and iron known as “white copper”, which was in use at that time in Japan. However, examples of wooden pipes also exist. Mouthpieces were often made of stone, ivory and transparent jade. Some pipes were even made entirely out of ivory, and in this case copper stems were inserted in order to prevent the material from cracking. So far we have described varieties of “dry” pipes, but as we are talking about China, then we must also explore opium and water pipes, which preceded the discovery of tobacco and its use and which were (and still are) smoked in vast areas of Asia and Africa.
The water pipe consists of a jar partially filled with water which is then covered. The jar has two holes through which are inserted two tubes. One end of the first tube is immersed in the water jar and the other end is connected to a bowl above the jar. The second tube is also inserted in the jar, but above the water level and the other end is connected to an external mouthpiece. The tobacco in the bowl is lit and then drawn in. As the smoker inhales, the air pressure in the jar compared to the pressure in the atmosphere is reduced and in order to compensate for this the same atmospheric pressure pushes the air through the tube from the bowl. This smoke-filled air reaches the water and bubbles up through it. The smoker inhales the smoke through the other tube and mouthpiece. This is the water pipe, also known as a narghilé, hookah, arghila, qalyan, shisha and other names, according to the country of origin. It is likely that the water pipe dates back to before the arrival of tobacco from America, although it is hard to say where it was first used. It may have been in South Africa, Ethiopia, in Persia or India. Initially, it was used to smoke herbs and then refined and perfected with the introduction of tobacco, and gradually evolved into a variety of styles according to the country in which it is used.
The type of water pipe used in China in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries is especially interesting, as it was extremely small and thus easy to carry around. It was made entirely of alloyed metal that was also remarkable for its fine craftwork and elaborate decoration. Quite a few water pipes featured a design that recalls bamboo canes. Moving on from China to India, Arabia, Persia and Egypt from the seventeenth century onwards, we can see that the water pipe became highly popular. This may have been because the tubes and water (often with added flavours) cool the smoke as it passes through, which could only be welcome in a hot climate. However, countries outside China used larger, more cumbersome pipes, as they were designed to be smoked at home, or more often in public places which would also serve coffee. In this case the water pipe was (and still is) a way to meet socially, as more than one smoker could smoke from a communal pipe, each with their own personal mouthpiece. Water pipes vary according to time, place, public or private use, and may range from being simple, attractive objects to unique models of rare craftsmanship. They are familiar even to the non-smoker, being one of the most common symbols of the Orient. However, besides the wet pipe system there have always been the more familiar “dry” smoking systems.
These pipes, which spread from India to Persia, and then on to the Mediterranean, bore features faintly reminiscent of European models, and at the same time still retained some of the features that distinguished Chinese and Japanese pipes. In the vast region of the Ottoman Empire (and not only) the most common model was the chibouk. Like the Japanese kiseru it consisted of three parts: the bowl, mouthpiece and a long stem connecting the two. However, the similarities end here. For instance, the bowl was much larger, and made of clay like its European counterpart, and not of metal. The first models that were produced in the early 1600s may have been white or grey, taking after the models that were imported, but the traditional clay chibouk as seen today was in various shades of terracotta red. An endless variety of shapes and patterns could be obtained when adding different colours of clay, or else other materials. The mouthpiece, which was often the most expensive part of the pipe, would be made of finely wrought amber, whereas the stem connecting bowl and mouthpiece would be in special wood, such as jasmine, marasca or bois de rose. In this case the plants were grown to produce single, straight, flawless twigs, and sometimes more than one twig would be put together to produce stems that ranged from 1.5 to 2 or even 3 metres long. The common chibouk was quite simple and rather short, whereas the luxury version was much longer and finely decorated with precious stones. Some pipes were wrapped in refined fabric that was moistened before use, which was an ingenious way to cool the smoke. This tendency to cool down the smoke can be seen to be common to almost every pipe produced in Asia, and elsewhere, and the water pipes confirm this tendency.
Continuing on our journey along the Mediterranean region of coastal North Africa southwards beyond the Sahara dunes, we may observe countless pipes with wooden and clay bowls and sometimes those in metal. In such a continent divided up into relatively autonomous tribes, where prior to the introduction of tobacco various herbs had been smoked which led to the creation of different styles of pipes, where until the nineteenth century the influence of Europeans had been limited to a few areas, human creativity was expressed in countless ways through shape, size and material. Traditional African pipes are the most wide-ranging in styles and symbols that served a variety of purposes, often beyond that of smoking.
What about America? This is where tobacco pipe-smoking started and spread all over the world. Now, pipes that were rediscovered and reworked in Europe invaded America, either indirectly through northernmost Asia, or else directly to the North American subcontinent, first as imports and subsequently as local manufactured items. Obviously, the Native Americans continued to use their long, ceremonial pipes for a long time, whose bowls were often made of greenstone, or red stone called catlinite. Yet, the pipe tomahawk, a particular pipe that served the dual purpose of chopping and smoking, was manufactured by Europeans and sold to the Indians. It could be interesting to compare these blends of tobacco pipes and weapons with the Japanese kenka-kiseru which hung from the owner’s belt.
In Central and South America tobacco smoking varied according to the context. In some regions smoking was almost unheard of, while in others cigars were largely smoked, and yet other regions reveal pipes of different sizes and decorations depending on their purpose, ranging from a simple straw fixed to a walnut shell to pipes with bowls made of stone, wood or clay.
Thus, the world of pipes in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries was extremely varied. The following centuries would see a constant expansion and gradual uniformity of the pipe model, owing to geopolitical events, improved communication systems and trade, which culminated in the twentieth century. Therefore, the model for pipes that was almost universally adopted was European, or rather certain styles that had succeeded in establishing themselves above others, thanks to a centuries-old process of selection and refinement of shapes and materials.
The pipes shown in this article are part of the Al Pascià collection
We suggest a well illustrated book about the history and fabrication of opium pipes and their accessories: Armero & Rapaport, The Arts of an Addiction. Qing Dynasty Opium Pipes and Accessories (2005), a limited edition (500 copies) available from Ben Rapaport (firstname.lastname@example.org). | 2,934 | ENGLISH | 1 |
The Dred Scott Supreme Court Decision (1857), in which the Chief Justice said that blacks had no rights that white men had to honor because they were not citizens, raised opposition to slavery. This decision would lead the John Brown’s Raid on the federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry Virginia. John Brown was adamant in his belief that slavery was an evil institution. In the aftermath of his raid white terrorism increased. In 1860, the same year Abraham Lincoln was elected, there was a wave of racist vigilantism. This was the result of fires in the central portion of Dallas. Southern states by this time were looking for any excuse to rebel against the United States and this would be the last straw for slave owners coupled with the election of Lincoln.
The fires were blamed on Lincolnites (people in the South that supported Abraham Lincoln), abolitionists, and slaves without any proof (Reynolds, 2007). The “Texas Terror” that was generated with false written accusations created a panic that was exported across the South in a newspaper edited by Charles Pryor. Blacks and whites were hanged by vigilante mobs across the State of Texas as a result of this fabricated story. The Republicans of that era were somewhat liberal while the Democrats were conservative. This is the reversal of what it is today. This old age fake news tactic was useful to conservatives that were yeasting up the call for secession and to dramatize hatred of blacks and others. Southern newspapers, in carrying the invented panic to their readers, were able to use fear by claiming that fires might be set in their communities. In addition, the ploy of claiming that the “sunny daughters of the South” might be raped by black men was a rallying point for those infected with racial thinking.
In the Supreme Court Case of Plessy vs. Ferguson (1896) segregation became legal thus increasing the number of white only schools, hospitals, theatres, restaurants, libraries, graveyards (even segregated pet cemeteries of pets owned by whites), the building of Confederate monuments, parks, and other segregated public areas. During WWI black soldiers often thought they would be treated better after serving in the military. When they returned home from the battle fields of Europe they were faced with increased hatred. In 1916, Jesse Washington was publically beaten, burned, lynched, and dismembered before thousand of approving onlookers in Waco, Texas while black soldiers were hung at Ft Sam Houston for standing up to white supremacy in Houston a year or so later. Many blacks believed that while President Wilson was trying to make the world safe for democracy, there was no democracy in a segregated society. Many blacks refused to be drafted and went to Canada and Mexico (Kornweilbel, Jr., 2002).
When Jack Johnson (1910) became the first black heavy weight champion defeating what the newspapers labeled “The Great White Hope” racialized whites rioted and killed or injured blacks across the country. During the Mexican Revolution (1910) Pancho Villa invaded Columbus, New Mexico and killed many whites (Welsome, 2006). This incident resulted in increased discrimination and violence against Mexican Americans and blacks. Segregation, lynching, the burning of black townships (Hirsch, 2002), burning at the stake (Bills, 2015), and illegal arrests that forced blacks back into slavery years after the Civil War (Blackmon, 2008) forced blacks to start looking for assistance on a global level. The 1915 Movie Birth of a Nation, increased hatred for blacks, and led to violence and the miseducation of millions of white Americans. This film used racist stereotypes to hail the KKK as the “savior of the white race.” The film was viewed by President Wilson at the White House. | <urn:uuid:97cd58f8-cb65-4c0f-a803-1f54613d2786> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | http://www.saobserver.com/single-post/2019/07/09/Some-Factors-that-Increased-Racism | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250598217.23/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120081337-20200120105337-00283.warc.gz | en | 0.98011 | 766 | 3.46875 | 3 | [
-0.5215224623680115,
0.3119649887084961,
-0.10276903957128525,
0.09247851371765137,
0.0022697020322084427,
0.45297813415527344,
-0.014624971896409988,
-0.16148078441619873,
-0.024539601057767868,
0.03195595368742943,
0.18659991025924683,
0.520355224609375,
-0.09058453142642975,
0.120594888... | 2 | The Dred Scott Supreme Court Decision (1857), in which the Chief Justice said that blacks had no rights that white men had to honor because they were not citizens, raised opposition to slavery. This decision would lead the John Brown’s Raid on the federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry Virginia. John Brown was adamant in his belief that slavery was an evil institution. In the aftermath of his raid white terrorism increased. In 1860, the same year Abraham Lincoln was elected, there was a wave of racist vigilantism. This was the result of fires in the central portion of Dallas. Southern states by this time were looking for any excuse to rebel against the United States and this would be the last straw for slave owners coupled with the election of Lincoln.
The fires were blamed on Lincolnites (people in the South that supported Abraham Lincoln), abolitionists, and slaves without any proof (Reynolds, 2007). The “Texas Terror” that was generated with false written accusations created a panic that was exported across the South in a newspaper edited by Charles Pryor. Blacks and whites were hanged by vigilante mobs across the State of Texas as a result of this fabricated story. The Republicans of that era were somewhat liberal while the Democrats were conservative. This is the reversal of what it is today. This old age fake news tactic was useful to conservatives that were yeasting up the call for secession and to dramatize hatred of blacks and others. Southern newspapers, in carrying the invented panic to their readers, were able to use fear by claiming that fires might be set in their communities. In addition, the ploy of claiming that the “sunny daughters of the South” might be raped by black men was a rallying point for those infected with racial thinking.
In the Supreme Court Case of Plessy vs. Ferguson (1896) segregation became legal thus increasing the number of white only schools, hospitals, theatres, restaurants, libraries, graveyards (even segregated pet cemeteries of pets owned by whites), the building of Confederate monuments, parks, and other segregated public areas. During WWI black soldiers often thought they would be treated better after serving in the military. When they returned home from the battle fields of Europe they were faced with increased hatred. In 1916, Jesse Washington was publically beaten, burned, lynched, and dismembered before thousand of approving onlookers in Waco, Texas while black soldiers were hung at Ft Sam Houston for standing up to white supremacy in Houston a year or so later. Many blacks believed that while President Wilson was trying to make the world safe for democracy, there was no democracy in a segregated society. Many blacks refused to be drafted and went to Canada and Mexico (Kornweilbel, Jr., 2002).
When Jack Johnson (1910) became the first black heavy weight champion defeating what the newspapers labeled “The Great White Hope” racialized whites rioted and killed or injured blacks across the country. During the Mexican Revolution (1910) Pancho Villa invaded Columbus, New Mexico and killed many whites (Welsome, 2006). This incident resulted in increased discrimination and violence against Mexican Americans and blacks. Segregation, lynching, the burning of black townships (Hirsch, 2002), burning at the stake (Bills, 2015), and illegal arrests that forced blacks back into slavery years after the Civil War (Blackmon, 2008) forced blacks to start looking for assistance on a global level. The 1915 Movie Birth of a Nation, increased hatred for blacks, and led to violence and the miseducation of millions of white Americans. This film used racist stereotypes to hail the KKK as the “savior of the white race.” The film was viewed by President Wilson at the White House. | 801 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Chandra Singh Garhwali. A name that’s not familiar one for most of us considering most books on India’s Independence movement didn’t record Chandra Singh and his contributions. Before becoming active in the freedom struggle, Chandra was a part of the British Army. One of the incidents during his tenure in the British Army tells us why knowing about Chandra Singh Garhwali is important in today’s times.
Before going further into Chandra Singh and the incident, here’s a summary of what happened: it involved a group of peaceful protesters and soldiers who were told to crush the protest.
Who Is Chandra Singh Garhwali?
Born in 1891, in Garwhali region of Uttar Pradesh, Chandra Singh joined the British Army at the age of 21 years. Chandra Singh Gharhwali was a Hawaldar Major in the British army and the head of its Royal Garhwal unit. In April, 1930, Chandra Singh’s regiment was sent to Peshwar in the North West Frontier Province, to quell a rebellion of Pathans, who were unarmed, under the leadership of Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan, according to Deccan Herald report. The biography of Chandra Singh, written by Rahul Sankritiyayan, mentions this incident like this:
“Sikh leaders were addressing the protesters in Pashtun and Urdu. The crowd was chanting `Allah ho Akbar. Victory to Mahatma Gandhi.’ Captain Ricket addressed the crowd, ‘All of you should disperse, else you will be killed by bullets.’ The Pathans were unperturbed by the threat. Captain Ricket then turned to the soldiers to fire three rounds.”
“Chandra Singh was standing to Ricket’s left. He shouted loudly to his regiment, ‘Garhwalis, cease fire! Garhwali, do not fire.’ As soon as the Garhwali soldiers heard Chandra Singh, they retracted their rifles and stood them on the ground. It hardly needs to be said that the soldiers were faithful to their country. One soldier, Uday Singh, gave his rifle to a Pathan and said: ‘Here brother, now you can shoot us.’ Soon, all soldiers of Platoons 1 and 2 placed their rifles on the ground. At this time, Luthi Singh, the commander of Platoon 3 did not accept this (sic) and ordered his platoon to open fire and himself started firing. But members of his platoon refused to follow his orders, and stood their ground.”
“When Captain Ricket asked Chandra Singh what the matter was, Chandra Singh replied, ‘These people are unarmed. How can we fire?’ This refusal from the soldiers led the British to send their own platoon, which opened fire, killing many, which enraged the Pathans. This resulted in chaos, and in the resulting melee, Captain Ricket was killed. Chandra Singh and his colleagues somehow escaped without harm.”
(Excerpt from Sankrityayan’s biography of Chandra Singh Garhwali as quoted by Association for India’s Development)
Chandra Singh’s action was more than a simple act of defiance and daring. It was an act of communal harmony as a Hindu regiment refused to fire on largely Muslim protesters and was a message that British policy of divide and rule had proved ineffective in this case, reports Madras Courier.
For his act of defiance, Chandra Singh and his fellow soldiers were taken into custody. A court marshal awarded a death sentence for him, which was however turned to life imprisonment. Released in 1941, he was part of many social movements and died in 1971. In 1994, the central government issued a stamp in his honour.
Ninety years years have passed since the Peshawar incident and today, we are seeing protests across the country against the Citizenship Amendment Act. Many of these protests have spiraled into violence. Though police initially denied allegations of firing, investigation into the violence at New Friends Colony in Delhi have revealed that three bullets were fired by two police personnel in front of an ACP-rank office, The Indian Express reported. Around 20 people have died during the protests in Uttar Pradesh alone. | <urn:uuid:296c4f2c-f172-408a-8e11-4f169762220f> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.inuth.com/india/why-you-need-to-know-about-chandra-singh-garhwali-the-soldier-who-refused-to-fire-on-peaceful-protesters/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250624328.55/warc/CC-MAIN-20200124161014-20200124190014-00407.warc.gz | en | 0.982988 | 874 | 3.3125 | 3 | [
-0.23001103103160858,
0.33512985706329346,
0.03508424758911133,
0.06493189930915833,
-0.15353651344776154,
-0.22836372256278992,
0.25390827655792236,
0.06954433768987656,
0.0418391153216362,
-0.2465403825044632,
-0.13860605657100677,
-0.4504239857196808,
-0.14000405371189117,
0.14926475286... | 6 | Chandra Singh Garhwali. A name that’s not familiar one for most of us considering most books on India’s Independence movement didn’t record Chandra Singh and his contributions. Before becoming active in the freedom struggle, Chandra was a part of the British Army. One of the incidents during his tenure in the British Army tells us why knowing about Chandra Singh Garhwali is important in today’s times.
Before going further into Chandra Singh and the incident, here’s a summary of what happened: it involved a group of peaceful protesters and soldiers who were told to crush the protest.
Who Is Chandra Singh Garhwali?
Born in 1891, in Garwhali region of Uttar Pradesh, Chandra Singh joined the British Army at the age of 21 years. Chandra Singh Gharhwali was a Hawaldar Major in the British army and the head of its Royal Garhwal unit. In April, 1930, Chandra Singh’s regiment was sent to Peshwar in the North West Frontier Province, to quell a rebellion of Pathans, who were unarmed, under the leadership of Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan, according to Deccan Herald report. The biography of Chandra Singh, written by Rahul Sankritiyayan, mentions this incident like this:
“Sikh leaders were addressing the protesters in Pashtun and Urdu. The crowd was chanting `Allah ho Akbar. Victory to Mahatma Gandhi.’ Captain Ricket addressed the crowd, ‘All of you should disperse, else you will be killed by bullets.’ The Pathans were unperturbed by the threat. Captain Ricket then turned to the soldiers to fire three rounds.”
“Chandra Singh was standing to Ricket’s left. He shouted loudly to his regiment, ‘Garhwalis, cease fire! Garhwali, do not fire.’ As soon as the Garhwali soldiers heard Chandra Singh, they retracted their rifles and stood them on the ground. It hardly needs to be said that the soldiers were faithful to their country. One soldier, Uday Singh, gave his rifle to a Pathan and said: ‘Here brother, now you can shoot us.’ Soon, all soldiers of Platoons 1 and 2 placed their rifles on the ground. At this time, Luthi Singh, the commander of Platoon 3 did not accept this (sic) and ordered his platoon to open fire and himself started firing. But members of his platoon refused to follow his orders, and stood their ground.”
“When Captain Ricket asked Chandra Singh what the matter was, Chandra Singh replied, ‘These people are unarmed. How can we fire?’ This refusal from the soldiers led the British to send their own platoon, which opened fire, killing many, which enraged the Pathans. This resulted in chaos, and in the resulting melee, Captain Ricket was killed. Chandra Singh and his colleagues somehow escaped without harm.”
(Excerpt from Sankrityayan’s biography of Chandra Singh Garhwali as quoted by Association for India’s Development)
Chandra Singh’s action was more than a simple act of defiance and daring. It was an act of communal harmony as a Hindu regiment refused to fire on largely Muslim protesters and was a message that British policy of divide and rule had proved ineffective in this case, reports Madras Courier.
For his act of defiance, Chandra Singh and his fellow soldiers were taken into custody. A court marshal awarded a death sentence for him, which was however turned to life imprisonment. Released in 1941, he was part of many social movements and died in 1971. In 1994, the central government issued a stamp in his honour.
Ninety years years have passed since the Peshawar incident and today, we are seeing protests across the country against the Citizenship Amendment Act. Many of these protests have spiraled into violence. Though police initially denied allegations of firing, investigation into the violence at New Friends Colony in Delhi have revealed that three bullets were fired by two police personnel in front of an ACP-rank office, The Indian Express reported. Around 20 people have died during the protests in Uttar Pradesh alone. | 870 | ENGLISH | 1 |
For anyone with any knowledge of American history, the title of this poem alone, The Negro Mother, evokes emotion. The African American slaves lived through the worst brutality known to have taken place on American soil. The Negro Mother, although written by Langston Hughes, a man, comes to readers through the voice of a woman and a former slave. She writes to her children, challenging them to pick up the torch and to carry it on, fighting for freedom and equality. Her words paint the image of a strong and passionate black woman who has been abused and mistreated, but who has not succumbed to oppression but has risen above it with a passion in her heart and a song in her mouth. These are the words she wants every black child in America to take to heart.
The Negro Mother Analysis
Children, I come back today
In order that the race might live and grow.
The speaker immediately sets the tone for the rest of The Negro Mother, which you can read in full here. The readers know that she is going to take them way back and tell them a story from times past. The rhyme scheme (AABB) creates the rhythm that causes the readers to feel almost as if the speaker is reading a nursery rhyme to them. However, the words reveal that this will not be nursery rhyme material, but the “story of the long dark way”. The speaker reveals that this is not a pleasant story, but one that needs to be told all the same.
These lines gives the readers the image of the one speaking. The picture of a face “dark as the night” gives the first image of the speaker. Then, it would seem that her face shines with the sweat of her work. But it is not only her sweat that makes her face shine. It is the joy and the love in her heart that shines through in her face like “love’s true light”.
In lines 7-8, the speaker compares herself to the Hebrew slaves in Egypt. In the book of Exodus, in the Old Testament, the Egyptians had held the Hebrew people in slavery for generations until God called Moses to perform miraculous signs and wonders, sending plagues on the Egyptian people until they finally agreed to let the Hebrew people go free. At this point, God leads them to the Red Sea, and when the Egyptian army is coming upon them, the people see no way of escape until God parts the sea and allows the Hebrew people to walk through on dry land. This speaker identifies with the Hebrew people. She claims the she has crossed her own red sea. Then, she lets us know that she crossed that sea carrying the life of another human being. That unborn child she calls, “the seed of the free”.
Here, the speaker simply identifies herself as a slave woman.
In a few simple lines, she speaks of the most awful horrors of slavery. Though she labored day in and day out, she was only beaten and mistreated. But that is not the worst of it. She had her own children sold away from her, and her husband, too. This is the most heart-breaking truth about American slavery, that families were torn apart, that mothers mourned the loss of their children, and that marriages were broken.
No safety , no love, no respect was I due.
This line stands alone, and it speaks volumes. She claims that she was due no safety, no love, and no respect. This is how she was seen in eyes of the slave owners of the south. She was not thought worthy of basic human rights.
Here, she claims that she represents every slave woman. She alludes, again, to the book of Exodus, and she names three hundred years as her time spent in the deepest South. But she has found hope during those years of slavery, just as the Hebrew people found hope in God though they were bound by the Egyptians. She claims, “Go put a song and a prayer in my mouth”. Somehow, in the midst of her the most severe of suffering, she is able to sing.
God put a dream like steel in my soul.
This dream that is in her soul is not her own dream. She believes that God Himself put the dream there in her soul. The dream is “like steel” because no amount of persecution or oppression could move it.
Now, through my children, I’m reaching the goal.
There is a sudden shift in the story. She was speaking of her days of slavery, but now she seems to be on the verge of “reaching the goal”. This also gives the reader the notion that while she is working as a slave, she is also working for her freedom. The speaker, then, must somehow be able to work toward the freedom of the African American people.
The speaker knows that she will experience freedom through watching her children “young and free”. That is the blessing she seeks.
After telling the readers that she has almost reached her goal, she goes back to descriptions of her years of slavery and reminds them that she did not have anything, not even the slightest bit of education. She couldn’t read or write. She shed many tears and she continued to press on “through the lonely years”.
Here, she describes why she pressed on and why she continued to work. She knew that freedom of the black slaves was on the horizon, and carrying a child, she knew that she had to see it through so that one day she might be able to watch her child enjoy freedom.
This was “the dream that nothing could smother”: that one day the child growing within her would have freedom.
The speaker begins this stanza by speaking to the child within her womb and ends it by speaking to all “dark children in the world”. She asks them to remember the days of slavery. She asks them to remember her sweat, her pain, and her despair. She does not ask them to remember idly. She gives them a reason for recalling all the horrors of slavery. She asks the children to “make of those years a torch for tomorrow”. She means for her children and for all the black children to fight for equality, and to pick up the torch and carry it on when she no longer can.
These lines contribute to the idea that this speaker was somehow working for freedom. Whether that work was something done as a part of a group or working with abolitionists, or whether that was the work of prayer in beseeching God for her freedom, she does not specify. But one way or another, she believes that she was actively working toward the freedom that was about to occur for her people.
These stanzas are each their own line, and it reads with strength and power. She is calling out to the black children to carry on what her generation started. She asks them to “lift high” the banner, and to “stand like free men”. She asks them to stand up for with is right and not to let anyone put them down. Then, she asks them to “remember the whip and the slaver’s track”. She does not want the free children to forget about slavery. She wants them to remember where they came from and to press on for freedom and equality. She calls them to live a life of freedom, allowing none to oppress them. This is her dream.
The speaker asks the children to remember the ways in which the strong in society “still bar [them] the way” and “deny [them] life” and she calls them to keep marching forward, “breaking down bars” and fighting for their right for basic human rights.
Look ever upward at the sun and the stars.
This is an important line, because the speaker means to remind the children where to look while they are fighting for their freedom. In the first few lines of The Negro Mother, the speaker revealed that she had joy in her face and a song in her mouth because she looked to the heavens. She looked to God, and He gave her joy and a song even in the midst of great pain and suffering. The speaker reminds the children not to forget about God while they fight for their equal rights.
With this stanza, the speaker promises that she will be with the children in spirit throughout the years as they continue to fight for their equal rights. She promises that she will stay with them until the end of the fight, until “no white brother dares keep down the children of the Negro Mother.” It is interesting how, after all the oppression she has suffered at the hands of white people, she still calls him the “white brother”. In The Negro Mother, she never calls for revenge. She never asks her children to make amends for the pain that she has suffered at the hands of the white people of the South. Rather, she calls him the “white brother”, but asks her children to keep fighting for their rights until no white person anywhere would dare to keep them down.
Langston Hughes Background
Langston Hughes was one of the most well known poets of the Harlem Renaissance. This was a unique time period in history. The slaves had been freed for over sixty years, and yet they were still separate from white society. The voice of the mother in The Negro Mother is one who had experienced slavery first hand. The Harlem Renaissance was at such a time that many older black men and women had been slaves themselves, yet they were able to see their children and grandchildren excel as writers, musicians, and actors as well as in many other fields. Still, however, there was separation of the races, and those in white society often still refused to acknowledge to accomplishments and talents of their African American counterparts. So, The Negro Mother was written in the very unique time period in which African Americans who had known slavery first hand, and those who had never experienced it, existed together. The Negro Mother is very fitting for the time period, as the mother who had known slavery gives instructions to her free children to never forget, but to press on toward freedom and quality. | <urn:uuid:cf308957-95d5-4866-ac20-ba3602093695> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://poemanalysis.com/langston-hughes/the-negro-mother | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250604397.40/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121132900-20200121161900-00204.warc.gz | en | 0.984609 | 2,104 | 3.828125 | 4 | [
-0.14565689861774445,
0.4767976999282837,
0.06277206540107727,
0.5543763637542725,
-0.41846558451652527,
0.11979671567678452,
0.04934214800596237,
-0.20882397890090942,
-0.16387315094470978,
-0.1304483562707901,
-0.03356699272990227,
0.00029236963018774986,
-0.4165329933166504,
0.084709256... | 7 | For anyone with any knowledge of American history, the title of this poem alone, The Negro Mother, evokes emotion. The African American slaves lived through the worst brutality known to have taken place on American soil. The Negro Mother, although written by Langston Hughes, a man, comes to readers through the voice of a woman and a former slave. She writes to her children, challenging them to pick up the torch and to carry it on, fighting for freedom and equality. Her words paint the image of a strong and passionate black woman who has been abused and mistreated, but who has not succumbed to oppression but has risen above it with a passion in her heart and a song in her mouth. These are the words she wants every black child in America to take to heart.
The Negro Mother Analysis
Children, I come back today
In order that the race might live and grow.
The speaker immediately sets the tone for the rest of The Negro Mother, which you can read in full here. The readers know that she is going to take them way back and tell them a story from times past. The rhyme scheme (AABB) creates the rhythm that causes the readers to feel almost as if the speaker is reading a nursery rhyme to them. However, the words reveal that this will not be nursery rhyme material, but the “story of the long dark way”. The speaker reveals that this is not a pleasant story, but one that needs to be told all the same.
These lines gives the readers the image of the one speaking. The picture of a face “dark as the night” gives the first image of the speaker. Then, it would seem that her face shines with the sweat of her work. But it is not only her sweat that makes her face shine. It is the joy and the love in her heart that shines through in her face like “love’s true light”.
In lines 7-8, the speaker compares herself to the Hebrew slaves in Egypt. In the book of Exodus, in the Old Testament, the Egyptians had held the Hebrew people in slavery for generations until God called Moses to perform miraculous signs and wonders, sending plagues on the Egyptian people until they finally agreed to let the Hebrew people go free. At this point, God leads them to the Red Sea, and when the Egyptian army is coming upon them, the people see no way of escape until God parts the sea and allows the Hebrew people to walk through on dry land. This speaker identifies with the Hebrew people. She claims the she has crossed her own red sea. Then, she lets us know that she crossed that sea carrying the life of another human being. That unborn child she calls, “the seed of the free”.
Here, the speaker simply identifies herself as a slave woman.
In a few simple lines, she speaks of the most awful horrors of slavery. Though she labored day in and day out, she was only beaten and mistreated. But that is not the worst of it. She had her own children sold away from her, and her husband, too. This is the most heart-breaking truth about American slavery, that families were torn apart, that mothers mourned the loss of their children, and that marriages were broken.
No safety , no love, no respect was I due.
This line stands alone, and it speaks volumes. She claims that she was due no safety, no love, and no respect. This is how she was seen in eyes of the slave owners of the south. She was not thought worthy of basic human rights.
Here, she claims that she represents every slave woman. She alludes, again, to the book of Exodus, and she names three hundred years as her time spent in the deepest South. But she has found hope during those years of slavery, just as the Hebrew people found hope in God though they were bound by the Egyptians. She claims, “Go put a song and a prayer in my mouth”. Somehow, in the midst of her the most severe of suffering, she is able to sing.
God put a dream like steel in my soul.
This dream that is in her soul is not her own dream. She believes that God Himself put the dream there in her soul. The dream is “like steel” because no amount of persecution or oppression could move it.
Now, through my children, I’m reaching the goal.
There is a sudden shift in the story. She was speaking of her days of slavery, but now she seems to be on the verge of “reaching the goal”. This also gives the reader the notion that while she is working as a slave, she is also working for her freedom. The speaker, then, must somehow be able to work toward the freedom of the African American people.
The speaker knows that she will experience freedom through watching her children “young and free”. That is the blessing she seeks.
After telling the readers that she has almost reached her goal, she goes back to descriptions of her years of slavery and reminds them that she did not have anything, not even the slightest bit of education. She couldn’t read or write. She shed many tears and she continued to press on “through the lonely years”.
Here, she describes why she pressed on and why she continued to work. She knew that freedom of the black slaves was on the horizon, and carrying a child, she knew that she had to see it through so that one day she might be able to watch her child enjoy freedom.
This was “the dream that nothing could smother”: that one day the child growing within her would have freedom.
The speaker begins this stanza by speaking to the child within her womb and ends it by speaking to all “dark children in the world”. She asks them to remember the days of slavery. She asks them to remember her sweat, her pain, and her despair. She does not ask them to remember idly. She gives them a reason for recalling all the horrors of slavery. She asks the children to “make of those years a torch for tomorrow”. She means for her children and for all the black children to fight for equality, and to pick up the torch and carry it on when she no longer can.
These lines contribute to the idea that this speaker was somehow working for freedom. Whether that work was something done as a part of a group or working with abolitionists, or whether that was the work of prayer in beseeching God for her freedom, she does not specify. But one way or another, she believes that she was actively working toward the freedom that was about to occur for her people.
These stanzas are each their own line, and it reads with strength and power. She is calling out to the black children to carry on what her generation started. She asks them to “lift high” the banner, and to “stand like free men”. She asks them to stand up for with is right and not to let anyone put them down. Then, she asks them to “remember the whip and the slaver’s track”. She does not want the free children to forget about slavery. She wants them to remember where they came from and to press on for freedom and equality. She calls them to live a life of freedom, allowing none to oppress them. This is her dream.
The speaker asks the children to remember the ways in which the strong in society “still bar [them] the way” and “deny [them] life” and she calls them to keep marching forward, “breaking down bars” and fighting for their right for basic human rights.
Look ever upward at the sun and the stars.
This is an important line, because the speaker means to remind the children where to look while they are fighting for their freedom. In the first few lines of The Negro Mother, the speaker revealed that she had joy in her face and a song in her mouth because she looked to the heavens. She looked to God, and He gave her joy and a song even in the midst of great pain and suffering. The speaker reminds the children not to forget about God while they fight for their equal rights.
With this stanza, the speaker promises that she will be with the children in spirit throughout the years as they continue to fight for their equal rights. She promises that she will stay with them until the end of the fight, until “no white brother dares keep down the children of the Negro Mother.” It is interesting how, after all the oppression she has suffered at the hands of white people, she still calls him the “white brother”. In The Negro Mother, she never calls for revenge. She never asks her children to make amends for the pain that she has suffered at the hands of the white people of the South. Rather, she calls him the “white brother”, but asks her children to keep fighting for their rights until no white person anywhere would dare to keep them down.
Langston Hughes Background
Langston Hughes was one of the most well known poets of the Harlem Renaissance. This was a unique time period in history. The slaves had been freed for over sixty years, and yet they were still separate from white society. The voice of the mother in The Negro Mother is one who had experienced slavery first hand. The Harlem Renaissance was at such a time that many older black men and women had been slaves themselves, yet they were able to see their children and grandchildren excel as writers, musicians, and actors as well as in many other fields. Still, however, there was separation of the races, and those in white society often still refused to acknowledge to accomplishments and talents of their African American counterparts. So, The Negro Mother was written in the very unique time period in which African Americans who had known slavery first hand, and those who had never experienced it, existed together. The Negro Mother is very fitting for the time period, as the mother who had known slavery gives instructions to her free children to never forget, but to press on toward freedom and quality. | 2,011 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Zheng He was a Chinese explorer, sailor, diplomat, fleet admiral, and court eunuch who lived during the late 14th century and early 15th century, and served the early monarchs of the Ming dynasty. Hailing from a Muslim family from the Yunnan province, he was taken captive by the Ming forces during their invasion of the region. He was castrated when he was either 10 or 14 years old. He then entered the service of Zhu Di, the Prince of Yan, who eventually ascended the throne as the Yongle Emperor. His original name was Ma He. It was Zhu Di who later conferred the surname Zheng to him. Between 1405 and 1433, he led several expeditionary treasure voyages to Southeast Asia, South Asia, Western Asia, and East Africa. According to a legend, his larger ships were operated by hundreds of sailors on four decks. They were built twice as long as any wooden ship in recorded history. One of the most trusted advisors of the Yongle Emperor, he helped the other man depose the Jianwen Emperor. Over the course of his career, he became one of the most powerful people in China and was appointed the commander of the southern capital Nanjing.
- Ma He was born in 1371 in Kunyang, Kunming, Yunnan, China, in a Muslim family and grew up with an older brother and four sisters. His father’s name was Ma Hajji; he died during the Ming invasion of the region, which had been controlled by the Mongols before that. His older brother, Wenming, subsequently performed their father’s last rites.Continue Reading BelowCaptivity, Castration, & the Beginning of Service
- In 1381, Ma He was taken captive by the Ming forces. After finding him on the road, General Fu Youde asked him where the Mongol pretender could be found. A defiant Ma He answered that the Mongol pretender had jumped into a lake. Fu Youde then ordered his capture.According to one source, his castration took place when he was ten years old, while a second source claims that it occurred in 1385 when he was about 14 years old. He was then taken to the household of Zhu Di, the Prince of Yan, who was 11 years his senior.In the next few years, he gradually became one of the trusted servants of the prince. Ma He went through much of his early life as a soldier on the northern frontier, fighting the Mongols.While he was serving in the prince’s household, he was referred to as "Sanbao". During his time in Beiping, he obtained a good education. According to records, he was a large and imposing man as an adult, with seven chi in height and five chi in circumference.He had high cheekbones and forehead, small nose, glaring eyes, good teeth, and a voice that resonated like a bell. Furthermore, he was a battle-hardened soldier who was well-versed in warfare.Service in the Ming Military
- He played a vital role in the Prince of Yan’s struggle against his nephew, the Jianwen Emperor. The civil war between them, which came to be known as Jingnan Campaign, lasted from 1399 to 1402 and concluded following the apparent death of the Jianwen Emperor and the ascension of Zhu Di as the Yongle Emperor.The new emperor made Ma He the “Grand Director” of the Directorate of Palace Servants and bestowed upon him the surname "Zheng" on February 11, 1404, for leading the defence of the city reservoir Zhenglunba against imperial forces in the Siege of Beiping in 1399, as well as for his service as a commander during the 1402 campaign to capture the capital Nanjing.Zheng He was one of the most prolific figures in the new administration. During his expeditions, he served as the chief envoy. In the ensuing three decades, he embarked on seven voyages as a representative of his emperor, doing trades and gathering tributes in the eastern Pacific and Indian Oceans.In 1424, he went to Palembang in Sumatra to bestow an official seal and letter of appointment upon Shi Jisun, the newly made Pacification Commissioner. When he eventually came back to China, he found out that the Yongle Emperor had passed away, and his son, the Hongxi Emperor, was on the throne.Continue Reading BelowUnlike his father, the Hongxi Emperor was not interested in great voyages and put a stop to them on September 7, 1424.On February 24, 1425, Admiral Zheng He was posted as the defender of Nanjing. The emperor also instructed him to keep serving as the commander of the treasure fleet for the city's defence.On March 25, 1428, he along with several others received the order to oversee the rebuilding and repair of the Great Bao'en Temple at Nanjing. The project was finished in 1431.In 1426, Admiral Zheng He and his associates set in motion a plan in which an official approached the Xuande Emperor to submit a petition asking the court to reward the labourers who had worked on the temple.The emperor was incensed, as he believed that the workers should be paid by the monks. When he found out that Admiral Zheng He was behind it, he sent him a letter rebuking him for the transgression.In later years, Admiral Zheng He became a trusted subordinate of the Xuande Emperor. In 1430, he embarked on his seventh and final voyage into the "Western Ocean" (Indian Ocean). A year later, he received the title "Sanbao Taijian", a combination of his informal name Sanbao and title of “Grand Director.”Voyages
- As an admiral in the Ming navy, Zhang He commanded a huge fleet and armed forces. He embarked on his first expedition on July 11, 1405, from Suzhou, with a fleet of 317 ships carrying almost 28,000 crewmen.Admiral Zheng He and his men travelled to Brunei, Java, Thailand and Southeast Asia, India, the Horn of Africa, and Arabia, trading gold, silver, porcelain, and silk for exotic animals and ivory. Although he preferred to accomplish his objectives through diplomacy, he did not shy away from violence when he thought it was needed to make an impression on the people of the foreign lands.The admiral’s sailing charts, the Mao Kun map, were included in the book titled the ‘Wubei Zhi’ (A Treatise on Armament Technology). The book was completed in 1621 and was put out in 1628.According to traditional and popular accounts, his fleet was comprised of several types of gigantic wooden ships. The Chinese treasure ships carried the commander and his lieutenants, the equine ships transported horses, and the troop transports bore the soldiers. However, their sizes and dimensions have been the subjects of a much-heated debate.Death & Legacy
- Several theories have been proposed throughout the years about his death. One of these speculates that he passed away in 1433, during or shortly after the seventh voyage.Another claims that Zheng He kept on serving as the defender of Nanjing until his death in 1435. He had a burial at sea. However, a tomb was constructed for him at the southern slope of Cattle Head Hill, Nanjing. Inside the cenotaph, his clothes and headgear were supposedly placed.For a long time, Zheng He’s voyages were overlooked in China. In 1904, historian Liang Qichao published the book ‘Biography of Our Homeland's Great Navigator, Zheng He’, after which he became a popular historical figure. He is revered by Chinese diaspora in places like Malacca, Indonesia, and the Philippines.
How To CiteArticle Title- Zheng He BiographyAuthor- Editors, TheFamousPeople.comWebsite- TheFamousPeople.comURL- https://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/zheng-he-37234.phpLast Updated- November 08, 2019
People Also Viewed | <urn:uuid:df09021c-04aa-40ba-b207-46e1bd5bc901> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/zheng-he-37234.php | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250607596.34/warc/CC-MAIN-20200122221541-20200123010541-00243.warc.gz | en | 0.988306 | 1,677 | 3.625 | 4 | [
-0.43502384424209595,
0.49702689051628113,
0.369951069355011,
-0.30872589349746704,
-0.1875023990869522,
-0.42080196738243103,
0.5216612219810486,
0.2063521444797516,
-0.11553516983985901,
-0.028460387140512466,
0.6526164412498474,
-0.6780704855918884,
0.39689335227012634,
0.33173847198486... | 1 | Zheng He was a Chinese explorer, sailor, diplomat, fleet admiral, and court eunuch who lived during the late 14th century and early 15th century, and served the early monarchs of the Ming dynasty. Hailing from a Muslim family from the Yunnan province, he was taken captive by the Ming forces during their invasion of the region. He was castrated when he was either 10 or 14 years old. He then entered the service of Zhu Di, the Prince of Yan, who eventually ascended the throne as the Yongle Emperor. His original name was Ma He. It was Zhu Di who later conferred the surname Zheng to him. Between 1405 and 1433, he led several expeditionary treasure voyages to Southeast Asia, South Asia, Western Asia, and East Africa. According to a legend, his larger ships were operated by hundreds of sailors on four decks. They were built twice as long as any wooden ship in recorded history. One of the most trusted advisors of the Yongle Emperor, he helped the other man depose the Jianwen Emperor. Over the course of his career, he became one of the most powerful people in China and was appointed the commander of the southern capital Nanjing.
- Ma He was born in 1371 in Kunyang, Kunming, Yunnan, China, in a Muslim family and grew up with an older brother and four sisters. His father’s name was Ma Hajji; he died during the Ming invasion of the region, which had been controlled by the Mongols before that. His older brother, Wenming, subsequently performed their father’s last rites.Continue Reading BelowCaptivity, Castration, & the Beginning of Service
- In 1381, Ma He was taken captive by the Ming forces. After finding him on the road, General Fu Youde asked him where the Mongol pretender could be found. A defiant Ma He answered that the Mongol pretender had jumped into a lake. Fu Youde then ordered his capture.According to one source, his castration took place when he was ten years old, while a second source claims that it occurred in 1385 when he was about 14 years old. He was then taken to the household of Zhu Di, the Prince of Yan, who was 11 years his senior.In the next few years, he gradually became one of the trusted servants of the prince. Ma He went through much of his early life as a soldier on the northern frontier, fighting the Mongols.While he was serving in the prince’s household, he was referred to as "Sanbao". During his time in Beiping, he obtained a good education. According to records, he was a large and imposing man as an adult, with seven chi in height and five chi in circumference.He had high cheekbones and forehead, small nose, glaring eyes, good teeth, and a voice that resonated like a bell. Furthermore, he was a battle-hardened soldier who was well-versed in warfare.Service in the Ming Military
- He played a vital role in the Prince of Yan’s struggle against his nephew, the Jianwen Emperor. The civil war between them, which came to be known as Jingnan Campaign, lasted from 1399 to 1402 and concluded following the apparent death of the Jianwen Emperor and the ascension of Zhu Di as the Yongle Emperor.The new emperor made Ma He the “Grand Director” of the Directorate of Palace Servants and bestowed upon him the surname "Zheng" on February 11, 1404, for leading the defence of the city reservoir Zhenglunba against imperial forces in the Siege of Beiping in 1399, as well as for his service as a commander during the 1402 campaign to capture the capital Nanjing.Zheng He was one of the most prolific figures in the new administration. During his expeditions, he served as the chief envoy. In the ensuing three decades, he embarked on seven voyages as a representative of his emperor, doing trades and gathering tributes in the eastern Pacific and Indian Oceans.In 1424, he went to Palembang in Sumatra to bestow an official seal and letter of appointment upon Shi Jisun, the newly made Pacification Commissioner. When he eventually came back to China, he found out that the Yongle Emperor had passed away, and his son, the Hongxi Emperor, was on the throne.Continue Reading BelowUnlike his father, the Hongxi Emperor was not interested in great voyages and put a stop to them on September 7, 1424.On February 24, 1425, Admiral Zheng He was posted as the defender of Nanjing. The emperor also instructed him to keep serving as the commander of the treasure fleet for the city's defence.On March 25, 1428, he along with several others received the order to oversee the rebuilding and repair of the Great Bao'en Temple at Nanjing. The project was finished in 1431.In 1426, Admiral Zheng He and his associates set in motion a plan in which an official approached the Xuande Emperor to submit a petition asking the court to reward the labourers who had worked on the temple.The emperor was incensed, as he believed that the workers should be paid by the monks. When he found out that Admiral Zheng He was behind it, he sent him a letter rebuking him for the transgression.In later years, Admiral Zheng He became a trusted subordinate of the Xuande Emperor. In 1430, he embarked on his seventh and final voyage into the "Western Ocean" (Indian Ocean). A year later, he received the title "Sanbao Taijian", a combination of his informal name Sanbao and title of “Grand Director.”Voyages
- As an admiral in the Ming navy, Zhang He commanded a huge fleet and armed forces. He embarked on his first expedition on July 11, 1405, from Suzhou, with a fleet of 317 ships carrying almost 28,000 crewmen.Admiral Zheng He and his men travelled to Brunei, Java, Thailand and Southeast Asia, India, the Horn of Africa, and Arabia, trading gold, silver, porcelain, and silk for exotic animals and ivory. Although he preferred to accomplish his objectives through diplomacy, he did not shy away from violence when he thought it was needed to make an impression on the people of the foreign lands.The admiral’s sailing charts, the Mao Kun map, were included in the book titled the ‘Wubei Zhi’ (A Treatise on Armament Technology). The book was completed in 1621 and was put out in 1628.According to traditional and popular accounts, his fleet was comprised of several types of gigantic wooden ships. The Chinese treasure ships carried the commander and his lieutenants, the equine ships transported horses, and the troop transports bore the soldiers. However, their sizes and dimensions have been the subjects of a much-heated debate.Death & Legacy
- Several theories have been proposed throughout the years about his death. One of these speculates that he passed away in 1433, during or shortly after the seventh voyage.Another claims that Zheng He kept on serving as the defender of Nanjing until his death in 1435. He had a burial at sea. However, a tomb was constructed for him at the southern slope of Cattle Head Hill, Nanjing. Inside the cenotaph, his clothes and headgear were supposedly placed.For a long time, Zheng He’s voyages were overlooked in China. In 1904, historian Liang Qichao published the book ‘Biography of Our Homeland's Great Navigator, Zheng He’, after which he became a popular historical figure. He is revered by Chinese diaspora in places like Malacca, Indonesia, and the Philippines.
How To CiteArticle Title- Zheng He BiographyAuthor- Editors, TheFamousPeople.comWebsite- TheFamousPeople.comURL- https://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/zheng-he-37234.phpLast Updated- November 08, 2019
People Also Viewed | 1,734 | ENGLISH | 1 |
In his book Things Fall Apart, Chinua Achebe attempts to set the world upright for Africans in many ways. To begin with, he uses Okonkwo, the protagonist, to show that change is inevitable. This is because; Okonkwo is wealthy, very hardworking and respected in the village unlike his late father who was lazy and disrespected. He wants to prove to the villagers that he is totally different from his father. Therefore, Achebe shows that Africans have embraced change by not accepting the western people to rule over them. Secondly, after a white man destroys Abame village, the villagers kill him and tie his bicycle to a tree. Thirdly, Okonkwo kills a white man leader using a machete and later kills himself because the other clan members are not ready for war with the whites.
The primary audience of the novel was his own Nigerian people because in his goal, he stated that the main aim of the novel was to assist his society to “regain belief in itself and put away the complexes of the years of denigration and self-abasement” (Chinua 4). Besides, he wanted the western audience to understand that Africa is complex and dynamic because western people believed that Africans have primitive minds and are backward.
Chinua Achebe gave an unbiased view of Ibo culture before the Europeans arrived. He says that; “before the colonial powers of the Europeans entered Africa, the Ibo community had a great culture that was full of beauty and value” (Chinua 65). Besides, the culture had a great depth and contained poetry as well as dignity. The culture is also a major foundation of what many people look for in the contemporary world. Igbo culture incorporates things such as democratic institutions, principles on gender equality, respect of other cultures, morality and justice systems that are very effective. “A man’s life from birth to death was a series of transition rites which brought him closer to his ancestors” (Chinua 111). Achebe brings out the peculiarities of the Ibo culture to show that it is unique. Furthermore, Achebe shows that the culture was beautiful especially due to the art techniques and institutions that were present. He says, “village life based on a land of equality..Ibo people chose the small village entity that was completely self governing, because they wanted to be in control of their lives” (Chinua 264). He basically wants to mean that the culture was destroyed by the European powers, which were very influential. After the Europeans entered the country, all clans were thrown into confusion. “The white man has put a knife on the things that held us together and we have fallen apart” (Chinua 417). The white man does not understand their culture and aims at destroying it.
July’s People is a novel by Nadine Gordimer from South Africa, which was set during the apartheid. It is an imagination of what would happen if the black South Africans rebelled against the whites who ruled over their country. Gordimer wrote about a white family, the Smales, who flees to their servant’s home, July, due to riots and chaos. The book shows how power works between people of different classes and what happens when the balance shifts to an unexpected direction. Gordimer wrote this story during that time because the whites had already occupied South Africa and there were ensuing uprisings, which arose due to the differences between the whites and the black South Africans. The story does not provide any solutions to the problems but it foresees an inevitable overthrow of the apartheid system. Gordimer also anticipated independence in South Africa especially when all the neighboring countries were declared independent. Gordimer imagined what would happen to the whites incase they were defeated by the black South Africans; this triggered his interest in writing the story. The story depicts that the whites were liberal unlike the blacks. Therefore, politics favored the whites, who had the freedom to do anything because they also held the government.
The policy of apartheid shaped gender relationships in the white as well as the black community. It made the whites liberal and more divided from the blacks. While in July’s hut; for instance, Maureen confuses him with a hotel servant. This shows that the whites lived a better life than the blacks, who were their servants. “Maureen remembers her childhood days and recalls walking home from school with her family’s black servant, Lydia” (Nadine 257).Besides, July serves the white couple with milk thus depicting that they are special. Moreover, apartheid system caused differences between the whites and the blacks because after Maureen is introduced to July’s wife, “the two women do not have a common language, but Maureen tries to convey appreciation for their protection through July” (Nadine 314). Additionally, Bam, Maureen’s husband, “unsuccessfully tries to socialize with the villagers” (Nadine 360). In addition to that, white men valued their wives so much since they believed that women are made of pleasure, “the vehicle was bought for pleasurethey stood round it indulgently, wife and children” (Nadine 6).
Furthermore, apartheid system helped the black to establish their relationships. July’s relationship with his wife; for instance, is not affected by the Smales visit. It is apparent that, July’s work is to get money for the family while the wife stays at home to raise kids. July used to go home twice in a year because he had to serve the whites. Besides, he has the role of making major decisions in the family and that is the reason why the wife could not question him on the visitors, “his wife had accepted his dictum” (Nadine 18). Additionally, black men were more powerful than women since July has his own hut, which “was apparently something he kept for himself, apart from women” (Nadine 66) The apartheid system basically caused a big gap between the blacks and the whites, which led to the oppression of the blacks by the whites.
Achebe, Chinua. Things Fall Apart. New York, NY: Anchor Books, 1994. Print
Gordimer, Nadine. July’s People. Johannesburg: 1982. Print | <urn:uuid:a8468b12-8a63-4f02-920d-7d044f66f0c5> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.wowessays.com/free-samples/engl233-post-colonial-literature-of-africa-book-review-examples/ | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250599718.13/warc/CC-MAIN-20200120165335-20200120194335-00089.warc.gz | en | 0.985428 | 1,315 | 3.6875 | 4 | [
-0.018449803814291954,
0.6158576607704163,
0.29987484216690063,
0.1380843073129654,
0.10568135976791382,
0.19936412572860718,
0.1885407567024231,
-0.25680315494537354,
-0.05345680192112923,
0.24519802629947662,
-0.08268345892429352,
-0.4910726547241211,
0.24006754159927368,
0.0077568553388... | 2 | In his book Things Fall Apart, Chinua Achebe attempts to set the world upright for Africans in many ways. To begin with, he uses Okonkwo, the protagonist, to show that change is inevitable. This is because; Okonkwo is wealthy, very hardworking and respected in the village unlike his late father who was lazy and disrespected. He wants to prove to the villagers that he is totally different from his father. Therefore, Achebe shows that Africans have embraced change by not accepting the western people to rule over them. Secondly, after a white man destroys Abame village, the villagers kill him and tie his bicycle to a tree. Thirdly, Okonkwo kills a white man leader using a machete and later kills himself because the other clan members are not ready for war with the whites.
The primary audience of the novel was his own Nigerian people because in his goal, he stated that the main aim of the novel was to assist his society to “regain belief in itself and put away the complexes of the years of denigration and self-abasement” (Chinua 4). Besides, he wanted the western audience to understand that Africa is complex and dynamic because western people believed that Africans have primitive minds and are backward.
Chinua Achebe gave an unbiased view of Ibo culture before the Europeans arrived. He says that; “before the colonial powers of the Europeans entered Africa, the Ibo community had a great culture that was full of beauty and value” (Chinua 65). Besides, the culture had a great depth and contained poetry as well as dignity. The culture is also a major foundation of what many people look for in the contemporary world. Igbo culture incorporates things such as democratic institutions, principles on gender equality, respect of other cultures, morality and justice systems that are very effective. “A man’s life from birth to death was a series of transition rites which brought him closer to his ancestors” (Chinua 111). Achebe brings out the peculiarities of the Ibo culture to show that it is unique. Furthermore, Achebe shows that the culture was beautiful especially due to the art techniques and institutions that were present. He says, “village life based on a land of equality..Ibo people chose the small village entity that was completely self governing, because they wanted to be in control of their lives” (Chinua 264). He basically wants to mean that the culture was destroyed by the European powers, which were very influential. After the Europeans entered the country, all clans were thrown into confusion. “The white man has put a knife on the things that held us together and we have fallen apart” (Chinua 417). The white man does not understand their culture and aims at destroying it.
July’s People is a novel by Nadine Gordimer from South Africa, which was set during the apartheid. It is an imagination of what would happen if the black South Africans rebelled against the whites who ruled over their country. Gordimer wrote about a white family, the Smales, who flees to their servant’s home, July, due to riots and chaos. The book shows how power works between people of different classes and what happens when the balance shifts to an unexpected direction. Gordimer wrote this story during that time because the whites had already occupied South Africa and there were ensuing uprisings, which arose due to the differences between the whites and the black South Africans. The story does not provide any solutions to the problems but it foresees an inevitable overthrow of the apartheid system. Gordimer also anticipated independence in South Africa especially when all the neighboring countries were declared independent. Gordimer imagined what would happen to the whites incase they were defeated by the black South Africans; this triggered his interest in writing the story. The story depicts that the whites were liberal unlike the blacks. Therefore, politics favored the whites, who had the freedom to do anything because they also held the government.
The policy of apartheid shaped gender relationships in the white as well as the black community. It made the whites liberal and more divided from the blacks. While in July’s hut; for instance, Maureen confuses him with a hotel servant. This shows that the whites lived a better life than the blacks, who were their servants. “Maureen remembers her childhood days and recalls walking home from school with her family’s black servant, Lydia” (Nadine 257).Besides, July serves the white couple with milk thus depicting that they are special. Moreover, apartheid system caused differences between the whites and the blacks because after Maureen is introduced to July’s wife, “the two women do not have a common language, but Maureen tries to convey appreciation for their protection through July” (Nadine 314). Additionally, Bam, Maureen’s husband, “unsuccessfully tries to socialize with the villagers” (Nadine 360). In addition to that, white men valued their wives so much since they believed that women are made of pleasure, “the vehicle was bought for pleasurethey stood round it indulgently, wife and children” (Nadine 6).
Furthermore, apartheid system helped the black to establish their relationships. July’s relationship with his wife; for instance, is not affected by the Smales visit. It is apparent that, July’s work is to get money for the family while the wife stays at home to raise kids. July used to go home twice in a year because he had to serve the whites. Besides, he has the role of making major decisions in the family and that is the reason why the wife could not question him on the visitors, “his wife had accepted his dictum” (Nadine 18). Additionally, black men were more powerful than women since July has his own hut, which “was apparently something he kept for himself, apart from women” (Nadine 66) The apartheid system basically caused a big gap between the blacks and the whites, which led to the oppression of the blacks by the whites.
Achebe, Chinua. Things Fall Apart. New York, NY: Anchor Books, 1994. Print
Gordimer, Nadine. July’s People. Johannesburg: 1982. Print | 1,301 | ENGLISH | 1 |
In Montgomery, Alabama, Rosa Parks is jailed for refusing to give up her seat on a public bus to a white man, a violation of the city’s racial segregation laws. The successful Montgomery Bus Boycott, organized by a young Baptist minister named Martin Luther King, Jr., followed Park’s historic act of civil disobedience.
“The mother of the civil rights movement,” as Rosa Parks is known, was born in Tuskegee, Alabama, in 1913. She worked as a seamstress and in 1943 joined the Montgomery chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).
According to a Montgomery city ordinance in 1955, African Americans were required to sit at the back of public buses and were also obligated to give up those seats to white riders if the front of the bus filled up. Parks was in the first row of the black section when the white driver demanded that she give up her seat to a white man. Parks’ refusal was spontaneous but was not merely brought on by her tired feet, as is the popular legend. In fact, local civil rights leaders had been planning a challenge to Montgomery’s racist bus laws for several months, and Parks had been privy to this discussion.
READ MORE: Milestones in the Civil Rights Movement
Learning of Parks’ arrest, the NAACP and other African American activists immediately called for a bus boycott to be held by black citizens on Monday, December 5. Word was spread by fliers, and activists formed the Montgomery Improvement Association to organize the protest. The first day of the bus boycott was a great success, and that night the 26-year-old Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., told a large crowd gathered at a church, “The great glory of American democracy is the right to protest for right.” King emerged as the leader of the bus boycott and received numerous death threats from opponents of integration. At one point, his home was bombed, but he and his family escaped bodily harm.
The boycott stretched on for more than a year, and participants carpooled or walked miles to work and school when no other means were possible. As African Americans previously constituted 70 percent of the Montgomery bus ridership, the municipal transit system suffered gravely during the boycott. On November 13, 1956, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Alabama state and Montgomery city bus segregation laws as being in violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. On December 20, King issued the following statement: “The year old protest against city buses is officially called off, and the Negro citizens of Montgomery are urged to return to the buses tomorrow morning on a non-segregated basis.” The boycott ended the next day. Rosa Parks was among the first to ride the newly desegregated buses.
Martin Luther King, Jr., and his nonviolent civil rights movement had won its first great victory. There would be many more to come.
Rosa Parks died on October 24, 2005. Three days later the U.S. Senate passed a resolution to honor Parks by allowing her body to lie in honor in the U.S. Capitol Rotunda. | <urn:uuid:2ce0a3fd-0e1e-4dd0-aafc-9e71e9a90c39> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/rosa-parks-ignites-bus-boycot | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250603761.28/warc/CC-MAIN-20200121103642-20200121132642-00113.warc.gz | en | 0.981179 | 655 | 4.03125 | 4 | [
-0.21830230951309204,
0.01202956773340702,
0.13237527012825012,
-0.022844482213258743,
-0.29233068227767944,
0.20563864707946777,
0.5180255174636841,
-0.17018194496631622,
-0.13286516070365906,
0.34312766790390015,
0.04997009038925171,
0.29851996898651123,
-0.013825135305523872,
-0.0721123... | 3 | In Montgomery, Alabama, Rosa Parks is jailed for refusing to give up her seat on a public bus to a white man, a violation of the city’s racial segregation laws. The successful Montgomery Bus Boycott, organized by a young Baptist minister named Martin Luther King, Jr., followed Park’s historic act of civil disobedience.
“The mother of the civil rights movement,” as Rosa Parks is known, was born in Tuskegee, Alabama, in 1913. She worked as a seamstress and in 1943 joined the Montgomery chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).
According to a Montgomery city ordinance in 1955, African Americans were required to sit at the back of public buses and were also obligated to give up those seats to white riders if the front of the bus filled up. Parks was in the first row of the black section when the white driver demanded that she give up her seat to a white man. Parks’ refusal was spontaneous but was not merely brought on by her tired feet, as is the popular legend. In fact, local civil rights leaders had been planning a challenge to Montgomery’s racist bus laws for several months, and Parks had been privy to this discussion.
READ MORE: Milestones in the Civil Rights Movement
Learning of Parks’ arrest, the NAACP and other African American activists immediately called for a bus boycott to be held by black citizens on Monday, December 5. Word was spread by fliers, and activists formed the Montgomery Improvement Association to organize the protest. The first day of the bus boycott was a great success, and that night the 26-year-old Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., told a large crowd gathered at a church, “The great glory of American democracy is the right to protest for right.” King emerged as the leader of the bus boycott and received numerous death threats from opponents of integration. At one point, his home was bombed, but he and his family escaped bodily harm.
The boycott stretched on for more than a year, and participants carpooled or walked miles to work and school when no other means were possible. As African Americans previously constituted 70 percent of the Montgomery bus ridership, the municipal transit system suffered gravely during the boycott. On November 13, 1956, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Alabama state and Montgomery city bus segregation laws as being in violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. On December 20, King issued the following statement: “The year old protest against city buses is officially called off, and the Negro citizens of Montgomery are urged to return to the buses tomorrow morning on a non-segregated basis.” The boycott ended the next day. Rosa Parks was among the first to ride the newly desegregated buses.
Martin Luther King, Jr., and his nonviolent civil rights movement had won its first great victory. There would be many more to come.
Rosa Parks died on October 24, 2005. Three days later the U.S. Senate passed a resolution to honor Parks by allowing her body to lie in honor in the U.S. Capitol Rotunda. | 658 | ENGLISH | 1 |
A robot reconstruction of a 300-million-year-old fossil shows how it walked
Researchers had bones and footprints, and had to make the robot to fit both
A robot reverse-engineered to walk like one of the earliest land living animals is giving scientists a glimpse into how animals evolved when they moved from water to land.
"We recreated the fossil by building a robot which was able to emulate the gait, the locomotion that we inferred for the fossil," said Dr. John Nyakatura, the lead author and evolutionary biologist at Humbolt University of Berlin.
The fossil they were looking at belonged to a four-legged lizard-like creature known as Orobates pabsti, which lived approximately 300 million years ago.
"We consider Orobates as a key fossil for the understanding of the evolution of land living tetrapods," Nvakatura explained.
This fossil represents the transition between the amphibious lifestyle seen in frogs, which spend a substantial part of their lives in water, and amniotes, prehistoric lizard-like creatures that laid eggs, walked, and lived on dry land.
How scientists reverse-engineered the fossil
In their quest to bring a robotic version of this prehistoric creature to life, the scientists had some great information to go by: not only did they have the Orobates fossil, but they also had its fossilized tracks.
"This was a great starting point for us to actually understand how these animals back then walked and behaved," said Nyakatura.
From the tracks, they were able to understand important aspects of the animal's gait, such as how long and wide its step was, as well as the rotation of its feet as it walked.
They simulated a digital version of the fossil using CT scans, which they animated to explore different anatomical possibilities as they made the fossil walk within its tracks. They looked at things like whether its bones were colliding or its joints were working properly.
The next simulation they put their digital and robotic fossil creations through tested for things like the effects of gravity and friction, which also influence locomotion.
Insights into how early land animals walked
This helped them arrive at its mostly likely gait, which they programmed into the robot. Nyakatura said when the robot first started walking, it was a "magical moment" for him and his team.
They discovered that Orobates moved in a more advanced way than its amphibian-like predecessors. It was able to lift its belly off the ground when it walked, which made for more efficient locomotion—somewhat similar to a modern crocodile.
"The locomotion was suggesting that this animal already was quite independent from water." | <urn:uuid:ecc01334-846d-4691-b486-fd27450dcce6> | CC-MAIN-2020-05 | https://www.cbc.ca/radio/quirks/feb-2-2019-rocking-good-sleep-music-and-body-language-the-first-feathers-for-flight-and-more-1.5000349/a-robot-reconstruction-of-a-300-million-year-old-fossil-shows-how-it-walked-1.5000357 | s3://commoncrawl/crawl-data/CC-MAIN-2020-05/segments/1579250594333.5/warc/CC-MAIN-20200119064802-20200119092802-00302.warc.gz | en | 0.984624 | 562 | 4.25 | 4 | [
-0.4071477949619293,
-0.08774597942829132,
0.5718256831169128,
0.12135554105043411,
-0.4903937876224518,
0.024525998160243034,
0.1463010311126709,
0.34035229682922363,
-0.3807474374771118,
0.20123936235904694,
0.1808754950761795,
-0.37096813321113586,
0.47245025634765625,
0.150285884737968... | 2 | A robot reconstruction of a 300-million-year-old fossil shows how it walked
Researchers had bones and footprints, and had to make the robot to fit both
A robot reverse-engineered to walk like one of the earliest land living animals is giving scientists a glimpse into how animals evolved when they moved from water to land.
"We recreated the fossil by building a robot which was able to emulate the gait, the locomotion that we inferred for the fossil," said Dr. John Nyakatura, the lead author and evolutionary biologist at Humbolt University of Berlin.
The fossil they were looking at belonged to a four-legged lizard-like creature known as Orobates pabsti, which lived approximately 300 million years ago.
"We consider Orobates as a key fossil for the understanding of the evolution of land living tetrapods," Nvakatura explained.
This fossil represents the transition between the amphibious lifestyle seen in frogs, which spend a substantial part of their lives in water, and amniotes, prehistoric lizard-like creatures that laid eggs, walked, and lived on dry land.
How scientists reverse-engineered the fossil
In their quest to bring a robotic version of this prehistoric creature to life, the scientists had some great information to go by: not only did they have the Orobates fossil, but they also had its fossilized tracks.
"This was a great starting point for us to actually understand how these animals back then walked and behaved," said Nyakatura.
From the tracks, they were able to understand important aspects of the animal's gait, such as how long and wide its step was, as well as the rotation of its feet as it walked.
They simulated a digital version of the fossil using CT scans, which they animated to explore different anatomical possibilities as they made the fossil walk within its tracks. They looked at things like whether its bones were colliding or its joints were working properly.
The next simulation they put their digital and robotic fossil creations through tested for things like the effects of gravity and friction, which also influence locomotion.
Insights into how early land animals walked
This helped them arrive at its mostly likely gait, which they programmed into the robot. Nyakatura said when the robot first started walking, it was a "magical moment" for him and his team.
They discovered that Orobates moved in a more advanced way than its amphibian-like predecessors. It was able to lift its belly off the ground when it walked, which made for more efficient locomotion—somewhat similar to a modern crocodile.
"The locomotion was suggesting that this animal already was quite independent from water." | 537 | ENGLISH | 1 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.